Brexit: Breton fishermen fear an exit without agreement

VesselTracker AIS for the trawler Itasca.

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

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

Video courtesy of FranceTV

This latest report from FranceTV:

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

Too many Europeans in French waters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does a no deal Brexit look like for fishing?

Despite its small size relative to the rest of the UK’s economy, fishing has dominated the Brexit debate. Many in the fishing industry have long been critical of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and opinion polling before the referendum shows that fishers intended to overwhelmingly vote Leave.

93% of them felt that leaving the EU would increase the fortunes of their industry, with 77% believing that Brexit would be an opportunity to catch more fish. In terms of trade, the perception in 2016 was that Brexit would have little impact on seafood trade, with 77% believing it would have no impact at all.

Since the referendum attention has increasingly focused on the complexity and diversity of the fishing industry and how this might be reflected in the eventual Brexit deal with the EU.

Given differences in the nature of fishing across the UK’s four nations, as well as wider debates about the ownership of fishing rights coupled with the UK government’s commitments to a ‘green Brexit’, reaching a deal which pleases everyone across fishing sectors is akin to finding the holy grail.

However, following the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by MPs in January, the prospect of a ‘no deal’ Brexit has risen up the agenda. It has been highlighted that such a scenario will lead to short-term disruption and uncertainty.

Fishing wouldn’t be excluded from this. Indeed, the instability of no deal is acknowledged by some in the fishing industry itself. For example, Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Association suggests that, in the event of a no deal, UK vessels could just tie up and “temporarily fish less” until either governance and policy process catch up, or the UK and EU come to agreement at some point after 29 March.

But a closer inspection of what a no deal Brexit means for fishing suggest its impact goes beyond just sitting back and weathering the storm.

Firstly, even in a no deal scenario, the UK doesn’t get to go it alone in fisheries policy. The much banded about phrase ‘independent coastal state’ suggests the UK will have unprecedented freedom, but this comes with significant obligations. Many of the fish stocks in the UK’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are shared.

This means the UK would still have to cooperate with the EU, and other coastal states (such as Norway and the Faroe Islands) in managing those stocks.

Also, given that the UK fishing fleet currently lacks the necessary capacity to catch all the fish in the UK EEZ, it would still likely have to permit foreign vessels access to catch any surplus fish stocks.

Secondly, there is the question of what fisheries policy would look like under no deal. The UK doesn’t have a new fisheries policy ready to go at the push of a button in the event of no deal: the fisheries white paper, published last year, contained many laudable aims but remained light on detail.

The Fisheries Bill only provides a legislative framework, and is still the subject of ongoing parliamentary deliberation.

One provision in the Withdrawal Agreement sees the UK effectively remaining in the CFP until the end of 2020. This faced much criticism at the time it was announced, but one of the reasons for this transition period is because it gives the UK and its devolved administrations time and space to develop their own approach to fisheries policy which meet the diverse needs of the fishing industry.

It also provides administrations across the UK, who already have devolved responsibility for fisheries management, to evaluate their capacities for engaging in more activities that were previously done for them via the CFP (including the potential to engage more in international negotiations).

A no deal Brexit means no transition arrangement, and this brings one of two risks. On the one hand the absence of any alternative approach to fisheries policy will simply mean the status quo will continue.

All the rules and regulations of the CFP will effectively remain in place (having been rolled over by the EU Withdrawal Act), while the government remains distracted dealing with the day-to-day fallout of a no deal.

On the other hand, the UK may choose to make sudden sweeping changes in order to signal its independent coastal state status. But this carries a risk too.

Such a rushed approach to policy design leaves little room for engagement with those working in the industry who will be affected, resulting in an approach which fails to work at sea.

This also comes at a time when trust between fishers and the government is low. Moreover, any sudden changes to access are likely to affect the UK’s standing on the international stage too.

The third significant issue with a no deal Brexit relates to trade. The majority of what the UK catches is exported, with most of that going to the EU. Tariffs aren’t the main concern though.

Rather it is non-tariff barriers, such as customs checks, which represent the largest risk, particularly as they threaten to cause delays to the transport of perishable seafood products.

The notion that vessels could simply “temporarily fish less” until such practicalities are sorted out will do little to reassure skippers of smaller vessels. They make up 78% of the UK’s fishing fleet, have tighter profit margins, and are most exposed to the effects of trade disruptions.

This is especially the case for shellfishing (the largest of the UK’s catching sectors), which a recent report commissioned by the Shellfish Association, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation found would be significantly impacted under a no deal scenario.

On top of all of this are several more ‘practical’ issues. A recent report by the National Audit Office found Defra doesn’t yet have the necessary capacity to enforce fisheries regulations out at sea, and most fish will require catch certificates for importing and exporting.

This process may lead to delays and capacity challenges for authorities who will have to approve them, while also placing a significant administrative burden placed on skippers and seafood exporters. The necessary IT systems to facilitate this are still in development.

Finally, a no deal Brexit would mean that British fishing vessels would have no automatic right to access to the EEZs of other EU member states, where 94,000 tonnes of fish worth £88 million were caught in 2017.

