Facts and figures on the common fisheries policy 2018 edition.

The European Union has agreed that, by 2020 at the latest, all fish stocks should be exploited at sustainable levels. In practice this means taking the highest possible amount of catches from the sea without affecting the long-term productivity of the stocks. This is known as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

In the North-East Atlantic and adjacent waters (North Sea, Baltic Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat, West of Scotland Sea, Irish Sea and Celtic Sea), EU fisheries ministers set overall catch limits based on scientific advice. These total allowable catches (TACs) are then divided into national quotas, which set limits on the amount of fish that can be caught.

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:

NEW! Latest government report on Brexit

Fisheries: Brexit Negotiations

Published Thursday, September 6, 2018

Following Brexit, the UK will no longer be part of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. It will become an independent coastal state and be fully responsible for managing fisheries in the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles.

Jump to full report

This will include setting total allowable catches (TACs), distributing quotas and determining who has access to fisheries.[1] However, access for EU vessels to UK waters and vice versa is likely to be part of any agreement reached with the EU, as part of a future relationship.The Fisheries White Paper Sustainable fisheries for future generations, published in July 2018, set out the Government’s intention to continue to co-operate closely with the EU and other coastal states on the sustainable management of fish stocks that cross borders, and states that “any decisions about giving access to our waters for vessels from the EU, or any other coastal states including Norway, will then be a matter for negotiation”.[2]

Brexit negotiations

As part of the Draft Withdrawal Agreement UK and EU have agreed there will be a transition or implementation period which will last from 30 March 2019 to 31 December 2020, during which the UK and EU have agreed that the UK will continue comply with the Common Fisheries Policy.

Beyond the transition period, the maintenance of current arrangements for sharing fisheries resources after Brexit was referred to in the European Council’s draft negotiating guidelines for a future trade deal. This linked continued existing reciprocal access to fisheries to the proposal for a zero-tariff trade agreement. However, the UK Government’s Fisheries White Paper rejected the EU’s position that access to fisheries should be linked to any trade agreement, referring to the latter as “a separate question”. There have been no detailed discussions to date between the UK and the EU on fisheries.[3]

No deal and fisheries

A no deal Brexit, in which there was no transitional agreement on fisheries until the end of 2020, would mean that the UK would become an independent coastal state from March 2019 taking over responsibility for its Exclusive Economic Zone. The UK would no longer be bound by the Common Fisheries Policy and could deny access to EU Member States’ fishing vessels.

UK exports in fish and related products to the EU were worth £1.3 billion and comprised 70% of all UK fish exports from the UK by value. Fish imports from the EU were worth £1.1 billion (34% of all fish imports to the UK by value).[4] The impact of a no deal Brexit on the fisheries industry’s ability to export and trade are likely to be felt across the sector. In addition to the impacts of any tariffs, fisheries products, as all perishable products, could be impacted by any increased delays at borders resulting from greater custom controls.

The EU Commission published a preparedness notice to stakeholders on Fisheries and Aquaculture in April 2018, setting out how UK withdrawal would impact both the UK and EU sectors in the absence of any kind of withdrawal agreement. The UK Government is also expected to publish a Technical Notice on fisheries in September.

[1]     Article 61(1) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) states that: “The coastal State shall determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its exclusive economic zone.”

[2]     Defra, Fisheries White Paper Sustainable fisheries for future generations, published July 2018

[3]     EFRA Select Committee Evidence Session, 17 July 2018, Fisheries, Q403

[4]     UK Trade Info database, downloaded in April 2018, using product code SITC 03 – ‘Fish, crustaceans, molluscs & aq. inverts & preps thereof’

Commons Briefing papers CBP-8396

Author: Elena Ares

Topics: EU external relations, EU institutions, EU law and treaties, Fisheries, Food, Marine environment

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.

Fishing in Transition - Meeting at Fishmonger's Hall today.

Fishmongers Hall is playing host to a meeting where the interests of the UK fishing industry are being discussed in great detail with regard to Brexit and the Transition Period.

Last week when interviewed on the R4 Today programme Michael Gove said;"One of the reasons why I want us, wanted us to leave the European Union, one of the reasons whey when we leave the when we leave the European Union we will be in a stronger position to help coastal communities is that we'll be outside the Common Fisheries Policy and there fore will have more quota allocated..."

The meeting today explored the likely consequences of an extended Transition and the role the other EU member states might play in the negotiations.


