Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Simon Coveney wants fund for Irish mackerel fishermen affected by Russia sanctionshttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ag0tgp8NplI/UGvq2nKUV0I/AAAAAAAAaag/KOEYmJLlTxw/s1600/nhblog20121003-2203.jpg

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Simon Coveney has called on the European Commission to create an emergency fund to help Irish mackerel fishermen affected by the Russian ban on EU food and agriculture imports.

Speaking during an emergency meeting of EU farm and fisheries ministers in Brussels, Mr Coveney said that similar support as given to European farmers should be extended to Irish fishermen to allow them to store mackerel and horse mackerel products as a result of the Russian ban.

The minister said: "25% of Ireland's mackerel exports are sold to Russia. This is a big, big market for us.

"The fact that seafood is also being banned as well as agriculture products means this is a big fisheries issue as a well as an agri-food issue.

"We will be looking for the European Commission to bring forward similar proposals to what has come from the agriculture commissioner, so we can see an emergency fund that can help to fund storage capacity potentially for the pelagic sector - it's mackerel and horse mackerel which are the primary products going into Russia."

Mr Coveney will also seek support for Irish farmers to be able to store dairy produce, particularly cheese, because of the effect of the Russian ban across Europe.

Officials say the ban has hit the Dutch cheese sector hard and as result exports from the Netherlands are threatening to flood the European and world markets, meaning that Irish cheese producers are at risk.

The European Commission has set aside €200 million to help the agri-food sector limit the impact of the Russian ban, which is in response to EU sanctions relating to Russian involvement in Ukraine.

The fund is mostly going towards the cost of storing agri-food products, and to market EU exports, which have been cut off from the Russian market, to third countries.

"We're a big exporter of dairy product, a big exporter of beef product, a big exporter of seafood as well, and all of these products are affected," the minister told RTE News.

"First and foremost, we export product directly to Russia. Some we export is now banned. We'll have to find alternative markets. More significantly there ios displacement: cheese from the Netherlands, instead of going to Russia, is being stored or sent to different markets."

Story courtesy of John Rafferty

September squid season now underway in Mount's Bay

Here Ryan puts ashore about 15Kg of squid for the mornings drift.

Many of the inshore fleet who fish with handlines will be swapping their mackerel feathers for squid rigs now that there are signs of squid in the Bay - this might help ease the pressure on mackerel prices which remain fairly low as a result of heavy fishing all round Cornwall.

Lights! Camera! Action!

Film crew from World Animal Protection gather footage for their work on discarded and lost fishing nets and the impact short and long term this has on the environment - the team were particularly interested in the net re-cycling scheme the gill net fleet have created in Newlyn.

Letter to Bertie S Archer at DEFRA from NUTFA who represent the Under 10m vessels in the UK

To: Bertie Archer – DEFRA Via e mail 
Date: 28th July 2014 
Reference: FQA proposals for Under Tens 

Dear Bertie, 

Many thanks for your e mail of the 23rd July regarding proposals for under ten FQA’s.

I would stress on a positive note that we are in advanced discussions with some of your colleagues regarding what is in our view the most sensible option to deal with the many and serious aspects of quota and under tens for the future, the creation of a dedicated inshore producer organisation type body. 

In response to your specific questions posed via e mail: 

- Do you think this proposal will be attractive? No - Will this proposal solve, or cause, any problems for you/your organisation/your members? It will cause significant problems for a great many under tens, as well as severe financial difficulties. 

- Do you think the principles are sound and reasonable? No 

- What other considerations/factors should be reflected in the methodology? A review of the outcome of previous consultations especially that of 2011 conducted jointly by NUTFA / DEFRA on this subject [and described by one senior DEFRA officer as ‘the most effective consultation we’ve ever undertaken’.]

General Comments; It is evident that you have circulated your thinking widely as I have had a number of calls from concerned individuals on this subject. Many of them commented that the issue of allocating FQA’s based on an individual track record had been extensively discussed during the aforementioned 2011 consultation on Domestic Reform and had been almost universally rejected for a range of reasons that should not require repeating.[this is very much the polite version of many comments received that were significantly more blunt].

We are particularly concerned that you refer to the outcome of the DEFRA Community Quota Group project as illustrating a range of benefits for licence holders moving out of the U10m fleet pool. We would be interested to know how you have arrived at this view in light of the fact that history and experience suggests otherwise.

In brief, said history was that the MMO advertised the possibility for under tens to join together in community quota groups and invited fishermen to apply. Despite serious reservations, NUTFA recommended that groups of under tens should in fact apply, if only to gain a better understanding of what was on offer. Out of the numerous groups that registered an initial interest, the MMO, by their own admission, chose only the 6 groups who held what they considered to be potentially viable amounts of quota, based on MMO figures and the individual track records of group members. When the groups were provided with what that amount of quota amounted to for each group, the offer was rejected by all but one set of fishers, the Ramsgate group. The remaining groups considered that what was on offer, based on individual track records, was less than was available within the Pool and certainly insufficiento maintain a living without having to resort to leasing or going broke.

