Letter from the NFFO to The Eurpoean Commission, June 2012

I write further to your confirmation, at the recent meeting of ACFA, that the Commission is currently reviewing the arrangements within RACs to ensure that their composition reflects the various groups of stakeholders as closely as possible. I hope that the points made below are helpful to the Commission in understanding the issues involved.

29 June 2012

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

B-1049 BRUSSELs

BELGIUM

Representation on Advisory Committees

I write from the point of view of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which is the representative body for fishermen and vessel operators in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Reflecting the pattern of fleet ownership in the UK, the NFFO’s membership also embraces a number of Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-Spanish vessels and organisations. It is important to appreciate that a significant proportion of our membership are of the smaller class of vessels below 10metres. Approximately 25% of our subscription income is derived from the small-boat fleet. As our subscription rate is scaled to vessel capacity, this figure therefore represents a substantial proportion of our membership expressed in terms of numbers of vessels. Membership is open to vessels of all sizes and fishing methods.

The NFFO has membership of and is active in the North Sea RAC, the North Western Waters RAC, the Pelagic RAC and the Long Distance RAC, again reflecting our diverse membership.

The organisation, formed in 1977, is run on democratic lines, with an Executive Committee whose composition reflects the organisation’s membership, and which endeavours to arrive at consensus policy positions (usually successfully) through discussion. Constituent associations who do not agree with majority positions are free to lobby separately for their point of view.

The NFFO’s constituent members are producer organisations and fishermen’s associations organised into regional committees.

Representation of Small Scale Fisheries

The Commission is on record as being concerned to ensure that small-scale fleets are adequately represented on RACs and within the CFP generally. We share that view and ambition. Leaving aside definitional issues of what the labels artisanal, small-scale, inshore fisheries include, it is fair to say that representing the small-scale fleet and ensuring their active involvement in representative structures does pose particular and difficult challenges. It is difficult to generalise and there are some examples of small-scale fleets that are well organised, and well represented. But it is also true to say that many, possibly most under-10 meter vessels are dispersed and divided by geography and fishing method. Many are not even in local fishermen’s associations, never mind producer organisations, regional fishermen’s groupings, national federations or RACs. These vessels for the most part have very little direct say in the consultative process. These are the realities.

What are the Solutions?

A separate RAC for small-scale fisheries does not make sense at any level. The whole point of RACs is to bring together a range of stakeholders to achieve, as far as possible a consensus. Again leaving aside the vexed issue of definitions, putting small-scale vessel operators into a ghetto can only further misunderstandings and division. One of the major achievements of the RACs has been to increase mutual understanding and it is inconceivable that an arbitrarily defined boundary splitting the fishing industry could be anything but unhelpful

Nevertheless, the underlying issues of how to ensure adequate representation for widely diverse and dispersed small scale operators remains. Our organisation, with some success, has addressed the problem through a regional committee structure drawing together local fishermen’s associations and sometimes individual fishermen. We have also invested (using EFF co-funding) in an outreach programme of port visits, again with some success. What these initiatives have confirmed is that representation for the small scale sector can be achieved through these means but they require substantial investments in time, effort and resources.

We would not pretend however that we have done much more than make some inroads into what needs to be done to bring most small vessel operators into the representative system.

Self-appointed Representatives

The small-scale sector is vulnerable to individuals or small groups who claim to speak on behalf of the whole small boat sector without providing any evidence that they speak for anyone other than themselves. This has certainly been the recent experience in England. There is a danger that the Commission, keen to demonstrate its sympathy for the small scale sector takes these organisations and individuals self-description at face value. In our view giving undue credence to such organisations is very far away from achieving the substantial increase in genuine representation that the small-scale fleet requires. At the very least before such organisations are taken seriously such they should be obliged to demonstrate a substantial membership base and a clearly defined structure for arriving at collective decisions. Without these safeguards and especially if public money is involved, the danger of misrepresentation, or at the very least overstated membership claims, is very real. Individuals of this type can generally be recognised by their overblown rhetoric.

Incidentally, this issue is relevant to a range of NGOs. We accept, of course, that wider society had a legitimate right to shape the conditions under which fish stocks may be exploited. It is more difficult to accept however that specific, essentially self-appointed NGOs have a legitimate authority to be taken seriously when they express a view on highly technical fisheries issues. Where does the mandate to speak, come from in these cases? In any thorough review of the representativeness of RACs, these types of issues should of course also be addressed.

Existing Organisations

It is far from easy to hold a national federation together given the inevitable stresses and strains that arise from divergent sectoral interests. It is important that the Commission in its proposals does not do irreparable damage to existing representative structures that may have a greater legitimacy that new organisations attracted by favourable funding opportunities and with the right kind of small-scale label.

Our view is that the Commission should strengthen the ability of existing organisations to draw in a wider range of small scale fishing interests in the ways suggested above and below, rather than set up new tensions and divisions by parachuting new self-appointed organisations into the RACs. It is difficult in any event to see how the Commission would arbitrate between one grouping and another. Likewise, it is difficult to perceive what improvement has been made if an organisation representing 0.5% of the small scale fleet has been given access to a RAC with perhaps preferential treatment.

We cannot believe that undermining existing representative arrangements, sometimes put together with great effort, and over many years, will serve the Commission’s purposes of strengthening the quality of and range of fishing industry representation.

Composition of RACs

It is widely agreed that RACs have been one of the most successful component of the 2002 review. The 2/3 to 1/3 balance has meant that the national fishing organisations from all member states have been centrally involved with a seat on the Executive Committee and that the 1/3’s views have also had an opportunity for expression. We would strongly caution against undermining that fruitful balance. In any event it is quite clear that even at present the 1/3rd have problems filling their seats.

Arbitrary Divisions

In England we have learnt the bitter lessons of creating an artificial boundary between fleet sectors with preferential treatment on one side of the line. The quota problems currently facing some parts of the under-10m arise in no small part from the migration of active effort from the over-10 to the under-10 sector to escape the heavier legislative burden. The same unintended consequences could follow any form of preferential treatment within the fleet. The lesson should be learned: as far as possible such artificial divisions should be avoided.

Positive Suggestions

Against the background outlined above, we would make the following suggestions to strengthen the level of participation of small-scale vessel operators in the representative structures:

Scope for EMFF funding for national fishermen’s organisations to undertake outreach work within those parts of the small-scale fleet that are currently underrepresented
Commission encouragement for the consolidation of fishing organisations to encourage as wide a membership base as possible and to speak with a clear single consensus voice as far as possible
Avoid deliberately or inadvertently creating additional arbitrary divisions within the fishing industry
Assistance in strengthening the small-scale sectors involvement in regional meetings
Encouragement for small-scale fleet involvement in RAC focus groups ( a good example is the NWWRAC Focus Group on Skates and Rays)
Development of stronger links within the industry and across sectoral boundaries based on modern electronic communications to overcome the traditional geographic and sectoral obstacles to involvement
Use the opportunities provided by regional management to bring management decisions closer to those affected
Support the involvement of grass roots industry in the development of multi-annual management plans. (The NSRAC’s engagement with stakeholders through port meetings in the development of advice on a nephrops LTMP is a good example of what is achievable

Conclusion

I hope that you find the comments above helpful. As a National Federation we are committed to representing all of our members and we recognise that representing the small-scale fleet poses real and significant challenges, especially for those of us who aspire to a much greater degree of self- management by the fishing industry in the future. However, care must be taken. Even with good intentions it is possible to do a great deal of harm to existing organisation like ours, for intangible benefits.

We would be very happy to discuss these issues with you in greater detail should you wish.

Yours sincerely

Barrie Deas

Chief Executive

Recognising the potentially momentous changes that the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy could bring– for good and bad – the Committee agreed to redouble the Federation’s efforts in the months ahead, focusing on:
- Maintaining a strong dialogue with Defra
- Briefing MEPs directly and through NFFO briefing papers
- Monitoring the tripartite negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission when these begin in March
The Executive observed that since its establishment, the Marine Management Organisation had faced a series of serious problems, including loss of staff and experience, low morale, and an inability to get to grips with effective delivery of its functions for the fishing industry. On the other hand, a recent meeting between MMO and NFFO on the issues of e-landing declarations, the fish weighing requirements in the EU Control Regulation and the forthcoming procedures for checking on engine power, demonstrated that relatively small, focused meetings can bring a much needed clarity to issues. It was agree to work closely with the MMO in future to ensure that progress is made in establishing a strong and purposeful relationship between the industry and MMO officials at all levels.
A report was received on meetings with Defra early in the New Year on the effort regime in 2013/14. The freeze in automatic effort reductions secured at the December Council has been greeted with relief and the focus now is in ensuring that the amended EU Cod plan is brought in sooner rather than later. It was agreed that the European Parliament had the power to advance or delay the implementation of the new Plan and resolved to do everything in the Federation’s power to ensure early adoption.
It was agreed that the Federation should unveil its latest work on the under-10m quota issue to the forthcoming Industry Working Group; developing solutions for the quota pinch-points facing parts of the under-10 fleet is a priority for the Federation. Although this paper is not yet finalised it was thought important to air its central themes and take comments into account.
It was agreed that the Federation should participate on the UK Fishing Quota Register Project Group, which is being established to provide transparency over quota ownership. The Executive took the sanguine view that the new Register would provide few surprises
The NFFO Executive took the view that something that the media can label as a “discards ban” is going to be an inevitable part of the CFP reform. There are, however, a multitude of unresolved questions about how an obligation to land all catches would work in practice. The scope for undesirable unintended consequences is quite large and the Committee agreed the Federation should work hard to identify the pitfalls and how to avoid them. Three particular areas were considered vital:
- The danger of relatively minor species in mixed fisheries acting as choke species and preventing vessels from catching their full allocations of their main target species
- The handling of uplift of TACs to cover fish that would otherwise have been discarded
- Whether a reduced number of TACs could be more compatible with a landings requirement and whether TACs could be set for the main driver species alone
The Federation’s input into initiatives to improve safety and training in the industry were reviewed. It was agreed to:
- Ensure continuity of coverage of the issues by the Federation’s Safety and Training officer, including assistance to vessels in completing their risk assessments and Safety Folders
- Participate in a Seafish review of safety, including the separate but linked issues of:
  - using Seafish levy for fishermen’s training
  - a broader enquiry on how to improve the industry’s safety culture
  - Expedite the distribution of 1000 low cost lifejackets to NFFO member vessels
A report was received and approved on the Federation’s exhaustive efforts to ensure that marine protected areas are introduced in a rational and evidenced based way. Reports, in particular were received in relation to:
- The work of the MPA Fishing Coalition
- European Marine Sites
- Domestic Marine Conservation Zones
- Management measures for the Dogger Bank
An annual budget was agreed to address the unbalanced, sensationalist media coverage that has unfairly damaged the industry’s reputation
The Executive expressed its support for the North East salmon net fishery facing a vindictive and unnecessary phase out
Representations to Defra were agreed on Norway’s high handed and increasingly discriminatory attitude to applying management rules at Svalbard
A range of concerns were expressed over the apparent loss of coherence in management associated with devolved administration of UK fisheries. It was agreed to raise these with Defra
The Executive discussed a range of issues to raise with the Director of Fisheries during his forthcoming meeting with the Federation in York
Disquiet was expressed that the Isle of Man Authorities had apparently disregarded its Fisheries Management Agreement with Defra in seeking to establish a licence charging regime which would apply to all vessels with a track record of fishing in Manx waters
The Executive agreed that it would next meet on 7th March in Whitby

