2 Appendix: Government Reply
Introduction
The four UK fisheries departments published their
joint response to the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report, "Net
Benefits: A Sustainable and Profitable Future for UK Fishing"
(March 2004) on 28 June 2005. This response was entitled "Securing
the Benefits: the Joint UK Response to the Prime Minister's Strategy
Unit "Net Benefits" Report on the Future of the Fishing
Industry in the UK". What follows here does not attempt
to summarise or supersede that document, but responds to the EFRA
fisheries sub-committee's recommendations and provides and overview
of "Securing the Benefits".
Some of the EFRA sub-committee conclusions and recommendations
have been grouped together where they discuss related issues.
Response to the individual Conclusions and Recommendations
of the EFRA Fisheries Sub-Committee
The Strategy Unit's report
Recommendation 1
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)
The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report "Net
Benefits" was welcomed by government when it was published
in March 2004. It provided much to consider and discuss with
stakeholders, and represented an invaluable opportunity to review
government policies relating to the fishing industry in the UK.
This process has been known as the Sustainable Fisheries Programme,
and has involved intensive collaboration among stakeholders and
officials from the four Fisheries Administrations. The publication
of "Securing the Benefits" marks a staging post rather
than a conclusion of this work. Some actions have already been
completed, while others proceed to a number of different timescales.
Sustainable Fisheries Programme
Recommendation 2
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)
The engagement with stakeholders as a part of the
response to "Net Benefits" has taken a variety of forms.
A series of issue papers were made widely available in summer
2004 on which organisations and individuals were invited to comment.
A great many responses were received from fishermen's organisations,
conservation organisations, sea anglers and others. These responses
have been analysed recommendation by recommendation and taken
into account in developing the Government's thinking on the future
direction of fisheries policy.
Since September 2004 a number of groups have been
meeting to take forward Sustainable Fisheries Programme work on
the 33 "Net Benefits" recommendations. A Stakeholder
Advisory Group with wide representation has met four times, including
the latest meeting at which "Securing the Benefits"
was presented. Three stakeholder working groups have been addressing
individual areas within the report - Fishing Industry Reform,
the Marine Environment and Government Objectives. Defra also
formed a working group to examine Inshore Fisheries Reform - an
area that is being covered separately by each of the four fisheries
departments.
The working groups have provided valuable material
and insight for the development of policy. They have also been
a means of building a sound relationship with the stakeholder
community.
Now that "Securing the Benefits" has been
published, stakeholder engagement will remain important and central
to the further development and implementation work. The Marine
Environment working group will continue to meet to provide a sounding
board for policy making. In addition, we are making arrangements
to establish new specific stakeholder groups to advise on new
policy workstreams - such as the Quota Management Change Programme.
Defra will invite the high-level Stakeholder Advisory Group to
continue in order to inform future policy. We will also continue
to use our informal links with a variety of stakeholders to take
soundings and listen to views.
Creating a competitive and profitable UK fleet
(3-7)
Recommendations 3-7
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)
Fleet profitability is key. The Government endorses
the approach that there should be a thorough assessment of the
capacity of the white fish fleet and its profitability. It will
then be possible to make informed choices about how to bring the
various fleets into line with fishing opportunity.
The Strategy Unit made a valuable contribution to
analysis of the fleet by creation of an economic model, accepting
that it could be refined. The Government, with the devolved
administrations, decided to do further work to develop the model,
to enable assessments to be made at regional level, and for key
sectors of the fleet. The assumptions made in the model and
the approach to be taken in the work are being reviewed in consultation
with representatives of the industry and much of the development
is being undertaken for Ministers by the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
This refined model will be a valuable tool to assess the size
and type of fleet that can be profitable in the future, and the
need for any further selective decommissioning.
The Strategy Unit suggested that 'the fishing industry
would benefit from tying up a further 30% of the whitefish fleet
for four years'. This part of the recommendation was addressed
to the fishing industry rather than government since it was not
proposed that public funds should be available to carry out the
scheme. Accordingly, the industry has been invited to consider
whether tie-ups should take place and Defra has not received any
indication that industry representatives support a 30% voluntary
tie-up.
