Shellfish shambles explained.

Eighth generation oyster fisherman Tom Haward sheds some light on the 'EY shellfish ban' debacle that is affecting producers the length and breadth of the UK, not least for oyster fishing businesses like Fal Oyster and others in the Falmouth and Helford area of Cornwall.

Photo courtesy of Alan Clarke

The phrase, ‘EU shellfish ban,’ keeps being used by news outlets and it’s important to understand how this language is misleading and how Government is deliberately using misinformation to hide from its own failures. As a producer of live animals (oysters) who sells them on for human consumption, there are, quite rightly, rigorous standards we must meet to ensure what we sell is safe for people to eat. One of the most important factors in this process is the issue of water quality. If water quality is really poor (high amounts of sewage or rubbish dumped), animals like oysters will absorb the dangerous bacteria and make them unsafe to harvest.

There are 3 grades of water quality for shellfish production.

Grades, A, B & C. 

These grades were determined through when we were part of the EU. Simply, grade A waters are excellent and you don’t have to purify shellfish from these waters (some of our waters where we grow out oysters are A).

Grade B water means shellfish has to be purified before it can be sold for human consumption; most waters in the UK are B. The purpose of the grades is to ensure we use due diligence in our treatment of shellfish. It’s not a perfect system but it works...

As part of a large multi-country community we were effectively able to sell grade B shellfish unpurified to our neighbours where they would perform the process of purification before selling it on. Ideal if you harvested shellfish but didn’t have a purification centre. At least 2 years ago I noticed (along with others in industry) that if we were no longer part of the EU then as a 3rd country our food standards would no longer align, legally, and we wouldn’t be able to export grade B, unpurified shellfish...

This was raised with government figures as a major concern. It was obviously ignored. We (the UK) helped establish these EU regulations to have a consistent approach for easy, free flowing trade of shellfish. I said a no deal or equivalent would result in this catastrophe if it wasn’t looked at. George Eustace is lying when he says it was a surprise and when it is being peddled as an ‘overnight ban’. When he was fisheries minister he was aware of these worries. If I saw this coming then Johnson, et al should have...

The UK helped write the regulations government are now claiming they have been side swiped by. We are in this mess because those elected to serve us were too lazy and arrogant to read the small print because they wanted adulation without the work.

Live EU Fisheries meeting Feb 1st - high stakes on CTV and Catch Accountability.

 

The Committee on Fisheries meets on February 1st and many think a big part of the discussion should be focussed on catch accountability not CCTV on vessels. Bookmark this and aadd it to your online diary to follow the debate live.

Alternatively, sign up for updates.

Brexit negotiations - why aren't the MSM all over this?!

I think many fishermen are still waiting for some information on exactly what the government is really thinking. The spin is that the UK government is still fighting to deliver on it's promise to to back control of UK waters; the fact is, there is nothing to fight over in that respect, since the UK has become an independent coastal state by matter of law with all the rights and obligations. 

Ian Kinsey, ex fisherman, independent consultant, pragmatic bridge-builder ponders the current situation:

"The matter that needs discussing is a renegotiation of CS shares - what the UK chooses to do with any additional quota over the present RS shares is up to the government both in amount and duration. Win-win deals are negotiated not by fear and procrastination, but by creating appeal and some form of certainty. 

The mainstream media continually reiterates the UK governments aspiration for a Norwegian style fisheries arrangement with the EU; where quota levels and access are agreed annually: I participated in the annual EU-NOR fisheries negotiations 2003 -7, as part of the Norwegian delegation; quotas were discussed and agreed, but only the total allowable catches or TACs for stocks shared by the EU and Norway. What share of each stock the EU and Norway would receive, had already been agreed in 1979 by way of discussions solely for the purpose of agreeing on coastal state shares; the discussions were limited at that time to 6 main species: cod, saithe, haddock, whiting, herring, and mackerel. This was an agreement that was negotiated and agreed from a position of Norway being a third country, without any previous ties linking fishing to trade with the EU. Norway agreed a deal and became a member of the EETA in 1992, with the membership coming into effect on 1 January 1994.

