Landing Obligation and other crucial EU fishing regulation debate.

Industry representatives and researchers give evidence on EU fisheries regulations

The EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee asks fisheries researchers and representatives of the fishing industry for their views on the implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation.

• Parliament TV: Implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation
• Inquiry: Implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation
• EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee

Witnesses

Wednesday 28 November in Committee Room 2, Palace of Westminster

At 10.15am

• Hazel Curtis, Chief Economist, Seafish
• Dr Tom Catchpole, Principle Fisheries Advisor, Cefas

At 11.15am

• Barrie Deas, Chief Executive, The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• Mike Park OBE, Chief Executive, Scottish White Fish Producers Association Limited

Background

The EU landing obligation seeks to gradually eliminate discarding (throwing unwanted fish back into the sea) by requiring all catches of specified types of fish to be landed. It has been implemented in stages, beginning in 2015; by 1 January 2019 it will apply to all fish stocks for which the EU sets a Total Allowable Catch.

Implementation presents challenges, particularly in relation to 'choke species'. These are species with a low volume of quota, that when reached will cause fishing operations to halt, even if quota is still available for other species, because fishermen will no longer be able to discard fish they catch over-quota. How enforcement agencies will monitor compliance with the landing obligation is another challenge that will need to be addressed.

Likely areas of discussion

• The scale of the problem 'choke species' is likely to pose.
• Whether changing fishing methods, or swapping quota with others, can alleviate this challenge.
• How enforcement agencies can best monitor compliance.
• Whether the landing obligation could result in increased levels of illegal discarding.
• What the UK could learn from other countries.

There will be a post to the live broadcast on Through the Gaps at 10:15am tomorrow - put it in your diary!

Implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation inquiry

Seems a bit late in the day but here is a chance for all those affected to offer some information, insight and thoughts on the subject.

In the South West, (especially ICES fishing areas VII e, h & g) haddock and sole are discarded by the ton from beam trawlers, trawlers and netters alike - the landing obligation will highlight both of these species as 'choke species'.

In the North Sea hake will feature in the eLogs of many vessels and become the choke species that forces vessels to stop fishing.

There are plenty of ways to air your thoughts to the  EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee - see below. Read the guidance notes that go with the call for information.

Latest from Parliament:

Discarding is the practice of throwing unwanted fish back into the sea. An average 1.7 million tonnes of fish and other marine life used to be discarded in the EU each year, because it was unmarketable, unprofitable, exceeded the amount of fish allowed to be caught, or was otherwise unwanted. Not only is this a waste of finite resource, as many fish do not survive discarding, it also makes it difficult to accurately measure how many fish are actually caught (which is necessary to monitor the health of fish stocks and prevent over-fishing).

The EU landing obligation seeks to gradually eliminate discards by requiring all catches of specified types of fish to be landed. It has been implemented in stages, beginning in 2015; by 1 January 2019 it will apply to all fish stocks for which the EU sets a Total Allowable Catch.

This inquiry will focus on the impact that the landing obligation has had to date, how it has been enforced and what challenges are posed by full implementation in January 2019.

Call for Evidence:

• The EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee launches an inquiry into the implementation of the EU landing obligation.

• Call for evidence: Implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation (PDF PDF 164 KB)

• Inquiry: Implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation

• Send a written submission

• EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee

Background

Discarding is the practice of throwing unwanted fish back into the sea. An average 1.7 million tonnes of fish and other marine life used to be discarded in the EU each year, because it was unmarketable, unprofitable, exceeded the amount of fish allowed to be caught or was otherwise unwanted. Not only is this a waste of finite resource, as many fish do not survive discarding, it also makes it difficult to accurately measure how many fish are actually caught (which is necessary to monitor the health of fish stocks and prevent over-fishing).

The EU landing obligation seeks to gradually eliminate discards by requiring all catches of specified types of fish to be landed. It has been implemented in stages, beginning in 2015; by 1 January 2019 it will apply to all fish stocks for which the EU sets a Total Allowable Catch.

Questions

The Committee is seeking evidence on the following questions:

1. What has been the impact in the UK to date of the EU landing obligation? What challenges have there been to implementation? 

2. What do you expect the impact to be when the landing obligation is fully implemented in January 2019? What challenges may there be to implementation? 

3. What steps could or should be taken between now and January to improve implementation? 

4. How effectively is the landing obligation currently enforced in the UK? What challenges have there been to enforcement? 

5. What challenges may there be with enforcing the landing obligation when it is fully implemented in January 2019? 

6. What steps could or should be taken to improve enforcement? 

7. To what extent do you believe the UK is prepared to fully implement the landing obligation from January 2019? 

8. To what extent could the use of more selective technology by the fishing industry help fleets fish successfully under the terms of the landing obligation? 

9. Are other EU countries facing

Scope of the inquiry

The Committee are inviting individuals and organisations to share their experience of the impact that the EU landing obligation has had to date, and their views on what impact full implementation might have from January 2019. The Committee are also seeking comments on how effectively the landing obligation is being enforced and what the UK Government could do to address some of the challenges posed by the requirements of the landing obligation.

