North Sea RAC Condemns Rush to beat Lisbon

The North Sea RAC along with other regional advisory councils were established as part of the 2002 CFP reforms to provide the Commission with considered and balanced stakeholder advice.

Against this background, it is a matter of the utmost concern that the rush to agree a new Control Regulation and a new Technical Conservation Regulation (to beat the introduction of co-decision making) has in effect bypassed the RACs.

The extensive and detailed advice that we have submitted on these proposals has been completely ignored in the artificial and truncated time frame imposed.

It is almost inevitable that this rush to beat the democratic reforms associated with the Lisbon Treaty will result in two major pieces of CFP legislation of critical importance to the fishing industry, being littered with errors, anomalies and contradictions.

We deplore this absolute failure of good governance and warn the Commission and Council that if these legislative proposals are accepted, it will be the fishing industry, member states and enforcement authorities who will inherit the consequences of what amounts to an abrogation of the Commission’s duty of care.

The Commission’s own Green Paper on CFP reform signals the correct way forward on detailed fisheries management and control rules. It suggests that these responsibilities should be devolved to regional and fishery levels, where the problems associated with a blunt, top-down, approach can be avoided.

The two proposals confronting us move in exactly the wrong direction.

The Federation, along with the SFF and Seafish, made its case to the All Party Parliamentary Fisheries Group on 14th October, where amendments were also proposed on marine licensing and other areas of the Bill.

Dale Rodmell, Assistant Chief Executive, warned “MPs should not be persuaded by this sleight of hand by the greens, which in practice would rule out social and economic factors from consideration in MCZ designations altogether. This would amount to another flawed Natura approach, allowing conservationists in every case to rule that one site was better than another, even when uncertainty in the science or lack of data could not possibly justify such discretion”.

Under the Habitats Directive, which provides the main legislative framework for Natura 2000 designations, the intent of the Directive to consider social and economic factors was later ruled out as a consequence of poor drafting, followed by legal action taken by WWF and the Wildlife Trusts. After failing to remove social and economic considerations from the Marine and Coastal Access Bill altogether, the green lobby is now moving to cripple the legislation in the same way as Natura, by limiting the consideration of such factors to only cases where two sites have equal ecological value. Such an approach has already been tabled for the Scottish Marine Bill.

The Federation is calling for consideration of socio-economic factors to be strengthened in the legislation. As the Bill current stands, there is no obligation on government to consider such factors. The embryonic science underpinning Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), especially when coupled with the lack of data on our marine environment, does not stand up to scrutiny as a basis for a natural science only approach when set alongside the need to safeguard coastal community livelihoods. Many designations will rest not upon any substantive evidence-based science, but upon the application of a set of principles that define what an ecologically coherent network should look like, and consequently are open to wide interpretation.

Dale Rodmell said “There is something deeply inhumane about the green lobby’s approach. You don’t simply rule out people’s livelihoods without consideration for the sake of a great deal of uncertain science. Decision making has to be based on all of the evidence all of the time, and that includes natural science as well as social and economic evidence. What is ironic is that, as with Natura, the greens would shoot the conservation cause in the foot with such a proposal, as it would rule the issue of fisheries displacement out of consideration. This is a key issue that could undermine much of the green intent if it is not properly accounted for”.

The Marine Bill will enter its final Parliamentary stages in the House of Commons on 26th October.

Concerns were raised on:

• Omega Mesh Gauge: The appalling implementation arrangements and communication failures associated with the introduction of the new omega mesh gauge were raised. Nets that were deemed by the authorities to be legal one day are judged to be illegal the next, irrespective of the cost implications. Nets worth hundreds of thousands of nets in net stores and aboard vessels could potentially be condemned. The MFA described the “risk based and proportionate” approach that enforcement agencies across Europe had agreed to apply. The Federation described the steps been taken at the political level to secure a more reasonable approach.
• Net Tagging: The meeting discussed the possibility of extending the net tagging scheme that has been trialled in North Shields. Nets that are measured on shore by the MFT are tagged with a robust plastic tag and receive a certificate confirming that the net was measures and found to be in conformity with the regulations on mesh size, twine thicknesses etc. This arrangement should substantially reduce the time required to undertake boardings.
• Boardings Policy: Incidents where boarding officers had departed from the Code of Practice were raised. It was agreed to reinstate the port meetings that had in the recent past successfully improved the level of mutual understanding and respect between skippers and the Royal Navy, but had been discontinued, mainly because of time pressure. Port visits by the Fisheries Protection Squadron to Barrow, Hartlepool, Shoreham and Belfast were planned.
• Margin of Tolerance: The implications of the new Control Regulation with an unachievable margin of tolerance between logbook estimate and landing declaration was raised. Again the NFFO offered to put independent experts aboard its vessels to demonstrate if they can achieve more accurate levels of catch estimates than our crews.
• Marine Management Organisation: The industry’s concerns over the transition from the MFA to the MMO were discussed, with particular anxiety being expressed over the areas of quota management and vessel licensing.
• Satellite Monitoring: The Federation reiterated its concerns over the relative ease which commercial organisations could obtain access to VMS data, albeit in an aggregated form. The assurances given at the outset of VMS about protecting commercial confidentialities seemed to have been sidestepped. Additionally, the iniquitous situation where the Government have granted a monopoly to one supplier, who can impose maintenance contracts on punitive terms, was condemned.

It was agreed that the meeting had been a very useful platform for discussing the industry’s areas of concern. On some areas there had been agreement on joint projects, on others a better understanding of our respective positions had been achieved. It was agreed to hold three such meetings each year.

Dr Elinor Ostrom, of Indiana University, received the 2009 award for her ground breaking book Governing the Commons. Itmakes the case for fisheries governance in which fishing vessel operators could be placed at the heart of management rather than only being subject to it.

Conventional solutions to the problem of resource exploitation where the resource is pooled, have typically involved centralized government or privatisation of the resource. Dr Ostrom argues cogently for a system of management based on a high degree of self-regulation based on commonly agreed rules.

The failure of centralised systems like the CFP according to Dr Ostrom, is that they do not have:

• Access to local knowledge
• Rapid feedback on the effect of policy changes
• The ability to adapt quickly in light of experience

The book is not exclusively about fisheries. Based on extensive research over many years, it addresses the problem of collectively managing shared resources. It is regarded by her peers as “one of the more far sighted and genuinely significant works to emerge in recent years on environmental resource management”. Its significance is that it is chiefly aimed at policy makers, bureaucrats and resource users rather than scholars, and it may therefore be expected to have a significant impact on the imminent reform of the CFP.

