Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sixth Report


7Decentralising and modernising UK fisheries management

Development of inshore sector

Strategy Unit recommendation 15


Fisheries departments should reform inshore fisheries management and give a focus on developing the sector, including explicit management of recreational sea angling interests.


119. The SU report stated that the inshore sector is "significant in terms of employment" and "a sector of local cultural and tourism value".[146] It proposed a series of measures aimed at developing the sector to "take advantage of its large growth opportunities".[147]

Opportunities for growth

120. Several witnesses questioned what "large growth opportunities" the SU report was referring to. The Shetland Island Council and North Atlantic College thought the term was unclear and stressed that 'growth' should not simply refer to an increase in the fleet. It explained that stocks in the inshore sector had come under heavy pressure in recent years, largely because of the decline of offshore fishing opportunities, and did not believe that significant potential existed for further expansion.[148] This point was reiterated by the NFFO, which supported development of the inshore sector but stressed that "the fleet should not be expanded".[149] The South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen also commented that the inshore sector, and particularly the shellfish sector, "cannot take any further expansion on the present stocks which are exploited", adding that, "if we take more effort, we are going to end up like the offshore fleet: in trouble".[150]

121. The Minister for Fisheries acknowledged that overexploitation of the inshore sector was a concern, commenting that "if everyone were to suddenly rush into an uncontrolled and unrestricted shellfishery, then we could simply repeat the problems that we have seen in the cod fishery".[151] He told us efforts should be focussed on developing the sector in other ways, such as marketing.[152]

Marketing inshore/shellfish sector products

122. The SU report recommended that a review should be undertaken of the "development potential for value-added and marketing initiatives" in respect of the inshore sector.[153] This measure was supported by a number of witnesses. The South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen felt there was "huge potential" for value-added products for certain inshore fisheries but efforts first had to be made to find a market for such products.[154]

123. This particular SU report recommendation has already had an impact on the industry. Seafish, which has some responsibility for marketing initiatives of fish products, told us it had recently set up an Inshore Group "in keeping with the recommendations of the Strategy Unit report". The purpose of the group was "to improve marketing to UK consumers, processors and retailers and to increase demand for the higher value species that are currently largely exported". [155] Seafish acknowledged, however, there was still a huge amount of work to be done to improve the marketing of the inshore sector, both in the UK and in Europe.[156]

Mariculture

124. The SU report commented that significant potential existed to increase the inshore sector's value and employment opportunities through the development of "mariculture opportunities"—that is, extensive fish culture at sea, but within the UK's inshore waters.[157] However, it did not make any specific recommendations about how such development might be achieved. Dr Palfreman commented that mariculture opportunities might "substitute for some of the lost income and employment" in those regions negatively affected by some other SU report recommendations.[158] Again, Seafish's Inshore Group is currently conducting research into developing mariculture opportunities for certain species, including shellfish.

Our conclusions

125. We support the Strategy Unit's recommendation that the inshore sector should be developed. However, we stress that such development should not involve an increase in effort within the sector, because we consider that little potential for growth within the sector exists. We recommend that the Government concentrate on developing the marketing of the inshore sector, both at home and abroad. We are pleased that moves have already been made in this direction with the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority's Inshore Group and look forward to seeing further such marketing initiatives in the near future.

126. We are surprised, however, that the SU report did not provide greater detail on the development of mariculture opportunities within the inshore sector, particularly as experiments are currently taking place in this area within other countries, such as Norway. Although we acknowledge that such experiments have not always proved viable in the past, and that the prospects for the future are uncertain, we believe that the possibilities that could arise from mariculture ranching should be fully explored. Mariculture developments need additional detailed pre-feasibility modelling and planning for the specific environmental context of selected and suitable UK maritime regions. We recommend that the Government finance research into the development of mariculture opportunities within the inshore sector, and look towards commissioning experiments on a pilot scale.

Other measures to develop the inshore sector

127. The SU report recommended improving data collection within the sector "to ensure [the sector's] contribution is properly recognised and its management is appropriately targeted and resourced".[159] The proposal was supported by representatives of the inshore sector. The South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen told us that improvement of data collection in the sector was "vital".[160]

128. The Strategy Unit also recommended the creation of an Inshore/Shellfish Manager to "champion development and innovation in the sector".[161] The manager's role would be in relation to England and Northern Ireland; there is already an Inshore Fisheries Branch in Scotland. This proposal was also supported by representatives of the sector, although the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees told us that a location "on the coast" as opposed to Whitehall was essential for such a post.[162]

Our conclusions

129. We support the Strategy Unit's recommendation to improve data collection in the inshore sector. At present, information on the sector is poor which limits its development potential. We also welcome the Strategy Unit's recommendation to create a post for an Inshore/Shellfish Manager in England and Northern Ireland. We recommend that the Government holds discussions with inshore representatives to determine the details of what the responsibilities of the post should be and where it should be based.

