The Landing Obligation (LO) - but four months away.

While the UK media and population at large continues to debate BREXIT the fishermen of the UK and Europe face a more immediate dilemma - the impending full implementation of the Landing Obligation. Out of this dilemma the MINOUW project was born.

The MINOUW project’s overall objective is the gradual elimination of discards in European marine fisheries. They aim to minimise unwanted catches by incentivising the adoption of technologies and practices that reduce bycatch and discards, and avoid damage to sensitive marine species and habitats.

Our goal is to develop and demonstrate technological and socio-economic solutions that enable and incentivise fishermen to 1) avoid unwanted catches, or 2) where this cannot be reasonably or practically achieved, to utilise them productively and sustainably.

Landing, the catch.

With only four months until the full implementation of the Landing obligation in January 2019, fishers are facing a huge challenge to adapt. Promoting the adoption of affordable, more selective fishing gears would be a huge step in the right direction.

THE LANDING OBLIGATION - A HUGE CHANGE IN EUROPEAN FISHERIES

Introduced under EU legislation as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP, EU Reg. 1983/2013) The Landing Obligation has been described as ‘the biggest change in European fisheries since the introduction of quotas in 1983’.

With up to one million tonnes of fish estimated to be thrown overboard in Europe each year, the so-called ‘discard ban’ is designed to end the practice by fishers of throwing non-target and undersized species back in the sea. From now on, all catches of regulated species will need to be landed in port.

Its introduction represents a huge change in fishing practices for fishers across Europe, and full implementation and compliance represents a major challenge.

THE FISHING INDUSTRY IS NOT PREPARED TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE

Despite the incremental introduction of the Landing Obligation over the last four years, the fisheries industry remains woefully underprepared for its implementation, and complying fully will cause real difficulty for fishers both economically and logistically.

The requirement to land all catches of regulated species will have a real financial impact, with increased handling costs both at sea (sorting, storage) and in port.

These costs are not the only issue; dealing with the landings itself will be problematic. As fish that would have been discarded cannot be sold for human consumption, they must be disposed of in other ways - for example as food for pets or aquaculture - but the facilities, logistics and markets for dealing with this are not in place. Fishers could find themselves having to pay for the destruction of these fish, as special waste of animal origin.

In addition, as of January 1st 2019, any fishers not complying with the landing obligations could be considered as acting illegally, with the EU Commission coming under increasing pressure to ensure the rules of the CFP are enforced.

In addition, as of January 1st 2019, any fishers not complying with the landing obligations could be considered as acting illegally, with the EU Commission coming under increasing pressure to ensure the rules of the CFP are enforced.

BETTER SELECTIVITY IS THE BEST APPROACH - ELIMINATE DISCARDS AT SOURCE

Faced with this situation, we need to find a practical and constructive approach to the implementation of the Landing Obligation that helps fishers to adapt.

Firstly, we should encourage fishers to face reality: ultimately they will have to abide by the landing obligation. Secondly, we should provide the tools, information and funding that helps them do so.

Through our work over the last two years we have seen the willingness of fishers to collaborate and look for solutions to the discard problem. Our experience has been that they were quick to see that greater selectivity - and eliminating the problem of discards and bycatch at source - was the best way to comply with the new rules.

“It’s interesting to see the willingness of fishermen to collaborate in finding solutions to discards as they are now feeling the pressure of the landing obligation”

Sergio Vitale, CNR (MINOUW)

More selective fishing gear can bring many additional benefits to fishers, and is an affordable, practical and effective action for fishers to consider. Information about more selective gears, where and how they can be used, and funding to help fishers switch to using them will be key to a successful implementation of the landing obligation.

Research at the University of York (UK) found that the introduction of a discard ban in Norwegian cod and haddock fisheries in 1987 ultimately encouraged fishers to install more selective fishing gear. Despite some short-term economic costs, the Norwegian and Barents Sea fisheries are today among some of the most prosperous in the world.

WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD POLICY MAKERS TAKE?

1. Make selectivity the priority

The best option to eliminate discards is to avoid unwanted catches in the first place, by increasing the selectivity of fishing gears. Additionally, when unwanted catches do occur, the survival rates of the discarded fish can be improved by adapting techniques.

2. Provide funding

The more selective fishing gears successfully tested by MINOUW are inexpensive, and the use of European Maritime Fishery Funds (EMFF) could help scale up the adoption of more selective gears at regional scale, e.g. in the Mediterranean.

For more details visit the MINOUW website.

Further Landing Obligation information information can be found on the European Commission's Fisheries site here:

At this crucial time - Seafish are sending news direct from Brussels

Latest update from Brussels

Seafish has a representative in Brussels to ensure the timely and appropriate presentation of key information, evidence and analysis to the UK seafood industry emanating directly from the EU's institutions.

Areas of Work

Information

Seafish Brussels wants to make sure that UK's seafood industry understands the nature and decision-making mechanisms within the EU. There are downloads at the bottom of this page that explain the EU's decision-making process. Brussels Updates, periodic news roundups from Brussels, are also available for download on this page.

