Crab faces Extinction: No it Doesn’t – The Pantomime Goes On

The first
thing to say is “No it doesn’t.”

Crab, along
with all shellfish and finfish stocks, require judicious management to ensure
that catches today don’t jeopardise long term sustainability. The latest
assessments suggest that timely intervention in a number of crab fisheries is required.
But this is a million miles away from the hysterical exaggerations of the
Sunday Times. The only saving grace is that this time it is celebrity chefs
such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall that are being portrayed as the pantomime
villains.

Crab – A Good News Story

In fact,
crab stocks and the crab fisheries around the coast of the UK over the last
decade have experienced a veritable boom. This may not be unconnected with the
dip in fortunes experienced by species like cod, because cod is a voracious
predator and quite partial to crab larvae. Whatever the reason, stocks of crab,
lobster and prawns have seen very high recruitment and abundance during the
period that whitefish stocks were at a low. As the finfish stocks make their
return there is good reason to monitor carefully what happens now. And that is
what the scientists, with the full cooperation of fishermen, have been doing.

The 40 per
cent increase in crab landings since 1996 reflects both a rise in natural
abundance and a shift in fishing effort. This is a story of good fortune, the
fishing industry’s resilience and ability to adapt to changing circumstances
and the British public’s increase appreciation for a great delicacy.

But crab has
one great advantage over many finfish species – when they are returned to the
sea they survive and thrive – so there is no discard problem in this fishery.

With its cod
exaggeration the Sunday Times earned the accolade as providing “The most Inaccurate Headline in History”
from the BBC. But it seems that they have come back for more.

Responsible Fishing

All this
froth doesn’t deflect us from the need to take scientific stock assessments
seriously, or the need to support carefully thought-through measures tailored
to the characteristics of individual fisheries. The National Federation of Fishermen’s
Organisations has been working on such an approach for the last two years.
Providing food for the nation and doing it in environmentally and socially
responsible ways is our goal. The Federation some 18 months ago called for a
cap on any new licences for the larger class of crab vessel in order to
stabilise fishing pressure on the crab stocks and has pressed ministers to act.

But this
measured, careful approach is the exact opposite of media driven panic
measures. If sensationalist journalists and celebrity chefs wish to devour
themselves that is their business: they should, however, leave fishing and
fishermen out of their games.

Most of the partners were represented and the industry members were accompanied by several well-known figures from the crab-fishing sector in France, the United Kingdom and Ireland. The ACRUNET ranks have been swelled by the addition of two new partners – the University of Hull or, more precisely, the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies led by Drs Katie Smyth and Roger Uglow, and Marine Scotland Science represented by Carlos Mesquita. The ACRUNET project is delighted to have gained such prominent experts to help it achieve its goals.

ACRUNET is scheduled to run for 35 months so this meeting marked the half-way mark. The partners felt it was an appropriate time to review and assess progress to date and, if necessary, adjust strategies and time-scales to ensure a positive outcome for the widest possible spectrum of the brown crab industry. As usual, the first day was devoted to in-depth focus group meetings arranged around the project Activities; characterising the brown crab industry, developing a pan-European standard and improving the transport of live crab were among the topics dealt with.

A perennial problem for the brown crab industry has been dealing with the waste shell and debris generated by processing. CETMAR has specialised in seafood waste utilisation and has been very active in pursuing feasible solutions. The meeting was addressed by Dr Julio Maroto, Head of the Seafood Technology Department, CETMAR, who presented an overview of the seafood by-products and waste valorisation focusing on the results of main European projects. His department has been involved in major research programs related to valorisation of seafood by-products and marine organisms at European level, including the conversion of seafood waste in high added-value products for industrial application or the creation of on-line by-products markets. Building on the lessons learnt he remarked that “we have achieved many research outputs, but we ignore if they’re useful for the companies. Somehow we are still far from the industry; to address that gap, firstly, industry should be included in the Projects Partnerships; secondly, topics should be oriented to offer solutions to companies; and finally, feasibility studies are critical to ensure economic viability and industrial scale-up after the project ends”. In fact, this is the approach adopted by ACRUNET.

Other outputs from the meeting included the data gathered by Seafish with its research in the target countries which threw up some interesting trends and issues; this is an on-going Activity which ties in with the educational and promotional material being developed by FranceAgriMer displayed in Vigo. The initial trials on vivier-based crab transport have commenced and will continue over coming months while the common ground between the three principal crab-fishing countries – the United Kingdom, France and Ireland – continues to be refined to form the basis of a robust standard. Further discussions on improving management strategies for the three producing countries are planned for early in 2014.

The next meeting of the ACRUNET partner organisations will be held in the first quarter of 2014.

The
NFFO which brokered the arrangement following a meeting between the operators
of larger South East under-10s in and the
English producer organisations in April of this year, puts a lot of
store in this kind of arrangement as a model for the future.

Ramsgate
skipper, Eddie Temple, said “The FPO has been doing a marvellous job on our
behalf with swaps etc…..”

Chloe
Rogers, Quota Manager for the Hull based FPO said “The cooperative
arrangements between the Ramsgate Group and the FPO seem to be working very
well. We have been able to access additional quota for the boats by plugging
them into our usual swaps and transfers arrangements. This is part of our
normal work as PO managers but it is of real benefit to the boats concerned and
helps to achieve full utilisation of UK quotas.”

Barrie
Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO added, “Having established the benefits of
this approach, our aspiration is to extend it to those other parts of the
under-10m fleet, which periodically face quota pinch points. The idea is
straightforward: to put professional quota management skills and contacts at
the service of the under-10 which face periodic quota shortages. It’s not magic
but it does create access to additional quota for boats which need it. The
central point is that the quota is tailored to the needs of the boats
concerned.

“We
would be interested to hear from any other under-10 groups who feel that they
could benefit from this kind of approach.”

“We acknowledge that
the Ramsgate group is relatively small and has certain advantages – not least
being able to work in both the North Sea and Eastern Channel. But no one should
underestimate the power of professional quota management to improve access to
quota. This is the key to moving forward on the unde-10m issue. It is not for
everybody and many smaller under-10s are content with the flexibility that the
under-10 pool provides. But for the high catching end of the under-10 fleet
it’s got to be the way to go. The Federation would be happy to put under-10
groups in touch with willing POs.”

Chairman Elect

Tony Delahunty, Chairman of
the NFFO’s South East Committee, was unanimously elected as the Federation’s
next Chairman. He will take over from Paul Trebilcock after our 2014 AGM.

TACs and Quotas

As is usual at this time of
year, the TACs and quotas for next year are uppermost in the industry’s mind
and time was devoted to preparing for forthcoming meetings with Defra at which
the UK’s priorities for the December Council.

Discards Ban

The Federation recognises
that the phasing-in of the EU landings obligation marks one of the biggest
changes to the management regime in the history of the CFP, starting with the
pelagic fisheries in January 2015. An immense amount of work on how the new
regime is to be practically implemented is required and the Executive received
a report on the proceedings of a week-long meeting of the Commission’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee
for Fisheries which has been charged with developing guidelines in areas
such as exemptions and quota flexibilities.

Regionalisation

Similarly, the Executive is
keeping a close eye on the evolution of a strong regional-seas dimension to
policyformulation, the other central pillar of the CFP reform. The Federation
is working within the advisory committees to ensure that their is steady
progress towards a more responsive and effective decision making in European
fisheries and that micro-management through centralised control and is
consigned to history.

Under-10m Quotas

The Executive heard that the
Federation’s steady work to ease the pressures where there are quota
pinch-points in specific under-10m fisheries was proceeding well. Encouraging
producer organisations to play a supportive role for under-10m groups whose
catching patterns are more akin to over-10m vessels and which account for 70%
of the uptake of under-10m pool allocations would hopefully address the most
acute problems in the sector. FPO support for the Ramsgate Pilot was working
well and provided a model for other POs and under-10m groups.

Marine Protected Areas

It was recognised by the
Executive that a huge amount of effort had been and continued to be deployed by
the Federation in ensuring that European Marine Sites and domestic Marine
Conservation Zones are introduced in a fully rational and proportionate way. It
was agreed that the MPA Fishing Coalition
of which the NFFO is an active member, had very successfully held the
authorities to account given the amount of misplaced advocacy and wooly
thinking that had surrounded the issue.