Recreational sea angling

130. The SU report estimated that recreational anglers spend around £1 billion per year on their sport and that around 2 million people went sea angling at least once in England and Wales in 2002. [163] It proposed a series of measures to develop the sector.

Governmental responsibility for recreational sea angling

131. The SU report identified a lack of clarity within government in respect of recreational sea angling. Responsibility is currently shared by both Defra and DCMS. The SU report therefore recommended that a single government organisation should be identified to represent the needs of the recreational sector at the national level.[164]

132. The National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA) welcomed the recommendation. It told us that dual governmental responsibility had been a major reason why the sector had "struggled … to get a strong, unified voice" in the past.[165] It did acknowledge, however, that there had been some improvement in government recognition of the sector over the last six months and that this change of attitude was to some extent due to the prominence given to the sector within the SU report.[166]

Inadequate representation at local level

133. At present, the inshore sector in England and Wales is managed by the Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs), which were set up under the legislation enacted in 1888. Several angling organisations claimed that the recreational sea angling sector was inadequately represented because the SFCs were dominated by commercial fishing interests.[167] The NFSA told us that most SFCs—which consist of approximately 25 representatives—had "one ministerial appointee representing angling".[168] It claimed that this was not a just representation:

If you look at the economic impact from sea angling in those inshore waters [up to six miles], it is clearly very significant and, in many cases, superior to the economic impact from commercial fishing. Sea fishery committees which are currently dominated by commercial representation are in fact the wrong way round from what they should be.[169]

134. The NFSA argued that, in the short term, the membership of the SFCs should be "substantially re-jigged" so that there was a broader stakeholder involvement and more recreational representation.[170] Ideally, however, the NFSA told us it wanted the Environment Agency—which currently has responsibility for freshwater angling—to take over responsibility altogether from the SFCs:

… the Environment Agency has demonstrated through their connection with freshwater angling that they understand the needs of angling and can marry the needs of angling and the environment together successfully.[171]

135. This was reiterated by the Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN). It believed that the Environment Agency was "the best placed organisation to take inshore management of inshore resources for the benefit of all stakeholders into the 21st century".[172]

Our conclusions

136. We strongly support the Strategy Unit recommendations to develop the recreational sea angling sector. We believe that the sector, which has considerable economic value, has been overlooked and under-represented for too long. We are pleased that there seems to have been a change of attitude over the past year in acknowledging the importance of the sector, and we congratulate the Strategy Unit on its contribution in initiating this development.

137. We support the Strategy Unit proposals to improve and strengthen the representation of the recreational sea angling sector, both at governmental and local level. A single government organisation should be identified to represent the needs of the recreational sector at the national level as soon as possible, perhaps through the creation of a sea angling unit within Defra. We also recommend that the Government consider whether the sector is adequately represented at a local level on the various Sea Fishery Committees in England and Wales.

Licensing scheme

138. The Strategy Unit advocated the introduction of a voluntary licensing scheme for sea anglers to improve data on the extent and impact of the sector on local economies and fish stocks.[173] The angling organisations told us they would support the introduction of a licensing scheme under certain conditions. The NFSA stated that a "demonstrable programme" first had to be provided of the benefits which would arise from the scheme for both the sea angling sector and for fish stocks.[174] The SACN also stressed there needed to be "discernible benefits" delivered to the sector before such a scheme would be acceptable to the majority of sea anglers.[175] The SACN believed that the Environment Agency—who are already responsible for the licensing of freshwater angling—would be the most suitable organisation to administer such a scheme.[176]

Re-designation of species

139. The SU report stated that, in some circumstances, the economic and social benefits of sea angling for specific species "may provide a greater contribution to society" than if commercially caught.[177] It therefore recommended that organisations representing anglers at the national level should work with UK fisheries departments "to assess the case for designating specific species for wholly recreational use", such as bass.[178]

140. The recommendation was strongly supported by the angling organisations. The SACN gave the example of the striped bass fish in the United States, which had been fished "almost to extinction" but re-designated as a recreational species. It claimed that, within a few years, stocks had improved and the value of the fishery had "gone up four or five times".[179] The NFSA told us the species they would like to see re-designated in the UK included bass, conger eel, flounder, ling, rays, mullet, wrasse, tope and smooth-hound.[180]

Our conclusions

141. We support the introduction of a licensing scheme for the recreational angling sector. However, before any scheme is introduced, we recommend the Government demonstrate the scheme's benefits for the recreational sea angling sector and for fish stocks to angling representatives. We also recommend that the Environment Agency is considered as the responsible organisation for the administration of such a scheme. We support the re-designation of certain species for recreational use and recognise the benefits that this can bring from both a conservation and economic point of view.

Science and research

Strategy Unit recommendation 17


Fisheries departments should give the fishing industry a greater role in co-ordinating information priorities through more extensive use of co-commissioning of research.


142. The Strategy Unit observed that many fishermen felt detached from the scientific assessment process because they have "no control over how much is spent on science or how it is allocated between different stocks and assessment techniques".[181] A common perception was that the scientists "talk at, rather than to [the fishermen]".[182] Therefore, many fishermen distrusted the advice they received. [183]

143. The SU report recommended that fisheries departments should "involve the fishing industry in deciding science priorities through more extensive use of co-commissioning of independent scientific advice". [184] It believed this would "foster a greater sense of ownership of the science" and, in turn, improve trust in scientific advice and the accuracy of data.[185]

Evidence received

144. Witnesses responded positively to the SU report's aim of a more inclusive and co-operative approach to fisheries science. The ANIFPO believed it was "essential" that fishermen and scientists work together and told us that such collaborations had recently taken place in Kilkeel with productive results.[186] It believed that the industry, in general, was extremely keen to be more involved with the scientific process because fishermen "are the last people… that want to create a situation where the seas are fished out".[187] This view was supported by several other witnesses, including the SFF, the Shetland Island Council and North Atlantic Fisheries College, and the Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation.[188]

145. Some witnesses felt that relations between fishermen and scientists had improved in recent years. The SWFPA believed that the industry in general now had an "excellent relationship" with the scientists.[189] The Scottish Minister acknowledged that there had been an "improved engagement" but commented that there was still "a lot of work to be done to improve it even further".[190]

Our conclusions

146. We recommend that the Government implement the Strategy Unit's recommendation for greater industry involvement in the development and priority-setting of fisheries science. Whilst relations between scientists and industry representatives have improved in recent years, it appears that many fishermen still regard the scientific advice they receive with distrust. We believe that this stems, to an extent, from their detachment from the scientific process. A more inclusive and co-operative approach to fisheries science would improve relations between the various stakeholders, improve trust in the system and contribute towards higher compliance levels with the management rules. Moreover, we feel a more co-operative approach to the scientific process would significantly improve the quality and accuracy of the data gathered. Fishermen have extensive expertise, and we consider it a waste that their knowledge has not been fully utilised in the past.

147. Although this is not one of the more high profile recommendations within the SU report, we believe it is one of the most important. We look forward to more collaborative ventures between fishermen and fisheries scientists in the future, such as the projects recently seen in Kilkeel. In the shellfish sector, we also hope the Government will look carefully at the work of the National Lobster Hatchery and ensure that its future work in developing a sustainable lobster fishery off the Cornish Coast can be maintained.


146   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.38 Back

147   Ibid. p.164 Back

148   Ev 148, para 13 Back

149   Ev 3, Recommendation 6 Back

150   Q233 Back

151   Q181 Back

152   Ibid. Back

153   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.155 Back

154   Q236 Back

155   www.seafish.org/whatsnew  Back

156   Q344 Back

157   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.155 Back

158   Ev 99, para 8 Back

159   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.154 Back

160   Q237 Back

161   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.156 Back

162   W11, para 25 + 23 Back

163   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.47+p.156 Back

164   Ibid. p.157 Back

165   Q204 Back

166   Ibid. Back

167   Q209 Back

168   Ibid. Back

169   Ibid. Back

170   Q210 Back

171   Q211 Back

172   Ev 73, para 4.7 Back

173   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.157 Back

174   Q212 Back

175   Ev 74, para 8.4 Back

176   Ev 73, para 4.8 Back

177   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.156-57 Back

178   Ibid. Back

179   Q207 Back

180   Q221-222 Back

181   Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.86 Back

182   Ibid. p.185 Back

183   Ibid. p.134 Back

184   Ibid. p.136 Back

185   Ibid.  Back

186   Q138 Back

187   Q134 Back

188   Ev 17, Recommendation 17; Ev 149, para 21; Ev 161, para 38 Back

189   Q373 Back

190   Q296 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 24 March 2005