Dear All,
please find copied below a note that I provided to a NUTFA Board Member earlier today in
response to a note he had sent to his local MP outlining the concerns he has for his local fleet
in Ramsgate.
My note grew to cover a range of current issues and I thought that you might find it useful.
with best wishes,
Jerry
Dear Tom,
many thanks for copying me into your note to Laura.
On the basis of bringing colleagues and others up to speed, may I take this
opportunity to respond to you and through you to Laura?
As you know, having been part of the team, NUTFA has been deeply involved in
discussions with Defra, the PO's and the NFFO with regard to quota allocation
issues for a considerable time as the under ten representative body on the Minister's
Industry Working Group.
After many months of debate and argument, the Minister decided upon a small
reallocation and realignment of species from the PO sector to the under tens.
This approach was based very clearly and very conservatively [too much so in our
view] specifically on those stocks that were obviously surplus to the PO requirements
year on year.
The amounts to be reallocated did not even take into account the quantity of quota
that had been leased to under tens by the PO's as the government decided,
probablyunder pressure from the PO's, that quota that had been leased was deemed
to be "used" and therefore not available for realignment.
We have constantly disputed this decision as it would seem entirely logical to us that
if one sector has a significant surplus of quota over and above their needs that they
are able to rent it out to fishermen in dire need of it then it is fundamentally under
utilised and should have been included in that definition, thereby making a proportion
of it available for reallocation or realignment.
The decision not to consider it in this way merely provides a government approved
conduit for PO's to continue to charge under ten fishers for the privilege of trying to
make a living and using a publicly owned resource with which to do so.
In the same way, Defra have constantly refused to follow their own Rules of Quota
Management that permits them to reallocate on an in year basis only, quota from
one sector that has an excess over and above their operational requirements, to
those who are in need of it.
Their excuses for not doing so range, amongst other things, from the apparent threat
that it may encourage the race to fish (laughable in light of the current situation for
many under tens), might skew the market through producing a surplus of fish on the
market (see comment above), encourage a race to fish through PO members
attempting to catch all their allowance before its reallocated and importantly,
because “PO’s have an obligation to provide their members with the best possible
fishing opportunities and financial returns from the quota allocated to them”. [my
underlining].
And there’s the rub.
Whilst it is in our view only right of course for the over ten sector to have an equitable
share to meet their needs from this public resource, being permitted to use their
excess to hold another sector that is in dire need of additional access to this
resource to ransom is fundamentally iniquitous.
You will be aware that some have always tried to characterise our aspirations on
behalf of the under ten metre fleet as attempting to 'rob Peter to pay Paul' and they
have now accused Nutfa of misinforming the Minister with regard to the quota needs
of the under tens. [It would seem on that basis that they have not bothered to look
even as far as the ports in your area for evidence that clearly contradicts that view].
Now apart from the argument that one can only rob Peter in the event that Peter
actually owns the quota in the first place, and the Minister has clearly stated that fish
quota is owned by Government and not therefore by definition, by private companies
and individuals, there are a number of questions that need answering with respect to
the holding and use of quota generally.
Apart from the amount of quota that working fishermen in the over ten sector need
and utilise, there are two other segments of their part of the ‘quota pie’ worthy of
consideration.
Firstly, there is the amount of quota that is, for want of a better expression, the icing
on the cake and secondly, a further quantity, held by both fishers and non fishers
that is clearly surplus to their individual requirements because it is available to lease
to other users, specifically including the under tens.
Whilst we can argue about the icing part and how one should attempt to balance the
difference between needs and wants, the latter segment of quota referred to is
certainly where consideration should be given to a fairer distribution based on
something other than a form of historic rights or who has the deepest pockets.
The suggested reconsideration is also on the basis that this element is currently
being used as an economic weapon in an attempt to subdue both Nutfa and
Government efforts to consider the aforementioned balance.
It is also the case that the PO’s curtailed any gifts or swaps to the under tens as
soon as the Minister announced his intentions to even consider a reallocation. This
action also underlines the need to get away from the current situation whereby the
under ten sector is beholden on the mood of a number of private companies as to
whether they can survive or not.
The cost of leasing quota follows an inevitably upward trend and you will have seen
from reports in Fishing News that it is a problem for both under and over ten
operators. You will recall the front page of FN last year with a picture of a Grimsby
based pair team having to discard the best part of a 1000 box haul of Cod on the
basis that it was not worth their while to pay to lease in quota to cover the catch. At
the same time, a number of larger Scottish vessels were being put out of business
through being unable to afford to lease quota to maintain their businesses.
Although you would struggle to make up such situations, it begs the question of who
actually sets the price of the quota?
The PO’s put themselves forward as caring for their membership and of course it is
not that the quota wasn’t available to the aforementioned pair team. UK PLC had
sufficient, or at least someone had sufficient quota to cover the catch, but only at a
price, and in that instance, and no doubt many more that we don’t hear about, too
high a price to make economic sense, hence the discarding.
I don’t need to remind you of course that when Government first mooted the idea
some years ago of allowing under tens to lease quota “as a temporary measure to
help the fleet in the short term”, NUTFA did highlight the potential threat in the long
term of so doing.
Prior to leasing, the under tens benefitted from both gifts and swaps from the over
ten sector as a matter of course. Whilst we have never considered this a viable long
term method of supplementing the meager resources in the under tens, these
benefits were gratefully received. At the same time, NUTFA recognized the desire of
some under tens to lease quota to meet their individual financial requirements.