Quota Management Reform
Recommendations 8-10, 17-19
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)
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)
The issue of quota management is a difficult and
complex one. Discussions as part of the Sustainable Fisheries
Programme have made some progress towards a shared understanding
but have also established that there are still areas where the
way forward is unclear. Support has been expressed for the current
Fixed Quota Allocation structure as well as some of the possible
benefits of an ITQ system. Moreover, it appears that different
things are meant by different people in using the term 'ITQ'.
A change programme examining quota management in
the UK is currently underway. This will cover all areas of quota
management including the "Net Benefits" community quota
proposals. The work will be carried out in full consultation
with stakeholders - a consultative group has been formed but opinions
and views will be sought in other ways as well. As part of this
programme, the points raised by the sub-committee will be considered,
including the role of Producer Organisations and the Regional
Development Agencies.
The Strategy Unit raised the issue of protection
of vulnerable communities via a community quota scheme. In order
to take this forward it would be necessary to define not only
how such a scheme could be implemented, but also what constitutes
a fishing-dependent community and how it would be possible to
determine that such a community is at risk. The fisheries departments
in the UK will continue to consult on what measures might be necessary
to safeguard fishing communities. The discussions on the future
European Fisheries Fund have also touched on the definitions and
protection of fishing dependent communities.
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)
The work of the Sustainable Fisheries Programme has
thrown up a variety of views on the current quota-based management
system. Both positive and negative aspects have been identified
in a range of discussion fora. No decisions have yet been taken
and no quota management methods have been rejected, but it is
widely accepted that there is room for refinement and improvement.
There is widespread recognition that the UK fisheries
are complex and diverse and that consequently they need to be
considered individually rather than in the round. The areas raised
by the committee - targeting of high value or vulnerable species
and technical creep - will be addressed as part of ongoing work
on the nature of the UK fisheries.
Discarding has been the subject of discussion under
the Sustainable Fisheries Programme, and a sub-working group has
been considering the issue. The area of technical improvement
to gear has been identified as the most likely to yield results.
We will explore whether with more selective gear it will be possible
to avoid catching much of the fish that would otherwise be discarded.
We are setting up two pilot projects - one concerning selective
gear in the nephrops fishery in the North Sea and the other
still under development in the Irish Sea. Stakeholders and advisors
considered that quota restrictions were not - except in a few
cases - a significant factor leading to discarding.
Improving UK and EU information and compliance
Recommendations 11-16
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)
"Net Benefits" identified close links between
compliance, profit and sustainability. The related issues of
enforcement and fostering a compliance culture in the UK have
been the subject of considerable discussion under the Sustainable
Fisheries Programme.
The refined economic modelling tool developed from
the Strategy Unit's model of the UK fleet will enable us to obtain
a better understanding of the fleet's potential profitability.
Illegal activity by some fishermen would jeopardise the viability
of honest fishermen and threaten fish stocks. Firm measures are,
therefore, in place and being strengthened to secure compliance
with the rules. These include technical measures to aid enforcement
such as installation of tamper-resistant satellite monitoring
equipment on all vessels over 15m and trials of electronic log
books.
"Net Benefits" recommended that a 'high-transparency
system' should be achieved by ensuring that 'all catches and landings
are traced through markets and processors' It also stated that
enforcement should 'focus more on forensic accounting, on-board
observers and risk-profiling'.
Action to improve transparency is underway through
the designation of auction centres and the registration of buyers
and sellers of fish. Related to this will be improvements in
arrangements for sales note on the first sale of fish. These
measures are being introduced primarily to meet the UK's enforcement
obligations, although they may also serve, as the Strategy Unit
suggested, to answer consumer and retail concerns.
