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"

What does a no deal Brexit look like for fishing?

Despite its small size relative to the rest of the UK’s economy, fishing has dominated the Brexit debate. Many in the fishing industry have long been critical of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and opinion polling before the referendum shows that fishers intended to overwhelmingly vote Leave.

93% of them felt that leaving the EU would increase the fortunes of their industry, with 77% believing that Brexit would be an opportunity to catch more fish. In terms of trade, the perception in 2016 was that Brexit would have little impact on seafood trade, with 77% believing it would have no impact at all.

Since the referendum attention has increasingly focused on the complexity and diversity of the fishing industry and how this might be reflected in the eventual Brexit deal with the EU.

Given differences in the nature of fishing across the UK’s four nations, as well as wider debates about the ownership of fishing rights coupled with the UK government’s commitments to a ‘green Brexit’, reaching a deal which pleases everyone across fishing sectors is akin to finding the holy grail.

However, following the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by MPs in January, the prospect of a ‘no deal’ Brexit has risen up the agenda. It has been highlighted that such a scenario will lead to short-term disruption and uncertainty.

Fishing wouldn’t be excluded from this. Indeed, the instability of no deal is acknowledged by some in the fishing industry itself. For example, Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Association suggests that, in the event of a no deal, UK vessels could just tie up and “temporarily fish less” until either governance and policy process catch up, or the UK and EU come to agreement at some point after 29 March.

But a closer inspection of what a no deal Brexit means for fishing suggest its impact goes beyond just sitting back and weathering the storm.

Firstly, even in a no deal scenario, the UK doesn’t get to go it alone in fisheries policy. The much banded about phrase ‘independent coastal state’ suggests the UK will have unprecedented freedom, but this comes with significant obligations. Many of the fish stocks in the UK’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are shared.

This means the UK would still have to cooperate with the EU, and other coastal states (such as Norway and the Faroe Islands) in managing those stocks.

Also, given that the UK fishing fleet currently lacks the necessary capacity to catch all the fish in the UK EEZ, it would still likely have to permit foreign vessels access to catch any surplus fish stocks.

Secondly, there is the question of what fisheries policy would look like under no deal. The UK doesn’t have a new fisheries policy ready to go at the push of a button in the event of no deal: the fisheries white paper, published last year, contained many laudable aims but remained light on detail.

The Fisheries Bill only provides a legislative framework, and is still the subject of ongoing parliamentary deliberation.

One provision in the Withdrawal Agreement sees the UK effectively remaining in the CFP until the end of 2020. This faced much criticism at the time it was announced, but one of the reasons for this transition period is because it gives the UK and its devolved administrations time and space to develop their own approach to fisheries policy which meet the diverse needs of the fishing industry.

It also provides administrations across the UK, who already have devolved responsibility for fisheries management, to evaluate their capacities for engaging in more activities that were previously done for them via the CFP (including the potential to engage more in international negotiations).

A no deal Brexit means no transition arrangement, and this brings one of two risks. On the one hand the absence of any alternative approach to fisheries policy will simply mean the status quo will continue.

All the rules and regulations of the CFP will effectively remain in place (having been rolled over by the EU Withdrawal Act), while the government remains distracted dealing with the day-to-day fallout of a no deal.

On the other hand, the UK may choose to make sudden sweeping changes in order to signal its independent coastal state status. But this carries a risk too.

Such a rushed approach to policy design leaves little room for engagement with those working in the industry who will be affected, resulting in an approach which fails to work at sea.

This also comes at a time when trust between fishers and the government is low. Moreover, any sudden changes to access are likely to affect the UK’s standing on the international stage too.

The third significant issue with a no deal Brexit relates to trade. The majority of what the UK catches is exported, with most of that going to the EU. Tariffs aren’t the main concern though.

Rather it is non-tariff barriers, such as customs checks, which represent the largest risk, particularly as they threaten to cause delays to the transport of perishable seafood products.

The notion that vessels could simply “temporarily fish less” until such practicalities are sorted out will do little to reassure skippers of smaller vessels. They make up 78% of the UK’s fishing fleet, have tighter profit margins, and are most exposed to the effects of trade disruptions.

This is especially the case for shellfishing (the largest of the UK’s catching sectors), which a recent report commissioned by the Shellfish Association, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation found would be significantly impacted under a no deal scenario.

On top of all of this are several more ‘practical’ issues. A recent report by the National Audit Office found Defra doesn’t yet have the necessary capacity to enforce fisheries regulations out at sea, and most fish will require catch certificates for importing and exporting.

This process may lead to delays and capacity challenges for authorities who will have to approve them, while also placing a significant administrative burden placed on skippers and seafood exporters. The necessary IT systems to facilitate this are still in development.

Finally, a no deal Brexit would mean that British fishing vessels would have no automatic right to access to the EEZs of other EU member states, where 94,000 tonnes of fish worth £88 million were caught in 2017.

