Through the Gaps! - Newlyn Fishing News Cornwall UK fish commercial fishing fish cooking and art

Thursday 12 June 2014

Scallops - sustainable and profitable fishing

Fishing News International's excellent coverage of the Channel Scallops conference held earlier this year organised and chaired by the GAP2 project.

A follow up to yesterday's post on small boat fishermen and the work of NGOs supporting their cause

The article yesterday from Yan Giron gained some robust feedback, in particular from Jerry Percy in Wales. The previous post today relates the moves by Defra to garner comments and ideas from small scale fishermen in the UK with regard to the proposed unilateral driftnet ban planned for 2015 championed by ex-EU Fisheries boss Maria Damanaki, the subject of these recent posts by Yan and others.

The internet, through social media like Twitter and Facebook and blogs such as this is accessible to all - and better than that, provides a dialogue in real time between all those wishing to comment and add their say in fair and open debate - posts like this are made to encourage such comment and further inform readers wherever possible of a wider range of views and experiences.

Here Yan explains the thinking behind his comments in more detail.

"I would like to explain myself about it. First, I spoke about NUTFA, but in fact I refered about all European small scales fishermen groups which benefited from support of Greenpeace and also WWF and behind PEW.

This type of support was identified in our november 2012 Blue Charity Business report as a potential [control & command] strategy of PEW Charitable Trusts to be implemented in Europe.

In USA, PEW and other charitable trusts implemented what they call "Sustainable Fishery Trusts" to gain control on fisheries through the management issue. In USA, they managed to lobby to make compulsory privatised fishing rights to be implemented (they call it "smart management tools" or "catch-shares"). PEW, Walton and Moore gave money to some fishermen groups, like the Cape Cod commercial hook fishermen association, big amount of money to payback fishing rights from other fishermen. Then they pooled the fishing rights into a financial trust (http://capecodfishermen.org/fisheries-trust) which aims to lease this fishing rights to the fishermen, under new rules, apart from the fishing regulations, with strong environmental conditions. The overall privatisation of the fishing rights impacted strongly the US fishing industry in Maine and many fishing boats were destroyed. In the same time, PEW's friends used the regionalisation of the fishing management to lobby to implement a strong conservation-leaded spatial management to maintain remaining fishermen into smaller fishing grounds and under their rules. The main implementer of this strategy in USA was (and still is) EDF. EDF still receives several tens of millions of US$ per year to fund all this strategy of getting power over the fishery management.

In Europe, the strategy is a bit different. First Charitable trusts tried to make compulsory privatisation of fishing rights to everybody. Oak foundation (funding partner of PEW's strategy) made a meeting to remind its money benefitors that they had to lobby for that in the first semester of 2012. Then they gave up because of strong opposition into the European Parliament and from some small NGOs parts of OCEAN2012 PEW's coalition. But in fact they don't need this privatisation tool (even it is already implemented in many European countries, like your FQA). They can get power only by crossing several tools : (1) strong and difficult-to-implement regulations (such as strong application of discards, or driftnet ban), (2) spatial management and pretendous support to small scales fishermen and (3) heavy lobbying about implementation of enforcement of the difficult regulations they lobbied for (see how IUU issues come now in their communication). You must be aware PEW & PEW's friends requested many seats into the several RACs, because European Commission said RAC will be the place to finalize technical measures such as discard ban and very detailed "smart management tools". And if there is not enough SSF organisation who partner with them, they created some on their own. Weren't you surprised to have a new fishermen organisation in UK called Sustainable Inshore Fishery Trusts last year? Why do you think they called it like this? who funded them and recruit their staff? Aren't you surprised to discover this new US NGO coming now in Europe with a ready-to-implement fishing management toolbox ? (EDF) ?