Engagement

• EU level: Seafish Brussels engages with EU stakeholders to build alliances and work together in a wide range of activities at EU level

• UK level: Seafish Brussels responds to the needs of the UK seafood industry updating them on current activities and issues while guiding them to select the most appropriate approach to best defend its interests in Brussels

Brussels Updates: news round-ups from Brussels

More opinions on Brexit and where the inshore fishing industry might stand.

Inshore fishing provides the greatest employment in the sector.

Standing on the shingle of Hastings beach beside his fishing boat, Paul Joy says his family have fished these waters since before the time of William the Conqueror. He’s done the research, and the Joys have had boats here since records began. His boat had been out at dawn that morning, hugging the coastline with a skipper, two crew and the “boy” ashore, aged 80, who winches the Kaya up the pebbles with a rusty bulldozer. “My father, Will, born in 1906, made an adequate living with a smaller boat than mine. Now everyone subsidises fishing with other work. I earned the same as a carpenter, now you’re lucky to get a Tesco shelf-stacker’s pay.” Fishing quotas are killing the small fishermen, he says.

Stand here to breathe in the heart of Brexit. Last week, in ports around the country, fishing boats protested – sending up flares to oppose the transition deal that leaves them in the common fisheries policy (CFP), but without a seat at the EU table sharing out the fish. Protest organisers said: “We are sickened by remainers gleefully peddling the deliberate narrative that fishing doesn’t matter.”

Does it matter? The fishing industry is worth less than 0.5% of GDP. They rightly fear this pinprick to the economy will be traded for bigger prizes – finance, cars, pharma, airline routes. Why else, they ask, is the government’s fisheries white paper delayed time and again? Thirteen Rees-Moggites and one DUP MP swear they’ll vote down any deal unless the UK breaks from the CFP. As these hard Brexiteers want no deal anyway, fishing is their perfect pretext, though no deal would be the fishermen’s apocalypse.

Here the referendum was lost, in the romance of the sea, the rugged cliffs and coasts of our island story among old salt spirits of a seafaring nation. This is the symbolism the remainers fatally forgot, tone deaf to the draw of John Masefield’s poem Sea Fever or Millais’s The Boyhood of Raleigh. Economics says fishing is of nugatory value, but politics says fishing is deep-dyed in national identity, down to the last fish and chip shop. That heart-versus-head error is why remain lost – and why its campaigners still fail to connect with unreasoning national sentiments. They forget those sentiments can be cashable too: Hastings’ 27 picturesque boats, huts and fish stalls bring the impoverished town £5m a year in tourism.

Joy heads the small-fishers’ organisation, Nutfa. He is a sharp campaigner, steeped in the fiendishly conflicting complexities of international fishing policy. If “take back control” meant anything, it was Britannia ruling her own waves. But that’s not going to happen, because it can’t.

Michael Gove, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, casually promised instant freedom from the fisheries policy, but backed down embarrassingly when our know-nothing negotiators were taken by surprise (again) to find other EU fishing nations just as adamant: those with their own fierce fishing traditions feel just as passionately. Who knew?

There always were and always will be fishing treaties between countries, now more than ever to preserve precarious stocks. Unless navies are to go to war to defend their fishing fleets, there must always be agreements. Fishing treaties existed before Britain joined the EU. Quotas fixed long ago often don’t seem fair now, nor do they preserve stocks well enough. But the EU is only one element: ask Grimsby fishers about friction between English and Scottish rights, as global warming sends cod migrating north. Fish don’t obey treaties.

Here’s the Brexiteers’ dishonesty. Each country is free to share out its national quota as it chooses – but free-market Britain, unlike others, let fishers sell their quotas abroad. The Dutch ship Cornelis Vrolijk, registered in Caterham, owns 23% of the entire UK quota. “Slipper skippers” sold their quotas abroad – it was easier to put their feet up than to fish. Could Gove seize it back post-Brexit? No more than Jeremy Corbyn could seize back rail or energy companies from foreign owners without hefty compensation. It’s not prevented by the EU, but by basic property law.

As hard Brexiteers want no deal, fishing is their perfect pretext – though no deal would be the fishermen’s apocalypse. Gove could redistribute quotas between our own big ships and small boats. In Britain, 77% of the boats are less than 10 metres long, employing most of the UK’s 12,000 fishers, yet owning just 4% of local quota. A key article in the CFP says quotas should be allocated transparently and objectively, and include “social, economic and environmental criteria”. Small boats matter most for coastal life and do least environmental harm, so should take priority. Talk to Joy long enough about all the complexities of different fish quotas and treaties, and his most pressing need is for the British government to take from the big boats and give to the under-10m flotilla.


Gove has the power to do it, says Thomas Appleby, associate law professor at the University of the West of England, a fisheries law specialist. Britain could and should have banned the sale of its quotas, but Gove could repair some of the damage: so long as UK quota is taken back proportionally from all, shares could be redistributed to the small boats. Why doesn’t he do it? Joy points to the power of the big companies: two-thirds of UK quotas are taken by three multinationals. And he talks of business influence over the Conservatives. Here’s an irony: the EU fisheries fund has given Joy’s small boats lobby a grant to set up its own producer organisation as a political counterweight to fight the big boats.



What of the “taking back control” dream, our navy chasing foreign boats from our waters? Impossible, when 80% of UK fish is sold in the EU, which would retaliate with prohibitive tariffs and delaying checks at Calais to let fish rot on the quay. Bremerhaven is just one port eager to seize our fish-processing business, which employs 18,000 people. Consider what a trade war would do to the Scottish smoked salmon industry, worth more than all of the UK fishing industry.