#FishingInTransition Tweets

The latest on Brexit and fishing from Michael Gove and others.

Listen to both excerpts below:

and, of course, well known fisheries expert Mr Gove managed to create an entirely new sector in the industry:

The "Under 10 feet" Fishing Fleet by #Gove, creating a brand new sector of 'micro' fishing boats in his #R4today interview this morning. #Fisheries #MSC #Hastings. pic.twitter.com/3lGqq1ueqf

— Piers Golden (@goldenphoto_pro) April 19, 2018

Government pushed on future of fishing industry by Waveney MP. The impact of fishing post-Brexit in Lowestoft took on national significance at a debate in the House of Commons.


The debate on Wednesday, April 18, was led by Waveney MP Peter Aldous with the parliamentary under-secretary of state for environment and Suffolk Coastal MP, Therese Coffey, speaking on behalf of the government.

Mr Aldous also appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the following day to argue the case for a reallocation of fishing quotas to help smaller boats catch more fish, an option not included in the Brexit transition deal agreed in March.

In the debate he said: “We need to be in a position whereby fish caught in the exclusive economic zone off the East Anglian coast are landed in local ports, thereby benefitting local people, local businesses and local communities.”

Dr Coffey, responding on behalf of the government, said: “The Government’s future vision for fisheries will be laid out in a white paper, to be published in due course, which will be followed by a fisheries bill that will give us the legal powers necessary to manage our fisheries in the future and enable us to develop a truly UK fisheries policy, in particular by controlling access to our own waters and setting fishing opportunities.”

Under the terms of the transition deal following Brexit on Friday, March 29, 2019, fishing in Waveney and along the Suffolk coast will still be forced to follow the same rules which applied while the UK was a member state, until the end of the transition period in December 2020.

Mr Aldous added on Thursday: “The under 10 fleet [fishing boats under 10m long] will continue to whither on the vine if we do not do something over this next two or three-year period.

“What the government need to be doing is to reallocate fishing quotas from the larger ship fleet.”

Legal precedent for such a move has been set, with former fishing minister Richard Benyon succeeding in 2012 when he took a case to court to allow the government to do so.

The points were put to Michael Gove, secretary of state for the environment, on Radio 4. He said: “The court said we could do that [reallocate unused quotas] but the courts also said that we needed to do so in a fashion that took into account the interests of those who hold the quota which meant that we could not do it instantly.”

Sonia Barker, leader of the Waveney Labour Group, said: “The Waveney Labour Group is still very concerned that the Government has ‘sold down the river’ the fishing community of Lowestoft with its recent Brexit deal.

“Why are we saying this? It is because the reassurances to the fishing community in Lowestoft given last month by the Conservative government minister for the environment, George Eustice were shown to be worthless.”

She urged Mr Aldous to get “proper reassurances from the government, not platitudes.”

Full story courtesy of the Lowestoft Journal.

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.

Seafush Brussels updates - keep up-to-speed with the Brexit news from Brussels

Seafish 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

Monthly Focus

EU Advisory Council on Markets (MAC)


The Latest Brussels Updates

Brussels Update- Brexit 19/03/18

Brussels Update- Seafood Regulation 14/03/18

Brussels Update- Brexit 12/03/18

Brussels Update- Seafood Regulation 28/02/18

Brussels Update- Brexit 26/02/18


Previous Brussels Updates

Brussels Updates 2018

Brussels Updates 2017

Brussels Updates 2016

Brussels Updates 2015

Brussels Updates 2014



The EU Decision Making Process

Understanding the EU's decision-making process. Part 1

Understanding the EU's decision-making process. Part 2

Understanding the EU's decision-making process. Part 3

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

The British dialogue on why fishing should not be subject to a transitional period.

As good a piece of writing on the subject of UK fishing rights with regard to the 'transition period' as I have read anywhere:

The possible approach of a transitory period in the fishing sector during the "brexit" has opened the box of thunder in the United Kingdom. The fishery organization NFFO has published a decalogue of reasons why fishing should not be "artificially" linked to a transition agreement with the EU on trade. The organization wants the fishing to be released, automatically, from the claws of the European 

Union and considers it a key point for the United Kingdom to conform as an independent state. NFFO does not want fishing to enter the transition period, even if it is part of a long-term commercial negotiation agreement. To do this, remember that the United Kingdom is already moving within the limits established by the UN Law of the Sea.

