On 20 March at 09.15, PECH
Members will vote on the adoption of two draft reports by Diane Dodds (Ni) on Amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks 2012/0013(COD) and 2012/0236(COD).
One of the files is an alignment to the Lisbon Treaty, the other substantial changes to the management plan for the cod stocks. The substantial changes seek to adapt the current plan to developments regarding the sustainability of the stock since its adoption.
Wednesday 20 March 2013
Monday 18 March 2013
Is It Time Quotas were kept within country allocated to?
Things are out of hand and explained how this has happened.
GREENPEACE has welcomed news of a government review of the ‘economic-link’ requirements for vessels holding UK fishing quota, as they feel it could lead to more quota being allocated to sustainable fishermen with closer ties to their coastal communities.
The launch of a consultation was mentioned by fisheries minister Richard Benyon in a Times article published last week and confirmed to Greenpeace by officials from the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra).
The announcement comes only weeks after a Greenpeace investigation cast doubts on the effectiveness of the current regulation by showing how millions of pounds worth of fishing quota are used by foreign-controlled vessels to catch fish which is then taken abroad and sold there, with little or no tangible benefit to coastal communities or even the wider UK economy.
In a report published last month, A Wolf in Shrimp’s Clothing, Greenpeace revealed that foreign interests, including some of Europe’s most powerful fishing giants and operators with serious convictions for illegal fishing, control the majority of the fishing quota held by five of the eight Fish Producer Organisations represented by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) – the UK fishing industry’s most influential lobby group.
Greenpeace oceans campaigner Ariana Densham said: “This policy was supposed to ensure that those who exploit a precious and fragile resource belonging to us all do so in a way that brings benefits to our economy. Instead, we have a whole fleet of foreign-controlled vessels using UK fishing quota worth millions to fill the coffers of overseas operators, whilst local inshore fishermen have barely enough quota to scrape by.
“The missing link in the ‘economic link’ is the small scale, low-impact fleet, which accounts for three quarters of all UK fishing boats. The government consultation should look to support and reward the low-impact fishing of this largely sustainable fleet which delivers jobs and is the lifeblood of many coastal communities.”
The ‘economic link’ policy, first introduced in 1999, is meant to ensure that the business activities of vessels fishing against UK quota, particularly those controlled by foreign interests, provide some sort of economic return for the UK economy.
Under the current system, vessel owners can pick and choose from a wide range of criteria to demonstrate an economic link with the UK, with the percentage of catches landed in the UK being only one of them. But the government’s own estimates suggest that this policy has failed to secure the UK economy an adequate return for the allocation of British quota to foreign fishing interests.
According to a 2009 report by Defra – the latest available – most foreign-controlled vessels fishing against UK quota either land their catches abroad or export them immediately after reaching British ports, and therefore their “true economic value [to the UK economy] could be close to zero”.
GREENPEACE has welcomed news of a government review of the ‘economic-link’ requirements for vessels holding UK fishing quota, as they feel it could lead to more quota being allocated to sustainable fishermen with closer ties to their coastal communities.
The launch of a consultation was mentioned by fisheries minister Richard Benyon in a Times article published last week and confirmed to Greenpeace by officials from the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra).
The announcement comes only weeks after a Greenpeace investigation cast doubts on the effectiveness of the current regulation by showing how millions of pounds worth of fishing quota are used by foreign-controlled vessels to catch fish which is then taken abroad and sold there, with little or no tangible benefit to coastal communities or even the wider UK economy.
In a report published last month, A Wolf in Shrimp’s Clothing, Greenpeace revealed that foreign interests, including some of Europe’s most powerful fishing giants and operators with serious convictions for illegal fishing, control the majority of the fishing quota held by five of the eight Fish Producer Organisations represented by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) – the UK fishing industry’s most influential lobby group.
Greenpeace oceans campaigner Ariana Densham said: “This policy was supposed to ensure that those who exploit a precious and fragile resource belonging to us all do so in a way that brings benefits to our economy. Instead, we have a whole fleet of foreign-controlled vessels using UK fishing quota worth millions to fill the coffers of overseas operators, whilst local inshore fishermen have barely enough quota to scrape by.
