='"loading" + data:blog.mobileClass'>

Monday 29 April 2013

How to Blue Lobby

Ten Steps to a Successful Congressional Lobby Visit

FROM: BLUE FRONTIER CAMPAIGN

One of the most effective ways to influence a Senator or Representative is lobbying—meeting personally with the Member and/or his or her staff directly and making your case for a particular policy reform. A lobby visit may be scheduled in the Member’s Washington, D.C. office or at one of his/her local offices in the state (for Senators) or District (for Representatives).
The ultimate goal to develop and strengthen your relationship with the Member, so that he/she consistently delivers on your issues – in this case protecting and restoring America’s Blue Frontier.
Before the lobby visit

1. Prepare for the meeting

Successful lobby visits aren’t born, they’re made—and preparation is the essential midwife, er…prep chef. Indeed, you almost can’t over prepare; the more you plan and practice, the better you will carry out and respond to the unexpected during the visit itself.
Your group must have at least one planning session, preferably in person but at least by phone. In the session(s), you should

• Decide on the policy issues to address during the visit. Don’t try to cover more than a couple of policy issues on one visit—you risk losing focus and losing impact. You are better off scheduling more than one visit than trying to cover too much at once. Make sure every attendee is on board with the focus of the meeting.

• Assign someone to schedule the meeting. The person responsible for scheduling the meeting must make sure the group will be meeting with the right staff person, if the meeting is not with the Member. For help in determining whether you have scheduled an appointment with the appropriate Congressional staffer (or need to ask additional staff people to attend the meeting), you may want to contact DC-based staff of national Blue organizations.

• Get hold of an updated Congressional Directory. These small books give you lots of additional useful information on how to contact your Member, what committees he or she sit on and who some of their key staffers are.

• Don’t hesitate to call on others for help and information. You may be able to get useful intelligence on the Member and his/staff from others who have met on similar issues recently—other local non-profits, members of participants’ Boards of Directors, etc. National organizations similarly may have useful information to offer. Remember- knowledge is power.

2. Remember, this is your meeting— assign and practice different roles beforehand.
You should try to stage a dry run/rehearsal before the lobby visit. The following are roles that the group should consider assigning and practicing (if the group is small, some members may need to fulfill more than one function).
CHAIR
It is critical that somebody be put in charge of making sure the meeting runs as smoothly as possible. You may wish to consider having the person who is most knowledgeable about the policy issue(s) you will be discussing, or has a pre-existing relationship with the Member’s office (if someone does), serve as Chair.

Among the functions of the Chair are to:

• Open the meeting—the Chair should briefly introduce the topic and provide an opportunity for other participants to introduce themselves. If the group is too large to permit individual introductions, then the Chair should make an agreed upon collective introduction.
• Orchestrate the meeting—the group should consider having the Chair call upon people to make certain points, respond to Member/staff questions, give handouts, tell their stories, etc.
• Maintain pace—the Chair should ensure that the meeting stays on schedule. (Helpful Hint: if more than fifteen minutes has elapsed OR half of the time the Member/staffer has told you he has allotted for the meeting– whichever is less—and the group has not identified its specific demand, you should move the meeting along.

• Hold the Member/staffer accountable and nail down next steps – the Chair should be responsible for obtaining a response to the group’s demand(s) and clarify next steps following the meeting (e.g., will staffer contact Chair with a response, will a follow-up meeting be scheduled, etc.)
Handout person

The Chair may choose to handle this role, namely, organizing and handing to the Member/staffer any handouts the group has. (Helpful Hint: Members themselves are much less likely to focus on written handouts than their staff, so consider limiting the number of such documents you distribute in meetings with Representatives/Senators– important handouts can always be sent in follow up communications to staffers.)

Note-taker/Scribe

Somebody should be asked to take careful notes of what was said, especially questions raised and commitments made by the Member/staffer. After the lobby visit, the group should conduct a debriefing/follow-up meeting and these notes will be invaluable.
Questioners and responders

The group may wish to assign individual participants to ask the Member/staffer specific questions and/or to prepare responses to hard questions you anticipate the Member/staffer raising around your issue(s).

Storytellers

The most compelling tactic for making your case for a policy reform is to weave it into real-life stories about the successes of ocean and coastal restoration. Your group may wish to have some or all of the following stakeholders tell about how a plan or particular program you are discussing with the Member/staffer, works from the perspective of:

• Ocean user (recreational and/or livelihood)
• Coastal Resident (particularly long-term resident who has seen changes)
• Local ocean-dependent business person
• Local/state government officials.

