Fisheries Bill Lords Amendments - Virtue Signalling vs Sustainable Fisheries Management.

Of the eight objectives included in the Fisheries Bill, five of them relate to fishing sustainably. And that’s fine. Without a functioning ecosystem and policies which limit fishing to safe levels, there will be no fishing industry. It makes sense too, from an economic perspective, for our management decisions to aim to achieve maximum yields, where that is a reasonable option. What fisherman would be against high sustainable yields? 

It is another thing, however, to give primacy to one aspect of environmental sustainability over all other objectives; and to prioritise environmental purity in the short as well as the long-term, whatever the cost. Yet, this is the force and intent of an amendment sponsored by the opposition parties in the House of Lords.

Accepting this amendment would carry serious consequences for practical fisheries management. In particular, it would tie ministers’ hands when setting quotas each year. The government would be required to set all quotas at levels which (theoretically) would deliver maximum sustainable yield, in all circumstances. No ifs, or buts. And irrespective of the costs.

The rest of this article explains what this would mean in the real world, but the core message is clear: accepting this amendment would provide a fundamental impediment to practical and effective fisheries management. We do not think that this is what the authors of the amendments intended.

Setting Quotas

Sound, pragmatic, yet principled, fisheries management decisions often require that a particular TAC (total allowable catch) to be set below MSY. This is not, as is sometimes suggested because ministers are cowed by the “powerful fishing lobby” but because it is necessary to secure the best overall fisheries outcomes.

Scientific advice on setting TACs according to MSY is presented annually on the basis of single stocks, not as they relate to one another in mixed fisheries settings. It is the responsibility of fisheries ministers (acting as fisheries managers) to balance out the tensions between different stocks in the advice. Responding to this, even the EU had to develop the concept of MSY Ranges to cope with the real world, where fish swim and are caught together, and stock abundance of individual species vary naturally in response to environmental signals. This kind of flexibility would be proscribed in the UK from 1st January, by prioritising short-term sustainability in all circumstances and under all conditions - if the amendment was accepted. Minaisters would find themselves repeatedly subject to judicial review if they used their judgement that the best outcomes required a trade-off between different objectives listed in the Bill.

Mixed Fisheries

In mixed fisheries, where a range of different species are caught together, the conservation status of the individual stocks often varies. One stock, for environmental or fisheries reasons, might need to be rebuilt, whilst the others are already fished sustainably – at or around maximum sustainable yield. In these circumstances, fisheries managers might consider that a three to five-year rebuilding plan, with supplementary measures to rebuild the weak stock, would be the best way to bring that stock back up to MSY, without causing undue socio-economic harm. This pragmatic, staged, approach would be ruled out if there was a legally enforceable environmental priority.

If we still have a landing obligation along current lines, the situation would be worse. Ministers would be faced with the unpalatable choice of tying up whole fleets, when the quota for that species was exhausted - or breaking the law.

This is not an abstract theoretical argument. We currently have a real-life example in the Celtic Sea where cod, which represents less that 0.1% of the catch, threatens to close down the demersal fisheries in the South West of England, denying the fishing industry access to their main economic quotas for hake and monkfish worth respectively £7million and £19 million in landings and hundreds of jobs in fishing. The scientists confirm that hake and monkfish are harvested sustainably. Nevertheless, the fisheries for these species are jeopardised by the very low TAC set for cod to meet MSY.

Rebuilding the cod stocks in the North Sea, whilst continuing to fish for the abundant haddock and whiting stocks, presents the same challenge. Cod in all of our waters is facing a distributional shift, probably caused by warmer sea temperatures. Cod, already at its southernmost extent in our waters, is moving northwards by 12km per year. This presents a management challenge.

Similarly, whiting in the Irish Sea, which could potentially close down the nephrops (prawn) fishery worth £25 million and on which whole communities depend.

These examples illustrate that sustainable management of mixed fisheries requires necessary trade-offs between the short and long term, between different species caught together, and between the biological and the socio-economic. These necessary compromises would be impeded by giving primacy to environmental over all other criteria. It would remove our ability to apply a careful balanced approach to harvesting which takes care of both fish, and fishers, along with their communities.

Three-Legged Stool

The sustainable use of natural resources is generally understood to require three pillars: environmental, economic and social. Like a three-legged stool, if one of the pillars is missing the policy will fall over. There is abundant experience from the last 40 years which illustrates the truth of this insight. Blunt and unimaginative fisheries management measures have time after time, foundered, or generated unintended consequences. People require livelihoods and economic security as well as long term sustainability. Measures which ignore this will condemn themselves to failure one way or another. The original Fisheries Bill suggested that this important lesson had been learnt. It would be desperate if that lesson was now unlearnt.