The annual EU - Nor negotiations cover TAC levels in relation to scientific advice from ICES, management plans, technical regulations, quota swaps, terms of reciprocal access, and any other business AoB.
I am bewildered at the lack of interest/scrutiny from the UK media as to the details of the proposals put forward by David Frost and his team as to what the future fisheries relationship would look like in to Zonal attachment, and the course of action/timeframe needed to achieve an agreement on it. 

What responsible government would sacrifice the greater good of the country, for the sake of an industry where the symbolic value (although important for some coastal communities) far outweighs its contribution to the national GDP. Fisheries appear to be a "pothole" in the "easiest trade deal ever" road to Brexit, where the government appears to prefer digging up the whole road, rather than filling in the pothole. 

There seems to be little or no coverage in the UK media concerning the fact that the EU fully recognises the UK as an independent coastal state that has full control of its waters; and that the EU is not seeking to impose the CFP on a third country. The message coming over in the media is spun in a way that gives the impression that the EU wants to keep the UK shackled to the CFP. The EU mandate clearly states what the member states want from a future relationship on fisheries in terms of quota and access - whereas the UK hasn't been willing to put figures on the table in relation to what it deems to be a "fairer share" of the EU-UK shared "fishcake".
Fisheries will need a fisheries specific extended transition/plan for ascertaining the UK's preferred Zonal attachment as the means of defining a fairer quota share for the UK; a timeline for quota repatriation/divestment etc. All of this needs to be based on a comprehensive coherent plan."

Thoughts and comments welcome!

Has the EU’s fish discard ban worked? Lords' Committee questions the fishing industry

Watch the Lord's Select Sub-Committee on EU Energy and Environment as it sought industry feedback on its 2019 report on the impact of full implementation of the EU Landing Obligation:





The EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee takes evidence from fishing organisations and the British Ports Association on the impact of the EU landing obligation.

Inquiry: Implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation
EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee
Witnesses
Wednesday 8 May in Committee Room 2, Palace of Westminster, at 10.30am

Bertie Armstrong, CEO, Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
Pete Bromley, Harbourmaster at Sutton Harbour and member of the British Ports Association’s Fishing Ports Group
Barrie Deas, CEO, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
Jeremy Percy, Director, New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association
Jim Pettipher, CEO, Coastal Producer Organisation

Background

The EU landing obligation aims to put an end to the practice of discarding fish. 1.7 million tonnes of fish were being thrown back into the sea each year, because fishers were catching species they did not want or weren’t allowed to keep. Spurred on by a public petition (championed by celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall) that attracted 870,000 signatures, the EU agreed to legislation in 2013 that would require fishers to land everything they caught. The rules have been slowly phased in since 2015, and came into force in full on 1 January 2019.

In November and December 2018, the Sub-Committee took evidence from fisheries researchers, environmental campaign groups, the fishing industry, enforcement agencies and the Government on what had happened during the phasing-in period, what the impact of full implementation might be and how ready the UK was for implementation. The Sub-Committee published its report in February, in which it set out a number of concerns.

Areas of discussion

Sub-Committee Members will ask the attendees what impact the landing obligation has had, since it came into force in full in January 2019. In particular, Members are likely to ask:

• Whether fishers are complying with the new rules
• Whether the industry’s concern that the new rules would result in people quickly running out quota (and so having to stop fishing) have been realised
• Whether ports have seen significant amounts of additional fish landed, that would previously have been discarded
• Whether fish buyers and retailers are asking for proof that the new rules are being compiled with

From Brussels: EU - Fisheries after Brexit

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

Brexit: Breton fishermen fear an exit without agreement

VesselTracker AIS for the trawler Itasca.

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

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

Video courtesy of FranceTV

This latest report from FranceTV:

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

Too many Europeans in French waters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we have an agreement on shared stocks post Brexit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trawler - April 2019 newsletter

Comparative table: Export processes for fisheries products & Brexit options.

On the back of the government's defeat in the House tonight the prospect of no deal looms - there are indications that the consequences of such move may have huge implications for trade.