For many fishers, EU membership and the CFP have been detrimental to the fortunes of their industry. Some of the issues raised in the debate (such as quota distribution across the UK’s fleet) have always been within the UK government’s gift to address.

Nevertheless, Brexit arguably presents an opportunity for the UK to rethink its approach to fisheries policy.

However, a no deal outcome does little to address the concerns that led many fishers and coastal communities to vote for Brexit in the first place and, if anything, it could make things worse.

Full article by Dr Christopher Huggins, University of Suffolk, and Drs Arno van der Zwet, John Connolly and Craig McAngus, University of the West of Scotland published by the UK in a Changing Europe.  
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this analysis post are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative

FISHERIES COUNCIL DECEMBER 2018 - BREXIT, EUROPE / COMMON FISHERIES POLICY, TACS AND QUOTAS

The NFFO tam have posted their collective thoughts on this year's AgriCouncil TAC meeting in Brussels.

The last Fisheries Council in which the UK will participate as an EU member state concluded in the early hours of 19th December. It was dominated by issues relating to chokes in mixed fisheries, particularly those for which zero catch advice had been given. As expected, whilst some progress was made at the Brussels meeting, many difficult issues remain to be resolved in the New Year and beyond.

Fears that the Commission and Austrian Presidency would be deaf to the UK’s arguments because of Brexit, proved to be unfounded. It was not necessary, therefore for the UK to insist on a declaration reserving its position on the Council’s outcomes in the event of a no-deal departure from the EU in March. Nevertheless, the Commission’s consistent emphasis on presentation over practical implementation, will undoubtedly make it more difficult to reduce choke risks during 2019. An overemphasis on optics and a lack of understanding, or care, about practical implementation has been the hallmark of the CFP for many years.

Against this background, the UK has insisted that TAC decisions on choke stocks, should be kept under close review as next year progresses, to prepare the ground for rapid intervention as the need arises.

Chokes and Zero Catch Advice

The scale and location of chokes in mixed fisheries are not easy to predict.

Where chokes can be foreseen with absolute certainty, is where the scientific advice is for zero catch of a particular species, or where a country has no quota allocation for that particular species. This is the case for five important stocks, including Celtic Sea cod, Irish Sea whiting, West of Scotland cod and whiting and Western Approaches plaice. The approach finally adopted is to set the TAC at a level below current catches, to partially cover unavoidable bycatches, and to make up the gap though encouragement for member state to engage in international swaps and additional selectivity/avoidance measures. Member states without quota (notably Spain and Netherlands) would have first call on the reserved bycatch quota by offering swaps of other desirable quotas. This complicated and untested arrangement will apply from 1st January, but the UK has laid down markers that the level of TAC and the swapping arrangements require early review. This fits with the NFFO’s call for contingency planning because of the uncharted territory we are moving into after 1st January.

Bass

Some progress but not enough, was made in allowing fishermen to keep unavoidable catches of bass, rather than discard them dead. Maintaining momentum towards rebuilding the stocks, rightly remains a priority but nevertheless an opportunity was missed, especially in relation to unavoidable bycatch in the trawl fisheries. Increased catch limits and removal of the 1% bycatch constraint will certainly be welcomed by vessels using fixed gill nets. The main problem remains with the Commission’s insistence on the retention of the 1% bycatch limit for vessels using trawl gears. This will ensure that unacceptable amounts of bass will again be discarded next year. Nevertheless, the increase to 400kgs per two months, even within the 1% bycatch percentage, is a step in the right direction. As expected, bass has not been included under the landing obligation, for rather arcane legal reasons.

The elimination of targeted bass fisheries, from 2016, along with a range of other measures, including an increase in minimum landing size, has led to a huge reduction in fishing pressure on bass. Resultant improvements in the biomass are reflected in this year’s scientific advice.

The measures for 2019 are:

Vessels using demersal trawls, for unavoidable by‑catches not

exceeding 400 kilogrammes per two months and 1% of the weight of the total catches of marine organisms on board caught by that vessel in any single day;

(b) using seines, for unavoidable by‑catches not exceeding 210 kilogrammes per month and 1% of the weight of the total catches of marine organisms on board caught by that vessel in any single day;
(c) using hooks and lines, not exceeding 5.5 tonnes per vessel per year;
(d) using fixed gillnets for unavoidable by‑catches not exceeding 1.4 tonnes per vessel per year

South East

Tony Delahunty, NFFO President and South East Committee Chairman

Mixed fortunes emerged from the Council for the South East. It is a hard blow to face a further 25% TAC reduction in Eastern Channel sole, against the background of deep cuts in previous years. On the other hand, the 10% increase in the TAC for skates and rays in area 7 will be welcome. Despite our efforts, it was not possible to secure an increase in the North Sea TAC, despite an abundance of thornback ray in the Thames and the limited number of alternative fishing opportunities. The high survival exemption for skates and rays means that over-quota catches of ray will be returned to the sea during 2019.

