What does a no deal Brexit look like for fishing?

Despite its small size relative to the rest of the UK’s economy, fishing has dominated the Brexit debate. Many in the fishing industry have long been critical of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and opinion polling before the referendum shows that fishers intended to overwhelmingly vote Leave.

93% of them felt that leaving the EU would increase the fortunes of their industry, with 77% believing that Brexit would be an opportunity to catch more fish. In terms of trade, the perception in 2016 was that Brexit would have little impact on seafood trade, with 77% believing it would have no impact at all.

Since the referendum attention has increasingly focused on the complexity and diversity of the fishing industry and how this might be reflected in the eventual Brexit deal with the EU.

Given differences in the nature of fishing across the UK’s four nations, as well as wider debates about the ownership of fishing rights coupled with the UK government’s commitments to a ‘green Brexit’, reaching a deal which pleases everyone across fishing sectors is akin to finding the holy grail.

However, following the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by MPs in January, the prospect of a ‘no deal’ Brexit has risen up the agenda. It has been highlighted that such a scenario will lead to short-term disruption and uncertainty.

Fishing wouldn’t be excluded from this. Indeed, the instability of no deal is acknowledged by some in the fishing industry itself. For example, Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Association suggests that, in the event of a no deal, UK vessels could just tie up and “temporarily fish less” until either governance and policy process catch up, or the UK and EU come to agreement at some point after 29 March.

But a closer inspection of what a no deal Brexit means for fishing suggest its impact goes beyond just sitting back and weathering the storm.

Firstly, even in a no deal scenario, the UK doesn’t get to go it alone in fisheries policy. The much banded about phrase ‘independent coastal state’ suggests the UK will have unprecedented freedom, but this comes with significant obligations. Many of the fish stocks in the UK’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are shared.

This means the UK would still have to cooperate with the EU, and other coastal states (such as Norway and the Faroe Islands) in managing those stocks.

Also, given that the UK fishing fleet currently lacks the necessary capacity to catch all the fish in the UK EEZ, it would still likely have to permit foreign vessels access to catch any surplus fish stocks.

Secondly, there is the question of what fisheries policy would look like under no deal. The UK doesn’t have a new fisheries policy ready to go at the push of a button in the event of no deal: the fisheries white paper, published last year, contained many laudable aims but remained light on detail.

The Fisheries Bill only provides a legislative framework, and is still the subject of ongoing parliamentary deliberation.

One provision in the Withdrawal Agreement sees the UK effectively remaining in the CFP until the end of 2020. This faced much criticism at the time it was announced, but one of the reasons for this transition period is because it gives the UK and its devolved administrations time and space to develop their own approach to fisheries policy which meet the diverse needs of the fishing industry.

It also provides administrations across the UK, who already have devolved responsibility for fisheries management, to evaluate their capacities for engaging in more activities that were previously done for them via the CFP (including the potential to engage more in international negotiations).

A no deal Brexit means no transition arrangement, and this brings one of two risks. On the one hand the absence of any alternative approach to fisheries policy will simply mean the status quo will continue.

All the rules and regulations of the CFP will effectively remain in place (having been rolled over by the EU Withdrawal Act), while the government remains distracted dealing with the day-to-day fallout of a no deal.

On the other hand, the UK may choose to make sudden sweeping changes in order to signal its independent coastal state status. But this carries a risk too.

Such a rushed approach to policy design leaves little room for engagement with those working in the industry who will be affected, resulting in an approach which fails to work at sea.

This also comes at a time when trust between fishers and the government is low. Moreover, any sudden changes to access are likely to affect the UK’s standing on the international stage too.

The third significant issue with a no deal Brexit relates to trade. The majority of what the UK catches is exported, with most of that going to the EU. Tariffs aren’t the main concern though.

Rather it is non-tariff barriers, such as customs checks, which represent the largest risk, particularly as they threaten to cause delays to the transport of perishable seafood products.

The notion that vessels could simply “temporarily fish less” until such practicalities are sorted out will do little to reassure skippers of smaller vessels. They make up 78% of the UK’s fishing fleet, have tighter profit margins, and are most exposed to the effects of trade disruptions.

This is especially the case for shellfishing (the largest of the UK’s catching sectors), which a recent report commissioned by the Shellfish Association, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation found would be significantly impacted under a no deal scenario.

