New Generation Fisheries Management Plans

The current generation of EU/Norway management plans – for cod, for haddock, for saithe and for herring – are an undoubted improvement on ad hoc annual decisions on TACs and other management measures. A lot of the heat is taken out of annual TAC decisions if they are made according to agreed principles settled beforehand.Nevertheless, the existing plans were pretty much handed down from on high with minimal involvement by the fishing industry and other stakeholders; and they amount to a fairly crude set of harvest control rules. The experience of the current plans has convinced many in the EU/Norway negotiation process that a more participative approach to the development of future long term management plans is required. There is also a growing realisation that plans for single stocks made without reference to the multi-species and multi-gear dimensions of many of our fisheries, means that the plans are less likely to achieve their objectives. The meeting in Svalbard was designed to identify a range of factors that need to be taken into account in the development of a new generation of management plans.

The next step will be a meeting between EU and Norway to frame proposals which will go to ICES scientists for evaluation.

Involvement of Stakeholders

There appears to have been a very significant change of heart in both EU and Norwegian camps about the involvement of the fishing sector and other stakeholders in the development of the plans. The compartmentalisation of managers, stakeholders and scientists (at least on the EU side) that meant that the fishing industry was always kept at arm’s length appears to be on the way out, to be replaced by a more inclusive process. The advantages are seen as:

• industry knowledge will help to deal with the complexities of mixed fisheries
• Plans developed with the involvement of the industry are likely to have the ‘buy-in’ that will help in their implementation, especially in avoiding the unintended consequences that have hampered some of the 1st generation plans, and in particular the management plan for North Sea cod.
• It is far from clear what an ecosystem approach or a multi-species approach will look like in practice but given that the new plans will be much broader in scope it will be important to go beyond traditional sources of knowledge: all of the main groups, managers, scientists and stakeholders have something to contribute and no one group has a monopoly of knowledge.

Time will tell if the aspirations for a new approach expressed in Svalbard will be realised. But the need for a more inclusive approach in the EU /Norway process is aligned with the stated direction of CFP reform, as it is with the integration of fisheries policy and environment policy.The Federation will continue to be centrally involved in these discussions as they ultimately have very direct and significant implications for fishing opportunities and the conditions under which our quotas may be caught.

High yields from fisheries over a long period, within safe and sustainable levels of exploitation, are a desirable objective. However, in multi-species fisheries this may involve tradeoffs to protect vulnerable stocks and species and this new generation of management plans will have to develop ways of dealing with these tricky problems. Scientists can evaluate management measures and provide catch options but ultimately these will be value judgements and as such best taken with a high degree of stakeholder participation.MSY

It is curious that at the same time that the Commission has proposed that all EU fisheries should be managed to maximum sustainable yield as a legal obligation, no one amongst the managers, industry representatives or scientists present at the meeting seemed to think that this was a practical or realistic policy option for mixed or multi-species fisheries. Whilst, with the notable exception of cod, many North Sea fisheries have fishing mortalities that are in the vicinity of MSY, there is a broad recognition that these complex fisheries must be managed in a pragmatic and flexible way without diluting the need to stick to a plan once it is agreed. Thinking through scenarios in which a fishery might depart from its anticipated trajectory and building in management options to cover this eventuality seems to be one of the ways in which the problem of flexibility within a plan might be obtained.

Introduction

For the fishing industry, this is a period of enormous upheaval and change. The stability, in regulatory requirements, that has been the industry’s constant demand for well over a decade, seems even further out of reach than ever. The outcome of the CFP reform process, the replacement for the discredited EU Cod Management Plan, threatened access to customary fishing grounds from marine protected areas and offshore wind-farms, and public pressure for an elimination of discards and other changes, all push stability further away.

But we are a forward looking organisation, which recognises that beyond the immediate turbulence, change is needed and can be positive. The CFP requires reform; we cannot continue with a Cod Plan that has been evaluated and found not to be fit for purpose; fishermen as well as the general public are sick of a system that obliges them to discard.

And in fact, in terms of stock trends, the tide has turned. Whilst there certainly remain problem areas and stocks, the general trends are upwards and reflected scientific advice for the main commercial species and in many of this year’s quotas. It will take a while for the media – always wedded to doom and disaster -to catch up with this reality but our investment in conservation – through more selective gears, capacity reductions, dialogue with fisheries science – is delivering, stronger, healthier and more stable stocks.

Offshore Renewables

The scale of the Round 3 Crown Estate wind-farm concessions are such that they have the potential to displace large numbers of fishing vessels from their customary grounds. However, with good information and good faith it is possible to design and locate wind-farms where this kind of impact is reduced to a minimum. The problem has been the availability of hard and detailed data on where fishing vessels operate. The need for very precise spatial data provided the impetus for a collaborative initiative between the NFFO, the Crown Estate and the Department for Climate Change, which under important safeguards and assurances, has made available skipper’s very precise plotter data, to the Crown Estate Marine Assets Planning System. Everyone who has seen examples of what this system, armed with this data, can do have been more than impressed. This moves the dialogue with individual offshore developers onto a new plane.

Cod Management Plan

There is little satisfaction to be obtained through an I told you so attitude but it is a grim reality that the Federation’s warnings when the current EU Cod Management Plan was forced into law in 2008 have all been realized. A blunt and ineffective set of rules covered, by a sham flexibility, has now been evaluated by the Commission’s Scientific, Technical, Economic Committee for Fisheries and found to be seriously flawed in some fundamental ways. The NFFO, working with Defra and the regional advisory councils, has worked hard to get a new Plan on the right track and in the meantime to secure interim arrangements that will address the worst features of the current regime – notably the annual pre-programmed reductions in effort (permitted days-at-sea). This is an uphill struggle against unreconstructed command and control ideas within parts of the Commission and the complexities, compromises and sheer inertia of the co-decision process with the European Parliament. The number of fleets affected by the Plan means that this will remain a major focus of NFFO work for the foreseeable future.

Marine Protected Areas

The establishment of a network of marine protected areas in UK waters has the potential – if handled badly – to displace large numbers of fishing vessels from their customary grounds. The NFFO has taken the lead in establishing a broad alliance of fishing interests, in the MPA Fishing Coalition, to ensure that the fishing voice is heard. Even although the unseemly rush to implement the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act continues, high level engagement with senior officials from Government and statutory conservation advisors appears to have sensitised the authorities to the economic, social and ecological damage of displacement. MPAC has attracted support from French, Irish, Dutch and Belgian fishing organisations and we will continue to work to ensure that MCZs, and European Habitats protected areas, are introduced with minimal damage to the fishing industry. This is a very broad area of work which has absorbed much time and effort but is of critical importance to the livelihoods of many inshore and offshore fishermen, their businesses, families and communities.

CFP Reform: Regional Seas Management

It is well over a decade since the Federation arrived at the conclusion that, against the background of the political realities of shared stocks and an over-centralised and unresponsive Common Fisheries Policy, the way forward lay in a decentralised CFP and that the main focus of fisheries management should be at the regional seas level. Seen as outrageously radical in its day, this idea has moved centre stage and is now at the core of the CFP reform proposals and debate. The crucially important question now being addressed is whether we will get a diluted downstream implementation model of regional management or something that will transfer real responsibility for the design of management measures to the regional member states working closely with the regional advisory councils.

The Federation has put in an enormous amount of effort into advancing the industry’s views on the main elements of CFP reform through the RACs, and Defra and directly to the European Commission and European Parliament. Transferable Fishing Concessions, a discard ban, a mandatory obligation to manage EU fisheries to maximum sustainable yield all carry major implications and so the Federation will carry on its work in this area through and beyond the reform process.

Fisheries Science and Fishermen

A decade ago it would have been fair to say that there remained a great fissure which separated fishermen from fisheries scientists. Today it is more likely that ICES Scientists and the industry are united in expressing incredulity at some of the Commission’s tactics and approaches and working together on long term management plans and ways of dealing with data deficiencies. Much of this change has come about through working together on fisheries science projects and strengthened dialogue through the regional advisory councils.

Domestic Quota Reform

Acute quota shortage for parts of the under-10m fleet in specific areas has given rise to a government response that threatens to divide the industry and leave everyone dissatisfied. The NFFO has members across the artificial under-10m/over-10m divide and has worked in an industry working group to develop solutions. A letter outlining the Federation’s concerns about the Government’s proposed solutions and proposing a package of alternative measures was recently dispatched to the Minister. It has not helped that the issue has become politicised and suggestions for simplistic but damaging solutions abound. The Federation remains of the view that with cool heads and good faith much could be achieved in addressing the concerns of the under -10s without destabilising the UK quota management system which has much to be said for it.

Safety and Training

The Federation continues to play a central role in working for the improvement of safety standards throughout the fleet, mainly through the Fishing Industry Safety Group working towards practical, workable, measures that have the backing of the industry.

NFFO Services Limited

The Federation’s commercial division NFFO Services Limited, continues to do well and has built up a solid reputation for minimising the frictions between fishing vessel operators and offshore developers. The key to co-existence is dialogue and NFFO Services is the first port of call for offshore development projects who wish to work with the fishing industry.

Shellfish Policy

After the hard work undertaken by the NFFO Shellfish Committee in developing a well thought-through policy addressing the issues of overcapacity and conservation in the crab and lobster fisheries, Defra’s lack of response has been disappointing in the extreme. The Federation will be pressing for a more vigorous approach over this summer and autumn.

Salmon

The NFFO has backed and supported the North East salmon and trout net fisheries for almost thirty years against a continuous and malign onslaught by the salmon angling lobby. A new Net Limitation Order offered the anglers a further opportunity to marshal spurious conservation arguments and their powerful political allies. The Federation will continue to work on behalf of this small but important group.

Regional Committees

Over the last 12 months the Federation has been at pains to rebuild and strengthen its regional committee structures. Regional committees provide a channel for fishermen outside member producer organisation to have their voices heard. Meetings on the coast in the South East, South West, North East and North West have ensured that their voices and concerns are heard. Equity of treatment for non-sector vessels has been one of the issues taken up on their behalf.

Regional Advisory Councils

The NFFO invests a great deal of time and energy in working with and through four regional advisory councils: North Sea, North Western Waters, Pelagic and Long Distance. It is widely recognised that the formation of the RACs was the single most successful part of the 201 CFP reform and it is certainly true that working with fishermen from other member states and other stakeholders provides us with a much stronger and more credible platform to work on long term management plans, CFP reform, spatial management issues and much more.Conclusion

The sheer weight of issues bearing down on the fishing industry makes it imperative that we have a strong, active organisation ensuring that our voice is heard. Working to overcome divisions in the industry and to ensure that our voice is heard where it counts remains the Federation’s core purpose. This differentiates it from the factional, from the inward-looking and from those who would steer us into various blind alleys. Building alliances with those who share our concerns lies at the heart of making the Federation a stronger body in the future.

As part of the review process, the CCRI has been asked to contact vessel operators to explore their experiences of the Cod Recovery plan, and their views on a small range of alternative management approaches for fisheries.

The Countryside and Community Research Institute, which is an independent research organisation based at the University of Gloucestershire, invite all fishing vessel owners/operators to take part in this review by completing our on-line survey. It is straightforward and should only take about ten minutes of your time. The survey closes on June 4th and is available at https://surveys.glos.ac.uk/cod_survey

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) has stated: “…this is an opportunity to influence the future direction of Cod management measures and I would urge fishermen to complete the survey”.

