Brexit: French fishermen announce day of action - this coming Friday.

Note to diary:

Thursday, November 25, at 2:30 p.m. 

This is the date chosen by the National Fisheries Committee, the three regional committees and the departmental fisheries committees bordering the Channel (Hauts-de-France, Normandy and Brittany) to unveil, during a decentralised press conference, the blocking actions they intend to carry out, the next day, to show the British their determination to obtain the fishing licenses to which they believe they have the right in the waters of the Channel Islands and the UK 6 to 12 miles.

According to Olivier Leprêtre, president of the Hauts-de-France regional fisheries committee, these actions will target more flows to the United Kingdom than those coming from it.

The Secretary of State for European Affairs, Clément Beaune, who had met his British counterpart David Frost on Sunday evening, followed on Monday 22 with the Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Brexit, Maros Sefcovic. He reminded him of the importance of this issue that the European Commission, obsessed with the Irish border issue, did not “take seriously enough at the start  If Europe is not able collectively to demand respect for it (the trade agreement), and to obtain it, we will have a long-term problem with its implementation ” .

If, it was all about 'Sovereignty', what happened?

This extract from a ByLine Times piece by Jonathan Lis 5 January 2021:

"In Its Search for Sovereignty, Britain has Defaulted to a Dangerous Sovereign"  

Yesterday, CFPO CEO Paul Trebilcock featured on @BBCCornwall about the disappointment Cornish fishermen feel about the 'FishingDeal'. The programme Afternoons on BBC Radio Cornwall also talks to Falmouth MP Cherlilyn Mackrory whose husband is a fisherman. Later this week the show is due to talk with another champion of Brexit, South East Cornwall MP Sheryl Murray - an ardent Brexit supporter who promised Cornish fishermen in the last General Election that Brexit meant we would 'take back control' - and now, like every other Cornish Conservative politician are now faced with having to explain exactly what that means.

“What was delivered is a massive disappointment.. politicians tried to dress that up as a good deal for fishing.” Paul Trebilcock CFPO CEO.

Listen here:

The CFPO represents over 150 Cornish fishing vessels.

Latest view of Brexit from across the Channel.

 Brexit: will it be wrong? Will not fish? 

Fishing crystallises tensions around Brexit. The editorial staff of the Littoral echo takes stock of this thorny subject.

"92% of English fishermen voted in favuor of BREXIT" ... that's in any case what an information report from the National Assembly affirms. So, BREXIT, good news for English fishermen? Not so sure …

Thibault Josse, project manager of the Pleine Mer Association, thinks the opposite: “It is certain that English fishermen have the feeling of being dispossessed of their fishing quotas. In fact, 80% of English quotas are held by foreign owners or British millionaires. But this has nothing to do with the European Union. The problem is that the English quotas are distributed via a system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ). A system where fishing quotas are put on the market, which favors the accumulation of these quotas by the great fortunes. This system will not change with Brexit: artisanal fishermen are cheated by the industrialists who will continue to buy back the quotas, and by the populist right of Boris Johnson who has used this problem to get Great Britain out of Europe. But the problem of quota grabbing will not change with Brexit ”

A recent press release from the BLOOM association goes in the same direction:“The commodification of access to fishery resources which was inaugurated by the ITQ system - which are governed by the law of supply and demand - has therefore favoured the financialisation and capitalisation of fishing in the United Kingdom . In the absence of regulation, these mechanisms give rise to an ever greater concentration of the sector in the hands of a few operators. These oligopolies gradually eat away at the fishermen's access to quotas and end up excluding them from the sector. From this point of view, the problem is therefore neither that of the distribution of TACs (total allowable catches) between the countries of the European Union - moreover questionable and open to criticism - nor even that of free access to British waters. . As it happens, it is one of the direct consequences of the introduction of this ITQ system by the British government itself. "

According to these two associations, the privatisation of fishing quotas would therefore be the reason why British artisanal fishermen voted in favuor of BREXIT… but probably the famous BREXIT will not change the problem. So it seems that the populist right led by Boris Johnson has largely manipulated English fishermen, into believing that Europe was responsible for the quota grabbing, when the real problem lay elsewhere. This prospect is disturbing, especially since BREXIT will have a strong impact on European fishermen, but also on the British fishing industry which exports three quarters of its seafood to the European Union.

Hubert Carré, president of the National Committee for Fisheries and Marine Washings explains “If overnight there is a border and we no longer have the right to cross it, well I can tell you that it hurts a lot . The 12-meter gill net from Dunkirk, which is 3/4 of an hour from British waters, will be 100% impacted in its activity. The trawler which is 60 to 80 meters which used to fish pelagic in British waters will also be affected. So there is an impact on the vessels depending on their profession and the area they frequent, and the most affected are the fishermen of Hauts-de-France, Normandy and Brittany. Some fish almost 100% in British waters such as those who fish for anglerfish for example. Armaments will be impacted between 25 and 85% " 

Indeed for the fishermen of Boulogne or Lorient, up to 90% of the catches are carried out in British waters. A dramatic situation for certain armaments which will have to fall back on French waters. However, this “deferral of effort” may also pose a problem: boats which traditionally fished in British waters will find themselves in competition with coastal boats. This phenomenon could cause real "conflicts for the resource" or even a phenomenon of overfishing in certain areas.

On the British side, 70% of fishery products are exported to the European Union. The introduction of high customs duties on seafood could therefore have a strong impact on the English fishing industry, and serve as a means of pressure to maintain the historic fishing rights of certain European shipping lines in British waters. Indeed, high customs duties would have dramatic effects on the English fishing industry in the very short term: the purchase price of fish would fall sharply following the drop in demand, putting fishermen and fishmongers in great difficulty.

Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission evokes "a big point of tension on fishing" while Boris Johnson said he wanted to "deploy the British Navy" so that European fishermen do not have access to English waters from the October 1st. Between populist arguments, postponement of effort and customs duties ... the Brexit soap opera is far from over!

Full story courtesy of The Echo of the Coast website.

Seems Fishing still has a long way to go - Brexit and fish exports.

 

With less than 100 days to go, until UK exports hit by end of EU transition period, this session of @CommonsFREU just highlights how much still needs to be done. 

Danger of lorries driving hundreds of miles to Kent and then being turned back if paperwork isn’t right.  Massive increase in bureaucracy, and delays at ports, will reduce value of fresh seafood and agricultural produce and hit farming and fishing businesses right across Scotland.

Brexit discussion: Fresh mackerel, a fish that needs to move quickly.

Interesting thread on Twitter today:

Today in pictures/graphics which "speak a thousand words" about Brexit. 

First up is Fisheries Minister (and MP for the coastal constituency of Banbury) "catching mackerel". If, as many have suggested, her fishing rod has no line, there's your first metaphor. First up is Fisheries Minister (and MP for the coastal constituency of Banbury) "catching mackerel". 

 If you want to know about the forthcoming Fish Bill (ostensibly intended to repatriate matters formerly covered by the CFP), how it might be open to challenge, and why UNCLOS and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement matter, then you'd best ask a lawyer. 

I'm interested in mackerel. Mackerel is an interesting choice of fish. It's plentiful in UK waters, which is why it's a popular choice for sea fishing competitions (if you find a shoal you can pick them out of the sea as fast as you can reel them in — assuming your rod has a line). But...the UK is a net exporter of mackerel (just as we are a net importer of cod, haddock, etc) 67,000 tonnes in 2019. Its value depends upon demand beyond our shores, and the largest markets currently are The Netherlands, France and Romania. ]

https://seafish.org/media/Publications/Factsheet_-_Mackerel_2018.pdf 

Mackerel is known for spoiling quickly (there are more references to stinking mackerel in English literature than to any other fish) and ≈21,000 tonnes of ours are exported fresh. Without a trade deal, it's not only tariffs but non-tariff barriers that will become an issue. Because it spoils so easily, a lot of mackerel is processed before export (smoking, freezing, etc.). Currently, around half of those employed in the UK fish processing sector are EU nationals. It's hard to see how ending free movement of labour will not have an impact here.

Scroll past it quickly and it seems reasonable enough: the UK is getting ready to keep goods moving after the transition period ends on 31 December! But let's think about the language. 

The "customs sector" could refer to the inspection and approval of imports, but here it mainly means preparing declarations for export. It's what Brexit campaigners in 2016 probably called "red tape". Today, then, HM Govt committed to "growing red tape" for trade with the EU. NB. If you're looking for people to blame for this added cost to businesses, you could just blame everyone who voted Leave...but they were assured that the UK would continue to be part of a European "free trade zone". 

It was Theresa May who decreed that the UK had to leave the European Economic Area. It was Boris Johnson who is determined, further, to reject the shared regulation and conformity assessment regime that could make trade freer and easier. It was people who believe that we have no trade deals with the US, or China, who pushed the "WTO Terms"/"No Deal" chimera. 

Four years of Brexit critics obsessing about "the Customs Union" — rather than what really matters when it comes to delivering frictionless trade with our closest market, viz. the Single Market — didn't help much either. My last graphic is from some time ago, but it is within the same genre — the Home Secretary's triumphant announcement that HM Govt is ending free movement. 

Ms Patel's Twitter feed is full of mentions of "freedom", but here is one freedom she's not keen on. only 45,000 EU nationals (net) came to the UK. Net migration from NON-EU countries was 282,000 - 6 times as many. Ending 'free movement' will not end inward migration, but what it will certainly do is curtail the freedom of UK citizens to move as freely as before. On 18 April 1988, Margaret Thatcher called for "Action to let people practice (sic) their trades and professions freely throughout the [EU]". 

I am not suggesting that this will be impossible in the future, but it will be far more difficult. Barriers have been erected. In the same speech, Mrs Thatcher called for "Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance." (Notice, btw, her call to 'remove customs barriers' – yet the Customs Union was already 20 years old in 1988.) In the name of some nebulous notion of 'sovereignty' and 'taking back control' (of what?), HM Govt has reversed the vision of their most freedom-loving leader. 

Ending free movement will have a negative impact upon services exports, and the determination to leave the EEA (without the bilateral deals upon which, say, Switzerland relies) erects barriers, impedes the circulation of goods, and multiplies 'time-consuming delays'. What a failure.

Twitter thread courtesy of https://twitter.com/baghwallah/status/1299806020374585345

Fisheries Bill Lords Amendments - Virtue Signalling vs Sustainable Fisheries Management.

Of the eight objectives included in the Fisheries Bill, five of them relate to fishing sustainably. And that’s fine. Without a functioning ecosystem and policies which limit fishing to safe levels, there will be no fishing industry. It makes sense too, from an economic perspective, for our management decisions to aim to achieve maximum yields, where that is a reasonable option. What fisherman would be against high sustainable yields? 

It is another thing, however, to give primacy to one aspect of environmental sustainability over all other objectives; and to prioritise environmental purity in the short as well as the long-term, whatever the cost. Yet, this is the force and intent of an amendment sponsored by the opposition parties in the House of Lords.