Unintended Consequences

We have learnt that top-down, blunt, management measures in fisheries tend to generate unintended consequences, which are often of the unwelcome variety. Displacing fishing activities into adjacent areas, or other fisheries, is one of the most common knock-on effects. Increasing the level of discards and driving discards underground is another. One way of reading the history of the Common Fisheries Policy (and quite a bit of domestic UK fisheries policy) is about constant efforts to mitigate perverse side effects of well-intended legislation.

International Negotiations

In the future, we can expect that bilateral (or trilateral) international negotiations will be the main vehicle for managing shared stocks. However tough these negotiations become, they must be rooted in mutual respect for the rights and sovereignty of all of those involved. It would not be acceptable for one party to enact domestic legislation and then expect international partners to bow to it, whether they agreed with the thrust of the measures or not. That is not how international negotiations work, yet that is what the EU has brought to the table in recent years with its unilateral but mandatory requirement to set TACS at MSY by 2020. During EU/Norway negotiations, independent coastal states like Norway, with much stronger credentials on conservation of fish stocks than the CFP, have made plain their scorn for a crude attempt to shoehorn unrealistic, poorly drafted, EU domestic legislation into international negotiations. If every country insists that its domestic legislation takes priority, international fisheries negotiations would be stuck in a perpetual impasse.

If the UK wishes to avoid putting itself in the same position, this amendment must be allowed to fall.

More Rigid than the CFP

In fact, prioritising the sustainability objective would, if accepted, mean that UK law was more inflexible and less balanced than the CFP. The first objective of the CFP reads:

“The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.” Article 2.1 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation EU 1384/13

At least the authors of the CFP recognised that there are three pillars, not one, to sustainability and these must be balanced carefully.

In-built Accountability

With a balanced portfolio of objectives, the government would remain accountable for its obligation to meet sustainability objectives. The five interrelated sustainability objectives would be given force through the Joint Fisheries Statement and Fisheries Management Plans. These instruments will provide for a more refined interpretation of the management objectives for particular circumstances and include inbuilt prioritisation of particular elements of sustainability, including:

⦁ Provisions to specify policies for restoring or maintaining a stock at sustainable levels (section6(3)(a))

⦁ Improve evidence to assess a stock’s maximum sustainable yield (section 6(3)(b)(ii)).

⦁ The requirement to follow the precautionary approach (in line with the objective) where evidence is not sufficient to assess a stock’s maximum sustainable yield (section 6(4)).

Reporting requirements will ensure that government decisions are scrutinised and that the various objectives relating sustainability are upheld over the long term (section 11).

Commons

The Bill returns to the House of Commons on the 1st September and it is at that stage that these amendments will be considered. The House will have to decide whether it prioritises virtue signalling over truly effective sustainable fisheries management.

Notes

Fisheries Bill objectives

The fisheries objectives are—

1. (a) the sustainability objective,

2. (b) the precautionary objective,

3. (c) the ecosystem objective,

4. (d) the scientific evidence objective,

5. (e) the bycatch objective,

6. (f) the equal access objective,

7. (g) the national benefit objective,

8. (h) the climate change objective.

Amendments introduced in the House of Lords

The “sustainability objective” is that—

1. (a) fish and aquaculture activities do not compromise environmental

sustainability in either the short or the long term;

2. (b) subject to subsection (2)(a), fishing fleets must— 15

(i) be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and (ii) have fishing capacity that is economically viable but does not overexploit marine stocks.

The sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective. 20

The “precautionary objective” is that—

(a) the precautionary approach to fisheries management is applied, and

(b) exploitation of marine stocks restores and maintains populations of harvested species above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.

Full story courtesy of the NNFo website 24TH JULY 2020 IN BREXIT, EUROPE / COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

In related story that appeared in the Northern Scot newspaper it is apprent that feelings are running high with some north of the border:

Fishing in Moray: Scotland being 'frozen out' of maritime discussions

The Scottish Government claims it is being "frozen out" over talks about the future of the fishing industry and maritime security.

Humza Yousaf, the Justice Secretary, is complaining that the devolved governments have been omitted from the UK Government’s Ministerial EU Exit Operations Committee, where maritime issues are being discussed.

Justice secretary Humza has called for an urgent four nation ministerial meeting on the issue. He said: "While we remain opposed to leaving the EU and believe it is extremely reckless to rule out an extension to the Transition Period, as a responsible government we want to be as fully prepared for Brexit as possible, including working with the other UK Governments."