All forms of Brexit raise new barriers to trade for UK exporters. The table below summarises the differences between the options facing Brexit UK for the
export of fisheries. Note: additional controls apply for the export of live shellfish and different rules apply to the direct landing of fishery produce in EU ports.

Other aspects of trade are also subject to significant change as a result of Brexit, including insurance cover, haulage, labelling and packaging. These raise
barriers over and above those set out below.

In summary:

• Current trading relations with the EU will change significantly. Frictionless trade within the EU is not possible for businesses located outside member states of the European Union.

• In terms of future trade options, the only certainty that approval of the Withdrawal Agreement by the UK Parliament will bring is that the option of frictionless trade (EU membership) in the future will be off the table.

• The avoidance of border infrastructure along the Irish Border can be avoided only if Northern Ireland remains within a customs union with the EU and aligns with Single Market rules for goods and services that are traded with Ireland. At the UK's request, to avoid a customs border in the Irish Sea if no new trade agreement has been reached between the EU and the UK, the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement provides that a single customs territory will be established comprising the EU customs territory and the UK customs territory. However, fishery and aquaculture productsare expressly carved out of the customs territory unless there is an agreement on access to waters & fishing opportunities.

Sarah Adkins MA (Oxon) MA MCIWM CEnv Solicitor.

Revealed: the millionaires hoarding UK fishing rights

A painstaking five-month long investigation shows that a small group of wealthy families control huge swathes of the country’s fishing quota

Small-scale fishers have long hoped for a greater share of UK fishing quota. 

More than a quarter of the United Kingdom’s fishing quota is in the hands of a tiny group of the country’s wealthiest families, an Unearthed investigation has found.

Just five families on the Sunday Times Rich List hold or control 29% of the UK’s fishing quota.

The finding comes from a new Unearthed investigation that traced the owners of more than 95% of UK quota holdings – including, for the first time, those of Scotland, the UK’s biggest fishing nation.

It reveals that more than two-thirds of the UK’s fishing quota is controlled by just 25 businesses – and more than half of those are linked to one of the biggest criminal overfishing scams ever to reach the British courts.

Meanwhile, in England nearly 80% of fishing quota is held by foreign owners or domestic Rich List families, and more than half of Northern Ireland’s quota is hoarded onto a single trawler.

The news comes as the government is preparing to publish a new fisheries bill, which will set the legal foundations for the UK’s fishing industry after Brexit. But while the government is hoping it can net access to more fishing rights in the Brexit negotiations, it has said the new bill will not see any redistribution of the UK’s existing quota rights.

As Unearthed’s investigation reveals, this would leave the bulk of UK fishing rights in the hands of a small domestic elite and a handful of foreign multinationals.

Responding to Unearthed’s findings, shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman said ministers needed to take “urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quota to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats”.

“Fishing was the poster child of the Leave campaign and [environment secretary Michael] Gove has already broken promises he made to the industry to secure full control of our waters during the transition,” she continued. “With all the talk of ‘take back control’, ministers have the power to distribute UK quota now and put the smaller-scale fleet first. So why wasn’t it mentioned in their white paper?

“This [Unearthed story] shows that, while it points the fingers at others, this government is to blame for a sector rigged in the interests of the super-rich. Any future fishing policy must consider how new and existing quota can be more fairly distributed and we will treat this as a priority in the upcoming fisheries bill.”

The investigation found:

• The five largest quota-holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota
• Four of the top five belong to families on the Sunday Times Rich List
• The fifth is a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary – North Atlantic Fishing Company – controls around a quarter of England’s fishing quota
• Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests
• More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “black fish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel
• One of the flagships of the “Brexit flotilla” – which sailed up the Thames in 2016 to demand the UK’s exit from the EU – is among the UK’s 10 biggest quota-holders
• Around 29% of UK fishing quota is directly controlled by Rich List families. Some of these families have investments in dozens of other fishing companies, meaning companies holding 37% of UK quota are wholly or partly owned by these Rich List families.

Who owns the UK's fishing quota? from Greenpeace Unearthed on Vimeo.

What is a fixed quota allocation?