Accepting this amendment would carry serious consequences for practical fisheries management. In particular, it would tie ministers’ hands when setting quotas each year. The government would be required to set all quotas at levels which (theoretically) would deliver maximum sustainable yield, in all circumstances. No ifs, or buts. And irrespective of the costs.

The rest of this article explains what this would mean in the real world, but the core message is clear: accepting this amendment would provide a fundamental impediment to practical and effective fisheries management. We do not think that this is what the authors of the amendments intended.

Setting Quotas

Sound, pragmatic, yet principled, fisheries management decisions often require that a particular TAC (total allowable catch) to be set below MSY. This is not, as is sometimes suggested because ministers are cowed by the “powerful fishing lobby” but because it is necessary to secure the best overall fisheries outcomes.

Scientific advice on setting TACs according to MSY is presented annually on the basis of single stocks, not as they relate to one another in mixed fisheries settings. It is the responsibility of fisheries ministers (acting as fisheries managers) to balance out the tensions between different stocks in the advice. Responding to this, even the EU had to develop the concept of MSY Ranges to cope with the real world, where fish swim and are caught together, and stock abundance of individual species vary naturally in response to environmental signals. This kind of flexibility would be proscribed in the UK from 1st January, by prioritising short-term sustainability in all circumstances and under all conditions - if the amendment was accepted. Minaisters would find themselves repeatedly subject to judicial review if they used their judgement that the best outcomes required a trade-off between different objectives listed in the Bill.

Mixed Fisheries

In mixed fisheries, where a range of different species are caught together, the conservation status of the individual stocks often varies. One stock, for environmental or fisheries reasons, might need to be rebuilt, whilst the others are already fished sustainably – at or around maximum sustainable yield. In these circumstances, fisheries managers might consider that a three to five-year rebuilding plan, with supplementary measures to rebuild the weak stock, would be the best way to bring that stock back up to MSY, without causing undue socio-economic harm. This pragmatic, staged, approach would be ruled out if there was a legally enforceable environmental priority.

If we still have a landing obligation along current lines, the situation would be worse. Ministers would be faced with the unpalatable choice of tying up whole fleets, when the quota for that species was exhausted - or breaking the law.

This is not an abstract theoretical argument. We currently have a real-life example in the Celtic Sea where cod, which represents less that 0.1% of the catch, threatens to close down the demersal fisheries in the South West of England, denying the fishing industry access to their main economic quotas for hake and monkfish worth respectively £7million and £19 million in landings and hundreds of jobs in fishing. The scientists confirm that hake and monkfish are harvested sustainably. Nevertheless, the fisheries for these species are jeopardised by the very low TAC set for cod to meet MSY.

Rebuilding the cod stocks in the North Sea, whilst continuing to fish for the abundant haddock and whiting stocks, presents the same challenge. Cod in all of our waters is facing a distributional shift, probably caused by warmer sea temperatures. Cod, already at its southernmost extent in our waters, is moving northwards by 12km per year. This presents a management challenge.

Similarly, whiting in the Irish Sea, which could potentially close down the nephrops (prawn) fishery worth £25 million and on which whole communities depend.

These examples illustrate that sustainable management of mixed fisheries requires necessary trade-offs between the short and long term, between different species caught together, and between the biological and the socio-economic. These necessary compromises would be impeded by giving primacy to environmental over all other criteria. It would remove our ability to apply a careful balanced approach to harvesting which takes care of both fish, and fishers, along with their communities.

Three-Legged Stool

The sustainable use of natural resources is generally understood to require three pillars: environmental, economic and social. Like a three-legged stool, if one of the pillars is missing the policy will fall over. There is abundant experience from the last 40 years which illustrates the truth of this insight. Blunt and unimaginative fisheries management measures have time after time, foundered, or generated unintended consequences. People require livelihoods and economic security as well as long term sustainability. Measures which ignore this will condemn themselves to failure one way or another. The original Fisheries Bill suggested that this important lesson had been learnt. It would be desperate if that lesson was now unlearnt.

Unintended Consequences

We have learnt that top-down, blunt, management measures in fisheries tend to generate unintended consequences, which are often of the unwelcome variety. Displacing fishing activities into adjacent areas, or other fisheries, is one of the most common knock-on effects. Increasing the level of discards and driving discards underground is another. One way of reading the history of the Common Fisheries Policy (and quite a bit of domestic UK fisheries policy) is about constant efforts to mitigate perverse side effects of well-intended legislation.

International Negotiations

In the future, we can expect that bilateral (or trilateral) international negotiations will be the main vehicle for managing shared stocks. However tough these negotiations become, they must be rooted in mutual respect for the rights and sovereignty of all of those involved. It would not be acceptable for one party to enact domestic legislation and then expect international partners to bow to it, whether they agreed with the thrust of the measures or not. That is not how international negotiations work, yet that is what the EU has brought to the table in recent years with its unilateral but mandatory requirement to set TACS at MSY by 2020. During EU/Norway negotiations, independent coastal states like Norway, with much stronger credentials on conservation of fish stocks than the CFP, have made plain their scorn for a crude attempt to shoehorn unrealistic, poorly drafted, EU domestic legislation into international negotiations. If every country insists that its domestic legislation takes priority, international fisheries negotiations would be stuck in a perpetual impasse.

If the UK wishes to avoid putting itself in the same position, this amendment must be allowed to fall.

More Rigid than the CFP

In fact, prioritising the sustainability objective would, if accepted, mean that UK law was more inflexible and less balanced than the CFP. The first objective of the CFP reads:

“The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.” Article 2.1 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation EU 1384/13

At least the authors of the CFP recognised that there are three pillars, not one, to sustainability and these must be balanced carefully.