Dr Ostrom considers that international donors and NGOs, under the banner of environmental conservation, may have unwittingly have destroyed the “social capital” that underpins durable collective institutions that are organised and governed by the resource users themselves, by supporting centralised solutions.

The kind of successful self-regulation systems identified by Dr Ostrom have a number of features in common. They:

• Include clearly defined boundaries
• Provide for monitors who are either resource users or accountable to them
• Have graduated sanctions
• Are based on mechanisms dominated by the users themselves to resolve conflicts and to alter the rules

It is a system based on:

• mutual trust
• a capacity for close communication
• an ability to enter into binding agreements
• arrangements for monitoring
• mechanisms to avoid overinvestment and over use.

Dr Ostram concludes that “if this study does nothing more than shatter the conviction of many policy analysts that the only way to solve common pool resource problems is for external authorities to impose full private property rights or centralised regulation, it will have accomplished one major purpose”

Responses to the Commission’s Green paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy have to be in by the end of this year. The NFFO, in a range of different meetings and conferences, has been active in advancing the case for a radical transformation of the CFP that would give the fishing industry options to develop the kind of approach advocated by Dr Ostrom. These include:

• Meetings with Defra officials and ministers
• Meetings of the North Sea and North West Waters regional advisory councils
• Meetings organised by Europeche
• A conference organised by the French Regional Authorities
• A conference organised by the Irish Fishing Industry

The NFFO will also play a central role in the major Inter-RAC conference to be held in Edinburgh on 3rd/4th November 2009 on the future of CFP governance and decision making.

Against this background Dr Ostrom’s book, and Nobel prize could not have arrived at a more opportune time.

Background

The current rules governing technical conservation rules in Community waters (EC 870/98) have been in need of revision for some considerable time, as cod recovery measures, and something like 12 other amendments require incorporation and consolidation into a single legislative instrument. Discussion on the form and content of a new regulation has been proceeding intermittently over five years, with due recognition for the need to move away from the blanket approach that was the hallmark of 850/98.

All this has been overtaken by events by the Commission’s response to the likely ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and its implications for the management of European fisheries.

In a nutshell, what is an immensely complex and detailed area of policy and was proceeding at snail’s pace, is now being rammed through the Council of Ministers to beat the introduction of co-decision making. We can be assured that this rush to agree an overarching technical conservation regulation, which delegates to the Commission extensive powers to bypass co-decision making, will result in badly thought-through, ill fitting, legislation that will be a nightmare for fishermen and badly serve the cause of conservation.

Primary Concerns

1. Of most immediate concern is that the rush to force this legislation through precludes the kind of detailed deliberation, consultation and discussion that is a prerequisite for sensible measures in this area. Experience tells us that it is only through close scrutiny that the anomalies, aberrations, mistakes and unintended consequences will be ironed out. If the new technical conservation regulation is adopted at the October, or November or indeed the December Council, it will have been done without the very minimum dialogue with stakeholders consistent with good governance.
2. There is a strong case for delegating responsibility for technical conservation rules to as close to the fishery concerned as possible. However, we have great concerns about the loss of accountability and how the Commission will make use of delegated powers. Specifically, we do not consider that the system of member state involvement through management committee provides an adequate system of checks and balances.
3. It is significant that in rushing this latest, radically different version, of the control regulation through, that the regional advisory councils set up in the 2002 reforms to advise on exactly this kind of issue, have been effectively bypassed.
4. There is no prospect of a regulatory impact statement associated with this major legislative change because of the rush to get it on the statute books

Impact

There has been little time to study the draft regulation but it is possible to use three issues that highlight the kind of major problems that the present text holds in store for the fishing industry.

1. A requirement that vessels which catch more than 10% cod, monkfish and saithe combined must use a 120mm mesh size. This, if implemented, will mean the collapse of the beam trawl fishery and a number of other trawl fisheries in area VII.
2. A fundamental contradiction between a ban on high grading and the catch composition rules has not been resolved by the texts and means that the former is totally unenforcible because any vessel operator has the legal defence that he was not high grading but meeting the catch composition rules.
3. The minimum landing size proposed for nephrops in area VII will have a direct and immediate effect on vessels’ and processors’ income and economic viability

Political Intervention

We do not know whether member states will allow this travesty of a proposal to proceed. It is clear that the Commission is determined to force it through the Council of Ministers if it can.

What no one should have any illusions about is that:

1. This is a thoroughly flawed piece of legislation from the outset.
2. It has been radically amended from earlier drafts to circumvent co-decision making
3. The fishing industry will pay the consequences of this rushed approach
4. Without the kind of detailed scrutiny and consultation that is a precondition for good governance, this legislation will fail both fishermen and fish stocks

NFFO 9th October 2009

The meeting, which involved fishermen, the European Commission, fisheries scientists, the member states and other stakeholders, and was launched by Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister Michelle Gillgernew, aimed to break the cycle of failed measures, poor data and weak assessments.

It was agreed from the outset that insufficient attention had been devoted to an approach tailored to the specific conditions in the Irish Sea and that poor data and weak assessments could only mean further punitive controls. The fishing industry was eager to stress the measures that had been taken to date. These included:

• Improved selectivity of gear
• The seasonal closure during the spawning period
• The decommissioning schemes that had led to a dramatic reduction in the targeted whitefish fishery
• Strengthened control measures
• Diversion of fishing effort onto other fisheries

There was agreement that there was no quick fix for the problems in the Irish Sea but that it was vital to identify the reasons why Irish Sea cod was not showing the signs of recovery seen in the North Sea. There were also paradoxes to face, such as the relatively abundant haddock and plaice stocks which contrasted dramatically with the cod and sole fisheries.

