CCTV Debate

It is worth noting at the outset of this article that the Council of Ministers, EU/Norway negotiations and internal government meetings where UK fisheries policy is formulated, are not covered by CCTV. It is accepted therefore that although this technology has its uses, there are limits to when and where it is appropriate to install it.

This is an important principle in light of the current debate on CCTV aboard fishing vessels.

The UK Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca-Davies has made plain that he is keen to make headway in reducing discards and along with the Danes and German administrations, wants to pilot “catch quotas”, where vessels undertake to land all that they catch of specific species, in return for additional quota. It is suggested that CCTV might be a way through which a vessel can document that it is in fact doing what it has agreed to do. On board inspectors is another way.

The fishing industry is naturally sensitive to the danger that this project could be a Trojan horse through which could lead to a Big Brother control tool installed aboard every fishing vessel. Apart from issues relating to who eventually would bear the installation and running costs of the equipment, CCTV implies a departure from a risk based approach that focuses enforcement and control on areas and vessels where there is a demonstrable problem.

On the other hand, there may be circumstances in which a fishing vessel, voluntarily participating in a catch quota project, might see CCTV as a cost effective alternative to having an inspector on board.

It is against this background that an NFFO delegation will be meeting Defra officials shortly to discuss the kind of safeguards (on both sides) that would allow catch quota projects to go ahead.

There is certainly a desperate need to find a way of reducing the type of discards that are generated by the inflexibility of the regulatory system itself. The scale of discarding of North Sea whiting because of the disjunction between the abundance of whiting on the UK east coast and the quota available to the vessels suggests that this could be a good place to start – if the right terms and conditions can be agreed.

The meeting has been preceded by a letter (reproduced below) that outlines the Federation’s concerns and aspirations on this issue:

“Catch Quota Discard Project: CCTV

Our Executive Committee has now had the opportunity to discuss the contents of your email of 2nd November which describes the above project.

We are completely behind efforts to build initiatives that reduce discards through practical pilot projects that provide the right kind of incentives to encourage positive fishing patterns and behaviours.

Likewise, we understand and acknowledge that if the fishing industry is to move beyond the present micro-management systems, it will have to take on responsibility not only for the design and implementation of sustainable fishing plans and projects but for documenting its activities in ways that that can be subsequently audited.

In this context, observers at sea may have an important role and given that trained observers are scarce and expensive, it is possible that CCTV systems in some circumstances might offer a cost-effective way to provide the necessary documentation.

The introduction of CCTV onto fishing vessels is not, however, a step that should be taken lightly. Fishing vessels are living spaces as well as work platforms and it would be a complete anathema to us for a potentially intrusive control and monitoring technology to be applied to the industry against its will, whether that will is expressed on a collective or individual basis.

Our greatest fear is that this project could act as a Trojan horse for the application of CCTV cameras aboard fishing vessels on a mandatory basis. It is no accident that it was the German representatives on the North Sea RAC, when this project was discussed, that objected most strenuously to the suggestion of this technology aboard fishing vessels, in light of that country’s unhappy history.

Against this background, before we could consent to support and participate in this project, we would require a number of important safeguards and written assurances. These would relate to the voluntary character of the scheme, the level and type of incentives provided, the issue of who would have access to the CCTV tapes and their ownership, and the positioning and operation of the cameras. As a matter of principle we believe that ownership of CCTV recordings should remain with the vessel. We would also like to have a better understanding of how this project fits into the wider picture of fisheries management and CFP reform.

We might seem unnecessarily cautious given the benign aims and objectives of this particular project but we can see where, without proper checks and balances, the application of CCTV could lead, and are determined not to allow this to happen.

In short, we would be very happy to meet with you and your colleagues to discuss the details of this project but could not provide our a priori support until that meeting takes place.”

It can by found following the following link:

www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries/cfp-response.pdf

Responses had to be received by the 31st December and now the Commission will study the views of the member states, regional advisory councils, Advisory Committee, individual fishermen’s organisations, NGOs and individuals. The next step will be a Communication from the Commission in mid February, describing the main themes arising from the consultation and indicating the areas that will be subject to a formal impact assessment. This should give us a fairly clear idea of the range of possibilities for reform.

Overall, the UK paper is a clear headed, balanced document that is, at the same time, well-grounded in a solid analysis of the strengths and failings of the current CFP but also quite ambitious.

Although there are differences in emphasis and detail, there is in fact quite a high degree of overlap between Defra’s UK response and the NFFO’s submission to the Commission on CFP reform. This is perhaps not too surprising given the intense discussions between Defra ministers and officials and the NFFO on the way forward, over the last 18 months.

Both share the view that:

• In many respects the CFP is dysfunctional and as presently structured is incapable of delivering sustainable, profitable, fisheries with reasonable levels of regulation and control costs
• A regionalised and decentralised CFP is the key to delivering fisheries reform
• There must a determined move away from micro-management of fisheries towards a system of delegated responsibilities within a framework of safeguards
• Relative Stability has provided benefits for both fishermen and policy makers by providing a transparent and predictable basis for allocations. However, it makes sense to explore how relative stability could be strengthened by providing additional flexibility to adapt entitlements to changing patterns of fishing
• Both economic theory and experience suggests that days at sea restrictions are unlikely to deliver benefits in the long term and results in an overcapitalised and inefficient industry with high monitoring and enforcement costs
• The future focus must be on achieving the right outcomes rather than cosmetic regulation that repeatedly fails to deliver its objectives
• We must move away from crisis management towards long term management plans

Next Steps

The Federation has been invited to participate in a high level meeting with the Commission in late January, in Brussels, to discuss the Commission’s final positions in light of the Green Paper consultation before publication of the CFP Reform Communication in February.

The immediate task ahead beyond January will be to evaluate and comment on the various options outlined in the CFP reform impact assessments.

Views

The difficulties faced by inshore fishermen in East Anglia and the changes to the CFP necessary to alleviate them are discussed by NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas and Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca Davies in this programme of Radio 4’s You and Yours

Fishermen who had previously been seen as providing the nation with valuable food, produced under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions came, over a very short timeframe, to be portrayed as “pillagers and rapers” of the marine environment.

We accept that some parts of the media and indeed some parts of the environmental movement will always be in search of a pantomime villain. Sensationalism and selective facts almost always win out over a reasoned and proportionate approach.

As a result, there have been some notable occasions when policy makers, and indeed nature conservancy advisors to government, have been more than a little responsive to the doom-mongers’ cries.

What is striking about this misrepresentation of fishing is that it is an almost complete reversal of the truth. Yes, fishing has an environmental impact but if one looks at the whole range of objective indicators, including physical impact on habitat, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, in fact fishing scores very well against all other forms of food production.

In a sense this is not surprising because in the final analysis despite technological developments, fishing is a hunting activity in a vast marine environment. It does not require the destruction of primordial forests or the widespread use of nitrates or phosphates as a precondition for its existence. The physical impact of different gears varies but in any event tends to be quite localised. Its output of greenhouse gasses is relatively low per tonne of fish.

The fact us that fishing is an environmentally low impact form of food production. How this essential point has become lost will someday provide someone with an interesting Phd in cultural and media studies.

All this is not to say that the fishing industry can be complacent. Overexploitation of specific fish stocks is a live possibility, especially in an uncertain and changing marine environment. Discards, overcapacity in some fisheries, an ineffectual management system and weak stock assessments, all suggest that there is much work to be done. But this is a long way away from the current media image of the fishing industry on a path to self-destruction, taking half of the planet with it.

As for encouraging consumers to avoid buying fish, every consumer persuaded to buy chicken, pork or beef, or all but a very narrow range of fruit and vegetables, as an alternative to fish, should be aware that he or she is increasing, not reducing, their ecological footprint.