In-built Accountability

With a balanced portfolio of objectives, the government would remain accountable for its obligation to meet sustainability objectives. The five interrelated sustainability objectives would be given force through the Joint Fisheries Statement and Fisheries Management Plans. These instruments will provide for a more refined interpretation of the management objectives for particular circumstances and include inbuilt prioritisation of particular elements of sustainability, including:

⦁ Provisions to specify policies for restoring or maintaining a stock at sustainable levels (section6(3)(a))

⦁ Improve evidence to assess a stock’s maximum sustainable yield (section 6(3)(b)(ii)).

⦁ The requirement to follow the precautionary approach (in line with the objective) where evidence is not sufficient to assess a stock’s maximum sustainable yield (section 6(4)).

Reporting requirements will ensure that government decisions are scrutinised and that the various objectives relating sustainability are upheld over the long term (section 11).

Commons

The Bill returns to the House of Commons on the 1st September and it is at that stage that these amendments will be considered. The House will have to decide whether it prioritises virtue signalling over truly effective sustainable fisheries management.

Notes

Fisheries Bill objectives

The fisheries objectives are—

1. (a) the sustainability objective,

2. (b) the precautionary objective,

3. (c) the ecosystem objective,

4. (d) the scientific evidence objective,

5. (e) the bycatch objective,

6. (f) the equal access objective,

7. (g) the national benefit objective,

8. (h) the climate change objective.

Amendments introduced in the House of Lords

The “sustainability objective” is that—

1. (a) fish and aquaculture activities do not compromise environmental

sustainability in either the short or the long term;

2. (b) subject to subsection (2)(a), fishing fleets must— 15

(i) be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and (ii) have fishing capacity that is economically viable but does not overexploit marine stocks.

The sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective. 20

The “precautionary objective” is that—

(a) the precautionary approach to fisheries management is applied, and

(b) exploitation of marine stocks restores and maintains populations of harvested species above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.

Full story courtesy of the NNFo website 24TH JULY 2020 IN BREXIT, EUROPE / COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

In related story that appeared in the Northern Scot newspaper it is apprent that feelings are running high with some north of the border:

Fishing in Moray: Scotland being 'frozen out' of maritime discussions

The Scottish Government claims it is being "frozen out" over talks about the future of the fishing industry and maritime security.

Humza Yousaf, the Justice Secretary, is complaining that the devolved governments have been omitted from the UK Government’s Ministerial EU Exit Operations Committee, where maritime issues are being discussed.

Justice secretary Humza has called for an urgent four nation ministerial meeting on the issue. He said: "While we remain opposed to leaving the EU and believe it is extremely reckless to rule out an extension to the Transition Period, as a responsible government we want to be as fully prepared for Brexit as possible, including working with the other UK Governments."

Scotland’s waters cover 62% of the UK’s domestic exclusive economic zone. Marine and fisheries compliance is a fully devolved issue. As such, Marine Scotland Compliance regularly inspects and patrols Scottish waters to ensure fisheries are sustainable and to provide protection for the marine environment.

Mr Yousaf said: "The Scottish Government has responsibility for many aspects of maritime security, in particular marine and fisheries protection.  "Given Scotland represents a large area of UK waters, we have extensive expertise to share.

"We have had a good working relation with the UK Government, but it is deeply concerning that devolved governments have now been frozen out of UK Ministers’ maritime Brexit discussions."

The Department for Transport co-ordinates the UK Government’s work on maritime security. Mr Yousaf says he has written to the UK’s Transport Secretary Grant Shapps calling for an urgent four nation ministerial meeting.

He said: "This is more than just another example of UK Ministers seeking to undermine devolution and respect for devolved competencies.  "It compromises our ability to protect Scottish interests and seriously hampers the UK’s Brexit preparations on this critical matter."

By Alistair Whitfield- alistair.whitfield@hnmedia.co.uk

Meanwhile, the Yorkshire Post also carried a story by Emma Hardy (MP for Hull West & Hessle)

Stop treating fishing like a second-class industry 

THOSE of us who are privileged to live on the Humber understand better than most the importance of fishing – not only to our region, but to our country.  Unfortunately, for all their bluster on making fishing a priority after Brexit, the Tories have proved once again that they just don’t get it. 

In setting up a new Trade and Agriculture Commission, a body that will bring together farmers, retailers and consumers to advise government on future trade policy, Defra and DIT (Department for International Trade) seem to be on the right lines. The creation of the Commission seems to recognise the need for close collaboration in policymaking on food production and trade – something any farmer would tell you was common sense – so why have our fishermen been left out?

The new Commission will be an important means of securing opportunities at home and abroad for UK farmers, maintaining environmental and animal welfare standards and looking after the interests of consumers. It is true that fishing represents only a small part of our total economy, but the Government should not undervalue the thousands of jobs fishing creates not just on boats large and small, but in processing, logistics and food service. They are also at risk of ignoring the cultural and historical importance of fishing as part of our maritime heritage and our communities.

The creation of this Commission is to be welcomed and the NFU and its supporters congratulated for their successful campaign.

However, there is concern that the Commission may lack the teeth to affect the Government’s trade policy and that its recommendations will come too late to impact upon the contents of the trade agreements currently being negotiated with the US and others. Labour supported amendments to the Agriculture and Trade Bills to prevent food being imported if produced to lower standards than those that must be met by our own British farmers – an issue highlighted by The Yorkshire Post’s own Editorial last week. But these amendments were voted down by the Government, despite its manifesto pledge not to compromise on standards in future trade deals.