"Fisheries jurisdiction, access rights and quotas should be treated separately from trade agreements" and in this regard, it gives as an example to Norway that "it maintains access to the EU's single market under specific agreements agreed but manages the fisheries within its own EEZ and enters into annual agreements on shared management actions and exchange of quotas as an independent coastal state. "

If the United Kingdom accepts that fishing forms part of a transition period of 21 months under the terms specified by the EU (current access and quota status), it will be because again, as in 1973, it decided that "fishing is dispensable " and that other commercial matters have priority, despite their new legal status as an independent coastal state.

Once the principle of transition of "status quo" on shared quotas and access has been granted, it is obviously obvious that the EU "will use the same tactics and leverage when the United Kingdom tries to negotiate a long-term trade agreement with the EU. EU Fishing will once again be a sacrificial pawn, regardless of its legal status as an independent coastal state. "

It is clear that by the time the United Kingdom leaves the EU, that is, by March 2019, the ministers and officials of the United Kingdom will no longer take part in the decisions of any European institution, including those establishing quotas and other rules on fisheries. "It is an extreme understatement to say that it would be completely detrimental to the interests of the UK fishing industry to link ourselves to fisheries management decisions in which the UK is a legislator."

After the UK leaves the EU, the EU EEZ will account for less than 20% of the North Sea and around 50% of the western waters. Under those circumstances, why would the United Kingdom subject itself to intrusive control or restrictions on its ability to negotiate freely as an independent coastal state, either as part of a transition period or as a longer-term trade agreement?

As an independent coastal state, the UK is expected to take its place in international fisheries negotiations, including those with Norway, other coastal states and the EU. Even the European Commission recognizes that separate and personalized agreements will be required to include the EU in the decisions when establishing the TACs in the annual end-of-year negotiations. "There is no legal, or fisheries management, reason why the UK should accept any prior condition or artificial restriction on its right to negotiate the best possible agreement, including access agreements and quotas."

"As of autumn 2019, the United Kingdom will negotiate with those countries with which it shares stocks, annually, as an independent coastal state, without preconditions or artificial restrictions." The United Kingdom is limited by the United Nations Law of the Sea, to act responsibly and fairly towards those countries with which it shares actions.

Of course, it is understood that the 27 Member States have just outlined their list of petitions, in terms of a transition period and that the negotiations have not yet started. But what they are asking must be understood: despite the new status of the United Kingdom as an independent coastal state, it is the continuation of an asymmetric and exploitative agreement with the United Kingdom, which covers a large part of the population of the United Kingdom, as well as the fishing industry. It is extremely unfair and a distortion of a relationship that should bring reciprocal benefits. A 4: 1 ratio of the value of fish caught by EU fleets in UK waters compared to the value of fish caught by UK vessels in EU waters does not represent reciprocity, it is exploitation.

With regard to fisheries management, it is possible to advance smoothly and smoothly in a pattern of annual international agreements (bilateral or trilateral) with the countries with which we share stocks, to replace the decision-making processes of the CFP . That is what should happen and the transitional provisions should apply only to the commercial regime. There is only one reason why the EU will oppose such a pragmatic solution and that the EU benefits from current asymmetric agreements and tries to find ways to maintain them. If the United Kingdom really wants to move towards an independent coastal state, there is no advantage to postponing that decision.

The fisheries jurisdiction and fisheries negotiations were artificially and cynically linked in the CFP in 1973 with the systematic and lasting disadvantage for the United Kingdom. It is not strange that the EU 27 would like to continue this exploitation relationship because it works to a large extent in their favor. There is a unique opportunity to take a different and better path, and there is a great responsibility on the government not to drop the ball at this crucial point in history.

The Scots do not want transition either

The Scottish sector, through the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF), on the other hand, has celebrated the words of the British Secretary of Environment, Michael Gove, who this weekend in various English media has rejected the possibility that British fishing will benefit from a period of transition - as Brussels has proposed - after March 2019. SFF's executive director, Bertie Armstrong, indicated that "to become a coastal state from the first day in order to negotiate the best deal could make a real economic difference for our coastal communities. "" There is a sea of ​​opportunities that exists when leaving the PPC, but it can only work if we go out the first day, there is no other way, "he says.



Below, is the piece mentioned above from Dale Rodmell writing for the NFFO:

"Responsive decision-making with industry centrally involved in management is key to an effective post-Brexit fisheries regime", argues Dale Rodmell.

