Minister Provides Clear Assurances on Marine Conservation Zones

Officials alongside the Minister indicated that there was no question of the Government agreeing to a target of 30% or any other arbitrary percentage of the marine environment to be set aside as marine protection zones. The Government would proceed carefully and thoroughly.

The Minister emphasised the Government’s commitment to establishing a network of ecologically coherent marine conservation zones but stressed that this needed to be done in engagement with stakeholders, particularly the fishing industry, who potentially have most to lose.

The powers to establish MCZs are enshrined in the Marine Bill currently passing through Parliament. MCZs will complement the European Special Areas of Conservation required under the Habitats Directive. Both would mean defined areas in which particular features would be protected. Protection could range from some fairly light management activities, up to complete closure. Some environmental lobbyists have called for 30% of the marine environment to be closed to fishing.

The Government’s statutory advisors on conservation Natural England (0-6 miles) and JNCC (6 to 200 miles to the median line) have been given the task of identifying areas for designation as MCZs.

At the meeting the NFFO stressed the following points:

• Objectives There is a lack of clarity in what MCZs are for. Certainly the claims made about their capacity to rebuild commercial fish stocks are hugely overblown and mainly depend on evidence from tropical reef fisheries whose relevance to most of the species found in our waters is slight. We accept that MCZs have a role to play in protecting marine biodiversity but they should only be introduced:
• After a baseline study has identified what is in the area
• After clear objectives are set
• After arrangements are put in place to monitor the area to see if the objectives are being met
• After a clear exit strategy is agreed in the event that the area serves no purpose
• Impact on Fishing. It is essential that the fishing industry at both regional and national levels is given a central say in the design and location of MCZs because fishing activity is more dispersed than say oil or aggregate extraction and the impact on livelihoods is therefore likely to be greater than in any other sector affected by MCZs and marine spatial planning generally.
• Sincerity. If the Government is serious about working collaboratively with the fishing industry in establishing a network of MCZs, whilst minimising the adverse impact of fishing livelihoods as much as possible, it has to build trust and confidence in the process. At present we are receiving very mixed messages from the upper and middle echelons of Natural England. Whilst the middle level officials were talking of working collaboratively with the fishing industry, very senior officers in NE had used very wild and extreme language to describe the environmental impact of fishing to justify MCZs. Doubtless this is about sending different signals to different audiences but it undermines the fishing industry’s confidence in the process. The complete lack of transparency and bullying approach in the Lyme Bay closure has already seriously undermined confidence in Natural England’s approach.
• Information. If a collaborative approach is to work in the establishment of MCZs it must start with the information used to designate sites. Currently, various projects are being used to map fishing activity as a prelude for marine spatial planning. These include a Cefas/dredging industry collaboration and the Round III wind-farm planning exercise. If there is a genuine will to ensure that fishing interests are protected as far as possible, the industry should be involved, not just in the regional projects that will make recommendations on the designation of sites but in oversight of the information used to identify potential sites. Mapping fishing activity is a complex process and even with VMS data, interpretation is required by people who know what is happening below the surface of the data. A forum is required which allows all stakeholder groups to review the quality and meaning of the spatial data being collected. Without a consensus on the relevance and accuracy of this data it will be very difficult, at the next stage, to arrive at a consensus on the location of MCZs.
• Displacement. The most critical aspect of designating MCZs is the recognition that in some (perhaps many) areas fishing activity will be displaced from where it has customarily taken place. Notwithstanding the fact that the management regimes within MCZs will range from the light to complete closure, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. The first step must be to design the MCZs to minimise their impact whilst still achieving their objectives. Where fishing effort is displaced, there can be two consequences:
• For vessels of limited range, displacement could mean loss of livelihoods and in the most extreme of circumstances, the economic viability of whole communities could be undermined
• Where vessels are capable of moving fishing grounds there is a real prospect that unless care is taken displacement could lead increasing environmental damage outside the MCZ. The Dogger Bank provides an example where displacement would force beam trawlers from a low discard fishery to a high discard areas, with an overall increase in environmental impact.

These examples demonstrate that overall coherence and minimising unintended consequences should be central tenets is establishing MCZs and both require close cooperation with the fishing industry.

• Negotiating the Boundaries of MCZs It is vitally important that there is scope for the fishing industry to negotiate the boundaries of a MCZ. Often it is possible to find an accommodation that affords protection to whatever feature is deemed to require it without impacting on fishing activities. This is only possible if there is a built in flexibility that allows this type of negotiation to tale place.
• Transparency, Trust and Confidence should be the basis for moving forward with MCZs

A national Stakeholders Group will now be established to complement the work of the regional projects and the NFFO will use this platform to scrutinise the process though which MCZs will be established and to hold ministers, and their statutory advisors to account for any departure from the assurances given at the meeting.

ICES, the body of international scientists who provide fisheries advice to the European Commission, is undergoing a major reform, part of which is the introduction of “benchmark” meetings that will fundamentally review the quality of fish stock assessments, stock by stock. The idea is for scientists, along with representatives from the fishing industry and independent experts, to analyse how assessments are undertaken, identify any weaknesses and suggest improvements.

The first meeting mainly covered the cod stocks, focusing particularly on North Sea and Celtic sea cod, but also North Sea whiting. Baltic cod was also reviewed. The next meeting, in February, will review some of the key flatfish stocks.

This new approach potentially represents the biggest change in the ICES assessment process since ICES was established. In addition to fishing industry representatives, the meeting was also attended and indeed chaired, by non-ICES fisheries scientists, who peer reviewed the assessments. Over the course of a full week the meeting examined:

• The relevance and accuracy of the assessments
• How other sources of relevant data, including industry data, could be integrated into the assessments
• The inclusion of environmental drivers for stock dynamics
• Multi species interactions
• Stock identity and migration patterns
• Whether the coverage of the assessments is appropriate in terms of space and time
• Objectivity and transparency issues.

The NFFO was well represented at the meeting, being part of the North Sea and North West Waters RAC delegations.

