5 Impacts on the industry
26. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain estimates
that the cockle industry employs about 2000 people in the United
Kingdom and generates sales worth about £20 million a year.[35]
The shellfish industry says that the closures of cockle beds as
a result of atypical DSP results have had a severe economic impact
on fishermen, processors and marketing companies.[36]
For example, Kershaws Quality Foods told us that the FSA's actions
in recommending closures have resulted in a direct loss of 75
jobs and the loss of a profitable export market.[37]
In addition to the direct impact, the industry believes that the
reduction in harvesting has led to a longer-term deterioration
in the cockle stock, as older, larger cockles that would normally
be harvested have been left in place and are smothering the younger
ones. The impact of this will not be seen for a few years.[38]
27. However, Defra questioned how significant the
effect of closures had been. It told us that "in spite of
the intermittent closure of cockle beds in both fisheries [the
Thames and Wash], following the detection of atypical DSP, there
has been a very high uptake of the total allowable catch of cockles
agreed annually by each SFC [Sea Fisheries Council] for its area".
It gives figures of 92% and 99% for the Thames fishery and 99%
and 114% for the Wash fishery.[39]
28. The industry says that fact that a high percentage
of the total allowable catch was taken does not mean there was
no economic impact. Kershaws said
the fishery officers [for the Thames estuary] were
forced to change management opinion allowing the industry to fish
on juvenile stocks to keep the industry alive rather than the
true management structure of conserving stocks.[40]
Kershaws said that as a result of fishing on the
juvenile stocks, smaller, lower quality cockles are harvested,
which do not attract as high a price as the larger cockles.[41]
29. In an attempt to mitigate the impact of closures
on the shellfish industry, the FSA eventually permitted the zoning
of shellfish beds. Thus even if shellfish from a particular part
of an estuary, for example, tested positive, harvesting could
carry on in other areas that tested negative. We welcome the
FSA's decision to allow zoning of shellfish beds in order to mitigate
the effect of closures on the shellfish industry. The Government
should consider what avenues are available to it to compensate
shellfish harvesters and processors for their loss of earnings
during prolonged closures.
35 Ev 4 Back
36 Ev
4 Back
37
Ev 10, Q10 Back
38
Q11 Back
39
Ev 89 Back
40
Q11 Back
41
Q10 Back
| 
