This is a pioneering initiative to ensure that the RAC’s advice on a long term management plan is developed with close engagement of grass-roots fishers. Port meetings with fishers have been held in Whitley Bay/North Shields, Fraserburgh, Eyemouth, and most recently Pittenweem. Further meetings in the Netherlands and Denmark will complete the first round of discussions.

This is the first time an international exercise in close grass roots stakeholder engagement has been attempted and already it is clear that a huge number of useful and relevant comments have been made; these will now be taken into account as final drafts of the RAC’s advice are prepared.

The long-term plan is centred on three main objectives:

• A sustainable fishery – in terms of present and future harvesting of the nephrops stocks
• A profitable fishery – generating sufficient revenue to renew the fleet without subsidy and providing crews with a reasonable income
• An ecologically balanced fishery– where ecological impacts are within limits broadly acceptable to wider society

What has come across strongly from the meetings so far is a core of common concerns, as well as the diversity within the nephrops fishery. Concerns that have been voiced include:

• Blunt management measures applied at both EU and national levels that do more harm than good and frequently fail to achieve their objectives
• The implications of nephrops as “the fishery of last resort” as vessels attempt to escape punitive measures in the whitefish fisheries by focussing their efforts on the prawn fisheries.
• The vulnerability of some nephrops fisheries to periodic high levels of effort
• The low price of prawns at certain times of the year, often resulting from seasonal over-supply
• Transitional support to help the fleets adapt to the a long-term plan based on some proxy for maximum sustainable yield

Functional Units

Without doubt, the issue of most immediate concern at the meetings has been ICES advice that management of the nephrops stocks should in future be applied at functional unit level rather than at North Sea level; and that this should mean TACs are set at functional unit level (for example, Fladdens, Moray Firth, Firth of Forth or Farn Deeps) rather than as at present aggregated into a single North Sea quota.

There appears from comments made at the meeting, to be broad acceptance that proportionate and targeted measures should be applied to those functional units showing signs of over-exploitation; however, it is also felt, firstly, that local fleets with limited range require protection, and secondly the flexibility to transfer effort between functional units is a valuable facility both in economic and conservation terms which should not be lightly thrown away.

Amongst the suggested targeted tools that could be used to rebuild depleted nephrops stocks in particular functional units, were an “of which” quota, sensitively applied, reinforced by particular gear or vessel restrictions.

The meetings considered that worst option because of the complexity and rigidity it would bring was functional unit TACs.

Stable Stocks and the Long-term Plan

The stability that characterises most nephrops stocks in the North Sea, and how to maintain that stability whilst maximising fishing opportunities for the fleets, will be a major feature of the long-term management plan. The port meetings have contributed many ideas on how this balance could be achieved.

The draft plan now being discussed in the ports has been put together with the involvement of fisheries scientists, fisheries economists, fish processors and environmentalists. In many respects it is a ground-breaking initiative but one thing is certain: it will not be the last long-term plan. The EU is committed to moving European fisheries away from a perpetual cycle of crisis management and long-term plans are the chosen means to achieve this. The choice is not long-term plan or no long-term plan. It is a long-term plan developed with the involvement of stakeholders, or a long-term plan devised and applied from above with the usual cosmetic consultation.

The NSRAC has elected to go for the former and the signal coming from the port meetings is that this was the right decision. Fishers are more than willing to provide their detailed input if the right means to do this is made available.

Fisheries scientists at the recent seminar on the state of European fish stocks, in Brussels, drew attention to the “strong correlation” between the dramatic fall in KWdays used by the North Sea demersal fleets and a similar downward trend in fishing mortality (F) since 1999. The striking graph for North Sea cod presented by John Casey, Chairman of STECF, is a typical example (see below).

An inference from this correlation could be that days-at-sea restrictions have been successful. The thinking at the heart of the current EU Cod Recovery Plan is that as effort control is applied progressively and the fleets are forced to cut their time at sea to comply with the legal constraints, the catch of cod will be reduced – and a corresponding fall in mortality shows up in the annual assessments.

But is that what is really happening?

An alternative picture can be painted to explain what has really happened if we look below surface appearances. Reduction in Fleets/ Reduction in kWdays/ Reduction in Fishing Mortality

First, in looking at this graph it is highly significant that the first cod recovery plan, and along with it effort control, first came into effect only in 2003, whereas the fall in mortality and KW days appears to begin around 1999. This partly reflects the reasonably strong 1996 year-class but also correlates with the impact of major fleet reduction programmes in the North Sea.

The biggest cod catching member states in the North Sea are the UK and Denmark. Before and after 2002 both countries implemented huge, publically-funded, decommissioning schemes that reduced fishing capacity – especially fishing capacity targeted at cod, on a very significant scale. The evidence, for those interested in looking beyond statistics, is very visible in the empty quaysides and harbours around the North Sea.

Although primarily flatfish fleets (and therefore only taking cod as a by-catch), the Dutch and Belgian fleets have also been subject to large scale capacity reduction through decommissioning.

If the fundamental origin of the problem facing the North Sea cod stocks was the expansion of fishing capacity in the 1970s and 1980s on the back of the gadoid explosion1 (fuelled also by the availability of EU and national construction and modernisation subsidies), the antidote has largely been seen in the publically-funded decommissioning schemes of the 1990s and after 2000.

If this interpretation is correct, then both the fall in KW days and fishing mortality are both, in large part, consequences of capacity reduction. Boats that have been scrapped don’t clock up days at sea. Neither do they kill cod. In other words, the reduction in Kwdays can in substantial part be attributed to a reduction in the number of vessels.

More Drivers

Of course reality is never straightforward. Over the same period, 2002 -2007, other factors were in play:

• The tightening of landing controls on the demersal fleets through a range of measures including designated ports and in the UK, the registration of buyers and sellers, which for the first time created sanctions for those providing a market for over-quota or misreported fish.
• Highly restrictive quotas, enforced with increasing rigour over the period
• An increase in legal mesh size for vessels targeting large bodied demersal fish like cod from 100 to 120mm
• A range of other technical requirements such as maximum twine thickness to improve the selectivity of nets
• The combined effect of the much tougher regime for whitefish led a large part of the whitefish fleet to redirect their efforts to other species such as Nephrops (prawn) and monkfish.
• Probably one of the least successful measures was the seasonal closure in 2001 of some 400 square miles of what was deemed to be spawning grounds, which the scientists subsequently assessed to have done more damage than good
• Effort control, applied under the 1st cod recovery plan from 2003 -2007. At the end of that period the days -at-sea regime was deemed to have failed because of the “headroom” it provided between fleet activity and available days and the derogations necessary to make the blanket approach work.
• Under the economic pressures of cod recovery measures, the diversion of a large number of vessel from the white fish fisheries into fisheries where cod is a small by-catch – notably the Nephrops (prawn) fisheries
• Finally, from 2009 onwards, a revised cod recovery plan with based on allocations of effort (Kwdays) to member states, automatic TAC and effort reductions determine by the presumed state of the stocks and the level of fishing mortality and with limited opportunities to “buy-back” effort through various cod avoidance measures

It will probably never be possible to untangle the relative contribution of all these combined measures to the reduction in the fishing mortality of cod witnessed after 1999. It is however vital, as we move forward not to confuse correlation with causation, not leastbecause deciding on the role that effort control has, or has not, played in achieving the observed fall in fishing mortality of cod is the utmost importance for the future of the EU Cod Recovery Plan, which will be reviewed in 2011.

Rebuilding the Cod Stocks: alternative approaches

If this was just a question of semantics or arcane debate between academics it would matter little. However, the question of whether effort control has been an effective means of reducing fishing mortality in the cod fisheries is a fundamental question that carries consequences for a large number of fishermen, ancillary trades and their communities. The future of the cod recovery plan, due to be reviewed next year, the future direction of the cod stocks and the future of the fleets depend on it.

If the answer is yes, then the industry can look forward to more of the automatic year-on year reductions in effort (days-at-sea) that has characterised the current cod recovery plan. If the answer is no, then the future lies in continuing to create the conditions for rebuilding of the cod stocks through various kinds of incentivised cod avoidance measures. Real time closures and catch quotas have shown real promise but are only effective if the right incentive structures are in place.

The attractions of effort control for the Commission are plain. In a centralised, top-down management regime, effort control represents a simple lever that can be pulled once a year and fishing mortality will fall accordingly – a bureaucrat’s dream. The direct experience of effort control however suggests something different. Even the use of the words “fishing effort” is full of ambiguity both in fisheries science and more generally by fisheries managers.

For the Commission, fishing effort means fishing capacity x time at sea. In ICES science the words are used differently in different contexts but on the whole they mean the totality of fishing activity (fishing capacity x time at sea x fishing behaviours or fishing strategies).

