Eighth Report:
(1998-99 Session) Sea Fishing
GENERAL UPDATE
1. The Committee's Report on Sea Fishing
was issued on 27 July 1999 and the Government response was published
by the Committee on 26 October 1999. Subsequently, there was a
debate on the Government's response on 2 December 1999.
2. In the fisheries sector the autumn period
is one of considerable pressure both for the fishing industry
and Government officials because of the preparation for and negotiation
of the TACs and quotas for the following year. This was a particularly
difficult process in 1999 because of the severe scientific advice.
However, it has been possible to make progress on a number of
areas which were focused on by the Committee, the main ones being
as follows:
— discussion has been started with
the industry on what might constitute the most useful kind of
strategy to develop. An important element may prove to be the
development of recovery plans for poor stocks (recommendations
1 and 2);
— the new regulation on implementing
structural measures in the fisheries sector under Agenda 2000
was agreed by the Fisheries Council on 22 November 1999 and a
consultation document has subsequently been issued inviting the
industry to comment on possible future arrangements for grants,
subject to the funding which may become available (recommendations
18 and 53);
— the Report has been drawn to the
attention of the European Commission, in particular regarding
recommendations 4, 5, 7, 14, 22, 26, 33, 39, 40 and 41.
It is planned to have further contacts with the Commission on
these;
— recommendations 4, 6 and 7
have been drawn to the attention of ICES. The follow-up will include
a meeting in London in February 2000 which will bring together
fisheries managers and fisheries scientists as well as a further
opportunity for fisheries managers to explore the issues during
the ICES Annual Conference in September 2000;
— the European Commission has issued
a draft regulation and decision on the Community framework for
the collection and management of data for the CFP. This is relevant
to recommendation 3 and is currently being considered by
EU officials in preparation for discussion in the Fisheries Council.
SPECIFIC ACTION
Government Strategy and Objectives
Recommendation 1: Our own conclusions based
on this inquiry suggest five essential objectives of any fisheries
management system. It should:
— promote sustainability of resources
to safeguard the long term success of both the stocks and the
industry;
— ensure that the stocks are exploited
in the most efficient way, so that fishermen are not drawn into
a race for fish;
— encourage the profitability and
competitiveness of the fishing industry from vessel to retailer;
— minimise both the cost to the
public purse and the level of Government intervention; and
— minimise the complexity of regulation
while maximising the responsibility for that process given to
the industry consistent with securing compliance.
In some of these respects we are not our
own masters, being dependent, particularly for the second, on
European decisions under the Common Fisheries Policy. Yet there
are other important criteria which the Government should consider,
such as rationalising the fleet, securing a way of life for the
more vulnerable fishing communities where there are few alternative
sources of employment, and maintaining fishing centres with the
necessary concentration of services and facilities. These depend
upon the Government first deciding on the type of industry it
wishes to see and the level of intervention it wishes to retain.
We support the concept of regulation by the industry itself as
far as is consistent with the acknowledgement that there is a
common interest in protecting the sea and its resources. However
our overriding concern is that the Government establish a settled,
transparent long-term strategy for management of fisheries which
takes into account the competitive position compared to other
EU countries and within which the industry can plan, confident
that any necessary changes will apply equally and be introduced
fairly, with proper consultation and with regard to clear and
agreed objectives. There is a very bright future for the UK sea
fishing industry and the Government has to play its part in helping
to bring this about (paragraph 3).
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Government
establish for the first time a clear, agreed and coherent strategy
for the management and development of the UK fishing industry
which will unite all concerned in working towards greater efficiency
and competitiveness (paragraph 193).
3. Currently under discussion with the industry
to decide the most constructive approach.
Economic Research
Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Government
commission regular research into the profitability of the sea
fishing industry for use in determining management policy (paragraph
13).
4. MAFF is to consider with the industry
and SFIA the value of economic research taking account of recent
Commission proposals.
Advice on TACS
Recommendation 4: We recommend that the Government
encourage ICES to present its advice on TACs in a more generally
comprehensible form and to improve its efforts to communicate
the advice to the fishing industry (paragraph 19).