The following ways in which the kind of knowledge held by the industry and individual fishermen could be integrated into, or be used to support the assessments, were suggested:

• Fisheries Science Projects: The FSP partnership projects, pioneered by the NFFO, Cefas and Defra have subsequently become a model emulated in other European member states. They involve a mix of time series projects and one off projects designed to address a specific question. The collaborative approach has generated scientifically valid data and has built up strong working relationships between fishermen and scientists.
• Regional Annual Fisheries Reports: The NFFO and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation have piloted regional AFRs as a way of capturing fishermen’s knowledge and presenting it in a systematic ways that can be useful to both ICES assessment scientists and fisheries managers. Changing technologies, target species and the industry’s reaction to management measures would be key aspects of the reports prepared by regional fisheries organisations with the involvement of their members.
• The reinstatement of commercial catch per unit effort data: This valuable source of data was discontinued in the 1990s because of question marks over how representative the data was. It is timely to explore ways of reintroducing CPUE data on a sounder basis.
• Interpretation of VMS satellite monitoring data: VMS data which records vessel movements can be a valuable tool but it can also be very misleading if interpreted inaccurately. Industry involvement in interpreting VMS data is a prerequisite for well founded science that understands the meaning beneath the surface observations.
• Annual Fishermen’s Survey: The North Sea RAC (and before that the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership) has organised an annual survey of fishermen’s experience of stock trends which can be used as a useful check against the ICES assessments.
• Reference Fleet: The limitations of ICES annual vessel surveys are well recognised. Repeat tows on a predefined grid, using consistent gear has its value, but unless it is complemented by information from the commercial fleet and fisheries science projects, it can also be very misleading. A reference fleet of commercial vessels with onboard observers could provide a useful check on stock trends and the validity of survey data.
• Self Sampling: Potentially, every fishing vessel is a research platform that could provide essential data on catch composition and discard rates that are of critical importance for accurate stock assessments. If adequate incentives can be put in place (to encourage the crews to undertake the extra work involved) self sampling, underpinned by a degree of observer coverage, or even in some circumstances CC TV, can make the difference between a weak and a strong assessment.
• Regional Advisory Councils: As well as providing a forum for dialogue between stakeholders and scientists, RACs can disseminate research results to the industry. All this creates a positive context for more positive engagement between fishermen and scientists.

ICES will now consider how these initiatives and others can best be adapted to be of use to the assessment scientists. There is no point in producing data or information that is not in a form in which it can be used.

Cod Biology Research – Tagging

The meeting received presentations on recent research. The work on cod biology using electronic tags was highly revealing of stock identity and migration pathways, including three dimensional movements – vertical movements in the water column – which fishermen have suggested for many years are critically important.

An Opportunity

The benchmark meetings offer a huge opportunity for both fisheries scientists and fishermen to improve the system through which fish stocks are assessed. It would be foolish however, to think that it would be easy to overcome the inertia in the ICES system. There are reformers in the scientific community but there is also an old guard who will resist new ways of doing assessments. The outcome of this power struggle will determine whether we can move forward into a new era of fish stock assessment based on cooperation.

Joe Borg, the current Commissioner, is due to leave office during the course of this year and has ambitions to be seen as the man who ended discards in the EU, even if this is a relatively empty gesture without substance. He is said to be frustrated at the slow progress in implementing the Commission’s current approach which is based on setting targets and timetables for reducing discards on a fishery by fishery basis.

Whilst the announcement of a discard ban would certainly grab the headlines, Commission officials lower in the hierarchy know very well that discards is a multifaceted issue and an announcement of a ban is very far from a practical policy that can be successfully implemented. The danger once again is that appearance will again take precedence over substance. Some of the worst Commission fisheries legislation has been in response to the driver of “must be seen to be doing something”.

The NFFO recognises that discards are one of the most pernicious elements of the CFP regime which:

• Damage the reputation of the industry
• Waste the resource and squander future potential earnings
• Impede stock recovery
• Undermine accurate stock assessments

However, we also recognise that there are many different underlying reasons for discards in the complex mixed fisheries that comprise most of the CFP. These include:

• High-grading to maximise the value from a given quota
• Discarding to meet EU catch composition rules and other regulatory requirements
• Where the gear being used is not selective enough for a given species
• Mixed fishery complications

All of these different types of discards demand different solutions.

The Commission’s original proposals on discards are actually one of the CFP more progressive policy initiatives. By setting a challenging framework, harnessing the knowledge and will of the industry and aligning economic incentives with management objectives, for the first time there was hope that we would see steady progress across the EU in reducing discards. It would appear that this approach has, without discussion, been abandoned in favour of a return to gesture politics.

In the meantime the industry is trying to absorb the implications of the EU commitment to Norway as part of the EU Norway annual fisheries agreement to ban high grading on shared quota stocks. The difficulties involved in implementing this commitment is seen where a vessel is obliged to discard to keep within the prescribed EU catch composition rules but otherwise subject to a ban on high-grading (discarding when the vessel holds quota for the discarded species).

The new regime will commence on 1st of February but there are still many unresolved issues, not least the basic question of relevance to vessels affected by the EU cod recovery plan – how many days will each vessel be allowed to fish over the next 12 months?

The new cod recovery plan agreed by fisheries ministers in November imposes a 25% reduction in fishing mortality in its first year. This translates to a straight 25% cut in days at sea.

However, the new regime in which flat rate allocations by gear category have been replaced by each member state receiving a “pot” of kilowatt days to allocate as they see fit implies a greater reduction. The UK allocation is based on the actual amount of effort used during 2004 – 2006 and as the UK expended more effort than this in 2007 and 2008 the actual level of reduction will be higher than 25%, probably closer to 35%.

There is scope to buy-back the 25% reduction in days at sea through a variety of cod avoidance measures.

Exemptions

• There is scope for vessels to escape the effort regime altogether if they can demonstrate that their catches of cod are below 1.5% of their total landings
• Vessels may buy back the effort cut if:
• They carry only one regulated gear and keep catches below 1% (to be endorsed by STECF)
• Maintain catches at less than 5% per trip
• Apply a cod avoidance or discard reduction plan which reduces fishing mortality by the 25% cut
• Fish in the western half of the West if Scotland area and are equipped with VMS

There is not yet a lot of clarity on what there rules precisely mean and specifically how they will apply to individual vessels and vessel operators. As the new effort regime comes into effect on 1st February these are questions that have to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

When it becomes active in 2010 the MMO will absorb the Marine Fisheries Agency, oversee the replacements for sea-fisheries committees, and be the main instrument for marine spatial planning, including the designation of marine conservation zones.

• The MMO will obtain its legal status from the Marine Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, and it will represent the biggest change to the way fisheries and marine policy is delivered for many years. For this reason it is important that the NFFO works hard to ensure that its structure, functions and ethos of the new organisation are compatible with and sensitive to commercial fishing. A strong NFFO team participated in the meeting which will be the first of four.

Principal Issues

• Marine spatial planning ought to provide a framework for licensing offshore developments in ways that balance various interests in a coherent and consistent way. At present licensing and granting consents for offshore developments like aggregate dredging and wind-farms is a fairly chaotic process with an absence of overall direction and so therefore marine spatial planning should in principle, represent an improvement, although the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.
• However, there are undoubtedly dangers for the fishing industry in marine spatial planning. The fishing industry by its nature is fragmented with its activities more widely dispersed than other offshore interests and is especially vulnerable to poorly designed and thought through marine conservation zones. A major challenge is to collate and present information on fishing patterns that demonstrates the industry’s dependence (and therefore prior claim) on key fishing ground
• As the MMO will take over quota management functions from the MFA it is particularly important that there is continuity and consistency between the outgoing and incoming organisations during the transition.
• It is especially important that from the outset the MMO is guided the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, economic and social.
• The new Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities that will replace Sea Fisheries Committees, are so far, an unknown quantity. There is likely to be some consolidation and therefore fewer ICFAs than SFCs but the central issue is the composition of the management committee. It is vital that experienced individuals with a deep knowledge of the fishing industry play a central role, if inshore fisheries management in the future is to be effective.