The relaxations in restrictions in the bass fishery will be welcome, although they fall far short of the balanced approach that should be in place at this stage in the recovery of the stock. More could and should have been done by the Council to reduce discards of bass caught as unavoidable bycatch, but despite the combined efforts of the UK France and Netherlands only limited progress was made.

Although Channel cod is not considered to be a choke risk in 2019, things can change very quickly with a fast growing, migratory species like cod. Given the UK’s ludicrously low share of the TAC, it will be important to be ready to intervene if signs appear that the fishery will be choked.

North Sea

Ned Clark, Chairman of the NFFO North East Committee

The main North Sea TACs were, as usual, agreed within the context of EU Norway annual negotiations. Although a proposed 47% cut in the TAC for was averted, the 33% cut which was adopted will make cod the limiting species in the mixed fisheries, increasing the choke risk from medium to acute.

Whiting also faced reductions both through a cut to the TAC but also through a de minimis deduction. The Commission’s calculations were challenged and reduced from 40% to 6%.

Major chokes in the flatfish fisheries were averted by the expedient of removing TAC status from dab and providing a (conditional and temporary) exemption for skates and rays and plaice.

By making a fetish of managing stocks at maximum sustainable yield, rather than using it as a helpful signpost of progress to high average yields, the environmental NGOs marginalised themselves from most of the debates at Council and contented themselves with sniping from the sidelines. Ministers, and even the Commission, accept that MSY goal must be balanced with other CFP objectives, as well as the exigencies of practical fisheries management, and much of the discussion within in the Council was about achieving exactly that balance. There is no question of ignoring the science. It is a question of using the very best available science to inform complex, difficult and multi-faceted management decisions.

Farne Deeps nephrops is a very valuable natural resource for the communities on the North East coast and the species is the main economic driver for the local fleets. It is a relief that the fishery has now stabilised after a dip in the biomass and remedial measures.

Paul Trebilcock, Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation

“Some Progress but Big Challenges Ahead for 2019”

Full implementation of the EU’s landing obligation from the 1 January 2019, meant that more than ever before it was vital that ministers delivered sustainable, workable and effective outcomes for South-West Fishermen.

The UK Government team led by Defra minister, Lord Gardiner in the absence of UK Fisheries Minister George Eustice, were well briefed and committed. There was a clear understanding of our priorities, the challenges, and potential implications for South-West fishermen.

The Council outcomes contained some important gains for the South-West, including significant improvements in quotas like Western hake (increased 28%), megrim sole (increased by 47%) and rollover quotas for pollack and saithe in area 7.

Celtic Sea Cod (ICES area 7e-k)

The principle that zero catch advice could not be compatible with the landing obligation was quickly conceded by the Commission. If followed literally, zero catch advice in mixed fisheries would result in vessels being immediately choked and have to cease fishing in the Celtic Sea early in the year.

Ultimately agreement was reached around a package including:

48% reduction from 2018 TAC, to a level below that which would meet by-catch landings in 2018 by South-West fishermen
A further 6% of the quota having to be made available for quota exchanges with member states that do not have a current quota allocation
Quota exchanges and further selectivity measures (both technical and area based) during the first part of 2019 as ways of addressing the concerns raised.
This complicated and unsatisfactory outcome presents a potentially massive challenge for South-West fishermen in the year ahead.

In view of the problems ahead, the UK has already called for a review of the 2019 TAC for Celtic Sea cod early in the new-year. The reviewed TAC should reflect the landing statistics in 2018 as applied within the ICES Celtic Sea mixed fisheries model. An upward revision would go some way to mitigating the very real choke risk.

Haddock 7b-k

A welcome increase of 20% was secured but is still likely to be a significant choke risk.

It was made clear from the outset that CFPO members have been and will continue to work with scientists on selectivity improvements and enhanced data collection but this multi-faceted problem will not be solved without a realistic level quota being available for South-West fishermen.

Sole 7e, 7hjk and 7fg

There were mixed outcomes for these important South-West flat fish quotas.

7e sole quota continues to improve with a 3% increase reflecting the health of this stock.

7hjk stock stability was reflected in a rollover of the 2018 quota.

There was less positive news on 7fg sole with the Commission’s original proposal of a 9% reduction in relation to the 2018 quota was agreed, despite clear arguments within the MSY framework to mitigate this reduction led by the Belgian delegation.

Plaice 7hjk

As with Celtic Sea cod, the principle that a zero quota advice was not compatible with the landing obligation was quickly conceded by the Commission. If it had been followed it would have resulted in vessels being immediately choked and have to cease fishing in ICES area 7hjk.

Ultimately, agreement was reached around a 15% reduction from 2018 TAC, to a level below that which would meet by-catch landings in 2018 by South-West fishermen.

This is further compounded by 6% of the quota having to be made available for quota exchanges with member states that do not have a current quota allocation.

The Commission pointed towards quota exchanges and developing further selectivity measures (both technical and area based) during the first part of 2019 as ways of addressing the concerns raised.

