What does the trade deal mean for fisheries?

 

Contrary to many dire predictions, we finally have a Brexit trade deal, and with it an agreement on how the UK and EU will manage shared fisheries into the future.

The fishing industry has experienced an unusually high profile since the Brexit referendum, but this reached dizzy heights over the last few months of 2020, as disagreements over fishing quotas and access were said to be the final barrier to a wider agreement. So now that the deal has been landed, how does the catch measure up?

The bare bones of the deal are that there will be a five and a half year adjustment period, starting from January 2021, during which the value of the catch the UK can take in its own Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) will increase incrementally up to an average of 25%.

In monetary terms this will be worth approximately £140 million per year to the UK fishing industry by 2026.

Boris Johnson certainly wants this to look like a victory – when announcing the wider deal he wore a fish patterned tie and announced “I can assure great fish fanatics in this country that we will as a result of this deal be able to catch and eat quite prodigious quantities of extra fish.”

He also stated that the UK will be able to increase the catch in its waters from approximately half to two thirds, “after which there is no theoretical limit beyond those placed by science or conservation on the quantity of our own fish that we can fish in our waters.” As usual, it’s important to look at the detail behind the headlines and catch phrases.

First of all, the two thirds equation only includes the UK and EU, not Norway, which also has some important fisheries in UK waters. That sharing arrangement is yet to be fully negotiated, but in reality, the value of fish the UK takes in its own EEZ is unlikely to increase beyond 60%.

More importantly, the wider trade deal carries an assumption that the increase in the UK catch share will not go beyond 25% after 2026. If there is a dispute then either side can reduce reciprocal fishing access and place tariffs on fish imports and on other goods, or ultimately suspend other parts of the trade and economic partnership.

Given how hard won the wider trade deal has been, it seems very unlikely that fishing will be allowed to risk it again in the future. But as is now widely known, tariffs on UK seafood imports into Europe would hit the UK particularly hard, because the majority of UK caught seafood is exported to the EU.

It is also informative to look at where and for which species the UK catch shares will increase. One of the most widely quoted disparities in the Brexit debate was that EU vessels were allowed to catch 90% of the cod in the eastern Channel. As for a third of other shared stocks, that situation will not actually change in this agreement, but because that example is such a small fishery it was always a red herring.

The biggest increases for the UK are for stocks like hake (36%) and Norway pout (20%) in the North Sea, sprat in the English Channel (32%) and horse mackerel in the southern North Sea and Eastern channel (29%).

The increase for hake will be welcomed, because of its current prevalence in the UK section of the North Sea, but many of the other increases will only help specific vessels in certain areas.

Although the allocation of the increased UK quota is yet to be revealed, it is difficult to see how it will benefit small-scale (under 10 m) vessels operating close inshore. These boats may have a smaller catching capacity than the larger ones, but are much more numerous and have long suffered from a lack of quota.

Particularly important to them was that the deal would secure an exclusive zone for UK boats within 12 miles of shore, but foreign vessels with a track record will continue to have access to the 6 to 12 mile area under a grandfather clause.

How does the deal compare to what both sides wanted? The EU have long pushed for the status quo in exchange for tariff free trade in seafood, but softened that approach in the final negotiations to offer a 15-18% increase in catch value to the UK in UK waters over 7 to 8 years.

On the UK side there was much talk of the ‘Sea of Opportunity’ and some extravagant claims that £1.6 billion worth of fish per year should be repatriated to the UK via Brexit. Ultimately, the UK government aimed to gain 80% of the value of the EU catch in UK waters over a 3 year period.

Purely based on the maths it’s fair to say the agreement has finished much closer to the EU’s initial position than the UK’s. Although fishermen from neither side are particularly happy, most criticism is coming from the UK industry. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations have called the deal ‘Miniscule, marginal, paltry, pathetic’ while the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said “After all the promises given to the industry, (the deal) is hugely disappointing.”

But in the mix with all this disappointment from the UK industry, are there any positives? The first is that a deal has been achieved. Exporting seafood to the EU will not be as straightforward as before, but tariff free access is assured for now. A no deal Brexit would have been disastrous for many in the UK fishing and seafood processing industries.

The focus on UK fisheries provided by both Brexit and coronavirus should also continue to encourage more consumption of locally caught fish. Furthermore, through the new Fisheries Act and more control over its waters, the UK now has the opportunity to reach for its aspiration to become a world leader in fisheries management.

The recognition that UK fishing activities should bring national social and economic benefits, and that fisheries should adapt in the face of climate change, are particularly welcome inclusions.

The new trade agreement between the UK and EU also commits both parties to ensure that fishing activities for shared stocks are environmentally sustainable in the long term, and to restore populations of harvested species above levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). MSY is controversial in some circles, particularly for mixed fisheries, but these commitments are actually more ambitious those contained in the Fisheries Act.

So will the new UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement finally calm the seas in North East Atlantic fisheries? I doubt it. Many underlying issues remain unsolved, and without a zonal attachment approach to allocating catch shares, the effect of climate change on fish stock distribution will continue to wreak havoc on arrangements. But for now at least, we know the direction in which the ship is sailing.

Post courtesy of Dr Bryce Stewart, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Environment and Geography, University of York

All the Fish related bits in the Brexit deal to read at your leisure: Articles 1-19.

Quota shares over the first five years:

The UK’s quota shares will increase within a 25% envelope. The increases will be phased in over 5 years

Year 1 15% 

Year 2 17.5% 

Year 3 20% 

Year 4 22.5% 

Year 5 25% 

The specific stocks for which will quota will be increased, and the % increase by stock have been agreed but the information is not yet available Access In return, EU has full access to fish in UK waters during the adjustment period. There will be annual negotiations, but these will focus on setting TACs. This access includes grandfather rights for vessels who have a track record of fishing within the 6-12 nm limit. (At least one day in every year of reference period). At the end of the adjustment period, access will become a matter of annual negotiation. 

Access applies to all stocks including the main pelagic stocks. If access is denied after the end of the 5-year adjustment period, the EU holds the right to deny access to EU waters and to apply proportionate tariffs to UK fishery products. Regulatory Autonomy There will be regulatory autonomy. The UK will be able to develop its own fisheries management systems outside the CFP as long as the measures are non-discriminatory.

Article FISH.1: 

Sovereign rights of coastal States exercised by the Parties The Parties affirm that sovereign rights of coastal States exercised by the Parties for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the living resources in their waters should be conducted pursuant to and in accordance with the principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.

