Post by seajunky on Feb 11, 2009 3:41:59 GMT -12
SSACN response to the Article 47
Re: Commission Proposal on the Review of the Control Regulation
Chapter V - Monitoring of Recreational Fisheries
Article 47
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.
SSACN Response:
As SSACN would like to see a well managed recreational fishery we would naturally welcome well thought out proposals that would include Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) as equal stakeholders in a common shared resource, Our initial response to the above proposals is that they have been proposed with little data, little understanding of the needs of the sector and with no consultation with EU angling organisations or the trade. A major issue with this proposed regulation is the apparent inclusion of ‘Recreational Sea Angling’, within the cover-all term ‘recreational fisheries’.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM in the regulations
The Explanatory memorandum section 11 outlines the importance of consultations with sector advisory bodies, member state ministers, fisheries control experts, DG MARE, working groups, Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) etc etc. How ever, nobody else other than the Commission seem to have any knowledge about Article 47 before the final proposal was released on the 11th of November.
Recreational fisheries definition
Article 47 fails to give a definition of recreational fisheries/-fishing or any of its sub-sectors to be found among the 24 terms defined in Article 4. The proposed regulation talks about “recreational fisheries” in the broadest sense. However, this broad term comprises several sub-sectors of fishermen using very different catching gears and techniques, e.g. anglers vs. netsmen, longliners, trappers and spear-divers. It is necessary for management to break down the broad term into e.g. “Recreational Sea Angling” (RSA) and “Other Recreational Fisheries”.
Increasing influence on fish stocks and the marine environment
The document suggests there is an increasing influence by recreational fisheries on fish stocks and the marine environment. SSACN would challenge this, as recreational sea anglers have consistently seen there their catch returns drop year by year, both in size and number of fish. We believe studies showing changes in pressure on sea fish stocks by RSA over time are none existing.
If other forms of recreational fisheries have an increasing influence, then that is good reason to gather data for individual sub sections of recreational fisheries so all aren’t tarred with the same brush.
When restrictions on recreational catches are called for, it is necessary to identify the fish mortality caused by each of these groups and to take into consideration the socio-economic aspects and data to avoid doing more harm than necessary to the local communities and the businesses dependant on recreational fisheries. The measures to restrict catching effort from one group to another differ immensely and so do the conservation effects and economic impact from catch restrictions.
Non Compliance
The proposals suggests a “non compliance” from recreational fisheries . In this regard we would like to know of existing research and studies showing any significant “non-compliance” with the CFP legislation by the Recreational Sea Angling sector.
Simplication of rules and cost relief
The proposed Regulation states that: “The proposal will lead to simplification of the relevant legislation, together with improvements in the control system. - The system establishes a single ambitious framework laying down the principles governing all aspects of control, but leaving it to implementing regulations to establish detailed technical rules.”
SSACN fails to see how inclusion of recreational fishing will lead to much simplification and we feel it is more likely to add a new layer of rules and administration and we also fail to see how Article 47 can be implemented and enforced properly without a substantial increase in either the Commission budget and/or the Member States’ budgets or RSA picking up the tab.
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 115 articles, which are mainly aimed at commercial fisheries, aquaculture and processing. For example
Article 21 and 22: landing measures
Are recreational catches subject to any of the landing measures in Article 21 and 22?
Article 37: fishing gear
Are recreational fishing boats subject to the fishing gear Article 37?
Article 2
Only recreational catches from boats are explicitly mentioned as subject for monitoring and quotas. It is not clear whether recreational fisheries taking place without the involvement of a boat is included (e.g. angling from shore, cliffs, piers and nets set close to shore etc.)..
As Article 2 suggests this Regulation shall apply to all activities carried out on the territory of Member States; we fail to see how this can be implemented without a registration scheme or “sea anglers licence” being introduced for shore and boat anglers. The Scottish government has previously stated, they have no wish to see a licence imposed.
Article 5
Article 5 states; Member States shall adopt appropriate measures, allocate adequate financial, human and technical resources and set up all administrative and technical structures necessary for ensuring inspection, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of activities carried out within the scope of the Common Fisheries Policy. They shall make available to their competent authorities and officials all adequate means to enable them to carry out their tasks.
