Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (W20)

INTRODUCTION

  The Federation was represented on the stakeholders advisory group for the Prime Minister's Strategy Group Inquiry and made several submissions during the research phase. Reactions were made to Fisheries Departments when the report was published and these reactions are summarised in the main body of this memorandum. Continuing involvement with the project is carried on through the Fish Industry Strategy Group; a special unit within Defra. This group is carrying forward the SU conclusions and recommendations with a view to producing a government response in March 2005. The Fish Industry Strategy Group is assisted in this work by three, specialist, working parties which include industry representatives and other stakeholders. The SFF is fully represented on all three groups. Since these working groups have only just started their deliberations it is not possible to anticipate outcomes at this stage.

  Although government responses will alter the practical effect of the recommendations of the Prime Minister's Strategy Group the Federation's reaction to the recommendations, as they stand, is set out in the succeeding paragraphs.

POLICY AND ORGANISATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

  Fisheries departments should all develop sets of fisheries management objectives with a clear hierarchy in order to promote better and more transparent decision-making (9.3).

  It is important that industry representatives should be involved in the compilation and ordering of management objectives in order to ensure that Fisheries Departments appreciate and acknowledge their sponsorship obligations to the industry.

Recommendation 2

  The overarching aim of fisheries management should be "to maximise the return to the UK of the sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment" (9.3).

  The Federation subscribes to the aims implicit in this recommendation on condition that the industry is fully consulted on the definition of sustainability participates in devising practical means of protecting the marine environment.

Recommendation 3

  Sub-objectives should also be established covering economic, social environmental issues, safety and good governance (9.3).

  Clear objectives should be set for the issues listed. A dilemma arises, however, when trying to strike a balance between commercial and social, targets. An absolute commitment to the highest rates of commercial return can carry a heavy cost to local employment in fishing and related activities. In fisheries dependent areas and remote coastal communities this cost may prove intolerable. It may also be unnecessary since international norms may have little relevance the locally acceptable returns on investment.

Recommendation 4

  Fisheries departments should ensure a basis for both long-run profitability and stock recovery by considering funding the removal of a minimum of 13% of the whitefish fleet (beyond the 2003 decommissioning scheme) as part of an overall package of management reforms. This could require between £40 million and £50 million in additional public spending. The fishing industry would benefit from tying up a further 30% of the whitefish fleet for up to four years to accelerate stock recovery, but this should not be supported by public funds (10.2).

  This recommendation is ill considered, impractical and is based on flawed data. It is, therefore totally unacceptable to the Federation. As the discussion on recommendation 3 (above) makes clear the adoption of a formulaic approach to investment or capacity restriction is so beset by uncertainties that the outcomes are unpredictable and will result, too often, in unintended consequences. These inherent difficulties are compounded, by regulatory restrictions that will defeat any expected market driven benefits. (Recent decommissioning schemes have not resulted in any re-distribution of either quota or fishing time.)

  The theoretical benefits of capacity reduction are arguable even if the results are rarely as intended. The concept of enhancing profitability by laying up half the fleet is completely incredible. Indeed the whitefish fleet is in the second year of a de facto 40% tie up (vessels limited to an average 15 days at sea each month.) It is not obvious what benefit has been gained from this measure but it is certainly not an improvement in profitability.

  The Federation has corresponded with the PMSU on these matters and has also pointed out that the definition used for the white fish fleet includes a majority of prawn trawlers. The recommendation is in any case irrelevant since Scottish Ministers have set their face against any further fleet reductions for the foreseeable future.

Recommendation 5

  Fisheries departments should promote competition by introducing individual tradable rights for resource access, beginning in the pelagic and nephrops sectors (9.4.3).

  The Federation is instinctively and logically opposed to this recommendation. The current Fixed Quota Allocation system has been in place for a little over five years. The system has the potential to deliver all of the benefits claimed in the report for ITQs whilst avoiding or at least mitigating the acknowledged disadvantages of a formal ITQ system. The existing system is amenable to a degree of transferability but stops short of facilitating external or indeed international speculation in UK fish quotas. The degree of uncertainty about legal ownership deters such speculative investment. The present system could and should be refined. Such matters as a triennial reconciliation of FQAs with their actual beneficiaries and the obligatory reallocation of dormant licences to operating vessels within three years would repay further study.