“The missing link in the ‘economic link’ is the small scale, low-impact fleet, which accounts for three quarters of all UK fishing boats. The government consultation should look to support and reward the low-impact fishing of this largely sustainable fleet which delivers jobs and is the lifeblood of many coastal communities.”
The ‘economic link’ policy, first introduced in 1999, is meant to ensure that the business activities of vessels fishing against UK quota, particularly those controlled by foreign interests, provide some sort of economic return for the UK economy.
Under the current system, vessel owners can pick and choose from a wide range of criteria to demonstrate an economic link with the UK, with the percentage of catches landed in the UK being only one of them. But the government’s own estimates suggest that this policy has failed to secure the UK economy an adequate return for the allocation of British quota to foreign fishing interests.
According to a 2009 report by Defra – the latest available – most foreign-controlled vessels fishing against UK quota either land their catches abroad or export them immediately after reaching British ports, and therefore their “true economic value [to the UK economy] could be close to zero”.
Peterhead's biggest landings for over 20 years
Peterhead fishmarket full for tomorrow and boats in for Tuesday .. Best fishing on the grounds for at least 20 years !!1716 boxes of green (cod) in for tomorrow that's 68 ton !!
Pleasure tripping a la Guilvinec
Every day in the Breton port of Guilvinec, tourists boarded trawlers to discover the Nephrops fishery.
Program: rising early, dolphins and discover the daily life of fishermen. All for €45 .
‘Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction’ - Greenpeace Gets its Sums Wrong
We anticipated that having spent a significant amount of money on a media attack on the NFFO which then fell flat, Greenpeace would try to recoup their losses.
This week, true to expectations, a new series of accusations have appeared on the Greenpeace blog, centering again on the assertion that the NFFO is dominated by foreign fishing interests. By cross-referencing MMO statistics with a number of dodgy assumptions, Greenpeace came to the conclusion that the Federation is financially dependent on subscriptions from non-UK interests, leading to the conclusion that NFFO policy is dominated by those same interests.
Finance
Greenpeace made an elementary error. They assumed that bigger vessels pay more and therefore assume a dominant position. In fact although a sliding scale, which starts from as little as £20, does exist (to encourage membership of small scale vessels) we also apply a subscription cap of £500 to larger vessels, many of which operate outside EU waters. This means that in terms of subscription a very different picture emerges from that painted by Greenpeace.
Member PO % subscription contribution to NFFO
Anglo-North Irish FPO 11.88%
Cornish FPO 26.18%
East of England 9.84%
Fleetwood FPO 5.22%
The FPO 5.22%
Lowestoft FPO 5.61%
North Atlantic FPO 1.98%
North Sea Fishermen’s Org 7.60%
When the additional subscription from NFFO member vessels which are not in POs is added in, it is obvious that the Greenpeace assertion of domination of any group, never mind non-UK interests, is nonsense, no matter how good a scare story it sounds.
Policy
But in any event, the way that policy decisions are made within the Federation - through discussion and dialogue within a context of mutual respect – who pays the biggest or smallest subscription is of singular unimportance. Our Executive Committee works hard to develop policy on the basis of consensus and ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard, whether the fish from an under-10metre vessel, a large trawler, are in a producer organisation or not.
Talking of Money
But now that money has been brought up, the two articles on the Oak Foundation and on the Fishermen’s friend campaign, which appeared on the NFFO website in 2012 may well explain why Greenpeace launched this slightly bizarre attack in the first place.
FISHERMAN’S FEDERATION NAMES Top 10 DISTORTIONS OF TRUTH IN ‘Flawed’ Greenpeace Research
The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), the body representing fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has identified a plethora of ‘flawed research’ and ‘blatant distortions of the truth’ in a report by Greenpeace, which risks dividing and damaging the very livelihoods, industry and food supply the environmental group purports to support.
According to the NFFO, Greenpeace’s ‘Wolf in Shrimp’s Clothing’ report contains claims which misrepresent and discredit the many independent, inshore fishermen lobbying for better livelihoods as part of the NFFO. It says the report draws inaccurate conclusions by either misunderstanding or choosing to ignore critical information on how the industry and its small boat fishermen are working together to achieve a sustainable future and food source.
Ned Clark, inshore fisherman and Chair of the North East Committee of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) said: “Whilst Greenpeace and the NFFO share a common goal in working towards a more successful, sustainable fishing industry, this report is desperate in its efforts to create and exploit divisions in our sector. Fortunately there seem to be few fishermen who buy into what is propaganda, flawed research and blatant distortions of the truth.