It is the behavioural aspect of fishing that makes effort control a poor instrument for the cod fishery. Fishermen on the whole act in economically rational ways and this means that fishing strategies adapt to take account of effort constraints. This can mean;

• For vessels that are short of days to fulfil their fishing strategies, the transfer or purchase of kWdays from less active vessels
• Fishing more intensively during the time allowed at sea – “capital stuffing” or technological response
• Making full use of 24 hours in the day whereas previously the average was much lower
• Shortening steaming times
• At least one hundred or more other strategies to maximise fishing intensity and reduce consumption of days, chosen to suit each individual vessels circumstances

The fisheries response to effort control is fundamental to the success or failure of effort limitation as a way of rebuilding the cod stock, yet so far it has been almost completely ignored by ICES and STECF2, no doubt because it is easier to measure a KWday than to assess the impact of diverse fishing strategies. Economic incentives are at the heart of what drives most businesses and it seems perverse to ignore their effect in achieving conservation objectives, yet this is what has been done in EU fisheries policies for 20 years.

So who is right? The Commission and those scientists whose data suggests to them that effort control is a simple and effective tool; or those who point to capacity reduction and landing controls as the primary drivers of both the reduction in KWdays and fishing mortality?3

The Brussels Seminar at which Commissioner Damanaki exhorted us to accept the science as the starting point for fisheries management served an important purpose. It showed the underlying trend towards improvements in many European fish stocks. It also laid bare the belief within the Commission and amongst some scientists that effort control is an effective tool. This allowed the fishing industry the opportunity to question whether current policy on cod is based on a statistical correlation between falling KW days and reductions in fishing mortality to which a spurious causality has been attributed.

Our points have not been lost and an important STECF working group has been convened to meet towards the end of September to provide advice on the fishing effort regime. Its terms of reference include the question: what is the relationship between fishing effort and fishing mortality. Much hangs on the answer to that question.

Effort and Discards

A secondary justification advanced by the Commission for effort control is that a cut in effort (time at sea) has resulted in a reduction in discards in the plaice and haddock fisheries. But again to our mind, the Commission is misattributing cause and effect. The reduction of discarding in the plaice fisheries is likely to be closely related to the reduction in the number of Dutch and Belgian beam trawlers, following major decommissioning schemes, which of course results in a decrease in deployed fishing effort. And it is not necessary to go much beyond the mesh size increase from 100 to 120mm to explain the observed reduction of discards in the haddock fishery.

As for cod, the application of effort control in 2008 and 2009 coincided with a massive increase in discards. It is not difficult to see that the main reason for this is that EU and Norway have elected to set TACs towards the lower levels of the recommended catch options provided by ICES.

All this draws attention to the tenuous scientific justification for effort control, the weak correlation between effort reductions and reductions in discards and the need for a fundamental re-evaluation of the EU approach to cod recovery.

• The gadoid explosion or gadoid outburst was a massive, largely unexplained, increase in almost all gadoid stock, in the 1970s. The gadoid stocks, including cod, haddock and whiting, rose to levels much higher than had been seen in the rest of the 20th century. Some explanations have linked it to the low level of herring stocks –a major predator- at the time – but environmental factors are also likely to have been involved.
• It is only fair to point out that STECF does not set its own agenda, as the Commission through terms of reference shapes and controls STECF’s focus
• The unexpected increase in fishing mortality of North Sea cod in this year’s ICES advice is being challenged and will be looked at again in the October advice. In any event, at the Brussels Seminar the point was made that it is wise not to over-interpret one year’s assessment but rather to look at long-term trends. It is interesting that the Commission has suggested that the incentivised cod avoidance measures such as real time closures could have undermined the effectiveness of the effort regime since 2007. The opposite argument could be more valid: that the scale of reductions under the effort regime, and a half -hearted approach to incentivising cod avoidance measures have undermined the potential of the latter.

At its recent Annual General Meeting in York, the NFFO elected its new President, Kilkeel Skipper Davy Hill; and the following day its Executive Committee confirmed its earlier decision to appoint Whitby skipper, Arnold Locker as new Federation Chairman. Both appointments bring a wealth of practical experience and astute understanding of the political process that will be of immense benefit to the Federation’s members over the turbulent time ahead.

Both appointments are for two years and together provide comprehensive representative coverage of the North Sea and Area VII.

Davy has just completed two very active years as NFFO Chairman and for Arnold, this is his second time round, having been NFFO Chairman in 2004-6 and President in 2007-8.

President and Chairman will have little opportunity to savour their election before being thrown into the year-end maelstrom. A week after their election Arnold was heading to Brussels for a meeting of the Demersal Working Group of the NSRAC, whilst Davy is heavily involved in the MPA Fishing Coalition and the marine conservation zone process.

It was only 18 months ago that the Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform was painting a picture of cataclysmic decline that most fishermen, at least those fishing in our waters, simply did not recognise. Official recognition that the painful measures put in place over the last decade, perhaps combined with more beneficial environmental conditions and the industry’s own initiatives, are delivering rebuilt stocks.

In one of the clearest presentations, John Casey, chair of the increasingly influential Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee (STECF), the Commission’s quality control committee, explained that a relatively simple indicator of sustainability, confirmed the positive trends.

Of the stocks for which full analytical assessments allow scientists to identify fishing mortality, biomass and MSY reference points, the percentage of stocks that can be regarded as being fished fully sustainably has increased around 10% in 2002 to around 45%-50% in 2010.

Putting aside the scientific jargon, this means that for those fish stocks for which ICES has excellent information, the % that can be regarded as being fished sustainably has increased from 10% to close to 50% over the last decade.

What accounts for this change in fortunes is a matter of discussion and dispute and it will probably never be possible to untangle the relative weight of one causal factor from another.

Perhaps as significant as the number of stocks that are already at or near maximum sustainable yield, is the general indication that we are moving in the right direction.

The Commission’s conclusion in Kenneth Patterson’s presentation, in stark contrast to the unqualified pessimism of recent years,was that:

“….we have on the whole seen important improvements in the status of the stocks”

Mike Sissenwine, Chair of the ICES ACOM Committee, presented some important information on the proportion of stocks whose catches are consistent with the precautionary approach:

In a nutshell, this can be read as saying that the flatfish (benthic) stocks have made a dramatic turnaround since plaice and sole were deemed to be in a tailspin a few short years ago; the more complex demersal (whitefish) stocks have overcome some of the difficulties of applying management measures in mixed fisheries, have improved significantly, and are on an upward trajectory; the out-take of industrial (sandeel and pout) has been limited to safe levels; and the main pelagic (herring and mackerel ) stocks are on the whole fished sustainably.

Qualifications

Despite the overall positive trends in European fish stocks emphasised in the presentations, a number of serious issues remain, particularly in relation to the weak information and data deficiencies on which fish stock assessments are based, and the slow progress in reducing discards.

The North West Waters RAC, supported by the North Sea RAC, are in the process of establishing an initiative to identify those stocks that suffer from data deficiencies and to design remedial measures to fill the gaps. It serves no-one’s purpose, least of all fishermen, if weak assessments get in the way of a proper understanding of stock trends.

Management measures under the CFP have only partially had an impact on the level of discards. In some cod fisheries, whiting, ray and dogfish fisheries, the scale of discarding has been intensified as a result of blunt management measures.

Significant reductions in the levels of discards have been seen in the plaice fisheries (largely as a result of fleet decommissioning) and haddock fisheries (largely as a result of fleet decommissioning and the use of more selective gear. Discarding remains however a significant problem and will continue to waste the resource and damage the industry’s reputation until the EU adopts a tailored, fishery by fishery approach as suggested some time ago by the RACsGoalposts

One of the problems facing the fishing industry over the last decade has been that of constantly changing goal posts. The objective of fisheries management moved rapidly from avoiding stock collapse, to establishing precautionary limits, and equally rapidly to achieving maximum sustainable yield. It is significant that as the number of stocks achieving some sort of proxy for maximum sustainable increases annually, there are muttering in the wings about a move to the super gold star standard of maximum economic yield. Theoretical models are well and good but insufficient attention has been given to the practical problems involved in making this transition, or even if the transition is possible for all stocks in a mixed fishery. More attention to these questions is required as the positive stock trends bring more fisheries to high stock levels.Doomsayers

The general message emerging from this important seminar is a positive one: that the conservation status of many European fish stocks, after a decade of dire warnings of imminent collapse is improving. This is not to say that all fisheries problems have been solved or that we can be complacent. It may be enough, however, to silence those at the extremes of the environmental movement and in the media, for whom worse is better.

All the presentations made at the seminar can be found at:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/iwt/node/1269

or http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/news_and_events/events/140910/index_en.htm

At a recent meeting in London, the Coalition raised key issues relating to the process of establishing a network of marine protected areas in UK waters.

The Coalition’s interventions have established one very important point of principle: at the meeting, Natural England announced that it will play no role in the design, implementation or enforcement of the management measures that will apply within marine conservation zones or the European Special Areas of Conservation once they have been designated. That will be left to the relevant authorities: Defra, MMO and IFCAs. Although the distinction between advisors to government and fisheries managers might seem obvious, Natural England’s public statements and attitudes during its expansionist phase, often gave the opposite impression; so this clarification is important. The Coalition has regularly criticised confusion in the way that Natural England has defined its role: sometimes advisor to government, sometimes sounding and behaving like an environmental NGO, and often assuming to itself the mantle of management decisions. Those criticisms are now shown to have been effective.