Industry Reputation

The Executive reviewed the
Federation’s efforts to counter the unfair and unjustified negative image of
the fishing industry that had been dominant in the media in recent years.
Working with with communications specialist Acceleris,
it had been possible, not only to counter factually distorted reporting but to
encourage –through initiatives such as Tweets
from the Deep – more positive messages about the centrality of fishing and
fishermen as suppliers of healthy food. It was agreed to continue our campaign
focusing mainly on:

• The positive stock trends and reduced fishing mortality in most of our fisheries
• The significance of fisheries science partnerships
• The role of fishing in contributing to food security

Other Issues

Other issues, discussed by
the Executive included:

• The forthcoming review if the UK fishing vessels licensing regime
• Safety and Training issues
• The forthcoming FQA register
• Cod Management Plan and Effort Control
• Finalising NFFO policy on shellfish
• Western Waters Effort
• The triennial review of the Marine Management Organisation
• Proposed reduction of the Seafish levy by 10%
• Triennial review of the Marine Management Organisation
• The proposed reduction of the Seafish levy by 10%

He will succeed to the position of
Chairman of the NFFO next year, when the current office holder, Paul
Trebilcock, completes his period of office.

Tony
operates an under-10 metre vessel targeting both shellfish and whitefish from
Selsey, is already Chairman of the NFFO’s South East Committee and represents
the South East on the NFFO Executive Committee.

Tony
Delahunty said, “I am grateful for the confidence of my colleagues on the NFFO
Executive. It is important that the Federation continues to reflect the diversity
of our fleets and I look forward to playing my part. What I have learnt since
becoming part of the NFFO Executive is that the Federation undertakes a huge
amount of work on behalf of the fishing industry and that work is enhanced and
strengthened by the support and involvement of grass roots fishermen.”

“There are
some enormous challenges on the horizon, not least the implementation of EU
discard ban. Fishermen must prepare by ensuring that the industry speaks with a
clear, strong, voice. At the same time, there are encouraging signs in many
stocks that the sacrifices over the last decade, and our work with fisheries
scientists, are paying off.

“The whole
question of the practicality of the new regime should now take place at the
heart of the debate. Unless the rules make sense at vessel level, the whole
exercise is at best futile and at worst could undermine the good work done so
far.”

This was the
period when conflict between the fishing industry and government policy was at
its most intense, as the latter attempted to impose days-at-sea restrictions on
the whole UK fleet, as a cheap way of meeting its EU fleet reduction obligations.

As obdurate policy met vigorous industry resistance, port blockades,
demonstrations and a huge rally and mass lobby of Parliament replaced dialogue
and compromise. It took a referral to the European Court and a change of
ministers before a change of policy direction was won. It was probably the period when the UK fishing
industry was at its most united in the face of a common external threat.

It is a
paradox that Charlie Dawson was on watch during this period of conflict.
Personally charming and with an inbuilt Northumbrian friendliness, he was a
natural ambassador rather than a warrior. But he was also scrupulously fair and
was personally affronted by the Government’s treatment of fishermen across the
UK.

Charlie had
been involved in the establishment of the NFFO in the mid 1970s as it became
increasingly evident that the fishing industry needed to talk with a single
clear voice as the Common Fisheries Policy settled in. As Chairman of the NFFO’s North East
Committee, he always ensured that the North East’s voice was heard and taken
into account in the Federation’s Executive Committee.

Personally persuasive and
a man of transparent integrity, he was a great attribute to NFFO delegations
when they met ministers and senior officials. His sense of humour often defused
difficult situations and helped to find a way forward.

Charlie
continued to fish out of Seahouses on the family boat Providence IV whilst he balanced fishing and political
representative work. Prawns and whitefish were the main target species and the
boat followed the daily pattern of early starts and late landings.

Fishermen
and others associated with the fishing industry from Newlyn to Shetland and
beyond will remember Charlie with great affection as a gentleman. Above all
they will remember his gentle humour.

The fund is an innovative approach to enable both the wind farm operators of the Ormonde, Walney 1 and 2, West of Duddon Sands wind farms and fishing industry to work together to undertake projects of benefit to the local fishing communities. Over £300,000 is available to support projects over the next 5 years.

Ron Graham, Chairman of the NFFO West Coast Committee said: “The establishment of the fund follows extensive dialogue between both of our industries towards realising working arrangements that can demonstrate that co-existence between both of our industries is a possibility. The fund doesn’t deal with all of our issues but it forms an important element.”

Dale Rodmell, Assistant Chief Executive for the NFFO said: “It has taken a lot of work to get off the ground, but this is an important step forward on the part of the renewables industry to recognise the fishing communities whose fishing grounds they now share. I believe the fund has the potential to become an exemplar of best practice to show others what can be achieved through a proactive approach.”

Initial applications are invited from fishermen’s organisations from England and Northern Ireland to be received by 30th September 2013. Preference will be given to projects that have wide fishing community benefit and do not represent a disproportionate use of funds for any one community.

Applications will be considered by an industry advisory panel comprising of representatives from all relevant fishing ports, as well as a steering group represented by the four wind farm operators.

Application forms should be submitted by email to andy@womff.com or by post to:

WOMFF Applications

c/o NFFO
30 Monkgate
York
YO31 7PF

A video showing a veteran fisherman who swapped monkfish for mobile has been produced to challenge myths around the UK fishing indusuty often spread by the media, environmental groups and celebrities. Trawlerman David Warwick posted everything he did for a day aboard his trawler on Twitter and answered questions from the public about life at sea proving the realities are oceans apart from the misconceptions peddled by some.

The initiative, dubbed ‘Tweets from the Deep’ and organised by the National Federation of Fishermans Organisations (NFFO), took place to mark National Fishing Month (19 July- 26 August) and raise awareness of the work fishermen are doing to be more environmentally friendly and sustainably aware while putting food on the nation’s plates.

Questions came from fishermen and members of the public across the country on a wide range of subjects. David commented: “The response to Tweets from the Deep was outstanding with questions coming on all the big issues from discards to marine protected areas as well as the more light-hearted topics such as what superstitions we have on board the boat and the most unusual things we’ve found in our nets.

“Villages and communities up and down the British coast rely on fishermen, as a source of food and income. To be tarred as ‘pillagers’ that don’t care about the future of fishing is ridiculous. Most of us are second or third generation, if not more, and we fish carefully and sustainably to ensure the future of our business. I have a two year old son who I hope will have the opportunity to make his living from the sea if that’s what he chooses, and that’s what my colleagues and I are working hard to protect.”

Recent findings show significant levels of recovery in many species including cod, haddock and lemon sole. Despite working closely with scientists to ensure the impact of their work is as minimised as possible, fishermen have often been victim to sensationalist attacks from some MPs, campaigning celebrities and the media.

On the initiative, Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO commented: “David wanted to show the British public that fishermen aren’t the ‘pillagers of the seas’ they’re often portrayed to be and instead hoped to showcase what a life on the high seas is really like, as well as the practices used by the majority of the industry to fish in a safe, environmentally friendly and sustainable way. We had a high level of engagement on the day and hope the video will give those who couldn’t join in, an insight into what life at sea is really like.

“The fishing industry has made significant advances over the last ten years and sustainability is now at the heart of the way it operates. David’s social media posts gave a interesting glimpse into what a day at sea entails for fishermen and hopefully went some way to show the scale of how our fishermen are working to deliver this important, sustainable, traceable and healthy food source.”Since leaving school more than 25 years ago, David has earned a living as a fisherman. He built his own trawler and set up a commercial fishing business with his father in 1996. Today he sails from Cornwall in his 10.5m trawler Valhalla, catching mixed species including cod and haddock, whiting and lemon sole.

To recap Tweets from the Deep and read David’s answers to the public’s questions follow @NFFO_UK and search using #FishTales.

I love being a fisherman.

The days are long and can be cold. The weather can be miserable and frankly scary. It’s no secret that it’s a dangerous job. Lives are lost by men just trying to earn a living; trying to feed their families.

Then there are the rules and regulations. Ministers who know very little, if anything, about the job of fishing make detailed regulations that often make little or no sense at the level of a fishing vessel.

On top of this it is a largely thankless task. Newspapers call us sea barons and pillagers, accusing us of plundering oceans for commercial gain.

Yet the reality could not be more different.

Closer collaboration between fishermen and scientists has meant better data on fish stocks and the marine ecosystem. The industry’s views are now incorporated into the political and environmental process. Together, through the Fisheries Science Partnership, we carry out a wide range of studies looking at ecosystems and fish biomass in order to limit our impact and ultimately improve stocks.

After 70 years of incremental increases in fishing pressure, the scientists have since 2000 shown a dramatic turnaround.

So, why do I love my job?

Well, clearly from everything I’ve outlined above, you simply wouldn’t do it if you didn’t love it. If we could provide a true image of the industry, you’d see it was made up of families and communities, close knit and humble, a fishing fraternity that takes pride in the fact it is providing food security to this island nation. And we are doing so in a sustainable and considerate way.

