All Posts - Page 36 of 47

Miniscule TACs, effort control, more selective gear, the eradication of the Northern Irish directed fishery for cod, a seasonal spawning closed area – all measures that have been applied over the last decade without noticeable return. This lack of response from the stock has parallels with the west of Scotland cod stock but contrasts markedly with the North Sea stocks, where a clear increase in the biomass shows up in the stock assessments.

Unlike the North Sea there is no problem of discarding of mature cod.

The ICES 2011 stock assessment paints a bleak picture but is full of uncertainties. It records that the targeted whitefish fleet that developed in the 1990s using semi-pelagic trawls has continued to decline to a handful of vessels. The assessment model suggests that “total removals continues to vary around 2 to 3 times the reported landings, despite more accurate catch reporting and lack of evidence for significant high grading of cod”.

So what is happening? Why no recovery? The assessment points to a few possibilities:

There is evidence that the reduction in recruitment observed in the Irish Sea since the 1990s may be due to a combination of a small spawning stock biomass and poor environmental conditions, coinciding with a shift towards above average temperatures
Recent tagging experiments have shown migrations of cod out of the Irish Sea into the North Channel, and also migrations south through the deeper Channel into the Celtic Sea

Benchmarked in 2012

There may be some hope that we will get a better grip on what’s happening with Irish Sea cod because this assessment is one of those chosen by ICES for benchmark in 2012. Benchmarking is when a particular assessment is subject to a thorough review as to whether the data, methods, models used in the assessment are appropriate. The North West Waters Regional Advisory Council has recently appointed a data coordinator for the Irish Sea who will try to ensure that the quality of the information used in the assessment is the best possible. The outcome of the benchmark process can’t be foreseen but hopefully it may point a way forward and the NFFO will be involved in the process through the NWWRAC to ensure that all the key questions are asked.

Cod Management Plan

Whilst the assessment for cod in the Irish Sea is beset with complexities, no such uncertainties apply to the EU Cod Management Plan. It has achieved nothing in the Irish Sea; will achieve nothing, and has from the beginning been an exercise in futility. Attaching the Irish Sea to the Cod Plan as an afterthought to the larger North Sea fishery, without taking into account the specifics of the conditions in the Irish Sea was never going to be a recipe for success. The formula of preordained reductions in TAC and effort (days-at –sea) has been criticised by ICES/STECF in its recent review as a wholly inadequate approach.

A New Approach?

The benchmarking of the Irish Sea cod assessment and at the same time, the review of the EU Cod Management Plan, open up the possibility of a better founded approach to cod recovery in the future. It seems essential that putting the assessment on a more solid footing and a recovery plan that is well adapted to the specifics of the Irish Sea fisheries, should go hand in hand. The industry is reporting signs of cod recovery on the grounds that have yet to show up fully in the assessment, although it is acknowledged that the 2009 year class is encouraging. If there is to be a full cod recovery in the Irish Sea, these are the kind signs we would expect to see first. The task now will be to design and implement effective cod avoidance approaches that have the support of the industry. And the first step will be to shake of the shackles of the current Plan.

The group is comprised of representatives from NFFO, NUTFA and UKAFPO, although, of course, the Federation has overlapping membership with both organisations.

One of the clear messages to emerge from the consultation and also from the port meetings that have been held around the coast, is that despite the acute quota shortage in some under 10m fisheries, there is a real fear that a rush into a system of community quotas based on FQA entitlements, would leave many under-10m vessels potentially worse off than before. There was also a strong signal that the flexibility afforded by the pool system that allows vessels to change target species and to adapt to new circumstances was highly valued by many under-10s.

On the other hand, there is a recognition that quota management centred on a remote bureaucracy, however well-meaning, would never be able to match the effectiveness of the professional quota managers in locally based producer organisations. The challenge lies in how to bring those benefits to the under-10m fleet.

The working group came to the conclusion that the way forward for most vessels lay in a less rushed timetable, with pilots to test how groups of under-10s could work under a regionalised pool arrangement, with access to professional quota management. One of the first of these group schemes is likely to be affiliated to the Cornish FPO which already has a substantial under 10m membership, and has offered to host a scheme for non-CFPO members who are interested in the trial.

The aim will be to demonstrate that a pool system, with quota limits are set on a monthly basis for the whole fleet, linked to professional quota management with a regional focus, can deliver a wider and deeper range of fishing opportunities for the under-10m fleet over the course of the year. It may be possible to run a range of pilots trialling different approaches: an under 10m pool linked to a PO, as in the CFPO example; or a self-standing under-10 group managing its own quotas.

Clearly, one of the key issues that remain to be settled is the criteria that will apply to the pilot schemes in terms of quota made available, reporting requirements, sanctions etc. More than one meeting will probably be required to thrash these out before the pilots start on 1st January 2012.

The Commission’s proposals were published on 13th July but the Director General signalled that the final outcome will be heavily influenced by the positions taken by member states and the European Parliament. A number of UK stakeholders expressed concern about the lack of detail in the Proposals on how CFP decentralisation – one of the main themes in the Commission’s Green Paper – would work in practice.

