UK Fisheries – Transformational change by design: Summary

UK Fisheries - Transformational change by design

Rodney Anderson R B Anderson & Associates Ltd

1

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

❑

Implications for UK Fisheries – the situation in April 2021

❑

The risks and opportunities in relation to the objectives of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation 2

Trade and Cooperation Agreement – main features ❑

Tariff free trade between the UK and the EU, though there can be circumstances where tariffs will apply where fish is imported and then exported.

❑

There will be a joint UK-EU specialised committee to agree jointly management measures, data sharing, etc

❑

The UK has more policy and regulatory autonomy than it had in the CFP, but does not have a completely free hand

❑

The Agreement includes provisions to protect the marine environment and develop sustainable fisheries

❑

The UK has gained additional quota but this is not uniformly spread. The value placed on this by the UK government is notional and unlikely to be fully realisable.

❑

The Agreement spells out the process for agreeing total allowable catch (TAC) limits for shared stocks. The TACs will be negotiated annually.

3

Trade and Cooperation Agreement – main features Until June 2026 (the ‘adjustment period’), the EU and UK will have reciprocal rights of access to catch the allowable quotas, after which there will be annual negotiations ❑ EU vessels that have a historic track record will be able to continue to fish in the 6-12nm zone of large parts of the UK’s territorial waters ❑ UK and EU vessels able to fish for non-quota stocks in each other’s waters at a level that equates at least to the average tonnage fished during the period 20122016 ❑ If the UK deviates from the access or quota available to EU vessels under the terms of the Agreement the EU can require the UK to pay compensation and can introduce tariffs not just on fish products but also potentially on other goods and services ❑

4

The UK has acquired third country status in relation to the EU Fish exports to the EU will generally remain tariff free, but as a ‘third country’ there are new rules and controls when exporting to the EU (and when moving products to Northern Ireland) ❑ These non-tariff barriers include catch certificates, export health certificates, customs declarations, movement certificates, transport documents, etc as well as goods having to go through designated Border Control Posts ❑ The government has delayed introduction of these checks and controls on EU imports into Great Britain until later this year. Currently, importers have the advantage over UK exporters and are free to compete with domestic suppliers ❑ UK exporters experienced serious problems in the months immediately following 1st January 2021. Some of this was down to new systems settling in, but there are permanent systemic non-tariff barriers. Many exporters of bivalve molluscs (such as oysters, mussels, clams and cockles) have lost their EU market altogether ❑

5

The Brexit deal had as a backdrop the Covid19 pandemic The economic effects of the pandemic hit most fishers very hard, especially after a tough 2019/20 winter. ❑ Much of the industry is in a financially weakened state ❑ The value of landings by UK vessels during 2020 fell by 20%. This was not evenly spread. Some boats were tied up for long periods or had to reduce their days at sea, and shellfish sales especially were sharply down. ❑ Businesses had to prepare for a range of possible outcomes at the end of the transition period while coping with the effects of the pandemic. ❑

6

The consequences of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement – sustainable fishing ❑

The additional policy and regulatory autonomy gained by the UK should enable the four UK Administrations to protect MPAs from damaging fishing activities in UK waters shared with EU vessels. Achieving this previously whilst in the CFP was difficult. Defra and the MMO have made early announcements about their intentions this direction

❑

The UK Administrations are also able to adopt more responsive and targeted approaches to fisheries management, which could be helpful to the industry. Whether adaptive and tailored management practices will materialize will depend upon the political will and administrative capacity and capability to do so

❑

The safeguards built into the Agreement should reduce the risk of unsustainable catch levels in the event of the EU and the UK not reaching annual agreement on TACs

❑

No specific provision appears to have been made by the UK and Scottish governments to utilize additional quota to help deal with the landing obligation “choke species” problem 7

The consequences of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement – additional fishing opportunities The UK will have a larger share of the TAC for the stocks it shares with the EU. The increases will be phased in over five years from 2021. ❑ For a number of technical and other reasons the annual economic benefit to the industry is likely to be lower than stated by the Government ❑ The overall increase is not uniform and varies considerably between different stocks.