I followed my father’s footsteps into this industry and I hope, if he chooses, my two year old son will do the same. Many of my fishing colleagues feel as I do and we are working hard to ensure the industry is there in the future for our children and our children’s children. And despite our tireless work in the wind and rain, collaboration with scientists and endeavours to become involved in the political process, ignorance is still rife.

‘Tweets from the Deep’ is a great way to show people what life as a fisherman is really like; to perhaps demonstrate the hurdles we jump through, the pressures we endure and the risks we take to put food on plates.

David Warwick will be tweeting aboard his trawler on Wednesday, 14 August to coincide with National Fishing Month (19 July- 26 August). People are being encouraged to follow the event at @NFFO_UK and put their questions to David using #FishTales.

In terrestrial conservation work, the idea that protected areas can be applied from above by dictat, ignoring the needs and interests of local populations has been long since abandoned as ultimately counterproductive. But this kind of retrograde thinking still lies at the heart of conservationist’s calls for the immediate designation of a network of 127 marine sites, irrespective of the quality of the evidence available for designation.

The Government, for its part, considers that there is sufficient evidence to designate 31 sites now, with a further exercise to collect evidence on the remaining sites. This delay has been heavily criticised by conservationists and the odd celebrity chef.

It is no surprise that this essentially backward looking and doctrinaire approach to marine conservation has now faltered when confronted with the real world of marine planning, the realities of people’s livelihoods, and the need to adhere to basic standards in the application of scientific evidence in public policy. Ultimately it falters because it fails to take into account the human factor – the need for sustainable marine use.

It is worth noting at the outset that the fishing industry is not unaccustomed to area specific management restrictions and numerous examples already exist in our waters. As with such measures, we support MPAs, even No Take Zones where they are well thought through, underpinned by the evidence and introduced after the closest discussion with the people potentially affected by them.

Subverting Evidence in a Panic

It is a curious paradox that the hysteria surrounding the issue of fishing’s impact on the marine environment increased at exactly the same time that science records a dramatic reduction of fishing pressure (fishing mortality) and an equally dramatic reduction in the number of fishing vessels operating in UK waters. As fishing’s environmental impact has reduced, the clamour has increased.

As the Marine and Coastal Access Act made its way through Parliament in 2009, no distinction was made between the state of commercial fish stocks and vulnerable habitats. Vigorous campaigning by conservationists successfully generated a public sense of moral panic that the marine environment was on course for destruction and that urgent intervention was required. The single, simple, solution to all problems were Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and ambitious plans to establish a network in as little as two and a half years were envisaged by the previous government. In order to meet this rushed time-table, the usual standards of evidence expected in public policy were side-lined in favour of what “best available evidence” happened to be available at the time.

In time, the logic of this approach was seen as faulty on a number of counts. When it came to selecting sites, it was clear there were in fact very few cases where there was an impending threat of destruction to potential marine conservation features. Moreover, the levels of evidence, as assessed by the government’s own independent scientific advisory panel, highlighted the limitations in knowledge over what conservation features actually exist within the proposed sites. Without this basic information, it is impossible to know how to effectively management sites, or even whether the proposed site was in the right place.

Under these circumstances, whilst there may be certain cases for acting quickly to protect pristine, fragile or rare marine jewels, there is no justifiable case for acting without appropriate levels of evidence. This is the current position for most of the 127 sites.

What’s Important, MPA Network Size, or Size of Human Impact?

Much of the over-heated debate on marine sites (not least in Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s gimmicky last series) has centred on the assertion that in response to the urgent threat to the marine environment it needs far more extensive marine protection. In this it is assumed that fishing is something akin to rainforest destruction, removing greater swathes of natural habitat year by year. It is time the scale of the threat was put into perspective:

1. Whilst it is true that fishing exerts the largest seabed footprint of all human activities, even when counted together with other activities, a large proportion of the seabed is not affected by any human physical pressure. This area is in effect already acting as an MPA. For English waters, researchers have estimated that the footprint of fishing occupies somewhere between 5 – 21%1 of the seabed, although admittedly this methodology is relatively crude and still requires refinement in order to give a definitive answer. This compares with an area of land under agriculture of 70% of the total UK land mass (and that is before counting other human activities). What’s more, the dramatic reduction in fishing pressure in recent years, also translates into a huge reduction in seabed contact with fishing gear.
2. Fishermen typically have a set of grounds they will return to year after year and this consistency in the distribution of fishing grounds has been clearly demonstrated2. Trawl fishermen will usually follow the same known tows that have proven to give a good return and do not pose a snagging risk to their nets. This means that rarely will new virgin ground be fished and the most complex and interesting sort of features from an ecological perspective such as reefs are carefully avoided.
3. Large areas of our seabed are subject to high levels of natural disturbance from waves, storms and tidal currents that mask any additional effects from bottom fishing3. Contrary to the intended message when in Hugh’s Fish Fight a trawl was dragged over sculptured marine flora on the beach at Weston-super-Mare, its undoubted disappearance following the next incoming tide actually demonstrates what little effect fishing has upon high energy sediment habitats such as sand and gravel. Whilst clearly a coral reef will receive protection from an MPA, there is a question mark over the extent that large, general, marine protected areas over such naturally disturbed habitats would actually serve a purpose.
4. Ultimately, the extent to which it is desirable to limit seafood production is an important conservation consideration. Go too far and there is risk of increasing the environmental footprint of food production as more must be sourced from more resource intensive and habitat transforming farm based production on land. In comparison, due to their low inputs, wild capture fisheries, when harvested at sustainable rates, are likely to form one of the lowest impacting forms of food production on the planet.

Human Nature and Protecting Nature

The failure to account for sustainable use in MPA policy can be traced back to OSPAR, the inter-governmental body which advises on the overarching policy in the North East Atlantic, when it set about devising theoretical scientific principles for the design of an MPA network.

In short, there was a failure to take account of the fact humans form an integral part of the marine ecosystem and this has had repercussions, not least in the influence that these recommendations have had on Defra’s own conservation advisors.

Modern fisheries management has come to recognise the central importance of placing stakeholder considerations at the heart of conservation initiatives, but there has been a long and chequered history of failure before it was accepted. Unintended consequences have undermined many a fisheries plan and the issue is particularly relevant in relation to the displacement effects of MPAs. It is quite possible to make things worse rather than better by ignoring this central dimension of policy. Whilst fishing grounds do have strong year-to-year consistency, a poorly designed management measure can, at the stroke of a pen, result in large scale shifts from already modified to more pristine or sensitive areas.4

Lessons learnt, fisheries scientists are now providing sensible guidance on how to address fisheries displacement when it comes to allocating marine space for other uses. This includes, for example, not displacing fishing from core fishing areas5,6 or from areas subject to relatively high levels of natural disturbance.7 The 127 MCZ proposals are worse off for not giving sufficient attention to human nature.

Science for Science’s Sake

Initially, a one-size-fits all approach was taken to planning scientific research for MPAs in the form of proposed Reference Areas. These would in effect constitute No Take Zones as a kind of control experiment. It is possible, however, to foresee a whole host of marine research possibilities to better understand the effects of human pressures upon the marine environment. Identifying specific locations for designation with only one type of experiment in mind, so early in a planning process, was simply half-baked. The government has rightly dropped these proposals, which were selected in even more haste than the MCZ proposals.

False Democratic Legitimacy

It is true that the proposals for a network of 127 sites were developed through a stakeholder process overseen by the government’s conservation advisors, but few of those involved (including the NFFO) would claim that this was anything other than a rushed and relatively crude approximation at what was needed to get the balance between conservation and livelihoods right. Weaknesses in the composition of the 4 regional stakeholder groups meant that many of those from fishing communities with most at stake from the decisions were effectively kept out. It is right, therefore, that the Minister is now listening to their concerns.

Righting past Mistakes

No doubt the whys and wherefores of how the marine conservation agenda was hijacked by fundamentalists will provide the raw material for a PhD in marine politics sometime in the future. For the time being, the current hysteria generated by the 127 Campaigners should not be reason for government to sway in righting the mistakes of the past and getting a better informed network that will actually have greater ecological coherence than the ideological MPA network delivered in a rush that the 127 network represents.