The NFFO voiced the concern that the model advanced by the Commission, with objectives, targets and timetables set by the European institutions and the responsibility for implementation lying with the member states, bore more than a passing resemblance to the current (and largely discredited) EU Cod Management Plan. It’s one thing for the European institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) to lay down standards and broad principles; it’s another if they prescribe detailed policy. That would only replace one form of centralised command and control with another.

The DG conceded that there was a risk that the legislators in the member states and Parliament could block the move to effective decentralisation, if they want to retain detailed control. She reaffirmed the Commission’s desire to “move micro-management decisions away from the Co-decision level”.

Other key points in the Director General’s address included:

Reform package Timetable

1st Wave Basic Regulation

Common Organisation of the Market 13th July 2011

External Policy

2nd Wave Financial Package November 2011

Beyond the Basic Regulation Non-legislative developments

Related Policies

Future legislative developmentsMaximum Sustainable Yield

The DG emphasised that MSY was about maximising economic return on fisheries and to achieve that objective, a principle (the WSSD commitment to achieve MSY by 2015, where possible) must be turned into a policy objective.

MSY would allow more fish of a larger size and higher value to be landed

MSY would be part of the application of an ecosystem approach, as a direction rather than as immediate policy. To apply an ecosystem approach it was necessary to have adequate and fairly complete science and we had not yet achieved that.

Eliminating Discards

Avoiding the word “ban”, the DG insisted that in future all catches must be counted against quota. There would be more discussion on how to achieve this in the autumn.

Transferable Concessions

The DG conceded that this part of the Proposal was very controversial in some member states. A forthcoming Court of Auditors report would be very critical of EU money being used to reduce capacity, “because it hasn’t worked”.

The Commission’s proposal contained the best ideas on what could work to reduce overcapacity, drawing heavily on the Danish model

Fishing Rights are allocated for a “sufficiently long period”
This would incentivise fishermen to “behave in a more long-term way”
It would facilitate departures from the industry

It was considered important by the DG that that key issues were addressed at the design stage, notably the safeguards against tradability of quotas extending beyond the fishing industry, rewarding good behaviour and protecting small scale fisheries through a “one -way valve” arrangement.

Science

The CFP, according to the Director General should be based on sound science. At present there were important gaps in the data, high costs and therefore a need to rationalize the science base. One way that this could be achieved could be through less reliance on data-hungry assessment models within a streamlined system.

Social Agenda

Small scale fisheries formed an important part of the Commission’s “social agenda”. Small scale fisheries had an intrinsic link to the community and had an important role to play in a diversified coastal economy. There was a bigger picture that involved catching, processing aquaculture and added value.

The issue of appropriate quota shares was considered to be an area of exclusive member state responsibility.

Producer Organisations

Producer Organisations are seen by the Commission as “key actors” in the decentralisation of the CFP, through the formulation and execution of production and marketing plans, although again the Proposal is vague on how this could be achieved. Their future role, according to the DG, could also lie in increasing added value to the products of their members. There will be much more detail on this topic in the Financial Instrument Proposal.

Regionalisation

Although the DG expressed distaste for the word, regionalisation was seen as “removing micro-management from the co-decision level”. “The technical decisions would be delegated to the national level. Regionalisation would be an opportunity, not an obligation. Member states would be empowered but only under conditions established by co-decision. “It will however only work if the member states in Council and the European Parliament don’t want to retain detailed control”.

Financial Package

The replacement for the European Fisheries Fund will run from 2014 to 2020 and will have 6.7 billon euros at its disposal, a 3% increase on the current EFF. The new fund will be rebranded as the Integrated Maritime Programme , although it will primarily be related to fisheries. Its main elements will be:

Innovation
Greening
Inclusive growth
Efficient Fleet Subsidies
Aquaculture
Coastal Communities
Production and marketing Plans
Cross cutting instruments

Vessel scrapping will not be part of the programme.

External Policy

The DG made clear that it was the Commission’s intention to reform external policy at the same time as CFP reform. In particular:

The external dimension would become an explicit part of the CFP
For the first time the CFP and External policy would have common goals
The focus would be on strategic partnerships and sustainable fisheries agreements
The aim would be to export high standards not overcapacity
Agreements would have a scientific basis
There would be support for fisheries in Third countries
Vessel operators would be expected to contribute more to secure access to Third Country waters
The Policy would observe human rights

Discussion

During the question and answer session that followed the DG’s presentation the following issues were raised:

Vagueness on decentralisation and regionalisation
Overcapacity and tradable concessions
6/12 mile limits
Regional Advisory Councils
Natura fast track
How to achieve robust science
MSY
Labelling and certification
Security of supply
Transferable concessions: Neo-liberal on large-scale/protectionist on small scale fleets
RFMOs: need for a dispute settlement procedure
POs’ future role: need for a real dialogue on co-management

A continuous stream of spurious conservation arguments, masquerading for self-interest, have been deployed – and in the main been seen off by the NFFO’s Salmon Committee, although not without huge efforts and not without injury.