There does not appear to be a constant correlation between the quotas secured and the relative needs of the UK industry ❑ In many instances the UK’s quota share falls short of zonal attachment entitlement, which was a UK Government goal ❑ The variable mix and limited scale of quota uplifts in many instances, coupled with the lateness of the Brexit deal, has mean that there will not be much change to quota distribution in 2021. The scope for introducing further change in later years, without basic reform, is limited. ❑

8

The consequences of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement – access Bilateral negotiations with Norway and Faroe Islands on reciprocal access for 2021 have concluded without agreement being reached. ❑ A large number of EU vessels will continue to have access to UK waters – over 1600 have been granted licences. This considerably outnumbers the entire UK over 10m fleet. ❑ Provided they can demonstrate historic track record over a given period EU vessels are permitted to fish in the 6 -12nm zone of most English and some Welsh waters. Reclaiming the 6 -12nm zone for the exclusive use of UK vessels was said

by Ministers to be a red line. In the event, access was conceded. ❑ The retaliatory measures that the EU can take in 2026 if the UK seeks at the end of the adjustment period to reduce EU access and/or quota share casts doubt on whether there will be further change. Presumptions are written into the agreement that the existing access and quota shares will remain. ❑

9

There is a disproportionate negative impact on small scale fishers There is an unrelenting and possibly inexorable push towards rationalisation and consolidation within the industry, driven by market economics and the existing policy and regulatory framework ❑ Covid-19 and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement will accelerate this unless mitigating actions are taken ❑ Allowing EU vessels continued access to the 6-12nm zone disadvantages UK inshore vessels, as they do not have the same flexibility as larger vessels ❑ The ability of EU vessels to exploit non-quota species, some of which are commercially valuable and important to the inshore (and offshore) UK fleet has already caused problems. It will probably lead to additional controls such as catch limits and possibly new quotas. The under 10m fleet could find themselves at the back of the queue. ❑ Assembling export packages from fish landed by small vessels is more costly and time consuming. It reduces market access for these fishers and will hit their bottom line. ❑ There is the prospect of additional regulatory burdens being introduced by Defra and the MMO which will impact disproportionately on these vessels ❑

10

The Agreement presents the UK with fresh and additional regulatory challenges The UK has to rely upon the EU and the cooperation of member states for essential data about catches and landings by EU vessels. Currently, such data as is supplied, is limited to quota species. ❑ Surveillance and monitoring at sea are costly and new protocols will need to be agreed with the EU. The UK increased its at sea surveillance capacity in the run up to Brexit, but will it be able to maintain this level of spend? ❑ It is not be straightforward to establish accurate historic catch records relating to non-quota species in order to determine entitlement, and it remains to be seen how day to day monitoring data will be obtained from EU vessels. ❑ The EU is entitled to challenge the UK’s regulatory systems when it comes to the documentation accompanying fish exports from the UK (and, in due course, the same will apply the other way around) ❑

11

Relationship between the Agreement and UK fisheries strategies The UK Fisheries Act 2020 has set the legislative framework. It comprises mostly enabling legislation, leaving the policy and implementation to be determined ❑ The Scottish government published in December 2020 a high level 10 year fisheries management strategy, which forms part of the Scottish government’s Blue Economy Action Plan. Further detail is promised. ❑ For England, the UK government does not have a published fisheries strategy. Defra seem to be waiting upon the development of statutory Fisheries Statements and Fisheries Management Plans, which are some years down the road. ❑ Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be in a similar position. ❑ The relationship between the decision making powers of the UK-EU Specialised Fisheries Committee and the formulation and implementation of UK fisheries strategies remains unclear. How the Committee will function and how the UK Administrations will operate in relation to the Committee is not yet resolved. ❑

12

Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s strategic objectives in the context of the Agreement Outcomes sought: UK is seen as a global leader in the management of marine resources ❑ Marine biodiversity is restored at scale and enjoyed by more people ❑ Seafood consumed in the UK comes from well-managed stocks ❑

Existing traditional coastal communities are sustained and the economy of small fishing communities is revived ❑ The status of marine wildlife populations is understood, effectively monitored and safeguards are in place to allow recovery ❑