The Coalition also raised the damage done to Natural England’s credibility as dispassionate, impartial and rigorous advisors to government by the revelations in the press, following a Freedom of Information request, by Terri Portman of Scott Trawlers. The information obtained under the FOI request suggested a less than transparent process at the time that the Lyme Bay closure was introduced. There is no doubting the seriousness of the charge, nor Natural England’s determination to repair the damage. Having committed itself to an open, evidence-based process in the establishment of marine conservation zones, the suggestion that Natural England suppressed crucial, but for them uncomfortable science regarding the scarcity of pink sea fans couldn’t be more embarrassing. Natural England hopes that a no-holds barred interview with the Editor of Fishing News will end the matter. Time will tell.

From the outset, the Coalition has been critical about the artificial and unrealistic timetable set by ministers for the establishment of a network of MPAs, which is wholly inconsistent with gathering an adequate evidence base, or for a process in which stakeholders have a genuine influence. The Coalition was frankly scornful when both NE and Defra claimed that there was “no evidence that the timetable could not be met”. The quality of the evidence base and the degree to which the four regional projects are genuine stakeholder led processes, or manipulative box ticking exercises, are issues that have yet to be settled. All of this is intimately linked to the question of what is possible within an unrealistic timetable.

The whole question of the quality of the ecological science and information on patterns of fishing is an area of major concern for the Coalition to which to date, Natural England’s assurances seem hollow. An exercise in gauging the sensitivity of different offshore activities to marine conservation zones has been abandoned as inadequate, after criticisms from participants, and whilst this recognition and response is to be welcomed it does increase the sense of making it up as we go along in a hurry and of a forced process.

Natural England confirmed that the changing science base is the main reason why it is re-consulting on a number of the European SACs previously notified, including Eddystone, Lune Deep, and Studland to Portland, and once complete this will complete the SACs in English inshore waters, amounting to 19% of the 0-12 zone. Domestic MCZs under the Marine and Coastal Access Act may overlap European SACs or may be additional to them.

At present, Natural England is committed to making final recommendations on the designation of a network of marine conservation zones by June 2011.

Displacement

The main reason for the establishment of the Coalition was the potential for the marine conservation zones and special areas of conservation to displace fishermen from their customary fishing grounds. The Coalition has repeatedly made the point that inadequate attention was being given to the potentially disruptive consequences of displacement, not only for the vessels directly affected, but for adjacent or even distant areas into which fishing effort is displaced. Again the Coalition seems to have made progress in this area insofar as Defra have now agreed to set up a working group to study both the ecological implications of displacement and the consequences and options for the fishing vessels affected.

Next Steps

The Coalition will continue to hold Natural England to account through direct meetings with senior officials; the next meeting will be in November after the publication of the second iteration by the regional projects. In the meantime, a meeting between the Coalition and the Minister, who will ultimately be responsible for all MPA decisions, will be held; and the Coalition will be meeting with Defra on the displacement issue.

The MPA Fishing Coalition is wholly funded by voluntary contribution. If you think that its work is valuable and relevant to you, please send a contribution to:

MPA Fishing Coalition

Secretariat

C/O NFFO

30 Monkgate

York

YO31 7PF

In no small measure it was Natural England’s high-handed approach to designating the marine protected areas (MPA) in Lyme Bay that stimulated the UK fishing industry to unite in forming the MPA Fishing Coalition. The Coalition aims to hold government and its advisors to account by ensuring that all future sites are selected and designated on the basis of open, well-found scientific principles and evidence.

The initial, national conservation measures for Lyme Bay were imposed in the face of strong opposition from the industry. Despite ongoing opposition and evidence offered by the industry for an alternative approach, the newly designated European site in Lyme Bay is even more extensive than the original. This one site serves to illustrate the insidious way in which MPA are not only growing in number but expanding.

The announcement by Defra that the Dogger Bank is now a ‘possible’ MPA comes as no surprise. It is widely know that many within the statutory conservation agencies and voluntary pressure groups such as the RSPB have had their sights set on declaring the Dogger Bank an MPA area for the better part of 20 years. It is inevitable that many of these people will seek to have fishing severely curtailed if not banned from the area. This will be despite the Dogger Bank being a focus for intensive fishing activity since the mid 19th century yet continuing to be a productive area for fish, fishing and – it must be said – feeding birds. Unless there is unequivocal scientific evidence to the contrary, the MPA Fishing Coalition strive to ensure that any Dogger Bank MPA is based on a presumption in favour of status quo fishing activity.

Announcements of sites going forward to the European Commission and consultations on new and amended proposals can be found at:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/marine/sacconsultation/default.aspx#final

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/marineconsult/

The Future of Under-10 Metre Quota Management: the reintegration of under-10 metre vessels into the mainstream quota management system

Introduction and Background

In its response to the SAIF Group’s Propositions Paper1 the NFFO argued that the employment of the 10m break line by successive administrations, to apply differential quota management and licensing arrangements above and below that essentially arbitrary line, had given rise to a range of unintended consequences. These included a “threshold effect” through which an increase in the number and catching capacity of vessels just below the 10m cut-off was witnessed.

This expansion of effort at the top end of the under 10-metre fleet (as an essentially rational economic response by individual vessel operators subject to much more stringent arrangements in place for vessels over-10 metres) has, in effect and over time, destabilised quota arrangement which had been introduced to deal with de minimis catches by the small boat fleet. This became apparent when the introduction of Buyers and Sellers Registration, with more comprehensive catch reporting for under-10s, revealed the true scale of under 10-meter landings.

The NFFO paper argued that the solution to the serious problems facing the under 10 metre fleet would best be dealt with the reintegration of the under 10s into the mainstream system of quota management, which had, over time, evolved into a reasonably effective system of rights-based management.

This further paper examines the options for how this might be achieved in concrete terms.

Ways Forward

The work of the SAIF Group has made clear that there is no simplistic silver bullet that will solve the problems of the under-10s. In navigating our way forward through an indisputably difficult terrain some features are already clear:

• Effort control without quotas, or forced redistribution from the over 10 sector, carry with them as many legal, political and ethical dilemmas and adverse consequences as they would solve. And crucially, these approaches would still not solve the essential problem faced by the under-10s: achieving a broad balance between the capacity of the under-10 metre fleet and the quota available to it.

• In solving the problems faced by the under 10s there is one overwhelming salient fact. This is that in the region of 14% – 17% of the under-10 metre fleet catch 70% of the quota.

• Building or adapting vessels up to the 10 metre limit and the subsequent migration of active fishing effort from the over-10 metre fleet into the under 10m sector, has given rise to the class of under-10m vessel variously known as “rule-beaters, “super-under 10s” or simply “high catching under-10s”. The fishing activity of these vessels is more consistent with the over-10 meter fleet than the remainder of the traditional under-10 metre fleet.

• If integrating high catching under-10m vessels into the mainstream quota management system in the UK lies at the heart of any solution to the problems facing the under 10m sector, it is necessary to spell out in some detail how this could be achieved.

• As, in terms of fishing pattern, the high catching under-10s are indistinguishable from many over 10s, there is no intrinsic reason why these vessels should not join producer organisations and enjoy the advantages of tailored quota management, professional representation, and information flow, that comes with membership of a PO. The key issue here is that POs, in receiving new members who will then fish against PO allocations, also have a responsibility to ensure that their existing members are not disadvantaged. The core of the problem is therefore that there is a clear limit to what can be achieved through goodwill alone. This suggests that incoming vessels from the under 10m fleet, previously fishing against pool quotas, will have to take in with them sufficient quota to ensure that the impact on existing PO members is minimal. In many respects the problem of solving the under-10m quota issue boils down to the question of where that quota will come from.

• Extracting the high-catching fleet from the under-10 metre pool will leave vessels whose catches of quota stocks are very low to fish in the pool. To some degree this would return the under-10m fleet and the under 10m pool to its origins, as a de minimis fishery. Although we have serious reservations about the Commission’s enthusiasm for a differentiated fisheries regime, this residual fleet would be more likely to meet the criteria of small scale, artisanal, inshore, low impact fisheries that will receive specific support within a reformed CFP, should it develop in this direction.

Building a Solution

There are a number of ways through which integration of the high catching under-10s into POs might be achieved. The most important point here however is that all the options should be seen as elements of a solution in combination rather as alternatives.

The over-riding principle in moving forward is that the arrangements proposed should work for, and be acceptable to, four groups:

1. Under 10m vessels joining POs

2. Producer organisations

3. The residual de minimis fleet

4. Government

Elements of a Solution:

1. A proportion of the under-10m pool quotas, based on the vessel’s catch record over a recent reference period, would be transferred with the vessel leaving the pool and joining a PO

2. A realignment between capacity and quota entitlement in the under-10 metre sector, through the assignment of fishing rights to individual vessels (and the subsequent fleet consolidation as some vessels sell their entitlements to other under-10 metre operators). This Danish model could be used by high catching under 10s to augment their quota entitlements to the level that they would be viable within a PO.