Scotland’s waters cover 62% of the UK’s domestic exclusive economic zone. Marine and fisheries compliance is a fully devolved issue. As such, Marine Scotland Compliance regularly inspects and patrols Scottish waters to ensure fisheries are sustainable and to provide protection for the marine environment.

Mr Yousaf said: "The Scottish Government has responsibility for many aspects of maritime security, in particular marine and fisheries protection.  "Given Scotland represents a large area of UK waters, we have extensive expertise to share.

"We have had a good working relation with the UK Government, but it is deeply concerning that devolved governments have now been frozen out of UK Ministers’ maritime Brexit discussions."

The Department for Transport co-ordinates the UK Government’s work on maritime security. Mr Yousaf says he has written to the UK’s Transport Secretary Grant Shapps calling for an urgent four nation ministerial meeting.

He said: "This is more than just another example of UK Ministers seeking to undermine devolution and respect for devolved competencies.  "It compromises our ability to protect Scottish interests and seriously hampers the UK’s Brexit preparations on this critical matter."

By Alistair Whitfield- alistair.whitfield@hnmedia.co.uk

Meanwhile, the Yorkshire Post also carried a story by Emma Hardy (MP for Hull West & Hessle)

Stop treating fishing like a second-class industry 

THOSE of us who are privileged to live on the Humber understand better than most the importance of fishing – not only to our region, but to our country.  Unfortunately, for all their bluster on making fishing a priority after Brexit, the Tories have proved once again that they just don’t get it. 

In setting up a new Trade and Agriculture Commission, a body that will bring together farmers, retailers and consumers to advise government on future trade policy, Defra and DIT (Department for International Trade) seem to be on the right lines. The creation of the Commission seems to recognise the need for close collaboration in policymaking on food production and trade – something any farmer would tell you was common sense – so why have our fishermen been left out?

The new Commission will be an important means of securing opportunities at home and abroad for UK farmers, maintaining environmental and animal welfare standards and looking after the interests of consumers. It is true that fishing represents only a small part of our total economy, but the Government should not undervalue the thousands of jobs fishing creates not just on boats large and small, but in processing, logistics and food service. They are also at risk of ignoring the cultural and historical importance of fishing as part of our maritime heritage and our communities.

The creation of this Commission is to be welcomed and the NFU and its supporters congratulated for their successful campaign.

However, there is concern that the Commission may lack the teeth to affect the Government’s trade policy and that its recommendations will come too late to impact upon the contents of the trade agreements currently being negotiated with the US and others. Labour supported amendments to the Agriculture and Trade Bills to prevent food being imported if produced to lower standards than those that must be met by our own British farmers – an issue highlighted by The Yorkshire Post’s own Editorial last week. But these amendments were voted down by the Government, despite its manifesto pledge not to compromise on standards in future trade deals.

Boris Johnson’s government often seems to be guided more by dogma than it is by common sense, but even by those standards this is a negligent failure to look after the interests of those thousands of fishermen dependent on international trade. While trade and agriculture interests are brought together in the same Commission, the Government seems content that fisheries and trade policies do not mix.

For decades in Britain we have imported most of the fish that we like to eat (largely cod, haddock and salmon) from waters controlled by Norway, Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes, while we have exported most of the fish we catch in our waters, mainly to the EU27. This is all down to national tastes and historical fishing patterns, and it means that for most people in the industry, as well as for retailers and consumers, the number one priority is a healthy cross-border trading environment. Fishing and trade are not only mutually dependent, they are virtually one and the same thing. Like many industries, British fishing has suffered heavily during the pandemic. One of the reasons for this was the virtual collapse of the markets in the EU where we sell our high- quality shellfish and other specialist catches.

While prices for some seafood collapsed by up to 80 per cent, UK consumers did not switch to langoustines and chips, but stuck to their imported favourites. UK fishermen still need an open and frictionless global market to trade in, 
and open waters to fish in, while processors will need a good supply of fish from UK waters and beyond, as well as an open export market to sell their products into. British retailers and consumers will need a plentiful supply of fresh fish from waters such as those between Greenland and Norway where the fish for our national dish are most abundant. For the sake of the fishermen of Hull, Bridlington and Whitby, and for coastal communities all around the country, the Government must lay ideology aside and recognise that fishing and trade go together in exactly the same way as agriculture and trade.

Fishing is not a second-class industry, and our fishermen deserve a Fisheries and Trade Commission to protect their interests now.

Emma Hardy is Labour MP for Hull
 West and Hessle.