5. This and other relevant recommendations
have been drawn to the attention of ICES. A meeting will now take
place in London in February between ICES scientists and fisheries
managers. The topic is also scheduled for the annual ICES conference
in September 2000.
Recommendation 5: We recommend the formal
inclusion of economic analysis of the implications of TACs and
national quota allocations at an earlier stage in the annual cycle.
However, we caution strongly against the temptation to use economic
and social criteria to "invent fish" in the interests
of the political convenience either of Ministers or the industry
(paragraph 20).
6. This has been drawn to the attention
of the Commission.
Recommendation 6: We recommend that the Government
support the European Commission's proposals for earlier notification
of the recommendations for TACs so that the fishing industry has
more time to prepare for changes in quota. In the longer term,
we recommend that TACs be set on a multi-annual basis where stocks
are not threatened (paragraph 21).
7. The timing of the TAC recommendations
is to be discussed with ICES in February 2000. The possibility
of multi-annual TACs is to be kept under review and we are to
explore with CEFAS the options for further long term management
strategies. At their 1999 annual consultations, EC and Norway
agreed further multi-annual management strategies for jointly
managed stocks. They have now been agreed for North Sea herring,
cod, haddock, saithe and plaice and work is to continue in 2000
on North Sea whiting. Multi-annual management strategies have
also been agreed by EC/Norway/Faroe Islands for the mackerel stock
and by EC/Iceland/Norway/Russia/Faroe Islands for the Atlanto-Scandian
herring. We will be looking to extend the scope of such strategies
further as suitable opportunities arise.
The precautionary approach
Recommendation 7: Whilst we endorse the precautionary
approach to fisheries management, we believe that much more planning,
consultation and forethought should have been put into its implementation
by the ACFM. As it is, we deplore the damage done to the relationship
between scientists and fishermen by the abrupt introduction of
this method and we recommend that the Government ensure that any
future changes in the approach, as are inevitable as the system
beds down, be made only once they have been fully explained to
the industry and its views taken into consideration (paragraph
26).
8. See recommendation 4.
Co-ordination of research programmes
Recommendation 8: We believe that with devolution
altering the management of some of the programmes it would be
wise to review arrangements for co-ordination of fisheries research
in the UK to make sure duplication does not occur. We recommend
that this be done (paragraph 28).
9. To be discussed at the Fisheries Science
Customer Group in February 2000.
Collaborative Research
Recommendation 9: We were reassured by the
evidence of international collaboration between scientists. Given
the international concern for the sustainability of stocks and
the recognition that the principles of fisheries management extend
beyond domestic boundaries, it is vital that scientists work together
to improve their knowledge of the sea and to develop the least
environmentally damaging methods of catching fish. We are pleased
that the UK is playing such a strong role in collaborative research
(paragraph 29).
10. Collaboration already taking place.
Funding of research
Recommendation 10: We recommend that MAFF
guarantee funding for research into fish stocks of at least current
levels for the remainder of this Comprehensive Spending Review
period and that it give an undertaking that funding for such research
will remain a priority thereafter (paragraph 35).
11. No new action required.
Multi-species modelling
Recommendation 11: We recommend that multi-species
research be applied more thoroughly in waters around the United
Kingdom other than the North Sea (paragraph 38).
12. Action subject to resources permitting.
Research into new fisheries
Recommendation 12: We believe that it should
be part of the role of CEFAS and FRS to assist in the development
of new fishing grounds through proper stock assessments. We also
believe that as part of that research the scientists should ensure
that the environmental impact of fishing for new species or in
new grounds should be taken fully into account (paragraph 39).
13. With advice from CEFAS, MAFF will consult
industry on opportunities for the development of new fisheries.
Future research needs
Recommendation 13: We recommend that MAFF
commission a study of the research needed to fulfil the UK's obligations
on stock assessments over the next 10 years, taking into account
developing fisheries, the existing number of precautionary TACs
and new, more accurate methods of conducting such research. We
further recommend that this study include comparisons with the
funding and scope of CEFAS's counterparts in the other EU and
ICES member states and that it highlight areas where further collaboration
might be encouraged (paragraph 41).