Why these Charitable trusts support small scale fishermen? It is very useful for communication purposes: first, it is an excellent way to say "you can implement very strong regulations against "big boats" with a very low social cost". Second, they can use the sympathy credit and positive image of small scale fishermen into the public opinion. Third, their partnership is based on relationships between "bottom" NGOs nice young boys and girls freshly coming out from University (who are not aware of this global strategy and SScF. Four, it is a good way to promote their idea of what fishing industry must be into city dwellers mind (see the Greenpeace trailer "fisherman's friend" with a new look). Five, they can use the "David against Goliath" communication strategy which works well in the mind of not specialised people. In case some critics come out, the Big NGO won't directly answer to the critics. They will only say they are not opposed to fishermen, and let their partner SScF speak by themselves. These SScF are very sincere, and will be very angry, because they will have the feeling that they are critised directly whereas critics are directed against PEW and PEW's friends. So these SScF will be the best shield ever PEW's partner can find, because SScF are not aware of this overall strategy.

This is for the overall strategy. But there is a question which must not be forgotten, it is why it was possible to implement this control-&-command strategy so easily. Are we really sure all SScF were well associated and their interest well taken into account in our European fishermen organisations? Is our industry enough united, and if not why? What must be done to better balance fishing issues and implement a fair co-management? We also must not refuse improving our fishing where possible, and we must improve and invest time in partnership with scientists and enforcement, otherwise some people will come from outside to do it for you with their rules. The fact is many thing have changed since few years in our fishing industry, and we must build on our own future, in a fair way between all type of fishing activities, otherwise others will use our weaknesses. Our main threat would be to forget why some SScF had to do a eNGO's partnership and we must not demonise them for it. And on the other hand, our SScF colleagues who invest in eNGOs partnership must understand that there is some critics into these eNGO's partnerships, we can critise these partnerships and SscF are not the target of these critics. One good way is to implement co-management structure (between fishermen only) or to have everybody well represented in existing structures (and invest time in it). Of course, what I describe here is too global at the European level to address any local situation."

European Commission proposal to prohibit all EU driftnet fishing - Defra wants to hear from you!

In the wake or is it wash, and a heavy one at that, of the drubbing meted out by the meteoric rise in the number of UKIP candidates in the elections by what is seen as people's perception that we are too heavily dictated to by EU legislation - Defra seem very keen to see that the proposed lateral driftnet ban is not fully implemented in the UK - read on!

"As many of you will be aware, the European Commission proposes a full prohibition on the taking on board or use of any kind of driftnet in EU waters, as well as applying a more detailed definition of driftnets with the aim of closing loopholes encountered with enforcement of the current legislation (mainly in the Mediterranean).

The proposed prohibition is intended to apply from 1 January 2015, subject to agreement with Member States and the European Parliament.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-563_en.htm (Commission proposal press release)

The Defra position will be supportive of adequate measures to address the enforcement of the current prohibition on driftnet fishing for highly migratory species where this has been a problem, such as in the Mediterranean.

But Defra is very aware that the Commission’s problem definition underpinning the proposal does not readily relate to UK driftnet fisheries targeting herring, bass, salmon and other species. These represent an important part of the fishing year and livelihoods of relevant inshore fishermen and, most significantly, do not have the serious by-catch or enforcement issues that the Commission is trying to address. Our liaison with the Devolved Administrations indicates this view is representative of a UK position.

Rather than the proposed blanket EU measures, therefore, the UK negotiating position on this proposal will be to seek alternatives such as the application of a risk-based regional approach, particularly in waters around the UK – the North Sea, Channel, and Western waters – an approach which will ensure that the right fisheries are monitored and required to take appropriate mitigation action where needed.

This approach is in line with the existing requirements of the EU cetacean by-catch regulation (812/2004) which targets controls on bottom set gill and entanglement nets in ICES Areas IV (North Sea) and VII (western waters), which is where the related by-catch has more typically been an issue in these areas, rather than driftnets, particularly in consideration of the way driftnets are typically deployed and attended in UK waters. We consider a ban of any kind is inappropriate in the context of our UK driftnet fisheries.

The next step is for Member States to make representations in Council working group in Brussels – where we anticipate discussions will probably commence from July onwards.

In the meantime we would welcome any comments or views on our intended approach in responding to this proposal as described above, or any additional perspective you can offer to inform our position. These should be returned to the above mailbox address - Marine.CommonFisheries@defra.gsi.gov.uk - for the attention of my colleague Iain Glasgow – such views would be most helpful before the end of June.

