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.

NFFO meets with the Labour Party who promise to work much more closely with the industry.

The Labour Party intends to engage much more closely with the fishing industry than it has done the past. It is doing so in order to equip itself to be an effective and influential official opposition in fisheries. As a baseline for its policies, it needs a sound understanding of the issues confronting all parts of the industry.

Labour and Fishing

This comes at a time when critically important fisheries legislation, associated with the UK’s departure from the EU, passes through Parliament imminently.

As part of this new initiative, a meeting with key fisheries stakeholders, including the NFFO, was convened recently in Westminster by Shadow Environment Secretary Sue Hayman MP, and Fisheries Shadow Holly Lynch MP. The purpose of the meeting was to begin a dialogue between Labour and the fishing sector to ensure that the opposition’s interventions during the passage of the Great Repeal Bill and the Fisheries Bill, are well founded. Given the electoral arithmetic following the general election, Labour in both houses of Parliament could have a direct and important influence on our future as an industry.

It is not unprecedented for opposition parties to become more serious and informed as they get closer to exercising power, and as they move beyond the realm of gesture politics.

At the meeting, there was a frank admission that Parliament’s knowledge about fishing, generally, was not high. The fishing sector organisations, NFFO included, have to take some of the blame for this as our attention for the last thirty years has been, perhaps understandably, firmly focused on Brussels - because that is where the key decisions on fisheries have been made.

The UK’s departure from the EU and therefore the CFP, changes all that. The Westminster Parliament, going forward, is going to be of singular importance in shaping the type of fisheries management regime applied in the UK, beginning with the Repeal Bill and the Fisheries Bill.

Both the official opposition and the fishing industry organisations therefore have a deep interest in developing a quality dialogue that parallels our dialogue with Government.

The meeting ranged across the sector’s aspirations for the future, as the UK becomes an independent coastal state. The establishment of an exclusive 12 mile zone and the rebalancing of quota shares and access arrangement, were thoroughly discussed. What type of trade regime will apply after the UK leaves the EU and the scientific underpinning for policy decisions, along with the enforcement regime were also part of the dialogue. The need for a responsive and adaptive UK management regime, post-Brexit, contrasting with the rigidity of the CFP, was also discussed.

This was an important and very welcome meeting at an important juncture in the history of our industry. A deeper understanding of our diverse and complex sector is a prerequisite for the official opposition to function effectively and the NFFO is committed to building on this promising start to a new relationship.

The meeting was attended by the NFFO, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the UK Seafood Alliance and a representative of the recreational anglers.

NFFO Fights Back against Appeasement

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which represents fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has launched a blistering attack on UK Fisheries Minister George Eustice, after he made quota concessions to appease nationalist pressure from Scotland during the annual quota negotiations in Brussels.


1500 tonnes of English quota has been taken from the Humberside based Fish Producers Organisation and promised to Scotland without consultation or notice. Also, George Eustice is “consulting” on a revised concordat between the devolved administrations. If implemented, the concordat would mean the transfer of almost the entire English North Sea whitefish fleet into Scottish administration, along with its licences and quota allocations. The NFFO regards as a bogus consultation because the Scottish minister has already announced that the concordat will be implemented as written.

The NFFO statement says, “All this is being done behind closed doors, in secret. English fishing interests are being systematically traded away to appease the clamour from Scotland. It stinks.

“This is all about high politics – the Westminster government is desperate to avoid creating conditions that would favour a second referendum in Scotland. And the nationalist government is determined to create defacto independence where it can, and also to wring concession after concession out of a government preoccupied with delivering Brexit.”

“The UK overall, will lose out as a result of this quota grab because the only European countries licensed to fish in the North East Arctic apart from England, are French, German, Portuguese and Spanish. That cod will be landed, processed and consumed in those countries with value added all along the supply chain. Apart from being opportunist, and unprincipled, this transfer makes no economic sense. The Scots would swap it away for lower value species that they catch.”

“This ministerial decision has been presented as a way of dealing with chokes* that will result from implementation of the landings obligation in 2017 but it has not escaped our notice that no Scottish quota is being tagged for this purpose – only English.”