What will have struck many of the workshop participants is the incredible rate of change in the remote sensing and information technologies available, or about to become available, to automatically record various aspects of fishing activities.

The advantages of applying these technologies to different stages of the process of catching, landing and selling fish, lie in:

Strengthened fisheries science
Reduced bureaucracy
More cost effective enforcement
Better fisheries management
Greater confidence in the supply chain
Increased revenues for fishing vessels.

Some of the pitfalls to avoid are:

A Big brother approach to enforcement
Disproportionate installation and running costs
Inappropriate use of the data collected.

There were, however, two overriding themes to emerge from the various presentations and discussions over the two days of the workshop.

The first was that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. To be useful and effective the new technologies must be applied intelligently, and be customised to meet the contours of each individual fishery. What works, to pick two examples at random, in the North Sea demersal fishery won’t necessarily work in the South West ultra-mixed fishery. Systems that work well on large vessels won’t necessarily be appropriate for smaller vessels.

The second striking conclusion was that to work at all, the new technologies must be embedded within a set of arrangements that make sense at vessel level, including both the practical and the commercial realities of operating a fishing boat.

How to ensure that remote-sensing is considered by all the parties involved as desirable, useful and valuable – an attribute rather than an intrusion-that is the major challenge for those involved in designing and applying a useful system of remote catch recording.

The workshop pointed to partnership approaches of various kinds, in which all parties gain from the new arrangements, are the key to the successful use of the new technologies. If all parties involved benefit, all parties have an interest in overcoming obstacles and ensuring the ready flow of data and information, whether that is catch details or sea temperatures within the water column. If a partnership approach is absent there is every chance that the new technologies will not deliver their full benefits.

The workshop participants acknowledged that meeting the top-down obligations to emerge from the CFP’s discard policy is likely to involve a range of modern technologies that will pose a number of challenges in terms of practicalities, data ownership and security. But equally, as in every other sphere of the economy, modern information technology can also bring huge advantages, if used correctly.

The workshop, which is part of a Defra-funded Fisheries Science Partnership, was successful in bringing together fishermen, scientists, technology experts, retailers and policy-makers in a mature, considered and thoughtful exchange about the future of catch recording.

All have a deep interest in finding new ways of ensuring full confidence in the whole system of catch recording. It is clear that modern technologies will play a central role in this, that there are opportunities for all involved and that cooperative, collaborative arrangement provide the best way of ensuring that pitfalls are avoided.

Now it is hard to find anyone, beyond a few unreconstructed fundamentalists, who maintain that the solution lies with a top-down technocratic approach.

What Happened?

The main lesson of the last 30 years has been that command and control approaches to widely dispersed and diverse fisheries cannot work and are at odds with the principles of good governance.

The repeated failure of prescriptive top-down legislation to deliver its objectives has been the main factor in persuading even the European Commission that the centralised, command and control model is dead meat. All of the main policy strands within the CFP, at least so far as resource policies are concerned, have met the same undistinguished fate:

Technical Conservation Regulation
- achieved very little in terms of improving selectivity, partly because it was undermined by other measures like effort control
- creates regulatory discards
- fails to take into account hearts and minds, particularly in the wheelhouse
- unenforceable
Fleet Capacity reduction Programmes (MAGP 1-4)
- failed to achieve targets by a considerable distance
Cod Recovery Plan
- failed to achieve targets
- generates perverse outcomes
- rigid and inflexible
Cod Management Plan
- under-achievement
- main instruments: TAC reductions and effort control, judged inadequate
- failed to secure stakeholder support
Control Regulation
- aligned with backward looking resource policies
- undermines culture of compliance

Each time these regulations have been evaluated, they have been described in terms of serial under-achievement, high costs to administer, inherent complexity, rigidity and inability to cope with regional fleet or fishery variations. Above all, once a flaw in a CFP regulation has become evident it has been close to impossible to address the problem because of the complex and extended decision-making process required. This makes adaptive management ( or what you or I would call progress through trial and error, or learning from the mistakes of the past) impossible. Little wonder that the CFP has built up an unenviable reputation for cumbersome, superficially plausible but ineffectual conservation policy.

Regionalisation

All this accounts for the widespread appreciation that to fully achieve its goals the CFP must decentralise the way its resource policies are designed and applied. The Commission is on record as saying that within the current reform it wants to devolve as much authority to the regional level as far as possible, consistent with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. Our view is that if one were to design a regional decision-making structure from scratch, one wouldn’t write the CFP reform proposal, or for that matter the Council of Ministers’ ‘General Approach’ the way they have been drafted. Nevertheless, as they stand, and so long as co-legislators understand their proper overseeing role, and avoid the temptation to micro-manage, the model on offer – regional cooperation by member states, working closely with the RACs (ACs) – stands a reasonable prospect of being a success and should be fully supported.

Hurdles

So, decentralisation and regionalisation have moved centre-stage in thinking about CFP reform. Many hurdles remain between where we are currently and an effective reform of CFP decision-making structures, although in our judgement none inherently insuperable.

As we enter the final stretch of CFP reform, (although this final stretch might turn out to be a long haul) the principle dangers at lie in two areas:

The polarisation of the CFP debate into simplistic adversarial politics, especially in the European Parliament, with the danger that subtleties of policy are lost in wild overstatement
The need for the main European institutions, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament to relinquish some of their detailed legislative role in order to secure a more effective CFP – historically, powerful groups have been unwilling surrender power voluntarily

The next few months are likely to be critical in determining whether the reform will deliver a new approach based on the flexibility that a regional dimension to policy formulation can bring, or alternatively, whether the centralising tendencies of European politics will hold the CFP in its grip.

Status Quo Not an Option

It is worth considering that the choice is not between the status quo and decentralisation. The arrival of co-decision-making with the Lisbon Treaty already ensures that those decisions that are made in the centre will take much longer than the already sclerotic system we had to deal with previously. A rigid, cumbersome, inflexible system is about to become slower and less adaptable.

How this inherent rigidity at the centre will articulate with the need for a flexible, responsive and adaptable system for developing relevant fisheries policy, and one which ensures the close involvement of stakeholders at regional level, will determine the fate of fishing within the CFP for the next decade or more.

The key factor will be whether the European institutions can restrict their involvement to the strategic level in setting standards, principles and oversight and avoid dabbling in detail, setting unrealistic targets and timetables.

Letter to Fishing News from the Chairman of the NFFO North East Committee

There is something uniquely mean-spirited and vindictive about the campaign by one of the richest power-blocks in this country to extinguish the small-scale net fishery for salmon and trout in the North East of England.

This issue, although cloaked in spurious conservation arguments, has always really been about the resentment of recreational anglers and riparian owners towards the small share of the catch taken by the traditional inshore drift net and T&J nets.

No expense has been spared to hire ex-DEFRA and Marine Scotland civil servants to advise and front the lobbying campaign.

The Environment Agency has been scrupulously fair in its consultations about the new Net Limitation Order. But it was when the issue entered the political realm, with ministers who really should have declared an interest and stepped aside, that the angling lobby really found traction.

This has echoes of the original decision by John Selwyn Gummer to phase out the drift net fishery in 1992. It is a matter of only small satisfaction that despite holding high office of state and church, that sanctimonious politician’s historical legacy will primarily be a video clip of him force-feeding his daughter a burger on national TV during the outbreak of BSC.

We will fight this decision. Given the odds I don’t know if we will win. But it is important to stand up to this kind of self- interest and cronyism masked as conservation.

Ministers had an opportunity to support a traditional, small-scale, well managed inshore fishery and have preferred to take the other option. It is nothing less than a disgrace.