Above all it was agreed that that this meeting should not simply describe the various aspects of the problem but should develop a plan of action to address them. Given the divergent views on the state of the stocks and the weaknesses in the present assessments it was agreed that the first priority should be to take steps to build a consensus on the status of the Irish Sea stocks. Catch data prior to the introduction of buyers and sellers registration was either absent or had been corrupted and the first priority would be to ensure that catches (including discards) are accurately recorded. Other suggested ways in which the information base for future Irish Sea fisheries management could be strengthened included:

• A “reference fleet” of commercial fishing vessel with observers on board to track the main features in the commercial fishery and to counter any biases in the formal scientific surveys
• Proper incentives to ensure participation in vessel self-sampling schemes
• A more sophisticated understanding of natural mortality, including the role of seal populations in impeding a recovery of the cod stocks
• Strengthened communications between the three key parties: the fishermen, the scientists and the fisheries managers
• A better understanding of economic pressures and their role in supporting of undermining management measures.

“No one at the meeting came away thinking that a simple solution to the problems facing the Irish Sea was just around the corner”, said David Hill, NFFO Chairman.

“But a lot of time has been wasted and there was a sense in which this meeting was the start of a new approach. The priority now is to set out a work programme that will take us to where we need to go”.

“I think and hope that we will look back on this meeting as an important turning point”.

The new regulation is expected to be agreed at the next Council of Ministers on 20th October. The UK Fisheries Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, came under intense pressure at the NFFO AGM on 17th September to take the lead in persuading member states to heading off a margin of tolerance that will criminalise thousands of fishermen across Europe.

The Problem

Our understanding is that the new Control Regulation is likely to be agreed by the Council of Ministers on 20th October.

One important unresolved issue still under discussion is the permitted margin of tolerance between logbookestimate and definitive landing declaration. The present Presidency Compromise (the 3rd) proposes that the MOT should be 8% for recovery stocks and 10% for other stocks. The UK, and perhaps some other member states, are arguing for a harmonised 10% MOT. Although there are some variations, the present rules generally apply an 8% MOT for recovery stocks and a 20% MOT for other stocks.

The fishing industries of a number of member states have repeatedly emphasised that it is not possible in the practical conditions at sea, to consistently estimate catch on board to an accuracy of 8% or 10%. This is especially true of by-catch species where the amounts of fish being estimated are relatively small.

The principle finding of the MRAG report, commissioned by Defra in 2006 into the question of margin of tolerance, was to confirm that independent experts cannot estimate catch on board to any greater degree of accuracy than the fishing crews. This difficulty arises from a range of reasons, including:

• Loss of weight during the duration of a fishing trip. Seafish have estimated, for example, that a monkfish can lose up to 15% of its weight over the course of a fishing trip. The actual level of loss is dependent on a range of factors including weather conditions and fish-room characteristics
• Ice melt: Ice melts over the course of a trip in a variable way, dependent on ambient temperatures
• Restricted fish-room space and adverse conditions at sea
• Periods of intense fishing, putting fish hold crew under pressure
• Inherent difficulty of estimating by-catch in mixed fisheries

This issue has been discussed repeatedly in all the regional advisory councils and formal advice presented to the Commission that very explicitly spells out the problem: the first principle of good regulation must be that the rule is capable of being complied with and the reality is that if a MOT of 8% or 10% is adopted there will be constant and repeated failures of vessels to comply. Irrespective of the vessel operator’s will, intention and efforts, persistent non-compliance will be inevitable.

In other words, if the Council endorses an 8%, or 10% margin of tolerance, it will be condemning large numbers of fishermen to continuous exposure to criminal prosecution for non-compliance.

It is important to appreciate that the 8% margin of tolerance was introduced prior to buyers’ and sellers’ registration, designated ports and a range of other measures that have effectively constrained over-quota landings. Whilst it has to be frankly conceded that in the past the 20% MOT was abused to mask over-quota landings because of the additional controls on fish landings, this no longer presents a significant risk.

What Can be Done?

It is critically important that the Council does not drift into adopting a margin of tolerance that will in effect criminalise large numbers of fishermen on an ongoing basis. The Commission, scarred by the highly critical Court of Auditors report has evaded its responsibility to take a balanced and measured approach to this admittedly difficult issue. The onus therefore falls on the Council of Ministers to secure a more reasonable outcome.

Against this background we:

• Urge the UK to take the lead on this issue directly with the Commission and Presidency and in alliance with other member states
• Suggest that the margin of tolerance should not be agreed as part of a package in the October Council but should be dealt with through a Council Declaration that:
• Recognises the complexity of the MOT issue
• Directs the Commission, member states and regional advisory councils to work to a finite timetable to collate evidence that would inform the adoption of realistic and achievable margins of tolerance on a fishery by fishery and regional basis

For some fisheries an 8% MOT may be achievable, in many others it most certainly is not. The approach described above would allow us to identify MOTs that are appropriate for and tailored to the characteristics of specific fisheries. In the meantime, the 8% MOT should remain in place for recovery stocks and the 20% MOT should be retained for other stocks. We think that the MFA will be able to confirm that retention of the 20% MOT will not present a significant risk.

In the meantime the NFFO will use its contacts through the RACs, Europeche, ACFA, and other fishing federations throughout Europe to galvanize support for this approach.

This issue has the capacity to undermine the collaborative approach between fishermen and fisheries managers that we hope will be at the heart of the reformed CFP. We hope that UK ministers will play a central and leading role in securing the outcome described above.

between UK fisheries minister Richard Benyon MP and leaders of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to discuss important fisheries policy issues.

The meeting, which was arranged by Alan McCulla, chief executive of the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, was attended by Davy Hill, chairman of the NFFO, SFF president Ian Gatt, along with NFFO and SFF chief executives Barrie Deas and Bertie Armstrong.

After the talks, Ian Gatt said: “We had a most constructive meeting where all the main points of policy concern for the short and longer terms, as well as for the up and coming reform of the CFP were discussed.”

Davy Hill, NFFO chairman, said: “Both Federations are keen to work with all politicians in the run-up to the General Election to ensure that the UK fishing industry has the support and assistance that it needs and deserves at every political level.”

This has started with a new marine licensing process for marine works and developments.

The existing licensing regime has often failed to address fisheries sensitivities. Ad-hoc decisions on location have neglected the location of fisheries to the detriment of both the fishing industry and developers alike, and lack of an effective early engagement have left many in the fishing industry feeling like consultation serves only as a tick-box exercise for developers to gain planning consent.