For many fishers, EU membership and the CFP have been detrimental to the fortunes of their industry. Some of the issues raised in the debate (such as quota distribution across the UK’s fleet) have always been within the UK government’s gift to address.

Nevertheless, Brexit arguably presents an opportunity for the UK to rethink its approach to fisheries policy.

However, a no deal outcome does little to address the concerns that led many fishers and coastal communities to vote for Brexit in the first place and, if anything, it could make things worse.

Full article by Dr Christopher Huggins, University of Suffolk, and Drs Arno van der Zwet, John Connolly and Craig McAngus, University of the West of Scotland published by the UK in a Changing Europe.  
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this analysis post are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative

Oceana seminar - the address from Marai Damanki looking forward to 2019 and beyond.

Seminar with Oceana

Ladies and gentlemen,

As you know we are approaching the end of my term as European Commissioner; a new Commission is being formed as we speak; the fisheries reform has been in force for several months. So this is probably a good time to see how far we've got and give you some personal reflections on where to go from here.

I think we've come quite a long way. To put it upfront: we have managed to modernize our fishing and set aside short-term economic interests in favour of science and sustainability. 

By 2019 we will no longer be throwing away by-catch but using it as food, feed or raw material. Countries have started fine-tuning management rules to the specific conditions of each fishery.  

We have some new Advisory Councils and their composition has changed in favour of small fishermen and civil society. 

We have gone from 5 stocks being fished sustainably in 2010 to 27 today – and counting. 

We also put an end to the gruesome practice of shark finning.

Internationally, we have been pushing for sustainability with all our partners; when we fish outside the EU, we make sure it is with no detriment to fish stocks or local communities. We have helped the recovery of the Eastern Atlantic Bluefin tuna stock. We have overcome dragging disputes with the Faroe Islands, Island and Norway about mackerel and other pelagic stocks. Our strict course of action against illegal fishing has led to banning imports from some countries. I think we can fairly say that on the sustainability front the European Union has been leading by example, and has set itself an agenda to maintain that role.

All this doesn’t mean of course that the battle is over. I am underlining the positive results to convey the message that it can be done. But my successor - and you of course - will have a lot to do for the implementation of all this. I have tried to make it irreversible, but we all know that the devil is in the details. Let me now share some of my experience with you.

The fisheries reform was all about change – relinquishing old models and going for new and long-lasting solutions, in fisheries as in ocean affairs in general.  And change is never easy. There was considerable inertia to overcome, both in the Council of Ministers and in the European Parliament. We had also against us vested interests in fisheries industries and in the markets. 

So we turned to consumers and informed citizens. We turned to other important players, especially non-governmental organizations, and got their support on sustainability and long-term plans. On discards public indignation was mounting, with celebrity chefs helping our case, and we managed to ride that wave too.

On paper Europe was already committed to sustainability, but in practice Member States kept staving off the deadlines for it. Getting by, procrastinating, protecting the status quo had become the norm.  Here is the importance of setting a deadline – ambitious, realistic, binding. I have been pushing towards sustainability since the beginning, and this has allowed us to prove with concrete examples that once it is achieved, fisheries give higher yields.  This definitely has helped to bring many reluctant Member States on board.  

The landing obligation has been one of the most contentious issues – and is one of the most important structural changes. Public support for my proposal put pressure on the opponents. But reform-oriented groups in the Parliament and in the Member States also played their part. Like for instance the Danish minister who took the Presidency in a crucial phase of negotiations in the Council. 

On other points, such as regionalization or the international dimension, we drew our force from experience and from criticism against us.  It was clear for instance that the Brussels micromanagement model could no longer hold. So here we offered elements of power to the national governments and the MEPs in exchange for sustainability. 

We improved the relationship between the Council and the Parliament. There had been tension between the two since the introduction of co-decision in 2009; the stalemate on multiannual plans was that tension's most overt expression. Tactically, we had to break through this pattern to make progress. We managed to agree that the stalemate and the reform were entirely separate issues. A dedicated Task Force would take care of the multiannual plans right after the finalization of the reform negotiations. Then during the reform we made sure that elements like fleet management or national quota allocation remain in the hands of the Member States. This gave the administrations confidence that they would keep control over policy implementation. And we pointed out that regionalization gives them even more freedom to cater to specific problems and situations as they deem fit. 

At the same time, to satisfy the ambitions of Parliament, we made fleet management and quota allocation entirely transparent – with an obligation for Member States with overcapacity to come up with solutions.  

Not only was this trade-off found acceptable, but it also helped to improve relations between the three institutions. So it created a basis for a speedy agreement on the multiannual plans - which both complies with the Treaty and is mutually satisfactory. So on top of everything else, the reform helped us overcome an institutional problem that had blocked us for five years.

In sum, ladies and gentlemen, 

I'm quite happy with the results. The Commission's main ambitions were materialized.

But of course the worst thing we can do now is rest on our laurels. The reform is not an end in itself. Sustainability is. And it carries a whole lot of work and a whole set of new challenges.  