Once completed, your questionnaire will be collated along with all the others and the data analysed. It will then be presented to scientists at the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), which is charged with reviewing North Sea and Western Waters fisheries management. The survey is important as it is one of the few ways in which the views of fishermen can be directly heard by scientists on the STECF. Fishermen have been struggling to survive economically, and to reduce discarding of fish under the current Cod Recovery Plan, while operating within difficult constraints imposed by quota and effort restrictions. These are rather blunt instruments that do not adequately take into account the true nature of the mixed fisheries that exist around the UK coastlines. The aim of this on-line questionnaire is to explore a wider range of management options and control mechanisms that might provide more freedom for fishermen to exercise their judgement about when and where they fish. All the proposed management mechanisms come with stringent surveillance and monitoring requirements but do offer the opportunity for more flexible application of control measures. These are aimed at reducing discards of Cod and other species, while giving individual vessel owners and operators greater opportunities to use their knowledge and judgement in making the decisions that

The purpose of the meeting was to acquaint the European fishing organisations with the groundbreaking collaborative mapping project that the NFFO and Crown Estate have been working on over the last twelve months, funded by the Crown Estate and the Department for Energy and Climate Change. During that time the project has collated a large body of plotter data from a range of fishing vessel skippers and from this body of material has mapped the main areas of fishing activity potentially affected by Round 3 offshore wind-farm developments. This data and the Crown Estate’s powerful Marine Assets Resources System (MaRs) will be invaluable in:

• Informing future rounds of offshore renewable planning to avoid the most important fishing areas
• Informing direct dialogue between individual offshore developers about how to minimise the displacement of fishing activities
• Potentially informing any future marine spatial planning in ways that ensure fishing is fully taken into account
• Potentially informing the process of establishing a network of marine in protected areas UK waters

Trust and Confidence

The collaborative mapping project emerged as a result of the experience of Rounds One and Two, where poor planning decisions based on inadequate information placed a wind-farms development on the best lobster ground in the country (off Bridlington) and the Bristol Channel, in which the use of VMS data misled the planners to ignore the presence of significant fishing by the under-15 metre fleet.

Skippers have voluntarily provided their valuable plotter data to ensure that this type of problem is less likely to arise in the future. They know that their data is protected by assurances given jointly by the Crown Estate and the NFFO that it will only be used for purposes that have been agreed and in ways that protect the anonymity of individual vessels. This trust and confidence lies at the heart of the project and is essential if further information is required in the future. The data has been secured by highly experienced and respected skippers who have discussed the project in detail with each skipper.

Validation

Despite the undoubtedly impressive qualities of the MaRs system, the identification of specific features and fishing patterns requires interpretation and validation of the information collected by experienced skippers with knowledge of specific fisheries. This is why each data set has been validated as it is entered onto the system and will be explained to individual developers using the information collected.

Defensive Mapping

It is widely agreed that as an industry, we should have undertaken this mapping exercise at least five years ago. That would have put us in a much stronger position to defend our most important fishing grounds with hard, solid data that illuminate fishing patterns in ways that no other data gathering exercise can approach. On the other hand it is appreciated that five years ago very few skippers would have been prepared to share their plotter data. It has taken that time to build up the recognition that the world has moved on and unless this kind of hard data is made available the fishing industry is going to lose more of its fishing areas than necessary.

The project is also supplementing plotter data with a pilot for under-15m vessels using a low-cost VMS system using mobile phone technology. This ensures that inshore areas are covered adequately.

Dialogue and Co-existence

An open and direct dialogue between the fishing industry and individual developers has to date been hampered by the use of “consultants” who pose as “experts” on the fishing industry and sell their “expertise” to the wind-farm developers. This is perhaps to be expected in a young and rapidly expanding industry unsure about how to interact with a sector as different and complex as fishing. And there are however, examples of best practice when the developer has engaged directly with the industry’s representatives from the outset, rather than relying on self-appointed experts. The mapping project is an example of what can be achieved through collaboration with the shared goal of co-existence and the minimisation and management of frictions. The information that it has collected, and the powerful way that it is presented in the form of GIS layers, allows the possibility of a mature, reasoned dialogue about how in concrete terms co-existence can best be achieved. Our hope is that it will be used at an early stage in the planning of turbine arrays and route planning for export cables.

International Fleets

It was recognised from the outset that outside the 6 mile limit the activities of the international fleets should be mapped. The possibility of a single large mapping project organised by the RACs was discussed in earnest. However, the desperate need for hard data and the long time it takes to secure funding at a European scale led the UK to push ahead with a national initiative; although it was always envisaged that this would be the first piece of the jigsaw, with other pieces being laid by other fleets later. In the event, extensive data has been included from non-UK fleets, freely given under the same assurances by non-UK vessel operators. It is recognised however that there are still a few important data gaps which it is important to fill. The meeting was useful in identifying where those data gaps might be and how they might be filled.

Offshore renewables will be with us for quite some time and the arrival of marine spatial planning and marine protected areas underlines the need to build on the good start that has been made. The meeting agreed that:

• The collaborative mapping project had produced an impressive amount of high quality, accurate data that, linked to the MaRs system, provided a powerful analytical tool
• Although quite a bit of data had been collected from non-UK vessels, the priority should be to identify data gaps and fill them
• A discussion about Phase II of the project should take place on how to build on the work that has been begun
• The data that had been collected would improve the quality of the dialogue between individual developers and fishing industry representatives
• We should ensure that the safeguards and assurances that have accompanied the provision of data should be extended to any new initiative
• The RACs would be a natural arena for discussion on how the project should or could be taken forward on a wider scale incorporating data from European fleets.
• The project had implications for the establishment of marine protected areas but care would have to be taken in how the data could be shared without betraying the assurances under which it was collected

Agenda 1 Welcome and Opening Remarks by NFFO President, Mr Davey Hill

2 Minutes

Minutes of the 34th Annual General Meeting held in York on 9th June 2011 for approval

3 Matters Arising

4 Chairman’s Report

5 Election of President

6 Accounts to 31st December 2011

7 Appointment of Auditors

8 Any Other Business

Annual General Meeting of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations to be held in St William’s College, York, on Thursday 10th May 2012.

Programme

10.30am: Coffee

11.00am: AGM Formal Business

12.00pm: The meeting will be joined by UK Fisheries Minister,

Richard Benyon M.P.

After a brief address the Minister will participate in an open floor session

1.15pm: Buffet lunch

2.00pm: Close of Proceedings

Once MPAs are designated, the focus moves to the management measures that will be applied within them. Depending on the outcome of impact assessments, this could range from little other than perhaps additional monitoring, to complete closure to fishing (No Take Zones).

On the evidence so far:

• Marine Scotland is taking an evidence-based and collaborative approach, working with the fishing industry to minimise social, economic and displacement impacts, and using ‘No Take’ Zones only as a last resort, when there is no other way of protecting the conservation status of a vulnerable feature
• Defra / Natural England, despite having no explicit legal authority in the Marine and Coastal Access Act, is sneaking some NTZs in as ‘reference areas’ to use as control sites for management measures. It is not clear how far beyond this it will go in establishing NTZs or what guiding principles will be used.
• The Welsh Assembly, has to date avoided meaningful dialogue with the fishing industry, although this may change after 16th April when a consultation exercise opens. European Special Areas of Conservation and Special Areas of Conservation already cover large areas of the Welsh inshore zone : the critical issue now will be the management measures that are applied within them and the extent to which they are comprised of No Take Zones.
• The Northern Irish Assembly Northern Ireland has yet to publish proposals.

It is in the nature of devolved government that different policies are pursued in different parts of the country. However the principles of good governance should at least provide a common touchstone that ensures that, even if there is not an integrated approach, within different parts of the UK, then at least a coherent approach should apply. Tested against the principles of good governance, the Marine Scotland approach so far scores well, Defra indifferently and Wales pitifully.

Coalition Chairman, Dr Stephen Lockwood, has recently written to the UK and devolved ministers, underlining the importance using an evidence-based approach when considering whether a ‘No Take’ Zone is appropriate in given circumstances. The MPAC has also presented a paper outlining a consensus focused and evidence-based alternative to the approach pursued so far in respect to the establishment of a network of marine conservation zones in English waters. The statutory nature conservation bodies and Defra agreed to provide a formal response to MPACs proposal and the next meeting between MPAC and Defra / Natural England and JNCC will be held shortly

The Government recently announced a change of policy following a review of the implementation of the Habitats Directive which may have a bearing on policy in the area of marine protected areas. Although the main impact of the Review’s conclusions will be seen with regard to large infrastructure projects, two components are particularly relevant to us:

• That the evidence base for decisions should be strengthened
• That policy should be creating a culture of cooperation between those implementing the Habitats Directive and those who are affected by it

MPAC has worked hard to ensure that fishing vessels are not bulldozed off their customary fishing grounds; but it has also worked to earn respect by only advancing coherent and well founded arguments base on strong evidence. It is reasonable to expect the same of Government.

News!

We are delighted to be able to announce that Lowri Evans, Deputy Director General of Operations for the European Commission has confirmed her attendance to the 6th Word Fisheries Congress. We look forward to welcoming Lowri to Edinburgh in the coming weeks

SeaWeb Seafood Choices Panel Sessions now confirmed

We are pleased to confirm three high profile panel sessions which will take place throughout the Congress. These panel sessions will take place in the Tinto room of the EICC. For a general overview of each session, please click HERE

1. EU FISHERIES and CFP REFORM (Tues 8th May)
2. STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION (Weds 9th May)
3. Illegal Fisheries (Thurs 10th May)

Gala Dinner

The official Gala Dinner will take place on Thursday 10th May 2012. Please be sure to have booked your ticket before the Congress as we will have limited places to book onsite (50 places maximum). To book and confirm your place, please email reg@6thwfc2012.com

Draft Programmes now available!

Draft Programme* – Tuesday 8th May 2012

Draft Programme* – Wednesday 9th May 2012

Draft Programme* – Thursday 10th May 2012

Draft Programme* – Friday 11th May 2012

*Details of the draft programmes are correct at time of download (Monday 26th March 2012) and are subject to change as and where necessary. All authors will be contacted over the coming weeks with any updates to initial notifications where necessary.

Registration

Are you registered to join over 1000 delegates registered to attend the Congress so far!?

• Full Delegate Registration:
• Day Delegate Registration:

Registration fee includes:

• Entry to all scientific sessions
• All Congress documentation including book of abstracts
• Welcome Reception, Opening and Closing Sessions at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (EICC)
• Tea and coffee
• Entry to the exhibition
• VAT at prevailing rate

Fisherman’s Rate!

We have recently announced that there will be a reduced registration rate for fisherman to improve accessibility to the event, which takes place in Edinburgh later this year.

Key Congress Speakers Professor Ray Hilborn

University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Mike Mitchell

Youngs Seafood Company and Findus, UK

Malcolm Beveridge

WorldFish Center, Zambia

Professor Katsumi Tsukamoto

The University of Tokyo, JapanEric C. Schwaab

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA

Dr James Anderson

World Bank, USA

The Committee observed at its recent meeting in Morecambe on 29th March that a new era of dialogue had opened up. The Committee has actively engaged with representatives of the West of Morecambe Fisheries Fund which is made up from a group of eastern Irish Sea energy developers (covering Walney 1&2, Ormonde and the West of Duddon Sands Developments). Progress had been made through a series of meetings towards establishing working arrangements for the fund to commence operation with the aim at supporting worthy fishing industry projects directed through a fishing industry advisory group. The Committee has also engaged in discussions on the planning of potential new wind-farm projects and successfully:

• Encouraged developers to consider existing fisheries and the potential to adjust wind farm plans in the northern Irish Sea.
• Promoted best practice approaches to planning.
• Promoted better understanding and coexistence between the two industries.

