Irish Sea

Already we know that the new cod recovery plan, with its headline 25% reduction in fishing mortality, will put immense pressure on the Irish Sea fleets – without the possibility of a compensatory increase in the cod TAC that appears to be available in the North Sea. The UK also has to deal with the inevitability that Ireland will again invoke the Hague Preference*, reducing the quota availability to the UK fleet from an already tiny TAC. Against this difficult background, the NFFO will continue to press right up to the Council on 17th -19th December for:

• Status quo on the TAC for nephrops, now the backbone of the Irish Sea fishery.
• Ways to offset the adverse impact of the Irish invocation of the Hague Preference in the Irish Sea
• A package of support measures in recognition of the uniquely difficult situation facing the Irish Sea fleets next year

In addition, the Federation will be working hard to find ways of achieving the 25% reduction in fishing effort implied by the new cod recovery plan in ways that do not translate directly into a 25% reduction in days at sea. There is a range of possibilities, including the type of cod avoidance plans piloted by the NFFO in the North Sea this year, or a system of real time closures adapted to the circumstances in the restricted waters of the Irish Sea. A similar approach has been put forward by the Danish fishing industry in the Skagerrak.

NFFO Chairman and Northern Irish skipper, Davy Hill said, “The important work done in the Irish Sea discards project during 2008 demonstrates our commitment to working for fisheries that are both sustainable and profitable. But it is vital that this positive work is not jeopardised by short-sighted decisions at the December Council. The UK and devolved administration in Northern Ireland must work to ensure that we have an economically viable fleet in 2009.”

*The Hague Preference allows certain member states to receive additional quota in recognition of socio-economic vulnerability, when the TAC falls below certain trigger points.

JNCC, the body tasked by the UK to identify candidate areas for MPA status, under European Natura 2000 legislation, presented its pre-consultation proposals in which a 15,000 square kms area of the Dogger Bank would be designated as a Special Area of Conservation. The UK area will be contiguous with similar although smaller, restricted areas in the German and Dutch sectors of the North Sea. Once designated, national authorities will have an obligation to control activities in the area to ensure that the features for which it has been designated are not degraded. The Dogger will be designated with SAC status because it is a sandbank slightly covered with water all the time.

Members of the RAC raised a large number of issues including:

• the huge size of the area earmarked for designation and whether the feature could be protected by a much smaller area
• what management measures were likely to apply to the area
• How the impact of diverted fishing effort on biodiversity and fish stocks would be assessed if the fishing was excluded in the area
• the socio-economic consequences of a closed area of this magnitude
• How the level and impact of fishing on the bank would be estimated
• How wind-farms and aggregate dredging could be permitted in the area if it had SAC status
• Natura 2000 legislation is flawed in many respects, not least that it does not allow for socio-economic considerations during the process of site selection

It was emphasised in particular, that the Dogger provides an important area where low discard fishing for flatfish can be prosecuted. Denying it to fishermen will force fishing effort onto grounds that will generate much higher discard rates. Protecting one area but with a higher overall environmental impact would not make good sense.

The RAC will develop a formal position on the Dogger when the 12 week consultation period begins in December.

Although the trends in the fishery (fishing effort falling and biomass up) supported the view that there was scant justification for including the Celtic Sea in the cumbersome and draconian EU regime, the Commission had made no secret of its plans to extend the cod recovery zone. The French (who hold the EU Presidency) also wanted to strike a deal that would have seen the extension of effort control to the Celtic Sea. It was against this difficult background that the NFFO and its member organisation the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, argued the case for an alternative approach in pre-council meetings with officials and the UK Minister Huw Irranca-Davies.

The UK in making this case in the Council was clearly persuasive and attracted supportive comments from other member states, including Ireland, the other big player in the Celtic Sea. The Commission eventually accepted the strength of opposition and removed the Celtic Sea from its proposals but with a note to the effect that the issue will be revisited next year.

This provides a breathing space and an opportunity to build and strengthen the alternative to days at sea restrictions. There will be various elements in the alternative approach, including:

• The Trevose Closure which makes a real contribution to the reduction of fishing mortality on cod
• Reducing the uncertainties in the ICES assessment through fisheries science partnerships
• Accurately monitoring the trends in the fishery, particularly identifying fishing effort trends
• The development of targeted measures where high mortalities or discards are detected

A better description and therefore understanding, of the highly mixed mixed Celtic Sea fleets partly through the Annual Fisheries Reports currently being developed by the NFFO, CFPO and Seafood Cornwall.

The European Commission is gearing up to propose major changes and has issued a strangely provocative document to begin a debate. The report portrays an excessively pessimistic picture of European fish stocks. It is also remarkable for attaching blame to various parties deemed to be responsible for the circumstances that led recently to a highly critical report on the CFP by the European Court of Auditors.

The Council of Ministers, member states and the fishing industry are all blamed for the failure of the CFP to deliver sustainable fishing. The Commission is not however noticeably critical of its own role in overseeing the cumbersome and unresponsive system that lies at the root of most of the CFP’s failings. In more reflective times, a senior Commission official has admitted that “95% of what is wrong with the CFP is an absence of good governance”.

The Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) advises the Commission and it is through a working group set up under ACFA that the Federation will be able to influence the recommendations put forward to the Commission. Prior to the 2002 reform of the CFP, the NFFO sat on a similar group and pressed hard for a regional focus for the CFP and greater influence for stakeholders. The result was the establishment of the regional advisory councils that now play a significant role in policy formation. There is every reason therefore, to use this round of reform as a platform for positive change, although the proposed reform is not without its risks

The major themes which the Commission wants to explore during the forthcoming consultation, which will take most of 2009, are:

• Replacing the principle of relative stability and national quotas
• Introducing some form of “rights based management” ( perhaps international ITQs)
• A separate regime inside and outside the 12 mile limit
• Reducing the scope for the Council of Ministers (and the European Parliament if there is a move to co-decision making) and therefore democratic scrutiny of legislation
• Stronger links between fisheries and other parts of Community legislation, in particular environmental policies
• A fast track system of decision making in which the Commission would have a freer hand
• To explore whether there is scope to strengthen the role of regional advisory councils
• A system of “results based management” in which standards and principles are set by the Council but it is left to the fishing industry to define the detail of how these objectives are to be met.

Clearly there will be areas in which the Commission’s ambitions will have to be strongly resisted but on this latter point there may well be a way to escape the highly prescriptive, often inappropriate and undeniably complex rules that are not noticeably effective, yet plague the fishing industry on a daily basis.

Changing the Commission’s role from managers of detail to one of refereeing, auditing and overseeing the CFP, would be a major step forward and would be more consistent with the Commission’s size, experience and geographical location.

This is the Committee, under an independent chair, that provides access for various rural interests to the BBC management and programme makers.

Although the focus of the Committee is overwhelmingly on agriculture, the meetings do provide an opportunity to highlight the fishing industry’s concerns and to redress some of the more superficial, naïve and sensationalist preconceptions about fishing to which the media is sometimes prone, especially at this time of year.

There was only one item for decision and this was the revised cod recovery plan. This is a complex piece of legislation that will apply for the next three years and replaces the largely discredited plan adopted in 2003. All the points made below are provisional and are subject to confirmation when we receive the definitive text.

The main outcomes of the Council are as follows:

• For areas outside the North Sea, a reduction in fishing mortality of 25% for 2009 with lesser reduction in 2010 and 2011 has been agreed. This reduction in fishing mortality will impact on both TACs and days at sea but in significantly different ways. Importantly, this reduction will be accompanied by a facility through which member states can “buy back” days at sea for its fleets through various cod avoidance measures. The UK’s aim is to design a UK cod avoidance plan that will buy back almost as much of the 25% reduction as possible. In principle the full 25% reduction could be bought back.
• The TAC for the North Sea will be agreed within the context of the EU/Norway negotiations but it can be taken as read that the 25% reduction will apply to days at sea for the 100mm+ and 70mm to 99mm gear categories. The start that the NFFO has made on cod avoidance plans and the real time closures applied in 2008 will be central to the UK Cod Avoidance Plan that will be submitted to the Commission by 1st March to buy back days in 2009.
• The Celtic Sea has been excluded from the cod recovery zone and therefore the cod recovery plan – including effort control and the TAC setting mechanism. This very welcome decision has bought a breathing space to design and implement alternative measures to supplement the Trevose Closure. It will be important for us to demonstrate that mortality, effort and biomass trends are continuing to move in the right direction if we are to secure the Celtic Seas’ permanent exclusion from the Cod Recovery Zone.
• The “French line” to the west of Scotland has been moved west to cover areas in which there are significant catches of cod.
• The Regulation confirmed the move to a system of KW days in which member states are allocated a number of KW days per gear category to manage in the way that they see fit. The UK days for 2008 will be based on the reference period 2004 to 2006, which suits the UK better than the other reference periods on offer. Nevertheless almost the whole headroom that the UK enjoyed in 2008 will evaporate. This means that any reductions in days will be applied to the current level of usage. Those member states who wish to use a 2005 to 2007 were free to do so to establish their effort baselines.
• A clause in the Regulation allows vessels on trips with a catch composition with less than 5% of cod to be allocated additional effort by the member state.
• A clause allows the Regulation to be revisited if the level of effort allocation causes difficulties in uptake of quota by member states
• The Trevose and Irish Sea closures and technical measures in the Irish Sea are maintained by the Regulation
• The Eastern Channel is part of the cod recovery zone for both effort and TAC setting purposes.
• Discards are in future factored in to the process of setting TACs on the basis of STECF forecasts
• The fishing mortality target for all cod fisheries under the plan except the North Sea was set at F0.4. More ambitious targets in earlier drafts were dropped. The North Sea target is set in relation to the EU Norway agreed management plan. Once these targets have been reached the Council will decide an appropriate exploitation rate consistent with maximum sustainable yield.