Ray 6/7

An increase of 5% on the 2018 quota was a reflection of stable catches experienced by fishermen and was welcomed.

The prohibition on landing common skate and restrictions on small-eyed ray landings remain in place and continue to be a frustration that once again was not addressed.

Bass

Some recognition of improving stock status was reflected in the final agreement:

However the final agreement did not take on board or reflect the strong and credible arguments put forward by the NFFO to alleviate the pointless discarding of dead bass in the ultra-mixed trawl fisheries in the South-west. The 1% by-catch provision that remains in place from 2018 will see a continuation of discarding of unavoidable dead by-catch of bass with little or no effect on mortality of bass in these fisheries.

This was a big disappointment but discussions have already begun with DEFRA on how to address this going forward both in terms of re-visiting this during 2019 and of course in the post Brexit era.

Irish Sea

Alan McCulla Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation

The EU’s December 2018 News Net was a historic occasion. Another step towards the EU’s goal of managing fish stocks to a level defined around the principle of Maximum Sustainable Yield. Negotiations in the context of the full implementation of the EU’s Landing Obligation or discard ban. Finally, BREXIT - and the last December Fisheries Council at which the United Kingdom delegation would play a full part.

ANIFPO/Sea Source has attended every one of the year end Councils since December 1993 - 26 in total. Whilst the memory bank doesn’t recall the detail of everyone one of them, the majority do register for the wrong reasons - a succession of decisions that have resulted in dramatic reductions in many of the quotas available to all British fishermen, including those from Northern Ireland fishermen in the Irish Sea. The list of negatives is too long to mention here; quota cuts further exacerbated by the Hague Preference and cod recovery closures to name a few.

The irony is not lost that since the BREXIT vote, cuts to the Irish Sea’s main whitefish species have stalled and at least to some small extent been reversed, a trend that continued at this week’s negotiations in Brussels.

Of course in advance of the meeting signals around some of the quota figures had been loud and clear. Industry representatives, like officials were eager to minimise the issues tabled at the Council to enable discussion to focus on the critical matter of the discard ban, which for the Irish Sea was focused on whiting and the potential this has to choke the targeted fishery for prawns.

As we leave Brussels and count down the days left to BREXIT one question is will we be back in Brussels this time next year? The answer, which of course remains subject to a deal, would seem to be yes. Given the politics around the subject seem to be changing almost on a daily basis, who knows what the next twelve months will bring? But assuming that there is a plan that sticks, then the UK will at least be consulted and have observer status at the Fisheries Council in December 2019. Any meaningful change should come in 2020, as we look forward to the end of the Implementation Period and the UK becoming an independent coastal state. As the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier with the EU, a frontier that extends seawards, our unique geographic location is set to present further complications ahead. From 1 January 2021 we should begin to see real changes, but who knows? No Deal, any deal - a week, even a day is a short time in politics.

As 2018 draws to an end, we have just seen the release of the Government’s consultation on future Immigration Policy. This will be one of the focuses of our attention in the New Year. After all, without crew there is no one to man our fishing vessels - the sea of opportunities that beckons post Brexit could be lost to many coastal communities. Welfare of all our crews be they local, European or non-EEA is paramount and to all of them, especially those who are working away from home this Christmas we wish them a Very Happy Christmas and Peaceful New Year.

NFFO Chairman, Andrew Pascoe

This was my first exposure to the legendary all-night Fisheries Council. As a working fisherman, I was amazed by the intricacy of all the different elements of the final deal, but it seems to me that there is a huge gulf between the design and shaping of the rules in Brussels and where the impact the measures adopted are actually felt – in the wheelhouse and deck of fishing vessels. In particular, I cannot believe that anyone exposed to witnessing the waste of bass caught as an unavoidable bycatch being discarded week after week would allow this waste to continue.

The problem of choke risks generated by the landing obligation was a strand which ran through the Council from beginning to end. It is baffling to me that the CFP has got to this late stage in this flagship policy and is still patching together ad hoc solutions to how it will be implemented in practise.

I was hugely impressed by the Defra team, from Lord Gardiner, pushed into the hot seat at short notice, through to the committed and hard-working officials and scientists who supported him.

If we find ourselves in a transitional arrangement after March, we may find ourselves back in Brussels next December, but without a vote and without a seat at the table. That is a concern. Although this will only last for the 2020 fishing year, there are obvious dangers and it will be important to guard against them. By autumn 2020, we should be negotiating as an independent coastal state, with all that that profound legal change entails.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the Federation’s members, its friends and allies, the very best Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.

The NFFO team in Brussels this year was:

Bill Brock SWFPO and South East

Ned Clark North East

Matthew Cox, Pelagic

Tony Delahunty, South East

Jim Evans, Wales

Judith Farrell, Pelagic

Andrew Locker, North Sea

Arnold Locker, North Sea

Alan McCulla, Northern Ireland

Linda McCall, Northern Ireland

Andrew Pascoe,NFFO Chairman and Cornwall

Jim Portus, South West

Chloe Rogers, North Sea and External Waters

Jane Sandell, North Sea and External Waters

Paul Trebilcock, Cornwall

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive

At the time of going to press, we are waiting for the definitive list of TACs and quota changes.