The cyclical requirement for the Government to approve the Net Limitation Order has usually provided the trigger for frenetic lobbying of ministers by the powerful and well-placed angling interests. This has usually been accompanied by hysterical coverage in the angling press.

It is all the more surprising therefore that the approach of the Net Limitation Order this time around has been accompanied by a deafening silence from the angling lobby.

The suspicion has to be that the anglers are working assiduously behind the scenes to persuade a minister, who they consider one of their own, to close the drift net fishery and to further restrict the T and J net/ beach fisheries.

The conservation arguments against the North East nets have always been weak because it is a small, well-managed, tightly controlled fishery with limited impact on salmon and sea trout stocks. It does however provide an important component in the livelihoods of the fishermen who still hold salmon licences.

The very strong runs of salmon this year and last year suggest that the stocks are doing well and that the increased catches of the netsmen are entirely proportionate.

The danger is that despite demonstrable strength of the salmon stocks and the sustainable characteristics of this small traditional fishery, the Net Limitation Order will be used by the Minister to sign away this fishery without due process. The NFFO will fight to ensure that this doesn’t happen. Netsmen have been side-lined by the Environment Agency over recent years. There is nowhere within the consultative arrangements for the Net Limitation Order that provides netsmen with a fair and proportionate voice. Netsmen have certainly been denied a voice at national level forums. As a result, there is no prospect that recommendations to ministers will be based on fair and balanced consideration of well-evidenced policy options. In fact all the signs are that self-interest and informal influence will carry the day, unless challenged.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the Environment Agency’s consultative arrangements there is little prospect of a more evidence-based approach from Defra, where there is a serious disconnect between fisheries, biodiversity and rural policy areas. Had they been coordinated Defra might have spotted the value of a small-scale, well-managed fishery, using passive gear and supporting rural communities.

The Washington University research into whether a quota shares system (where quotas are allocated to individual fishing enterprises) is superior to systems that set quota caps for whole fleets in achieving management objectives and sustainable fisheries has turned up some interesting and timely results

Given the world wide span of the research, the principal finding is that the main influence on whether management measures deliver sustainable fisheries is related to regional factors. This makes sense as stocks managed under, for example, a rigid and inflexible Common Fisheries Policy are unlikely to perform as well as others managed under more flexible and responsive regimes.

However, it is the scorecard on stocks that are judged to be overexploited that the research is particularly relevant.

The survey found that:

Overexploitation occurred in 9% of stocks under quota shares
Overexploitation occurred in 13% of stocks under fleet wide quota caps
Overexploitation occurred in 41% of stocks under effort control

As effort control (days at sea restrictions) is at the heart of the current EU cod management plan and that plan has recently been reviewed by ICES/STECF, these research results from serious fisheries scientists using a rigorous statistical methodology could not carry more significance. Clearly the research does not to say that catch shares or fleet cap systems, or any other quota allocation arrangements will on their own deliver sustainable fisheries. But it does send a very strong signal that those who advocate effort control are barking up the wrong tree if sustainable fisheries is their goal.

The Editor

The Times

1Virginia St

London

Dear Sir

Fishing Distortions

It is a necessary part of the journalist’s job to simplify complex issues. The best do this without distorting the essentials of the story. Frank Pope’s demonization of the fishing industry and fisheries ministers (The Great Fish Robbers have got away with it again, Times 14th July) crosses the line from simplification to distortion.

You would never guess from his description of the European Commission’s launch of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy that fishing organisations support long term management plans as an alternative to the annual circus of setting quotas; or that they work closely with fisheries scientists on the development of these plans; or indeed and that they are amongst the strongest advocates of radical reform of the CFP.

It’s much easier but essentially lazy and untrue to set up as he does, a simplistic good and evil dichotomy that portrays fisheries ministers as the witless dupes of the powerful and fishing lobby, opposing reform by a Commissioner “on the side of the angels”.

It is the attempt to manage multiple diverse and complex fisheries spread across 40 degrees of latitude, through a centralised command and control system based in Brussels that explains why European fisheries policies have repeatedly failed. Your correspondent does no one any favours by promoting the view that political will and a big stick is all that is required.

Yours

NFFO

It states, “Fish Stocks in European waters are improving”.On Wednesday 13th July, in the context of the need for CFP reform, Commissioner Damanaki told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme.

“………the stocks are really collapsing.”