Committee Chairman, Ron Graham, said: “It has taken some time and effort to build up a working dialogue following the reinvigoration of the Committee in 2009, and we are not without issues to resolve, but we are gradually developing a common understanding. After seeing the region’s fleet steadily decrease in size, it is important that the industry gets support for the necessary projects that will help to sustain and develop market access for the remaining fleet so that it can take up opportunities in the future.”

The Committee also reviewed the status of Marine Conservation Zone planning, crab and lobster policy and cockle management proposals.

Following designation, management measures within MPAs may run from light monitoring to complete closure, depending of the conservation status of the feature being protected and the threat posed by various activities. It is fishing industry concerns that No Take Zones are being sneaked into place without serious thought or evidence that are now being highlighted by MPAC.

The Coalition’s Chairman, Dr Stephen Lockwood:

1. Questions whether there is any statutory basis that enables the Minister to designate such sites, unless a scientific case specific to each site has been made that such designation is necessary
2. Notes that the Coalition is unaware that a specific scientific case has yet been made for a single NTZ within the UK MCZ programme
3. Observes that the Government’s statutory advisers in England are pursuing the objective, of establishing No Take Zones under the heading of “reference areas” under pressure from, but in league with, the environmental NGOs, on the grounds that there are only two such sites in the UK and, intrinsically, they seem like a good idea that appears to work elsewhere.

The Coalition goes on to challenge the sloppy thinking behind NTZs by drawing attention:

• to the fact that whilst it is true that there are only two sites in UK waters that have been designated NTZ for the purposes of marine conservation (Lundy and Flamborough Head), there are, in fact, other sites of similar scale (some smaller, some larger) around the UK in which fishing is already either highly restricted or explicitly prohibited. These sites have all been identified and described in a report prepared by the Governments fishery science advisers.
• The point is made that irrespective of the primary reason for which fishing has been excluded, all such sites contribute to marine conservation and biodiversity and such sites should be recognised as contributors to a coherent mosaic of conservation areas.
• It is understandable that many people believe an NTZ is intrinsically a good idea but such thinking invariably overlooks critical available facts. Some gears in some places have a measurable effect on benthic habitats and communities, others do not

The Coalition does not presume to challenge the utility and efficacy of NTZs that have been established in other parts of the world. Ministers have been told however that we do, challenge the uncritical inference that a measure that works in another marine bio-geographic region will be no less beneficial in the NE Atlantic. Invariably, the examples given (not least by Prof Callum Roberts, a member of the Science Advisory Panel) to justify the designation of NTZ are drawn from tropical or subtropical reef habitats. We would not question that towed gear has the potential to cause physical disruption to such habitats but, in NE Atlantic waters, we do not have reef-dependent commercial-fish communities as are found in the tropics. In addition, and as found by Prof Michel Kaiser’s study off south Devon, it is extremely rare for static gear in UK waters to affect non-target species. Indeed, within the Lundy reserve no demonstrable adverse effect has been found relating to the use of static gear.

Yet as recently as January, senior officers within Natural England were citing the Lundy NTZ experience as justification for widespread introduction of such sites in UK waters.

The scientific facts gathered during a study commissioned by Defra and NE show that, at best, the claims made by NE and others are overstated.

• The claim that the Lundy NTZ provides evidence in support of NTZ elsewhere is wholly dependent on increased abundance and productivity of lobsters but lobster is not the only commercial crustacean species in the site. Hoskin et al. found the marginal increase in brown crab production somewhat equivocal but there was clear evidence that (commercial) velvet crab abundance and biomass had decreased. Predictably, due to its itinerant habits, there was no detectable effect on spider crab.
• NE believed the NTZ was justified to safeguard macro-benthic fauna across the board, not just the commercial crustaceans but the emerging evidence suggests that this objective has not been met

The evidenced arguments put forward by the Coalition have been advanced to ensure that ministers appreciate that the Coalition’s concerns about the arbitrary introduction of NTZ are well founded. The fishing industry can be persuaded to accept restrictions on its activities where a specific scientific case has been presented, argued and found substantive. What it cannot accept is the imposition of restrictions on a whim – as appears to be the case with MCZ ‘reference areas’.

The Coalition urges the Minister to reconsider the introduction of reference area/No Take Zones:

• By asking the Government’s senior scientific advisor to take a critical look at the scientific case,
• Directing Defra lawyers to reconsider the claim that the Marine and Coastal Access Act permits the introduction of NTZs for a purpose other than species’ or habitat protection.

Rogers, S.I. (1997). A Review of Closed Areas in the United Kingdom Exclusive Economic Zone. Sci. Ser., Tech. Rep., CEFAS, Lowestoft, (106), 20pp

Hoskin, M. G., R. A Coleman, & L. von Carlshausen (2009). Ecological effects of the Lundy No-Take Zone: the first five years (2003-2007). Report to Natural England, DEFRA and WWF-UK.

Member states recently advised the Commission about the changes they would like to see as part of an interim regime whilst the process of developing and agreeing a new Plan is completed.

Against this background, a meeting for UK fisheries stakeholders was recently convened by Defra to address the content of a new long term approach to rebuilding the cod stocks in the North Sea, Irish Sea, West of Scotland and Eastern Channel

During the course of the meeting the NFFO made the following points:

• It is clear that an exclusive focus on a single species – cod – is unlikely to be effective because of the multi-species and multi- gear nature of our fisheries; a mixed fishery approach is required, although it is not yet clear what this might mean in terms of the underpinning science or management measures; this preparatory work is vital in informing the management options available
• The approach must be regionalised. The different stock dynamics in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Irish Sea and the different fleet characteristics strongly suggest that management measures must be tailored to the specifics of the fisheries; it is clear in respect that a different approach when cod are appearing on the grounds in greater numbers is required from when the stock is in evident decline
• Any realistic Plan will have to take an ecosystem approach, addressing all the factor which influence stock abundance and mortality; there should be no holy cows
• Effort control has no place in a future Plan: the rationale for using such a blunt tool was high levels of misreported landings and it is generally agreed that these conditions no longer apply; a more tailored and targeted approach to measures is required
• STECF has indicated that effective cod avoidance and discard reduction initiatives, if supported by stakeholders and adequately incentivised, can make a major contribution to reducing cod mortality; this feature of the existing plan should be built on
• New ways of incentivising cod avoidance should be found: using the cod currently discarded is one obvious way through which a win-win-win outcome could be achieved, with advantages for the stocks, the vessels at business level and for the management objectives
• Data deficiencies and resultant weaknesses in the scientific assessments should be addressed by stronger and more widely spread fisheries science partnerships, and a more creative approach to fully documented fisheries to provide accurate catch information should be developed; these could involve:
  • Catch Quota Schemes on the current trial model
  • On-board observers
  • Various kinds of reference fleets, using random spot checks and a risk based approach
• It is unrealistic to consider that Catch Quotas with CCTV cameras could be run out across the whole fleet
• Participation and support of the fishing industry should be at the heart of any new Plan: considerable progress has been made in rebuilding trust between the industry and fisheries scientists; this must now be extended to relations between the industry and fisheries managers. A regionalised CFP should help in this regard.
• Failed management measures and weak stock assessments in the Irish Sea and West of Scotland are intimately entwined: they must both rebooted: what is required is a multi-faceted but integrated approach which embraces:
  • TACs (with a focus on total catches rather than landings)
  • Discards
  • Assessment quality
  • Means of dealing with data deficiencies
  • An ecosystem approach
  • A mixed fisheries approach
• The single most straightforward way to reduce discards would be to extend the period for skippers to reconcile their catch compositions from 24 hours to 3 or 12 months.
• The Commission’s CFP reform proposals for an implementation model of regionalised decision-making carries strong echoes of the current cod management plan which was sold on the basis of increase flexibility for member states but which has delivered the opposite – an inflexible and blunt approach that generates perverse outcomes such as widespread discarding.
• The current approach rewards unselective gears and penalises movements towards selective gears: this kind of perverse incentive must be removed from the new plan
• Ways of improving the development and uptake of more cod selective gear should be found: the key is putting in place the right kind of incentive structures.
• The route to cod recovery lies through cod avoidance and the route to effective cod avoidance lies through:
  • Exempting vessels which demonstrate that their catch of cod over 12 months is very low (de minimus fisheries)
  • Exempting vessels which demonstrate that their catch of cod over 12 months is entirely covered by quotas available to them
• The focus of management should be on outcomes rather the detail of management measures
• By-catches are to be expected in mixed fisheries and are not in themselves a problem if covered by quota

This meeting was a staging point along the way to a revised Plan. There will be many others, including:

• A joint Norwegian/EU conference on achieving MSY in mixed fisheries in May
• ICES advice on mixed fishery and multi-species management available later this year
• An STECF Impact Assessment with options for a new multi-species Plan
• RAC advice from the North Sea RAC and North West Waters RAC
• Evolving member state positions
• The role of the European Parliament
• The development of the dispute between the Commission/Council and the European Parliament over respective competences in the sphere of multi-annual management plans

The NFFO will be active in all of these stages.

NFFO April 12.

Dear Minister

Under-10 metre quotas

We are not without sympathy for the dilemma that you face in addressing the problems of the under-10 metre fleet. The issue has become politicised and expectations have been raised within Parliament, the media and parts of the under-10m fleet that your intervention is about to relieve the well publicised quota shortage facing some under 10m fisheries.

Our fear is that the route that you appear to have chosen as a solution is about to satisfy no one whilst alienating many. The danger of your current course is that, as an industry, we will all be left worse off than before.

Problems

It was clear from the industry’s response to the under-10m consultation last summer that there was no appetite for a headlong rush into community quotas, which would have represented a huge step into the unknown for most fishermen currently in the under-10m quota pool. The flexibility provided by the pool system, to change target species to reflect local availability and market conditions, is clearly valued by inshore fishermen. Nevertheless, it is also clear that most under-10m fishermen have been disadvantaged by comparison with their counterparts in producer organisations by their lack of access to effective, on-going, locally tailored, quota management. It was not unreasonable therefore to trial new quota management arrangements for those under-10s who were interested, through a limited number of pilot schemes: so far so good.

