House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sixth Report

9 Integrating needs of fishing industry with other uses of marine environment

166. In recent years, concerns about the environmental impacts associated with fishing have come increasingly to the fore. This is partly because of an increased awareness of marine environmental issues on the part of both policy-makers and the public as well as increased knowledge about the damaging impact some commercial fishing activities have on marine habitats.

167. The SU report made clear that it was not intended to address environmental concerns about fishing. Its main aim was to provide the basis for a sustainable and profitable UK fishing industry for the future. However, the report did acknowledge that, at present, the fishing industry is largely isolated from other users of the marine environment and that commercial fishing activities often cause more damage to the marine environment than do several other users, such as the oil and gas industries and the transport industry, and yet is subject to looser environmental controls.[219] The SU report proposed a set of recommendations aimed at ensuring fishing is "treated on the same basis as the other major uses of the marine environment".[220] The recommendations proposed the introduction of strategic environmental assessments (SEA) and environmental impact assessments (EIA).

Strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments

Strategy Unit recommendation 29

Fisheries departments should introduce strategic environmental assessments of both inshore and offshore fisheries by the end of 2006 as the first stage of establishing comprehensive Environmental Management Systems.

Strategy Unit recommendation 30

Fisheries departments should ensure environmental impact assessments are carried out prior to the introduction of a new gear to a fishery or the start of a new fishery.

Strategic environmental assessments

168. At present, several other marine industries, such as the oil and gas industries, are required by EU law to undertake SEAs. SEAs are used to analyse the broad impacts of an activity and decide how to minimise the negative environmental effects of that activity upon the environment or other users. The SU report pointed out, however, that the relevant EU directive has "rather limited implications" for the fisheries sector.[221]

Benefits of SEAs

169. The SU report concluded that the introduction of SEAs for fisheries would provide multiple benefits, a view shared by environmental organisations.[222] WWF UK told us that, if applied properly, SEAs would provide "a level playing field" because they would prevent one user of the marine environment "benefiting at the expense of another because it has lower environmental standards".[223] It also believed SEAs would help to integrate the largely isolated fishing industry with other users of the marine environment and assist in the development of the 'spatial planning' concept.[224] This point was reiterated by the RSPB:

[SEA] fits in very well with the growing thinking about spatial planning in the marine environment generally. We have SEA in the offshore industry, oil and renewables and gas, and it seems very appropriate now that we should begin to think about SEA for fisheries … so that we can actually plan how we use the marine environment in a coherent and logical way[225]

170. Environmental groups also stressed that SEAs could directly benefit the fishing industry itself. WWF UK considered that a properly applied SEA would "generate a lot of the data that could fill in some of the gaps" in fisheries information.[226] This data, it argued, could be used to improve the regional management of fisheries.

Environmental impact assessments

171. The SU report also recommended that fisheries should be subject to the EIA process, in line with several other users of the marine environment. EIAs are usually used to assess smaller, more localised changes in an industry's activity; in the case of fisheries, the SU report recommended that they should specifically be applied at the opening of a new fishery or the use of a new gear within a fishery.[227]

Benefits of EIAs

172. Environmental groups were again highly supportive of introducing EIAs for fisheries. The RSPB told us that frontloading of assessment could prevent some of the difficulties that conservationists have to address at a later stage. It gave an example of how EIAs could have been used recently to prevent environmentally damaging fishing activities:

If we had known about the impact of pair trawling on bass before it started … we might have circumvented some of the problems we see now.[228]

Practical difficulties with the application of SEA and EIA in the case of fisheries

173. The RSPB acknowledged there were some "challenges" in applying SEAs and EIAs to fisheries. It explained this was primarily because the assessments had never been attempted before and their application was therefore a "new science". The assessments had "not had much policy development [and] far less operational application".[229] Two potential difficulties identified by witnesses were, in respect of SEAs, the geographical scale on which they should be applied and, in respect of EIAs, how a 'new fishery' should be defined.

On what geographical scale should SEAs be applied?

174. Witnesses had differing views about the most appropriate geographical scale on which to carry out SEAs in the case of fisheries. The SWFPO told us it did not matter what the area or region was but that "it is the fisheries that are specific".[230] WWF UK, on the other hand, felt that SEA should be carried out "on a wider scale … so that they can incorporate other marine uses".[231] This was reinforced by the RSPB who suggested it would be appropriate to look at "a level of regional SEAs" to be administered by the emerging RACs.[232]

What constitutes a 'new fishery' for the purposes of an EIA?

175. The Strategy Unit recommended that EIAs be carried out at "the opening of a new fishery or the use of a new gear".[233] The NFFO told us it was unclear how a 'new fishery' was defined, adding that "it is not exactly an everyday occurrence".[234] Defra acknowledged this point:

"it is quite rare for new fishing grounds to be discovered and the process of new fishing techniques tends to be evolutionary, and quite how one decides whether a new technique is a new technique or simply a development of an existing technique is something that we are still considering[235]

176. The environmental organisations were more specific. WWF UK gave us two examples of what it considered to be a new fishery—the discovery of new deep-sea stocks and, on a local scale, a new shellfish fishery.[236] The RSPB submitted that a 'new fishery' should be defined as "an existing method in a new area or a new fishing method in an existing area".[237]

Response of the fishing industry

177. Despite the practical difficulties in applying SEAs and EIAs in the case of fisheries, most industry representatives did not oppose any requirement to undertake such assessments. There was a common acknowledgement that the fishing industry could not remain isolated from other users of the marine environment and continue to be exempt from the same environmental controls.[238]

178. Nevertheless, some concerns were raised. The SFF stressed that these "well-meaning initiatives" had to be kept in proportion and not used as "a proxy to limit unreasonably, or indeed to terminate, fishing operations".[239] This point was reiterated by the Shetland Island Council and North Atlantic Fisheries College, which was broadly in favour of the proposals but told us that the assessments should not result in "excessive restrictions or impositions" on the industry, "especially until such times as it becomes more profitable".[240] Some other witnesses were frustrated at the lack of recognition given to the industry for recent improvements in its environmental standards. The SWFPO told us that the fishing industry:

… has moved on in these two years in response to those changes [made at the 2002 CFP reform], and I do not think it helps to keep on coming up with the same messages in terms of the need to look after the environment, because … the fishing industry has responded and is responding[241]

Our conclusions

179. We support the Strategy Unit's recommendations to introduce strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) and environmental impact assessments (EIAs) in the case of fisheries. For too long, commercial fishing has been isolated from, and been subject to looser environmental controls than, other users of the marine environment, yet it has a comparatively greater negative impact on its surrounding habitats. We consider SEAs and EIAs to be useful means of addressing this dichotomy. We recommend that the Government act promptly to introduce SEAs of both inshore and offshore fisheries and to ensure that EIAs are carried out prior to the introduction of a new gear to a fishery, the start of a new fishery and, as a matter of priority, to review the effects of an existing fishery such as industrial fishing or beam trawling.

180. We recognise, however, that there are some important practical details to be clarified before the assessments can be applied to fisheries. The most appropriate geographical scale for which to apply SEAs needs to be decided and their validity in a CFP context assessed. The confusion surrounding what a 'new fishery' means in the case of applying EIAs also has to be resolved. We were pleased to hear from Defra that these issues, and others relating to the introduction of SEAs and EIAs, are currently being discussed and debated within the working groups of the SFP.

Marine protected areas

Strategy Unit recommendation 31

The UK Government and devolved administrations should develop an experimental programme of marine protected areas—focusing initially on areas which provide benefits to multiple users (commercial fishing, tourism, environment, recreational fishermen, etc).