LANDING OBLIGATION: SIX MONTHS IN

24TH MAY 2019 IN DISCARDS, EUROPE / COMMON FISHERIES POLICY


It’s early days for the landing obligation, given the magnitude of the changes involved. Ongoing patience and application will be required to address the many outstanding issues, as the new policy is fully integrated into the fisheries management system. The signs are, however, that the fishing industry is responding to the new incentive; improvements in selectivity and avoidance behaviours are widespread.

The reconvened House of Lords enquiry into the implementation of the landing obligation has focused attention on a number of interrelated questions:

• Is the new legislation being complied with?
• Is it reasonable to expect large tonnages of fish, previously discarded, to be landed?
• Has sufficient weight been given to changes in selectivity and fishing behaviours, prior to and since the full implementation of the landing obligation?
• What has the effect of the various mitigation measures been?
• Has the problem of chokes* been dealt with?
• A little-known NGO called Our Fish, has asserted that an analysis of catch composition of landings into Peterhead implies that large-scale discarding of cod could be read into the landing statistics. Even though this claim was based on a misreading of the catch compositions, the story was picked up by the Independent and echoed round the media for a while.

Many eyes are on our industry.

Retailers and the larger processors, in particular, are concerned about the reputational risk associated with buying fish from fisheries in which they cannot be sure that there is not continued discarding of quota species.

Compliance: Risk factors

We have known, from the outset, that monitoring the landings obligation across many thousands of vessels, operating at sea, would present a monumental challenge. Whilst some management authorities have said that the discard ban is, in effect, unenforceable, industry bodies, including the NFFO have pointed to Norway, where industry support for their form of a discard ban, well integrated into their management system, has been a major factor in its success.

The actual risk of illegal discarding of quota species is likely to vary by gear type, area of operation, mix of species encountered, access to quota and degree of choke risk, as well as skippers’ mind-set. In turn, choke risks will reflect the degree to which fishing opportunities have been set taking into account mixed fishery factors.

The scale of the challenge involved in monitoring and enforcing the landing obligation on many thousands of vessels operating across many different fisheries, has led some to consider that remote electronic monitoring (REM) provides a panacea. It does not.

Remote monitoring will have a role to play in some fisheries but as a recent conference organised by the Danish Government illustrated very well, the use of CCTV cameras, and other forms of remote surveillance, only really work when cameras, or the like, are invited on board vessels in order to better to demonstrate compliance. In other words, the use of cameras as a top-down big-brother panacea is unlikely to provide a solution for a series of practical, legal and ethical reasons. But in the right context, and within a collaborative system of co-management, REM can play a role and undoubtedly has a future. A considered and proportionate approach is required.

Industry Response

What has been the fishing industry’s response to the introduction of the new rules?

Although it is true that some of the more arcane aspects of the exemptions are not fully or widely understood, the signs are that there is broad awareness across the industry of the significance of the landing obligation. As a result, skippers feel under considerable pressure, and have felt for some years, to reduce unwanted catch. This has intensified changes in gear selectivity and fishing behaviours including:

• Increased mesh size in use
• Changes in gear geometry to increase selectivity
• Changes in fishing behaviours
• Movement away from areas in which there is increased risk of unwanted catch
• Increased efforts to source relevant quota
• In parallel, there has been encouragement by industry organisations for vessels to carry Cefas observers to demonstrate compliance. Some vessel operators, including the majority of the English North Sea whitefish fleet, have agreed to continue a trial system in which carry CCTV cameras to document catches.

It is important to remember that the overall purpose of the landing obligation is not to replace discarding large amounts of fish at sea, with landing equally large quantities of fish into the ports for low-value fishmeal. The purpose is to create an incentive to encourage vessels to find ways of reducing unwanted catch.

Landing fish previously discarded at sea, to see them reduced to low-value fishmeal, with associated financial and environmental costs, would be irrational at multiple levels. If done at scale, it would create a different kind of public scandal.

Small amounts of previously discarded fish can find its way into the market for bait in the various pot fisheries.

Continuity and Progress

Improved selectivity and avoidance didn’t begin with the landing obligation and will not end with its implementation. Improvement in selectivity is and has been an ongoing process.

Excluding fish below minimum size has been achieved in many fisheries. Selection by species presents more of a challenge. In mixed fisheries selectivity tends to be limited by the different body size/shape of the different species, although progress can be made by focussing on different species behaviours. The latest experiments and trials focus on the use of light and knowledge of different fish behaviours to achieve desired species separation.

In the North Sea ground-fish fisheries, ICES data shows that discards were reduced by 90% in the 20 years before the landing obligation came along.

A significant part of this reduction was due to changes in the selectivity profile of fishing gears and changes in fishing practices to eliminate fish below minimum landing size. The introduction of square mesh panels and, often voluntary, increased mesh size in particular played a role.