“Devolved administrations have their individual ministers to speak up for them but the English industry has no such champion. How else can you explain this policy of appeasement? Our minister needs to find the word “no” in his vocabulary. “

The NFFO statement added: “We have as much to fear from an aggressive nationalist agenda in Scotland and our own supine minister, as we have to gain from a successful Brexit.”

The statement concludes: “Scotland’s continual demand is to sit at the table during international negotiations, when this is plainly a reserved responsibility. This shows the level of ambition that there is in Edinburgh but there is no push-back from our own minister. The opposite in fact. We can get no assurances even on this clear-cut matter.”

“Scottish ministers make much of the tonnage of fish landed into Scotland. But there are more UK fishermen’s livelihoods at stake outside Scotland than in, and a significant proportion of those landings are made by English vessels landing into Peterhead. Politically, fishing carries more weight in Scotland. We are being sacrificed as part of a wider game but we will not go down without a fight.”

NFFO 19th December 2016

Note: A choke is when one quota in a mixed fishery is exhausted, meaning that the vessel has to tie up for the rest of the year. It is a problem faced when a discard ban is applied to a quota system in mixed fisheries.

NFFO Brexit report in full.

The referendum on 23rd June, which decided that UK should leave the EU, represents a seismic change for the UK fishing industry. We are taking the view that there may be risks and pitfalls associated with this monumental change of direction but overall, this is a huge opportunity to reshape the management of our fisheries to the great benefit of our fishing industry and coastal communities. The Common Fisheries Policy has taken us down many blind alleys over the years. Now a new era beckons. This will not be without its own challenges; but the very fact that the fickle and cumbersome European co-decision process will no longer be the arbiter of our fate, is tremendously liberating.

Chairman’s Report 2016
Brexit


It has been some ten weeks since the referendum and as you might expect, the Federation has been very active. Our Executive Committee met soon after the referendum on 12th July and agreed in broad outline our policy approach to the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. A working group has been established to develop detailed positions on the many aspects of fisheries policy that will be affected by Brexit. Two meetings of the group have already been held and it will continue to meet regularly for the foreseeable future. All final decisions on NFFO policy will continue to be made by the Executive Committee.

The Federation’s senior officers have already met with the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, and will be in regular contact with Defra officials for the duration of the negotiations. Today’s meeting with UK, Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, is also an important opportunity to signal fishermen’s expectations of what we want and hope to emerge from the forthcoming negotiations. We will also be meeting the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Andrea Leadsom next week. As you can see, we are heavily engaged at the highest levels.

Whilst we certainly see the future of our fisheries being based on cooperation and collaboration with those countries that we share stocks with, we also see Brexit as an opportunity to reset quota and access arrangements to address the anomalies that have persisted since the early days of the CFP.

We are currently working hard on defining our priorities for the negotiations ahead but the bottom line is our belief that the quota shares held by the UK should broadly reflect the fish resources that are located in our waters.

We know the Brexit negotiations will be complex and sometimes arduous. However, fishing has high public and political visibility and is likely to be used by many as a litmus test on which the success of Brexit success will be judged.

The outcomes of the Brexit negotiations will be affected by many, many, factors but one over which we as an industry do have direct control is the extent to which we can speak with a single, clear, credible and coherent voice.

Opportunities

Being released from the strictures of the Common Fisheries Policy should afford a great many opportunities to reshape the rules under which we as an industry operate. Some examples could be:

⦁ To secure an exclusive 12 mile zone for our coastal fishermen
⦁ To reset our national quota shares to more fairly reflect the fish caught in our waters
⦁ To escape from the blunt control of Brussels over the detail of fisheries management
⦁ To re-shape our domestic fisheries to our own priorities
⦁ To design and implement our own pathway to stable, profitable and sustainable fisheries

There is much to play for and work is well under way.

Domestic Policy

Modernising inshore management within the protection of an exclusive 12 mile zone will provide a range of opportunities to do things better. The EU requirement for vessels above 10 metres to carry logbooks was built on by our own authorities and this ultimately created an artificial boundary that has skewed both fleet development and fishermen’s behaviours. Outside the rigidity and conformity of the CFP it may be possible to radically change inshore fisheries management for the better. The fundamental laws of fisheries won’t change: there needs to be a balance between fishing capacity and available resources if anything is to work. But for instance, it is worth exploring whether there are parts of the under-10 fleet whose impact is so slight that they could be treated as de minimis and be treated accordingly in terms of quota exemptions and much lighter restrictions.