Sustainability is now in the law but is yet to be achieved throughout the Union, and should also be the ambition internationally. There is a clear mandate and so we'll have to adjust the quotas accordingly, in the coming years. For this we imperatively need to keep improving our biological knowledge and advice.

For landing obligation we need to find and apply effective, sensible measures which do not prevent the fleets from functioning normally. The policy allows for flexibility. But this should never undermine the goal itself .We should not let the strict ambitions out of sight. 

We need to go back to our long-term management approach by developing a whole series of multiannual plans. This is good for the resource and for the stability of the industry.

We can now move away from micro-management and regionalization is already underway.  But from a regulatory viewpoint the process also requires a hefty clean-up: for instance over the last three decades the technical measures have layered up into an almost inscrutable maze of rules and detailed requirements. We have to find our way back to a lenient set of rules that are sensible, flexible and serve their purpose. This has to go hand in hand with inclusive stakeholder consultation, paying particular attention to the interests of small-scale fisheries.

Internationally we have made giant steps, but we need to keep the pace to improve the operation of RFMOs by reforming them and supporting them as a leading player in the process. The eradication of pirate fishing and overcapacity are expected to continue to be high on the list of international priorities.  And we need to remodel all our bilateral agreements according to our new standards. Here I have some good ideas still to be implemented and I hope we can continue the cooperation with you and other partners for this. 

These and other challenges stem from the reform. It will take time to materialize, for recovering stocks to grow, for a career in fishing to become attractive again or for responsible management to become the norm worldwide.

Most of all, we will still need the input - and the pressure - from civil society. It will be up to them to make sure that we stay the course.

But with a clear idea of the tasks and clear deadlines we are in a position to continue to build on the strong foundations set during these five years. I am confident that Europe will recover and prosper with more fish, more wealth and more coastal and maritime jobs. 

San Sebastian, 9 September 2014

Speech by Maria Damanaki

The Landing Obligation (LO) - but four months away.

While the UK media and population at large continues to debate BREXIT the fishermen of the UK and Europe face a more immediate dilemma - the impending full implementation of the Landing Obligation. Out of this dilemma the MINOUW project was born.

The MINOUW project’s overall objective is the gradual elimination of discards in European marine fisheries. They aim to minimise unwanted catches by incentivising the adoption of technologies and practices that reduce bycatch and discards, and avoid damage to sensitive marine species and habitats.

Our goal is to develop and demonstrate technological and socio-economic solutions that enable and incentivise fishermen to 1) avoid unwanted catches, or 2) where this cannot be reasonably or practically achieved, to utilise them productively and sustainably.

Landing, the catch.

With only four months until the full implementation of the Landing obligation in January 2019, fishers are facing a huge challenge to adapt. Promoting the adoption of affordable, more selective fishing gears would be a huge step in the right direction.

THE LANDING OBLIGATION - A HUGE CHANGE IN EUROPEAN FISHERIES

Introduced under EU legislation as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP, EU Reg. 1983/2013) The Landing Obligation has been described as ‘the biggest change in European fisheries since the introduction of quotas in 1983’.

With up to one million tonnes of fish estimated to be thrown overboard in Europe each year, the so-called ‘discard ban’ is designed to end the practice by fishers of throwing non-target and undersized species back in the sea. From now on, all catches of regulated species will need to be landed in port.

Its introduction represents a huge change in fishing practices for fishers across Europe, and full implementation and compliance represents a major challenge.

THE FISHING INDUSTRY IS NOT PREPARED TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE

Despite the incremental introduction of the Landing Obligation over the last four years, the fisheries industry remains woefully underprepared for its implementation, and complying fully will cause real difficulty for fishers both economically and logistically.

The requirement to land all catches of regulated species will have a real financial impact, with increased handling costs both at sea (sorting, storage) and in port.

These costs are not the only issue; dealing with the landings itself will be problematic. As fish that would have been discarded cannot be sold for human consumption, they must be disposed of in other ways - for example as food for pets or aquaculture - but the facilities, logistics and markets for dealing with this are not in place. Fishers could find themselves having to pay for the destruction of these fish, as special waste of animal origin.

In addition, as of January 1st 2019, any fishers not complying with the landing obligations could be considered as acting illegally, with the EU Commission coming under increasing pressure to ensure the rules of the CFP are enforced.

In addition, as of January 1st 2019, any fishers not complying with the landing obligations could be considered as acting illegally, with the EU Commission coming under increasing pressure to ensure the rules of the CFP are enforced.

BETTER SELECTIVITY IS THE BEST APPROACH - ELIMINATE DISCARDS AT SOURCE

Faced with this situation, we need to find a practical and constructive approach to the implementation of the Landing Obligation that helps fishers to adapt.

Firstly, we should encourage fishers to face reality: ultimately they will have to abide by the landing obligation. Secondly, we should provide the tools, information and funding that helps them do so.

Through our work over the last two years we have seen the willingness of fishers to collaborate and look for solutions to the discard problem. Our experience has been that they were quick to see that greater selectivity - and eliminating the problem of discards and bycatch at source - was the best way to comply with the new rules.

“It’s interesting to see the willingness of fishermen to collaborate in finding solutions to discards as they are now feeling the pressure of the landing obligation”

Sergio Vitale, CNR (MINOUW)

More selective fishing gear can bring many additional benefits to fishers, and is an affordable, practical and effective action for fishers to consider. Information about more selective gears, where and how they can be used, and funding to help fishers switch to using them will be key to a successful implementation of the landing obligation.

Research at the University of York (UK) found that the introduction of a discard ban in Norwegian cod and haddock fisheries in 1987 ultimately encouraged fishers to install more selective fishing gear. Despite some short-term economic costs, the Norwegian and Barents Sea fisheries are today among some of the most prosperous in the world.

WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD POLICY MAKERS TAKE?

1. Make selectivity the priority

The best option to eliminate discards is to avoid unwanted catches in the first place, by increasing the selectivity of fishing gears. Additionally, when unwanted catches do occur, the survival rates of the discarded fish can be improved by adapting techniques.

2. Provide funding

The more selective fishing gears successfully tested by MINOUW are inexpensive, and the use of European Maritime Fishery Funds (EMFF) could help scale up the adoption of more selective gears at regional scale, e.g. in the Mediterranean.

For more details visit the MINOUW website.

Further Landing Obligation information information can be found on the European Commission's Fisheries site here:

At this crucial time - Seafish are sending news direct from Brussels

Latest update from Brussels

Seafish has a representative in Brussels to ensure the timely and appropriate presentation of key information, evidence and analysis to the UK seafood industry emanating directly from the EU's institutions.

Areas of Work

Information

Seafish Brussels wants to make sure that UK's seafood industry understands the nature and decision-making mechanisms within the EU. There are downloads at the bottom of this page that explain the EU's decision-making process. Brussels Updates, periodic news roundups from Brussels, are also available for download on this page.

Engagement

• EU level: Seafish Brussels engages with EU stakeholders to build alliances and work together in a wide range of activities at EU level

• UK level: Seafish Brussels responds to the needs of the UK seafood industry updating them on current activities and issues while guiding them to select the most appropriate approach to best defend its interests in Brussels

Brussels Updates: news round-ups from Brussels

More opinions on Brexit and where the inshore fishing industry might stand.

Inshore fishing provides the greatest employment in the sector.

Standing on the shingle of Hastings beach beside his fishing boat, Paul Joy says his family have fished these waters since before the time of William the Conqueror. He’s done the research, and the Joys have had boats here since records began. His boat had been out at dawn that morning, hugging the coastline with a skipper, two crew and the “boy” ashore, aged 80, who winches the Kaya up the pebbles with a rusty bulldozer. “My father, Will, born in 1906, made an adequate living with a smaller boat than mine. Now everyone subsidises fishing with other work. I earned the same as a carpenter, now you’re lucky to get a Tesco shelf-stacker’s pay.” Fishing quotas are killing the small fishermen, he says.

Stand here to breathe in the heart of Brexit. Last week, in ports around the country, fishing boats protested – sending up flares to oppose the transition deal that leaves them in the common fisheries policy (CFP), but without a seat at the EU table sharing out the fish. Protest organisers said: “We are sickened by remainers gleefully peddling the deliberate narrative that fishing doesn’t matter.”

Does it matter? The fishing industry is worth less than 0.5% of GDP. They rightly fear this pinprick to the economy will be traded for bigger prizes – finance, cars, pharma, airline routes. Why else, they ask, is the government’s fisheries white paper delayed time and again? Thirteen Rees-Moggites and one DUP MP swear they’ll vote down any deal unless the UK breaks from the CFP. As these hard Brexiteers want no deal anyway, fishing is their perfect pretext, though no deal would be the fishermen’s apocalypse.

Here the referendum was lost, in the romance of the sea, the rugged cliffs and coasts of our island story among old salt spirits of a seafaring nation. This is the symbolism the remainers fatally forgot, tone deaf to the draw of John Masefield’s poem Sea Fever or Millais’s The Boyhood of Raleigh. Economics says fishing is of nugatory value, but politics says fishing is deep-dyed in national identity, down to the last fish and chip shop. That heart-versus-head error is why remain lost – and why its campaigners still fail to connect with unreasoning national sentiments. They forget those sentiments can be cashable too: Hastings’ 27 picturesque boats, huts and fish stalls bring the impoverished town £5m a year in tourism.

Joy heads the small-fishers’ organisation, Nutfa. He is a sharp campaigner, steeped in the fiendishly conflicting complexities of international fishing policy. If “take back control” meant anything, it was Britannia ruling her own waves. But that’s not going to happen, because it can’t.

Michael Gove, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, casually promised instant freedom from the fisheries policy, but backed down embarrassingly when our know-nothing negotiators were taken by surprise (again) to find other EU fishing nations just as adamant: those with their own fierce fishing traditions feel just as passionately. Who knew?