Recommendation 6

  Fisheries departments should focus on support for the development of the inshore/shellfish industry to take advantage of its large growth opportunities (6.1.2).

  The Federation is not aware of any unexploited or even underexploited opportunities in the Scottish Inshore fishery. SEERAD's current review of this fishery will seek to improve overall management with a view to enhancing the return from existing inshore fisheries.

Recommendation 7

  Fishing industry should maintain and enhance its market opportunities by aiming to achieve Marine Stewardship Council (or equivalent) certification for all stocks of major interest to the UK by 2015 (6.1.2).

  The concept sustainability accreditation and associated eco-labelling has much to recommend it, especially as regards consumer reassurance and eventual improved commercial yields. There are, however, a number of unresolved difficulties with this approach most notably its lack of applicability in a mixed fishery. (It may be that a system of accrediting vessels and their skippers according to a code of practice would be more appropriate in areas like the North Sea.) It is desirable that any accreditation scheme should be completely transparent and should have official legitimacy. The Marine Stewardship Council possesses neither attribute.

IMPROVING UK AND EU INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE

Recommendation 8

  Fisheries departments should introduce a high-transparency system where all catches and landings are traced through markets and processors; and enforcement focuses more on forensic accounting, on-board observers and risk profiling (9.4.2).

  The Federation looks forwarded to co-operating with Fisheries Departments and others to devise a suitable system of traceability for fish and fish products. The customer assurance and business development possibilities of such a system are well understood. It is somewhat odd, however to find that a principle objective of this recommendation is regulatory enforcement. Understandable suspicion will arise from this conjunction of objectives and a dilution of the traceability initiative's more straightforward objectives would seem inevitable. The Federation does not share the recommendation's enthusiasm for forensic accounting and risk profiling as methods of enforcement. It may be that this approach would increase rates of detection and conviction but without any proportionate improvement in the conservation of stocks.

Recommendation 9

  Fisheries departments should introduce simple administrative penalties and "points" systems where the costs of infringements are transparent and predictable to the industry and most offences are decriminalised (9.4.2).

  The enforcement of EU regulations is an important yet sensitive matter. It is essential, in the first place, to ensure that measures are focused on priority objectives and that the resources deployed are proportionate to the likely policy gain. Even under a regime of administrative penalties it remains possible that fishermen could lose their livelihoods for significant periods. In these circumstances it is essential that basic civil liberties should be jealously guarded in the enforcement process. Such concepts the right to silence and the presumption of innocence are vital. Unfortunately the administrative penalties system described in the report is not at all reassuring in the matter of these basic liberties. There may be a case for administrative sanctions where accused persons voluntarily waive their rights to formal proceedings. There is no case, whatever, for arbitrarily limiting such rights because the executive branch of government is dissatisfied with evidential standards, sentencing policy or a perceived lack of urgency in the due legal process.

Recommendation 10

  Fisheries departments should introduce progressive cost-recovery of management and enforcement costs from industry to give greater buy-in and incentives for compliance (9.4.2).

  The concept of cost recovery through a charge on fishermen's licence to fish has been rehearsed a number of times in recent years. This concept has a number of shortcomings. Bureaucracy is a significant part of the cost of administering fisheries. A large part of that cost derives from regulatory complexity and inappropriate management arrangements. These shortcomings cannot, in logic or equity, be charged against fishermen and self-evidently they confer no recoverable benefit to the industry. The greater part of governments costs in this area are attributable to scientific research and regulatory enforcement. These activities are necessary and desirable but they are based on international obligations and as such their cost should continue to be met from general taxation. There is in any case a substantial mismatch between the operating patterns of the scientific and enforcement services and the industry's priorities. It is notable, for example, that the virtual eviction of the Scottish Fleet from its adjacent deep-water fishery has not resulted in any reduction of scientific and enforcement activity in that fishery by the relevant Scottish Agencies. In current circumstances there is no justification for a special cost recovery tax being levied on the fishing industry. The notion asserted in the recommendation that such a tax would enhance regulatory compliance is not understood.