Likewise, in the ultra-mixed demersal fishery in the Celtic Sea, increased mesh size, avoiding fishing in haddock-rich areas at night has had a major effect on discard rates.

Highly selective gear adjusted to local conditions have, similarly, been developed in the Irish Sea and the North Sea nephrops fisheries. The gear selectivity project in Northern Ireland – where whiting bycatch is a particular challenge - is one of many initiatives across the UK, and indeed Europe. In the Northern Irish example, £750,000 has been spent on gear trials and scientific analysis to help fleets adapt to the landing obligation. Solutions have been found that work for some parts of the fleet and work is ongoing on others

Nearly every fishery has a similar positive story to tell.

Mitigation Measures

Although some of the choke mitigation measures permitted under Article 15 of the CFP Regulation, for example inter-species flexibility, have been more or less inoperable, other, more useful approaches have been developed. These have been critical in avoiding chokes in the first half of 2019. Mitigation measures adopted include:

• 
  
• De minimis exemptions - used where scope for selectivity improvements is limited, or costs are disproportionate. The exemptions, which permit a limited amount (max 7%) of continued discarding of the species concerned, vary in scale, location and gear-type
• High Survival Exemptions – apply to stocks where the evidence suggests high levels of survival after return to the sea. Some high survival exemptions are time-limited and conditional. The exemptions for plaice and skates and rays are particularly significant
• TAC Setting: choke risks can be reduced by an intelligent approach to setting TACs in mixed fisheries. The EU, working with ICES, has developed the concept of fishing mortality ranges, which allow fisheries managers a degree of flexibility in balancing competing priorities, including choke avoidance
• TAC removal – where the TAC served no purpose and posed a major choke risk (Dab and Flounder)
• Seabass, a species under a different form of catch limit, have been excluded from the landing obligation, avoiding the spectacle of tonnes of high value bass going for fishmeal
• TAC uplifts to cover preciously discarded fish – time will tell whether these have been calculated correctly, given the patchy data on which they are based
• A new innovation of bycatch quotas, adopted at the December Council, in which some quota is pooled to allow access for member states who have zero quotas of some species
• New ways of dealing with zero catch advice in mixed fisheries, which involve TAC increases along with bycatch reduction initiatives
• Exemptions are agreed each year as part of joint recommendations prepared by member states working together regionally and submitted to the Commission for approval. The Joint Recommendations being prepared by member states for the discard plans in 2020, amount to over 50 pages of scientific justification for the proposed de minimis and high survival exemptions. The scientific recommendations pass through a system of quality control by the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee (STECF).

Other useful flexibilities, not yet available are under development. One of the most promising of these could help to minimise chokes, by authorising landings of amounts of unavoidable bycatch, when a quota is exhausted and a choke situation arises. In these circumstances, the fish would be sold on the human consumption market instead of going for fishmeal but vessels would not receive the full value of the catch, removing any incentive to target these species. This approach is so far precluded by the CFP. There is provision however, for this approach in the Fisheries Bill now passing through Parliament and would be available to UK vessels after the UK industry is free of the Common Fisheries Policy and any transition period.

In summary, mitigation measures have been adopted and have been absolutely essential to ease the introduction of the new policy. And to the avoidance of chokes - so far.

Quota Swaps

The jury is still out on whether the established system of quota swaps and transfers, along with limited top-slicing and redistribution, will be sufficient to avoid category 2 chokes (where there is sufficient in the system but it’s in the wrong place to prevent a choke developing). Historically, the market has proved more adept at moving unutilised quota to where it is needed, whilst avoiding unintended consequences, by comparison with administrative decisions made at the centre of government.

The obvious answer to easing this type of choke risks in many of our fisheries lies in fairer UK allocations as the UK renegotiates its national shares, when it becomes an independent coastal state. Pending that rebalancing and readjustment, mechanisms will be necessary to move quota to where it is needed.

Rocketing lease and purchase prices for potential choke risk quotas in the first half of this year, are strongly indicative of the industry’s efforts to locate quota to cover the totality their catches and to avoid chokes.

Marine Stewardship Council

Many parts of the fishing industry are heavily engaged with the Marine Stewardship Council process across a range of species. Satisfying the overarching principles of MSC (particularly Principle 1 - Species, and Principle 3 - Management Systems) will facilitate deeper congruity between the objectives of the landing obligation and MSC certification.