As the SFPA already struggles to enforce minor breaches of the law we fail to see how it could respond to the monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of recreational activities without a significant increase of budget..
Article 5 (2) control access to waters and resources implies the end of the "Freedom to Roam" principle. In addition, in the UK the tidal area of foreshore is Crown property, and this Article will necessitate national legislation to enable application.
Article 47.3
Article 47.3 states, 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.
SSACN are unable to comment on this until further details emerge but our initial thoughts are there is a data deficiency at present, which would make fair allocation of RSA quotas impossible
Article 6
Article 6 states; The measures to be included in the management plans shall be proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected
time frame, and shall be decided by the Council having regard to:
(c) the characteristics of the fisheries in which the stocks are
caught;
In response to (c) we would make the point that different species are targeted at different times of the year and also in different regions. A “one cap fits all” scenario could have serious implications. Legislators need to understand RSA and by implication, need more data before legislation should be placed. For example;
• The Cod fishing improves dramatically for shore anglers during the winter months for the east coast of Scotland. Inadequate quota could cause the fishery to be closed, before it even got started.
• Many of the west coast RSA target Pollack and elasmobranches on a catch and release basis. The reference to discards (dumping) in the proposals is not intended to be applied to Angling "Catch & Release", but may be applied unless specific exemption for "Catch and Release" is confirmed.
• The quota for Mackerel is usually reached in a few months. Anglers taking a few for bait, has negligible impact on the stocks.
(d) The economic impact of the measures on the fisheries concerned.
SSACN has no doubt that the full implementation of article 47 will have a far reaching effect on the socio economic factors effecting RSA. Introduction of a Sea Angling Licence in Portugal resulted in a 50% down turn in participation with an obvious resulting negative effect on tourism and RSA business.
• Bag limits would significantly reduce the number of people going fishing on charter boats particularly on the north and east coast.
• Extra costs imposed by the provisions of the Regulations would have to be passed on to the Charter boat operators, with the inevitable reduction in business levels which will render many boats unsustainable in economic terms.
• To be able to find and decide amongst the best management options socio-economic data is vital. Economy, conservation targets, livelihoods, local development, sustainable development as well as life quality are all issues with a role to play in the decision-making.
• From a conservation, socio and economic point of view and therefore achieving “Best Value”, it would be an advantageous to introduce “recreational only species” and/or “angling only areas” (Angling Regeneration Centres or ARCS) .
• Any significant reduction in the number and/or frequency of sea angling purchases would put most small tackle suppliers at risk.
• Of the 200,000 Scottish RSA's, only a minority fish with a frequency of more than once a week, and many of those whose fishing is confined to a dozen or less days a year will consider having to buy a licence too much of an imposition.
Conclusion
SSACN’s main opposition to the proposals is based on the total lack of consultation and data. To impose severe restrictions on an EU 10 billion pound industry and particularly with the economic down turn; without any studies into the effects it could have on that industry is in our opinion, pure folly.
SSACN is in favour of increased levels of data concerning RSA and have been working with Scottish Government officials in developing the economic survey and hope to carry out proposals shortly for recreational stock assessments.
We would like to see studies being engaged concerning RSA catches of quota species. When this data is available, we will then know if such a massive and potentially unpopular step these proposals represent is justified.
SSACN believes the % effect on overall fish mortality by RSA on managed fish stocks is negligible; a scheme in place to register and monitor 200,000 anglers in Scotland with all the associated administrative and policing effort to ensure such a small impact on fish stocks would be a huge waste of time and resources.
The blanket coverage term “recreation fisheries” shows the authors have little understanding of the RSA sector and we suggest the proposals are set aside until such times studies are carried out to ascertain, social and economic considerations, environmental impact, motivation of participants, stock mortality by RSA, and number of businesses and livelihoods affected, otherwise it is likely that inappropriate, and unenforceable proposals will be put forward.
The scope for considerable further development of the RSA sector with increased benefits to rural communities combined with low impact on fish stocks should also be considered.
