Wwwgovuk/defra Informal Consultation On Proposals For Allocating Fixed Quota

www.gov.uk/defra informal consultation on proposals for allocating fixed quota allocation units to 10m-and-under licences in the engl

www.gov.uk/defra

Informal consultation on proposals for allocating Fixed Quota
Allocation units to 10m-and-under licences in the English Fleet
Summary of responses
February 2015

© Crown copyright 2015
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in
any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence
v.2. To view this licence visit
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or
email [email protected]
This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at
[email protected]
Contents
Introduction 4
Conducting the consultation exercise 5
Summary of responses and key findings 6
Headline figures 6
Summary of meetings attended 14
In addition to the meetings with local fishermen, a Defra official met
with the CEO of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation (CFPO) on 12
September 2014, to hear the views of a PO. The following issues were
raised: 17
Government response and future actions 18
1. FQAs take away the flexibility to catch a variety of species, which
is considered to be essential to the viability of inshore fishing. 18
2. The use of track records using Registered Buyers and Sellers (RBS)
data to allocate FQA units is flawed and will mean individual
fishermen not getting as much quota as they should. 18
3. The proposal will negatively impact new entrants to the industry.
19
4. The quota available to the pool will decrease if vessels with
sizeable quotas leave. 19
5. The current system is the best option for U10m fishermen, but
respondents acknowledged it was not perfect and suggested
improvements. 19
Next steps 20
Annex 2 – List of consultees 8
Introduction
============
Our vision is for an economically and environmentally sustainable
industry. We want fishermen to be able to plan for the future with
more certainty, take greater responsibility for their businesses and
make the most of marketing, funding, and other growth opportunities.
We want to maximise sustainable fishing opportunities whilst ensuring
that quota is actively managed for the benefit of the fleet as a
whole. We want to reduce the regulatory burden while ensuring a high
degree of compliance with fisheries management measures.
There are approximately 2600 under 10 metre (U10m) vessels in England.
The vessels are managed by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) as
a pool since they do not hold Fixed Quota Allocation (FQA) units
individually. Instead, FQA units, and therefore also quota, have been
assigned to the entire U10m pool. The MMO manages the quota that the
pool receives and, for the majority of quota species, sets monthly
catch limits for each species at the beginning of the month. The catch
limits are the maximum that each vessel in the U10m pool can catch in
a given month and varies on a monthly basis.
The intention of this informal consultation was to develop proposals
for a voluntary measure to give individual licence-holders in
England’s U10m fishing fleet the option to receive an allocation of
FQA units and, for management purposes, to move out of the U10m vessel
pool. This is to improve certainty in business planning and fishing
opportunity available to fishermen with U10m vessels, whether this is
through leaving the pool or remaining in a realigned pool.
Conducting the consultation exercise
====================================
The consultation document, alongside a supporting document for the
methodology (attached as Annex 1) and a response form, was published
on Monday 18 August 2014 and emailed to stakeholders on Tuesday 19
August 2014. The deadline for responses was set as Tuesday 16
September – four weeks after the invitation to take part in the
consultation.
Defra officials were invited to speak with fishermen on these
proposals in Poole, Mevagissey and Plymouth. We accepted each of these
invitations and the meetings were organised by the local fishermen’s
associations or similar. The contents of these meetings contribute
directly to the consultation and are included in this summary of
responses.
There were 68 written (email and post) responses to this consultation,
31 completed the consultation response form and 37 contributed by
sending Defra a letter or email. Out of the 68 responses, 58 (85%)
were from fishermen with U10m vessels; the remaining 10 responses
(15%) were from fishermen’s associations, Producer Organisations,
Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs), and a charity.
In addition to the 68 consultation responses, the summary of responses
also takes into account the content of the three meetings listed
previously and a conversation with a Producer Organisation. Further
information about the respondents and contributors can be found at
Annex 2.
Summary of responses and key findings
=====================================
Headline figures
----------------
Of the 68 responses, 47 opposed the proposals (69%) with 13 supporting
(19%) and 8 undecided/unstated (12%).
Although the number of responses is small compared with the number of
U10m registered vessels, 15% of the responses were provided by
fishermen’s associations, Producer Organisations, IFCAs, and a
charity.
The majority of fishermen that attended meetings with Defra officials
as part of the consultation opposed the proposal.
Detailed summary
The consultation document included 14 questions; five questions about
the general change in current management proposed and six questions
about the methodology to use to calculate the FQA units for each
individual U10m vessel fishing licence. In addition to this, there was
one specific question to fishermen with U10m vessels and Producer
Organisations each, and an open section for any further comments. We
will summarise the responses to the 14 questions in the order they
were asked.
Full details of the options referred to under each question can be
found at Annex 1. You may wish to read Annex 1 before the following
summary of responses.
1. The time period for collecting data
59 (87%) of the 68 respondents either did not select an option or
stated that none of the options would be suitable. The general
consensus here was that track records are not a true reflection of
past and future performance because:
*
They do not take into account those new to the industry that have
not had time to gain sufficient track records, or those that may
have been unable to fish due to illness or damaged vessels.
*
Some fishermen have been forced to fish for non-pressure stock and
using track records could lose their entitlement to other stocks.