181. Marine protected areas (MPAs) were an area of some debate during our inquiry, although this high level of interest was somewhat disproportionate to the emphasis given to MPAs within the SU report. This was in part because of the recent report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Turning the Tide, published in December 2004. Unlike the reports of the Strategy Unit and the RSE, which focussed on achieving a more profitable UK fishing industry (or, in the case of the RSE report, a more profitable Scottish fishing industry), the Royal Commission report specifically addressed the impact of fisheries on the marine environment. Its most controversial recommendation, which received considerable media attention, was that a network of marine protected areas should be established which would result in "30% of the UK's exclusive economic zone being established as no-take reserves closed to commercial fishing".[242]

182. MPAs were also topical during our inquiry because of the European Commission's recommendation, in advance of the Fisheries Council meeting in December, that large parts of cod grounds in the North Sea, Irish Sea, the west of Scotland, the Baltic and the Channel should be closed. Although the Commission was not recommending the establishment of MPAs as such, the recommendation nevertheless made the issue of closed areas even more significant. The recommendation was eventually rejected at the Council meeting.

The Strategy Unit and marine protected areas

183. The SU report concluded that MPAs offered "potential benefits to fisheries, other users and ecosystem health and quality".[243] It therefore recommended the establishment of MPAs on an "experimental basis", with a careful study of their economic and biological impacts. The report stated that, where possible, the process should begin in areas which give "multiple benefits to multiple users of the marine environment".[244]

Response from environmental organisations

184. The RSPB was strongly supportive of the recommendation. It pointed out that the UK was already obliged under both the Johannesburg Agreement (2002) and the OSPAR Convention (2003) to set up a network of MPAs, to be achieved by 2012 and 2010 respectively. The RSPB believed it was now "time to start thinking about how we implement this".[245] It also believed that the SU report placed too much emphasis on the need to establish MPAs in areas with "multiple benefits for multiple users".[246] It said that this was an "ideal situation" but that the SU report should have focussed more on the implementation and potential benefits of 'no-take zones' closed to commercial fishing:

While … it is good to look for marine protected areas that provide multiple benefits, no-take zones are the ones that are perhaps most germane to what was [the Strategy Unit's] remit at the time.[247]

185. WWF UK was keen to stress the multiple benefits that MPAs could provide. It told us they were "easy to enforce", particularly with the development of vessel monitoring systems, and that they "represent good value for money insofar as they do promote stock recovery".[248] It also stressed that MPAs could benefit the fishing industry itself because 'control areas' within MPAs could determine the actual effects of various activities on the marine environment. In New Zealand, control areas had been used to prove that a stock reduction in crayfish was not caused by over-fishing and therefore the "finger was not pointed at the fishing industry".[249]

Response from the fishing industry

186. Most of the fishing industry did not appear to be opposed in principle to the establishment of MPAs but, equally, there appeared to be little enthusiasm for their establishment. The vast majority acknowledged that MPAs had useful benefits and "a place in the toolbox of fisheries' management".[250] Nevertheless, concerns were raised that the initiative could be abused, with MPAs being established without proper consultation. Several witnesses stressed that the fishing industry should have a central role in the formulation of MPA proposals. The SWFPO commented that MPAs would not work unless they were brought in with the collaboration and "overwhelming support" of the fishing industry.[251] The NFFO told us it was essential that each MPA was taken on a case-by-case basis, and, where established, it was supported by scientific backing and had a clear "defined purpose":

we must be very clear about the purpose that [MPAs] are going to serve, and we must move away from vague, ill-defined but warm, sanguine ideas about closing large areas … the issue is what sort of scale MPAs would take, what sort of conditions would apply and, above all, what are they for?[252]

187. This view was supported by many witnesses representing the catching industry and also the UK Fisheries Ministers. The Minister for Fisheries was "very keen" to develop the MPA concept and told us Defra was currently drawing up plans for a network of MPAs around the UK coast, although he emphasised they should be established only if "based on sound science".[253] The Scottish Minister for Fisheries stressed that the establishment of MPAs had to be "based on good scientific evidence in relation to the specific species that you are trying to protect".[254]