“The vast majority of our members are home fishermen and the vast majority own smaller vessels. This simple fact ensures we have the interests of the home fisherman at the heart of everything we do.
“The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans for the North Sea, Celtic Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland.
“Greenpeace on the other hand has limited its contribution to spreading intentionally divisive disinformation and has been invisible in any of the multiple conservation initiatives which have succeeded in turning stock trends around over the last 10 years.”
As a result of the claims, the NFFO has compiled ‘Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction’ – the top ten most inaccurate and sensationalist claims within the Greenpeace report, alongside the true facts.
The NFFO: Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction
1: The NFFO is dominated by foreign interests: Only 8% of the vessels in NFFO membership are owned outside the UK – it’s true these vessels tend to be at the larger end of the scale but many fish in external waters - Norway and Greenland for example – inaccesible to smaller boats.
2: Big Boat Dominated: “It is unlikely that there will be many independent vessels in the NFFO”: 60 per cent of the NFFO’s member vessels are below 15 meters in length and almost all of those are small, family-owned businesses.
3: The NFFO re presents less than 9% of under 10m fleet: Only a third of the 2,951 under 10m vessels registered in the UK fish for quota regulated species. Around 30 per cent of these are NFFO members but many of our members also fish for non quota species such as Bass and shellfish.
4: The NFFO is trying to sideline the smaller fisherman and shut them out: Why would it when 60 per cent of member vessels are below 15 metres and 40% are under-10 metres? What the NFFO is against is a separate advisory council for small scale fleets, as it would lead to rapid ghettoisation. Our ‘leaked’ letter to the Commission, available to download on www.nffo.org.uk put forward a number of positive suggestions on strengthening the voice of the small scale fleet.
5: The NFFO is trying to deny the small scale fisherman more quota: The NFFO has made real advances in strengthening the position of the under-10m fleet, including making professional quota management accessible to the under-10s, giving them the opportunity to maximise quotas levels with the over-10’s through swaps and transfers.
6: Quota Grab by Quota Barons is the Root of the Problem: This is not the case - under-10 ‘Rule Beater’ vessels currently catch 70% of the under-10m quota allocations, despite comprising only 14% of the fleet, and the NFFO is actively lobbying Government to address this.
7: The NFFO is blocking new fisheries policy that would reward those that fish sustainably: The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans.
8: The NFFOs main aim is to serve Producer Organisations (POs) which represent larger vessels - the NFFO does work closely with POs but most comprise of varying fleets and interests – for example half the members of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, the largest in the Federation – are under 10m fleet, with many small, family owned businesses.
9: Our website lists member associations that are defunct: True. We are guilty of not updating our website and the incorrect information has now been removed.
10: The NFFO is not what it seems: NFFO has earned respect over many years by championing advancing credible policy positions, backed by evidence, working with independent fisheries scientists and fisheries managers, and of being inclusive and open. Practically everything we do or say appears on our website; our accounts are publicly available.
Finance
Greenpeace made an elementary error. They assumed that bigger vessels pay more and therefore assume a dominant position. In fact although a sliding scale, which starts from as little as £20, does exist (to encourage membership of small scale vessels) we also apply a subscription cap of £500 to larger vessels, many of which operate outside EU waters. This means that in terms of subscription a very different picture emerges from that painted by Greenpeace.
Member PO % subscription contribution to NFFO
Anglo-North Irish FPO 11.88%
Cornish FPO 26.18%
East of England 9.84%
Fleetwood FPO 5.22%
The FPO 5.22%
Lowestoft FPO 5.61%
North Atlantic FPO 1.98%
North Sea Fishermen’s Org 7.60%
When the additional subscription from NFFO member vessels which are not in POs is added in, it is obvious that the Greenpeace assertion of domination of any group, never mind non-UK interests, is nonsense, no matter how good a scare story it sounds.
Policy
But in any event, the way that policy decisions are made within the Federation - through discussion and dialogue within a context of mutual respect – who pays the biggest or smallest subscription is of singular unimportance. Our Executive Committee works hard to develop policy on the basis of consensus and ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard, whether the fish from an under-10metre vessel, a large trawler, are in a producer organisation or not.