Article FISH.2: Objectives and principles

The Parties shall cooperate with a view to ensuring that fishing activities for shared stocks in their waters are environmentally sustainable in the long term and contribute to achieving economic and social benefits, while fully respecting the rights and obligations of independent coastal States as exercised by the Parties. The Parties share the objective of exploiting shared stocks at rates intended to maintain and progressively restore populations of harvested species above biomass levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. The Parties shall have regard to the following principles:

(a) applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management;

(b) promoting the long-term sustainability (environmental, social and economic) and optimum utilisation of shared stocks;

(c) basing conservation and management decisions for fisheries on the best available scientific advice, principally that provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES);

(d) ensuring selectivity in fisheries to protect juvenile fish and spawning aggregations of fish, and to avoid and reduce unwanted bycatch;

(e) taking due account of and minimising harmful impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem and taking due account of the need to preserve marine biological diversity;

(f) applying proportionate and non-discriminatory measures for the conservation of marine living resources and the management of fisheries resources, while preserving the regulatory autonomy of the Parties;

(g) ensuring the collection and timely sharing of complete and accurate data relevant for the conservation of shared stocks and for the management of fisheries;

(h) ensuring compliance with fisheries conservation and management measures, and combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and

(i) ensuring the timely implementation of any agreed measures into the Parties’ regulatory Frameworks.

Article FISH.3: Definitions

For the purposes of this Heading the following definitions apply: 

(a) “EEZ” (of a Party) means, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982:

(i) in the case of the Union, the exclusive economic zones established by its Member States adjacent to their European territories;

(ii) the exclusive economic zone established by the United Kingdom;

(b) “precautionary approach to fisheries management” means an approach according to which the absence of adequate scientific information does not justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and nontarget species and their environment;

(c) “shared stocks” means fish, including shellfish of any kind that are found in the waters of the Parties, which includes molluscs and crustaceans;

(d) “TAC” means the total allowable catch, which is the maximum quantity of a stock (or stocks) of a particular description that may be caught over a given period;

(e) “non-quota stocks” means stocks which are not managed through TACs;

(f) “territorial sea” (of a Party) means, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982:

(i) in the case of the Union, by derogation from Article FINPROV.1(1) [Territorial scope],

the territorial sea established by its Member States adjacent to their European territories;

(ii) the territorial sea established by the United Kingdom;

(g) “waters” (of a Party) means:

(i) in respect of the Union, by derogation from Article FINPROV.1(1)[Territorial scope], the EEZs of the Member States and their territorial seas;

(ii) in respect of the United Kingdom, its EEZ and its territorial sea, excluding for the purposes of Articles FISH.8 [Access to waters], FISH.9 [Compensatory measures in case of withdrawal or reduction of access] and Annex FISH.4 [Protocol on access to waters] the territorial sea adjacent to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man;

(h) “vessel” (of a Party) means:

(i) in the case of the United Kingdom, a fishing vessel flying the flag of the United Kingdom, registered in the United Kingdom, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man, and licensed by a UK fisheries administration;

(ii) in the case of the Union, a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and is registered in the Union.

Chapter two: Conservation and sustainable exploitation

Article FISH.4: 

Fisheries management Each Party shall decide on any measures applicable to its waters in pursuit of the objectives set out in Article FISH.2(1) and (2)[Objectives and principles], and having regard to the principles referred to in Article FISH.2(3) [Objectives and principles]. A Party shall base the measures referred to in paragraph 1 on the best available scientific advice.

A Party shall not apply the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to the vessels of the other Party in its waters unless it also applies the same measures to its own vessels.

The second subparagraph is without prejudice to obligations of the Parties under the Port State Measures Agreement, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission Scheme of Control and Enforcement, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation Conservation and Enforcement Measures, and the Recommendation 18-09 by International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.

The Specialised Committee on Fisheries may amend the list of pre-existing international obligations referred to in the third subparagraph.

Each Party shall notify the other Party of new measures as referred to in paragraph 1 that are likely to affect the vessels of the other Party before those measures are applied, allowing sufficient time for the other Party to provide comments or seek clarification. 

Article FISH.5: 

Authorisations, compliance and enforcement Where vessels have access to fish in the waters of the other Party pursuant to Article FISH.8 [Access to waters] and Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man]:

(a) each Party shall communicate in sufficient time to the other Party a list of vessels for which it

seeks to obtain authorisations or licences to fish; and

(b) the other Party shall issue authorisations or licences to fish.

Each Party shall take all necessary measures to ensure compliance by its vessels with the rules applicable to those vessels in the other Party’s waters, including authorisation or licence conditions.

Chapter three: Arrangements on access to waters and resources 

Article FISH.6: Fishing opportunities

By 31 January of each year, the Parties shall cooperate to set the schedule for consultations with the aim of agreeing TACs for the stocks listed in Annex FISH.1 for the following year or years. That schedule shall take into account other annual consultations among coastal States that affect either or both of the Parties. The Parties shall hold consultations annually to agree, by 10 December of each year, the TACs for the following year for the stocks listed in Annex FISH.1. This shall include an early exchange of views on priorities as soon as advice on the level of the TACs is received. The Parties shall agree those TACs:

(a) on the basis of the best available scientific advice, as well as other relevant factors, including socio-economic aspects; and

(b) in compliance with any applicable multi-year strategies for conservation and management agreed by the Parties.

The Parties’ shares of the TACs for the stocks listed in Annex FISH.1 shall be allocated between the Parties in accordance with the quota shares set out in that Annex.

Annual consultations may also cover, inter alia: (a) transfers of parts of one Party’s shares of TACs to the other Party;

(b) a list of stocks for which fishing is prohibited;

(c) the determination of the TAC for any stock which is not listed in Annex FISH.1 or Annex FISH.2 and the Parties’ respective shares of those stocks;

(d) measures for fisheries management, including, where appropriate, fishing effort limits;

(e) stocks of mutual interest to the Parties other than those listed in the Annexes to this Heading.

The Parties may hold consultations with the aim of agreeing amended TACs if either Party so requests. A written record documenting the arrangements made between the Parties as a result of consultations under this Article shall be produced and signed by the heads of delegation of the Parties.

Each Party shall give sufficient notice to the other Party before setting or amending TACs for the stocks listed in Annex FISH.3. The Parties agree to set up a mechanism for voluntary in-year transfers of fishing opportunities between the Parties, to take place each year. The Specialised Committee on Fisheries shall decide on the details of this mechanism. The Parties shall consider making transfers of fishing opportunities for stocks which are, or are projected to be, underfished available at market value through this mechanism. Article FISH.7: Provisional TACs

If the Parties have not agreed a TAC for a stock listed in Annex FISH.1 or Annex FISH.2A or B by 10 December, they shall immediately resume consultations with the continued aim of agreeing the TAC. The Parties shall engage frequently with a view to exploring all possible options for reaching agreement in the shortest possible time.

If a stock listed in Annex FISH.1 or Annex FISH.2A and B remains without an agreed TAC on 20 December, each Party shall set a provisional TAC corresponding to the level advised by ICES, applying from 1 January.