Member states may modify their effort allocations by transferring fishing effort and capacity between geographical areas subject to various constraints.

In the unglamorous setting of one of Defra’s basement meeting rooms, detailed discussions were held on the pressure points in the coming negotiations on TACs and quotas and day-at sea restrictions.

The meeting systematically covered all of the main areas: Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea, North Sea, West of Scotland and External Waters. The Commission’s proposal to revise the EU cod recovery plan and the implications of this for future TACs, days at sea rules and the areas included in the cod recovery zone were studied and views expressed.

In particular, detailed discussion was held on the transition to a new effort regime based on EU allocations of effort to member states and tactics to keep the Celtic Sea out of the cod recovery zone.

“This was a very thorough meeting in which spades were called spades” said David Hill, NFFO Chairman. “There is a lot at stake here. Apart from dealing with the Commission’s broad brush approach to TACs, there are many, many, unanswered questions about how the new effort regime would operate and what the impact on the different fleets would be.

A Federation delegation will travel to Brussels for the November Council and will be on hand for consultations with ministers and officials throughout.

The series of port meetings is also ensuring that fishermen within and outside the NFFO are kept aware of the Federation’s efforts on their behalf. The NFFO Executive Committee member and Chief Executive of the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation, is on his second tour of the ports as part of the Federation’s outreach programme outreach programme.

With its limited staff resources, the NFFO decided some years ago to concentrate on an outward looking approach which has paid dividends in terms of influence at national and European levels. The Federation’s influence can be seen in dozens of policy areas, including the regional advisory councils, discards, cod recovery and CFP reform.

But such an approach has a price and the price has been the weakening of direct contact with the ports. It is to address that weakness that the NFFO initiated its communication strategy with Alan’s port visits at the centre.

Views expressed to Alan are fed in to the Federation and are fully taken into account when establishing NFFO policy positions and when making representations on the industry’s behalf. The port visits have been very successful and the intention is to find ways of maintaining regular presence in the ports.

Defra has indicated that subject to consultation, it favours a pot limitation scheme that would cap effort at present levels and has stressed that there is a window of opportunity to introduce significant conservation measures, relatively painlessly, whilst crab and lobster stocks are reasonably healthy.

The views expressed at the meeting reflected the differences around the coast, which in turn often reflect material differences in the fishery. Whilst in Northumberland a pot limitation scheme is seen as having its attractions over an increased minimum landing size, on the Yorkshire Coast the problems of enforcing a pot limitation scheme are underlined and a strong case for an increased minimum landing size as an alternative is made. Cornwall, Devon and the Welsh coasts likewise have their distinctive perspectives. This diversity of views, which all reflect different and valid approaches to shellfish conservation, is why NFFO shellfish policy has always stressed a strong regional dimension.

The Committee suggested that progress could be made through a national shellfish conference in which active shell-fishermen could express their views on the way forward at European, national and regional levels, and where it would be possible to discuss the options with fishermen and shellfish experts from countries with successful shellfish management regime.

It was agreed that whatever approach is finally adopted, the views of those who go to sea to catch shellfish must be centre-stage.

The Federation explained that the enthusiasm for MCZs as a way of regenerating fish stocks was largely misplaced and that other, more direct, measures already in place have turned around the prospects for iconic species like cod.

Nevertheless, to protect biodiversity and to support a functioning ecosystem, MCZs are part of the Marine Bill and the Federation’s priority is to ensure that they are sited in places and ways that minimise the impact on fishing. The NE Board was reminded of the role that fishing plays in the nation’s food security and the many livelihoods that are dependent on fishing.

It is essential that the fishing industry at local, regional and national levels are centrally involved in overseeing the collating the information that will be used in the selection and designation process.

The 1st round this year took place recently in Bergen and were dominated by Norway’s insistence that progress must be made on the issue of discards. Norway has indicated that it could be much more flexible when it comes to setting TACs if the EU would commit to measures to reduce discards. There is a real possibility this year to move away from the low TAC/high discards impasse, to a much higher TAC accompanied by well designed cod avoidance measures. The second and probably final round in the negotiations will take place in Brussels in the week commencing 24th November.

The TAC for North Sea whiting presents a difficult set of circumstances this year. The TAC is set for the whole of the North Sea but whilst vessels on the North East coast have been forced to discard large quantities of whiting because of lack of quota, the southern and eastern zones are seeing the effects of low recruitment and a run of poor year classes. One of the Federation’s priorities this year is to resist TAC reductions that can only mean more discards on the NE coast. The task is a difficult one, with the scientific advice backed by Norway, calling for a 62% reduction and the Commission’s position being a 25% cut. Part of the solution lies with more selective gear and trials aboard commercial vessels have been undertaken in England, Scotland, France and Denmark.

The all-party Parliamentary Fisheries Group, chaired by Austin Mitchell MP, provides an invaluable platform for the Federation to explain the fishing industry’s priorities and concerns. In addition to an overview of fisheries issues, the briefing covers regional perspectives provided by the Federation’s member organisations.

