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:

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

How some fishermen are creating their own database of catch data to protect their livelihoods,

Despite the setback in this years Fisheries Council TAC carve-up - which must have had both Cefas & Defra spitting feathers that the evidence submitted about SW haddock, way above what is the EU norm, was ignored - there are examples elsewhere that show how fishermen can work together, create and most importantly, own their fishing data to argue their case.

Meet Chris Brown. He’s a Point Judith fisherman, adopting game-changing technology to make his catch more sustainable.

There's always been a lag time between getting accurate catch data to the folks who make catch limit decisions – before fish populations change. And that has a serious impact on fishing stocks. But technology and fishermen are changing all that.

Thanks, Chris McGuire, Capt. Chris Brown, Timothy Mooney for help making this come together! 

Just what our boats are up against in the annual TAC carve-up

Earlier this year - and in an attempt to pre-empt the Landing Obligation debacle where, in the South West, a single species (haddock) will disproportionately affect the trawling fleet the MMO put out a call for participants in fishing data and research programme - roll on nine months to the annual December Fisheries Council meeting to settle TACs for 2018....

and the 2018 TACs announced in Brussels yesterday and some detail specifically for the South West (ICES areas 7b-k) were quickly passed on by the CFPO on Twitter - where there was an immediate response from the one (award winning) boat Crystal Sea that has worked so hard (with video surveillance technology and more) to redress the quota imbalance for the single most crucial discards ban species - haddock.

If that was not enough, while the Crystal Sea and the Tranquility (the only trawlers over 18m working in Area 7b-k)...

were both sheltering in Newlyn overnight as stormy weather passed through the Western Approaches...

wind speed and air pressure as the Sevenstones lightship weather station recorded over the last 24 hours...

and, courtesy of WindyTV, with much worse to come...

so it's no surprise to see that there were two similar-sized french trawlers dodging all night east of the Scillys...

and 18 of them east of the Lizard deep off Falmouth Bay. With the huge SW fleet of French boats drastically reduced since 2000, their substantially larger haddock quota no longer poses a threat to them when the LO kicks in next year - perhaps if they had taken part in the research collaboratively - or even been encouraged to provide their own data things might have been different for Area 7 haddock overall.  Much of the data collected by ICES is fundamentally flawed by virtue of how it is obtained.

More recently the website Gearing Up has been launched to showcase innovative and informed fishing projects that seek to reduce discards and increase efficiency,

THE FULL PICTURE: 2018 EU TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES IN THE ATLANTIC AND NORTH SEA

On 13 December 2017 after all-night negotiations, the Council reached a political agreement on a regulation concerning the 2018 fishing opportunities for the main commercial fish stocks in the Atlantic and the North Sea.

As a result of this Council decision, the number of fish stocks managed at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels will increase next year to 53, 9 more than in 2017. The agreement also foresees solutions for the critical state of eel and sea bass stocks.

"2018 will be a crucial year in the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy objectives. With this decision we have taken a clear step towards sustainable management of our fish stocks, while making sure that the agreement benefits our fishermen and coastal communities."

Siim Kiisler, Minister for the Environment of the Republic of Estonia

Details of the agreement

In view of the critical state of eel fisheries, it will be prohibited to fish for European eel of an overall length of 12 cm or more in Union waters of ICES areas, including the Baltic Sea, for a consecutive three-month period to be determined by each member state between 1 September 2018 and 31 January 2019. That is the time when eels are migrating and therefore are most vulnerable. Member states will have to communicate the chosen period to the Commission by 1 June 2018.

The decision is complemented by a joint declaration of the European Commission and member states aiming at further protecting the stock of European eel, for instance in inland waters, through a strengthening of eel management plans during all stages of the eel lifecycle.

Concerning sea bass the Council acknowledged the bad state of stocks in the Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea and their importance for many countries. It consequently decided to make additional efforts by only allowing limited fisheries with certain gears in those areas, while providing for a two months closure to protect spawning aggregations. Recreational fishing is further restricted, with only catch-and release fishing allowed during the entire year. A lower daily bag limit for recreational fisheries is also fixed in the Bay of Biscay.

Background

The Council agreement largely confirmed the initial Commission proposal, which established fishing opportunities in the form of yearly total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas by fish stocks in the different fishing zones. TACs and quotas concern stocks that the EU manages either autonomously or jointly with third countries, for instance with Norway in the North Sea and the Skagerrak, and related to North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Coastal State consultations, as well as stocks set through agreements reached in the framework of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs).

Based on the scientific advice provided by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) and the Scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF), the Commission had proposed for 2018 to increase or keep current catch limits for 53 stocks and to reduce it for 25 stocks. The Commission had also proposed a fishing ban for eels the Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic.

One of the main objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to ensure high long-term fishing yields (MSY) for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest by 2020. In December 2016, 44 stocks were fished at MSY levels.

Together with MSY, another important objective is to reduce unwanted catches and gradually introduce the landing obligation. As from 1 January 2019 all stocks under catch limits will be subject to the landing obligation.

The setting of TACs and quotas is an annual management exercise decided upon by the Council only in accordance with Article 43(3) of the TFEU. It takes place in parallel the adoption of fishing opportunities in the Black Sea, and is preceded by a similar TAC setting exercise on deep sea fish stocks in November (every second year), and on Baltic Sea stocks in October.

Next steps

This item will be included, following finalisation by the legal/linguistic experts, in part "A" of the agenda for adoption by a forthcoming Council meeting.

2018 Fisheries Council TACs and cuts in full for the SW

This years #agrifish Council latest updates:

After #AGRIFISH Council @KarmenuVella: thanks to agreement on fishing opportunities 2/3 of fish in #Atlantic & #NorthSea will be subject to sustainable catch limits next year

From the @CFPO:

Fisheries Council over SW quotas: Cod up 9%, Haddock cut 11%. Pollack, Saithe, Ling rollover of quotas. Monk rollover, Megrim cut 10%, Hake cut 7%. Ray up 15%.

and from the SWFPO's Jim Portus - "So it’s all over. Not much good news replacing the poor outlook of commission proposals."

Cod 7ek plus 9%
Megrim 7 minus 10%
Angler (Monk) 7 rollover
Haddock 7bk minus 11%
Whiting 7bk minus 19%
S&R 4 plus 20%
S&R 7d plus 20%
7Ek S&R plus 15%
Sole 7d plus 25%
Bass 2 bycatch down to 1%