The NFFO said that a wide range of issues were covered including

The design application and enforcement of management measures within marine conservation zones and special areas of conservation
Electronic logbooks, including the development and availability of an integrated VMS/e-logbook system
The performance of the English EFF programme
Progress in implementing the new EU Control Regulation, including the weighing of catch provisions, 10% margin of tolerance, engine power measurement and the marking of pots
The application of Fisheries Administrative penalties
New MMO arrangements to ensure that all infringements are dealt with in a timely and consistent way
Delivery and practicality issues associated with the Defra consultation on the future of under-10m quota management
The MMO’s compliance and enforcement strategy
Voluntary net tagging that could potentially reduce the impact of boardings at sea
The impact of boardings on fishing operations

The NFFO said: “The NFFO and the MMO are agreed that there is a continued need for pragmatic and proportionate enforcement that, so far as possible, separates minor infringements from determined and recurrent rule-breaking. Fisheries Administrative Penalties have helped to streamline the process and a new system of monthly reviews of all fisheries offences is being implemented to bring consistency and to ensure that prosecutions if they are to happen are brought forward in a timely fashion.

“The NFFO gave examples of boardings at sea which could have been handled with greater regard for fishing operations and the MMO welcomed this feedback. . It was agreed to reinstate liaison days with the Royal Navy’s Fisheries Protection Squadron, with port visits by fisheries protection vessels in the Irish Sea, Shoreham and Hartlepool. The potential for repeated prosecutions for infringement of the 10% margin of tolerance –particularly for small quantities – was raised and the need for a reasonable, pragmatic and risk based approach was underlined by the Federation.

“It was agreed to discuss further the details of a voluntary net tagging scheme which potentially could reduce the time and anxiety of net measurements at sea.

“The navigational chaos that could result from implementation of the new Control Regulation requirements on flags, radar reflectors and lights on dhans marking pots was emphasised. The huge cost and navigational consequences of vessels confronting a ‘city of light’ and a ‘snowstorm of radar signals’ underlined the need for a practical solution.

“The Federation said that this was a constructive meeting which aimed to make the best out of a management system that is over-complex, in places fundamentally irrational, and certainly far removed from the practicalities of fishing; but is the law – until that law can be changed. The MMO has faced a difficult baptism of fire but the meeting showed that there is at least a strong will to temper the rough edges of the CFP without abandoning the core purpose of enforcing fisheries regulations.

The Federation will be meeting the MMO to continue this dialogue at regular intervals.”

A meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Fisheries Group, convened in one of the committee rooms in the House of Commons, was devoted to analysing the reform package in depth and discussing its implications.

The MPs shared the Federation’s views that there is a long way to go before the package could be said to represent a viable way forward for European fisheries.

Also of shared concern was the perception that the central theme in the Commission’s decentralisation proposals would be a delegation of decision-making responsibility from the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to the Commission – in effect just a different kind of top-down centralised system of control. By contrast the proposals for a greater degree of real management decisions at regional seas level are vague and unclear.

In fairness, the proposal for a new basic regulation for the CFP represents a framework and much of the detail will require secondary legislation. However, it is already clear that there are grounds for fears that the CFP reform is set to follow the model of the current cod management plan where objectives, targets and timetables are set centrally, with a subordinate and highly constrained role for the member states in implementing the rules that determined from above. We already know and STECF/ICES will shortly confirm that this is a model that has failed to achieve its objectives.

The Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform identified over-centralisation and micromanagement as a core reason why the current CFP has repeatedly failed to achieve its objectives. To that extent the Commission’s proposal is a disappointment which unless amended by the member states and European Parliament, will again lead to the CFP failing to achieve its objectives. Writing rules in Brussels is one thing; delivering effective fisheries management across many complex and diverse and fisheries is another, which is why the argument for a radically decentralised CFP, albeit subject to standards and principles lain down at European level remains the, so far unfulfilled, goal for so many at fisheries level.

The MPs raised questions on:

The UK Government’s arrangements for working with the fishing industry on shaping the future Policy
The alignment of other member states on the key elements of the reform package
How the focus on discards could be moved from superficial headlines to substance
The dangers of defining the small-scale fleet in crude terms convenient for bureaucrats but incomprehensible in the field
The limits of an approach based on political will and a big stick
The importance of maintaining flexibility for the fleets to change grounds and target species

This was a useful opportunity to update MPs and to seek their support as the reform process gathers pace.

Criteria

This paper responds to the Defra consultation paper Consultation on Reform of the English Fisheries Management Arrangements, April 2011.

The NFFO considers that the proposals contained in Defra’s consultation paper on reform of the quota management arrangements in England should be judged on the extent to which they makes progress against a number of key criteria. These are:

Removing the arbitrary distinction between under-10 and over-10m vessels
Achieving a balance between fishing opportunities and capacity within the whole English fishing fleet that lays the basis for an economic and environmentally sustainable future
Providing the means through which operators of under-10m vessels can increase their fishing opportunities through access to professional quota management
Providing the means through which the 130-160 “high catching” under-10m vessels are integrated into the mainstream quota management arrangements
Providing maximum flexibility for inshore vessels to adopt the quota arrangements best suited to the specifics of their fisheries
Managing the transition to the new arrangements, sensitively and without recourse to forced redistribution of quota
Fleet/quota rebalancing on the basis of government led (but not necessarily wholly government funded) capacity reduction arrangements
The interdependence of the fleets in supporting fishing infrastructures