As predicted, we now have a situation where gifts and swaps have evaporated,
leasing costs increase year on year, fishers are having to fish harder and make a
reduced profit to pay the quota rent and on average, something of the order of 50%
of leased quota is not fished due to weather and other constraints for smaller
vessels.
Irrespective of our position as the representative body for the under ten fleet, we
consider that this situation is neither tenable nor equitable and we can only hope that
the Minister recognises that there should be an independent root and branch review,
linked to an equal consideration of how to achieve a sensible balance of UK fishing
capacity between the sectors within the available fishing opportunities.
It will also be important for this review to be undertaken before the proposals for
Transferable Fishing Concessions in the CFP Reform Paper possibly come to
fruition and finally cement this public resource as nothing more than a private
commodity [although we are not far from this now in the UK]. I have little doubt that
there are some out there who are hoping that the debate is delayed sufficiently for
this to occur.
We sympathise greatly with Richard Benyon who has been put into an invidious
position by the historic mismanagement of the quota issue in the UK. He has said on
many occasions that if he was starting from somewhere in this regard, it wouldn’t be
from here. It would seem sensible therefore for the whole quota allocation and
access situation to be subject to an independent enquiry to be finally sorted out for
the good of all concerned.
In the meantime, the Minister should use Section 15 to reallocate quota this year in
order to protect under ten metre vessels from imminent disaster and to prevent any
abuse of the system through holding an unfair advantage.
Also for your information, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is little if any
appetite for the Community Quota Group Pilot that Defra sought to introduce
recently.
Out of the 22 applicant Groups, six were chosen, ranging from Hartlepool in the
north down and round the south east coast. There were none in the SW as the
Cornish FPO, who had originally offered to run one, pulled out on the basis that they
refused to include any reallocated quota in the scheme, thereby making themselves
ineligible.
From the plethora of phone calls received, it certainly appears that the quota offers
provided to the Groups, based on their previous individual track records, do not
come close to what they have actually fished from the pool quota. I had e mailed
Defra at the request of some members just to ensure that the offers provided were in
fact all the fish quota that would be available. Defra has assured me that it is so
although I gather that officials are touring the successful Groups in an attempt to
persuade them to take up the offers.
Apart from any other considerations, the lack of an amount of quota at least equal to
previous catches by the Group members does call into question the veracity and
accuracy of the system of recording under ten metre catches bought in during the
mid 2000’s under the Registration of Buyers and Sellers legislation. As you know,
this puts the responsibility for reporting the landings of the under tens onto the
shoulders of the first sale buyers.
We have never been comfortable with this approach, not only because it fails to give
due responsibility to the fishermen themselves but also because there appears to be
no checks on the effectiveness of the system. When we have questioned Defra with
regard to their confidence levels in the data provided, they have only ever answered
that it is the best they have. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
We take no pleasure at all in the apparent failure of the Community Groups. We do
however maintain our view that there is no evidence that the introduction of a rights
based system to the under ten sector will provide any lasting benefits but plenty of
examples elsewhere in Europe and further afield that it will cause irreparable harm,
not only to the fishermen themselves, but also to the wider fishing communities that
they support.
At the same time, we recognize the need to consider a well managed and focused
round of decommissioning for both sectors in order to address the outstanding
capacity issues that Defra has failed to address over many years.
Any such scheme needs to also include the removal of quota linked to a fishing
licence and not only the removal of vessel and licence themselves.
This has been the Achilles Heel of previous rounds of decommissioning whereby an
over ten operator takes state aid to remove both vessel and licence from the
Register yet is permitted to retain the quota entitlement.
He then has a choice of either becoming a ‘slipper skipper’, sitting back and leasing
out the quota to working fishermen or using the state money to buy a more modern
and efficient vessel with which to pursue his retained quota allocation.
It is little wonder therefore that the EU Court of Auditors was so critical of publicly
funded decommissioning schemes across Europe. In the UK, by Defra’s own
admission, they spent about £126 million on decommissioning in the over ten metre
sector that in some cases actually increased fishing capacity.
In the event that we do manage to get a well managed and focused
decommissioning scheme then it would provide a double benefit to the fleet. By
decommissioning over tens, such a scheme would not only reduce the physical
capacity of that sector but could also move the state aided quota acquired into the
under ten sector to make a meaningful contribution to redressing the balance.
It would of course also be necessary to consider the balance between capacity and
fishing opportunities within the under ten sector and as you know, NUTFA’s
suggestion for an inshore PO type body begins to address this issue.
NUTFA will shortly be coming to a port near you, and everywhere else around the
English coast to publicise the Inshore PO initiative, to answer questions in that
respect and to take on board fishermen’s and others comments to hone the idea into
a workable system. It will be of particular importance that we make clear that this
idea differs from the standard PO model in one major respect, that it would not seek
to allocate fishing rights to individuals but would ring fence, protect and manage the
existing Pool quota in a more effective way. Management by fishermen, for
fishermen.
There are the other benefits to the scheme that you are aware of and I am really
looking forward to further refining the approach in discussion with the under ten fleet.
I was intending to also update you on CFP issues but suffice to say that NUTFA is
fully engaged with the UK Government, the EU Commission and the Members of the
European Parliament in this regard and are actively promoting real change to the
current Policy in respect of the small scale fleet through the provision of a number of
suggested amendments to the draft text of the next CFP and face to face
discussions.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for any further information or clarification.
With best wishes,
Jerry
For NUTFA
01437 751 357
07799 698 568
E: contact@nutfa.org
Web: www.nutfa.org