Producer organisations – collectives of fishermen for quota management and marketing purposes - have been one of the great success stories of the last 20 years, developing sophisticated ways to obtain quota to keep their members fishing and marketing their catch. How to ensure that POs continue to perform these valuable services in the changed circumstances that Brexit will bring, is an important area of work.

Prior to the referendum, the Federation was already engaged with Defra and the MMO in defining a coherent strategy for the future of English fisheries, taking into account all their diversity and complexity. This work will continue but will take place within a dramatically altered regulatory landscape.

What will a discard ban tailored to the requirements of the UK look like? We already know that the EU landing obligation has the capacity to cause serious chokes in mixed fisheries. UK ministers have already signalled their intention to retain a discard ban post Brexit but what form will it take given that post Brexit there will be no requirement to slavishly follow EU legislation in this area? This is another area in which the NFFO will be concentrating its efforts.

Stocks

The failures of the CFP have been well documented over the years, not least in the Commission’s own Green Papers that preceded each of the reforms in 2003 and 2013. Wrong turnings, unintended consequences and a huge gulf between aspiration and delivery have been the hallmarks of a top-down, over-centralised system. These have been recognised and recorded. In understanding the limitations and shortfalls of the CFP, however, it is important, however, not to ignore what has been achieved.

Despite the wrong turnings and perverse outcomes, right across the North East Atlantic and across all of the main species groups, the exploitation rate has been brought within safe levels; not only this, but the official scientific view is that our fisheries are well on track to deliver high long term yields. It has been a painful journey getting to this point and it is important that whatever reformulated management arrangements arrive as a result of Brexit that we do not lose the progress that has been made.

In the meantime….

EU law and the CFP will apply to the UK fishing industry up to the point at which the UK exits the EU. The EU landings obligation will continue to be rolled out, adding new species and fisheries each year. A new Technical Conservation Regulation is in the pipeline, as are multi-annual management plans for the North Sea. Further measures on seabass may be in the pipeline and rolling out further marine protected areas. All these will require attention because they affect our members’ livelihoods in the here and now; but also because elements of them may find their way into UK legislation post-Brexit. The Federation cannot afford to take its eye off the ball on these short-term issues.

The EU’s approach to the concept of stock policies is a good example. There is no reason why fishermen would object to policies which bring high yields and high quotas. It has only been when the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield has been misused and applied as dogma rather than as a broad and flexible aspiration, that resistance within the industry has built. This is an immediate issue as the rigid and inflexible MSY timetable, if accepted, will force drastic cuts in many quotas for next year despite a steady increase in biomasses across the board.

Similarly with the precautionary approach: all can agree that it is not wise to until every piece of evidence is in place before taking action; but the repeated cuts in quota for data-poor stocks that have caused serious socio-economic harm in, for example the skates and rays fisheries. The same is true of zero TACs and unrealistic bycatch limits for spurdog and bass. This has been the opposite of the progressive and flexible fisheries management that we require and it requires the Federation’s active intervention both now and in relation to the management of our fisheries beyond Brexit.

Landing Obligation

Until Brexit, the EU landing obligation represented the biggest change to the CFP since the Policy was established. For that reason, the NFFO has spent an enormous amount of time trying to make its implementation workable. Dealing with the issue of potential chokes in mixed fisheries has been at the forefront of our concerns, and some important progress has been made, with more to be done. Brexit will mean that after the UK has left the European Union, the EU landing obligation will no longer apply to UK fishing vessels or to UK waters. However, the signs are that the UK will want to retain its own variant of the discard ban and there is obviously another job of work to be done, jointly with officials in defining exactly what that will mean in practice.

Shellfish

Shellfish is a policy area that has been relatively lightly touched by the CFP. Nevertheless, it has suffered from inertia and lack of direction despite its huge contribution to the economic wellbeing of the industry. At the request of the NFFO, Defra is now in the process of establishing a Shellfish Strategy Group that will hopefully provide this vital sector with a sense of direction, in the face of challenges such as the MSY objective and increasing reliance on formal stock surveys. A data subgroup has already met to identify gaps in our knowledge on shellfish and to work with scientists and shell-fishermen to address them.