By derogation from paragraph 2, the TACs for special stocks shall be set in accordance with guidelines adopted under paragraph 5. For the purposes of this article, “special stocks” means:

(a) stocks where the ICES advice is for a zero TAC;

(b) stocks caught in a mixed fishery, if that stock or another stock in the same fishery is vulnerable;

or

(c) other stocks which the Parties consider require special treatment.

The Specialised Committee on Fisheries shall adopt guidelines by 1 July 2021 for the setting of provisional TACs for special stocks. Each year when advice is received from ICES on TACs, the Parties shall discuss, as a priority, the special stocks and the application of any guidelines set under paragraph 5 to the setting of provisional TACs by each Party. Each Party shall set its share for each of the provisional TACs, which shall not exceed its share as set out in the corresponding Annex. The provisional TACs and shares referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 shall apply until agreement is reached under paragraph 1. Each Party shall, immediately, notify the other Party of its provisional TACs under paragraphs 2 and 3 and its provisional share of each of those TACs under paragraph 7.

Article FISH.8: Access to waters

Provided that TACs have been agreed each Party shall grant vessels of the other Party access to fish in its waters in the relevant ICES sub-areas that year. Access shall be granted at a level and on conditions determined in those annual consultations. The Parties may agree, in annual consultations, further specific access conditions in relation to:

(a) the fishing opportunities agreed;

(b) any multi-year strategies for non-quota stocks developed under point (c) of Article FISH.16(1) [Specialised Committee on Fisheries]; and

(c) any technical and conservation measures agreed by the Parties, without prejudice to Article FISH.4 [Fisheries management].

The Parties shall conduct the annual consultations, including on the level and conditions of access referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, in good faith and with the objective of ensuring a mutually satisfactory balance between the interests of both Parties. In particular, the outcome of the consultations should normally result in each Party granting: (a) access to fish the stocks listed in Annex FISH.1 and Annex FISH.2.A, B and F in each other’s EEZ (or if access is granted under point (c), in EEZs and in the divisions mentioned in that point) at a level that is reasonably commensurate with the Parties’ respective shares of the TACs;

(b) access to fish non-quota stocks in each other’s EEZ (or if access is granted under point (c), in EEZs and in the divisions mentioned in that point), at a level that at least equates to the average tonnage fished by that Party in the waters of the other Party during the period 2012-2016; and

(c) access to the waters of the Parties between six and twelve nautical miles from the baseline in ICES divisions 4c and 7d-g for qualifying vessels to the extent that Union fishing vessels and United Kingdom fishing vessels had access to those waters on 31 December 2020.

For the purposes of point (c), ‘qualifying vessel’ means a vessel of a Party which fished in the zone mentioned in the previous sentence in four of the years between 2012 and 2016, or its direct replacement.

Annual consultations referred to in point (c) may include appropriate financial commitments and quota transfers between the Parties.

During the application of a provisional TAC, and pending an agreed TAC, the Parties shall grant provisional access to fish in the relevant ICES sub-areas as follows (a) for stocks listed in Annex FISH.1 and non-quota stocks, from 1 January until 31 March at the levels

provided for in paragraph 4(a) and (b);

(b) for stocks listed in Annex FISH.2 from 1 January until 14 February at the levels provided for in paragraph 4(a); and

(c) in relation to access to fish in the six to twelve nautical miles zone, access in accordance with paragraph 4(c) from 1 January to 31 January at a level equivalent to the average monthly tonnage fished in that zone in the previous 3 months.

Such access, for each of the relevant stocks in points (a) and (b), shall be in proportion to the average percentage of a Party’s share of the annual TAC which that Party’s vessels fished in the other Party’s waters in the relevant ICES sub-areas during the same period of the previous three calendar years.

The same shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to access to fish non-quota stocks.

By 15 January in relation to the situation in point (c) of this paragraph, by 31 January in respect of the stocks listed in Annex FISH.2, and by 15 March in respect of all other stocks, each Party shall notify the other Party of the change in the level and conditions of access to waters that will apply as of 1 February in relation to the situation in point (c), as of 15 February in respect of the stocks listed in Annex FISH.2, and as of 1 April in respect of all other stocks for the relevant ICES sub-areas.

Without prejudice to Article FISH.7(1) and (8)[Provisional TACs], after the period of one month in relation to the situation in point (c) of paragraph 5, one and a half months in respect of the stocks listed in Annex FISH.2 and three months in respect of all other stocks, the Parties shall seek to agree further provisional access arrangements at the appropriate geographical level with the aim of minimising disruption to fishing activities.

In granting access under paragraph 1, a Party may take into account compliance of individual or groups of vessels with the applicable rules in its waters during the preceding year, and measures taken by the other Party pursuant to Article FISH.5(2) [Authorisations, compliance and enforcement] during the preceding year.

This Article shall apply subject to Annex FISH.4 [Protocol on access to waters].

Article FISH.9: 

Compensatory measures in case of withdrawal or reduction of access

Following a notification by a Party (“host Party”) under Article FISH.8(5)[Access to waters], the other Party (“fishing Party”) may take compensatory measures commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the change in the level and conditions of access to waters. Such impact shall be measured on the basis of reliable evidence and not merely on conjecture and remote possibility.

Giving priority to those compensatory measures which will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement, the fishing Party may suspend, in whole or in part, access to its waters and the preferential tariff treatment granted to fishery products under Article GOODS.5[Prohibition and customs duties].

A compensatory measure referred to in paragraph 1 may take effect at the earliest seven days after the fishing Party has given notice to the host Party of the intended suspension under paragraph1 and, in any case, not earlier than 1 February in relation to the situation in point (c) of Article 8(5)[Access to waters], 15 February in respect of Annex FISH.2 and 1 April in respect of other stocks. The Parties shall consult within the Specialised Committee with a view to reaching a mutually agreeable solution. That notification shall identify:

(a) the date upon which the fishing Party intends to suspend; and

(b) the obligations to be suspended and the level of the intended suspension.

After the notification of the compensatory measures in accordance with paragraph 2, the host Party may request the establishment of an arbitration tribunal pursuant to Article INST.14 [Arbitration procedure] of Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six, without having recourse to consultations in accordance with Article INST.13 [Consultations]. The arbitration tribunal may only review the conformity of the compensatory measures with paragraph 1. The arbitration tribunal shall treat the issue as a case of urgency for the purpose of Article INST.19 [Urgent proceedings] of Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six.

When the conditions for taking compensatory measures referred to in paragraph 1 are no longer met, such measures shall be withdrawn immediately. Following a finding against the fishing Party in the procedure referred to in paragraph 3, the host Party may request the arbitration tribunal, within 30 days from its ruling, to determine a level of suspension of obligations under this Agreement not exceeding the level equivalent to the nullification or impairment caused by the application of the compensatory measures, if it finds that the inconsistency of the compensatory measures with paragraph 1 is significant. The request shall propose a level of suspension in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 1 and any relevant principles set out in Article INST.34C [Suspension of obligations for the purposes of LPFS.3.12(12), Article FISH.9(5) and Article FISH.14(7)]. The host Party may apply the level of suspension of obligations under this Agreement in accordance with the level of suspension determined by the arbitration tribunal, no sooner than 15 days following such ruling.