Ned Clark

Chairman

NFFO North East Committee

Round 3 of the EU/Norway talks, deferred from the end of 2012. We will continue to press for a rollover TAC for North Sea cod
In January, the NFFO is co-hosting a workshop on different kinds of fully documented fisheries with CEFAS scientists and skippers; fisheries which provide comprehensive catch data tend to operate under a less restrictive regime
Early in the New Year a meeting of the Federation’s Shellfish Committee will be held to progress work on shellfish policy; striking the right balance in dealing with latent capacity is a central issue
Developing a fresh and equitable approaches to quota pinch-points in the under-10 metre sector will remain a priority in 2013
The Federation’s heavy involvement with RACs will continue, starting in January with a prominent role in the annual meeting between the RACs and senior figures from ICES, with a major focus on data limited stocks
Continuing work on the adoption if a revised EU Cod Management Plan, with a focus on fast-tracking new legislation through the European Parliament and the co-decision procedure
Vigorous opposition to the Government’s decision to close down the small-scale salmon net fishery in the North East
A meeting with the Welsh First Minister to resist discriminatory measures against Commercial fishing vessels in the Bristol Channel
A leading role in the MPA Fishing Coalition to ensure fair treatment for fishermen in the establishment of a network of marine protected areas in UK waters; MPAC has successfully held Government and its statutory conservation advisors to account on evidence used to designate MPAs, the quality of stakeholder involvement, unrealistic timetables and crucially, the issue of displacement of fishing vessels from their customary fishing grounds
Against the background of the concordat signed last year between DEFRA and the devolved administrations, pressing to ensure no loss of overall coherence in UK fishing policy and for equitable treatment of the constituent parts of the UK fleet
Continuing work on key aspects of the CFP reform, beginning with a meeting with the DEFRA Fisheries Director in January
Working towards an audit of the Irish Sea cod fishery as the basis of a new focused approach
Continued work with the Crown Estate and individual developers to mitigate the impact of offshore wind-farms; the NFFO/Crown Estate groundbreaking collaborative work on precision mapping of fishing activities using skippers’ own plotter data provides the basis for a useful dialogue about the location of wind-farms
Continued work with Subsea Cables UK on the burial of submarine cables
Work within the RACs on the development of long term management plans for key stocks, with the immediate focus on North Sea Nephrops and the Celtic Sea demersal fisheries
Participation in ICES benchmark meetings at which the assessment for particular sticks are subject to rigorous scrutiny
Pressing for a fairer and industry -friendly approach to the mandatory introduction of satellite monitoring and electronic logbooks; use scope of available EU exemptions to allow time for teething problems to be resolved; opposition to the government policy of only permitting a single monopoly supplier
Defending the fishing industry’s reputation from unwarranted and sensationalist media attacks
Maintaining a high priority for fishing vessel safety and training
Through the NFFO Training Trust, distributing around £100,000 to fishermen for training and the purchase of safety equipment throughout the year
We aim to distribute one thousand low cost life jackets which have been bulk purchase and grant assisted (EFF, Seafish and NFFO) for use on member vessels
A number of NFFO regional committee meetings will be held throughout the year to sound out grass-roots opinion in the ports on key local, national and European issues early in the New Year
Our work on next year’s TACs and quotas will begin early in the New Year
Continued support for a satisfactory outcome in the dispute with Iceland and Faeroes on the international mackerel issue
Work on the Seafish sector panels to ensure that Seafish levy is spent in ways useful for the catching sector and the supply chain generally
Working with appropriately qualified scientists towards a deep sea regime based on evidence and targeted measures rather than a blanket approach driven by a misplaced, counterproductive and politically inspired agenda
Working within the framework of the Fisheries Science Partnership to fill information gaps that are important for specific fisheries
Continuing to participate in relevant STECF meetings where the fishing industry perspective is required
Engagement with the Marine Management Organisation across a range of issues relating to how fisheries policy is delivered

Doubtless, new areas of work will arise during the year. Our Executive Committee meets roughly every six weeks to ensure that the policy approaches pursued by the Federation are in tune with grass roots opinion and the issues that require attention are raised.

The “Scoping Industry Approaches to Fully Documented Fisheries” project planned the workshop to consider how the “full documentation of catch” can be delivered for a range of fisheries.

This goal is seen as key to delivering a results-based fisheries management system under a reformed CFP. In addition, resolving the problems of data-poor fisheries could bring real and direct benefits to fishing businesses.

The FSP project is evaluating CCTV alongside other approaches such as self-sampling, reference fleets and other technologies to see how they might apply to different fisheries.

An important aspect of the project – and fully documented fisheries generally – is to facilitate industry-implemented ways of discard reduction. In addition, the project is using case studies to help inform the way forward. These include Irish Sea Nephrops, and the South West gillnet and mixed trawl fisheries.

Cefas project manager Paul Dolder said: “The CFP reform proposals and general approach agreed by the Council of Ministers indicate a requirement for full documentation of fishing and processing activities. This project is assessing what data can be collected at sea or onshore, what methods are the best for different fisheries and how fully documented fisheries can support the science and evidence base.

NFFO Assistant Chief Executive Dale Rodmell said: “This project will set existing moves towards fully documented fisheries into a wider context. We aim to define how to better link managers, scientists and the fishing industry into a virtuous circle of improved evidence and reduced wastage of the resource. This, in turn, can lead to improved opportunity, profitability and sustainability.”

The workshop findings will be included in a report to Defra to inform the optimal way to deliver the full documentation of catch, evidence required for management under a reformed CFP.

Within the context of an ever increasing network of cables laid on the seabed, both industries have a profound interest in finding ways to co-exist with minimal effect on each other.

For the cable operators, the integrity of their investment in cables that can be vulnerable to some kinds of fishing gear is paramount, whilst the fishing industry needs to maintain access to its customary fishing grounds. Both industries have a shared concern to safeguard the safety of fishing vessels and to minimise the danger to vessels and crews of inadvertently snagged cables.

A huge number of fibre-optic cables were laid across the Atlantic, North Sea, Irish Sea and Channel during the dot-com boom to add to the more traditional telephone cables laid over the years. A new generation of cables importing electricity from offshore wind-farms is now giving rise to a different set of challenges.

Burial

It is agreed between the parties that, where conditions allow, cable burial is the most effective method to protect inadvertent damage to subsea cables by mobile fishing gears and to minimise the risk to fishing vessels. Subsea Cables UK and the NFFO have undertaken to work together in the coming year on a protocol that will define the optimum depth for cable burial, taking account of various factors.

Communication

We have agreed that the key to successful co-existence is to establish strong communications links between the cable laying and operating companies and the fishing industry at national and local levels. Ways of ensuring good communication links during the planning, laying, and operating phases have been discussed and will be part of ongoing dialogue between the NFFO and Subsea Cables UK.

Mutuality, Realism and Self-reliance.

Mutuality

At first sight the diversity of the NFFO’s membership would seem like a disadvantage. Member vessels range in size from over 60metre vessels which fish the vast pelagic shoals and distant water grounds to small, under-10 metre inshore potters and punts. We fish many different species in many different sea areas using many different gears. How is it possible to align all these different interests and forge coherent policies within a single national organisation?

What makes this apparent disadvantage a strength, is mutuality, which essentially means, “I will cover your back and when the time comes you cover mine.”

This approach is at the heart of the NFFO and has repeatedly stood us in good stead in difficult times. Issues arise which have an impact on part of our membership and those affected have the backing of the whole of the NFFO -because next time it will be a different part of the fleet that needs similar support.

Also, our Executive Committee, which is comprised of nominees from the various regional organisations, is a good place to hear directly about and understand the different issues confronting other parts of the fleet. Like the different strands in a rope, mutual support binds the Federation’s different interests into a strong united but flexible body pulling in the same direction.

Realism

Organisations which deal with the world as they would like it to be, rather than how it is tend, after a short time, to lose impetus and faded away.

The NFFO from its origins in 1977 has been committed to dealing with political and biological realities. Where fish stocks are shared with other counties, ways must be found to jointly manage those stocks. Fisheries management issues should be dealt with on the basis of realities, rather than assertion, inflated claims and dodgy statistics. Finally, the Federation will always find ways of dealing with the key decision makers – whoever is in power and wherever those decisions are made.

It is because the NFFO has for the most part stuck to the evidence, avoided exaggeration, overstatement and the wilder conspiracy theories, that its credibility has built over the years, whilst more colourful bodies have come and gone.

Self-Reliance

From the outset, the NFFO has taken the view that if it is to maintain its independence and integrity, it must be self-financing, either through membership subscription, or through what it can earn through its services company. Over-reliance on government or charitable foundation grants can only lead, over time, to a dilution of independence.

This strict principle does not preclude many different kinds of collaboration with a wide range of groups and organisations which share our aims; but it does ensure that these will be relationships of equals, not the NFFO as a junior partner. In fact, the NFFO has a proud record of working on a basis of equal partnership with scientists, fishermen’s organisations in the UK and from other member states, other marine and seabed users, NGOs and government, towards common goals and objectives.

So, mutuality, realism and self-reliance. It is unlikely that the NFFO will drift far from these principles in the future. For those in the fishing industry who can subscribe to them, the NFFO will be found to be an active, dynamic, and welcoming organisation.

As we emerge from the hot-house of the December negotiations, fishermen in the ports will be taking stock of what it means to them. They should be assured that whatever the outcome that there is a body run by fishermen for fishermen fighting their cause for 12 months of the year.

The NFFO’s website at www.nffo.org is updated regularly and I commend it to you as a way of keeping in touch with the Federation’s work.

May I take this opportunity, to wish all NFFO members, its allies and supporters, a very merry Christmas, and a happy and prosperous New Year.

NFFO Chairman Paul Trebilcock

North Sea, Irish Sea, South West, South East, North East, Pelagic and External Waters (from small inshore boats to the largest pelagic ships in the UK fleet) are all covered by individuals with direct knowledge and understanding of their particular fisheries. This can prove invaluable when complex issues arise during the Council negotiations.

I think it is important to recognise and indeed pay tribute to the professionalism and commitment of Richard Benyon and the Defra negotiating team. They worked throughout the Council with diligence and intelligence right up to the final agreement. Even if not totally satisfied, the UK fishing industry can be assured that the UK has extracted the very best deal available from a complex and sometimes perverse system for arriving at decisions.

I am personally disappointed that we have not yet begun to make headway on the issue of a prohibition on landings for spurdog, porbeagle, skate and undulate-rays. To date the Commission have simply not been willing to discuss this issue and appear to be interested in only a cosmetic gesture which can only paper over the fact that there is a policy vacuum on this question.

Stability is highly prized by an industry that has been through such turbulent times in recent years. There are signs that the wild policy fluctuations that characterise TAC and management decisions in the past, may be on the way out. The increasing prevalence of management plans and now an approach to data limited stocks that hold TACs steady for five years is an important development.

DECEMBER 2012 FISHERIES COUNCIL

The December Fisheries Council finished in the early hours of Thursday 20 December in Brussels, when the TACs and quotas for 2013 were finally agreed.

The negotiations took place against the background of extreme proposals from the Commission for big reductions in a number key TACs and quotas for the CFPO.

Non TAC issues:

Sole Recovery Zone (VIIe) effort levels remain unchanged for 2013.