At sea, the Brexiteers are coming face to face with hard truths: we are not alone. No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent. We trade, we exchange, we buy and sell. Fish was a bad emblem for the hard Brexiteers to choose because it’s an archetypal example of the need for cooperation – in fishing, conservation and sales. Trade-offs, haggling, deals and environmental necessity demand treaties between us and our neighbours, in or out of the EU. Except that outside it, our negotiators have a weak hand. The romance of the sea was good referendum propaganda; now it stands as the best example of why standing alone is impossible.

Full story courtesy of the Guardian.

One year away from the divorce court.

 The referendum caused the country, counties, family, friends and workmates to vote a simple 'Yes' or "No' on an issue with so many facets and so many unknowns that neither Leave or Remain could provide straightforward answers. Like an arranged marriage without the getting to know, date, engagement and then a wedding to tie up the nuptials the UK is now headed off to the divorce court hoping to keep at least 50% of what it had in the marriage. 

Fishing is undoubtedly one of the UK's chattels that on paper could do without.  Looked at purely on the basis of financial value,  many decent sized companies employ more people and produce more wealth than the fishing industry in its entirety.

Look at the industry as a part of the UK's maritime, cultural and national identity and its value - like the legacy of the aristocracy, great buildings and monuments built on the back of an empire - its value is not so easy to calculate.

Margaret Evans from CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) recently paid Nelwyn a visit as the country was only days away from marking the countdown with 365 days to go to the divorce date.

She found herself exploring the irony that despite being in a region that has received grants amounting to 10% of the entire EU budget many wanted a divorce that would cut themselves off from that financial support in the future.

"More than two decades later, with Britain's official exit date from the European Union now just under a year away, Cornish fishermen are on the verge of escaping what many of them call the ill-founded and tyrannical rule of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."

"Not by our local boats, but because we're being given scraps by Brussels, and we've seen the boats from France and Belgium come and take what they can take out of our own waters."

The EU's complicated manner of deciding fish quotas for its members sees nearly 60 per cent of the fish caught in the waters around Britain being landed by boats from other EU countries. 

Cornish fishermen, for example, are limited to eight per cent of the cod quota in their own waters, while the French can catch 73 per cent."

You can read the full article here:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Margaret Evans

Europe correspondent

Margaret Evans is a correspondent based in the CBC News London bureau. A veteran conflict reporter, Evans has covered civil wars and strife in Angola, Chad and Sudan, as well as the myriad battlefields of the Middle East.

MMO - Three questions frequently asked about commercial fishing

BREXIT - a new dawn?

Since the UK voted to leave the EU the proportion of questions the MMO receives from the public and media about commercial fishing has increased.




The latest information from the MMO:

We previously committed to making more of this information freely available. This post answers some further general questions we’re often asked relating to commercial fishing activity in UK and English waters.

How can I get a licence to fish by boat in the UK?

Your vessel must be registered before you can get a licence.

No new fishing vessel licences are created and there are a limited number of licences in circulation. The only way you can get a licence is by transferring an existing one to your vessel. You need a licence entitlement to do this.

The MMO does not sell or provide these licence entitlements. Places they may be obtained include via trade media aimed at the commercial fishing industry.

More information about fishing vessel licensing is also on our website.

Is the MMO aware of the activities of foreign fishing vessels in UK waters?




There are areas where EU fishing vessels are currently legally entitled to fish up to 6 nautical miles off the UK coastline, as part of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

The MMO currently enforces compliance with the CFP in English waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone using a combination of monitoring and surveillance assets. We monitor fishing activity and vessel movements using our satellite vessel monitoring system (VMS). One thing this shows is vessels from other countries within UK waters.

It wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment in detail on any ongoing enforcement operations.


Where are the busiest fishing ports in the UK?

Our annual statistics publication includes a range of information about the commercial fishing industry, including number of vessels and landings of fish into the top ports in the UK. Chapters 2 and 3 of the publication are particularly relevant.

In 2016, the last year for which figures are available, Peterhead, Lerwick and Fraserburgh accounted for 49 per cent by quantity and 36 per cent by value of all landings by UK vessels into the UK.

Answer to your question not here? Try reading our previous posts for details of how fishing quotas are currently set and more statistics on fishing, including activities by EU vessels in UK waters.

Posted by: Amy Wardlaw, MMO, Posted on: 8 February 2018 - Categories: fisheries

TRANSITION WILL ERADICATE BRITISH FISHING INDUSTRY - says Fishing for Leave.

The majority of fishermen voted to leave the EU having been promised that this government would "Take back control".

Crusading website Fishing for Leave fires a huge salvo of questions across the bows of Her Majesty's Government today. In an attempt to get some kind of clarification that, this government, despite the promises and the rhetoric so often bandied about under the emotional headline, 'We will take back control' will not be selling out the fishing industry on the way out of the EU as previous Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath's government did when we joined the EU!

"Take back control" Another reminder what Fisheries Minister George Eustace said on national TV ahead after the referendum and ahead of exit negotiations.

So, summing up in FFls post today:

Existential Threat to the Fishing Industry

"If we fail to break free from the CFP the EU will be free to implement policy changes to our detriment. We doubt the EU27 would feel charitable to their political prisoner who has no representation but abundant fishing waters.

Continuation of the ill-conceived EU quota system and discard ban is the existential threat that could be used to finish what’s left of our Britain’s fishing fleet allowing the EU to claim the ‘surplus’ that Britain would no longer have the capacity to catch.

Rather than address the cause of discards – quotas, the EU has banned the symptoms – discards. Now when a vessel exhausts its lowest quota it must cease fishing. ‘Choke species’ will see vessels tied up early and, according to official government Seafish statistics, 60% of the fleet will go bankrupt.

If a sizeable portion of the UK fleet is lost international law under UNCLOS Article 62.2 which says; ‘Where a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall… give other States access to the ‘surplus’.

Between the EU having the opportunity to claim “continuity of rights” even if proved wrong they could drag out Britain being trapped in the CFP and its quota system and discard ban for enough time to fishing our fleet off.

Once we have lost our industry there is no way back from this Catch 22– if we do not have the fleet we cannot catch the “surplus” and if we do not have the “surplus” we cannot maintain a fleet. With this we will also lose a generation and their skills which are irretrievable.

The UK political establishment of all hues would not be forgiven for betraying coastal communities a second time.

A transition destroys the opportunity of repatriating all Britain’s waters and resources worth between £6-8bn annually to national control. This would allow bespoke, environmentally fit-for-purpose UK policy that would benefit all fishermen to help rejuvenate our coastal communities.

As Minister Eustice promised we could rebalance the shares of resources where we, have the EU fleet catching 60% of the fish in our waters but receive only 25% of the Total Allowable Catches even though we have 50% of the waters.

This transition is the reverse of this and something exceptional that is within touching distance and what the public in constituencies across our land expect to see on this totemic and evocative issue.

The government and MPs must refuse the “transition” terms and discontinue the CFP entirely on 29th March 2019 or we will consign another British industry to museum and memory.

That Theresa May has known this all along means she, and her remain minded officials, are fully complicit in the embryonic stages of a second betrayal and sell out of Britain’s fishing industry.

NOTE

For too long people have bought the government rhetoric. The PM and Ministers have repeated;

“We will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy on March 29, 2019”.

This spin has never been a commitment nor indication of a clean Brexit for fisheries. Those who kept citing these words have been either mendacious or naive to the reality of a Transition.

The government has known all along what the transition meant. The PM always continues, that;

“Leaving the CFP and leaving the CAP” wouldn’t give the opportunity until “post that implementation(transition) period – to actually introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom. The arrangement that pertains to fisheries during that implementation period will, of course, be part of the negotiations for that implementation period”.

We may officially “leave” the CFP on 29th March 2019 but we’ll re-obey entire EU Acquis as part of the “transition” period after Article 50 officially terminates the UKs membership – we will have left in name only."

Read the full post here written by Njordr AB

British fishing could be on the hook post-Brexit

Reuters' writers, Nigel Hunt and Mark Hanrahan have produced an excellent overview of the British Brexit fishing position.

A series of carefully annotated graphics, which help provide a little more clarity than is often used by some in the media wishing to make a point, focus on some of the key issues.

What fish went where.

LONDON (Reuters) – British fishermen hopeful of a post-Brexit boom may find life outside the European Union choppier than expected, a Reuters Graphic shows.

Changing sea temperatures, caused by climate change, have forced many of the fish most popular with British consumers, such as cod and haddock, to migrate north into cooler waters controlled by Norway and Iceland.

(For a graphic on ‘Climate change and the North Sea’ click tmsnrt.rs/2Ea9y58)

The graphic, drawn from the activities of tens of thousands of British and European fishing vessels, also highlights the importance of access to the European market to the industry – with Britain exporting around 75 percent of its catch to EU markets.

(For a graphic on ‘British fish catch landings’ click tmsnrt.rs/2EpkyMc)

Britain and its European Union neighbours currently enjoy equal access to EU waters, and can buy and sell fish freely inside the world’s largest trading bloc. That will change with Brexit, but how is still to be negotiated.

(For a graphic on ‘UK’s tangled trade’ click tmsnrt.rs/2DDFFsS)

Britain’s waters have helped sustain fishing industries in neighbouring countries such as Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain while the European Union controlled access under its Common Fisheries Policy.

But the British fishing industry is demanding a large share of the catch when control of the waters shifts from Brussels to London.

(For a graphic on ‘UK’s fishing trade’ click tmsnrt.rs/2DBc1o1)

However, any restriction on EU market access would be likely to take the form of tariffs which can be as high as 24 percent on seafood.

(For an ‘Interactive graphic on Brexit and the fishing industry’ click tmsnrt.rs/2DKUKZD)

Writing by Nigel Hunt and Mark Hanrahan; Editing by Robin Pomeroy - Full story here:

'The Trawler' January 2018

Read the January 2018 edition of the EU Fisheries Committee

Brexit - The bigger battle begins!

Cabinet clashes over when Britain should ‘take back control’ of fishing from EU 

A Cabinet split has opened over whether Britain should try to break with European Union rules on fishing during the post-Brexit transitional period. 

Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, is leading calls for the UK to pull out of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in March 2019 to enable it to set its own rules over fishing quotas. “For some, setting our own fishing quotas is a totemic issue and insist that has to be an early priority for the Prime Minister”

Other ministers, including Chancellor Philip Hammond, are arguing that Britain should not use up capital in forthcoming negotiations with Brussels to try to carve out a special deal for the fishing industry. Theresa May is under pressure from both sides of the argument as she prepares for talks over the details of the transitional period which follows Brexit. 

Early sticking-point:

The subject of fishing quotas threatens to be an early sticking-point in Brexit negotiations amid early signals that the EU will refuse to compromise on the issue. Mr Gove has called for the UK to “take back control” of its waters early on the grounds that otherwise it would be bound by CFP quotas without having any influence on them. He is being backed by some pro-Remain ministers but is being opposed by the Chancellor. 

Mrs May has hinted that she favours an early departure from the fisheries policy, but Cabinet sources told i that she had not yet settled on her approach to the issue despite being discussed several times by ministers. “There is quite a difference of opinion. 

For some, setting our own fishing quotas is a totemic issue and insist that has to be an early priority for the Prime Minister,” one minister said. “Others say that fishing makes up just one percent of our [gross domestic product] and shouldn’t get special treatment. They say that if we make a special case for fishing, what’s to stop other sectors asking for special treatment?” 

Strength of feeling 

Senior Tories have warned her of the strength of feeling on the subject across Scotland, where the decision to sign up to the CFP upon joining the Common Market in 1973 cost thousands of jobs. Mr Gove, the son of an Aberdeen fish merchant,  said during the referendum campaign that his father’s firm “went to the wall” because of EU fisheries policies. 

The fishing minister, George Eustice, a strong pro-Brexiteer, has said the current system of quotas is unfair, allowing other EU countries to catch a disproportionate amount of fish in UK waters. He has raised the prospect of Britain striking new “reciprocal” arrangements with other EU countries upon departure from the bloc. 

Brexit flash-point 

Fishing policy became a flashpoint in the Brexit campaign, culminating in former Ukip leader Nigel Farage leading a flotilla of fishing boats up the Thames to urge Parliament take back control of British waters. It was met by a rival fleet led by rock star Bob Geldof. An SNP spokesman said: “The Tory in-fighting over Brexit seems endless. Fishing communities and businesses will feel utterly confused and let down by this incompetence. “Livelihoods in these communities are too important to become political games and rows between different factions of The Tory party.”

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/cabinet-clashes-britain-take-back-control-fishing-eu/

Today the NNFO published its response to the EU Commission's Brexit position published this week:

First, read the EU's Brexit position here:

NFFO:

"As an opening position, in advance of the negotiations that will take place over the next 10 months, there are few surprises. Before Christmas, the Commission signalled that it would not be fighting to retain formal jurisdiction over UK waters. That is a realistic recognition of the UK’s new legal status, under the UN Law of the Sea, after the UK concludes the process of leaving the EU. However, in this new position statement, the Commission signals that it will insist on the status quo for quota shares and access arrangements, at least during any transition or implementation period; and will also press for the UK to be tied umbilically to the CFP for the foreseeable future. For the most part, the UK would become a rule-taker, rather than a participant in the rule-making process and most certainly the UK’s status would certainly not reflect the proportion of fisheries resources in its waters. The Commission intends to use trade as the lever to secure these objectives.

The principles of equal access and relative stability have worked very well for the EU fleets - and to the systematic disadvantage of the UK for over forty years - by comparison with the deal that would have been available to us as an independent coastal state. It is no surprise that the EU will try to cling on to this state of affairs for as long as possible. This new document provides an indication of how they will try to achieve this.

Direct Conflict

The Commission’s position brings the EU into direct conflict with the aspirations of the UK fishing industry, which see the UK’s new legal status after March 2019, as a stepping stone to the normal advantages that accompany the status of an independent coastal state: quota shares that broadly reflect the resources in its EEZ; access arrangements for non-UK vessels only when there is a balancing benefit for the UK; and the ability to determine the shape of the management system to which the UK fleet is subject.

The Commission’s plan is to block any shift in this direction by insisting that access to the EU market, on anything other than WTO rules, would not be available, unless the UK sacrifices its fishing industry, which would continue to be subject to the whole body of EU rules past, present and future.

Clearly, the Commission’s plan for the future relationship between the EU and UK on fisheries is to try to keep the UK tied into an asymmetric, essentially exploitative relationship, with the EU as the dominant party, dictating the all the terms. This approach would not be acceptable in West Africa. Why would it be acceptable here? The UK would have to be bent self-harm to accept such a deal. After Brexit, the EU will control only around 20% of the sea area in the North Sea and in Western Waters about 50%. How could it be fair, realistic, or rational to expect the UK to accept such terms?

So, there are no surprises in the Commission’s stance. It is an opening negotiating position and it is to be expected that opening statement in negotiations present unachievable, maximalist, positions. We have every reason to expect that our ministers will stoutly resist. It would not just be the fishing industry that would punish the government electorally for leading it to expect a better future, only to have the promise snatched away and replaced with bitter frustration. Anything that looks like tying the UK into the present arrangements in the form of a CFP-lite, would be denounced by the fishing industry and its allies as an unacceptable betrayal - because it would be an unacceptable betrayal.

There is an expectation across the fishing industry that we will see a significant step forward on day one as we leave the EU, with a clear step-wise plan to take us to enjoy the full fruits of our status as an independent coastal state.

Against this background, the NFFO Executive Committee, which met recently in York, has reaffirmed its objectives as the UK leaves the EU.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“As we enter this next crucial phase in the withdrawal negotiations, there is much speculation on what the implementation/transition phase will mean and, as is usual with these kind of talks, postures are being struck in advance.

Our Executive Committee thought it important to restate our Brexit objectives and to make clear that it is against these that any deal will be judged by the UK fishing industry.

Our objectives are:

1 That the UK should, from the point of departure from the EU, have the status of an independent coastal state, with jurisdiction over the fisheries within its Exclusive Economic Zone; along with an independent seat at the table when decisions on fisheries on shared stocks are made.

2 That the UK’s quotas of shared stocks should broadly reflect the resources that are located within UK water

3 That a 12mile exclusive limit should apply to safeguard to provide adequate protection for our coastal fisheries 

4 That access for non-UK vessels to fish within the UK EEZ should be subject to negotiation and should bring balancing benefits to the UK 

5 That there should be scope and flexibility for the UK to shape and tailor its domestic fisheries management arrangements to fit with its own fleets 

6 That the UK should seek as unimpeded access to EU markets as possible

“These are our objectives and it is against these that progress will be measured and judged as we enter this next phase in the negotiations. We think that it is positive that the Commission’s negotiating position recognises that bespoke arrangements will be needed to reflect the UK’s new legal status after March 2019; and that the EU will no longer have jurisdiction over fisheries in UK waters. This is a welcome sign that there is an awareness that the world is changing and the UK will be an independent coastal state under international law from the point of departure.”

“What would not be acceptable would be, despite that altered legal status, for the UK to succumb to pressure from the EU to tie us into medium or long-term arrangements in which nothing material changes.”

Full story courtesy of the NFFO.

Research for PECH Committee - Common Fisheries Policy and BREXIT

This is the reference document of the Workshop on “Common Fisheries
Policy and BREXIT” of 21th June 2017, organised by the Committee on
Fisheries (COMPECH) and the Policy Department B (PECH Research) of the
European Parliament.

It is structured in three parts:

1. Legal framework for governance
2. Trade and economic related issues
3. Resources and fisheries

UK fishermen may not win 'waters back' after Brexit, EU memo reveals

Document obtained by the Guardian states existing quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners...

It could be, 'Bollocks to the UK'

The hopes of British fishermen that the UK can win its “waters back” post-Brexit are expected to be dashed by the European parliament, despite the campaign promises of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, a leaked EU document reveals.

MEPs have drafted seven provisions to be included in Britain’s “exit agreement”, including the stipulation that there will be “no increase to the UK’s share of fishing opportunities for jointly fished stocks (maintaining the existing quota distribution in UK and EU waters)”.

The document, obtained by the Guardian, adds that in order for the UK and EU to keep to commitments on sustainable fishing contained within the United Nations stocks agreement. “It is difficult to see any alternative to the continued application of the common fisheries policy,” it says.

Read the full story in the Guardian Online here:

BREXIT, ENGOs & THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Assistant chief executive, Dale Rodmell, reflects on Brexit, the disconnect between industry and the Common Fisheries Policy and the influence and role of environmental NGOs.

Fishing became the political poster child for the Brexit campaign. It's easy to see why. More than in any other area of EU policy, the story of fisheries epitomises a sense of lost control and real loss as our industry bore the brunt of year after year of cuts at the hands of a distant invisible bureaucracy the industry gave the impression that it was oblivious to the livelihood needs of fishing communities. Changes to improve things to better connect industry to policy have also seemed slow and insufficient. In order to better understand the issues we now face following the Brexit vote it is worth examining the history of involvement of the fishing industry in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and in more recent times the emergence of environmental NGOs as a significant influence.

The CFP Disconnect

Up until 2004 the only direct engagement the industry had with the CFP machinery was through the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA), a forum of industry and representatives of fish workers that advised the Commission across the whole spectrum of European fisheries. As a single forum that only met occasionally it was grossly inadequate for the task of covering the whole spectrum of European fisheries. The Regional Advisory Councils (now Advisory Councils) were first launched in 2004

The first efforts to change this state of affairs followed the crises of the 1990s that saw drastic cuts to whitefish quotas and to the fleet. From the discontent that was generated the 2002 CFP reform saw the introduction of the Regional Advisory Councils (now Advisory Councils). These were much more significant forums with secretariats to support their work and they gave the industry a much more robust platform at a more appropriate scale to influence management decisions, alongside other stakeholders. But the Advisory Councils were not the be all and end all. Advice is just that. It has no direct role in setting management objectives and operational rules. There was wide recognition that involvement still needed to be deepened further.