However, it is Defra’s intention to increase the quotas available to the pilots through top-slicing, as a first step in a wider redistribution of quotas from the producer organisations to the under-10s. That, in our view, is a flawed policy for the following reasons:

• It suggests that an incremental, piecemeal, approach is the best way to address the problems facing the under-10s, rather than a comprehensive package of measures. This looks and sounds more like a public relations stop-gap, responding to immediate political pressures, rather than a well thought through, comprehensive, policy designed to solve the problems in the under-10m fleet with the whole industry’s interests in mind.
• It focuses on only one, relatively minor, aspect of the problem facing the under-10 fleets – the aspect dealing with domestic quota management arrangements; this is unlikely to make an impact on the problem as a whole
• Forced administrative redistribution is fraught with administrative, legal and ethical complexities, no matter how well intentioned; this is a quagmire that it is best to stay clear of, not least because the signs are that after the dust has settled, the substantive problems facing the under-10s will remain unresolved
• It invalidates the pilots as a pathfinder exercise, as it will not be possible to replicate the experience of the relatively privileged pilots across the whole under-10m fleet
• A one-off quota adjustment, that POs might have been persuaded was good value for money, in return for ending turbulence in the under-10m sector, has been replaced by the prospect of an on-going salami slicing of quotas, many of which have been paid for by bank loans that are still being paid; resistance and at the very least a withdrawal of cooperation can therefore be expected

On the evidence so far, the exercise will create a series of anomalies that include:

• Failing to meet the aspirations of the under-10s in pilot projects
• Disadvantaging those under-10s inside and outside producer organisations who currently benefit from transfers and swaps arranged by POs
• In effect, transferring fishing opportunities from one part of the under-10m fleet to another part of the under-10m fleet
• Creating a list of instances where quota will be taken from POs on the basis of inadequate information, to give them to under-10s where there is no identifiable need
• Creating a damaging atmosphere of division and hostility within the fishing industry
• Undermining levels of cooperation between producer organisations and under-10s, in a welter of fear and suspicion and possible legal actions
• Stripping quota from the one genuine self-supporting community quota initiative in the country – the Dutchy Quota Company
• Transferring a discard problem from one part of the fleet to another part of the fleet
• Undermining the market exchange of quota that has developed in response to the cumbersome alternative of administrative redistribution

The central question which we think that you must ask yourself is where is this going? Those under-10m fisheries where the problems are most acute are unlikely to receive enough quota to resolve their problems; whilst the system of quota management based on FQAs, previously regarded as a model of delegated responsibility, will be thrown into turmoil, partly through flaws in the methodology used to identify underutilised quota, but mainly through fear of future expropriations.

On the evidence so far, Defra does not have at its disposal the expertise to undertake a redistribution of the type proposed on anything like a fair or rational basis. This is not surprising, as one of the reasons that fisheries administrations allowed market exchanges in quota to develop was that it represented a more efficient way for quota needs to be met with quota supply without complex value-judgements by civil servants distant from the realities of seasonal fishing patterns and the balance of surplus and demand in the ports.

Solutions

The current focus on redistribution/reallocation/realignment, from the producer organisations to the under-10s, distracts from the central point which is that the problems facing the under-10s are multi-layered and that adjustments to the domestic quota arrangements, though attracting most attention and generating much heat, can only be a relatively minor part of any effective and lasting solution.

We have previously explained how the problems facing the under-10m sector evolved from the 1980s and 1990s; there is no need to go over that ground again. If however, there is a genuine will within Defra to put the under-10m fisheries on sustainable and profitable footing, it is necessary to deal with the underlying structural issues rather than treating the symptoms.

Against this background, our advice is:

1. Defer implementation of the pilot projects and redistributions until 1st January 2013; use the intervening period to develop a comprehensive solution to the problems in the under-10m fleet; this makes sense at a number of levels, not least preparing the ground for the pilots adequately and rebuilding cooperative links between the POs and the under-10s that are currently failing in a fog of fear and mutual suspicion. We believe that NUTFA and UKAFPO could be persuaded of the value of such as an approach.
2. Identify the core under-10 fisheries in which pool catch limits seriously constrain the fleet; the MMO statistics that we have seen so far suggest that this is a specific and geographically focused problem rather than the widespread and generic problem that has been portrayed. Solutions should be focused on these specific fisheries. This does not preclude more general support for the under-10 fleet but would have the merit of recognising that quota shortage is not a generic problem for this sector of the fleet and focusing policy accordingly.
3. Address the underlying problem of skewed fleet development. The fact that around 14% of the under-10m fleet catches around 70% of the pool allocations suggests that this is a core aspect of the problem. Any policy approach to the under-10s is unlikely to succeed unless this point is addressed explicitly.
4. Address the structural overcapacity in the under-10 m fleet. We are open to discussing a voluntary decommissioning scheme that is not wholly funded by government. Over the last 20 years the English over-10m fleet has been reduced by over 50% to fit its quotas; the numbers of under-10s have remained broadly static whilst their catching capacity has increased; we are not suggesting that a similar fleet contraction is necessary for the under-10s – but this sector of the fleet should be assisted to make an adjustment to balance capacity with fishing opportunities on a voluntary basis. We would suggest that a limited scheme (decommissioning, or some form of licence parking) targeted at the high catching under-10 would offer best value for money. It would be worth investigating that the type of transitioning finance linked to a Fisheries Improvement Plan highlighted at the recent launch of the International Sustainability Unit might be available from the World Bank or charitable foundations.
5. Dealing with the issue of latent capacity must inescapably be part of the policy.
6. Proceed with developing ways in which tailored quota management can be brought to the under-10m sector; encourage cooperation between POs and under-10m pilot groups at a regional level; the under-10s currently have quota assets that are not being used to their best advantage.
7. Underutilised quotas whilst other fishermen go short are not defensible. However, if there is market failure this should be addressed as such rather than reverting to the inherent limitations of administrative redistribution. Much can be achieved in a spirit of cooperation. The corollary is also true: cooperation will evaporate in an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.
8. Recognise that in some important instances relative stability shares are the underlying issue, rather than domestic quota distribution. The obvious example is cod in the Eastern channel where France holds 84% of the quota and the UK holds 7%: tinkering with domestic quota management rules can only have a limited influence on outcomes. Without destabilising relative stability, we believe that against the background of increasing TACs, it should be possible to secure significant additional tonnages of stocks of importance to the under-10m fleet through astute exchanges with other member states; this will not be cost free so it is worth considering what the UK is willing to trade in return – this need not be restricted to quota. It is time to be imaginative.
9. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that if TACs had remained at 1990 levels there would barely have been an under-10m quota problem that couldn’t have been addressed through underpinning and licensing constraints; the recent trend towards increasing TACs reflecting rebuilt stocks should provide more room for manoeuvre.
10. If, as part of a comprehensive package as described above, it is still necessary for you to consider quota redistribution as a last resort, this should be undertaken as part of a one-off adjustment in which security of quota through a formal system of user-rights discussed and agreed with the producer organisations.

I hope that you find the above constructive. Our fear is that you appear to be drifting towards decisions that will fail to resolve the problems facing the under-10s, whilst creating a divisive and damaging reaction from the producer organisations. This would be a major distraction when we have so many important issues to address as an industry.

We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important matters with you at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely

Barrie Deas

Chief Executive

Background

Since STECF reported last year that the current EU Management Plan was failing to meet its objectives, and was flawed in some quite fundamental ways, it has only been a matter of time until changes would be proposed by the European Commission. However, that matter of time has taken on enormous significance, given that the arrival of co-decision, under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, means that the full review and revision of the plan and possible replacement by a full multi-species plan could take another two years; and that is only if the dispute between the Council/Commission and the Parliament over respective competencies with regard to harvest control rules can be resolved.

In the meantime, it has become increasingly untenable for the Commission to ignore calls from member states and the regional advisory councils, for an interim regime that addresses the most immediate problems associated with the currently dysfunctional plan. This pressure was evident in the December Council when, in response to member states’ calls for urgent revisions in light of the STECF evaluation, Commissioner Damanaki indicated that she would come forward with proposals for a revised plan in the first half of 2012. Although the Commission has apparently now disowned that commitment, it convened a technical meeting on 20th March, in Brussels to discuss with member states and the RACs what steps might be taken to improve the situation, as an interim arrangement pending a full replacement of the current plan by a multi-species plan; the interim arrangements, it was made clear, would be undertaken under-co-decision with the European Parliament.

The Commission also made clear that the interim arrangements would only be satisfactorily introduced if there was a high degree of cooperation between the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The aim is to have them in place before the December Council.

Effort Freeze

During the first part of the meeting, member state after member state lined up to indicate that the central problem with the current plan lay in Article 12 and its requirements to annually reduce the amount of effort (KW/Days) available to member states to manage their fleets. It was all too easy to see that without intervention, an end point would be reached very soon in which the amount of effort allocated to member state fleets would be zero, given that the scale of the annual reductions were between 10% and 25%. This would be crippling for the fleets affected but without any degree of confidence that cod stocks would be rebuilt as a result.

STECF

The STECF report questioned the assumptions behind the rationale for effort control – notably a belief that there is a reasonably linear relationship between reductions in effort and reductions of fishing mortality of cod. In light of experience, (although at the point of the STECF review in 2011, the Cod Plan had been in place something short of three years) this no longer seemed a tenable assumption. Furthermore, the parts of the Plan which exempted vessels whose activities caught very little cod (Article 11) or which the provisions showed evidence of encouraging positive fishing patterns, such as cod avoidance or discard reduction (Article 13), were hampered by unnecessary bureaucratic constraints and a lack of clarity. STECF seems to be of the view that effort control, although a blunt tool in its own right does have the merit of compelling vessels to adopt fishing patterns to escape time at sea restrictions, if the escape routes are available and aligned with various forms of cod avoidance.

Those member states with fleets caught in this position (notably the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Netherlands and Ireland) were adamant that an effort freeze at 2012 levels was their priority for interim arrangements. (Only this member states with a marginal interest in the cod fishery or the consequences of the Cod Plan (Belgium and Sweden) voiced different views.

Exemptions

In principle there had from the outset been agreement that fishing activities which catch no or very low amounts of cod should be exempt from the effort regime. There was a general complaint that the process for achieving these exemptions in practice was cumbersome and lacking clarity.

There was some discussion about whether an exemption for vessels under fully documented fisheries and carrying fully functioning CCTV monitoring should be exempt through Article 11 or a separate, entirely new clause. Some opposition to fully documented fisheries came from those member states that were not affected by effort control.

Discards

The meeting agreed that discards of cod in some fisheries such as the North Sea and West of Scotland, was impeding the recovery process, as a source of unwanted mortality. Effort control had originally been introduced to underpin TACs, which at the time (2002) were being undermined by over-quota landings. STECF no longer believe that misreported landings are a major issue but there remains a substantial of doubt in the assessment relating to unknown mortality. This may be unrecorded discards, high natural mortality or other factors. TAC generated discards in mixed fisheries, unselective gear, or the catch composition rules all contribute to high levels of cod discards. A number of member states are trialling various forms of fully documented fisheries, as a way of tackling TAC driven discards and various aspects of this were discussed and clarified. Providing quota and exemptions from the effort regime are key factors in persuading vessel operators to enter catch quota and other forms of discard reduction initiatives.

Buyback Provisions

The Cod Management Plan cannot be said to be a complete failure, although STECF reported that greater reductions in fishing mortality of cod(around 40% in the North Sea) had been achieved under the previous Cod Recovery Plan (2002 – 2008) -when a number of publically funded decommissioning schemes had been in place in the member states. The new plan however had pioneered the encouragement of various kinds of cod avoidance, and used effort buyback provisions to make these attractive to participation the fishing businesses subject to effort control. Although open to different interpretations and in some respects unduly complex, the buyback provisions had generated a wide range of cod avoidance initiatives:

• Real Time Closures
• Catch Quotas (Fully Documented Fisheries)
• More Selective Gears

Member states and RACs were clear that strengthening this approach as a key component of interim arrangements would remove some of the complexity inhibiting the Plan from securing its objectives, ease the economic burden on the fleets and reduce the administrative burden and remove anomalies.

Data Poor Stocks

There was broad agreement, amongst member states and STECF, that the provisions which (under Article 9) apply a 25% annual reduction to effort and TAC on those stocks where ICES faces a problem in producing an analytical assessment were inappropriate and unfair. The current work on the Cod Benchmark and within ICES may help to ease this situation in this regard. Article 9 remains a blunt and crude approach to data deficient fisheries that should be replaced by a more focused and proportionate fishery-by-fishery approach using the best available data.