So despite spending something over £200,000 on the initiative, including employing two Community Group managers that didn’t actually have a quota group to manage, the project ended up with about 14 fishermen in the Ramsgate area making up one group at the outset.

Since the inception of this one and only group, numbers have dwindled to only three fishers at present. It is widely recognised that the benefit of fishing from Ramsgate is that one operates on the border between areas IVc and VIId, effectively giving those fishers two bites at the quota cherry and consequently twice as much monthly quota, and therefore track record as most other fishermen in the under ten sector. So even with this undoubted benefit, the ostensibly successful Ramsgate pilot has in fact not provided the long term benefits originally supposed. 

This outcome does underline most clearly the fact that it is entirely iniquitous and unfair to attempt to impose an allocation of quota based on individual track records when those track records have been based on a false premise, that the other sector of the fleet has had a vast amount of funding to reduce capacity [that has in fact had dire and hopefully unintended consequences for the way that quota “ownership” is considered – that resulted in DEFRA ending up in the High Court facing a Judicial Review] and that we are now expected to accept widespread bankruptcy for under tens on the basis that DEFRA keep trying to persuade the world that the community quota group debacle was somehow a success that should therefore lead to the provision of individual FQA’s to the entire under ten metre fleet..

Just one of the many aspects that came from the previous consultation was the fact that officials clearly didn’t recognise or understand that until the suggestion of an under ten track record was raised, operators had never paid any attention to the notion of a personal track record as we worked from a national collective Pool. At the same time, DEFRA had also underestimated the movement of boats in our sector. Unlike large vessels that tend to stay in the same ownership for long periods, our sector fishermen tend to upgrade and downgrade their boats more often. This led to many fishermen inadvertently and unknowingly selling of both their boat and importantly their track record.

In the event that the proposals for individual track records had gone ahead at that time, it would have resulted in any number of long term and bona fide fishermen being unable to continue to fish in the same pattern as they had done for many years and with no ability to consider alternatives. During the consultation, where we visited a large number of English ports and were accompanied by your colleagues, there was considerable and understandable fear created by the proposals in this regard. As just one example, a fisherman in North Shields explained that he had been fishing since leaving school, had built up a reasonable business but due to getting older had decided the previous year to move to a smaller vessel. He had sold his boat in good faith, not realising, and why should he have, that he had also sold away his track record. In the event that individual allocations had been forthcoming, he would have had no track record, a worthless boat and a shed full of gear that he couldn’t use and with no ability to change methods or area.

Your colleagues did their best to suggest that there would be an effective appeals procedure but no one was convinced in that respect. I will not labour this and the many other points of concern that came out of the consultation, you can of course read them for yourself. I would however note the issues of the forthcoming landings obligation and the implications of that for the under ten metre fleet and equally importantly, the requirement on Government with respect to Article 17 of the reformed CFP. These are certainly subjects for face to face discussions and entirely relevant to this subject. Underlying all this is the unequivocal fact that the initial allocation of quota to the under ten fleet was and remains hopelessly flawed and whilst we understand the predicament that this now puts DEFRA in, it is no reason to maintain the inequity. Article 17 provides the ideal and legally required opportunity for a review of the situation. At the same time and as mentioned at the outset, NUTFA’s proposals for an English Under Ten PO are well advanced. We have a meeting scheduled with some of your colleagues early in September and on that basis, it may be advantageous to all of us to meet before that date to discuss the implications of your proposals.

Very much in brief, some other aspects of the proposals in need of consideration and discussion are, in no particular order:

• The falsity of attempting to equate ‘ownership’ with compliance. There is precious little evidence in support of this presumption and ample evidence against it. 

• The currently rapid backing away in many parts of the USA and Canada amongst other places from the catch shares scenario. Originally touted as the way forward, now recognised as undermining fishing communities and consolidating quota into few and powerful hands at the expense of local fishers 

• The potential loss of vital flexibility in terms of access to the resource for smaller scale fishers unable to simply steam away to pastures new

• The fact that many under ten operators have been forced out of quota species fishing due to massive reductions in both stocks and subsequently quotas, neither of which were their fault yet they continue to suffer the consequences 

• The example of the use of cheaper foreign crews on larger vessels as a direct result of the increase in the coast of leasing or purchase of FQA’s 

• Compensation issues around the forced reduction in the value of fishing licences [deemed under extensive Case Law to be possessions] 

• DEFRA’s consideration of the content and aspirations within the current Scottish Government consultation on the future of quota access 

• And last but not least, the potential impact on new entrants to the industry.