The opportunity for that came with the regionalisation agenda under the latest reform. At the start of the process the Commission, in its Green Paper of 2009, had started out accepting that there was still something wrong with the relationship between fisheries governance under the CFP and industry. It said that:

"Very little can be achieved if the forthcoming reform fails to motivate the catching sector, the processing and seafood chain as well as consumers to support the objectives of the policy and take responsibility for implementing them effectively. It is critical to the success of reform that industry should understand the need for it, support it and have a genuine stake in its successful outcome. In a mostly top-down approach, which has been the case under the CFP so far, the fishing industry has been given few incentives to behave as a responsible actor accountable for the sustainable use of a public resource. Co-management arrangements could be developed to reverse this situation." (CFP Reform Green Paper, 2009)

Almost as soon as it was printed, however, this whole agenda was all about to be side-lined. In contrast to what the Commission technocrats were thinking, Commissioner Damanaki had spent her time in office either aloof or hostile to industry. The European Parliament with its newly established powers under the Lisbon Treaty had little affinity for grand ideas of delegating responsibility to others when it had just been given responsibility itself. That, combined with the vast majority of MEPs having an almost complete absence of knowledge of the fishing industry, but their ears open to anyone who would tell them what to think, set the stage for the next command and controllers charter that we now see in the current CFP.

How did it turn out that way? Enter the eNGOs. Many newly self-appointed as the guardians of our marine resources and ready to fight on the beaches with a war chest mostly convoyed over from the USA. They got to work firstly with a doom-mongers blitz. Despite ongoing progress with cutting fishing mortality and the start of recovery being seen across the NE Atlantic stocks, according to them stocks were in free fall and heading for extinction - remember the 100 cod left in the North Sea story, and the 2048 end of line hype? In this altered reality, the inference was that industry couldn't be trusted with the public's precious natural resources. They had pillaged them, and always hoodwinked their politicians into agreeing short-termist decisions, right? And there was an urgency to put it all right, if not by 2015, then by 2020 at the latest, no exceptions. Accompanying this narrative was heavy lobbying of the European Parliament to introduce a strict set of regulation to be contained in the core legislation, providing little flexibility for application at the regional level (see figure below).

Then, in the midst of it all, along came one of our celebrity campaigning chefs to lob in a discards PR hand grenade, straight into Commissioner Damanaki's lap. It didn't matter that a lot of the discards were generated by the regulations themselves and that significant progress had already been made to reduce them. In a matter of weeks the industry was handed it back, in-kind; the obligation to (nearly) not throw a single fish over the side...whilst trying to do a circus act to remain within the constraints of all of the other regulations. Actually, the circus act was left for another day - too hard for the hard working legislators to think about at that time. The megalomaniacs were back in charge, and once the deal was signed, congratulating themselves on the fantastic job they had done.

Creating the next command and controller's charter: Left, MEP's eNGO crib sheet during the Parliament vote in 2013. Right, an explanation of what the amendments mean in practice. The first two were adopted in the final reform.

Indeed, a number of them still believe it and continue to press for the toughest interpretation of the reform text. They continue to try to persuade decision-makers that the scientists have it wrong over setting stock biomass levels consistent with sustainable yields. They continue to lambast Ministers for TAC decisions that are different from the single stock advice without acknowledging their role in a legitimate process to consider, beyond this advice, balancing the pace of reaching MSY with mixed fishery considerations and the likelihood of generating large quantities of discards. And they are working to try to set up a police state of electronic monitoring to hold the whole thing together.

Shared Objectives, Wrong-headed Delivery

To be clear, the NFFO has not been against the policy objectives of the CFP. Maximising long-term yields is a good thing, as is minimising discards. But fisheries management can't sit in an ivory tower and hand down these objectives as prescriptive management regulations attached with "plucked out of the sky" non-negotiable deadlines without an appreciation of how to deliver at sea and manage change, whilst maintaining viable businesses. Tighter management has thus come along just when we have been witnessing of stock recovery on the grounds. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) targets have delayed increases to quotas. Across fisheries that had received severe cuts the evidence base which is dependent upon the operating fisheries themselves, has also been undermined resulting in the increased application of the precautionary approach, which leads to reduced quotas simply due to lack of knowledge on stock status. New stocks such as skates and rays have been placed on quota but again with limited evidence, they too have been subject to successive cuts as a consequence of the precautionary approach. All of these situations have led to more instances where fishing opportunities are out of sync with stock abundance. Add the landing obligation (discard ban) to all of this and we are heading for a crunch as the responsibility for the mismatch between available quota and abundance is transferred to the fishing business with the expectation that they can somehow perform the circus act and avoid breaking the law. And if they can't, they tie up and go bust. That's the prospect of what so-called "choke" stocks mean when the available quota of one stock has been used up but the stock can't be avoided and so fishing for other species has to stop.

eNGOs and Brexit

The Brexit vote demonstrated in spectacular fashion that keeping those who are affected by decisions remote from decision-making and marginalised from the agenda, that politics can and does come back to bite. Of course, fisheries were part of a much wider leave narrative over governance, identity, democracy and exclusion, but it was used graphically in the Leave campaign to make the point.