Notes:

1. Eastwood, P. D., Mills, C. M., Aldridge, J. N., Houghton, C. A., and Rogers, S. I. (2007) Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physical pressure on the seabed. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 453–463.
2. Stelzenmüller, V., Rogers, S. I., and Mills, C. M. (2008). Spatio-temporal patterns of fishing pressure on UK marine landscapes, and their implications for spatial planning and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1081–1091.
3. Diesing, M., Stephens, D., and Aldridge, J. (2013) A proposed method for assessing the extent of the seabed significantly affected by demersal fishing in the Greater North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, advanced access.
4. Dinmore, T. A., Duplisea, D. E., Rackham, B. D., Maxwell, D. L., and Jennings, S. (2003) Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 371–380.
5. Hiddink, J. G., Hutton, T., Jennings, S., and Kaiser, M. J. (2006) Predicting the effects of area closures and fishing effort restrictions on the production, biomass, and species richness of benthic invertebrate communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 453–463.
6. Jennings, S., Lee, J., and Hiddink, J. G. (2012) Assessing fishery footprints and the trade-offs between landings value, habitat sensitivity, and fishing impacts to inform marine spatial planning and an ecosystem approach, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 1053–1063.
7. Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., and Piet, G. J. (2006). Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 63: 721–736.

Hosted by Mara Media, organiser of the successful Galway (Ireland) and Aberdeen (Scotland) international fishing expos, Skipper Expo Int. Bristol will be a truly comprehensive fisheries showcase for English and Welsh fishing communities. It is also anticipated that the expo will attract interest from fishermen and industry related companies from northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Mara Media’s current shows are firmly established in the fishing industry calendar with Galway heading into its 10th successive year and the Aberdeen expo now in its third year.

Sharon Boyle, Event Sales Manager, said the new Skipper Expo Int. Bristol is being launched following widespread demand from the English and Welsh fishing industries.

“The expansion of our fishing expos to include a show in England is a natural progression for Mara Media. The fishing industry has once again put their trust in us and asked us to organise and run a show in England. Companies are already booking their stands for the show and we are very much looking forward to repeating the success of the Galway and Aberdeen events.”

Skipper Expo Int. Bristol will take place on Friday 25th and Saturday 26th October 2013 in the Marriott City Centre Hotel in Bristol.

For more information, contact Sharon Boyle – sharon@maramedia.ie or 00353 74 9548037

2013 LIST OF EXHIBITORS TO DATE

AAA

Arklow Marine Services

Audacious Marine Ltd

Bee-Jay Scallop Gear

Black Dog Marine

Brdr Markussens Metalvarifabrik

Caithness Creels

Carapax AB

Centa Transmissions

Coastal Nets Limited

Commercial Marine Sales

Cornwall Creels

Cotesi

Craemer UK

Davidsons Ship Painters

Deeside Marine

Desmi Ltd.

Drawm

Echomaster

Engines Plus Ltd

Fairwater Fishing

Fishtek Ltd

FMS Scotland

Furuno UK

Gael Force Group

G Smyth Boats

Golden Arrow Marine

G.T. Products

Guy Cotten UK ltd

IFCA (Devon & Severn)

Icom

Injector Door

Intellian

IntraFish Media

Karl Thompson / Scotnet

La Tene Maps

Mantsbrite Marine

Mara Media

Marine Stewardship Council

MarShip UK

Morgere

MSL Ltd

Mullion Survival Technology

Norsap UK

Northern Oils

Norwest Marine Liverpool

Osprey Limited

Penzance Dry Dock

Polar Doors

Patsy Bruce (Patsy) Ships Painters

Profisher

Rapp Ecosse

Reid Scallop Gear

Riverdale Mills Corp.

RNLI Fishing Safety

Seafish

Seafood Cornwall Training

Seatronics

Seawinch

South East Netting

Spencer Carter

Succorfish

Survitec Group

Swan Net Gundry

Thyboron Trawldoors

Total / EMD Partners

Tyson’s Riggers

Watermota

Whispaire

Woodsons of Aberdeen Ltd

Ziegra

Today, his father is retired and David has swapped Scotland for Cornwall, fishing nearby in his 10.5m trawler Valhalla. His catch remains mixed, still picking up cod and haddock , as well as whiting, lemon sole, plaice, cuttlefish, monkfish and squid. Often David’s day starts at 3am with him and his crewmate setting sail from Plymouth. In summer they can be out for up to 16 hours, six days a week. This is because in the winter months their time at sea is severely limited by the weather; particularly due to their smaller category trawler, which is more susceptible to the elements.

It isn’t just the weather that makes a life at sea unpredictable, though: on a good day David can come home with £2,000 worth of fish; yet, other days a net might break and David is forced home empty handed. With diesel prices at an all-time high, having this happen too many times is not an option for any fisherman.

Despite huge advancements in technology, being a fisherman in the UK remains a dangerous profession. In 2011, 24 vessels were shipwrecked, while eight fishermen lost their lives. David wants to demonstrate the pressures of running a business with such inherent dangers, which is why he signed up to the ‘Tweets from the Deep’ campaign.

He said: “Making a living on the sea is not an easy option. The days are long and sometimes cold, and it is one of the most dangerous occupations around, but still it remains a rewarding job. Men risk their lives putting food on people’s plates, but often in return are pilloried in the newspapers as heartless sea barons, scooping up vast quantities of fish indiscriminately.

“Hopefully this event will show the British people that we’re actually just men earning a living and doing so in a sustainable and considerate way.”

The event is being organised by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), the representative body for fishermen across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to provide a glimpse into what is often a misunderstood and misconstrued industry.

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, said: “Many fishermen have the trade going back several generations in their families. It has always been a family and community focused business. The hostile media coverage of the industry over that last few years has been unfair, unwarranted and ill-informed.

“These days fishermen work extremely closely with scientists and conservationists to ensure what they are doing is both environmentally and sustainably viable. We hope the ‘Tweets from the Deep’ campaign will show this and make people reconsider what they think they know about the commercial fishing industry.”

Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Annual Report 2011, http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/MAIB_Annual_Report_2011.pdf

It is no secret that the MMO has faced turbulent times since it was established and moved to Newcastle – losing most of its staff in the process. Since then in an era of budget cuts, it has struggled to demonstrate to the fishing industry that it is on top of the job.

The meeting, the latest in a series of regular discussions between the Federation and the MMO, covered an extensive agenda.

E-logs

The Federation had previously submitted an extensive list of problems to the MMO detailing problems faced by fishermen in using the new electronic logbooks. These include technical and operational difficulties associated with the system itself, as well as practical operating issues and the industry’s ability to adapt to the new system. During the meeting, the Federation expressed concern that the promised e-log user group had not been set up yet to address the many practical problems faced by users of the system.

The MMO revealed that after receiving the NFFO list it had subsequently appointed external auditors to review its e-log system. The audit is intended to identify a comprehensive list of the main problem areas, with a view to fixing them quickly. The NFFO/MMO user group will be set up shortly after the Auditors have reported and will address issues identified by the audit. Whilst it was made clear that “there is no going back” to the paper logbook, MMO accepted that it had a duty to ensure that new system met minimum standards of functionality, proportionality and reasonableness. It was accepted that the problems were at their most acute in the 12m-15 segment of the fleet.

The Federation has been critical of the (ministerial) decision not to take advantage of the available exemption from the EU requirement to use e-logs for day boats operating wholly within territorial limits. This exemption is being used by almost all other member states and if taken advantage of in the UK, would have allowed a breathing space to allow for effective implementation. To this degree the Government had brought many of its e-log problems on its own head by rushing headlong into the new technology.

The Federation also heavily criticised the suggestion that fishermen should pay for a major software upgrade – the result of a change in specifications to comply with the EU Control Regulation – so early in the history of e-logs. MMO agreed to give the issue further consideration.

It was agreed that for the future, both the MMO and the fishing industry would benefit from a close working relationship on the e-log system, and that establishing a user-group, with representation from the main fishing areas and fleet segments, was a priority. The NFFO will assist in setting up this group.

Satellite Monitoring

The Federation was updated by the MMO on progress towards a low-cost inshore Vessel Monitoring System based on mobile phone technology. It is hoped that a spec will be defined by the end of August, with type approval being granted to the two suppliers (so far) who have expressed an interest so far. In the meantime practical trials are being held. Formal introduction will be on 1st January 2014.

It is clear that IFCAs are likely to make use of this new technology for managing access to zoned areas within marine protected areas but also, for some, as a condition for access to the IFCA district.

The Federation commented that the new technologies offered much in terms of more effective management and potentially a reduction in the regulatory burden on fishing vessels. However, the industry would rebel if the new technologies were only used to transfer the cost burden of fisheries management to the industry. If society wants, as is increasingly the case, to have a say in the conditions under which fish are produced, then it must pay a proportionate share of the costs of management.

Vessel position data produced by the new technologies can be very powerful and important in defending fishing grounds from encroachment by other marine users. But it can also undermine commercial confidentiality and be employed in a Big Brother way. It was agreed therefore that the NFFO and the MMO will work on protocols on how to strike the right balance between data protection issues and legitimate uses for the data.