The proposals would benefit those who have continued to catch high
amounts of pressured stock.
*
Opportunities for fishermen to grow and diversify their business
are limited.
*
Quotas have been too low in the past.
*
Register of Buyers and Sellers (RBS) data is inadequate.
*
Licences that have been bought from a different geographic area
may have a track record that is unusable to the new owner.
There was a general opinion that, under the proposals, the
high-catching vessels would receive the majority of the pool quota and
the balance left for the remaining U10s would not be sufficient.
Some respondents provided recommendations as to how the process could
be improved:
*
If a time period is chosen fishermen need to be able to appeal if
they have been impacted by illness, damaged vessels etc. It is
important that individual cases should be examined.
*
Instead of selecting a time period, landing details for a
fisherman’s complete history should be sought.
*
FQAs should be based on boat size, not track record.
Three (4%) respondents thought that option one (take three year
average from 2010-2012) was the best, with a further three (4%)
selecting option two (take a three year average from 2011-2013). These
respondents believe options one and two to be the fairest and that the
latest data available should always be used.
Three (4%) respondents chose option four (a future three-year period).
However, other respondents believe that using a future period is not
viable as it provides an incentive to fish for the most valuable quota
in an unsustainable way.
2. Defining the “catch” attributed to each licence
60 (88%) respondents either did not select an option or stated that
none of the options would be suitable. These respondents felt that the
nature of U10m fishing means that defining catch is not workable - the
species, and quantities, caught are variable year on year and the
sector needs flexibility.
Of the remaining eight responses, five (7%) selected option one (only
pool quota will be counted for allocating FQAs, up to the monthly
catch limits for each month). Two (3%) selected option three (each
licence will have their monthly catch limits used in place of any
catch data as a demonstration of potential catch) and one (1%) chose
option one and three. One respondent emphasised that leasing would
need to continue to be allowed if licence-holders chose to leave the
pool.
3. Defining the total pool catch
62 (91%) respondents either did not select an option or stated that
none of the options would be suitable. Most responses reflected the
same points made about why using track records are not workable within
the ‘time period’ section of the consultation. Other comments from
respondents included that the pool imbalance needs to be resolved
before FQAs could be considered, and that these options do not take
into account seasonal variations.
Three (4%) selected option one (the sum total of all of the individual
catch records after they have been calculated using Decision B),
believing it to be the fairest approach. Three (4%) selected option
three (the total catch including leasing and illegal), but admitted
that this was for reasons of personal benefit.
4. Defining what is to be allocated
60 (88%) respondents either did not select an option or stated that
none of the options would be suitable. From those that did provide
comments there was not a general consensus. Individual comments
included:
*
Interest in regional quota allocations only.
*
If using track records it will be difficult to attract sufficient
levels of FQAs to be able to enter a PO without the additional
expense of leasing.
*
The MMO holding FQAs and leasing on a semi-permanent basis could
prevent a permanent loss of quota through movement of vessels.
Seven (10%) selected option one (allocate FQAs). Two comments
highlighted that consistency throughout the industry, and between
vessel size, was important. One individual selected this option as
they did not want those leaving the pool to disadvantage those
remaining in it. One individual was interested to work this option
with other vessels similar to their own and set up a ‘mini PO’ where
they could offer each other quota.
One (1%) selected option four (allocate quota equivalent to whole
FQAs, but FQAs remain with MMO).
5. Licence rules
The consultation asked ‘if FQAs are to be allocated, should normal
licence rules apply, or should additional restrictions be introduced
to protect the U10m fleet?’
61 (90%) respondents either did not select an option or stated that
none of the options would be suitable.
Four (6%) selected additional restrictions. Comments reflected the
opinion that additional restrictions should be applied to protect
those who remain in the pool to ensure that the FQAs remain with U10m
licences. One individual provided the following example of
restrictions that should be applied if FQAs were allocated:
*
If higher catching vessels leave the pool to take FQAs they should
have monthly catch limits and be restricted as to where they can
fish. Otherwise they will fish all the stocks before the smaller
vessels have the opportunity.
*
FQAs should not be able to be pooled onto larger vessels, thereby
discouraging companies from buying up boats with FQAs.
Three (4%) said that normal rules should apply. Two comments reflected
the view that rules should be consistent in the sector, regardless of
vessel length. One comment suggested that additional restrictions
could be put in place but not before further discussions had taken
place.
6. Define the quantities to be allocated (part 1)
61 (90%) respondents either did not select an option or stated that
none of the options would be suitable. Only five comments were made,
none of which addressed issues specifically relating to the question.
They reflected general disagreement with the proposal alongside
needing more information to be able to comment and that
decommissioning should be reintroduced to reduce over capacity.
Six (9%) selected option one (allocate equivalent to “used”). The
comments reflected the view that this option would not disadvantage
those remaining in the pool.
One (1%) selected option two (allocate all FQAs, regardless of how
they were used). The individual selected this option as they
anticipated that their fishing effort will increase.
7. Define the quantities to be allocated (part 2)
61 (90%) respondents either did not select an option or stated that
none of the options would be suitable.