During the Lobby Visit

3. Identify yourself and any influential connections you have to the Member.
Namedropping isn’t usually considered polite, but it’s a virtue on a lobby visit.
Specifically, your group should—especially on an initial visit to a Member– make his or her staff aware of any personal connections you have collectively or as individual organizations/people. This can help to credential your group even before you move on to the substance of the meeting.

Helpful Hint: A good time to do this is during introductions. As individuals introduce themselves and their organizations at the start of the lobby visit, they should be sure to mention friends, relatives, or colleagues (e.g., members of your Boards of Directors) they may have in common with the Member or his/her staff. Many times the legislative process is facilitated through such informal connections. Also, participants should be sure to mention briefly any other issues on which they may have worked with the Member/staff (and be sure to thank the Member/staff if the office took action on that issue—Members and their staff are people too; they’ll be more likely to respond to this request for help if they’re praised for past good works).

4. Be specific about what you would like your Member to do.
Know your demands before you walk in the door—if you can’t answer the question “what are the concrete actions or actions we want the Member/staffer to take?,” then you won’t get what you want out of the lobby visit.

Helpful Hint: If you are unsure of the Member’s likelihood of supporting your position, you may want to have at your fingertips a range of demands reflecting progressively decreasing levels of commitment—e.g., from introducing or co-sponsoring a piece of ocean legislation, writing a letter to Committee leadership, initiating staff-to-staff contact with another important Member on your issue, etc. Plan ahead of time whether, if your group’s top-line receives a lukewarm or evasive response, do you want to make a lesser request in the hopes of getting a concrete “yes.” This is a matter of judgment—if you think your follow-up to the visit will persuade the target to grant your top-line request, then don’t compromise.
5. State your views clearly.
Here’s a rule of thumb: The more you practice your assigned roles, the simpler your pitch should get.
Always remember to personalize the issue. Include examples from your experiences and the experiences of your community to illustrate your position (that’s why your ‘Storytellers’ are so important—everybody remembers a fact or argument that’s embedded in a story better than in isolation). Members of Congress and their staff need to know how issues affect their constituencies. Don’t try to overpower them with numbers; give them the human side. Make the Member/staffer say yes or no to people, not abstractions.

6. Consider yourself the expert.
Members and their staff have limited time and resources to spend on any one issue. Remember, you know more about how various actions are impacting our oceans than they do– a staffer may not even know what non-point source pollution is. Explain such concepts—clearly and succinctly. Keep linking them to your request in the future as you continue to work with the office. Offer to provide them with any information that they may need on Blue issues.
One day, the Member’s office may call you for help—then you know you have established strong, credible relationship.

7. Be honest.
If you don’t know the answer to a question, tell them you will find out the answer and get back to them. There is no shame in getting back in touch, and the most valuable commodity you have in this relationship is your credibility.
8. Listen.
Don’t do all the talking. The Member/staff might have legitimate concerns that you can address. And it is always useful to know as much as possible about their position, whether or not you agree with it. Don’t be afraid to ask questions—more information is ALWAYS useful to have.
After the Lobby Visit

9. Follow up:
Be sure to leave your name, address, and phone umber and to ask for the staff person’s card. Whether or not they agree with you, when you get home, write a letter thanking the Member/staff for meeting with you. Remind them of what they have agreed to do and ask that she/he write to inform you of the results of that action. Include any information you promised to follow-up with, or indicate when it will be sent.

Remember: Any relationship requires ongoing communication, getting to know someone, and ideally spending some time with him or her. Try to get the Member/staffer to agree to do something – and keep calling them back until they do it, or say that they won’t do it. You’ll have to be very persistent, especially before you have a relationship. Power will make the staffer more likely to work with you – so organizational letters, seaweed grass roots letters, and media coverage and editorial support are all very important. But… always be polite, if firm.

Do: Use positive reinforcement whenever you can. If a staffer really comes through for you, write a letter to the Member praising his/her work.
10. Keep the door open: Even if your Member does not agree with your position, never write her/him off. Consider every meeting or letter an investment in future policy discussions. Add the member/staff to your mailing list and invite them to do a site-visit with you. Establish an on-going relationship with your Member and staff.

