MMO announce panel dates for MFF scheme in England

The MMO is pleased to confirm dates for the first Maritime and Fisheries Fund (MFF) panel.

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) are administering a new £15.4 million Maritime & Fisheries Fund (MFF).

This is the England share of the £37 million additional funding for the UK which was announced by Treasury. The fund is open to applications to develop port and harbour infrastructure, processing and marketing of fisheries products, productive investments in aquaculture and to support lifesaving vessel safety measures, among other areas which can be viewed on our website.

Any applications that are over £100,000 in total project cost are considered by the MFF panel. The panel are responsible for reviewing applications and recommending projects for approval in line with the objectives of the scheme.

In order to be considered for the first panel, it is recommended that applicants ensure their fully formed, completed applications are submitted to MMO by 10 January 2020. The MFF is only set to run for just over two years so projects must be fully formed and ready to progress and spend quickly.

The first panel for 2020 is scheduled to be held in week commencing 2 March 2020. Further dates may be released, although this will be subject to funding availability. You can contact the MMO Grants Team on 0208 026 5539 to discuss any potential panel application or visit the MMO website for guidance and information on how to make an application.

CFPO December Council Latest!

Latest News from December Council

I’ll begin with the positives: the UK Government team at this Council led by UK Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, was amongst the best that we have ever worked with. There was a solid understanding of our priorities, as well as the challenges and potential implications of different options for South-West fishermen. Communication in the run up to and throughout the Council was excellent – even if the final outcome was not. Some good news did emerge from the Council discussions for important South-West quotas like monk (increase 7%) megrim sole (increase 3%), and rollover quotas for pollack, ling and saithe in area 7. On the other hand, a reduction of 21% in the Western Hake quota was a disappointment, given the ongoing healthy status of the stock. The cut was another reflection of the EU Commission blindly following the MSY rainbow, whilst ignoring the wider impacts and consequences for both fishing communities and the fishery as a whole. There were less dramatic catch options that were available to the Commission, which were consistent with the MSY approach, but these were not taken – or even considered. Everything was staked on the arbitrary timetable which the EU set for itself. The consequences of this one-dimensional approach are now playing out. You can access a full list of TACs for 2020 here.  Celtic Sea Cod Like at many of the previous Fisheries Councils, the UK found itself isolated and fighting through the night to resist the Commission’s hard-line proposals on both the TAC and its desire to implement additional technical measures. The Commission deliberately ignored the fact that cod represents much less than 1% of catches in all the diverse fisheries in the South West. It is only caught as an unavoidable by-catch when targeting other species. The Commission’s proposals, combined with the EU landing obligation, raised the very real prospect of a choke* which would have tied the South West Fleets up early in the year, foregoing a substantial part of the main fisheries for other species. This is a massively disproportionate and a wrong approach to mixed fisheries management – but it was pursued anyway under its self-imposed legal constraints and pressure from NGOs. Whilst the scientists calculated the unavoidable by-catch of cod to be around 1300 tonnes, after the application of the UK’s Relative Stability share, deductions for a solidarity pool to sustain countries like Spain (who have zero cod quota) and The Hague Preference invoked by Ireland, the Commission’s proposals would have left the UK with a risible share of 8 tonnes. Scientists said that this level of TAC was nonsensical; fishermen were clear about the fact that it was unworkable; ministers said it was “challenging”; but the Commission said they had to do it legally: and NGOs just chanted their familiar mantra of MSY in one year with zero concern for fleets and communities. This is nonsense and the sooner we are out of this mad system the better. We need responsive and adaptive science-based fisheries management, not dogma disguised as concern. Throughout this year’s quota round, the Commission claimed that its hands were tied by the advice of its legal services and that it was legislatively bound to apply the Western Waters Multi Annual Plan (MAP), which holds that cod is a target species, leaving close to zero room for fisheries management. This is the central failing of the Common Fisheries Policy. Even when the rules are demonstrably leading us in the wrong direction, there is no way of rapidly adjusting the policy to make sense. In the end, the Commission was forced to move on the cod quota level to a still problematic 800 tonnes but for the UK a cut of over 50% is still likely to be way below unavoidable by-catch levels. In addition, the Commission also sought to introduce a series of blunt technical measures which, if accepted would have decimated the trawl fleets in the south-west. The UK team, including CEFAS, worked to amend and change this approach. Ultimately, some ground was gained but the final agreed wording of article 13, which introduces new technical measures for some trawlers is reproduced below. It will take a bit of digesting, but this is undoubtedly likely to cause significant and unnecessary problems and challenges for many south-west trawlers. Of that, there can be no doubt. More information here.  “Article 13 Remedial measures for cod and whiting in the Celtic Sea 1.     