Further details from the NFFO website in due course:

Oceana seminar - the address from Marai Damanki looking forward to 2019 and beyond.

Seminar with Oceana

Ladies and gentlemen,

As you know we are approaching the end of my term as European Commissioner; a new Commission is being formed as we speak; the fisheries reform has been in force for several months. So this is probably a good time to see how far we've got and give you some personal reflections on where to go from here.

I think we've come quite a long way. To put it upfront: we have managed to modernize our fishing and set aside short-term economic interests in favour of science and sustainability. 

By 2019 we will no longer be throwing away by-catch but using it as food, feed or raw material. Countries have started fine-tuning management rules to the specific conditions of each fishery.  

We have some new Advisory Councils and their composition has changed in favour of small fishermen and civil society. 

We have gone from 5 stocks being fished sustainably in 2010 to 27 today – and counting. 

We also put an end to the gruesome practice of shark finning.

Internationally, we have been pushing for sustainability with all our partners; when we fish outside the EU, we make sure it is with no detriment to fish stocks or local communities. We have helped the recovery of the Eastern Atlantic Bluefin tuna stock. We have overcome dragging disputes with the Faroe Islands, Island and Norway about mackerel and other pelagic stocks. Our strict course of action against illegal fishing has led to banning imports from some countries. I think we can fairly say that on the sustainability front the European Union has been leading by example, and has set itself an agenda to maintain that role.

All this doesn’t mean of course that the battle is over. I am underlining the positive results to convey the message that it can be done. But my successor - and you of course - will have a lot to do for the implementation of all this. I have tried to make it irreversible, but we all know that the devil is in the details. Let me now share some of my experience with you.

The fisheries reform was all about change – relinquishing old models and going for new and long-lasting solutions, in fisheries as in ocean affairs in general.  And change is never easy. There was considerable inertia to overcome, both in the Council of Ministers and in the European Parliament. We had also against us vested interests in fisheries industries and in the markets. 

So we turned to consumers and informed citizens. We turned to other important players, especially non-governmental organizations, and got their support on sustainability and long-term plans. On discards public indignation was mounting, with celebrity chefs helping our case, and we managed to ride that wave too.

On paper Europe was already committed to sustainability, but in practice Member States kept staving off the deadlines for it. Getting by, procrastinating, protecting the status quo had become the norm.  Here is the importance of setting a deadline – ambitious, realistic, binding. I have been pushing towards sustainability since the beginning, and this has allowed us to prove with concrete examples that once it is achieved, fisheries give higher yields.  This definitely has helped to bring many reluctant Member States on board.  

The landing obligation has been one of the most contentious issues – and is one of the most important structural changes. Public support for my proposal put pressure on the opponents. But reform-oriented groups in the Parliament and in the Member States also played their part. Like for instance the Danish minister who took the Presidency in a crucial phase of negotiations in the Council. 

On other points, such as regionalization or the international dimension, we drew our force from experience and from criticism against us.  It was clear for instance that the Brussels micromanagement model could no longer hold. So here we offered elements of power to the national governments and the MEPs in exchange for sustainability. 

We improved the relationship between the Council and the Parliament. There had been tension between the two since the introduction of co-decision in 2009; the stalemate on multiannual plans was that tension's most overt expression. Tactically, we had to break through this pattern to make progress. We managed to agree that the stalemate and the reform were entirely separate issues. A dedicated Task Force would take care of the multiannual plans right after the finalization of the reform negotiations. Then during the reform we made sure that elements like fleet management or national quota allocation remain in the hands of the Member States. This gave the administrations confidence that they would keep control over policy implementation. And we pointed out that regionalization gives them even more freedom to cater to specific problems and situations as they deem fit. 

At the same time, to satisfy the ambitions of Parliament, we made fleet management and quota allocation entirely transparent – with an obligation for Member States with overcapacity to come up with solutions.  

Not only was this trade-off found acceptable, but it also helped to improve relations between the three institutions. So it created a basis for a speedy agreement on the multiannual plans - which both complies with the Treaty and is mutually satisfactory. So on top of everything else, the reform helped us overcome an institutional problem that had blocked us for five years.

In sum, ladies and gentlemen, 

I'm quite happy with the results. The Commission's main ambitions were materialized.

But of course the worst thing we can do now is rest on our laurels. The reform is not an end in itself. Sustainability is. And it carries a whole lot of work and a whole set of new challenges.  

Sustainability is now in the law but is yet to be achieved throughout the Union, and should also be the ambition internationally. There is a clear mandate and so we'll have to adjust the quotas accordingly, in the coming years. For this we imperatively need to keep improving our biological knowledge and advice.