3. Closely linked to 2 above is the facility for the larger under 10s to lease quota where this is a viable possibility, both from the perspective of quota availability and ability to finance these transactions

4. A publically funded decommissioning scheme, through which vessel and licence (both over and under 10m ) are scrapped but HMG retains the quota released and uses it to facilitate the entry of high catching under-10s into POs

5. Capacity reduction in the under 10 m fleet. Reducing the size of the under 10 meter fleet would re- balance catching capacity with available quota

Option 1: Proportion of the Under-10 m Pool Allocations

The overriding consideration with this option is that the residual pool quotas should be in equilibrium with the catching capacity of the remaining under-10 m fleet after the high-catching under 10s have departed to the producer organisations. Unless this objective is met next to nothing will have been achieved. Equally, consideration will need to be given to the levels of quota needed by the high-catching under 10s applying to join POs. Little progress can be made without the statistical ground-work, fishery by fishery, allocation by allocation, to establish in reasonably precise terms, the gap between:

• The residual pool allocations after extraction of the track records of the super under-10s and the quotas necessary to cover the remaining de minimis under-10 meter fleet in the pool fisheries

• The track records of the high-catching under-10s and the quota necessary to ensure that entry into the POs is not disruptive

Option 2: A Rights Based Management System on the Danish Model

The Danish Government, in consultation with the Danish fishing industry organisations, have successfully implemented the introduction of a rights-based management system which embraces the inshore fleets but also puts in places a number of important safeguards to prevent over concentration of ownership rights. Essentially, a one way valve allows inshore vessels to buy other inshore vessels’ entitlements and to buy from vessels outside the inshore sector; but offshore vessels are not permitted to buy allocations from inshore vessels. The result has been a 30% reduction in the fleet. In effect this amounts to an industry funded decommissioning scheme. Its key objective of securing a balance between available quota and fleet capacity appears to have been achieved. The Danish Fishermen’s Association is on record as having said that their system has produced “happy fishermen, happy ex-fishermen and a happy Government”. Clearly this example is worthy of detailed study, not as a template that could simply be transferred un-adapted to the UK but as a potential contribution to the elements of a solution.

Option 3: Leasing

Leasing for under 10s has already been sanctioned by the quota management rules and facilitated by fisheries administrations. This start should be built upon, but with the recognition that, on its own, the scope for leasing to make a difference is limited.

Option 4: A Publically Funded Decommissioning Scheme

The objection to the inclusion of this option to the list is obvious: the implications for public expenditure under a period of severe constraint on Government spending. Nonetheless it is worth including in the list for three reasons:

• Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy within Defra and the European Commission, publically funded decommissioning has played a central, and sometimes a decisive part, in the rebuilding of cod and plaice stocks in the North Sea, and sole in the western channel and has played a positive role in reducing fishing pressure in a host of other fisheries. It has also increased the economic viability of the vessels which remain.

• Likewise, decommissioning has played a central role (along with Buyers and Sellers Registration) in achieving high levels of compliance in the UK fisheries to which it has been applied

• Against the initial cost of a decommissioning scheme, it is important to compare the repeat costs of failed fisheries management measures within the context of fleet overcapacity

A well designed publically funded decommissioning (using underutilised EFF funds where possible) could:

• Help to achieve a balance between capacity and available quota in the under 10 metre fleet,

• Make available to Government quota which could subsequently be used on a discretionary basis to ease the absorption of under 10 metre vessels into the POs, and to ensure that the residual de minimis fleet (where it fishes against quotas) is managed on a viable pool basis.

A decommissioning scheme for these purposes could be targeted at both under and over 10 metre sectors but would be principally focussed at where release of quota is a priority. An additional option could be a further (well designed) decommissioning scheme focused on the larger under-10s that could serve the dual function of reducing the capacity of the large-catching under-10m fleet whilst making available the quota to facilitate the entry of the remainder into POs.

Buyback: A variation on this same theme would be a government buy-back scheme through which Government would intervene in the market to purchase quota to facilitate the transition of high-catching under 10s into POs. Although convincing the Treasury to release funds for a one-off adjustment of this nature is undoubtedly a hurdle in the present climate, the possibility of using underutilised Axis 1 funds from EFF should be explored.

Option 4: Capacity Balanced with quotas in the Under 10 meter Fleet

Options 2 and 4 potentially go some considerable way to addressing the issue of capacity in the under 10 metre sector. The essentials of an approach, whether through a rights-based system, or through a publically funded decommissioning scheme, should be:

• that it should be entirely voluntary

• that it should be aligned with management objectives: in this case achieving a balance between quota and capacity in the under 10 metre fleet

• that latent capacity where it remains an issue should be addressed.

Under 10s in Producer Organisations

It is a central premise of this paper that producer organisations have a central role to play in resolving the quota issues facing the under 10m fleet. There are certain advantages to using existing POs for this purpose, simply because they exist; albeit that POs may have to adapt their internal arrangements to accommodate incoming under-10s. This does not rule out the under-10 metre fleet, or part of the fleet, forming a new PO, or regional under-10m POs, to achieve the same objective. The advantages of a dedicated, professional staff working daily on behalf of the members of the PO, in such areas as quota swaps, leases, transfers as well as information flow and representation, is something that is missing in the under 10-sector; and the under 10 metre sector has been disadvantaged because of it.

There are strong regional differences in the character of inshore fisheries and therefore the quota management issues experienced by under-10s. POs generally have a very strong regional focus that is an important part of their strength and relevance. This should be central factor taken into account as PO focussed approach to deal with the under 10s is developed.

Working Group

To progress solutions on the lines described above Defra has agreed to the establishment of a small working group, comprised of under-10 metre, NFFO and UKAFPO representatives (recognising some degree of overlapping membership of these groups) along with Defra/MMO officials, to develop concrete proposals for ministers on the integration of high catching vessels into the POs. This work would be done on the basis of:

• the conclusions of the SAIF Group final report

• Further statistical analysis on under-10m track records

Ingredients for a Solution

Quotas are a zero sum game and therefore allocations policy can be divisive. This paper suggests, however, that the ingredients are available to develop an approach that works for all parties. This paper is narrowly focussed on the integration of high-catching under 10m vessels into producer organisations. This is a crucial part of the means of alleviating the desperate situation in some under 10m fisheries but it should be seen within the context of the broader work, notably on shellfish policy and economic resilience necessary to put inshore fisheries in the UK on a sound footing.

NFFO July 2010

1 https://www.nffo.org.uk/news/sustainable_access.html

Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) Group Propositions paper: NFFO Response, April 2010.

The meeting, chaired by Defra, involved NFFO, NUTFA and UKAFPO, and was convened to find a way through the complex of problems that have put the inshore fleet under extreme pressure. Bringing together industry representatives from all segments of the fleet, including the producer organisations and the under-10m fleet, has for the first time provided a sound basis for the development of constructive solutions.

The discussions were based on papers and contributions put forward by the industry organisations. A good start was made in identifying the nature of the problem and possible ways forward and seven areas in which there is broad consensus on the direction of travel were identified.

• It was agreed that some integration of the fleets was required, focussing on the higher-catching under-10s whose fishing patterns are more consistent with those of vessels operating in POs. (Discussions at future meetings will focus on how his might be achieved)

• The group agreed that producer organisations (either newly formed/specialised or existing POs) have a central role in managing reintegrated under-10m vessels into the mainstream quota management arrangements

• It was agreed that the whole industry, including the vessels currently fishing against pool quotas, would benefit from a move away from micro-management towards self regulation

• It is apparent that regional differences are an important factor in managing fishing activity and that it will be important to tailor measures to those regional variations

• The EFF could provide an important source of finance to facilitate the transition

• Addressing capacity issues in the under 10m fleet, including latent effort will be an important part of the solution

• All parties recognise the problems facing the under 10m fleet and are committed to working together to develop firm and lasting solutions

Whilst these crucial discussions continue, the immediate issues facing parts of the under 10m fleet are to be addressed on a fast track, with Government and POs working to remove obstacles to the operation of swaps and transfers of underutilised quota in the system.

The next meeting of the group will be held in September and in the meantime vital information on which to base decisions will be prepared.

The venue for this year’s meeting is the Churchill Hotel, 65 Bootham, York, YO30 7DQ. All NFFO members are welcome.

The meeting will begin at 12 Noon with formal business and NFFO members and guests will be joined by Richard Benyon MP, Minister with Responsibility for Fisheries and the Marine Environment.

The Minister will follow custom by make a short address but will then be available to answer questions from the floor.

The AGM provides an opportunity for NFFO members to raise specific issues and concerns in any of the Minister’s areas of responsibility. The advent of a new administration is always a good time to press for a change in policy direction before ministers become swamped by events.

The survey is now into its 7th year and the growing time series it is producing is becoming ever more valuable. As well as regularly being referred to in ICES advice, analysis of the full time series this year demonstrated that the evidence corroborates well with other data that feeds into the stocks assessments.
This offers the opportunity for the time series to be incorporated as an active element in the assessments in order to tune their outputs and subsequent advice on setting fishing opportunities. It also demonstrates that information from the industry which is often disregarded as being anecdotal or tainted, in fact can be a valuable source of scientific information if gathered in a systemic way.