The Trevose Closure remains in place for 2013 from 1 February to 31 March.

TACs:
.
The UK Minister, Richard Benyon, and his team were fully briefed before the negotiations began were made acutely aware of our key priorities. The NFFO delegation maintained close contact with officials throughout the Council.

In terms of outcomes:

The reduction in Haddock TAC was very disappointing despite moderating the proposed cut from 55%. This short-sighted decision will have implications, not least in increase discards.
The most frustrating outcome was on Spurdog, Porbeagle and Skate which remain under zero TAC. Despite all the rhetoric from the Commission about the importance reducing discards, these stocks were not up for negotiation. This amounts to a counterproductive, irrational, not to say schizophrenic approach from Commission. The UK Minister and negotiating team were made fully aware of all the arguments and implications of such an outcome on these stocks but whilst he acknowledged and agreed with these he was unable to deliver due to the Commission’s immovable position. We all know this will deliver nothing expect increase discards and do nothing for conservation. The CFPO will continue to work with CEFAS and DEFRA to develop alternative management proposals during 2013.

The December negotiations are always complex with an ever growing green influence offstage. We are clear about how we can influence the political process, even if we don’t win every battle, every time:

Provide clear, evidenced based, arguments
Work with officials and scientists throughout the year (only so much can be achieved in the last lap)
Work with fishermen in other member states where our interests coincide and in the RACs
Use fisheries science partnership projects to strengthen the science base for decisions

In the early stages of these negotiations we made it clear that the outcome in the South West would necessarily be judged as an overall package. From that perspective and the outcome has been disappointing in some important respects. What is clear is:

That without the NFFO’s efforts things would be much worse.
We need to begin work immediately to ensure that next year’s outcomes are better

Positive Result for Northern Ireland’s Fishermen – Alan McCulla, ANIFPO

The EU’s December Fisheries Council negotiations concluded at 6:30am on Friday morning, after a marathon all night session.

In advance of the talks the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation had identified four priorities for fisheries in the Irish Sea, which were in line with sustainable fisheries management. These were;

Prevent any further cut in the days at sea
Secure a rollover with the Area 7 prawn quota
Secure a rollover on the Irish Sea cod TAC
Secure a rollover with the Irish Sea haddock TAC –

The results were as follows:

Stock2012 TAC 2013 Proposal 2013 TAC 7 Prawns21,759 18,57623,065+6%6 Prawns16,65016,65019,647 +18%7a Cod 380 285 285 -25%7a Haddock 1,251 1,001 1,189 -5%7a Whiting 89 7180 -5%7a Plaice 1,627 1,627 1,627n/c7a Herring 5,280 4,9934,993-5%7 Anglers30,677 24,542 29,144 -5%6/7 Hake30,90020,86030,900n/c

Overall this was a positive result for Northern Ireland’s fishing industry, with significant increases in Northern Ireland’s most important fisheries for prawns, underlining the stability of those stocks in the Irish Sea and to the West of Scotland.

With the exception of cod, other quota reductions were minimised to levels that will not impact on local fishermen. The 25% reduction in cod flies in the face of the European Commission’s own scientific advice and is an obvious disappointment in what otherwise is a good result. The decision to freeze days at sea in 2013 at their 2012 levels represents another welcome and significant boost for the local fleet.

Alan McCulla Chief Executive of the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation said,

“The Northern Ireland team came to Brussels with shared objectives and with the exception of cod we secured our objectives. Our Fisheries Minister Michelle O’Neill MLA has secured a result that underpins the very significant steps our fishermen have taken in ensuring sustainable fisheries in the Irish Sea. It is right to thank her, as well as our MPs, MEPs and other MLAs who intervened in London and Brussels to ensure a fair outcome for Northern Ireland’s fishing industry.”

“We share Minister O’Neill’s disappointment with the result on Irish Sea cod. A 25% cut on what is classed as a choke stock in unjustifiable and will work against us assessing what exactly is happening with cod in the Irish Sea.”

“Nevertheless, we cannot complain about the overall result from this Fisheries Council, which provides Northern Ireland’s fishermen with additional catching opportunities over and above what they had in 2012.”

North East
Ned Clark Chairman NFFO North East Committee

Inevitably, the main focus in the North Sea has been the important developments in breaking out of the downward ratchet on days-at-sea and also the implications of the Council decisions for the EU negotiations on the TAC for cod. Management plans are working well for our main demersal stocks with substantial increases anticipated in haddock, plaice, saithe and whiting when the EU Norway talks resume in January.

In a fishery of such central importance to so many vessels, the significant cut in the TAC for North Sea nephrops has sent a shiver of alarm through the industry. The work being done in the North Sea RAC on a long term management plan will, I believe, be central to the future management of this stock and all potentially affected should make themselves aware of this work.

Without the NFFO’s work throughout the year I am certain that we would be in a very much worse situation.

South East
Tony Delahunty Chairman of NFFO South East Committee

An immense amount of groundwork from May onwards has paid off in the Council results for the diverse South East fleets. The work that the NFFO has done throughout the year with Cefas and ICES scientists and Defra officials, has paid off in a substantial increase in the flatfish TACs (increase of 26% for Eastern Channel plaice and +6% for sole). The result for skates and rays was however disappointing (10% cut), although this was reduced from a proposed 20% reduction. The position with undulate ray is particularly indefensible given that the ICES science does not require a ban on landings but a tailored management plan.

I believe that this points to the need for us to work on the science and species identification on skates and rays throughout the coming year to (at least) reverse this cut for next year.

Although Norway is a long way away from the Channel, the complexities of the Norway negotiations have had an impact on the Eastern Channel cod TAC because it is linked to the North Sea. We are hopeful that the Council has cleared the way for a rollover, status quo, TAC, when the negotiations are concluded in January.

One area of remaining concern lies with the quota split between Defra and the devolved administrations following the concordat agreed earlier in the year. The longer this decision is delayed and the more opaque the principles being used to make the split, the greater the anxiety amongst vessel operators in our area.

European Parliament CFP Vote

Commentators are still assessing the significance of the vote in the European Parliament Fisheries Committee in 18th December. It is probably too early to assess its real relevance.
On the face of it the Committee voted for a reformed CFP that includes:

A discard ban that covers catches of all regulated species, with some flexibility on deadlines and species which survive discarding
An obligation to manage fish stocks to some level above MSY
A rejection of a European level system of ITQs
Support for a form of regionalised management within a broad statutory framework and default to centralised management if regional measures fail

However, perhaps the most significant development of the day came after the Committee had finished voting (13 to 10 with 2 abstention) to support the package, when the Commission suggested that the narrow vote was insufficient to give the Parliament an adequate mandate to enter “trialoge” negotiations with the Commission and the Council of Ministers on the final shape of a reformed CFP.

One of the main political groupings, the European Peoples’ Party, voted on block against the package, and as they account for 40% of the eligible votes winning their support for a final compromise package in Plenary, sometime in the New Year, will be critical.

It is not immediately clear what the EPP’s positions will be then as there is a swirl of cross-cutting party political, national as well as fisheries factors in the mix.

The NGO’s have lobbied the European Parliament with an intensity that reflects the financial resources to which they have access. But as is often the case with European legislation it is not clear what exactly has been voted for, what its significance will be in 6 months time and what it means in terms of practical implementation issues.

Irish Presidency
The Irish hold the EU Presidency for the next six months and it is widely felt that this provides the best prospect to secure an agreed reform through the “trialogue” process of negotiation between the parties. The delay in agreeing an EP negotiating mandate, which passes a vote in Plenary, could turn out to have serious consequences for the timing and perhaps the substance of the reform.

NFFO

A Federation delegation was present for the European Parliament vote. We will be meeting with senior Defra officials in the New year to take stock of these most recent development and discussing how to achieve the UK’s and the industry’s priorities for the reform.

Council Breakthrough on Flawed Cod Plan

The Council of Ministers unanimously agreed to amend the parts of the EU Cod Plan which deal with setting quotas and days-at-sea limits.
This vote provides a legal basis on which the Council can now apply a freeze on pre-programmed effort reductions in the North Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland. It also allows the Commission to argue for something other than a 20% cut in the North Sea cod TAC, when negotiations reopen with Norway.

The decision also allows the Council to break with the provisions of the Cod Management Plan in setting quotas in the Irish Sea and West of Scotland.

Evaluation

After scientists evaluated the EU Cod Management Plan in 2011, it was only a matter of time until the political process initiated the changes recommended: a move away from undue reliance on quota reductions and days-at-sea restrictions. The Commission has proposed many of the changes suggested.

the meantime, the fleets have been struggling under punitive reductions that were never foreseen by those who signed the original Plan.

In an extremely important decision, the Council has now cut through the impasse. The apparent legal contradiction over which European institution has the authority to set TACs within the context of a management plan is an issue for another day – possibly in the European Court.

Without this breakthrough there was a real prospect that all the progress that has been made on catch quotas, real time closures and improved selectivity in the cod fishery would have been put into reverse. It means also that there will not be a huge increase in discards in 2013, because the North Sea cod quota can be set in harmony with the quotas for haddock, saithe, whiting and plaice. The TACs for all of these quotas are set to increase in 2013 mainly by the maximum amount permitted +15%.

At times the EU Cod Management Plan has seemed like a runaway train. The Council has now limited the damage that it can do and there is a realistic prospect of moving forward.

On the face of it the Committee voted for a reformed CFP that includes:

A discard ban that covers catches of all regulated species, with some flexibility on deadlines and species which survive discarding
An obligation to manage fish stocks to some level above MSY
A rejection of a European level system of ITQs
Support for a form of regionalised management within a broad statutory framework and default to centralised management if regional measures fail

It is not immediately clear what the EPP’s positions will be then as there is a swirl of cross-cutting party political, national as well as fisheries factors in the mix.

Irish Presidency

The Irish hold the EU Presidency for the next six months and it is widely felt that this provides the best prospect to secure an agreed reform through the “trialoge” process of negotiation between the parties. The delay in agreeing an EP negotiating mandate, which passes a vote in Plenary, could turn out to have serious consequences for the timing and perhaps the substance of the reform.