Irish Sea, South West, Channel and North Sea priorities are covered comprehensively and the MPs seem to appreciate this kind of detailed briefing prior to meeting the Minister and their participation in the annual Parliamentary fisheries debate.

Nephrops make a vitally important contribution to the earnings of the UK fleet; it is inevitable therefore that the prawn fishery in both the North Sea and in Area VII will be high on the NFFO’s priorities for the December Council. Overall the Nephrops stocks seem relatively stable, with one or two regional variations.

The main difficulties appear to be disputes within the scientific community over the analytical basis of the assessment. Burrow counts using undersea TV cameras appeared to offer a more reliable method of estimating abundance but new questions of whether the burrows are holiday homes or multi-occupancy constructions, have clouded the picture.

The danger of this uncertainty is that under the approach adopted by the Commission uncertainty demands precaution and therefore lower TAC recommendations. The Federation will be pressing for the status quo whilst the issue is resolved.

The signs are mounting that the November Council of European fisheries ministers is likely to take critical decisions on the EU cod recovery plan – and whether or not it is extended to include the Celtic Sea next year.

The NFFO has argued strongly that for a variety of reasons the Celtic Sea should remain outside the cod recovery zone – and the days at sea restrictions that are part and parcel of it.

• A different approach based on the Trevose area/seasonal closure has been in place for three years and has undoubtedly contributed to the better outlook for cod
• The main trends in the fishery are positive: fishing mortality has fallen and the biomass has increased
• The “Ultra-mixed” character of the south-west fisheries means that effort control based on a species that represents only 6% of the landings would place the SW fleets in an untenable straightjacket

The Commission’s latest suggestion is for an “inner” and an “outer” Celtic sea with effort reductions mainly applying to ICES area VII f and g. Meetings with Defra officials and the UK Fisheries Minister Huw Irricana-Davies to prepare for the Council are in hand.

UK Priorities in preparation

Cod recovery is expected again to dominate this year’s December Council; however the discards generated by unthinking cuts in TACs are also likely to be a major factor in the negotiations. These were the conclusions reached at a recent stakeholders’ meeting with UK fisheries ministers in which the UK’s priorities were discussed.

There a strong scientific case for a significant increase in the TAC for North Sea cod in 2009, not least because the current TAC is generating massive discards of marketable cod. The challenge for all parties – European Commission, Norway, member states and the fishing industry is to ensure that a significant rise in the TAC is associated with an increase in cod landings but not an increase in cod mortality. The NFFO is currently trialling cod avoidance plans that limit each participating vessel to its legitimate quota of cod and avoids discards of marketable cod. The eliminator trawl may have a role to play, along with an expansion of real time closures that direct the fleets away from concentrations of juvenile cod.

“We think that cod avoidance plans are the future”, said Arnold Locker whose vessel Our Lass II is one of the boats participating in the trials. “As long as the TAC is set at a reasonable level in relation to the stock abundance, through cod avoidance plans, we can fish for our target species without discarding cod.”

Celtic Sea

A major UK and NFFO objective is keeping the South West’s mixed fisheries out of the cod recovery plan –and the days at sea restrictions that are at the heart of it. On paper there is a very strong case for success, given that the trends in the fishery – fishing effort falling and biomass increasing – suggest that current measures, including the Trevose closed season/area are working. There are however, concerns over how strong the French will resist effort control, and as they hold the Presidency this year this is a real worry.

Discards and TACs

The Commission has indicated that it is likely to adopt an approach that proposes TAC cuts across many stocks. This especially hardnosed approach is driven by Commission fears that the fisheries and marine affairs directorate could disappear into DG Environment in the wake of a very critical report by the EU Court of Auditors. Although the Commission is looking over its shoulder and taking an increasingly hard line, recent years have demonstrated that in mixed fisheries reliance on cuts in quotas in, even when associated with days at sea controls, often lead directly to an increase in discards.

Spurdog, cod, porbeagle, skates and rays, whiting, sole and pollack could all see an increase in discards in 2009 unless a more intelligent approach is found. There is no silver bullet but alternatives tailored to the specific characteristics of the fisheries are available. A longer reference period for spurdog would, for example, allow unavoidable by-catch to be landed but would still discourage a targeted fishery and would eliminate the unacceptable discarding associated with a by-catch limit per trip. Similarly well tailored avoidance plans can offer a way forward but the Commission has shown itself very reluctant to forgo its tried tested and failed TACs and days approach.

It is clear that this autumn’s negotiations are going to be very difficult.

“October is far from ideal, from a fisheries point of view, for a change of minister, especially as this coincides with major changes amongst key officials”, said NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas. “A meeting with the Federation to brief the Minister on the key issues has been organised very quickly, so it is at least reassuring that there is an appreciation of the problem”.