The Federation continues to work to see that the survey results are maximised to their full potential in the stocks assessment process and in representing the views of the fishing industry in the autumn negotiations on fishing opportunities.

The summary of the 2009 survey report is provided below.

Summary

This report presents the results of an analysis of the data collected through the Fishers’ North Sea Stock Survey in 2009. The survey was carried out using a questionnaire circulated to North Sea fishermen in five countries; Belgium, Denmark, England, the Netherlands, and Scotland. Fishermen were asked to record their perceptions of changes in their economic circumstances and in the state of selected fish stocks from 2008 to 2009.

A total of 233 completed questionnaires were returned in 2009, of which 216 were included in the analysis. The number of questionnaires returned was less than in 2008 and continues a downward trend seen over several years, although this is confined to only some of the participating countries.

The results of the analysis of economic perceptions are summarised in Table 1. Overall, most respondents reported ‘the same’ level of difficulty in getting or retaining crew. Perceptions of changes in costs were divided between ‘less’, ‘the same’ and ‘more’, but the majority of respondents reported ‘less’ profits’. Most reported ‘less’ or ‘the same’ level of optimism about the future.

The biggest changes from 2008 to 2009 were in the proportions reporting ‘less’ or ‘the same’ costs. There were also fairly large increases in the proportions reporting ‘less’ difficulty in getting or retaining crew, and decreases in the proportions reporting both ‘less’ costs and ‘less’ profits.

The results of the analysis of perceptions of the state of fish stocks are summarised in Table 2. Overall, most respondents reported an increased abundance; catching ‘all sizes’ of fish; no change or an increase in the level of discarding, and moderate or high levels of recruitment for all eight species covered by the survey.

There were increases – substantial in many cases – in the proportions of respondents reporting greater abundances of all species except cod. There were also substantial increases in the proportions reporting catching ‘mostly large’ fish for most species, again excepting cod.

The pattern of changes in perceptions of levels of discarding were more variable but appear to indicate that the perceptions are of greater discarding of haddock, monkfish and nephrops, and less discarding of whiting, cod and plaice. The picture for recruitment was also mixed, but appears to indicate a perception of higher recruitment of haddock, whiting, saithe, monkfish and nephrops, and lower recruitment of sole, plaice and cod.

Around 60% of ICES stock assessments do not have “analytical” status under ICES own quality control procedures. Where ICES does not have the confidence to award an assessment analytical status, including catch options for the following year, the Commission invariably insists on a precautionary approach. This almost invariably results in TACs lower than they would otherwise have been. There is a strong incentive therefore for the fishing industry and the RACs to identify and resolve the main data deficiencies.

The lead is being taken by the North West Waters RAC, which has proposed a regional task force that will work to identify the stock assessments most in need of attention and coordinate efforts to resolve problems stock by stock.

The North Sea RAC is equally committed to finding a way out of the vicious cycle of poor data, low TACs and failed measures.

The idea behind the regional fisheries data task force is to bring together fishermen/RACs, scientists and government authorities in the member states, along with the European Commission, to identify problem stocks and design and put into effect appropriate remedial measures.

There are a number of other initiatives focussed on resolving data deficiencies that undermine coherent management measures, not least the Data Collection Framework Directive, and the RACs are determined to avoid any duplicated efforts. RACs however have a distinctive role to play, not just in improving the quantity and quality of fisheries data but in focussing attention and obtaining information on important features currently outside the ICES assessments. The fisheries response to management measures, variations in the level of discards and the retrospective nature of ICES fish stock assessments are examples.The reality is that the trend towards stock assessments without analytical status is increasing and there is a desperate need to put fisheries science on a solid footing. This can only be done with the involvement and cooperation of fishermen.

The NFFO is an active participant in both RACs.

It has been agreed that a paper produced by the Federation provides a “useful and reasoned starting point” for talks

Producer organisations are a fixture in the management of fisheries in the UK. Over time their primary role has evolved from cooperative marketing (including managing the EU price intervention support mechanism) to the management of sectoral quotas on behalf of their members. Although wide variations in size, form and function are evident between the different POs, there is a widespread acknowledgement that they play a positive, and indeed pivotal, role within the fishing industry.

However, for a variety of reasons it would be a mistake for the fish producer organisations to rest on their laurels:

• It is widely expected have that following the election discussions will begin on a review of POs
• The (defeated) Scottish proposals on a separate quota management for Scotland contained a range of ideas on PO reform; these are likely to re-emerge
• The turbulence in the under 10 metre sector following the introduction of registration of buyers and sellers and its impact on the visibility of landings from the under 10 metre fleet, threatens to destabilise the system of FQAs and rights based management on which PO quota allocations depend
• New ministers will want to see a resolution to the under 10 metre quota issue
• CFP reform is likely to impact on POs in one way or another, although in general terms they are seen as a positive feature of the CFP

Producer Organisations can respond to this situation in a number of ways. They can:

• Wait and see what the Defra reform paper says and CFP reform says and respond accordingly
• Rely on the view that FQA holders have legitimate expectations with regard to their quota holdings and that this will be sufficient to protect against enforced redistribution or “re-balancing” of FQAs between the sector and under 10s
• Prepare for the debate ahead by discussing and adopting a progressive agenda that sets the scene for the next generation of PO management.

If the third option is taken the NFFO has already produced two papers that provide a basis for discussion:

• The NFFO response to the SAF project propositions1. The NFFO paper outlines a solution to the shortage of quota in the under 10s through:
• Capacity reduction through decommissioning or the Danish system of rights based management (with certain safeguards)
• Using quota released from a possible decommissioning scheme to facilitate the entry of super under 10s into POs
• A producer organisation for under 10s, or integration of under 10s into existing POs
• Reducing or eliminating the significance of the arbitrary under-10 metre dividing line

• The NFFO’s paper advocating the replacement of micro-management by sustainable fishing plans2, which would transfer management responsibilities to the fishing industry through a system of approval and audit. There are signs that the Commission will include some variation of this concept in its CFP proposals and the key to its delivery will be bodies such as producer organisations.

In these ideas lies the possibility of redefining the role of producer organisations as agents of a new CFP, relevant and purposeful, not just fearful and defensive.

Producer Organisations and an Expansion of Delegated Responsibilities

The strength of producer organisations lies in their proximity to the operational fishing vessels and their operators, and the opportunity that this provides to tailor management measures to reflect regional and fleet variations, such as the seasonality of different fisheries. This has provided the basis for delegated quota management responsibilities that are widely regarded as a highly successful model. This paper suggests that the experience of quota management in the UK and in other member states, should be the basis on which to build the mechanisms through which a transfer of responsibility from remote fisheries managers to the industry itself could be achieved.

Using this fundamental strength, it is possible to envisage a development and evolution of delegated responsibilities in which producer organisations could play an enhanced role. These could include:

• Producer organisations preparing and submitting sustainable fishing plans which would detail how the vessels in membership will fish over the next 3-5 years; this could be seen as the delivery mechanism through which simplification of the CFP could be achieved by moving away from prescriptive micro-management
• Through regional annual fisheries reports POs could provide fishing industry information and knowledge in a systematic form that could be used by both ICES and policy makers to inform and supplement fish stock assessments and fisheries policy
• Through these means, POs could contribute to the development of long term management plans for the fisheries of concern to their members
• Producer organisations could also be the means for dissolving the current divide at 10 metres, by incorporating under 10 metre vessels into existing POs or assisting the development of a new under 10metre PO (or POs)
• Through affiliation to national and international organisations, or where appropriate directly, a more decisive role in contributing to and influencing CFP and regional sea basin policy.

All this presupposes an evolution and expansion of the PO role from delegated quota management to a range of other delegated responsibilities, including technical measures and fisheries management.

It goes without saying that the expansion of POs’ delegated responsibilities would go hand in hand with the quota management, marketing, industry reputation and other roles currently performed.

Code of Practice

Taking on these new responsibilities will require POs to present themselves as responsible, professional, and capable. It could be in their interest to draw up a code of practice based on current PO best practice that makes clear what is expected of them.

Institutional Capacity

If producer organisations are to take on a range of new responsibilities the question of capacity will have to be addressed. Coordinating and preparing sustainable fishing plans will be a time consuming business and could require a range of skill sets that not all POs currently hold or could afford.

If sustainable fishing plans are part of the CFP reform it is likely that they will be facilitated through permissive legislation that will allow those POs, or those member states, willing and able to proceed. There will be no “big bang” after which sustainable fishing plans will supersede prescriptive micro-management. The Commission has already signalled that the successor to the European Fisheries Fund, after 2013, will include provisions to provide finance for additional capacity to increase industry’s ability to shoulder additional delegated responsibilities. POs should prepare to position themselves to take advantage of this and indeed, through representations, to shape the form through which this kind of support is provided.

Delegated Responsibility and Reduced Administrative Costs

The European Court of Auditors report on the CFP has drawn attention to the absurdity that in some member states the cost of administrating fisheries exceeds the revenue generated by those fisheries. In the medium to long term, ways must be found of managing fisheries more cost-effectively.