The Federation will continue to represent the views of commercial fishermen as the process of establishing the MMO continues.

The main focus of the meeting was a line-by-line scrutiny of the Commission’s text, firstly to understand what is being proposed and secondly, to alert officials to some of our main areas of concern.

This aspect of the Federation’s work – detailed scrutiny of new legislation – may not be the most exciting task but it is vital to filter out from Commission proposals as far as possible, the unworkable, the impractical, the disproportionate and the sheer wrongheaded.

These proposals have been drawn up in Brussels remote from the realities of operating a fishing vessel in a variety of different conditions – but it is aboard fishing vessels and in fish markets that their effect will be felt. Defra officials will now begin discussions on the text with the European Commission, in a series of Brussels working group meetings.

It goes without saying that if there are fisheries rules they have to be enforced and they should be enforced impartially and equally across all fleets. However the current problem is one that is widely recognised – the CFP has produced a body of fisheries law that is overly-prescriptive, overly-complex and open to criticism from the enforcers of fisheries rules as much as by fishermen.

The new proposal was billed as one that would bring simplification but one would have to look hard to discern any simplification in the proposal that would advantage the fishing industry.

Amongst the NFFO’s red line issues are:

• An unachievable 5% margin of tolerance between logbook estimates and landing declarations
• Anglers’ catches to be counted and deducted from national quotas
• Advance reporting requirements that would, if adopted, jeopardise fishermen’s lives
• Disproportionate requirements on mandatory requirements to carry operational satellite monitoring and electronic logbooks for all vessels down to 10 metres
• Untenable tightening of designated ports rules
• A minimum 6 knot requirement when transiting a marine protected area that is not compatible with the power of some vessels and in all conditions
• All discards over 15kgs to be recorded

At least part of the problem lies in the Commission’s attempt to second guess the Council of Minister by including ludicrous values in the expectation that these will be argued down by ministers. The Commission has been told many times by many people that the 8% margin of tolerance is unachievable, especially for smaller amounts of by-catch species. It can only be presumed that the Commission expects the member states to argue this figure up to (achievable) levels and has therefore deliberately lowered the figure. This is not a sensible approach to designing, agreeing and implementing fisheries legislation.

The NFFO/Defra meeting was only the first of what is bound to be a long engagement on the 116 clause document until the new Regulation is in an acceptable form.

The December Council is the time of the year that the fishing industry comes under intense media scrutiny and for this reason helps to shape the public’s perceptions of the industry for the coming year. Hostile and sometimes ill-informed, superficial comment can be highly damaging to the industry’s reputation.

This year the media coverage was helped considerably by two factors: firstly the story on North Sea cod, which has taken on iconic status, is one of rebuilt stocks and industry involvement in designing more effective ways of dealing with the recovering stock; and secondly, a trip by a BBC reporter and camera team aboard a North Sea trawler, organised by the Federation, meant that there was a much better appreciation of the realities of mixed fisheries and the regulatory pressures to discard than in previous years.

Instead of media stories pre-packaged to meet ill-informed preconceptions, there was a much better appreciation of what these negotiations mean at vessel level.

The December Fisheries Council finished during Friday 19 December in Brussels, when the TACs and quotas for 2009 were finally agreed. The negotiations took place against the usual background of extreme and draconian proposals from the Commission for big reductions in a number key TACs and quotas for the CFPO.

Days at sea restrictions were successfully resisted during the November Council despite the Commission’s and French Presidency’s early attempts to bring their draconian regime into Area VII. The Trevose Closure remains in place for 2009 from 1 February to 31 March and was recognised by the Commission and UK officials as an important industry initiative.

Rollover TACs were secured for a number of important Area VII stocks for the CFPO including; Monk, Megrim, Pollock, Haddock, Saithe, and Ling. These were achieved against the Commissions original position of significant cuts across all of these stocks. The work put in throughout the year by several CFPO members involved in Fishery Science Partnerships (FSP) and the time and effort spent with officials both UK and European meant that our arguments were evidence based, clearly understood and were able to deliver our objectives.

The Cod b-k TAC has under gone a significant change it has been split into an e-k TAC and d TAC. The split was unavoidable due to scientific and political argument and in the end both elements were increased. However the final implications cannot be assessed fully until DEFRA agree the UK allocation mechanism. Meetings are planned for early January to clarify this and ensure a fair deal for the CFPO.

The 5% by-catch restriction for spurdogs was successfully removed for 2009, although the Commission have made it clear that this fishery will be kept under close review with their ultimate objective being a zero TAC. This was demonstrated by the reduction of the overall TAC by 50% for 2009.

There are likely to be significant problems with Porbeagles again next year. The Commission have reduced further the TAC for Porbeagle by 25% and to make this situation even worse the UK share is only around 2 tonnes. UK officials did raise the UK share with the Commission but were unable to secure any change. This is extremely concerning, in particular for our netters taking Porbeagle as a by catch.

A new TAC for Skates & Rays was introduced, we successfully argued that it be based on actual landings not the 15% reduction of landings that was proposed. The introduction of the TAC was unavoidable due to scientific and political arguments. However the final implications cannot be assessed until DEFRA agree the UK allocation mechanism. Meetings are planned for early January to clarify this and ensure a fair deal for CFPO members.

There was small decrease in the Hake TAC (-4.6%).

An increase in Sole VIIfg by 3% was the only success in Plaice and Sole quotas. The associated decrease in Plaice VIIfg was disappointing.

There was a significant cut of 15% in the sole VIIe TAC. It was difficult to credibly argue against this cut as it is subject to a long term management plan that was agreed during 2007.

One of the most disappointing outcomes was the reduction of the Sole and Plaice hjk by 15% on the ‘use it or lose’ policy. This approach was avoided on most of our stocks so this outcome was particularly mystifying

The December negotiations are becoming increasingly difficult with an ever growing political and green influence. However the CFPO and the NFFO team in Brussels deployed every scientific, economic and political argument at our disposal. Where successful this has been in part, at least, due to the work done by the NFFO, CFPO and its members through the FSP and the improved working relationship with scientists and policy makers.

The CFPO has already begun talks with DEFRA and other member states to secure additional quota through international and domestic swaps and transfers in an effort to maximise fishing opportunities for 2009.

A list of the important TAC and quota changes is attached for information. This is subject to amendment following post Council clarifications.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Paul Trebilcock

Chief Executive

PROVISIONAL 2009 TAC CHANGES

Cod VIIe-k 3.9%

Cod VIId 29.2%

Haddock VIIb-k status quo

Whiting VIIb-k -15%

Hake -4.9%

Monk status quo

Megrim status quo

Sole hjk -14.8%

Plaice hjk -15.5%

Sole e -15%

Plaice de -8%

Sole fg 3%

Plaice fg -14%

Pollock status quo

Saithe status quo

Ling status quo

Spurdog 5% by catch restriction removed ( TAC reduced by 50%)

Porbeagle 2t UK quota.