The effort control year runs from the 1st February and our overriding priority is to avoid any abrupt and disruptive closures in the coming year due to exhaustion of the UK’s allocation of Kwdays. Weather conditions permitting, a Federation delegation will be meeting Defra officials in the next few days to discuss the key aspects of next year’s regime.

These include:

1. Setting the allocation of days to vessels within each gear type at a level that ensures that the annual limits are not breached but which maximises the prospects for economic viability
2. Finding the least intrusive way to absorb the 25% reductions in the Irish Sea and West of Scotland and 10% cut in the North Sea dictated by the terms of the EU Cod Recovery Plan
3. Finding the right balance between initial allocations and the flexibility to transfer unutilised days between vessels
4. Avoiding unnecessary complications arising from the fact of devolved administration
5. Maximizing the scope for buyback of effort during the coming year

At every meeting with Defra on the subject of effort control the Federation has underlined its principled opposition to the use of days at sea on both conservation and economic grounds. It is gratifying therefore that in its response to the Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform the UK has adopted a similar position:

“…both the economic theory and practical experience show that this system [effort control] is unlikely to deliver benefits in the longer term, and results in an overcapitalised and inefficient industry with high monitoring and enforcement costs. The effort management regime for the Cod Recovery Plan has proved administratively complex and costly. As such it runs counter to the need to simplify and reduce the regulatory burden of the current CFP. Imposition of an effort regime at EU level would not be sensible and would be at odds with the need for a reformed CFP to provide greater flexibility and devolved responsibility for management of individual fisheries.”

UK Response to the European Commission Reform Green Paper on the Common Fisheries Policy Para 42

The exception to this general arrangement is the year-end decisions on quota and effort levels, which will still be made by the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission.

Although over the years the Federation has maintained good relations with the European Parliament and specific MEPs within it, it is clear that this change will require a new intensity of engagement if the NFFO is to remain influential in the decision making process.

The Federation has already made sure that key MEPs have been fully briefed on the NFFO’s views on CFP reform and one of the first big challenges facing the Parliament lies in picking up the dossier on technical conservation measures. This was blocked when member states objected, not only to the content of the proposed technical rules, but to the Commission’s attempt to transfer a large measure of decision making authority to itself.

The 2010 NFFO Yearbook has now been distributed to NFFO members, through your producer organisation if you are a PO member and directly from us if you are not.

The Yearbook contains a wealth in information invaluable in the wheelhouse.

A charge of £30 is levied for the Yearbook to non-members

2009 was a year of intense activity for the NFFO and looking forward, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that although some of the emphasis and focus of work will shift, the workload will be no lighter in 2010.

Dealing with the fallout from the December Council usually occupies the last weeks of the old year and the first few of the New Year. Exceptionally, the breakdown of the EU Norway negotiations in December means that we will be back in that particular front line in January.

Another priority at the beginning of the year will to be set the terms of the effort control regime that will apply from 1st February. Meetings with Defra and for our Northern Ireland members, Darni, to discuss this will take place early in January.

These meetings will be back-to-back with discussions on the Government’s catch quotas project. If we can agree adequate terms and safeguards this could allow a pilot that would reduce discarding, increase earnings and reduce fishing mortality in the North Sea whiting fishery.

January will also see the launch of a major new initiative to ensure that the fishing industry has a strong, clear and united voice, as the Government and its statutory advisors on conservation move to introduce a network of marine protected waters around the UK. The UK MPA Fishing Areas coalition will quickly establish itself as the major body of influence, not least because it has the full backing of the NFFO and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.

Shellfish will figure large in the Federation’s work during the coming year as Defra moves to introduce a range of conservation measures, possibly including some form of effort restriction, and steps to agree a coherent system of effort constraint at international level moves forward.

The cack-handed way that the Omega net gauge was introduced and the complete failure to communicate with the fishing industry on the issue have left both net makers and fishing vessels with large stocks of netting that overnight have been deemed (using the new gauge) to be illegal. The Commission’s attempt to wash its hands of this failure of governance will not be allowed to stand and the Federation will be working through the RACs, other fishermen’s organisations and gear suppliers to challenge the gauge on both technical and legal grounds.

The NFFO took a leading role in shaping the CFP reform responses by the regional advisory councils and Europeche/ACFA. We cannot let matters rest there however and throughout 2010 we will be fully engaged as the Commission prepares its proposals for reform. We have argued consistently over many years that only through a radical decentralisation of CFP decision-making will we approach something like the responsive, flexible and adaptive system that is required. These ideas are close to becoming mainstream.

The establishment of massive offshore wind-farms, potentially displacing fishermen from their customary fishing grounds, is another major theme in the Federation’s work. And tidal energy can be added to the potential sources of disruption to address.

Our ambition is to strengthen the NFFO regional committees over the next 12 months ant to find ways of continuing the sterling work in the ports and with the inshore fleets started by Alan McCulla.

From April or May the Federation will begin discussions on TACs for 2011. Experience has shown us that it is only by identifying key priorities at this stage that we can marshal the evidence to strengthen our hand in the autumn negotiations.

The Federation continues to be closely involved in the Fisheries Science Partnership and will participate in the work FSP Steering Group. As part of various RAC initiatives the Federation will engage with ICES scientists throughout the year beginning in January.

One of the frustrations we face is that even as we build ever closer working relations with the stock assessment scientists, these can be undermined where the Commission adopts an unjustifiably hardline approach in its proposals. Irish Sea Nephrops is an example of where the industry’s impressions coincide with the scientists’ perception of the stock but all our energies have had to be thrown this autumn into deflecting a huge quota reduction driven by stock depletion on the Porcupine Bank to the west of Ireland. Along with highlighting the potential displacement effect of brutal reductions of this kind, as vessels struggle to remain viable, nothing could better underline the need for a radical reform and regionalisation of the decision-making process.

From their outset the NFFO has devoted a lot of its resources and energies to working in and through the RACs. There will be no easing up in this area and Irish Sea fisheries management, long term management plans, Celtic Sea cod, CFP reform and a host of other issues will be progressed through this channel.

Although it was possible to fend off the Commission’s attempt to bulldoze through a new technical conservation regulation on its terms at the November Council, we will now have to engage with the European Parliament (as well as the Council and Commission) to ensure that the new technical rules make some kind of sense. The Federation is already working hard to establish strong lines of communication with the Parliament and will be meeting with key figures on the influential EP Fisheries Committee shortly.

A short summary like this can only provide a glimpse of the scope of the Federation’s work. I haven’t touched on the constant, ongoing backroom work done to ensure that MCA safety rules are coherent and cost effective. Nor have I mentioned the detailed work on the new Control Regulation, VMS, electronic logbooks, regular meetings with the MFA (soon to become the Marine Management Organisation). Likewise, I can only touch on the type of work done by the Federation in response to members’ specific concerns and issues as they arise.

What I can say to all NFFO members without fear of contradiction is that the Federation is fully committed and hard at work on your behalf.