For landing obligation we need to find and apply effective, sensible measures which do not prevent the fleets from functioning normally. The policy allows for flexibility. But this should never undermine the goal itself .We should not let the strict ambitions out of sight. 

We need to go back to our long-term management approach by developing a whole series of multiannual plans. This is good for the resource and for the stability of the industry.

We can now move away from micro-management and regionalization is already underway.  But from a regulatory viewpoint the process also requires a hefty clean-up: for instance over the last three decades the technical measures have layered up into an almost inscrutable maze of rules and detailed requirements. We have to find our way back to a lenient set of rules that are sensible, flexible and serve their purpose. This has to go hand in hand with inclusive stakeholder consultation, paying particular attention to the interests of small-scale fisheries.

Internationally we have made giant steps, but we need to keep the pace to improve the operation of RFMOs by reforming them and supporting them as a leading player in the process. The eradication of pirate fishing and overcapacity are expected to continue to be high on the list of international priorities.  And we need to remodel all our bilateral agreements according to our new standards. Here I have some good ideas still to be implemented and I hope we can continue the cooperation with you and other partners for this. 

These and other challenges stem from the reform. It will take time to materialize, for recovering stocks to grow, for a career in fishing to become attractive again or for responsible management to become the norm worldwide.

Most of all, we will still need the input - and the pressure - from civil society. It will be up to them to make sure that we stay the course.

But with a clear idea of the tasks and clear deadlines we are in a position to continue to build on the strong foundations set during these five years. I am confident that Europe will recover and prosper with more fish, more wealth and more coastal and maritime jobs. 