Summary

Inevitably, it will be the redistributive proposals in the Defra consultation that will be the most controversial, divisive and will attract most attention during the consultation phase. However, we would make a number of important introductory points:

It will be the structural changes to the way that under-10 quota management is undertaken that will prove to be most significant factor in delivering an economically sustainable fleet in the long term
It should be recognised that it is unlikely that that the quota shortage problems in some fisheries will be solved through domestic quota arrangements alone because the root problems lie either with the allocation keys at EU level or the level at which the TACs are set.
A good idea can be spoiled by poor implementation; therefore, how the transition is handled is of critical importance; this suggests that the timeframe for implementation should be re-examined and scope provided for vessels to opt-in to new arrangements rather than to be forced into them
We are also concerned that the new concordat between Defra and the devolved administrations, which forms the administrative and political context for the reform, and of which we have only second-hand knowledge, will be to the serious disadvantage of the English fleet as a whole.
Whilst we support the objectives of the proposals – a unified fleet, with maximum flexibility and significant management responsibilities delegated to industry/community organisations – we cannot support the proposals for realignment and redistribution of quota as they stand, which are divisive and inadequately thought through. How the transition to the reformed arrangement is managed will be of critical importance to all in the industry and is likely to colour the post-reform regime. We are pleased therefore that a working group with all interested parties will be convened to examine the redistributive elements in the proposals in detail.

General

The positive aspects in the consultative proposals are:

The recognition that the arbitrary divide at 10 metres, with differential regimes on either side of that line, has created a number of perverse incentives that ultimately have been to the disadvantage of the vessels operating within the under-10m pool
Recognition that the UK’s system of delegated responsibilities for quota management by producer organisations has provided the over-10m fleet with the basics of a workable rights-based management system; this provides a flexibility that is not available to vessels fishing within the under-10m pool system managed centrally at national level and this too has been to the under-10s’ disadvantage
Reintegrating the under-10m fleet, and in particular the 130 under-10m vessels that catch around 60% of the under-10m pool catches, into the mainstream quota arrangements would put the whole industry on stronger footing and is the key to the reform.
Bringing those under-10m vessels which catch significant quantities of quota species into existing POs, or by forming a new PO (or POs), or bodies performing similar functions, would considerably strengthen the position of the under-10 fleet both in terms of professional quota management and as a platform for representation at a national and international level.
Within a system of rights-based management, safeguards are necessary to prevent the over- concentration of fishing rights in a few hands; this can be achieved, through the application of a one-way valve on quota transfers from the small scale fleet
An undoubted strength of the approach outlined in the consultation paper, is that it recognises that the problems facing the under-10m fleet cannot be fixed through a superficial or piecemeal approach but only through a suit of measures in combination.

It is significant that a considerable degree of consensus has emerged around these ideas emerged from discussions in the informal working group convened by DEFRA and involving UKAFPO, NUTFA and the NFFO. This demonstrates the progress that can be made through tightly focused but balanced and representative industry groupings.

The significantly novel component in the Defra proposal is that the under-10m pool should be completely dissolved and that the under 10m (and over 10m non-sector) fleet should in future manage their own quota affairs individually, or as a member of a PO or as part of a newly established community quota group. Our view is that whilst there is no intrinsic reason why this approach should not succeed, its actual success will depend entirely on the effort, imagination, support and finance that will be at its disposal.

Destination and Transition

We believe that the destination outlined in the consultation paper (a diverse but unified English fleet, operating on the basis of a system of rights-based management and delegated responsibilities, with considerable scope for flexibility, and with appropriate safeguards) is an honourable, intelligent and attractive one.

The principal difficulties that we foresee are those related to the transition from the current dysfunctional arrangements to the new system.

In many regards the challenges of transition are interlinked:

Ensuring that the new under-10m quota management bodies have sufficient quota for their members to be viable under the new arrangements – without destabilising arrangements in the over-10m sector
How to provide adequate support for the community quota groups during their formative stage, given the costs involved, constraints imposed by geography and the inertia generated by the current arrangements and particularly given the ambitious timescale envisaged
Dealing with the inevitable element of rough justice involved in allocating zero FQAs to latent/dormant licences
Integrating over-10m non-sector vessels into the mainstream quota management arrangements
The lack of clarity and confused methodology in the proposed realignment of under-fished quotas
The divisive proposals for one-off redistribution which run the dual risk of harming one sector without solving the problems of the other

Community Quota Groups

Although economically and socially important, with some notable and important exceptions, the under-10m fleet in England is not organised in a way that allows it to shape its own destiny to any significant degree. Geography and sectoral distinctions, as well as a strong streak of individualism means that a lack of collective and cohesive organisation, beyond purely local, is the norm. The remote, top-down management system that has ruled for the last two decades has also tended to breed an apathy born out of a sense of powerlessness.

The exceptions to this general picture are important. Some under 10m operators are already members of POs and some POs have significant numbers of under-10m members who benefit from their PO’s marketing and representative roles. And some local fishermen’s associations have shown themselves to be highly organised.