May I take this opportunity to wish you all, and all of the Federation’s friends and allies, good health and prosperity for the New Year.Davy Hill

NFFO Chairman

The Federation delegation, with representatives from all NFFO regions and fleet segments, reiterated our key priorities for the Council. These are:

• To resist a reduction in the Irish Sea nephrops quota, not least because ICES scientists confirm that the Irish Sea nephrops stocks (as opposed to the rest of the broader Area VII) are fished at sustainable levels. A cut of the magnitude proposed by the Commission, if accepted, would have devastating consequences in the Northern Irish and English west coast fishing ports.
• To secure a multi-layered approach to the problems in the North Sea whiting fishery. The abundance of whiting off the UK east coast at the same time that the overall stock levels are at a low ebb means that a blunt approach based on TAC reductions will deliver precisely nothing. The NFFO is pressing for an approach that would deliver quota to the east coast fleet, whilst simultaneously reducing discards and fishing mortality on whiting. This win-win-win outcome is possible if a more flexible approach on TACs, swaps, transfers and improved selectivity are combined in a package.
• The diversity of the South West fleet means that a wide range of TAC decisions have a potential impact on the fishing industry. Tactical work with other member states to secure positive outcomes on shared stocks like monkfish, hake and megrim is critical, but the areas where the gap between the Commission’s proposals and manageable allocations is seen at its most acute in Celtic Sea cod, porbeagle, spurdog and skates and rays. A TAC that reflects the increase abundance of haddock has also been a priority.
• The irrational “use it or lose it” principle has been fought hard and continues to be a main NFFO priority. There are a myriad of reasons why a member state or whole fleet might not take its full quota or TAC, including more economically attractive alternative fishing opportunities in that year. It makes no sense to penalise this kind of economically rational behaviour in subsequent years. Someone with a cynical mind might think that this tack was taken to exhaust member states negotiating capital.
• The failure of the Norway talks this year has added an unexpected layer of complexity to this year’s quota decisions. For the most part, provisional TACs at 50% of 2009 levels will suffice to allow the fleets to be operational until a new deal is finalised. However, it is critically important that this formulae is adapted where, like with the mackerel fishery there is a strong seasonality, or whiting where the issue cannot be fixed by TAC adjustments alone.
• On pelagic issues we are strongly opposed to the realignment of the Horse Mackerel TAC areas that would, if accepted, seriously damage our interests.

Although the formal scope for changes to the Cod Recovery Plan within this Council is very limited, there is mounting concern over the repercussions of punitive reductions, required by its provisions. The 25% reductions in effort and TAC will mean the displacement of significant numbers of vessels from the Irish Sea and West of Scotland into the North Sea with a range of consequences for cod recovery and other stocks. The Federation is pressing for early recognition that the Commission and Council have (again) gone down a largely self-defeating path.

Finally, the December Council has often been described as a circus, which can attract a great deal of media coverage at a time of year when other news sources are slowing down for Christmas. In recent years this kind of superficial, poorly informed, press coverage has been highly damaging to the industry’s reputation.

Responding to this press feeding frenzy, environmental NGO’s who generally work constructively and collaboratively with the NFFO and other fishermen’s associations in RACs throughout the year, now distance themselves from the industry and revert to the language of catastrophe and professional doomsaying.

This is frustrating but it is part of the problem when the media, with few honourable exceptions, is largely driven by sensationalism.

In a wide ranging summary to a recent meeting of the EU Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, the outgoing Commissioner Joe Borg, outlined his views on the future direction of travel for Commission policy fisheries. He acknowledged that his views would not bind the new Commissioner but given the expectation of a large degree of continuity within DG Mare, his comments are certainly worthy of attention.

Relative Stability

The Commissioner made clear that “as it is abundantly clear that virtually no member state would consider abandoning Relative Stability”, the present allocation keys will survive the reform. However the Commissioner had not ruled some degree of change including the replacement of TACs with effort control, “in some fisheries, if an acceptable way of addressing how we would set effort levels in mixed fisheries could be found.” It is clear that the attraction for effort for the Commissioner’s lies in his belief that it is a potential way of reducing or eliminating discards.

Similarly, ITQs are seen as a potential alternative “in some fisheries or fleet segments”. The Commission intends to study the options closely before making its proposal. In any event, the Commissioner was determined that should ITQs be adopted, “protective measures would be required for small-scale operators in coastal fisheries”.

Technical Conservation

The Commissioner had accepted that member states required more time to work on the detail of a new technical conservation regulation which would now be adopted in the context of co-decision making with the European Parliament.

High Grading Ban

Driven by his misplaced top-down approach to discards, the Commissioner indicated that he would use the interim Regulation (to apply all the elements previously in the annexes of the TACs and Quotas Regulation) to extend the ill-considered and unenforceable high grading ban to all Atlantic sea areas.

Discards

The elimination of discards remains the Commissioner’s prime political objective but it remains to be seen if his blunt and ultimately sterile and superficial, top down approach survives his departure.

Norway

The failure of EU and Norway to agree a reciprocal agreement was remarked on by the Commissioner but he seemed reasonably confident that a deal could be concluded, “early in the New Year”.

In the meantime the Commission was considering the setting of provisional TACs for North Sea joint stocks. In the meantime there would be no access for Norwegian fishermen in EU waters and vice versa. Provisional TACS would be set at levels that would not compromise an eventual agreement.

RACs

Regional advisory councils were regarded by the Commissioner as one of the most successful elements in the last CFP reform. They had “helped to resolve difficult issues in a number of fisheries”. The Commission would use the reform to strengthen and reinforce the RACs.CFP Reform

The decentralisation of the CFP as a central part of the forthcoming reform has become a mainstream, generally accepted, proposition, contrary to the 1992 reform when the NFFO and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation first advocated the concept. Commissioner Borg confirmed that decentralisation remained at the heart of the CFP reform

What remains for discussion however, is the all-important detail. What we might consider appropriate in terms of the composition of regional management bodies and its areas of responsibilities might not be identical with the Commission’s view. Toothless regional management bodies with a role tightly circumscribed by the European institutions would quickly lose credibility and purpose. On the other hand, for constitutional reasons alone, it is clear that that the broad principles and standards and policy framework will remain with the European institutions. This leaves wide scope for discretion and defining the new CFP governance structures with precision will be a major focus in the coming months.

The Commissioner was clear that the Commission would not abdicate its responsibilities for setting broad policy context and history does not record many groups surrendering their power and authority voluntarily. All this suggests that that coming months will be critical in shaping the future CFP and that there is much to play for.

The NFFO has been at the forefront of the CFP reform debate to date and intends to be so over the course of the coming year, leading up to the publication of the Commission’s proposal in 2011.

In addition to preparing its own response, the Federation has been heavily involved in the reform discussions in Europeche, the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, the North Sea and North West Waters RACs.

In addition, over the course of the last 12 months, the Federation has attended various meetings directly with the Commission and has met with the Irish fishing industry in Dublin and French organisations in Brussels to discuss what may be the biggest change to the CFP in a generation.

We have also used opportunities to influence the European Parliament’s report on CFP reform.

As yet, it is difficult to foresee what the Commission’s reform proposal will contain, not least because the views of new Commission, the new Commissioner and a new Director General in DG Mare will be pivotal. However, if the views expressed by the regional advisory councils and the EU level Advisory Committee count for anything we can expect a strong regionalisation of the CFP, greater scope for industry self-regulation and a move away from micro-management within a broad framework of rules still set at European level.

The Federation’s response is reproduced below:

NFFO Response to the Commission Green Paper on CFP Reform

General

Leaving aside the Green Paper’s alarmist, often outdated and deliberately selective description of the state of European fish stocks, we can agree that the Common Fisheries Policy is in many respects dysfunctional and is therefore in need of radical reform. We also recognise that changing societal sensitivities and values have given rise to new demands that fish is caught in demonstrably sustainable ways. The CFP is in the process of adjusting to this reality.

The present reform of the CFP therefore offers a generational opportunity to adapt to meet these new challenges. At the same time, it is important to appreciate that there is much in the present arrangements that works well and so, even within a radical reform, there must be no question of jettisoning everything in the current CFP. Each component of the CFP must be weighed carefully and assessed for its utility.

It is our view that the most serious failings of the CFP are related to issues of governance. If governance arrangements are effective then secondary aspects of the CFP will fall into place. We make no apology therefore, that this response to the Green Paper focuses predominantly on issues of governance and decision-making.