NFFO

Evaluation

But the time issue became of utmost importance. There was a great deal of concern, within the industry and beyond, that the conflict between the Council and the European Parliament on long term management plans would hamper and delay a move towards more intelligent fishing. In the meantime, the fleets have been struggling under punitive reductions that were never foreseen by those who signed the original Plan

In an extremely important decision, the Council has cut through the impasse. The apparent legal contradiction over which European institution has the authority to set TACs within the context of a management plan is an issue for another day – possibly in the European Court.

At times the EU Cod Management Plan has seemed like a runaway train. The Council has now limited the damage that it can do and there is a realistic prospect of moving forward.

Spokesperson for MPAC, Dale Rodmell said: “It is essential that fishermen make known their issues on a site by site basis. While much was done during the course of the regional MCZ projects by various parts of the industry to limit ill-considered site selections, the sheer scale and rushed pace of the planning process and its top-down network design guidance meant that it was not possible to resist all ill-considered proposals.”

“The public consultation is really the last chance saloon before the first set of designations goes forward. Whilst MPAC has engaged government successfully at the strategic level over the application of marine evidence, fisheries displacement and legitimate representation, the consultation brings the focus back to the local level where local knowledge is key. Now that there are no regional projects, MPAC is here to provide the platform through which to take those local arguments forward.”

“There is already a high level public campaign by green groups as the consultation moves forward, and this is expected to be bolstered by a focus on MPAs in the next instalment of the Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall Fish Fight series. Against that, we must come forward with credible, factual and site specific arguments on the potential hardship to fishing communities and unintended consequences of poorly selected proposals.”

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.docMPAC is encouraging responses to be sent directly to Defra, but also copied to the MPAC secretariat at the NFFO1 in order both to reflect on the details provided in the MPAC consultation response and also so that industry leaders can be fully aware of the detailed site by site issues when engaging government.

However, to simplify the process, a shorter form suited to the issues affecting the fishing industry can be downloaded from the link below and submitted to the MPAC Secretariat at the NFFO1 to be included in the MPAC consultation response:

In particular, this seeks information on the fisheries expected to be affected by each MCZ, any effects each MCZ would have, including from fisheries displacement, and whether any boundary changes could reduce those effects.

The Coalition was formed in 2010 out of a desire across a wide range of fishing industry representative bodies, both in the UK and neighbouring European states, to speak authoritatively with one voice to government.

MPAC, c/o NFFO, 30 Monkgate, York, YO31 7PF, United Kingdom; nffo@nffo.org.uk

..In spring, summer and autumn the leading environmental NGO works closely with the fishing industry in a number of regional advisory councils towards shared objectives. WWF has, for example, played a significant and positive role in the development of RAC advice on cod recovery, CFP reform and the development of long term management plans. Although there can be differences in emphasis between the industry and WWF representatives, there is a large degree of mutual respect and many shared aims.

Then winter arrives. Invariably, the green NGOs adopt much more hard- line positions, slipping into adversarial mode and making simplistic and misleading assertions which are presented through a loud and aggressive media megaphone.

We suppose that it is the lure of the media spotlight during the run up to the Council of Ministers’ decisions on TACs and quotas in late December that accounts for this strange bi-polar organisational behaviour. This year the problem has been intensified by the CFP reform process and the current focus on the European Parliament.

Like winter vomiting sickness, the symptoms of WWF winter statements are now well known and are recurring. This year they have been repeated by WWF’s Director of WWF’s European Policy Office, Tony Long.

They include:

Unrecognisable and over-generalised statistics concocted to suggest to the uninformed that European fisheries are still headed towards catastrophe
No credit given to the significant turn-around in stock biomass, fishing mortality, or industry-led conservation initiatives
Repetition of the assertion or implication that ministers are in thrall to an over-powerful fishing lobby which leads quota decisions which depart radically from scientific recommendations
Distortion of logic and language: apparently, European fleets have not been providing food security for millions of people. Instead we are told that “EU fishing fleets have been plundering European waters for too long”
Recovering stocks and stocks already fished at maximum sustainable yield are never taken as signs that in many fisheries we are getting things right. Instead we are told that “Positive trends in fish stocks recovering have been seen in recent years, however all too often they are an exception rather than a rule”
Professed or real ignorance of the close working relationship between ICES and the fishing industry throughout the year

A Very Bad Example: Western Channel Sole

In the hunt for bad news and evidence of irresponsibility, WWF has alighted on, “One extraordinary example…. a deviation of 264% above scientific advice for Sole in 2008!”

This is a bad example to try to draw the conclusion that TACs are set irresponsibly.

In 2008, the Commission proposed and the Council accepted a one-off upward adjustment in TAC to align the Western Channel sole quota with the level of actual catches and in doing so, lifted the fishery out of the era of misreporting and on the road to sustainability and maximum sustainable yield, which it now currently enjoys. This was not an act of ministers’ irresponsibility but an enlightened and brave departure from the banal notion that cutting quotas automatically cuts fishing mortality. This year, under an effective long term management plan, the TAC for this sole stock is proposed to increase again by a further 15%. Somehow, in its press release, WWF managed to turn a major positive, an inspirational turning point, into a negative.

Management Responsibilities

Apart from their bogus statistics, what NGO assertions about ministers’ irresponsibility generally fail to grasp is that ICES advice is not the same as fisheries management decisions and nor should it be. Fisheries managers are obliged to take into account a range of factors that stock assessment scientists do not.

So far, ICES advice has been provided for the most part on a single stock basis. Yet many of our mixed demersal fisheries catch several species at the same time. Balancing TACs for a number of stocks each with a different stock status will inevitably mean a departure from a narrow interpretation of the scientific recommendations. Fisheries managers have the responsibility to make that judgement.
Managers (including in this term the Commission, Third Countries like Norway as well as the Council of Ministers) also have responsibilities to the fishermen and fishing communities to take account of the impact of their decisions. A staged approach to reducing fishing mortality may well mean that TACs are legitimately set within a precautionary approach but above the most severe scientific recommendations.
There is a strong case across a number of fisheries for the kind of quota uplift seen in the Western Channel sole fishery, linked to a decisive regime shift in how the fisheries are managed. STECF is of the view that TAC reductions even when underpinned by effort control simply haven’t reduced fishing mortality in the West of Scotland or Irish Sea cod fisheries. Doubtless when this radical change of direction is eventually taken it will be reflected in a divergence from the TACs suggested by a narrow reading of the ICES catch options, providing more statistics for simplistic and naive criticisms.
Discards: A sure recipe for increasing the discards, that WWF professes to abhor, would be to ignore discards when making judgements on TAC levels. The Council of Ministers December meeting is the end of an annual process but it does provide member states with the opportunity to present the most up –to-date information on trends and developments in specific fisheries in a way that the more cumbersome Data Framework Regulation cannot. Some of this information is about discard rates under different TAC scenarios. It is entirely appropriate that this information is taken into account in TAC decisions.

In a nutshell, managers have a responsibility to set TACs taking into account a range of factors that go beyond those taken into account in preparing scientific stock assessments.

A More Considered Media Approach?

It is unlikely that this chiding will have much impact on WWF, or any of the other NGOs which misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret the December process. The allure of a media cheap shot is likely to be just too tempting.

We do not say that the December process in anything like a fully rational way of arriving at TAC decisions. That is why we work to develop effective long-term management plans which could reduce the need for ad hoc annual decisions. Until we get to that stage, managers will have to work with science that is sometimes incomplete by making management judgements on the basis of the best available evidence. This difficult process is not helped by deliberately misleading noises off-stage.

If WWF wants to retain the respect that its foot soldiers, working in the RACs and in collaboration with the fishing industry have built up during the rest of the year, it should reconsider its approach to year- end publicity.

This meeting was followed by detailed discussions with senior Defra officials, in preparation for next week’s December Council.

The Federation outlined its priorities, fleet-sector by fleet-sector and area by area. Issues were grouped, in recognition of the fact that despite its diverse fisheries interests, the UK only has a finite amount of negotiating capital, which must be deployed efficiently during the Council.

The main grouped Council issues for the Federation are:

Issues related to the EU Cod Plan
Stocks subject to the Commission’s drive for MSY by 2013, rather than 2015, despite the fact that ICES has outlined a stepped MSY transition approach explicitly to minimise socio-economic hardship
Where an over-precautionary approach has been applied to data poor stocks
Stocks in mixed fisheries where there are divergent TAC proposals which can only mean a surge in discards
Zero TACs – with an inevitable consequence discards
Use it or lose it TACs where cuts are proposed on the basis of a crude underutilisation, leaving a single member state to bear the brunt of a real reduction.

The importance of working with other member states to achieve these objectives, where our interests coincide was agreed.

Ministers at the December Council are de facto fisheries managers. They have a responsibility to take the scientific advice and the Commission’s proposals and arrive at reasoned management judgements on TACs for 2013. This involves balancing progress towards MSY (where possible) with fleet viability concerns and minimising discards. The Federation’s representations were advanced within this framework.

Cod Plan

The industry finds itself in an extraordinary situation. Most of the stock indicators for the stocks we are interested in are broadly positive or stable; there is broad agreement amongst the member states and the Commission on the substance of the main issues for decision; and expectations are high for many increased TACs, along with a freeze on effort cuts. Despite all these positive signs we are facing one of the most difficult and complex Councils for years.

Already the negotiations between EU and Norway for an annual fisheries agreement have been derailed without a settlement, and will not resume until the New Year.

The issue that has caused the problem is the usual one: the now discredited EU Cod Management Plan. However, the problem lies not with the specific suggestions on how to put the plan right but by political sensitivities about a major political turf war between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. At the heart of this political quagmire are two substantive issues.

