|
Memorandum submitted by Seafish (MC 01)
This memorandum expresses the concerns that Seafish has with regard to the Marine Bill. These are summarised on this page, described in a little more detail overleaf and then further notes and contact details are given should there be any requirement for further information.
1. Introduction
1.1 Seafish is a non-departmental public body
that provides support to all sectors of the seafood industry. We have a
publicly stated commitment to "the sustainable and efficient harvesting of
those resources on which the
2.1 Seafish broadly supports the Bill: it should rationalise existing legislation and improve marine environmental conservation.
2.2 The level of secondary legislation that will flow from the Marine Act will require special provisions to ensure that consultation is adequate and effective.
2.3 We are keen that the Bill's
provisions should help to deliver the
2.4 We urge the
2.5 We see strengths and weaknesses in the current proposals for marine spatial planning: there are real risks that the viability of commercial fishing will be compromised.
2.6 Where fishing is being carried out legally, responsibly and in good faith then fishermen need a defence against the unexpected impacts of their activities.
2.7 We identify that there are conflicts in the schedules for conservation site designation that significantly weaken the integrity of the planning regime and must be resolved.
2.8 We believe that the planning provisions must place a duty on both the Crown Estate and the Infrastructure Planning Commission to consult with the MMO and to be accountable within the planning process.
2.9 The management arrangements for the MMO must ensure its independence and objectivity.
3. Key issues
3.1 Secondary legislation Secondary legislation is usually approved very quickly. The measures that will flow from the Marine Act will be wide-ranging and very influential. Consultation to date has mainly been by e-mail and correspondence. This is fine for major policy issues but agreeing detail requires detailed and dynamic discussion with practitioners. We operate two groups (on food-related and marine environmental legislation) that work extremely effectively in bringing together regulators and practitioners. We propose that those drafting secondary legislation should undertake effective consultation during the drafting process.
3.2 Sustainable development Sustainable
development principles were described comprehensively in the Sustainable
Development Strategy published by all
3.3 The Marine Policy Statement The Marine
Policy statement expressed through Marine Plans will be the guiding framework
for implementing this Bill's provisions as well as those obtaining in the rest
of the
3.4 Spatial Planning Spatial planning will impact upon sea fishing. We need to protect fishing, rural communities and seafood's contribution to the national economy. The ability to fish is already constrained by a complex of legal, natural and political factors. Whilst we support the creation of completely 'no take' zones where this is appropriate we urge that the designation of conservation zones must normally allow for the continuation of fishing to be at least considered. Appropriate authorities must not be barred from taking social and economic factors into account during the designation process and when developing management plans. Hence Clause 117(7) must read that they '...should have regard to any economic or social consequences...'.
3.5 Current conservation schedules Current conservation schedules require most of our marine site designations to be completed by 2012 and for most of our offshore wind farm leases to be granted by that time because of the lead-in time to achieve our renewable energy commitments by 2020. But we are not expecting the Marine Policy Statement to be agreed until 2011 and we then have to negotiate Marine Plans. If the two major 'new' uses of sea areas are already agreed, what is spatial planning going to be used for? These timelines must be rationalised.
3.6 Marine Conservation Zones Marine Conservation Zones will have their relevance affected by the phenomenon of temperature change. We seek to ensure that the designation process can be reversed where the effectiveness of a designation is genuinely challenged.
3.7 Sea fishing defence Where fishing is being carried out legally, responsibly and in good faith then fishermen need a defence against the unexpected impacts of their activities. The Bill must ensure that there is sufficient provision for a sea fishing defence to protect fishermen in the event that they unintentionally catch or harm sea creatures other than the intended catch, such as dolphins, seals, turtles.
3.8 The MMO's constitution The MMO's constitution contains no obligations for formal linkages with the Crown Estate and the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). They both seem to fall out with the spatial planning regime yet will have extraordinary impacts upon it. The accountability of the Crown Estate Commissioners and their remit to maximise returns to the Treasury from the estate must be brought into line with the aims of the Marine Bill. Likewise the IPC must be required to refer to the MMO for endorsement of its licensing decisions.
3.9 The independence of the MMO The independence of the MMO must be safeguarded in order to assure confidence in its objectivity and its commitment to the broadest possible public interest. Robust management arrangements will be essential to ensure it acts equitably and on the basis of the best possible science.
4. Further notes
4.1 It is widely assumed that the fishing industry is likely to suffer the most from the introduction of marine planning. Lord Greenway, chairing the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Marine Bill opened the session on 11.06.08 by saying: "fishing is the area most likely to be adversely affected by this Bill..."
4.2 Fishing is a unique and perfectly legitimate activity. Access to the target species can vary by season, ground type, legal entitlement and long term environmental changes. Fishermen cannot simply 'go and fish somewhere else'. The industry is dynamic and needs to be part of an adaptive planning and management regime. Through such arrangements access rights can be negotiated that respect conservation imperatives. Fishing gears and deployment patterns can usually be adapted to accommodate the sensitivities of the broader environment. Given that this approach can be taken successfully then fishing activity needs to have an appropriate defence in law against unintended impacts.
4.3 Fishermen probably know more
about the seabed conditions around the
4.4 - stakeholder participation enhances compliance because stakeholders are more knowledgeable about, committed to, and supportive of regulations if they had a say in the process, and - perceptions also affect compliance. Participants who see their contributions as making a difference and perceive the process as legitimate and fair are more likely to comply with the result.
4.5 Similarly, the recent IUCN guidelines (WCPA/IUCN 2007) on establishing marine protected area networks encourage stakeholder participation thus: 'Developing effective MPA networks requires involving relevant stakeholders from the very beginning. Engaging stakeholders enhances information exchange, fosters the accountability of experts and authorities, reduces mistrust in the decision-making process, and enables stakeholder groups to collaborate and find mutually acceptable solutions. An open, participatory process also fosters a sense of ownership and accomplishment among the groups involved, thereby strengthening support and political will for the MPA network' (p.7).
Seafish,
the authority on seafood, has produced a wide range of briefing material on the
Marine Bill, conservation site designation, the
June 2009 |