Boris Johnson’s government often seems to be guided more by dogma than it is by common sense, but even by those standards this is a negligent failure to look after the interests of those thousands of fishermen dependent on international trade. While trade and agriculture interests are brought together in the same Commission, the Government seems content that fisheries and trade policies do not mix.

For decades in Britain we have imported most of the fish that we like to eat (largely cod, haddock and salmon) from waters controlled by Norway, Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes, while we have exported most of the fish we catch in our waters, mainly to the EU27. This is all down to national tastes and historical fishing patterns, and it means that for most people in the industry, as well as for retailers and consumers, the number one priority is a healthy cross-border trading environment. Fishing and trade are not only mutually dependent, they are virtually one and the same thing. Like many industries, British fishing has suffered heavily during the pandemic. One of the reasons for this was the virtual collapse of the markets in the EU where we sell our high- quality shellfish and other specialist catches.

While prices for some seafood collapsed by up to 80 per cent, UK consumers did not switch to langoustines and chips, but stuck to their imported favourites. UK fishermen still need an open and frictionless global market to trade in, 
and open waters to fish in, while processors will need a good supply of fish from UK waters and beyond, as well as an open export market to sell their products into. British retailers and consumers will need a plentiful supply of fresh fish from waters such as those between Greenland and Norway where the fish for our national dish are most abundant. For the sake of the fishermen of Hull, Bridlington and Whitby, and for coastal communities all around the country, the Government must lay ideology aside and recognise that fishing and trade go together in exactly the same way as agriculture and trade.

Fishing is not a second-class industry, and our fishermen deserve a Fisheries and Trade Commission to protect their interests now.

Emma Hardy is Labour MP for Hull
 West and Hessle.

POST BREXIT LANDING OBLIGATION JUNE 2020

One of the benefits of leaving the Common Fisheries Policy will be the potential to rethink and redesign the landing obligation. Initially the industry will continue to work under EU retained law, but after 1st January there will be scope to redesign and implement new arrangements tailored to the conditions in UK fisheries. Both Defra and the NFFO have begun work to identify deficiencies in the EU landing obligation and how these could be addressed to inform a more effective and workable UK discard policy. The contents of this paper were discussed at a recent Defra/MMO/NFFO landing obligation forum.

Ministers have indicated that they wish to retain the principle of the landing obligation but are open to refinements in the way that it works in practice. Defra have arranged a meeting/conference call for Friday 5th June, to discuss how the landing obligation might work after 31st December 2020.

Post Brexit Landing Obligation

In preparation for that meeting we have prepared a draft list of points (below) which amount to NFFO policy in this area.

Address CFP Design Deficiencies

• A requirement to land all quota species in all circumstances (except when an exemption is in place) is unenforceable – a well-designed discard policy focused on reducing unwanted catch, with the understanding and support of the fishing industry, by contrast, is an achievable objective
• EU legislators’ focus was on legislation, not implementation (someone else’s problem); there is a need for a more integrated fisheries management approach in which discard policy has a place but is not the main driver
• The potential for chokes in mixed fisheries remains a deep rooted and ongoing problem
• The LO has led to loss of visibility of catches in some fisheries and in some circumstances – leading to a degradation in the scientific advice and the quality of fisheries management decisions
• The LO depends on extensive use of exemptions – these are temporary and require annual re-visitation – absorbing too much time and effort
• The LO was developed in an artificial moral panic, with inadequate account taken of the views of those who would be subject to the new rules
• Discard policy should not be legislated for in inflexible primary legislation
• Successful implementation requires an ability to adapt and adjust – which is not available within the CFP’s rigid decision-making process

Priorities

• Secure adequate quota to reduce potential for chokes (TAC decisions, UK proportion of shared stocks, internal allocation and transfer arrangements)
• Re-brand the LO without losing emphasis on reducing unwanted catch
• Reposition and reaffirm discards policy as a facet of fishing management (not the priority) - the principle priority/objective should be to maintain fishing mortality within safe limits and maximise sustainable yields
• Recognise the diversity of circumstances in which discard policy is applied
• Maintain high-survival and de minimis exemptions where sufficient evidence is available – replacement for STECF role – but on a more reasonable time cycle
• Re-connect with fishers – policing by consent – this requires dialogue at all levels
• Maintain focus on reducing unwanted catch, through hearts and minds rather than blunt policy instruments and heavy-handed enforcement
• Reaffirm emphasis on the importance of accurate catch information and its connection to sound management decisions
• Remove TAC status where it serves no purpose – eg. Irish Sea whiting
• Muscular positioning on this issue when dealing with the EU during bilateral negotiations – UK discard policy will be separate, distinct and more effective in practice than the CFP
• Further development of gear selectivity and avoidance strategies as practical ways of reducing unwanted catch
• Explore voluntary use of REM subject to safeguards on ethical, legal and practical aspects, where this is a valid option
• Focus on what economic incentives are being created when regulating – minimise scope for unintended consequences
• Management Plans as envisaged by the Fisheries Bill could be the right vehicle for regionally and sectoral sensitive discard policies
• Explore scope in Fisheries Bill for a charging scheme that would allow landing of unavoidable overshoots without creating an economic incentive to target
• Measures to ensure that non-UK vessels fishing in UK waters comply with UK discard policy

NFFO June 2020

MEO Brexit meeting at Penzance

MEP Brexit meeting in the Queen's Hotel, Penzance at 7:30pm this evening, 27th June 2019.

From Brussels: EU - Fisheries after Brexit

The United Kingdom submitted on 29 March 2017 the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This means that, if the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, the Union’s primary and secondary law will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from 30 March 2019 (‘the withdrawal date’). The United Kingdom will then become a third country.