Momentum

Approaching the end of the first 6 months of the full implementation of the landing obligation, it’s possible to make some preliminary observations:

• The landing obligation is the biggest change to the management system since quotas were introduced in 1983
• The EU opted for a big-bang approach rather than the Norwegian species -by-species incremental approach
• The design of the legislation introducing the landing obligation was sub-optimal, reflecting a dysfunctional decision-making process for the management of in European fisheries
• The signs are that the fishing industry is responding to the new incentive to reduce unwanted catch; this is easier in some fisheries than others
• It makes no financial or environmental sense to land large amounts of unwanted catch which go for fishmeal. The focus of the landing obligation is and should remain the reduction of unwanted catch through avoidance and selectivity
• Mitigation measures have been absolutely critical in keeping the problem of chokes at bay; the second half of this year is likely to clarify whether enough has been done in this respect
• Access to quota is of extreme relevance in avoiding chokes; the mechanisms, international and national, for moving unutilised quota are being kept under review
• Responsibilities and Cooperation

Those who are being regulated, and those with responsibility for fisheries regulation, have a duty to continue to work together to overcome the not insubstantial implementation problems ahead. Such an enormous change takes time to adapt and to work through the issues as they arise. All those involved, including those throughout the supply chain, have a duty of care to those at the sharp end, as well as a responsibility to maintain momentum towards a workable landing obligation. In turn, the catching sector has a responsibility to demonstrate that it is adapting to the new regime.

Whatever the shortcomings of the EU landings obligation and the way it came about, there is genuine public concern about the waste involved in large scale discards and the catching sector has to demonstrate that it is doing its part. Even though it is early days and there remain many problems to resolve, the signs are that the fishing industry is facing up to that responsibility.

Pockets

Ours is a complex, diverse, industry. There may be pockets of vessel operators who think that, even having accepted the quota uplifts associated with the landing obligation, they can carry on as they did in the past, by discarding unwanted catch. If such a minority exists, they are delusional and dangerous. Dangerous because carrying on as usual can only have one outcome – stock assessments that indicate increased fishing mortality, followed, as night follows day, by reductions in TACs. Delusional because, although few in number, they are in denial. This is a boomerang that will return very quickly. It will equally affect everyone: those who carry on business as usual, as well as those who make every attempt to reduce their unwanted catch.

Conclusions and Future

Given the scale of the changes involved, and taking into account flaws in the legislation, after six months, it is possible to say that the central purpose of the landing obligation – to incentivise reduction of unwanted catch of quota species is having an effect. Fishing vessels across the fleets are continuing to adapt their gears and fishing behaviours. The mitigation measures were still being shaped at the 11th hour, but they have been absolutely critical in dealing with some of the undesirable side effects of the landing obligation – most notably chokes in mixed fisheries. The second half of 2019 will inform us if enough has been done.

The key to dealing with the residual problem areas and maintaining momentum towards a workable and effective landing obligation, lies in a collaborative approach in which fisheries managers, the fishing industry and the whole supply chain, continue to work together to understand and deal with the issues as they arise.

A working group has been established to build a picture of how the industry is adapting to the landing obligation. The industry led group with Defra and MMO support, will:

• Discuss and develop landing obligation initiatives such as Bycatch Reduction Plans (BCRPs), Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF) schemes and available CFP flexibilities;
• Monitor the use of existing flexibilities and exemptions;
• Discuss and develop future policy initiatives to continue reducing unwanted bycatch post-Brexit;
• Assess upcoming choke risks and mitigation measures;
• Identify and plan regional focus groups to work on the detail of the above points.
• In parallel, an ongoing dialogue, between retailers, processors/buyers, the catching sector and Defra aims to keep everyone in the supply chain involved in identifying issues and working on solutions.

It is well understood that if we were doing all this again, we wouldn’t start with article 15 of EU Regulation 1380/13. We would take a different approach that would avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls. Given where we are, however, the most constructive approach is to work collaboratively and systematically.

In Europe, the advisory councils have begun to review how the legislation could be improved, conscious that the Commission will soon begin work on the next CFP reform. In the UK, the discussion also embraces what changes could be available when the UK has regulatory autonomy to design its own solutions.

In the meantime, we will deal with the issues as they arise in a pragmatic, proportionate and constructive way, conscious that discard policy is important but must fit into an overall management system which promotes sustainable fishing and supports fishing businesses and communities.

It is important that the landing obligation is aligned with the other elements of fisheries policy in a coherent and integrated whole. TAC setting rules, technical measures, financial support mechanisms, and control rules should all fit together (or at least not conflict). The Common Fisheries Policy is not yet at that stage. Without a coherent approach, life is made very difficult on the deck and in the wheelhouse.

Dealing collaboratively with the adversities generated by a flawed piece of legislation may yet, however, prove to be the vehicle for new forms of co-management.