Chair’s comments

Lord Teverson, Chair of the Sub-Committee, said:

"Reducing discards is vital to protecting the health of our oceans. We know, however, that the landing obligation is a major change for the fishing industry and that there are genuine concerns about the impact it may have on fishers' livelihoods. It also requires a shift in how we monitor and enforce fishing regulations, and we know there is some doubt as to whether current arrangements are adequate. We want to understand the challenges that will need to be overcome, and potential solutions to those challenges, and would really encourage those with experience or interest in these issues to share their views with us."

Call for evidence published 15 November 2018. The deadline for submissions is 11.59pm on Thursday 13 December.

SFF & NFFO & FFL - The Brexit debate heats up!

The NFFO response to the Fisheries White Paper back in July 2018.

The Government has published its long-awaited White Paper on Fisheries. Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations outlines the Government’s vision for UK fisheries post-Brexit. Unsurprisingly, its headline objectives are those associated with the UK’s future as an independent coastal state outside the Common Fisheries Policy.

See the White Paper here

Priority is given to the pursuit of policies which promote sustainable exploitation of fish stocks. However, the Paper makes clear that the UK will control access over who is permitted to fish in UK waters and under what conditions. Rebalancing quota shares to more closely reflect the fisheries resources located in UK waters is also a top-listed priority.

The Government underlines its commitment to working cooperatively with those countries like Norway and the EU with which it shares fish stocks. However, the paper also makes plain that trade issues and fishing rights and management are separate issues, by international comparison and EU-third country precedent. This is important because the EU has signalled, in its negotiating guidelines, that it will seek to use an EU/UK free trade agreement as leverage to maintain the current asymmetric arrangements on access and fishing opportunities. The scale of those quota distortions, which work systematically to the EU’s advantage and the UK’s disadvantage, is spelt out graphically in an annex to the White Paper.

Comment

Overall, the Government has not been noticeably coherent or cohesive in its preparations for a negotiated Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. On fisheries however, its broad position is clear, cogent, and apparently uncontroversial - within the UK anyway. This White Paper will have required support across Whitehall, and it spells out what the UK wants and expects. This aligns quite closely with what the UK fishing industry wants and expects. The high attendance and level of interest at our recent NFFO lobby day in Parliament confirmed that there will also be very wide support across the parties for the broad approach outlined here.

Doubtless this unity reflects the widespread understanding in and beyond government that the entry terms in 1973 worked systematically and significantly to the detriment of the UK’s fishing interests - and have continued to do so over the intervening forty-five years. The UK’s departure from the EU gives us the long-awaited opportunity to address the distortions that arrived with the CFP.

The Federation has been working closely with Defra since the referendum and has submitted papers on all the policy main areas. It is encouraging, therefore, that our principal objectives are shared in the White Paper. These are:

1. The UK operating sustainable fisheries as an independent coastal state, with quota and access arrangements agreed in the context of annual fisheries agreements

2. Rebalancing quota shares to reflect the resources based in UK waters

3. Control over access to fish in UK waters

4. An adaptive management system tailored to the contours of our fleets

5. Unimpeded trade flows

The White Paper also reflects other industry priorities, including:

⦁ A flexible and adaptive national fisheries policy with the fishing industry closely involved in the design and implementation of policy. The frequency of unintended consequences of policy decisions and the need therefore to for a responsive management system post-CFP appears to be well understood

⦁ That safety considerations should be hard-wired into any new fisheries legislation has been taken on board

⦁ The need for a workable discard ban is emphasised

⦁ The removal of the artificial boundary between the under and over-10metre fleets is flagged

⦁ A measured and step-wise approach to trialling alternatives to quotas where this makes sense, is described

⦁ Producer Organisations will continue to deliver decentralised, tailored quota management in the ports

⦁ Throughout, there is an emphasis on a close partnership between the fishing industry and government

More Work Areas

However, below the headlines setting out the Government’s broad orientation, there remains much to discuss and work on. In particular:

⦁ How to operate a system of devolved responsibilities within an overall UK framework is underdeveloped in the White Paper. Discussions continue and is unlikely that arriving at a satisfactory agreement will be easy or straightforward, given the toxic politics involved.

⦁ Cost recovery before the institutional arrangements are in place to give the industry shared responsibility, as discussed in the White Paper, would be premature, unjustified and very controversial

⦁ Auctioning incoming quota is a new concept with some obvious disadvantages; it will need detailed scrutiny

⦁ The practicalities of a workable system of overage (permitting bycatches to be landed even though quotas are exhausted with a charge to disincentivise targeting) to address the problem of chokes under the landing obligation, will require close attention

⦁ Remote sensing undoubtedly has a future role to play in monitoring fishing activities: the question is how and where and how does it fit into a partnership approach based on trust and confidence?

Summary

On the big-ticket issues, the White Paper is clear and confident. To be sure, the EU27 will seek at every turn to blunt its application but in truth the EU only has one weapon in its armoury and that is the nuclear option of denying the UK a free trade deal unless the UK caves in on fisheries. That would hurt many businesses in the supply chain in the EU - at least as many as in the UK. Politically, such is the parliamentary arithmetic, that the UK government could not agree to a capitulation on fisheries and survive.