Four (6%) selected option one (allocate equivalent to FQAs held by
MMO). Comments reflected the view that this would be the most
appropriate and easiest option to administer. Two individuals chose
this option as it does not disadvantage those in the pool with one
comment specifically stating that if vessels leave the pool they
should not be able to retain the associated benefits.
Two (3%) selected option three (allocate equivalent to FQAs held by
MMO and continue to manage uplifts for pool leavers on a yearly
basis). Only one comment was received which indicated that option
three provides the choice to either stay in or leave the pool.
One (1%) selected option four (allocate equivalent to FQAs held by MMO
and continue to manage uplifts for pool leavers on an ongoing basis).
The respondent did so because it would provide the benefit of extra
quotas coming in.
8. Support proposal
The consultation asked for a yes or no response to the question ‘do
you agree with the proposal to allocate FQAs/quota to U10m licences’,
47 (69%) of the 68 respondents said no, 13 (19%) said yes and eight
(12%) did not select an option.
Of the 47 that did not support the proposal the biggest area of
concern was that the proposal would restrict the current flexibility
of the U10m pool and that using track records will be damaging (as
reflected in the earlier consultation responses).
Another concern, highlighted by five respondents, was that the
introduction of FQAs for U10m vessels would have a negative impact on
new fishermen because they would not have had the opportunity to gain
track records. Eight respondents believe that the larger vessels, or
‘super U10s’, would benefit from the proposal to the detriment of
smaller catching vessels. The respondents felt that the larger
vessels, that they believe are more damaging to the environment, will
be allocated a larger share of quota from the pool than the smaller
low impact vessels, and that this is unfair.
In addition, four respondents were concerned that fishermen that have
moved away from fishing for pressure (quota) stocks would be penalised
and were anxious as to what would happen if the stocks they have FQAs
for deplete.
One comment reflected that more fundamental changes to quota are
needed and that proposals should favour more environmentally
sustainable fishermen. Another suggested that the imbalance of quota
between the U10s and over 10s needs to be rectified before FQAs can be
looked at.
Other respondents looked to the past, one comment states that similar
proposals were rejected in 2011. Three commented that they did not
think the Ramsgate Pilot had been a success. Specifically, that the
quota allocated to the Ramsgate group was too low, and the pilot only
continued because additional quota was provided.
One respondent was against the proposal because they did not believe
that fish stocks should be owned by individuals.
Of those in support of the proposal, five respondents specifically
mentioned that they wanted greater control over when they fish their
quota throughout the year. Three respondents highlighted that support
of the proposal is subject to adequate volumes of quota.
Another individual confirmed that they would support the proposal if
equal track record is given to all. One comment reflected the opinion
that the proposal will provide more opportunities to those that always
fish their quota and those that remain in the pool will continue as
they are.
Of the eight respondents who did not select ‘yes’ or ‘no’, two
provided comments. The comments reflected the need for flexibility in
the U10m sector and the impact on the resale value of licences.
9. Rejoining the pool
The consultation asked for a yes or no response to the question
‘should fishermen that receive FQAs/quota and leave the pool be
allowed to return to it?’ 56 (82%) respondents did not provide an
answer to this question, seven (10%) said yes and five (7%) said no.
The seven that responded ‘yes’ said that licence-holders could only
return to the pool as long as they do so with the same FQAs as they
left with. Only two other comments were received in this section -
that skippers should not be punished if it was a mistake to leave or
if the FQA system is found to disadvantage them.
Of the five that selected ‘no’, one respondent commented that they
would answer ‘yes’ if a vessel could only return if they brought back
the same FQA they left with. Another believed that fishermen should
not be able to return as this could result in vessels ‘using’ the pool
to gain quota, selling the licence and returning to the pool to gain
more quota.
10. Current business impact
The consultation asked for ‘evidence of the costs and benefits for
business of the current quota management system’. We received 16
answers to this question. Where responses were more relevant to
potential, rather than current, business impact the answers have been
included in section 11.
Seven comments in this section state that the current MMO pool system
allows for the flexibility that the U10m sector requires. This allows
fishermen to target alternative stocks as business needs dictate and
ensures different sectors get a fair opportunity. This includes
ensuring a stable value for vessels and licences and providing a
viable income.
However, problems were also reported. Three comments reflect concerns
that the quota allocations are too low, specifically for whitefish,
and monthly allocations inhibit fishing opportunities, one respondent
said this could be improved by three monthly allocations. Two
individuals commented that leasing is too expensive, one of whom also
feels that filling in EU Log Books (a requirement when leasing) are
not designed for small vessels. One respondent commented that the
system feels remote from regions and that regional management could
resolve many issues.
11. Potential business impact
The consultation asked ‘how would the costs and benefits for your
business change if these proposals were introduced?’ We received 12
answers to this question. Three respondents reported concerns that
FQAs would impact the value of their licences. One respondent was
concerned about the impact from historically low whitefish landings
leading to the share offered to the pool not being enough to make a
living. Two respondents said that track records vary year-on-year
depending on abundance of species. Three comments, again, reflected
the importance of flexibility to the fleet, and two comments suggested
the proposal would mean the end of low impact sustainable fishing.
Two respondents believe the potential impact would be positive,
commenting that FQAs would give more financial stability. One
fisherman estimated that, without having to lease and being able to
maximise resource when it is at its highest price/maximum
availability, their annual savings could be £3-4,000.