Suitability of MPAs for UK fisheries

188. Some witnesses were unsure whether MPAs were suitable for UK fisheries. The NFFO acknowledged that MPAs had benefits in tropical reef fisheries but argued that their effectiveness was "unproven" in the more diffuse fisheries within the UK.[255] This point was reinforced by the RSE. It recognised that MPAs had been "quite successful" in New Zealand and Japan, particularly when dealing with invertebrates, but believed they had been much less successful when dealing with fin fish.[256] The Minister for Fisheries conceded that most of the successful examples of MPAs in other parts of the world had been "pretty small" and had not involved "the migratory species of fish that we have around our shores".[257] However, he pointed to the "resounding success" of the Lundy Island MPA, off the north coast of Devon, although this MPA applies only to shellfish, lobsters and crabs.[258]

189. Environmental groups were confident that MPAs would work well in the UK context. WWF UK argued that there was a "wide range of examples" of successful MPAs, and cited the closed area off the Georges Bank in the USA as an example of a successful MPA in a 'temperate' fishery.[259] The RSPB likewise described the ten-year old Georges Bank closure as a "very, very helpful precedent in the northern temperate waters", particularly as the fishermen themselves had been instrumental in its management and were now "seeing benefits".[260]

Displacement of fishing effort

190. Another common criticism was that MPAs do not necessarily have a positive impact on stocks because fishing effort is displaced to other areas outside the protected area. The SWFPA told us:

we should get away from this train of thought that closing an area actually helps the stock when what it does is displace effort … a closed area does not reduce discards, it distorts fleet, distorts effort and actually increases discards[261]

The NFFO gave the example of the Plaice Box off the Dutch coast where a "transference of fishing effort onto juvenile areas" had occurred.[262]

191. WWF UK acknowledged that effort displacement could sometimes occur. It believed it was therefore necessary to establish MPAs "in conjunction with effort controls".[263] It gave the example of the mackerel box off the south-west of England where the effort had been displaced so widely that it did "not really cause any impact at all".[264] This point was reiterated by the RSPB, who told us MPAs should be used "within a broader integrated management regime" to avoid displacement of fishing effort to other sea areas.[265]

Effects on fishing communities

192. Some witnesses were also concerned that the establishment of MPAs could have a negative impact on fishing communities reliant on those fishing areas. The SWFPO told us:

If you have MPAs established in a local fishery on the doorstep of a fishing community which has, up to that moment, relied upon that area for their livelihood … then you are going to get a backlash from that fishing community.[266]

The SFF believed the introduction of MPAs would be acceptable only "if the economic interests of fishing communities were protected or enhanced".[267]

193. On the other hand, WWF UK told us that the improvement in the tourist industry had "offset some of the losses" in areas where MPAs had previously been established. SFF acknowledged that there were examples of ex-fishermen finding employment within eco-tourism in such areas.[268]

Our conclusions

194. We strongly support the Strategy Unit's recommendation to develop an experimental programme of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). We believe there are several benefits to be gained from establishing MPAs, including stock regeneration and the opportunity to apply 'control areas' to determine the effects of various activities on the marine environment.

195. However, we consider that the SU report placed too much emphasis on establishing MPAs in areas which "provide benefits to multiple users". The UK is currently under international obligation to establish a network of MPAs and priority should therefore be given to the establishment of MPAs regardless of the number of users they benefit. We recommend the Government work towards implementing an experimental system of MPAs as soon as possible. We understand from the Minister for Fisheries that Defra is currently working on devising a potential system of MPAs and we welcome this move.

196. Careful and thorough analysis needs to be given prior to the establishment of an MPA. Each MPA should have a clearly defined purpose and scientific backing, and it is essential that industry representatives are closely involved in the decision-making process. Some MPAs may have to be introduced in conjunction with controls on fishing effort to ensure that excessive effort is not displaced on to a concentrated sea area immediately outside the MPA.

219 Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.109-10 Back

220 Ibid. p.113 Back

221 Ibid. p.113. EU Directive 2001/42/EC. Back

222 Ibid. p.114 Back

223 Q56 Back

224 Q58 Back

225 Q96 Back

226 Q56 Back