Most fishing rights in the UK are distributed by fixed quota allocations (FQAs). An FQA gives the holder the right to land a certain share of the UK’s “total allowable catch” (TAC) of a particular stock. The TAC for each stock varies from year to year, based on scientific advice and negotiations in Brussels. There is an active market in the trading and leasing of FQAs.

The latest revelations follow Unearthed’s 2016 investigation into English quota holdings which revealed that a tiny fiberglass dinghy apparently “held” more than a fifth of the fishing quota for the entire South-West.

Now, Unearthed’s first UK-wide dive into the opaque world of fishing rights has uncovered further striking statistics.

Those with the biggest hoards of quota can earn millions leasing it to others without casting a net. In one recent case a company got rid of its boat and – while waiting for a new one – carried on earning millions from its quota alone.

That boat, the Voyager, holds more than half (55%) of Northern Ireland’s fishing quota. In late 2015 the owners disposed of their old, 76m trawler and ordered a replacement . Company accounts show that the new Voyager was not delivered until September 2017, and in the meantime, the company made money by leasing out the quota.

In 2016-17 the company made an income of nearly £7m from its quota – reporting an operating profit of £2.5m – despite having no vessel for the full financial year.

Despite holding more than half of the country’s quota, the new 86m-long Voyager has not landed its catches in Northern Ireland, because it is too big for Kilkeel Harbour. Instead the vessel operates out of the Republic of Ireland port of Killybegs.

Unearthed approached Voyager Fishing Company and its owners, but they were unavailable for comment.

The black fish millionaires

In Scotland – the biggest fishing nation in the UK, with two-thirds of the quota – the domination of the fishing industry by Rich List families is most pronounced.

Five Rich List families control a third of Scottish quota and have minority investments in companies that hold a further 11%. This means, in total, companies holding close to half (45%) of all Scottish fishing quotas are wholly or partly owned by five wealthy families.

But the investigation also reveals how many of those at the centre of one of Scottish fishing’s most infamous episodes – the black fish scandal – continue to dominate the industry.

Grimsby town was once home to the largest fleet of fishing trawlers in the UK. 

The scandal came to light in 2005, when Scottish officials raided fish factories to uncover “serious and organised” schemes to systematically evade quota restrictions for mackerel and herring, using underground pipes, secret weighing machines, and extra conveyor belts to land 170,000 tonnes of over-quota fish over several years.

A multi-year police investigation followed, resulting in a series of court cases over 2011 and 2012 in which three fish factories and more than two dozen skippers were hit with fines and confiscation orders for “black landings” of undeclared fish.

Unearthed’s investigation found that of the 20 biggest holders of Scottish quota, 13 have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of sea fishing offences in the black fish scandal.

Among those prosecuted were four members of the Tait family – worth £115m according to the Rich List – whose Klondyke Fishing Company is the second-largest quota holder in Scotland.

The four men – all skippers on its vessels – were hit with fines and confiscation orders of more than £800,000 for their part in the scam.

Two years later, one of those skippers, Peter Tait, 50, reportedly bought the most expensive house sold in Scotland that year. Over the past five years Klondyke has paid out shareholder dividends totalling £56m.

Unearthed has reached out to Klondyke but the company declined to comment.

The Scottish top 10 also includes the vessel partnership that runs the trawler Christina S. In 2012, two men involved in that partnership – Ernest Simpson, 71, and his son Allan Simpson, 49, both of Aberdeenshire – were handed fines and confiscation orders totalling more than £800,000 for their involvement in the black fish scam.

Four years later, the Christina S was among the flotilla of vessels that sailed up the Thames with Nigel Farage, to protest EU fisheries policy weeks before the Brexit referendum.

John Anderson is chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation, a huge fish producer organisation which has several members – including the Christina S – that were involved in the black fish scandal.

He told Unearthed: “The pelagic fishermen and processors involved will be the first to acknowledge that, in the past, mistakes were made.”

As a result, he continued, the sector had founded the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group to oversee the certification of its main fisheries to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standards. Since that time, he added, “98% of the group’s stocks have been certified as sustainable and well managed by the MSC.”

Foreign flagships

In England, the UK’s second largest fishing nation, three Rich List families control around 30% of the quota.