12. Likelihood of taking FQAs
From the 58 fishermen with U10m vessels who responded to the
consultation, two (3%) said that they would be likely to take FQAs.
Both of these responses commented that they would need to know more
detail about the system, including the FQA allocation being offered,
before making a final decision.
The comments received from the remainder of the fishermen with U10m
vessels cover a variety of reasons and concerns. Two respondents said
that the current pool system is starting to work. Nine comments
reflected concerns about the reliability and fairness of track records
and that the U10m fleet needs flexibility, as mentioned in earlier
sections. One respondent commented that a vessel would only leave the
pool if it increases the value of their licence, another that larger
boats will take advantage of the situation and end up with the
majority of the quota – in this case the individual felt they may feel
forced to leave the pool to protect their share of the quota.
13. Accepting U10s into POs
The Producer Organisations who responded to the consultation agreed
that applications to join a PO are considered from vessels of any
size, or with any type of licence. One PO believed it would be a
necessity for vessels to join a PO after leaving the pool and another
commented that once in membership, PO rules apply to all vessels
equally.
14. Additional comments
12 respondents commented that the consultation was poorly advertised
and eight thought it was difficult to understand. It was suggested
that a paper copy should have been sent to all U10m licence holders
and that more discussions should have been held and more detailed
information provided.
Nine respondents commented that the majority of responses to the
government’s 2011 Consultation on Domestic Fisheries Management Reform
opposed the introduction of FQAs. Two comments rejected the successful
outcomes of the Ramsgate Pilot.
Concerns were raised by 11 respondents that this proposal does not
address the perceived imbalance of quota between over 10s and U10s.
One specific comment suggested that Article 17 of the new regulation
on the Common Fisheries Policy provides an opportunity for a review of
the current method of quota allocation and that more than minor
changes are required. Three comments reflected that Defra should
address latent capacity and landing obligations before proposing to
allocate FQAs.
As seen throughout the summary of responses, statements were received
from eight individuals that flexibility is vital for the U10m fleet.
Two respondents stated that they need to be able to swap and lease
quota in addition to having access to quota for whatever stocks are
nearby. Another two respondents were concerned about being penalised
for under catching in previous years when being allocated FQAs, and
RBS data not covering small landings often made legally by U10s.
Other individual comments included concerns regarding fewer young
fishermen and a growing problem of lack of crew; that fisheries
resources should belong to the entire fishing community, not
individuals; whether there would be financial compensation for losses
and the risk of quota concentration into fewer hands if FQAs were
given to U10s.
Alternative proposals
Throughout the consultation some respondents suggested alternative
proposals, although these were not asked for formally as part of the
consultation. 20 respondents commented that, despite not being
perfect, the current system is the best option for U10m vessels. Three
respondents said that the current system should move to three monthly
allocations. Other individual suggestions included: a full review of
quotas; the current pool paying a membership fee and percentage of
landings value; move to a regionalised quota system; one dedicated
U10m PO (encompassing a degree of regional management); establishment
of an U7m pool and creating a probationary period for new vessels so
they can gain a track record.
Summary of meetings attended
----------------------------
Meeting with South Coast Fishermen’s Council – Poole – 10 September
2014. 15 attendees.
During the course of this meeting the following issues were raised:
*
Concern that every U10m licence will have artificially low catch
records as a result of MMO quota management and the protection of
certain stocks. Therefore catch records are not representative of
potential volumes of fish a fisherman can catch.
*
RBS catch data is lower than fishermen’s own recorded catch.
*
FQAs would disadvantage those that do not fish 100% of their catch
limit each month, in particular those that chose to fish non-quota
stocks.
*
Fishermen are currently trying to catch everything in case a quota
or cap is introduced, rather than fishing in a more targeted way.
*
The quota imbalance between the Sector and U10s needs to be
addressed before FQAs can be allocated.
*
Permanent realignment and any future quota uplifts would be met
with approval and could make FQAs more palatable.
*
Proposals will only benefit the ‘super U10s’ and when they leave
the pool they will take a significant amount of quota with them.
Suggestions were made that these ‘super U10s’ should be made to
leave the pool without quota.
*
Three monthly quota allocations would benefit the U10m pool.
*
The pool needs to retain its current flexibility.
*
Concerns about the movement of licences around the UK, in
particular that track records for one location may be
inappropriate for another. Licences may have fished in Scotland
and Wales during the reference period selected, concerns were
expressed as to how these FQAs will be allocated.
*
The consultation was hard to find on Gov.UK. One single, unified
consultation on domestic fisheries reform as a whole would be
preferred.
Meeting with Cornish Fishermen – Mevagissey – 11 September 2014.
Approx. 50 attendees.
In addition to the issues raised at the Poole meeting, the following
concerns were expressed by fishermen in Mevagissey:
*
The consultation was too long and technical, and that an online
consultation is not accessible for many fishermen. They asked that
every respondent receives a response to their contribution.
*
Suggestions were made that the proposal was a ‘cost cutting’
exercise and that the proposal was already a ‘done deal’.
*
Fishermen with U10m vessels will benefit more from staying in the
pool.
*
It was asked why MMO cannot apply annual quotas within the current
pool.
