Remove Red Tape

Water & Marine: Sea fisheries

These regulate the sea fishing industry and include provisions on sustainable harvesting of fish stocks, shellfish and crustaceans; monitoring and enforcement of fishing activities; bycatch; fishing vessels and technical provisions (fishing gear, species’ sizes)

We want to hear your views on how we could reduce regulatory burdens, and improve implementation of these regulations; to ensure that we can achieve sustainable fish stocks and a long-term, viable fishing industry in the most effective way. For example could the Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order and the Undersized Edible Crabs, Spider Crabs and Velvet Crabs Orders be merged into one undersized shellfish order?

Visit the Water and Marine theme landing page here.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

28 comments on “Water & Marine: Sea fisheries”

1. Sarah Goddard (WWF-UK) on April 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm said:

   1. Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries (England) Order 2005

   Continuing our campaigning to reduce bycatch in particular under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform process this is a necessary order to ensure the well-being and existence of these vulnerable species.
   This current order implements the last review of the CFP and may need to be reviewed in light of the current reform processes that are underway. However we would hope that reducing cetacean bycatch within fisheries is an important and vital component of a sustainable and ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. We would like to see that the UK is still committed to enforcing all aspects of Council Regulation 812/2004 and the provisions of the Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries (England) Order 2005 in order to minimise cetacean by-catch.

   There have been many revisions to UK laws in recent years, with the effect that they now fail to provide a comprehensive and ecologically sound structure to ensure the long term ‘favourable conservation status’ of cetaceans. A suite of improvements are needed but, as a priority, ‘recklessness’ needs to be reinstated into the Habitats Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to make it an offence to deliberately or ‘recklessly’ capture, kill, disturb, or trade in an animal of European protected species which includes all dolphins, whales and porpoises. Changes are also required within the Regulations to allow the prohibition of the deterioration or destruction of breeding and resting sites to be defined and enforced with regard to mobile marine species.

   2. Sea Fishing (Prohibition on the Removal of Shark Fins) Order 2007

   Sharks have been around almost since the beginning of time first appearing around 400 million years ago. There are over 400 species of shark, and they are found in every ocean of the world.
   Sharks play an important role in balancing marine ecosystems being top predators and scavengers in the ocean. Populations of many shark species have been declining due to unsustainable shark fishery management worldwide and the demand for shark fin soup in some countries. Sharks are particularly vulnerable to overfishing because they grow slowly, are late to mature and produce relatively few young. In recent years as other fish have grown scarce, and the demand for shark fin has rocketed with China’s booming economy, shark have been increasingly targeted for their fins, therefore it is essential that shark finning is prohibited under UK law.

   3. Lyme Bay Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions) Order 2008

   Lyme Bay Order 2008 subject to the appropriate conclusion on the provision of fisheries management measures within the Lyme Bay cSAC, this Order represents an important safeguard to the integrity of reef habitat and associated wildlife.Comment Tags: Cetaceans, fishing, sharks
2. Natasha Barker Bradshaw on April 12, 2012 at 11:57 am said:

   Maintain the role of the Inshore Fisheries And Conservation Authorities provided by the Marine & Coastal Access Act (2009). They are making a good start to reforming inshore fisheries management and have a lot of potential to effectively manage sustainable fisheries alongside a network of Marine Conservation Zones. They also offer a model of how the European Common Fisheries Policy could implement regionalisation through local/regional committees responsible for developing and implementing fisheries co-management plans. IFCAs should continue to be supported by central and local government as a core delivery service under the Marine & Coastal Access Act (2009).Comment Tags: IFCA
3. Debbie Crockard on April 12, 2012 at 10:44 am said:

   Marine fisheries are in the poorest state they have ever been, only 1 in 5 commercial stocks in UK waters are considered to be in a healthy state by ICES. This is unacceptable in todays age, we must ensure the future sustainability of our stocks and of our fishing communities, as the latter cannot exist without the former. Innovation from the fihing industry must be encouraged and their consultation on how best to improve our environment should become common practice.

   Damaging fishing activities (such as dredging) should be discouraged and good practice incentivised, to ensure the future of our industry and the protection of the marine environment upon which it depends.
4. Chris Edwards on April 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm said:

   I am responding on behalf of Somerset County Council.

   As a result of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) were established in 2011. Under the funding arrangements for the Devon and Severn IFCA Somerset County Council along with other councils along the Bristol Channel shore and up the Severn Estuary are members of the authority and have to fund enforcement and research activities.

   Somerset County Council represents a view common to a number of these councils that the lack of significant fisheries along these shores makes the current Devon and Severn IFCA membership and structure irrational and in need of serious review. The conservation of the natural environment and sustainability of these inshore fisheries is of real importance, however in the case of the Devon and Severn IFCA there is no proportionality between the amount of work that needs to be done and the membership/contribution required from the different authorities.

   This split IFCA (it includes important fishing areas along the south coast) has already led to significant divisions and is very difficult to manage as one unit. The coastal areas covered differ so widely that the authority will not work with a “one size fits all” approach. Through the Red Tape Challenge Somerset County Council would like to see an early and robust review of the funding, boundaries and membership of IFCA’s facing this issue.
5. Blue Planet Society on April 11, 2012 at 11:04 am said:

   There are alternatives to the way we treat the marine environment, but they require a change in the way we think and act. Land conservation had its period of enlightenment in the 1950’s and 60’s and it is now long overdue for the world’s ocean to command equal resources and focus. The world’s ocean is unique, and should be treated as such; it hides the damage humans do to it, and hides it so well that it may be too late to do anything by the time we fully realise the extent of our stupidity.