Skates & Rays VI & VII New TAC based on recent landings (no Skate to be landed)

According to Alan McCulla from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation the tone of this week’s negotiations was set at the November Fisheries Council, when the European Commission forced the new Cod Recovery Programme through the Council. This confirmed the level of reductions on both the cod quota and days at sea at 25%.

As Conor Murphy MP, MLA, the Northern Ireland Minister who was present at the November Council said at the time;

“I strongly opposed this stance which I regarded as unacceptable to the local fleet. But the Commission would not move on this figure and it formed part of the overall package which was agreed unanimously by all 27 member states at the Council.”

On a more positive note, lobbying by various Northern Irish politicians resulted in Northern Ireland’s most important fishery becoming the UK’s number one priority at this Fisheries Council. Local Fisheries Minister Michelle Gildernew MP, MLA was present throughout the Council and was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the proposed reduction in the Irish Sea prawn quota (Northern Ireland’s most important fishery) of 15% was mitigated to 2%. This compares to cuts of 5% in the prawn quota in other sea areas around the UK and Ireland.

In summary, for 2009 the Irish Sea cod quota has been cut by 25%, whiting has been cut by 25%, plaice has been cut by 23%, sole has been cut by 24% and nephrops (prawns) has been cut by 2%. Irish Sea haddock has been increased by 15% and the herring quota remains unchanged in the New Year. Overall, the reductions in the quotas could mean a loss in the value of fish and shellfish landed into Northern Ireland during 2009 of £2 million.

Issues surrounding the number of days at sea local trawlers will be able to work in 2009 still have to be clarified. Urgent discussions with officials on this issue have already been scheduled for the New Year.

Alan McCulla from the Anglo-North Irish fish producers Organisation said,

“As predicted, the December 2008 Fisheries Council has been particularly tough, with measures being applied that bring with them the most fundamental change to fisheries management there has been in decades.”

“There can be no doubt that Michelle Gildernew has represented Northern Ireland fishermen very well at these negotiations and we should thank her and the DARD team for their efforts. In the face of broader economic problems affecting fishing communities, the Minister highlighted the positive aspects of the fishing industry. However, it was the stubborn and petty approach by the European Commission that failed our fishermen.”

“The Minister realises 2009 is going to be a very different year for Northern Irish fishermen and we look forward to continuing our discussions with her as to how we can help the industry move forward.” concluded Alan McCulla

Headline Summary

North Sea

The key features of the December settlement for the North Sea are:

• Endorsement of the EU Norway agreement with a 30% increase in the TAC for North Sea Cod along with associated measures including a ban on high grading; a 13%increase in the TAC for plaice in line with the long term management plan. Modest cuts in haddock and saithe TACs, also in line with long term management plans.
• A reduction of 5% in the TAC for nephrops. Minimising the proposed reductions in nephrops was a was a top UK priority
• An overall reduction of 10% in the UK quota for whiting. ICES advice was for a 67% reduction; this was moderated to a 15% cut in the EU Norway talks and by invoking the Hague Preference at 30% rather than as last year 20%, for the UK the cut was reduced to 10%. The Minister has indicated that around 600 tonnes on the “additional “ H.P. quota will be allocated to the under 10 metre fleet.
• It was possible to turn 10% reductions on stocks like lemon sole, turbot and brill, dabs and flounder to a rollover.
• Dogfish and Porbeagle: A proposal for a Zero TAC for spurdog was replaced with a 50% reduction for 2008 along with a Commission declaration that a reduction to Zero along with a 10% bycatch provision will follow next year. In the meantime a minimum landing size of 100cms will apply. Similarly a proposal for a Zero TAC was replaced with a 25% reduction and a 210cm minimum landing size.
• An allocation of Southern North Sea herring at 13% was secured.

Irish Sea

Given the severe effect of the new cod recovery plan on the Irish Sea it was imperative to secure our key objectives. In the event, with the UK and Ireland holding out to the 11th hour the agreed TACs were:

• A 2% reduction in the nephrops TAC (-15% proposal)
• A 25% reduction in the TAC for cod in line with the new Cod Recovery Plan
• A 15% increase in the haddock TAC and a new stand alone VIIa quota
• A 25% cut in the TAC for whiting
• A 23% cut in the plaice TAC despite very positive science
• A 25% cut in the Sole TAC

In recognition of the severe cuts imposed this year the UK both counter invoked the Hague Preference where this was an option and obtained transfers from other member states to offset the impact to some degree. The Federation also understands that the Northern Irish Assembly is to make available a package of support measures for the Northern Irish Fleet, including relief from light dues and harbour dues.

Celtic Sea/ Bristol Channel

• Rollovers were achieved in the economically important monkfish and megrim fisheries.
• The reduction in the hake fishery was limited to 5%
• The Commission’s crude and counterproductive “use it or lose it” approach seems to have been put into reverse on a range of stocks including VII haddock, Pollack, megrim and ling.
• A TAC for Skates and Rays was established but without the proposed 15% cut. So far as the UK is concerned there are outstanding data issues affecting our share that need to be resolved
• The TAC for cod was split to establish a separate TAC for VII d but the methodology has not yet been made explicit
• The TAC for Spurdog and Porbeagle moved away from the Zero proposed to a 50% reduction for the former and a 25% cut for the latter with associated technical measures. A Zero TAC would simply have meant an increase in discards

English Channel

• Significant cuts in the sole and plaice quotas
• A 30% increase in the Eastern Channel cod TAC

West of Scotland

A closure of the west of Scotland demersal fisheries was avoided. In its place a package of technical measures has been agreed with the aim of rebuilding the cod stocks whilst maintaining fisheries on economically important fisheries in the area that are fished sustainably. Details are not yet available.

The UK ministerial team was led by Huw Irranca-Davies and the NFFO was represented by a strong team reflecting the breadth of the Federation’s membership and interests.

The December Council has long been criticised as a dysfunctional way to arrive at decisions that affect many thousands of livelihoods on sea and on land. This year’s proceedings confirmed that despite “front-loading”, which was supposed to ease the pressure and allow more time for deliberative rather than rushed, reactive, decisions, much still needs to be done to improve the process. If anything, the Council decisions were reached with less transparency and more pressure than previous years, despite the fact that the major decisions on a revised cod recovery plan had been taken at the November Council.

The Commission’s proposals for widespread quota reductions on often spurious grounds, along with the French Presidency’s decision to force all significant changes to the Commission’s Proposal into one throw, late in the negotiations, meant that member states were forced into the familiar pattern of defensive damage limitation.

This meant that to a large extent, government officials and industry representatives were denied even the rushed, pressured and inadequate chance to scrutinise changes to the proposals that has become the hallmark of the December negotiations.