*
The majority of the responses to the 2011 consultation rejected
the idea of allocated FQAs.
*
The pool has too little quota to consider allocating FQAs.
*
Basing FQAs on licence track records may lead to some U10s having
a very valuable licence and wanting to sell it, thus concentrating
the U10m fleet into fewer, richer hands.
*
FQAs would likely be taken by fishermen looking to retire and want
to sell their licence.
*
FQAs should be ring fenced for U10s, or protected from being
permanently removed from the U10m fleet.
*
Concerns that the proposals will take away individuals right to
fish, as a small proportion of boats could end up with the
majority of quota.
*
Legal action may be taken if the proposals went ahead.
*
The introduction of FQAs will reduce the value of many licences
and inhibit the potential for fishermen to grow their business. It
was asked if Defra would provide compensation for this.
*
The current pool is working, although realignment on a regional
basis would be appreciated. An idea was put forward that quota
could be allocated to self-selecting groups of fishermen in local
areas, whilst still remaining in the MMO pool.
*
It was suggested that the only fair way to divide pool FQAs would
be in equal amounts between all uncapped licences.
*
It was argued that the proposals do not benefit those that fish
sustainably, and that this goes against Article 17.
*
New fishermen would be disadvantaged, and the proposals may
discourage new entrants to the industry.
*
The introduction of the scheme would be against the will of the
majority.
Meeting with Devon/Cornwall Fishermen – Plymouth – 12 September 2014.
Approx. 25 attendees.
In addition to the issues raised at the Poole and Mevagissey meetings,
the following concerns were expressed by fishermen in Plymouth:
*
Efforts should be focused on increasing quota in the current pool,
including permanent realignment. It was asked if intervention was
necessary in the U10m pool.
*
The Scottish Government is holding a full review, it was
questioned why we are not doing this.
*
An idea was proposed of collective ownership schemes, possibly
within a NUTFA pool, where regional and local management could
lead to better use of quota.
*
The introduction of FQAs to the over-10m fleet failed, with quota
being concentrated to a few huge owners. Concern was expressed
that these owners will try and obtain U10m quota.
*
It was suggested that taking quota management away from the
Government would lead to better long term thinking and less
uncertainty. Also, quota management for the pool is essential, as
this leads to harmony between stock levels, market prices and
sustainability.
*
Track records on licences are a lottery and their potential worth
may not be reflective of their owner.
*
It was asked if, following the rejection of similar proposals in
the 2011 consultation, the proposal will progress if it is opposed
by a majority of fishermen.
*
September is not a good time to consult fishermen as they are busy
at sea, as a result many fishermen had not heard about this
consultation. January would be a better time to consult.
In addition to the meetings with local fishermen, a Defra official met
with the CEO of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation (CFPO) on 12
September 2014, to hear the views of a PO. The following issues were
raised:
======================================================================
*
When joining a PO each licence holder is considered on a case by
case basis, regardless of the size of their vessel.
*
The CFPO is concerned that there is not enough quota for this
proposal to be successful and that quota management should be
regionalised. The CFPO believe that under a more regionalised
model, active fishermen should have representatives at frequent
quota meetings and POs should be able to gift quota directly to a
region.
*
The CFPO said that restrictions would be needed to ensure U10m
FQAs remain with U10m licences.
*
The CFPO also stated that it will be harder for POs to provide the
U10s the flexibility they need.
Government response and future actions
======================================
We are grateful to the respondents who took the time to provide their
comments on the proposal.
The consultation responses highlighted that some members of the
industry were concerned that the proposal would have a negative
impact. We have taken this opportunity to list the most common
concerns expressed by respondents and provided a response to each.
1.
FQAs take away the flexibility to catch a variety of species,
which is considered to be essential to the viability of inshore
fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to use records of past activity to allocate FQAs.
Therefore, fishermen would receive quota for the species that they
have caught over a three year period (our preferred timeframe being
2010 – 2012). If fishermen decided to move to a PO they would have the
option to exchange some of their quota for quota of other species that
they have not caught in the past. FQAs could also increase flexibility
in other areas of fishing. By taking FQA units and leaving the pool,
fishermen with U10m vessels would have more flexibility as to when
they fish their quota. Fishermen could seek fish stocks at the best
times throughout the year – when they are easiest to catch, or can
achieve the best market price. If they wish, fishermen could swap away
certain quota and concentrate on specific stocks. Also, for fishermen
that take on additional work, they would not lose quota if they were
unable to fish during certain months of the year.
2.
The use of track records using Registered Buyers and Sellers (RBS)
data to allocate FQA units is flawed and will mean individual
fishermen not getting as much quota as they should.
------------------------------------------------------------------
RBS data is the only tool currently available to measure volume of
catch by U10m fishermen. We understand that many fishermen with U10m
vessels do not believe that quota allocations using RBS track records
would be a fair representation of what they have caught in the past.
The main reasons for this are vessel damage or illness that might have
prevented individuals from fishing at their normal rate, or businesses
not submitting sales notes during the selected timeframe. We would
argue that a 3-year reference period is long enough to reduce the
impact of any unplanned absences from the fishery such as from illness
or vessel damage.