The new licensing regime the Federation would like to see offers the possibility to address these inadequacies in two key areas:

• Marine licensing should become embedded within a broadened and more strategic planning system, flowing down from the marine policy statement and marine plans under the auspices of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), with the opportunity for better engagement and the integration of fisheries sensitivities

• The process could include a fit-for-purpose pre-application phase that enables constructive dialogue to address issues over location and the design of marine developments that maximise the opportunities for coexistence with the fishing industry.

Assistant Chief Executive, Dale Rodmell, warned however that “there remain significant risks to success. Marine Protected Areas and large infrastructure projects will remain outside of the auspices of the marine planning system under the MMO, and the 25 gigawatt Round 3 offshore wind farm planning programme is already racing ahead outside of a government led spatial planning process, which threatens to put both industries at loggerheads with one another at key locations. The MMO will also have to demonstrate its competencies in this untrialled field.”

“Critically, the planning process must be capable of accounting for sensitive fishing areas at an early stage and eliminating them from consideration for development. This will require agreeing thresholds to determine what constitutes degrees of sensitivity so that planning decisions do not just pay lip service to colourful charts of fishing activity.”

Concerns also remain over what marine activities will be captured under the new regime.

“There should be no attempt to try to shoehorn any type of fishing into the ill fitting shoes of a marine licensing regime. We are not short of a fisheries regulatory system and fishing does not fit into the site based nature of marine licensing. It must remain exempt as it is under the existing arrangements” he said.

It is expected that the MMO will formally come into being at its Newcastle location in April 2010, with the new licensing regime being phased in from early 2011.

Natural England and JNCC, the Government’s statutory advisors on Nature Conservancy, were warned at a recent meeting with the Federation that the fishing industry was entirely right in treating the rush to introduce a variety of marine protected areas with deep suspicion and that suspicion would remain until its fears are allayed.

Fishermen are more vulnerable than any other marine group, and marine protected areas had the capacity to disrupt, and even destroy fishing livelihoods.

The York meeting, which was attended by NFFO regional representatives and a large delegation from English Nature and JNCC, provided the opportunity to detail the industry’s concerns, particularly in relation to the recently announced inshore Special Areas of Conservation.

The process of identifying sites was described in detail and Natural England was at pains to emphasise the difference between site designation and the type of management measures that might be deemed necessary to protect the seabed feature concerned. These might range from light monitoring to complete closure.

The meeting provided the opportunity for the Federation to make a number of central points:

• The many different types of marine protected areas (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, marine conservation zones, highly restricted marine areas), along with the many different jurisdictions (EU, UK, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Defra, MFA, Sea Fisheries Committees, IFCAS, Ospar) and the different timetables for introduction, had created a virtually impenetrable jungle of regulation and regulators all tasked with introducing restricted areas of one type or another. Against this background and lack of coherence, it is extremely difficult to hold the clear, straightforward, discussions on ways of protecting marine biodiversity without unnecessary disruption to the fishing industry
• Much reliance was being placed upon impact assessments to calculate the effect that MPAs would have on fishermen’s operations and their earnings. But as the management measures that will be introduced at a later stage and can range from light monitoring to complete closure and displacement, the impact assessments at this stage were likely to be close to meaningless.
• Although the nature conservancy bodies are concerned with establishing MPAs, the fishing industry is also confronted with potentially huge areas of seabed commandeered by the offshore wind-farm industry
• Natural England concedes that it does not have a large body of expertise in the marine field and the mapping of fisheries activity currently being undertaken by a range of bodies for a range of purposes is patchy and incomplete.
• If the introduction of MPAs is to be achieved in the most painless way possible, the Government’s statutory advisors will need to engage with the fishing industry at the local, regional, national and international levels.

• It is reasonable for individual fishermen to think the worst about MPAs – that they will be excluded from their customary grounds – until they are assured that this will not be the case.
• There is enormous scope for unintended consequences. In areas where at present there is a balance between different fishing methods, a closed area will potentially displace fishing effort with consequences for adjacent areas. This could be the most significant legacy of MPAs unless handled very carefully.
• Much reliance is being put by Natural England on Defra’s SAIF project (Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries) to resolve the many issues raised by MPAs in inshore zones. But so far little is known about the project and organised bodies such as the NFFO are being kept at arms length.

The NFFO has been active on a number of fronts in relation to marine protected areas:

• By pressing ministers for assurances that marine conservation zones will be introduced only in close dialogue with the fishing industry and that the demands of some in the environmental lobby for 30% of the seabed be closed reserves be dismissed as extreme and serving no noticeable purpose.
• By lobbying officials, ministers, members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords as the Marine Bill passed through the legislative process to ensure that the fishing dimension was fully taken into account
• Through direct engagement with Natural England at national, regional and local level, including participation in the regional stakeholder groups set up to designate MCZs
• By working with the regional advisory councils

This is a major issue for the NFFO which is devoting a considerable amount of its scarce resources to dealing with it.

The project, supported by Seafish, is the culmination of a concerted focus by the industry that has brought together key fishermen’s representative bodies including the NFFO, SFF, SAGB, WFFA, NIFPO and Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation, towards securing the basis for a profitable future for the sector.

At the same time, Defra has elected to also re-examine measures towards tightening rules on crab and lobster, and a formal consultation is expected later this year.

Gary Hodgson, NFFO Shellfish Committee Chairman said:

“The NFFO have backed the strengthening of measures on both crab and lobster for some time. One of the challenges the industry has faced has been to agree on an approach that suits the nature of the different fleet sectors that work in the fishery. It is essential therefore that all the regional fleets have a say so that an agreed approach can be taken forward. Although it is a difficult time for the industry with poor market prices, the time is right to apply additional measures that will both help support prices through this difficult period, and also safeguard the future of the industry in the longer term.”

Nautilus Consultants are undertaking the project and open to industry meetings will take place at the following locations:

evening
2nd September

From that date onwards, therefore, fisheries officers will use the new gauges instead of the traditional hand held wedge gauge.

The advantage and main selling point of the new gauge is that it provides consistency as it is not dependent on the pressure applied by hand which can vary significantly.

There are a number of concerns within the industry about what results the new gauge will give in practice and whether sufficient training has been given to fisheries officers.