Re: Commission Proposal on the Review of the Control Regulation
Chapter V - Monitoring of Recreational Fisheries
Article 47
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.
SSACN Response:
As SSACN would like to see a well managed recreational fishery we would naturally welcome well thought out proposals that would include Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) as equal stakeholders in a common shared resource, Our initial response to the above proposals is that they have been proposed with little data, little understanding of the needs of the sector and with no consultation with EU angling organisations or the trade. A major issue with this proposed regulation is the apparent inclusion of ‘Recreational Sea Angling’, within the cover-all term ‘recreational fisheries’.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM in the regulations
The Explanatory memorandum section 11 outlines the importance of consultations with sector advisory bodies, member state ministers, fisheries control experts, DG MARE, working groups, Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) etc etc. How ever, nobody else other than the Commission seem to have any knowledge about Article 47 before the final proposal was released on the 11th of November.
Recreational fisheries definition
Article 47 fails to give a definition of recreational fisheries/-fishing or any of its sub-sectors to be found among the 24 terms defined in Article 4. The proposed regulation talks about “recreational fisheries” in the broadest sense. However, this broad term comprises several sub-sectors of fishermen using very different catching gears and techniques, e.g. anglers vs. netsmen, longliners, trappers and spear-divers. It is necessary for management to break down the broad term into e.g. “Recreational Sea Angling” (RSA) and “Other Recreational Fisheries”.
Increasing influence on fish stocks and the marine environment
The document suggests there is an increasing influence by recreational fisheries on fish stocks and the marine environment. SSACN would challenge this, as recreational sea anglers have consistently seen there their catch returns drop year by year, both in size and number of fish. We believe studies showing changes in pressure on sea fish stocks by RSA over time are none existing.
If other forms of recreational fisheries have an increasing influence, then that is good reason to gather data for individual sub sections of recreational fisheries so all aren’t tarred with the same brush.
When restrictions on recreational catches are called for, it is necessary to identify the fish mortality caused by each of these groups and to take into consideration the socio-economic aspects and data to avoid doing more harm than necessary to the local communities and the businesses dependant on recreational fisheries. The measures to restrict catching effort from one group to another differ immensely and so do the conservation effects and economic impact from catch restrictions.
Non Compliance
The proposals suggests a “non compliance” from recreational fisheries . In this regard we would like to know of existing research and studies showing any significant “non-compliance” with the CFP legislation by the Recreational Sea Angling sector.
Simplication of rules and cost relief
The proposed Regulation states that: “The proposal will lead to simplification of the relevant legislation, together with improvements in the control system. - The system establishes a single ambitious framework laying down the principles governing all aspects of control, but leaving it to implementing regulations to establish detailed technical rules.”
SSACN fails to see how inclusion of recreational fishing will lead to much simplification and we feel it is more likely to add a new layer of rules and administration and we also fail to see how Article 47 can be implemented and enforced properly without a substantial increase in either the Commission budget and/or the Member States’ budgets or RSA picking up the tab.
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 115 articles, which are mainly aimed at commercial fisheries, aquaculture and processing. For example
Article 21 and 22: landing measures
Are recreational catches subject to any of the landing measures in Article 21 and 22?
Article 37: fishing gear
Are recreational fishing boats subject to the fishing gear Article 37?
Article 2
Only recreational catches from boats are explicitly mentioned as subject for monitoring and quotas. It is not clear whether recreational fisheries taking place without the involvement of a boat is included (e.g. angling from shore, cliffs, piers and nets set close to shore etc.)..
As Article 2 suggests this Regulation shall apply to all activities carried out on the territory of Member States; we fail to see how this can be implemented without a registration scheme or “sea anglers licence” being introduced for shore and boat anglers. The Scottish government has previously stated, they have no wish to see a licence imposed.
Article 5
Article 5 states; Member States shall adopt appropriate measures, allocate adequate financial, human and technical resources and set up all administrative and technical structures necessary for ensuring inspection, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of activities carried out within the scope of the Common Fisheries Policy. They shall make available to their competent authorities and officials all adequate means to enable them to carry out their tasks.
