CFP Reform: NFFO urges focus on practicality issues

An NFFO delegation has travelled to Luxembourg where EU fisheries ministers are discussing CFP reform at a crucial juncture in the process.

Dialogue or “trialogue” between ministers, the European Parliament and the Commission, on the final reform package has now reached a critical stage. The shape of a discard ban and the terms of a binding approach to maximum sustainable yield are amongst the handful of key issues still to be resolved. The Irish Presidency and many others are desperate to get agreement before the end of June, after which Lithuania takes over the EU Presidency.

The Federation, in talks with Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, prior to the start of the Council, stressed the importance of practical, workable rules that make sense where it counts – at the level of the individual fishing vessel. The history of the CFP has been littered with measures that look good on paper as legislation, or as sound bites, but fail the practical implementation test.

There are ways to make a discard ban an effective reality and to achieve MSY as the guiding principle for European fisheries – but only if there is sufficient flexibility and common sense on the arrangements to allow them to work. The Federation stressed that it is time to leave dogma aside and focus on the practical implementation issues that must be addressed before a discard ban or MSY is translated into rules at the level of each individual fishery.

The more dogmatic NGOs will present the issue as one of political will, with the European Parliament as the sole repository of environmental virtue and the Council fatally corrupted by an over powerful fishing lobby. But the reality is that for measures such as an obligation to land all catches and MSY to work and make sense, the rules must take account of practical realities such as mixed fisheries, the high survival rates of some species, choke species, and the requirements of effective quota management. The Norwegian type discard ban would not be appropriate for our mixed fisheries but, crucially, the Norwegian arrangements do contain important flexibilities that allow them to work at vessel level. The NFFO is urging that similar flexibility is hard wired into the CFP reform.

Omnibus Regulation

The Commission has recognised that many current CFP rules generate discards by applying an obligation to retain on board only certain species or amounts of fish. Removing these discard generating regulations -the catch composition rules are the obvious example but there are many others – must be a precondition for a discard ban if contradictory rules are to be avoided. In Brussels, at the end of last week, after being pressed by the NFFO on this issue, the Commission indicated that work was well under way on a proposal for an “omnibus” regulation that will remove all discard generating rules across the CFP. If fishing vessels are to avoid being caught in a double bind, it is crucial that this regulation is both broad enough and specific enough to address all the discard generating rules currently in force.

Catastrophe

It will be hard now for those NGOs addicted to a catastrophe narrative on European fisheries to sustain their arguments against the dramatic reduction in fishing pressure described by ICES scientists across all of the main species groups in the North East Atlantic. These well established trends have been developing for over a decade now and undermine the familiar but plain wrong assertion that European fisheries are about to go over a cliff. What will the doomsayers say now that their fox has been shot by ICES?

This graph in the ICES advice illustrates vividly how after something like 70 years of incremental increases in fishing mortality (F), the trends after the year 2000 have taken a dramatic dive. This fall in fishing pressure coincides closely with the period during which an array of “cod recovery” measures were applied to EU fleets, although many other factors are undoubtedly involved.

Fishing mortality in the demersal and benthic stocks has been halved since 2000.

The fall in fishing mortality is remarkable in that it applies to all of the three main species groups pelagic (including herring and mackerel), demersal (including cod, haddock and whiting) and benthic (the flatfish including sole and plaice). It also applies right across the whole of the North East Atlantic area, including the North Sea and Baltic and waters around the UK.

Although the development of the pelagic stocks has taken a different course from the benthic and demersal, they are now rapidly catching up.

ICES summarises the situation:

Fishing Mortality for benthic stocks gradually increased over time until about year 2000 and have since reduced substantially. For demersal stocks the increase was steeper in the beginning of the time period, peaked around year 2000 and has reduced since. The pelagic stocks have had a very different development over time. F increased significantly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This resulted in the well known collapse of several important herring and mackerel stocks. Since then, F has been quite low and stable and like for the other two types of stocks, has decreased since year 2000.In many respects this development will come as no great news to many fishermen who have seen the fishing fleets reduced by decommissioning, consolidation and attrition, to the extent that previously busy fishing grounds are now quite deserted. But it is important to acknowledge the significance of the fact that this trend is now established in scientific opinion and also to consider its implications.

Implications

The clear shift to a lower fishing mortality rate brings with it the need rethink the way we approach both fisheries advice and fisheries management. When the overwhelming concern was to reduce fishing pressure because it was such a dominant factor, there was little need to think too deeply about multi-species interactions – they didn’t really come fully into play. But now that the impact of fishing has been reduced, the need to consider predation patterns and cannibalism becomes much more urgent. ICES’ view is that stocks can become so large that they deplete their food sources and eventually eat their own kind. It is necessary therefore to think about the next steps in advice and management: It may be that it will be necessary to increase fishing pressure on some species to achieve an optimum balance. ICES has been working for 30 years on multi-species models. These can now be put to use to inform management decisions.

Another implication lies in the realm of public perceptions. “We all know that fish stocks are collapsing”, has become such an automatic media refrain that it has been difficult for the public to understand that things have changed. But changed they have. North Sea cod, the iconic fish and chips species, is rebuilding steadily to safe biological levels; many stocks are at the management goal of maximum sustainable yield and others are on the way. The recovery of some stocks like North Sea plaice is nothing short of breathtaking, with a biomass beyond anything seen within the historical record.

This is not to say that there aren’t some stocks that have yet to respond in the same way: West of Scotland and Irish Sea Cod are two examples where other factors may be impeding recovery. But the dominant downward trend is too well established, too widespread in geographical terms and across so many diverse fisheries, to be dismissed as a statistical blip.

One telling point in the scientists’s advice puts paid to a number of claims of celebrity chefs and journalists that their own heroic efforts have turned a catastrophic situation around. By the time that Johnny-Come- Latelys such as The End of the Line and Hugh’s Fish Fight turned their attention to fishing the trends discussed above were well established.

Causes

The precise reasons why fishing mortality has dropped so decisively in recent years are not straightforward to discern. Numerous management initiatives have come into play simultaneously and disentangling which worked from which didn’t simply isn’t feasible after the event.

Fleet reductions, tradable quota, increased selectivity, landing controls, effort control, an altered industry mindset, cod avoidance including real time closures have all been in the mix. Some have undoubtedly contributed, others have had perverse effects. ICES points tobetter control, for example in the Baltic Sea. Norway has been able to check the Russians in the Barents Sea. Other candidates include a move towards long term management plans, setting TACs in relation to maximum sustainable yield and better relations between the fishing industry and fisheries scientists. The answer lies surely in some combination of the above but the weight accorded to each is something that science cannot provide.

ICES, however, does not give much credit to the theory that it is nature itself that has created this positive trend in fishing mortality. All species and ecosystems shifting in the same direction simultaneously simply sounds improbable, they conclude.

This article has borrowed freely from both ICES’ 2012 advice and a forthcoming article produced by the Danish Fishermen’s Association. The NFFO acknowledges its debt to both.

Fishing Industry Body Calls Latest Claims ‘Unqualified, Assumption-Based Nonsense’

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) has slammed claims by international environmental giant Greenpeace as ‘unqualified, assumption-based nonsense’ which are causing distraction from the industry’s critical work on issues affecting the future livelihoods of UK fishermen.

The Federation, which represents fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, said that despite repeated, public invitations Greenpeace has failed to accept its offer to meet and discuss issues or qualify any of its claims, instead opting for a sensationalist media approach which does little to support the real interest of the industry.

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, said: “Greenpeace are set on creating a sensationalist media storm fuelled by inaccuracies and gross generalisation. This is wasting valuable time and effort better spent dealing with some of the critical issues at hand, including the impact of the CFP reform, under-10s and long term management plans.

“The NFFO has now repeatedly exposed Greenpeace’s generalisations and misrepresentations on how the industry works which ultimately only serves to undermine their reputation in the sector. They have yet to approach us direct with any of their assertions and our repeated efforts to meet with them to look at more credible and effective solutions for supporting our fishermen have been ignored. As such it calls into question their real motives.”

“Once again we extend our offer to meet with Greenpeace to help put to bed any other inaccurate assumptions they decide to make about our membership.”