The Federation has raised these issues with the MFA and has elicited the following response:

• The new gauges will be in use from 1st September
• They will provide greater consistency than the manual gauges
• All fisheries offices have now been supplied with the new gauges
• An education period will be allowed to allow all parties time to adjust to the new gauge
• Fishermen are invited to ask their local fishery office for a demonstration of the new gauge in operation to judge how it compares with the manual gauge.
• For convenience, it would be best if these demonstrations are arranged in conjunction with local fishermen’s associations to ensure access to as many fishermen as possible

Aside from the issue of net gauges, the Federation has requested a resumption in the series of meetings between the NFFO and the Royal Navy and the MFA to address a range of issues, including protocol for boardings at sea.

Members will be advised when a date for the first of these meetings has been set.

The NFFO West Coast Committee at its recent meeting held in Barrow-in Furness was given presentations on the recently launched Irish Sea Marine Conservation Zone Project and Seafish’s Responsible Fishing Scheme, with members getting a direct opportunity to question the various representatives about the schemes.

NFFO’s Alan McCulla said, “With well publicised closed areas being imposed on fishermen in other areas, projects like the Irish Sea Marine Conservation Zone are met with scepticism, cynicism and down-right fear amongst fishermen, meetings like this one give our members the chance to explain their concerns directly to the project workers, while they in turn used this meeting as a way to try and build bridges with the industry.

On the other hand, Seafish’s Responsible Fishing Scheme is well established and we were all interested to hear how the project is developing across the UK and beyond.”

The Committee also received updates on the huge variety of European and national issues affecting the UK’s fishing fleet.

The Commission is “desperate” to get the new legislation on the statute books before the Lisbon process brings co-decision making with the European Parliament. With around 109 articles covering everything from e-logbooks to recreational fishing, this piece of legislation has the capacity to affect the operations of every vessel in the fleet.

We know from bitter experience that rules devised and agreed in this kind of hothouse atmosphere often turn out to be seriously flawed. Discussions in Brussels on the latest compromise document will begin on 10th September and conclude on the 18th September. The NFFO has arranged a meeting with Defra officials on 2nd September to discuss the central issues.

Margin of Tolerance

Of particular concern, despite the issue being raised by the industry, every regional advisory council and a number of member states, is the fact that the Commission has resisted all pressures to address the problem of the unachievable margin of tolerance between logbook estimates of catch and the definitive landing declaration. Nothing could speak more eloquently of the distance and contrast between the Commission in DG Mare’s offices in Brussels and the experience in a fish-room aboard a pitching vessel in poor conditions, with a crew and skipper juggling earning a living, meeting catch composition rules, complying with quotas and a hundred technical rules.

The bottom line is that: It is not possible for fishermen, operating in these conditions to consistently make a catch estimate within 8% or 10% margin of tolerance across all the species. This exposes the skipper to the threat of prosecution on a regular and repeated basis. The fact that the Commission has every rejected reasoned request to deal with this issue can only confirm in the eyes of a working fisherman that it is dealing with a remote, unresponsive, uncomprehending system, itself overdue for reform.

Marine Protected Areas

Another area of concern lies with the use of the Control Regulation to apply conditions that will apply to fishing vessels operating in or near marine protected areas. This very premature and clumsy approach ignores the fact that the management regimes for MPAs have yet to be agreed. MPA management regimes could range from measures that require complete closure of an area, through to those that would have a minimal impact on fishing. A requirement in the proposal that vessels’ speed in the hurriedly renamed “fishing restricted areas” must remain above 7 knots, fails the first rule of rules: that the rule must be capable of being complied with. Some fishing vessels are not capable of speeds in excess of 7 knots.

All this confirms that there is a lot to be concerned with in this complex, poorly thought through and hurried regulation.

And the most fundamental question missed in the rush to agree the new Control Regulation is why we are making such efforts to shore up the micromanagement system? After all the Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform makes it very clear, that this approach has failed European fisheries comprehensively.

The annual meeting was for the first time attended by MEPs and members of the fishing press, in preparation for the changes in the pipeline for this autumn, if as expected, Ireland votes to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

There is no doubting the calibre of many of the Commission officials struggling to put together a proposal on the basis of often weak scientific advice and in light of the contrasting pressures from the industry and the environmental lobby; but the overwhelming impression was of a system that often had no answers to many of the issues raised by the industry and was looking toward CFP reform for salvation.

Scientific Advice

The most telling, and chilling, aspect of this year’s scientific advice was the degree to which the label “unknown” was attached to describe the status of various stocks. This does not mean that nothing is known but that ICES considers the data that it does hold is inadequate to arrive at a scientific conclusion. 59% of the stocks fall into this category. This is not good for the industry because in these circumstances the Commission applies a precautionary approach in its proposals, meaning lower TACs than would otherwise have been the case.

Despite this, ICES was clear in dispelling the myth that the CFP is overseeing some kind of ongoing general collapse in European fish stocks and made some important general points:

• Scientists cannot make valid general statements about the state of demersal fish stocks in European waters because there is too much variation from fishery to fishery and region to region
• We are not in the best of worlds in terms of the health of the stocks but neither are we in the worst of worlds: Both encouraging and discouraging trends can be discerned
• Although there are a few problem stocks, and some areas of clear improvement, broadly speaking most stocks are stable

Throughout the scientific presentation it was clear that the ICES benchmark meetings, the recent innovation through which individual stocks are subject to intense scientific scrutiny to determine whether the assessments could be improved, and which were welcomed by the Federation and others, can be a destabilising factor. This year’s advice on nephrops and Celtic Sea cod are two cases in point. Changes in the scientific perception of these stocks (rather than changes to the status of the stocks themselves) have resulted in adverse advice that could have a serious impact of TAC recommendations this year. Clearly scientists must take into account all relevant factors but these abrupt changes in the perception of a stock have consequences for the industry unless they are carefully mediated by fisheries managers.

Issues

Industry representatives from the RACs, Europeche and other European organisations interrogated the science and raised issued about the Commission’s approach as outlined in its Communication on Fishing Opportunities in 2010.

Celtic Sea Cod: The increased uncertainty about the status of the cod stock arising from the benchmark process was highlighted by industry representatives. It was emphasised that this carries implications for well designed management measures that would balance industry viability with stock rebuilding. The primary danger is that the Commission uses this as an opportunity to roll the Celtic Sea into the Cod Recovery plan or similar effort based measures which would be extremely disruptive to the “ultra-mixed” fisheries that operate in this area.