Regards Roy Smith

Common Fisheries Policy team Sea Fisheries Conservation Division Defra

Area A, 8th floor, 9 Millbank, c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR Tel: 020 7238 1245

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

We’d love to hear about why the ocean is important to you, tweet or Instagram your ideas using the hashtag #WOD

June 8th was World Oceans Day

Can Richard Branson and Virgin make a difference?
Fish 2.0: Connecting fishermen and investors

The fishing industry is evolving; for most fisherman, knowing how to catch is no longer enough. New regulations, growing demand from consumers to know where their food comes from, rising fuel prices, and increasing globalisation have changed the business dynamic of fishing. At the same time, with many fisheries in decline, fishermen must develop new ways to fish without depleting the resource on which they depend. They must innovate to survive. To be successful, they need to focus on developing their businesses as well as fishing.

This new reality for fishermen is one that is familiar to me. I had experienced problems associated with understanding only the science, and not the business, side of growing a resource-based enterprise during the early part of my career. At the time, I was working in a marine science job with a venture capital funded company focused on creating pharmaceuticals from unusual marine organisms. Though our research team successfully found useful organisms, the company went bankrupt in just two years.

The management could not satisfy the investors – even though the results looked promising. Frustrated, I went to business school to learn how to better manage scientific organisations like the one I had worked for.

At business school, I learned that each element of business, whether finance, marketing or strategy, has its own language, and that there are common rules to follow, no matter what the business or where it is in the world. As in all languages, the art is in how you adapt and combine all of the elements in different contexts and situations.

After finishing school, I tried to apply my knowledge of this new language to ocean sustainability – where too few people in science, conservation, and small scale fisheries spoke it. Along the way, I met many fishermen and fish farmers who were working to build innovative enterprises. Most were frustrated by their interactions with the investors they approached for support. They felt unable to build the trust, relationships and knowledge needed to work together. Conversations with investors were short and led nowhere.

After several years of writing business plans for some of these emerging fishing businesses, I realised that I could not meet the growing demand.

To make an impact on the ocean, I needed to solve the problem at its root: investors and fishermen needed to learn each other’s languages, so they could communicate effectively and directly.

I developed Fish 2.0 to bridge this language gap. I kept the platform simple – a business competition for sustainable seafood. Under its umbrella as a competition, Fish 2.0 connects entrepreneurs, investors, and sector experts.

European fisheries fund allocated to promote growth across the UK

In the UK the Government are:

improving the way we manage fisheries, including piloting a more local approach to quota management and publishing a register of fixed quota allocations
working with sea anglers to get better data on sea angling through the Sea Angling 2012 project
preparing a report for Parliament on the conduct and operation of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities.
funding research projects and the Fisheries Science Partnership, so we have the data we need to manage fisheries well

Specifiacally:

Fishermen across the UK will be able to apply for a fair share of a new grant scheme to help them adapt to the new Common Fisheries Policy and grow their businesses.

The UK allocation of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund has been distributed fairly to each devolved nation based on factors including respective sizes of fleet, number of ports, sizes of industry, and historical allocations.

All four devolved administrations worked together to agree the allocations.

From next year, the UK fisheries, aquaculture and processing sectors will be able to apply for grants from the scheme to help them grow their businesses. Up to 60% of the cost of equipment will be available to help fishermen adapt to the landing obligation and other aspects of the new Common Fisheries Policy.

Marine and Fisheries Minister, George Eustice said:

“This deal means that fishermen in every part of the UK will have access to a fair allocation of funding to help them buy the equipment they need to adapt to the new Common Fisheries Policy. This will help the fishing industry invest in their businesses and deliver long-term economic growth.”

The size of the UK allocation is currently being decided by the EU Commission. The current European Fisheries Fund is worth €138 million to the UK. We expect the new allocation to be higher.

Allocation of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund in 2014 – 2020:

Scotland 46.00%

England 35.60%

Wales 8.40%

N. Ireland 10.00%