Beyond the Common Fisheries Policy: Scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill

Here are the Conclusions and Recommendations for the Fisheries Bill 2019. Tiz a pity that the cover is adorned by a non-UK fishing vessel - they only had to ask!

But the greatest shame is that in the report there is no mention of education & training at a time when there is a dire shortage of UK crews and suitably qualified individuals capable of filling posts as engineers, mates or skippers - wherein lies the future for UK fishing if they are not forthcoming?


Eleventh Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report.

Introduction

1.The Government should as a matter of course enable House of Commons’ Committees to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny on bills of this importance. (Paragraph 4)

Fisheries policy in the UK
2.In considering the Fisheries Bill, Parliament is presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to evaluate and address the concerns raised about the Common Fisheries Policy. (Paragraph 18)

Governance

3.The process of developing and reviewing the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS) and the Secretary of State’s Fisheries Statement (SSFS) is an opportunity to provide clear direction and effective coordination for the UK’s fisheries policy as an independent coastal state. However, it is essential that the JFS and SSFS are subject to a shortened review period and independent expert assessment to help facilitate more rigorous scrutiny. (Paragraph 31)

4.The Government should amend the Bill so that the Joint Fisheries Statements (for the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations) and the Secretary of State’s Fisheries Statement will: (a) be subject to an interim review every three years and full review every six years; and (b) comprise an expert and independent published assessment that can be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. (Paragraph 32)

5.The Fisheries Bill is an opportunity to ensure the UK fisheries administrations can operate a dynamic fisheries management system, which can rapidly respond to changing circumstances. However, it is important that the use of delegated powers by the Secretary of State is informed by stakeholders in order to ensure that issues relating to their practical implementation are fully considered. (Paragraph 39)

6.The Government should establish a non-statutory advisory body, which can provide a forum for consultation and communication with stakeholders, for the new fisheries management system that will be established when the UK becomes an independent coastal state. This will help to provide transparency and confidence in the decision-making process, including in the application of the Fisheries Bill’s delegated powers. This body needs to have the credibility to make a real and sustained impact, encouraging support and buy-in for the new system among all stakeholders, including the fishing industry, the scientific community and environmental groups. (Paragraph 40)

7.The Fisheries Bill extends new powers and provisions to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) but not to Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs). The Government needs to ensure that new policy can be enforced in all English waters. IFCAs should be provided with the provisions and powers that a post-CFP regime will require. It is also important to ensure that both the MMO and IFCAs are adequately resourced to deliver their respective responsibilities and that unnecessary duplication is avoided. This means, amongst other things, that there must be an adequate number of fisheries protection vessels available to authorities. (Paragraph 47)

8.The Government should amend the Bill to more clearly designate the respective roles and powers of the MMO and IFCAs in relation to their duties for fisheries and marine protection, and to ensure they both have the necessary enforcement powers and resources of personnel and protection vessels to fully deliver the requirements of the UK as an independent coastal state. (Paragraph 48)

Fishing Opportunities

9.The UK will have additional fishing opportunities after leaving the EU. An opportunity now exists to allocate these more fairly and transparently across the sector, and in line with the Government’s stated objectives in Clause 1. While we welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a new method of allocation, the proposals laid down in Clause 22 do not meet our expectations and lack detail. We are concerned that such proposals will marginalise owners of smaller vessels and will not represent a significant break from current practice, which is based on the situation many years ago when the UK joined the EU. (Paragraph 56)

10.The Government should consult widely on the tender process for allocation of additional English quota and ensure buy-in from a range of stakeholders within the industry, including the operators of smaller vessels. Consultation should be followed by a trial, with feedback from affected parties to ensure workability and efficacy. (Paragraph 57)

11.We support the inclusion of the discards objective in Clause 1. The introduction of a new discard prevention charging scheme in Clause 23 is also welcome as a means to mitigate the impacts on industry. However, industry has valid concerns about the workability of such a scheme in practice. These concerns need to be addressed with urgency, taking into account experience, both good and bad, of the current discard scheme. (Paragraph 63)

12.The Government should trial and thoroughly consult on the discard prevention charging scheme and the associated secondary legislation to ensure it is workable, helps reduce discards and has stakeholder buy-in. The Government should establish a national research programme to identify new solutions to the issue of discard prevention with an aim of reporting its findings before the end of the transition period. (Paragraph 64)