Small-Scale Fisheries

As someone who operates a vessel at the smaller end of the spectrum, I am acutely aware of the pressures, concerns and aspirations of the small-scale sector. I was proud of the work done by the Federation a couple of years ago to successfully fight of the Commission’s proposal to ban small-scale drift nets because of enforcement problems in Italy! The NFFO swung into action and the ban has been on the back burner ever since – leaving our sustainable small-scale fisheries to continue unmolested. This example told us much. It told us that despite the CFP reforms, a capricious and ill-informed Commissioner could potentially jeopardise a legitimate fishing activity on a whim. It told us that, whatever the issue, the NFFO would be found in the thick of the action, taking the lead and coordinating opposition to stupid and unfair policies. It also told us that well-marshalled rational arguments and a strong evidence-base could turn the political tide against the Commission.

It was an issue facing the small scale drift nets then; it could be issues affecting larger vessels tomorrow: The NFFO was created to fight for fishermen, wherever on the coast they are based; whatever fishing method they use and whatever the size of their vessel. The Federation’s work on shellfish policy, on drift nets, on salmon and on marine protected areas have all been directly focused on protecting the livelihoods of small scale fishermen. Fleet diversity is one of our industry’s great strengths and all parts of it are valuable.

Industry Reputation

Have you noticed that there are fewer media scare stories about fishing? There is still the odd ignorant comment made about depleted fish stocks that defies all the scientific evidence and still issues that have been taken out of context. But the Tsunami of distortions and manufactured crises has definitely waned and I think that it is fair to attribute this at least partly, to the work of the Federation and its partnership with communications specialists Acceleris. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall hasn’t been seen on the fishing scene since he and his Fish Campaign were taken apart by the NFFO on Newsnight. That wouldn’t have happened without a great deal of legwork by the NFFO/Acceleris team in securing the interest of sympathetic journalists to presenting the other side of the story.

There will always be the noisy 5%, those who from obsession, or because they are paid by charitable trusts. They will continue to cry wolf because they are paid to but I think that the NFFO can take some credit for bringing most of the mainstream media back to portraying the fishing industry as it should be: hard working and committed individuals doing a difficult job in sometimes arduous circumstances.

Unregistered Fishing

Following an NFFO initiative, the MMO launched a campaign earlier this year to address the growing problem of fishing for profit from unlicensed vessels. The campaign is initially centred on the shops, pubs, restaurants and hotels which buy fish caught in unlicensed vessels and sold through the back door. Letting these retail outlets know that this is not a victimless crime is the first step. Targeted enforcement with high visibility to name and shame the culprits, will follow if the practice continues.

Safety and Training

With two important pieces of legislation looming on the horizon, the Work in Fishing Convention and the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping in fisheries, it has been essential for us to ensure that these legislative measures are practical and achieve their intended improvements to safety and training.

The Federation has worked closely with a commercial company to design and develop a man over board dummy that is easy to use, simple to store and cheap to purchase. This initiative was started in response to a recommendation from the Marine accident Investigation Branch and shows how the NFFO are innovative and committed to improving safety for all fishermen.

Crew welfare has become a major concern for many owners and whilst the press are desperately pointing the finger at the fishing industry with little validation, we have sought to improve our understanding of the issues faced and solutions to the welfare issues our members are facing. Collaborating with the leading charity Human Right at Sea, we have established a strong understanding of the social and ethical issues in fisheries around the world and are working with them to help our members and fellow fishermen to be aware of the technical issues and be leaders for fishermen around the world.

Marine Protected Areas

The Federation has been working hard to ensure fisheries management measures within MPAs are introduced only when informed by proper levels of evidence. This work included the completion of a major piece of research to measure the nature of fishing seabed impacts according to individual gear components and taking into account the effects of natural disturbance. In the case of new potential MPA proposals for harbour porpoise and other highly mobile species, the Federation has pressed the case firmly with government that they are only designated with proper justification. Overall, the Federation has done much to swing the government away from a tick-box exercise approach towards a process based on evidence.