Despite significant obstacles and hurdles we can see no intrinsic reason why under-10m vessel operators couldn’t pool their quotas and coordinate their quota management, marketing and representative activities in the way suggested in the consultation paper. Whether an under-10m vessel operator chooses to join an existing PO, or combine with others to form a new PO, or a more limited community quota group, the key to success will be closely tied to the amount and type of support that will be available over the transitional period. In the absence of a clear understanding of what could be available it is not possible to go further at this stage in predicting outcomes.

Realignment of Consistently Under-fished Quotas

According to the consultation paper, Defra proposes to redeploy 80% of those FQAs attached to English licences which are associated with certain consistently under-fished quotas. These are stocks where uptake by an individual PO or under -10m pool has been less that 90% of the allocation, and more than 100 tonnes has remained un-fished each year during the period 2007 -2010.

As we can identify very few stocks that would meet these criteria, we wonder if this is actually what is meant. And does the consultation paper really mean that it is Defra’s intention to reallocate 80% of a PO’s total FQAs of those identified stocks, irrespective of how that relates to the PO’s unused or used quota?

It is difficult to defend the retention of quota that is consistently under-utilised year after year, when there is a demonstrable need by other UK fishermen, specifically those in the under-10m sector. We therefore agree that where the market mechanism has consistently and demonstrably failed to ensure full uptake of UK quota, there is a case for administrative intervention. But this is very different from the arbitrary and apparently confused approach outlined in the consultation paper.

It is important to recognise that development of a lease market in quota (informally or formally recognised by government) has gone a significant way to ensuring that UK quota is better utilised than when reliance was placed on an annual allocation exercise. We know from previous experience how difficult it can be to reallocate underutilised quota through administrative intervention, given different seasonalities, competing priorities etc. We do not therefore in principle object to this kind of realignment; we do however, have a number of problems with the specific methodology suggested and do not think that sufficient thought or discussion has gone into this part of the proposal. It may be significant that this part of the proposal is precisely the component that has not been subject to detailed discussion in the informal working group and welcome assurances that the industry will have the opportunity to scrutinize the methodology in detail.

Our specific concerns relate to:

The strange inclusion of west of Scotland stocks (haddock, nephrops, pollack and horse mackerel) in the stocks for reallocation. The obvious point is that, given the limited range of most English under-10m vessels, these redeployed quotas are likely to remain uncaught after realignment. It occurs that a possible rationale for including these stocks would be for swap currency but then they would appear to fail the criteria of direct need in the under-10 sector
It would be logical to take catch trends as well as absolute levels of uptake into account;
Situations where there is underutilisation by the sector as a whole whilst an individual POs may consistently catch its full allocation should be taken into account

All this suggests that inadequate thought and discussion with the industry has gone into:

How to achieve the full utilisation of UK quotas
Whether the market mechanism could be better adapted to achieve redistribution towards the under-10s
Clearer and less arbitrary indices of underutilisation and need
Exhausting the mechanisms for voluntary transfers of quota
Ensuring that when administrative reallocation is the only recourse, proper dialogue about proposed redistribution is held with the existing quota holders

Un-fished Quota- Market failure

We strongly support the Fishing for the Market project as a step towards improving market acceptability of a number of under-valued species.

One-Off Redistribution

Realistically and given (as the consultation paper points out) that all parts of the UK fleet face limited catching opportunities, it is unlikely that any part of the UK fleet would currently vote voluntarily for an approach that would result in any reduction in its quota holdings. The painful contraction of the over-10m fleet over the last 15 years and the money spent on realigning quota with capacity are very real reasons why this element of the proposal will be seen as unfair. The over-10m fleet and POs do have a direct interest in bringing a resolution to the instability and turbulence in the under-10m sector but may well consider that the price that they are being asked to pay to achieve this is too high.

The obvious way out of this conundrum is via a publically funded and targeted fishing vessel decommissioning scheme that would release quota that could be used to ease the under-10m fleet into POs or economically viable community quota groups. It is not difficult to see that the principal obstacle to this approach would be current public spending constraints. We believe however, that Defra has been too quick to dismiss alternative ways of funding such a decommissioning scheme. More imaginative approaches involving private foundations, and under-spent EFF Axis 4 funds should therefore be considered as a matter of priority.

In the absence of a funded redistribution through decommissioning, Defra has cornered itself into making a series of value judgements about the scale and form of a one-off redistribution.

There is no disguising that any forced redistribution will be unwelcome to those required to surrender quota, as it will be unlikely to satisfy the demands from the under-10s, particularly on a number of key quotas.

As a trade-off for redistribution it may be politically astute for Defra to consider the simultaneous confirmation of use-rights to FQA holders with a reasonably long period of recall (the Commission in the CFP reform will propose 15 years) in order to protect investments and to provide assurance that further redistributions will not follow.

In any event, for both realignment and redistribution it will be important for Defra/MMO to talk directly to each PO to arrive at a reasoned assessment of the consequences of reallocation.