A Party shall not invoke the WTO Agreement or any other international agreement to preclude the other Party from suspending obligations under this Article.

Article FISH.10: 

Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man

By derogation from Articles FISH.8(1) and (3) to (7) [Access to waters], FISH.9 [Compensatory measures in case of withdrawal or reduction of access] and Annex FISH.4 [Protocol on access to waters], each Party shall grant vessels of the other Party access to fish in its waters reflecting the actual extent and nature of fishing activity that it can be demonstrated was carried out during the period beginning on 1 February 2017 and ending on 31 January 2020 by qualifying vessels of the other Party in the waters and under any treaty arrangements that existed on 31 January 2020.

For the purposes of this Article and, in so far as the other Articles in this Heading apply in relation to the arrangements for access established under this Article:

(a) “qualifying vessel” means, in respect of fishing activity carried out in waters adjacent to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Isle of Man or a Member State, any vessel which fished in the territorial sea adjacent to that territory or that Member State on more than 10 days in any of the three 12 month periods ending on 31 January on, or between, 1 February 2017 and 31 January 2020;

(b) “vessel” (of a Party)” means, in respect of the United Kingdom, a fishing vessel flying the flag of the United Kingdom and registered in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man, and licensed by a United Kingdom fisheries administration;

(c) “waters” (of a Party) means:

(i) in respect of the Union, the territorial sea adjacent to a Member State; and

(ii) in respect of the United Kingdom, the territorial sea adjacent to each of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man.

At the request of either Party, the Partnership Council shall decide, within 90 days of the entry into force of this Agreement, that this Article, Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products] and any other provisions of this Heading in so far as they relate to the arrangements provided for in those Articles as well as paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article OTH.9 [Geographical application] shall cease to apply in respect of one or more of Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man, following 30 days from this decision.

The Partnership Council may decide to amend this Article, Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products] and any other provisions of this Heading in so far as they relate to the arrangements provided for in those Articles. 

Article FISH.11: 

Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products

The Union shall apply the following notification periods to fisheries products caught by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom and registered in the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Bailiwick of Jersey in the territorial sea adjacent to those territories or in the territorial sea adjacent to a Member State:

(a) prior notification between three and five hours before landing fresh fisheries products into the Union’s territory;

(b) prior notification between one and three hours of the validated catch certificate for the direct movement of consignments of fisheries products by sea before the estimated time of arrival at the place of entry into the Union’s territory.

For the purposes of this Article only, “fisheries products” means all species of marine fish, molluscs and crustaceans. 

Article FISH.12: 

Alignment of management areas By 1 July 2021, the Parties shall request advice from ICES on the alignment of the management areas and the assessment units used by ICES for the stocks marked with an asterisk in Annex FISH.1.

Within six months of receipt of the advice referred to in paragraph 1, the Parties shall jointly review that advice and shall jointly consider adjustments to the management areas of the stocks concerned, with a view to agreeing consequential changes to the list of stocks and shares set out in Annex FISH.1.

Article FISH.13: 

Shares of TACs for certain other stocks

The Parties’ respective shares of the TACs for certain other stocks are set out in Annex FISH.2. Each Party shall notify the relevant States and international organisations of its shares in accordance with the sharing arrangement set out in Annex FISH.2A to D.

Any subsequent changes to those shares in Annex FISH.2C and D are a matter for the relevant multilateral fora. Without prejudice to the powers of the Partnership Council in Article 16(3)[Specialised Committee on Fisheries], any subsequent changes to the shares Annex FISH.2A and B after 30 June 2026 are a matter for the relevant multilateral fora. Both Parties shall approach the management of those stocks in Annex FISH.2A to D in accordance with the objectives and principles set out in Article FISH.2[Objectives and principles].

Chapter four: Arrangements on governance

Article FISH.14: 

Remedial measures and dispute resolution In relation to an alleged failure by a Party (“the respondent Party”) to comply with this Heading (other than in relation to alleged failures dealt with under paragraph 2), the other Party (“the complaining Party”) may, after giving notice to the respondent Party:

a) suspend, in whole or in part, access to its waters and the preferential tariff treatment granted to fishery products under Article GOODS.5[Prohibition of customs duties]; and (b) if it considers that the suspension referred to in point (a) is not commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the alleged failure, it may suspend, in whole or in part, the preferential tariff treatment of other goods under Article GOODS.5[Prohibition of customs duties]; and

(c) if it considers that the suspension referred to in points (a) and (b) is not commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the alleged failure, it may suspend, in whole or in part, obligations under Heading One [Trade] of Part Two [Economic Partnership] with the exception of Title XI [Level Playing Field for open and fair competition and sustainable development]. If Heading One [Trade] is suspended in whole, Heading Three [Road Transport] is also suspended.

In relation to an alleged failure by a Party (the “respondent Party”) to comply with Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man], FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products] or any other provision of this Heading in so far as it relates to the arrangements provided for in those Articles, the other Party (“the complaining Party”), after giving notice to the respondent Party: (a) may suspend, in whole or in part, access to its waters within the meaning of Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man];

(b) if it considers that the suspension referred to in point (a) is not commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the alleged failure, it may suspend, in whole or in part, the preferential tariff treatment granted to fisheries products under Article GOODS.5 [Prohibition of customs duties];

(c) if it considers that the suspension referred to in points (a) and (b) is not commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the alleged failure, it may suspend, in whole or in part, the preferential tariff treatment of other goods under Article GOODS.5 [Prohibition of customs duties]; and by way of derogation from paragraph 1, remedial measures affecting the arrangements established under Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man], Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products]or any other provision of this Heading in so far as it relates to the arrangements provided for in those Articles may not be taken as a result of an alleged failure by a Party to comply with provisions of the Heading unconnected to those arrangements.

Measures referred to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be proportionate to the alleged failure by the respondent Party and the economic and societal impact thereof. A measure referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 may take effect at the earliest seven days after the complaining Party has given the respondent Party notice of the proposed suspension. The Parties shall consult within the Specialised Committee on Fisheries with a view to reaching a mutually agreeable solution. That notification shall identify:

(a) the way in which the complaining Party considers that the respondent Party has failed to comply;

(b) the date upon which the complaining Party intends to suspend; and

(c) the level of intended suspension.

The complaining Party must, within 14 days of the notification referred to in paragraph 4 challenge the alleged failure by the respondent Party to comply with this Heading, as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, by requesting the establishment of an arbitration tribunal under INST.14 [Arbitration Procedure] of Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six. Recourse to arbitration under this Article shall be made without having prior recourse to consultations under Article INST.13 [Consultations]. An arbitration tribunal shall treat the issue as a case of urgency for the purpose of Article INST.19 [Urgent proceedings] of Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six. The suspension shall cease to apply when: (a) the complaining Party is satisfied that the respondent Party is complying with its relevant obligations under this Heading; or

(b) the arbitration tribunal has decided that the respondent Party has not failed to comply with its relevant obligations under this Heading.