RACs

The North Sea and North West Waters RACs in their submissions made the point that:

• The Cod Management Plan had suffered from being an example of a blanket, top-down approach; success would be more likely with measures tailored to the characteristics of the fisheries concerned; the conservation status of the stocks, the quality of the scientific assessments and the stock dynamics in the West of Scotland and Irish Sea were clearly different to those in the North Sea
• An effort pause or freeze was the most immediate priority for an interim regime
• A simpler and clearer route for groups of vessels seeking exemption from the effort regime would be welcome
• Progress begun under the buyback/cod avoidance/discard reduction provisions were promising and should be encouraged
• In the West of Scotland and Irish Sea the task of reinstating full and credible assessments was intertwined with the development of an approach that could rebuild the cod stocks
• It was hoped that the ICES benchmark process for West of Scotland and Irish Sea cod and ICES’ work on providing a numerical TAC recommendation for data poor stocks would help navigate a path towards a coherent and effective approach
• There was no guarantee that any management measures would be successful against the indications of high levels of natural mortality and environmental conditions in flux
• In some cases improvements to the cod recovery regime could be brought about through improvements to the procedures rather than the legal text, with protocols indicating clearly what was required of the member states, STECF and the industry.

The Commission

Unsurprisingly, the ball now lies with the Commission. The strong messages going in from the member states and the RACs, particularly on the need for an effort pause, leaning heavily on the emerging advice from STECF, were clear. The positions however, were merely noted by the Commission which provided no indication of what would be taken forward into a proposal, although it is evident that the Commission has its own agenda in some areas of the Plan.

There remains a residual impression that the Commission still seems wedded to the notion, against the weight of evidence and the STECF report, that the only real problem with the Cod Management Plan is that it has been misunderstood and member states have not implemented its provisions with sufficient vigour.

How the Commission will respond depends on a variety of factors, including the Commissioner’s views. A draft proposal is expected in September.

Member states could not have stated more forcefully that they would be very unhappy if they were to face another December Council of the basis of a flawed Cod Management Plan with further annual reductions in effort.

If ever there was an argument for a more flexible, regionalised CFP, with adaptable measures tailored to the characteristics of specific fisheries, the Cod Management Plan provides it.

It was significant that the debate was sophisticated and well informed, as the Parliament, and the Fisheries Committee in particular, will play a central role in the CFP in the future following the granting of co-decision powers in the Lisbon Treaty.

The question whether that role should be one of helping to set standards and guiding principles at the broad European level, or applying detailed micro-management in a wide range of disparate fisheries, appeared to be answered by the debate. No one spoke in favour of continuing the over-centralised, discredited, command and control system that has characterised the CFP to date. The focus was how the CFP should be decentralised rather than whether regionalisation was a good idea in itself, as part of a wider move to decentralise the CFP.

Permissive Regionalisation

At the crux of the debate was concern how far regionalisation should be structured by the basic CFP regulation. On the one hand, the European Commission, whose proposals were tabled last year, argued that it had no wish to be prescriptive in this matter. The legislation should be permissive, allowing member states the scope to cooperate at the regional seas level. This will in the Commission’s view be a gradual process moving at different paces in different fisheries. It will be a learning, practice driven, voluntary, process in which member states will take the initiative. Excessive detail in the basic regulation at this stage would potentially constrain the process and run against the philosophy of decentralisation. Apart from anything else, the Commission argued that the Commission’s proposals are at the frontier of what can be permitted under the Lisbon Treaty. Regional advisory councils will play a crucial role as it will be vital that interested parties play a central role and RACs have already proven their worth in providing advice. In parallel, CFP control measures will also be regionalised and the European Fisheries Control Agency is already exploring ways in which control and enforcement could be regionalised.

Structured Regionalisation

A different view was expressed by guest speaker, Michael Keating of Ireland’s BIM. He made the case for a formal recognition of committees of member states, acting in unison at regional seas level, with defined legal powers. These, he argued are specifically permitted as delegated acts under the Lisbon Treaty. This view was supported by Jose Manual Sobrino, Professor of Public International Law at A Coruna University, who argued for mini COREPERs (committees of member state representatives) working closely with the RACs. Another academic researcher, Dr Marleoes Kran, from the Dutch Institute IMARES argued that just asking member states to cooperate wouldn’t really work. The European institutions’ role should be one of setting guiding principles at the macro level and the rest should be left to the people involved in fisheries management. “When you are building your dream house you don’t specify the tools that the builders use. You leave that to the professionalism and knowledge of the people concerned”. Ultimately managing fisheries was about managing people and the current CFP had been spectacularly inept in this field, often generating perverse incentives.

Implementation or Autonomy

Perhaps one theme that was not discussed in sufficient detail was that the Commission’s proposal is essentially an implementation, or downstream model, in which member states and stakeholders at regional level have a role in implementing decisions made at European level. This is very different from the idea of regional fisheries as autonomous groups operating within certain safeguards and guarantees and with scope to design and develop their own measures to deliver broad outcomes and meet general objectives. The experience of the EU Cod Management Plan, which in 2008 was sold on the basis of the flexibility it afforded member states but which has turned out to be one of the most rigid and inflexible pieces of CFP legislation, sends a strong signal of what to avoid in terms of an implementation model.

Legal Dispute

To date there is no clear, universally agreed, legal interpretation of what form regionalisation could take and still remain within the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. The Commission’s legal advisors have taken a minimalist view, whilst the Parliament’s legal advisors are still forming a conclusive view. In some respects however, without disputing the significance of the route taken to give legal force to the decisions ( advice, opinions or recommendations) made at regional level, this is secondary to the fact of regional cooperation between member states and the willingness of the member states to engage and work with the RACs and the framework that facilitates or impedes this. No one is interested in an extra tier of management for its own sake and so the ultimate question relates to the extent of legal, or defacto responsibility from the centre to the regional level.

RACs

The RACs were permitted a generous amount of time to argue for a radical decentralisation of the CFP and for the kind of framework and financing that would allow RACs to build on the positive experience since they were established in the last CFP reform. There was general support for the view that there should be an obligation in the basic regulation on the Commission, Council and European Parliament to consult the RACs.

Rapporteur

The Parliament’s rapporteur on the basic regulation, Ms Ulrike Rohust MEP, summed up the debate by:

• Welcoming and complementing the quality of the debate
• Underlining the importance of a radical change of direction in the CFP in this reform
• Highlighting the question about how much detail about regionalisation should be in the basic regulation
• Emphasising the need for greater involvement of fishermen in the decision making process and a stronger bottom up approach
• Indicating that the Commission’s proposals are really a form of discussion paper to be developed and amended during the reform process
• Observing that inevitably, the reform would have to be consistent with the Treaty but expressing the view that she was convinced that it was possible to go much further down the regionalisation road than the Commission’s proposal
• Affirming should be an explicit obligation to consult the RACs

Small Scale Fisheries

Brian O’Riordan of the NGO, the International Collective in support of Fishworkers, made the case for special treatment for small-scale fishing. The arguments presented stressed the need for definitions of “small-scale”, “artisanal”, “inshore” that make sense at local level. In this the debate has come a long way from the simplistic and potentially damaging notion that a one-size-fits-all definition of “small scale” could be applied at European level.

NFFO

The Federation was amongst the earliest supporters of regionalisation of the CFP in the run up to the last reform in 2002. We have worked closely with others in the RACs to define and promulgate our vision of a decentralised and regionalised CFP. MEPs have been briefed directly by the Federation on the major reform themes: regionalisation, a discard ban, transferable fishing concessions and maximum sustainable dialogue. The NFFO is now working on suggested amendments to the Commission’s proposals to bring the basic regulation and supporting legislation closer to its vision.

The Committee approved a draft letter to Fisheries Minister on Defra’s approach to the issue of under-10m quotas. The letter suggests that Defra’s policies run the risk of pleasing no one, alienating many, and leaving the problem facing specific under-10 fisheries largely intact. It advances a number of ideas for a package of measures that would resolve the structural problems facing these fisheries.

The Federation’s extensive efforts to brief the European Parliament on the main elements of CFP reform were reviewed. Preparations for a debate on CFP reform in the Westminster Parliament were also discussed and agreed.

NFFO contributions efforts to secure changes to the EU Cod Management Plan were discussed. These included:

• Representation at a forthcoming technical meeting in Brussels convened by the Commission to examine interim arrangements, pending the development of alternative multi-species plans
• A request from the North Sea RAC to the Commission to explain the its legal rationale for declining (at December Council) to end the pre-programmed effort and TAC cuts required the provisions of the current Plan
• Participation in the forthcoming STECF meeting in Rostock prepare an impact assessment of options for alternatives to the current cod plan

A report was received on a meeting held in York on selectivity measures in the nephrops fishery as part of the settlement at the December Council on effort control.

The Executive reviewed the Federation’s work on marine protected areas including:

• Its active role in the MPA Fishing Coalition
• Negotiations on management measures for the Natura area on the Dogger Bank
• A recent meeting with Marine Scotland on MPAs in Scottish Waters
• Project work on the issues of sensitivity of habitats to fishing and ways of minimising displacement effects

It was agreed to find new ways to express concern at the complete lack of forward movement on the Federation’s proposals for a management approach for shellfish Management measures in response to the growing amount of effort in the scallop fisheries were discussed.

The Committee received a report and commented on the recent meeting between a Federation delegation and the Marine Management Organisation.

The Executive agreed to endorse the International Sustainability Unit Declaration on Sustainable Fisheries.

It was agreed to prepare for a continuation and where possible expansion of the Catch Quota projects using CCTV, where these were a) voluntary and b) adequately incentivised and without cost to others in the fishery

The Committee resolved to continue to press for parity in the treatment of over-10m non-sector with regard to quota leasing

Ways of strengthening communications with the NFFO’s grass roots members was discussed

The Executive heard that the board of NFFO Services Limited had recently spent a day focused on the development of a medium term commercial strategy

The Federation’s continuing work with the Crown Estate on mapping of the areas of most intense fishing activity to minimise the impact of future wind-farm developments was discussed

The Federation’s recent work in the sphere of safety and training was reviewed including:

• Working Time Directive
• Funding for fishermen’s training

Arrangements for the Federation’s AGM on 10th May, 2012, in St William’s College in York were agreed.

The next meeting of the NFFO’s Executive Committee will be held on 11th May, 2012.

That was the conclusion reached at a recent meeting in Leigh-on-Sea/Southend of the NFFO’s South East Committee with a cross-section of fishermen from the area.

Chairman of the NFFO’s SE Committee, Tony Delahunty said after the meeting:

“The core of the problem here in the Thames estuary is that, unlike fishermen on parts of the South coast and South West, the range of species available to the industry is very constrained. For the most part these fish are the only within range of the fleet for limited periods during the year. We are talking here primarily about sole, skates and rays, herring sprat and bass.”

“This calls for precision fisheries management which provides access to species when they are available to the fleet. And it is clear from our meeting that this is exactly what the present management arrangements are not providing:

• The quota management arrangements are too cumbersome and unresponsive – often closing fisheries when they should remain open and vice-versa
• The EU catch composition rules mean that fish has to thrown back on one trip when it could be retained on another different trip with a different mix of species in the catch
• The over-centralised management system within the CFP framework has proven incapable of providing flexibility to allow for the different seasonalities of the species that are available.”