Conclusion

We live in interesting times. There will be challenges ahead. This is fishing: there are always challenges.

But there are opportunities too and what we make of those opportunities will be largely up to us. We are an extraordinarily diverse industry, with small-boats fishing from the beach up to very large vessels fishing in distant waters. The NFFO exists to give all of those fishermen and vessel owners a voice where it counts: where the decisions affecting our futures are decided.

The locus where those decisions are made may now change but our responsibility in delivering the industry’s view has not.

The clarity of that message that we deliver will help to secure our aims and it is natural and understandable that our political masters will look to the only body that even attempts to speak on behalf of the whole industry – the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations – our name speaks of our purpose, our aim and who we are.

CFPO news - NFFO elects new chairman Paul Trebilcock.

Cornwall Fish Producers Organisation stalwart, Paul Trebilcock.

NFFO Elects New Chairman

The NFFO has elected Paul Trebilcock, Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation as its new Chairman. Paul will take over the Chair next summer and in the meantime will hold the position of NFFO Chairman-Elect.

“Paul is the well-known and highly active Chief Executive of the Cornish PO and although he is probably the youngest Chairman that we have had, he comes with a wealth of experience”, said current Chairman Arnold Locker.

“We try to ensure that if we have a North Sea President, we have an Area VII Chairman and this appointment continues that useful balance”.

“Paul will be taking over at a truly critical time for our industry, with CFP reform, marine conservation zones and other vital decisions taken on his watch”.

Last week the NFFO met with the MMO for the first time to discuss a wide range of operational policing and monitoring issues.

Wide Range of Issues addressed at meeting with MMO

THE National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)  and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) met recently at the MMO’s headquarters in Newcastle.

The NFFO said that a wide range of issues were covered including

• The design application and enforcement of management measures within marine conservation zones and special areas of conservation
• Electronic logbooks, including the development and availability of an integrated VMS/e-logbook system
• The performance of the English EFF programme
• Progress in implementing the new EU Control Regulation, including the weighing of catch provisions, 10% margin of tolerance, engine power measurement and the marking of pots
•  The application of Fisheries Administrative penalties
• New MMO arrangements to ensure that all infringements are dealt with in a timely and consistent way
•  Delivery and practicality issues associated with the Defra consultation on the future of under-10m quota management
• The MMO’s compliance and enforcement strategy
• Voluntary net tagging that could potentially reduce the impact of boardings at sea
• The impact of boardings on fishing operations

The NFFO said: “The NFFO and the MMO are agreed that there is a continued need  for pragmatic and proportionate enforcement that, so far as possible, separates minor infringements from determined and recurrent rule-breaking. Fisheries Administrative Penalties have helped to streamline the process and a new system of monthly reviews of all fisheries offences is being implemented to bring consistency and to ensure that prosecutions if they are to happen are brought forward in a timely fashion.

“The NFFO gave examples of boardings at sea which could have  been handled with greater regard  for fishing operations and the MMO welcomed this feedback. . It was agreed to reinstate liaison days with the Royal Navy’s Fisheries Protection Squadron, with port visits by fisheries protection vessels in the Irish Sea, Shoreham and Hartlepool.  The potential for repeated prosecutions for infringement of the 10% margin of tolerance –particularly for small quantities - was raised and the need for a reasonable, pragmatic and risk based approach was underlined by the Federation.

“It was agreed to discuss further the details of a voluntary net tagging scheme which potentially could reduce the time and anxiety of net measurements at sea.

“The navigational chaos that could result from implementation of the new Control Regulation requirements on flags, radar reflectors and lights on dhans marking pots was emphasised. The huge cost and navigational consequences of vessels confronting a ‘city of light’ and a ‘snowstorm of radar signals’ underlined the need for a practical solution.

“The Federation said that this  was a constructive meeting which aimed to make the best out of a management system that is over-complex, in places fundamentally irrational, and certainly far removed from the practicalities of fishing; but is the law - until that law can be changed. The MMO has faced a difficult baptism of fire but the meeting showed that there is at least a strong will to temper the rough edges of the CFP without abandoning the core purpose of enforcing fisheries regulations.

The Federation will be meeting the MMO to continue this dialogue at regular intervals.”