The fundamental weakness of the CFP is not overcapacity, unfocussed objectives, an absence of political will or weak compliance. These are the symptoms of a more fundamental flaw: this is that the CFP has relied on an over-centralised command and control approach to managing diverse and complex fisheries that simply do not respond to blanket one-size-fits all measures. The history of the CFP is now littered with examples of broad brush measures arising from a Commission proposal that has to be amended by negotiation in the Council of Ministers to fit a variety of local circumstances. This approach breeds complexity, incoherence and is the opposite of the responsive, adaptive governance arrangements needed to manage fisheries successfully. The failings of the CFP could be (and indeed have been) deduced from its inadequate governance arrangements.

Regional (Sea-basin) Fisheries Management

The 2002 reform of the CFP recognised the need for a stronger regional dimension and the regional advisory councils, seen in this light were a first, tentative step in this direction. The RACs have surpassed expectations in terms of their cohesiveness, their coherence and the overall quality of the fisheries advice that they have produced.

The present CFP reform should complete this transition by establishing regional (sea-basin) management bodies with the authority to manage the fisheries within their regional area of jurisdiction within a framework of standards and principles agreed at European institution level.

We recognise that there are legal and constitutional issues at stake here but we are also certain that pragmatic ways can be found to devolve defacto decision making authority to regional management bodies, comprised of fisheries managers from the member states, fishing industry representatives and NGOs, with strong knowledge underpinning provided by fisheries scientists. This kind of administrative cooperation at regional level involving the relevant member states and principal stakeholders would bring fisheries management decisions closer to the fisheries concerned. New approaches to old problems could evolve and where these proved unsatisfactory they can be abandoned and a new approach tested. This would be genuinely adaptive management. The rigidity of the current system locks us into failed policy decisions because of the complexity of amending a regulation that has potential ramifications in some other part of the CFP.

We don’t say that regional management on its own will provide a panacea for the CFP; much will depend on working out the detail of how regional management bodies will work in practise; but we do think that the regional decision making is an important part of the solution and in fact is a precondition for dealing adequately with the realities of multi-species, multi-gear and multi-jurisdiction fisheries.

The highly migratory characteristics of the pelagic fisheries, means that a rigid regional sea-basin management focus is unlikely to be appropriate. International agreements also play a very significant part. However, the principle of bringing decision-making closer to the fisheries remains apt and relevant but arrangements must be tailored to the specifics of the biological and political realities of the pelagic fisheries.

Sustainable Fishing Plans: A delivery mechanism for simplification of the Common Fisheries Policy

One of the principal challenges facing the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is how to achieve simplification of what has developed into a complex, incoherent, often unenforceable, body of rules. It is now widely accepted the top-down, command and control approach, that has characterised the CFP to date, has failed and that that decision-making within a reformed CFP should be regionalised within a framework of standards and principles established at European level. The arrival of co-decision making with the European Parliament, requiring a longer timeframe for fisheries legislation, has added an extra impetus to find ways of moving away from a high degree of prescriptive micro-management.

Regionalisation of decision-making of those decisions that can sensibly be made at the regional (sea-basin) scale is an essential development if a more flexible, adaptive, relevant Common Fisheries Policy. However, if the CFP is to move to a system with a high degree of responsibility and stewardship it will be necessary to move further, to a system in which responsibilities are delegated to the fishing industry itself.

One way of achieving a move away from micromanagement and simplification of fisheries regulation could be through delegated responsibilities via the mechanism of sustainable fishing plans.

Sustainable Fishing Plans

The essential approach of delegated responsibility through sustainable fishing plans would be as follows:

1. Sustainable fishing plans would be developed by self-defined fishing industry groupings. Producer organisations would be well placed in this respect but similarly the kind of industry groupings that are currently organising themselves to obtain Marine Stewardship Council accreditation would, equally, be the type of grouping with the organisational capacity to develop and submit a fishing plan.
2. The sustainable fishing plan would detail how the vessels in that group will fish sustainably over a defined period, say, 3 to 5 years.
3. The plan would have to meet certain preconditions and criteria in accord with standards and principles established at European level by the Commission, Council and European Parliament
4. The plans would vary according to the specificities of the fisheries but could be expected to cover all the areas currently dealt with through prescriptive legislation such as technical conservation, quota uptake, discards reduction and seabed impact mitigation.
5. Once developed, in collaboration with fisheries scientists and possibly economists, the plans would be submitted for approval by the authorities. (member state, or regional management body, to be decided)
6. One of the key features of the plan will be an obligation to document the vessels’ activities in a way that allows for periodic audit. This amounts to reversing the burden of proof.
7. Audits would be undertaken by the authorities to confirm that the vessels in the group are complying with the terms of their own plan
8. A system of stepped sanctions would apply to groups whose vessels failed at audit, culminating with the removal of delegated responsibilities and enforced return to the micro-management system of prescriptive rules.
9. It would be expected that a high degree of social pressure (or internal sanctions) would apply to any individual vessel operator breaking the terms of the group plan.
10. Plans would be adapted over time to take account of new circumstances.
11. Sustainable fishing plans would be a way to give effect to a genuine bottom up approach with appropriate safeguards for fisheries managers.
12. The regional management body would oversee the process of producing and implementing the plans to ensure that overall objectives for the fishery are met.

Implementation

The advent of sustainable fishing plans would be an important departure for the CFP. It is fortunate therefore, that there are examples from other countries where systems similar to that described above are currently in operation.

Australia operates a system of delegated authority where fishing groups judged capable, are offered the option of taking on responsibility for their fishery. A system of graduated responsibility is in effect, through which the group can elect to take on partial or full responsibility. For those taking on responsibility, a contractual relationship between the group and the management authorities is put into place. It is possible for groups of fishermen to take on partial responsibilities as a steppingstone to full delegated responsibility. The Australian model recognises a progression through different phases: conflict, cooperation, co-management and delegated responsibility.

A move to delegated responsibility through sustainable fishing plans would be a major step for some fishermen, control authorities and fisheries managers. However, it is important to recognise that some parts of the fishing industry already undertake quota management responsibilities or other forms of co-management. Whilst some industry organisations are at present capable of moving quite rapidly to delegated responsibility, if the facility was offered, for others, there will need to be a period of capacity building. The different levels of preparedness reflect different objective conditions in each segment of the fleet and the challenges of history and geography. Capacity building would proceed more rapidly if supported by whichever financial instrument for fisheries is in place.

The prime motivation for fishermen to form groups to develop and submit sustainable fishing plans will be to escape the impact of blunt micromanagement measures, to increase the security of their investments and ultimately, to take their destinies into their own hands.

The present top down system has routinely introduced broad brush measures that have been weakened by (necessary) derogations to fit at local level. Within a regionalised CFP, legislation is made closer to the fishery and measure introduced in this way should have greater coherence from the start. In any event, adapting measures quickly when they are underperforming should be a great deal quicker without having to take into account the views of all member states. Sustainable fishing plans should take this flexibility a step further as the plans will be periodically updated in light of new information and new circumstances. Ongoing, progressive improvement to deliver sustainability and profitability would be hardwired into the system.

Fisheries Science

Various fisheries science projects across Europe have demonstrated the value of fishermen and scientists collaborating to deliver improvements in data and a shared view of the stocks. Sustainable fishing plans would take this a step further as fishermen and fisheries scientists would collaborate on the design and content of the plans to ensure that each plan would meet approval preconditions.

One can foresee that fisheries science would adapt to play three distinct roles in the new system:

1. Advisors in the development of fisheries plans
2. Along with control experts and others, auditors of fishing plans
3. The customary role of impartial stock assessment scientists

Whether these roles can be played by the same scientists wearing different hats or whether they have to be performed by separate individuals is for discussion.

A Differentiated Regime ?

The Green Paper considers a differentiated CFP which posits a clear and firm separation and between inshore and offshore fisheries. This distinction is seen as synonymous with the distinction between small scale/large scale and inshore/offshore, low impact/high catch. The reasoning behind this suggestion is that a move to a full international rights-based management system, with fully transferable fishing opportunities, would have adverse consequences for smaller fishing vessel operators because of the concentration of capital and fishing opportunities associated with such a system.