Over 10m (Non-Sector) FleetUnlike vessels in producer organisations, vessels operating in the over-10m pool have not had the opportunity since FQAs were introduced in 1998 to adapt their FQAs( through swaps, transfers, lease or purchase) to reflect their current fishing patterns. It would in our view be grossly unfair if the reform, as is proposed, would allocate to these vessels their FQAs on the basis of a 1994-6 reference period. And it is difficult not to conclude that the courts would share our view.

Vessels during the intervening period may have changed owners, areas of operation, gear, target species and could fairly level the charge of discrimination if the proposals go ahead as published.

Perhaps the most straightforward solution to this problem would be to offer the vessel a choice: An FQA allocation based on 1994-6 reference period or an FQA allocation based on a 2007 -2010.

Implementation and Timeframe

The dangers of a worthwhile scheme being spoiled through rushed and poorly thought-through implementation is very real where, as in the current circumstances, the interwoven issues are so complex. We therefore caution that, without losing momentum, it is essential that a very thorough and careful approach to implementation is adopted, with direct dialogue with every group affected by the reform proposals.

Despite the political pressures, it would make more sense to take time to ensure that the policy is implemented in an optimal way.

More progress will be made if there is broad industry support for the proposals than if we get bogged down in disputes about quota distribution. The only way to build support is through genuine dialogue. Integrating the under-10 fleet into the mainstream UK quota management system was never going to be easy or straightforward given the recent history of the fleet. But there are a range of possibilities through which the process could be made easier:

Producer Organisations could play a direct role, either by absorbing under-10m vessels directly into membership, or by administrating a community quota scheme for under 10s, separate from their current sectoral allocations; or indirectly simply providing advice on the establishment of new quota groups
IFCAs are well placed to coordinate and support local community quota schemes in their areas, even if their statutory management and enforcement duties, precludes direct control; control of the quota groups should remain with the groups itself
It may be possible to channel Charitable Foundation and EFF funds into formation grants to launch the new groups

All of this will be made easier if the proper preparations are made.

Shellfish (Crab and Lobster)

We note that it is Defra’s intention to consult on the extension of a system of rights base management to the crab and lobster fisheries. Our views on this will be included in a separate NFFO paper currently in preparation.

Conclusion

Ministers will want to resolve the problems facing the under-10m fleet. The current Defra proposals represent an on the whole well-founded attempt to break out of a cycle of failure and mismanagement that has left many under-10m vessels unviable and which threatens to destabilise the UK’s quota management system.

The broad approach of reintegrating those under-10m vessels that catch significant amounts of quota species into the mainstream quota management system is correct, although given the uncertainties an approach which provides options and flexibility, along with interim support is likely to achieve more than prescriptive obligation.

Whilst we agree with the destination, we consider that the transition will pose many challenges. Most of these could be eased by obtaining quota through a vessel decommissioning scheme, retaining the quota attached to the vessel licences and using that quota to facilitate the reintegration of the under-10s into the mainstream quota management system, whether this is by joining an existing PO, establishing a new PO , or a new community quota group.

The NFFO will continue to engage constructively on this issue as much work will be required to see it through to satisfactory conclusion.

Scientific Advice

We have become used to hysterical assertions based on little more than prejudice and selective use of facts to meet their own agendas.

In fact, the most recent advice released by the International Council for Exploration of the Seas paints a very different picture; as does the European Commission Policy Statement on its approach to setting TACs and quotas for 2012. The Commission states plainly, “European Fish Stocks are improving”.

ICES advice can be found at http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp. The generally positive tone of the scientific assessments for many commercial stocks is qualified by a handful of fisheries that to date that have proved resistant to a decade of management measures. As these include fisheries that have been subject to the most intense and comprehensive conservation measures, they naturally pose questions about the instruments being used achieve recovery, such as quota reductions and days-at sea restrictions.

In the North Sea, haddock, whiting, plaice and sole are all on strong upward trends and ICES will be revisiting the saithe assessment this summer as there are significant questions whether it really bucks the trend, or is the victim in an anomaly in the assessment. Cod, haddock and whiting in the Celtic Sea are rebuilding so rapidly that emergency measures are under consideration to avoid a massive increase in discards resulting from the combination of restrictive quotas and large incoming year-classes. Even in the Irish Sea and West of Scotland where the cod assessments remain troublesome there is good news on other stocks. Overall, the herring and mackerel stocks remain strong.

CFP Reform

It is important that we do not fall into the same trap as the media, and some of the less responsible environmental NGOs, to exaggerate and over-generalise the evidence. Despite more positive news on incoming recruitment, there are other stocks in which the trends are not so positive. In some fisheries rapidly rebuilding stocks carry problems of their own. The paradox of high levels of haddock and whiting appearing in the same areas in which cod populations remain low, poses management challenges as to how the former can be exploited without negative consequences for the cod.