We look forward to receiving suggested dates to meet with you in this regard and hope that the information above will assist you in more clearly understanding our concerns on behalf of the under ten metre fleet with regard to the proposals.

If you require any further clarification or information in advance of a meeting then please feel free to get in touch, 

With best regards, NUTFA

Full media news from NUTFA here:

How the fishing industry is helping to plan for our seas.

Dale Rodmell, Assistant Chief Executive at the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), looks at how the fishing industry are helping to plan for our seas.

Fisheries are one of the oldest and most widely distributed of all marine activities in UK waters. Chances are that new marine uses will interact with existing fishing activities more often than with any other sector. But fisheries don’t occur everywhere with the same intensity, nor can the potential effects from new activities on existing fisheries be generalised. Some fisheries and fleets are more vulnerable to being displaced by new activities than others, and some are more likely to be able to co-exist within busy areas.

One of the key challenges is to decipher the level of importance of different fishing grounds so that they can be taken account of in a systematic way that maximises the chances of coexistence between different marine uses in marine planning decision making. This isn’t just something of value to the fishing industry. A more efficient marine planning system that can account for the significance of fishing grounds in a strategic way is likely to minimise the scope for disruption or conflict later on, so we all have something to gain.

The purpose of scoping the potential for core fishing grounds (in future likely to be referred to as fishing interest areas) was to begin exploring the possibility of a spatial planning policy that can better recognise important fishing grounds. This included a MMO workshop which examined different marine sectors’ views on such an approach and explored the practical issues too. Although the first East marine plans include a policy to reduce the likelihood of displacing fishing activity, they recognise that the existing fisheries evidence base is not sufficiently developed to support more prescriptive policies. Key areas to look at include evidence gaps and how to update policies to account for change (such as seasonal variations).

We also need to define levels of fisheries importance. Focusing on economic or social value or measuring levels of effort may be of use, but there is also the need to factor in displacement vulnerability; accounting for how far fishing vessels can range from port, and accessibility to alternative grounds if areas are lost. None of this is likely to be straight forward, especially given the number of data sets needed for any analysis, so stakeholder input and some level of qualitative judgement will be important. If we can identify core areas, what then? Well, having such areas mapped would provide a signal about their particular sensitivities at the earliest stages when planning for other marine uses. The right evidence would also be needed to justify when other licensable activities could take place in such areas. It shouldn’t mean that planning in other areas where fishing takes place will be downgraded as a consequence though, as plan-wide policies would still apply.

Fisheries once pretty much had the freedom of the sea, but today it is clear that in our more crowded waters, defining the importance of fishing grounds is essential if our sector’s visibility in the marine planning process is to be improved. This work is an important first step, and if such a spatial fisheries policy can be realised it will probably place England at the forefront globally for recognising fisheries within marine planning.

Newlyn copper? - check out the copper work of a Turkish artisanal worker in Istanbul

For copper work the tools of the trade haven't changed in millenia...

with the addition of a few more modern bits of kit...

most of the work is hard graft and TLC...

like tinning the inside of the pans...

how good would these look full of #FishyFriday feasts!

All photos courtesy of Tom Aikens currently on a food adventure in Istanbul, Turkey.

'Brexit' - could the UK government afford to keep West Country fishermen and farmers in the manner to which they have become accustomed?

The Government has to ensure Cornwall is not “crippled” if the UK leaves the European Union and loses much-needed subsidy, a leading think-tank has warned. Civitas, a cross-party group, argues the British government should guarantee any Brussels hand-outs are matched from Whitehall in the event of the so-called “Brexit”.

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly receive hundreds of millions of pounds of Brussels regeneration money as it remains one of the poorest regions in Europe. But the area, in common with Devon, has a high number of farmers and fishermen who also receive substantial subsidies.

Related content David Cameron makes new election pledge on EU referendum For democracy’s sake, call a referendum on EU future Jonathan Lindsell, author of the Civitas report “Softening the Blow: Who gains from the EU and how they can survive ‘Brexit’”, has warned of the “devastating” impact to areas and industries that rely on the hand-outs.

Mr Lindsell, who argues Whitehall needs to plan ahead if Britain votes to leave the EU in David Cameron’s promised 2017 “in-out” referendum, told the Western Morning News: “Cornwall is a major beneficiary of EU spending so if Britain were to leave then the Treasury would have to take great care in ensuring its local economy was not crippled as a result".

“Not only do Cornwall’s many farmers and fishermen benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy respectively, but the county receives tens of millions of pounds a year in structural and convergence funds to support local economic growth and communities. “In the 2014-2020 budget, Cornwall has been allocated 592 million euros from the convergence fund to assist with further development. If Britain leaves the EU before 2020 the government should seriously consider keeping this fund up.”

Read more: Follow us: @WMNNews on Twitter