Irish Sea Cod: Cod recovery measures were introduced earlier in the Irish Sea that other sea areas (1999), they have been deeper and had had greater socio-economic impact but in the final analysis have delivered least response. ICES was asked to explain this paradox and whether other factors such as environmental shifts or changes in natural mortality were relevant factors. Other than noting that even after fishing mortality has been reduced, stocks can take a long time to rebound, the scientists had no answers. This along with the uncertainties in the process for establishing a Nephrops TAC for Area VII, makes for a difficult set of negotiations at the December Council.

North Sea Cod: The rigidity of the cod recovery plan (automatic effort reductions and a 20% ceiling on TAC increases in the face of a rapidly rebuilding stock) will, according to ICES, lead to high levels of discarding in 2010, undermining the progress that has been made in reducing the level of fishing mortality. This was emphasised in a number of interventions but the Commission sent out a very strong signal that it would not entertain reopening a recovery plan that had been agreed by fisheries ministers less than 6 months ago. The scene is therefore set for another frustrating autumn, when plainly wrongheaded measures that undermine a more effective approach based of industry led incentivised cod avoidance measures, are forced through in the face of resistance from the RACS, the industry and a substantial body of scientific opinion.

Nephrops: The lack of stability in the scientific perception of the nephrops stocks (see above) contrasts with the stability of most nephrops populations. The issue relates to the use of TV surveys to estimate the number of nephrops burrows and the method for extrapolating from this data to a full population. The industry emphasised that it was managers’ responsibility to even out the abrupt changes in the assessment results before translating them into TAC proposals.

North Sea Whiting: The Federation emphasised that if the Commission’s stated approach and the customary pattern with EU Norway are followed this autumn, the effect of reducing the TAC (by 15%) could be reliably predicted to translate to a 15% increase in discards. Unless changes to this process are made, the intense level of discarding already seen this year on the west side of the North Sea will increase, undermining the recovery of the stock. A number of suggestions for management flexibility were suggested to the Commission, including an ‘of which’ quota and supportive quota transfers from those countries that habitually underutilise their whiting quota.Reform

Although the focus of the meeting was the TACs and quotas for 2010, the Commission in a series of concluding remarks was refreshingly frank about its position. Instead of the defensive stance to any criticism, that has been the hallmark of the Commission’s past positions, there was now recognition that the industry, member states and Commission are actors in a dysfunctional system, seriously in need of reform. The Commission stated:

• “Developing mechanisms sophisticated enough to deal with the issues raised by mixed fisheries is one of the most significant challenges facing the CFP”
• “The present system is hampered by operating at the lowest common denominator of 26 member states”
• “We are not capable of responding from Brussels to meet the needs of different fisheries”
• “A more regionalised approach is necessary to achieve effective management”

Lisbon

The implications of the Lisbon Treaty are much upon the Commission’s mind:

• “We will have to improvise less in the run up to the December Council and will have to reflect a lot more when proposing measures
• “The framework regulations will have to be simple and we will have to rely on comitology* to update measures”
• “We are desperate to get the Technical Conservation Regulation and the Control Regulation accepted by the Council of Ministers in October before co-decision making takes hold.

Conclusion

This was a meeting that sent very mixed messages. The same rigidity and absence on a focus on the outcomes of measures, including TAC reductions, was fully evident.

The Commission constantly appeared to be on the back foot with no real answers for many of the questions posed by the industry representatives. It is clear that the start of the reform process has given officials “permission” to criticise the status quo. The result is frustration in the short term and a promise of change for the future. For vessels struggling to maintain economic viability in the here and now, in the context of low fish prices and high costs, whilst they are obliged to discard marketable fish, this will not be a welcome message.

• “Comitology” is EU jargon for a transfer of decision making responsibility from the Council of Ministers to the Commission and Council working groups. It is the main plank in the Commission’s interim proposals for dealing with the longer timeframe for fisheries legislation implied by co-decision making. It raises however, serious questions about increasing the role of the unelected and largely unaccountable, Commission services.

BCD July 09

The facts of the case are well known. A well established family firm pleaded guilty to landing over-quota fish in 2002. In addition to the usual court process, it was decided, by the soon-to-be-defunct Marine and Fisheries Agency, that in this and a number of other fisheries cases, legislation brought in to recover the ill-gotten gains of drugs barons and money laundering by terrorists – the Proceeds of Crime Act – should also be employed.

At the end of the proceedings the Court levied a fine of £45.

In the meantime the family had been traumatised by police raids on offices and home, and the livelihoods of a whole community stood in jeopardy, waiting for the impact of a confiscation order that initially began at £4 million – the amount that the firm was supposed to have benefited by the “proceeds of crime”. This was eventually reduced to £600K when it was conceded in court that the MFA and the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency had got its sums seriously wrong.

There is little doubt that if the Confiscation Order had been set towards the top end, that the firm wouldn’t have survived and Newlyn would have faced steep decline and a bleak future.

Most reasonable people would agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with using this heavy handed approach for fisheries offences, especially when there is wide agreement from the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit to the European Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform, that in many regards, the CFP has been a dysfunctional system. This too was clearly the view of the case judge who, unlike the MFA and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, employed a sense of proportion.

A lot of time has passed – seven years – as the Court proceedings rolled to their eventual conclusion. In the meantime, misreporting of one kind of fish as another species to circumvent the complex and often perverse quota rules has been pretty well eradicated; the registration of buyers and sellers has extended legal liability beyond fishermen to the supply chain; the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has shown (most clearly in the case of monkfish) that working collaboratively with fisheries scientists and through the political process with the NFFO and regional advisory councils, is a much surer, less risky and in the end a more productive way of dealing with the iniquities of the management system than circumventing the rules.

From time to time the judiciary are pilloried by the less reflective media for being out of touch with reality. In this case and another recently in the Republic of Ireland, it has been the judges that introduced common sense, a sense of proportion and fair play, when a gung-ho attitude has prevailed amongst the enforcement authorities.

Fishing is not terrorism. Fishermen should not be treated in the same way as Mr Big, sheltering from the law on the Costa Brava.

The judiciary have recognised this and this case sends an important message to the Government and to the enforcement authorities: Think again before using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

This will come as no great surprise to fishermen who directly experience the fluctuations in abundance from one year to the next but it is a very welcome and important message from a body that has not always been immune from importing a hysterical tone into its press statements.

The International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Copenhagen based international body that provides scientific advice for client commissions, including the European Union, takes the view that while some fish stocks are improving, others face difficulties – but the vast majority in the middle are broadly stable.