*A choke occurs in a mixed fishery, when exhaustion of one quota would mean a vessel or fleet would have to tie up for the rest of the year, losing the economic benefit of its main fishing opportunities.

Full story courtesy of the NFFO.

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

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

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

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

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

Chokes and Zero Catch Advice

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

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

Bass

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

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

The measures for 2019 are:

Vessels using demersal trawls, for unavoidable by‑catches not

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

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

South East

Tony Delahunty, NFFO President and South East Committee Chairman

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

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

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

North Sea

Ned Clark, Chairman of the NFFO North East Committee

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Trebilcock, Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation

“Some Progress but Big Challenges Ahead for 2019”

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

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

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

Celtic Sea Cod (ICES area 7e-k)

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

Ultimately agreement was reached around a package including:

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

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

Haddock 7b-k

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

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

Sole 7e, 7hjk and 7fg

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

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

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

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

Plaice 7hjk

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

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

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

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

Ray 6/7

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

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

Bass

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

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

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

Irish Sea

Alan McCulla Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFFO Chairman, Andrew Pascoe

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

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

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

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

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

The NFFO team in Brussels this year was:

Bill Brock SWFPO and South East

Ned Clark North East

Matthew Cox, Pelagic

Tony Delahunty, South East

Jim Evans, Wales

Judith Farrell, Pelagic

Andrew Locker, North Sea

Arnold Locker, North Sea

Alan McCulla, Northern Ireland

Linda McCall, Northern Ireland

Andrew Pascoe,NFFO Chairman and Cornwall

Jim Portus, South West

Chloe Rogers, North Sea and External Waters

Jane Sandell, North Sea and External Waters

Paul Trebilcock, Cornwall

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive

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

Further details from the NFFO website in due course:

NFFO - THE EU LANDING OBLIGATION: CONTINGENCY PLANNING FOR CHOKES MUST BEGIN NOW

The December Council meetings are livestreamed.

Click on the image to open the livestream.

December Council. Despite a four-year phase-in, it seems highly unlikely that the Council of Ministers, which begins today, 17th December, will resolve all the outstanding problems associated with the implementation of the landing obligation.

Legislative Design Faults

We can expect that some progress will be made over the next three days but a widespread recognition has built over the phase-in that the landing obligation, adopted as part of the 2013 reform of the CFP, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is also clear that there are there are no easy solutions at hand:

• The problem of chokes in mixed fisheries (where the exhaustion of one quota will preclude a vessel from catching all its other quotas) is by far the problem with the most serious far-reaching consequences
• There remain conflicts with other CFP regulations which either contradict, or are at least not consistent with, the requirements of the landing obligation. These include:

1. The EU technical conservation regulation, currently under revision but so far stuck in limbo between the EU Parliament, the Commission and the member states
2. The EU control regulation is also undergoing revision which will take around two years
3. The absence of a multi-annual plan for Western Waters which could help mitigate chokes by allowing quotas to be set within a range of fishing mortalities consistent with maximum sustainable yield
4. Relative Stability, the EU formula for distributing quota between member states, means that what quota there is, is frequently in the wrong place to deal with chokes. It is not known whether the system for quota swaps and transfers will be adequate to the task, given that fishing groups and member states are likely to want to hold onto quota to deal with their own domestic chokes
5. The 2020 deadline for all stocks to be managed at MSY is both biologically unachievable (because of natural variability) and a self-imposed constraint that will intensify the choke problem in some fisheries
6. The means to effectively monitor and enforce the landing obligation are simply not there because the new policy was adopted with inadequate preparation
7. Minimal attempt has been made to prepare the fishing industry for the major change ahead through comprehensive guidance, not least because the rules are still being constructed, a fortnight before they are due to come into force

Against, this background of legislative confusion, it is no surprise that many in the fishing industry have adopted a wait and see attitude.

No Magic Wand

Despite its design flaws, because the landing obligation is welded into the basic CFP Regulation, there is little prospect that it could be revisited before the next CFP reform in 2023.

The realisation that the full implementation of the landing obligation “presents serious challenges” is now widely shared amongst fisheries administrators, enforcement authorities, and throughout the fishing industry and throughout the supply chain. All those concerned with the practical implementation of the policy confront the difficult reality that there is no magic wand and that we are about to enter a period of painful and complex adjustment which carries serious risks to fishing businesses, crews and established fishing patterns. Also under threat, are the scientific models which inform stock assessments. These require accurate data and depend on looking backwards to predict forward. This knowledge provides the basis for the sustainable management of our fish stock and anything that undermines its reliability, undermines our ability to manage our fisheries effectively.