Following a finding against the complaining Party in the procedure referred to in paragraph 5, the respondent Party may request the arbitration tribunal, within 30 days from its ruling, to determine a level of suspension of obligations under this Agreement not exceeding the level equivalent to the nullification or impairment caused by the application of the compensatory measures, if it finds that the inconsistency of the compensatory measures with paragraphs 1 or 2 is significant. The request shall propose a level of suspension in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 2 and any relevant principles set out in Article INST.34C [Suspension of obligations for the purposes of OTHS.3.12(12), Article FISH.9(5) and Article FISH.14(7)]. The respondent Party may apply the level of suspension of obligations under this Agreement in accordance with the level of suspension determined by the arbitration tribunal, no sooner than 15 days following such ruling. A Party shall not invoke the WTO Agreement or any other international agreement to preclude the other Party from suspending obligations under this Article.

Article FISH.15: Data sharing

The Parties shall share such information as is necessary to support the implementation of this Heading subject to each Party’s laws.

Article FISH.16: 

Specialised Committee on Fisheries

The Specialised Committee on Fisheries may in particular: (a) provide a forum for discussion and co-operation in relation to sustainable fisheries management;

(b) consider the development of multi-year strategies for conservation and management as the basis for the setting of TACs and other management measures;

(c) develop multi-year strategies for the conservation and management of non-quota stocks as referred to in paragraph 2(b) of Article FISH.8 [Access to waters];

(d) consider measures for fisheries management and conservation, including emergency measures and measures to ensure selectivity of fishing;

(e) consider approaches to the collection of data for science and fisheries management purposes, the sharing of such data (including information relevant to monitoring, controlling and enforcing compliance), and the consultation of scientific bodies regarding the best available scientific advice;

(f) consider measures to ensure compliance with the applicable rules, including joint control, monitoring and surveillance programmes and the exchange of data to facilitate monitoring uptake of fishing opportunities and control and enforcement;

(g) develop the guidelines for setting the TACs referred to in paragraph 5 of Article FISH.7 [Provisional TACs];

(h) make preparations for annual consultations;

(i) consider matters relating to the designation of ports for landings, including the facilitation of the timely notification by the Parties of such designations and of any changes to those designations;

(j) establish timelines for the notification of measures referred to in Article FISH.4(3) [Fisheries management], the communication of the lists of vessels referred to in Article FISH.5(1) [Authorisations, compliance and enforcement] and the notice referred to in Article FISH.6(7) [Fishing opportunities];

(k) provide a forum for consultations under Article FISH.9(2) [Compensatory measures] and Article FISH.14(4) [Remedial measures];

(l) develop guidelines to support the practical application of Article FISH.8 [Access to waters];

(m) develop a mechanism for voluntary in-year transfers of fishing opportunities between the Parties, as referred to in Article FISH.6(8)[Fishing Opportunities]; and

(n) consider the application and implementation of Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man] and Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products].

The Specialised Committee on Fisheries may adopt measures, including decisions and recommendations: (a) recording matters agreed by the Parties following consultations under Article FISH.6 [Fishing opportunities];

(b) in relation to any of the matters referred to in points (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m) and

(n) of paragraph 1 of this Article;

(c) amending the list of pre-existing international obligations referred to in paragraph 2 of Article FISH.4 [Fisheries management]

(d) in relation to any other aspect of co-operation on sustainable fisheries management under this Heading; and

(e) on the modalities of a review under Article FISH.18[Review].

The Partnership Council shall have the power to amend Annexes FISH.1, FISH.2, and FISH.3. Article FISH.17: Termination

Without prejudice to Article FINPROV.8 [Termination] or Article OTH.10 [Termination of Part Two], each Party may at any moment terminate this Heading, by written notification through diplomatic channels. In that event, Heading One [Trade], Heading Two [Aviation], Heading Three [Road transport] and this Heading [Fisheries] shall cease to be in force on the first day of the ninth month following the date of notification. In the event of termination of this Heading pursuant to paragraph 1, Article FINPROV.8 [Termination] or Article OTH.10 [Termination of Part Two], obligations entered into by the Parties under this Heading for the year ongoing at the time when the Heading ceases to be in force shall continue to apply until the end of the year.

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Heading Two [Aviation] may remain in force, if the Parties agree to integrate the relevant parts of Title XI [Level playing field for open and fair competition and sustainable development].

By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 to 3 and without prejudice to Article FINPROV.8 [Termination] or Article OTH.10 [Termination of Part Two]: (a) unless agreed otherwise between the Parties, Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man], Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products] and any other provision of this Heading in so far as it relates to the arrangements provided for in those Articles, shall remain in force until:

(i) they are terminated by either Party giving to the other Party three years’ written notice of termination; or

(ii) if earlier, the date on which paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article OTH.9[Geographical application] cease to be in force;

(b) for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i), notice of termination may be given in respect of one or more of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man and Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man], Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products] and any other provision of this Heading in so far as it relates to the arrangements provided for in those Articles, shall continue to be in force for those territories in respect of which a notice of termination has not been given; and

(c) for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii), if paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article OTH.9[Geographical application] of the Agreement cease to be in force in relation to one or more (but not all) of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man, Article FISH.10 [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man], Article FISH.11 [Notification periods relating to the importation and direct landing of fisheries products] and any other provision of this Heading in so far as it relates to the arrangements provided for in those Articles, shall continue to be in force for those territories in respect of which paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article OTH.9 [Geographical application] remain in force.

Article FISH.18: 

Review clause

The Parties, within the Partnership Council, shall jointly review the implementation of this Heading four years after the end of the adjustment period referred to in the Article 1 of Annex FISH.4 [Protocol on access to waters] with the aim of considering whether arrangements, including in relation to access to waters, can be further codified and strengthened. Such a review may be repeated at subsequent intervals of four years after the conclusion of the first review. The Parties shall decide, in advance, on the modalities of the review through the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. The review shall, in particular, allow for an evaluation, in relation to the previous years, of:

(a) the provisions for access to each other’s waters under Article FISH.8 [Access to waters];

(b) the shares of TACs set out in the Annexes FISH.1, 2 and 3;

(c) the number and extent of transfers as part of annual consultations under Article FISH.6(4) [Fishing opportunities] and any transfers under Article FISH.6(8) [Fishing opportunities];

(d) the fluctuations in annual TACs;

(e) compliance by both Parties with the provisions of this Heading and the compliance by vessels of each Party with the rules applicable to those vessels when in the other Party’s waters;

(f) the nature and extent of co-operation under this Heading; and

(g) any other element the Parties decide, in advance, through the Specialised Committee on

fisheries.