TACs for Cod in the North Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland

There is a broad recognition, following STECF’s evaluation of the EU Cod Plan, that the automatic reductions in TACs for cod and effort cuts in the North Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland, required under the terms of the Cod Plan, generate discards and/or fail to reduce fishing mortality by the required amount. There is also a view that these reductions have now proceeded to an extent never envisaged by the ministers who signed the Plan. The Commission also recognises this and in its proposal for an amended cod plan, has provided a legal basis on which the Council could set cod TACs on some other format, such as a rollover of the current TAC. However, the amended Cod Plan must be approved by co-decision with the European Parliament and there is concern amongst member states that this might get mired in the conflict between the Council and the Parliament over which institution has competence over those parts of EU Long Term Management Plans which deal with setting TACs and effort levels. The Lisbon Treaty explicitly exempts annual TAC and effort decisions from co-decision. Better, member states reason, to extract the TAC and effort setting clauses from the Commission’s Proposal and deal with them in the December Council. At least there would be some degree of certainty that what needs to be done would be done. If there is unanimity in Council, member states have the authority to do this without the Commission’s support. The Commission, although agreeing with the need for a different TAC setting arrangement and an effort freeze, take the view that antagonising the Parliament would be counterproductive in the broader political context. Some member states may share this view. Others are strongly of the view that the Parliament should have nothing to do with stetting TACs and effort levels precisely because they are explicitly exempt from the co-decision arrangements under the Lisbon Treaty.

We understand that trying to avoid pre-empting this hornets’ nest by setting a North Sea cod TAC outside the terms of the EU Cod Plan, albeit in negotiation with Norway, was a major reason why the EU stalled the EU/ Norway negotiations in Bergen last week.

Effort Control

The same arguments apply for an effort freeze as for TACs. No-one seems to believe that further effort reductions will achieve anything and all parties are searching for a way to halt the runaway train. The problem is the complex legal and political context.

The danger, as we enter the December Council is that the EU political process will fail us. If it does, we could be facing:

A 20% cut in the North Sea Cod TAC, leading to an increase in discards and a backward step for a wide range of cod avoidance/discard reduction initiatives. The Cod TAC and TACs for other species in the mixed fisheries moving in radically divergent directions
Even more punitive cuts in the Cod TACs for the Irish Sea and West of Scotland, with similar consequences for forward movement on rebuilding cod stocks
Further significant cuts in permitted days-at-sea in the North Sea, Irish Sea
A delay in securing a legal base for an effort freeze, more reasonable TAC setting arrangements
No exemption from the effort regime for vessels under Fully Documented Fishery arrangements
A movement towards increased discards at a time when the whole thrust of the CFP reform is towards a reduction if not elimination of discards
A loss of focus on other issues of importance to the UK during the Council (UK with more and more diverse fisheries than most member states tends to have a longer “shopping list” at the December Council.)
Above all, all those involved in these decisions face a credibility test. Failure to deliver a pragmatic workable solution because of the failure to resolve inter-institutional EU conflicts will not be easily forgiven. The parties have a heavy responsibility to get this right.
Another important lesson to learn from this mess is that every long term management plan in future should have an escape clause that allows the parties to deal with unforeseen circumstances

There is a danger that the heavy shadow cast by the difficulties on the cod front will spill over to the way the commission deals with other stocks. To guard against this, the Federation emphasised the need for satisfactory outcomes on the following issues:

Irish Sea

Nephrops TAC
Irish Sea Cod Fisheries Science Partnership/Cod Audit
Haddock TAC

South West

Diverse fishery which will be judged as a package
Area VII Haddock TAC
Hake proposed TAC reduction
Monkfish TAC
Megrim TAC
Spurdog
Porbeagle

North Sea

Norway Others TAC
Nephrops TAC and gear selectivity
Long Term Management Plans
Hake mismatch between stock and TAC
Plaice management plan
FDF fisheries

External Waters

EU Norway
Svalbard issues

Pelagics

Western Mackerel
Herring

NFFO Team in Brussels

An NFFO delegation will travel to Brussels for the Council and will be in contact with the Minister and his officials throughout the process.

The recent history of the CFP is sufficient to demonstrate that in fisheries where a certain level of by-catch is inevitable, or completely unpredictable, a zero TAC can only mean discards. A zero TAC is therefore best understood as a wholly ineffective measure driven by gesture politics rather than any clear strategy or idea about how to address a specific problem.

Zero TACs on spurdog and porbeagle fall into this category. Their purpose seems to be about creating the illusion of dealing with a problem, rather than putting in place steps that would lead to a solution.

Nothing is clearer than the fact that throwing dead spurdog and porbeagle, caught as incidental by-catch, over the side is not a solution to accidental by-catch.

It is usually easier to describe a problem rather than define a workable solution and that is the situation with these stocks.

We have to concede, it’s not easy. Vessels have not targeted these species in our waters for some time but although great progress has been made in improving the selectivity of fishing gear generally, and further progress can be expected in the future, at present there is no sign of a technical solution to inadvertent by-catch of spurdog or porbeagle. They turn up in a range of fishing gears, if not regularly, then regularly enough to represent a problem.

But real solution requires a reduction of fishing mortality on these vulnerable species, which according to ICES advice are now seriously depleted.

We propose a 5 stage approach:

Remove the zero TAC; it is achieving nothing.
Replace the zero TAC with a by-catch provision that will allow vessels to land what they catch but dissuade any vessel owner from thinking about targeting the species again
Use the data collected from these landings in an enhanced data programme to improve the prospects of defining a solution.
Identify a solution or solutions: There are a number of potential candidates, at present unexplored:
- Gear design to aid escape (this is tricky but if a turtle escape hatch can be successfully designed, a solution by skippers working with gear technologists may be just around the corner)
- Spatial/ temporal avoidance: With enhanced data, It may be possible to identify areas and seasons in which aggregations of these species occur, providing the basis for real time closures or equivalent
- New technologies may provide an answer either through alarms which dissuade these particular species from entering the gear, or which provide skippers with the ability to spot and avoid aggregations or even single fish
- Other options
The integration of these species into a comprehensive ecosystem fisheries plan. Continuous monitoring and adaption of the plan, to take into account new data available from the fleets

The critics will claim that all this is too little, too late, and too slow. But the point is that it would be to move problem in the right direction for a solution. The Zero TAC approach only masks inactivity and the absence of any real progress in any direction.

It is very significant that ICES advice on these stocks nowhere says that they should be subject to a Zero TAC. Defining a workable solution should now be the preoccupation of the fishing industry, fisheries scientists, environmental NGOs and fisheries managers.

Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon and Secretary of State, Owen Patterson, have announced the closure of the North East drift net fishery and phasing out of the traditional T and J net fishery, to placate the powerful landed/riparian lobby.

The main features of the new Net Limitation Order are:

Closure of the Drift Net Fishery in 2022
T and J Net to be phased out
No Transfers to licence endorsees
Review introduction of quotas and effort controls to regulate salmon catches in future

This Net Limitation Order is the culmination of nearly thirty years of continuous pressure from the riparian and angling lobby who have deeply resented that they have had to share the salmon and sea trout resource with small-scale fishermen. The reason that until now, they have had limited success is due entirely due two three factors:

The NE commercial fishery has been an exemplar of how a small scale, traditional fishery should be managed
The scientific case against the drift net fishery was not there
The stalwart efforts of the NFFO Salmon Committee, led by Derek Heselton, to expose the angling lobby’s manoeuvres for what they were: a property grab.

However, in recent weeks the signs have been ominous. Owen Patterson, with direct family connections to riparian owners was appointed Secretary of State and has taken a direct interest. The salmon and trout lobby has used its immense financial clout to buy expertise to handle the issue and has applied pressure with an intensity that only great financial resources can provide.

With this weight of powerful and systematic opposition and the numbers of netsmen reduced by the 1992 phase-out, it has been a matter of fighting against the odds.

No Science Just Greed

There is no conservation case that would justify closing the NE net fishery. The reasons used to cover a naked political decision to close the fishery are based on NASCO advice to close interceptory mixed stock fisheries. But:

The scientific evidence demonstrates that the stocks which the NE fishery are exploiting are stable, improving and above their conservation targets in both English and Scottish rivers
NASCO advice allows for socio-economic considerations to be taken into account if the Government is minded: The Government has ignored this
There is an identifiable harvest surplus in these stocks which justify the continuation of the North East net fishery
Comparing the annual catch of the drift net fishery to the natural rate of mortality or the annual catch of the rod fishery indicates that the net catch in this small traditional fishery is insignificant
NASCO has no commercial fishing input and is dominated by angling and riparian interests
Not least, there is a large local hatchery in the North East that is used to support salmon stocks: a fine example of sustainable practice

T and J Nets

The justification for the phase out of the T&J net fishery is even weaker:

Previous NASCO advice was to encourage a move from drift netting to T&J netting on the grounds that T& J nets tend to exploit single river stocks
This advice has changed and T&J nets are now classed as mixed stock fisheries
The conservation status of all of the stocks exploited by the T&J net fishery are stable, improving or in excess of conservation targets

The Angling Lobby

No, the explanation for this closure does not lie with the science or conservation concerns. It lies with the powerful salmon angling lobby which reflects the opinions of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country who have decided that there is no place for a small-scale well managed net fishery.

“It is not that we catch too much salmon that is the issue, it is that we have the effrontery to catch any salmon at all that is the root problem here.” said Derek Heselton, Chairman of the NFFO Salmon Committee.

“There is no overwhelming or urgent conservation case that would justify this closure. The explanation lies entirely in the fact that one group of vested interests has put sufficient pressure in the right places at the right time to secure a closure.”

“Prior to this decision we were hopeful Government would be holding up the salmon fishery as an example of the sustainable, small-scale, community based, fishery that should be nurtured and encouraged. The Government had the option to halting the phase out of drift net licences, begun in 1992 on equally spurious conservation arguments.“

Turning of the Screw

It is plainly the Government’s intention to turn the screw on the remaining netsmen with a review whether catch quotas or effort control should be introduced.

Reverse Decision

The NFFO will be doing all in its power, up to and including legal action, to reverse this disgraceful decision.

Editor’s Notes

Prior to the phase out of NE salmon drift nets instigated by John Selwyn Gummer in 1992, there were 181 drift net licences issued in Northumbria and Yorkshire. There are now 14.
T&J net licences were issued by the Environment Agency in 2012 for the Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire coasts.
Drift netting for salmon was banned in Scotland in the 1960s under another Conservative administration and under similar pressure from landed/ riparian interests.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“We took the opportunity of the EU/Norway negotiations in Bergen to sit down with the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association to explain our concerns and have been reassured by the response”.