In the wake of the vote, there is likely to be a lot of soul-searching in the EU about how to better connect the supra-national institutions to national populations. But the influence of eNGOs that was prominently visible in the latest CFP reform, and their habit of lobbying for top-down command and control environmental policy from the centre, hasn't gone away with the vote. eNGOs are not accountable to the electorate. And in Europe, the UK probably has an eNGO community that is more active than in any other nation.

eNGOs didn't want Brexit. A large amount of environmental policy is attached in some way to EU governance, and as some have argued in our EU referendum blog, fisheries and other environmental issues go beyond the reach of single countries. But already some are calling on the UK government to be tough on regulation and others are seeking to disenfranchise our industry by claiming that we fail to understand sustainability and the conservation of natural resources upon which our industry depends.

Rubbish. A cursory glance at our website and the work we are involved in will prove that is not the case. Such an assertion reflects just the sort of attitude of blaming the people for their lot and trying to marginalise them from decision-making that is the cause of political ruction, certainly not a solution to it. Such eNGOs should hold a mirror up to themselves about what the vote represented. I appreciate, nonetheless, that so far in talking about eNGOs I am lumping together a great number of organisations and stereotyping them as one. That is unfair. Not all are concerned with implementing legalistic regulatory frameworks from the centre and not all work to demonize and control the fishing industry without having anything to do with it. Indeed, some have a more collaborative side. The Advisory Councils have been pioneering in bringing eNGOs together with industry. In the fruits of the consensus-based advice that they produce, they demonstrate what is possible.

Working in Partnership

There is also a growing number who are beginning to work directly to support industry. We in the industry need to foster these relationships, whilst continuing to call out those who would rather work in the shadows and transmit falsehoods about our industry, ferment division and continue to pedal the doom-mongers narrative in order to justify their next grant or charitable donation.

There is a lot to do that could be achieved working in partnership. We must strive to improve the ability of industry to generate its own evidence to be able to help to plug the gaps in our fisheries knowledge base. We need to press ahead with management approaches that incentivise industry, undertaking trials and ensure that what works is adopted more widely. We need to create a policy environment where fisheries management is not all about compliance with the rules, it is about shared objectives, shared management, and mutual buy-in. We must show how that is a different and a better way to the centralising tendencies of top-down control.

What Next?

There are many governance models for our fisheries that may materialise post-Brexit. There is nothing to say that one or other of the possibilities would not be some form of top-down control. Like any system of governance, when the pieces are thrown in the air they can so easily land with all the power greedily held at the centre or result with powerful lobbies dictating the terms. We will, of course, be working to see that whatever model it is, it is inclusive of the industry. I'll close with a prediction. Fisheries will continue along the path to recovery and at some point the doom-mongers' currency about our industry, like the boy who cried wolf, will be worthless. Those eNGOs that stick to it will either wither or go onto something else. The surviving ones still working in fisheries will be the ones that are actually supporting industry to sustainably manage its own affairs and celebrating what is possible. Bring on the optimists.

Full story courtesy of the NFFO website.

Live video from the @FishingforLeave Flotilla

Follow the fleet as the FishingforLeave flotilla leaves the harbour in Newlyn around 6pm and sails to Mousehole and then across Mount's Bay to St Michael's Mount then returns close along the shore from Marazion, past Long Rock to Penzance harbour before steaming back to Newlyn.

#fishingforleave Tweets

Latest #fishingnews - Fish landing obligation approved by EU

Today the Commission adopted a plan to reduce the wasteful practice of discarding – throwing overboard unwanted fish – in the North Sea. This discard plan concerns demersal fisheries, i.e. fish that feed on or near the sea bottom, and is a temporary measure to phase out discarding and gradually put in place the landing obligation, a key component of the EU's reformed Common Fisheries Policy. It follows similar plans for demersal species in the Atlantic earlier this month.

Discarding constitutes a substantial waste of resources that threatens the sustainable exploitation and economic viability of fisheries. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimates that over 7 million tonnes - 8 % of the total global fish catches - are discarded yearly. The discard plan adopted today determines which demersal fisheries in the North Sea will be subject to the landing obligation, while also setting out certain exemptions. The first group of exemptions, so-called de minimis exemptions, allows discarding a small percentage of catches in fisheries where increasing the selectivity is difficult or where handling costs are disproportionately high. The second, so-called survivability exemption allows discarding species that have a high chance of surviving.

All exemptions have been set taking into account available scientific advice and following discussions with scientific advisory body STECF. Certain exemptions will be reassessed in 2016 taking into account additional supporting information from Member States.

The discard plans will apply from 1 January 2016 for one year, once final adoption takes place. Other discard plans will have to be adopted for 2017 to bring additional fisheries under the landing obligation.

Background:

Background to what is meant by discards and the forthcoming Landing Obligation.

The reformed CFP aims to make EU fisheries more sustainable. Between 2015 and 2019, EU fishermen will therefore gradually be required to land all fish they catch.

The CFP entails several provisions to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation. They include specific flexibility mechanisms that should be implemented through comprehensive multiannual plans, or, in the absence of multiannual plans, through so-called discard plans. Discard plans are envisaged as a temporary measure with a maximum duration of three years. They are developed as joint recommendations agreed by Member States from the same region or sea basin, in this case Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

Today's discard plan is not the first to be adopted: in October 2014 the Commission adopted discard plans for pelagic and industrial fisheries in all EU waters and for fisheries for cod in the Baltic. These plans have been applied since 1 January 2015. On 12 October 2015 two discard plans for demersal species in the Atlantic followed. 


More information:

Discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of ICES Division IIa

Annex