14. No new action required.
Fishermen and scientists
Recommendation 14: We recommend that MAFF
consult with the scientific community and the fishing industry
on the best way to establish a permanent formal procedure for
collaboration and consultation on fisheries research. We further
recommend that MAFF encourage its counterparts in Scotland, Northern
Ireland and Wales to participate in developing such procedures
(paragraph 49).
15. Mechanisms are under discussion. A major
presentation to the industry by CEFAS is planned for June 2000.
Recommendation 15: We conclude that, although
in the present circumstances it would not be appropriate to charge
the industry for research, fishermen's organisations should be
encouraged to invest in their own scientific projects and be assisted
in applications for European funding for this purpose (paragraph
50).
16. This has been drawn to the attention
of the NFFO.
MAGP
Recommendation 16: We recommend that the Government
fully support any proposals for stronger sanctions on Member States
to ensure compliance with MAGP targets and for greater transparency
as to the cost of restructuring measures to public funds in the
different Member States (paragraph 57).
17. Action complete. Forms part of MAGP
policy and the newly adopted structures regulation.
Safety at Sea
Recommendation 17: We conclude that the linkage
between an ageing fleet and an unsafe fleet is unproven but we
recommend that further research be conducted in this area and
the results published and distributed to the fishing industry.
Safety at sea is vitally important. The existing data do not sustain
a case for the industry to be given public money for building
new vessels on safety grounds alone (paragraph 63).
18. MCA has had a first discussion of the
Select Committee recommendations and its investigations with the
fishing Industry Safety Group in November 1999.
Recommendation 18: We recommend that the vessel
safety equipment grant scheme be reinstated (paragraph 71).
19. Under review as explained in Government
response.
Grants for new build
Recommendation 19: We have sympathy with the
complaints of the industry about the money received by their counterparts
in other EU states for building new vessels. We support the Government
in its attempts to tighten up the rules for such assistance. Nevertheless,
we do not recommend that the Government adopt an industry-wide
scheme to aid the construction of new fishing vessels, whether
or not under a scrap and build approach (paragraph 75).
20. This is established Government policy.
Recommendation 20: We recommend that any publicly-financed
grant scheme for the modernisation of vessels working within low-impact
fisheries meet the criteria for the continual reduction of fishing
capacity in line with available fish stocks, safety, the sustainability
of the fishing method and that short-term targeted assistance
would be effective (paragraph 76).
21. To consider if this situation arises.
Licences and quota
Recommendation 21: We recommend that MAFF
provide clear guidance on the legal title to licences and quota
in the context of transactions between individual and/or organisations
(paragraph 86).
Recommendation 22: We believe that there is
a strong case for taking certain low-impact fisheries such as
mackerel hand-lining out of the quota system altogether which
would encourage new entrants, and we urge MAFF to examine this
possibility with care (paragraph 97).
Recommendation 23: We recommend that, in conjunction
with representatives of the fishing industry, the Government devise
proposals for managing the existing trade in licences and quota,
with a view to introducing them as a matter of urgency (paragraph
101).
Recommendation 24: We recommend that the Government
consult the fishing industry on the merits and drawbacks of tradable
quotas and the most appropriate form for their introduction in
the UK, including the future management role of the POs and the
extent of safeguards, for example to protect fishing-dependent
communities, and report on the outcome of these consultations
within a year (paragraph 101).
22. Steps will be taken shortly to convene
a joint UK industry/departmental working group to consider the
Committee's recommendations on quota management and licensing
and how they may be pursued in the UK context.
No take zones and closed areas
Recommendation 25: We support the principle
of no take zones and closed areas and we recommend that MAFF sympathetically
consider and encourage research into specific proposals brought
forward by the industry. However, we emphasise that under the
CFP these measures would have to be non-discriminatory and apply
to all vessels not just UK fishing. They would therefore have
to be agreed on a European basis (paragraph 106).