The meeting was attended by under-10m fishermen, non-sector fishermen and fishermen who work through producer organisations. There was also a range of ages from young fishermen just starting out, to fishermen approaching retirement. All criticised the arbitrary line which divides the industry at 10metres, and underlined their shared problems.

Above all, two decades of management decisions were criticised for producing the current state of affairs which has produced a system of such rigidity that good fish has to be regularly thrown away.

This is not a high bulk discard fishery and the boats carefully return small skates and rays to the sea because of their high survival rate. But the fact remains the vessels here are poorly served by a management system that delivers neither sustainability nor viability. This is a tragedy because in the quality of the people, the willingness to adapt and work with scientists and fisheries managers there is the makings of a success story.

Ways Forward

The meeting identified a range of ways in which the situation could be improved:

• A more flexible CFP management framework capable of tailoring measures to the characteristics of the fisheries in the Thames estuary – CFP reform
• Less rigid quota management arrangements that allow access to the species when they appear on the local grounds – domestic quota management reform
• A more realistic balance between the capacity of the fleet and available quota
• Management arrangements that do not create artificial divisions within the industry – removing the arbitrary divide at 10 meters
• A more supportive Marine Management Organisation at port level
• Strengthened fisheries science using local industry knowledge and experience.
• Recognition by fisheries managers that these vessels are run as small businesses with a desperate need for stability and continuity of supply against a background of changing species availability
• A media profile that avoids simplistic, lazy and damaging stereotypes of fishermen
• A decommissioning scheme for under-10m vessels as part of the domestic fisheries reform package that would help to rebalance the fleet with the available fishing opportunities

The meeting also discussed in depth how the industry in the Thames estuary could have a stronger voice at national and EU levels. Ways of strengthening communications so that South East concerns could be adequately taken into account when TACs are set each year were identified and will now be put into action.

The North West Waters RAC has appointed data coordinators for each stock that has been identified as suffering from data deficiencies. Other RACs are taking similar steps. ICES estimates that around 60% of stocks evaluated do not have full analytical assessments.

The task of fishing industry data coordinators is to work with their counterparts within the appropriate ICES assessment group to:

• Identify specific problems with particular assessments
• Discuss remedial measures with the ICES scientists
• Encourage and initiate steps to solve those data problems that the fishing industry can do something about

There is a variety of reasons why ICES may be unable to provide a full analytical assessment with population estimates for a specific stock. These may include:

• Failure by a member state to fulfil its data provision obligations
• Scientific modelling issues
• Weak landings or discards data
• Absence of historic discard data
• The cost of collecting the data may be disproportionate to any benefit

Dealing with this complex picture requires dialogue and an approach tailored to the specifics of each stock. A mature dialogue between the RACs and ICES has developed over the last two years and the data coordinators are a concrete expression of the RACs commitment to improve the quality of the science on which important management decisions – including TACs – are made.

At the same time ICES is working on an approach to its advice which would avoid a repetition of last year’s debacle when the Commission’s approach to holes in ICES’ advice was to demand TAC cuts of 25% for any stock without an analytical assessment. Although member states decisively rejected that approach as blunt, disproportionate and downright unfair, efforts are being made within ICES to provide more nuanced and differentiated quantitative advice that could be used to underpin TAC decisions.

The NFFO through its membership of the North Western Waters and North Sea RACs is at the forefront of the engagement between the fishing industry and ICES scientists.

The discussions were wide and deep and took place within a spirit of frank and open engagement. Difficult issues and concerns were raised, information shared and solutions sought.

The main areas of discussion were:

• Implementation of the new EU Control Regulation
  • Weighing of fish – national sampling plan
  • Enforcement issues – a risk based and proportionate approach
  • The inappropriate use of Proceeds of Crime legislation against fishermen
  • Static gear marking requirements – safety issues
  • Margin of tolerance between logbook estimates and landing declaration – pragmatic and risk based enforcement
• Concordat
  • Concerns about the implications of a new phase of devolution and loss of coherence of UK policy
  • Welsh Assembly moves to discriminate against NFFO member vessels
  • Concerns about the removal of safeguards against defacto discrimination
  • Implications for quota management, including swaps and transfers
• Boarding Policy
  • Preparation of a revised code of conduct that makes clear what is expected from both skippers and boarding officers during boardings at sea
  • Greater appreciation of the imperatives of fishing operations by boarding officers
  • Ways of strengthening a dialogue between enforcement officers and the industry outside the context of immediate enforcement issues
  • The future contracts for fisheries enforcement at sea
• Contradictions in fisheries legislation between catch composition rules and discard reduction initiatives
• Net labelling of mesh size to reduce time spent during boardings at sea
• NFFO involvement in Gear Technology Group
• Weight loss in scallops and proportionate enforcement
• Quality assurance of MMO procedures to reduce the likelihood of a case being taken to prosecution when not justified
• Electronic logbooks and VMS
  • Update on procurement exercise for equipment for vessels over 12 metres
  • NFFO concerns about the industry’s exposure to extortion through the abuse of single supplier, monopoly, position
  • Cost of VMS air time
  • Low cost alternatives/ grant support for installation
  • Software problems and changing detailed rules in current e-logbook requirements
  • Current problems faced with e-logs
  • Lessons learned and timetable
  • EU derogation for under-12m day boats: a case for the Government’s Red Tape challenge
• SACs and Marine Conservation Zones
  • Update on Lyme Bay low-cost VMS/ feature protection
  • MCZ vulnerability to fishing pressures assessment
  • Management measures in SACs – strategic review
  • Engagement with MPAC
  • Engagement with those potentially affected by management measures
• Marine Spatial Planning
  • Eastern Plans update: pilots for other areas
  • Data on which plans will be based: dealing with shortcomings
  • Involvement and engagement with fishing industry
• Offshore Renewables
  • Data deficiencies and how to resolve them
  • Location of offshore wind-farms and displacement of fishing activities
  • The dangers of cosmetic consultation
  • A statutory obligation to consult
  • Cable burial issues
• Policy and Delivery
  • MMO as a conduit to Government on the enforcement of a dysfunctional management system
  • Identification of genuine operational difficulties in the current arrangements
• Strengthening engagement between the MMO and the NFFO

The discussions were wide and deep and took place within a spirit of frank and open engagement. Difficult issues and concerns were raised, information shared and solutions sought.

The main areas of discussion were:

• Implementation of the new EU Control Regulation
  • Weighing of fish – national sampling plan
  • Enforcement issues – a risk based and proportionate approach
  • The inappropriate use of Proceeds of Crime legislation against fishermen
  • Static gear marking requirements – safety issues
  • Margin of tolerance between logbook estimates and landing declaration – pragmatic and risk based enforcement
• Concordat
  • Concerns about the implications of a new phase of devolution and loss of coherence of UK policy
  • Welsh Assembly moves to discriminate against NFFO member vessels
  • Concerns about the removal of safeguards against defacto discrimination
  • Implications for quota management, including swaps and transfers
• Boarding Policy
  • Preparation of a revised code of conduct that makes clear what is expected from both skippers and boarding officers during boardings at sea
  • Greater appreciation of the imperatives of fishing operations by boarding officers
  • Ways of strengthening a dialogue between enforcement officers and the industry outside the context of immediate enforcement issues
  • The future contracts for fisheries enforcement at sea
• Contradictions in fisheries legislation between catch composition rules and discard reduction initiatives
• Net labelling of mesh size to reduce time spent during boardings at sea
• NFFO involvement in Gear Technology Group
• Weight loss in scallops and proportionate enforcement
• Quality assurance of MMO procedures to reduce the likelihood of a case being taken to prosecution when not justified
• Electronic logbooks and VMS
  • Update on procurement exercise for equipment for vessels over 12 metres
  • NFFO concerns about the industry’s exposure to extortion through the abuse of single supplier, monopoly, position
  • Cost of VMS air time
  • Low cost alternatives/ grant support for installation
  • Software problems and changing detailed rules in current e-logbook requirements
  • Current problems faced with e-logs
  • Lessons learned and timetable
  • EU derogation for under-12m day boats: a case for the Government’s Red Tape challenge
• SACs and Marine Conservation Zones
  • Update on Lyme Bay low-cost VMS/ feature protection
  • MCZ vulnerability to fishing pressures assessment
  • Management measures in SACs – strategic review
  • Engagement with MPAC
  • Engagement with those potentially affected by management measures
• Marine Spatial Planning
  • Eastern Plans update: pilots for other areas
  • Data on which plans will be based: dealing with shortcomings
  • Involvement and engagement with fishing industry
• Offshore Renewables
  • Data deficiencies and how to resolve them
  • Location of offshore wind-farms and displacement of fishing activities
  • The dangers of cosmetic consultation
  • A statutory obligation to consult
  • Cable burial issues
• Policy and Delivery
  • MMO as a conduit to Government on the enforcement of a dysfunctional management system
  • Identification of genuine operational difficulties in the current arrangements
• Strengthening engagement between the MMO and the NFFO

This was a useful meeting which allowed us to compare notes on the challenges facing the inshore fisheries

The Association has been created to strengthen the visibility of IFCAS at national level and to facilitate coordination between the IFCAs – but not to speak on their behalf or to determine policy. This will be the exclusive competence of the 10 local IFCAs.

MPAs

It is clear that perhaps the major challenge facing IFCAs over the next few years will lie in the application of management measures for those European Natura sites and domestic marine conservation zones which lie within the six mile limit. The Federation was able to share with the Association the vision, developed by the MPA Fishing coalition, of a consensus based approach to managing the sites in ways that provide the necessary protection for vulnerable species and habitats whilst minimising the displacement of fishing activity. Managing the areas outside the various marine protected areas may prove to be as much of a challenge because of the requirements of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive which applies stringent standards for good environmental status.

Shellfish Policy

A regionalised approach to the management of the shellfish fisheries in which IFCAs necessarily play a central and dynamic role will be another major focus of IFCAs work which overlaps with the Federation’s policy.

The IFCAs have to achieve their goals within the context of budget constraints, and the complexities of government (Defra, Marine Management Organisation, Natural England, Environment Agency, not to mention the devolved administrations and European legislation.) The performance of the IFCAs will be reviewed after four years.

Cooperation

There was much overlap in the concerns and views of the Federation and the Association. Our strong emphasis on the regional dimension and tailored management measures and antipathy towards top-down one-size-fits-all solutions sits well with the IFCAs’ focus and responsibilities.

We aim to work closely with the IFCAs and this was a good start.

The Nobel laureate for economics, Elinor Ostrom, is there on video to explain her life-work on common property resources, the relationship between governance and sustainable resource management.

Essentially, her key insights are:

• That resource management at the appropriate scale can overcome the inherent problems in managing common property resource
• That the involvement and participation of the key stakeholders is critical
• That poly-centric governance facilitates these kind of positive outcomes
• That governance arrangements must give room (and time) for resource users to develop their own, tailored, solutions
• That centralised, top-down, one-size fits all policies provide no panacea and will repeatedly fail
• That the role of the centre should be to provide oversight rather than prescriptive micro-management

All of this has the most profound relevance for the current reform of the CFP.

It is certainly possible to read into the CFP Reform Green Paper an appreciation of these insights.

The transfer of responsibility to the regional level, and to the industry itself ,(think poly centric arrangements) are at the centre of the Green Papers vision of a new and more effective CFP.