Special investigations units have already been set
up by Defra's Sea Fisheries Inspectorate (in 2004) to carry out
targeted investigations including post-landing. Forensic accounting
methods are used, examining paper and electronic records in the
course of investigations. No decision has yet been taken as to
the use of onboard observers on "high-risk" vessels
as this question is currently under review. It is agreed in principle,
however, that there is a role for onboard observers.
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)
Fishermen have been informed that existing powers
will be used in a risk-based and targeted way to impose additional
licence conditions on vessels suspected to be engaged in unacceptable
behaviour.
Responses to the consultation papers on the "Net
Benefits" report made clear that there was considerable disquiet
regarding the status of administrative penalties. Later this
year the fisheries departments intend to consult further on a
system of administrative penalties. The concerns previously raised
by industry representatives will be carefully considered and further
discussion will be had on how these concerns can best be addressed.
Any system for administrative penalties will provide for appeal
arrangements.
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)
It is the Government's policy to charge for regulatory
services. Arrangements for the recovery of costs exist in many
areas of government activity. The costs of managing fisheries
are substantial and it would be difficult to justify the permanent
exemption of the fishing industry from such charging.
There are a number of complex questions to consider
in moving towards cost recovery from where we are now. The consequences
and timing of the introduction of cost recovery need to be considered
in the context of the wider aim of moving to a profitable and
sustainable industry. The impact of cost-recovery on competitiveness
in an EU context has also been raised as a concern by the industry.
We need to take account of the variable costs in managing different
parts of the UK fleet and the need for equitable treatment across
sub-sectors. We will address the issue of cost recovery in detail
alongside the broader programme of change flowing from Securing
the Benefits.
Decentralising and modernising UK fisheries management
Recommendations 20-27
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)
It is clear that the inshore sector should not be
developed unsustainably, as an unregulated increase in effort
would imply. The Government has introduced a shellfish licensing
scheme to limit effort on crabs and lobsters. This follows earlier
measures such as limits on licensing for scallops.
The working group established by the Government to
consider the Strategy Unit recommendations on Inshore Fisheries
as regards England has decided to develop a strategy for the
development of the English Shellfish industry. The aim is to
ensure that the future direction of the industry is both profitable
and sustainable in accordance with the broader aims of the "Net
Benefits" report.
This English Shellfish Strategy will include identification
of opportunities for development of the industry, including mariculture,
both in terms of increasing volume of production and increasing
value of the catch through good handling of fish, marketing and
processing. In creating the strategy the Working Group will
also seek to address issues constraining the sustainable development
of shellfisheries and mariculture, including regulatory constraints,
and the direction of financial support to optimise industry benefit.
The Group will build on a strategy document prepared by the
Shellfish Association of Great Britain.
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)
The English Inshore Fisheries Working Group of stakeholders
and officials has considered how the collection and availability
of data on the inshore industry might be improved. Opportunities
were identified for the wider sharing of data to inform the inshore
industry and managers, and to improve development potential.
It was agreed that it is important to ensure that further data
gathering does not increase the administrative burden on industry
without strong justification. The Group noted that there were
current initiatives which would increase the supply of data, and
agreed that after these initiatives took effect they would consider
whether there was a case for further action.
The working group also considered the roles of Inshore
Managers; as the committee recommends we have begun discussion
on the areas of their responsibilities. Defra will shortly (1
October 2005) create a Coastal Waters Team with responsibilities
which will include inshore management.
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)
Defra recognises that the sea angling sector has
a significant economic impact and has previously been under-represented
in fisheries management. The new Coastal Waters Team in the Fisheries
Directorate within Defra will provide expertise to the Department
on sea angling issues.
The governance of Inshore Fisheries in England is
currently under review and this process will enable the representation
of sea anglers to be reassessed. In the meantime, Defra has taken
the opportunity of the current round of ministerial appointments
to Sea Fisheries Committees to increase the level of representation
from one on most committees to two on each committee where size
permits.