Talking of Money
But now that money has been brought up, the two articles on the Oak Foundation and on the Fishermen’s friend campaign, which appeared on the NFFO website in 2012 may well explain why Greenpeace launched this slightly bizarre attack in the first place.
NFFO Releases ‘Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction’
FISHERMAN’S FEDERATION NAMES Top 10 DISTORTIONS OF TRUTH IN ‘Flawed’ Greenpeace Research
The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), the body representing fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has identified a plethora of ‘flawed research’ and ‘blatant distortions of the truth’ in a report by Greenpeace, which risks dividing and damaging the very livelihoods, industry and food supply the environmental group purports to support.
According to the NFFO, Greenpeace’s ‘Wolf in Shrimp’s Clothing’ report contains claims which misrepresent and discredit the many independent, inshore fishermen lobbying for better livelihoods as part of the NFFO. It says the report draws inaccurate conclusions by either misunderstanding or choosing to ignore critical information on how the industry and its small boat fishermen are working together to achieve a sustainable future and food source.
Ned Clark, inshore fisherman and Chair of the North East Committee of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) said: “Whilst Greenpeace and the NFFO share a common goal in working towards a more successful, sustainable fishing industry, this report is desperate in its efforts to create and exploit divisions in our sector. Fortunately there seem to be few fishermen who buy into what is propaganda, flawed research and blatant distortions of the truth.
“The vast majority of our members are home fishermen and the vast majority own smaller vessels. This simple fact ensures we have the interests of the home fisherman at the heart of everything we do.
“The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans for the North Sea, Celtic Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland.
“Greenpeace on the other hand has limited its contribution to spreading intentionally divisive disinformation and has been invisible in any of the multiple conservation initiatives which have succeeded in turning stock trends around over the last 10 years.”
As a result of the claims, the NFFO has compiled ‘Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction’ – the top ten most inaccurate and sensationalist claims within the Greenpeace report, alongside the true facts.
The NFFO: Fishing Fact, Fishing Fiction
1: The NFFO is dominated by foreign interests: Only 8% of the vessels in NFFO membership are owned outside the UK – it’s true these vessels tend to be at the larger end of the scale but many fish in external waters - Norway and Greenland for example – inaccesible to smaller boats.
2: Big Boat Dominated: “It is unlikely that there will be many independent vessels in the NFFO”: 60 per cent of the NFFO’s member vessels are below 15 meters in length and almost all of those are small, family-owned businesses.
3: The NFFO re presents less than 9% of under 10m fleet: Only a third of the 2,951 under 10m vessels registered in the UK fish for quota regulated species. Around 30 per cent of these are NFFO members but many of our members also fish for non quota species such as Bass and shellfish.
4: The NFFO is trying to sideline the smaller fisherman and shut them out: Why would it when 60 per cent of member vessels are below 15 metres and 40% are under-10 metres? What the NFFO is against is a separate advisory council for small scale fleets, as it would lead to rapid ghettoisation. Our ‘leaked’ letter to the Commission, available to download on www.nffo.org.uk put forward a number of positive suggestions on strengthening the voice of the small scale fleet.
5: The NFFO is trying to deny the small scale fisherman more quota: The NFFO has made real advances in strengthening the position of the under-10m fleet, including making professional quota management accessible to the under-10s, giving them the opportunity to maximise quotas levels with the over-10’s through swaps and transfers.
6: Quota Grab by Quota Barons is the Root of the Problem: This is not the case - under-10 ‘Rule Beater’ vessels currently catch 70% of the under-10m quota allocations, despite comprising only 14% of the fleet, and the NFFO is actively lobbying Government to address this.
7: The NFFO is blocking new fisheries policy that would reward those that fish sustainably: The NFFO has led the way in establishing fisheries science partnerships, initiated discard reduction initiatives, and worked with scientists and NGOs on the development of sustainable fishing plans.
8: The NFFOs main aim is to serve Producer Organisations (POs) which represent larger vessels - the NFFO does work closely with POs but most comprise of varying fleets and interests – for example half the members of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, the largest in the Federation – are under 10m fleet, with many small, family owned businesses.
9: Our website lists member associations that are defunct: True. We are guilty of not updating our website and the incorrect information has now been removed.