Some last Helpful Hints:

Don’t: be “all business” all the time. Get to know them. Ask how they got into this kind of work, and why. Tell them your story, and learn theirs.
Do: Try to get staff and the Member/Senator to go on a tour in the home district.
Do: Think about local “grasstops” (e.g., local businesspeople , local government officials) who could lobby the target on your behalf in the future.
Do: Consider other local media outreach and seaweed advocacy approaches. Once again, the more the target sees that you can deliver both positive and negative reinforcement through local advocacy/media activities, the more leverage you will have the next time you contact the office.
Throughout

11. Have fun – remember, these folks work for YOU. This is your opportunity to make our democracy work.

Local elections - John Moreland looks to be your man!


Anyone who thinks Penzance's waterfont and all the fishing, business, tourism, leisure and travel revenue that it generates deserves more investment should seriously consider voting for independent Central Ward candidate John Moreland.

Monday's many megrim'd market!


It's scalloping time in the south west...


looks like the Dora et Labora has her twin rig gear back aboard...


though she has to catch a huge anmount of fish to pay her fuel bill...


on a slightly smaller scale, this punt could go for a year on what the big dutch trawler burns in a day...


the two-masted Irene  gives tha hrabour ma taste of the classics...


on her way to the next wind farm...


two of the Hosking fleet...


a good show of fish from a handful of boats on Monday's market...


including some delicious Dovers...


and adorable Dory...


these two were having words...


before going off in search of breakfast...


catch the latest show at the bucca gallery...



which is very graphic this time round.

Judicial Review from UNITED KINGDOM ASSOCIATION OF FISH PRODUCER ORGANISATIONS

UNITED KINGDOM ASSOCIATION OF FISH PRODUCER ORGANISATIONS

Press release:

In advance of the start on 1st May of Judicial Review proceedings in the Royal Courts of Justice, Jim Portus, Chairman of the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations (UKAFPO), made the following statement:

“This Judicial Review action is about the decision of Defra Minister, Richard Benyon, to step outside the UK fish quotas distribution methodology that has been established, used and understood by the industry since 1999. Since that year, Fixed Quota Allocation units (FQAs) have been attached to fishing licences, traded and subjected to taxation as business assets. Coincident with the on-going management, control and shrinkage of the over 10 metre commercial fleets, there has been growth of the under 10 metre fishing sector’s catching capacity, belatedly followed by monitoring of their catches. This too has been under government procedures and scrutiny.

To a large extent the over-fishing and over-capacity problems of the over 10 metre fleet have been solved by large-scale publicly funded scrapping and industry led re-structuring, such that our quotas are not being exceeded and as a result the fish stocks are returning to healthy populations. The under 10 metre sector however continues to have excess capacity. The contested decisions do very little to assist the required transition of the under 10 metre sector, yet they destabilise the wider industry. The Producer Organisations have been assisting government and the under 10 metre sector to help them find solutions to match capacity with opportunity. Quotas they need and can use have been transferred regularly within year to support seasonal economic activity. There is a continuing willingness for such mechanisms to be used as before and within the framework of the established rules.

However, our members have objected to permanent removal of FQA units and associated quotas from their licences. Our members have built, restructured and rationalised their businesses and paid tax in the understanding that such FQAs are stable entitlements treated as business assets. Investment decisions have been taken on this basis. The Minister now proposes to change the rules of the game after these decisions have been taken by taking these assets without paying compensation.

UKAFPO believes the problems of the under 10 metre fishermen cannot be solved in such a way. Having endeavoured time and again to persuade the Minister to back-track and think again we have decided there is no choice but to seek a resolution in the Courts.”

Jim Portus. Chairman UKAFPO. Monday, 29 April 2013

Sunday 28 April 2013

WWF: A Worrying Development

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is apparently considering withdrawing from the Regional Advisory Councils of which it is currently a member.

This is a worrying development for a number of reasons.

We have had our issues in the past with WWF, when its Brussels European office has overridden the good work of their field officers in the RACs to make ill informed pronouncements on TACS and quotas. But within the RACs, WWF has earned respect for its consistently positive, constructive and informed contribution. The high calibre of its field officers has allowed the organisation to carry much more influence in shaping RAC advice than its numbers would suggest.

As well as playing its role as an NGO in challenging the fishing industry to step up to the mark on sustainability, WWF has played an important role in defining RAC approaches to long-term management plans, regionalisation of the CFP, the significance of an ecosystem approach and marine spatial planning to name but a few. Without this considered input, RACS will be poorer, just at a time when their role is about to be enhanced under the CFP reform.