Delegating responsibility from central administrators makes sense in terms of effective governance; however it makes even more sense in terms of fiscal prudence. Once established, delegated responsibility, within a system of approvals and audits, offers the prospect of simplified and cheaper fisheries administration.

Fleet Restructure

One of the persistent challenges for effective fisheries administration lies in ensuring a broad balance between fleet capacity and available resources. Against the background of historic levels of overcapacity and technological creep, a system of rights based management that embraces the whole (or the overwhelming) part of the fleet, in the type of arrangements described in this paper could become a powerful tool for making necessary adjustments to fleet capacity.

1 https://www.nffo.org.uk/news/sustainable_access.html

2 https://www.nffo.org.uk/news/response_to_cfp.html

An extract from the report of the meeting is reproduced below:

ACFA exchange of views with the director responsible for the cfp reform.

The Commission (DG MARE) gave an overview of the current status of the CFP reform. He added that according to what the Commissioner said at the Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 29 June the “status quo” was not an option. The consultation would continue over the summer and finish with a conference that the Commission intended to organise on 16 November in Brussels. Those invited to participate would include ACFA, RACs, other fisheries and aquaculture stakeholders involved in innovative projects, MS, EP and other Institutions. In parallel, the Impact Assessment exercise was being carried out with a view to present its results to the Impact Assessment Board of the Commission end September 2010. Another event involving the scientific advisors and stakeholders was due to be held on 9 and 10 November under the Belgian Presidency. Following the orientation debate at the Council meeting of 29 and 30 November, the Commission would start drafting its proposal, which should be ready by summer 2011. The legislative package would consist of: a) a Commission Communication accompanying the legislative proposals and containing non-legislative elements, such as the social dimension; b) a proposal for a new CFP Regulation; c) a proposal for a new CMO Regulation; these latter would be adopted under co-decision at the end of 2012. The proposal for a new financial Regulation would be adopted later, possibly in December 2013, under co-decision too. In addition to this and in response to a question, he said that Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms would not be revised until the new policy was in place in 2013 with the new basic regulation.

In response to other questions from the members, the Commission representative pointed out that the model which was being considered for the decision making process was downstream regionalisation whereby management and policy implementation decisions – i.e. implementing rules – would be left to the regions themselves. However the legislative decisions would be taken by either the Council and the EP, the Council (for the TAC/quota and effort) or the Commission. The Commission was prepared to go as far as the Treaty allowed, without creating new unnecessary bureaucracy. Concerning the quantification of the involvement of stakeholders in the consultation process, he said that what interested the Commission was the quality of the advice submitted by RACs and ACFA and not the number of people attending the meetings.

He noted that there had been no change in the Commission’s guidance relating to the CFP Reform (including the external dimension), but rather a logical development as a result of the consultation process, and he reminded the participants that the Commission considered the development of mechanisms to protect and to improve the small-scale fisheries as one of the main objectives of the reform. He said that it was the Commission’s intention to make LTMP the basic instrument of stock management. The development of methods to reduce unwanted by-catches was being examined.

The Commission representative explained the procedure for drawing up the Impact Assessment and said that the document would be accompanied by a summary of the consultation process, containing the stakeholders’ contributions, . He explained that both the CMO and CFP proposals would be presented at the same time. In relation to questions about the strengthening of the POs’ role, he said that the basis for the collective management of fishing rights would be included in the CMO Regulation.

He added that the Commission considered aquaculture to be an important part of the reform. However, he pointed out that while fisheries was a Common Policy, aquaculture was not, since responsibility for the latter was shared with the Member States. For this reason, the majority of actions planned at EU level – except for EFF, research, health and trade aspects – were of a non-legislative nature. The Commission wanted to finance innovation and sustainability, and was intending to include aquaculture in a special chapter of the future financial instrument. Aquaculture would also be included in the Commission Communication that would accompany the new CFP Regulation. The Commission representative took note of the suggestion to set up a task force to monitor and implement the strategy in aquaculture.

Health issues were part of the political package, and it remained a central objective of the CFP reform to have healthy fish resources in order to cover the future consumer demand.

Concerning the request to apply the same EU rules to imports from third countries, the Commission representative pointed out that the EU regulation could not be applied outside the EU Member States. He explained that the ORPs for fisheries management would be strengthened in order to combat unfair competition from third country imports.

In response to the concerns about the social dimension, the Commission stated that the aim of the new CFP was to improve the quality of employment. In this context, the objective for employment would not be a quantitative measure, but one which combined fleet profitability with improvements in social and labour conditions. The Commission was also looking at the possibility of introducing a system of incentives to enable labour conditions to be harmonised in the Member States.

This was a groundbreaking meeting in two senses: an important first meeting with the Commissioner who will hold a pivotal role in shaping the future CFP, but also important collaboration between members of the European Parliament and the federations in the new era of co-decision making.

The meeting covered a wide range of issues from cod recovery; to the implications of applying maximum sustainable yield to next year’s quotas; to regional management within a reformed CFP and strategies for dealing with Iceland’s attempt to lever access to the western mackerel fishery.

Commissioner Damanaki:

• Seemed eager to decentralise decision making within a reformed CFP to regional management bodies, member states and the fishing industry. In her view the CFP had “grown up” and now was the time to delegate responsibilities to those capable and with the will to take them on
• Was insistent that delegated responsibilities should be subject to proper safeguards and guarantees to ensure that fundamental principles and objectives were observed.
• Suggested that a reformed CFP could be based around options through which those member states and industry organisations who wished to develop forms of regional administrative cooperation, or delegated responsibility, could do so, subject to a framework of safeguards
• Was advised by the federations that there was an inconsistency if the Commission advocated devolved responsibilities but still envisaged retaining the power to dictate which tools in the fisheries management toolbox – TACs, effort control, technical measures should be used in any fishery

• Appeared impressed that the two federations were heavily involved in regional advisory councils, indicating a willingness to work collaboratively with fishermen from other member states and with other stakeholders

• Considered that a future CFP with a high level of discarding was indefensible and was, in turn, advised by the federations that although there was no simplistic “silver bullet” for reducing discards, steady progress could be made if the measures were fisheries specific and backed by the right kind of incentive structures. She was pointed to the current “catch quota” trials currently under way as a positive example of what can be achieved.
• Was also invited to consider the high level of discards generated by poorly designed regulatory measures, including some unimaginative TAC reductions. This was likely to be intensified by an unthinking and brutal application of the MSY principle
• Listened carefully as the industry representatives indicated that the frequent gulf between fishermen and the Commission often did not lie with ultimate objectives (which were frequently shared) but in unrealistic and often counterproductive timeframes for implementation that created short term strains on vessel viability

• Was told that a cod recovery plan that oversaw a reduction in fishing effort, and simultaneously an increase in fishing mortality, was not fit for purpose. The Commissioner invited suggestions on a new way forward and was directed to the advice being prepared by the North Sea RAC and supported by the NWWRAC.

• Appeared interested to be told that over the last fifteen years the UK and a number of other member states had developed successful delegated quota management systems that amounted to a tailored form of rights based management

• Received a detailed analysis of the current state of play in the western mackerel debacle and discussed both short term tactics and longer term strategy for bringing Iceland to the negotiating table with curtailed and more realistic ambitions.

• Was adamant that management decisions in fisheries must be based on the best available science. In the absence of sound science management would be based on political decisions, with all the implications which that would carry. She was concerned about anxieties about the robustness and reliability of ICES science and it understood that she had commissioned an “audit” of the science on which was currently used.
• Conceded that the definition of “small-scale” fisheries could be “a little bit difficult” if applied at European level but appeared wedded to the idea of a differentiated regime.

Co-decision Making

Co-decision making under the Lisbon Treaty has brought the European Parliament into a new prominence in fisheries and it is too early to see how it will work in practice. What is clear is that MEPs and the federations recognise that there is a clear need for the fishing industry and parliamentarians to work together to ensure that fisheries legislation is effective and proportional.

The meeting with the Commissioner was organised through the good offices of Diane Dodds MEP and attended by Struan Stevenson MEP and Julie Girling MEP, and Ian Hudgeson MEP attended and contributed to the meeting. The principal focus was to facilitate a direct dialogue between the Commissioner and the principal representative organisations in the UK industry. The NFFO’s briefing note for the meeting is reproduced below:

Briefing Notes for Meeting with Commissioner Damanaki in the European Parliament 7th July 2010

CFP Reform

In broad terms we consider that the CFP’s resource policies have been dysfunctional and the primary reason for this is a failure of governance. This is why we warmly welcome a reform of the CFP reform away from the current blunt, inflexible, over-centralised, system that has proven ineffective in many respects, is costly to apply, and has lost credibility.

A decentralised CFP, with decisions made at an appropriate level- regional/ member state/ or through delegation to the industry, would offer the prospect of effective resource management with a high degree of compliance and support from fishermen. The regional advisory committees have advanced some innovative ideas on how to replace prescriptive micro-management by a system of delegated management that seem s to work well in some Australian fisheries. The vehicle that we think will deliver this kind approach is based on sustainable fishing plans developed and applied by groups of fishermen and subject to prior approval and periodic audit by the authorities.