A further 49% is ultimately held by Dutch, Spanish and Icelandic interests who have bought up English vessels and quota.

The most significant of these interests is Cornelis Vrolijk Holding, a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary alone holds 24% of English quota, making it the biggest quota-holder in England, and one of the five biggest in the UK.

Matthew Cox, chief executive of North Atlantic Fishing Company, Cornelis Vroljik’s UK subsidiary, said the company had been established in the UK since 1984, employed around 60 UK fishermen, had two UK offices, and had launched a UK apprenticeship scheme. He also suggested that the type of fishing his company does is not well suited for small-scale fishermen.

He added: “North Atlantic does not operate at the expense of small-scale fishermen. Pelagic [midwater fish such as mackerel and herring] and whitefish fishing are very different and a simple comparison/substitution between each is not possible.

“The deep sea nature of the environment make pelagic fishing difficult, dangerous and not very attractive for artisanal fishermen who tend to focus on low volume, high value fish such as cod or monkfish.”

The bulk of the company’s quota is for pelagic fish – which swim at midwater – and it has always emphasised the fact that its nets do not damage the sea bed.

However, after the Brexit vote in 2016 the company bought a beam trawler – with nets attached to a heavy beam designed to trawl for “demersal fish” that are found close to the sea bed – and bought up quotas for plaice and sole.

Mr Cox said: “Following the 2016 decision for the UK to leave the EU it was very clear early on, to the directors of North Atlantic Fishing, that there would be changes to the UK fishing industry. North Atlantic had always focused on pelagic fishing and it was therefore decided that the company should spread its risk in the interests of the company and its workforce and enter the demersal fishing industry in a very limited manner.”

Privatising a public resource

Small scale fishermen told Unearthed that successive governments had mismanaged fishing rights, allowing quota to be consolidated on a handful of supertrawlers while smaller, low impact fishermen had been progressively starved of access.

Jerry Percy, director of the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, told Unearthed this had resulted in a situation where the smaller inshore vessels that make up 77% of the fleet had ended up with “less than 4% of the quota”.

“This is privatisation of a public resource,” added Mr Percy, who campaigns on behalf of fishermen with smaller, under-10m long, vessels.

Large scale fishing interests contacted for this piece argued that their businesses generated hundreds of direct and indirect jobs, and that it was misleading to rank businesses by quota holdings alone, when the amount and value of fish that can be landed against those holdings varies between species, and area, and from year to year.

Several also pointed out that many of the biggest quota holders identified by Unearthed were trawlers focused on midwater pelagic stocks, like mackerel and herring.

These fisheries, they claimed, were environmentally friendly – with a low carbon footprint and no impact on the seabed – but the fish were too low-value and far from the coast to be attractive to small-scale fishermen.

John Anderson is chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation – a huge fish producer organisation with several of the top 25 in its membership.

He told Unearthed: “While it is true that there has been considerable consolidation within the pelagic catching sector over the past 20 years, with a trend towards fewer, more efficient vessels each with a greater concentration of fishing opportunity, the economic reality is that small-scale, inshore fishermen, many of whom are also members of the SFO, do not have the necessary capacity or markets needed to fully utilise the pelagic quotas that are already available to them.”

Mr Percy retorted: “If you go back years ago, there was any number of smaller inshore boats that were reliant on mackerel and especially herring in the North Sea before the inshore herring fisheries were decimated by overfishing by larger-scale interests.”

Nick Underdown, of the Scottish campaign group Open Seas, said it was hard for smaller boats to take up mackerel quota without investment in onshore facilities to support them. “At the moment, the supply chain infrastructure favours bigger boats,” he told Unearthed.

“But if we invest in processing with the strategic intention to help the smaller-scale fleet, then inshore fishery could bounce back.

“This would be a lifeline for those harbours where fishing has declined due to consolidation.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We are clear fishing communities and our wider economy should benefit as much as possible from those fishing the UK’s quota, and we are working closely with fishermen to review and reform the rules around the economic link condition.”

Who are the families on fishing's Rich List?