The December Council and the closely linked EU/Norway negotiations threaten to be among the most difficult in recent years. Massive discarding of marketable cod in the North Sea, the extension of the cod recovery plan – and effort control – to the Celtic Sea, a revised cod recovery plan, untenable by-catch limits, a separate TAC for Channel cod, difficulties with Irish sea nephrops and North Sea whiting, along with a Commission pursuing an increasingly aggressive approach, all suggest a difficult set of negotiations.

“It will be essential that the Defra team draw on the reservoir of experience within the industry to strengthen its negotiating positions. That is why the NFFO will be in force at all of the key meetings in Norway and Brussels.

Shellfish Focus

A forthcoming meeting of the NFFO Shellfish Committee, in Derby, will focus on Defra’s policies on crab and lobster conservation, as well as shellfish marketing and the potential impact of wind-farms and marine conservation zones on access to shellfish grounds.

Shellfish Committee Chairman Gary Hodgson has invited Defra officials, and Cefas scientists to ensure that the meeting has maximum impact.

NFFO Chairman, David Hill said:

“This was an important meeting. It is no secret that we were anxious about the change in ministers and the UK negotiating team so late in the year. We have, however, come away from the meeting reassured on a number of fronts.”

“The Minister emphasised, right from the outset, that his job is to secure the best possible deal for the UK fishing industry as a whole. He was determined to ensure that we enter the negotiations with a united front. In the context of devolution we agree that that is vital.”

“He recognized his lack of direct experience and the imminence of the autumn negotiations but pledged to use the reservoir of experience available to him through the two Federations. That is an important commitment and we will work to ensure that the channels are in place to make it work.”

“We went through our priorities for the December Council and EU/Norway negotiations in detail, region by region, stock by stock, issue by issue, and I have to say that I was impressed by his grasp of the essentials. In particular, his view that we have to find a more intelligent way of rebuilding stocks than cutting TACs and restricting days at sea was absolutely in line with our own thinking.”

“There is no disguising that these are going to be a very difficult set of negotiations but we are reassured that the approach being developed by the new UK minister and his team have the essentials right. It is our joint job to make sure that these are translated into concrete results.”

Although the Brussels conceived plans would have provided higher levels of EFF grant for participating vessels to re-engine and improve fuel efficiency, the requirement that they are accompanied by a 30% reduction in capacity but no additional funding, meant that decommissioning would swallow the whole amount available.

The Federation concluded that although decommissioning has a role if additional funds become available, more fishermen would benefit from EFF without Fleet Adaption Plans because there is only a finite amount of money available.

It was agreed that the MFA would prepare a pamphlet explaining clearly what would be eligible for grant support, what the grant rates would be, and explaining the procedure for making an application.

The NFFO has asked for an early and urgent early meeting with the new minister in view of the extremely short time to the EC December Council that will make critical decisions on the new cod recovery plan as well as quotas and days at sea in 2009.

NFFO chief executive Barrie Deas said: “The Federation is already in detailed discussions with Defra officials and the European Commission in preparation for the December Council and the important EU/Norway negotiations, and it is vital that the new minister gets a handle on the key issues as quickly as possible.”

The North Sea Regional Advisory Council, of which the NFFO is a prominent member, adopted a strong position on the discarding of marketable cod at its most recent meeting in York.

The RAC has issued a position paper (see below) in time for the first round of the crucial EU/Norway annual negotiations which begin on 3rd November. The paper argues strongly that there is a misalignment between the current TAC for cod and the available fish on the grounds. Unless there is a substantial increase in the TAC for 2009, along with associated cod avoidance measures, the massive discarding of marketable cod seen this year will not only be repeated but will increase.

“There is a huge opportunity next year to move away from blunt measures that generate discards toward an approach that involves the vessels in active cod avoidance measures” said Barrie Deas Chief Executive of the NFFO.

“If the TAC is set at a level consistent with the upper reaches of what ICES projections tell us will be caught next year, there will be scope for vessels to ensure that discards of marketable cod can be reduced and even eliminated. Not only that but we will secure a further reduction in fishing mortality. The measures that have been taken so far, along with the improvement in recruitment, means that fishing mortality on North Sea cod is at the lowest for 40 years”

“The RAC recognised that this is a pivotal decision. Do we carry on with a low quota and discards or do we break the mould and tailor our approach to the prevailing circumstances? The unanimous advice provided by the RAC is that we should take the rational approach – reduce discards, increase landings and reduce fishing mortality – this year this a win /win/ win outcome is within our grasp.”

The North Sea Regional Advisory Council

The 2009 Fishery for Cod in the North Sea: Opportunities to reduce Discards – a Position Paper prepared by the North Sea Regional Advisory Council

Background

The North Sea cod stock is recovering strongly on the basis of incoming recruitment and significant reductions in fishing mortality¹. The current fisheries management challenge is to ensure that this opportunity to rebuild the spawning stock biomass is not squandered through inadequate measures. This includes a TAC that has recently been set at a level that results in high levels of discards, given current fishing practices.