We have no knowledge of WWF’s funding or the internal politics that may lie behind the decision to withdraw from the RACS. But what has become apparent is that there is now a large body of environmental NGO lobbying activity that takes place away from the formal consultative bodies aimed directly at the Commission and the European Parliament, with the aspiration of shaping the CFP from the top down. We have previously observed the breathtaking sums of money channelled through charitable foundations to secure such outcomes.

It may be that WWF has concluded it is more cost-effective to lobby the Commission directly and to target MEPs, than it is to work collaboratively with the fishing industry and other stakeholders, via the RACs. What we do know from experience however is that the bodies which choose to work outside the collaborative, RAC framework tend to have top-down mindsets which generate an adversarial atmosphere. Greenpeace have never made any secret of their contempt for working cooperatively and are much happier flinging poorly researched tirades from a distance – ultimately making no meaningful contribution. Even more thoughtful bodies, such as the Pew Foundation, carry a large office with many staff in Brussels, all working to influence the Commission and the European Parliament, yet staying well clear of the RACs, which by definition require stakeholders to engage with each other.

It seems to be a sign of the times that NGOs are putting their resources into lobbying the Commission and European Parliament as a more cost effective way of wielding influence – but this will directly undermine the collaborative stakeholder approach that lies at the heart of RACs.

The Commission in particular must ask itself some searching questions: has it, by providing regular access to environmental NGOs at a very high level, systematically undermined the RACs? After all, these NGOs do not maintain Brussels offices for fun. Apparently, at the same time that the fishing industry has increasingly shifted its representative efforts to the regional level, these NGOs have apparently built up their capacity to fill a vacuum in Brussels.

It may be that the focus on CFP reform has given Brussels lobbying more relevance, even though the reform itself leads to a decentralisation of the CFP and a greater emphasis on regional seas decisions. But the arrival of co-decision and the enhanced role of the European Parliament suggests something much less healthy – a new concentration of power and influence in Brussels.

If this materialises it will not be long before the fishing industry reconsiders its position and concludes that it too needs a stronger voice in Brussels – and we are back to where we started – a top down system of command and control that generates mountains of legislation but fails every test of good governance.

Story courtesy of the NFFO.

Saturday 27 April 2013

DEFRA: Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy


Reforming and managing marine fisheries for a prosperous fishing industry and a healthy marine environment



Issue

Fishing provides billions of people with food, jobs and livelihoods. The marine environment must be managed effectively to support a healthy marine ecosystem and fish stocks.

The World Bank estimates that mismanagement of fisheries costs countries $50 billion a year. This includes $10 to $24 billion worth of fish that are caught illegally worldwide, depriving communities of income, food and jobs.

EU fisheries, and EU interests in global fisheries, are managed through the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). We need to reform the CFP, which is widely regarded as ineffective. The CFP has made it difficult for fishermen to run their businesses successfully, and has resulted in overfishing of EU fish stocks and damage to the marine environment.

In the UK, the inshore fleet - fishing boats mostly under 10 metres in length which operate in coastal waters - has particular difficulties. Fish stocks are at historically low levels, with essentially too many boats chasing too few fish.

Actions In Europe We are:

leading the campaign for a fundamental reform of the CFP by 2014 negotiating to make sure that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will include funding to help implement a new CFP managing fish stocks, by negotiating at fisheries councils and through measures to control and reduce waste of fish (fish discards) implementing the EU regulation to prevent the import of illegal, unregulated and unreported fish and fish products into the EU

In the UK We are:

improving the way we manage fisheries, including piloting a more local approach to quota management working with sea anglers to get better data on sea angling through the Sea Angling 2012 project funding research projects and the Fisheries Science Partnership, so we have the data we need to manage fisheries well

Internationally We are:

working within regional fisheries management organisations to ensure sustainable fishing on the high seas, for example by supporting the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) to take tougher action to protect tuna stocks and the marine environment seeking a resolution to the dispute about north-east Atlantic mackerel stock which will return the stock to sustainable levels

Background

Vessel licensing and enforcement

UK Fisheries Administrations have agreed a Concordat on the management of the UK’s fish quotas and licences. In England the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is responsible for licensing fishing vessels, according to EU regulations.

The EU ‘control’ regulation ensures compliance with the rules of the CFP. It includes the use of vessel monitoring systems and electronic recording systems, as well as a range of other control requirements.

The MMO co-ordinates an enforcement programme, which involves monitoring, control and surveillance of sea fishing in British fishery limits around the coast of England and English vessels operating outside those waters.

EU funding for fisheries The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) operates until December 2013 to provide grants for the sustainable development of the fisheries sector.