On top of all of this are several more ‘practical’ issues. A recent report by the National Audit Office found Defra doesn’t yet have the necessary capacity to enforce fisheries regulations out at sea, and most fish will require catch certificates for importing and exporting.

This process may lead to delays and capacity challenges for authorities who will have to approve them, while also placing a significant administrative burden placed on skippers and seafood exporters. The necessary IT systems to facilitate this are still in development.

Finally, a no deal Brexit would mean that British fishing vessels would have no automatic right to access to the EEZs of other EU member states, where 94,000 tonnes of fish worth £88 million were caught in 2017.

For many fishers, EU membership and the CFP have been detrimental to the fortunes of their industry. Some of the issues raised in the debate (such as quota distribution across the UK’s fleet) have always been within the UK government’s gift to address.

Nevertheless, Brexit arguably presents an opportunity for the UK to rethink its approach to fisheries policy.

However, a no deal outcome does little to address the concerns that led many fishers and coastal communities to vote for Brexit in the first place and, if anything, it could make things worse.

Full article by Dr Christopher Huggins, University of Suffolk, and Drs Arno van der Zwet, John Connolly and Craig McAngus, University of the West of Scotland published by the UK in a Changing Europe.  
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this analysis post are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative

Fishy Friday in Newlyn

The smart money is on fish like hake...

from the netter, Ajax...

or maybe big flatfish like this turbot...

or some sweet succulent squid...

ravishing ray...

wonderful witches...

luscious ling...

positively potent plus-fours...

more than enough to keep the buyers busy...

though there were just a few mackerel and sardines in the big fridge this morning...

to go with these lovely lemons...

delicious Dory...

wholesome haddock...

or marvellous megrim soles...

delicious Dovers...

meaty mini-monk tails 

before they are all stacked up...

and whisked away...

the St Georges anded her fish directly to the market...

the final stage is nearing completion...

though most of the fleet are now safely tied up in the harbour... 

along with a visitor, the ex-French now Irish trawler re-named, Northern Osprey from Annalong...

major refit underway in Penzance dock for this classic crabber...

the Scillonian III, laying inside the Gry Maritha is now looking very spruce after her annual refit in the Dry Dock.

Fisheries: implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation

The House of Lords European Union Committee has just published its findings on the Landing Obligation - with regard to implementation and enforcement - makes for very interesting reading and poses more questions than answers - reflecting the clash between ideology and pragmatism in a complex industry like fishing where what can sound like a great idea "let's end discarding" as championed by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Fish Fight campaign - entirely honourable in its intentions - entirely unworkable for many in its present guise.

The danger here is that the media will identify certain sections of the industry as the villains when in reality the industry has made incredible technical advances and skippers and crews have invested heavily in seeking solutions - often at their own expense and often meeting with intransigence from the management.

Undercurrent News covered the same story.

This story is set to run.

With an eye on the past - looking to a post-Brexit future.

The Food Research Collaboration for integrated and inclusive food policy has produced this look at the pre-Brexit Fishing Industry trying to get a handle on where the Government might take the industry post-Brexit in light of its past record with quota allocation and management:

UK fishers were vocal in their support for leaving the EU, believing that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been the cause of the difficulties that have beset their industry over the last 40 years — difficulties that many still suffer. But this Brexit Briefing, from fisheries analyst Dr Miriam Greenwood, argues that it was UK (rather than EU) decision-making, allied to stock collapse due to overfishing, that drove the decline of Britain’s once mighty fishing fleet. And leaving the EU, of itself, will not solve the sector’s problems.

The report examines the development of UK fisheries policy before and under the Common Fisheries Policy. It shows how the allocation of quotas by the UK government has persistently disadvantaged the small and arguably more sustainable small-scale fishers that dominate the British fleet; and how quota was quietly privatised to allow it to be bought and sold by non-fishers. Over the years, under this regime, the sector ceased to be primarily a source of food for the domestic supply chain and became geared to exports, while much domestic consumption depends on imports.

The Briefing concludes that it is essential that any new UK fisheries policy must stick to the evidence-based sustainability approach developed by the CFP. And whatever happens with Brexit, the UK should conduct a comprehensive review of quota allocation. This should be based on fair distribution across all sectors of the fleet, and should reward the most sustainable forms of fishing.

The dangers of one-dimensional fisheries management.