Sustainability and coastal communities
13.The Government has committed, on numerous occasions, to setting objectives and goals for sustainable fisheries for future generations. The 25 Year Environment Plan also made promising commitments to sustainability and our international obligations, including a clear commitment to delivering UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 and to achieving good environmental status in our seas by 2020 under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. (Paragraph 75)

14.At present, this level of ambition is not fully matched by the Bill, which lacks clarity about how the UK’s international obligations will be met once the UK leaves the Common Fisheries Policy. The Government should amend the sustainability and precautionary objectives in Clause 1 to ensure the Bill commits the UK to: (1) its international commitments on achieving maximum sustainable yield under the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals; and (2) its obligations to marine protection under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention). The Government should also amend the Bill to enshrine a future commitment to shared management of stocks, based on the best available scientific advice. These commitments should not be left to the Joint Fisheries Statement but should be made explicit in the Bill itself. (Paragraph 76)

15.The Government should also commit to a target date for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)-level of exploitation of stocks. This should also be included within the next Joint Fisheries Statement, as suggested by the Minister, to ensure the UK can align with future international commitments for sustainable fisheries. Decisions for setting the target date must factor in both the likely timescale of the Bill and the stated ambition to achieve MSY as part of the precautionary objective. (Paragraph 77)

16.The Fisheries Bill is a significant opportunity for delivering a much-needed reversal of fortunes for vulnerable coastal communities and smaller scale fishers. Fair allocation of new and existing opportunities along economic, environmental, and social lines could lead to the regeneration of coastal communities and sustainable fishing practice. (Paragraph 87)

17.We also welcome the review of economic link conditions promised in the White Paper, Defra’s commitment to close working with Devolved Administrations and the additional funding promised to the Fishing Industry during the implementation period. We recognise the importance of a suitable replacement for the EMFF funding scheme for after 2020 and support the proposed plan and the measures suggested by the Minister. However, given the emphasis in the White Paper, the Committee does believe the Bill should include more explicit reference to the issue of economic regeneration of coastal communities. (Paragraph 88)

18.The Government should clarify what funding will be available to coastal communities after EMFF funding ends in 2020, and how eligibility for funding would be assessed. (Paragraph 89)

19.We recommend that the Government commits fully to delivering its review of economic link conditions proposed in the Fisheries White paper. The Government should also make direct reference to this issue in the Bill by expanding Clause 2 to make specific reference to economic regeneration of coastal communities. (Paragraph 90)

20.We regard the Bill as an opportunity to acknowledge the recreational fishing sector as a stakeholder in UK sea fisheries and recognise the advantages of more joined up thinking between the recreational and commercial sectors. We recommend that Clause 2(2)(h) be expanded to make explicit reference to recreational fishing. (Paragraph 94)

Published by the HoC January 20th 2019.

Internet access for all via WiFi access about to go live in Newlyn.

Resting on the flat-bed, a huge 19th century single fluke anchor recently trawled up by one of the beam trawl fleet...

while quayside, Jeremy shackles in a strop to help lift the Resurgam's beam trawl...

that she retrieved from the bay yesterday from where she had dropped both sets of trawl gear to keep her decks clear prior to her major refit...

this is common practice for the local beam trawl fleet as it is a much easier way to manage storage of their fishing gear on the seabed which they can very easily use a creep to pick up later (having taken accurate GPS readings where the trawls were temporarily dumped)...

across the quay engineers from Wildanet ...

are busy installing WiFi which will allow any harbour user to access the internet...

which will keep harbour users and visiting boats like the Still Waters connected to the internet 24/7.

Brexit without agreement: the government takes place at the footpaths and ports

The Guilvinec is the premiere landing port of artisanal fishing in France.

Still no agreement found on Brexit. The "no deal" scenario is worrying. On Thursday 17 January, Edouard Philippe announced the launch of a "plan" to deal with the possibility of a sudden exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union. An announcement that resonates in Brittany.

"Our responsibility is to ensure that our country is ready and safeguard the interests of our citizens" , says Edouard Philippe. To prepare the "no deal" scenario when the United Kingdom leaves Europe, the Prime Minister sets up a "plan" .

Prepared since April 2018, it "includes legislative measures and legal measures aimed at ensuring that there is no interruption of rights and that the rights of our fellow citizens or our businesses are effectively protected" , said the head of government, Thursday, January 17.

The hypothesis of a Brexit without agreement is less and less improbable. Our responsibility is to ensure that our country is ready and to protect the interests of our fellow citizens: I decided to trigger the #Brexit plan without an agreement since April 2018.

Jobs in danger
The lack of agreement darkens the horizon of Breton ports. Nearly half of the catches of fleets come from British waters. Except that a hard Brexit would close the access of British waters to European and therefore Breton fishermen.

In Brittany, 150 crews are likely to find themselves in great difficulty. "Thousands of jobs will be impacted," warns Olivier Le Nezet, representative of the Regional Committee for Sea Fisheries and Marine Livestock (CRPMEM) of Brittany .

On 10 January, the European Parliament's Transport Committee drew up a new route for the maritime corridors in order to establish direct links between the Irish coasts and the European continent if Brexit is successful. Saint-Malo, Roscoff and Brest have found place in the device.

Édouard Philippe announced " a plan of about 50 million euros investment in French ports and airports " , or "the places most concerned by the changes to be made ".

Brexit: Breton ports integrated into the new route of maritime corridors (Use Google translate to read this article)

Resources at risk
A plan to accompany the fishing sector, which is "most likely to be hit hard by this exit without agreement" , is also under consideration. Indeed, the "no deal" would force the boats and quotas to refer to other sectors, West Britain and Golf de Gascogne.

"If all the boats that work in the British zone come to work in our areas, we will all bring the same fish for a period, so the prices will fall and the resources will be depleted " , worries Gwenael Le Floch, boss of the Damocles .

The UK is not immune
France is the largest importer of British seafood products. The United Kingdom would also have a lot to lose if the negotiations go wrong.

After the National Assembly, the Senate must finally adopt Thursday the draft law preparing France to any form that would take the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, including a Brexit "hard". "Five ordinances will be presented to the Council of Ministers on Wednesday and published in the next three weeks , " added Philippe.


Report Aurélie Janssens, Lionel Bonis, Gwenaël Hamon and Raphaëlle Besançon.
Posted on 17/01/2019 at 19:08

Translated by Google from the original article in French from France3.

It's raining, fish on #FishyFriday in Newlyn.

Pitch black and wet start to #FishyFriday in Newlyn with Ocean Harvest, the latest inshore trawler to join the local fleet drying out on the hard for some maintenance later in the day...

a hazard of fishing for cuttlefish is the amount of ink that is then released from very grumpy cuttles inside the cod end as the trawl is hauled resulting in many fish being covered in the powerful sepia ink - unsightly maybe but entirely edible...

buyers crowd...

 round just the single landing of hake...

from the Joy of Ladram...

while the beam trawlers landed a mix of quality fish like these red mullet and bream...

brill...

John Dory...

the Trevessa IV picked up a good haul of ray...

while the Sapphire III landed its usual box of big bass...

unusually for a netter the Joy of Ladram sneaked in a few kilos of huge Dovers...

the beam trawl fleet do their best to keep the local crabbers in bait by landing dogfish and small gurnards...

the big netter also landed a big shot of whiting...

and, very exceptionally, an even bigger shot of bass...

Trevessa IV took advantage of fine weather and good fishing with a huge haul of megrim sole...

and monk tails...

while the wreck netter Britannia V  picked up good hauls of pollack...

and coley...

even more bait...

the Sapphire III had good plaice fishing...

unaffected by cuttles, immaculate undulate ray from the Annie May...

spiders and monk...

cuttlefish ink running away from the tubs...

taking the morning's purchases away...

plenty of interest in the big bass haul form the netter by the buyers...

down the quay the beam trawler Resurgam has more than enough...

to keep the crew busy later today sorting out this little tangle in the safe waters of the harbour.

Prohibit fish discards: the stakes of the new regulation

This article (translated by Google) is from LaRecherche

Since January 2019, the "landing obligation" prohibits fishermen from discarding unwanted fish at sea. The European DiscardLess project assessed the effect of discards on the marine environment, the economy and society. Its coordinator, Clara Ulrich , answers the questions from La Recherche.

Research - What prompted the landing obligation?

Clara Ulrich - The idea of ​​this regulation came from the fact that we could not regulate the mortality of fish. As long as discards were still allowed, it was not possible to limit mortality in mixed fisheries, which target and capture a large number of different species at the same time. For each fish population, scientists estimate what is the sustainable volume (in tonnes) of dead fish by fishing ( RMD). The purpose of the landing obligation is that the total dead fish does not exceed this sustainable threshold, regardless of whether they are sold, brought ashore or processed into fishmeal. Before the measure, if the fishing quota was set, for example, at 50,000 tonnes, 60,000 or 70,000 tonnes could be fished and the rest discarded. We continued to fish as long as we still had quotas for other species and we rejected what we no longer had the right to land. British culinary celebrities have begun campaigning against this mess. The idea was supported by environmental NGOs and civil society. The reform of the fisheries policy was passed in 2013. The implementation of the landing obligation started in 2015. Gradually, it came into force in the countries of the different maritime regions. The goal was to have it all in 2019. Major commercial species like cod, sole, Norway lobster etc. were first concerned. All minor species, that is, less important in fisheries such as turbot, were included in the regulation in 2019.

What is your opinion on this new regulation?

This is a fundamental change in the way we understand fishing and its regulation. The rejection is a fundamental characteristic of the manner of fishing. For a long time, we have been fishing and we only keep what we can sell by putting the rest back in the water. This behavior has been reinforced by European policy which introduced regulations on minimum catch sizes and quotas. The stricter rules on what can be sold have, de facto , created fairly large releases. The landing obligation has a major economic, technical, psychological and cultural effect. It creates a shock to force change to cleaner fisheries instead of catching everything and rejecting the rest.

How to strengthen the landing obligation to reduce discards?

There is no single solution. The reasons for these rejections are relatively simple and universal. Fishermen reject either because it has no commercial value, it is damaged, or it is too small for sale; or it is forbidden to fish for the species. But the solutions to reduce these rejections, they are neither simple nor universal. Each fisherman will have a problem that is not necessarily the same as that of his neighbor. It will depend on the fishing area and the quota to which it has access. For each species, scientists estimate the discard rate. The rate is lower in industrial fisheries limited to a single species of fish such as mackerel or herring. The highest rate is for fisheries that use bottom trawl andbeam trawl . The statistics depend on the country, the gear and the neighboring species. It's very difficult to generalize. The change in fishing practice requires regulatory control.

How will the landing obligation now introduced throughout Europe be applied?

The regulation provides for a number of exemptions for species with a high survival rate or where it is almost impossible to sort the fish. But these exemptions must be validated. Thus, it must be proven that a species has a high survival rate. For five years, several works have been carried out. For example, research shows that rays and sharksare species that survive relatively well if released quickly. The fact that the fish is all wriggling is not enough to guarantee its survival. Most of the mortality occurs within two to three days. A fish that has remained on the deck of a boat, exposed to the air and light, is not very valiant. He will have a hard time escaping predators and feeding himself. The speed of sorting is an important factor. If he is released immediately, he will survive; but after thirty minutes in the air, it's less obvious. The temperature of the air, the sunshine, etc. are also important elements to consider in assessing survival.

How to prevent unwanted catch and value?

With the European project DiscardLesswe looked at it. It is funded by the Research and Innovation Department of the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 program. Scientists from 31 European research institutions have proposed solutions: changing net mesh, changing the trawl, and so on. There are many technical approaches but none are really used at the moment. We put the information on the table, but the change must come from the industry and the fishermen. As long as the fishermen are not convinced, or obliged to change the mesh, we can do all the science possible, there will be no change. The Spanish team of DiscardLess has done a lot of research on the valuation of unwanted fish. They could be used to make flour, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals. For now, the proposals remain theoretical because volumes are low. The regulations are not yet applied and therefore the fish are not brought back to shore. The idea of ​​valorization is a little history of the chicken and the egg. What will come first? Will the fishermen go back to the land and then develop the recovery or will they bring back to shore only when there will be someone to buy the unwanted fish The fishermen and the industrialists wonder if it's worth it invest in the recovery knowing that the supply of raw material may be very variable in quality and quantity. They wonder why invest in industries if in five years there are more rejections.

What will happen to marine animals feeding on discards?

All our models show that very few rejections go directly back to the fish. Those who eat the discards are crabs, hermit crabs, starfish. They are very opportunistic animals. They will eat everything they find. Their dependence on discards remains very low. There are also birds that are more reliant on discards, but it's a bit like birds in a garbage dump. Bird populations are maintained at a fairly high level artificially. Is the fact that there are birds feeding in landfills a good reason for keeping landfills? The situation for rejections is identical. We have populations that are artificially maintained. Is it a good excuse to keep rejecting? Scientists will continue to assess the effects of the landing obligation as it applies to fisheries.

Full article courtesy of Audrey-Maude Vézina.

European Sustainable Fishing debate.

Let's talk about sustainable fishing. We should also say sustainable fisheries, because you see that there is indeed no universal criterion for defining once and for all how to protect all oceans and seas.

Those who think that sustainable fishing is a simple trick to implement must take into account the fact that fish have the annoying habit of moving without regard to borders.

A billion people depend on fish in Asia Pacific

To find one's way, I propose three simple principles. The first, rather intuitive, is based on the state of the stock and on the ability of a species to reproduce in the best conditions, without the stock becoming depleted or, worse, tends to disappear. Obviously this criterion is different depending on the species and the maritime areas concerned. To take a simple example: one billion people depend on fish in the Asia-Pacific as a source of protein, and the region concentrates 80% of fishers and farms. The control of the situation is therefore much more sensitive to this geopolitical scale than in Europe.

Second parameter, largely as complicated to control: the environmental impact. For example, it is verified that fisheries limit their use of fossil fuels, sort their waste, provide the crew with good living conditions on board, employment, training and safety and pollute little.

Finally, biodiversity must be preserved and the survival of a species must not, for example, lead to the destruction of a coral reef.

It will be understood that protecting the oceans is the crossroads of multiple parameters that must, moreover, necessarily be shared on an international level. And in fact, I would say that beyond the institutions, only the sum of the investments and the energies of humans who are convinced and committed can protect the oceans.

From consumer to committed actors

In these conditions, the consumer can become engaged actors! But he will have to be very attentive and creative. Attentive, first at the time of purchase, since according to a survey published shortly before Christmas by the consumer association UFC-Que Choisir , a large part of the fish present today on the stalls of supermarkets are not from sustainable fisheries, including cod, sole and bass. And even if some major players in the mass market have set to work to become virtuous, we are talking about 2022 or even 2025 objectives. The consumer would therefore be well advised to take an interest in two reliable labels today. : the French eco-label "Sustainable Fisheries" and the international MSC label for Marine Stewardship Council.

But the most active and effective solution is CO-KING! Why ? Well to stop consuming the same thing all the time. So let's tackle some horse mackerel, conger, gurnard, mullet or cuttlefish recipes and make sure it's the right season to buy them. How? And by downloading the most effective free application that is: Mister Goodfish created in 2002 on an associative and European basis and which is summarised by: Good for the sea, good for you!



From an article by Pierre Hivernat, Director of the editor of Alimentation Générale at FranceCulture.

Your chance to attend - Marine Planning South West: Policy Development (Newquay)

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is holding three marine planning workshops in the south west, you have selected the one in Newquay on Tuesday 5th February 2019, Sands Resort Hotel from 9:30am to 4:00pm.

The workshops form part of our Iteration 3 Engagement and are an opportunity to comment on the preferred draft policies produced as part of the south west marine planning process. You can also make comments on our online engagement tool which will be available between 21st January and 29th March 2019. We will be opening the online engagement in advance to give you an opportunity to consider the materials for engagement ahead of the workshops.

The workshops will show how the process to develop the South West Marine Plan is progressing, and how the preferred draft policies have been developed following feedback from the Iteration 2 Options Workshops in early 2018 and the Call for Issues with Supporting Evidencein 2016.

At the workshop you will discuss policies and their supporting text, and how they can address the area’s economic, social, and environmental issues. This is an opportunity for stakeholders to contribute to the development of the preferred marine plan draft policies ahead of the statutory consultation on the draft marine plans in late 2019.

The workshops are full day events with lunch and refreshments provided. They will all follow a similar structure, but with the main content being varied between plan areas. As spaces are limited, we would appreciate it if you would avoid holding places and only book for your chosen workshop in your preferred marine area.

Not able to attend?

We are holding two other south west marine planning workshops in Totnes on Wednesday 6th February 2019 at Dartington Hall, and in Taunton on Thursday 7th February 2019 at Taunton Racecourse, both from 9:30am to 4:00pm. We are also running workshops for the north west, north east and south east marine plan areas. For more information please visit our eventbrite page.

If you have any questions please contact your local Marine Planners, Amy Willcocks, 0207 895 5620, or Alex Curd, 0208 565 4835, or email the Planning Mailbox.