The following measures shall apply to Union vessels fishing with bottom trawls and seines in ICES divisions from 7f, 7g, the part of 7h North of latitude 49°30' North and the part of 7j North of latitude 49°30' North and East of longitude 11° West: a)       Union vessels fishing with bottom trawls whose catches consist of at least 20% haddock shall be prohibited from fishing in the area referred to in paragraph 1 unless they use one of the following gear options: 110 mm cod-end with 120 mm squared mesh panel; 100 mm T90 cod-end; 120mm cod-end; 100mm with 160mm square mesh panel until 31 May 2020. b)       As from 1 June 2020, in addition to measures mentioned in point (a), Union vessels shall use:           (a) a fishing gear that is constructed with a minimum of 1 meter spacing between the fishing line and ground gear,     or (b) any dispositive proven to be at least equally selective for the avoidance of cod, according to the assessment of ICES or the STECF. c)       Union vessels fishing with bottom seines whose catches consist of at least 20% haddock shall be prohibited from fishing in the area referred to in paragraph 1 unless they use one of the following gear options: 110 mm cod-end with 120 mm square mesh panel; 100 mm T90 cod-end 120mm cod-end 2.     Except vessels falling under Article 9(2) of the  Delegated Regulation  2020/xxx  (discard plan for the north western waters), Union vessels fishing with bottom trawls and seines in ICES divisions from 7f to 7k and in the area west of 5°W longitude in ICES division 7e, or Union vessels fishing with bottom trawls in the area of paragraph 1 whose catches consist of less than 20% haddock, shall be prohibited from fishing unless they use a minimum cod-end mesh size of at least 100mm. This minimum cod-end mesh size requirement does not apply to vessels whose bycatches of cod do not exceed 1,5%, as assessed by STECF. 3.     According to Article 15 of (EU) Regulation 1380/2013 and Article 27, paragraph 2, of  Regulation (EU) 2019/2141, the catch percentages shall be calculated as the proportion by live weight of all marine biological resources landed after each fishing trip. 4.     Union vessels may deploy an alternative highly selective gear to those listed in points a) and b) of paragraph 1, the technical attributes of which result, according to a scientific study evaluated by the STECF, catch less than 1% of cod.” Throughout the whole of this year, CFPO members have worked with scientists and fisheries administrators to develop a balanced approach to gear selectivity. These approaches would make a serious contribution to rebuilding steadily, whilst simultaneously protecting, the viability of local fleets. The complicated and unsatisfactory outcome agreed by the Council presents a massive challenge for our prospects as an industry next year and for future cooperation on progressive management measures. This is especially disappointing given the work and time put in by fishermen and CEFAS throughout the year to put forward credible alternatives. Commission officials again claimed that their hands were tied by CFP legislation, but in reality, their approach displayed an astonishing ignorance when it comes to the diversity of mixed trawl fisheries and existing selectivity at a fleet level. We can only hope that Brexit will provide us with us an opportunity to introduce better, more selective, more sustainable measures that have a positive effect on fish stocks, fishermen and fisheries. Haddock A welcome increase of 30% was secured, but this should be viewed in the context of ICES MSY advice, allowing for catch levels corresponding to a 100% increase in this TAC. The justification for holding down the level of haddock TAC was that it would be part of a workable compromise involving cod and whiting TAC levels in the mixed fisheries advice. This was not the case in the final outcomes. Whiting A significant cut of 44% in this TAC will bring it into the category of choke risk in the mixed fisheries in the South West. Sole There were some positive outcomes for these important South-West flat fish quotas: 7e sole quota continues to improve with a 19% increase reflecting the health of this stock. 7fg improving stock health was reflected in an increase of 96% from the initial 2019 TAC (an in-year increase during 2019 was made available following positive stock assessment advice.)  There was less positive news on 7hjk sole with the Commission’s original proposal of a 44% reduction in relation to the 2018 quota being reduced in severity but not eliminated as we had hoped. Our objective of roll-over was missed and a reduction of 14% was finally agreed. Ray  A rollover of the 2019 quota was a reflection of stable catches experienced by fishermen and was welcomed. The prohibition on landing common skate and restrictions on small-eyed ray landings remain in place and continue to be a frustration that once again was not addressed. Bass Some recognition of improving stock status was reflected in the final agreement: Hand-line limits were increased to 5.7 tonnes per vessel per year. Gillnet by-catch limits remained at 1.4 tonnes per vessel per year. However, the final agreement did take on board, in part, the strong and credible arguments put forward by South-West fishermen to alleviate the pointless discarding of dead bass in the ultra-mixed trawl fisheries in the South-West. The 1% by-catch provision was increased to 5% per trip for 2020. It is not ideal but nonetheless a move in the right direction. It might be reduced but will not eliminate the continued unnecessary discarding of unavoidable dead by-catch of bass, with zero effect on the mortality of bass in these fisheries. A summary list of TAC changes for South West Stocks is provided below: Cod 7e-k                 -50% Haddock                  +30% Whiting 7e-k            -44% Monk 7                    +7% Megrim 7                 +3% Hake 6/7                 -21% Pollack 7                 roll-over Saithe 7                   roll-over Ling 6/7                  roll-over Sole 7fg                  +96%* Sole 7hjk                 -14% Sole 7e                    +19% Plaice 7fg                +23% Plaice 7hjk               -42% Plaice 7de               -12% Rays 6/7                  roll-over *on 2019 initial allocation Click here to see the full summary of TAC agreements from the December 2019 negotiations.