23. Currently under discussion in the Fisheries
Conservation Group, particularly in relation to the Irish Sea
to protect cod stocks.
Non-profit sale of over-quota fish
Recommendation 26: We recommend that MAFF
examine the feasibility and effectiveness of introducing in the
UK a similar system to the Icelandic arrangements for the non-profit
sale of over-quota fish (paragraph 108).
24. To be covered under recommendation 24.
Discards
Recommendation 27: We recommend that MAFF
consider measures to reduce discards through more flexible quote
management and that it continue to promote within Europe the use
of more selective fishing gear (paragraph 109).
25. In hand, including action to monitor
effects of new technical conservation measures and results of
research into the economic aspects of discarding and to consider
further improvements nationally and at EU level.
Devolution
Recommendation 28: We recommend that the Government
attend to the publication of the concordat on fisheries management
as a matter of urgency (paragraph 111).
26. The MAFF/Scottish Executive concordat
on fisheries was published on 3 November.
Fisheries management
Recommendation 29: We recommend that the jurisdiction
of the Sea Fisheries Committees and the Environment Agency be
reviewed to ensure consistency of approach within individual fisheries
(paragraph 112).
27. Action is subject to the receipt of
two reports. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
will be reporting to Ministers shortly. The Association of Sea
Fisheries Committees' paper "2000 and beyond" is also
awaited.
Recommendation 30: We recommend that the government
set out its objectives for the future role of POs, including the
development of further responsibilities in order to streamline
the management process, taking into account the cost and ability
of POs to take on those responsibilities, and the position of
the non-sector fleet. Duplication of tasks between willing POs
and MAFF should be eliminated, subject to appropriate audit checks
(paragraph 115).
28. This is under consideration and discussions
with the industry are planned. Specific discussions with POs about
arrangements for improving data flows through the use of electronic
communication systems are also being arranged.
Electronic communications
Recommendation 31: We recommend that the Government
make more use of electronic communications in licence issues,
particularly with regard to the single licence rule for the pelagic
fleet (paragraph 118).
29. The Fisheries Departments in the UK
have recently completed a joint review with industry of pelagic
management arrangements. A number of changes have been recommended
including some easement in the arrangements for issuing and collecting
single area herring licences. Industry is currently being consulted
so that decisions on changes can be taken in good time for the
main 2000 herring fisheries.
Regulations
Recommendation 32: We recommend that the Government
prepare an audit of all regulations and their compliance costs
relating to the UK fishing fleet and that this work be used as
a database which can be updated to provide accurate and accessible
information on the regulatory burden when considering new measures.
We also recommend that similar audits and databases be established
for compliance cost with regulations in each of England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland (paragraph 119).
Recommendation 33: We recommend that the Government
either commission itself or bring pressure to bear on the European
Commission to initiate research into the comparative costs to
the fishing industry of compliance with the regulatory framework
in the different Member States of other charges pressing on it
and the comparative levels of support (paragraph 120).
Recommendation 34: We recommend that UK diplomatic
posts be charged with monitoring the means of implementing EU
directives and the costs pressing on the industry in other Member
States and that this information be disseminated to the UK industry.
Where there are clear discrepancies in approach, the UK Government
should provide an explanation for the additional requirements
it has introduced, although the presumption should always be in
favour of ensuring UK fishermen are treated equally with their
counterparts in other Member States. The approach to regulation
should always be guided by the principles we set out in paragraph
3 of this Report (paragraph 122).
Recommendation 35: We recommend that the Government
continue to review all regulations imposed on the fishing industry
with a view to ensuring that the regulatory system be streamlined
and restrictions removed unless there is reason for their continuance
consistent with the objectives we have set. However, we recommend
the continuation of the designated ports scheme as a means of
concentrating the industry and ensuring more effective management
(paragraph 131).
30. Discussions will shortly take place
with the fishing industry on identifying areas where the regulatory
burden on fishermen might be reduced. As a result of direct intervention
by the UK, the Commission has already amended the regulatory arrangements
applying to the Shetland Box so that the masters of vessels over
24 metres may discharge their obligations to notify entries into
and exists from the Box through the automatic transmission of
satellite position reports.