The consequence of the mismatch between the 2007 and 2008 quotas and cod on the grounds during the course of the year has been widespread discarding of marketable cod². This is not an unexpected or unpredicted situation but it:

• is a waste of a valuable resource estimated at around €30 million
• retards the recovery of the North Sea cod stock, as discarded cod will not contribute to the rebuilding of the spawning stock biomass
• seriously undermines the reputation of the fishing industry, fisheries science and of the Common Fisheries Policy

Against this background, the North Sea RAC, as a matter of urgency, has examined a number of options for avoiding a repetition of cod discarding on this scale, or worse, in 2009.

Options

Dutch Proposal:

A proposal from the Dutch fishing industry was found to have considerable merit but could not easily translate to the conditions found in other member states. This was the idea that vessels should

• land all cod caught
• all cod landed be carefully recorded to provide precision scientific data
• all over-quota cod be sold, with the vessel receiving 20% of the proceeds from the vessel’s producer organisation and the balance going into a scientific fund to improve knowledge of the cod stock

Scottish Proposal

A Scottish proposal was also considered; it focused on ways to transfer catches from discards to landings, through an increase in the human consumption TAC, balanced by additional measures in the fishery to ensure that total fishing mortality would fall to a greater extent than a low TAC with associated discards. The elements of this approach would be:

• a substantial increase in the TAC through which cod, currently discarded, could be landed legally
• this would be accompanied by additional measures such as a reduction in days at sea, and cod avoidance measures such as real time closures and cod avoidance plans and technical measures, that would make a significant contribution to the reduction of cod mortality.

The central idea in the Scottish proposal – a trade off between a substantial increase in the TAC and the extension and deepening of cod avoidance strategies – was regarded as the way forward but there was no support for using a reduction in days-at-sea as currency in the trade off for a range of operational and economic reasons.

WWF By-catch Limits

A WWF suggestion that formal by-catch limits could have a role to play was also discussed. Whilst the concept of setting limits to which the industry would be left to adapt to in its own way has some attractions, there was doubt whether by-catch limits could be employed in the current context of North Sea cod without serious economic dislocation.

The Way Forward

Taking all of the above considerations into account, the NSRAC believes that the following features should govern the management of the North Sea cod fishery in 2009:

• recognition that the TAC for cod in 2008 has been out of line with the availability of marketable fish on the fishing grounds, resulting in widespread discarding
• all parties³ should be committed to eliminating the discarding of marketable cod in 2009
• on the basis of ICES projections, discarding of cod will be at a higher level in 2009 than this year, if a similar TAC setting rule (15% increase) is applied because the stock is recovering at a faster rate.
• if a TAC for North Sea cod is set for 2009 at the highest level consistent with ICES projections, the NSRAC could consider a prohibition on the discarding of marketable cod. (Denmark already applies such a measure)
• If the TAC for North Sea cod is set towards the upper range of ICES projections for catches in 2009, it will be incumbent upon the fishing industry and member states to ensure the establishment of extensive accompanying measures to reduce or eliminate discards of marketable cod
• a reduction in days-at-sea would not directly address the problem of discarding to any significant degree as restricting time at sea does not constrain the level of discarding when the vessels are at sea
• the widespread implementation of “cod avoidance” measures to accompany an increased TAC should, all other things being equal, result in a lower fishing mortality for cod than would be the case if there is a low TAC, high discarding and minimal cod avoidance activities.

Cod Avoidance

The intensification of cod avoidance activity in 2009, would build on the start made on cod avoidance in 2008. This includes:

• Conservation Credits/Real Time Closures to protect aggregations of juvenile and spawning cod: the successful real time closure programme introduced for the Scottish, English and Danish demersal fleets during 2008 which has secured demonstrable operational changes in line with the objectives of cod recovery
• Individual Vessel Cod Avoidance Plans: A pilot project in the English fleet testing the efficacy of cod avoidance plans in ensuring that vessels operate to restrict catches of cod to their quota allocations, through spatial, temporal and gear adaptations.
• Technical Measures such as the eliminator trawl, which allows effective fishing for haddock and whiting whilst eliminating cod from the catch, and semi-pelagic fishing that similarly has very low discard rates
• Equivalent measures in fisheries in which cod is a by-catch

Validation and Monitoring

The validity of cod avoidance measures rests to a high degree on the extent to which they can be monitored and evaluated. To address this question the NSRAC supports the following:

• on-board observers, subject to availability and cost
• the voluntary use of on-board CC TV cameras that show promise in demonstrating compliance
• on-board self-sampling
• the use of reference fleets to check the performance of larger groups of vessels
• checks on landing patterns from landings declarations

Buy-in/ Peer Group Pressure

We recognise that the approach outlined in this paper, if adopted, would represent a step change in the way that our fisheries are managed and would involve the fishing industry in a central and active role. To facilitate this approach the members of the RAC will continue in their efforts to encourage the fullest possible involvement and support at port and vessel level through port and local fishermen’s associations. Fishermen should engage in the monitoring of compliance and in counter-acting socially and environmentally unacceptable behaviour.