In recent weeks, senior figures in fisheries management have described the choke problem as “intractable”, the landing obligation as “unenforceable”, and full compliance with the landing obligation as indivisible from choke risks. The risks are now clearly recognised but solutions are only partially in place.

Commitment to a Workable Discard Ban

Thankfully, despite the cluster of unresolved issues, we detect a maturity and level-headedness within the fishing industry and amongst decision-makers about http://nffo.org.uk/news/landings-obligation-statement-of-intent.html finding a way forward.

Constructive discussions have been held involving government, fishing organisations, processors and retailers. These talks have provided a common understanding of the issues. There is a commitment and sense of joint responsibility to work towards a workable version of the landing obligation. The NFFO and others have recently given evidence to a House of Lords enquiry into the issues associated with the implementation of the landing obligation. The Committee’s report is likely to bring the issues into stark relief, and hopefully will point to ways in which discards policies have been successfully implemented in other countries.

Period of Adjustment

The magnitude of change represented by the landing obligation would require a period of adjustment, even if the legislators had delivered a coherent and consistent set of rules and prepared the ground properly. The fact that they didn’t, particularly in the failure to provide adequate tools to deal with chokes in mixed fisheries, ensures that the period of adjustment will be more turbulent than would otherwise have been the case.

A great deal is at stake. Unless we move carefully, livelihoods and the progress that we have made in putting our fisheries on a sustainable footing over the last two decades are now jeopardised.

Against this background, the NFFO has called on ministers to begin contingency planning. Chokes will be difficult to predict with accuracy but tying vessels or fleets to the wall when they have significant quotas left is not a politically, ethically, or socially acceptable option. What will happen then?

It will also be important to guard against unintended consequences, such as disruptive displacement effects, as individual vessels, or fleets, seek to avoid the consequences of chokes.

All this requires contingency planning, with a strong dialogue between the fishing industry, fisheries administrators, control authorities and key players in the supply chain.

Brexit

The full implementation of the landing obligation takes place against the background of the UK’s departure from the EU. If a way is found through the current political turmoil to a withdrawal agreement, the EU landing obligation would be part of the CFP rules that would continue to apply during any transition period. In those circumstances, the UK’s ideas for mitigating choke risks (outlined in the Fisheries White Paper and legislated for in the Fisheries Bill) would have to wait on the sideline. In the case of a no-deal scenario, the UK would become an independent coastal state from 29th March and immediately have more flexibility to vary its approach, although within the context of a legal obligation to cooperate in the management of shared stocks, and against the background of an abrupt rupture with the EU, which would carry its own consequences.

Contingency Planning

Having recognised and acknowledged the profound problems generated by the landing obligation, the immediate priority has to be to prepare to intervene to address the consequences of this flawed legislation as they arise.

Support fishermen called to ensure every Friday is a #FishyFriday in the future!

Andrew Pascoe, chair of The National Fishermen's Federation has put out a plea to all those in and beyond the the fishing industry to demand from the government that there is no sell-out in the process of negotiating an exit from the EU.

Thousands of flags and wheelhouse stickers in fishing ports across the country are delivering the fishing industry’s message to the Government and politicians as the UK/EU withdrawal negotiations edge towards a critical stage. By flying the No Sell-Out flags, thousands of vessels, in dozens of ports around the coast, urge the UK negotiators to stand firm against the EU’s pressure to keep the status quo on access for their fleets and the current unfair quota shares. Cornish fisherman and NFFO Chairman, Andrew Pascoe, in a letter accompanying the flags, spells it out:

“As you will already be aware, we are exerting a huge effort to secure the best outcomes for the UK fishing industry, as the UK leaves the EU.

Meetings have been held and assurances received from the Prime Minister, as well as secretaries of state at Defra and Dexeu, that the UK will become an independent coastal state outside the Common Fisheries Policy, as the UK leaves the EU.

We know that the EU will strongly resist this change and, as part of any withdrawal agreement, will seek to tie the UK back into the current access arrangements and quota shares.

It is extremely important, therefore, that the UK Government stands firm on fishing. To that end we have met with all the main political editors and held a very successful lobby day in Parliament attended by around 50 parliamentarians from right across the political spectrum.

To back up these efforts, we feel that it is important that there is visible support in the ports, and to that end we have produced a large number of flags, banners and stickers to display on your vessels, fish-markets and wheelhouses.

Hopefully, the flags and show of support will be amplified by the media – a picture can tell a story of a 1000 words.

If you require additional flags or stickers, these can be supplied.


Thank you for your support.

Yours

Andrew Pascoe

Chairman

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation

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