“We explained that not only is this quota vital for a large number of under and over 10m vessels in the South West but that in years when it is not fully utilised the quota provides valuable swap currency to ease quota pressures where there are pinch points in the under-10m allocations.”

Ian Gatt, Chief Executive of the SPFA, said:

“This was a useful discussion. We were able to assure the NFFO that we are very sensitive to the fears in the South West over reallocation. There has been some confusion over where this issue has come from because the last thing that the SPFA would want to do is disadvantage fellow fishermen in the handline fishery.”

“Obviously, we are eager to ensure full uptake of the UK’s mackerel quota, especially against the background of the difficult international situation with mackerel. But we fully appreciate that the handline quota is the lifeblood of the small boat fishery in the South West.”

Barrie Deas added:

“We have agreed to keep in close contact on this issue given its importance. The bottom line is that the interests of the handliners should come uppermost in any question of reallocation, and that any unutilised quota is valid swap currency.”

Ron who is also Secretary of Whitehaven Fishermen’s Association was first elected as Chairman of the Committee in 2009. He is joined by Trevor Owen as Vice Chairman of the Committee, a vacant post following the sad passing away of Dick Langley in 2011. Trevor is also Chairman of Morecambe and Heysham Fisherman’s Association.

Ron said: “These are challenging times for the Industry and it is imperative that in our response to such we speak with one voice. The West Coast Committee membership represents the broad church approach adopted by the NFFO with members from all sectors of the Industry, large and small, working with the sole aim of looking after the interests of fishermen”.

The Committee covers the interests of the English fishing industry in the Eastern Irish Sea, and meets along the English Irish Sea ports throughout the year.

The meeting addressed the following issues:

Catherine Murphy of the MMO joined the meeting to provide guidance on accessing EFF funding. The Committee also reviewed the status of funding available from the North and West Cumbria Fisheries Local Action Group and other sources available or expected to be available to the industry in the near future. This includes the West of Morecambe Fisheries Fund, a fund being established by the Dong Energy, Vattenfall and Scottish and Southern Energy to support fishing industry initiatives in association with the West of Duddan, Ormonde and Walney 1 and 2 offshore wind farm projects.

Invitations were requested for applications for life jackets under a NFFO members’ £10 life jacket scheme and applications to the NFFO training trust fund which support all aspects of training.

TACs and quotas for 2013 and the status of the Cod Recovery Plan were reviewed.

The Committee agreed to examine the arrangements for cockle and mussel permits under new NWIFCA bye-law provisions.

Updates were received on:

The status of the domestic quota reform agenda
Implementation of the Concordat arrangements establishing the framework to enable the respective UK fisheries administrations to pursue quota and licensing arrangements.
Work to select new Birds Directive Marine Protected Areas including a potential site in the Solway Firth and the possible additions of little gulls and terns to the Liverpool bay SPA.
Defra plans to progress management measures for all Habitats and Birds Directive European Marine Sites in English waters which aims to establish management measures from the end of 2013 for priority conservation features and have in place remaining measures by 2016.
The anticipated public consultation on Marine Conservation Zone proposals in English waters.

Once the ink is dry, legislators have tended to pay little attention to implementation – until the policy is evaluated and found to have failed, or at least delivered much less than anticipated.

It is our view that the gulf between legislation and practical implementation should be central to the debate over the European Parliament’s final positions on CFP reform, before it again engages with the Council of Ministers and the Commission, on the shape of a new CFP. A crucial vote in the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, on compromise amendments, is scheduled for 18th December.

Before we get into the detail, it is worth making one important point. There is, in fact, little difference between the aspirations of the environmental NGOs and the fishing industry in the goals or destination points for the new Policy. We both aspire to fish stocks harvested sustainably with high long term yields. However, there are wide differences in our views about what should be done to get there.

The EP approach, apparently heavily influenced by the NGO’s, seems very divorced from the practicalities of implementation. Perhaps this is inevitable under the current arrangements, as the Parliament are legislators with no responsibility for applying the measures enacted, unlike member states who to some degree at least, have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

The 104 European Parliament amendments (condensed from 2500)and prepared by rapporteur Ulrike Rodust MEP and a number of shadow rapporteurs from the various political groupings, exhibit the hallmarks of environmental NGOs’ extensive lobbying efforts backed, as we now know, by huge financial resources.

Confusingly and unhelpfully, the amendments are made to Commission’s original proposal. But the world has moved on. In June, in Luxembourg, the Council adopted its “general approach” to CFP reform, and it is reconciling the EP positions with this document (in “trialogue” with the Commission) over the coming year that will provide the basis for the new CFP.

The Council’s “General Approach” is not a document that we would have drafted presented with a blank piece of paper, but as a compromise, we think that with some judicious adaptations, it could provide a workable basis for a reformed CFP. Clearly, the member states kept at least one eye on the implementation issues that will arise from their reform proposals.

The same cannot be said about the EP’s proposed amendments – if they are adopted on the 18th. Whether it is because the EP has been unable to resist the lure of top-down management, or as a result of NGO’s lobbying, the 104 amendments contain a number of proposed changes that carry distinct echoes of the discredited command and control philosophy that was identified in the CFP Green Paper as the root cause of many of its failures.

Fish Stock Recovery Zones

Top of the list comes the EP’s suggestion that member states should be obliged to establish Fish Stock Recovery Zones which“will amount to at least 10% of territorial waters in each Member State”. Leaving aside whether it is actually intended that these should apply, as stated, only to waters within each member states’ 12 mile limit, you can be sure that this has not been inserted by consulting with any bona fide fisheries scientists. Put bluntly and in general terms, there are many other instruments in the fisheries management toolbox that can be used to rebuild fish stocks in our temperate waters that are more effective than closed areas, and which don’t carry the same dangerous displacement consequences in both socio-economic and ecological terms. Besides, this poorly thought through suggestion would cut across everything that is being done to set up a network of marine protected areas for habitat protection purposes, although it is suggested that they could incorporate existing closed areas. If an area is to be closed for fisheries management purposes (and there are some occasions when this is the right thing to do) it should be with a clear objective in mind, rather than compliance with a random notion that closing an area to meet an arbitrary and spurious percentage target is a “good idea that might do some good.”

Further Faster: MSY

Many of the proposed amendments are of the further, faster variety of which we have had cause to criticise for naivety in the past. We can see this too in the compromise text in the approach to maximum sustainable yield although, to be fair, the compromise amendments do recognise the problem of blindly applying the MSY doctrine in mixed fisheries. There is an escape clause designed to prevent exhaustion of a minor TAC becoming a choke species, although even this is hemmed in by enough caveats and qualifications to make one wonder if it wouldn’t be a hostage to fortune in terms of practical quota management. Choke species could vary even within the quota year:

“(5d) Management decisions relating to MSY in mixed fisheries shall take into account the difficulty of fishing all stocks in a mixed fishery at maximum sustainable yield at the same time, if scientific advice indicates that increases in selectivity to avoid choke species are very difficult to achieve. ICES and STECF should be requested to provide advice on the appropriate levels in such circumstances.”

Management Plans

The deadlock between the EP and the Council over who has competence over the content of TAC-setting aspects of long term management plans, colours the EP amendments. In general and as feared the Parliament wants detailed control over specific targets and timetables within management plans. The lessons of the disastrous EU Cod Management Plan have apparently not been learned.

More than anything, the attempt to micro-manage specific fisheries through a formulaic remote control will – if adopted – undermine effective regionalisation and decentralisation of the CFP.

Small Scale Fisheries

The EP proposals pay vague lip service to the small-scale fisheries sector – but in such general terms that it amounts to an expression of goodwill and little more. This is not unexpected given the difficulties in arriving at a meaningful European level definition of small scale fisheries because of their sheer variety member state to member state and fishery to fishery.

If the EP proposal is taken at face value, and it is suggesting that fish restocking areas apply to territorial waters (i.e. inside the 12 mile limit), it will mean that it is this very section of the fleet that will feel the impact of losing 10% of its fishing grounds by 2020. This would have huge displacement effects.

Discard Ban

The compromise amendments would extend a discard ban to “all harvested and regulated species”, ensuring that it would be unworkable in practice and going well beyond even the Commission Proposal.

Nothing is clearer than that the CFP reform will contain something that will be able to be sold to the public as a “discard ban”. But equally, anyone who has an understanding of the issue appreciates there is a great distance between statements of broad political ambition and the realities of systematically reducing discards across many different fisheries, many different species, and different drivers for discards. Norway, the usual exemplar in terms of a discard ban does provide the flexibilities that make a ban workable at the fisheries level, and took 20 years to gradually extend it to the main target species. The scope for generating perverse outcomes through the type of remote control legislation advanced in the Parliament’s compromise amendments is legendary but doesn’t seem to have put the Parliament off making the attempt.

Overcapacity

The EP seeks to apply a mandatory obligation on member states to identify and eliminate fleet overcapacity, leaving the method of reduction in the member state’s hands. Good luck to the Parliament in persuading member states on that one in these financially straitened times.

Tradable Fishing Concessions

Like the Commission, the EP is meddling with how quota management rules should be applied within the member states, without the faintest idea about what is involved. The member states have made quite clear that this is a non-starter- a template for quota management applied from above at the European level is a recipe for rigidity and would be a move into deeper centralisation; to move in a contrary direction to the rest of the reform.

Signals

The political signals that have been sent out by the compromise amendments are not encouraging. They suggest a Parliament wedded to top-down control and micro-management, with lip service to regionalisation and small-scale fisheries. They reflect, to an unhealthy degree the influence and priorities of a well intentioned but naive green lobby. If the lessons of the last 20 years have not been learnt, it will be both fish and fishermen that pay the price through the maintenance of a centralised and therefore dysfunctional CFP. In this event the European Parliament will be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Co-decision means that the status quo in decision-making no-longer applies: major decisions will take longer, mistakes will take longer to rectify, even when the European institutions are not at war with each other. All this suggests that a more flexible, adaptive and responsive decision-making framework is urgently required, with room to manoeuvre at fisheries level. The European Parliament’s compromise amendments would make the reformed CFP unworkable and it would take a further reform in 10 years time to undo the damage.