The Federation voiced its concerns that the import of American style hard legal tactics by some environmental organisations threatened to undermine the collaborative approach that both the fishing industry and MMO/Defra aspire to and consider essential both for environmental protection and the wellbeing of the fishing industry as a network of MPAs is established.

European Fisheries Fund

Fishermen are becoming increasingly frustrated by difficulties in the process of claiming grants from the EFF to the extent that they are giving up trying. The MMO was advised by the Federation that disproportionate bureaucratic hoops faced in trying to access funding for eligible purposes is leading fishermen, especially those at the smaller end of the fleet, to give up the attempt. This defeats the purpose of the EFF.

The MMO acknowledged that there have been problems but suggested that the main difficulties were the very rigid European rules designed to prevent fraud. Both the NFFO and MMO agreed that every effort should be made to reduce the disproportionate paperwork associated with relatively small EFF applications. It was agreed that the MMO would review its own procedures and staffing levels to remove any home grown obstacles, whilst at the same time petitioning Brussels for a more user friendly system.

Discard Ban, Quota Management and Enforcement in the Future

The meeting acknowledged that the impending discard ban (in 2014 for pelagic fisheries, and 2016-2019 for demersal fisheries) will amount to one of the most significant changes to the way fisheries are managed across the EU for a generation. It was also recognised that the obligation to land all catches of quota species would require significant change in the areas of MMO responsibility, including enforcement, catch recording, quota management, international and domestic quota swaps and transfers. At the moment much was unclear about how the landings obligation would work in practice.

One important question under consideration by the MMO is whether pool monthly catch limits will continue to work with the amount of quota flexibility envisaged by the CFP Basic Regulation ( year on year flexibility to bank and borrow quota and the facility to count a by-catch species against a target species).

The NFFO confirmed that the regional quota management meetings (for under-10m and over-10m non sector quota pools) had significantly improved the sensitivity and responsiveness of the MMO’s quota management in this area.

It was agreed that the NFFO and MMO would work together on these questions with Defra and the regional advisory councils to ensure a smooth transition as possible to the new system.

Summary

This was a useful and constructive meeting in which problem areas were identified and discussed thoroughly. The MMO accepted that there was significant room for improvement in a number of operational areas and the discussions focussed on a collaborative approach to resolving the problems.

A veteran fisherman will highlight the challenging, complex and sometimes dangerous nature of life at sea by tweeting an entire day aboard his trawler in a bid to challenge some of the negative perceptions which dog the UK fishing industry.

The initiative, dubbed ‘Tweets from the Deep’ and organised by the National Federation of Fishermans Organisations (NFFO), will take place on Wednesday, 14 August during National Fishing Month* to raise awareness of the often dangerous daily tasks fishermen perform to put food on the nation’s plate.

David Warwick says he wants to show the British public fishermen aren’t the “pillagers of the seas” they’re portrayed to be and instead hopes to showcase what a life on the high seas is really like, as well as the practices used by the majority of the industry to fish environmentally and sustainably.

Since the day he left school more than 25 years ago, David has earned a living as a commercial fisherman. Having built his own trawler he set up a commercial fishing business with his father in 1996. Today he sails from Plymouth in his 10.5m trawler Valhalla, catching mixed species including cod and haddock as well as whiting and lemon sole.

David starts at 3am to sail out to fishing grounds up to 20 miles of the Cornish coast and often doesn’t return until 7pm at night. In summer, the crew can be out for up to 16 hours, six days a week. On a good day they could net up to £2,000 of fish, but equally can be forced home empty handed if the weather is poor or if a net breaks.

It’s this pressure that is poorly understood by the general public. Despite huge advancements in technology, fishing in the UK remains a dangerous profession. In 2011, 24 vessels were shipwrecked, while eight fishermen lost their lives.

David joined this initiative to provide a glimpse into his life:

“Villages and communities up and down the British coast rely on fishermen, as providers of food and income. To be tarred as ‘pillagers’ that don’t care about the future of fishing is ridiculous. Most of us are second or third generation, if not more, and we fish sensitively and sustainably to ensure the future of our business.

“I have a two year old son that I hope will have the opportunity to make his living from the sea if that’s what he chooses, and that’s what my fishing colleagues and I are working hard to ensure.”

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, said: “The fishing industry has made amazing advances over the last ten years and sustainability is now at the heart of the way it operates. Despite this our hard working fishermen are too often portrayed as the pariahs of the sea.

“We are therefore undertaking this initiative with David to hopefully dispel some of these myths and show how our fishermen deliver an important, sustainable, traceable and healthy food source. We hope this event will go some way to showing the hardships fishermen undergo and reinstate them to where they belong, as heroes of the seas.”

According to the most recent figures available, in 2011, the UK’s 6,444 fishing vessels landed 600,000 tonnes of fish (including shellfish) with a value of £828 million. There are around 12,400 fishermen, with the industry providing 14,331 full time jobs.

Fish consumption has risen steadily since the 1970s, with four out of five households in the UK eating seafood at least once a month. The NFFO estimates the fishing industry has provided the basis for 200 trillion meals since the end of the Second World War.

‘Tweets from the Deep’ will take place Wednesday, 14 August to coincide with National Fishing Month (19 July- 26 August) and people are being encouraged to follow the event at @NFFO_UK and put their questions to David using #FishTales.

The only thing clear about the discard ban at present is the lack of clarity which surrounds what it will actually mean for individual fishing vessels. However, though the first wave of landing obligations will apply (to pelagic vessels) in January 2015, this lack of clarity is not necessarily a bad thing. Many of the detailed decisions of how the ban on discards will be applied in practice remain to be decided at member state level, at regional seas level and at individual fishing vessel level. This is a big improvement from all of the detail being decided in Brussels. There is substantial scope for flexibility, if it is used properly, to ensure that, whilst the political objectives of the discard ban are met, fishing fleets are not bankrupted in the process.

It is vitally important that we get this process right. Everything is to play for.

The first meeting between Defra officials and the NFFO to discuss the implementation of the landings obligation, took place recently in London and it focused on the pathway that will lead, in due course, to the implementing decisions as the discard ban is progressively applied between 2015 and 2019. The start date for the main whitefish stocks is 1st January 2016.

The key to the landings obligation will be a requirement to land all catches of quota species, which will count against quota.

The most immediate issue for vessels will be how to ensure that only catch with value is landed, so as not to waste quota. This is likely to set in train an unprecedented search for selectivity, whether through gear adaptations, or decisions on when and where to fish. In some fisheries significant improvement in selectivity are difficult, if not impossible to achieve. In these other flexibilities/exemptions (discussed below) will be available.

Five Work-streams

In order to arrive at the implementation dates with a set of arrangements that deliver the landings obligation in an acceptable way, Defra envisages that five workstreams will be set up.

• Quotas and Quota Management.

This will cover:

• TAC uplift to cover discards
• Recording all catch
• Up to 9% of by-catch species can be counted against the principal target species to prevent choke species
• De minimis: 5% of total annual catch of total catch (at vessel level) may still be discarded where selectivity is not an available solution or where the costs are disproportionately high

Enforcement

This will address the question how the landing obligation will be enforced. The options include:

• CCTV cameras may be appropriate in some fisheries
• Observers
• Self-auditing
• Reference fleets where observers or cameras are in place aboard a small percentage of the fleet. Catch compositions of the whole fleet are cross checked against these reference vessels
• Other

Science

The new regulation places heavy new burdens on science to provide:

• Discard data to justify the level on TAC uplift in specific fisheries
• The definition of high survival rate to be used to provide exemptions in some fisheries (plaice and nephrops fisheries are obvious examples)
• Data to justify or deny an exemption on the grounds of high survival
• Data to justify use of the de minimis exemption in cases where improvements in selectivity are difficult or where the costs are disproportionately high

There will be a need for a range of fisheries/science partnerships to provide discard data. A new funding programme named Assist, with a budget of £300,000 pa over 5 years is envisaged.

Discard Plans

The ultimate aim is that member states’discards policy will be incorporated into comprehensive fisheries level Multi-Annual Management Plans. These will in future be the main vehicle for fisheries management, fixing rules for setting TACs etc. Few people believe that these will be developed in the mixed demersal fisheries for some time, although much work is going on to clarify how mixed-fishery and multi-species advice and management could work. In the meantime, it will be expected that member states will cooperate at a regional seas level (e.g. North Sea, Celtic Sea, Irish Sea) to agree a common approach to discards, in the form of a discard plan for each fishery. Agreement on discard rates, the criteria to be used for high survival exemptions etc will be incorporated into these discard plans. The backstop, if member states fail to develop their own discard plan, is that the Commission has the power to step in to impose their own discard plan. This provides a considerable motivation for member states to get to work.