The question that now faces us is to what extent the Commission’s reform proposals reflect and deliver the change that is necessary to decentralise the CFP and the degree to which the co-legislators will accept this delegation of responsibility.

On this there are reasons to be far from optimistic:

The Commission rhetoric surrounding the proposal suggests a radical decentralisation of decision-making. But a closer scrutiny suggests that real detailed control would remain at the centre with only responsibility for implementing those decisions delegated.

Some crucial questions are posed?

• Can an institution such as the European Commission created to coordinate centrally delegate meaningfully?
• Is there even the legal authority within the Treaties to do so?
• And how likely is it that the European Parliament which has just been given co-decision authority under the Lisbon Treaty will resist the temptation hang on to its scope to micro-manage?
• Finally having had their fingers burnt with notional delegation of implementation in the EU Cod Management Plan, how many member states will sign up for decentralisation?

Yet the insights made by Prof. Ostrom are there for all to see.

Effective resource management requires decentralisation; it requires arrangements that encourage a much greater level of involvement and participation by the resource users. It requires a decisive move away from a command and control mindset. In a nutshell it requires all the conditions that Prof. Ostrom spells out in her work.

Our fear is that this reform will not succeed in putting those conditions in place and the CFP will face a decade of centralised paralysis (worse than before because of co-decision without decentralisation) until the next reform in 2023.

We hope that we are wrong but the signs are not good.

Regionalisation, transferable fishing concessions, a discard ban and a CFP based on maximum sustainable yield are central components in the Commission’s proposals, and yet are all subject to varied and contested interpretations. It is useful therefore to have some background explanation to the thinking behind them.

Our comments on the four non-papers are detailed below.

Regionalisation

We have been amongst the strongest and earliest advocates of a regionalised and decentralised CFP. Our view is that the primary reason why the CFP has consistently delivered much less than promised over its lifetime has been because of its reliance on an unwieldy, unresponsive and over-centralised command and control approach to resource management. This has led to blunt, one-size-fits-all measures across many diverse fisheries and fleets. As a result many of the measures adopted have failed and have not been supported by the principle stakeholders. This point is now well understood and featured heavily in the CFP Reform Green Paper.

The Green paper, and subsequently the Commission’s CFP Proposals, advanced regionalisation of decision-making as the central means of making the CFP more responsive, relevant and effective by bringing management decisions closer to the fisheries concerned.

The explanation now outlined in the Commission non-paper confirms however, that what is envisaged is a minimalist version of a regionalised decision making process. This is a disappointment and carries great significance for the reform.

It is understandable and reasonable to expect that the EU co-legislators (Commission, Council and Parliament) should retain ultimate responsibility for setting the standards, principles and objectives for the Common Fisheries Policy. Likewise, we agree that the Commission should retain authority to intervene when delegated management has failed for some reason. However, going beyond this to retain responsibility to set specific management goals and time-frames for long-term management plans at European level, and restricting the role for member states at regional level to supplying different means of implementing these decisions, is not, to our view, to encourage genuine independent agency at the regional level. This would be to waste the potential that is available within a genuine regional approach.

Although the jurisprudence remains contested, it may be true that there are currently only two legal alternatives to a protracted co-decision process to give regulatory effect to decisions on, for example , long term management plans arrived at through regional-seas cooperation:

• Providing the Commission with additional delegated powers (within a set of safeguards),
• The potentially chaotic route of individual member states using their national legislation to give effect to a regionally agreed policy

Nevertheless, this is a very long way from our vision of delegated responsibilities, with a significant degree of autonomy, to the regional level and below.

Likewise, the example given of a framework regulation for technical measures is a kind of hesitant half-step towards regionalisation that would be a recipe for repeating the failures, complexity and perversities of the current technical conservation regulation but with the single difference that the opprobrium for failure would rest with the member states rather than with the Commission and Council of Ministers. The parallels with the current EU Cod Management plan are too clear to miss: responsibility for achieving unachievable and un-measurable objectives, within an unrealistic time framework is set at European level – but responsibility for implementation transferred to the member states under the heading and rubric of “flexibility”. This is not a blueprint for an effective or happy management regime.

Legal uncertainty remains over whether the Treaty in fact proscribes delegation of decision-making authority to a decision-making body comprised of relevant member states at regional seas level.

What should not be in dispute, however, is that for shared-stock demersal fisheries regional-seas decision-making with a high degree of involvement by the principal stakeholders is the governance framework that is most likely to be consistent with effective fisheries management. In terms of understanding of the specific characteristics of the fisheries concerned, an ability to adapt rapidly to changing circumstances, short communication chains, strong cooperation between fisheries managers, fisheries scientists, fishermen and other stakeholders and dealing with the realities of shared stocks, there is no superior model.

It is disappointing that the non-paper suggests that what will emerge from the 2012 reform will fall far short of this.

Transferable Fishing Concessions

The non-paper makes clear that the Commission’s rationale for embracing transferable fishing concessions is that the CFP has failed to deal with the problem of fleet overcapacity. The Commission believes that:

1. None of the past policies to tackle overcapacity (multi-annual Guidance Programmes, entry-exit ratios, capping the maximum fleet size, public scrapping schemes) have worked
2. A mandatory system of TFCs, properly designed, applied at member state level will address the problem of overcapacity without further public intervention and equally as important, without further expenditure of public funds

The Commission appears as confident in its view of past policy failures as it is now about having identified a panacea to overcapacity in the form of TFCs.

We are less convinced of both propositions. In fact a closer examination of the evidence suggests that whether TFCs or publically funded scrapping schemes are employed to reduce fleet capacity, the design of the scheme is the critical factor which determines success or failure. It is both simplistic and factually untrue to dismiss all publically funded vessel decommissioning schemes as having failed to reduce capacity. Both the Commission and the European Court of Auditors are guilty of over-generalisation in their assessment of what has been achieved through decommissioning part-funded by FIFG and EFF. A broad EU overview is probably correct in concluding that a lot of public money has been spent but that an overcapacity problem remains in the EU. However, by failing to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful decommissioning schemes at fisheries level, the Commission and ECA miss the central point: some decommissioning schemes have been very successful whilst others have been comprehensive failures. We would suggest that the following fisheries have benefitted greatly in terms of reduced fleet capacity, reduced fishing mortality and increased profitability as a direct result of public intervention through decommissioning:

• North Sea cod
• North Sea roundfish stocks
• North Sea plaice
• North Sea sole
• Celtic Sea demersal stocks, especially cod

In the same way that publically funded decommissioning has been dismissed in the non-paper as having failed to deliver, the Commission expresses a rather naïve faith that TFCs will deliver the desired results. This faith may be misplaced because much depends on the context in which TFCs are applied and the design of the TFC arrangements in the member states themselves. Most reasonable observers would agree that the system of TFCs in Denmark has been successful but it is worth noting that the Danish scheme was preceded by several rounds of publically funded decommissioning and that the preconditions for TFCs may not be the same in all member states. In other member states where variants of TFCs are in use it is not yet possible to arrive at definitive conclusions about the relationship between TFCs and effective reduction of overcapacity.

The Commission envisages that the mandatory system of TFCs applied within each member state would be subject to five strict principles:

• TFCs will not confer property rights, but only user rights to exploit them for a limited period. After expiry of that period the TFC will revert to the member state which would then be free to reallocate it using the same or different criteria
• Selling, leasing or swapping of TFCs will be limited to owners of registered and active fishing vessels and will only take place with the purpose of transferring them to the vessels which will use them
• Relative Stability will be respected
• Member states would withdraw TFCs in the case of any serious infringements
• Member states would be obliged to reserve quotas and TFCs for new entrants to the fishery

Whilst the proposal foresees that member states would have flexibility, the Commission’s preference is that member states should allocate a certain % share of the national quotas to the small-scale fleet. The Commission envisages additional safeguards for the small scale fleet, specifically their exemption from TFCs if they use passive gear. The Commission draws heavily on the Danish experience in its advocacy of a TFC system in all member states.

In response:

• We freely acknowledge that within a well designed administrative framework and with certain important preconditions TFCs can be an effective way to manage national quotas. The advantage of a system of rights-based management lies in the security and encouragement of longer-term planning that it provides , along with its discouragement of ‘Olympic fishing”, otherwise known as the ‘race for fish’.
• We consider, however, that it is a moot point whether the Commission has legal competence in this area, given that to date quota management has been a competence that has resided with the member states
• Across the EU and within individual member states a mix of TFCs, pooled quotas, delegated responsibilities and centralised quota limits are currently in use, depending on local adaptations to specific circumstances. The evolution of this complex pattern has largely taken place under member state oversight without involvement or intervention by Brussels and usually in an incremental and organic way after much discussion at member state and local level. The central question must be whether these arrangements within each member state are likely to be enhanced or degraded through centralised controls of the type envisaged. Our view is that we are unlikely to achieve a more effective system of quota management by applying a command and control approach at the European level where it has not existed previously. Removing member state autonomy in this area would in our view be a retrograde step.
• We have elsewhere indicated the folly of searching for a single definition to differentiate small-scale fleets at European level because of the diversity of the fleets and operational realities around the coast. We would also draw attention to the often unforeseen consequences of drawing a more or less arbitrary line through the fleets with substantially different regulatory conditions on either side of that line. A definition which differentiates between under-12 metre vessels using passive gear and the rest is as inadequate a definition as any other. The fact that this will ultimately be a member state area of responsibility provides some assurance that the worst excesses will be avoided. The non-paper makes no mention of other kinds of safeguards for the small-scale fleet, such as a ‘one-way valve’ applied to quota transactions involving the small scale fleet that could be applied by those member states which include this class of vessel (however defined) in TFC arrangements.
• An important legal question relates to the Treaty’s strictures on EU competence where property rights within a member state are concerned. The Commission may consider that a TFC is a use-right rather than a property right but the legal precept of legitimate expectation after many years of custom and practice may lead the courts in the member states, and ultimately the European Court of Justice, to a different conclusion.

In summary, whilst we believe that there is a place for TFCs in those member states which want them, we think that it is wrong in principle for the Commission to propose a mandatory system on all member states. Furthermore, we question whether, even if the EU has the legal authority to impose TFCs within member states, it is desirable or consistent of them to do so within the context of efforts to decentralise the CFP and to delegate more responsibility to the member states and the fishing industry.

CFP Reform – the discard ban

The Commission acknowledges that fishermen across Europe have undertaken a number of good initiatives to reduce discards but considers that these are insufficient to assuage public concern about what it describes as “this wasteful practice”. It has therefore proposed a ban within a “gradual approach in three stages: pelagic species in 2014, most valuable demersal species (cod, hake and sole) in 2015 and other species in 2016.”