It is self-evident that the Government has much work to do on its own positions before the next rounds of negotiations. On fisheries, however, as the White Paper spells out, the big issues relating to jurisdiction, access and quota shares, are already settled by international law: the UK becomes an independent coastal state. Everything else flows from that.

Fishing for Leave however, have an entirely different perspective on Brexit claiming to represent the small-scale fishers who make up around 70% of the UK fleet.


If only so many knew the truth..

For two years Fishing for Leave have bit our lip for the sake of the wider cause of the industry and way of life we are fighting for.

However, after continued misrepresentations and protestations by the Scottish Fishermens Federation (SFF) and National Federation of Fishermens Organisations (NFFO) of their 'speaking for all the industry' we feel we can stay silent no more.

The tipping point is knowledge of discussions of agreements to stay mute on a transition deal, one that would prove disastrous for the majority of Britain's fishing, along with selling the industry a pup in exchange for maintaining the current system beneficial to a few.

The SFF and NFFO have become a corporate racket dominated by a few big quota holders and heavily influenced by EU owned but UK registered 'Flagships'

Rather than fight to replace the system that has ruined British fishing they continually pursued managed decline to a few. The consequence for so many fishermen and communities is heartbreakingly apparent to see.

After twenty years of supine retreat, when the chance to escape the CFP came they wouldn't back Brexit.

Hiding behind 'neutrality' after being ambivalent or hostile to British withdrawal since the 1990s - some heads are on record as having voted remain. Main stream and fishing media archives record all this.

They abandoned the industry they now purport to represent. It was left to the grassroots to initiate and fight under Fishing for Leave .

We alone were instrumental in making fishing one of the 'acid tests', from the Thames flotilla on whilst the NFFO and SFF hid at home.

Rather than come together following the vote, as FFL openly offered at meetings in Aberdeen and Peterhead, the SFF in particular resorted to attack FFL through proxies.

The two federations then did a volte face to control the Brexit dividend for a few and fend off what they saw as a threat by FFL banging the drum to replace a failed system (one with feathered nests for a few) with new British policy that would work for all from big to small.

As the Bible eludes beware wolf in sheep's clothing!

**FFLs repeated warnings that the NFFO and SFF are a cartel of big, mainly foreign interests, dominating the industry for a few to the detriment of the many they claim legitimacy from was vindicated by the Greenpeace Unearthed report.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/amp/

FFL would caution against one element of the Greenpeace report. Not all big are bad, small are good. Some of the biggest companies and Producers Organisation (POs), such as Interfish and Northern Ireland Fish PO back both Brexit and a fair distribution for all - sadly many of their contemporaries who are in the SFF and NFFOs policy is all for one none for all.


WHICH FISHERMEN...?

SO, after two years! of avoiding actual detail it would be great to finally hear exactly how the SFF (and the NFFO) propose allocating their much vaunted simple phrase #seaofopportunity?

1) Will it be through equal shares of repatriated resources to ALL fishers and communities as FFL propose? Or through the disastrous FQA allocation system (which have become the stocks and share unit currency that has made a national resource a corporately traded commodity) driven consolidation to a few, crushed the family fishing and communities the federations virtue signal about seeing revived?

2) Pelagic resources are the main bulk of what Britain regains...do the SFF and NFFO agree with FFL that half should fairly go to the 25 large vessels in the specialist pelagic fleet and half to all other vessels and communities? So as to recreate opportunity of seasonal fisheries and provide an adrenaline hit to struggling vessels and communities?

Why does Mr Armstrong of the SFF continually peddle the lie publicly and in parliament that 40-100ft trawlers cannot pursue pelagic species as they happily manage in Norway and Ireland?

3) The discard ban addresses the discard symptom rather than the quota cause. It is acknowledged as an existential threat to the viability

'Choke species', when vessels have to tie up on exhausting their lowest quota to avoid discarding, will cripple all bar a few of the biggest quota holders.

Why did the SFF, after talks in Downing Street, roll over so easily to a transition where the EU will be free to enforce the 2019 discard ban, bankrupt all bar the biggest quota holders, and then claim the resources we would no longer have the fleet to catch using UNCLOS Article 62.2?

4) Given no credible solution has been found in 8 years to discards or choke species being the result of quotas, why do the SFF and NFFO resolutely want to maintain quotas and the unsolvable discarding that will ruin the majority and leave only a few big players?

5) Why do the SFF and NFFO continually seek to defile the unique, world leading hybrid quota/effort control system FFL have developed to achieve discard free, soak time at sea fisheries. One generating accurate science from all catches being landed, preserving and adopting FQAs and their investment, whilst providing all a limit of time at sea to survive.

If it is doomed to fail why not support a credible trial on 20 vessels to prove it is wrong or, if it works, have a credible alternative for everyone to survive....what's to lose?

6) Why does the SFF continually make representations to government to keep quotas, & worse to keep the FQA share system that drives consolidation to few big corporates? Why are continual governmental assurance also sought for allocating all repatriated resources through the disastrous FQA system too?

7) Is the resistance to not continuing with the same failed system by moving to new better management less to do with environmental and operational concerns and more to do with preserving a quota trough for some prominent members who have their trotters firmly in it?