Looking Ahead

2020  - Another Challenging Year Ahead Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your efforts and contributions over the last 12 months. Together, we have tackled a wide range of issues and challenges. I genuinely believe the CFPO continues to be regarded at the highest level and one of the most credible, progressive and effective fishing organisations in the UK, and that is only possible because of you. For many, it has been a reasonable year but when you factor in quota shortages, ever-increasing running costs, current regulations and the uncertainty of what new madness Brussels or Westminster will come up with next, it has also been stressful and tough for many. There are plenty of big issues, some concerning and some positive, facing the fishing industry in the coming year. There will be many diverse challenges that impact CFPO members such as bass management, inshore fisheries management, shellfish management (particularly the Western Waters regime), and many others.  We will be endeavouring to vigorously defend the interest of all of our members. The CFPO is your organisation and any concerns, views or experiences you have are welcomed at any time and appreciated by us. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a Happy Christmas and hopefully a prosperous new year from all at the CFPO. Paul Trebilcock

Fathom Podcast

Have you heard about our new podcast for commercial fishermen? Episode 3 of Fathom, which is going live tomorrow, gets below the surface of this year's December Council negotiations. The Fathom Team de-mystify the process behind TAC & quota allocations, quiz key players and announce the outcomes of the discussions.  Click here to listen online or subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and all other major podcast platforms. You can also listen on the CFPO website.

The Landings Obligation – No Simple Answers

Jerry Percy, stalwart of the Under10m sector which makes up the majority of the UK fishing industry in terms of skippers, crews and vessels submitted his careful thoughts on the thorny subject of the Landing Obligation which was introduced in full at the start of 2019.

On Monday, 2 December 2019, the PECH (Fisheries) Committee of the European Parliament organized a public hearing on State of play of the Landing Obligation: challenges and best practices .

During the previous session of the Parliament, just over 18 months ago on May 14 2018, the PECH Committee organized a similar hearing entitled: “Landing Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries”. In summing up, the then Chair of the PECH Committee, Mr Alain Cadec, commented: “…the diagnosis is very clear: uncertainty, difficulty, complexity…”. Plus ça change… 

A key element of the 2013 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of 2013 is the gradual elimination of the practice of discarding through the introduction an obligation to land all catches. The landing obligation (LO) is supposed to have been phased in since 2015 through to 2019 for all commercial fisheries (species under TACs, or under minimum sizes) in European waters and for European vessels fishing in the high seas.

However, a thread running through the presentations of all the speakers at this hearing was that, at Member State level, the LO is not being implemented effectively. Former fisherman Jerry Percy, LIFE’s Senior Advisor and Director of the NUTFA (New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association of the UK) was one of the speakers. His presentation is available here, and drawing on his experience in the UK, he has penned the piece below for LIFE.