Rights Based Management

We agree that a system of rights based management at member state level offers many advantages; however we do not consider that it is logical or desirable that in a regionalised CFP the choice of fisheries management instrument is made at European level.

Differentiated Regime

We think that the suggestion that EU fisheries should operate a differentiated regime at European level between is misguided, misinformed, and if applied, would result in chaos. Our fleets are not easily or simply divided into a crude dichotomy of large/small, inshore/offshore, artisanal/industrial. This model may apply in the Mediterranean but it certainly doesn’t apply in the UK and many other member states. Besides, the Danish experience shows what a rights based management system, sensitively applied can achieve, even for the small vessels fleets.

Effort Control

This applies also to your reported enthusiasm for effort control in mixed demersal fisheries. These are choices best made at regional level in full knowledge of local conditions not imposed from above, however well meaning the intentions.

As a matter of fact there are serious arguments against effort control:

• It encourages over-capitalisation (what the Americans call capital stuffing
• Restricting time at sea does not control activity or behaviour or fishing strategies when at sea, including discarding
• Except in a very crude sense, there is only a very week relationship between fishing effort and fishing mortality

These flaws are now very evident in the present cod recovery plan, where discards broadly equal the landed catch and mortality is increasing as effort decreases.

As a result it is not fit for purpose.

NFFO Chairman Davy Hill said:”We have no concerns on this issue. The constitutional position is clear and the devolution settlement is clear: the UK minister represents the UK in the Council of Ministers. Obviously the UK Minister will want to operate in a collegiate and, inclusive way with the ministers of the devolved administrations but there is no confusion ov er the issue. And this is no change from past practice. Any suggestion that the reality is different from this can be disregarded as political posturing.”

“The NFFO’s recent meeting with UK Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, gave us no concerns on this issue.”

The talks outlined the industry’s areas of concern, built on the constructive dialogue begun when Richard Benyon was Shadow Spokesman on Fisheries.

Issues raised and discussed included:

• Cod recovery and effort control
• Marine conservation zones
• The application of the maximum sustainable yield approach to next year’s TACs
• Devolution
• CFP Reform
• Catch Quotas
• Whiting discards
• Solutions for the problems faced by under the10-metre fleet
• Western mackerel and Icelandic ambitions
• Irish Sea nephrops
• North East Arctic cod
• Long term management plan for flatfish
• Offshore wind-farms
• Producer organisations and sustainable fishing plans
• Zero TACs for skates and rays and spurdog

Although the number of issues meant that they could only be addressed briefly because of time constraints, the Minister acknowledged their significance and agreed to work collaboratively with the Federation on them over the summer and autumn.

The Minister reported back on the recent Council of Ministers in Luxembourg and his discussions with Commissioner Damanaki. He had welcomed her commitment to radical changes in the CFP, and her tough stance on Iceland. However she had signalled a rigid intention to “follow the science” on Western Channel sole and Area VII nephrops, apparently failing to distinguish between the grass roots scientists views and the much more “political” advice that emerges from ICES, often heavily shaped by the Commission’s priorities and perspectives. This suggests that strenuous efforts will be required before TAC decisions are made in December.

On cod recovery and whiting discards the Minister agreed that it was imperative to find “a smarter way of rebuilding stocks” than the current arrangements.

The Minister has already expressed enthusiasm for the Federation’s ideas on replacing prescriptive micro-management and the top-down approach with sustainable fishing plans and this will be one of the key innovations pressed by the UK within the forthcoming CFP reform.

This was a useful first meeting with between the new Minister and NFFO delegation and will provide a solid foundation on which to build an effective working relationship.

Before he retired from Defra, Barry was Head of fishing vessel licencing, quota management, control and enforcement and as such, he was able to advise the Federation across a wide range of issues.

NFFO Chairman Davy Hill said,

“Across five years Barry’s experience, advice, and general wisdom have strengthened and refined the Federation’s work in innumerable ways. His contribution in Executive Committee meetings and in the preparation of NFFO position papers has been immense and on behalf of the Federation as a whole, I would like to thank him very warmly.”

“Barry even undertook a wide ranging review of the Federation itself and it was extremely helpful to have a critical but friendly eye cast across our internal arrangements. We made a number of changes as a result.”

As well as his work as Special Advisor to the NFFO, Barry works three days a week as a volunteer advisor for the Citizens Advice Bureau and will continue with this work. He has also offered to continue help the Federation out on particular issues in the future on request.

The Coalition has been active for six months and has firmly established itself as a way of holding Government and the nature conservation agencies to account on marine protected areas.

Chairman of the Coalition Dr Stephen Lockwood said,

“We are entering a critical stage in the establishment of marine conservation zones; yet it is clear that there is a huge amount of fear within the fishing industry that this is a juggernaut that will not be stopped. There are genuine concerns that fishermen will be displaced from their customary fishing grounds and will lose their livelihoods.

“On the one hand we are assured that this is an evidence-based, stakeholder-led process that will take account of the fishing industry’s concerns. On the other hand are the short-comings in process, evidence and a completely unrealistic timetable that undermines this whole process.”

The Coalition has requested an urgent meeting with new Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, to discuss its numerous concerns and to argue for a more considered, less rushed timetable.

“It is within the Minister’s powers to instil greater confidence in this process” Dr Lockwood added. “The Marine and Countryside Act, and equivalent legislation in the devolved jurisdictions, laid the basis for a network of marine protected areas but the process we are witnessing is far away from that envisaged. The Coalition will ask the Minister to intervene. The timetable was not set by this Government and the programme is given more time if it is to gain widespread support.”

At its meeting the Coalition appointed a decision-making Council and agreed that it will appoint negotiating teams as necessary with intimate knowledge of the areas concerned. In the meantime the Coalition will be continue its high level engagement with Government and the conservation agencies on points of principle.

“We expect that when the first ‘iteration’ of the proposed designated MCZ sites are unveiled there will be much consternation in the industry,” Dr Lockwood said. “It is important that the industry hangs together, and works through the Coalition to inject an element of balance and proportion into the process.”

At the same time, the last consultative meeting held by the Commission, before it goes into internal deliberations, has revealed contrasting approaches to how technical conservation should be applied in the new CFP.

The Commission’s failure last year, to push through a half-digested replacement to the complex and incomprehensible present technical conservation regulation, to beat the Lisbon Treaty and co-decision-making with the European Parliament, has meant that technical measures will now be dealt with as part of the reform.

It is generally agreed that the top-down, one-size-fits-all, approach enshrined in the present rules (EC Reg 858/98) has got in the way of improving selectivity in EU fisheries. The lack of coherence with other EU regulations, such as the cod recovery plans, has also undermined the technical rules. ICES recently pronounced that despite increasing the minimum mesh size to 120mm, the average mesh size being used in the North Sea had fallen, as vessels have been forced from the whitefish sector to the nephrops sector where a smaller mesh is generally in use.

Industry representatives at the meeting broadly supported the view that technical measures, applied in the right way, have a major role to play in a reformed CFP. Effective technical measures means that fish when they have had a chance to mature, increasing the reservoir of adults, reducing dependence on incoming year classes and increasing stability in the fishery. However, the promise of improved selectivity has never been fully realised despite technical advances such as square mesh panels. The main reason for this failure lies in the blunt way in which the EU has applied technical rules. Over-general regulations have generated demands for derogations by member states and the measures, where they imply a significant loss of marketable fish have often been circumvented one way or another. As well as creating a range of perverse incentives the current rules have also been remarkably successful in generating discards.

There was support in the meeting for the NFFO’s arguments that a radical decentralisation of technical measures was required to replace blunt top-down rules. Whilst most participants spoke in favour of technical decisions rules being determined at regional level, there were widely differing views on taking the next step, to delegated self-regulation by the fishing industry itself. Industry representatives spoke in favour of exploring this approach as an option for groups of fishermen who have the capability and wish to prepare sustainable fishing plans, as an alternative to micro-management. But a number of member state government representatives thought that this was a step too far – in one case pointing to the consequences of self-regulation in the financial sector. Leaving aside the offensive parallel with smug, effete, irresponsible, over-rewarded and myopic bankers, which most fishermen will not appreciate, a form of delegated self-management seems to work well in some of the Australian fisheries. A move from micro-management to a system of prior approval and audit also offers a way to reduce the obscene cost of managing fisheries, pointed to in the EU Court of Auditor’s report. In some member states these exceed the revenue generated by the industry.

It remains to be seen if the Commission provides scope for a tentative move in this direction through some permissive clause in the new regulations. In the same way that the NFFO and SFFs’ advocacy of a regional approach a decade ago has now become mainstream, it may be that delegated self- regulation may be too radical for most member state authorities who still think that desk-bound bureaucrats know best how to rig fishing gear. Another fear is that having recently been granted powers of co-decision-making in fisheries, some in the European Parliament will be reluctant to surrender any part of those powers, even though delegation downwards on technical issues is desperately needed.