The question of licensing for sea anglers was initially
raised by the Defra Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental
Enforcement (July 2004). The Inshore Fisheries Working Group
considered this question and agreed that Defra, the sea angling
interests and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees should
consider how licensing arrangements might be developed, once action
had been taken to improve the representation of sea anglers in
management decisions. The Group noted the opportunity to build
a licensing scheme on the existing Environment Agency scheme for
freshwater fisheries. A single scheme covering both freshwater
and sea angling could potentially provide for economies in administration,
and recognise the fact that many sea anglers are also freshwater
anglers. Defra will consider this approach.
Defra will promote arrangements in which all relevant
interests, including sea anglers, are involved in developing proposals
for management of species of interest to sea anglers. The willingness
of fishermen's organisations to cooperate in consultations has
been made clear. Suitable species for consideration include bass,
on which sea angling organisations have already drawn up detailed
proposals. A consultation exercise on an increased minimum landing
size and other conservation measures for this species to take
account of anglers' needs will be conducted by Defra.
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 of the Cornish
Coast can be maintained. (Paragraph 147)
A number of initiatives are taking place to increase
fishing industry involvement in data collection and stock assessment.
The Fisheries Science Partnership encourages scientists and fishermen
to work together. There are also plans for an ad-hoc fisheries
research fund to supply scientific support on regional management
issues. Defra will also encourage industry involvement in ICES'
production of stock advice.
In March 2005 Defra held a two day seminar on its
marine fisheries science programme involving a wide range of stakeholders
to seek views on the scope and focus of the programme. This produced
a range of suggestions both for involving fishermen and other
stakeholders more in data collection and for disseminating information
about the science programme which the Department is considering
how best to follow up. As part of the programme, co-working is
encouraged between academic institutions and is stipulated for
contracts placed with CEFAS in many cases.
Progressively regionalising EU management under
the CFP
Recommendations 28-31
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 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)
We support further regionalisation of the CFP and
we see this as an important aspect of the development of the Regional
Advisory Councils. For this reason, Defra is actively assisting
the RACs to establish an effective role and will continue to champion
their interests. In addition, Defra will pilot a Regional Manager
in the South West as part of the new fisheries agency - the Marine
Fisheries Agency - to be established this year (1 October).
At an EU level, the UK will press for further regionalisation.
The aim is that decisions about fisheries management will have
a strong regional focus, in future. We will also seek increased
informal management co-operation with EU partners.
There has been very considerable support for the
work of the RACs from all groups of participants in the Sustainable
Fisheries Programme. Much has already been achieved in laying
the legislative basis for the RACs and in establishing the North
Sea RAC. Defra will provide technical assistance to the RACs
where appropriate and facilitate their work in whatever ways are
most useful to the RACs . This will be done while maintaining
an 'arms-length' approach to preserve the RACs' independence.
Integrating needs of fishing with other uses of
marine environment
Recommendations 32-36
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)
Defra supports measures for reducing the environmental
impact of fisheries and for introducing a more strategic and planned
approach to this, fitting fisheries management into the wider
marine management framework. SEAs and EIAs would be a way of
meeting these aims. It is necessary, however, for there to be
collaboration across the EU if environmental impact assessment
techniques are to be effective and applied consistently across
the Community.
There are some practical issues to be resolved before
impact assessment techniques could be introduced. To address this,
the working group which covered this area in the Sustainable Fisheries
Programme commissioned an 'SEA proof of concept' document from
the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is intended that this
document will explore how SEA techniques could be applied to fisheries
management and will be discussed further with stakeholders before
any further decisions are taken.
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)
The UK Government is party to the commitment to establish
networks of Marine Protected Areas for biodiversity protection
under various international conventions. These include the Convention
for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic (OSPAR) and Natura 2000 (the European network of protected
sites which represent areas of the highest value for natural habitats
and species of plants and animals which are rare, endangered or
vulnerable in the European Community). Work on these is underway.