Recommendation 11

  Fisheries departments should commission detailed technical analysis and plans on the practicalities of introducing effort-management systems in mixed North Sea, Irish Sea and Channel fisheries (9.5.3).

Recommendation 12

  Fisheries departments should develop alternative adaptive TAC systems through discussions with the Commission and EU partners for mixed fisheries where effort control is either not achievable or appropriate (9.5.3).

  The report's enthusiasm for effort control as an alternative to TACs and quotas is shared by the Federation, however as recommendation 11 acknowledges this approach could not be applied universally. Effort systems work best in mono-species fisheries. In a mixed fishery there is a high probability of excessive pressure on the most valuable stock with the consequent risk of total closure of the mixed fishery if that or any other stock declined below its limit reference point. Current experimentation with spatial management in the North Sea might help to resolve this dilemma.

  There is also an economic dimension to this idea. As discussed elsewhere the Fixed Quota Allocation is the major capital component of most fishing enterprises. It is not obvious how an equitable "rate of exchange" could be devised to translate fish quotas into fishing time entitlements.

  Notwithstanding these and other practical problems the Federation agrees that innovation is necessary to achieve more effective management of stocks. It is envisaged that much new thinking on this matter will be generated within the RACs and the kind of analysis proposed in recommendation 10 will provide a suitable focus for such work.

Recommendation 13

  The UK should continue supporting the European Commission in taking a stronger enforcement role to ensure a level playing field for all EU fleets fleets, and collaborate more actively with European partners in major UK fisheries to improve compliance and enforcement practices (9.4.2).

  The Federation supports all realistic initiatives designed to ensure equitable treatment of fishermen as between the various national enforcement authorities. As ever there are practical difficulties not least the different approach by individual countries and their distinctive legal codes and traditions. The Federation is monitoring closely the EU's recent commitment to a community wide initiative on monitoring, enforcement and control to be based in Vigo.

DECENTRALISING AND MODERNISING UK FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Recommendation 14

  Fisheries departments should collaborate to create a system of UK Regional Fisheries Managers for the North Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and Western Approaches, and Inshore/Shellfish Managers in each nation, with the authority to draw up management approaches, and task/fund science (9.6.1).

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 (9.6.2; 9.6.3).

Recommendation 16

  Fisheries departments should give industry and other stakeholders clearly defined advisory roles inside the regional and inshore management structures in the form of a formal Stakeholder Advisory Group (9.6.1).

  Taken together recommendations 14, 15 and 16 amount to a very substantial reform of UK fisheries administration and as such it is to be welcomed. It may be, however that the radicalism has run ahead of practicality. At an operational level the reports and its recommendations, in this respect does not take full account of the different and diverging inshore management systems of the devolved administrations. The regional management system takes account of these distinctions on the West Coast but not in the North Sea. The actual role of the Regional and Inshore managers would require careful definition especially in relation to the existing civil service structure.

  The concept of regional "champions" in fisheries management is nevertheless welcome not least for the catalytic effect such individuals could have on the reform agenda as a whole. It would be beneficial for these appointments to be filled by individuals from out with the civil service.

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. This should follow shortly after the appointment of regional managers in 2005 (9.5.1).

Recommendation 18

  Fisheries departments should promote greater innovation and management-focus in fisheries science by regionalising the process of science tasking and introducing contested budgets for innovation in scientific and management approaches (9.5.1).

  The concept of industry involvement in setting research priorities is a long-standing policy objective of the Federation. A scheme of this kind was introduced in a limited way in 2002 as part of a restructuring package for the industry. Although the industry was under-prepared for to operate this innovation it was successful and the consensus was in favour of repeating this involvement albeit with certain refinements. There is also some support within the industry for establishing a supervisory board for the Fisheries Research Service with under an independent chairman and with a substantial representation from the industry. The Federation welcomes both recommendations.