Effective co-management schemes and strengthened liaison arrangements with control bodies could be part of the way in which peer-group pressure could be used to reinforce observance of cod avoidance and discards reduction.

Evaluation

Central to the new approach are robust auditing arrangements. To monitor the progress of cod avoidance measures, participating vessels/organisations should provide regular reports on fishing target species, by-catch species and levels of discards.

Contingency

We are convinced that a substantial increase in the TAC for cod, accompanied by the extensive deployment of cod avoidance measures will deliver:

• a dramatic reduction in discards
• a commitment from the member states and the fishing industry to cod avoidance and discard reduction measures on very significant scale
• a reduction in fishing mortality on the basis of the survival of cod that would otherwise have been discarded

We recognise that the successful implementation of the approach outlined above is contingent on the various fleets and the member states meeting their obligations to implement effective cod avoidance measures. In the event of a failure to deliver, and evidence of continuing high levels of discarding, we would acknowledge the necessity to rapidly apply secondary restrictions.

¹ ICES ACOM May 2008

² ICES North Sea and Skagerrak Demersal WG report May 2008

³ EU, Norway, member states and their respective fishing industries

The bodies charged with making recommendations to Government on the location and size of a network of marine conservation zones were told at a recent meeting with the NFFO that the process had the potential to be a nightmare for the fishing industry, and for them.

Natural England (responsible for recommending sites within the 6mile limit) and JNCC (responsible for making recommendations outside the 6 mile limit) were told that the recent decision to close an area within Lyme Bay had all the hallmarks of how not to approach the issue.

“Given the Government decision to establish a network of conservation zones it was clear that these could be introduced with maximum damage and disruption to fishing interests, with maximum scope for conflict – or they could be the subject of negotiation to protect key fishing areas whilst meeting conservation objectives”, said Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, after the meeting:

“It was critically important that these formal advisers to the Government on nature conservancy came away from our meeting understanding six things:

1. If these MCZs are to be established in a way that meets both our objectives there must be complete trust, confidence and transparency in the whole process of identifying and designating the sites. There must be no repeat of Lyme Bay where the strong perception is that one thing was said, and another thing was done.
2. The information on which the sites are identified and designated is vitally important. Everyone involved, including the fishing industry, must have confidence that it is the best available data, collected objectively and fairly. Arrangements must be put in place to ensure that the fishing industry can review the data collection process. Ideally, as with the successful Fisheries Science Partnership, there should be a role for the fishing industry in collating the data. The FSP demonstrated that by working collaboratively together as partners it is possible to replace mistrust and suspicion with mutual respect.
3. We must all go into this with our eyes open. That means that the issue of displacement must be tackled head on. This includes a realistic assessment of the environmental, social and economic impact of displaced effort and facing up to the consequences for vessels that have limited range. Again, if the process is to have credibility, the fishing industry must be centrally involved in the assessment.
4. The experience in applying the EC Natura 2000 sites is likely to be critical in the industry’s attitude to domestic MCZs.
5. There are regional, national and international dimensions to the issue of site designation and the management regimes that will subsequently apply within MCZs. It is essential that proper attention is devoted to each level.
6. A process of negotiation can ensure that the feature to be protected receives that protection without overkill in terms of the size of the designated area or the terms of the management regime.”

“We came away from the meeting reasonably optimistic that the lessons of Lyme Bay had been learnt. The plans to devolve much responsibility to regional steering groups, on which respected fishing industry representatives will sit, is a sound approach. The proof of the pudding will however be in the eating.

We need clear safeguards that will ensure the centrality of the fishing industry to the process of identifying and designating the zones and the management regime that applies. We are determined that this will not be a kind of marine Highland Clearance.”

The Committee welcomes the consultation paper as an indication that after many years of neglect, the Government is now committed to dealing with the problems facing the under 10 metre fleet. We have serious concerns however that the approach chosen will not be effective in achieving a balance between the capacity in the under 10metre fleet and available quotas. We consider that viable alternatives are available.

Decommissioning
We consider that the sum of £5 million allocated to provide a targeted decommissioning scheme is inadequate to deal with the legacy of compounded problems in the under-10 metre fleet. As many of those problems stem directly from deficiencies in previous government policy towards the under 10 metre fleet, we consider that Government does have a responsibility to allocate resources on a scale that would offer some prospect of solving some of the central problems facing this segment of the fleet.

Taking this central point into account, we agree that:

• a decommissioning scheme could contribute to rebalancing capacity and quota in the under-10 metre fleet
• any decommissioning scheme should be targeted at vessels that fish for stocks that are under particular pressure. In our case Area VII b-k cod is of critical importance.

However, we consider that:

• Despite its intentions, the decommissioning scheme, as proposed, will not remove higher catching vessels from the fleet on a scale that will release significant quota to the pool. This is because a) the overall sum allocated for decommissioning is inadequate and b) because the £1000 per VCU ceiling will act as a disincentive to owners of vessels in this category that might otherwise have applied.
• Decommissioning should not, in our view be restricted to higher catching vessels because almost all active vessels catch up to their quota limits on the sensitive stocks. Removing a large under 10 metre vessel or a small under 10 metre vessel, will be broadly equivalent in terms of the additional quota released to the pool through uncaught quota. For this reason we consider the eligibility criterion of a capacity of more than 50 VCUs is misguided.