Brexit: Breton fishermen fear an exit without agreement

VesselTracker AIS for the trawler Itasca.

Increasingly Breton and national media channels are looking in depth at the implications for their fishing fleets if the UK exits the EU without a deal. The AIS track taken from VesselTracker for the St Brieux trawler Itasca since January 1st this year shows just how much time she spends fishing inside the UK half of the median line which, should the UK leave without a deal, would be within sovereign waters.

Like many Breton vessels fishing off Cornwall the Itasca has made good use of Newlyn over the years - stopping for ice and other supplies as well as using Newlyn for shelter in extreme weather - Newlyn is a port of International Refuge.

Video courtesy of FranceTV

This latest report from FranceTV:

With nine tons of fish on board, Itasca returns to its port, in Finistère. At the controls of this ship, Gwendal Boezennec, fisherman from father to son for three generations. He explains working in the middle of the Channel, the British side and is very worried about Brexit. In Brittany, 80% of catches are made in English waters, 600 boats are fishing 95,000 tons of fish in these areas each year.

Too many Europeans in French waters?

"If we are all in the French Channel with the Dutch and Belgians who come in French waters, it will be overfished and it will not be profitable", feared Dominique Thomas, representative of the high seas Cotes d'Armor. But some professionals remain optimistic because they hope for an agreement that would suit both sides: the Europeans could continue to fish in British waters and the British would continue to sell their surplus fish on the continent.

Like UK fishermen they too would love to see a considered response to this question put to Nigel gooding at Defra two years ago:

"The EU referendum and the majority vote to leave the EU was met with jubilation from the UK fishing industry, and has been characterised by many as "a sea of opportunity". The BIG question now is in what manner this "sea of opportunity" is to be realised for the fishermen of the UK? The benefits of leaving the EU, and the infamous CFP are numerous; and should empower the UK Government to design, and implement a fisheries management system that works for both fish resources, and the fishermen that depend upon them. The business of fishing has never been plain sailing, and a "Fisheries Brexit" doesn't seem like being an easy affair either.

The media coverage of Michael Gove's recent visit to Denmark; where he gave "assurance" to Danish fishermen that they would still have access to UK waters post-Brexit, has been seen by many as yet another sell out of the fishing industry. Also, the reported clash between Michael Gove and Chancellor Philip Hammond over the use of fisheries as a bargaining chip in the wider Brexit negotiations has done little to lessen their fears. Both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron have expressed that they will fight for their respective fishing industries to achieve the best possible post-Brexit deal. This has left many UK fishermen in a state of shock and disbelief, fearing now that the industry will once again be used as a pawn in achieving a favourable Brexit deal with the EU. It must be made absolutely clear that the UK post-Brexit WILL have an exclusive 200nm/ median line economic zone; and the UK fishing industry, finally will have exclusive access to the UK territorial seas out to 12 nm.  

The UK Government will have the absolute power to decide on who will be granted access, and under what conditions. Granting of reciprocal access to foreign vessels is a common practice in bilateral fisheries negotiations; where access can be granted on historical use of the area, quota swaps, and or, if there are exploitation pattern gains to be had in relation to catching older and larger fish.

It is a common acknowledgment within the fishing industry, that everything is paid for by what is caught in the net, and landed on the market. The main focus for the catching sector, irrespective of Brexit is to identify exclusive UK stocks, and quantify zonal attachment for stocks that are deemed to be shared. 

Realigning Relative State allocations in relation to ecosystem creep is of utmost importance; as a means of mitigating the possibility for chokes species such as NS hake, and area VIIE haddock and VIID cod. This is especially important in respect to the Landings Obligation/Discard Ban, which comes into full force in 2019. 

The UK government has commissioned work into mapping the extent of zonal attachment for stocks shared with the EU and other parties such as Norway/Faeroe. This is an assignment that the UK should not pursue alone, if there is to be any chance of reaching a consensus and ratification by all parts. This work needs to be undertaken in a joint EU-UK working group, and under the scrutiny of an unbiased third party such as ICES, and with observers from countries such as USA and Canada. ICES have informed that they have not received any request from the UK Government to assist in this important and necessary work on defining zonal attachment.

Should the Government decide to use UK fish resources as a bargaining chip, then it's important to quantify how much fish, and for what it is being traded for"

Do we have an agreement on shared stocks post Brexit?

Here is a letter sent to Nigel Gooding at Defra, September 2017 after the UK had voted to leave the UK at a time when fishermen wanted to now what would a post Brexit world look like.. 

The question, was in response to the UK Government's stated aspiration to become a "gold standard" fisheries nation which seemingly hasn't, as yet, instigated the necessary infrastructure to facilitate an agreement on shared stocks and their management. This is something that should have been in place in the event of the fishing industries desired, "No deal"

"The EU referendum and the majority vote to leave the EU was met with jubilation from the UK fishing industry, and has been characterised by many as "a sea of opportunity". The BIG question now is in what manner this "sea of opportunity" is to be realised for the fishermen of the UK? The benefits of leaving the EU, and the infamous CFP are numerous; and should empower the UK Government to design, and implement a fisheries management system that works for both fish resources, and the fishermen that depend upon them. The business of fishing has never been plain sailing, and a "Fisheries Brexit" doesn't seem like being an easy affair either.