Technical Measures

As suggested above, the discard ban will create a powerful incentive to vessels to minimise unwanted catch, in order to save quota for species/sizes with most value. Over and above this, the Commission is planning a major revision of its Technical Conservation Regulation (EC 850/98). Parts of this Regulation are expected to go very soon in the first sweep of EU rules which generate discards. (including catch composition rules and by-catch rules).

A big outstanding question relates to the extent which the new technical rules will only provide a broad framework for member states, working with the RACs to define appropriate regional rules; or whether the Commission (and European Parliament and Council of Ministers) can resist the urge to micro-manage from the centre.

Governance

The landings obligation/discard ban will not take place in a policy vacuum. The provisions within the CFP reform legislation for regionalisation may not be as far reaching and explicit as some hoped for but they do hold potential for some very far reaching change in the way policy is formed in the future. Discard policy is likely to be amongst the first issues to be dealt with through the cooperation of relevant member states at regional seas level. Discard plans and high survival criteria are obvious candidates for the new approach. The regional advisory councils are expected to play a leading role under this new arrangement.

Summary

The landings obligation is likely to be one of the biggest changes to the management of our fisheries in a generation. We face a difficult transitional period. On a positive view, if handled well, there is scope for the industry to emerge in a stronger position, with higher TACs to cover discards, the removal of some obvious rigidities in the current rules and flexibility to deal with difficult cases.

The $64K question is whether the transition will be handled in an intelligent and pragmatic way, or whether the top-down way of doing things will resurface in a new guise.

The debate on the future of under-10m quota management has taken many twists and turns. However, most informed observers would agree that a number of important points have surfaced from the sometimes heated and confused exchanges over recent years.

1. The quota problems facing parts of the under-10m fleet are not general but are focused on specific stocks and areas and times of year. The quota pinch-points for the under-10 fleet may vary within each year and between years. They are at their most acute in the south east where the opportunities to catch non-quota species are most sparse.
2. The underlying problem in the Eastern Channel cod fishery – a major focus of the under-10m spotlight – is not caused by and cannot therefore be solved by tinkering with domestic quota shares. It is the international share out in which the UK receives only 7% of the EU allocation that is the root problem here. This requires a significantly different approach by comparison with other stocks. If any headway is to be made, the main focus in this fishery should be on international quota swaps and transfers.
3. Around 70% of the under-10m pool quotas are caught by only 14% of the under-10m fleet – around 129 vessels
4. The evolution of the under-10m fleet over the last 20 years, and in particular the emergence of a fleet of high-catching under-10s (often sheltering from the punitive management regime for over-10m vessels), is now much more widely understood. This class of vessel tends to be exclusively, or predominantly dependent on quota species and above all requires stability in its quota allocations. For this it requires to be able to plan its quota year, in much the same way as many over-10m vessels.
5. The bulk of the rest under-10m fleet, however, require quota flexibility to be able alter target species and to adapt to constantly changing local abundance and market conditions. Many of these vessels need access to quota stocks only irregularly, whilst their main focus is non-quota stocks. The pool system, with monthly or bi-monthly catch limits, is well adapted to this requirement.
6. The success of producer organisations in managing their members’ quotas by maximising access to quota that is needed, by swapping and transferring its unutilised assets, has been recognised as a crucial feature beneficial to their members. This kind of regular ongoing intervention has largely been denied to the under-10m fleet, which have been managed centrally; although regional quota management meetings organised by the MMO have improved sensitivity recently.
7. The interdependence of large-scale and small-scale fleets in terms of maintaining port infrastructures and continuity of supply is now recognised as essential for the well-being of the small-scale fleets. The lessons learnt when the larger vessels left Lowestoft and local infrastructures collapsed are well understood.
8. The recent Judicial Review has confirmed that the Fisheries Minister has wide discretionary powers to change the quota management arrangements in England and to redistribute unutilised quota. It also confirmed that under European law Fixed Quota allocations are to be regarded as a “possessions” and not to be expropriated without compensation. In a sense, little has changed because ministerial discretion to change quota allocations through top-slicing has been used, not infrequently, in the recent past. The wisdom and equity of administrative redistribution is likely to remain a contentious area, even more so in relation to TAC uplifts associated with the forthcoming landings obligation for quota species.
9. There is a broad recognition that the large number of unutilised under-10m licences represents a reservoir of latent fishing effort and that latent capacity has the potential to undermine and disrupt any initiative to manage under-10m quota allocations and prevent increase fishing pressure within the inshore zone to unsustainable levels. Discussions are ongoing about the best way to tackle this issue.
10. The fishing power of an under-10m vessel can be many times greater than its counterpart 20 years ago. As with the fleet of larger vessels, technology has not stood still. Given that smaller vessels by their intrinsic characteristics often have a limited range, the management of fishing pressure within the inshore zone is of paramount importance that also needs to be taken into account when discussing access to quota.
11. It remains to be seen what support for small scale fisheries is available under the new European maritime and Fisheries Fund but contrary to some of the wilder interpretations, actually very little in the reformed basic CFP regulation has changed or will have much of an impact on the issue of quota distribution. Member states retain the authority to manage their quotas as they see fit and may use a range of criteria to allocate quota

The Future

So, against this background, where do we go from here in addressing the issues confronting the under-10s?

Two contrasting approaches are emerging, both focused on bringing PO type self-management to the under-10m fleet:

The idea of a national inshore producer organisation has been proposed, with the aim of bringing the clear advantages of PO quota management to the under/10 m sector. Questions have already been raised about whether a national scale organisation run by a committee would be too unwieldy by comparison with the regionally focussed producer organisations, given the logistics and geography involved. The question of the actual level of support by under-10m fishermen for a national PO and the long-term funding required are important issues too. It is unlikely to aid matters that the main proponent for a national inshore PO is affiliated to Greenpeace. In recent years a number of grandiose schemes have been proposed, such as allocating FQAs to under-10s, a national pot limitation scheme for shellfish vessels, and further back, even a system of days-at-sea which would have included under/10m vessels. All failed to reach take-off speed. Time will tell. There is certainly nothing intrinsically wrong with a strong, effective, well organised inshore PO, if these hurdles can be overcome.

The alternative approach, favoured by the NFFO, is to start immediately at the local level and where the specific quota pinch points are at their most acute. Encouraging collaborative arrangements between groups of under/10m fishermen and specific POs offers the possibility of extending professional quota management to the high catching under-10s. The Fish Producers Organisation is currently supporting the Ramsgate Quota Pilot in this way and this could provide the model for future collaboration. Other POs offered to provide similar support at a meeting organised by the NFFO in April in London. This is the opposite of a Big Bang approach. It is incremental and based on the buy-in by all parties. But it is focused at where the problems are most severe, and hopefully will provide a model for the way forward.

For many under-10s, whose catch of quota species is comparatively small and sporadic, this approach will not be relevant or of interest but it ought to relieve the quota pressures where they are most severe. The general upward direction of TACs also ought to help.

The essence of the under-10m issue is that the quota shortages facing this part of the fleet do not have a single cause and are not amenable to single simplistic solutions. They require tailored solutions, regionally and by fleet sub-segment. They are more likely to be solved through industry collaboration than Government intervention. In many ways the solutions are in our own hands.

TV Fisherman to Send ‘Tweets from the Deep’ to Show Life at Sea

Cornish fisherman and star of the BBC’s Toughest Place to be a…Fisherman, Andy
Giles, will be tweeting everything he does during a day’s fishing at sea, as
well as answering questions put to him through Twitter.

The initiative, dubbed ‘Tweets from the Deep’, will take
place Wednesday, 14 August in order to celebrate National Fishing Month (19
July- 26 August) and raise awareness of the often dangerous daily tasks
fishermen perform to put food on the nation’s plate.

Andy, who has been a fisherman for more than 25 years and is
the proud skipper of 15m trawler Guiding Light III, will be providing
insight into his work life, which starts at 3am when he leaves his family home
in Looe. He then has to travel to Brixham or Plymouth, depending where his boat
lands, before heading up to 20 miles out to sea in search of lemon sole,
haddock, monkfish or sea bass. With the expense of fuel, a single fishing trip
can cost in the region of £600 and so sometimes Andy is not home until 9pm at
night, as he has to ensure he catches enough fish to cover the cost of the
trip.

On taking part in ‘Tweets from the Deep’, Andy said: “With
the vast amount of rules and regulations governing our industry, often there
are huge amounts of pressure on us to monitor and record our catch, especially
toward the end of the month when we’re running out of quota. ‘Tweets from the
Deep’ is a great way to show people what life as a fisherman is really like and
perhaps demonstrate some of the hurdles we have to jump through to put fish on
their plates.”

