Conclusions and recommendations
The Strategy Unit's report
1.Overall we are supportive
of the general thrust and aims of the Strategy Unit report, although
we do have reservations about specific recommendations. It is
a well-considered, thoughtful and informed report that attempts
to address the issues facing the fishing industry in a constructive
and practical manner. We are greatly encouraged by its starting
point—that the UK fishing industry is not in inevitable
decline and has a potentially bright future. We agree with the
report's conclusion that urgent action is needed if this potential
is to be realised. (Paragraph 17)
Sustainable Fisheries Programme
2.After initial delays
in initiating the Sustainable Fisheries Programme, we are pleased
to see that the consultation process is now fully underway, with
extensive involvement by interested and affected parties. We welcome
this as indicative of a new co-operative and involved mood in
the industry and look forward to the outcome of the programme,
and the resulting joint Government response, expected in the spring
of 2005. (Paragraph 23)
Creating a competitive and profitable UK fleet
3.On the basis of current
evidence, we are sceptical about the Strategy Unit's recommendation
that the whitefish fleet should be reduced by 13%. As the Scottish
Minister for Environment and Rural Development has conceded, doubts
have been raised about the accuracy of the modelling used by the
Strategy Unit. Any specific proposals formulated on the basis
of that modelling must therefore be treated with caution. (Paragraph
32)
4.It is apparent that
the Scottish Executive is unlikely to implement further decommissioning
in the near future, particularly as the industry is still re-adjusting
to the severe reductions of 2003. (Paragraph 33)
5.We accept that there
may have to be further decommissioning of the whitefish fleet
in the future in order for the sector to remain profitable and
sustainable. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Government should
make no further reductions until a thorough assessment has been
carried out to establish the current capacity of the UK whitefish
fleet and to accurately determine its unit profitability. It is
essential that industry representatives are fully involved in
the formulation of such an assessment to ensure it is informed
and accurate. The Government should seek to persuade the devolved
administrations to adopt a similar approach. (Paragraph 34)
6.We do not support the
Strategy Unit's proposal for an additional 30% voluntary tie-up
of the whitefish fleet. We recommend that the Government does
not implement this proposal and that it seek to persuade the devolved
administrations to adopt a similar approach. As with the decommissioning
recommendation, the 30% figure was calculated using the Strategy
Unit's modelling of the whitefish fleet, about which doubts have
been expressed. (Paragraph 36)
7.Moreover, we consider
the idea that fishermen would voluntarily tie-up their boats,
without any compensation, for a prolonged period of time to be
unreasonable and wishful thinking. This proposal is not a practical
means of dealing with over-capacity in the sector. If further
cuts are indeed considered necessary, government funding should
be provided. (Paragraph 37)
8.At this stage, it would
be wrong to reach a final view on whether an Individual Transferable
Quota (ITQ) system should be adopted in the UK. There is still
a lack of detail about what model of ITQ system is proposed and
how such a system might operate. We understand that discussions
are underway within the Sustainable Fisheries Programme, with
extensive involvement of industry representatives, to develop
a potential ITQ model to be applied in the case of the UK. We
believe such a model would be acceptable to the industry only
if there were to be some retention of the current Fixed Quota
Allocation structure. Until such a model is proposed, the industry
will no doubt continue to adopt a cautious attitude. (Paragraph
60)
Setting clear social objectives in fisheries policy
9.We agree with the Strategy
Unit that the UK should have a "positive policy towards community
quota schemes for the most vulnerable communities, if this can
be done within EU law". We therefore recommend that the Government
undertake further work to assess the legality of potential community
quota schemes and that it launch a feasibility study to explore
the different options for the ring-fencing of quota. In carrying
out this work, the Government should ensure that producer organisations
have a central role to play in the administration and management
of community quota schemes. It should also consider how this role
should be financed and whether Regional Development Agencies ought
to be involved. (Paragraph 70)
10.We are concerned that
some of the most vulnerable communities within the UK may not
have the financial resources necessary to establish community
quota schemes. We expect the Government to consult on this matter
and solve these issues before it formulates any proposal. (Paragraph
71)
Improving UK and EU information and compliance
11.We support the Strategy
Unit report's general aim of improving compliance levels amongst
fishermen in the fishing industry. Whilst we acknowledge that
there are inadequacies with the current quota management system
which encourage non-compliance, we believe that honest fishermen
are disadvantaged by others who behave illegally, and fish stocks
are illegally plundered because of it. The Government has a responsibility
to deal with these inadequacies. (Paragraph 74)
12.We recommend that the
Government adopt the Strategy Unit's proposals to introduce a
'high-transparency system'. The development of such a system should
involve the input of industry representatives and financial assistance
should be provided to those affected in the short-term by the
transition to the new system. Unlike the Strategy Unit, we consider
such a system would operate primarily as a measure to improve
compliance levels, rather than a way to satisfy consumer and retail
concerns. (Paragraph 81)
13.We welcome the greater
use of forensic accounting, risk profiling and on-board observers
as enforcement measures, and recommend the Government adopt this
Strategy Unit recommendation. It is important that industry representatives
are fully involved with the formulation of such measures. We also
stress the importance of proportionality and practicality in the
placement of observers. (Paragraph 84)
14.The current prosecution
system is uncertain, lengthy and expensive. This is detrimental
to both the industry and regulators. We support the Strategy Unit's
recommendation that a system of administrative points and penalties
system should be introduced, and most offences decriminalised.