Nevertheless, despite these inauspicious conditions, the Ministerial team probably achieved what was achievable, although the results are very mixed depending on which fishery and area is concerned.

Any stresses that might have arisen from the devolved administrations were well managed and were not visible from the outside.

What the Council reinforced once again is that most was achieved where there was close engagement between officials and the main federations from early in the year to prepare viable and realistic positions.

If you haven’t received your yearbook, in the first instance contact your producer organisation if you are a member of a PO and if not, contact the NFFO office on 01904 635430.

The Yearbook contains a wealth of valuable wheelhouse information and is available to non-members at a price of £30.

The NFFO has written to Defra urging the Department to maintain the momentum established this summer during the oil price crisis, in reducing the industry’s regulatory costs. Securing the end of light dues and a commitment that the industry would not have to pay for electronic logbooks was important progress for the Federation but the weight of regulation on the industry in purely cost terms is immense and growing. It is vital that more is done to reduce the industry’s costs:

The text of the NFFO letter to Defra reads as follows:

Although the most extreme pressures caused by the spike in fuel costs earlier this year have abated at least for the present, we consider that it is essential to maintain momentum in reducing the fishing industry’s cost base wherever possible.

The full impact of the current recession has yet to be felt in fishing but the signs that these will be severe are quite evident. Most informed commentators believe that high fuel costs will remain a periodic feature of the economy for the foreseeable future. It is also worth recalling that the Net Benefits report made clear that the policy aim in fisheries should be a vibrant, fully compliant fishing industry, operating at a level of profitability that provides for fleet renewal without subsidy and allows the industry to withstand external shocks such as the fuel price spikes. Cost reduction is an important part of achieving equilibrium at that level of profitability.

Furthermore, the revised cod recovery plan agreed at the November Council of Ministers will impose very severe constraints on fishing mortality that will translate into draconian reductions in permitted days at sea and in the case of the Irish Sea and West of Scotland, TAC reductions. These in turn will have a major impact on many fleets’ ability to maintain economic viability over the duration of the plan.

Against this background and also the series of discussions between the NFFO and Defra held earlier in the year, we write to urge that Defra does not lose momentum in cutting the fishing industry’s costs where this lies within the gift of the Department and Government generally.

Light Dues

We, of course, welcome the Government’s commitment to remove the obligation on the fishing industry to pay light dues. This discriminatory tax, paid only by British fishermen, has been a running sore since the 1980s and its removal at this Federation’s request rectifies an historic injustice. Hopefully, our members in Northern Ireland will shortly enjoy the same relief as we have requested.Electronic Logbooks.

Likewise, Defra’s accession to our request that the cost of installing electronic logbooks (whose benefits lie primarily with fisheries managers, rather than with the industry), is met by Government and not by individual fishing vessels is a welcome and fair outcome.

However, in addition to these two commitments we discussed a range of other supportive measures which the Government had at its disposal but so far has not actioned.

Vessel Monitoring Systems

The annual cost of operating a satellite monitoring system is considerable and yet the benefits (including substantial cost reductions in enforcement) lies exclusively with Government. Here is a further opportunity for Defra to reduce industry costs in a way that other devolved administrations have already adopted.Duty on Fuel

Although the fishing industry is largely exempt from fuel duty, the arrangements for this exemption are cumbersome and require in many cases first payment and then reclaim of the duty. This places a very substantial cash flow pressure on the industry which it is in Government’s power to remove. We urge you to continue your discussions with other government departments to secure this outcome.Mandatory Safety Equipment

Fishing is an inherently dangerous occupation and it is right that in securing this valuable food source for the nation that statutory safety requirements are applied. We have worked hard through the medium of the Fishing Industry Safety Group to ensure that these measures are reasonable, practical and well thought through. They do however place very substantial costs on the fishing industry and in a spirit of partnership towards increasing the safety of fishing vessels it would be quite right for Government to help the industry meet at least some of these costs. These include the cost of lifeboat maintenance, meeting the costs of annual life-raft surveys, service costs for epirbs, pyrotechnics, radio survey costs and cyclical fishing vessel survey costs. Although these are not all within Defra’s sphere of responsibility, they do represent costs imposed by Government on the fishing industry and that Government could remove or reduce if it was minded. We would welcome a broad cross-government initiative to support the fishing industry by removing or reducing these costsRules Review

Any person with a reasonable understanding of the fishing industry appreciates that it is massively over-regulated through a body of rules that is not always coherent and often ineffective in securing its objectives. The amount of regulation and the regulatory costs associated with this body of EU and national legislation increases both incrementally and annually. There are in fact, many instances in which the rules serve little purpose but to increase the industry’s costs. Catch composition estimates at sea, and days at sea restrictions are two sets of rules that seem to us to fall into this category but there are many others.

At the very least the Government should not commit to any additional rules that add to this cost burden unless an overwhelming case can be made for them or an equivalent reduction in regulatory costs elsewhere in the system can be made.

We also consider that a root and branch review of the cost burden arising from existing fisheries legislation should also be undertaken. The alternative is to consent to an incremental creep in regulatory costs that if not checked will suffocate the industry.

European Fisheries Fund

The main instrument for the provision of financial support for the fishing industry is of course the EFF. We appreciate that accommodating the EC rescue and restructure package within the UK Operational Programme late in the day complicated implementation. In discussions with Defra and MFA officials we came to the conclusion that although there remains a strong case for addressing fleet overcapacity in some sections of the fleet, in requiring each Fleet Adaptation Scheme to include a 30% reduction in capacity, the Commission set the bar too high. Without additional budget it is clear that the new Regulation will not deliver its objectives. We therefore take the view that EFF funding would be most equitably and effectively distributed if directed at ways of reducing fuel dependency outside fleet adaptation schemes.

To this end it would be useful to receive clearer and more specific guidance on the eligibility criteria in relation to projects, such as the use of heavy fuel. We will copy this letter to the MFA so that they can consider this point.

I hope that the above provides a timely reminder that the Government’s proactive approach to reducing the fishing industry’s costs should not be restricted to moments of extreme crisis but should be part of an ongoing and integrated approach as a quid pro quo for the heavy regulatory burden that appears to be an inevitable facet of the current fisheries management regime.

this is done mainly through the Federation’s seat on the Fishing Industry Safety Group. The Safety Group provides a forum where the MCA and the fishing industry can exchange views on all aspects of fishing vessel safety.

A recent issue under discussion was the MCA’s intention to make Epirbs (emergency radio position reporting beacons) mandatory for vessels between 12 and 15 metres.

European Fisheries Fund grants through the MFA are still available for the purchase and installation of epirbs but this will end when they become mandatory. It would be wise for all vessel owners of fishing vessels between 12 and 15 metres to fit them now with grant assistance and the NFFO has issued advice to this effect. The grant rate is 40% with an additional 20% for vessels under 10 metres in length.

The TACs for shared stocks in the North Sea are detailed below in annex 1.