There always were and always will be fishing treaties between countries, now more than ever to preserve precarious stocks. Unless navies are to go to war to defend their fishing fleets, there must always be agreements. Fishing treaties existed before Britain joined the EU. Quotas fixed long ago often don’t seem fair now, nor do they preserve stocks well enough. But the EU is only one element: ask Grimsby fishers about friction between English and Scottish rights, as global warming sends cod migrating north. Fish don’t obey treaties.

Here’s the Brexiteers’ dishonesty. Each country is free to share out its national quota as it chooses – but free-market Britain, unlike others, let fishers sell their quotas abroad. The Dutch ship Cornelis Vrolijk, registered in Caterham, owns 23% of the entire UK quota. “Slipper skippers” sold their quotas abroad – it was easier to put their feet up than to fish. Could Gove seize it back post-Brexit? No more than Jeremy Corbyn could seize back rail or energy companies from foreign owners without hefty compensation. It’s not prevented by the EU, but by basic property law.

As hard Brexiteers want no deal, fishing is their perfect pretext – though no deal would be the fishermen’s apocalypse. Gove could redistribute quotas between our own big ships and small boats. In Britain, 77% of the boats are less than 10 metres long, employing most of the UK’s 12,000 fishers, yet owning just 4% of local quota. A key article in the CFP says quotas should be allocated transparently and objectively, and include “social, economic and environmental criteria”. Small boats matter most for coastal life and do least environmental harm, so should take priority. Talk to Joy long enough about all the complexities of different fish quotas and treaties, and his most pressing need is for the British government to take from the big boats and give to the under-10m flotilla.


Gove has the power to do it, says Thomas Appleby, associate law professor at the University of the West of England, a fisheries law specialist. Britain could and should have banned the sale of its quotas, but Gove could repair some of the damage: so long as UK quota is taken back proportionally from all, shares could be redistributed to the small boats. Why doesn’t he do it? Joy points to the power of the big companies: two-thirds of UK quotas are taken by three multinationals. And he talks of business influence over the Conservatives. Here’s an irony: the EU fisheries fund has given Joy’s small boats lobby a grant to set up its own producer organisation as a political counterweight to fight the big boats.



What of the “taking back control” dream, our navy chasing foreign boats from our waters? Impossible, when 80% of UK fish is sold in the EU, which would retaliate with prohibitive tariffs and delaying checks at Calais to let fish rot on the quay. Bremerhaven is just one port eager to seize our fish-processing business, which employs 18,000 people. Consider what a trade war would do to the Scottish smoked salmon industry, worth more than all of the UK fishing industry.

At sea, the Brexiteers are coming face to face with hard truths: we are not alone. No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent. We trade, we exchange, we buy and sell. Fish was a bad emblem for the hard Brexiteers to choose because it’s an archetypal example of the need for cooperation – in fishing, conservation and sales. Trade-offs, haggling, deals and environmental necessity demand treaties between us and our neighbours, in or out of the EU. Except that outside it, our negotiators have a weak hand. The romance of the sea was good referendum propaganda; now it stands as the best example of why standing alone is impossible.

Full story courtesy of the Guardian.

One year away from the divorce court.

 The referendum caused the country, counties, family, friends and workmates to vote a simple 'Yes' or "No' on an issue with so many facets and so many unknowns that neither Leave or Remain could provide straightforward answers. Like an arranged marriage without the getting to know, date, engagement and then a wedding to tie up the nuptials the UK is now headed off to the divorce court hoping to keep at least 50% of what it had in the marriage. 

Fishing is undoubtedly one of the UK's chattels that on paper could do without.  Looked at purely on the basis of financial value,  many decent sized companies employ more people and produce more wealth than the fishing industry in its entirety.

Look at the industry as a part of the UK's maritime, cultural and national identity and its value - like the legacy of the aristocracy, great buildings and monuments built on the back of an empire - its value is not so easy to calculate.

Margaret Evans from CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) recently paid Nelwyn a visit as the country was only days away from marking the countdown with 365 days to go to the divorce date.

She found herself exploring the irony that despite being in a region that has received grants amounting to 10% of the entire EU budget many wanted a divorce that would cut themselves off from that financial support in the future.

"More than two decades later, with Britain's official exit date from the European Union now just under a year away, Cornish fishermen are on the verge of escaping what many of them call the ill-founded and tyrannical rule of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."

"Not by our local boats, but because we're being given scraps by Brussels, and we've seen the boats from France and Belgium come and take what they can take out of our own waters."

The EU's complicated manner of deciding fish quotas for its members sees nearly 60 per cent of the fish caught in the waters around Britain being landed by boats from other EU countries. 

Cornish fishermen, for example, are limited to eight per cent of the cod quota in their own waters, while the French can catch 73 per cent."

You can read the full article here:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Margaret Evans

Europe correspondent

Margaret Evans is a correspondent based in the CBC News London bureau. A veteran conflict reporter, Evans has covered civil wars and strife in Angola, Chad and Sudan, as well as the myriad battlefields of the Middle East.