Recommendation 19

  The UK should adopt a large-stock strategy and use this to guide its position in EU negotiations for its key economic species. This will entail reducing catch in the short term. Fishery managers should explicitly seek to maximise the value of commercial stocks and reduce the volatility of catch (6.2).

  A large stock strategy is an interesting theoretical proposition and indeed this general approach is to some extent evident in the pelagic and nephrops fisheries. In these cases the comparatively large stock size may have been the by-product of market driven fleet restructuring (pelagic) and excessively cautious scientific advice (nephrops). Unfortunately the presumed correlation between stock size and fishing effort is not sufficiently certain to guarantee the outcome presumed by the recommendation. In the white fish sector the supposed reduction from 60% mortality to 16% would require massive income dislocation during the transitional period required to achieve the expanded stock size. A less ambitious but more thoroughly researched proposition, along similar lines to the "large stock" theorem, is set out in a recent report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE). Stock strategies will be important issues for RACs and the proposition outlined in recommendation 19 should be developed further along with the parallel RSE ideas as a catalyst to RAC deliberations on this important matter.

Recommendation 20

  Fisheries departments should develop risk-management approaches to fisheries management, including by introducing tighter controls on capital investment to prevent future "boom and bust" cycles (5.3; 9.5.2).

  The report is right to draw attention to the importance of risk management in fishing, however a close examination of risk management at the level of the individual vessel would have been a more secure basis for the subsequent analysis. It is interesting to note that a skipper or vessel owner would, broadly speaking, assess risk rather in a different order of priority from the reports conclusion. The notion of limiting risk through state intervention in investment decisions is unconvincing. The EU Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) followed this approach for twenty years and it may be fairly claimed that the MAGP is to a great extent responsible for current imbalances between installed capacity and fishing opportunities. The Federation's lack of faith in a formulaic approach to the capacity conundrum is discussed elsewhere. It should be borne in mind that targets set in these circumstances have a habit of becoming entitlements and bankable assurances.

PROGRESSIVE REGIONALISATION OF EU MANAGEMENT UNDER THE CFP

Recommendation 21

  The UK should adopt an aim of progressively regionalising the management functions of the CFP, while strengthening Commission oversight on audit, sustainability goals, compliance and enforcement and environmental issues (9.5.4).

Recommendation 22

  Fisheries departments should begin to build the basis for regional management by increasing informal management co-operation with key EU partners, especially on scientific, technical and enforcement issues (9.5.4).

Recommendation 23

  Fisheries departments and stakeholders should work together to strongly facilitate and support the development of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) (9.5.4).

  In the Federation's view recommendations 21, 22 and 23 provide the most realistic avenue to achieve real and lasting improvements in the development of European Fisheries policy and the achievement of efficient and effective management of Europe's Fisheries. Indeed the objectives outlined in these recommendations are a fair reflection of the Federation's campaign for zonal management as pursued over the past six years.

  The economic areas of the United Kingdom and particularly Scotland provide the majority of Europe's fishing opportunities. It is appropriate therefore that the UK should take the lead in developing and promoting a scheme of regional management for Europe. The Regional Advisory Councils provide a useful launch pad for this initiative but these agencies will require considerable development if they are to replace existing EU and national institutions. The first task should be to replace existing EU advisory bodies and to develop a full range of management functions over the next five years. This programme of devolution should be attractive to European Institutions beset by administration overload following EU enlargement.

  At all events UK fisheries departments should now agree a timetable for giving this visionary plan effect within the next five years.

Recommendation 24

  Fisheries departments should improve problem solving and innovation capacity by proposing shared solution forums at EU level; for example, on ecosystem-based management, marine science, and the impacts of climate change on fisheries (9.5.4).

  The kind of activity proposed in this recommendation might be an appropriate use for one of the EU advisory bodies made redundant by the RACs.

SETTING CLEAR SOCIAL OBJECTIVES IN FISHERIES POLICY

Recommendation 25

  Fisheries departments should press for the implementation of Sustainability Impact Assessments of fisheries policy and practice at the EU level, following the Gothenburg Council Conclusions (8.3.5).