ICES told the meeting:

“Our message is rather moderate. We are not in the best of worlds. But we are not in the worst of worlds either. There are some encouraging signs and there are some discouraging signs. In the middle most stocks are stable.

ICES emphasised that “One cannot make general statements about the state of stocks because regional trends vary so widely”.

This analysis corresponds with the Federation’s own view but the mainstream press routinely present European, indeed world fish stocks, as being in terminal decline. ICES’s sober assessment is not likely to receive much media coverage but is important nonetheless.

The European Commission itself, for its own political motives, not least in the preamble to its recent Green Paper on CFP reform, has from time to time, promoted the view that the major trends in European fisheries are dire and getting worse.

The NFFO has consistently taken the view that European fish stocks could be managed much better to deliver higher yields and more profitable fisheries. But the kind of hysterical doom-mongering that emerges repeatedly in the press is not only a silly distraction, it is highly damaging to the industry’s reputation and consumer confidence in eating fish without triggering some kind of environmental disaster.

This is why ICES’s presentation is so welcome and so overdue.

Over the last ten years or so the term has changed its meaning quite radically. It has moved from a term suggesting a practise that if not halted will lead to the extinction of a species, or at the very least the collapse of a commercial fish stock. It is now being used, most recently in the Commission’s “Communication on Fishing Opportunities for 2010” as any level of fishing that is inconsistent with a stock at maximum sustainable yield – somewhere close to the Nirvana of fisheries management. For those who are confused, a simple guide to the different definitions of “overfishing” is laid out below:

1. “Overfishing” in perhaps its original sense, means irresponsible excess out-take of a stock that will lead inevitably to the extinction of that species, or sub species. This meaning dwells more in the media than with serious fisheries scientists but it is very common in the former and may be said to be the everyday understanding of the term.
2. “Overfishing” in this sense is where the out-take from the stock can lead to a population collapse of the fishery so that it is no longer capable of sustaining a commercial fishery. The collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery in 1995 is the case quoted most frequently. Although there are now signs of recovery in that stock, it has taken many years to rebuild. A similar collapse was seen in the 1970s with North Sea herring. Although this stock recovered quite quickly after a total ban on directed fishing was it took years for the market to recover.
3. “Overfishing” meaning fishing outside precautionary limits (reference points) set by fisheries scientists as part of the precautionary approach. This approach has been in place since the mid 1990s. If the spawning biomass of any stock is outside its precautionary limit or fishing mortality (% of the stock estimated to be removed by fishing each year) is above the prescribed level the stock is said to be overfished in terms of its precautionary limits. In other words, if fishing continues at the current level there is a high probability that in the event of a series of poor recruitment years, the stock and therefore the fishery could face serious problems.
4. “Overfishing” in relation to maximum sustainable yield. As the term suggests, this is the out-take that is consistent with delivering the maximum output of an individual stock over time. As a principle of fisheries management it rose to prominence in the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 but even before this, informed commentators had questioned its validity. Even for those, like the NFFO, who favour movement towards a large stock strategy, it has to be recognised that it is not possible, not least because the species predate on each other, to hold all commercial stocks at MSY all the time. A theoretical construct has been adopted as a practical management tool backed by heavyweight political commitment.

It is this last definition of “overfishing” that allows the European Commission, and a whole array of alarmists in the environmental media, to claim that 86% of EU stocks are seriously “overfished”. A more sober view would take into account the changing definition of overfishing over the last decade and recognize that although there are serious problems with a minority of stocks, most are stable and many are improving, in spite of rather than because, of the Common Fisheries Policy.

The NFFO falls neither into the camp that says there is no problem with European fisheries, nor the doomsayers with their alarmist cries of imminent environmental catastrophe. The latter is just a distraction from the serious work that needs to be done.

At its most recent working group meetings, the North West Regional Advisory Council was told by the European Commission that its advice would only be accepted if it was based on hard evidence.

“This is to apply breathtaking double standards”, said Barrie Deas, NFFO Chief Executive. “The effort regime now afflicting whole the fleets in the North Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland was introduced with absolutely no evidence that it would deliver, or even contribute to, cod recovery. A serious body of scientific opinion believes that restrictions on time at sea actually intensifies fishing activity. The Commission has made no attempt to establish whether days at sea have had, or could have, any effect on fishing mortality. This is a faith based rather than an evidence based approach”.

There is now a catalogue of measures that have been put in place without the slightest attempt to establish whether they are fit for purpose. Measure after measure has been layered one over another without much anxiety about evidence. The most recent – a ban on high-grading – actually conflicts with the EC rules that require vessels to discard to meet catch composition rules. This a perfect example of a measure, introduced in a hurry, with no attempt to provide evidence to justify it.”

“We in the RACs are very conscious of the need to provide evidence based advice but we are in no mood to be lectured by the Commission on this issue.”

The NWWRAC met in Paris and four Working Groups – Celtic Sea, Irish Sea, Channel and West of Scotland reviewed the latest ICES advice. A common theme in the science was the frequent inability of ICES to provide convincing stock assessments due to uncertainties and poor data. Major changes to the scientists’ perception of some stocks (as opposed to material changes in the stocks), is an important feature of this year’s advice, particularly in relation to cod and nephrops and western channel sole. This is of concern because the ICES benchmark meetings were supposed to usher in a way in which industry information would be integrated into the ICES assessments but are proving to be a disruptive feature, increasing rather than reducing uncertainties.

The Federation will be pursuing the issues raised by the ICES advice at a meeting with the European Commission in late July and through a series of meetings with UK fisheries administration to define UK positions for the December Council of Ministers.

to underscore the consequences for the fishing industry if the UK Borders Agency continues to pursue its current policy of repatriating Filipino fishermen brought to the UK on transit visas. Transit visas are primarily designed for the merchant marine when a non-EEA national is allowed to join a ship before a voyage but had been used as a means to fill the crew shortage afflicting many ports in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the East Coast of England.

The urgency of reconsideration of the policy was stressed, given that many vessels in the fleet are now dependent on skilled fishermen from the Philippines. Recovering economies and an adverse exchange rate has all but ended the supply of fishermen from Eastern Europe.

There are signs that political pressure may have persuaded the Borders Agency to ease back on repatriations whilst the ramifications of the policy are examined.