MMO - Three questions frequently asked about commercial fishing

BREXIT - a new dawn?

Since the UK voted to leave the EU the proportion of questions the MMO receives from the public and media about commercial fishing has increased.




The latest information from the MMO:

We previously committed to making more of this information freely available. This post answers some further general questions we’re often asked relating to commercial fishing activity in UK and English waters.

How can I get a licence to fish by boat in the UK?

Your vessel must be registered before you can get a licence.

No new fishing vessel licences are created and there are a limited number of licences in circulation. The only way you can get a licence is by transferring an existing one to your vessel. You need a licence entitlement to do this.

The MMO does not sell or provide these licence entitlements. Places they may be obtained include via trade media aimed at the commercial fishing industry.

More information about fishing vessel licensing is also on our website.

Is the MMO aware of the activities of foreign fishing vessels in UK waters?




There are areas where EU fishing vessels are currently legally entitled to fish up to 6 nautical miles off the UK coastline, as part of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

The MMO currently enforces compliance with the CFP in English waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone using a combination of monitoring and surveillance assets. We monitor fishing activity and vessel movements using our satellite vessel monitoring system (VMS). One thing this shows is vessels from other countries within UK waters.

It wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment in detail on any ongoing enforcement operations.


Where are the busiest fishing ports in the UK?

Our annual statistics publication includes a range of information about the commercial fishing industry, including number of vessels and landings of fish into the top ports in the UK. Chapters 2 and 3 of the publication are particularly relevant.

In 2016, the last year for which figures are available, Peterhead, Lerwick and Fraserburgh accounted for 49 per cent by quantity and 36 per cent by value of all landings by UK vessels into the UK.

Answer to your question not here? Try reading our previous posts for details of how fishing quotas are currently set and more statistics on fishing, including activities by EU vessels in UK waters.

Posted by: Amy Wardlaw, MMO, Posted on: 8 February 2018 - Categories: fisheries

TRANSITION WILL ERADICATE BRITISH FISHING INDUSTRY - says Fishing for Leave.

The majority of fishermen voted to leave the EU having been promised that this government would "Take back control".

Crusading website Fishing for Leave fires a huge salvo of questions across the bows of Her Majesty's Government today. In an attempt to get some kind of clarification that, this government, despite the promises and the rhetoric so often bandied about under the emotional headline, 'We will take back control' will not be selling out the fishing industry on the way out of the EU as previous Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath's government did when we joined the EU!

"Take back control" Another reminder what Fisheries Minister George Eustace said on national TV ahead after the referendum and ahead of exit negotiations.

So, summing up in FFls post today:

Existential Threat to the Fishing Industry

"If we fail to break free from the CFP the EU will be free to implement policy changes to our detriment. We doubt the EU27 would feel charitable to their political prisoner who has no representation but abundant fishing waters.

Continuation of the ill-conceived EU quota system and discard ban is the existential threat that could be used to finish what’s left of our Britain’s fishing fleet allowing the EU to claim the ‘surplus’ that Britain would no longer have the capacity to catch.

Rather than address the cause of discards – quotas, the EU has banned the symptoms – discards. Now when a vessel exhausts its lowest quota it must cease fishing. ‘Choke species’ will see vessels tied up early and, according to official government Seafish statistics, 60% of the fleet will go bankrupt.

If a sizeable portion of the UK fleet is lost international law under UNCLOS Article 62.2 which says; ‘Where a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall… give other States access to the ‘surplus’.

Between the EU having the opportunity to claim “continuity of rights” even if proved wrong they could drag out Britain being trapped in the CFP and its quota system and discard ban for enough time to fishing our fleet off.

Once we have lost our industry there is no way back from this Catch 22– if we do not have the fleet we cannot catch the “surplus” and if we do not have the “surplus” we cannot maintain a fleet. With this we will also lose a generation and their skills which are irretrievable.

The UK political establishment of all hues would not be forgiven for betraying coastal communities a second time.

A transition destroys the opportunity of repatriating all Britain’s waters and resources worth between £6-8bn annually to national control. This would allow bespoke, environmentally fit-for-purpose UK policy that would benefit all fishermen to help rejuvenate our coastal communities.

As Minister Eustice promised we could rebalance the shares of resources where we, have the EU fleet catching 60% of the fish in our waters but receive only 25% of the Total Allowable Catches even though we have 50% of the waters.

This transition is the reverse of this and something exceptional that is within touching distance and what the public in constituencies across our land expect to see on this totemic and evocative issue.

The government and MPs must refuse the “transition” terms and discontinue the CFP entirely on 29th March 2019 or we will consign another British industry to museum and memory.

That Theresa May has known this all along means she, and her remain minded officials, are fully complicit in the embryonic stages of a second betrayal and sell out of Britain’s fishing industry.

NOTE

For too long people have bought the government rhetoric. The PM and Ministers have repeated;

“We will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy on March 29, 2019”.

This spin has never been a commitment nor indication of a clean Brexit for fisheries. Those who kept citing these words have been either mendacious or naive to the reality of a Transition.