The event is being organised by the National Federation of
Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), which represents fishermen across England,
Wales and Northern Ireland. It wants to provide a glimpse into an often
misunderstood and misconstrued industry.

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, said: “Every day,
fishermen are putting their lives at risk to provide food security for our
island nation. Yet, often the image of these should-be-heroes is of trawler
barons pillaging the seas for personal gain. We hope this event will go some
way to showing the hardships fishermen undergo and reinstate them to where they
belong, as heroes of the seas.”

In 2012, Andy took part in the BBC documentary Toughest
Place to be a…Fisherman where he travelled to the small fishing village
Mania in Sierra Leone. There he was taught to fish out of a small, leaky canoe
with a sail made of plastic bags and an umbrella, and with floats for fishing
lines made of an old pair of flip flops.To put your questions to Andy, tweet @NFFO_UK using the
hashtag #FishTales.

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) –
the country’s most influential body representing the UK fishing industry – has
cited revolutionary partnership work between the fishing industry and scientists
as helping bring about recovery levels in North East Atlantic fish stocks which
are ‘nothing short of remarkable’. The
findings which cover species including haddock, sole and herring follow recent
reports that cod stocks in the North Sea are reaching sustainable levels.

According to recent statistics release by the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), there has been a ‘dramatic
reduction in fishing pressure’ across the main commercial stocks in the North East
Atlantic over the last decade, after some 70 years of incremental increases. In
some stocks, including cod and haddock, mortality rates have been halved.

The fall in fishing mortality levels is being seen as significant
as it applies to all of the three main species groups; pelagic (including
herring and mackerel), demersal (including cod, haddock and whiting) and benthic
(flat fish including sole and plaice). The ICES statistics also show the trend
applies right across the North East Atlantic, with white fish stocks –
including those in the North Sea – rebuilding rapidly.

The fall in fishing pressure coincides closely with the
period an array of ‘cod recovery measures’ were applied to EU fleets, although
the NFFO also cites a major, Government funded programme of partnership work
between individual fishermen and scientists as having contributed to the shift.

Beginning in 2003/4, the publicly-supported Fisheries
Science Partnership (FSP) has seen the fishing industry and science co-operate
in a wide range of studies intended to improve the sea’s fish stocks, biomass
and marine ecosystems.

Managed by Defra’s Centre of Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Science (Cefas) and the NFFO, the research drive has harnessed fishermen’s
generation-spanning knowledge and
experience of fishing grounds, weather systems, fish biology and movements,
with the exact methodical disciplines of marine scientists, investigating concerns
and theories about the economic and environmental viability of commercial
fishing.

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, said: “The most
recent ICES statistics are nothing short of remarkable and paint a long
awaited, positive picture for both the UK’s fishing industry, as well as those of
us who look to fish as a sustainable, traceable and healthy food source.

“Over the last decade, the relationship between fishermen
and scientists has blossomed into a highly respected multi-project research
programme, which has contributed greatly to corresponding decline in mortality
across the main commercial fish stocks.

“Sustainability is now at the heart of the way the fishing
industry operates and these figures are a major endorsement of the way
practices have changed over the last ten years. There are some stocks yet to
respond but the dominant downward trend is too well established, too wide in
geographical terms and across too many fisheries to be dismissed as a blip.”

According to
the most recent figures available, in 2011, the UK’s 6,444 fishing
vessels landed 600,000 tonnes of fish (including shellfish) with a value of
£828 million. There are around 12,400 fishermen, with the industry
providing 14,331 full time jobs.

Fish
consumption has risen steadily since the 1970s with four out of five households
in the UK eating seafood at least once a month.
The NFFO estimates the fishing industry has provided the basis for 200
trillion meals since the end of the Second World War.

Arnold Locker is a third generation fisherman based in
Whitby. He has over 40 years’ experience of commercial fishing in the North Sea
and is co-owner and chairman of Lockers Trawlers Ltd, which now trawls haddock predominantly,
after taking the decision to avoid cod to support its recovery.

Arnold was among the first fishermen to join scientific
missions on Cefas’ purpose-built, £25m ocean-going research vessel the Cefas Endeavour, for 30-day trawls to
compare catch rates with different gear. He then accompanied the Endeavour , while one of his own vessels
fished alongside, trialling and then adopting various cod avoidance techniques
including larger net sizes, various mesh grades and net panelling.

The result has been that his boats now can now avoid cod,
with a discard rate of less than one per cent, verified by onboard CCTV.

He said: “In the past, Scientists didn’t speak to fishermen
and fishermen didn’t speak to scientists. Clearly, this was ridiculous, as both
were needed for meaningful projects that would preserve the marine environment
and improve its health where there were problems.

“Most UK fisherman are hard working, honest individuals,
often running family businesses and who, like me, want to secure a legacy for
future generations. Over the last 10 years we’ve worked hard to do this and at
last, it’s starting to pay dividends in both the quality and quantity of the
fish we’re catching.”

These included:

• CFP reform
• European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
• Common Organisation of the Market
• Support for the Ramsgate under-10m quota project
• Discard Ban implementation issues
• Shellfish Policy
• Preparation of an NFFO response to pressure for a TAC on bass and/or equivalent measures
• Why potting was considered to be an “amber” activity under Defra’s European Marine Site policy
• Continued support for the work of the MPA Fishing Coalition
• Safety and Training Issues
• Distribution of low cost personal flotation devices
• A series of concerns about the effectiveness of the Marine Management Organisation
• E-logbooks
• Inconsistencies in approach to the use of vessel monitoring systems across IFCAS
• The future of the Fisheries Science Project
• Defence of the Fishing Industry’s reputation
• Deep Water Fisheries
• Seafish Industry Authority
• Wind-farms

“We remain of the view that now the CFP reform is out of the way, the industry should sit down with Government to agree a system of use-rights that provide the stability that the industry looks for, whilst recognising that fish are a national resource and that ministers have the authority to make changes to the UK quota management arrangements.

“We doubt whether this judgement heralds a radical redistribution of quota, as suggested by some of the more hysterical commentators and note Richard Benyon’s commendation at the NFFO’s recent AGM for our collaborative approach to resolving the quota shortages facing some under-10 metre vessels.

“Producer organisations are voluntary groups of fishermen who manage their fishing rights cooperatively. As such they represent a valuable model for the industry and are to be encouraged. The NFFO has been working recently to extend the advantages of professional quota management (such as quota swaps and transfers) to groups of under-10m fishermen.”

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Industry Representatives Quiz Richard Benyon M.P. on Secure & Sustainable Future for Fishing

Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon M.P., opened himself up to strong questioning from members of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) and discussed the practical and commercial implications of many high profile changes affecting the industry, including CFP reform, Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), a ban on discards, quota management and shell fisheries.

The devolution of fisheries management from Brussels to a more regional level was another key area of focus and one which the NFFO’s Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, says could be vital.

He said: “While it may not be the headline grabber like the ban on discards, regionalisation of fisheries management could have the power to really turn around dysfunctional fisheries management.”

Richard Benyon M.P. added “This is the fishing industry’s opportunity to make sure what is implemented is proportionate, is effective, goes no further than it needs and is scientific and evidence based.”

To the delight of those present, the minister also highlighted the need for a scientific and evidenced based approach to MCZs, describing celebrity Chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s campaign to introduce 127 of the zones immediately as “irrational”.

Prior to the Q&A session, the minister addressed the meeting with a speech commending the NFFO for its close work during the recent CFP reform and its efforts supporting small-scale fisheries, paying particular homage to the Federation’s intervention in the South East, brokering an agreement on quota between a number of producer organisations and under-10m fishermen in the Thames Estuary.

The change and diversity within the UK fishing fleet was also underlined in the questioning.

Barrie Deas added: “While we have always had a diverse fleet, the number of questions pertaining to shellfishery demonstrates the noticeable move away from white fish in recent years. This is both a great testament to the industry’s ability to adapt to survive, but also a lament of the changes our colleagues have been forced to make because of fisheries mis-management under the Common Fisheries Policy.”

Despite concerns about the future of the industry, the majority of fishermen present were optimistic about the ongoing partnership work required to secure a more positive outlook.

Arnold Locker, a fisherman from Whitby and the NFFO President, said: “What was clear from the minister’s answers today is that he wants the same thing that we do – a sustainable fishing industry that’s also an economic one.”

Also present at the meeting were representatives from Defra and the Marine Management Organisation.

Heated row as Greenpeace rejects FN offer to face questions from industry

Greenpeace rejects FN invitation to answer questions from the fishing industry

A row has broken out in recent weeks as Greenpeace criticized Fishing News’ editorial policy as the paper refused to publish a lengthy letter in which it complained about not being given a voice in the industry publication.