• Alexander Buchan and family are ranked 804 in the 2018 Sunday Times Rich List, with an estimated net worth of £147m. The family’s Peterhead-based Lunar Fishing Company owns or controls 8.9% of the UK’s quota holdings (739,153 FQAs), making it the biggest quota holder in the UK.

• Jan Colam and family are ranked 882 on the Rich List (estimated worth: £130m). The Colam family-owned company Interfish is the second largest quota holder, with 7.8% of the UK total (643,927 FQAs)

• Robert Tait and family are ranked 980 on the Rich List (estimated worth: £115m). The family’s Klondyke Fishing Company is the UK’s third-largest quota holder, with 6.1% of the UK total (506,953 FQAs).

• Andrew Marr and family are ranked 567 on the Rich List (estimated worth: £209m). The family’s Hull-based Andrew Marr International owns or controls 5.1% of UK quota holdings (419,937 FQAs), making it the UK’s 5th largest quota holder. It also has minority stakes in companies and vessel partnerships that hold a further 5.4% of UK quota (445,981 FQAS).

• Sir Ian Wood and family are ranked 77 on the Rich List, with an estimated worth of £1.7bn (a fortune built largely on oil and gas services). Sir Ian’s fishing business, JW Holdings, holds 1% of the UK’s fishing quota (83,463 FQAs) and has minority investments in businesses/partnerships that hold a further 2.3% (192,169 FQAs).

Full story courtesy of Crispin Dowler @CrispinDowler 



The extent of ownership was brought to the attention of MP Michael Gove at the end of last year in a previous Unearthed article:

Michael Gove criticised over ‘gross inequality’ of fishing quota system
Labour calls for an end to 'deeply unjust monopolies' in response to Unearthed investigation

Opposition parties have called for the government to take “urgent action” to redistribute UK fishing rights and end “deeply unjust monopolies” of fishing quota by a wealthy elite.

The calls came after an Unearthed investigation revealed this morning that five of the UK’s wealthiest families control more than a quarter of the country’s fishing quota.

Responding to the investigation, shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman told Unearthed: “The findings of this investigation highlight the hypocrisy and betrayal that this government continues to inflict upon British fishers in coastal communities right across the UK.

“We have known for years that ministers need to take urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quota to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats.

“But instead this government prefers to blame others and turn the other way as access to quota continues to be restricted for small boats and controlled by huge commercial boats and some of the wealthiest families in the UK.”

The government is poised to publish a new fisheries bill, which will set the legal framework for the UK fishing industry after Brexit. The government hopes to secure a greater share of the catch from British waters in the Brexit negotiations – but it has said it does not plan any changes to the way existing UK quotas are distributed.

As Unearthed’s investigation revealed today, that would leave 29% of the UK’s fishing quota in the hands of just five families on the Sunday Times Rich List – and around half of England’s quota in the hands of overseas interests.


Shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman called on ministers to "deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats".

Ms Hayman continued: “Labour is not surprised by this report that highlights the gross inequality of the fishing sector. We already know despite making up the majority of the British fishing fleet, smaller boats have just four per cent of the total quota.

“We know the Dutch-owned trawler, the Cornelis Vrolijk, controls more than a fifth of England’s entire quota allocation, and about two-thirds of England’s quota is awarded to three multi-national companies.

“But we are outraged at the lack of action from government to fix this. Fishing was the poster child of the Leave campaign and Gove has already broken promises he made to the industry to secure full control of our waters during the transition. With all the talk of ‘take back control’, Ministers have the power to distribute UK quota now and put the smaller-scale fleet first. So why wasn’t it mentioned in their white paper?

“This report shows while it points the fingers at others, this government is to blame for a sector rigged in the interests of the super-rich. Any future fishing policy must consider how new and existing quota can be more fairly distributed and we will treat this as a priority in the upcoming fisheries bill.”

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas told Unearthed: “This is a timely reminder that the health of our seas and oceans is being decimated to make profits for an already ultra-rich elite. If this government was serious about giving power back to local communities, they would act to end these deeply unjust monopolies right away.