As the SFPA already struggles to enforce minor breaches of the law we fail to see how it could respond to the monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of recreational activities without a significant increase of budget..
Article 5 (2) control access to waters and resources implies the end of the "Freedom to Roam" principle. In addition, in the UK the tidal area of foreshore is Crown property, and this Article will necessitate national legislation to enable application.
Article 47.3
Article 47.3 states, 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.
SSACN are unable to comment on this until further details emerge but our initial thoughts are there is a data deficiency at present, which would make fair allocation of RSA quotas impossible
Article 6
Article 6 states; The measures to be included in the management plans shall be proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected
time frame, and shall be decided by the Council having regard to:
(c) the characteristics of the fisheries in which the stocks are
caught;
In response to (c) we would make the point that different species are targeted at different times of the year and also in different regions. A “one cap fits all” scenario could have serious implications. Legislators need to understand RSA and by implication, need more data before legislation should be placed. For example;
• The Cod fishing improves dramatically for shore anglers during the winter months for the east coast of Scotland. Inadequate quota could cause the fishery to be closed, before it even got started.
• Many of the west coast RSA target Pollack and elasmobranches on a catch and release basis. The reference to discards (dumping) in the proposals is not intended to be applied to Angling "Catch & Release", but may be applied unless specific exemption for "Catch and Release" is confirmed.
• The quota for Mackerel is usually reached in a few months. Anglers taking a few for bait, has negligible impact on the stocks.
(d) The economic impact of the measures on the fisheries concerned.
SSACN has no doubt that the full implementation of article 47 will have a far reaching effect on the socio economic factors effecting RSA. Introduction of a Sea Angling Licence in Portugal resulted in a 50% down turn in participation with an obvious resulting negative effect on tourism and RSA business.
• Bag limits would significantly reduce the number of people going fishing on charter boats particularly on the north and east coast.
• Extra costs imposed by the provisions of the Regulations would have to be passed on to the Charter boat operators, with the inevitable reduction in business levels which will render many boats unsustainable in economic terms.
• To be able to find and decide amongst the best management options socio-economic data is vital. Economy, conservation targets, livelihoods, local development, sustainable development as well as life quality are all issues with a role to play in the decision-making.
• From a conservation, socio and economic point of view and therefore achieving “Best Value”, it would be an advantageous to introduce “recreational only species” and/or “angling only areas” (Angling Regeneration Centres or ARCS) .
• Any significant reduction in the number and/or frequency of sea angling purchases would put most small tackle suppliers at risk.
• Of the 200,000 Scottish RSA's, only a minority fish with a frequency of more than once a week, and many of those whose fishing is confined to a dozen or less days a year will consider having to buy a licence too much of an imposition.
Conclusion
SSACN’s main opposition to the proposals is based on the total lack of consultation and data. To impose severe restrictions on an EU 10 billion pound industry and particularly with the economic down turn; without any studies into the effects it could have on that industry is in our opinion, pure folly.
SSACN is in favour of increased levels of data concerning RSA and have been working with Scottish Government officials in developing the economic survey and hope to carry out proposals shortly for recreational stock assessments.
We would like to see studies being engaged concerning RSA catches of quota species. When this data is available, we will then know if such a massive and potentially unpopular step these proposals represent is justified.
SSACN believes the % effect on overall fish mortality by RSA on managed fish stocks is negligible; a scheme in place to register and monitor 200,000 anglers in Scotland with all the associated administrative and policing effort to ensure such a small impact on fish stocks would be a huge waste of time and resources.
The blanket coverage term “recreation fisheries” shows the authors have little understanding of the RSA sector and we suggest the proposals are set aside until such times studies are carried out to ascertain, social and economic considerations, environmental impact, motivation of participants, stock mortality by RSA, and number of businesses and livelihoods affected, otherwise it is likely that inappropriate, and unenforceable proposals will be put forward.
The scope for considerable further development of the RSA sector with increased benefits to rural communities combined with low impact on fish stocks should also be considered.