Satellite monitoring
Recommendation 36: We recommend that if the
satellite monitoring requirements are extended to vessels under
24 metres in length the Government either take up any EU funding
available to subsidise the installation of the necessary equipment
by the industry or produce reductions in the regulatory burden
on fishermen to balance the costs (paragraph 127).
31. As noted in the Government response,
Fisheries Departments will be looking to see how the regulatory
burden on fishermen can be reduced in the light of the experience
gained from the satellite monitoring of fishing vessel activity.
Decisions on any extension of satellite monitoring are not likely
in the immediate future.
Infringements
Recommendation 37: We recommend that the Government
commission a review of how the prosecution process for fishing
offences could be made more efficient, more speedy and more consistent
(paragraph 136).
Recommendation 38: We recommend that the penalties
for serious breaches of fisheries regulations be increased and
that information tables be published on the fines levied in different
courts to ensure common levels of charges. We also recommend that
licences be revoked for second offences (paragraph 136).
32. As explained in the Government response
the existing situation addresses these points as far as possible.
Enforcement in other EU Member States
Recommendation 39: We recommend that to increase
transparency the Government propose that the European Commission
speed up publication of its reports on enforcement so that both
areas of difficulty and improvements, in general and in individual
Member States, are highlighted in a timely fashion (paragraph
139).
Recommendation 40: We urge the Commission
to ensure more regular inspections of European port practices
and to produce an annual report to the European Parliament (paragraph
139).
33. We have drawn these recommendations
to the attention of the Commission.
Recommendation 41: We recommend that MAFF
encourage reciprocal visits by fishermen to other Member States
in order to build up trust between fishermen and to encourage
the sense of a common purpose. Furthermore, we recommend that
the Government promote visits by its own regulators to other Member
States to exchange knowledge on best practice. We also recommend
that the Government monitor the standards of enforcement applied
in the Member States through its embassies and rigorously pursue
any breaches with the European Commission.
34. This recommendation has been drawn to
the attention of fishermen's organisations. Official level contacts
are continuing as previously noted.
Enforcement in the UK
Recommendation 42: We conclude that in general
the UK is providing an acceptable standard of enforcing regulations
and that it has taken steps to address areas of weakness identified
by the European Commission (paragraph 142).
35. No new action required.
Recommendation 43: The Minister pointed out
that enforcement "is about sustainable management".
This message has to be brought home to the industry but this can
only be achieved where there is trust between the two sides. We
can offer no easy solutions to this problem, only a reiteration
of our conviction that the Government must set out a clear framework
for its strategy on fisheries and must work with the industry
to ensure parity of treatment within the EU. It should also seek
to transfer a proportion of the regulatory task to fishermen so
that ownership of the process is genuinely shared (paragraph 143).
36. See recommendations 1 and 2.
Sea Fisheries Committees
Recommendation 44: We recommend that MAFF
initiate a full review of the powers of the Sea Fisheries Committees
and publish it together with a timetable for any necessary action
(paragraph 147).
Recommendation 45: We recommend that the funding
arrangements for Sea Fisheries Committees be re-examined in order
to establish a secure, permanent financial framework within which
they can plan and perform their duties (paragraph 149).
Recommendation 46: We recommend that the Ministry
investigate the powers available to Sea Fisheries Committees and
other local management bodies to take action on environmental
grounds and publish proposals for consultation on action needed
to close the loopholes (paragraph 150).
37. Discussions are planned on the report
from the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees "2000 and
beyond" which is awaited.
Coastal and zonal management
Recommendation 47: We recommend that the Government
publish outline proposals within the next 12 months for the introduction
of coastal and zonal management of fisheries which should involve
the management of research, monitoring of activities and common
regulatory processes (paragraph 153).
38. Action subject to developments in context
of 2002 review of the CFP.