The media coverage of Michael Gove's recent visit to Denmark; where he gave "assurance" to Danish fishermen that they would still have access to UK waters post-Brexit, has been seen by many as yet another sell out of the fishing industry. Also, the reported clash between Michael Gove and Chancellor Philip Hammond over the use of fisheries as a bargaining chip in the wider Brexit negotiations has done little to lessen their fears. Both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron have expressed that they will fight for their respective fishing industries to achieve the best possible post-Brexit deal. This has left many UK fishermen in a state of shock and disbelief, fearing now that the industry will once again be used as a pawn in achieving a favourable Brexit deal with the EU. It must be made absolutely clear that the UK post-Brexit WILL have an exclusive 200nm/ median line economic zone; and the UK fishing industry, finally will have exclusive access to the UK territorial seas out to 12 nm.  

The UK Government will have the absolute power to decide on who will be granted access, and under what conditions. Granting of reciprocal access to foreign vessels is a common practice in bilateral fisheries negotiations; where access can be granted on historical use of the area, quota swaps, and or, if there are exploitation pattern gains to be had in relation to catching older and larger fish.

It is a common acknowledgment within the fishing industry, that everything is paid for by what is caught in the net, and landed on the market. The main focus for the catching sector, irrespective of Brexit is to identify exclusive UK stocks, and quantify zonal attachment for stocks that are deemed to be shared. 

Realigning Relative State allocations in relation to ecosystem creep is of utmost importance; as a means of mitigating the possibility for chokes species such as NS hake, and area VIIE haddock and VIID cod. This is especially important in respect to the Landings Obligation/Discard Ban, which comes into full force in 2019. 

The UK government has commissioned work into mapping the extent of zonal attachment for stocks shared with the EU and other parties such as Norway/Faeroe. This is an assignment that the UK should not pursue alone, if there is to be any chance of reaching a consensus and ratification by all parts. This work needs to be undertaken in a joint EU-UK working group, and under the scrutiny of an unbiased third party such as ICES, and with observers from countries such as USA and Canada. ICES have informed that they have not received any request from the UK Government to assist in this important and necessary work on defining zonal attachment.

Should the Government decide to use UK fish resources as a bargaining chip, then it's important to quantify how much fish, and for what it is being traded for"

Do we have an answer yet from Defra? Where is the UK today on this crucial aspect of Brexit and the UK fishing industry?

Live from Parliament: "Is Defra ready for Brexit?"

There are plenty fo questions that you might want to put to Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs today.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Oral Evidence Session

 Is Defra ready for Brexit?

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Way back in September 2017, well in advance of the original Brexit date the letter below was sent to Nigel Gooding at Defra. It's the kind of question that many in the industry - from fishermen to processors and associated trades - would seek answers to from the department. His reply was, "I'll look into this and get back to you later."

Said author of the letter, Ian Kinsey, "There's a lot of talk about becoming a leading fisheries nation, getting it right and doing the right thing - this starts with taking responsibility and actually 'leading'."

"The EU referendum and the majority vote to leave the EU was met with jubilation from the UK fishing industry, and has been characterised by many as "a sea of opportunity". The BIG question now is in what manner this "sea of opportunity" is to be realised for the fishermen of the UK? The benefits of leaving the EU, and the infamous CFP are numerous; and should empower the UK Government to design, and implement a fisheries management system that works for both fish resources, and the fishermen that depend upon them. The business of fishing has never been plain sailing, and a "Fisheries Brexit" doesn't seem like being an easy affair either.  

The media coverage of Michael Gove's recent visit to Denmark; where he gave "assurance" to Danish fishermen that they would still have access to UK waters post-Brexit, has been seen by many as yet another sell out of the fishing industry. Also, the reported clash between Michael Gove and Chancellor Philip Hammond over the use of fisheries as a bargaining chip in the wider Brexit negotiations has done little to lessen their fears. Both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron have expressed that they will fight for their respective fishing industries to achieve the best possible post-Brexit deal. This has left many UK fishermen in a state of shock and disbelief, fearing now that the industry will once again be used as a pawn in achieving a favourable Brexit deal with the EU. It must be made absolutely clear that the UK post-Brexit WILL have an exclusive 200nm/ median line economic zone; and the UK fishing industry, finally will have exclusive access to the UK territorial seas out to 12 nm. 

The UK Government will have the absolute power to decide on who will be granted access, and under what conditions. Granting of reciprocal access to foreign vessels is a common practice in bilateral fisheries negotiations; where access can be granted on historical use of the area, quota swaps, and or, if there are exploitation pattern gains to be had in relation to catching older and larger fish.

It is a common acknowledgement within the fishing industry, that everything is paid for by what is caught in the net, and landed on the market. The main focus for the catching sector, irrespective of Brexit is to identify exclusive UK stocks, and quantify zonal attachment for stocks that are deemed to be shared. 

Realigning Relative State allocations in relation to ecosystem creep is of utmost importance; as a means of mitigating the possibility for chokes species such as NS hake, and area 7E haddock and 7D cod. This is especially important in respect to the Landings Obligation/Discard Ban, which comes into full force in 2019. The UK government has commissioned work into mapping the extent of zonal attachment for stocks shared with the EU and other parties such as Norway/Faeroe. This is an assignment that the UK should not pursue alone, if there is to be any chance of reaching a consensus and ratification by all parts. This work needs to be undertaken in a joint EU-UK working group, and under the scrutiny of an unbiased third party such as ICES, and with observers from countries such as USA and Canada. ICES have informed that they have not received any request from the UK Government to assist in this important and necessary work on defining zonal attachment.

Should the Government decide to use UK fish resources as a bargaining chip, then it's important to quantify how much fish, and for what it is being traded for"

Ian Kinsey September 2017. 