The UK's departure from the EU and therefore the Common Fisheries Policy, will mean that the UK will, from March 2019, operate as an independent coastal state. Although shared stocks will continue to be managed cooperatively, this change will provide a range of possibilities for a customised and tailored management regime for our fishing fleets. It makes sense to start thinking about what that will look like, now.

One of the reasons that the CFP took the fishing industry down so many blind alleys over 40 years, including encouraging large-scale discarding, has been its top-down, command and control, approach and cumbersome decision-making procedures.

As we move out of the era of the CFP and enter a new era as an independent coastal state, it will be important to learn the lessons of the CFP and to avoid the more obvious pitfalls.

Management Objectives

It is right to have high ambitions for our fisheries. We should aim for high long-term average yields of commercial species. That provides employment and economic benefits as well as high protein food on the table. We should also ensure adequate protection for vulnerable species and habitats.

In fact, there is rarely very much difference between the fishing industry and environmentalists on high level objectives. It is at the implementation level where the problems arise. The current CFP illustrates this, which at its core confuses objectives with instruments, and lacks coherence between quota-setting rules, the landing obligation, technical conservation rules and approaches to control and enforcement. It also refuses to recognise that there must be inevitable trade-offs between different objectives. The result is growing levels of dysfunctionality that with the arrival of the EU landing obligation and the associated problem of chokes, now threatens to tie fleets up early in the year. It all adds up to a serious mess.

In developing our own alternative approach to fisheries management, what are the principles that we should follow? Here are my thoughts:

A Responsive System

Fisheries management is prone to unintended consequences. We have certainly learnt that over recent decades. We should therefore in future ensure that we are able to change course quickly in order to adapt to dynamic circumstances or after it is recognised that we have taken a wrong turning. We should certainly not follow the CFP into an unwieldy decision-making system.

Parliament should set the broad principles and overall direction. It should not involve itself in technical areas in which it lacks expertise. A system which as far as possible avoids prescriptive micro-management and instead devolves technical decisions to the participants in each fishery has to be the ideal. The trade-off is that the participants must demonstrate that they are delivering the desired objective. This is called results-based management. This should be the guiding principle behind our future management systems.

Cooperation

The most successful fisheries management regimes, worldwide, have at their heart a close working relationship between fisheries managers and those working in each fishery. Trust and confidence follow when it is clear that managers and fishers are both pursuing the same objectives. Sharing information in a highly dynamic industry requires dialogue. We should be thinking now about how our institutions can take the best from the CFP and leave the worst behind. The advisory councils have been recognised as representing a huge step away from a top-down command and control model and we should now think about what advisory structures should be embedded within our own systems, post-Brexit.

Collective Accountability

Where possible we should aspire to go beyond dialogue and advice to delegate management responsibilities to the lowest practical level. Producer Organisations are widely recognised to provide a highly successful model of devolved collective responsibility in the areas of quota management and marketing. With their finger on the pulse at regional and port level, POs have a flexibility and local knowledge which governments could never achieve. The key is collective responsibility and accountability. We should look for opportunities to extend this decentralised model.

Incentives Should Support Management Objectives

Much can also be achieved by creating the right incentives for individual fishing businesses. A steady flow of data and information, reduction of unwanted bycatch or other environmental impacts, can all be shaped by creating the right form of incentive structures. Enabling compliance should be the primary objective of the fisheries regulator and in the long term this will be much more effective than an exclusive focus on catching out the unwary in a web of top-down complexity.

What Not To Do

I have tried above to sketch out what a modern, effective, dynamic, post-Brexit management regime might look like.

The ingredients for a fisheries management dystopia that have stymied the CFP are sadly being promoted by some environmental NGOs, including WWF, which should really know better. Blanket CCTV, recently advocated by the NGO, goes hand in hand with a top-down big-brother mentality that should really have no place in modern fisheries management. Various kinds of remote sensing will certainly have their place in fisheries management in the future – but only where it makes sense as part of a voluntary means for vessel operators to demonstrate its practices, as part of a system of incentives and audits.

We have seen in the CFP, that in the final analysis, top-down prescription doesn't work. Even with big-brother on board it will not work. What in my view will work, is clever management measures designed and implemented with the industry's involvement and cooperation, which follow the grain of fishery profitability, not run against it. The principles of good governance should be the standard against which we should measure our future fisheries management arrangements, because in the final analysis, good governance is effective governance.


POST-BREXIT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
POSTED ON 05/12/17 BY DALE RODMELL

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