Whilst there may be circumstances in which it is possible to define a useful distinction of the type proposed, it is inconceivable that this could be done at European level, without risking extreme dislocation at the level of the fisheries. Some large vessels sometimes fish quite close to the shore, some relatively small vessels fish far outside any normal definition of “inshore”. Some small, inshore vessels take up to 25% of some TACs. The catch capacity of some under 10metre vessels exceeds some over 10metre vessels by a considerable margin.

This all suggests that what is classed as an “inshore” vessel varies enormously by area and by member state and so the definition of inshore/small scale/artisanal/ low impact is far from straightforward. In any event, there is a fundamental problem in positing a CFP in which decision making responsibility is devolved to regional level and then imposing broad brush measures such as a differentiated regime from the centre.

One final consideration is that experience in the UK has demonstrated that when an arbitrary line is drawn through the fishing fleets with a more relaxed regime on one side of that line, fishing effort will find ways of deploying to the operate under the favourable regime. The aim of providing additional protection for the inshore fisheries is thereby undermined by the protective measures themselves.

There will be cases when a differentiated regime makes sense but this is best judged by those close to the fisheries concerned and taking all of the above points into account.

We remain committed (as indeed do all member states) to the retention of the exclusive 6 and 12mile zones, subject to historical access rights between 6 and 12 miles. Effective and coherent management of the inshore fisheries can only really be done at member state level or sub-member state scale. We would therefore favour giving member states authority to set the terms of the management regime out to 12 miles, subject to clear mechanisms to filter out discriminatory measures.

“Light touch” management of the inshore fisheries is feasible only where there is a balance between the capacity of the fleet and the available resources and in this context both indigenous fleets and fleets operating in the inshore zone under access arrangements are very different from when the 6 and 12 mile limits were first applied.

TACs and Quotas, Effort Control and Relative Stability

Leaving aside the allocatory keys for a moment, the TACs and quotas system provides a relatively effective and precise mechanism for distributing fishing opportunities between Third Countries and the EU, between different member states and between different groups of fishermen within the member states.

Certainly, the accuracy of scientific stock assessments on which TACs are based, discarding which results from a rigid application of TACs in mixed fisheries; and the monitoring and enforcement of TACs are, or have been, real problems associated with the TACs and quotas system. But it is very far from clear if any superior alternative is available.

1. Effort control would be an exceedingly blunt distributive mechanism as effort allocation would be related to the weakest species in a mixed fishery and would give rise to high grading in favour of the higher value species
2. Reciprocal negotiations with Third Countries like Norway are undertaken on the basis of quantitative limits measured in cod equivalents

Against this background, even though a minority of member states voice dissatisfaction about their relative stability shares to the extent that they would wish to scrap the whole system, it is not at all obvious that viable alternatives are available.

For our part, we would argue strongly for the retention of the TACs and quotas system and the existing allocatory keys under the principle of relative stability. We would however make the point that the system could be strengthened by making it more flexible and pliable by:

1. Streamlining the swaps and transfers arrangements to facilitate full uptake across member state and to reduce the scope for underutilisation
2. Making adjustments to the relative stability keys to reflect changing catching patterns, where there is full agreement by all the parties.

It is important to appreciate that some member states have developed quite sophisticated rights based management systems and it is imperative that these positive experiences are built upon rather than undermined by some grandiose (and risky) pan European system of property rights.

CFP Objectives

We consider that the purpose of the CFP should be something along the lines of the catching and gathering of marine resources for the benefit of humankind in ways that do not prejudice future generations.

If this definition is accepted and it is also accepted that an ecosystem approach is dependent on the economic and social as well as the environmental pillars of sustainability, the suggestion that the CFP should give priority to the environmental objective is misplaced and cosmetic.

External Waters

The Green Paper where it discusses external waters, tends to focus almost exclusively upon the Southern partnership agreements. It is therefore worth underlining that the most significant agreement in economic terms for the EU is the annual reciprocal agreement with Norway. In terms of effective management of joint stocks and access to valuable fishing opportunities within the Norwegian exclusive economic zone it is extremely important that sufficient resources are allocated to the successful negotiation of mutually acceptable arrangements.

Conclusion

We agree that the opportunity provided by this reform should be taken to set the CFP on a different track. A move away from the over-centralised micromanagement system that has characterised the CFP to date is a prerequisite for a CFP that is responsive, adaptive and relevant and that is characterised by a high degree of compliance.

Regional management bodies with, at the very minimum de facto management responsibilities, should be established and micro-management should be incrementally replaced through delegated responsibilities and the fishing industry’s sustainable fishing plans.

The panel of 9, with the exception of the Chairman, is composed entirely of marine ecologists and natural scientists, despite initial indications that it would also include experts in the fields of economics and social science.

The Federation believes the appointment of the panel raises fundamental questions over what is and what is not science and how far natural science on its own should be allowed a free rein in designating MPA sites.

The Federation said: “In this decision, Defra draws a clear line in the sand over what it considers to be science, which clearly does not extend to the disciplines of economics and social sciences. We on the other hand, have argued that a failure to take into account human factors such as fisheries displacement risks undermining any conservation intentions in delivering a network, yet the response from Defra has so far been muted.”

“Furthermore, the very public proclamations of particular scientific advisors and their close links to the green lobby and their cause célèbre of MPAs as a saviour to the marine environment, calls into question their objectivity in dealing fairly with matters affecting the livelihoods of those dependent upon the seas.”

Scientific claims for MPAs have often been over blown. The Federation said: “Scientists advocating MPAs have often shown graphs of increasing biomass within an MPA, as major evidence of their success. However, it would be clear to the average layman that this would be the most likely response to the removal of human activity from the marine environment and such evidence offers nothing to a reasoned analysis of where the balance between human use of marine resources and conservation should lie.”

Of particular concern to the Federation is the embryonic science advanced to design the Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs: “There remains considerable debate within the scientific community over whether it is scientifically feasible to rigorously design such a network in light of the lack of data, knowledge and understanding of marine ecosystem processes. This is because delivering the network rests not upon any evidence based science, but upon the application of a set of theoretical principles, exercised in a vacuum which ignores the extent to which ecological processes already function without MPAs,” it said.

“Consequently, any requirements stipulated in the government’s forthcoming scientific guidance on how far MPAs should be from one another, or what percentage of a habitat should be covered, can only be based upon opinion formed within the constraints of a narrow simplistic theory. Under such circumstances, an “independent Science Advisory Panel” composed only of natural scientists that will advise on the government’s own guidelines actually looks much more like a thin scientific veil for what are in fact political decisions.”

The scientific guidance, originally expected in September, has been repeatedly delayed and is now not expected to be released until March 2010 at the earliest, greatly compressing the timeframe to design a network through the input of stakeholders such as the fishing industry. MCZ network proposals from regional stakeholder projects such as Finding Sanctuary are tabled to be forwarded to government by the summer of 2011. The Federation views this timeframe as woefully inadequate.

At a recent meeting of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Brussels, the NFFO made clear that the Commission’s proposal on porbeagle, spurdog, skates and rays was primarily a public relations exercise whose main effect would be to move catches from landings to discards.

Incidental by-catch in mixed fisheries (or as in the case of skates and rays where there is a conservation problem with the populations of some species within the group) present a major challenge. Experience shows however, that solutions can be found. These are usually technical solutions that require close working collaboration between fishermen and gear technologist and scientists. In turn, to make this kind of approach to work requires time, resources and goodwill.

The Commissioner made clear that the Commission’s proposal for the December Council would be for a zero catch of porbeagle and a minimal by-catch for spurdog.

The Commission knows very well that this approach will not save a single shark or dogfish. What it will do is to send an entirely cosmetic signal to the environmental lobby and the broader public that that the issue is being addressed by cutting TACs. The environmental lobby is complicit in this fiction.