8 ) How can the NFFO say it speaks for British fishermen, and does the NFFO not have a severe conflict of interests, given that the government FQA register and Companies house show that the majority, around 75%!, of the NFFO membership of POs and their FQAs (and therefore the financial clout) is controlled by EU owned but UK registered 'Flagships'?

9) How can the SFF purport to speak for Scotland's fishermen when many fishermen and associations from Orkney to the Western Isles to Lothian and Fife are not in the SFF; the founding Clyde Fishermen's Association quit due to problems addressed in the questions above; and many are hugely disgruntled at the corporate racket but persist only to obtain the necessity of guard work jobs?

10) Why will the SFF and NFFO not condemn quota renting and 'slipper skippers', who SeaFish statistics show are bleeding 50-60% of the profit for reinvestment from the industry as active vessels have to pay to fish? Do they agree with FFLs position that, slipper skippers should be banned; that entitlement to fish should only be on active vessels; and that the price of swapping entitlement should be capped at 4% of the gross realised for the fish caught by that entitlement?

Quotas have trashed the environment with mass discards and trapped the industry in perpetual data deficiency on actual catches.

Quotas and the now economically prohibitive and illiterate cost of rent and purchase of FQA entitlement units has crippled community and family fishing the federations say you represent and wish to protect.

It has culled recruitment of a next generation to realise a sea of opportunity by barring a career from deck to wheelhouse. All this and yet you both lobby to keep the same failed system reviled by so many fishermen you claim to represent ...why?

We suggest it is for the same reason - preserving the status quo on quota - that stopped the NFFO and SFF backing Brexit.

Until the above Ten questions are honestly answered there is a long gap between actual fishermen and the two federations who purport to represent them.

So the choice is; come together by decrying the failed systems of the past. Say repatriated fish will be distributed to all fairly. That slipper skippers and flagships will be banned and curtailed and that we trial a potentially world leading hybrid refined effort control system that would work and give a future for ALL

...OR will the SFF and NFFO continue trying to preserve a corporate racket of quotas, FQAs discards & slipper skippers for the benefit of a few?

One thing is certain, coastal constituencies will decide on MPs choice of what is listened to... MPs and government can listen to a bright future for all or keeping trotters in the trough for a few...?

The Landing Obligation (LO) - but four months away.

While the UK media and population at large continues to debate BREXIT the fishermen of the UK and Europe face a more immediate dilemma - the impending full implementation of the Landing Obligation. Out of this dilemma the MINOUW project was born.

The MINOUW project’s overall objective is the gradual elimination of discards in European marine fisheries. They aim to minimise unwanted catches by incentivising the adoption of technologies and practices that reduce bycatch and discards, and avoid damage to sensitive marine species and habitats.

Our goal is to develop and demonstrate technological and socio-economic solutions that enable and incentivise fishermen to 1) avoid unwanted catches, or 2) where this cannot be reasonably or practically achieved, to utilise them productively and sustainably.

Landing, the catch.

With only four months until the full implementation of the Landing obligation in January 2019, fishers are facing a huge challenge to adapt. Promoting the adoption of affordable, more selective fishing gears would be a huge step in the right direction.

THE LANDING OBLIGATION - A HUGE CHANGE IN EUROPEAN FISHERIES

Introduced under EU legislation as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP, EU Reg. 1983/2013) The Landing Obligation has been described as ‘the biggest change in European fisheries since the introduction of quotas in 1983’.

With up to one million tonnes of fish estimated to be thrown overboard in Europe each year, the so-called ‘discard ban’ is designed to end the practice by fishers of throwing non-target and undersized species back in the sea. From now on, all catches of regulated species will need to be landed in port.

Its introduction represents a huge change in fishing practices for fishers across Europe, and full implementation and compliance represents a major challenge.

THE FISHING INDUSTRY IS NOT PREPARED TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE

Despite the incremental introduction of the Landing Obligation over the last four years, the fisheries industry remains woefully underprepared for its implementation, and complying fully will cause real difficulty for fishers both economically and logistically.

The requirement to land all catches of regulated species will have a real financial impact, with increased handling costs both at sea (sorting, storage) and in port.

These costs are not the only issue; dealing with the landings itself will be problematic. As fish that would have been discarded cannot be sold for human consumption, they must be disposed of in other ways - for example as food for pets or aquaculture - but the facilities, logistics and markets for dealing with this are not in place. Fishers could find themselves having to pay for the destruction of these fish, as special waste of animal origin.

In addition, as of January 1st 2019, any fishers not complying with the landing obligations could be considered as acting illegally, with the EU Commission coming under increasing pressure to ensure the rules of the CFP are enforced.

In addition, as of January 1st 2019, any fishers not complying with the landing obligations could be considered as acting illegally, with the EU Commission coming under increasing pressure to ensure the rules of the CFP are enforced.

BETTER SELECTIVITY IS THE BEST APPROACH - ELIMINATE DISCARDS AT SOURCE

Faced with this situation, we need to find a practical and constructive approach to the implementation of the Landing Obligation that helps fishers to adapt.

Firstly, we should encourage fishers to face reality: ultimately they will have to abide by the landing obligation. Secondly, we should provide the tools, information and funding that helps them do so.