Latent Capacity
We accept that there is a large amount of latent capacity in the under-10 metre fleet. We also accept that government action is required to prevent latent capacity attached to under-10metre licences from becoming active and fishing against the pool thereby exacerbating the difficulties of maintaining a 12 month fishery.

However we do not accept that the approach outlined in the consultation paper, centred on dividing the under-10 metre fleet into two categories, full quota and limited quota licences, is fair or will achieve its objective. In particular, we are concerned thata considerable range of active under-10 metre fishermen who targeted non-quota species in the reference period will be seriously disadvantaged. Economic survival in the under-10 metre fleet has customarily required flexibility in target species and fishing gear, and frequent adaptation to changing stock and market circumstances. If the policy is adopted as proposed, fishermen who during the (short) reference period happened to target bass, crab, lobster, whelks, scallops or oysters rather than quota species, will be trapped in a licence category that restricts fishing of quota species to a “hobby”level. The impact of this policy, if implemented, would therefore be arbitrary and capricious and reflect often temporary decisions as to the choice of target species. The impact would be very far from that suggested by the Impact Assessment. These are full time commercial fishermen whose interests would be permanently harmed if assigned to the limited quota licence category. In short, the definition of a “latent licence” is inadequate and freezing the fleet in a snapshot of time will lead to real hardship and real injustice.

Discards
Neither consultation paper or impact assessment discusses the increase in discards that will accompany the approach as proposed. Fishermen targeting non-quota species such as bass will inevitably have a by-catch of quota species. If vessels in this category are limited to 300Kgs of all quota species annually but continue to fish intensively on non-quota species, any quantities above this amount will have to be discarded. During a period in which the European Commission has prioritised the reduction of discards on a fishery by fishery basis this must be of concern.

An Alternative Approach
We accept in principle that there are active and inactive licences in the under-10 metre fleet and that dealing with latent capacity is an integral part of the solution to the problems confronting the under 10 metre fleet. We are surprised that a licence buy-back programme appears not to have been considered as part of the Government’s deliberations on how to put the under 10 metre fleet on a sustainable, profitable and legal footing. Licence buy-backs have been successfully implemented in various fisheries world-wide, including South Africa, Australia, Canada and the United States. The advantages of a licence buy-back would be:

• Active and inactive licences could be withdrawn, permanently reducing the active and latent capacity in the under 10 metre fleet
• A fixed price or bid system could be used
• The scheme would be voluntary and would avoid the creation of further arbitrary bureaucratic lines through the fishing fleet
• Future problems of policing a two-tier under-10 metre licensing scheme could be avoided
• The rough justice associated with the creation of a two-tier system and associated cumbersome appeals system would be avoided.
• This arrangement would not lead to an increase in discards

Clearly, there will be public expenditure implications associated with such an approach but it seems to us that resolving the issue of capacity imbalance and latent effort in a way that would bring permanent benefits to the under 10 metre fleet would provide value for money, provide necessary safeguards are put in place.

Leasing

We support the arrangements that allow under-10 metre vessels the opportunity to lease quota and think that this should be continued indefinitely. We do not think that it is reasonable to disallow such vessels that can take advantage of this arrangement, from fishing against the pool for the remainder of the year.

Finding a way through this crisis is of course the priority issue for the NFFO.

The crisis has many different levels:

• At vessel level, where there are problems of crewing, relations with the banks, the struggle to put together a viable trip, difficult decisions about the future
• At port or regional level, where POs and fishermen’s associations are under extreme pressure to provide support
• At national level, where ministers hold the key to both short term support and longer term adjustment and must ensure that our industry doesn’t have to face the double disadvantage of dealing with high fuel costs and distorted competition
• At EU level where policy decisions can have life or death consequences for the industry

The NFFO’s role is at the national and EU levels but we have always recognised that it is vital that the organisation is responsive to the views and opinions at port and vessel level. This is why the member POs and fishermen’s organisations play such an essential linking role within the Federation and why I would like to pay particular tribute to them today. It is true to say that where there are strong and active organisations in the ports and in the regions, the Federation will have sure and solid foundations.

Today we have representatives from all parts of the coast, reflecting the Federation’s varied membership. I think that it’s worth saying that although sometimes accommodating the aspirations of all the different fleets and groups of members can be a challenge, it is also a source of strength. The NFFO is the only body representing fishermen which is inclusive – we represent all fishermen, on all of the issues that affect them, all of the time. The NFFO is represented at all of the fora that matter in the UK and in Europe and has the whole industry’s interests at heart. I sometimes think that we take for granted the sheer workload that is taken on behalf of our members behalf and it is right and proper that we should recognise it here.