In the meantime, the goodwill within the fishing industry to engage with scientists to eliminate unwanted by-catch is squandered and initiatives stalled, in favour of an illusion of progress.

Assessing the strength of the science has become an integral part of the process of setting TACs, not least as ICES estimates that the data deficiencies and other weaknesses in their assessments means that the precise status of around 60% of the stocks assessed is “not known”

Equally, working with other member states to identify allies with shared interests is particularly important to the UK which because of its geography has a much wider range of quota interests than most member states. It cannot concentrate its firepower on a few stocks and so alliances are essential.

The NFFO meets directly with Defra officials on a number of occasions throughout the year to discuss and refine the UK’s TAC priorities, apart from the formal “stakeholder meetings”, which tend to be relatively arid tick-box exercises.

EU/ Norway

The Federation expends a great deal of effort and resources on the annual negotiations with Norway for a reciprocal fisheries agreement. Apart from the fact that North Sea joint stock TACs such as cod, haddock, whiting, saithe and plaice, are agreed here, these negotiations have an important bearing on fishing opportunities for the UK fleet in the Barents Sea and on important pelagic stocks such as mackerel and herring. The hot house of the EU/ Norway negotiations can also lead to the introduction of measures that are subsequently adopted more broadly in EU waters. An example of this type of measure is the poorly thought-through “high grading ban”. It was only because its legal vehicle, the Technical Conservation Regulation, was rejected by member states, that this particular piece of unenforceable PR oriented legislation has not been extended to all EU sea areas in the Atlantic zone, although the Commission may yet secure its introduction through an alternative legal route.

This year’s EU/ Norway negotiations began in early November in Bergen and have been though a second round in Brussels before foundering in a short third round back in Bergen. They have been dominated by the issue of access to the mackerel stocks. After a long period of stability the pelagic fisheries have been thrown into chaos by Iceland, Faeroes and Norway who have abandoning international agreements to set autonomous TACs on their own. (See NFFO News item: Norway Talks Breakdown

December Council

A strong NFFO delegation will attend the December Council to see through the work started earlier in the year in establishing UK priorities. Sometimes the Federation is called upon to make judgements in difficult policy areas where Ministers are unsure of industry reactions; sometimes we provide technical advice. But the main purpose of attending and lobbying the Council is that whilst ministers are inside the negotiating chamber they are constantly aware that they will have to account for their actions on emerging from the talks. It is right and proper that where the Council’s judgements can have direct and serious consequences for livelihoods that ministers are open to this kind of democratic pressure.

To those in the environmental NGOs who exaggerate the influence of the fishing lobby and suggest that without it ministers would take tougher decisions there is an answer. It is this: ICES provides its advice on an exclusively biological basis, generally on a single stock basis. The Commission has long abandoned its role as a filter, balancing socio-economic and biological advice and works actively to limit the Council’s scope for action. The Commission’s Scientific, Technical, Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) is constrained by its (changing) terms of reference and has yet to match its biological expertise with economic and management input. In these circumstances, it is only the Council of Ministers that balances conservation with livelihoods, often in terms of the timeframe for management measures and taking multi-species dimensions into the picture. This is an entirely legitimate and democratic function.

The negotiations again stalled on the issue of Norwegian access to fish part of its mackerel quota in EU waters. The EU delegation has returned to Brussels with no date set for resumption of the talks.

No arrangements have been agreed for some kind of interim rollover arrangements that would allow EU and Norwegian fleets to fish in each others’ waters whilst a full deal is established.

The Norwegians had asked for access to fish 125,000 tonnes of its mackerel quota in EU waters (down from 153,000 tonnes) but the EU signalled that it was unwilling to move beyond 80,000 tonnes. We understand that all the other elements in the agreement had been tentatively agreed but the whole deal foundered on this one issue.

The failure to secure a reciprocal agreement will progressively impact on different fleets at different times for as long as the stalemate continues. Vessels that customarily fish in the Norwegian sector, either north or south of 62 degrees in January will be first hit.

In the final analysis both Norway and the EU need a fisheries agreement and it is difficult, from an exclusively fisheries perspective, to see what can be gained from this break. A settlement will (presumably) be reached in the New Year but in the meantime the dislocation will be serious for both fishing fleets. The negotiations appear to have degenerated into a game of poker, with neither side wanting to be seen to blink first. This break will only raise the stakes.

Without an agreement between EU and Norway on mackerel access it is unlikely that much progress will be made in bringing Iceland and Faeroes into a binding international agreement and as long as individual countries set their autonomous quotas at irresponsible levels there is a real threat that the stocks, which have to date been fished sustainably, could be put in jeopardy.

Variations in the Western mackerel migration patterns have posed challenges to management arrangements in the past, but the current mix of biological, economic and political factors has created a difficult knot to untangle.

The EU/ Norway breakdown will also complicate the December Council of Ministers, as the EU will now have to make a judgement about setting TACs for North Sea joint stocks which may not coincide with the final EU/ Norway deal. Transfers in particular will be a tricky area.

The South West is subject to proposals that would cover 1417 square kilometres of coastal waters.

The designations are intended to protect reef and sea cave features, yet local industry is adamant that the proposed areas cover much more than the features themselves to include areas that have either been classified incorrectly or extend far beyond the intended protected features. The Committee highlighted that such a situation reflected a lack of any engagement in the surveying of the areas either with industry or the local Sea Fisheries Committees.

The demarcation of boundaries beyond the protected features, in part, reflects the view of Natural England that the protected features require significant buffer zones in order to guard against the intrusion of fishing gears. The Committee pointed out that the industry was able to fish with great precision and in any case skippers risked damaging gear or risking safety if they fished many of the reef features intended for protection. There were certainly significant areas between features that could easily be fished without affecting their integrity. In response, Natural England indicated that it would be receptive to evidence based proposals that justified changes to the boundaries.

Boundaries have also been defined as straight lines around sites, ostensibly to aid enforcement. The Committee stated that the industry was perfectly able to deal with curves, which were after all an integral and manageable part of the enforcement regime that was based upon 6Nm and 12Nm sea limits, for instance.

The Committee also discussed the possibility that “VMS type” devices designed for inshore vessels could be used as a means to verify and allow access to areas whilst avoiding the protected features. Natural England agreed that it would work closely with industry in drawing up management plans and was initially considering a pilot for the South West as a template to subsequently apply to other areas.

Rob Penfold, Committee Chairman and Brixham fisherman said: “So far Natural England has yet again gone about this all the wrong way. If it had worked with the industry in the first place we could have come up with sensible proposals with boundaries that met the requirements of the Habitats Directive without taking over such huge areas. Now we are faced with proposals that only get the back up of the industry further, together with a limited timeframe in which to provide an evidence base in order to counter any inaccuracies.”

Dale Rodmell, Assistant Chief Executive of the NFFO and Secretary of the Committee added: “No consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of all of these areas that are likely to upset the balance of fisheries in the region through displacement that creates a Pandora’s box of problems and could well undermine the conservationist’s intentions. We can at least partly thank the Devon Wildlife Trust for that outcome in its short sighted legal challenge that ruled socio-economic factors null and void in the designation of SACs. Nonetheless, in a situation where there is a general scarcity of data on the marine environment but relatively higher concentrations in inshore waters, we are concerned this is leading to a concentration of proposals in the coastal waters, precisely where they are likely to cause most impact to fishing communities.”

Local industry is working with the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee to put together Olex seabed mapping data and undertake seabed camera sampling in order to ground truth the features and habitats in the proposals. Due to the limited available time, however, it will not be possible to provide a comprehensive validation of the whole set of proposals.

A formal 3 month consultation started on 27th November and the final proposals are expected to go forward to the European Commission by August 2010.

Talks are under way to establish a high-level body to engage with Government on the introduction of marine protected areas in UK waters.