Temporary rates of customs duty on seafood imports after EU Exit

The UK government has announced the rates of customs duty (tariffs) that will apply to imports of goods into the UK if the UK leaves the EU with no deal. The tariffs will be valid initially for 12 months. The government will be consulting on future permanent tariffs during this period. The new regime would affect only imports into the UK.

The announcement lists 21 seafood products that will incur duty. These new tariffs mirror the tariffs that currently apply to seafood product imported into the EU, and range from 7.5% to 15% for unprocessed fish and are set at 24% for prepared or preserved tuna.

A large proportion of the seafood commodities that are imported into the UK are not listed in the government announcement and therefore will not incur a duty on import. These products include salmon, whitefish (other than monkfish), pelagic fish and bivalve molluscs. Among the zero-tariffed seafood commodities are those currently covered by the European Union autonomous tariff quotas.

The government announcement can be accessed through this link.

The tariffs in the UK government announcement are:

Commodity Code	Seafood Product	Tariff Rate	Additional Information
03038910	Frozen freshwater fish, not elsewhere specified	8%	Excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 0304
03038990	Frozen fish, not elsewhere specified	15%	Excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 0304
03048910	Frozen fillets of freshwater fish, not elsewhere specified	9%
03048990	Frozen fish fillets, not elsewhere specified	9%
03049965	Frozen meat (whether or not minced) of Monkfish (Lophius spp)	7.5%	Excluding fillets
03061792	Frozen shrimps of the genus “Penaeus”	12%	Even smoked or whether in the shell of not - including shrimps in shell cooked by steaming or by boiling in water
03061799	Frozen shrimps and prawns (excluding “Pandalidae” “Crangon” deepwater rose shrimps “Parapenaeus longirostris” and “Penaeus”)	12%	Even smoked whether in the shell or not - including shrimps and prawns in the shell cooked by steaming or by boiling in water
03061990	Frozen crustaceans fit for human consumption (excluding rock lobster and other sea crawfish, lobsters, shrimps, prawns, crabs, freshwater crayfish and Norway lobsters “Nephrops norvegicus”)	12%	Even smoked, whether in the shell or not, including crustaceans in the shell cooked by steaming or by boiling in water
16041421	Prepared or preserved skipjack whole or in pieces in vegetable oil	24%	Excluding minced
16041426	Fillets known as “Loins” of skipjack prepared or preserved whole or in pieces	24%	Excluding such products in vegetable oil or minced
16041428	Prepared or preserved skipjack whole or in pieces	24%	Excluding minced fillets known as “loins” and such products in vegetable oil
16041431	Prepared or preserved yellowfin tuna “Thunnus albacares” whole or in pieces in vegetable oil	24%	Excluding minced
16041438	Prepared or preserved yellowfin tuna “Thunnus albacares” whole or in pieces	24%	Excluding minced fillets known as “loins” and such products in vegetable oil
16041441	Prepared or preserved tuna whole or in pieces in vegetable oil (excluding minced skipjack and yellowfin tuna “Thunnus albacares”)	24%
16041448	Prepared or preserved tuna whole or in pieces (excluding minced fillets known as “loins” and such products in vegetable oil skipjack and yellowfin tuna “Thunnus albacares”)	24%
03019190,  03021180, 03031490,  03044290, 03048290, 03054300	Various trout products	*	*See the original guidance and links therein for tariff information

*See the original guidance and links therein for tariff information

Although there are only 21 seafood products on the new tariff list, the implications of these changes are potentially significant. Whereas previously the UK did not pay any duty on seafood products imported from the EU, in a no-deal situation UK importers will pay duty on the listed products if they are importing these products directly from the EU. These listed products already attract a tariff if they are imported directly from outside the EU and this will continue. Seafood products that are not on the list will continue to be imported with a tariff of zero. A summary can be found in the table below:

Description	‘Current’ full tariff	‘No deal’ full tariff
Listed products imported from the EU	Zero	UK tariff
Unlisted products imported from the EU	Zero	Zero (no change)
Listed products imported from outside the EU	EU tariff	UK tariff (as this is equal to the EU tariff, there is no change)
Unlisted products imported from outside the EU	EU tariff	Zero

Preferential tariffs

The government announcement also contains information on preferential tariffs on imports from a number of countries, including Chile, the Faroe Islands, and countries that benefit from the General System of Preferences (GSP) scheme as follows:

• All seafood from Chile will be zero tariffed except for the seven tariff lines listed that cover prepared and prepared tuna.
• The arrangement for the Faroe Islands allows an additional five product lines of frozen fish and shrimps to be tariff free.
• All seafood from the Eastern and Southern Africa States (Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles and Zimbabwe) will be zero tariffed. (Fishery products from Zimbabwe is not currently authorised for import.)
• Imported seafood from countries currently benefiting from the GSP scheme will continue to benefit from the same low or zero tariffs after a no-deal exit from the EU.
• Preferential tariffs are listed for seafood from Israel, Palestine and Switzerland.
• Quotas

The UK government has released a draft list of tariff quotas for imported products, including seafood. Where a tariff quota applies, it will be possible to import limited amounts of particular types of seafood at a lower rate of duty. The quotas are listed in the Tariff Quota Rate Reference Document, available here.

This Tariff Quota Rate Reference Document has been published in advance of a Statutory Instrument establishing the tariff rate quotas and establishing a regime for managing them. Management will be mostly on a first-come first-served allocation system. However, until the statutory instrument is available, there is no further detail on their application or their management.

Seafood product quotas covered by the Autonomous Tariff Quotas (ATQs) are listed under Part B, Section 2, of the Reference Document. As these products will be zero tariffed if the UK trade tariff comes into force, irrespective of the volume imported, there are no tariff quota volumes associated with them.