Through our work over the last two years we have seen the willingness of fishers to collaborate and look for solutions to the discard problem. Our experience has been that they were quick to see that greater selectivity - and eliminating the problem of discards and bycatch at source - was the best way to comply with the new rules.

“It’s interesting to see the willingness of fishermen to collaborate in finding solutions to discards as they are now feeling the pressure of the landing obligation”

Sergio Vitale, CNR (MINOUW)

More selective fishing gear can bring many additional benefits to fishers, and is an affordable, practical and effective action for fishers to consider. Information about more selective gears, where and how they can be used, and funding to help fishers switch to using them will be key to a successful implementation of the landing obligation.

Research at the University of York (UK) found that the introduction of a discard ban in Norwegian cod and haddock fisheries in 1987 ultimately encouraged fishers to install more selective fishing gear. Despite some short-term economic costs, the Norwegian and Barents Sea fisheries are today among some of the most prosperous in the world.

WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD POLICY MAKERS TAKE?

1. Make selectivity the priority

The best option to eliminate discards is to avoid unwanted catches in the first place, by increasing the selectivity of fishing gears. Additionally, when unwanted catches do occur, the survival rates of the discarded fish can be improved by adapting techniques.

2. Provide funding

The more selective fishing gears successfully tested by MINOUW are inexpensive, and the use of European Maritime Fishery Funds (EMFF) could help scale up the adoption of more selective gears at regional scale, e.g. in the Mediterranean.

For more details visit the MINOUW website.

Further Landing Obligation information information can be found on the European Commission's Fisheries site here:

MMO - English fishing vessels sought for trials which may help to reduce discards

English fishing vessels sought for trials which may help to reduce discards

The MMO is looking for English fishing vessels to take part in trials aiming to encourage more selective fishing activity



The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is looking for English fishing vessels working in the North Sea to take part in three trial schemes which may help to reduce discards and encourage more selective fishing behaviour.

Vessels taking part in the trials may be fitted with remote electronic monitoring (REM) equipment or be involved in trying out new gears and may be awarded additional quota in return.

The MMO has run fully documented fisheries (FDF) schemes, sometimes referred to as catch quota trials, since 2011. As part of these schemes remote electronic monitoring (REM) equipment is fitted to vessels to encourage a reduction in discards. In addition, REM has proven to be a useful tool for gathering scientific data. The MMO has collaborated with the Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (Cefas) on exploring this use.

The MMO is looking for English fishing vessels to apply for two fully documented fisheries schemes in 2018:


North-East Nephrops Fully Documented Fisheries
The MMO is also looking for English vessels to take part in the North East Nephrops Net Selectivity trials which is looking to trial new gears which have the potential to be more selective.

North Sea Fully Documented Fisheries
To take part the vessel must be English-registered and a member of a Producer Organisation. In return for taking part in this scheme, vessels will be able to access additional quota for North Sea cod and saithe. In addition scientific quota may be available.

Vessels must apply to take part by 16 April 2018.

The aims of the scheme in 2018 are to:

Test the use of REM as a control and enforcement tool
To monitor compliance with fisheries legislation
Test new developments in REM technologies
Trial the use of inter-species flexibility (ISF)
North-East Nephrops

This is a new scheme for 2018. To take part vessels must be English-registered and work within the North East nephrops fishery. In return for participation in this scheme, vessels will be able to access additional quota for North Sea haddock and whiting. In addition, scientific quota for nephrops may be available.

Vessels must apply to take part by 30 April 2018.

The aims of this scheme are to:

Test the use of REM as a control and enforcement tool within the nephrops fishery
To monitor compliance with fisheries legislation
Test new developments in REM technologies
North-East Nephrops Net Selectivity trials

This is a new scheme for 2018. To take part vessels must be English-registered and work within the North East nephrops fishery. When applying for this scheme vessels are asked to propose how they might improve their gear selectivity and the methods they will use to do this. In return for participation in this scheme, vessels will be able to access additional quota for North Sea haddock and whiting.

Vessels must apply to take part by 30 April 2018.

The aims of this scheme are to:

Trial the use of highly selective gear to reduce discards and catches of below Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) fish
To document the effects of using highly selective gear in this fishery

For more information on the scheme email ukcatchquota@defra.gov.uk or call 0300 123 1032.

This blog post explains more about how fully documented fisheries work in practice.

Live Tweets from the Discard Action Group meeting in Friend's House, London

#DAG Tweets

Bass and the science of stock assessment - when it is largely based on landing figures

1800 kg of bass worth around £21000 accidentally caught off Plymouth yesterday - all of which were dumped, largely dead, back into the sea as the boat has no quota for bass. 

As soon as Steve Fisher posted this short video showing the 1800 kg of bass that the boat caught accidentally off Plymouth - to highlight the inadequacies of the present system to manage bass - his Twitter account was hit by a storm of tweets in response - some decrying the a quioat systemn based on flawed science and some juast plain not understanding that a fishing boat is limited in its ability to determine what it will catch in open waters.

Judge the responses for yourself:

Having to dump all this beautiful bass because EU says so can't wait to get out of CFP pic.twitter.com/N0UxPse2hD

Steve fisher (@fishersteve08) January 11, 2018

Just what our boats are up against in the annual TAC carve-up

Earlier this year - and in an attempt to pre-empt the Landing Obligation debacle where, in the South West, a single species (haddock) will disproportionately affect the trawling fleet the MMO put out a call for participants in fishing data and research programme - roll on nine months to the annual December Fisheries Council meeting to settle TACs for 2018....

and the 2018 TACs announced in Brussels yesterday and some detail specifically for the South West (ICES areas 7b-k) were quickly passed on by the CFPO on Twitter - where there was an immediate response from the one (award winning) boat Crystal Sea that has worked so hard (with video surveillance technology and more) to redress the quota imbalance for the single most crucial discards ban species - haddock.

If that was not enough, while the Crystal Sea and the Tranquility (the only trawlers over 18m working in Area 7b-k)...

were both sheltering in Newlyn overnight as stormy weather passed through the Western Approaches...

wind speed and air pressure as the Sevenstones lightship weather station recorded over the last 24 hours...

and, courtesy of WindyTV, with much worse to come...

so it's no surprise to see that there were two similar-sized french trawlers dodging all night east of the Scillys...

and 18 of them east of the Lizard deep off Falmouth Bay. With the huge SW fleet of French boats drastically reduced since 2000, their substantially larger haddock quota no longer poses a threat to them when the LO kicks in next year - perhaps if they had taken part in the research collaboratively - or even been encouraged to provide their own data things might have been different for Area 7 haddock overall.  Much of the data collected by ICES is fundamentally flawed by virtue of how it is obtained.

More recently the website Gearing Up has been launched to showcase innovative and informed fishing projects that seek to reduce discards and increase efficiency,

Hake in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Norwegian coastal waters.

"Hail the hake!" became the watchword for skpper Phil aboard the gillnetter, Govenek of Ladram in the Ch4 TV series, The Catch.  Forty, fifty, sixty years ago the mainstay of the fleet in Newlyn were the longliners, then came trawlers and beam trawlers, then came the netters, first fishing with multi and then mono-nets - mainly for hake. Hake was everywhere - a huge fleet of Spanish longliners and trawlers fished for hake all year round and all round the western waters - from south of the Lizard in Cornwall to the Porcupine Bank off the west coast of Ireland.  

Many visiting Scottish fishermen had never seen a hake until they fished aboard a Cornish boat - haddock yes, by the ton but hake? no, never!  Conversely, your average Cornish fishermen hardly ever saw a haddock - trawlermen often used to argue over who would take the handful of half decent haddock home for 'homers'. 

Wind the clock forward to today and the world has changed.  In just four weeks in January this year, Newlyn skipper Roger Nowell, with the 12m inshore trawler Imogen III reckons he dumped (because he has no quota) £20,000 worth of haddock back over the side - and that was without fishing overnight which is when haddock catches are at their best!  Now head north of the border up into the North Sea, home of the haddock and we found Scottish trawlers enjoying a bonanza of hake - where once they saw none.

These two fish highlight the impending disaster that is the Landing Obligation - which EU or no EU, CFP or no CFP we, as in the UK, will be subject fully subject to come 2018 - and with miniscule quoats odf both fish in their respective areas - because the fish were never there before - the issue of 'choke species' becomes a reality.

So it is timely to see that the Norwegian Institute for Marine Research has posted a little more in the way of research on the matter of North Sea hake today.

Here's the full article form the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research.

"The distribution of the European hake covers an area extending from Mauritania off the north-west coast of Africa northwards to Iceland and east over to Norway and the North Sea, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. The last couple of years have seen an increase in hake abundance especially in the North Sea, north of Scotland and west of Ireland. It is uncertain whether these observations are the result of good recruitment, influx from surrounding areas, or reduced fishing mortality. Landings from the North Sea have also increased the last 5 years, and as such reduced fishing mortality is unlikely to be the reason for the observed increase in abundance.

Hake is found close to the bottom at 50-600 meters depth during the day, but may migrate upwards into shallower depths at night to feed. The main preys include mackerel, herring, blue whiting and mesopelagic nekton (lanternfish, hatchetfish, shrimps, and krill). Stomach content analyses have also shown that hake prey on hake, but that the extent of cannibalism depends on fish size and location.

Hake that is distributed along the Spanish coast and in the Bay of Biscay spawns mainly between January and June, whilst specimens in Norwegian waters appear to spawn between July and October. Estimating the age of hake is difficult partly because of false annual rings associated with environmental changes and also because of unclear otolith cores. Recaptures from tagging studies done off the coast of France have shown that hake grow quicker than previously assumed. Based on the comparison of genetic material hake in the North Sea seems to be different to fish west of Scotland and in the Mediterranean Sea.

Hake with its firm white meat is a popular and sought after species especially in Europe. Spain is the largest consumer of hake, followed by Portugal, France and Italy."

Facts about hake

Latin name – Merluccius merluccius
Other name: Svartkjeft eller kolkjeft, Heek, Merluccius merluccius, Hake, Merlu, Seehecht, Merluza, Nasello
Family: Hake family (Merlucciidae)
Maxiumum size: 140 cm and > 13 kg
Lifespan: 12 years
Distribution: North East Atlantic, North Sea, Skagerrak / Kattegat, Norwegian fjords
Spawning areas: Bay of Biscay and west of Ireland / England along the 200 m isobaths, North Sea and Norwegian fjords
Spawning time: During summer / autumn in Norwegian fjords
Feed: Herring, mackerel, hake, mesopelagic fish, krill

Map of distribution

Status, advice and fishery
Hake in the North Sea and Skagerrak/Kattegat is managed as part of ICES ‘northern hake’ stock, which also covers the Bay of Biscay, Celtic Sea, and the area west of Ireland and Scotland. Hake north of 62° is not part of this management area.

Article courtesy of the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research.

BREXIT, ENGOs & THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Assistant chief executive, Dale Rodmell, reflects on Brexit, the disconnect between industry and the Common Fisheries Policy and the influence and role of environmental NGOs.

Fishing became the political poster child for the Brexit campaign. It's easy to see why. More than in any other area of EU policy, the story of fisheries epitomises a sense of lost control and real loss as our industry bore the brunt of year after year of cuts at the hands of a distant invisible bureaucracy the industry gave the impression that it was oblivious to the livelihood needs of fishing communities. Changes to improve things to better connect industry to policy have also seemed slow and insufficient. In order to better understand the issues we now face following the Brexit vote it is worth examining the history of involvement of the fishing industry in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and in more recent times the emergence of environmental NGOs as a significant influence.

The CFP Disconnect

Up until 2004 the only direct engagement the industry had with the CFP machinery was through the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA), a forum of industry and representatives of fish workers that advised the Commission across the whole spectrum of European fisheries. As a single forum that only met occasionally it was grossly inadequate for the task of covering the whole spectrum of European fisheries. The Regional Advisory Councils (now Advisory Councils) were first launched in 2004

The first efforts to change this state of affairs followed the crises of the 1990s that saw drastic cuts to whitefish quotas and to the fleet. From the discontent that was generated the 2002 CFP reform saw the introduction of the Regional Advisory Councils (now Advisory Councils). These were much more significant forums with secretariats to support their work and they gave the industry a much more robust platform at a more appropriate scale to influence management decisions, alongside other stakeholders. But the Advisory Councils were not the be all and end all. Advice is just that. It has no direct role in setting management objectives and operational rules. There was wide recognition that involvement still needed to be deepened further.

The opportunity for that came with the regionalisation agenda under the latest reform. At the start of the process the Commission, in its Green Paper of 2009, had started out accepting that there was still something wrong with the relationship between fisheries governance under the CFP and industry. It said that:

"Very little can be achieved if the forthcoming reform fails to motivate the catching sector, the processing and seafood chain as well as consumers to support the objectives of the policy and take responsibility for implementing them effectively. It is critical to the success of reform that industry should understand the need for it, support it and have a genuine stake in its successful outcome. In a mostly top-down approach, which has been the case under the CFP so far, the fishing industry has been given few incentives to behave as a responsible actor accountable for the sustainable use of a public resource. Co-management arrangements could be developed to reverse this situation." (CFP Reform Green Paper, 2009)

Almost as soon as it was printed, however, this whole agenda was all about to be side-lined. In contrast to what the Commission technocrats were thinking, Commissioner Damanaki had spent her time in office either aloof or hostile to industry. The European Parliament with its newly established powers under the Lisbon Treaty had little affinity for grand ideas of delegating responsibility to others when it had just been given responsibility itself. That, combined with the vast majority of MEPs having an almost complete absence of knowledge of the fishing industry, but their ears open to anyone who would tell them what to think, set the stage for the next command and controllers charter that we now see in the current CFP.

How did it turn out that way? Enter the eNGOs. Many newly self-appointed as the guardians of our marine resources and ready to fight on the beaches with a war chest mostly convoyed over from the USA. They got to work firstly with a doom-mongers blitz. Despite ongoing progress with cutting fishing mortality and the start of recovery being seen across the NE Atlantic stocks, according to them stocks were in free fall and heading for extinction - remember the 100 cod left in the North Sea story, and the 2048 end of line hype? In this altered reality, the inference was that industry couldn't be trusted with the public's precious natural resources. They had pillaged them, and always hoodwinked their politicians into agreeing short-termist decisions, right? And there was an urgency to put it all right, if not by 2015, then by 2020 at the latest, no exceptions. Accompanying this narrative was heavy lobbying of the European Parliament to introduce a strict set of regulation to be contained in the core legislation, providing little flexibility for application at the regional level (see figure below).

Then, in the midst of it all, along came one of our celebrity campaigning chefs to lob in a discards PR hand grenade, straight into Commissioner Damanaki's lap. It didn't matter that a lot of the discards were generated by the regulations themselves and that significant progress had already been made to reduce them. In a matter of weeks the industry was handed it back, in-kind; the obligation to (nearly) not throw a single fish over the side...whilst trying to do a circus act to remain within the constraints of all of the other regulations. Actually, the circus act was left for another day - too hard for the hard working legislators to think about at that time. The megalomaniacs were back in charge, and once the deal was signed, congratulating themselves on the fantastic job they had done.

Creating the next command and controller's charter: Left, MEP's eNGO crib sheet during the Parliament vote in 2013. Right, an explanation of what the amendments mean in practice. The first two were adopted in the final reform.

Indeed, a number of them still believe it and continue to press for the toughest interpretation of the reform text. They continue to try to persuade decision-makers that the scientists have it wrong over setting stock biomass levels consistent with sustainable yields. They continue to lambast Ministers for TAC decisions that are different from the single stock advice without acknowledging their role in a legitimate process to consider, beyond this advice, balancing the pace of reaching MSY with mixed fishery considerations and the likelihood of generating large quantities of discards. And they are working to try to set up a police state of electronic monitoring to hold the whole thing together.

Shared Objectives, Wrong-headed Delivery

To be clear, the NFFO has not been against the policy objectives of the CFP. Maximising long-term yields is a good thing, as is minimising discards. But fisheries management can't sit in an ivory tower and hand down these objectives as prescriptive management regulations attached with "plucked out of the sky" non-negotiable deadlines without an appreciation of how to deliver at sea and manage change, whilst maintaining viable businesses. Tighter management has thus come along just when we have been witnessing of stock recovery on the grounds. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) targets have delayed increases to quotas. Across fisheries that had received severe cuts the evidence base which is dependent upon the operating fisheries themselves, has also been undermined resulting in the increased application of the precautionary approach, which leads to reduced quotas simply due to lack of knowledge on stock status. New stocks such as skates and rays have been placed on quota but again with limited evidence, they too have been subject to successive cuts as a consequence of the precautionary approach. All of these situations have led to more instances where fishing opportunities are out of sync with stock abundance. Add the landing obligation (discard ban) to all of this and we are heading for a crunch as the responsibility for the mismatch between available quota and abundance is transferred to the fishing business with the expectation that they can somehow perform the circus act and avoid breaking the law. And if they can't, they tie up and go bust. That's the prospect of what so-called "choke" stocks mean when the available quota of one stock has been used up but the stock can't be avoided and so fishing for other species has to stop.

eNGOs and Brexit

The Brexit vote demonstrated in spectacular fashion that keeping those who are affected by decisions remote from decision-making and marginalised from the agenda, that politics can and does come back to bite. Of course, fisheries were part of a much wider leave narrative over governance, identity, democracy and exclusion, but it was used graphically in the Leave campaign to make the point.

In the wake of the vote, there is likely to be a lot of soul-searching in the EU about how to better connect the supra-national institutions to national populations. But the influence of eNGOs that was prominently visible in the latest CFP reform, and their habit of lobbying for top-down command and control environmental policy from the centre, hasn't gone away with the vote. eNGOs are not accountable to the electorate. And in Europe, the UK probably has an eNGO community that is more active than in any other nation.

eNGOs didn't want Brexit. A large amount of environmental policy is attached in some way to EU governance, and as some have argued in our EU referendum blog, fisheries and other environmental issues go beyond the reach of single countries. But already some are calling on the UK government to be tough on regulation and others are seeking to disenfranchise our industry by claiming that we fail to understand sustainability and the conservation of natural resources upon which our industry depends.

Rubbish. A cursory glance at our website and the work we are involved in will prove that is not the case. Such an assertion reflects just the sort of attitude of blaming the people for their lot and trying to marginalise them from decision-making that is the cause of political ruction, certainly not a solution to it. Such eNGOs should hold a mirror up to themselves about what the vote represented. I appreciate, nonetheless, that so far in talking about eNGOs I am lumping together a great number of organisations and stereotyping them as one. That is unfair. Not all are concerned with implementing legalistic regulatory frameworks from the centre and not all work to demonize and control the fishing industry without having anything to do with it. Indeed, some have a more collaborative side. The Advisory Councils have been pioneering in bringing eNGOs together with industry. In the fruits of the consensus-based advice that they produce, they demonstrate what is possible.

Working in Partnership

There is also a growing number who are beginning to work directly to support industry. We in the industry need to foster these relationships, whilst continuing to call out those who would rather work in the shadows and transmit falsehoods about our industry, ferment division and continue to pedal the doom-mongers narrative in order to justify their next grant or charitable donation.

There is a lot to do that could be achieved working in partnership. We must strive to improve the ability of industry to generate its own evidence to be able to help to plug the gaps in our fisheries knowledge base. We need to press ahead with management approaches that incentivise industry, undertaking trials and ensure that what works is adopted more widely. We need to create a policy environment where fisheries management is not all about compliance with the rules, it is about shared objectives, shared management, and mutual buy-in. We must show how that is a different and a better way to the centralising tendencies of top-down control.

What Next?

There are many governance models for our fisheries that may materialise post-Brexit. There is nothing to say that one or other of the possibilities would not be some form of top-down control. Like any system of governance, when the pieces are thrown in the air they can so easily land with all the power greedily held at the centre or result with powerful lobbies dictating the terms. We will, of course, be working to see that whatever model it is, it is inclusive of the industry. I'll close with a prediction. Fisheries will continue along the path to recovery and at some point the doom-mongers' currency about our industry, like the boy who cried wolf, will be worthless. Those eNGOs that stick to it will either wither or go onto something else. The surviving ones still working in fisheries will be the ones that are actually supporting industry to sustainably manage its own affairs and celebrating what is possible. Bring on the optimists.

Full story courtesy of the NFFO website.