Greenpeace’s most recent attack on the industry body centres around allegations against Anglo-Spanish members of the Fleetwood Fish Producer’s Organisation, who it claims are taking quota away from UK vessels. Greenpeace has omitted to point out that local fishermen invited the Anglo-Spanish vessels to join their organisation and that the UK quota under which the Anglo-Spanish vessels operate are based on historical records generated by the Anglo-Spanish vessels themselves, before the quota was allocated to the UK.

Last year the Fleetwood Fish Producer’s Organisation contributed £600,000 worth of quota to meet its economic link obligations, which was in the main used for the benefit of under-10 meter fisheries. Also the Anglo Spanish vessels fish entirely different species in completely different areas and are therefore not in competition for quota with local fishermen.

Early in the month Greenpeace was exposed for making false claims around NFFO subscription fees being dominated by non-UK vessels. In previous statements, the NFFO has also criticised the environmental giant’s false allegations against membership structure, making clear its membership reflects the diversity of the UK fleet. Just 8% of its member vessels are owned outside the UK.

As part of its commitment to ensuring the fair distribution of quotas, the NFFO shares the view of the Marine Management Organisation that the UK fishing industry is highly compliant with the rules under which it is obliged to operate. It has said any individual vessel operator, irrespective of home port, operating outside these rules it can expect to face the full legal penalties. It has also supported calls for the publication of a register of UK quota to help promote a fairer and more transparent quota system.

Additionally, in the interests of transparency, the Federation has released a breakdown of its membership base in response to Greenpeace’s requests and has publically asked Greenpeace to meet to address any issues that they might with to raise on a number of occasions.

For more information about the NFFO or to read the Federation’s official responses to Greenpeace’s previous allegations visit www.nffo.org.uk

A meeting between the Federation and a team of senior MMO officials this week discussed a range of problems with introducing e-logs. A number of shortcomings were identified which, contrary to intentions, have increased the burden on skippers of completing and submitting logbooks. Some of these are teething troubles which are likely to be resolved as the system beds in for vessels over-15 meters and between 12m and 15m; but others appear to be of a more systemic and deep rooted nature and require more fundamental change.

It was agreed that the transition to e-logs had created problems in monitoring UK uptake of quota and effort, as well as imposing additional burdens on skippers. As both Government and the industry have a deep interest in accurate and timely catch recording it is important that these are resolved as quickly as possible.

The Federation reaffirmed its view that the UK should take advantage of the available EU derogation to exempt day-boats and vessels which operate exclusively within UK limits, from the obligation to move from paper logbooks – at very least until the problem areas are resolved for the larger vessels.

The safety issue relates to the pressure on day boats obliged to complete their e-logs before landing when steaming for harbour along with up to 40 other vessels, when absolute navigational vigilance is required.

It was agreed to set up a users-group to channel industry concerns into the MMO and to oversee port trouble-shooters who would help to resolve a range of problems at vessel level. Meanwhile, the MMO was dealing with more systemic problems by better training and increased staff at the UK Call Centre.

The meeting, which was one of regular discussions between the NFFO and MMO to air industry concerns also covered:

Management measures within marine protected areas
How to maintain coherence in management measures within arrangements with a high degree of decision-making decentralised to devolved administrations
MMO plans for engine power tests.

Further information on these matters will be circulated to Federation members shortly.

The approach suggested in the Government’s consultation in 2010, focused on establishing as system of rights based management, was decisively rejected by most under-10 m vessel operators who are broadly content with the pool system, albeit with concerns about periodic specific quota shortages
The proposed administrative redistribution of fixed quota allocations to the under-10s, raised fears in the producer organisations about the integrity of the whole FQA system. This led to a legal challenge by UKAFPO which has to a large extent closed down discussion between the industry and government on the under-10m issue. It is far from clear what the full and long term implications of the Courts’ judgement will be but one immediate consequence has been the reduction of the amount of quota made available by the POs to the under-10s.
Ambitious plans for a number of pilot quota management schemes for under-10m groups had to be pared down to a single project with 11 vessels from which it will be difficult to draw generalised lessons but appears to be working reasonable well from a quota management point of view.
The progress made in the Industry Working Group in identifying problems and solutions in the under-10m sector appears to have slowed down partly because of the developments above
The extravagant language and over-extended arguments used to describe the issues facing the small-scale fleet earlier in the debate have left their mark in the media and some parts of Parliament, but are disregarded by anyone with any deeper understanding of the issues in Government or the industry
It now seems unlikely, contrary to earlier indications and much rhetoric, that CFP reform will bring significant change to the ways that member states manage their quota allocations or the small-scale fisheries. The under-10m fleet will not be excluded from the general conservation regime, or the quota system but may receive preferential grant treatment under EMFF
The structural imbalance between the over-10m fleet and available resources, which built up in the 1980s, was largely addressed by successive rounds of publically funded decommissioning and a great deal of self-funded rationalisation within the industry. Apart, however, from a single limited decommissioning scheme, little has been done to help the under-10s from achieving a similar adjustment. Any policy which ignores this structural element is likely to fail to achieve its objectives.
There have been some discussions on setting up an under-10m producer organisation to bring some of the autonomy, flexibility and efficiency enjoyed by POs to the under-10m fleet, but a number of financing, membership and management issues remain to be resolved

Against this background, it may be timely to again take stock of the under-10m issue and to try to define the outlines of a way forward.

Pinch Points or Generalised Crisis?

A key question at the outset is whether the quota shortages faced by the under-10s are regionally specific pinch-points or symptomatic of a more generalised endemic or systemic shortage. Our impression is that although quota shortage constrains fishing activity throughout the whole UK fleet, the specific problems facing the under-10 fleet are mainly concentrated in the South East, where access to non-TAC species is limited.

It would be difficult to overstress the importance of non-TAC species such as crab, lobster, and bass to the bulk of the under-10m fleet.

Narrowing the management focus to deal, initially, with the pinch-point fisheries in the South East seems to us to be an important way to make some progress in resolving at least the most acute problems facing the under-10 fleet.

Structural Issues

Without an understanding of the balance between available fishing opportunities and the capacity of the fleets to catch those resources, any policy initiative on the under-10s is likely to founder.

There are at least three components to take into account in assessing the capacity of the under-10m fleet:

High catching vessels amounting to around 14% of the total number that account for around 70% of the under-10s catch of quota species
The rest of the inshore fleet, which continue to operate on an artisanal, small scale, basis
The latent capacity associated with the many under-10m licences attached to vessels which are not fully utilised

High-catching Under-10s

We have previously analysed and written about the development of the under-10 m fleet during the late 1980s and 1990s. The emergence of a category of vessel between 9.5m and 9.9m variously described as “rule beaters “, “super-under-10s” or just “high-catching-under-10s” is, along with reducing TACs, probably the most salient factor in the current imbalance between under-10m quotas and under-10m fleet capacity. With fishing and business characteristics more akin to the over-10m fleet than the more traditional artisanal fleets, the super-under tens are the cuckoo in the under-10 nest. No blame should be attached to any vessel owner who has built and operated a high-catching under-10.

In any other field they would be applauded as the most enterprising and entrepreneurial of their contemporaries. These fishermen have merely been responding to business opportunities and adjusting their business strategy to the regulatory landscape as it was at the time. But it would be profoundly naïve, or disingenuous, to base management policy on the assumption that the under-10m fleet is a homogeneous entity. It is not. The emergence of a high-catching category of under-10s operating on business principles not dissimilar to those in the over-10 fleet, goes a long way to explaining why the under-10m sector faces quota shortages where and when specific shortages have emerged – predominantly in the Thames estuary and Eastern Channel.

Artisanal, Small-Scale Fleet

The bulk of the under-10m fleet however are still recognisable as small-scale artisanal enterprises of limited range which often catch quota species sporadically and opportunistically when available, if at all; the rest of their catch is comprised of non TAC species. The balance of quota to non-quota species varies considerably by area and region.

It would be a mistake to characterise this fleet as moribund or free from dynamic technological developments. It is not. However, its lower dependence on TAC species sets it apart from the high-catching quota dependent part of the fleet and it is important to take this into account when considering policy.

Solutions

We have previously made clear our view that a solution to the real problems facing the under-10s must satisfy four groups:

The traditional artisanal under-10s
The high catching under-10s
The fishermen who operate through producer organisation
Government

Our proposed solution which we advance for discussion contains addresses the multi-faceted nature of the under-10m issue but contains three essential strands:

Reintegrating the high catching under-10s into the mainstream quota management system.

Membership of existing POs, or a new inshore PO, might provided to achieve this, but equally, progress could be made through stronger formal and informal communications links between POs and super under-10s to ensure effective swap, transfer and leasing arrangements for any under-utilised quota seasonally or permanently available. To some degree this already happens. It is important however would to widen and generalise those links, and to reverse the adversarial and to some degree toxic relationship that has developed and been encouraged.

Retaining the quota pool system for the artisanal under-10s with improved intelligence and communications arrangements and effective underpinnings.

The flexibility of the pool arrangements suit small- scale limited range vessels, which need to adapt their operations to the target species available. We propose the appointment of respected industry EMFF funded regional quota management coordinators whose role would be to inform quota managers of catch and quota uptake patterns and projections on a regular and systematic basis and build good communication links with POs. The quota coordinators could be seen as performing the role of proto-producer organisations without the costs and formalities. This would not rule out and in fact could be the basis of more formalised collective arrangements in due course

Structural adjustment, where necessary, and targeted at the super-under-10s through a voluntary, publicly funded, decommissioning scheme.

Clearly, the obstacle here lies with the current constraints on public expenditure but notwithstanding present orthodoxies, we are of the view that decommissioning remains a valuable tool for addressing fleet overcapacity and part of the package of measures that will be necessary to resolve the problems facing the under-10m sector.

Dealing with the issue of latent capacity is a necessary part of a policy approach.

We already have a dual-licence arrangement which limits vessels/licences without a significant track record of catching quota species to a de minimis amount. It is timely to review that arrangement as part of a wider review of the fishing vessel licensing scheme and also NFFO proposals for ring-fencing the higher catching crab fleet.

Within a wider perspective, however, the advent of a system of MMO physical engine power checks, with the result that a number of vessel owners will be obliged to purchase additional licence capacity, could shortly make a significant impact on the number of inactive licences available. Recent history, when the pelagic fleet was obliged to source whitefish licences, including multiple-under-10m licences suggest that the demand for under-10m licences could be high.

Direction of Travel

Quota management, including the under-10s, does not take place in a vacuum. The overall context of TACs set by the Council of Ministers, EU fisheries policy more generally, and UK government policy can all have a direct and significant bearing on what a small boat fishing a couple of miles from the coast can legally catch.

The draconian reductions in TACs during the 1990s and 2000s as new policy approaches (cod recovery, precautionary approach and MSY) were applied, were a significant factor in removing the quota headroom previously generally enjoyed by the under-10s. It is fair, we believe, to say that the direction of travel is now the opposite direction. Not evenly, or without reverses, but in general terms stocks and TACs are responding to previously applied management measures and perhaps in some cases more friendly environmental conditions.

In any event, generally rising TACs, all other things being equal should make things easier all round, including under-10m quota management issues.

Redistribution

As the issue of redistribution of quota is the subject of legal action it is not our intention to enter that tangled thicket for present, other to say that there have been a number of unhelpful developments that impede rather than facilitate solutions.

We do think that it is worth however, considering the balance of advantage and disadvantage between administrative redistribution and voluntary redistribution. Clearly, Government has taken the view that appeals to producer organisations for quota generated an insufficient response. Whether POs would be minded to release additional tonnages if the implied threat of forced reallocation was removed is an important question. It is possible to say that the adversarial mindsets that have developed have not helped.

It remains our view that:

Under-utilised UK quota is indefensible
Administrative redistribution is generally fraught with difficulties
The UK’s system of Fixed Quota Allocations and associated quota swaps, transfers and leasing arrangements may not be perfect but has brought with it many advantages for the bulk of the fleet
Identifying quota shortages in specific under-10m fisheries and addressing those specific issues should be at the heart of our policy approach
A less adversarial context and stronger lines of communication between under10s and POs at regional level could go a long way to resolving specific difficulties

Channel Cod – a problem on its own

The controversies about the UK’s domestic quota distribution arrangements over the last couple of years have tended to obscure the nature of the problem facing fishermen in the Eastern Channel. To state the issue baldly, if the whole UK allocation of Eastern Channel cod was allocated exclusively to the under-10m fleet there would still be a quota shortage. This is because the essential problem lies with the UK’s Relative Stability share agreed as part of the CFP settlement in 1983. It is clear that the CFP reform will not affect the Principle of Relative stability and therefore the UK’s share of Eastern Channel cod (8.3%) will not alter.

Rather than accept this as a fait acomplis however, we would advocate an active policy which accepts the political realities but focuses on what additionally can be done to secure additional tonnages to close the gap between quota availability and demand.

The central plank must of necessity be a more creative and dynamic approach to swaps and transfers to secure tonnages from the principle quota holder, France which holds 78% of the TAC.

The key to progress on this front lies in:

Increasing TAC, which would ease matters all round. A recent UK paper submitted by the EU Commission to ICES suggests that the North Sea cod stock (to which the Eastern Channel is linked) will reach MSY by 2015 on current projections
Identifying swap currency in stocks in which France has an interest
Identifying currencies not immediately related to specific fisheries which would encourage France to release Eastern Channel cod to the UK (political support for example).

If internal domestic quota distribution is a minor part of the problem the focus must be shifted in a more creative way to where we can make a difference.

Conclusions

If we are to make progress in addressing the acute quota shortages in some under-10m fisheries, it is important that the debate moves from the arena of rhetoric and legal stand-offs to that of practical steps.

Reducing the problem to manageable proportions by focusing on the fisheries where there are acute problems is an important first step. It is also important to stop treating the under-10m fleet as a homogeneous entity. Different parts of the under-10m fleet have very different experiences of the quota system because of their access to alternative non-TAC fisheries.

In many respects the under and over 10m fleets are interdependent, with marketing and infrastructures in common. This suggests a common interest in working together to resolve issues. The NFFO has initiated a process of engagement between the POs and under-10m groups that will hopefully bear fruit.

It should also be a central concern for conservationists, yet many have ignored it. Why is it important to conservation and what can be done about it?

No one disputes that wild capture fisheries have environmental consequences, although as a self-renewing resource requiring little human input they are inherently low impact compared to other forms of food production. However, if we are to accept they must continue in order to supply much needed protein to a growing world population, then it is logical that when making space for conservation through MCZs we should do so in a way that does not increase pressures exerted by the fishing fleet or undermine its ability to deliver maximum sustainable yields. This translates in planning terms to a set of unintended consequences that should, from a conservation perspective, be avoided:

Displacement to areas that have been subject to less pressure and are therefore more likely to be in a pristine state, or to less resilient habitats from those areas where fisheries take place. Therefore aim not to select sites upon prime fishing grounds located on relatively resilient habitats.
Displacement to less productive fishing areas where a greater amount of fishing effort is required in order to catch equivalent quantities of fish. Therefore aim to avoid areas where the greatest catches are harvested per unit area and/or unit effort.
The locking up of significant productive resources that undermines the productivity of the remaining accessible resource and prevents maximum sustainable yields from being achieved. Therefore aim to avoid prime fishing grounds, particularly for those fisheries that are limited in their distribution.

This is not to take away from the purpose of MPAs to protect vulnerable, fragile and unique marine features, but conservationists must take heed if a network of MCZs are not to shoot their own cause in the foot. It is a regrettable fact that the 127 Marine Conservation Zone proposals currently subject to a public consultation were selected in the name of conservation without applying planning tools to avoid the displacement pitfalls identified above, and it is clear that the selection of some sites such as those located on prime areas of sustainable Nephrops/Dublin Bay prawn fishing grounds do not make the bar. MPAC members work to ensure that such problems do not happen again in the case of the Northern Ireland Marine Bill.

It is not too late to make amends in English territorial waters, and MPAC welcomes the fact that government has chosen not to proceed with the designation of sites en masse, but to take a more careful and considered approach. It should address the deficiencies of the early MCZ planning stages so that in due course the intended ecologically coherent network of MPAs that results can actually live up to its name, with win-wins for both conservation and sustainable seafood production. That has to be the true meaning of ecological coherence.

The meeting was also supported by the participation of DEFRA officials, Cefas scientists, Seafish, the Shellfish Assoc of Great Britain and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.

Assessments

Stock assessments, broadly equivalent to those produced by ICES for whitefish stocks, are now available for crab and lobster. These will inevitably play a central role in shaping future government policy towards the shellfish fisheries. The Committee therefore used the opportunity to probe Cefas scientists on the methodology used in the assessments and to discuss their ramifications. Whilst it is clear that there are still many uncertainties in the way that Cefas assess the shellfish stocks, the Committee underlined its eagerness to work with scientists in Fisheries Science Partnerships to strengthen those parts of the assessments identified as requiring further work.

NFFO Shellfish Policy

The Committee noted that it was in September 2011 that the NFFO, after a considerable amount of work on the part of the Committee, had finalised its policy positions on crab and lobster management measures and presented these to Government. Since then DEFRA had been gripped by a debilitating inertia on progressing the issues raised, caused by lack of staff, the Government’s blanket moratorium on new legislation and an obsession with introducing a system of rights-based management to the shell fisheries. As a result no progress had been made, although a recent letter from DEFRA had acknowledged the strength of the ideas put forward in the paper, and gave some hope of a reinvigorated approach.

The Committee considered that the central features of the NFFO policy – an incremental approach beginning with ring fencing of the higher-volume crab fleet and a strong regional dimension to technical measures, remained valid. It was agreed to write to the Minister about the lack of progress and to raise the issue with him at the NFFO AGM on 15th May.

The Committee remained of the view that DEFRA’s over-concentration on grandiose blanket schemes such as a national pot limitation scheme and rights based management (TACs) was a fundamental reason why policy had stalled. A step-by-step approach would already have taken us a considerable way towards sustainable management of the crab and lobster stocks, had a start been made.

Marine Conservation Zones

The Committee expressed concerns over the potential impact of the rushed and flawed process for establishing a network of marine protected areas on shell fishing. The potential for displacement of fishing activity from customary areas and knock-on consequences for a range of fisheries was a very real one, especially in inshore waters where the impact will be felt most immediately.

International Cooperation

An update on a major project designed to build international industry cooperation in the offshore crab fisheries was received. It was agreed that such initiatives strengthened the basis for voluntary management measures and marketing in the future.

This week, true to expectations, a new series of accusations have appeared on the Greenpeace blog, centring again on the assertion that the NFFO is dominated by foreign fishing interests. By cross-referencing MMO statistics with a number of dodgy assumptions, Greenpeace came to the conclusion that the Federation is financially dependent on subscriptions from non-UK interests, leading to the conclusion that NFFO policy is dominated by those same interests.

Finance

Greenpeace made an elementary error. They assumed that bigger vessels pay more and therefore assume a dominant position. In fact although a sliding scale, which starts from as little as £20, does exist (to encourage membership of small scale vessels) we also apply a subscription cap of £500 to larger vessels, many of which operate outside EU waters. This means that in terms of subscription a very different picture emerges from that painted by Greenpeace.

Member PO % subscription contribution to NFFO

Anglo-North Irish FPO 11.88%

Cornish FPO 26.18%

East of England 9.84%

Fleetwood FPO 5.22%

The FPO 5.22%

Lowestoft FPO 5.61%

North Atlantic FPO 1.98%

North Sea Fishermen’s Org 7.60%

When the additional subscription from NFFO member vessels which are not in POs is added in, it is obvious that the Greenpeace assertion of domination of any group, never mind non-UK interests, is nonsense, no matter how good a scare story it sounds.

Policy

But in any event, the way that policy decisions are made within the Federation – through discussion and dialogue within a context of mutual respect – who pays the biggest or smallest subscription is of singular unimportance. Our Executive Committee works hard to develop policy on the basis of consensus and ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard, whether the fish from an under-10metre vessel, a large trawler, are in a producer organisation or not.

Talking of Money

But now that money has been brought up, the two articles on the Oak Foundation and on the Fishermen’s friend campaign, which appeared on the NFFO website in 2012 may well explain why Greenpeace launched this slightly bizarre attack in the first place.

FISHERMAN’S FEDERATION NAMES Top 10 DISTORTIONS OF TRUTH IN ‘Flawed’ Greenpeace Research

According to the NFFO, Greenpeace’s ‘Wolf in Shrimp’s Clothing’ report contains claims which misrepresent and discredit the many independent, inshore fishermen lobbying for better livelihoods as part of the NFFO. It says the report draws inaccurate conclusions by either misunderstanding or choosing to ignore critical information on how the industry and its small boat fishermen are working together to achieve a sustainable future and food source.

Ned Clark, inshore fisherman and Chair of the North East Committee of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) said: “Whilst Greenpeace and the NFFO share a common goal in working towards a more successful, sustainable fishing industry, this report is desperate in its efforts to create and exploit divisions in our sector. Fortunately there seem to be few fishermen who buy into what is propaganda, flawed research and blatant distortions of the truth.

“The vast majority of our members are home fishermen and the vast majority own smaller vessels. This simple fact ensures we have the interests of the home fisherman at the heart of everything we do.

“The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans for the North Sea, Celtic Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland.

“Greenpeace on the other hand has limited its contribution to spreading intentionally divisive disinformation and has been invisible in any of the multiple conservation initiatives which have succeeded in turning stock trends around over the last 10 years.”

As a result of the claims, the NFFO has compiled ‘Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction’ – the top ten most inaccurate and sensationalist claims within the Greenpeace report, alongside the true facts.

The NFFO: Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction

The NFFO is dominated by foreign interests: Only 8% of the vessels in NFFO membership are owned outside the UK – it’s true these vessels tend to be at the larger end of the scale but many fish in external waters – Norway and Greenland for example – inaccesible to smaller boats.
Big Boat Dominated: “It is unlikely that there will be many independent vessels in the NFFO”: 60 per cent of the NFFO’s member vessels are below 15 meters in length and almost all of those are small, family-owned businesses.
The NFFO re presents less than 9% of under 10m fleet: Only a third of the 2,951 under 10m vessels registered in the UK fish for quota regulated species. Around 30 per cent of these are NFFO members but many of our members also fish for non quota species such as Bass and shellfish.
The NFFO is trying to sideline the smaller fisherman and shut them out: Why would it when 60 per cent of member vessels are below 15 metres and 40% are under-10 metres? What the NFFO is against is a separate advisory council for small scale fleets, as it would lead to rapid ghettoisation. Our ‘leaked’ letter to the Commission, available to download on www.nffo.org.uk put forward a number of positive suggestions on strengthening the voice of the small scale fleet.
The NFFO is trying to deny the small scale fisherman more quota: The NFFO has made real advances in strengthening the position of the under-10m fleet, including making professional quota management accessible to the under-10s, giving them the opportunity to maximise quotas levels with the over-10’s through swaps and transfers.
Quota Grab by Quota Barons is the Root of the Problem: This is not the case – under-10 ‘Rule Beater’ vessels currently catch 70% of the under-10m quota allocations, despite comprising only 14% of the fleet, and the NFFO is actively lobbying Government to address this.
The NFFO is blocking new fisheries policy that would reward those that fish sustainably: The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans.
The NFFOs main aim is to serve Producer Organisations (POs) which represent larger vessels – the NFFO does work closely with POs but most comprise of varying fleets and interests – for example half the members of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, the largest in the Federation – are under 10m fleet, with many small, family owned businesses.
Our website lists member associations that are defunct: True. We are guilty of not updating our website and the incorrect information has now been removed.
The NFFO is not what it seems: NFFO has earned respect over many years by championing advancing credible policy positions, backed by evidence, working with independent fisheries scientists and fisheries managers, and of being inclusive and open. Practically everything we do or say appears on our website; our accounts are publicly available.

FISHERMAN’S FEDERATION NAMES Top 10 DISTORTIONS OF TRUTH IN ‘Flawed’ Greenpeace Research

As a result of the claims, the NFFO has compiled ‘Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction’ – the top ten most inaccurate and sensationalist claims within the Greenpeace report, alongside the true facts.

The NFFO: Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction

The NFFO is dominated by foreign interests: Only 8% of the vessels in NFFO membership are owned outside the UK – it’s true these vessels tend to be at the larger end of the scale but many fish in external waters – Norway and Greenland for example – inaccesible to smaller boats.
Big Boat Dominated: “It is unlikely that there will be many independent vessels in the NFFO”: 60 per cent of the NFFO’s member vessels are below 15 meters in length and almost all of those are small, family-owned businesses.
The NFFO re presents less than 9% of under 10m fleet: Only a third of the 2,951 under 10m vessels registered in the UK fish for quota regulated species. Around 30 per cent of these are NFFO members but many of our members also fish for non quota species such as Bass and shellfish.
The NFFO is trying to sideline the smaller fisherman and shut them out: Why would it when 60 per cent of member vessels are below 15 metres and 40% are under-10 metres? What the NFFO is against is a separate advisory council for small scale fleets, as it would lead to rapid ghettoisation. Our ‘leaked’ letter to the Commission, available to download on www.nffo.org.uk put forward a number of positive suggestions on strengthening the voice of the small scale fleet.
The NFFO is trying to deny the small scale fisherman more quota: The NFFO has made real advances in strengthening the position of the under-10m fleet, including making professional quota management accessible to the under-10s, giving them the opportunity to maximise quotas levels with the over-10’s through swaps and transfers.
Quota Grab by Quota Barons is the Root of the Problem: This is not the case – under-10 ‘Rule Beater’ vessels currently catch 70% of the under-10m quota allocations, despite comprising only 14% of the fleet, and the NFFO is actively lobbying Government to address this.
The NFFO is blocking new fisheries policy that would reward those that fish sustainably: The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans.
The NFFOs main aim is to serve Producer Organisations (POs) which represent larger vessels – the NFFO does work closely with POs but most comprise of varying fleets and interests – for example half the members of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, the largest in the Federation – are under 10m fleet, with many small, family owned businesses.
Our website lists member associations that are defunct: True. We are guilty of not updating our website and the incorrect information has now been removed.
The NFFO is not what it seems: NFFO has earned respect over many years by championing advancing credible policy positions, backed by evidence, working with independent fisheries scientists and fisheries managers, and of being inclusive and open. Practically everything we do or say appears on our website; our accounts are publicly available.

As known to most fishermen there are ongoing discussions between governments, fishermen and fishermen’s associations and NGO’s about the future fishing activities on the Dogger Bank. To comply with possible restrictions on fishing with high impact gear at Dogger Bank, scientists are investigating the effects of a new principle in bottom trawling, which use pelagic doors and light materials, in order to reduce the area swept per CPUE, and the physical impacts on the seafloor and associated fauna. For this purpose, a study area of <4 nm2 (square nautical mile), which is kept free from fishing from 1st April this year (2013) until 1st July next year (2014), is needed.

A successful result of these investigations could influence the decisions on closure of areas for bottom trawling.

The area in question is located within the following corner positions:

55 21,85N 3 45,00E

55 21,85N 3 48,00E

55 19,95N 3 48,00E

55 19,95N 3 45,00E

The scientists will investigate the effects of a conventional bottom trawl as compared to the new gear with pelagic doors and a light-weight trawl. The effects will be evaluated through studies of the physical impacts on the seabed using side scan sonar and under water video recording, and by determinations of the amount, sizes and diversity of living organisms in the sediment. The latter is done through analyzing of Van Veen grab samples.

The vessels doing the gear trials are L-524 Lonny Hedvig and L-455 Lotte Vohnsen.

To avoid bias from other fisheries, this investigation needs to be carried out in an area not fishery during the study period.

Furthermore, to obtain reliable information, gear tests and data collection must be undertaken both in 2013 and 2014.

The Danish Fishermen’s Association and the Danish National Institute of Aquatic Resources (DTU Aqua) therefore appeal to all fishermen to refrain from fishing in the area as from now on and until July 1st 2014.

The new pelagic doors on board L-524 Lonny Hedvig.

The project is funded by GUDP (Green Development and Demonstration Programme), The Danish AgriFish Agency. Please contact Henrik Lund, Danish Fishermen’s Association (e-mail: hl@dkfisk.dk) or Eva Maria Pedersen, DTU Aqua (e-mail: emp@aqua.dtu.dk) if you have any questions or would like additional information on the project.

Spokesperson for MPAC, Dale Rodmell said: “The 3 month consultation draws to a close on 31st March. It is essential that those who may be affected by the designations come out and state their case. We are encouraging fishermen to send in their own responses or through local associations but copy them to MPAC1 so that they can be reflected in our response as well”.

Further details of the consultation are available at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/12/13/marine-conservation-zones-1212/

Locations of recommended MCZs including those proposed for designation in 2013:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/mcz-i2-map-20121213.pdf

Formal consultation response form:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/mcz-annex-h-121213.doc

Should Defra’s response form seem too daunting then a shorter form is available at:

https://www.nffo.org.uk/downloads/121217%20MCZ%20Public%20Consultation%20-%20MPAC%20Response%20Form.doc

The Coalition is advising that key issues to respond on include:

What effects the different management scenarios would have on fishing communities and the accuracy of the impact assessment.
Whether boundaries could be changed that would limit fisheries impacts. In this case an alternative boundary should be proposed.

Dale Rodmell continued: “Some green groups claim that a lot of time was given to planning the proposals, but in reality only 16 months was given to active drawing of areas on charts. Even that was constrained as sites proposed late in the process were quickly “locked-down” with limited scrutiny due to project facilitators’ closing down of options and the positioning of opposing groups in the face of the predefined completion date for the projects.”

“This, together with the failure of the scientific guidance to recognise the wider conservation risks of fisheries displacement means that some of the proposals are really not fit for purpose, whilst others need amending.”

It is the need for careful detailed site-by-site responses from those that would be affected that are most important in the face of what many have called an irresponsible and high-handed campaign led by celebrity chef-turned-conservationist Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

The 127 campaign has sought to pressurise government into taking hasty and risky decisions to designate all sites that would undoubtedly lead to unintended consequences, as well as great hardship to those communities on the blunt end of such decisions.

The Committee discussed the Federation’s work in relation to the CFP reform process, including with the European Parliament and at the Council of Ministers, held in Brussels on 26th/27th February; and through dialogue with DEFRA on both the content of the reform and implementation issues arising from the proposed discard ban

The Executive also discussed its strategy to counter the continuing hostile and superficial media coverage that is unfairly damaging the fishing industry’s reputation. A planning meeting to move from a fire-fighting approach to more proactive intervention will be held shortly

The NFFO’s work in the field of fishing vessel safety was reviewed and new initiatives approved

Continuing efforts were reviewed to ensure that the network of marine protected areas being established in UK waters is implemented in a fully rational, proportionate and evidence-based way

A new industry initiative to address the most acute quota shortage facing some parts of the under-10m fleet was finalised and approved

The Federation’s contribution to the important work being done in the regional advisory councils was reviewed, especially in the areas of cod recovery, discards and long term management plans

The Executive noted that the NFFO Shellfish Committee would meet imminently to address a range of issues confronting the shellfish sector

Reports were received from regional committee meetings and representational work in the South East, South West, North West and North East.

It was agreed to join and contribute financially to a newly formed coalition whose aim will be to press for a science-based approach to sustainable fishing of deep water species

Policy incoherence and fragmentation arising from divergent approaches by Defra and the devolved administrations was highlighted. Problems arising from policy approaches followed by the Welsh Assembly and Isle of Man were also discussed and policies agreed

Progress towards securing parity for non-sector vessels in leasing quota was welcomed

Preparations for a forthcoming meeting with the Marine Management Organisation were agreed

The Federation’s successful repulse of divisive and poorly-researched media attack on the NFFO and industry unity by Greenpeace was applauded.

The importance of maintaining Seafish’s central role in providing fishermen’s training was underscored

Concerns were expressed over the future budget for the Fisheries Science Partnership. It was agreed to seek a meeting with DEFRA/Cefas to ensure that the partnership approach to fisheries science is expanded rather than reduced

It was agreed that the Federation’s AGM will be held this year on 15th May, in York

Summary

The Scottish Whitefish Producers Association (SWFPA) is seeking tenders from competent bodies or consortia to formulate a sustainable fishing plan for the Nephrops norvegicus fishery in the Fladen grounds. The successful tender should demonstrate comprehensive skill and experience in consultation and facilitation with diverse stakeholder groups as a key element of the bid. The invitation to tender and successful submission will be included as part of the contract. Tenders should be returned to lianne@swfpa.com no later than 1700 on 8 April 2013.

The Client

The Scottish White Fish Producers Association Limited (SWFPA) was set up in 1943 to protect the interests of fishermen in Scotland. The activity of it’s members account for some seventy percent of the Scottish demersal revenue and around 40% of the UK.