The LO: designed for trawlers, not fit for purpose for small scale low impact fishing

It is abundantly clear that the Landings Obligation [LO] was written very much with larger scale mobile gears in mind. Just one illustration of this concentration of interest is underlined by the massive difference between discard related studies done with regard to larger and smaller scale sectors respectively, 3760 on large scale v 164 on small scale. This does make the requirements of the LO clearly inappropriate and therefore not fit for purpose with regard to the small scale fleet, especially as circa 80% of whom use passive rather than mobile gears.

The combination of a relatively low impact on stocks due to both vessel size and the resultant lack of fishing power, combined with their use of passive gears, many of which produce a live catch that can be returned unharmed to the water does provide a strong argument against tarring them with the same brush as the larger scale sector. Furthermore, the small scale sector should in fact be recognized and rewarded for this lower impact and lack of discards via the provision of additional fishing opportunities best delivered via Article 17 of the CFP. This states that “Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage.”

The strategy to deter fishers from discarding, and the LO, need a rethink

Fishermen are fishermen and no fisherman gets out of bed and decides that he doesn’t want to catch much fish today. Our raison d’etre is to catch fish, lots of fish, and we have become very good at it and because we have become very good at it, we inevitably need systems in place to deter us from catching too much.

At the same time, there remains a commitment by member states to deal with the discard issue and it is still a live element with both eNGO’s and the public so as an industry we cannot simply ignore it, it’s not going to go away anytime soon.

The current failures of the LO are largely down to two major factors.

Firstly, that there has been precious little genuine monitoring or enforcement of the LO since its inception. This is exemplified by a recent comment from an official at the UK’s Marine Management organization (MMO) that 2018/19 was seen as an ‘education’ rather than an enforcement phase. Furthermore, despite the LO being in place for the Baltic since 2015, it is common knowledge, including within the member states concerned that discards continue to run at over 50% for some species. On this basis and with very little real time monitoring or enforcement of discards it is hardly surprising that fishermen continue to dump fish.

Both carrots and sticks are required to encourage a change in culture

Secondly, it is equally clear that there has been much excellent work done to improve the selectivity of mobile gears in the last few years and discards in general have reduced significantly for many fisheries. The fact remains however that discarding is still extant within the mobile sector, there is a legal requirement in place that makes discarding illegal [whether we like it or not] and both carrots and sticks are necessary to encourage and support fishermen to change their culture as well as their fishing gears if discarding is to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Among the number of ‘elephants in the room’ referred to by various speakers at the recent hearing at the European Parliament on the subject, one that was not mentioned specifically was the fact that mobile gears are not inherently selective in the same way as passive gears, hence the seemingly insurmountable challenge of making them substantially selective.

It is also a fact that the leading gear technology expert certainly in the UK and probably the EU stated recently that his challenge was not only to develop more selective gears but it was an equal struggle to persuade fishermen to actually use them. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the more selective gears inevitably lose some of the target species when trying to avoid other fish, hence the reluctance of some mobile gear operators to change their ways but change their ways they must to avoid breaking the law and also to avoid going bankrupt through being stopped from fishing in a choke species scenario [bearing in mind not only the zero catch quotas for 2019 for some species in some areas also but the parlous state of North Sea Cod that is shaping up to be a potentially major choke species for many vessels].

Some proposals

[1]: at the present time, cameras [REM] are the only reliable way of monitoring discards aboard fishing vessels. It is certain that technology will improve with time, but currently, cameras are the most cost effective and proven option. 

[2]: All mobile gear vessels over a certain length [12 metres? / 15 metres?] as well as the larger passive netting vessels should be required to have cameras and perhaps other REM fitted, paid for via EMFF and its successors [as well as perhaps via any financial penalties incurred through overfishing].

[3]: As is currently the case, uplifts in quota should continue to be awarded to vessels to compensate to some extent for no longer being able to discard.

[4]: ALL fish caught must be landed

[5]: ALL fish suitable for human consumption should be sold for human consumption [only those species caught specifically for fishmeal are excluded – but still obviously count against quotas AND require cameras on the vessels concerned]

[6]: Fishermen are not penalized via their quota holdings for over quota landings [it is counter productive to reduce quota following a transgression that in turns means that the fisherman is further restricted on next trip and so on]. NB; the current inability of the under ten sector in the UK to be able to cross book [swap] quotas is a serious impediment to quota and catch flexibilities currently only available to the over ten PO sector [despite having an officially recognized Coastal PO for the under tens]. In the light of the LO, this is an absolutely vital component within this aspect of the initiative.

[7]: a sliding scale is introduced relating to the penalty for landing fish in excess of the vessel quota. Firstly, the value of the over quota landing is immediately subtracted from the overall landed value of the trip and secondly, a sliding scale of penalty directly related to the weight [or a percentage of the landing] is imposed. The initial suggestion is for the penalty to equal the value of the over quota element of the landing [ie, landing £1000 over quota results in £2000 overall penalty] but consideration should be given to a sliding scale, perhaps based on the premise that the more you land over quota, the higher the penalty, thus ensuring that a landing does continue to provide an income irrespective of size of vessel but is at the same time reduced and penalizes those who have a greater impact through catching fish in excess of their quota. The bigger the over quota landing, the bigger the penalty.

The basic premise being that the fisherman does not benefit financially from landing these fish and increasingly is penalized for doing so, especially if he repeats the overfishing whereby financial penalties should increase.

We recognize that not penalizing fishermen in quota terms for landing over quota fish goes against fisheries management logic but history suggests that this is in fact counter productive as the resultant reductions in access to quota generates a downward spiral as less quota equals more ‘discards’ and simply doesn’t work. The suggestion above recognizes that there will be an element of over quota landings initially but the penalties, especially if they are based on a progressive sliding scale, will provide more than enough encouragement for fishermen to avoid ‘discards’ very quickly. [at the same time, a backstop could be introduced based on a reduction in a vessel’s quota allocation to ensure no overall abuse of the system in the event of very significant or continuing over quota landings, perhaps aimed at the quota uplift element].

The approach outlined above also solves the problems highlighted by many commentators, namely that there will be no need to separate the catch on board, there will be no additional work required by the crew, no danger of cross contamination, no need to carry extra boxes and an overall improvement in safety over the present model. At the same time, there will no need for additional resources on land in terms of systems to deal with landings not destined for human consumption and no opportunities for illegal activities centred around the misuse of this element of landings.

In conclusion

No fishermen likes to consider, let alone promote a form of penalty for the process of fishing but our concern is that unless the industry comes up with some ideas then officialdom surely will. Although there will undoubtedly need to be alterations to the basic initiative set out here especially with regard to the percentage penalties, the potential sliding scales mentioned and a backstop, we consider that the basic premise is sound and that the current approach to the LO is simply unsustainable and we urgently need to find a practical alternative to avoid either bankrupting fishermen or forcing them into illegal activities.

11th of December 2019

Jeremy Percy

Beam trawlers entering Newlyn in a sou'easterly gale at night.

All in a night's work, what it takes to to bring fish to your plate - the beam trawler Lisa Jacqueline followed by the Twilight III  in through the gaps in a sou'easterly gale...

to supply quality fish like these John Dory and red mullet...

brill...

big tub gurnard...

turbot...

all fought over on one of the last fish markets for 2019 by the local buyers with customers desperate to fill their fish counters and menus...

there's plenty of variety of rays...

the ever-present haddock...

and the fish that Newlyn is now synonymous with...

MSC Certified hake...

Newlyn still maintains many local customs in defiance of regulations, elsewhere these fish would be just be labelled smoothounds...

there's bass of course...

and always those three top flats, megrims, lemons and Dover soles...

plenty of octopus...

and monk tails...

and a few of those brightly spotted plaice...

but for many in the fleet the Christmas break has arrived early, though all the port's big crabbers will be out fishing today.

2020 fishing opportunities in the Atlantic, North and the Mediterranean Seas: Council secures agreement

The Fisheries Council closed off its annual quota allocation talks in the early hours of this morning - and the biggest cut was for North Sea cod, down by almost 50%. The full FC press statement is available here:

2019 Quota allocation talks finished in the early hours.

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council reached today a political agreement on a regulation concerning the 2020 catch limits for the main commercial fish stocks in the Atlantic, the North Sea and international fisheries in which EU vessels participate.

The quota-setting exercise is never easy and this year it took us several hours of negotiations to get to an agreement. But I am glad to announce that it is a balanced one that reconciles all the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy - environmental and socio-economic sustainability - to the benefit of the fish stocks, fishing sector and the EU citizens at large.

Details of the agreement

With today's agreement the Council restated its strong commitment to the objective of the CFP - environmental, economic and social sustainability - the provisions of the multiannual management plans currently in force, and the best available scientific advice.