The government has known all along what the transition meant. The PM always continues, that;

“Leaving the CFP and leaving the CAP” wouldn’t give the opportunity until “post that implementation(transition) period – to actually introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom. The arrangement that pertains to fisheries during that implementation period will, of course, be part of the negotiations for that implementation period”.

We may officially “leave” the CFP on 29th March 2019 but we’ll re-obey entire EU Acquis as part of the “transition” period after Article 50 officially terminates the UKs membership – we will have left in name only."

Read the full post here written by Njordr AB

British fishing could be on the hook post-Brexit

Reuters' writers, Nigel Hunt and Mark Hanrahan have produced an excellent overview of the British Brexit fishing position.

A series of carefully annotated graphics, which help provide a little more clarity than is often used by some in the media wishing to make a point, focus on some of the key issues.

What fish went where.

LONDON (Reuters) – British fishermen hopeful of a post-Brexit boom may find life outside the European Union choppier than expected, a Reuters Graphic shows.

Changing sea temperatures, caused by climate change, have forced many of the fish most popular with British consumers, such as cod and haddock, to migrate north into cooler waters controlled by Norway and Iceland.

(For a graphic on ‘Climate change and the North Sea’ click tmsnrt.rs/2Ea9y58)

The graphic, drawn from the activities of tens of thousands of British and European fishing vessels, also highlights the importance of access to the European market to the industry – with Britain exporting around 75 percent of its catch to EU markets.

(For a graphic on ‘British fish catch landings’ click tmsnrt.rs/2EpkyMc)

Britain and its European Union neighbours currently enjoy equal access to EU waters, and can buy and sell fish freely inside the world’s largest trading bloc. That will change with Brexit, but how is still to be negotiated.

(For a graphic on ‘UK’s tangled trade’ click tmsnrt.rs/2DDFFsS)

Britain’s waters have helped sustain fishing industries in neighbouring countries such as Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain while the European Union controlled access under its Common Fisheries Policy.

But the British fishing industry is demanding a large share of the catch when control of the waters shifts from Brussels to London.

(For a graphic on ‘UK’s fishing trade’ click tmsnrt.rs/2DBc1o1)

However, any restriction on EU market access would be likely to take the form of tariffs which can be as high as 24 percent on seafood.

(For an ‘Interactive graphic on Brexit and the fishing industry’ click tmsnrt.rs/2DKUKZD)

Writing by Nigel Hunt and Mark Hanrahan; Editing by Robin Pomeroy - Full story here:

Brexit - The bigger battle begins!

Cabinet clashes over when Britain should ‘take back control’ of fishing from EU 

A Cabinet split has opened over whether Britain should try to break with European Union rules on fishing during the post-Brexit transitional period. 

Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, is leading calls for the UK to pull out of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in March 2019 to enable it to set its own rules over fishing quotas. “For some, setting our own fishing quotas is a totemic issue and insist that has to be an early priority for the Prime Minister”

Other ministers, including Chancellor Philip Hammond, are arguing that Britain should not use up capital in forthcoming negotiations with Brussels to try to carve out a special deal for the fishing industry. Theresa May is under pressure from both sides of the argument as she prepares for talks over the details of the transitional period which follows Brexit. 

Early sticking-point:

The subject of fishing quotas threatens to be an early sticking-point in Brexit negotiations amid early signals that the EU will refuse to compromise on the issue. Mr Gove has called for the UK to “take back control” of its waters early on the grounds that otherwise it would be bound by CFP quotas without having any influence on them. He is being backed by some pro-Remain ministers but is being opposed by the Chancellor. 

Mrs May has hinted that she favours an early departure from the fisheries policy, but Cabinet sources told i that she had not yet settled on her approach to the issue despite being discussed several times by ministers. “There is quite a difference of opinion. 

For some, setting our own fishing quotas is a totemic issue and insist that has to be an early priority for the Prime Minister,” one minister said. “Others say that fishing makes up just one percent of our [gross domestic product] and shouldn’t get special treatment. They say that if we make a special case for fishing, what’s to stop other sectors asking for special treatment?” 

Strength of feeling 

Senior Tories have warned her of the strength of feeling on the subject across Scotland, where the decision to sign up to the CFP upon joining the Common Market in 1973 cost thousands of jobs. Mr Gove, the son of an Aberdeen fish merchant,  said during the referendum campaign that his father’s firm “went to the wall” because of EU fisheries policies. 

The fishing minister, George Eustice, a strong pro-Brexiteer, has said the current system of quotas is unfair, allowing other EU countries to catch a disproportionate amount of fish in UK waters. He has raised the prospect of Britain striking new “reciprocal” arrangements with other EU countries upon departure from the bloc. 

Brexit flash-point 

Fishing policy became a flashpoint in the Brexit campaign, culminating in former Ukip leader Nigel Farage leading a flotilla of fishing boats up the Thames to urge Parliament take back control of British waters. It was met by a rival fleet led by rock star Bob Geldof. An SNP spokesman said: “The Tory in-fighting over Brexit seems endless. Fishing communities and businesses will feel utterly confused and let down by this incompetence. “Livelihoods in these communities are too important to become political games and rows between different factions of The Tory party.”

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/cabinet-clashes-britain-take-back-control-fishing-eu/

Today the NNFO published its response to the EU Commission's Brexit position published this week:

First, read the EU's Brexit position here:

NFFO:

"As an opening position, in advance of the negotiations that will take place over the next 10 months, there are few surprises. Before Christmas, the Commission signalled that it would not be fighting to retain formal jurisdiction over UK waters. That is a realistic recognition of the UK’s new legal status, under the UN Law of the Sea, after the UK concludes the process of leaving the EU. However, in this new position statement, the Commission signals that it will insist on the status quo for quota shares and access arrangements, at least during any transition or implementation period; and will also press for the UK to be tied umbilically to the CFP for the foreseeable future. For the most part, the UK would become a rule-taker, rather than a participant in the rule-making process and most certainly the UK’s status would certainly not reflect the proportion of fisheries resources in its waters. The Commission intends to use trade as the lever to secure these objectives.

The principles of equal access and relative stability have worked very well for the EU fleets - and to the systematic disadvantage of the UK for over forty years - by comparison with the deal that would have been available to us as an independent coastal state. It is no surprise that the EU will try to cling on to this state of affairs for as long as possible. This new document provides an indication of how they will try to achieve this.

Direct Conflict

The Commission’s position brings the EU into direct conflict with the aspirations of the UK fishing industry, which see the UK’s new legal status after March 2019, as a stepping stone to the normal advantages that accompany the status of an independent coastal state: quota shares that broadly reflect the resources in its EEZ; access arrangements for non-UK vessels only when there is a balancing benefit for the UK; and the ability to determine the shape of the management system to which the UK fleet is subject.

The Commission’s plan is to block any shift in this direction by insisting that access to the EU market, on anything other than WTO rules, would not be available, unless the UK sacrifices its fishing industry, which would continue to be subject to the whole body of EU rules past, present and future.

Clearly, the Commission’s plan for the future relationship between the EU and UK on fisheries is to try to keep the UK tied into an asymmetric, essentially exploitative relationship, with the EU as the dominant party, dictating the all the terms. This approach would not be acceptable in West Africa. Why would it be acceptable here? The UK would have to be bent self-harm to accept such a deal. After Brexit, the EU will control only around 20% of the sea area in the North Sea and in Western Waters about 50%. How could it be fair, realistic, or rational to expect the UK to accept such terms?

So, there are no surprises in the Commission’s stance. It is an opening negotiating position and it is to be expected that opening statement in negotiations present unachievable, maximalist, positions. We have every reason to expect that our ministers will stoutly resist. It would not just be the fishing industry that would punish the government electorally for leading it to expect a better future, only to have the promise snatched away and replaced with bitter frustration. Anything that looks like tying the UK into the present arrangements in the form of a CFP-lite, would be denounced by the fishing industry and its allies as an unacceptable betrayal - because it would be an unacceptable betrayal.

There is an expectation across the fishing industry that we will see a significant step forward on day one as we leave the EU, with a clear step-wise plan to take us to enjoy the full fruits of our status as an independent coastal state.

Against this background, the NFFO Executive Committee, which met recently in York, has reaffirmed its objectives as the UK leaves the EU.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“As we enter this next crucial phase in the withdrawal negotiations, there is much speculation on what the implementation/transition phase will mean and, as is usual with these kind of talks, postures are being struck in advance.

Our Executive Committee thought it important to restate our Brexit objectives and to make clear that it is against these that any deal will be judged by the UK fishing industry.

Our objectives are:

1 That the UK should, from the point of departure from the EU, have the status of an independent coastal state, with jurisdiction over the fisheries within its Exclusive Economic Zone; along with an independent seat at the table when decisions on fisheries on shared stocks are made.

2 That the UK’s quotas of shared stocks should broadly reflect the resources that are located within UK water

3 That a 12mile exclusive limit should apply to safeguard to provide adequate protection for our coastal fisheries 

4 That access for non-UK vessels to fish within the UK EEZ should be subject to negotiation and should bring balancing benefits to the UK 

5 That there should be scope and flexibility for the UK to shape and tailor its domestic fisheries management arrangements to fit with its own fleets 

6 That the UK should seek as unimpeded access to EU markets as possible

“These are our objectives and it is against these that progress will be measured and judged as we enter this next phase in the negotiations. We think that it is positive that the Commission’s negotiating position recognises that bespoke arrangements will be needed to reflect the UK’s new legal status after March 2019; and that the EU will no longer have jurisdiction over fisheries in UK waters. This is a welcome sign that there is an awareness that the world is changing and the UK will be an independent coastal state under international law from the point of departure.”

“What would not be acceptable would be, despite that altered legal status, for the UK to succumb to pressure from the EU to tie us into medium or long-term arrangements in which nothing material changes.”

Full story courtesy of the NFFO.