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)
has been undertaking a project aimed at enhancing the quality and
quantity of data collections for inshore fisheries. This has so far
been focussed on shellfish but, to address concerns expressed in this
consultation and elsewhere, we will be looking at ways in which the
initiative could also be used to collect data on fishing for U10m
vessels targeting fin fish. In this way, fishermen will have the
opportunity to report their catches themselves in addition to the
information that buyers are required to provide already. Nevertheless,
the RBS information remains the main database for fishing activity,
and one that has already been used successfully in past discussions
and implementing policy changes.
3.
The proposal will negatively impact new entrants to the industry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposals new entrants to the industry would still be able
to join the U10m pool and while in the pool fish for both quota and
non-quota species. New entrants to the industry would be in the same
situation with regard to purchasing a licence under both the current
system and if the proposals were introduced. We do understand that
leaving the pool might be less appealing for them if their licence
does not have a track record for the reference period used.
4.
The quota available to the pool will decrease if vessels with
sizeable quotas leave.
-------------------------------------------------------------
We are aware that there are concerns about the level of quota that
will be left in the pool depending on how many vessels choose to take
FQAs. As we proposed to use track records to allocate the share of
quota to individual fishermen that leave the pool, the level of quota
remaining in the pool should reflect the catch levels of those
fishermen that remain. In addition, if certain fishermen decide to
leave the pool any gifts of quota to the U10m fleet in the future
would be spread across fewer vessels, therefore having a greater
impact.
5.
The current system is the best option for U10m fishermen, but
respondents acknowledged it was not perfect and suggested
improvements.
-------------------------------------------------------------
20 respondents stated that the current system is the better option,
but they acknowledged it was not perfect. In particular, respondents
felt that in the current system quota allocations were too low,
monthly catch allocations too time restrictive, and that increased
regional management would be of benefit. We will engage further with
the industry to consider ways in which the current system could be
improved, and how fishermen can take more responsibility for the
management of fisheries.
We are also taking additional steps to benefit the U10m fleet by
addressing the issue of latent capacity, which we know is a concern
for fishermen, and making permanent the realignment of consistently
underused quota from POs to the U10m pool to help increase quota
levels. We will also assist the U10m fleet in adapting to the
challenges of the landing obligation.
Next steps
==========
While we will not take forward the proposed scheme at this time, we
will continue to engage with the industry to look at how fishermen
with U10m vessels can have greater control and certainty over catches,
and flexibility as to when they fish.
Annexes
Annex 1 – Proposed methodology for allocating Fixed Quota Allocation
units to 10m-and-under licences in the English Fleet
In each of the six decisions that follow, Option 1 is our preferred
option; this is occasionally referenced in following options.
Decision A. Define the time period for collecting data:
1.
Take a three year average from 2010-2012.
a.
There is full data for the period and, except for the Ramsgate
Pilot, no schemes or projects skew the data for or against
particular licences. By ending the period in 2012, it will not be
affected by licence holders increasing their normal working
pattern in order to build a stronger track record ahead of moving
to FQAs.
2.
Take a three year average from 2011-2013.
a.
This is the most up to date data available to use. However, ending
the period in 2012 may be most suitable to ensure that the data
are not contested - 2013 is still recent and therefore more open
to dispute.
3.
Take the best year for each licence between 2010 and 2012.
a.
This method would require the creation of a formula to decide on
the ‘best’ year for each licence over a 3 year period. This means
each licence is judged on its best possible performance. It would
be extremely difficult to calculate and very open to challenge, by
licence-holders disputing the definition of ‘best’ year. Resolving
these disputes could cause some inconsistencies in the total
number of FQAs issued, which may negatively affect the quota
remaining in the U10m fleet pool.
4.
Use a future three-year period.
a.
This method would create a delay in the implementation of this
change for at least 3 years. While it would give licence-holders
an opportunity to fish for the quota they want to catch in the
future, it may also attract some fraudulent practice to
artificially inflate landing figures.
5.
Use the same period as for original FQA allocations.
a.
Whilst accurate records for landings made by the U10m fleet do not
exist between 1996 and 1998, this option would ensure fairness and
equality across all FQA allocations.
6.
Use the same period as the Ramsgate pilot (2009-2011).
a.
In 2009, the Environmentally Friendly Fishing Scheme allowed
licence holders to exceed the normal monthly catch limits. If
included, these results would dramatically skew FQAs in favour of
a small group of vessels. If excluded, we could be open to
challenge from those claiming that they had higher catches for the
period.
Having decided the reference period, data from this timescale can be
collated from the Registration of Buyers and Sellers (RBS) database
and prepared for calculating each licence’s share of the allocation.
Decision B. Define the “catch” attributed to each licence:
1.
Only pool quota will be counted for allocating FQAs, up to the
monthly catch limits for each month.
a.
Leased quota (which enables licence-holders to catch more than
their monthly catch limit) will continue to be an option for
licence-holders who leave the pool, so they will not be
disadvantaged by discounting this. Illegally caught fish over the
monthly catch limit will not be accepted.
2.
The entire catch attributed to each licence will be counted.
a.
Everything caught attributed to a licence, including illegal
catches and catch allowable through leasing, will be counted. This
disadvantages vessels who do not (or cannot) lease quota and
advantages vessels who overfish illegally.