Article FISH.19: Relationship with other agreements

Subject to paragraph 2, this Heading shall be without prejudice to other existing agreements concerning fishing by vessels of a Party within the area of jurisdiction of the other Party.

This Heading shall supersede and replace any existing agreements or arrangements with respect to fishing by Union fishing vessels in the territorial sea adjacent to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man and with respect to fishing by United Kingdom fishing vessels registered in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man in the territorial sea adjacent to a Member State. However, in case the Partnership Council has taken a decision in accordance with Article 10(3) [Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man] for the Agreement to cease to apply in respect of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man, the relevant agreements or arrangements shall not be superseded and replaced in respect of the territory or territories for which such a decision has been taken.

Annexe fish 2:

Annexe fish 3:

The fisherman’s verdict on Brexit: Boris Johnson sold us down the river – again

 

'in tatters'

Johnson sold us down the river – again New trade deal leaves trawlers ‘still tied to the EU’s apron strings’, say industry chiefs

Fish in a trawler’s nets off of Newhaven, East Sussex. ‘We’re still looking for the prodigious amounts of fish we were promised.’

For Jim Portus, who has represented Devon and Cornish fishing interests for 33 years, the Brexit trade deal offered a sobering lesson in broken promises.

Having volunteered to delay his retirement as chief executive of the South West Fish Producers Organisation to see the Brexit deal through, Portus questioned the wisdom of his decision on Saturday.

“I thought we were going to get a wonderful victory, but many of the promises that were made have not been delivered,” said the 66-year-old.

Not only had the sector secured the opportunity to fish far less than they had expected, Downing Street’s claims of safeguarding the sovereignty of the fishing industry – regaining control over UK waters was a central message of the leave campaign in 2016 – appeared wide of the mark.

“The deal means we’re still tied to the apron strings of the EU, we’re not an independent coastal state,” said Portus, whose organisation represents almost a third of the 300 or so large trawlers operating out of ports such as Newlyn in south-west Cornwall and Brixham, south Devon. “We should have been deciding the rules and regulations on how to manage those stocks so that we took control of access arrangements for other countries.”

Fishing rights were one of the final sticking points in the post-Brexit trade talks, largely due to their political weight, but Portus feels that ultimately Boris Johnson caved in.

On Saturday, Barrie Deas, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation, accused the prime minister of having “bottled it” on fishing quotas.

Portus added: “I’m at the end of my working life but he [Johnson] made promises directly to fishermen and I am very disappointed for them. We should be rebuilding our fleet, encouraging our youngsters. We should be planning for a resurgence instead of being sold down the river again.”

Before joining the SWFPO, Portus worked as a fisheries inspector and saw first hand what he felt were the negative impacts of the common fisheries policy, signed in 1970 and which dictated every EU fishing fleet had equal access to European waters.

PM 'caved in' to EU on fish, says fishing industry chief

“I’ve witnessed the despondency of the fishing industry for so long. We thought that after the referendum, when we were out of the common fisheries policy, [we would be] free from the influence from Brussels but we are harnessed to their regulations. “Really annoyingly embodied in the deal is a reference to penalties and compensation which must be paid to foreign fishermen if we decide to deny them access to our 12-mile limit in five years’ time. It is disgraceful that he [Johnson] has allowed himself to be dictated to by Brussels.”

Elsewhere, UK Fisheries chief executive Jane Sandell said Johnson’s promise that the deal would allow the UK to “catch and eat quite prodigious quantities of extra fish” appeared hollow. “We’re still looking for the ‘prodigious amounts of fish’ we were promised and for us it changes nothing,” she said.

A senior member of the UK’s negotiating team defended the agreement, and described fish as “one of the areas where we had to compromise somewhat”, but said this had been done by “both sides”.

The official said: “Although there is a transition, at the end of the transition it returns to normal arrangements, and we have full control over our waters.

There’s a transition to that point and ideally we would’ve got out of it a bit faster, but where we’ve got to is acceptable and offers gains for the fisheries industry in the short run and a huge right to control everything and work within that after this five-and-a-half-year transition.”

Full story courtesy of the Guardian.

And in a second article;

Brexit: fishing chiefs cry ‘betrayal’ as MPs fear rush to ratify deal ‘UK caved in on fish to win a wider treaty’, industry bodies say, while leading Brexiter David Davis says one-day debate is ‘too fast’

Fishing in the Channel off Hastings. Fishing in the Channel off Hastings: an industry representative said the prime minister had capitulated at the last moment. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Toby Helm Sun 27 Dec 2020 08.13 GMT

659 Senior Conservative MPs late on Saturday expressed alarm at plans to rush the historic UK-EU trade deal through parliament in just one day, as fishermen’s leaders accused Boris Johnson of “caving in” at the 11th hour to clinch agreement on Christmas Eve.

And there were growing fears among senior Tories, who will spend the next three days poring over the 2,000-page agreement published on Saturday, that details in the fine print could still allow the EU to impose punitive tariffs on British exports if businesses fail to follow European rules.

While the deal unveiled by the prime minister and European commission president Ursula von der Leyen looks certain to pass through the Westminster parliament, largely because Labour will back it, pro-Brexit MPs remain determined not to fall into the trap of endorsing the full agreement before having subjected every clause to full scrutiny.

Downing Street’s chief Brexit negotiator, Lord Frost, said the agreement would allow “national renewal” and permit the UK to “set its own laws again”.

But as he did so, British fishermen increasingly vented their anger, saying promises made by Leavers that they would regain control of all UK fishing waters by voting for Brexit had been broken. Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, claimed his industry had been betrayed in order to win a wider deal. “In the endgame, the prime minister made the call and caved in on fish, despite the rhetoric and assurances that he would not do what Ted Heath did in 1973.”

UK Fisheries chief executive Jane Sandell was less outspoken but agreed that pledges made had not been honoured: “We’re pleased that the UK-EU deal will bring some kind of certainty to parts of our industry, although we’re still looking for the ‘prodigious amounts of fish’ we were promised, and for us it changes nothing.”

MPs will have just one day to debate and vote on the deal that will effectively seal Brexit and create a future framework for the relationship between London and Brussels, on Wednesday.

The UK left the EU on 31 January this year, triggering an 11-month transition period in which to implement the decision. This will end on New Year’s Eve, making it the moment the country leaves the single market and customs union.

The Tory MP and former Brexit secretary David Davis told the Observer he wanted reassurances that the deal would not allow the EU to impose a wide range of tariffs on UK goods if there were future disagreements over fishing rights.

Davis also said more time should be taken to scrutinise and debate such a hugely important issue and historic change in the UK’s international relations. “Whatever you think of this treaty it is going to affect the rest of our lives. It is a treaty that is going to bring to an end an argument that has dominated the first half of our lives, and the outcome is going to be for the rest of our lives, and it does require more than just a rubber stamp,” he said. Davis added that one day’s debate was “too fast”.