The Parliament’s role in the new CFP should be to help set standards and principles for good governance of our fisheries and to provide oversight. The signs are that with the encouragement of the greens, they have merely substituted themselves as the new micro-managers.

A wide ranging NFFO briefing pack provided the MPs with analysis and documentation across all of the key issues confronting the industry.

A range of MPs from across the political spectrum attended to ask detailed questions and probe the issues. The following issues were covered:

CFP Reform
Regionalisation
Discard Ban
Transferable Fishing Concessions
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Implications of Co-decision with the European Parliament
EU Norway Negotiations
Long Term Management Plans
TACs
Escape clauses
North Sea cod
Cod Management Plan: Commission Proposal for an interim regime
Mackerel Issue
Relations with scientists
Data poor Stocks
Nephrops functional units
Marine Protected Areas
Technical conservation
Innovations to meet the requirements of mixed fishery management and discard ban
Discards generated by zero TACs
Industry Reputation and media stereotyping
Irish Sea Issues
Celtic Sea issues
North Sea issues
West of Scotland Issues
Hake issues

This was a well attended and lively meeting that reflected a healthy interest in the fishing industry by a good cross-section of MPs.

Around $24million has been paid to a range of environmental NGOs since 2006.

It is hard to deny the many good intentions and motivations that lie behind the Foundation’s donations. Good work is done across a wide range of issues including slavery, housing and child protection.

But what are the implications of this scale of external funding for the fishing sector, fisheries managers, fisheries scientists and the democratic process?

Oak’s stated aims in relation to the marine environment are to:

1. Improve ocean governance and the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources
2. Mitigate impacts of large scale industrialisation on local communities, and
3. Reduce overfishing and foster community-based stewardship of marine resources

With regard to European fisheries policy, Oak’s aim is to fund “organisations that ensure the European fleet operates sustainable practices either in European waters or elsewhere”.

The main Oak initiatives within this approach are to:

1. Recover fish stocks and ecosystem health through the aims of the overarching Common Fisheries Policy and ensure its implementation
2. Promote growth of sustainable seafood in Europe through demand and supply side initiatives; and
3. Increase stakeholder engagement; improve fisheries management decision making and provide the pressure parliamentarians require to support progressive fisheries policy.

It is possible to question at least some of the assumptions that lie behind this choice of initiatives but the main feature of Oak’s approach is its reliance on external third party intervention to achieve its goals.

Oak has apparently concluded that the best way to secure its objectives is to fund NGOs external to the fishing industry who are presumed to know better (or at least be better positioned) to secure the changes that Oak would like to see implemented.

This approach may have its origin in other fields, where it may or not be successful, but the underlying assumptions with regard to European fisheries seem to be:

1. Being disinterested (in the financial sense), NGOs apparently know better than fishermen, fisheries managers and fisheries scientists what is required to put European fisheries on the road to salvation
2. The European Parliament is the appropriate vehicle to determine top-down rules that will oblige the fishing industry, and by implication fisheries managers, to behave in sustainable ways
3. It is possible and productive to lead consumers away from unsustainable to sustainable fish consumption, through information campaigns of various kinds

This is where we have serious concerns about the direction in which Oak funding will take the Common Fisheries Policy if it is successful in achieving its aims.

It is exactly the top-down, well intentioned but misconceived, prescriptive, over-centralised, micro-management approach that has led the CFP to under-perform so spectacularly over the last 20 years. It is precisely the paternalist command and control assumptions that “we know best” that led to the catastrophic divide between the managers and the managed – that is only now being repaired.

Our view is that third parties like NGOs can’t in the final analysis make the difference – precisely because they are third parties.

This is not to say that NGOs do not have a legitimate and important role to play in challenging the industry where it needs challenging. But putting all the Oak eggs in the NGO basket seems to us to be its Achilles heel in its approach to fisheries. And what eggs they are!

Oak Foundation Fisheries Grants

Organisation

Title

Programme

Country

Year

Amount (USD)

New Economics Foundation

Economics for fair & sustainable fisheries

Environment

2011

249,683

Keo Films

Fish fight

Environment

2011

496,752

Seas at Risk

Making sustainable regionalisation part of the future CFP

Environment

Belgium

2011

524,969

Globe Europe

Common Fisheries Policy Political Initiative

Environment

Europe

2011

135,900

Client Earth

European Fisheries

Environment

Europe

2011

350,000

Pew Charitable Trusts

Core support – Reforming the CFP in the EU

Environment

USA

2011

495,000

Oceana Inc

Oceana Europe (2011 renewal)

Environment

Europe

2011

2,000,000

Ecotrust

Sustainable Fisheries Trust Policy & programme Innovation

Environment

USA

2010

274,877

Greenpeace International

Seafood Markets & CFP reform

Environment

Nether-lands

2010

859,728

WWF International

CFP Reform

Environment

Switzer-land

2010

4,378,318

WWF International

Ending Subsidies that Drive Overfishing

Environment

Switzer-land

2010

1,000,000

Oceana Inc

Core support

Environment

USA

2010

4,275,000

Marine Stewardship Council

Harnessing Market forces to encourage sustainable practices in Spanish fisheries

Environment

Spain

2009

299,205

Client Earth

EU Marine Programme

Environment

Belgium

2009

244,969

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

Bringing together European Small-Scale fishing voices in the Reform of the CFP

Environment

Belgium

2009

161,000

Fisheries Secretariat

Tracking IUU fishing, Control & enforcement through NGOs in Poland

Environment

Sweden

2008

300,375

Pew Charitable Trusts

Reforming the CFP

Environment

Belgium

2008

600,000

Oceana Inc

EU Discards Policy

Environment

USA

2007

266,040

WWF International

Reforming Europe’s Fishing fleets & Implementing the EU CFP

Environment

Belgium

2007

2,654,050

Institute for European Environmen-tal Policy

Processing the Ecosystem-Based approach in EU Fisheries Management

Environment

2006

102,851

SeaWeb/Seafood Choices Alliance

Seafood Choices Alliance European Programme

Environment

USA

2006

1,140,525

Oceana Inc

Oceana Europe

Environment

USA

2005

3,691,200

Total $24,500,442

One cannot look this funding without:

a) Wondering whether its sheer scale has a corrupting effect on the whole political process, distorting the terms of the political debate
b) Questioning who are really “stakeholders” for Oak, and what exactly is their “stake” and their legitimate role
C) Worrying that this level of external funding, dwarfing genuine stakeholders’ contribution, has the capacity to misdirect the CFP reform from the decisive break with paternalism envisaged in the CFP reform Green Paper, towards a different form of centralised control.

Good Intentions are not enough

If there is one thing that has become clear over the life of the CFP – and is an important message that Oak should hear- it is that good intentions are not enough. The classic example of misplaced good intentions was the hurriedly introduced seasonal closure, in 2001, of 400 square miles of the North Sea to protect spawning cod. The net result, according to ICES’ later evaluation, was little or nothing of any benefit for cod but fleets displaced into immature haddock grounds (where massive discarding then occurred) and into pristine, previously un-fished areas (causing extensive ecological damage). This should serve as a warning. Naivety can have its attractions but it has no place in the complex and difficult world of fisheries management. An institutional framework that facilitates and encourages fisheries management through cooperation between fisheries managers, industry stakeholders and fisheries scientists is the best, we would say only, way to achieve sustainable fisheries. This does not exclude wider influences from civil society such as NGOs but it does give fisheries management a sporting chance of designing and implementing practical, workable, ways of achieving agreed management objectives.

Legitimacy and Funding
Environmental NGOs derive their legitimacy from the notion that they represent the views of wider civil society. Without any direct link between the public opinion and the views expressed by NGOs, this notion becomes more problematic as the issues dealt with move from the general to the specific. But the legitimate link between society and detailed fisheries policy mediated by NGOs becomes very weak and hard to justify if the NGOs are dependent for their funding on a very narrow base and that base has an agenda of its own.

The paradox is that generous foundation funding for the NGOs may not even be good for the NGOs in the long term if their credibility is damaged.

Consumer Advice

Despite the hype, there is little evidence that consumers pay more than lip service to advice on which species are deemed to be fished sustainably. Whatever consumers might say when questioned about what influenced their purchasing choices, value for money and concern about quality universally trumps environmental concern, when it comes to what actually goes in the supermarket trolley. Furthermore, the advice given by the Marine Conservation Society and Fish-to-Fork (two recipients of Oak largesse) is consistently confused and confusing. Consumer guides may give the people who write them warm feelings about making a difference but there is little evidence to suggest that people actually pay heed to them.

Large retailers will naturally wish to defend their brands from criticism and will for this reason “edit consumer choice” but except in exceptional circumstances the evidence suggests that consumer guides have little effect on what is caught, landed, bought, sold or eaten.

This is not all the NGO’s fault. The changing definitions of what overfishing actually is and the public’s justified scepticism about media sensationalism makes this approach to sustainable fishing an uphill struggle. One has to ask whether Oak’s money wouldn’t be better spent elsewhere.

A Role for Charitable Foundations?

So, given that we think that Oak’s approach to sustainable fisheries, despite its good intentions, has a number of fundamental flaws, is there any kind of useful or legitimate role in fisheries for charitable foundations?

Direct investment in fisheries improvement projects aimed at transitioning to a more sustainable basis are a possibility. But the key here is working with the fishing industry rather than seeking to impose rules or conditions from the outside. This requires dialogue, understanding and collaboration – a diametrically opposite approach from the NGO megaphone diplomacy and currently funded by Oak.

More broadly however, Oak is only one of the charitable foundations currently pumping vast amounts of money into environmental NGOs dealing with fisheries. The Pew Charitable Trust, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, in addition to the Oak Foundation, have put an estimated $75million into direct lobbying activities in Europe since 2000, triggering expressions of public concern.

At the very least there should be a wide public debate about the significance and legitimacy of this important influence on fisheries policy.

« Previous 1 … 28 29 30 31 32 … 47 Next »