Background

SWFPA is a key member of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) which has been actively working on a Long Term Management Plan (LTMP) for Nephrops norvegicus, a species of key importance to members of SWFPA. The LTMP draft is available at www.nsrac.org. The process of creating the overarching North Sea management plan has concluded that the best way of managing the discrete Nephrops fisheries of the North Sea is by acknowledging the individuality of each of the fishing areas and constructing tailored sustainability plans, focussing on recommendations for the most appropriate methods of ensuring sustained stock health for that specific ground and using a ‘tool box’ approach. A full project outline is appended to this invitation.

Scope of Work

It is anticipated that the project will have four main phases; scoping, impact assessment, consultation, report writing.

Phase 1: Scoping Exercise

A scoping exercise is required to identify the characteristics of the fishery, the actors in the fishery and the specific issues associated with it. The exercise will focus on the three pillars of the LTMP (economic, social and biological) and should clearly identify a list of potential management measures as part of a tool box approach. It is anticipated to be a desk top study with some telephone interviews between the consultants and the steering group and other identified individuals. It should result in a scoping document to be agreed with the steering group and will provide the basis for the rest of the project.

Phase 2: Impact Assessment

The output of the scoping exercise (a list of possible management measures) will then be assessed to determine the potential impact. The impact assessment will be carried out under the three pillars of the LTMP; economic, biological and environmental. Compound measures and the impacts on different metiers and sub-sections will be considered and these impacts, along with the list of tools, will be used to inform the consultation phase of the project.

Phase 3: Consultation

In the process of writing the basic LTMP document, the LTMP working group undertook a comprehensive consultation process, with a number of visits to North Sea ports. It is anticipated that a similar exercise will be carried out, centred on Fraserburgh as the hub for the Fladen fishery, by using professional facilitators and facilitation techniques. It is thought that more than one event will be required to capture a good cross-section of the fleet but, if possible, a single event, timed to coincide with other meetings (such as SWFPA Nephrops Committee), will be used. The outputs from the scoping exercise and the impact assessment phase will be presented to the consultees and their views will be used to produce a suite of nested measures suitable for use in the Fladen area.

Phase 4: Report Writing (Plan)

The output of the first three phases will be compiled and a detailed report produced. The sustainability plan, complete with narrative of the various options, will be the most important element of this and it will be presented both in a longer and shortened version, the latter of which will be aimed directly at industry members. Both versions will clearly present the measures recommended and how they will interact with each other.

Timescale and Costs

It is anticipated that the project will take around 12 months for completion. The budget for the project is £45,000.

Instructions to Invitees

Full tenders should be returned to SFSAG by 1700 on 8 April 2013. Tenders should be clearly marked ‘Fladen Sustainable Fishing Plan’ and returned to:

Lianne Morenc

SWFPA

Fraserburgh Business Centre

South Harbour Road

Fraserburgh

Aberdeenshire

AB43 9TN

OR lianne@swfpa.com

Tenders should include:

Estimated start and finish dates
Realistic timeline
Responsibilities of each team member
Estimation of time spent on the project by each team member
Outline of potential risks and contingency plans

Contact Details

For an information discussion or for any additional information, please use the following contact details.

SWFPA CEO

Mike Park

mike@swfpa.comProject

Co-ordinator

Jane Sandell

Jane.sandell@scottishfishermen.co.uk

UK fishing body says a rushed process will do more harm than good

On the day that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall led a march on Parliament, The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), which represents fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has declared its support for the planned introduction of new marine conservation zones (MCZs) in UK waters, but cautions against a rush to designate over a hundred of them at a stroke.

Environmentalists will gather in London today (25 February), to press Government to rush ahead with the immediate introduction of 127 MCZ sites. But the NFFO and other fisheries organisations have warned that unless care is taken, the new areas could do more harm than good by displacing fishermen from their customary grounds.

According toPaul Trebilcock, Chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, all responsible fishing industry stakeholders back MCZs but from experience, their introduction needs to be scrupulously planned, managed scientifically and phased in to avoid negative results.

He said: “MCZs aren’t a new phenomenon – in fact the industry has been working actively within them for over a hundred years – but they do require selective introduction. In 2001, a large area of the North Sea was closed as an emergency measure to protect cod stocks. The scientific evaluation afterwards showed that this did next to nothing for the fish but displaced fishing fleets into immature haddock areas and onto pristine areas of the seabed that had never been fished before. This is what can happen with a rushed process driven by political pressure.

“On the other hand, there are examples, such as the Trevose seasonal closure off North Cornwall, that are making a genuine contribution to conservation. The difference is that it was designed, planned and introduced with good evidence and the broad support of fishermen.”

As such, the NFFO says that sufficient time must always be given over to proper planning and consultation on any proposed protected areas – and that the process must involve all interested parties.

If this investment is made, it is believed that negative conservation outcomes can be avoided. As well as displacement to more pristine or vulnerable habitats, such own goals include displacement to less productive areas where a greater amount of effort is needed to catch equivalent quantities and the locking out of fishermen from a location’s sustainable stocks, in order to protect those that are perceived as vulnerable.

By contrast, the initial 16-month period identifying potential sites for MCZ designation was regarded as not long enough by the fishing industry, when compared to the ten years allocated to plan Californian marine protection zones and half a century for conservation areas on land. In addition, much information and guidance was submitted late, resulting in some proposed sites receiving minimal scrutiny.

The long-list of 127 potential MCZs has been scrutinised rigorously by the Government’s Science Advisory Panel, made up of six eminent marine biologists under the chairmanship of former Met Office chief executive, Dr Peter Ryder.

After close deliberation, it concluded that the evidence on how all zones would protect vulnerable habitats was too patchy to go ahead with all 127 sites immediately. Instead, it proposed designating 31 sites straight away, with more work required to collect additional evidence before decisions are taken on the remaining zones.

Paul Trebilcock continued: “The advisory panel made the right decision but we are very concerned that some nature conservation groups are lobbying for full implementation of all 127 sites, regardless of scientific evidence or the socio-economic impact.

“Environmentalists may not be particularly concerned about fishermen’s livelihoods or the effect of poorly sited MCZs on local fishing communities – most of the initial sites will be close inshore – but they should be concerned about the ecological consequence of bad decisions”.

“So far the environmental community has refused to address the fact that displaced fishing activity is a critical issue that must be managed very carefully. We are not opposed to marine conservation zones and see their value in protecting vulnerable marine habitats. But we are absolutely adamant that naïve enthusiasm should not railroad the government into premature and hasty decisions.”

With the lastest series of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Hugh’s Fish Fight ramping up pressure further, the NFFO seeks a measured approach based on scientific scrutiny to the introduction of marine protection areas. It says the series has failed to acknowledge some of the less sensationalist sensational facts around Marine Protected Areas. For example, while 70% of the UK’s land area is under agricultural production, it has been estimated that only between 5-21% of the seabed is fished in English and Welsh waters. Fishing also does not transform natural habitat in the same way as agriculture and is not the same as ploughing. Its distribution is often patchy with some areas fished, whilst other areas are not. Compared to the turbulence from wave and storm action, in many shallow sea areas fishing can have little additional impact . Compared to other forms of food production, fishing has a low impact and represents a renewable resource that requires minimal human inputs to harvest.

Paul Trebilcock added: “The NFFO believes that effective fisheries management and conservation can go hand in hand with commercial concerns. An industry that is presently worth some £649 million to the UK economy delivering healthy protein at a time when there are very valid concerns about processed foods and other meats is important for more than one reason.

“We have offered the environmental NGOs the opportunity to meet to discuss all aspects of the MCZ issue. It will be a great pity if the good work that has been done in developing a rational and inclusive process for designating zones and the management measures within them is blown away in a whirlwind of media sensationalism.”

Tony Delahunty from Selsey Fishermen’s association was unanimously re-elected chairman of the Committee and Paul Gilson from Southend, was elected as vice-chair. This gives coverage from south and north of the Thames on the Federation’s Executive Committee.