13

We all have a role in sustainable fisheries Central government to set the policies, regulators to manage the fisheries, local authorities to set local plans, scientists to provide sound and objective advice, local communities to provide the social and economic fabric, fishers to fish in ways that derive the best possible economic and social benefits for the least environmental cost, processors and merchants to act sustainably, retailers and food services to inform and sell sustainably, and consumers to make choices that support sustainability ❑ Only by everyone working in concert will the Foundation be able deliver its goals, priorities and outcomes for commercial fishing ❑ This calls for a whole body approach and not simply focussing on particular aspects ❑

14

There are new risks and opportunities Further and major upheaval and change are inevitable ❑ There will be divergent voices; a range of views can be a legitimate product of engagement but resolution should be sought ❑ Interventions should guard against transference, which has been a common feature of fisheries management and is a characteristic of the EU-UK Agreement ❑ Onshore facilities, services and activities must be considered alongside what happens at sea. The pandemic and the fallout from the Agreement have illustrated the fragility of the supply chain and the strong inter-dependence of sea and land based activity. ❑ Fisheries management is complex. It requires a multi-disciplinary approach able to draw on first-hand knowledge and genuine expertise. A lesson from the EU-UK Agreement is that knowledge gaps can have painful consequences. ❑

15

There are new risks and opportunities Whilst marine conservation measures are vital to restore the health of our oceans they can have negative effects on fishing communities. The longer term benefits to the fishing industry will not necessarily be enjoyed by the fishers and the communities that bear the cost because UK fisheries are shared. ❑ The early announcement by Defra, following the Brexit deal, about extending management measures in MPAs in the absence of firm plans and a strategic vision for the English fishing industry (particularly for the under 10m fleet) could be perceived as lacking balance. ❑ Fishers are supportive of marine conservation measures, where they deem them to be sensible and effective. They are conscious that their livelihoods are dependent upon healthy fish stocks. ❑ There is scope for further exploring how UK fishers could contribute to and benefit from marine conservation and sustainable fishing measures in shared waters. This fits with “fishing in tandem with nature” and also links with the Foundation’s outcomes of communities working together for change and reconnecting coastal areas with their natural heritage. ❑

16

There are new risks and opportunities Covid-19 has highlighted the importance of family and community. Fishing is community based, part of the local heritage and most of the businesses are family owned and family run. This requires an approach that fully embraces these aspects ❑ The concept of co-management is being promoted by Defra and Marine Scotland.

The outcome of the Brexit deal has made this more of a challenge. It will require training, learning and adjustment by all parties, not least among policy makers and regulators. There is useful experience to be drawn from other sectors and policy areas ❑ To have a sustainable future and if the economy of small fishing communities is to be revived young people will have to see fishing as a desirable career choice. This demands a rounded approach that addresses all the barriers to entry ❑

17

The pace of change has increased and there is further business uncertainty Covid-19 has added pace to technological change and changed the way in which we work and shop. The industry at all levels needs to continue to adapt ❑ Fishing varies from year to year, season to season and day to day. The industry is of necessity responsive and adaptive. But, the increasing competition for space from other users and the uncertainties arising from the Agreement are adding to business uncertainty ❑ Fishing is a highly skilled and technical field of work which is often not well understood by fisheries managers. Regulatory risk is a significant factor ❑ The job is dangerous. Safety needs to be brought centre-stage ❑

18

The pace of change has increased and there is further business uncertainty ❑ Change brings

upfront costs and risks for fishers without guarantee of success

❑ The

operating margins of the industry are rarely sufficient to support the associated infrastructure costs in isolation and unaided. Imaginative solutions are required. ❑ Local communities rarely have exclusive access to fisheries; the actions of others can bear on the economic future of those communities ❑ The supply chain is complex, in which transport and logistics play a big part, and it usually extends well beyond the fishing communities where fish are landed. Catch local and sell local has a place but will remain niche ❑ There is a better chance of success if proposals are geared to national and international buying trends and recognise the forces of change 19

Conclusion

Major change is afoot, largely through a combination of externally driven events. There is an opportunity to assist the industry and coastal communities adjust in ways that would help them forge a sustainable future and that would help reduce the pressure on the marine environment. It is an ambitious goal that merits an ambitious and thoroughly prepared portfolio of actions.

20