David Davis said the deal required more than a rubber stamp. Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex “I am perfectly happy to give my in-principle agreement in one day if I reach that view but [only] in-principle agreement … because the European parliament will take days to look at this, having had longer to read it, and all the European parliaments will take longer,” said Davis.

Another senior member of the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers said: “There are concerns among colleagues. We need time to look at this very carefully to be sure it passes the sovereignty tests.”

Peter Bone, the veteran MP for Wellingborough, said he understood that time was very limited but likened the issue to budgets, which often seem to please everyone when first unveiled – but then turn out to be riddled with problems and loopholes. “It is exactly like a budget. Most of us think this looks good, but let’s just have time to check back and establish that it is what it appears to be.”

On Saturday, legal experts from a so-called star chamber of judges and lawyers appointed by the hardline pro-Brexit European Research Group were beginning to comb through the fine print. Asked when the white smoke of approval might emerge, another senior MP said it was premature to think Eurosceptics would give the deal unqualified backing: “It might not be white smoke. It might be black smoke.”

Although the prime minister can be confident that legislation to implement the deal will reach the statute book, he is desperate to minimise any Conservative party rebellion or discontent, and would like draw a line, finally, over internal arguments that did so much to destroy the premierships of three of his predecessors – Margaret Thatcher, John Major and David Cameron.

While fishing accounts for a very small part of the UK economy, it has been one of the most politically sensitive issues and was used by the Leave campaign in 2016 as one key area where Brexit would allow the government to “take back control”.

In the Christmas Eve deal the UK government and Brussels agreed that 25% of EU boats’ fishing rights in UK waters will be transferred to this country’s fishing fleet over a period of five-and-a-half years. The UK had originally demanded that the EU’s rights be cut by 80%. The UK did, however, reduce the number of years over which the change will be introduced to well under half of what the EU originally demanded.

After this period, the two sides will negotiate over future fishing rights, with the deal allowing for either to impose tariffs on the other’s exports of fish in the event of serious disagreements.

Sam Lowe, a trade expert at the Centre for European Reform, described this kind of arrangement in a trade deal as “unusual”. MPs are also concerned about the potential of the EU to impose tariffs on other types of exports, including cars, if UK-based manufacturers do not comply with Brussels’ rules on the origins of components used in production.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, on Saturday complained that promises made to her country’s fishing sector had been broken, insisting this was “yet another example of Tory governments forcing Scotland in the wrong direction”.

She added that an independent Scotland could be a “bridge-builder between the UK and the EU”.

NEGOTIATIONS OUTCOME 26TH DECEMBER 2020 IN BREXIT - and it's not good news.

 

Did they or didn't they?

The NFFO weighs up the deal agreed between the UK and the EU on Christmas Eve How, when on fishing rights the UK held all the cards, did we end up with such a paltry result in the UK/EU negotiations for a future relationship?

Bitter

The answer is both obvious and bitter. When push came to shove, despite the legal, moral and political strength of our case, fishing was sacrificed for other national objectives. Lacking legal, moral, or political negotiating leverage on fish, the EU made the whole trade deal contingent on a UK surrender on fisheries. In the end-game, the Prime Minister made the call and caved in on fish, despite the rhetoric and assurances that he would not do what Ted Heath did in 1973.

There will of course be an extensive public relations exercise to portray the deal as a fabulous victory, but it will inevitably be seen by the fishing industry as a defeat. There will be those at either end of the leave/remain spectrum in the “told you so” mould, but there was no inevitability about this outcome. The UK negotiating team fought hard and long – fishing was the last issue to be settled – but in the final stretch the decisions lay at the very top of government – with the Prime Minister - and he bottled it. Economics reasserted its dominance over politics.

Quota Shares

Most coastal states allow something like 80% of their fisheries resources to be harvested by their own domestic fleets, with the balance being traded for other mutual benefits. Prior to this agreement the EU benefited disproportionately from free access to fish in UK waters and unbalanced quota shares agreed in 1983. What a “25% rebalancing in value terms” actually means to individual fishing businesses and fishing communities will have to await publication of the detailed stock by stock schedules agreed. It is clear, however that it represents a fraction of what the UK has a right to under international law and what the government repeatedly said that it would secure on behalf of the UK fishing industry.

Particular attention will focus on individual stocks where the UK’s quota shares have been obscenely out of line with zonal attachment. English Channel cod, where the UK share has been 9% and the French share has been 84%, or Celtic Sea haddock, where the UK share has been 10% whilst the French share has been 66%, are cases in point.

Access to the UK 6-12nm Limits

The most egregious feature of the outcome announced on Christmas eve has been the failure to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit to protect our inshore fisheries. In this the EU was seen at its most brutal and nakedly political. The EU fleets could easily catch its quotas outside the UK’s coastal zone; just not as profitably, or quickly. Historic fishing rights with modern fishing vessels between 6nm and 12nm are an aberration that should have been easily swept away. President Macron’s direct political intervention blocked even this minor concession to the UK, for his own electoral purposes.

Time

Despite the UK’s failure to secure an outcome consistent with its legal status as an independent coastal state, the European fishing industry are unlikely be embarking on an extensive round of celebrations. The consequences of the geo-political shift represented by the UK’s departure from the EU – for better and worse - will now work themselves out over time. The five year “adjustment period” allowed for in the final deal, will be seen with huge frustration by many in the UK industry, who have experienced 40 years of being tied into an asymmetric and exploitative arrangement. From an EU perspective, five years will pass in the blink of an eye. Despite the likelihood that tariffs will be applied to fishery products, annual fisheries negotiations after the end of the adjustment period, will be the platform to achieve what the UK failed to achieve this year. The rebalancing of quotas begun in the deal will surely be completed, now that the edifice of the equal access and relative stability principles has been breached. That however will depend on the political priority given to fishing by the government of the day.

Regulatory Autonomy

One area in which the negotiations can be regarded as a success, is in having fought off EU’s attempts to tie the UK back into CFP-like arrangements. The UK has secured the ability to develop and apply its own fisheries management systems, tailored to its own fisheries outside the baleful influence of the Common Fisheries Policy. This is no small achievement. Likewise, the UK will be at the table in future bilateral and tri-lateral fisheries negotiations as an independent and weighty player. Indeed, the UK has already taken its seat at the table in international for a such as NEAFC and bilateral talks for an annual agreement between the UK and Faeroes have already begun.

Trade

The decision was made shortly after the referendum to leave the EU single market and the customs union. That decision will carry consequences – most visibly at the borders – where additional documentation will be required to export fisheries products into the EU. Some turbulence can be expected until the new arrangements settle in. The trade deal means that for the time-being anyway, tariffs will not apply in either direction.