Under-10m Quotas

The Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing a way forward on the under-10 m quota issue. It took the view that a stalemate had developed which was damaging to all sides of the industry. The meeting agreed that it was time that the industry as a whole took the initiative by taking the issue out of Government’s hands. POs and under-10 groups could themselves develop consensual, real-time, quota transfer arrangements where surpluses/shortages are identified. The current logjam could be broken but the key would be a two-way dialogue directly between the parties. It was agreed to take the Committee’s ideas forward with a view to presenting a case to Government for endorsement within a very short timeframe.

New TACs

The Federation’s work in opposing new TACs for bass and red mullet was supported. Introducing new TACs could only make mixed fishery management within the context of a looming discard ban more complex. Besides there are alternative means available of ensuring that the bass stocks remain stable.

Marine Conservation Zones

Plans for ensuring a comprehensive fishing industry response from the South East to the Government’s consultative proposals for a network of marine conservation zones were discussed. It was agreed that it was vitally important for the local industry to register its concerns and for the NFFO to insist that any MCZ designations and management measures within MCZs are introduced only on the basis of sound evidence and thorough dialogue with those potentially affected directly and indirectly. The Committee agreed arrangements to ensure that local views are fed into the final NFFO and MPAC response.

Discards

The Committee echoed the concerns expressed earlier in Rye on the proposed EU discard ban. Whilst reducing unwanted catch was an honourable objective, a rushed, politically driven, discard ban with unrealistic timeframes and prescriptive legislation, contained tremendous capacity to create mayhem at vessel and port level. Without an adequate scope to deal with species that have a high survival rate, there is considerable potential to score an own goal in fishing mortality and fisheries management terms. Plaice, skates and rays were the species on which most concern focused. It was agreed to work intensively on the practical implementation issues that would inevitably arise.

Wind-farms

The potential displacement effect of offshore wind-farms in the area and the disruption during the installation of export cables was raised as an area of concern. The Federation outlined its work with the Crown Estate, individual win-farm developers and the cable laying industry, all undertaken with the aim of minimising impacts at local level.

Industry Reputation

Port representatives expressed disquiet about the relentlessly hostile media coverage focused on fishing which wholly ignores the central role played by all parts of the industry in ensuring the nation’s food security. It was agreed that the enormous funding streams from US foundations to NGOs was an important contributor to the negative image held by the general public. The Federation’s efforts to counter superficial and politically damaging coverage were applauded.

Two-Way Communication

It was agreed that if the views of fishermen in the South East were to receive the attention that they deserve, ways of ensuring that information flowed from the ports to the Federation and from the NFFO to the ports essential. Partly, this could be achieved through modern communications but fully engaged port representatives are crucially important.

Discards and Marine Protected Areas

The harbour office in Rye was the venue to discuss a wide range of concern. Top of the list was fear that the impending discard ban would do more harm than good if it was mishandled. It was stressed that a high proportion of the fish currently returned to the sea by the Sussex and Kent fleets -such as small plaice and dabs had a high survival rate. Taking them ashore for landfill or fishmeal would be the opposite of good conservation practice. Equally, concern was expressed that superficial media representations of complex fishing issues, often driven by the more fanatical NGOs, was harming the reputation of the industry and potentially cornering politicians into ill-considered measures. The rush to introduce poorly thought-through marine conservation zones and European marine sites was top of the list of fears in this regard, including worries about fishing vessels displaced by other MPAs and wind-farms.

The Federation was able to explain in detail its work on these issues.Non-Quota Stocks

Concern was expressed over fears that stocks such as bass not currently under quota could be restricted and the Federation could assure them that a detailed NFFO case had already been submitted to DEFRA opposing any move on this direction.

Quotas

Ways of improving the quota position is the Southeast fleet were discussed and there seemed to be a ready willingness to work with the producer organisations at local level to secure additional tonnages throughout the fishing year. The Federation offered to set up the necessary meetings. Some of the fishermen from the eastern end of the area are in the under10m quota pilot scheme and spoke approvingly of the advantages of maximising the benefits of their quota throughout the year through swaps and transfers.Voice for the South East

Tony Delahunty said:

“We were able to explain how important it is to ensure that local views in the SE are heard within the NFFO, in London, in Brussels and in the increasingly important regional advisory councils. This is not about a few shouty individuals. It is about ensuring that the views of the grass-roots industry, who’s primary concern has to be to keep their boats viable day in and day out, get heard where and when it matters. That is what the NFFO is for and it is important that we develop ways in which those voices can be heard.

“This was a very positive meeting and I am sure that we are going to be able to build on it”, he added.

UK Federation Offers Greenpeace A Way To Start Delivering ‘Real and Tangible’ Support to Small Boat Fisherman

The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), the body representing fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is offering to broker a meeting with Greenpeace to identify more ‘real and tangible ways’ the environmental campaigning body can contribute to the sustainable and commercial goals of the UK fishing industry.

The offer comes after the NFFO described a recent report by the environmental giant as containing ‘flawed research’ which risked dividing and damaging the very livelihoods, industry and food supply the environmental group purports to support.

The Federation has said it is strongly urging Greenpeace to consider its ongoing course of action which is divisive and destructive to an industry where both small and large boat fishermen work closely together to achieve a sustainable future and food source.

According to the NFFO, Greenpeace’s ‘Wolf in Shrimp’s Clothing’ report contains claims which misrepresent and discredit the many independent, inshore, small boat fishermen who take an active role lobbying for better livelihoods as part of the NFFO.

Ned Clark, inshore fisherman and Chair of the North East Committee of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) said: “Greenpeace campaigns for a living – we are campaigning to make a living. It is mildly amusing that in its press releases, Greenpeace refers to the NFFO as a ‘Fishing Giant’. This is flattering but hardly an accurate description of an organisation with two frontline staff.

“If the NFFO is influential, it is because it is energetic and advances credible policies but mainly because it is supported by the voluntary work of dozens of real fishermen – not campaigners – including many owning small boat vessels. So which organisation can truly claim to represent and be represented by real fishermen?

“We have already publically addressed many of the inaccuracies contained in Greenpeace’s report, but they still seem set on continuing a public spat which holds no benefit to fisherman they purport to support. As such we would like to meet with them not only to be transparent in how we work, but to offer the opportunity for Greenpeace to be involved in the range of real initiatives we have underway that are focused on improving both the sustainability and livelihoods of the small boat fisherman.”

Mr Clark added: “Much of Greenpeace’s activity has been set on painting the NFFO as a body whose influence is dominated by the interests of large over-seas trawlers. We have already demonstrated publically this isn’t the case. Each NFFO producer organisation and regional committee nominates two representatives each to sit on our Executive Committee, irrespective of how much subscription it pays. Policy decisions are the result of consensus, taking into account all the views around the table. This is how we ensure the interests of the entire UK fleet are at the heart of our decision making.

“There are data protection issues we have to address in terms of publishing full membership data on our website but are contacting our members about doing so.”

The core of the Greenpeace claims centre around the assertion the NFFO does nothing to support the inshore fleets. The Federation says much of its work throughout the year is of direct benefit to the whole of the fishing industry, including the small-scale fleet. This includes working with scientists to address data deficiencies and raise TACs, working on fishing vessel safety and addressing the impact of marine protected areas.

There have also been a host of specific initiatives in which the NFFO has championed the interest of the small boat fisherman. In the last few months alone it has:

Opposed a TAC for bass through discussions with DEFRA and through the regional advisory councils; this is of direct and overwhelming importance to many small-scale fishermen
Proposed and worked with government on a range of positive ideas for addressing quota pinch points for the under-10s; the NFFO alone has put forward credible and balanced alternatives
Strenuously resisted the reallocation of handline mackerel quota to the large pelagic vessels; and brokered an understanding with the Scottish Fishermen’s Pelagic Association; this protects the hand-line fishery but equally important safeguards swap currency to be used for the benefit of the under-10m fleet
Successfully opposed the extension of days at sea restrictions to the under-10m fleet
Vigorously defended the small-scale fishery for salmon in the North East of England
Highlighted the failure of fisheries management in the Thames estuary;
Advanced policy ideas to address the latent capacity threat in the crab and lobster fisheries, whilst safeguarding necessary flexibilities for the small scale fleets
Worked within the MPA Fishing Coalition to defend important inshore fishing grounds from disappearing into No Take Zones as part of European Marine Sites and UK marine conservation zones
Defended small-scale fisheries from the displacement effects of offshore wind-farms and marine protected areas
Pressed DEFRA for equity of treatment between under-10m, over-10m vessels in producer organisations and non-PO (Non-sector)vessels in the facility to lease quota
Fought for an exemption from EU electronic logbook and VMS requirements for day boats which fish entirely within UK waters
Sought to broker a deal that would end the Judicial Review brought by UKAFPO against DEFRA’s quota redistribution proposals
Advanced ideas for increased flow of quota to the small scale fleets though closer cooperation and communication between producer organisations and the small scale fleets
Proposed fisheries science projects of benefit to small scale fisheries including one on undulate ray
Ensured that the small scale fleets had a representative as part of the NFFO team at the December Council

John Butterwith, Chairman of the Committee said: “We are facing unprecedented changes to the way that access to marine space is governed. This meeting follows a great deal of hard work that the Committee has put in to engaging in the MPA planning process in order to secure the future for fishing communities in the South West.”