San Sebastian, 9 September 2014

Speech by Maria Damanaki

Commission proposes fishing opportunities in the Atlantic and North Sea for 2019 Brussels, 7 November 2018 Today the Commission presents its proposal ahead of the December Fisheries Council where Member States should agree next year's fishing quotas. The European Commission proposes fishing opportunities in the Atlantic and the North Sea for 89 stocks: for 62 stocks the fishing quota is either increased or remains the same, for 22 stocks is reduced and for 5 the Commission proposes new by-catch quotas at low level to reduce the fishing pressure.The fishing opportunities, or Total Allowable Catches (TACs), are quotas set for most commercial fish stocks that keep the stocks healthy, while allowing the fishing industry to profit from fishing the highest amount of fish. As the size of some key fish stocks is increasing – notably for Norway lobster in Skagerrak/Kattegat, Northern hake and Southern horse mackerel – so is the profitability of the fishing sector, with an estimated EUR 1.4 billion profit for 2018. Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, said: "Next year will be a milestone year for European fisheries. Our collective duty is to ensure a good transition to the full landing obligation as of 1st January 2019 while continuing our progress to achieve sustainable fishing by 2020. With this proposal, the Commission puts forward concrete solutions to advance on both fronts." In order to put an end to the wasteful practice of discarding fish, as of 1st January 2019, the landing obligation will apply fully to all EU fishing fleets. This means that all catches of regulated commercial species taken on-board (including by-catch) are to be landed and counted against each Member States' respective quotas. In today's proposal the Commission has already deducted the amounts corresponding to the agreed exemptions to the landing obligation from the advised catches. Substantial progress can be observed in the EU with regards to sustainable fishing: 53 stocks are now fishedat Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) levels compared to only 5 in 2009 and 44 in 2017. This means that the fishing pressure on the stock is limited to a level that will allow a healthy future for the fish stock's biomass, while taking into account socioeconomic factors. The Commission is working with Member States to support the fishermen in reaching the objective of having all stocks fished at sustainable levels by 2020, as set by the Common Fisheries Policy. Today's proposal will be submitted for discussion and decision by the Member States at the December Fisheries Council on 17-18 December in Brussels, to be applied as of 1 January 2019. Details of the proposal The Commission bases its proposal on scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), with a view to achieving sustainable management of fish stocks while sustaining profitable livelihoods for fishermen. The proposal covers stocks managed by the EU alone and stocks managed in cooperation with third countries, such as Norway, or through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). International negotiations for many of the stocks concerned are still ongoing and some further stocks are awaiting scientific advice. For these, the figures will be included at a later stage. Proposed increases: For 27 stocks such as Norway lobster and plaice in Skagerrak/Kattegat, the Northern hake stock, Western and Southern horse mackerel, cod, sole and plaice in the Irish Sea, and sole and megrim in the Bay of Biscay, the Commission proposes to increase the Total Allowable Catch. Proposed stocks to be fished at 2018 levels: 35 stocks are kept at the same level as last year. Proposed decreases: Decreases are proposed for 22 stocks, of which 12 see a decrease of less than 20%.For 5 of the stocks, namely cod in the West of Scotland and cod in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay/Iberian Waters, whiting in the West of Scotland and in the Irish Sea, and plaice in the southern Celtic Sea and southwest of Ireland, scientists have advised setting a zero quota (Total Allowable Catch) in 2019. The Commission is thus proposing to no longer allow targeting these stocks. Proposed new by-catch levels: For 5 stocks captured incidentally, a by-catch quota is proposed at low level to reduce the fishing pressure, subject to a number of conditions, including full catch documentation (see table 4). These stocks are caught in mixed whitefish fisheries. For northern seabass: the Commission is proposing a set of measures, expressed in catch limits (not TACs), following the latest scientific advice. Those measures would allow higher catches for hooks and lines fishery with 7 tonnes/vessel (compared to 5 tonnes/vessel in 2018) and a "bag limit" for recreational fisheries of 1 fish/day for 7 months, increasing from only three months in 2018. For more information See tables below for details on today's proposals for the Atlantic and the North Sea. TACs and quotas Questions and Answers on Commission's proposal on fishing opportunities in the Atlantic and North Sea for 2019. Scientific advice: the proposed TACs take due account of the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Stakeholders were also consulted, based on the Commission's Consultation document. Multiannual management plans Map of fishing areas Note: The tables below only list EU stocks not shared with third countries. All TAC values are expressed in tonnes. Final TAC figures for 2018 reflect the total TAC set by the EU for a certain stock, after transfers to third countries where applicable. Table 1: Stocks with proposals for increased Total Allowable Catch (TAC)  Common name Scientific name TAC Unit Final TAC in 2018 TAC 2019 (Proposal) TAC change: 2018 - 2019 (Proposal) Anglerfish Lophiidae 8c, 9, 10, CECAF 34.1.1 3 955 4 023 +2% Blue ling Molva dypterygia Union and int. waters 5b, 6, 7 10 463 11 778 +13% Boarfish Caproidae 6, 7, 8 20 380 21 830 +7 % Cod Gadus morhua 7a 695 807 +16% Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 6b, 12 and 14 5 163 10 469 +103% Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 7a 3 207 3 739 +17% Hake Merluccius merluccius 3a 3 136 4 286 +37% Hake Merluccius merluccius 2a and 4 3 653 4 994 +37% Hake Merluccius merluccius 5b, 6, 7, 12 and 14 62 536 79 762 +28% Hake Merluccius merluccius 8abde 42 460 52 118 +23% Horse mackerel Trachurus 2a, 4a; 6, 7a-c,7e-k, 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e 5b; international waters of 12 and 14 99 470 119 118 +20% Horse mackerel