Incisive writing from the NFFO discussing that thorny acronym MSY and what it means to some:

Within the corridors of Westminster, another battle is raging. This one is over how the principle of maximum sustainable yield should be applied to our fisheries after the UK has left the EU and CFP.

The Fisheries Bill is passing through Parliament and battle is engaged for parliamentarians’ favour in both the Commons and the Lords. On the one side, are fisheries managers, the fishing industry and fisheries scientists, and on the other, the environmental NGOs and their sympathisers, who are pressing a one-dimensional view of fisheries management. If successful this would inadvertently, but inevitably, close down some of our most important fisheries.

MSY: a useful yardstick/a dangerous dogma

MSY is a convenient yardstick to measure whether fish stocks are being fished at sustainable levels. It involves establishing biological reference points for each stock as a rough proxy for the levels fishing which would secure maximum benefits from each stock. The concept, however, was never designed to be applied in mixed fisheries where a range of species, each with different conservation status, are caught together. Useful when used as an aspiration, applied in a dogmatic way, MSY can become an obstacle to sustainable fisheries management.

MSY was adopted as a political objective at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg in 2002. Since then it has been used as a shorthand yardstick for sustainability. And since 2013, after extensive lobbying by the environmental NGOs, it has been a legal requirement within the CFP, with a deadline to have all harvested species consistent with MSY by 2020. MSY therefore comes into play when quotas for each species are set each year, based on scientific advice produced by the International Council for Exploration of the Seas.

ICES produce single species advice for each stock to meet the European Commission’s request for advice expressed in a memorandum of understanding. The form of that request is important. Even though, since 2000, fishing pressure across all of the main species groups has been falling dramatically and stocks have been rebuilding steadily, scientists when asked what level of catch is consistent with achieving MSY by 2020, for a handful of stocks can only provide one possible answer: zero catch. And that is a problem for mixed fisheries under the landing obligation.

Mixed Fisheries

In the real world of mixed fisheries, fisheries managers are faced with a range of objectives. Management decisions for each stock are always based on the scientific advice but trade-offs between the different objectives require compromises. These include:

Building or maintaining the biomass of each stock to MSY, bearing in mind that even without human intervention, the abundance of any given fish stocks will fluctuate in response to different environmental signals: once a stock is at MSY, there is no guarantee that it will stay there, even at low fishing levels.
Reducing discards, or as there is now a discard ban/landing obligation, avoiding chokes, where the exhaustion of one quota would close fisheries for other economically important species
Maintaining the viability of fishing businesses and fishing communities, often through a staged approach to rebuilding stocks to avoid the worst socio-economic impacts when below average recruitment means that quotas have to be reduced
Setting quotas within this context is complex. Multiple objectives require difficult trade-offs. The introduction of the EU landing obligation, which requires all quota species to be landed unless there is a specific exemption, raises the stakes because of the risk of chokes, when the exhaustion of quota for one species will mean that a vessel cannot retain any more of that species but neither can the species be landed because there is no quota to cover that landing. A classic Catch 22.

In recognition of these kind of management dilemmas, the EU introduced the concept of fishing mortality ranges into their management plans, in the teeth of strenuous opposition from the more purist NGOs and their allies in the European Parliament. F-ranges are not a panacea for chokes, but they do provide fisheries managers with a little more flexibility to set quotas in mixed fisheries. Even the European Commission, the body charged with overseeing implementation of EU fisheries law, has been noticeably reluctant to give full force to the MSY principle in its proposals - because of the consequences of following a one-dimensional path.

MSY in the Fisheries Bill

The central purpose of the Fisheries Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, is to provide UK fisheries ministers with the authority to set quotas and control access to UK waters after the UK departs the EU. It also contains a range of broad objectives, including one to maintain fish stocks in line with the MSY principle. What is missing by contrast with the Common Fisheries Policy, is the requirement to set quotas for all harvested stocks at MSY by 2020.

This has been done for good reason. A hard, legal obligation to set quotas at MSY, irrespective of the circumstances, would tie managers’ hands in dealing with the necessary trade-offs described above. Removing the arbitrary deadline provides fisheries management with a degree of flexibility to manage mixed fisheries whilst still maintain the commitment to set quotas at levels which generate maximum economic benefits.

The NGOs argue that this change represents a dilution of the UK’s commitment to the EU’s sustainability standards. It is a deceptively simple but dangerous argument. Because it is simple – and the counter argument is rather complex – it is gaining traction in Parliament.

Consequences

The EU landing obligation, which came fully into force on January 2019, requires all quota species to be landed and counted against quota. For fisheries in which the scientific advice for one species caught in a mixed fishery is for zero catch of that species, this poses a dilemma. A species caught as unavoidable bycatch could close the whole fishery prematurely. Applied legalistically, the MSY principle, alongside the requirements of the landing obligation, would mean closing whole fisheries in January for the rest of the year. In concrete terms, had this approach been applied for the quotas set in December 2018, for the 2019 fishery, applying the MSY principle within the context of the landing obligation would mean the immediate closure of:

• The West of Scotland demersal fisheries
• The Irish Sea nephrops fisheries
• The Celtic Sea demersal fisheries.

This drastic action would be required because there is zero catch scientific advice for, respectively, cod, whiting and cod in these fisheries. Put plainly, following a rigid interpretation of MSY at the 2018 December Council would have meant catastrophic social and economic consequences for thousands of fishing businesses and hundreds of fishing communities in Western Waters. The more purist NGOs could perhaps afford to be blasé about such an outcome but clearly ministers baulked at taking responsibility for such carnage. In the event, a difficult compromise was found.

MSY as a slogan

The NGOs would have us believe that all that is needed to achieve sustainable fisheries is political will. The beauty of this formulae is its simplicity. The appeal is to the general public and politicians who, understandably, know little of the complexities of managing mixed fisheries within the context zero catch advice and the landing obligation. But reducing MSY to a slogan is dangerous.

Embedded as a hard, legal, requirement, with an arbitrary timetable, would:

• Limit fisheries managers’ ability to achieve optimum outcomes,
• Be impossible to achieve consistently from a biological point of view, as humans cannot control spawning success or the recruitment of young fish to the fishery each year
• Make international fisheries negotiations dance around a scientifically illiterate legal requirement
• Carry potentially dire social and economic consequences

None of these would be the intention but they would be the consequences of an inflexible, one-dimensional approach to MSY. The fishing industry has a deep interest in a management system that delivers high average yields of commercial species. ICES science demonstrates that great progress has been made in achieving this objective across all the main species groups. As the UK leaves the EU it makes sense to retain MSY as a principle, as an aspiration, and as an objective - but the consequences of giving it primacy over all other considerations would be disastrous.

Full story courtesy of the NFFO here.

Exporting and importing fish if there’s no Brexit deal

Prepare for rules and processes for exporting and importing wild-caught marine fish if we leave the EU with no deal.

The MMO and Defra have just published the rules and procedures which will be faced by those wishing to export fish from the UK post March 30th 2019.


Marine Management Organisation and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Contents

• Exporting fish to the EU from 30 March 2019
• Catch certificate
• Export health certificate
• Direct landing documents
• Storage document - for fish stored in the UK but not processed
• Processing statement - for fish processed in the UK
• Method of transport
• Exporting fish to non-EU countries
• Importing fish from the EU from 30 March 2019
• Exporting fish to the EU from 30 March 2019
• To export wild-caught marine fish to the EU if there’s no Brexit deal you’ll need :
• a catch certificate
• an export health certificate, except for direct landings from UK-flagged fishing vessels

You may also need:

• a prior notification form
• a pre-landing declaration
• a storage document
• a processing statement

The EU uses these documents to monitor fishing activity and to detect illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

You’ll need to create these documents using forms on GOV.UK. This page will include guidance on how to create the documents and a helpline number before the end of March.

New rules will apply to:

• exports to the EU of fish caught by a UK flagged fishing vessel
• exports to the EU of fish imported from another country that have been stored or processed in the UK
• direct landings in EU ports by a UK flagged fishing vessel
• Send fish to an EU border inspection post
• You’ll need to send all consignments of UK-caught fish and fishery products by sea, air, road or rail to the EU through a border inspection post (BIP) only.

Catch certificate

You’ll need a catch certificate for most exports of fish to the EU. The catch certificate shows that the fish was caught legally. It includes:

• details about the catching vessels
• amount of fish by species and weight
• presentation and state, such as whole or filleted, fresh or frozen
• commodity code
• when and where the fish was caught
• To get a catch certificate to export a consignment of fish from the UK to the EU, you’ll need to follow these steps:

You’ll complete an online catch certificate form for each consignment of fish. If you’re exporting fish that came from multiple vessels, you’ll need to specify quantities from each vessel.

The UK fisheries authority will validate your catch certificate.

Send the validated catch certificate to your EU importer to complete their sections.

The importer will present the certificate to their competent authority.


You won’t need a catch certificate to export:

• farmed fish and farmed shellfish
• freshwater fish or freshwater shellfish
• fish fry or larvae
• some molluscs including mussels, cockles, oysters and scallops, but you’ll still need a live shellfish registration document - for more information contact your local council
• Export health certificate
• You’ll need an export health certificate (EHC) for all exports of fish to the EU, including farmed fish and shellfish. You won’t need an EHC for direct landings from a UK flagged fishing vessel.
• 
  
• An official vet or local authority environmental health officer will sign the EHC to confirm the quality and health of the export. There is no fee for the EHC, but you may need to pay for the services of the vet or local authority.
• 
  
• EHC forms for fish exports will be available before the UK leaves the EU.

Direct landing documents

To land your catch from your UK flagged fishing vessel directly in the EU you’ll need to land in a designated EU port

Fishery enforcement officers may inspect your fish when you arrive. You’ll need to show them the catch certificate.

You’ll need to complete a:

• prior notification form
• pre-landing declaration
• Prior notification form

You’ll need to give EU designated ports prior notification of your arrival:

• for frozen fish, at least 72 hours before landing
• for fresh fish, at least 4 hours before landing
• Pre-landing declaration

You’ll need to submit a pre-landing declaration 4 hours before landing. You’ll need to give details of the:

• area fished
• quantity of fish by species on board the vessel
• North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Port State Control forms
• You’ll need to submit NEAFC Port State Control forms PSC1 and PSC2 24 hours before landing.
• Storage document - for fish stored in the UK but not processed

If you’re exporting to the EU fish sourced from another country that have been stored in the UK, but not processed in any way, you’ll need to apply for a storage document.

In your application, you’ll need to provide:

• a description of the product and commodity code
• export weight of the product
• date and place the product entered the UK
• description of the storage facility and conditions the fish was kept in
• transport details - the registration number of the vehicle or CMR note
• Keep a copy of the catch certificate from the original consignment with the storage document.

Processing statement - for fish processed in the UK

If you’re exporting to the EU fish sourced from another country that has been processed in the UK, you’ll need to apply for a processing statement.

In your application, you’ll need to provide:

• a description of the product and commodity code
• species and weight of the fish landed
• the net weight of the fish used for processing
• the weight of the product after processing
• processing plant details, including approval number
• export health certificate number and date
• Include a copy of the catch certificate from the original consignment with the processing statement.

Method of transport

You’ll need to include transport details on the catch certificate. These will include:

• by sea: the container numbers and the name and flag of the container vessel
• by air: the airway bill or flight number
• by road: the registration number of the vehicle or CMR note
• by rail: the railway bill number

You’ll need to give these details to the importer so they can give them to the receiving member state’s competent authority. You must do this for exports:

• by sea: 72 hours before landing
• by air and rail: 4 hours before arriving
• by road: 2 hours before arriving
• Exporting fish to non-EU countries

See guidance on catch certificates for non-EU imports and exports of fish.

Importing fish from the EU from 30 March 2019

If you import fish to the UK from the EU you’ll need a catch certificate and supporting documents validated by the country of export. These will vary as they are produced by the exporting country.

UK port health authorities (fisheries authorities in Northern Ireland) will check these documents on imports to the UK of containerised fish by sea, air, road or rail.

EU fishing vessels must land fish into a designated UK port

If the fish you’re importing to the UK have been:

• stored, you’ll need a storage document from the exporter
• processed, you’ll need a processing statement from the exporter - this must be filled in by the processor and endorsed by the authority in the country of processing

If you re-export fish imported from the EU you’ll need to complete the re-export section on the catch certificate.

Published 4 February 2019
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exporting-and-importing-fish-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

MSC suspends all North East Atlantic mackerel certifications

Peterhead based, Kings Cross, just one member of the pelagic fleet likely to be affected by the MSC mackerel suspension.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for all North East Atlantic mackerel fisheries will be suspended on March 2, 2019.

This was announced today through the release of an expedited audit report for all North East Atlantic mackerel fisheries in the MSC program.

Mackerel caught on or after March 2 cannot be sold as ‘MSC certified’ or bear the blue MSC label. The suspension affects all four certificates, for fisheries across eight countries. Sources pointed out to Undercurrent News it was important to note that by that time the mackerel season should be completed, meaning the first impacts of this will be delayed.

The suspension comes after the mackerel stock in the northeast Atlantic dropped below a precautionary threshold level, while catches remain far higher than advised by scientists, said the MSC. The drop in stock triggered an expedited audit by the independent certifiers in November 2018, and the report from that audit was published today.

“This news will be a disappointment for the fishermen as well as for mackerel loving consumers," said Camiel Derichs, Europe director for the MSC. "However, factors including declining stocks, quotas set above new scientific advice and poor recruitment have combined to mean that the fisheries no longer meet the MSC’s requirements."

"That said, I am confident that the fisheries and other stakeholders involved will deliver a plan to improve the situation. There is already work underway to review the way mackerel stocks are assessed. The fisheries have confirmed that they will work with management authorities to, as appropriate, adopt measures enabling recovery of the stock. If successful, that may enable reinstatement of the MSC certificates by the certification bodies.”

Based on the best scientific evidence available, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advises that the mackerel stock has been falling steadily since 2011, when it had reached a high of 4.79 million metric tons.

In recent years, high fishing pressure has combined with several years of poor recruitment to reduce the stock. As a result, in September 2018, ICES warned that the stock had dropped below 2.75m metric tons, the point at which it is considered necessary to take action in order to allow stocks to recover.

ICES has recommended a significantly reduced catch of 318,403t, which represents a 68.2% cut in current catches to restore the stock to a sustainable level. Short-term projections suggest that catches in line with the ICES advice would recover the stock above the sustainable level by 2020-2021. Maintaining the current level of catches will result in the stock dropping the point where recruitment is impaired in 2020.

While the expedited audit was taking place, ICES initiated a benchmark assessment for the mackerel stock. This is expected to deliver more insight into the stock status of mackerel in spring 2019. ICES initiated this work to review, and if needed address, uncertainties in the current stock assessment for mackerel.

One possible outcome of that scientific work could be that the estimate of the stock size shifts above the "maximum sustainable yield Btrigger [the value of spawning stock biomass that triggers a specific management action point]".

If this happens, the certifiers will likely conduct a second expedited audit in spring, to assess the impact of that new estimate on the fisheries’ performance against the MSC fisheries standard. This could be a basis for a reinstatement of the certificates for mackerel fisheries.

However, it will not solve the ongoing challenges on sharing the stock or fishing above the scientific advice would still apply, said the MSC. The fisheries have existing conditions as part of their MSC certificates to deliver improvements in the management for mackerel. There is an ongoing need for coastal states to set quotas and management measures in line with scientific advice.


The fisheries affected are:

• ISF Iceland mackerel
• Northern Ireland Pelagic Sustainability Group (NIPSG) Irish Sea-Atlantic mackerel & North Sea herring
• MINSA North East Atlantic mackerel
• Denmark DPPO (Danish Pelagic Producers Organization)
• IrelandIPSA (Irish Pelagic Sustainability Association)
• IrelandIPSG (Irish Pelagic Sustainability Group)
• NetherlandsPFA (Pelagic Freezer-trawler Association – Netherlands)
• Norway NFA (Norges Fiskarlag/Norwegian Fishermen’s Association)
• SwedenSPFPO (Swedish Pelagic Federation Producers Organisation)
• UK SPSG (Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group)
• Faroese Pelagic Organisation North East Atlantic mackerel

There has been an ongoing debate around ICES assessments of the mackerel stocks, with the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation (KFO) among those that feel it fails to acknowledge a large increase in Atlantic mackerel stocks outside conventional fishing grounds.

It appears Ireland’s Marine Institute and Norway's Institute of Marine Research increasingly share this view.

"The ICES advice for mackerel, I can assure you, is wrong," KFO chief Sean O'Donoghue recently told Undercurrent News. "They’re looking at it now in the first week of March, and they’ll be looking at it more comprehensively in May, but I’m very confident that there will be a significant upward revision of the scientific advice."

Full story from UndercurrentNews.com by Neil Ramsden Jan. 31, 2019.