“As well as protecting the livelihood needs of dependent fishing communities, we have been at pains to point out the risks that fisheries displacement poses to marine conservation outcomes and the need to carefully accommodate such considerations in MCZ site selection. Only through this will we see win-win outcomes for sustainable fisheries as well as marine conservation.”

The broad spectrum of other fisheries matters will also be on the agenda including domestic fisheries reform, wind farms, shellfish policy and Seafish.

Further information on the meeting can be obtained from the NFFO’s offices in York.

However, it warned that the history of the CFP has been littered with well intentioned pieces of legislation that have failed because insufficient attention had been paid to how the measures could be implemented.

How political aspirations are translated into meaningful and achievable measures should now become the focus, as the Parliament, member states and the European Commission enter discussions on the final shape of the new Common Fisheries Policy.

As with any large legislative package, there is good and bad in the compromise text.

For us, the key to a more effective fisheries policy is the decentralisation of decision-making to the regional seas level. It is only at this scale that management measures can be tailored to the fleets and fisheries involved and adaptive management can hope to work.

We always recognised that there would be a discard ban in some form or other within this reform. The real issue however concerns the practical issues of applying such a policy at the level of each individual fishery.

The European Parliament now has a mandate to begin discussions with the other European institutions. We hope that rhetoric and grandstanding will be left behind as the talks focus on the real outstanding issues.”

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive,

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations

The attitude of the environmental group Greenpeace towards the international fishing industry has been well documented in recent years.

What began as a respected challenge against illegal fishing, human rights abuses of crews and a general ideology in protecting the world’s oceans has become an apparent direct assault on the commercial fishing industry in a bid to halt any and all developments.

In Europe for example, no matter how severe the quota reductions passed every December by the European Union’s Council of Ministers, Greenpeace will release statements describing it as a ‘cop out’ by ministers and that the EU are guilty of continuing to encourage plundering of stocks.

While more forward thinking and progressive conservation groups, such as PEW and WWF, accept that quota reductions and voluntary technical fishing gear changes can eventually lead to a sustainable fishing industry, Greenpeace have repeatedly proven that they are not interested in such a future.

Next Monday (Feb. 4) Greenpeace are to launch the results of a study that they have undertaken into the operations of one of the United Kingdom’s biggest and most respected fishing industry groups — the National Federation of Fishing Organizations (NFFO).

This so called ‘big story’ is to be released to all of the UK’s national news media and apparently reveals that the NFFO membership includes 57 per cent foreign investment and also that the NFFO advised the EU Commission that non official inshore fishermen’s groups should not have a voice on Europe’s Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) — an on-going hot topic in the UK in relation to quota share-out between the inshore and larger sector fishing fleets.

Personally, I believe that if a member of the NFFO who is an owner of a large trawler, chooses to sell a portion of his business venture to someone outside of the UK, then that is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the NFFO.

Also, in relation to the RACs and unofficial inshore groups, the NFFO is only echoing the already stated policy of the EU Commission and this is not a ‘leaked document’ as Greenpeace are trying to dramatically claim.

No, there is a much bigger picture here – one that presumably will not be included by Greenpeace in their press release next week.

Early last year, Greenpeace made much noise about the fact that they were going to help the UK’s inshore fishermen by forming by an alliance with the inshore group NUTFA (New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association).

NUTFA and NFFO have been at odds for quite some time over quota allocations and UK Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon has intervened several times to attempt to calm the debate.

And now, surprise surprise, we see Greenpeace launching a very public attack on the NFFO.

The question arises “just who is using who here?”

While NUTFA may, in their innocence, have thought that getting the weight of a major group such as Greenpeace behind them would help their cause, they have merely opened the door and given the world’s most recognized anti fishing industry group a foothold inside the UK’s industry where they can attempt to dismantle it from within.

NUTFA should be aware that Greenpeace would launch a similar attack on them in the morning if it suited their purpose.

Even if the NFFO is guilty in some way of a misdemeanour, which they aren’t as far as this journalist can see, then this is a case for the UK fishing minister and his officials to deal with.

It has nothing to do with overfishing, abuse of quotas, breaking any regulation that the public needs to be urgently made aware of.

In short, it is simply none of Greenpeace’s business and one can only wonder if this is the first of many attacks planned against the industry for the coming year.

Article courtesy of Cormac Burke, Editor of Intrafish publications Fishing News and Fishing News International.

The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), the body representing fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producers organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has overwhelmingly rejected forthcoming claims by Greenpeace, criticising how the industry is represented.

The NFFO has learned the environmental campaigning group is planning to issue what it calls ‘inaccurate and misrepresentative information’, running a real risk of harming an industry that is now sustainably aware and scientifically based, and in a way that would cost jobs, damage the wider economy and threaten future consumer supply.

The claims set to be made by Greenpeace, allege that NFFO membership includes 57 per cent of foreign investment and that in a letter to the EU Commission, the NFFO has urged the body to exclude smaller, in shore fisherman’s groups from Europe’s Regional Advisory Councils (RACs). Both claims have been branded by the UK industry federation as ‘totally inaccurate’, ‘mis-representative’ and ‘propaganda-driven’.

In fact, current membership information for the NFFO shows only 8% of member vessels are owned outside the UK, ensuring strong representation from the home fishing industry, with the organisation having a broad representation of vessel sizes both within the body and on its central lobbying committee. At present, 66% of member fishing vessels are below 15 metres, and 40% are below 10 metres – the standard categorisation for small, local, inshore craft.

NFFO officials acknowledge the difficulty ensuring a strong voice for small scale fishermen. But in its widely circulated letter to the Commission – available to download from its website (www.nffo.org.uk) – it puts forward a range of positive suggestions to remedy the position within a reformed Common Fisheries Policy, including outreach work to areas of the small-scale fleet currently under-represented.

The body does however warn against the dangers of self-appointed, unrepresentative industry groups, which it says run the risk of division and misrepresentation of the sector.

NFFO Chairman, Paul Trebilcock, also Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, said: “Greenpeace has, in the past, been applauded by the industry for campaigns against illegal fishing and human rights abuse of crew, but this report appears quite desperate in its efforts to create and exploit divisions in our industry. Fortunately there seem to be few fishermen who buy into their propaganda. The truth is that the NFFO and many others in the industry share a goal of sustainability and are working hard to achieve it.

“The Greenpeace findings assume a very naive and simplistic division of the fishing fleet into small artisanal and big industrial vessels, when the reality is a diverse and complex fleet with many shared interests.

“Creating false divisions within the fishing industry at this juncture is the height of irresponsibility and is a move that threatens important partnership work taking place, and which could potentially cost jobs, damage livelihoods and harm supply of what is a healthy and sustainable food source.”

The NFFO’s membership is a reflection of the UK’s diverse fleet, comprised of small, medium and large vessels. This range of vessels is essential to make the best of diverse fisheries and to support shore-side infrastructures. There is a vital interdependence between these fleets, which the body says has been misunderstood or deliberately ignored by Greenpeace.

Small-boat fisherman, Tony Delahunty, who is Chairman of the NFFO’s South East Committee, said: “I know, at first hand, that the NFFO works hard to represent the whole industry including the small-scale fleets. As owner of a small vessel operating off the beach at Selsey, I see the NFFO working for us on a whole range of important issues, including quotas, marine protected areas, wind-farms and fishing vessel safety. It’s given the small scale fisherman a much more influential voice in Brussels and in the increasingly important regional advisory councils than we would have otherwise have had.”

« Previous 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 47 Next »