Trachurus 8c 16 000 18 858 +18% Horse mackerel Trachurus 9 55 555 94 017 +69% Lemon sole and witch Microstomus kitt & Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Union waters of 2a, 4 6 391 7 874 +23% Megrim Lepidorhombus Union waters of the North Sea 2 526 2 887 +14% Megrim Lepidorhombus 7 12 310 18 132 +47% Megrim Lepidorhombus 8abde 1 218 1 704 +40% Megrim Lepidorhombus 8c, 9, 10, Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 1 387 1 872 +35% Norway lobster Nephrops 3a 11 738 19 424 +65% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 3aS (Kattegat) 1 483 2 941 +98% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 7a 1 793 3 075 +72% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 7fg 511 1 608 +215% Sole Solea 3a 448 502 +12% Sole Solea 7a 40 t 414 +935% Sole Solea 7e 1 202 1 242 +3% Sole Solea 8ab 3 621 3 823 +6% Turbot & brill Psetta maxima & Scophthalmus rhombus 2a and 4 7 102 8 122 +14% Table 2: Stocks with no changes in Total Allowable Catch (TAC)  Common name Scientific name TAC Unit Final TAC in 2018 TAC 2019 (Proposal) TAC change: 2018 - 2019 (Proposal) Blue ling Molva dypterygia 2a, 4 53 53 0% Blue ling Molva dypterygia 3a 8 8 0% Cod Gadus morhua 6b Rockall 74 74 0% Greater silver smelt Argentina silus 1, 2 90 90 0% Greater silver smelt Argentina silus 3a, 4 1 234 1 234 0% Greater silver smelt Argentina silus Union and int. waters of 5, 6, 7 4 661 4 661 0% Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Union waters of 2a and 4; Union and international waters of 5b and 6 2 500 2 500 0% Herring Clupea harengus 6a (S), 7b, 7c 1 630 1 630 0% Herring Clupea harengus Union and int. waters of 5b, 6b, 6a (N) 4 170 4 170 0% Herring Clupea harengus 7ef 930 930 0% Horse mackerel Trachurus 4b, 4c, 7d 15 179 15 179 0% Ling Molva molva Union and int. waters of 1 and 2 36 36 0% Ling Molva molva 3a 87 87 0% Ling Molva molva Union and int. waters of 5 33 33 0% Ling Molva molva Union and int. waters of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 20 396 20 396 0% Norway lobster Nephrops 8c 2 2 0% Picked dogfish Squalus acanthias 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 14 270 270 0% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 5, 6, 12, 14 658 658 0% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 7bc 74 74 0% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 8, 9, 10 CECAF 34.1.1 395 395 0% Pollack Pollachius pollachius 5b, 6, 12, 14 397 397 0% Pollack Pollachius pollachius 7 Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English channel 12 163 12 163 0% Pollack Pollachius pollachius 8abde 1 482 1 482 0% Pollack Pollachius pollachius 8c 231 231 0% Pollack Pollachius pollachius 9, 10, CECAF 34.1.1 282 282 0% Saithe Pollachius virens 7, 8, 9, 10, CECAF 34.1.1 3 176 3 176 0% Sole Solea 6 57 57 0% Sole Solea 7bc 42 42 0% Sole Solea 7hjk 382 382 0% Sole Solea 8cde, 9 , 10, CECAF 34.1.1 1072 1072 0% Tusk Brosme brosme Union and int. waters 1, 2, 14 21 21 0% Tusk Brosme brosme 3a Kattegat, Skagerrak 31 31 0% Tusk Brosme brosme Union waters of 4 251 251 0% Tusk Brosme brosme Union and int. waters 5, 6, 7 4 130 4 130 0% Whiting Merlangius merlangus 8 2 540 2 540 0% Table 3: Stocks with proposals for decreased Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Common name Scientific name TAC Unit Final TAC in 2018 TAC 2019 (Proposal) TAC change: 2018 - 2019 (Proposal) Anglerfish Lophiidae 7 33 516 32 999 -2% Anglerfish Lophiidae 8abde 8 980 8 371 -7% Blue ling Molva dypterygia Int. waters of 12 286 229 -20% Cod Gadus morhua 3aS (Kattegat) 630 476 -24% Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 7b-k, 8, 9, 10 6 910 5 937 -14% Hake Merluccius merluccius 8c, 9 and 10, Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 9 258 7 963 -14% Herring Clupea harengus 7a Irish Sea 7 016 6 896 -2% Herring Clupea harengus 7ghjk Celtic Sea, South West Ireland 10 127 4 742 -53% Ling Molva molva Union waters of 4 3 843 3 738 -3% Megrim Lepidorhombus Union and int. waters of 5b, 6, 12, 14 5 432 5 363 -1% Norway lobster Nephrops 2a and 4 24 518 22 854 -7% Norway lobster Nephrops 9, 10 381 281 -26% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 7de 10 360 10 116 -2% Sole Solea 2a and 4 15 684 12 247 -22% Sole Solea 7d 3 405 2 508 -26% Sole Solea 7fg Bristol Channel 920 841 -9% Sprat Sprattus sprattus 7de 3 296 2 637 -20% Cod Gadus morhua 6a, Union and international waters of 5b 0 -100% Cod Gadus morhua 7b, 7c, 7e-k, 8, 9 and 10; Union waters of CECAF 0 -100% Whiting Merlangius merlangius 6; Union and international waters of 5b; international waters of 12 and 14 0 -100% Whiting Merlangius merlangius 7a 0 -100% Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 7h, 7j and 7k 0 -100% Table 4: Stocks for which a by-catch Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is proposed Common name Scientific name TAC Unit Bycatch TAC 2019 Proposal (t) Cod Gadus morhua 6a, Union and international waters of 5b 1396 Cod Gadus morhua 7b, 7c, 7e-k, 8, 9 and 10; Union waters of CECAF pm Whiting Merlangius merlangius 6; Union and international waters of 5b; international waters of 12 and 14 1238 Whiting Merlangius merlangius 7a 612 Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 7h, 7j and 7k 90 Table 5: Stocks subject to pending advice or ongoing negotiations Common name Scientific name TAC Unit Final TAC in 2018 Anchovy Engraulis 8 33000 Anglerfish Lophiidae Union waters of 2a and 4 16225 Anglerfish Lophiidae 6; Union and international waters of 5b; international waters of 12 and 14 9180 Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 5b, 6a 4654 Norway lobster Nephrops 6; Union and international waters of 5b 12129 Norway lobster Nephrops 7 29091 Norway lobster Nephrops 8abde 3614 Northern Prawn Pandalus borealis Union waters of 2a and 4 1957 Skates and rays Rajiformes Union waters of 2a and 4 1654 Skates and rays Rajiformes Union waters of 3a 47 Skates and rays Rajiformes Union waters of 6ab, 7a-c and 7e-k 9699 Skates and rays Rajiformes Union waters of 8 and 9 4326 Skates and rays Rajiformes 7d 1276 Whiting Merlangius merlangus 7b-k 22213 Undulate Ray Raja undulata 7d, 7e 180 Table 6: Stocks for which the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is delegated to an individual Member State Common name Scientific name TAC Unit Delegated to Herring Clupea 6 Clyde United Kingdom Horse Mackerel Trachurus Union waters of CECAF (Canaries) Spain Horse Mackerel Trachurus Union waters of CECAF (Madeira) Portugal Horse Mackerel Trachurus 10, Union waters of CECAF (Azores) Portugal Penaeus shrimps Penaeus French Guyana France