3.
Each licence will have their monthly catch limits used in place of
any catch data as a demonstration of potential catch.
a.
If the catch records are considered unreliable, this could provide
a safe alternative to using catch records. However, since this
does not take into account the actual track record of licences,
this will result in an equal distribution of FQAs across the pool.
If we use catch records, the information that we have on the database
is the information we will use for allocating quota. We are not
intending to accept appeals and updates to this information. Any
errors are likely to be spread across the whole pool, and one
under-report may have a corresponding over-report on the same licence.
Decision C. Define the total catch for the pool
1.
The sum total of all of the individual catch records after they
have been calculated using Decision B
a.
The preferred option from Decision B will result in this being the
sum of all individual catch records after a cap has been imposed
to limit each monthly catch to the monthly catch limit. The total
catch for each stock will then be the sum of all catches as if no
licence-holder had caught any stock over the monthly catch limits.
For each licence-holder who caught less than the monthly catch
limit, the total catch will be less than the total catch that
would occur based solely on the catch limits.
2.
The sum total of the monthly catch limits for all licences (the
total potential catch) is used.
a.
For each licence holder who caught less than the monthly catch
limit, every licence’s proportion of the total catch would be
reduced. In effect, an additional licence would be created which
would be allocated all unused quota from each month, as this would
not be allocated to any licence.
3.
The total catch including leasing and illegal
a.
This is the most accurate representation of the catching potential
of licences and could therefore be a basis for allocating FQAs.
At this point the catch (Decision B) will be expressed as a proportion
of the total catch (Decision C) by dividing the catch by the total
catch:
Decision D. Defining what is to be allocated.
1.
Allocate FQAs
a.
This would retain consistency across all quota allocations, where
FQAs are comparable between all vessels of all sizes. By
allocating the FQAs to a licence, the MMO would not need to
continue managing the quota of any vessels which leave the pool.
2.
Allocate part, or rebased, FQAs.
a.
Since U10m licences have considerably lower catches, on average,
than the Sector (vessels in Producer Organisations), rebasing FQAs
to allow a higher degree of accuracy and differentiation at the
lower level may provide some benefits for the U10m vessels. For
example, one existing FQA unit could become 10 new FQA units, with
each new unit worth one-tenth of an existing unit. However, this
will be complex to administer by the MMO as any rebasing would
have to apply to all FQAs already allocated.
3.
Allocate quota, with the FQAs held by the MMO.
a.
This would allow for a greater degree of flexibility in allocating
to individual licences. The status quo would remain modestly
changed, with the MMO continuing to allocate quota to U10m
licences, but these licences to choose to take this quota
elsewhere. We would need to decide if this quota would be
transferable. This would require continued effort from the MMO,
albeit on a less regular basis.
4.
Allocate quota equivalent to whole FQAs, but FQAs remain with MMO.
a.
This is similar to Option 3, however for consistency all quota
allocations would be the equivalent of whole FQA units.
The MMO does not always allocate quota equivalent to its entire FQA
holding in each stock. Some of this quota is put aside to swap with
the Sector in exchange for quota of other stocks, and some is banked.
This can happen at any time of year, and as such reacts to the pool’s
uptake of monthly catch limits.
Decision E. Define the quantities to be allocated (part 1)
1.
Allocate equivalent to “used”
a.
Only allocating the FQAs equivalent to the quota actually used by
the pool for each stock, up to the total number of FQAs held by
the MMO for this stock, would provide an accurate and fair
representation of how licences performed as part of the pool.
Allocating “unused” quota to licences would inflate FQAs over
catch of the stock in question and would disadvantage licences
remaining in the pool that would otherwise see the benefits of the
banking/swapping.
2.
Allocate all FQAs, regardless of how they were used.
a.
Since the future use of FQAs for managing the U10m pool cannot be
predicted, it is possible to argue that the licence-holders should
be given their “fair-share” of each stock, to either fish against
or trade for other stocks. This would take some benefits of pool
membership away with leavers.
3.
Allocate swapped quota by proportion to used stock (i.e. allocate
to the gainers of quota, but as original stock)
a.
Where Stock A’s quota was swapped for Stock B’s quota, the
equivalent FQAs from Stock A should be allocated to licence’s
fishing against Stock B (as the beneficiaries of the swap).
4.
Allocate future year swaps based on pool-leavers track record.
a.
If FQAs are only allocated according to Option 1, quota
previously used for swaps will continue to be available to the
pool. A proportion of any future swaps could be allocated to
pool-leavers (based on their track record). However, this may be
challenged as these licence-holders will not be contributing
anything to the swap (pool vessels may have otherwise been able
to fish against quota used in the swap).