We recommend the Government takes steps to introduce these proposals.
(Paragraph 92)
15. There is serious concern
in the industry that a system of administrative points and penalties
could breach fishermen's right to a fair trial. The Government
should not introduce any system of automatic administrative sanctions
which does not give fishermen any right to contest the case against
them. (Paragraph
93)
16.At this stage, we do
not support the Strategy Unit recommendation that progressive
cost-recovery for management costs should be introduced. The recommendation
is given too much prominence within the SU report and cannot be
considered a serious policy proposal in the short-term. (Paragraph
104)
17.The existing system
of quota-based management within highly mixed fisheries does not,
by and large, work. It encourages non-compliant behaviour amongst
fishermen and has a detrimental impact on stocks. We therefore
support the Strategy Unit's recommendation that fisheries departments
should commission detailed analysis of the practicalities of introducing
effort-management systems in mixed fisheries and any concomitant
measures in respect of net-carrying rules which may be necessary.
We recommend that the Government commission such analysis as soon
as possible. This should include analysis of the potential disadvantages
of effort-based systems, such as excessive targeting of high value/vulnerable
species and the tendency for 'technical creep', whereby fishermen
continually increase the killing power of their vessels. (Paragraph
116)
18. We recommend that
the Government undertake a case-by-case evaluation of each mixed
fishery of importance to the UK to establish which fisheries are
suited to an effort-based management system. Where such a system
is applied, we believe the administrative structure of the system
should be sufficiently flexible to enable a rapid response to
any short-term difficulties that may arise. Adequate compensatory
mechanisms should also be developed to assist those fishermen
who are negatively affected by the initial transition to such
a system. We also recommend that any effort-based system should
draw a distinction between steaming time and hauling time, provided
that a system can be put into place to monitor such a distinction.
The Government should investigate the technology available to
enable this distinction to be monitored and enforced. We understand
the Danish fishing fleet already uses such technology. (Paragraph
117)
19.Whilst we acknowledge
there will be difficulties with applying such a system, these
pale in comparison to the appalling and wasteful practices resulting
from quota-managed mixed fisheries, such as the mass discard of
marketable fish. We believe this phenomenon is largely a consequence
of applying a quota-based management system in a fishery where
it is almost impossible to restrict which specific species are
caught. As such, the system is flawed and serious consideration
needs to be given to other alternatives. (Paragraph 118)
Decentralising and modernising UK fisheries management
20.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.
(Paragraph 125)
21.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. 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. (Paragraph 126)
22.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. (Paragraph 129)
23.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. (Paragraph 136)
24. 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. (Paragraph 137)
25.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. (Paragraph 141)
26.We recommend that the
Government implement the Strategy Unit's recommendation for greater
industry involvement in the development and priority-setting of
fisheries science.
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.
(Paragraph 146)
27.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. (Paragraph 147)
Progressively regionalising EU management under the
CFP
28.We strongly support
the Strategy Unit's recommendations that the management functions
of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) should be progressively regionalised
and the UK's informal co-operation with key EU partners should
be increased. We recommend the UK Government to take an active
lead in promoting these objectives. It is clear that the current
CFP management system is over-centralised and requires reform.
(Paragraph 153)
29.We strongly support
the continued strengthening and development of the Regional Advisory
Councils (RACs). We consider them to be the most promising development
within the CFP for many years, and we are pleased there is widespread
enthusiasm for the initiative amongst the industry and other interested
and affected parties. (Paragraph 163)
30.We share the hopes
of the Strategy Unit, the UK Government and many other interested
and affected parties that the RACs will eventually be granted
real and effective management powers. We urge all RAC representatives
to work co-operatively to ensure the RAC initiative achieves its
full potential. (Paragraph 164)
31.In the meantime, we
urge the UK Government to continue taking a lead on this issue
within Europe and to champion the value and potential of the RACs
to fellow Member States and the Commission. We encourage UK Government
ministers to ensure that the proposed RACs are taken seriously
in Brussels, as the existing North Sea RAC appears to have been,
to date. The Government should ensure that appropriate technical
and financial support continues to be provided to stakeholder
representatives on the RACs so that the bodies are sufficiently
well-resourced to be able to carry out their responsibilities
successfully. (Paragraph 165)
Integrating needs of fishing with other uses of marine
environment
32.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. (Paragraph 179)
33.We recognise, however,
that there are some important practical details to be clarified
before the assessments can be applied to fisheries. (Paragraph
180)
34.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.
(Paragraph 194)
35.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. (Paragraph 195)
36.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. (Paragraph
196)
Conclusion
37.The fishing industry
requires further significant reform if its long-term future is
to be both sustainable and profitable, and some of the Strategy
Unit recommendations will help the industry to achieve this goal.
We recommend that the Government move quickly to implement those
recommendations. (Paragraph 198)
38.We were concerned to
find such a divergence of views amongst—and lack of agreement
between—witnesses on the extent of, and the basic causes
of, the current state of fish stock conservation. At present,
divisions of opinion exist between and amongst scientists, industry
representatives and environmentalists on the reasons for the decline
in some fish stocks. As a basis for action, it would be helpful
to establish the relative impact of over-fishing, climate change,
environmental pollution and migration of fish stocks. We therefore
urge the Government to commission research to provide more detailed
information on the current conservation problem, and on its basic
causes, so that a firmer base exists on which to make decisions
in the future. (Paragraph 200)
| 