The United Kingdom National Strategic Plan for the European Fisheries Fund (2007 to 2013) sets out UK objectives and priorities for fisheries between 2007 and 2013, covering catching, aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing.

The United Kingdom Operational Programme For The European Fisheries Fund (2007 to 2013) provides more detail on the UK’s priorities for EFF funding up to 2013 and flows from the UK National Strategic Plan.

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will operate from 2014 to 2020, replacing the European Fisheries Fund.

The UK wants it to concentrate on funding selective catching gear to help stop discards, and research to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of the fishing industry.

UK shellfisheries Shellfish are both caught and cultivated in the UK. They are of great importance to our fishing industry and the aquaculture industry.

Scallop fisheries are one of the UK’s most valuable fisheries. The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012 came into force in October 2012 to safeguard stocks.

Brown crab and lobster fisheries are also amongst the most valuable fisheries in England. As quota stocks come under increasing pressure and more vessels catch crabs and lobsters, there are concerns about over-fishing, particularly of brown crabs.

Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) has carried out crab and lobster assessments and will be publishing more assessments soon. The assessments are being discussed with inshore fisheries and conservation authorities at their quarterly committee meetings then with the wider fishing industry. Reforming and managing marine fisheries for a prosperous fishing industry and a healthy marine environment

Who we’ve consulted

In 2012, we sought views on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund proposals.

In 2011, we consulted on the EC proposals to reform the CFP and the Common Organisation of the Markets (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products.

We consulted on reform of domestic fisheries management arrangements in England in 2011. We also launched an industry discussion on the future of Seafish, which provides support to the seafood industry across the whole supply chain and is funded by a statutory levy. In February 2012 we published the response to the discussion setting out the next steps for Seafish. The discussion was informed by the Cleasby Review.

Bills and legislation

Legislation under the Common Fisheries Policy

European Council Regulation No. 1342/2008 established a long-term plan for cod stocks. The Days at Sea Scheme allows the UK to comply with this regulation.

European Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (as amended) protects fisheries resources through technical measures, like fishing gear specifications and restricted fishing areas. There are related transitional measures in Council Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009. European Council Regulation 1224/2009 is known as the ‘Control regulation’ and ensures compliance with the CFP. Commission Regulation 404/2011 covers related implementing rules.

The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) Regulations (2012) , which came into force in April 2012, enables electronic notification of variations to the licences of English fishing vessels.

The financial administrative penalties scheme operates under statutory instrument SI 2008 No. 984.

Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 deals with an EC framework to collect, manage and use data in the fisheries sector, and support for scientific advice on the CFP.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing Council regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 aims to stop the import of IUU fishery products into the EU. Council regulation (EU) No 86/2010 amended Annex I to the 2008 regulation and Council regulation 468/2010 established an EU illegal, unreported and unregulated vessel list.

Shellfish

The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 deals with establishing and improving commercial shellfisheries through a Several Order. It also covers preserving and improving wild shellfisheries that may be at risk of over-exploitation through a Regulating Order.

The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012 replaced the Scallop Fishing Order 2004.

The MMO has supporting information about regulations and legislation.

Who we’re working with

Devolved administrations

The devolved administrations manage fisheries in their own waters:

The Scottish Government Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland Welsh Assembly Government

We work with them to agree a UK position for negotiations in the EU.

Delivery partners and research centres The MMO is responsible for regulation and licensing of fishing in England.

Defra and the MMO publish a newsletter, ‘Fishing Focus’, to keep stakeholders up-to-date on marine fisheries and other marine issues.

Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), including the Fish Health Inspectorate, carry out research and monitoring of fish and shellfish stocks.

Seafish supports the seafood industry.

Inshore fisheries and conservation authorities are responsible for the sustainable management of inshore fisheries in their districts .

European and international organisations The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas advises on the effects of human exploitation on marine ecosystems and provides fish stock assessments for EU fisheries negotiations.

Regional advisory councils involve fishing and environmental stakeholders in the management of the Common Fisheries Policy.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna is responsible for conserving tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas.

The website for this information and more is here:

How to buy sustainable cod - any comments guys?

The problem with these well intentioned advert-cum-graphic displays is that they are full of errors, mis-information and present a very distorted and downright wrong summary of the sustainability of cod in the northeast Atlantic!

Fir instance What it doesn't say is that: "Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission increased the Northeast Arctic cod quota this year by 33 per cent to a record high 1 MILLION TONNES"...


Courtesy of the Great British Chefs web site: