The British dialogue on why fishing should not be subject to a transitional period.

As good a piece of writing on the subject of UK fishing rights with regard to the 'transition period' as I have read anywhere:

The possible approach of a transitory period in the fishing sector during the "brexit" has opened the box of thunder in the United Kingdom. The fishery organization NFFO has published a decalogue of reasons why fishing should not be "artificially" linked to a transition agreement with the EU on trade. The organization wants the fishing to be released, automatically, from the claws of the European 

Union and considers it a key point for the United Kingdom to conform as an independent state. NFFO does not want fishing to enter the transition period, even if it is part of a long-term commercial negotiation agreement. To do this, remember that the United Kingdom is already moving within the limits established by the UN Law of the Sea.

"Fisheries jurisdiction, access rights and quotas should be treated separately from trade agreements" and in this regard, it gives as an example to Norway that "it maintains access to the EU's single market under specific agreements agreed but manages the fisheries within its own EEZ and enters into annual agreements on shared management actions and exchange of quotas as an independent coastal state. "

If the United Kingdom accepts that fishing forms part of a transition period of 21 months under the terms specified by the EU (current access and quota status), it will be because again, as in 1973, it decided that "fishing is dispensable " and that other commercial matters have priority, despite their new legal status as an independent coastal state.

Once the principle of transition of "status quo" on shared quotas and access has been granted, it is obviously obvious that the EU "will use the same tactics and leverage when the United Kingdom tries to negotiate a long-term trade agreement with the EU. EU Fishing will once again be a sacrificial pawn, regardless of its legal status as an independent coastal state. "

It is clear that by the time the United Kingdom leaves the EU, that is, by March 2019, the ministers and officials of the United Kingdom will no longer take part in the decisions of any European institution, including those establishing quotas and other rules on fisheries. "It is an extreme understatement to say that it would be completely detrimental to the interests of the UK fishing industry to link ourselves to fisheries management decisions in which the UK is a legislator."

After the UK leaves the EU, the EU EEZ will account for less than 20% of the North Sea and around 50% of the western waters. Under those circumstances, why would the United Kingdom subject itself to intrusive control or restrictions on its ability to negotiate freely as an independent coastal state, either as part of a transition period or as a longer-term trade agreement?

As an independent coastal state, the UK is expected to take its place in international fisheries negotiations, including those with Norway, other coastal states and the EU. Even the European Commission recognizes that separate and personalized agreements will be required to include the EU in the decisions when establishing the TACs in the annual end-of-year negotiations. "There is no legal, or fisheries management, reason why the UK should accept any prior condition or artificial restriction on its right to negotiate the best possible agreement, including access agreements and quotas."

"As of autumn 2019, the United Kingdom will negotiate with those countries with which it shares stocks, annually, as an independent coastal state, without preconditions or artificial restrictions." The United Kingdom is limited by the United Nations Law of the Sea, to act responsibly and fairly towards those countries with which it shares actions.

Of course, it is understood that the 27 Member States have just outlined their list of petitions, in terms of a transition period and that the negotiations have not yet started. But what they are asking must be understood: despite the new status of the United Kingdom as an independent coastal state, it is the continuation of an asymmetric and exploitative agreement with the United Kingdom, which covers a large part of the population of the United Kingdom, as well as the fishing industry. It is extremely unfair and a distortion of a relationship that should bring reciprocal benefits. A 4: 1 ratio of the value of fish caught by EU fleets in UK waters compared to the value of fish caught by UK vessels in EU waters does not represent reciprocity, it is exploitation.

With regard to fisheries management, it is possible to advance smoothly and smoothly in a pattern of annual international agreements (bilateral or trilateral) with the countries with which we share stocks, to replace the decision-making processes of the CFP . That is what should happen and the transitional provisions should apply only to the commercial regime. There is only one reason why the EU will oppose such a pragmatic solution and that the EU benefits from current asymmetric agreements and tries to find ways to maintain them. If the United Kingdom really wants to move towards an independent coastal state, there is no advantage to postponing that decision.

The fisheries jurisdiction and fisheries negotiations were artificially and cynically linked in the CFP in 1973 with the systematic and lasting disadvantage for the United Kingdom. It is not strange that the EU 27 would like to continue this exploitation relationship because it works to a large extent in their favor. There is a unique opportunity to take a different and better path, and there is a great responsibility on the government not to drop the ball at this crucial point in history.

The Scots do not want transition either

The Scottish sector, through the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF), on the other hand, has celebrated the words of the British Secretary of Environment, Michael Gove, who this weekend in various English media has rejected the possibility that British fishing will benefit from a period of transition - as Brussels has proposed - after March 2019. SFF's executive director, Bertie Armstrong, indicated that "to become a coastal state from the first day in order to negotiate the best deal could make a real economic difference for our coastal communities. "" There is a sea of ​​opportunities that exists when leaving the PPC, but it can only work if we go out the first day, there is no other way, "he says.



Below, is the piece mentioned above from Dale Rodmell writing for the NFFO:

"Responsive decision-making with industry centrally involved in management is key to an effective post-Brexit fisheries regime", argues Dale Rodmell.

The UK's departure from the EU and therefore the Common Fisheries Policy, will mean that the UK will, from March 2019, operate as an independent coastal state. Although shared stocks will continue to be managed cooperatively, this change will provide a range of possibilities for a customised and tailored management regime for our fishing fleets. It makes sense to start thinking about what that will look like, now.

One of the reasons that the CFP took the fishing industry down so many blind alleys over 40 years, including encouraging large-scale discarding, has been its top-down, command and control, approach and cumbersome decision-making procedures.

As we move out of the era of the CFP and enter a new era as an independent coastal state, it will be important to learn the lessons of the CFP and to avoid the more obvious pitfalls.

Management Objectives

It is right to have high ambitions for our fisheries. We should aim for high long-term average yields of commercial species. That provides employment and economic benefits as well as high protein food on the table. We should also ensure adequate protection for vulnerable species and habitats.

In fact, there is rarely very much difference between the fishing industry and environmentalists on high level objectives. It is at the implementation level where the problems arise. The current CFP illustrates this, which at its core confuses objectives with instruments, and lacks coherence between quota-setting rules, the landing obligation, technical conservation rules and approaches to control and enforcement. It also refuses to recognise that there must be inevitable trade-offs between different objectives. The result is growing levels of dysfunctionality that with the arrival of the EU landing obligation and the associated problem of chokes, now threatens to tie fleets up early in the year. It all adds up to a serious mess.

In developing our own alternative approach to fisheries management, what are the principles that we should follow? Here are my thoughts:

A Responsive System

Fisheries management is prone to unintended consequences. We have certainly learnt that over recent decades. We should therefore in future ensure that we are able to change course quickly in order to adapt to dynamic circumstances or after it is recognised that we have taken a wrong turning. We should certainly not follow the CFP into an unwieldy decision-making system.

Parliament should set the broad principles and overall direction. It should not involve itself in technical areas in which it lacks expertise. A system which as far as possible avoids prescriptive micro-management and instead devolves technical decisions to the participants in each fishery has to be the ideal. The trade-off is that the participants must demonstrate that they are delivering the desired objective. This is called results-based management. This should be the guiding principle behind our future management systems.

Cooperation

The most successful fisheries management regimes, worldwide, have at their heart a close working relationship between fisheries managers and those working in each fishery. Trust and confidence follow when it is clear that managers and fishers are both pursuing the same objectives. Sharing information in a highly dynamic industry requires dialogue. We should be thinking now about how our institutions can take the best from the CFP and leave the worst behind. The advisory councils have been recognised as representing a huge step away from a top-down command and control model and we should now think about what advisory structures should be embedded within our own systems, post-Brexit.

Collective Accountability

Where possible we should aspire to go beyond dialogue and advice to delegate management responsibilities to the lowest practical level. Producer Organisations are widely recognised to provide a highly successful model of devolved collective responsibility in the areas of quota management and marketing. With their finger on the pulse at regional and port level, POs have a flexibility and local knowledge which governments could never achieve. The key is collective responsibility and accountability. We should look for opportunities to extend this decentralised model.

Incentives Should Support Management Objectives

Much can also be achieved by creating the right incentives for individual fishing businesses. A steady flow of data and information, reduction of unwanted bycatch or other environmental impacts, can all be shaped by creating the right form of incentive structures. Enabling compliance should be the primary objective of the fisheries regulator and in the long term this will be much more effective than an exclusive focus on catching out the unwary in a web of top-down complexity.

What Not To Do

I have tried above to sketch out what a modern, effective, dynamic, post-Brexit management regime might look like.

The ingredients for a fisheries management dystopia that have stymied the CFP are sadly being promoted by some environmental NGOs, including WWF, which should really know better. Blanket CCTV, recently advocated by the NGO, goes hand in hand with a top-down big-brother mentality that should really have no place in modern fisheries management. Various kinds of remote sensing will certainly have their place in fisheries management in the future – but only where it makes sense as part of a voluntary means for vessel operators to demonstrate its practices, as part of a system of incentives and audits.

We have seen in the CFP, that in the final analysis, top-down prescription doesn't work. Even with big-brother on board it will not work. What in my view will work, is clever management measures designed and implemented with the industry's involvement and cooperation, which follow the grain of fishery profitability, not run against it. The principles of good governance should be the standard against which we should measure our future fisheries management arrangements, because in the final analysis, good governance is effective governance.


POST-BREXIT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
POSTED ON 05/12/17 BY DALE RODMELL

Brexit - The bigger battle begins!

Cabinet clashes over when Britain should ‘take back control’ of fishing from EU 

A Cabinet split has opened over whether Britain should try to break with European Union rules on fishing during the post-Brexit transitional period. 

Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, is leading calls for the UK to pull out of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in March 2019 to enable it to set its own rules over fishing quotas. “For some, setting our own fishing quotas is a totemic issue and insist that has to be an early priority for the Prime Minister”

Other ministers, including Chancellor Philip Hammond, are arguing that Britain should not use up capital in forthcoming negotiations with Brussels to try to carve out a special deal for the fishing industry. Theresa May is under pressure from both sides of the argument as she prepares for talks over the details of the transitional period which follows Brexit. 

Early sticking-point:

The subject of fishing quotas threatens to be an early sticking-point in Brexit negotiations amid early signals that the EU will refuse to compromise on the issue. Mr Gove has called for the UK to “take back control” of its waters early on the grounds that otherwise it would be bound by CFP quotas without having any influence on them. He is being backed by some pro-Remain ministers but is being opposed by the Chancellor. 

Mrs May has hinted that she favours an early departure from the fisheries policy, but Cabinet sources told i that she had not yet settled on her approach to the issue despite being discussed several times by ministers. “There is quite a difference of opinion. 

For some, setting our own fishing quotas is a totemic issue and insist that has to be an early priority for the Prime Minister,” one minister said. “Others say that fishing makes up just one percent of our [gross domestic product] and shouldn’t get special treatment. They say that if we make a special case for fishing, what’s to stop other sectors asking for special treatment?” 

Strength of feeling 

Senior Tories have warned her of the strength of feeling on the subject across Scotland, where the decision to sign up to the CFP upon joining the Common Market in 1973 cost thousands of jobs. Mr Gove, the son of an Aberdeen fish merchant,  said during the referendum campaign that his father’s firm “went to the wall” because of EU fisheries policies. 

The fishing minister, George Eustice, a strong pro-Brexiteer, has said the current system of quotas is unfair, allowing other EU countries to catch a disproportionate amount of fish in UK waters. He has raised the prospect of Britain striking new “reciprocal” arrangements with other EU countries upon departure from the bloc. 

Brexit flash-point 

Fishing policy became a flashpoint in the Brexit campaign, culminating in former Ukip leader Nigel Farage leading a flotilla of fishing boats up the Thames to urge Parliament take back control of British waters. It was met by a rival fleet led by rock star Bob Geldof. An SNP spokesman said: “The Tory in-fighting over Brexit seems endless. Fishing communities and businesses will feel utterly confused and let down by this incompetence. “Livelihoods in these communities are too important to become political games and rows between different factions of The Tory party.”

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/cabinet-clashes-britain-take-back-control-fishing-eu/

Today the NNFO published its response to the EU Commission's Brexit position published this week:

First, read the EU's Brexit position here:

NFFO:

"As an opening position, in advance of the negotiations that will take place over the next 10 months, there are few surprises. Before Christmas, the Commission signalled that it would not be fighting to retain formal jurisdiction over UK waters. That is a realistic recognition of the UK’s new legal status, under the UN Law of the Sea, after the UK concludes the process of leaving the EU. However, in this new position statement, the Commission signals that it will insist on the status quo for quota shares and access arrangements, at least during any transition or implementation period; and will also press for the UK to be tied umbilically to the CFP for the foreseeable future. For the most part, the UK would become a rule-taker, rather than a participant in the rule-making process and most certainly the UK’s status would certainly not reflect the proportion of fisheries resources in its waters. The Commission intends to use trade as the lever to secure these objectives.

The principles of equal access and relative stability have worked very well for the EU fleets - and to the systematic disadvantage of the UK for over forty years - by comparison with the deal that would have been available to us as an independent coastal state. It is no surprise that the EU will try to cling on to this state of affairs for as long as possible. This new document provides an indication of how they will try to achieve this.

Direct Conflict

The Commission’s position brings the EU into direct conflict with the aspirations of the UK fishing industry, which see the UK’s new legal status after March 2019, as a stepping stone to the normal advantages that accompany the status of an independent coastal state: quota shares that broadly reflect the resources in its EEZ; access arrangements for non-UK vessels only when there is a balancing benefit for the UK; and the ability to determine the shape of the management system to which the UK fleet is subject.

The Commission’s plan is to block any shift in this direction by insisting that access to the EU market, on anything other than WTO rules, would not be available, unless the UK sacrifices its fishing industry, which would continue to be subject to the whole body of EU rules past, present and future.

Clearly, the Commission’s plan for the future relationship between the EU and UK on fisheries is to try to keep the UK tied into an asymmetric, essentially exploitative relationship, with the EU as the dominant party, dictating the all the terms. This approach would not be acceptable in West Africa. Why would it be acceptable here? The UK would have to be bent self-harm to accept such a deal. After Brexit, the EU will control only around 20% of the sea area in the North Sea and in Western Waters about 50%. How could it be fair, realistic, or rational to expect the UK to accept such terms?

So, there are no surprises in the Commission’s stance. It is an opening negotiating position and it is to be expected that opening statement in negotiations present unachievable, maximalist, positions. We have every reason to expect that our ministers will stoutly resist. It would not just be the fishing industry that would punish the government electorally for leading it to expect a better future, only to have the promise snatched away and replaced with bitter frustration. Anything that looks like tying the UK into the present arrangements in the form of a CFP-lite, would be denounced by the fishing industry and its allies as an unacceptable betrayal - because it would be an unacceptable betrayal.

There is an expectation across the fishing industry that we will see a significant step forward on day one as we leave the EU, with a clear step-wise plan to take us to enjoy the full fruits of our status as an independent coastal state.

Against this background, the NFFO Executive Committee, which met recently in York, has reaffirmed its objectives as the UK leaves the EU.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“As we enter this next crucial phase in the withdrawal negotiations, there is much speculation on what the implementation/transition phase will mean and, as is usual with these kind of talks, postures are being struck in advance.

Our Executive Committee thought it important to restate our Brexit objectives and to make clear that it is against these that any deal will be judged by the UK fishing industry.

Our objectives are:

1 That the UK should, from the point of departure from the EU, have the status of an independent coastal state, with jurisdiction over the fisheries within its Exclusive Economic Zone; along with an independent seat at the table when decisions on fisheries on shared stocks are made.

2 That the UK’s quotas of shared stocks should broadly reflect the resources that are located within UK water

3 That a 12mile exclusive limit should apply to safeguard to provide adequate protection for our coastal fisheries 

4 That access for non-UK vessels to fish within the UK EEZ should be subject to negotiation and should bring balancing benefits to the UK 

5 That there should be scope and flexibility for the UK to shape and tailor its domestic fisheries management arrangements to fit with its own fleets 

6 That the UK should seek as unimpeded access to EU markets as possible

“These are our objectives and it is against these that progress will be measured and judged as we enter this next phase in the negotiations. We think that it is positive that the Commission’s negotiating position recognises that bespoke arrangements will be needed to reflect the UK’s new legal status after March 2019; and that the EU will no longer have jurisdiction over fisheries in UK waters. This is a welcome sign that there is an awareness that the world is changing and the UK will be an independent coastal state under international law from the point of departure.”

“What would not be acceptable would be, despite that altered legal status, for the UK to succumb to pressure from the EU to tie us into medium or long-term arrangements in which nothing material changes.”

Full story courtesy of the NFFO.

THE FULL PICTURE: 2018 EU TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES IN THE ATLANTIC AND NORTH SEA

On 13 December 2017 after all-night negotiations, the Council reached a political agreement on a regulation concerning the 2018 fishing opportunities for the main commercial fish stocks in the Atlantic and the North Sea.

As a result of this Council decision, the number of fish stocks managed at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels will increase next year to 53, 9 more than in 2017. The agreement also foresees solutions for the critical state of eel and sea bass stocks.

"2018 will be a crucial year in the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy objectives. With this decision we have taken a clear step towards sustainable management of our fish stocks, while making sure that the agreement benefits our fishermen and coastal communities."

Siim Kiisler, Minister for the Environment of the Republic of Estonia

Details of the agreement

In view of the critical state of eel fisheries, it will be prohibited to fish for European eel of an overall length of 12 cm or more in Union waters of ICES areas, including the Baltic Sea, for a consecutive three-month period to be determined by each member state between 1 September 2018 and 31 January 2019. That is the time when eels are migrating and therefore are most vulnerable. Member states will have to communicate the chosen period to the Commission by 1 June 2018.

The decision is complemented by a joint declaration of the European Commission and member states aiming at further protecting the stock of European eel, for instance in inland waters, through a strengthening of eel management plans during all stages of the eel lifecycle.

Concerning sea bass the Council acknowledged the bad state of stocks in the Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea and their importance for many countries. It consequently decided to make additional efforts by only allowing limited fisheries with certain gears in those areas, while providing for a two months closure to protect spawning aggregations. Recreational fishing is further restricted, with only catch-and release fishing allowed during the entire year. A lower daily bag limit for recreational fisheries is also fixed in the Bay of Biscay.

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, and related to North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Coastal State consultations, as well as stocks set 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) and the Scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF), the Commission had proposed for 2018 to increase or keep current catch limits for 53 stocks and to reduce it for 25 stocks. The Commission had also proposed a fishing ban for eels the Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic.

One of the main objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to ensure high long-term fishing yields (MSY) for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest by 2020. In December 2016, 44 stocks were fished at MSY levels.

Together with MSY, another important objective is to reduce unwanted catches and gradually introduce the landing obligation. As from 1 January 2019 all stocks under catch limits will be subject to the landing obligation.

The setting of TACs and quotas is an annual management exercise decided upon by the Council only in accordance with Article 43(3) of the TFEU. It takes place in parallel the adoption of fishing opportunities in the Black Sea, and is preceded by a similar TAC setting exercise on deep sea fish stocks in November (every second year), and on Baltic Sea stocks in October.

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.

The good ship Brexit is now 'underway' but not necessarily 'making' way

Underway or Making way?

The word 'underway' means a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground. Freed from any of those encumbrances the vessel is 'making way'

With the UK given the green light to negotiate the terms of today's Brexit deal, CFPO chairman, Paul Trebilcock reminds us why so many UK fishermen voted to support Brexit in the first place:

 ”The fishing industry should be seen as the litmus test of a successful Brexit. The UK fishing industry was badly let down by politicians in 1973. Entry conditions to the EEC (EU as was) included the principal of equal access to a common resource*. This denied us all the benefits that naturally flow from being an independent coastal state. We look forward to a new era of sustainable prosperity based on that altered status”

*Thanks largely to Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister in 1973 who traded those fishing rights away in return for non-fishing trade advantages with Europe. 

Many fishermen wanted out of the EU in order to 'take back control' of their waters.

Though, as many are pointing out thew wording of the agreement is already ringing alarm bells in fishing circles given, as many tweeted the contents of one crucial phrase:

I'm just waiting for Brexiters to entirely absorb the sentence “in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with the rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union".

Not a solution that Mick Mahon - long-time leave campainger - would be happy with.

Time and time again politicians, in particular Michael Gove, have promised to "take back control" - and fishermen, among many others, will look to hold him to his word.

Perhaps best summed up by the latest campaign bus...

Paul Trebilcock shortly heads off to Brussels ahead of this year's Fisheries Council meeting to settle the quotas for next year based on scientific advice from ICES and others - should prove interesting!

Radio 4's PM programme went to Grimsby fish market to sound out the feelings ahead of the decision taken over night.

EU technical measures vote ‘opportunity to prove pulse fishing’s sustainability’

EU approval for the use of pulse fishing has not gone down well with many NGOs it seems. The boats cite:

• reduced fuel consumption by 46% ✔
• reduced discards by 50% ✔
• reduced damage to the sea bed 20% less area fished ✔
• reduced wear and tear on the boat working much lighter gear ✔
• improved efficiency ✔
• improved profits ✔

You can see why 84 Dutch boats won't want to give up those kinds of benefits so easily - especially given the investment they have made!

The European Parliament's fisheries committee has proposed a number of new rules -- still yet to be finalized -- which have angered NGOs and given hope to Dutch pulse fishermen.

Among some 700 amendments up for discussion in the "technical measures" vote on Nov. 21 were those dictating the future of the Netherlands' pulse fishing industry.

"The decision of the fisheries committee to continue the current scientific research on pulse fishing is an important step forward to prove it’s sustainability," Dutch Fisheries Association manager, Derk Berends, told Undercurrent News.

"It’s an opportunity for all NGOs and fishermen that are questioning this innovative technique to get all the answers they need."

The method has many advantages to more traditional techniques like beam trawling, such as 46% less fuel consumption, 50% less discards, and 20% less area fished, he said.

"But there are also many questions that need answers and therefore the research needs to go on."

The decision on pulse fishing was just one part of the technical measures regulation which has to be adopted in the European Parliament later this year or the beginning of next year, he added. "After a trialogue between the parliament, European Council and European Commission, the new regulation technical measures -- including pulse fishing -- should come into force next year."

In the Netherlands, 84 vessels use a pulse rig on the basis of an exemption from a ban on the gear (active across the rest of the EU). About three-quarters of these exemptions are linked to large-scale European research. This research, in which Dutch pulse fishermen are actively participating, will be completed in mid-2019, said the Dutch Fisheries Association.

Ending the work of the pulse harness would have "disastrous consequences for the Dutch fleet", said Johan Nooitgedagt, chairman of the Dutch Fishermen's Union. "Dutch fishermen have made major investments in the pulse gear. Not only did the fishermen invest millions of euros in the pulse gear, they also took the time to learn how to innovate with the new gear and to participate in countless researches."

NGO ClientEarth, meanwhile, viewed the new fishing proposals as a whole as "a huge blow to sustainable fishing in the EU", because of their total lack of concrete targets and legal deadlines.

It believes this affects not only the wider marine environment, but also threatens juvenile fish and spawning grounds, meaning future fish stocks might be jeopardized.

Members of the fisheries committee have "undermined EU environmental protection" by voting against coherence with other environmental laws like the Birds and Habitats Directives, and international nature protection agreements, it said.

"They also changed established sustainability rules without scientific justification, and introduced exceptions for the Mediterranean despite the fact that it is already heavily overfished."

According to the Express, British European parliament members had wanted to ban pulse fishing, which they say is decimating stocks in UK waters.

'Limitless' expansion?

The main amendment voted in at this stage, according to France's Bloom Association, approves the "possible limitless commercial expansion" of electric pulse fishing in Europe, should research fail to demonstrate after four years “direct or cumulative negative impacts on marine habitats”.

Bloom fears the wording of the amendment opens a loophole to allow pulse fishing to continue while the debate over sustainability continues.

“This semantic shift is insane,” said Claire Nouvian, chair of Paris-based Bloom. "Just when nations are supposed to 'end destructive fishing gears by 2020'...Europe goes against the world trend to prohibit electric fishing."

The one bright spot for both Bloom and ClientEarth was that a plenary vote is still required, and offers the chance for the European Parliament to "redeem itself".

Additionally, in the North Sea, a 5% limit on the number of vessels which can carry pulse fishing equipment has been removed, and the Dutch can now equip 100% of their fleet with electric trawls, according to Bloom.

Full story courtesy of Neil Ramsden writing for UndercurrentNews
For more information contact the author, neil.ramsden@undercurrentnews.com

UK fishermen may not win 'waters back' after Brexit, EU memo reveals

Document obtained by the Guardian states existing quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners...

It could be, 'Bollocks to the UK'

The hopes of British fishermen that the UK can win its “waters back” post-Brexit are expected to be dashed by the European parliament, despite the campaign promises of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, a leaked EU document reveals.

MEPs have drafted seven provisions to be included in Britain’s “exit agreement”, including the stipulation that there will be “no increase to the UK’s share of fishing opportunities for jointly fished stocks (maintaining the existing quota distribution in UK and EU waters)”.

The document, obtained by the Guardian, adds that in order for the UK and EU to keep to commitments on sustainable fishing contained within the United Nations stocks agreement. “It is difficult to see any alternative to the continued application of the common fisheries policy,” it says.

Read the full story in the Guardian Online here:

Hot off the meeting table - 2017 EU Fisheries Council quota allowances.

The EU has agreed to hike sustainable quotas for cod in the North Sea and haddock and sole in the Western Channel.  Fisheries minister and Camborne and Redruth MP George Eustice insists the government will keep pushing, after Brexit.  The increases for some valuable species were agreed at the December EU Fisheries Council.

Here is the breakdown:
North Sea: Cod +16.5%, 
Whiting +17%, 
Anglerfish + 20%
Saithe +53%

Irish Sea: 
Haddock +25% 
Nephrops (Langoustines) +8.6%

Western Channel: 
Haddock +7%
Sole +20%

Area VII in detail for the benefit of SW fishermen courtesy of Jim Portus:


Herring 7ef (west Channel) we were expecting rollover that was secured.
Cod 7ek (Celtic Sea) the 67% cut proposed was limited to 38% cut.

Megrim 7 (Celtic Sea) the proposed 28% cut was limited to 25% cut. This is very unwelcome for Newlyn.

Anglerfish 7 (Celtic Sea) was to be cut by 12% and a rollover was achieved. That is good news for all SW ports.

Haddock 7bk (Celtic Sea) was increased by the expected 7%, giving a welcome extra 49 tonnes for the UK fleet. 

Hake 7 (Celtic Sea) was increased by the expected 9%. This stock is fished at sustainable rates and has MSC Accreditation for the Newlyn fleet of netters.

Plaice 7de (Channel stock) has been cut by the expected 19.5%. This follows 100% increase a year ago and is based on poorly understood science advice. 

Plaice 7fg (Bristol Channel) has been cut by 3.5% without good explanation. 

Pollock 7 (Celtic Sea) was to be cut by 26%, but that cut was limited to 10%.

Sole 7d (eastern Channel) was to be cut by 31%, but that cut was limited to 15%.

Sole 7e (western Channel) was increased by the expected 20%. This stock is harvested sustainably and the welcome extra quota should deliver £1Million to Brixham & SW fleet of beam trawlers. 

Sole 7fg (Bristol Channel) was unexpectedly increased by 8%, giving a welcome boost to Newlyn. 

Skates and rays quotas rise by 5%, except in the east Channel where the increase is 10%

Whiting 7ek (Celtic Sea) was increased by 10%. 

Sadly the Minister failed to secure a rollover of the Channel Sprats quota that was cut by 20%. This is a small but significant winter fishery for Brixham inshore boats. Steps will be taken to increase scientific knowledge of this stock during 2017 in an effort to secure an in-year increase. 

Bass detail:
The controversial Bass stock was subjected to increased protective measures to secure stock recovery. 

There will be a closure of the fishery during February and March, as was the case in 2016.

Demersal trawlers and seiners will then have a 3% by-catch, with a 400Kgs monthly limit.

Fixed-Gill-Netters will have a 250Kgs monthly limit. 

Hook and Line commercial licensed fishers will be limited to 10 tonnes of Bass per year. 

Anglers will be on a 1 fish per day bag limit during the open months.
Drift netting and pair-trawling effectively is outlawed.
Where the latest scientific evidence supported it, the UK Government also lobbied against unnecessary quota cuts proposed by the European Commission, securing the same quota as last year for many species, including Cod and Sole in the Irish Sea, Anglerfish in the Celtic Sea and Whiting in West of Scotland.

Speaking after the conclusion of negotiations in Brussels, Fisheries Minister George Eustice said: "To deliver a profitable fishing industry, we must fish sustainably now and in the future. This year we were able to agree further increases in quotas on some valuable species as stocks have recovered, especially in the North Sea.

"There have been some challenges especially on stocks like Bass and Cod in the south-west where action to curtail catches has been necessary, but we have worked hard to secure an agreement striking the right balance that delivers for both our marine environment and coastal communities.

"As we prepare to leave the European Union we have an opportunity to build on progress made and improve the management of fish stocks in our waters, but we will continue to follow the principles of fishing sustainably and ending the wasteful practice of discarding fish."

Challenges remain to help reverse the long-term decline of some fish stocks, with the science showing a cut of 38% on cod was necessary in the south-west (Celtic Sea) and new fishing restrictions on commercial net fisheries targeting sea bass. This builds on action taken over the last two years.

Next year, sea bass catches by gill net fishermen will also be limited only to a by catch allowance of 250kg per month - a reduction around 80% on last year while hook and line commercial fishermen saw their allowance cut by around 23%.

Other outcomes from the negotiations included securing extra flexibility around where vessels are able to fish.  This will remove current constraints around fishing for northern shelf haddock, and provide more choice over fishing grounds, resulting in reduced costs for vessels.  Ahead of the EU Fisheries Council, fishing negotiations between the EU and Norway and EU and the Faeroe Islands wrapped-up.

Fishermen in England and Scotland benefited from the formal acceptance of early agreements with Norway on fishing opportunities in the North Sea. The UK Government secured a quota rise in North Sea cod worth over £4.3 million to the UK. That is the third successive rise in three years.  Increases were also secured for blue whiting, around £5.9m, and Atlanto-Scandian herring, worth over £1m.

Following the conclusion of the negotiations with the Faeroe Islands, fishermen will benefit from a rollover of the same catch limits as last year for species including cod, haddock and blue whiting.

Increases included:

North Sea Hake (+12%) 
Western Hake (+9%)
Sole in the North Sea (+14%)
Rockall Haddock (+45%)

Reducing cuts to a number of important fish quotas by providing sound scientific evidence to the Council:
Megrim in Western Waters (-25%)
Sole in Eastern Channel (-15%)

Maintaining 2016 quotas for a number of stocks: Megrim in the North Sea
Accepting proposals for cuts where necessary to protect stocks: Plaice (-19.5%) and Sprat (-20%) in the Channel.



Ahead of the annual meeting, the NNFO made a clear statement about the December Council and its work over the coming period before Brexit is actioned.

"The December Council remains (for the time being) an important date in the fishing calendar.  The earnings potential for next year for thousands of fishing vessels hang on the decisions made by a couple of dozen fisheries ministers cloistered in late night meetings with their officials.

The year-end negotiations do have a passing resemblance to a circus. However, what we see in December is the end point of a process which takes most of the year.

The starting point for this process can be taken as May/June, when two documents are released. The first is the publication of ICES scientific advice, containing catch options and TAC recommendations. The second is the Commission’s Communication, which spells out the broad principles that will be applied when the Commissions TAC and Quota proposal is published sometime around the beginning of November.

The NFFO’s work begins well before these documents are published, in challenging and questioning the scientific assumptions, data and methods used; and in making the case for better approaches to TAC decisions. Much of this work has been done in recent years within the advisory councils.

As the autumn approaches, the NFFO goes into a higher gear with detailed discussions on the UK’s priorities with Defra officials, and broader discussions with fisheries ministers about the approach to take to defend the UK’s interests. Making alliances with those member states whose interests are aligned with ours is an important part of the picture at this stage.

EU Norway

For those stocks jointly managed with Norway, the annual negotiations with Norway, which have just concluded, are where the critical decisions are made. An NFFO team was at both rounds, in Copenhagen and Bergen and the outcomes were as follows:

North Seas Joint Stock TACs

North Sea cod: 5% TAC increase plus 11% uplift. Moves the stock towards MSY whilst avoiding the 2% cut.

Saithe: 55% TAC increase plus 4.1% uplift

Haddock: 45% cut to correct the error last year’s advice and ensure fishing at FMSY. Now fully under landing obligation so TAC fixed at ICES total catch advice.

Whiting: rollover plus 17% uplift. Moves the stock towards MSY whilst avoiding the 29% cut.

North Sea Plaice: rollover plus 1.2% uplift

North sea Herring - 7% decrease due to poor recruitment

Exchanges

To EU:

Haddock (IV) - 500t

Whiting (IV) - 300t

Others - 9,500t

Anglerfish (IV) - 1,500t

Ling (IV) - 1,350

Arcto-Norwegian cod – 23,000t

Arcto-Norwegian Haddock – 1,200t

Saithe (I, II) – 2,550t

Greenland Halibut (I, II) – 50t

Others (I, II)– 350t

To Norway

Ling (IV,Vb,VI,VII,IIa) – 6,500

Tusk (IV,Vb,VI,VII,IIa) – 2,923

Horse mackerel (IVb,c) – 3,550

Saithe (IV, IIIa) –250t

Saithe (VIa) - 510t

Others (IV, IIa) 5,250

Blue whiting – 110,000t

Redfish – 740t

These decisions will, in the normal course of events, just be ratified by the Council of Ministers.

Council

This year the December Council will take place in Brussels on 12th/13th December.

Ministers at this time of year often come under intense pressure from some of the more dogmatic green organisations for “departing from the scientific recommendations.” It is important therefore to understand that in the EU system, ministers have a unique and specific responsibility in setting TACs for the following year, to balance out a number of important factors. These include:

Taking into account single stock advice produced by ICES
Taking into account recent and relevant fisheries information
Balancing these with mixed fisheries considerations
Avoiding TAC decisions that will merely result in an increase in discards
Taking into account socio-economic concerns, by for example phasing reductions when these are needed
Taking into account, legal obligations, including the MSY timetable
For as long as TAC decisions are made (or ratified) by the December Council, it is important that this important balancing function is understood and recognised.

Maximum Sustainable Yield

Having the ambition to manage our fisheries so that they consistently deliver high yields is an eminently sensible policy. Ignoring biological and socio-economic realities in a blinkered race to an arbitrary MSY timetable, applied to all stocks irrespective of circumstances, makes no sense whatsoever - except perhaps to a handful of fundamentalists. As we approach the MSY deadline of 2020, the gap between aspiration and the reality inevitably becomes starker. The Commission has proposed gigantic cuts for some stocks. Channel cod with a proposed cut of 68% and Area VII megrim with a proposed cut of 28% are cases in point. At some juncture the Commission and member states will have to face the realities of a bulldozer MSY policy and adapt it to something more nuanced and workable. It the mean time ministers have a responsibility to keep things on an even keel.

Uplifts

Those fisheries and stocks brought into the landings obligation in 2017 should see their catch limits increase in line with the fish that was previously discarded. There are a number of difficulties to face:

The question of how accurate the discard estimates are. In some fisheries these will be quite accurate; in others there will be a substantial misalignment. This can only lead to problems during the quota year, intensifying the choke problem
Will the uplifts be directed to the right place? this is a political decision for each member state but will determine where in-year problems might be expected to appear
Bass

There seems to be an axiom that the more a stock is in the spotlight, the more decision-makers tend towards knee-jerk measures that sound like something that is being done but instead leave a legacy of carnage. The dead bass – a highly valuable species – discarded, that now litter the seabed, is the legacy of an EU decision last year to limit trawlers to a 1% bycatch. If the Commission’s proposal this year is followed by the Council, this problem will get worse – with absolutely minimal advantage in terms of reduced mortality. By banning gill nets from retaining bass caught in their nets, bass will be killed and discarded unnecessarily – for no conservation advantage; and at great cost to the many vessels which catch some bass. The solution lies in applying a bycatch over a longer period, say 6 months, which would even out the peaks and troughs and allow the vessel to retain a higher proportion of the bass caught.

It is frankly difficult to square the introduction of regulatory discards into the bass fishery, exactly at a time when all the rhetoric is about reducing discards across the EU.

This is not an argument against bringing bass back into a healthy conservation status: strong measures have already been put in place, including an increased minimum size and stringent catch limits. But scientists tell us that the effects of these measures, in terms of increased biomass, will take some time to work through. This is why hysterical over-reaction is best avoided.

The pressure to ban gill nets for fishing for bass is mainly coming from the recreational angling lobby, who have their own selfish reasons. Like many others, we are interested to hear how a 10 fish per month bag limit on recreational anglers could ever be enforced….

Skates and Rays

Managing skates and rays is certainly tricky. Species recognition can be poor and the TAC covers some 15 separate species. Things have been made worse in recent years by the Commission’s blunt approach to data-poor stocks, which has forced a series of year-on-year 20% reductions which has made the quota all but impossible to manage.

At the 11th hour, the Commission has circulated a paper suggesting that each individual species should have its own TAC. We are not sure that this is the right way to go. It is important to have some kind of understanding of the potential consequences before embarking on such a radical change.

Apart from anything else in is not right the member states and their fishing industries are ambushed by last minute changes – the example of small-eyed ray last year being a good example of how not to make fisheries legislation.

NFFO Team

An NFFO team will be present throughout the whole Council, using every opportunity to guide decisions to the right outcomes. Meetings have been held, written submissions have been made, priorities clarified. We are now dependent on our minister and his officials to deliver.

Our team has been selected to give cover to all NFFO interests which include:

Western waters
North Sea
Channel
Irish Sea
External Waters
Pelagic
Bass
Inshore
Leaving the EU

Longer term, the December Council will not be the fora which makes TAC decisions for the UK fleets. For the 100 or so stocks that we share with other countries new and different TAC decision making process will be required. Work is continuing within the Federation on this and the many other aspects of the UK’s departure from the EU. For the next couple of weeks however the focus will be the December Council.

Keep in the picture with the NFFO website.

Live video from the @FishingforLeave Flotilla

Follow the fleet as the FishingforLeave flotilla leaves the harbour in Newlyn around 6pm and sails to Mousehole and then across Mount's Bay to St Michael's Mount then returns close along the shore from Marazion, past Long Rock to Penzance harbour before steaming back to Newlyn.

#fishingforleave Tweets

@EurOcean2014 Rome Declaration

Hot off the press from this year's @EurOcean 2014 conference in Rome. 

The Rome Declaration, a key output of EurOCEAN 2014, aims to deliver a common vision on achieving an ecosystem approach to the management of Europe’s marine resources as a fundamental requirement for sustainable Blue Growth. The Declaration will reiterate the importance of marine research on the policy agenda. Key to the success of the Declaration is support from EurOCEAN 2014 participants and the wider marine science community. The current draft was developed by a group of recognized experts in marine science and policy and representatives of the European Commission.

Feedback and support for the Rome Declaration should be sent by email to the European Marine Board Secretariat at eurocean@marineboard.eu 

Take the Marine Litter Survey!

Perceptions about marine litter

We invite you to take part in a survey about marine litter (litter which is found on the coast and in the sea).

Who is organising this survey?

This survey is part of a European project called MARLISCO – Marine Litter in Europe Seas: Social Awareness and Co-Responsibility. The survey is being led by Plymouth University, UK.

What are the aims of the survey?

We want to understand what people’s opinions are about marine litter. In this survey there are some questions about what type of litter is found on the coast and in the sea, where it comes from, what the consequences are, and who is responsible.

On the next few pages we will ask you some questions about this and it should only take about 15 minutes. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions in this survey. We are interested in your opinions.

What happens to the information I provide?

Participation in this research guarantees confidentiality of the information you provide. No one apart from the research team will have any access to the information you provide. We will not ask you to write your name on the survey. Surveys will be stored securely for as long as is required by the UK Data Protection Act. Once the data are analysed a report of the findings may be submitted for publication. Only broad trends will be reported and it will not be possible to identify any individuals. A summary of the results will be available from the researcher on request.

Contact for further information If you require any further information or have any queries about this survey, please contact the principal researcher, Bonny Hartley (bonny.hartley@plymouth.ac.uk)

VOLUNTEER CONSENT

Please read the statements below and tick the box at the bottom of the page to indicate you consent to take part I have received adequate information about the survey and about my ethical rights as a participant.

I fully understand that my participation is voluntary, the information I provide is confidential, and that due to the anonymous nature of the survey, it is not possible to withdraw data once it has been submitted.

Please tick to confirm you agree to take part in this survey

The EU is at risk of violating its international obligations if efforts to reform the Common Fisheries Policy prove unsuccessful.

Recent months have seen renewed efforts to reform the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. Alexander Proelss assesses the EU’s track record, noting that 81 per cent of European fish stocks are currently overfished by the EU’s own estimates, and that this figure may be even higher depending on the measurement used. A number of different obstacles will need to be overcome if the reform efforts are to be successful, not least finding a way around the significant political opposition within Member States to any reduction in fishing quotas.

According to the European Union’s 2009 green paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), 81 per cent of European fish stocks are overfished. Some scientists argue that even this prediction is clearly underestimating the actual state of European fish stocks. Based on the notion that a fish stock is overfished if its biomass is too small to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY), it has been argued that under a “business as usual” scenario, 91 per cent of European fish stocks will fail to meet the goal of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation – according to which fish stocks are to be maintained at or restored to “levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015”. While these figures are subject to a certain degree of controversy, as no sufficiently specific legal definitions exist of what MSY and “overfished” mean quantitatively, they demonstrate that little progress has been made in achieving the fundamental reforms necessary for a sustainable fisheries sector in Europe.

There are several reasons for the failure of the CFP, which range from biological, economical and legal factors, to political shortcomings. An ideal fisheries policy would foster the sustainable use of fish stocks, provide for coherent laws and regulations that yield adequate economic incentives, and guarantee consistent enforcement of the legal framework. Even though it is undeniable that some progress has been achieved concerning the restoration of certain fish stocks, none of these requirements has been fully met by the CFP as it stands today. Against this background, current attempts to reform the CFP will not only determine whether Europe will be capable of preserving and sustainably managing a finite natural resource, but will also affect the economic survival of the European fisheries industry.

From a governance perspective, the political challenges involved in the matter are particularly relevant due to the fact that the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP is one of the very few areas with regard to which the European Union (EU) exercises exclusive competence. The public disgrace attached to the potential failure to implement the necessary reforms will hopefully provide an incentive for the EU’s institutions to agree on the required measures.

Full article on the LSE blog here: