Last chance to complete the Seafood industry survey to help shape the future of Seafish.

We are asking the seafood industry about our functions and funding as part of our strategic review. Find out how to take part and have your say. Individual, businesses and organisations are invited to tell us how we can best serve the seafood sector in the UK and how we can be funded. An online survey is open from 12 July until 20 August.

Follow the link below to take the survey (opens in new window).

Take the Seafish strategic review survey online

Seafish was set up in its current form in 1981. We have adapted our work over the last 40 years to respond to the needs of the seafood sector but the levy system was last updated in 1999.

The survey questions ask:

What work should Seafish do more of or less of to help the industry to thrive?

What changes can be made to the levy to ensure it is equitable for the industry and ensures Seafish is funded to help it deliver for the industry in the future?

Our CEO Marcus Coleman explains why we're doing a strategic review, what we're asking and how to take part. As a public body, we must carry out strategic reviews from time to time. The review started with the four fisheries administrations in late 2020. We recently held a series of workshops with key representatives from across the seafood supply chain in the UK to discuss the same questions in the survey.

The responses from all three parts of the consultation will be drawn together and a report with recommendations submitted to the Government by the Seafish board at the end of the year.

With Brexit and the pandemic, we have been called upon by the industry and government to support the seafood sector more than ever.

“This strategic review is about trying to strengthen our offering and ensure we are doing what the industry need us to do. However, we are working within a levy system from the last century which doesn’t reflect the seafood industry today. If the industry and government want us to do more then we need to look at how we make that happen. 

Marcus Coleman, Seafish CEO 

A Strategic Review Steering Group, including us and all four government administrations, is overseeing the process and ensuring the strategic review fulfils the Government’s needs for a review of a public body.

The survey is run by White Space Strategy and all responses are confidential. The survey is hosted on the White Space Strategy website at the following link Seafish Strategic Review

Follow this link to find out more about our strategic review.

We have recently published our 2021-2022 Annual Plan with details on our current work programme. Follow the link below to download a copy of the current annual plan.

French Justice Rules Against Bluefin Tuna Quota Allocation Decision

 Long awaited court victory for French and European small-scale fishermen.

After a seemingly endless wait of more than four years, French justice has finally ruled in favour of the Union of Small-Scale Fishers from the Occitan Region (Syndicat professionnel des pêcheurs petits métiers d’Occitanie (SPMO)). 

A class action was brought by the SPMO and three other stakeholders¹ (CDPMEM du Var, Prud’homie de la Ciotat and Plate-forme de la petite pêche artisanale française). The LIFE platform (Low Impact Fishers of Europe) gave financial and moral support to this procedure to ensure that the concerns of other EU small-scale low impact fishers were represented, facing as they do similar difficulties of access to fishing rights.

The case is important because the judge’s ruling from the hearing at the Administrative Court of Montpellier has implications for how fishing quotas are allocated not only in France, but in the wider EU. A key issue highlighted by the judge is that the Bluefin tuna quota allocation mechanism falls short of requisite European standards, is neither transparent nor objective, and fails to take proper account of Article 17.

The action was bought by the small-scale low impact fishers to challenge the way the allocation of national quota is done in France, and to replace it with a more equitable system. Such a system should ensure a wider distribution of quota to benefit the small-scale fishers who exert the least fishing effort but who receive a minimal allocation or are excluded altogether. At the preliminary hearing on 17 June 2021, the Clerk of the Tribunal made particularly strong and substantiated submissions in favour of the Applicants (the small-scale fishers). His analysis clearly informed the decision of the judges, who confirmed, on 15 July 2021, the annulment of the 2017 order allocating the bluefin tuna quota.

What are the consequences of this judgment?

Firstly, it creates an unprecedented body of case law at national level which small scale fishers can use to advocate changes to the allocation mechanism for the bluefin tuna quota. The principles adopted could also be applied to other allocation mechanisms in force for different species under quota.

Secondly, it constitutes a legal precedent of major interest at European level because the Court’s analysis is based on provisions derived from European law (the Common Fisheries Policy). This will enable other professional representatives to use it in similar national situations where there is non-compliance with EU rules.

Thirdly, this judgment provides a substantive analysis that is decisive in the interpretation and application of European law by France. The central element included by the judges is the failure to take account Article 17 of EU Regulation 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The latter requires States to use transparent and objective criteria to allocate fishing opportunities, including of an environmental, social and economic nature. While the French State is free to adopt its own allocation method, it must do so in accordance with European standards. In this case, the Court noted that the environmental criterion was neither defined nor integrated into the bluefin tuna quota allocation system. Furthermore, the method used was found to be non-transparent and non-objective, justifying the annulment of the contested order – i.e. the rejection of the Bluefin tuna quota allocation mechanism.

Fourthly, this judgment encourages reconsideration of the French quota distribution system across the board – for all species. The Court recalls that France may use its own allocation criteria² in an unequal and non-hierarchical manner. However, in the interests of the fishery and its participants, this unequal allocation framework must not be disproportionately so. During the hearing, this point was given priority attention by the Public Prosecutor, who considered that the principle of proportionality was infringed by the almost exclusive use of the criterion of track records for the distribution of the quota (more than 90%). The analysis was based in particular on the evolution of the French quota between 2012 and 2017. This finding should result in a rebalancing of the system in order to use all the criteria to achieve a fairer outcome.

This historic step marks a new avenue for the small-scale fishers, who must now prepare to meet the future deadlines for the allocation of the bluefin tuna quota. They must capitalise on the decision and formulate concrete, realistic and constructive proposals. This builds on their commitment to achieve, on the one hand, a fairer allocation system, and on the other hand, to allow access to bluefin tuna for new small-scale fishermen.

The SPMO and its partners invite all interested fishermen to join them in their struggle to obtain a fairer allocation of fishing quotas, based on Article 17.

The signatories :

– Syndicat Professionnel des Pêcheurs Petits Métiers d’Occitanie (SPMO)

– Platform of the French small-scale fishing industry

– LIFE “Low Impact Fishers of Europe”

– Comité départemental des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins du Var 

– Prud’homie des pêcheurs de la Ciotat (Bouches du Rhône)

¹In April 2017, the CRPMEM PACA had also voted in Council to participate in the appeal as a voluntary intervener and co-financer. However, its President, Mr Molinero, knowingly refused to commit his Committee and to proceed with the necessary formalities with the lawyers in charge of the procedure. This illegal attitude has been denounced by several members of its Board. It shows a clear lack of respect by Mr Molinero for his mandate and for all small-scale fishermen in the PACA region. The “legal advisers” of the CRPMEM PACA had also considered, with great pertinence, that such an appeal had no chance of success.

²There are three existing criteria: track record, socio-economic balance and market orientation, to which the environmental criterion should now be added.

Friday night to Monday morning.

Boats sailing from Newlyn over the last few days.

Friday evening and a fresh load of fish boxes go back aboard the Enterprise to be store down the fishroom...

from where Juicy appears, must be cold down there...

top sardine boat heads back to a berth after a long night's fishing...

definitely not a weekend's only fine weather yellow-welly yacht...

the little orange crabber wants to be like the big blue one when it grows up...

on Monday morning's market there's plenty of top quality inshore fish like these John Dory...

and brill...

there's no way 8 scallops would have made it to market on any of the boats I worked on #quicksnack...

more JDs...

and monk tails...

the flat bottomed red gurnard...

the big beam trawler t georges put ashore plenty of megrim soles...

while mackerel are still proving hard to find in this part of the world...

delicious Dovers...

early morning market action...

more bass than mackerel this morning...

though thankfully sardines are plentiful...

all hands to cutting up bait aboard the Nazarene...

sailing time for the Girl Pamela off for another day on the crabs...

name these fish...

young Mr Ashworth in action aboard the crabber...

for one company the future is now no longer orange but turquoise it seems...

classic lines of a classic yacht.

 

NFFO takes stock eight months after the Trade and Cooperation Agreement

 

The NFFO has hit out at the UK Government for the betrayal of the fishing industry in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has hit out at the UK Government for the betrayal of the fishing industry during the Brexit negotiations.

Eight months on from the signing of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement on Christmas Eve 2020, and British fishing has not found the ‘Utopia’ that Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised.

On their website the NFFO write:

There are some in the fishing industry whose trust in the Government has been irrevocably shattered. The fishing industry was given assurances from the top of government – the Prime Minister, senior cabinet ministers and Chief Negotiator himself, Lord Frost – that our industry would not be sold out in negotiations with Europe, as it had been by Edward Heath in 1973.

There was always a risk. Even when the fishing industry was used as the poster-child for Brexit, the NFFO paid for and distributed thousands of flags bearing the message: 

Fishing: No Sell-out.

In the event, on Christmas Eve 2020, another date that live in history for its infamy, fishing was sacrificed to secure a trade deal. The bald economic calculations laid waste to all the promises, assurances and commitments on fishing.

A few concessions on quota shares were made by the EU but these were miles away from what any self-respecting coastal state would consider fair, or consistent with its status under international law.

Under the terms of the TCA the UK didn’t even secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, something that most coastal states would automatically consider theirs by right, and essential for the sustainable management of their inshore fisheries. And is there anybody who truly believes that it will all be all right in 5 years’ time when the TCA access arrangements expire?

There is regulatory autonomy. This should allow us, over time, to diverge from the body of retained EU fisheries law – the CFP – and apply our own rules for operating in U.K. waters. These will apply to all fishing vessels irrespective of nationality. That is worth having and has the potential to be very significant over time.

The issue now is whether fishing, having lost our status as Brexit poster-child, has become a national embarrassment for the Government – a living symbol of failure to negotiate what is the UK’s by right and by international law of the sea. Will the government try to make amends for the way we have been treated, or seek to edge us off centre stage? The £100 million commitment made in the immediate aftermath of the TCA agreement suggests the former. The Government’s policy approach and insouciance towards the potential for displacement from marine protected areas and the expansion of offshore wind, suggest the latter.

Cooperation

The new Fisheries Act provides a framework for a new kind of fisheries policy – one in which the fishing industry is centrally involved in the design and implementation of fisheries management plans. Work is already under way, especially in the shellfish sector, where some of the elements of co-management can be seen at work in the Shellfish Industry Advisory Group and it’s important sub-groups covering crab/lobster, whelks and scallops. But will that cooperation survive if there is large scale displacement from customary fishing grounds with all the social and economic dislocation and unintended knock-on effects that implies?

This is another trust issue for the Government. Will fishing be treated fairly, carefully, and with respect, as an important component in this country’s food supply and for its export earnings and support for coastal communities? Or will there be further betrayals?

And then there is devolution; another sphere in which government concessions could come at our cost.

Annual fisheries agreements with Norway and Faeroes are a further area in which post-Brexit turbulence is manifest and where new equilibriums have yet to emerge.

We are about to enter negotiations for 2022, when all of these factors will be in play, along with the mother of all headaches on how to manage non-quota species. The Specialised Committee for Fisheries and annual negotiations will be of central importance, but we have yet to see how this will function in practice.

Political Landscape This then is the broad political landscape for fishing after 8 months under the TCA. Through it all runs the core question of trust. As an industry we have little option but to make the best of it. The importance of working with our eyes open to the political currents and counter-currents has never been higher.

Full story courtesy of the NFFO website.

Fine, flat calm #FishyFriday in Newlyn.

Fine stat to the final day of the week and with a big spring tide the netting fleet are all in port waiting for the next neap to begin...

two beam trawlers, the Billy Rowney...

and the Enterprise provided most of the flat fish for sale on the auction...

while the inshore boats had their say with smaller runs of fish like these John Dory...

and blonde ray...

greater weavers seem to be a thing at the moment with a box per trip the norm...

mullet are a fish that shoal- so they are seldom caught in ones and twos...

there were plenty of Cornish sole...

plaice...

and monk from the port's largest boat...

top quality line caught pollack heading for a restaurant near you...

the galleon wind vane atyop the old Mission building catches early morning sun-rays...

the lockdown created a swathe of opportunities for fishermen to sell their catch direct to the public - head ver to the Joy of Ladram's website and pick up some top quality net caught fish including MSC Certified Cornish hake...

there's plenty of fun to be had for youngsters...

on Newlyn Green next to the art gallery...

here's hoping the cloud will lift...

Tom looks out over Mounts bay and watches all points of the compass...

flying the harbour flag...

a few days work below the waterline on the Orion...

from the starship Enterprise...

to this little chap...
 

one of a handful currently having a nose around the harbour.

Where are all of the self-styled ocean saviors? ( Alternatively, Inaction on the precautionary principle)

 

Seemingly all of the self-professed significant actors (both personal and organizational) with self-professed interest and expertise in how potential threats to the oceans and the critters in them should be handled has been synopsized for us rather conveniently-and very obviously and (suspiciously?) conveniently-in the Antarctic Ocean Alliance Briefing #2: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas.*

Borrowing from said briefing, we have:

The foundation of the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle has deep roots finding expression in sayings such as ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ or ‘better safe than sorry’. As the need to address environmental issues was increasingly recognized in the late 20th century, the precautionary principle became more widely used in national and international legislative contexts.

The precautionary principle was enshrined in International Law through Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, 1992. The concept is now central to law making on a large range of issues, including climate change, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), forests, wildlife protection and oceans.

The use of the precautionary principle in ecosystem management is especially important in the case of the marine environment where scientific uncertainties abound. Repeated failures of management highlighted by the collapse of northern cod off Canada, the California sardine fishery, and herring, sandeels, blue whiting and capelin stocks in the North Sea have demonstrated the need for this approach in order to help address scientific uncertainty.

With the precautionary principle as a foundation many international agreements and bodies have sought to apply a precautionary approach specific to their particular challenges. In its essence the precautionary principle requires taking action in the form of protective conservation and management actions to reduce the risk of serious and/or irreversible harm from an activity before negative consequences become apparent. The establishment of MRs and MPAs is thus a precautionary act.

Precaution in regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs):

Many international institutions and RFMOs have endorsed the use of the precautionary principle and precautionary approach in conserving marine ecosystems and protecting biodiversity.10 For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s Conference of the Parties (COP) links the precautionary principle to the development of MPAs, noting that the COP “has a key role in supporting the work of the [UN] General Assembly with regard to marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction, by focusing on provision of scientific and as appropriate, technical information and advice relating to marine biological diversity, the application of the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach.”11 MRs and MPAs are thus increasingly recognized as an important application of the precautionary principle in the marine environment. Improving traditional fisheries management, data and modelling cannot always ensure the long-term sustainability of marine life.

Scientists note that “MPAs can serve to hedge against inevitable uncertainties, errors and biases in fisheries management. Marine Protected Areas (or as we have called them, simply, protected reserves) may well be the simplest and best approach to implementing the precautionary principle.”

The Antarctic Ocean Alliance is a coalition of more than 30 leading environmental organizations and high-profile individuals working together to achieve large-scale protection for key Antarctic ocean ecosystems.

Alliance members include the Pew Environment Group, Greenpeace, WWF, the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), Humane Society International, Mission Blue (US), International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Oceans 5 (US), Deep Wave (Germany), The Last Ocean, Greenovation Hub (China), the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM), Forest & Bird (NZ), ECO (NZ) and associate partners the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, TerraMar Project, the International Polar Foundation (UK), Plant a Fish, the International Programme on the State of the Oceans (IPSO), the Ocean Project, Bloom Association (France), OceanCare (Switzerland), Eco-Sys Action, Ocean Planet (Australia) and Corail Vivant (New Caledonia). AOA Ambassadors include actors Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton, Oceanographer Dr. Sylvia Earle, entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, Chinese entrepreneur and explorer Wang Jing and Korean actor Yoo Ji-Tae.(https://www.asoc.org/storage/documents/resources/aoa-briefing-2-applying-precautionary-approach.pdf , undated.)

All of the above enumerated anti-fishing activists and their organizations (and then some) have been using their so-called precautionary principle as a reason to oppose just about any industry originated or accepted proposal for any action which might actually result in helping fishermen and fishing because the outcome can’t be assured.

Yet when it comes to protecting huge swaths of ocean-and huge numbers of the critters in them or dependent on them-from a seemingly endless list of actual or potential threats brought about by envisioned unprecedented offshore developments these same self-styled activists/ocean saviors have all conveniently forgotten that anything vaguely similar to their revered precautionary principle has ever existed.

Clog our near shore and offshore waters with hulking (approaching 1,000 feet tall today, who knows what’s in store for tomorrow?) structures supporting huge rotors with tips moving through the air at velocities approaching 200 miles per hour? So what? Festoon our sea beds with electrical cables carrying huge amounts of electricity, the passage of which will generate electro-magnetic fields that will almost certainly have some effect on some of the species of critters that will be influenced at some level by those fields daily, monthly or annually? So what? Influence wave/current/tidal scouring and associated turbidity in undetermined-and very likely undeterminable-ways on the fish, marine mammals, birds and other sealife? So what?

And what of undersea server farms (see David Myers’ Microsoft hails success of its undersea data center experiment—and says it could have implications on dry land, too in the 9/15/2020 issue of Fortune magazine at https://fortune.com/2020/09/15/microsoft-project-natick-undersea-datacenter-scotland/), tidal generators (see Jake Dean’s The Scots Are Unlocking the Ocean’s Energy Potential posted to Slate’s website last month at https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/orbital-marine-power-scotland-ocean-energy.html), and telecom cables (see Adam Satariano’s People think that data is in the cloud, but it’s not. It’s in the ocean in the 03/10/2018 NY Times at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/10/technology/internet-cables-oceans.html)?

In addition (though it doesn’t generate electro-magnetic fields), we certainly shouldn’t ignore the biological and oceanographic impacts of seafloor mining (see Olive Heffernan’s Seabed mining is coming — bringing mineral riches and fears of epic extinctions in the 07/24/2019 issue of Nature at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02242-y).

All of these (and very probably other) activities come with potentially huge though for the most part unidentified downsides, but it’s very doubtful that the well-entrenched and well-funded activists and organizations that are so anxious to employ the precautionary principle to protect the Antarctic and other oceans from fishing will most probably be “out to lunch” when it comes to those considerations.

If (as?) it becomes apparent that that is the case, the major question is going to be why? With potential negative impacts that might easily prove to be worse than even poorly regulated fishing could ever be, energy-, telecom- or mining-developments, are the members of the fishing industry going to be capable of surviving with what’s just around the corner? Back in the 70s the fishing industry worked with other (primarily environmental?) interests to regain control of the fisheries resources of what was to become our Exclusive Economic Zone. Is that possible now?

Of course the answer is yes, but is it likely? It’s definitely not happening with wind power today. Evidently, according to the enviro-orgs that have never failed to invoke the precautionary principle when it comes to reducing restrictions on fishing, wind farm developers are on the side of the angels. The enviro orgs are apparently of the mind that windfarms and other proposed ocean uses-and misuses- are incapable of significantly harming the onshore, inshore or offshore environment.

For an idea of where the anti-fishing activists might be going with this, take a look at A new home for fish: how offshore wind turbines create artificial reefs by Nicole DiPaolo in the National Wildlife Federation blog from 09/26/2019 (https://blog.nwf.org/2019/09/a-new-home-for-fish-how-offshore-wind-turbines-create-artificial-reefs/). This is the argument that got recreational fishing groups firmly behind the Gulf of Mexico oil industry before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Since that catastrophe, perhaps not so much.

But with the antifishing activists the beat is going on. Enric Sala, former Pew (Trusts) Fellow in Marine Conservation who is presently National Geographic’s Explorer in Residence and a dozen or so of his cronies-including ex-NOAA head Jane Lubchenco who should be remembered for her controversial use of the dispersant Corexit in the Gulf oil fiasco) published Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate (in the March 17 issue of Nature).

In essence Sala and his coauthors argue that one of the solutions for the imminent climate crisis is the coordinated establishment of fully protected (that is, protected from commercial fishing, of course!) marine reserves.

According to a review of the article in the March 17 issue of The Guardian (McVeigh, Karen/Bottom trawling releases as much carbon as air travel, landmark study finds), “the analysis shows that the world must protect a minimum of 30% of the ocean in order to provide multiple benefits. The scientists say their results lend credence to the ambition of protecting at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, which is part of the target adopted by a coalition of 50 countries this year to slow the destruction of the natural world.” According to the authors, bottom trawling releases roughly as much CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere each year as does Global Aviation. And (coincidently, because it’s right in line with the anti-fishing activists’ unrealistic and unnecessary “dream” of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans from fishermen) this could be reduced by establishing a corresponding network of marine protected (from fishing, not anything else) areas.

So evidently, in the view of a handful of marine scientists, most with direct or indirect connections to the Pew Charitable Trusts and all with the media influence that those connections afford them and who are willing to ignore actual and potential activities with massive negative impacts on our inshore and offshore ocean environments, this is one of the top priorities. They are still maintaining their campaign to continue persecuting commercial fishing and commercial fishermen needlessly.* And all of this in spite of their oft professed-though not so much lately-adherence to the precautionary principle and their blatant disregard of other stressors.

Their tunnel vision and short-sightedness seem staggering.

*In a response to Sala et al (above), Jan Geert Hiddink, S. van de Velde, R.A. McConnaughey, E. de Borger, F.G. O’Neill, J. Tiano, M.J. Kaiser, A. Sweetman and M. Sciberras wrote “Sala, et al. suggest that seafloor disturbance by industrial trawlers and dredgers results in 0.58 to 1.47 Pg of aqueous CO 2 emissions annually, owing to increased organic carbon (OC) remineralization in sediments after trawling. We agree that bottom trawling disrupts natural carbon flows in seabed ecosystems due to sediment mixing, resuspension and changes in the biological community and that it is important to estimate the magnitude of this effect. We disagree however that their assessment represents a ‘best estimate’. 

Firstly, the assumption that OC in undisturbed sediment is inert and is remineralised only after disturbance by trawling is at odds with decades of geochemical research on natural processing of OC in marine sediments 2 . 

Secondly, the volume of sediment where carbon is mineralised after trawling is greatly overestimated. 

Thirdly, secondary effects, such as the removal of bioturbating benthic fauna and sedimentary nutrient release, which could lead to the preservation and production of OC in sediments, are ignored. Together these issues result in an upward bias in the estimated CO 2 emissions by one or more orders of magnitude.”

Fishing times they are a changing!

A new strategy for the fishing industry in Cornwall is set to be created as the value of fish landed continues to rise.

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has been working with the Cornwall Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO) to draw up the new strategy looking at how the industry can be prepared for the future.

Paul Trebilcock, chief executive of the CFPO, told the LEP board this week that fishing was part of the “social fabric” of Cornwall. He explained that the fishing industry in Cornwall was bigger than that in Wales and Northern Ireland in terms of fish landed and fishermen.

In Cornwall the latest figures from 2019 show that there were 543 boats and 917 fishermen and the quayside value of landings was £43 million. Wales, in comparison, had 414 boats, 897 fishermen and value of £19m while Northern Ireland had 326 boats, 822 fishermen and £57m of fish landed.

And while the number of boats and people fishing off Cornwall has reduced since 2000 the amount and value of fish landed has increased. In 2000 there were 724 boats and 1,141 fishermen in Cornwall, landing 12,700 tonnes of fish worth £26m. By 2010 the number of boats stood at 646 and there were 898 fishermen, landing around 12,700 tonnes of fish worth £30m.

But by 2020, while the number of boats had decreased again the amount of fish landed was up by 43 per cent to 18,100 and was worth £43m.

Mr Trebilcock said: “The value of fish has gone up. We have seen an increase in the value and the tonnage landed which hasn’t been in line with the reduction in the number of boats and fishermen. That is a result of us being more consolidated.”

Over that period the species being caught in Cornwall and the value of them has also changed significantly.

In 2000 the highest value fish was megrims with 1,048.5 tonnes landed, followed by scallops, monkfish, sole, pollack and crab.

This was the top 10 species by value in 2000:

1 - Megrims 

2 - Scallops 

3 - Monk 

4 - Sole 

5 - Pollack 

6 - Crab 

7 - Lemon 

8 - Hake 

9 - Lobster 

10 - Turbot 

But by 2019 it had all changed. Here is the top 10 species by value:

1 - Sole 

2 - Crab 

3 - Monks or Anglers 

4 - Hake 

5 - Lobsters 

6 - Sardines 

7 - Pollack 

8 - Haddock 

9 - Megrim 

10 - Cuttlefish

Mr Trebilcock said the fishing industry was more sustainable now and that the changes in species landed reflected this as well as the change in demand.

He said that some species which were not as valuable in 2000 had seen the prices creeping up. And the increase in species matched those which are MSC accredited with “sustainability at the heart of it”.

Mr Trebilcock said there was diversity in Cornwall in what fish was being landed and this was matched by the diversity in the industry.

He highlighted that as well as large ports such as Newlyn there were ports like Cadgwith which are much smaller but “are all important”.

And he highlighted that the fishing industry is not just about those who go to sea but also those involved on land, from the processing and sale of fish to those restaurants and outlets buying it.

He added: “Fishing is woven through the fabric of Cornwall. A lot of people are linked internationally and closely with fishing. That sense of community remains strong, particularly around the coast.”

Mr Trebilcock told the LEP that Cornish fishing harbours and villages underpin the tourist economy and that Cornwall Council research found that 58 per cent of visitors to Cornwall stated that fishing harbours and villages were their main reason for visiting.

He added: “Cornwall and Cornish fishing and fish-related business are big economically, socially and culturally important.”

And he pointed out that fishing provides community life and employment in remote parts of Cornwall where other opportunities are limited.

As part of drawing up the strategy Mr Trebilcock said that the CFPO had been speaking to people from across the industry in Cornwall to get their views on what the challenges are and what could be done to help them. He said a number of strengths were identified including the diversity of species, quality, emerging young leaders and sustainability of the leading species.

Among the challenges, or weaknesses, identified were the high entry costs for young fishermen, dependence on foreign labour, potential overfishing in some sectors and inability to control EU vessels fishing shared stocks.

Mr Trebilcock said there were also challenges related to export rules and costs and pressure from NGOs for sustainable sourcing.

And there has also been highlighted a need for investment in better facilities in ports and harbours, promotion and marketing of domestically landed seafood and in careers and training.