10: The NFFO is not what it seems: NFFO has earned respect over many years by championing advancing credible policy positions, backed by evidence, working with independent fisheries scientists and fisheries managers, and of being inclusive and open. Practically everything we do or say appears on our website; our accounts are publicly available.
Big fish catches mean smaller fish - Bangor scientists
So maybe all those Spanish trawlers fishing small mesh and landing tons of pin hake or 'cigarillos' were on the right track after all!
See this latest story from the BBC:
Scientists have warned that a fishing rethink is needed after finding that catches of big fish trigger a rapid change in the gene pool of fish stocks.
Researchers at Bangor University say they found that over-harvesting larger fish leads to a population of smaller fish that are less fertile. The research suggest that the change happens within a few generations. The scientists say the findings could have a massive impact for the future of global fishing policies.
"Our findings have major implications for the sustainability of harvested populations," said Prof Gary Carvalho, of Bangor University's School of Biological Sciences. He said a "shift in the genetic make-up of harvested fish to smaller less fertile individuals" would be "serious global consequences for the environment and for global fishing industry". "We would urge the scientific community, policy makers and managers to consider the capacity of harvested stocks to adapt to, and recover from, harvesting and predation."
The research is published on Monday by the Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment journal in the United States.
'Evolutionary response' The north Wales scientists collaborated with research teams at University of East Anglia, the University of the West Indies and the Max-Planck-Institute for Developmental Biology.In lab tests, they studied a model tropical fish, the Trinidadian guppy, and managed to examine changes in the DNA of genes as the fish became fewer and smaller.
"What was seen under laboratory conditions has probably already taken place in any number of commercial fishing grounds," warned the researchers.
The teams also suggested that the time for fish stocks to recover from the changes to their DNA and return to larger fish specimens will take five to 10 times longer than anticipated - if the DNA change can be reversed at all.
"This means that current estimates for how quickly commercial fisheries will recover from declines and over-fishing are probably far too optimistic," they added.
Marine repercussions "In terms of fish as a food source, not only do such genetically-based shifts lead to the need to harvest more smaller individual fish for the same tonnage, but this also has repercussions for the wider marine community and environment."
Much of the work was conducted by Serinde van Wijk, studying under a Bangor University-funded doctorate.
"As well as losing the capacity to produce large sized and productive fish, specific fish populations may also be at risk of losing other specific adaptations by selective fishing, such as adaptations to particular location characteristics, like colder water or migration routes.
Courtesy of BBC Wales.
 |
| Now selectively catching big fish may be bad for stocks! |
See this latest story from the BBC:
Scientists have warned that a fishing rethink is needed after finding that catches of big fish trigger a rapid change in the gene pool of fish stocks.
Researchers at Bangor University say they found that over-harvesting larger fish leads to a population of smaller fish that are less fertile. The research suggest that the change happens within a few generations. The scientists say the findings could have a massive impact for the future of global fishing policies.
"Our findings have major implications for the sustainability of harvested populations," said Prof Gary Carvalho, of Bangor University's School of Biological Sciences. He said a "shift in the genetic make-up of harvested fish to smaller less fertile individuals" would be "serious global consequences for the environment and for global fishing industry". "We would urge the scientific community, policy makers and managers to consider the capacity of harvested stocks to adapt to, and recover from, harvesting and predation."
The research is published on Monday by the Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment journal in the United States.
'Evolutionary response' The north Wales scientists collaborated with research teams at University of East Anglia, the University of the West Indies and the Max-Planck-Institute for Developmental Biology.
The teams also suggested that the time for fish stocks to recover from the changes to their DNA and return to larger fish specimens will take five to 10 times longer than anticipated - if the DNA change can be reversed at all.
"This means that current estimates for how quickly commercial fisheries will recover from declines and over-fishing are probably far too optimistic," they added.
Marine repercussions "In terms of fish as a food source, not only do such genetically-based shifts lead to the need to harvest more smaller individual fish for the same tonnage, but this also has repercussions for the wider marine community and environment."
Much of the work was conducted by Serinde van Wijk, studying under a Bangor University-funded doctorate.
"As well as losing the capacity to produce large sized and productive fish, specific fish populations may also be at risk of losing other specific adaptations by selective fishing, such as adaptations to particular location characteristics, like colder water or migration routes.
Courtesy of BBC Wales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)