Defra & Article 47

Venue : Room 613 Millbank – London
Date : 27th Jan 2009
Time : 11-1pm

Attendees

Keith Porter – DEFRA/Chair, Kevin Williamson – MFA, Anthony Hynes – DEFRA,

Eileen Imamoo – DEFRA, Virginia Hall – DEFRA, Mike Smith – CEFAS, Leon Roskilly – SACN,

Michael Bailey – Brixham Sea Angling Club, Andy Rye – Plymouth Federation Of Sea Anglers,

Rowland Shard Countryside Council For Wales, John Lebelleir – Bass, Richard Ferre – Angling Trust

Welcome And Introductions

KP gave background information about the review of the control regulation which followed the European court of audits (ECA 2008) report. That report had concluded that the common fisheries policy (CFP) was not working well. Methods for ensuring the reliability for catch data were poor and enforcement mechanisms in place were inadequate. The commissions proposal was intended to address the concerns raised in the report.

Current State Of Play

KP told the group that the proposal had been discussed in the recent meeting of the fisheries committee of the European parliament, where significant concerns had been raised on article 47 but only by British MEP’s. At initial council working group discussion in Brussels, only 5 member states had referred to Article 47, of whom 4 had expressed agreement with the proposal. Internally fisheries official found the proposals in article 47 to be ambiguous which had made it almost impossible to take a view on what was being proposed. In particular KP referred to 3 crucial areas that required further explanation from the commission :

A. The definition of recreational fishing
B. Which catches were to be against quota
C. How given lack of data the quotas would be assessed and applied

He also said that we would be seeking justification from the commission for such a wide ranging proposal and evidence of the impact that recreational fisheries were having on the stocks.

3. LR confirmed that the European Anglers Alliance recognised the problems identified by KP but he was concerned that the Commission had not yet realised that there was more socio economic value to be derived from recreational sea angling than commercial fishing. KP explained that the intention of the commission in terms of simplification had been to come up with a single regulation containing all the necessary control mechanisms, however the one size fits all approach might not be appropriate in the treatment of recreational fishing. RF said the definition of fish catching might exclude catch and release which was exclusively what his organisation did. AH explained the difficulties that might be in splitting recreational fishing into different categories and JL suggested that maybe UK sea anglers should define what they were about.

TAC

4. MS said that CEFAS had received some funding from DEFRA to look into and collect the data on recreational sea angling. However due to the different types of recreational angling carried out it would be difficult to authenticate and report records of fish catches.

5. On the issue of catch and release. MS confirmed that it was impossible for scientists to quantify the survival rate of released fish. JL was interested to know of the commissions intentions in respect of discards in the commercial sector. KP explained that strenuous efforts were being made to reduce discards in the commercial sector, but that it was unrealistic to expect action in the recreational sector to be delayed until problems with discards in the commercial sector had been resolved. The commission was looking to address all issues at the same time, including regulating the sea angling sector.

6. AR and MB expressed concerns about the fundamental merits of having a TAC for the angling sector when there is no credibility in the commissions monitoring of the commercial sector. RF questioned the proportionality of monitoring the angling sector in terms of the costs and impacts on fish stocks. If the commission could demonstrate the impact of recreational sea angling on fish stocks then anglers might be ready to consider the proposals in article 47.

Licensing

7. There was a discussion around the commissions proposal to licence recreational vessels. KP suggested that it might be easy to implement this proposal with an online system. AH referred to DEFRA’S earlier proposal to licence sea anglers(for the purpose of providing benefits rather than controlling the anglers) and the problems that had been encountered then, in getting anglers to accept the idea of licensing. RF confirmed that angler would be concerned that the commission proposal for licensing would be accompanied by charging.

8. Representatives were interested to know about the views of other member states on the commissions proposed intention to licence recreational sea anglers. AH said many member states had a sea angling licence scheme in place already and might not see the licenceing aspect of the proposals as an issue. However this might change once the considered the quota implications.

Data Collection

RS explained the steps that had been taken in Wales to collect angling data and the problems they had identified in accurate catch reporting and log book recording. AR & MB confirmed that nearly all angling clubs had weighing lists going back decades which had records of fish catches. AH reminded the meeting that not all anglers belonged to angling clubs.

10. KW said there was a requirement to do a pilot study of catch reporting in the angling sector on species such as Salmon, Blue Fin Tuna, Cod, Bass etc and produce estimates of catches. The general view was that there would be real problems in doing this due to the methodologies used to collect the data.

Next Steps

11. RF asked for a clear statement from the department whether it would support the interests of recreational sea anglers at the Eu by opposing the proposal. KP said that he could give no such clear assurance as yet. He went on to say that ministers had not yet been formally asked for their views on this or any other part of the proposals. Article 47 was just 1 of many issues in the proposal, some of them equally controversial. Member states were now ploughing through the proposal article by article in discussions in Brussels and until such time that article 47 is discussed we will not get a clear idea of the other member states views on it.

12 RF said that recreational sea anglers were debating the application of article 47 and in particular whether they should cooperate with the commission in terms of data collection. They would wait and see the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels before making a decision.

Action

KP to keep recreational interests informed on the progress of negotiations on article 47 and the UK position on it.

Category: UK Government News