Art47 update

Anglers are extremely angry that the EU are proposing to extend the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) through Article 47 of the proposed Control Regulations to control their sport, especially so given it is such a low impact activity when compared to the 2 billion fish discarded annually in the North Sea due to the inefficient policies of the EU.

Firstly a quick summary of Article 47 which due to the vagueness of the various points within it has created a real fear of unnecessary control on sea angling.

Article 47 : Recreational fisheries

1. Recreational fisheries on a vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State.
2. Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.
3. Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The Member States concerned shall establish a share from such quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.
4. The marketing of catches from a recreational fishery shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes.

What we feel the EU should do :

Although the EU’s Head of Media in the UK has attempted to write of the impact on anglers by quoting Mr Borg as saying that :

“we will examine this on a case by case basis and we will make easy to implement and realistic proposals. My services are already working together with the angler associations and the Member States to find proportionate and realistic rules that work for everyone’s benefit.”

If this were the case then surely that would have been indicated, but nowhere in the Control Regs or Article 47 are such processes identified, nor to our knowledge has any UK representative angling or angling conservation body been consulted.

We feel the whole of Article 47 was ill conceived and that now having been shown to be so, the ‘spin merchants’ are on a damage limitation exercise.

The EU should take the following steps in order that some sense may be made :

1. Delete Article 47 for now or exempt recreational angling from this proposed Regulation
2. Show detailed evidence behind the claim that recreational sea angling “… has an increasing influence on fish stocks and marine environment.
3. Analyse and define the legal status of recreational sea angling within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) at present
4. Discuss and decide the future status of recreational sea angling with regard to the CFP
5. As part of the ongoing CFP review recognise the recreational sea angling sector and give due regard to the sectors needs and (sustainable) growth potential
6. Determine more and better data on the recreational fisheries sector
7. Allocate budget to set up and run a genuine recreational sea angling unit aimed at regeneration and development.
8. Investigate if and how ICES and the Member States today include recreational sea angling catches in their fishing mortality estimates with regards to setting and distribution of TACs and quotas
9. Launch another consultation round on this proposed Regulation.

Which other articles might apply to recreational fisheries apart from Article 47?

We are concerned that the apparent “ad hoc” inclusion of Article 47 may inadvertently cause recreational fisheries to be included in many of the other 116 articles, for example, Articles 39 and 40 could also impact anglers.

These say that every fishing vessel must carry electronic equipment which notifies the relevant MPA authorities and the skipper via an alarm bell that they are entering a Marine Protected Area (MPA);

and that Masters of Community fishing vessels intending to transit a Marine Protected Area shall communicate the following data in the form of a transit report, to the authorities of the flag Member State and to the coastal Member State:

• the name of the vessel, external identification mark, radio call sign and name of the master of the vessel
• the coordinates of the geographical location of the vessel to which the communication refers
• the date and time of each entry into a Marine Protected Area
• the date and time of each exit from a Marine Protected Area

This could apply equally to recreational sea anglers unless there is a derogation.

Points to consider :

The following is what we understand to be the key points of immediate interest regarding the proposed EU Control Regulations and Article 47. It is drawn from meetings with the Scottish Marine Directorate (SMD) as well as other angling and conservation groups.

• The 1st January 2010 is the proposed starting date of the regulation.
• The EC intends to have this tied up by May/June but it is thought that it could go on to November or December depending on how long it takes to get agreement on each Article.
• More than 1000 requests for clarification (footnotes in EU speak) have been lodged.
• The SMD have made a written response which basically says Art 47 is unworkable at the moment due to lack of data but data gathering exercises should be considered for the forthcoming Common Fisheries review.
• As the proposals stand they clearly affect shore and boat anglers until such times the proposals are rewritten.
• The SMD made it plain they have no idea which way Art 47 will go.
• Neither DEFRA nor the UK Government have articulated their position.
• EU politics may affect their decision.
• The UK and a few others will not be enough.
• The EU Parliament can only advise, the EC can ignore.
• It will need pan-European action by anglers to stop this nonsense.

Perhaps most concerning, a member of the SMD told us of an occasion when every EU fisheries minister without exception voted no on a topic and yet it still appeared in the proposals. The tenacity of EU civil servants should never be underestimated.

Category: SSACN Announcements