The new body, provisionally named the MPA Fishing Coalition, already has the backing of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and is expected to draw wide support from organisations and associations across the fishing industry. It is anticipated that the new body will be formally launched early next year.

A spokesman for the Coalition said: “We recognise that marine protected areas are a political reality, whether as European special areas of conservation or domestic marine conservation zones. If badly implemented, the designation of these areas and the management measures applied within them has the potential to adversely affect the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen, either directly or indirectly.”

“The purpose of the new body is to engage with Government at the highest level, on a united industry basis, to ensure that MPAs are introduced in the least disruptive way. We already have Lyme Bay as an example of a brutal, coercive, approach by Government dictat. But we also have the example of Stanton Bank where the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation negotiated with the nature conservancy agencies to deliver protection for the vulnerable sea bed feature, whilst ensuring that fishing could continue in the vicinity. The Coalition’s purpose, first and foremost, will be to provide a strong negotiating platform to ensure that the introduction of future MPAs will follow the Stanton Bank model rather than the Lyme Bay approach.

“Our concern is MPA’s potential for displacement of fishermen from their customary fishing grounds. Loss of access has potentially disastrous consequences for individual fishing businesses and the displacement effect could mean that the repercussions could be felt well outside the designated area.”

“We must talk with Government, at a strategic level, about the transparency of the process of establishing MPAs; on the quality of the information used to designate new sites, especially in the impact assessments; on mitigating direct and indirect effects; on the timeframe for their introduction; and on the legitimacy of the consultation process. It is not our intention to cut across or undermine any regional projects aimed at establishing marine conservation zones but we recognise that there will be hard cases where it will not be able to identify new areas by consensus. The Coalition will be there to provide mutual support to fishermen in these circumstances.”

“This will not be about megaphone diplomacy but will be about ensuring that MPAs are introduced in a fair, considered and proportionate way.

“Our hope and aspiration is that every fishermen’s association, big or small, rich or poor, mobile gear or static gear, will become affiliated to the Coalition.

“The Coalition has already met with senior Defra officials to outline the Group’s aims and ambitions and has been broadly welcomed as potentially providing a coherent, strong industry voice on the MPA issue”

“The activities of the Coalition will be funded through a fighting fund that will be established at the time of the launch. Contributions will be on a voluntary basis but we expect to build up a reasonable reserve quite quickly because this is recognised by the industry as a critically important initiative.”

The initial contact address for the MPA Fishing Coalition will be:

MPA Fishing Coalition

30 Monkgate

York

YO31 7PF

Although the debate is formally to “take note” of the Fisheries Minister’s views prior to the December Council, the annual Fisheries debate is used as a platform to raise any MPs fisheries issues, whether local, national or international.The All Party Parliamentary Fisheries Group, chaired by Austin Mitchell MP, provides a convenient way of both briefing MPs and addressing any questions and points that they may have. The meetings are usually joined by Members of the House of Lords and MPs researchers.

The two federations were able to cover a lot of ground during the course of the meeting. Amongst the issues raised and discussed were:

• The impact of the cod recovery plan
• Nephrops TACs
• CFP Reform including decentralisation
• Regionalisation of the CFP
• How to move away from prescriptive management rules towards delegated management
• Cod recovery and effort control
• Means of reducing discards in the whiting fishery
• Celtic Sea cod
• The economic importance of the nephrops fisheries
• An even playing field within Europe
• Regional advisory councils
• Technical conservation rules
• EU Norway negotiations
• The diverse fisheries of the South West
• Marine Conservation Zones
• Mixed fishery issues

This verbal briefing will be followed by briefing notes detailing the federations’ priorities for the December Council and for CFP reform.

BCD Nov 09

The meeting was preceded by a port visit to Maryport.

The Federation has been working to raise the profile of the Irish Sea which has suffered from a lack of attention from authorities in the past, an over bearing and blunt Cod Recovery Plan, contentious proposals on the nephrops fishery to cut the TAC and poor market prices which are painting a bleak picture for the region.

The Committee received an update on Defra’s ongoing Sustainable access to inshore fisheries project where its advisory group comprising industry, retail, SFC and NGO interests is preparing a proposition paper for wider discussion on future management options for the sector.

Proposals for Natura 2000 marine protected areas intended for the protection Common Scoter and Red Throated Diver in Liverpool Bay and reef and shallow sand bank features at Shell Flats and Lune Deep off Fleetwood were discussed. Particularly for the birds site, it was questioned why such a large area required designation given the relative low numbers of recorded birds over quite substantial parts of the proposed area.

Concerns over further wind farm developments in the region were also discussed, including proposals for a wind farm in Wigtown Bay which would be located on important nephrops grounds where there had yet to be any consultation with English interests.

Ron Graham, Chairman of the Committee said: “The Committee welcomed the opportunity to impress upon Defra the serious issues we face in the region. The proposed 30% cut on the nephrops TAC, the mainstay for the region, would in itself put needless pressure upon an already seriously strained fleet and is wholly unwarranted.”

“We hope that the SAIF project will come forward with some sensible proposals for managing the inshore fleet. One improvement that is certainly needed is to bring quota management closer to the regions to better match quota provision with the available opportunities and seasonal cycles.”

Photograph: From left to right Sam Surgenor, Dick Langley (Committee Vice Chairman), Ron Graham (Committee Chairman), Bella Murfin and John McAvoy

The NFFO lobbied vigorously against adoption of the flawed proposal which was being forced through by the Commission to beat co-decision making with the European Parliament. Co-decision to reduce the democratic deficit in Brussels is an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty.

Not only had some 35 areas of concern been identified in the text, but experience tells us that in highly detailed, prescriptive rules like these, close and detailed scrutiny by officials and the industry is required to avoid errors and unintended consequences; that scrutiny had been denied us by the truncated timeframe allowed for adoption. In addition, a number of regional advisory councils had written in protest that they had been marginalised in what should have been a core area of work for the RACs.

Although the existing technical conservation rules (EC 750/98) are not without their own shortcomings, we judge that it is preferable to struggle on with these whilst a reasonable set of proposals are worked out over sensible amount of time.

As important as avoiding the immediate consequences of a badly drafted regulation, the Council’s decision sends a very strong signal about the kind of decentralisation and regionalisation that it wants to see as part of the reform of the CFP. Transferring additional decision-making powers from the Council to the Commission is not many people’s idea of the kind of decentralisation required to bring fisheries management closer to the regions and the fisheries. This was a core part of the Commission’s proposals and a key reason why they were rejected.

Had the Proposal been adopted unchanged it would have put some classes of vessels out of business, reduced the scope for vessels to carry the gear necessary to be selective in different fisheries, and led to “hyper-discarding” in some fisheries. This is the result of a “simplification and harmonisation” approach that amplifies the blanket one-size-fits-all approach, when it is universally recognised that a regionally focused, tailored approach is required.

As preparation for the Council a Federation delegation met in London, initially with Defra officials on the detail of the proposal and subsequently with Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca-Davies to discuss the UK approach for the Council.

The Commission’s handling of this whole issue has been a puzzle. After a long gestation and comprehensive consultation with the RACs on one basis, there followed a long period of inactivity and even signs that technical rules would drift into co-decision by default. This was followed by a complete reversal in which the Commission put its foot on the accelerator and radically changed direction, dropping much of the regional character of the suggested approach. In doing so it abandoned any pretence that it was following the precepts of good governance and we know that good governance delivers good regulation.

Member states were clearly persuaded that this was not the way to approach technical conservation rules, not least by a protest signed by all of the regional advisory councils.