For stocks where the full amount of FQAs available to the MMO were not
used to allocate quota, a system to find the average amount of FQAs
allocated over the three year period needs to be available. The
example table below demonstrates how an average can be found based on
the number of FQAs held, the value of these FQAs in terms of quota and
the total catch for each year:
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
FQAs (held by MMO)
25
25
25
Multiplier (value of 1 FQA in given year - tonnes)
100
120
130
Equivalent (total value of all FQAs held in given year - tonnes)
2500
3000
3250
Used (total catch in given year - tonnes)
2500
2500
2500
Equivalent (how many of the FQAs were used in given year)
25
21
19
Average FQAs used over three year period
22
The MMO also receives quota (not FQAs) from other sources, which it
allocates to the U10m pool. Some of this quota is known at the start
of each year – from underpinning (by which U10m pool quota for certain
stocks has a guaranteed minimum which is upheld regardless of their
FQA allocation) and certain cases of “top slice” – and some of this
quota is received in an unplanned way – gifts from POs, licences
satisfying their economic link and in-year reallocations. It is
important to note that in these cases the MMO does not hold the FQAs
linked to this quota.
Decision F: Define the quantities to be allocated – part 2 (after
taking into account Decision E)
1.
Allocate equivalent to FQAs held by MMO
a.
Allocating FQAs should stick to the following General
Principle: If the MMO does not hold the FQAs, the equivalent
quota cannot be allocated to licences on a permanent basis.
This quota should remain with the pool. This will avoid the
need for continued management of licences which have left the
pool by the MMO.
2.
Allocate equivalent FQAs to all quota allocated by MMO.
a.
Licences leaving the pool could be allocated an equivalent amount
of quota to what they were receiving in the pool, by over
providing FQAs to leavers, knowing that those remaining vessels
will be provided for by the quota that comes in from these other
sources. This will limit the number of leavers to the supply of
FQAs, and in the event that quota from these sources ceases, will
jeopardise the pool and remaining vessels.
3.
Allocate equivalent to FQAs held by MMO and continue to manage
uplifts for pool leavers on a yearly basis.
a.
After allocating FQAs as in Option 1, the MMO could continue to
allocate uplifts of quota to licences that have already left. This
could be on an annual basis using solely the quota that is known
at the start of the year (predominantly from underpinning). This
option gives pool leavers some of the benefits of leaving the pool
and staying in the pool.
4.
Allocate equivalent to FQAs held by MMO and continue to manage
uplifts for pool leavers on an ongoing basis.
a.
After allocating FQAs as in Option 1, the MMO could continue
to allocate uplifts of quota to licences that have already
left. This would, by necessity, be on an ongoing, one-off
basis as the quota comes in from various sources at different
times. This option gives pool leavers many of the benefits of
leaving the pool and staying in the pool.
Recommended methodology
By choosing Option 1 in each decision branch, the following method
could be used to allocate FQA units to U10m vessels:
*
Data is taken from the three year period 2010-2012. The required
data is the reported catch for each licence against every stock
the MMO holds FQAs. This will be on a month by month basis.
*
These figures will then be capped at the monthly catch limit, as
allocated by the MMO each month during the period. Any licence
catching above this limit will have their catch reported as the
catch limit; any licence catching below the limit (including no
catch) will not have their reported catch changed.
*
The total catch of the pool for each stock will be the sum of all
licences catch after they have been capped.
*
Using this information, each licence’s proportion of the total
catch can be calculated by dividing the licence catch by the total
catch. Since Option 1 of Decision D is to allocate FQAs and
Decision E is to allocate only FQAs equivalent to the quota
actually used by the pool, these proportions will then be
multiplied by the number of FQAs to distribute. This may result in
a non-whole number.
*
FQAs cannot be fractions. To correct this we need to round the
figures. The first option is to round the figures to their nearest
whole number. For some stocks, the total number of FQAs allocated
after this may go over the total number available, for others this
may go under. In these cases, rounding all species to the nearest
0.5FQA will allow an extra level of rounding. As previously, FQAs
cannot be decimals. By rounding down every allocation we will
arrive at a whole number which does not take the total number of
FQAs over the limit.
*
At this point, no stocks should be allocating FQAs over the limit
imposed by Decision E on both options. For each stock, the best
option is defined as the one where the total allocation of FQAs is
closest to the total available, without going over this limit.
This is selected for each stock, and the corresponding number of
FQAs is allocated to each licence.
*
No further quota will be offered to licences leaving the pool, and
as such licence-holders will have a choice between taking the FQA
allocation offered to them and leaving the pool, or staying a
member of the pool.
Annex 2 – List of consultees
----------------------------
Written responses
The Department received 58 responses from fishermen with U10m vessels,
six of these stated that they were part of a fishermen’s association
but were responding in a personal capacity. In addition, responses
were received from the following organisations;
*
Cornish Fish Producers Organisation
*
Northumberland IFCA
*
Cornwall IFCA
*
South Coast Fisherman’s Council
*
North Atlantic Fishing Company
*
NUTFA
*
Greenpeace
*
Fish Producers Organisation Ltd
*
Thanet Fishermen’s Association
*
National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation
Meetings attended
Location
Date
Organiser
Attendance
69.
Poole
10 September 2014
South Coast Fishermen’s Council
15, predominantly representatives of local fishermen’s associations
70.
Mevagissey
11 September 2014
Mevagissey Fisherman's Association &
Cadgwith and Melford District Fisherman's Society
~50 fishermen from along the Cornish coast
71.
Plymouth
12 September 2014
New Under Ten Fishermen's Association
~25 fishermen from Plymouth and surrounding area.
72.
Newlyn
12 September 2014
Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation (CFPO)
CFPO CEO and a Defra official