Six and 12 mile limits
Recommendation 48: We of course welcome the
reassurance by the European Commission and others that the six
and 12 mile limits will be carried over into any future shape
the CFP might take and we fully support the retention of the six
and 12 mile limits after 2002 (paragraph 154).
39. No new action required currently.
Electronic auctions
Recommendation 49: We recommend that SFIA
undertake a campaign aimed at the industry and port officials
to persuade them of the benefits of electronic auctions and that
guidance be given where necessary on the updating of the grading
equipment (paragraph 159).
Marketing of UK fish
Recommendation 50: We recommend that the SFIA,
in consultation with the industry and taking account of the views
of supermarkets, devise a marketing strategy to cover the catching
sector through to the suppliers with the aim of increasing the
competitiveness of the UK fishing industry (paragraph 169).
Recommendation 51: We recommend that a forum
be established under the auspices of the SFIA to bring together
retailers and merchants and industry representatives on a regular
basis to discuss how both sides can adjust to the needs and concerns
of each other (paragraph 169).
Recommendation 52: We recommend that a separate
working group be established to focus on areas of difficulty and
opportunity for UK fish sales to the catering sector (paragraph
169). We recommend the SFIA take forward the initiative on eco-labelling
(paragraph 175).
40. These recommendations are under consideration
by the SFIA.
Recommendation 53: We recommend that the marketing,
processing and port facilities scheme be reinstated in order to
enhance the competitiveness of the UK sea fishing industry (paragraph
169).
41. Consultation is in hand on possible
aids for English industry for 2000-06.
Recommendation 54: We recommend that the Government
together with the SFIA and the Food Standards Agency initiate
a campaign to promote the perception of fish as a healthy, convenient
meal option for all ages (paragraph 172).
42. The SFIA has planned a TV and poster
campaign which will be implemented in the run-up to Easter 2000,
making good use of the FIFG grant for the financial year 1999-2000.
Its message to consumers will be that fish is a versatile, tasty
and convenient dish which fits in with a healthy, vital modern
life-style. However, SFIA's corporate plan does not envisage that
its resources will enable continuation of this very worthwhile
campaign unless FIFG funding is continued under the EU's recently
announced programme for structural assistance in the fisheries
sector 2000-06.
43. The SFIA will also be co-operating closely
with the "Food Standards Agency".
SFIA levy
Recommendation 55: We recommend that the Government
consider extending liability for paying the SFIA level to the
aquaculture sector (paragraph 181).
44. The SFIA working group recommendations are
awaited.
Urban Waste Water Directive
Recommendation 56: The availability of grants
in other EU Member States to help processors there meet the requirements
of the Urban Waste Water Directive seems to us a clear-cut case
of the UK industry being disadvantaged in a competitive market.
Unlike fishermen with quotas, merchants and processors are not
guaranteed a percentage share of the market and they are forced
to compete with their counterparts in other Member States for
the custom of supermarkets and caterers. The impact of the charges
on their competitiveness does not even appear to have been assessed
by the Government (paragraph 188).
Recommendation 57: It is essential that the
imposition of the increased charges on processors by the water
authorities be delayed, and then only phased in, to give the industry
time to develop alternatives and to minimise waste (paragraph
189).
45. Decisions on wastewater charges are
ultimately for water companies. The Government has issued guidance
that, where their use of water services does not change markedly
from one year to the next, customers have a legitimate expectation
that they should not face changes in costs significantly out of
line with changes to the overall company price limit. Charges
schemes should ensure that, under existing charges, changes to
individual bills should not diverge significantly form the average
for each company without changes in demand. Phasing in of any
sudden large changes in charges should be considered.
Fisheries education
Recommendation 58: We recommend the far-sighted
proposal for a National Institute of Fisheries in Grimsby to the
Government and urge MAFF to explore with the Department for Education
and Employment the possibility of establishing such an Institute,
to provide for the whole fishing industry a similar range of training,
research, advisory and scientific study to that provided by the
North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland and national institutions
in other EU countries (paragraph 192).
46. The Government is consulting the industry
on the future structural funding programme and this proposal could
be taken up in that context.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
February 2000
28 March 2000
| 
