Domestic fisheries Management—Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra ) (FSH 06)

Many thanks for your letter of 18 March requesting further information on a number of points following on from the evidence session on fisheries reform, at which Richard Benyon gave evidence.

Regarding question 98, it is not possible determine from the datasets held by the Marine Management Organisation which quota holders might be defined as a 'quota trader' or a ‘slipper skipper’ as currently we only capture information regarding licence holders and associated FQAs. The data-sets to do not identify how quota/FQA's are utilised in practice. We are, however, considering establishing a national FQA register with our colleagues in Devolved Administrations, which, in time, could evolve into a quota trading platform. This should help improve the transparency of quota holdings, and will potentially increase flexibility of swaps/trades amongst the UK fishing fleet.

On the issue of reallocation of unutilised quota, mentioned in question 92, there are several reasons why the in–year reallocation of unused quota is not currently undertaken. For example, quota holders may be retaining their quota to fish later in the year, or to use as swap currency to acquire different quota. The prospect of reallocation can encourage a race to fish, which could mean that fish is targeted out of season, thus increasing effort and discards of other stocks. Such reallocation may also impact on prices due to a surplus of fish on the market. Furthermore, there is also a risk of ‘ghost’ fishing in order to secure ongoing access and prevent reallocation – something that is difficult to enforce against. However, as was explained at the evidence session, there is widespread support for acting strategically to ensure that quota which is consistently under-fished is used more effectively, and proposals for fisheries reform in England set out an approach to this for consultation.

During the evidence session on the 16th March, the Chair also asked for further information concerning Filey not been included in the local Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) that had been formed as part of European Fisheries Fund implementation. Further information is attached in Annex 1.

With regards to the proposed consultation launch date, we have not yet confirmed a launch date although we do hope to be able to confirm this shortly. We will of course keep you informed with regards to this matter when we have further clarity.

I hope that these answers have been of some help. Please let me know if there is any further information that you would find useful.

14 April 2011

ANNEX 1: Membership of Holderness Coast European Fisheries Fund Axis 4 Fisheries Local Action Group

At the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee hearing on 16 March, the Chair asked Mr Benyon to look into the circumstances surrounding some of her constituents from Filey being informed that they would not be able to join the local FLAG.

The European Fisheries Fund 2007-2013 (EFF) is a European Commission scheme which seeks to promote sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Within the UK, approx €138m of funding has been made available from the Commission for EFF. The total EFF funding for Axis 4 is €4.6m, this aims to provide localised support for coastal communities in decline by helping them to develop a sustainable future through, for example, promoting ecotourism and heritage buildings. Funding and project management is administered through the FLAGs themselves.

6 Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAG) have been set up under Axis 4 of EFF to access EFF funding: Cornwall, North Devon, Hastings, Holderness Coast, North Cumbria Coast and North Norfolk.. The purpose of FLAGs is to provide real support to communities that would otherwise not benefit from EU support, and encourage localism.

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has responsibility for delivering EFF in England. Part of this role is the promotion and facilitation of the England Axis 4 FLAG selection process. The process to determine the FLAGs has been broken into 3 stages:

(i) Area Selection: the local groups completed an expression of interest, demonstrating how their geographical region represents areas with a low population density, fishing in decline and small fisheries areas;

(ii) Selection of the Partnership: the proposed FLAGs completed an application form for assessment which included details of how the group is set up and the details of the lead partner they have nominated to represent the group.

(iii) Formulation of a Local Development Strategy: the FLAGs approved at the Selection of Partnership stage develop a strategy in consultation with members of their community which identifies priorities for support. The strength of the Local Development Strategy will help to determine the level of funding which is granted to the FLAG from Axis 4.

The Holderness Coast FLAG submitted their Selection of the Partnership application form which detailed the geographical area which would be included in their group. This extended to Bempton in the north of the area to Spurn Point in the south. The northern extent of the FLAG is approximately 8 miles south east of Filey. The FLAG boundary is based on the East Riding of Yorkshire county boundary and covers the Holderness Lobster & Shellfish Fishery.

Filey and the surrounding area, along with the rest of the English coastal areas were able to submit applications into the MMO FLAG selection process. However, an application was not received from a group representing the Filey area.

The geographical area of the FLAGs was approved as part of the Second Stage Selection process and the areas are not be able to be changed once the approval has been granted.

The MMO has had contact with local groups who were either unsuccessful in the initial FLAG Selection process or are interesting in forming a FLAG in the future. However, for additional FLAGs to be created and approved within the current EFF scheme, additional EFF funding would need to be made available for Axis 4. To enable this, funding would need to be re-allocated from other Axes within EFF.

The existing funding level for all Axes including Axis 4 is documented in the EFF Operational Plan document, which has been agreed with the Commission. To re-allocate funds within the axes, a Business Case will need to completed and sent to the Commission outlining the rationale and impact on the agreed targets and assumptions. As there is demand for greater Axis 4 funds to allow for additional FLAGs, it would appear reasonable to present a rationale to move funds from other under used Axes into Axis 4. This will be progressed as part of a wider proposal to reallocate funds to areas of demand.