The NFFO then added a rider to the above post: 

“MINISCULE, MARGINAL, PALTRY, PATHETIC”

Some of the adjectives that will be in circulation within the UK fishing industry today, to describe the change in UK quota shares as the UK leaves the EU and the CFP, and the content of what was agreed in Brussels on Christmas eve sinks in. Some of the bell-weather stocks tell the story most vividly, After a further five years adjustment period, the UK’s share of Channel cod will have increased from 9.3% to 10.2%.

The UK’s share of Celtic Sea haddock will have increased from 10% to 20%, leaving 80% in the hands of the EU fleets for a further five years.

North Sea saithe: UK share increases from 23% to 26%, again, in steps over 5 years, leaving the lion’s share in EU hands.

In the meantime, EU fleets have free access to fish in UK waters – including up to six miles of the shoreline in the areas where it matters.

Throughout the fishing industry there is a profound sense of disillusionment, betrayal, and fury that after all the rhetoric, promises and assurances, the Government caved-in on fish.

This was a decision taken at the highest political levels and it is important that responsibility is taken for the choices made. This is no time for spin.

It is unlikely that obstacles in the road will now derail the ratification process, but the fishing industry will want it clearly understood that the best opportunity in a generation for a different and better future has been squandered.

Full story courtesy of the NFFO website.

Brexit done!

Well, at least one ex-Newlyn fisherman will be happy today as the EU and Uk agree the terms of Brexit...

five years after the Referendum, when the majority of likeminded fishermen saw Brexit as an opportunity to take back control... 

 

what they will all be looking for is the detail in the agreement and how course for fishing has been set with a fair wind , or not - at 15:30 Boris Johnson announced that the UK quota share in its own waters goes from 50% now to over 66% over 5 1/2 years. £100 Million will be available to increase and modernise the UK fleet...

meanwhile, a single Breton trawler, Erispoe is working 40 miles south of Newlyn, the only such French vessel fishing in south west waters as news of the Brexit deal was broken.  Will she and her fellow Breton fishing vessels be fishing here come January the 1st? Time will tell.

Christmas 2020

 

now Tier 4?!!, and then we have the result of the Brexit negotiations to come. It can't get any worse than this year.

Can it?

To all those that go down to the sea, have a festive and safe Christmas!

We do not exchange fishing resources for market access

Norway is a third party when it comes to Brexit. We are still affected, also on the fishing side. The comment "Replaces the fish, gets exports again" addresses a complex issue about Norway's fisheries cooperation with other countries, in addition to questions about market access to the EU.

December 22, 2020 By Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen / Minister of Fisheries and Seafood 

The comment contains a number of errors and confusions that I want to clear up.

Norway has been working for a long time to bring Norway, the EU and the UK to the negotiating table, so that we can agree on fisheries agreements. Some of the fish stocks in the North Sea migrate between the waters of the three parties, and we must therefore agree on quotas and management measures.

Minister of Fisheries and Seafood Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen (Right). Photo: Bent-Are Jensen Norway is a third party when it comes to Brexit. We are still affected, also on the fishing side. As a result, negotiations on the fisheries agreements for 2021 have not yet begun properly, and the EU has not seen it possible to participate in talks with Norway and the United Kingdom.

This is unfortunate. This means that at the end of the year we are in an unusual and unpredictable situation.

We currently have overall agreements on fisheries cooperation with both the EU and the UK. The agreements allow for zone access and quota exchange to be agreed annually. This means that Norway must enter into agreements with the countries we want to fish with every year. As of today, Norway has not entered into such agreements with either the EU or the United Kingdom. Until agreements are entered into, Norwegian vessels will not be allowed to fish in British or EU waters, nor will British and EU vessels be able to enter Norwegian areas to fish.

This is not a threat or demonstration of power to the EU or Britain, as the Nation writes. This is a consequence of the fact that we have not agreed on the conditions for releasing vessels flying the flags of other countries into our areas.

In 1977, Norway established a fisheries protection zone off Svalbard to ensure the conservation and sound management of fishery resources and to prevent unregulated fishing. Norway has since given states that fished in the area the opportunity to continue their fishing, since we have all in all benefited from it, but we are not obliged to follow such a practice.

Norwegian sovereignty has of course not been part of the negotiations with the United Kingdom on a new framework agreement on fisheries cooperation, as the Nation has also written.

With the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, the player picture in the fisheries changes.

We have therefore decided to adjust down the fishing opportunities provided in the fish protection zone. The adjustments have been made on the basis of the development of the law of the sea, at the same time as the need to avoid excessive changes for the fishing fleet is taken into account. In 2021, the EU will therefore be given a cod quota in the fisheries protection zone of 17,885 tonnes and the United Kingdom 5,500 tonnes.

The Coast Guard controls both Norwegian and foreign vessels fishing in Norwegian areas. The Coast Guard is naturally prepared for the fact that we may find ourselves in a situation where foreign vessels without a license may wish to enter the Norwegian zone. That said, it is nevertheless unusual for vessels to intentionally enter a foreign zone without a license. Should this nevertheless occur, it will be enforced in accordance with the normal procedure. However, it is not true that Norway cooperates with other nations on enforcement in Norwegian areas, as debate leader Hans Bårdsgård claims.

It is not our policy to exchange fishing resources for market access. Nor do we do so in the negotiations for a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

In relation to the EU, we have common regulations in the veterinary area through the EEA agreement, which ensures free and stable market access for seafood without restrictions. We do not take part in the EU's common fisheries policy, and thus do not have duty-free market access to the EU for seafood.

Full story from Fiskerridablet, Norway.

Back home in the UK, The NFFO published an '11th Hour' newsletter.

The NFFO reiterates what is at stake as negotiations with the EU reach the inevitable endgame As the negotiations with the EU enter the 11th hour, rumours are swirling around in the media about what each side has offered and counter offered, as the two side seek a trade deal and an acceptable compromise on fishing rights. 

Many of these rumours have been wildly inaccurate during earlier phases in the negotiations, and so we will wait for the definitive briefing from the UK negotiators, or the Prime Minister, before making comment. In these fraught and uncertain times, though, it is worth reiterating what is at stake. 

The UK fishing industry (and the UK government) have been clear that as the UK leaves the EU and the transition phase, what we seek is an outcome consistent with our new status as an independent coastal state: 

• Negotiated, not automatic, rights over access to fish in UK waters Annual fisheries agreements which set TACs, agree quota shares, access arrangements and where mutually beneficial, quota exchanges 
• An exclusive 12-mile limit to protect our inshore fisheries 
• A rebalancing of quota shares to reflect the resources in UK waters 
• Frictionless, access to market to the extent that this without surrendering sovereign fishing rights 

These rights are only those which any self-respecting coastal state which shares stocks with a neighbouring country enjoys. It is only the distorting effect of the Common Fisheries Policy over the last 40 years that means the gulf that has now to be crossed is so wide. Those objectives have been shared by the Government throughout the negotiations and the extent to which they are reflected in a final deal (and the assurances given) will be the measure against which the deal will be judged.