General

This year’s negotiations were dominated by the high profile given by Norway to the issue of discards, although having forced the talks to a third round in Oslo, the Norwegians allowed the issue to dissolve into the background. This feeds suspicions that the Norway’s tough talk had more to do with domestic politics than a serious attempt to move forward on the discard issue. As achieving the reciprocal balance displaced discards centre stage, the talks took their familiar form, characterised by long, occasionally all-night sessions.

Discards

The measures to which the EU and Norway committed to in 2009 are as follows:

1. A ban on high grading from 1st January 2009 ( high grading is defined as discarding of legally marketable fish when the vessel has quota to cover those catches)
2. Vessels entering the Norwegian sector will have to be able to demonstrate to the coastguard that they hold quota entitlements for the species that they expect to catch
3. If a vessel, producer organisation or member state has exhausted 90% of its quota allocation of cod by 15th November vessels will be obliged to catch the remainder of its quota using highly selective gear.
4. Norway has increased its minimum catch sizes, thereby lowering the threshold for its “move on” policy when vessels are found to have too high catches of juveniles (the new sizes are cod 40cms; haddock 31cms; whiting 32cms)
5. An EU Norway working group will meet in the New Year to further work on harmonised technical measures including real time closures and seasonal closures

Cod

Although Norway and the Community both recognise that the North Sea cod stock is recovering rapidly (as a result of a combination of dramatically reduced fishing mortality and improved recruitment) the 30% increase in the TAC represents a compromise position that owes more to presentational considerations than a serious attempt to underpin successful cod avoidance strategies. ICES catch forecasts for next year suggest that a TAC of 44,000 rather than the agreed 28, 798 tonnes could have been justified and this on its own would have substantially reduced discards. Having raised North Sea cod to iconic status, both parties appear to have placed PR considerations above serious attempts to make alternative cod avoidance measures a reality. This is disappointing but not altogether surprising. The EU Council of Ministers endorsed a mandate of a North Sea cod TAC in the range of 25% to 35% but it is doubtful if the Commission ever contemplated agreeing to the higher figure.

It remains to be seen what the practical effect of the ban on high grading and other cod measures will be. In particular, it only became clear towards the end of the negotiations that the ban on high grading applied to a wider range of stocks than cod. Much detail remains to be resolved.

Long Term Management Plans

A growing feature of the EU Norway negotiations is the importance of long term management plans. This year the TACs for haddock, saithe, plaice, and herring were all set in relation to long term management plans, albeit that for plaice Norway accepts the TAC but doesn’t yet agree to the full provisions of the EU’s Flatfish Management Plan. The advantage to LTMPs is that they bring stability and a high level of predictability to TAC levels.

Inter-Year Flexibility

Norway agreed that up to 10% of unutilised haddock could be transferred into the following year but resisted the same facility for saithe.

Whiting

A 15% reduction in the TAC for whiting was agreed against the background of uncertainties in the assessment, ICES advice of a 67% cut, and Norway’s insistence that the TAC be linked to progress on discards. The selectivity work in the member states will continue in 2009.

The Balance

A combination of factors made achieving the balance between what the EC gives in return for what it receives more challenging this year. Norway’s restricted “shopping list” which focuses heavily on the pelagic stocks, along with the reduction of blue whiting availability, in particular added to the strains.

North East Arctic Cod

An increase in the TAC for North East Arctic cod and the above-mentioned stresses in finding the balance, led to the guaranteed 2.9% of the NE Arctic cod being paid in two tranches, with 1800 tonnes to be held back to be made available when the EU has identified appropriate currency in the first part of next year.

Annex I

North Sea Joint Stock TACs (Tonnes)

2008 TAC

Transfers

2009 TAC

Transfers

% Change

Cod

22,152

–

28,798

–

+ 30%

Haddock

46,444

2,600

42,110

1,000

– 9%

Whiting

17,850

–

15,173

–

– 15%

Plaice

49,000

3,430

1,000

+ 13%

Saithe

135,900

–

125,934

–

– 7%

Mackerel

48,556

–

63,826

–

+ 31%

Herring

201,227

–

171,000

–

– 15%

Norway Others Rollover
Ling & Tusk Rollover

Norwegian Anglerfish reduced by 60 tonnes to 1,550 tonnes

The team, chosen to cover all of the Federation’s regional and sectoral interests, will travel to Brussels on 17th December to prepare for the Council on 18th and 19th December.

The Federation has been working with Defra officials since April to identify and agree the main UK priorities for the Council, which will probably run through the night of the 18th and conclude in the early hours of the 19th. Preparation is vital because the UK’s geography gives it many more fisheries to deal with than most other EU member states but each country only has a finite amount of negotiating capital to “spend” at the Council to secure its objectives.

Preparation also allows for the careful marshalling of coherent, evidence-based arguments in support of our objectives. The December Council is a notoriously flawed process that has repeatedly produced impractical and poorly thought through legislation; this can be counteracted to some degree if at national level, our ministers and their supporting officials have discussed the issues thoroughly with the fishing industry beforehand. It is hoped that the stresses caused by the different political complexions of the administrations in London and Edinburgh will not undermine the unity of purpose necessary for a successful outcome.

NFFO 10th December

However, Defra’s decision to solve the problem by pressing ahead with its policy of splitting the under 10 metre licence into two categories ( a full licence for those active under-10s targeting quota species and a limited licence allowing catches of quota species up to a of 300Kgs a year) will involve a very large measure of rough justice.

For active fishermen in the under 10m fleet, who for perfectly sensible reasons chose to target non-quota species during the arbitrary reference period of June 2006 and August 2008, all will now depend on their ability to demonstrate, through an appeals process, that they had good reasons why they did not catch minimum amounts of key quota species during the (very short) reference period.

Undoubtedly there is a large number of presently inactive under-10 fishing vessels which, if their licences were transferred onto new vessels active in fisheries for quota species, could undermine all attempts to achieve a balance between fleet capacity and available quotas in the under 10-metre sector. Defra is also wary of potential criticism for spending taxpayers’ money on a future decommissioning scheme, if the hole left by decommissioned vessels is immediately filled by incoming vessels using licences currently on inactive licences.

The difficulty lies not Defra’s attempt to put right many years of policy inertia on the under-10m issue, but the way that it proposes to solve the issue by using a split category under 10m licence.

This approach ignores the fact that using the option to change target species is and always has been, at the heart of both profitability and sustainability of the under 10m fleet. That flexibility has been necessary to adapt to changes in markets and when the fortunes of one target stock were in decline to shift to alternative species – often providing a conservation safety-relief valve. Using that flexibility to make the entirely rational but temporary decision to move away from hard pressed quota stocks is now rebounding on those vessels who made that choice and the result is potentially very harsh – having the door shut on fishing for quota species forever, except at a derisory “hobby” level.