Once it was clear that the Council would have no truck with the Commission’s proposal, a decision was required on the rules that had previously been incorporated into the annual TACS and quotas regulation. In recent years this had become a favourite Commission shortcut to get legislation adopted, without the tiresome process of proper scrutiny and impact assessments. A brief proposal basically putting these provisions into a new legal instrument was tabled. During the course of the Council a more sophisticated proposal was produced incorporating member state requests on specific fisheries. This included more sensible catch composition rules for the West of Scotland and important derogations for the deep water net fishery. The Commission refused to give this proposal its support which meant that unanimity was required in Council. This was not achievable and the effect was that the Commission’s text to translate the “annex 3” TACs and quotas rule into law, was adopted.

Unless this can be rectified by the end of the year the west of Scotland will remain under unworkable emergency rules and the deep water net fishery will face serious problems next year.

The reason that the Commission has belatedly decided to force a new technical conservation onto the statute books is to beat the arrival of the Lisbon Treaty, when all fisheries legislation, apart from the year end TACs and effort levels, will be subject to co-decision making with the European Parliament.

The new proposal is substantially different in structure and detail from the approach previously outlined and discussed with the regional advisory councils. And the truncated time frame before adoption by the Council of Ministers on 20th November means that unless a blocking minority of member states can be found, the Regulation, and with it the dozens of errors, confusions it contains, will become law on 1st January.

At present the NFFO has identified 35 necessary changes –some to prevent the economic collapse of particular fleet, some for safety on deck reasons and yet others to avoid unnecessary discards.

The core of the proposal, from the Commission’s point of view, is the provisions that would transfer decision making powers from the Council of Ministers to the Commission (in conjunction with a committee of member state officials). It argues that this arrangement is necessary to avoid the long delays -up to 2 years – associated with co-decision making.

Whilst it is certainly true that the Council machinery for regulating European fisheries is cumbersome, and co-decision making will undoubtedly make this a longer drawn out process, the transfer of decision-making authority to the unaccountable Commission and a wholly opaque management committee process holds no attractions for us.

The immediate issue is the poorly drafted, incoherent and overly prescriptive rules that will apply directly to fishing vessels if the new Regulation is adopted. Our concerns cover many aspects of the catch composition rules, inadequate definitions of fishing gear, new measures introduced without discussion or consultation, inappropriate minimum landing sizes, unenforceable emersion times, adverse consequences of a one mesh rule for vessels and selectivity, strengthening bags, length of cod end, net geometry rules with adverse safety implications, position of square mesh panels, and many others.

On the one net (one mesh) rule the Commission has come at the issue from an unnecessarily narrow control perspective rather from a broader and more sensible stock conservation direction. The essential point is that it is necessary to allow fishing vessels to carry the gear that permits them to be selective in different fisheries. Restricting vessels to nets of only one mesh size ensures that the most profitable mesh size will be selected and this will often mean that additional catch will have to be discarded.The NFFO’s letter to the UK Minister Huw Irranca-Davies on this subject is reproduced below:

“ Dear Minister

Technical Conservation Regulation

All the signs are that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency are determined to push through a new Technical Conservation Regulation at the November Council of Ministers meeting.

The speed at which negotiations are now proceeding, after a long period in which they were all but stalled, the dramatically new texts that have emerged from the Commission, and the ludicrously short timescale before decision, have effectively precluded the fishing industry from consultation in any but the most cosmetic sense. The regional advisory councils have written to the Commission in protest.

Technical conservation, especially in the broad brush form it is taking in this proposal, requires detailed scrutiny and careful consideration if it is not to result in one big mess. We know this from our experience with the existing Technical Conservation Regulation EC 870/98.

Driving through the Regulation in this way is reckless and irresponsible and amounts to an abandonment of the duty of care. It in no way can be justified by an attempt to beat the Lisbon process and co-decision making. Make no mistake, we would prefer to take our chances with co-decision making, rather than face the consequence of this botched job. In any event, we share the views of those who have no enthusiasm for an alternative to Council/European Parliament micro-management that devolves decision-making powers to the Commission under comitology arrangements.

In arriving at the November Council you are likely to be faced with a request for the UK’s three priorities for changing the text. It is likely that the UK’s industry list will run closer to 30, on the basis of the texts we have seen; and those are only the problems that we have identified; in this kind of regulation there are always problems that emerge from detailed scrutiny (if we are lucky) or during implementation (when we are not).

Against this background and the legal and economic consequences for the industry if the Regulation is agreed, it will not be acceptable to go along with the Commission’s approach on the basis that the outcome would have been worse without UK input. Specifically, it will not be acceptable for the UK Minister to put his name up to a Regulation that has been rushed into law, that is incoherent, littered with mistakes and confusion and will have serious economic and legal consequences for the industry.

The Commission has forced member states into this difficult position. The UK should therefore take the lead in a blocking minority (or possibly majority) of member states on the basis that this rushed approach will deliver precisely the opposite of what is required.”

“This conference, involving six regional advisory councils, provided a clear steer on how, in the view of the major stakeholders, the CFP should now evolve.”

“The need for a significant regionalisation of the CFP was pretty much taken as a given and most of the discussion focused on how to make this, and a high degree of industry self-regulation, a practical reality.

“Getting people in the room with experience of delegated regulation –like Australia – was extremely helpful in understanding how such an approach could work within the CFP.”

“We should not fool ourselves that moving from an over-centralised top down system, to one with a high degree of delegated authority will be easy or straightforward. But the fact is that the current CFP is discredited. Continuing on the track we are on reduces the prospect for sustainable and profitable fisheries in the European Union. The question now is not status quo or change – it is what kind of change and how can we implement it successfully. In this regard the conference was very valuable”

“The conference produced a massive number of useful suggestions on how to proceed. Legal, economic, governance, fisheries management, NGOs and fishing industry perspectives all had something to contribute. The different RACs will now prepare their advice on the reform of the CFP Green Paper, armed with this knowledge and that advice will be stronger as a result.”

“The concrete examples from outside the European Union for me point the way. In Australia we were told of a facility through which fishing industry bodies can progressively take on blocks of management responsibility, thereby reducing the role of central control. This is done in a rational, systematic, way which provides safeguards for fisheries managers but also for fishermen. Essentially, groups of fishermen can contract with government to manage their fisheries in conformity with certain agreed standards and preconditions and then are left to get on with it, subject to periodic audits. Giving fishermen in the European Union the option to move in this direction is, I think, the way to simplify the CFP, to develop genuine stewardship for the resource, break with the one-size-fits-all micro-management system.”

“It is ideas like this and approaches like this that should be at the heart of the Commission’s proposal on CFP reform at the end of next year. Much will depend on an internal battle within the Commission between the reactionaries who think that political will and an intensification of the present technocratic approach will deliver the goods, and reformers who recognise that the top-down, command control approach is behind many of the CFP’s failures, its complexity and its rigidity.

Although the Federation marshalled wide support from fishermen across all member states, the Commission signalled at the outset of the Council that this was one of its “red line” issues and forced the regulation through. Every regional advisory council has warned the Commission that consistent compliance with a 10% margin of tolerance is unachievable because of the difficulty of estimating small amounts of by-catch species to that level of accuracy.

With the imminent arrival of electronic logbooks, it is a now matter of mathematical certainty that enforcement authorities across Europe will repeatedly detect multiple technical infringements of the margin of tolerance. The fate of thousands of fishermen will depend on the authorities’ discretion to prosecute or not.

The NFFO and other fishing federations have offered the opportunity to place independent experts aboard their vessels to demonstrate that estimating catch on board consistently to that level of accuracy is not achievable because of a range of practical considerations.

A recent case in Grimsby demonstrated the issue very well: a skipper was prosecuted for a discrepancy between his logbook estimate and his landing declaration on plaice, which as a recovery stock had a margin of tolerance of 8%, despite the fact that his producer organisation had plenty of plaice quota at the time and had no quota restrictions on that species.

No issue better demonstrates the gulf in understanding between the Eurocrats in their offices and the realities on board a fishing vessel.