With a new Commissioner, new Director General, and new head of the reform process, it may take a little time for the Commission to regroup and decide its central policy lines. The public statements of the new Commissioner has made clear that the previous appetite for international ITQs has been moderated to support for some system of rights based management in the member-states. She has however voiced a naive support for effort control as a panacea for discards that ignores the serious flaws of restrictions on time at sea as a management tool and understates the progress that can be made under a system of TACs and Quotas – if the right conditions are created.

The Federation will be raising these points directly with the Commissioner at a forthcoming meeting in Strasbourg organised by British MEPs.

In a ground-breaking initiative that could set a precedent for other stocks, the North Sea Regional Council is to hold a series of meetings with fishermen and other stakeholders in the main nephrops ports.

Chairman of the North Sea RAC, Hugo Anderson, said:“We have been working on a long-term management plan for nephrops in the North Sea for two years. Now it is time to share our work with those in the fishery to test whether we have got things right and to see whether we have missed anything. Long-term management plans are the future and it is therefore extremely important that everyone involved in the nephrops fishery contributes to its development. We fully understand that the industry is suffering from meeting overload but if you are in any way connected to the nephrops industry we need to hear from you.”

The meetings will be held in Fraserburgh, Pittenweem, Eyemouth, North Shields and ports in Denmark and the Netherlands at times convenient for the local fleets.

Mike Park, Chairman of the NSRAC working group that has developed the draft plan said: “A long-term management plan, once adopted, will determine TAC levels and shape fleet policies and the economics of individual fishing businesses. The advantage of a long term plan is the stability it brings as overall fisheries objectives are met in a steady, progressive, way. But it is extremely important that those in the fishery are comfortable with the plan and see it as a better way of doing things than crisis management and the lottery and chaos of the December Council.”

“The draft plan has been developed by the North Sea RAC in discussion with fisheries scientists and economists. It is comprehensive in a way that other long-term plans have not been and our aim is a plan that delivers a sustainable and profitable fishery. The plan deals with realities such as technical creep and by-catch issues. Nothing has been ducked,” he added.

“We had the choice of waiting for the European Commission to present us with a draft plan that may not have been to our liking, or to take the initiative. A great deal of work has gone into developing this draft. Once we have heard from the fishing ports, the plan will be finalised then presented as formal advice from the NSRAC. The draft plan can be read at www.nsrac.org ”

The schedule for the port meetings will be as follows:

North Shields

Saturday 19th June, at the Rex Hotel, the Promenade, Whitley Bay at 10am

Fraserburgh }

Pittenweem }

Denmark } To be confirmed

Netherlands } Eyemouth }

The meeting provided an opportunity to discuss how the Federation and the new delivery body for marine policy will work together in the future. It was agreed to hold regular meetings throughout the year through which the fishing industry’s concerns can be addressed.

Steven Gant was at pains to emphasise that although the MMO would have the responsibility of regulating the industry on the basis of ruled laid down in Brussels and London, he wanted the Organisation to play a central role in revitalising the fishing industry and fishing and coastal communities generally. He was eager to discuss and explore the Federation’s ideas for moving fisheries regulation from a system characterised by extreme micro-management to one with a high degree of delegated industry responsibility.

The NFFO was keen to understand the MMO’s role in overseeing the new system of marine planning and asked if it would resolve problems seen with the chaotic and rushed establishment of marine conservation zones and offshore wind-farms. The potential for displacing fishermen from their customary fishing grounds was emphasised.

Industry Issues

By way of example, the opportunity was taken to outline a number of areas in which the industry currently faced difficulties in the implementation of CFP or domestic fisheries policies. These included:

• Margin of tolerance
• Omega Gauge
• Electronic logbooks
• International Swaps
• Mandatory real-time fish room charts
• Inspections at sea
• Safeguards in the use of VMS data
• Discards
• Quota availability for catch quota projects
• Devolved responsibilities for fisheries, where discriminatory approaches had an impact elsewhere in the UK

This was an important and positive first meeting which established strong lines of communication between the NFFO and the MMO at a number of levels. The MMO Chief Executive’s commitment to operate on a transparent and open basis and to work closely with the Federation sent a welcome signal. Doubtless, given the nature of fisheries regulation and fisheries politics there will be testing times ahead but this was a good start in the relationship between two organisations that hold influential but different roles in UK fisheries.

The Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, opened the meeting by saying that she had the ambition to make this “the greenest government ever”. She also stressed her roots in farming and that dealing with the budget deficit would be a major priority for her department, as well as the Government as a whole. The Secretary of State made clear that she would rely on Richard Benyon to handle fisheries matters.

The importance of the food sector and food security was stressed representing as it does 14% of the UK’s GDP.

Richard Benyon, the new Parliamentary under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries indicated:

• That there would be no “empty seats” in Europe
• That the UK would be actively engaged in the CFP reform process
• That rebuilding the skills base and strengthening communities would be a priority

The new Defra ministerial team collectively took the view that:

• Regulation should be the last not the first response
• That there would be an emphasis on personal responsibility
• There should be a transfer of responsibility to the local level
• Reducing the regulatory burden would be a priority

Whilst at this stage these themes are, of necessity, aspirational, it is not difficult to see how the Federation’s cutting-edge proposals for a transfer of responsibility from government to the fishing industry, through Sustainable Fishing Plans, would sit comfortably with its ideas on deregulation, delegated responsibilities and taking personal responsibility. A further attraction will be the lower costs to Government associated with a delegated system of fisheries administration.

The Federation, having built strong links with the new Minister during his time as opposition spokesman of fisheries, will be meeting with him shortly to outline our main areas of concern and to advocate positive ways forward.

The meeting was attended by a number of the fishing industry representatives involved in the project and included a range of fishermen’s associations including South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen, North Devon Fishermen’s Association, Clovelly Fishermen’s Shellfish Association, as well as the South West FPO, Cornish FPO, NUTFA and the NFFO South West Committee. The meeting is the first of what is intended to be a regular forum open to all industry representative bodies in the South West towards taking a united stance in responding to proposals that will work closely with the MPA Fishing Coalition.

Following a government intention to designate a UK network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012, the Finding Sanctuary project aims to put forward its network recommendations for the south west by June 2011. Participants noted that whilst the industry was prepared to engage in the process of MCZ planning, there remained a host of issues that needed resolving before an effective engagement could proceed and it would be unacceptable to cut corners to meet what was increasingly being regarded as a hopeless timeframe for planning the network. These included that:

• Publically held fisheries data had to be broken down by sector and presented to the industry in order to support the examination of proposals and allow for the verification of the data. Data from other European fleets also needed to be included. The industry was in no mood to respond to proposals in the absence of adequate knowledge that could result in the placement of MCZs that disadvantaged one part of industry over another.
• The purpose for proposed designations had to have a clear rationale. While draft ecological network guidance had been issued, only a 3.5 week informal consultation on matters of clarity had been conducted, precluding any comment on the substance of the guidance. Research that underpinned the guidance had also been absent in the consultation. This matter was currently being taken up by the MPA Fishing Coalition and highlighted that in pursuing such an unrealistic timeframe, government was increasingly prepared to ride roughshod over any modicum of democratic process.
• It was critical that management measures applying to each zone had to be made clear. An example of this issue was given in the initial selection of the area covering the mid channel potting agreement. Proposals could not be accepted that would mean upsetting an effective means of managing fishing activity in an area that had persisted for years.

It was noted that in European waters mechanisms for managing the fishing activities of other nations within MCZs had to be consistent with the CFP and the application of measures risked being discriminatory and could be rejected. Furthermore, an overzealous selection of MCZ sites in inshore waters due to relatively higher levels of environmental data or due to lobbying by groups that had no knowledge of what was beyond their line of sight of the coastline threatened the existence of inshore vessels which would be unable to relocate their fishing activities. Existing inshore SAC proposals in the South West already threatened the industry and their coverage went well beyond the area requirements for those features in the draft MCZ ecological network guidance.

John Butterwith Chief Executive of the North Devon Fishermen’s Association who chaired the meeting said: “We could all approach the MCZ planning process as individuals only concerned about the areas where we fish. The meeting, however, demonstrated that we are united in our purpose and that we are prepared to act together which is hugely encouraging. Now is not the time for challenging one another when such plans threaten the very existence of our fishing communities and come at a time when multiple polices that do not consider the cumulative impacts on our industry are upon us. I encourage all fishermen to ensure that their voice is heard through their representative bodies at the local, regional and national levels.”

Paul Trebilcock Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation said:

“This is an extremely difficult and complex process; we at the CFPO have carried out comprehensive mapping of inshore fisheries around the Cornish coast from the 0 to 12 mile limit. However, it remains difficult to engage fully in a process when management proposals have not been defined, the European angle not satisfactorily resolved and fishermen’s livelihoods remain threatened for no clear objective. The CFPO is committed to this process but it must be a genuine and transparent process and not just rushed through to meet artificial deadlines. If we are going to do this then let’s do it properly.”

Representative bodies wishing to receive notice of future meetings should register interest through the NFFO offices: 01904 635430 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

01904 635430 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting, nffo@nffo.org.uk.