In a sometimes heated debate through emails, Fishing News stated that Greenpeace is not a fishing industry body, despite their alliance with one group of inshore fishermen, and that therefore the green group was not entitled to space on a regular basis in the publication when the majority of the UK’s 12,000 fishermen did not support the green group.

Greenpeace accused Fishing News of being “an NFFO mouthpiece” – a statement the paper rejects as articles from Ministers Benyon and Lochhead, the MMO, SFF and other groups appear in the paper more regularly than NFFO news.

The following is a summary of the email conversation between Greenpeace and Fishing News:

Greenpeace: It’s sad to see your publication parroting baseless accusations against Greenpeace by the NFFO. Your pages should give space to the variety of opinions held by such a diverse sector, rather than act as the mouthpiece of a powerful lobby.

Cormac Burke: Fishing News past, present and future will always support and defend any industry group or body when it is seen to be coming under unfair treatment by any group outside of the fishing industry.

An alliance with a small group of inshore fishermen doesn’t change the fact that Greenpeace is NOT part of this industry, and as such, is not entitled to have an input into how this industry is managed.

This publication has, long before Greenpeace took interest in the UK industry, been offering protection to inshore groups such as NUTFA and to larger bodies such as NFFO and SFF. It’s ironic that Greenpeace, who took an interest in the UK fishing industry less than a decade ago, should question the editorial politics of a publication that has been the supporting backbone of the fishing industry for over 100 years.

If Greenpeace only wants what is best for the future of the industry, and it appears that the main problem seems to be with the NFFO, why has Greenpeace ignored invitations from the NFFO for round table talks on the problems between NFFO and NUTFA? Surely if a solution is to be found, and Greenpeace want to be involved, they should be grateful of the chance to participate?As editor of Fishing News, I would be willing to help make arrangements for this meeting to happen, and to report on it.

GP: We don’t see any usefulness in having a meeting with the NFFO.

CB: I believe it would be in the interest of the fishing industry to hear why Greenpeace are not willing to participate in an open debate with NFFO. I would be happy to publish any statement you have on this matter.

Proposal

Less than two weeks ago, Fishing News also offered Greenpeace the opportunity to openly face questions from the fishing industry. They initially responded that “if our contributions are treated in total disregard, then it will be impossible to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue with Fishing News”, but later responded that they would only agree to engage in a published debate between themselves and the NFFO through Fishing News’ pages.

This was rejected by Fishing News as the initial proposal was that readers i.e. fishermen and others in the industry, could submit questions to Fishing News – the top 12 most relevant ones would be selected and Greenpeace would have one week to respond. The proposal was not intended for Greenpeace to turn it into a mud-slinging match between itself and the NFFO, as an invitation for talks with the NFFO still remains, but is still rejected by Greenpeace.

Again, there is a certain irony in the fact that Greenpeace don’t seem too keen to bare its soul to the industry when it previously stated in a Guardian article that: “Ultimately, we need a fishing industry and organisations that believe in transparency. It is transparency we all want, from who representative bodies represent through to who holds fishing quota.”

Transparency indeed — so one could be entitled to ask where is this transparency when it comes to Greenpeace’s own operations and agenda? This smacks of a ‘do as I say’ policy rather than a ‘do as I do’ one. Distortion of the agenda

Greenpeace are currently mounting a campaign for a trawling ban for small vessels in Denmark (the same type of inshore vessels they say they want to protect in the UK), whilst also commenting that gill netting is indiscriminately destroying fish stocks in southern oceans, that beam trawling destroys the sea bed, and that long lining is killing birdlife in other areas. In an article on their own website in July last year, Greenpeace said that they “welcomed a plan presented by the EU Commission to ban environmentally damaging fishing practices in the northeast and central Atlantic.

“Deep sea bottom trawling and gillnet fishing rank among the most destructive, fuel-intensive and subsidy-dependent fishing activities,” Greenpeace said.Yet, in an article in The Guardian last June, Greenpeace contradicts this statement regarding gillnets by saying: “Evidence shows that those who fish selectively and with least environmental impact offer the greatest benefits to the economy. A recent analysis estimated that for every ton of cod landed, trawlers delivered negative economic value ranging from -£116 for the smallest trawlers to almost -£2,000 for the largest.

“Gillnets (a lower impact fishing method) in contrast generated a net +£865 of value. Yet between 2006 – 2008, trawlers landed almost 6,000 tonnes of cod, while gillnets landed less than 3% of this – just 163 tonnes.”

Also last year, a related website article said that “longline fishing uses hundreds, if not thousands, of baited hooks hanging from a line that may be 50 to 100km long. The duration of capture for this fishing is long and fish caught on lines can remain hooked for hours, days, or even longer until the gear is hauled up.

“Long lines kill sea birds, sea turtles and sharks, as well as non target species. Sea birds such as albatross get hooked when the lines are near the surface and the birds are dragged underwater and drowned.”

Also, in a Greenpeace-assisted Guardian article in March of this year, the NFFO were accused of trying to deny inshore fishermen representation in Europe. The article, “Revealing the NFFO’s members – opening Pandora’s Box?” said that the findings were “shocking for an organization that claims to represent the interests of English, Welsh and Northern Irish fishermen” and that the NFFO is “dominated by foreign controlled fishing interests”.

The attack on one of the UK’s biggest fishermen’s organisations, be it justified or not, angered many in the industry as fishermen felt that an outside body like Greenpeace had no right to mount such an offensive on any fishing industry organization.

The irony here is that the NFFO, nor any other fishing industry groups who faced the many propaganda articles in the mainstream media platforms, were ever offered any right to reply – something that Greenpeace now deems as “poor editorial politics” when the shoe is on the other foot and they themselves are refused a right to reply in an industry publication such as Fishing News.

It’s also ironic that Greenpeace told Fishing News that the NFFO were being given ‘an advantage’ because they were “a powerful lobby group”. That Greenpeace should complain about someone else being a powerful lobby group would be funny if it wasn’t true.

Sustainability

In a ‘frequently asked questions’ on the Greenpeace website (right beside the ‘Donate’ button…), the green group talks about certification bodies and endangered stocks. Under the question “Do you have any examples of a sustainable fishery?” their response is:

“The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) runs a labeling scheme that ‘certifies’ fisheries that are sustainable. Greenpeace does not currently endorse the MSC scheme because under its rules, fisheries that are still unsustainable can be awarded the MSC logo.”

So, in conclusion, the statements of fact in this article, drawn from Greenpeace’s own comments in emails, newspaper articles and websites, show that Greenpeace does not approve of: (a) beam trawling; (b) general trawling; (c) pair trawling; (d) long lining; and (e) gillnetting.

To top this off, Greenpeace does not endorse the MSC certification – a system ensuring sustainability which is accepted in every seafood eating nation on the planet.

And these are the people who are demanding a voice in the future of the UK’s fishing industry?

Editor’s comment – page 4

Smoke and mirrors

Fishing News this week has come out against what is considered ‘a final straw’ as Greenpeace tries push its self-perceived ‘powers’ onto the editorial policies of a newspaper that has represented the fishing industry for over 100 years.

In a chain of emails that began politely but soon showed true Greenpeace form when making a veiled threat to report me to the Press Complaints Commission, it would appear that the green group certainly don’t like when they aren’t given page space to defend any bad press they receive – but don’t seem to mind that the fishing industry never gets a right to reply to the Greenpeace articles that regularly appear in the national press.

I am well aware that several hundred NUTFA members support Greenpeace involvement in the fishing industry and that is their right and the opinion they are entitled to. However, several hundred out of 12,000 fishermen and up to 20,000 people in onshore related fishing industry jobs is a far cry from the level of support that Greenpeace are trying to claim that they have.

Greenpeace recently got 110,000 members of the public to sign a petition – and then issued a press release along the lines of “we have the support of the UK’s inshore fishermen and we have 110,000 signatures”, thereby attempting to fool the public into thinking that somehow they have the backing of 110,000 fishermen.

Much of the Greenpeace fight is about the NFFO and how that body manages its operations. But the NFFO have offered to sit down and talk to Greenpeace several times – all of which were rejected by Greenpeace. Therefore I think that if Greenpeace are unwilling to talk to NFFO man to man, why should they be allowed do it through Fishing News? But I do think Greenpeace should be answerable to the industry through the proposed (and also rejected) offer for Greenpeace to face questions from fishermen.

Perhaps the majority of fishermen in the UK do actually want Greenpeace to have a voice in how our industry operates. I hope this Comment, and the article on page 2, will prompt fishermen to voice their opinions.

Anyone in the fishing industry who would like their comments published, please email editor@fishingnews.co.uk

courtesy of Fishing News