The non-paper moves directly to explain how, in the Commission’s view, a discard ban would work in practice. This would involve fishermen and administrations working hand in hand within a regionalised CFP to develop concrete measures to avoid unwanted catches. This could include inter alia:

• More selective gear
• Restricting access to juvenile aggregation areas
• Real time closures
• Administrative redistribution of quota to cover catches
• Pooling of quotas
• Use of TFCs to match fishing opportunities to capacity
• Greater use of international quota swaps and transfers
• Inter PO quota swaps
• Establishment of “by-catch quotas” through which a % of the national allocation will be reserved to cover fish landed that are not covered by individual quotas
• Banking and borrowing of quota
• EMFF funded storage aid and marketing initiatives
• Fish caught below a (regionalised) minimum reference size would have to be landed but only sold for fish meal or pet food

Four points readily occur when reading this list:

• The first is the extent to which many of these measures are already in practice as part of the normal business of quota and fisheries management by POs and member states
• The extent to which the Commission is silent on substantial discarding that is directly related to CFP regulations and CFP management decisions including TAC decisions. This is a very significant omission. Without substantial change to the catch composition rules within the Technical Conservation Regulation and an entirely different approach to setting TACs within mixed fisheries, the Commission’s Proposal for a discard ban cannot work in practice
• The superficial glossing over of the issues involved in administrative redistribution of quota. This is an area fraught with legal and ethical difficulties (and it is only because this is seen from a comfortable distance and it would not be their responsibility) that the Commission can suggest it so blithely
• Interestingly, the non-papers do not mention catch quotas. At present the catch quota projects are at the cutting edge of discard reduction. Using the potential in the tonnages currently listed under the ICES advice discard column, catch quotas have demonstrably motivated behavioural change to reduce discards (and to document that change through the use of CCTV cameras). Catch Quotas have their disadvantages and are certainly not the panacea for all fisheries and fleets but they seems positively superior to Norway’s notional “ban” where ICES estimates that there is still a discard rate of around 15%. We would like encouragement for the expansion of the voluntary catch quota scheme but would be opposed to regarding it as any kind of panacea to be imposed on the fleets in a blanket fashion. Ultimately such an approach would only be counter-productive.

We have already indicated that we share the Commission’s goal of ending large-scale discarding. We agree that discarding wastes the resource and mars the reputation of the fishing industry, although it is always important to locate the issue of discarding within the bigger picture of effective resource management where the mortality rate rather that the end-use is the critical question.

It is worth repeating that substantial progress has already been made in reducing discards and these initiatives have been notified to the Commission. At the same time we are uneasy about applying the word “ban” to the efforts to minimise discards. Although a “ban” plays well with those parts of the media which have focused on the discards issue, the most superficial enquiry will reveal that even in those countries like Norway which ostensibly have a ban on discards, this prohibition is necessarily far from absolute. Unless the aim is to close mixed fisheries down completely and immediately, the practicalities and realities of fishing have to be taken into account.

The non-paper confirms that it is the Commission’s intention to provide some flexibility through a phased approach to the ban by allowing fish with known high survival rates to be returned to the sea. Even accepting that in a regionalised system implementing decisions would be made at the level of the fishery, the non-paper provides little additional illumination about how the necessary flexibility would be applied in practice and how necessary derogations would apply in arrangements still dictated to a large degree from the centre.

Successful management through the delegation of responsibilities will be dependent on achieving a workable balance between a broad management framework and flexibility for the member states and industry organisations to take initiatives within that framework. At present in relation to regionalisation, TFCs and discards, we do not believe that the right balance has been struck. There remains too much evidence of a residual top-down, command and control approach that will set unachievable and impractical targets and therefore set the CFP’s discard policy up for failure.

We suggest that a more systematic approach to discard reduction is employed which:

• Is based on a comprehensive appreciation of the discard reduction initiatives that are already in place
• A dialogue which provides a deeper understanding of what the producer organisations and member states already do to minimise discards
• An assessment of the extent, fishery-by-fishery, that these efforts are constrained and limited by CFP rules such as catch composition and TAC decisions based on single stock considerations
• Integration of measures and management approaches focussed on eliminating this kind of regulatory discards as a precondition for initiatives at the regional level.

CFP Reform – Maximum Sustainable Yield

The North Sea RAC has prepared extensive advice to the Commission on the application of the concept maximum sustainable yield to our fisheries. It is not our intention therefore to repeat all of the arguments here.

It is sufficient to observe that:

• The authors of the WSSD commitment to achieve MSY by 2015 were careful enough to include the words “where possible” to reflect the biological reality that it may not be possible to achieve MSY for all stocks simultaneously

• The non-paper adopts a quite superficial approach that ignores this important qualification and does little to advance policy thinking on how to achieve sustainable high yield fisheries in mixed fisheries.
• It “resolves” the problem of how to apply the MSY concept, which was developed with single stock fisheries in mind, to mixed stock fisheries by proposing that “it should be the most vulnerable stock that determines the limits of exploitation for all other fish taken in the same fishery”

We (and we believe all member states which have to deal with the realities of managing mixed stock fisheries), will reject this crude and dogmatic approach which could cause much damage if co-legislators were naïve enough to adopt it.

Instead, we believe that it should be for decision-makers at regional level to develop their own customised approach to MSY, or some proxy for MSY, within the context of the development of long-term management plans. Usually ‘movement in the right direction’ for a stock or a fishery is a much more significant criterion than endless and often futile discussions on where on the effort/yield curve MSY should be located.

Some of the issues that require consideration in the context of MSY in mixed fisheries are:

• Inextricably mixed stocks
• Sequential targeting within a single trip
• Current Ices work to date on mixed fisheries
• Avoidance plans
• Gear selectivity
• Spatial temporal measures
• Discards in mixed fisheries
• Economic driver stocks and the rest (Main TACs + “Norway Others” type approach)
• “Choke” stocks: minor stocks which could prevent access to main stocks in mixed fisheries
• MSY in mixed species fisheries
• Management plan trade-offs
• Catch composition rules
• Governance issues

Against this background we are strongly opposed to any attempt to impose an unworkable MSY obligation into the basic CFP Regulation.

Conclusions

The CFP is at an important crossroads. The arrival of co-decision has amplified and intensified stresses already apparent in the CFP. Failure to adapt and to decentralise decision-making in a meaningful way in this current reform risks a decade of paralysis until the task is completed in the next reform.

Regionalisation

Having now received the Commission’s clarifications in the form of the ‘non-papers’, we are concerned that in terms of delegating responsibilities to the regional seas level there will be a very wide gap between what was envisaged in the CFP Green Paper and supported by the RACs and the substance of post reform decision-making. Our fear is that very little will change if the role of regional cooperation is narrowly defined and restricted to implementing prescriptive requirements still agreed at the centre. A CFP which retains control over aims, objectives and timetables (as opposed to setting standards, determining overall strategy and intervening where there is a default) will repeat the weaknesses seen in the CFP of the recent past. The current EU Cod Management Plan presents an object lesson in what to avoid.

Transferable Fishing Concessions

Whilst we agree that transferable fishing concessions can be an effective way to manage quotas within each member state, we question whether the EU has legal competence in this sphere; moreover, we doubt the wisdom and logic of applying a top-down blanket approach to this area of policy when the stated orientation for the rest of the CFP is in the opposite direction.

Whilst we draw some comfort from confirmation that the Commission envisages TFCs operating within each member state and within the principle of Relative Stability, we are unconvinced by its blanket rejection of past efforts to reduce fleet overcapacity and its rather naïve faith in TFCs as the new panacea.

We caution against the often perverse and unforeseen consequences of drawing an arbitrary line through the fleet, as the Commission does in relation to differentiating the small-scale fleet, especially when it is explicitly envisaged that different conditions would apply above and below that line.

Discard Ban

Whilst we share the Commission’s objective of minimizing discards, the idea of a ‘ban’ owes more to an overreaction to media sensitivities than the hard, practical task of addressing the various drivers for discarding and the development of equally different solutions for them. We are astounded that the non-paper says nothing about the Commission’s own responsibilities to remove all legislation that currently generates discards. The catch composition rules and certain TAC decisions in mixed fisheries is an obvious place to start.

Maximum Sustainable Yield

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with identifying a level of fishing mortality that would consistently deliver high yields and then orienting management decisions to achieve that objective. The difficulty arises when a fetish is made of that objective and sight is lost of the necessary trade-offs, particularly in mixed and multi-species fisheries, that require balance with other objectives. Whilst we can see steady progress in our stocks towards some proxy of MSY, we are absolutely convinced that it would be a serious mistake to tie fisheries managers’ hands at regional seas level by making achievement of MSY a general and mandatory obligation.

Despite the fact that MSY is a somewhat discredited theoretical construction, designed with single stock fisheries in mind, it has served a useful purpose as a political commitment, which has moved the focus in fisheries management from avoiding collapse through over-exploitation, to the inherent economic potential in fisheries – if the right balance can be struck between exploitation and conservation.

Problems however arise when MSY is turned from a theoretical notion to a practical framework for fisheries management. The cost and inherent difficulties in providing analytical stock assessments so that we know, for each and every commercially exploited stock, where on the biomass yield curve we are, is probably beyond our capacity and resources. For this reason identifying a level of fishing mortality (Fmax for the aficionados) that is consistent with a high probability that this will deliver high yields is a more useful indicator for fisheries managers.

Again at a practical level, most realists accept that it is unlikely that it will be possible to maintain all stocks in multi-species, mixed-fisheries simultaneously at MSY. Some kind of pragmatic trade off is required to strike a balance between maximising yield on some stocks, but fishing others at a lower yield and providing protection for particularly vulnerable species.

It is above all, to deal with the realities of mixed fisheries that the all important words where possible were included in the Johannesburg Declaration.

The problem arises when, for political and largely cosmetic reasons, it is proposed that MSY is moved from a political commitment to a mandatory requirement, as we now have in the European Commission’s CFP reform proposals, cheered on by some of the less savvy environmental NGOs. As a political commitment there remains room for manoeuvre to deal with the tricky mixed fishery issues and the necessary trade-offs required; as a mandatory requirement ministers would be committing themselves to permanent failure, or fishing at the lowest common denominator, as there will always be some stock or other which will, for completely extraneous reasons, dip for a period. North Sea saithe is currently a good example which for a number of years, has been fished at levels of mortality below and biomass above MSY, yet has experienced below average recruitment for unknown environmental stock dynamic reasons. Nothing has changed in the fishery to account for this and the likelihood is that it will right itself in due course.

When MSY is moved from being a useful guide and benchmark to becoming an inflexible fetish, fisheries managers’ hands will be tied to deal with this kind of example in a pragmatic way. It is very significant that much of the opposition to using MSY in this crude way comes from fisheries scientists.

The signs are that many member states will press for this part of the proposal of the reform proposals to be taken out. There are other policy formulations that deliver that same commitment without the drawbacks. Our preference is to aim for:

“Levels of fishing effort consistent with high, long-term, sustainable yields”

Another is:

“Low levels of fishing mortality for the major species that will permit high stock sizes without significant loss of long-term yield”

Either of these formulations would avoid the trap of unachievable mandatory obligations to meet the requirements of a theory.

In any event, much more important than arguing about the fine-tuning of the point of destination is whether our fisheries are moving broadly in the right direction. And with a few exceptions the ICES advice for this year’s quotas confirms that this is the case.

Seafish’s existing guidance on potting rollers was published in 2001. As part of its commitment to supporting a safe and sustainable future for the industry, the organisation has decided that this guidance should be reviewed and, if necessary, updated.

The work will be undertaken for NFFO Services by Nathan de Rozarieux. Over the next couple of months, Nathan will be talking with fishermen, boat builders and manufacturers throughout the UK to discuss safety concerns and identify best practice. The results of this research are due to be published by Seafish in April.

Gary Hodgson, Chairman of NFFO’s Shellfish Committee said: “It is important that we strive to minimise the risks associated with potting. This important piece of work will help to uncover those risks and share best practice which will help ultimately to make every fisherman’s working environment safer.”

If you use, design or fit potting rollers or haulers and have any experiences or views on their safe use, design and layout we want to hear from you. Please email Nathan at nathan@tegen-mor.co.uk or contact Seafish on 01472 252 302