Yesterdays meeting

[loopy]

Afternoon all,

So often, all it takes is just one little word and Article 47 of the Common Fisheries Policy is no exception.

The policy and its 390 proposed amendments went to the EU Fisheries Committee this afternoon and was involved in what Nigel Farage has called "an outbreak of commonsense".

It looks like a victory for UKIP and all the supporters of recreational sea angling in Britain simply through the adoption of the word 'May' instead of 'Shall' in a couple of key paragraphs.

As well as this, the proposed amendment to exempt shore fishing has been passed. A relief to all of us.So just to be clear, Article 47 as it now stands says:

In paragraph 1:

Recreational fisheries conducted from a vessel in Community marine waters on a stock subject to a multiannual recovery plan may be evaluated by the Member State in whose waters they are conducted. Fishing with rod and reel from shore may not be included.

While in paragaph 2:

Within two years of the date of entry into force of this Regulation, Member States may estimate the impact of recreational fisheries conducted in their waters and submit the information to the Commission. The relevant Member State and the Commission, on the basis of the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, shall decide which recreational fisheries are having a significant impact on stocks. For those fisheries having a significant impact, the Member State, in close cooperation with the Commission, shall develop a monitoring system that is able to accurately estimate the total recreational catches from each stock. Recreational fisheries shall comply with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy

The incorporation of this word into the policy can be interpreted in one easy way: We don't HAVE TO do any of it but if a country decides that it does want to submit information to the Commission, then the development of a monitoring system can follow automatically.

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage greeted the victory with caution.

He said: "The amended policy still has to go through the plenary session before reaching the fisheries council, so the battle is not over yet."

And he warned that the we needed to keep a close eye on future policy discussions. "We need to be aware that the principle of recreational sea angling coming under the realm of the Common Fisheries Policy has now been established and there's every likelihood that it will one day return for regulation," he said.

"Also, with the current New Labour government only to keen too go along with European harmonisation at every opportunity, Gordon Brown may well opt to take up the implicit offer of Article 47 despite the clamour to scrap the entire thing."

If you need any further information on this, please don't hesitate to contact me and thanks once again for your continuing support
Kind regards

Damian Wilson
UKIP campaign organiser

[Red5]

Cheers for that Les.....Good to hear your still about mate....been awfully quiet for a week or two.

[Charlton]

unfortunately, to many the word may, will still mean shall, as when it happens they will say we did say may happen, and it has. Just another political answer, changes nothing as far as I am concerened, this is after having many dealings with the powers that be anything other than a NO, means the chances are it will happen.

[mick dunn]

Theres a small article in the sun today saying it will not affect us anglers.
Mick.

[Charlton]

Must be reet then if it was in The Sun.....!!

it was in the papers, yes paul in that case it must be right, you can always trust what a journo writes

[davem2005]

The UKIP have done excellent work on this but all the other MEPS have helped by voicing their opinions.

Its only a single word change and as Alan so rightly reminds us it is not a no just a may.

On the bright side is the fact those who would have to impliment and police this have all commented that it would be unworkable so that suggests its unlikely to happen.

The shore anglers have a definate " it doesn't apply to them" now which is a step in the right direction. There is also good news in the way RSA has been defined more closely with relation to the UK, although this is by no means a perfect definition.

Welcome back Les

Cheers
dave

[big_sean]

This Was a report on another forum which dosent tie in with the above but the end result is the same

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All, I received this press release yesterday while I was on a day off trout fishing on Grafham Water.

DB


Recreational anglers wriggle out of EU quotas plans

Conservative pressure and amendments pay off

Brussels, 31st March 2009 -- Plans to bring recreational anglers into the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) have been watered down significantly by the European Parliament‚s fisheries committee in a vote this afternoon.

Article 47 of the proposed regulation would have required recreational fishermen to register their boats and whatever they catch would be counted against the fisheries quota for that country. Each country will also be required to allocate what share of its quota for each fish species will be available for commercial and recreational fisheries use.

Struan Stevenson MEP, Conservative fisheries spokesman in the European Parliament, has led opposition to Article 47 in Brussels and while his amendment to delete it altogether was rejected, he was able to reword the proposal so that national governments could decide whether they would include recreational fishermen in the regulation.

Earlier today, in an answer to a written question posed to the commission by Mr Stevenson, EU Fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg, confirmed: „The normal hobby angler who catches an insignificant number of fish when he goes out fishing and uses it exclusively for his private consumption will not be covered by the control regulation, even if he catches fish like cod which is under a recovery plan.„

After the vote, Mr Stevenson said:

„I am sorry that my amendment to delete article 47 was defeated in the Fisheries Committee. However, the fallback amendment which won majority support, together with the written answer I have received from Commissioner Borg, reassures me that recreational anglers have nothing to fear from the revised article 47.

„Only fishermen who target recovery stocks such as cod, hake, eel and bluefin tuna and seek to sell their catch, will come under the jurisdiction of the CFP. Recreational anglers who are simply catching fish, even cod or other recovery stock fish, for their own consumption, will not be affected.„


Richard Benyon MP, Shadow Fisheries Minister said:

„I really sense we are making progress. Recreational fishermen and the communities that benefit from the tourism they bring can have confidence that the vast majority will be excluded from this regulation. It is disappointing that despite all their rhetoric there were no amendments from UKIP opposing or seeking to change this measure. British anglers need politicians who will be effective in reining in some of the EU‚s more bizarre proposals.„

Jimmy Buchan, star of BBC TV‚s ‚Trawlermen‚ series and Chairman of the Scottish Fishermen‚s Organisation (SFO) said:

„I am delighted that the majority of recreational anglers are now taken out of the equation. However I am alarmed that for those who seek to sell their catch, quota will be deducted from hard-pressed commercial skippers to provide them with an allocation. I have voiced my concerns about this to Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg in person.„

ENDS

[LeonRoskilly]

What the wording change does do is to allow it to the discretion of each country, rather than being an EU requirement which all must follow.

If it was an EU requirement, then even if we lobbied our own politicians hard, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

With this change, it at least means that if our own politicians are unwilling to introduce such measures within the UK, they don't have to.

And if they do decide that they are inclined to implement it, sea-anglers can at least mount some kind of camapaign to make them change their minds at a UK level.

What it doesn't do is put us in the clear.

Whatever proposals are made at this stage can be overruled by the meeting of European fisheries ministers later in the year.

And even then, if it is left to the UK's discretion to implement, there are other interests who will be lobbying hard for our politicians to introduce these controls on Recreational Sea Angling.

Those of you who want to put in an effort to affect the outcome, should now concentrate on lobbying Huw Irranca-Davies, the UK fisheries minister and (importantly) his boss Hilary Benn at DEFRA, both by writing to them directly (which usually simply ends up on the desk of a civil servant!), and through your own MP, asking them to take up your concerns with Hilary Benn on your behalf.

DEFRA (the UK Government) are still deciding what their position should be on this!

There's still a very long way to go before this is put to bed.

[treeboa]

a long way to go, and still possible to amend it if someone so feels the urge, as someone has posted the word may does not mean it will be done

to me they should have reworded some of the bits to set in stone that we would not be affected

for instance to say shore anglers may not be included is vastly different to saying shore anglers shall not be included, a bit like saying that you may not get a fine for running a speed camera

the word may only means that at some later date someone may change thier mind

bear in mind we are dealing with a comittee, an old adage was that a camel was a horse designed by a comittee