The possibility of placing fishermen on the Home Office skill shortage list is also being examined as a possible solution

A full NFFO team, drawn from all sea areas in which we fish, attended a briefing meeting with Cefas scientists on 1st July in London. Although the stock trends in many fisheries were reported to be in a positive direction, the discussion naturally was most intense on those fisheries where the science has signalled problems, or where the assessments are so week that ICES has declined to give them analytical status.

North Sea whiting, Irish Sea cod and nephrops, and Western Channel sole are fisheries facing particular difficulties this year, although there is still a great deal of uncertainty in many fisheries where the data used by the scientists is poor.

For the first time ICES made use of NFFO Annual Fisheries Reports produced by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. This is the first attempt to introduce systematically compiled interview information and knowledge from the fishing industry into the ICES process. Data from fisheries science partnerships in which NFFO vessels are involved, the North Sea stocks survey which in England is coordinated by the NFFO, and personal statements from skippers in the North Sea whiting fishery, were also used by the scientists.

An intense scrutiny of the stock assessments and discussion of how the UK should approach the autumn negotiations will now begin. The NFFO will play an active part in a meeting between the RACs and the Commission towards the end of July. Despite now laying out its stall earlier in the year there is still much confusion as to which of the Commissions 13 categories each stock will fall into and consequently how it will be treated in the Commission’s final proposal.

The cod fisheries are still likely to dominate the autumn negotiations given the pervasive effect of cod recovery measures in a wide range of fisheries which catch cod.

The NFFO in collaboration with the North Sea Regional Advisory Council and other Fishermen’s representative bodies are again running the North Sea Stocks Survey that invites fishermen to contribute their knowledge on the status and trends in stocks subject to TACs. The survey has now been running since 2003.

The survey is increasingly regarded by ICES scientists as an invaluable contribution in guiding their advice, which in turn is used to steer the management decisions which set the annual TACs.

It is the local knowledge that is recorded in a systematic way, highlighting the regional trends and issues in the fisheries, that makes the survey so valuable. Responses to last year’s questionnaire are showing the large increase in abundance in Whiting off the North East coast which has been factored into this year’s advice, and will be important in building the case for the industry in management negotiations later this year. In the context of the Cod Recovery Plan, fishermen reflecting upon their experiences will also be particularly valuable this year in assessing the effects of the 25% reduction in effort in the North Sea.

A summary of the results of the 2008 survey is provided below. The full report can accessed here.

The 2008 Survey Results

INTRODUCTION

Last year’s North Sea stock Survey received 273 replies, of which 256 were analysed. Inevitably the responses relating to economic conditions were heavily influenced by the fuel crisis which resulted in a generally more pessimistic outlook due to costs and the increased difficulty of finding crews.

Eight species were covered and received a total of 1644 comments relating to abundance, size, discards and recruitment. The results are presented briefly below.COD

The general picture was of an increase in the abundance of cod which was particularly marked in areas 5 and 6b. In line with industry sentiment, there were no responses of “much less cod”. In comparison with the previous year there was an increase in the numbers reporting “all sizes” as present. Hardly surprisingly, there was a marked increase in the levels of discarding reported. Although fewer comments were made about recruitment, when recorded it was done so as “high”. HADDOCK

For haddock the general picture remains very much the same as in 2007. Area 4 recorded “less abundance” whilst area 9 recorded “more”. In so far as size is concerned, the overall picture is of “all sizes” although areas 3 and 4 recorded “small sizes”. It was indicated that discards remained at much the same level as the previous year, as did recruitment.WHITING

Here the impression is of increasing abundance. Areas 5, 6a and 6b all recorded replies of “more” or “much more” – whereas in 2007 only area 2 did. Although the vast majority of respondents found “all sizes”, there were a number of “mostly small” in areas 6 and 9. In so far as discards are concerned, most areas reported largely no change but areas 4, 6a and 6b reported “more” and “much more” discarding. The situation with respect to recruitment was mixed, with some reporting “moderate” and others “high” recruitment. SAITHE

Saithe stocks were report as being more abundant in areas 1, 4 and 6a. Responses indicated “all sizes” predominated except in area 9. In keeping with this relatively stable picture, there appears to have been no appreciable change in the level discards. Although the numbers of questionnaires commenting on recruitment were limited, it would seem the recruitment was “moderate” to “high” – vessels over 24 metres being more likely to give “high” as a response.MONKFISH

Most areas reported no change in the abundance of monkfish although both areas 1 and 6a recorded “more”. In so far as size was concerned, the situation remained unchanged with all areas predominately recording “all sizes”: areas 1, 2 and 7, however, indicated that their catch was “mostly large”. There appears to be no appreciable change in the level of discards for most areas, but in areas 2 and 7 discards were recorded as being “much more” than in the previous year. Recruitment also seems to be more or less stable with most respondents giving “moderate” as an answer although in areas 2, 5 and 7 there were some “high” responses.NEPHROPS

Unlike most of the other species, the survey indicated significant changes for nephrops. In all areas except 7, the percentage replying “less” or “much less” abundance” has increased significantly. Nonetheless, the replies showed that “all sizes” was the most common answer regarding size. The change in abundance is reflected in the discard pattern, with areas 3 and 4 replying “much more” discarding – as opposed to four areas in 2007. In general there was a decrease in the amount of discarding. The same downward trend is evident in the information about recruitment with a decrease ion the numbers reporting “high” recruitment.SOLE

In so far as sole is concerned, the responses would appear to present an improving overall picture. Areas 4 7 and 9 indicated “more” abundance whilst area 8 recorded “no change”. This improvement is reflected in the size replies with areas 4 – 9 indicating “all sizes” against 5, 6a and 6b recording “mostly small” in 2007. In this respect, it is not surprising that there has been little change in discarding although the >24 metre vessels recorded “more” discarding. Recruitment was generally felt to be “high” in areas 5, 6a, 6b, 7 and 9.

PLAICE

Overall, there appears to be no significant change in the level of abundance for plaice although approximately half of >24 metre vessels reported “more”. The pattern of responses relating to size remained relatively stable, with most reporting “all sizes”. Most areas indicated no change in the level of discards, but area 5 had more than half recording “more”. The number of responses regarding recruitment was small but the picture would seem to be largely positive with areas 1, 3 and 9 recording “high”.