"Net Benefits" recommended that the initial
introduction of MPAs should 'focus on areas which provide benefits
to multiple users' and mentioned commercial fishing, tourism,
the environment and recreational fishermen. There is not yet
sufficient evidence, however, to show that MPAs can deliver benefits
to all of these groups. Accordingly, Defra commissioned two important
desk studies on the introduction of protected areas to benefit
fish stocks - one on the criteria to be used for the selection
of areas and one to analyse the contribution protected areas could
make to the recovery of individual stocks. The output from these
studies, recently presented, will inform the selection of future
protected areas and will clarify to what extent benefits from
'multi-purpose' MPAs are possible.
Defra is also continuing to work with stakeholders
to determine areas where MPAs might provide maximum benefits.
The Marine Environment working group from the Sustainable Fisheries
Programme will continue to provide a sounding board on issues
such as this. A workshop, which attracted a great deal of interest,
was held in March to consider the issue of designing a network
of multi-purpose MPAs.
Conclusion
Recommendations 37-38
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)
The joint response to the "Net Benefits"
report by the four fisheries administrations has now been published.
It was thought important to engage meaningfully with the stakeholder
community, even though this meant that the response took a little
longer to appear than was initially intended. Defra has sought
to ensure that all the consultation has been as wide as possible
and that work has been carried collaboratively.
"Net Benefits" set out recommendations
for the future of the UK fishing industry not as a statement of
government policy but as a report to government. These
recommendations have been carefully considered with a view to
formulating detailed proposals and an action plan. The work that
has taken place over the last year has enabled useful progress
to be made, although it has also thrown up the need for further
engagement and consideration in many areas.
The disparity of view between fishermen and scientists
as to the state of fish stocks has been an issue while working
on the response to "Net Benefits". A number of measures
are being put in place to address this. Defra's Fisheries Science
Partnership aims to encourage fishermen and scientists to work
together to produce data and this scheme is being extended. There
is a commitment in Securing the Benefits to promote greater
industry involvement in ICES' production of stock advice by encouraging
more direct communication between them, including via the Regional
Advisory Councils and the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership.
Over the course of the Sustainable Fisheries Programme,
a great deal of work has been done on the use made of scientific
advice and the way that it is produced. This was continued in
the seminar for stakeholders on Defra's marine fisheries science
programme referred to above. It appears to be most important
to refine and build trust in existing scientific research than
to commission more which may suffer from the same difficulties
as the old. We do not perceive the need for a new study at the
moment, therefore, but will continue to work on the areas raised
by the EFRA sub-committee as part of existing programmes.
Summary
Defra welcomes the support offered by the EFRA fisheries
sub-committee report "The Future for UK Fishing" for
the work of the Sustainable Fisheries Programme on the response
to "Net Benefits". There is agreement on almost all
of the areas covered, which is very encouraging for the ongoing
implementation work on "Securing the Benefits". The
sub-committee has also gathered a great deal evidence which can
inform ongoing work.
Regarding a competitive and profitable UK fleet,
we are constructing a refined version of the Strategy Unit's economic
model which will enable us better to understand the basis of fleet
profitability and assess with the industry possible options.
There will be a programme of change in the field of quota management
that will embrace a wide range of issues and deliver a better
management of UK quota. To improve compliance we have introduced
and are developing a number of measures. A pilot Regional Fisheries
Manager in the South West together with pursuing a regionalisation
agenda at EU level is aimed at decentralising important parts
of fisheries management. Work to establish a network of Marine
Protected Areas is underway.
In order to secure a sustainable and profitable future
for the UK fishing industry, it will be necessary for government,
fishermen and other interested groups to work together. A major
part of the Sustainable Fisheries Programme has been the extensive
stakeholder engagement and this has already produced a more collaborative
style of working. Besides the specific policy proposals that
will emerge from the joint response of the four UK fisheries departments
to "Net Benefits", better relations with stakeholders
are a very important part of the future of fisheries management.
The commitment to engagement over the response to "Net Benefits"
has laid the foundation for such a future.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
July 2005
| 