“At the heart of our future fisheries policy needs to be a legally binding commitment to restoring our depleted seas, while at the same time providing secure jobs in sustainable fishing for coastal communities around the UK.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told Unearthed the department was reviewing rules around the “economic link” that foreign-owned flagships must have with the UK in order to hold UK quota.

She said: “We are clear fishing communities and our wider economy should benefit as much as possible from those fishing the UK’s quota, and we are working closely with fishermen to review and reform the rules around the economic link condition.”

See the a previous article, "How Privatising the seas: how the UK turned fishing rights into a commodity"

Full story courtesy of Crispin Dowler @CrispinDowler

Fish exporters urged to register now to use new digital exports services

Fish exporters urged to register now to use new digital exports services
A new digital catch certificate service has been launched as part of contingency planning for fish exporters in a no-deal Brexit.

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Businesses wanting to export fish to the EU after 29 March 2019 should sign up to the new digital services to make sure they are able to continue trading fish with the EU in the event of no deal.

Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s top priority. This has not changed. However, should the UK leave the EU without a deal, UK exporters will be required to obtain a validated catch certificate for most fish and fish products exported to the EU (excluding some aquaculture products, freshwater fish, some molluscs, fish fry or larvae).

Catch certificates prove that fish has been caught in line with established conservation and management measures. All non-EU countries are required to present catch certificates when trading with the EU.

To be ready for leaving the EU, fish exporters should familiarise themselves with the new services to generate the necessary export documentation, including:

• catch certificates
• processing statement
• storage document
• prior notification form
• pre-landing declaration

To access the service you’ll need to sign in or create a new Government Gateway user ID. Make a note of your Government Gateway user ID and password so you can sign in next time. You’ll then need to create a business Defra account using your business contact details. You’ll only need to register once.

To register, visit the gov.uk guidance page on creating a UK catch certificate.

Registering early gives exporters time to test the new service before the UK leaves the EU. Any sample documents created before 29 March 2019 will not be valid for export.

To check what documents you need to export fish to the EU if there’s no Brexit deal, visit the gov.uk guidance page on exporting and importing fish if there’s no Brexit deal.

What you need

To create a processing statement, you’ll need:

• a Government Gateway user ID and password

• the company name and address of the exporter

• to say what is in the consignment (and include the EU tariff commodity codes)

• a health certificate number for the export

• the species, catch certificate number and total weight from each catch being used in the consignment

• the before and after processing weights of the export

• the name, address and plant approval number of the processing plant used (and the name of the person responsible for the consignment)

START NOW

Before you start

You need to get an export health certificate (EHC) for your export.

Check the EU tariff commodity codes of your fishery products in the trade tariff.

If you haven’t already, create Government Gateway sign in details for the business or organisation you represent.

Defra service registrations need you to provide some extra details about yourself and the business (for example, the Companies House registration number).

Registration should take around 5 minutes.

START NOW

Published 5 March 2019

How the EU is preparing for Brexit: European Commission adopts two contingency proposals to help mitigate impact of “no-deal” Brexit on EU fisheries