One strand runs through all of these examples. It is that, despite the recovery that is now evident in the scientific advice, that recovery has taken a long time. Fisheries management measures under a highly centralised CFP have been blunt and often counter-productive. The absence of a responsive, adaptive management regime has impeded and still impedes recovery.

It is for this reason that despite the improvement in EU fish stocks, the NFFO will not be arguing for the status quo in the forthcoming reform of the CFP. On the contrary, we will be arguing for radical change.

Moving From a Centralised Management System

The Commission’s Green Paper on CFP Reform analysed the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy and concluded that one of its central failings has been that it is over-centralised, rigid and inflexible. The classic example is the Technical Conservation Regulation (850/98), widely recognised to a mass of contradictions but which has resisted all attempts at change because devising technical rules that make sense across widely diverse fisheries and fleets and sizes of vessels is mission impossible. Effective fisheries management demands more tailored measures at the level of each fishery.

And without reform the situation is about to get worse. The arrival of co-decision making in which the European Parliament has a say in all fisheries decisions except setting TACs, raises the spectre of a decade of paralysis in fisheries legislation.

Decentralisation and the transfer of responsibilities to the member states at regional seas level and to the fishing industry was an important theme in the Green Paper. However from the various drafts of the reform proposals in circulation, the signs are that the Commission’s primary idea of decentralisation is to delegate responsibility from the Council of Ministers and European Parliament to the Commission itself. This is likely to meet strong resistance from the member states, the European Parliament (who are already engaged in a bitter power struggle with the Commission over who has jurisdiction over management plans) and the fishing sector along with those who see the need for a genuine decentralisation of the CFP.

Elements of Reform

Some of the main elements of the reform proposals are outlined below with our comments:

Maximum Sustainable Yield as a conservation target with deadline (2015)

Maximum Sustainable Yield is a theoretical concept designed with single stock fisheries in mind. The architects of the WSSD in Johannesburg in 2002 were careful to add that depleted fish stocks should be rebuilt to MSY levels by 2015 where possible. This qualification is important because the application of MSY to fisheries that exploit mixed stocks (such as many of ours) is problematic. It may not be possible or desirable to have all stocks at MSY all the time and a rigid legal framework (as opposed to a political commitment) imposes an unwelcome and ultimately unhelpful rigidity.

Elimination of Discards through an obligation to land the whole catch

Discards are a waste of the resource and are terrible for the reputation of the fishing industry. There is more than one reason why discards occur and in recent years substantial progress has been made in improving gear selectivity and encouraging consumers to try less popular species. A major source of discards lies with fisheries legislation itself. The Commission’s proposal that all fish caught should be landed within a fixed timeline side-steps the real practical issues associated with such an approach. The English fleet has reduced its discards by 50% over the last decade. Continuing the progress that has already been made is a sounder and in the end more effective approach than the superficial and media focussed “justban it” policy proposed by the Commission. Our immediate issue is whether the Commission’s proposals forTACS in 2012 will lead to a drastic increase in discards through the application of a 25% reduction in quotas where the scientific assessments are deemed to be “data poor”.

Multi-annual Management Plans focused on essential objectives, targets, boundaries and timeframes

The arrival of long term management plans are an entirely healthy development that move us away from reliance on a discredited annual cycle. At their best LTMPs are developed by the industry (through regional advisory councils) with scientists and fisheries managers. What is of concern in the Commission’s proposal in the potentially rigid framework that is suggested which if accepted would remove flexibility to deal with the practicalities and realities of implementation

Transferable fishing concessions mandatory for large-scale fleets – with transferability at national level

As the UK and a number of other member states already have quota management systems that are based on rights-based management this is less of a change for us, as currently proposed, than it will be for some other member states. Two issues are important. The first is safeguards against overconcentration where transferable concessions are extended to small-scale fisheries; the other is the period of the concession under a system of use rights. The Commission proposes that a 15 year notice of recall will apply and that should be compatible with investment in the industry.

Moving Away from Fleet-related subsidies

The UK fleets have for many years been at the lower end of the list of recipients of fleet subsidies – and we have an aging fleet as a consequence. One area where fleet subsidy remains an effective tool is in the removal of over-capacity through well designed decommissioning schemes.

Empowerment of Producers Organisations to increase their role and responsibility on production and marketplanning with an emphasis in sustainable fisheries resource management

This is potentially a very positive development in line with the NFFO’s strong advocacy of a transfer of responsibility from prescriptive micro-management to a system based on approved and audited sustainable fishing plans.

Expanded role for (regional) Advisory Councils

This too is very welcome as the RACs have proved their worth in providing coherent, evidence based advice. What is missing from the proposals is any clear idea about how effective regional management is to be achieved. This is strange given the prominence of the concept in the Green Paper and is probable due to the legal complexities of allowing decision making powers at regional level when the Treaties are focused only on European and member state levels.

From Here

We don’t doubt that with the publication of the Commission’s proposals we are now entering a period of complex and difficult negotiations. The goal is a more flexible decentralised CFP. But it is also important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As it has done from the outset of the reform process, the NFFO will continue to play a vigorous part.