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

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

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

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

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

Listen here:

The CFPO represents over 150 Cornish fishing vessels.

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

Beyond the Common Fisheries Policy: Scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill

Here are the Conclusions and Recommendations for the Fisheries Bill 2019. Tiz a pity that the cover is adorned by a non-UK fishing vessel - they only had to ask!

But the greatest shame is that in the report there is no mention of education & training at a time when there is a dire shortage of UK crews and suitably qualified individuals capable of filling posts as engineers, mates or skippers - wherein lies the future for UK fishing if they are not forthcoming?


Eleventh Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report.

Introduction

1.The Government should as a matter of course enable House of Commons’ Committees to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny on bills of this importance. (Paragraph 4)

Fisheries policy in the UK
2.In considering the Fisheries Bill, Parliament is presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to evaluate and address the concerns raised about the Common Fisheries Policy. (Paragraph 18)

Governance

3.The process of developing and reviewing the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS) and the Secretary of State’s Fisheries Statement (SSFS) is an opportunity to provide clear direction and effective coordination for the UK’s fisheries policy as an independent coastal state. However, it is essential that the JFS and SSFS are subject to a shortened review period and independent expert assessment to help facilitate more rigorous scrutiny. (Paragraph 31)

4.The Government should amend the Bill so that the Joint Fisheries Statements (for the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations) and the Secretary of State’s Fisheries Statement will: (a) be subject to an interim review every three years and full review every six years; and (b) comprise an expert and independent published assessment that can be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. (Paragraph 32)

5.The Fisheries Bill is an opportunity to ensure the UK fisheries administrations can operate a dynamic fisheries management system, which can rapidly respond to changing circumstances. However, it is important that the use of delegated powers by the Secretary of State is informed by stakeholders in order to ensure that issues relating to their practical implementation are fully considered. (Paragraph 39)

6.The Government should establish a non-statutory advisory body, which can provide a forum for consultation and communication with stakeholders, for the new fisheries management system that will be established when the UK becomes an independent coastal state. This will help to provide transparency and confidence in the decision-making process, including in the application of the Fisheries Bill’s delegated powers. This body needs to have the credibility to make a real and sustained impact, encouraging support and buy-in for the new system among all stakeholders, including the fishing industry, the scientific community and environmental groups. (Paragraph 40)

7.The Fisheries Bill extends new powers and provisions to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) but not to Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs). The Government needs to ensure that new policy can be enforced in all English waters. IFCAs should be provided with the provisions and powers that a post-CFP regime will require. It is also important to ensure that both the MMO and IFCAs are adequately resourced to deliver their respective responsibilities and that unnecessary duplication is avoided. This means, amongst other things, that there must be an adequate number of fisheries protection vessels available to authorities. (Paragraph 47)

8.The Government should amend the Bill to more clearly designate the respective roles and powers of the MMO and IFCAs in relation to their duties for fisheries and marine protection, and to ensure they both have the necessary enforcement powers and resources of personnel and protection vessels to fully deliver the requirements of the UK as an independent coastal state. (Paragraph 48)

Fishing Opportunities

9.The UK will have additional fishing opportunities after leaving the EU. An opportunity now exists to allocate these more fairly and transparently across the sector, and in line with the Government’s stated objectives in Clause 1. While we welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a new method of allocation, the proposals laid down in Clause 22 do not meet our expectations and lack detail. We are concerned that such proposals will marginalise owners of smaller vessels and will not represent a significant break from current practice, which is based on the situation many years ago when the UK joined the EU. (Paragraph 56)

10.The Government should consult widely on the tender process for allocation of additional English quota and ensure buy-in from a range of stakeholders within the industry, including the operators of smaller vessels. Consultation should be followed by a trial, with feedback from affected parties to ensure workability and efficacy. (Paragraph 57)

11.We support the inclusion of the discards objective in Clause 1. The introduction of a new discard prevention charging scheme in Clause 23 is also welcome as a means to mitigate the impacts on industry. However, industry has valid concerns about the workability of such a scheme in practice. These concerns need to be addressed with urgency, taking into account experience, both good and bad, of the current discard scheme. (Paragraph 63)

12.The Government should trial and thoroughly consult on the discard prevention charging scheme and the associated secondary legislation to ensure it is workable, helps reduce discards and has stakeholder buy-in. The Government should establish a national research programme to identify new solutions to the issue of discard prevention with an aim of reporting its findings before the end of the transition period. (Paragraph 64)

Sustainability and coastal communities
13.The Government has committed, on numerous occasions, to setting objectives and goals for sustainable fisheries for future generations. The 25 Year Environment Plan also made promising commitments to sustainability and our international obligations, including a clear commitment to delivering UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 and to achieving good environmental status in our seas by 2020 under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. (Paragraph 75)

14.At present, this level of ambition is not fully matched by the Bill, which lacks clarity about how the UK’s international obligations will be met once the UK leaves the Common Fisheries Policy. The Government should amend the sustainability and precautionary objectives in Clause 1 to ensure the Bill commits the UK to: (1) its international commitments on achieving maximum sustainable yield under the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals; and (2) its obligations to marine protection under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention). The Government should also amend the Bill to enshrine a future commitment to shared management of stocks, based on the best available scientific advice. These commitments should not be left to the Joint Fisheries Statement but should be made explicit in the Bill itself. (Paragraph 76)

15.The Government should also commit to a target date for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)-level of exploitation of stocks. This should also be included within the next Joint Fisheries Statement, as suggested by the Minister, to ensure the UK can align with future international commitments for sustainable fisheries. Decisions for setting the target date must factor in both the likely timescale of the Bill and the stated ambition to achieve MSY as part of the precautionary objective. (Paragraph 77)

16.The Fisheries Bill is a significant opportunity for delivering a much-needed reversal of fortunes for vulnerable coastal communities and smaller scale fishers. Fair allocation of new and existing opportunities along economic, environmental, and social lines could lead to the regeneration of coastal communities and sustainable fishing practice. (Paragraph 87)

17.We also welcome the review of economic link conditions promised in the White Paper, Defra’s commitment to close working with Devolved Administrations and the additional funding promised to the Fishing Industry during the implementation period. We recognise the importance of a suitable replacement for the EMFF funding scheme for after 2020 and support the proposed plan and the measures suggested by the Minister. However, given the emphasis in the White Paper, the Committee does believe the Bill should include more explicit reference to the issue of economic regeneration of coastal communities. (Paragraph 88)

18.The Government should clarify what funding will be available to coastal communities after EMFF funding ends in 2020, and how eligibility for funding would be assessed. (Paragraph 89)

19.We recommend that the Government commits fully to delivering its review of economic link conditions proposed in the Fisheries White paper. The Government should also make direct reference to this issue in the Bill by expanding Clause 2 to make specific reference to economic regeneration of coastal communities. (Paragraph 90)

20.We regard the Bill as an opportunity to acknowledge the recreational fishing sector as a stakeholder in UK sea fisheries and recognise the advantages of more joined up thinking between the recreational and commercial sectors. We recommend that Clause 2(2)(h) be expanded to make explicit reference to recreational fishing. (Paragraph 94)

Published by the HoC January 20th 2019.

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