The NFFO, during the recent consultation, along with others, advanced an alternative approach based on the idea of a licence buy-back. Removing spare capacity through a voluntary licence buy-back system has a strong pedigree in countries such as Canada, Australia, the US and South Africa. If designed properly to meet local conditions, a buy-back has the merit of being effective, voluntary, and solves the problem permanently. The route that Defra has chosen means that the Marine Fisheries Agency and successor bodies have been charged with enforcing a 300Kgs annual limit on many thousands of vessels. How exactly is that going to be done and at what cost?

In any event Defra appears to have dismissed a licence buy-back approach.

The focus will now be on the appeals process where the owners of under-10s, whose licences will have been effectively degraded and devalued, will have to make a case for receiving a full quota licence.

NFFO 9th December 2008

One of the breakthroughs of the last ten years has been the recognition by ICES scientists and policy-makers that fishermen hold a huge reservoir of practical knowledge about stock trends, the effect of fisheries management measures, the interaction of economics and conservation and local marine ecology.

The problem has been the difficulty in “capturing” that knowledge in a way that can be used by ICES scientists to strengthen their stock assessments and also in a form that policy-makers can use to design conservation measures that are coherent and deliver their objectives in a way that runs with the grain of the industry rather than against it.

The main obstacle to routinely using fishermen’s knowledge has been its dismissal as interesting but “anecdotal” or “unsystematic”. To address this problem and amongst other initiatives, the NFFO has been developing annual fisheries reports that will put fishermen’s and industry knowledge on a more systematic footing so that it may both be integrated into stock assessments and inform the positions of policy-makers in Defra and the European Commission.

In a ground-breaking project, partly funded by the Defra Fisheries Challenge Fund, the NFFO in collaboration with the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation and Seafood Cornwall, have been piloting the first annual fisheries reports. These are specifically designed to capture detailed knowledge held by fishermen and put it in a format that means it can be used by scientists and policy makers. The idea is that in time, each NFFO member producer organisation and non-sector regional committee would produce an annual fisheries report. These would then be updated annually to produce a time-series that would document the evolution of local fleets and fisheries in a way that the information could be taken into account. The main method used to prepare the reports is through structured interviews with a rage of fishermen. The focus of the annual fisheries reports are at the regional level.

ICES acknowledges that it cannot produce analytical assessments for around 60% of the stocks in Community waters, mainly because of lack of data. The reaction of the European Commission to the weakness of the stock assessments is to apply a precautionary approach. This often means that TACs are reduced, irrespective of the actual conservation status of the stock simply because of lack of knowledge. The fishing industry therefore has a huge interest in providing data that will improve the quality of the stock assessments; annual fisheries reports aim to at least partially fill that gap.

Other ways of capturing fishermen’s knowledge complementary to annual fisheries reports, such as the annual fishermen’s questionnaire on stock trends overseen by the North Sea RAC are also supported by the Federation.

The first pilot reports are nearing completion and it is hoped to progressively expand the number of fisheries for which a report will be prepared. The reports will be careful not to duplicate sources of information but uniquely, to capture the information held by the industry in a form that is most useful

NFFO 6th December 2008.

Margin of Tolerance

The Federation raised the issue of the margin of tolerance with the Commissioner. The RACs, national federations and auction authorities have repeatedly stressed that requiring observation of an 8% margin of tolerance between on-board catch estimate and final landing declaration, especially for by-catch species in mixed fisheries, is neither reasonable nor achievable on a consistent basis in the real conditions found aboard fishing vessels. Nothing demonstrates the gulf between the Commission and working fishermen more than the Commission’s repeated denial that this issue presents a problem. Some progress was made in the recently agreed cod recovery plan where the 8% margin is applied only to cod. But incredibly, the recently proposals for a new EC control regulation requires a 5% margin for all fisheries, single species, targeted or by-catch.

The Commissioner made the usual references to past abuse of the 20% MOT, and conspicuously failed to agree to the placement of independent observers aboard a range of fishing vessels in real conditions to see if they can achieve better estimates than our crews. The Commission remains in denial on this subject.

Progress on building a culture of compliance will only be possible if the constant threat of prosecution for failure to meet the unreasonable blanket 8% standard is dealt with. And that will only be when the Commission takes the trouble to investigate for itself whether 8% is achievable or not.

Skates and Rays/Dogfish/ Porbeagle and by-catch species

The inconsistency between the Commission’s public posturing on the discards issue and the practical effect of its TACs and Quota proposals on concrete fisheries – which will be to increase discards -was highlighted by the NFFO. In particular, skates and rays, dogfish, porbeagle, lemon sole and dabs are all fisheries where a decrease in TAC, or restrictive by-catch rules, will lead to an increase in discards rather than a cut in fishing mortality.

The Commissioner agreed to “take another look at the issue before the December Council” whilst emphasising the difficulties of dealing with mixed fisheries, and the survival rates of some species. The Federation stressed the need for an approach that wasn’t dependent on blunt TAC cuts that gave the impression of dealing with the issue but achieve very little in concrete terms.

STECF

The Scientific, Technical Economic and Committee for Fisheries (STECF) may best be described as the Commission’s quality control committee. It provides advice to the Commission on the validity of ICES science and other aspects of fisheries policy and has grown considerably in significance in recent years; it now exerts a strong influence on the content of Commission proposals and therefore fisheries regulations.

The NFFO has in recent years been involved, as observers, in some of the STECF’s work and it is clear that there are some very high calibre people contributing to the Committee’s output. Nevertheless, the operation of STECF is relatively opaque not least in terms of who sets its agenda and how it is decided who sits on it and the balance of biological, economic and practical management expertise within it.

The NFFO told Commissioner Borg that composition of the STECF working groups and how its terms of reference are set and the work of the Committee should be evaluated by external experts (ACFA and the RACs have recently been formally evaluated). STECF could be strengthened by the involvement of practical fisheries managers, economists, and individuals with practical enforcement experience, as well as representatives from the fishing industry.

The Commissioner agreed that “It was not a bad idea, especially in the context of preparations for the reform of the CFP in 2012”. This process will take off properly early next year.

One issue that the Federation has pursued consistently is a fundamental evaluation of the role that effort control is playing within the CFP. It is clear that restrictions on days at sea increases the industry’s costs but it is far from clear whether they have had any direct effect in cutting fishing mortality. This is the kind of fundamental question we think that STECF could usefully tackle. Given the central role that the Commission gives effort control this is a crucial question that should not be ducked.

In addition to discussing and preparing for the third round of EU Norway negotiations, the Executive Committee also focused on the forthcoming Council of Ministers meeting in December and in particular, those proposed TAC reductions that will serve no purpose other than to increase discards. The Council will be held on 17th and 18th December and several of the Commission’s proposals fall into this category:

• Skates and Rays
• Dogfish
• Porbeagle sharks
• Stocks like lemon sole and dabs where the TAC proposal for the principle target species is an increase but by-catch species earmarked for a reduction

In almost every case a reduction in TAC or restrictive by-catch provision will have zero conservation impact but will lead to significant increase in discards. There may be some superficial PR advantage for the Commission in trumpeting TAC reductions but fishermen see the effects of such blunt and ultimately pointless approaches in the fish that they are legally obliged to discard throughout the year.

There is no silver bullet to address the conservation status of some of these by-catch species but there is a range of targeted and tailored measures in each case that if adopted would deliver better results than cuts in TACs – without the discards and without the economic losses that the industry can ill-afford.

In the case of “Skates and Rays”, this broad category covers many different individual species of skates and rays, some of which have depleted stock status but also others that are fished sustainably and which support vitally important fisheries. The Executive stressed the need to develop alternatives to the blanket TAC reduction and which recognize the existence of healthy targeted fisheries for skates and rays.

The Executive also:

• Agreed TAC positions and negotiating priorities for the Irish, Celtic and North Seas, English Channel and West of Scotland
• Stressed the importance of meeting quickly with Defra officials to discuss the implications of the new effort regime that will apply in 2008 but of which many questions remain unanswered.
• Agreed to meet at an early date with the Marine Fisheries Agency to discuss the new proposed Marine Management Organisation and to question the circumstances and conditions in which VMS satellite data is released to outside agencies
• Supported the continuation of NFFO port visits programme
• Discussed the EC proposals on technical conservation and a revised control regulation
• Developed NFFO positions on offshore wind-farms and marine conservation zones

The Executive will next meet in early February.

NFFO 3rd December 2008.

The association operate a seasonal fishery closure and a voluntary minimum landing size of 38cm in a fishery that it vital to the North Devon industry. NFFO’s Dale Rodmell said “too often conservation groups prefer to grandstand without trying to understand the complexities of fishery management. It is encouraging that the Shark Trust has chosen to have a dialogue with the industry where a shared understanding can be developed and genuine sustainable management approaches can be promoted.”

The future of the fishery has been called into question under proposals by the European Commission to introduce a skate and ray TAC, and plans to site an offshore wind farm at the heart of the fishery. The level at which the TAC is set and the share that the UK receives is of critical importance. If too low it would undermine the efforts of the industry, threaten the fleet and lead to discarding.

Rays are also among the most vulnerable group of species (Elasmobranches) to electromagnetic disturbance. The wind farm developer Farm Energy is seeking to construct over 300 turbines in the Bristol Channel. John Butterwith, Chief Executive of the NDFA said “Farm Energy claims that fishing vessels could still operate within the windfarm. That is of little comfort to us if the fishery disappears as a result of their plans. There is insufficient knowledge on the effects of electromagnetic interference from electricity cables upon rays to know whether our fishery would continue. What’s more, the turbine pillars can only restrict fishing activity. Vessels do not necessarily make straight line tows when considering seabed obstructions and localised areas for targeting certain species.”

A Third Round

The second round of EU Norway talks for a reciprocal agreement in 2009 concluded on Friday 28th without a settlement. Both sides were eager to stress that the need for a third round of negotiations reflected the complexity of the issues this year rather than any fundamental obstacles to a deal. The new round of talks will be held in Oslo or Bergen, beginning on 8th December.

Discards: A quick fix v. good governance

Although the reduction in the TAC for blue whiting (a traditional currency in the negotiations) has made finding the cod equivalent balance more of a challenge than in recent years, it was the Norwegian’s determination to go home with a timetabled deal on discards that seems to have been the main sticking point to a conclusion within the advertised timeframe. Although the elimination of discards are high on both the EU and Norway’s agendas, the different approaches to fisheries management in the EU and Norway, the different legal systems, different fleets, and different mix of target species makes this a complex policy area.

The crux of the issue lies in the question of timing. The Norwegians want a firm EU commitment to a discard ban with a definite timetable, focused on 2011. On the other hand, the EU has made clear that it has processes for stakeholder involvement and policy formulation that might seem ponderous from the outside but when multiple fleets, gears and member states are involved, it is important that adequate time is allowed to get things right. The EU is consulting at present on a revised technical conservation regulation, an innovative discard regulation based on pilots in the North Sea flatfish and Area VII nephrops fisheries, and a new control regulation. In addition, a new EU cod recovery plan has just been agreed by the Council of Ministers, the core of which is a major 25% cut in fishing effort which can be offset by cod avoidance and discard reduction measures. All these have a bearing on the issue and need to be carefully coordinated. We have, to our cost, experienced measures dreamed up in late night negotiations that in the cold light of day have been impractical, costly and sometimes perverse in their consequences.

The EC control regime was recently the subject of devastating criticism by the European Court of Auditors and much of the Commission’s new proposal can be seen as a response to this criticism.

The Court of Auditors said that the CFP control regime was “inefficient, expensive, complex and does not deliver the desired results.” The Commission identifies fleet overcapacity as one of the main reasons for non-compliance in the CFP but in many respects seems out of touch with recent developments, especially in those member states, including the UK, where substantial progress has been made towards high levels of compliance in recent years.

The Commission’s Proposal for a new control regime emphasises:

• Reliance on new technologies like electronic logbooks and VMS
• VMS for all over 10m vessels by 1st January 2012
• Risk analysis to focus enforcement on problem areas
• Full product traceability
• Certification and crosschecking of engine power
• Standardised procedures and sanctions across member states
• Bringing recreational angling into the control system
• Increasing the powers of the Commission and the Community Fisheries Control Agency

The proposed Regulation will now be the subject of consultation with member states, the regional advisory councils and others before adoption, probably sometime next year. It may reasonably be expected that the text will be substantially amended before it can be accepted by member states.

The RACs have repeatedly made the point that the 8% margin of tolerance between onboard logbook estimates and definitive landing declarations is unrealistic and unachievable on a consistent basis, especially for small quantities of by-catch species. A UK research project using independent experts suggested that they were no more likely to make accurate catch estimates in real conditions than skippers and crews. The Commission’s incredible reaction has been to propose a 5% margin of tolerance. Apart from illustrating the gulf between the Commission and the realities faced aboard fishing vessels, it is clear that there will have to be considerable movement on this and other issues before the Regulation will be in an acceptable form.

The Commission proposes that recreational fisheries that impact on stock subject to a multi-annual plan will have to have their catches monitored and that catch will have to be deducted from national allocations. If adopted this is obviously a policy with potentially huge implications for both the commercial fleet and anglers.

From an NFFO point of view there is a strong case for simplifying and consolidating and modernising the Control Regulation. But good fisheries management must meet four preconditions, which are intertwined and mutually supporting*:

• Fleet capacity must be broadly in balance with available resources
• There must be a high degree of compliance with the rules. If there is not a high degree of compliance the system is broken
• The fleet must by profitable at a level that allows the fleet to renew itself without external subsidy and to survive external “shocks”
• Management measures must be based on good information. This includes fish stock assessments

The European Commission would be well advised to pursue its control ambitions in relation to these principles.

*The Fisheries Management Jigsaw from “Net Benefits” UK Cabinet Office 2004