In light of the difficulties faced by EU fishermen in relation to mixed fisheries in certain areas and the risk of choke species, the Council decided to continue for one year the previously agreed pool mechanism for quota exchanges. Choke species are those that have a low quota that, when exhausted, can cause a vessel to stop fishing even if it still has quota for other species.

In order to address the difficult situation of cod and whiting stocks in the Celtic Sea and cod in Kattegat, the Council decided to introduce remedial measures with the aim of improving the selectivity of fishing gears and reducing bycatches.

Concerning seabass, it was decided to slightly increase the by-catch levels in the Northern areas and grant additional flexibility in their management. The bag limit for seabass recreational fisheries was set to two specimen per fisherman per day under certain conditions, and only from 1 March to 30 November 2020 for Northern seabass.

Background

The Council agreement largely confirmed the initial Commission proposal, which established fishing opportunities in the form of yearly total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas by fish stocks in the different fishing zones. TACs and quotas concern stocks that the EU manages either autonomously or jointly with third countries, for instance with Norway in the North Sea and the Skagerrak, or through agreements reached in the framework of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs).

Based on the scientific advice provided by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES), the Commission had proposed for 2020 to:

• increase or keep current catch limits for 32 stocks,
• reduce it for 40 stocks.

One of the main objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to ensure high long-term fishing yields (maximum sustainable yield) by 2020 at the latest. In December 2018, 59 stocks were already fished at MSY levels.

Together with MSY, another milestone of the reformed CFP is to reduce unwanted catches through the landing obligation (i.e. the prohibition to discard certain stocks at sea) which entered into full application as from 1 January 2019 for all stocks under catch limits.

The setting of TACs and quotas is an annual management exercise decided upon by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) of the TFEU.

Next steps

This item will be included, following finalisation by the legal/linguistic experts, in part "A" of the agenda for adoption by a forthcoming Council meeting.

Mid-week market in Newlyn

Inshore boats made most of the landings this morning with signs...

 there are still good shots of ray to be had...

along with a few John Dory...

while the handliners working close inshore managed to pick up good shots of pollack...

bass...

and mackerel...

others found some old backing ropes...

with fish in short supply prices are sky-high...

though the forecast is giving up to 70mph gusts later today...

which is why only the big beam trawlers and the Crystal Sea are still at sea fishing.

This Fishing Life on BBC2 in the New Year!

Starting in the first week of the New Year - six one hour programmes on BBC 2 documenting the lives of fishing communities around Cornwall.

Filming began in fishing communities across Cornwall last March and continued until December.

Whilst other fishing communities are feeling the pinch, Mevagissey on Cornwall’s south coast bucks the trend, with 74 working boats in the harbour.

Protected from the prevailing winds, with fish stocks that are beginning to return, and with boats being handed down from father to son. Meva is blessed.

Fishing is in the blood here - for more than 250 years the men of Meva have followed their fathers to sea, eager to honour the family traditions. Now the next generation of ambitious young skippers are ready to make a go of it.

Jack West fished with his dad growing up, and the family have decided the time is right to invest in Jack. Having spent thousands on the Anne Louise, the pressure is on to get out to sea and start earning some money.

The Galwady Mor is owned by one of Mevagissey’s most successful fishing families, the Blameys.

27-year-old Chris is the 4th generation to go to sea. This year he takes over the responsibility of skippering the Galwady from his father Peter. The passing down of a lifetime’s knowledge is priceless, but Chris knows he will face different challenges to his dad. Whilst fish stocks are returning to Meva, there is not the abundance there once was.

Mevagissey is a village built on fish - pilchards in particular. Once, everyone was after them. Now tourism is the main industry. The village is dominated by second homes and holiday lets, and the place is all but empty in winter.

One of the impacts has been on crew. With local housing pricing young men out, and a steady income – not something associated with fishing - needed to get a mortgage, there aren’t the young men lining up on the quay any more.

Valhalla taking ice in Newlyn

Dave Warwick on the Valhalla is one of the skippers looking for crew, and has to take the risk of skippering his boat solo until he can find some. He is limited to working the well-fished inshore waters until he can find men made of the right stuff.

Meanwhile, Malcolm Saunders is winding down after a long career at sea. Malcolm grew up when fish stocks were plentiful and he got his fill – and made a lot of money. But with the toll a lifetime away at sea took on his family, he is not sure he made the right decisions, and wonders whether the next generation of skippers will learn from his mistakes.

Episode 1 Cornwall: This Fishing Life Series 1 Episode 1 of 6