Brexit preparedness: European Commission adopts two contingency proposals to help mitigate impact of “no-deal” Brexit on EU fisheries Given the continued uncertainty in the UK surrounding the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, the Commission has today adopted two legislative proposals to help mitigate the significant impact that a “no-deal” Brexit would have on EU fisheries. This is part of the Commission's ongoing preparedness and contingency work and will help ensure a coordinated EU-wide approach in such a scenario.  The first proposal is to allow fishermen and operators from EU Members States to receive compensation under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the temporary cessation of fishing activities. This will help off-set some of the impact of a sudden closure of UK waters to EU fishing vessels in a no-deal scenario. The second proposal amends the Regulation on the Sustainable Management of the External Fleets. The aim of this proposal is to ensure that the EU is in a position to grant UK vessels access to EU waters until the end of 2019, on the condition that EU vessels are also granted reciprocal access to UK waters. The proposal also provides for a simplified procedure to authorise UK vessels to fish in EU waters and EU vessels to fish in UK waters – should the UK grant that access. This proposal is limited to 2019 and is based on the agreement in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 17 and 18 December 2018 on the fishing opportunities for 2019.  These contingency measures cannot mitigate the overall impact of a "no-deal" scenario, nor do they in any way replicate the full benefits of EU membership or the terms of any transition period, as provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. They are limited to these specific areas where it is absolutely necessary to protect the vital interests of the EU and where preparedness measures on their own are not sufficient. As a rule, they will be temporary in nature, limited in scope and adopted unilaterally by the EU.  Next steps These proposals are subject to the co-decision procedure. The Commission will work with the European Parliament and the Council to ensure the adoption of the proposed legislative acts so that they are in force by 29 March 2019.   Background On 19 December 2018, the Commission published its third Brexit preparedness Communication, which implemented its “no-deal” Contingency Action Plan. This Communication included 14 measures in a limited number of areas where a “no-deal” scenario would create major disruption for citizens and businesses in the EU27. These areas include financial services, air transport, customs, and climate policy, amongst others. The Commission has also published 88 sector-specific preparedness notices to inform the public about the consequences of the UK's withdrawal in the absence of any Withdrawal Agreement. These are available in all official EU languages. The Commission has also held technical discussions with the EU27 Member States both on general issues of preparedness and on specific sectorial, legal and administrative preparedness steps. The slides used in these technical seminars are available online. The Commission will continue to implement its Contingency Action Plan in the weeks to come and will monitor the need for additional action, as well as continue to support Member States in their preparedness work. For more information Texts of the proposals: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - COM(2019)48 Fishing authorisations - COM(2019)49 The Commission's Brexit preparedness website

Fisheries: implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation

The House of Lords European Union Committee has just published its findings on the Landing Obligation - with regard to implementation and enforcement - makes for very interesting reading and poses more questions than answers - reflecting the clash between ideology and pragmatism in a complex industry like fishing where what can sound like a great idea "let's end discarding" as championed by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Fish Fight campaign - entirely honourable in its intentions - entirely unworkable for many in its present guise.

The danger here is that the media will identify certain sections of the industry as the villains when in reality the industry has made incredible technical advances and skippers and crews have invested heavily in seeking solutions - often at their own expense and often meeting with intransigence from the management.

Undercurrent News covered the same story.

This story is set to run.

Brexit no deal? Fishing industry encouraged to get ready for EU catch certificates

Fishing industry encouraged to get ready for EU catch certificates in the event of a no deal.  Advice on preparing for the introduction of catch certificates part of contingency planning.

The fishing industry is being encouraged to start preparing their businesses for EU Exit to ensure they can continue to import and export fish and fish products, once the UK leaves the EU.

Delivering the deal negotiated with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. This has not changed. However, the Government must prepare for every eventuality, including a no deal scenario.

From 29 March 2019, in the event of a no deal, most fish and fish products will require a catch certificate for import or export between the UK and EU. This also applies to fishermen who land fish directly into EU ports.

Catch certificates prove that fish has been caught in line with established conservation and management measures. All non-EU countries are required to present catch certificates when trading with the EU.

Under the requirements, on leaving the EU:

• UK exporters will be required to obtain a validated catch certificate to accompany their exports of most fish or fish products into the EU (excluding some aquaculture products, freshwater fish, some molluscs, fish fry or larvae)
• Importers will have to submit an import catch certificate to the Port Health Authorities or relevant fisheries authority to be checked before the estimated arrival time into the UK;
• Exporters may also need to obtain supporting documents if the fish has been processed or stored in a country that’s not the flag state;
• A new IT system to process and issue export catch certificates, and other supporting documentation, is being developed to help streamline the process. Exporters will receive full instructions on how to register and use the new system before we leave the EU. Import catch certificates will continue to be processed through the current paper-based system.

In addition to documents required under IUU regulations, businesses will also need to follow additional steps to comply with health and customs regulations, in the event of a ‘no deal’ EU Exit.

To plan ahead for creating a catch certificate, businesses and individuals that export fish products to the EU will need to know the:

• species,
• vessel that caught it,
• date it was landed,
• weight of the consignment.

Fishermen and fishing businesses can stay up to date with the latest advice on importing and exporting after EU Exit on GOV.UK.