See recommendation 29 below.

Recommendation 26

  Fishery departments should consider the use of community quota in vulnerable and dependent fishing communities, looking to develop a system compatible with EU law. They should launch a feasibility study on designing a community quota system by the end of 2004 (7.2).

  The Federation supports the proposition that coastal communities should have a legitimate expectation to enjoy the economic benefits of their adjacent fisheries. This expectation should not amount to an exclusive right and must afford reasonable access to vessels from other areas. It follows logically, therefore, that government should use its best efforts to secure fishing opportunities for coastal communities especially those in remote areas. The concept of the community quota is already well established in Shetland and Orkney and despite an investigation by EU state aid authorities these arrangements continue. It has to be borne in mind however that Scotland's Northern Isles have substantial capital funds as a result of levies on the oil industry and are much better placed financially to establish community quotas than other areas. At all events it would not be straightforward to establish community quotas whilst simultaneously promoting ITQs for nephrops. The Federation would, nevertheless, co-operate with the feasibility study as proposed.

Recommendation 27

  The UK Government and devolved administrations should ensure future reviews of EU State Aids/structural funds maintain opportunities to provide appropriate support to vulnerable fishing communities (7.4).

Recommendation 28

  Fisheries departments should actively facilitate and co-ordinate access to UK and EU support funds for transition support, diversification and industry development (7.4).

  The Federation strongly supports the maximum availability of EU and national funds to support fishing communities during this extended and continuing period of transition within the industry. It is important to ensure however that available funds are dedicated to development and revitalisation of local economies rather than the management of decline.

  The fishing industry has suffered disproportionately from the effects of the Fontainbleu Convention whereby severe restrictions are placed on the EU's contribution to qualifying projects as a quid pro quo for the UK's budgetary rebate from the EU. Since there is little prospect of this anomaly being corrected UK departments must arrange for any disadvantage, compared to other EU fishing communities, to be compensated from national funds.

INTEGRATING THE NEEDS OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY WITH OTHER USERS OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

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 (8.3.5).

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 (8.3.5).

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) (8.3.5).

Recommendation 32

  Fisheries departments should provide incentives to improve environmental performance and encourage development of less damaging gear types (8.3.5).

  The programme of environmental actions put forward in this suite of recommendations (25, 29, 30, 31, and 32) do not appear to make much direct contribution to the report's central objective; "a sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing". Indeed the impact of most of these recommendations would have an adverse effect on the industry's profitability.

  It is understood, of course, that the industry must co-exist with the growing pressure of environmental activism and its political consequences. Indeed there is an emerging appreciation of the commercial possibilities of eco-tourism amongst fishing communities. Even so these well-meaning initiatives must be kept in proportion to their own objectives and must not be used as a proxy to limit, unreasonably or indeed to terminate fishing operations.

  The Marine Protected Areas proposal (Marine National Parks in Scotland) would only be acceptable if the economic interests of fishing communities were protected or enhanced. It will be recalled that the terrestrial National Parks in England specifically incorporated safeguards to protect the economic interests of local communities.

Recommendation 33

  In the medium to long term, the UK Government and devolved administrations should consider integrating fisheries management tasks inside a marine environment agency responsible for broader management tasks, if such bodies are established under other legislation (eg possible Marine Acts being considered in different parts of the UK) (8.3.5).

  It is inevitable that fishermen would view, with some suspicion, the integration of fisheries management and environmental protection. Fishermen might be willing to play their part in securing the care and protection of the marine ecosystem if the commitment was clearly defined. Indeed fishermen have a great deal of knowledge and experience to offer since they spend their entire working life in the marine environment. It is already apparent however that the proliferation of environmental committees and other bodies makes it progressively more difficult for fishermen to participate fully on a voluntary basis. Fishermen should be remunerated for taking care of the environment on the same basis that farmers are rewarded for looking after the terrestrial ecosystem. Such an arrangement would be necessary to secure the involvement of fishermen in the arrangement proposed.

2 November 2004





 
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