   If we take the current rate of over-exploitation of the ocean to its natural conclusion (in about 2050), 71% of earth will be a biological desert, save for a few billion jellyfish. We must wake up to this fact, and we must act now.

   Stopping the human-caused loss of species and ecosystems is essential but not sufficient. The goal should be to ensure that things do not become endangered in the first place. This means keeping not only the parts (genes, species, ecosystems), but also the processes that generate and maintain the parts.

   Saving the planet is not a luxury that can be left to someone else. It is an imperative that requires us to make fundamental changes in the decision making process. Decision makers need to have options that permit sustainability and rewards for choosing them. At present, individuals and corporations are free to act until it is proven that their actions are harmful. This needs to be changed. Commercial fisheries, the oil and gas industry, mining companies, developers, and others must be made to prove that their activities are not harmful to the world’s ocean before engaging in them. By shifting the emphasis, conservation becomes proactive, not reactive.

   Public education needs to be stepped up significantly too, and this can be done relatively quickly if the conservation sector educates the mass-media first. It should no longer be acceptable for the pages of newspapers or TV shows to scream ‘shark attack’, or for a huge marlin strung up by its tail seen to be something to be proud of, or wild marine animals to be treated as nothing more than another type of food. In other words, wild marine animals should be afforded the same treatment in the media as wild animals on land. Only then will marine animal consumption go down.

   Whichever way you look at it, the world’s ocean has reached crisis point and much more action is needed if we are to avert a global catastrophe. Some people say that humans are at their best when faced with dire choices, that they only act decisively when they are on the precipice of such a catastrophe; well that time has come for the world’s ocean. If only humans had evolved the ability to breath underwater, this message probably wouldn’t be taking such a dangerously long time to sink in.Comment Tags: marine conservation
6. Gill Bell on April 5, 2012 at 10:15 am said:

   Fisheries management and legislation is complex and does need reform to ensure that it is sustainable and enforceable. With 88% of European fish stocks overfished there is need to undertake an urgent review of how we manage our inshore fisheries. The establishment of Marine Conservation Zones within a network of marine protected areas have been shown to increase abundance of species and allows fish stocks to recover. These areas need to be properly protected, managed, monitored and enforced with stiff penalities for any vessels breaking protection and fishing regulations.Comment Tags: Marine protected areas, sustainable
7. Kat Stephenson on April 5, 2012 at 9:11 am said:

   Please, please, please focus on the one thing that will protect jobs in the long term and protect our fish stocks too – i.e. sustainability in the true meaning of the word. Why waste money on getting the best scientific advice then habitually ignore it? As many have commented the quota system fails fisheries and conservation workers – we have an opportunity to reform the CFP very soon so please use this opportunity to LISTEN to people who understand the problems and have come up with solutions such as no take zones and fishing credit systems, and then ACT before it is too late. It will hurt in the short term given the need to reduce the fishing fleet, but in the long tern this is better than no fleet and no fish.Comment Tags: ; CFP reform, no fis, no take zones
8. Gary Kennison on April 3, 2012 at 10:37 am said:

   I am commenting on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council.

   Recently Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) have been replaced with Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. In certain places across the country non members of SFCs now find themselves members of IFCAs through circumstances beyond their control. This may be acceptable if it were not for the fact that a number of local authorities do not believe that there was adequate justification for their inclusion within the new IFCAs.
   Taking the Devon and Severn IFCA as an example the third highest levy falls to Gloucestershire County Council despite it not having within its administrative area a demonstrable marine fisheries resource that needs protecting and managing. This position is clearly unacceptable and so the Red Tape Challenge is welcomed as an opportunity to highlight the need for an early review of IFCA boundaries. This is important so that the work of new IFCAs is not undermined by inappropriate membership and financial levies.
   The main reasons for why the government needs to look at this issue are as follows:
   1. There are questions over the consistency of inclusion or exclusion of local authority areas within IFCAs nationally. The legislation does not rule out that a European Marine Site (such as the Severn Estuary) cannot be split by administrative area if a substantive marine fishery resource which needs protecting and managing is not actually present.
   2. The unfair manner in which the application of criteria underpinning IFCA finances can give an annual contribution for a local authority significantly out of proportion to the sea fishery resource or industry or other related activity present. This is exemplified in the Devon and Severn IFCA where Gloucestershire County Council’s contribution is heavily based on a seashore length of some 94.4 miles which is clearly not justifiable for an inland authority.
   3. Inland local authorities, in contrast to counties that have a true maritime coastline (in common-sense terms), are unlikely to be able to recoup any of their levied contributions to IFCAs through charging for the issuance and administration of permits.
   4. In a time of severe financial pressure on local government budgets there has been little regard to the levying of substantial contributions towards a regime of practical insignificance to a number of local authority areas. It is noted that a New Burdens Grant from Defra is offsetting some of the current costs to local authorities in the short term, but the obligation to fund an IFCA after that falls heavily on the Council Tax payers of areas like Gloucestershire. It has been suggested that local authorities might renegotiate their contributions by agreement with other members within the IFCA. However, it is difficult to see why other paying members (i.e. local authorities) would be keen to agree to a move which would increase their own contribution to an IFCA, whilst providing them with no additional benefit.
   Gloucestershire County Council urges the government through its Red Tape Challenge to revisit the grievances of certain local authorities by reviewing the boundaries, membership and financial arrangements for each IFCA in England.Comment Tags: IFCA, local authority
9. Bristol City Council on April 3, 2012 at 10:11 am said:

   In 2011 Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) were replaced with Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Bristol City Council supports the protection and enhancement of the inshore marine environment and modernisation of the SFCs however the Red Tape Challenge is welcomed as an opportunity to highlight the need for an early review of IFCA organisational and funding arrangements.
   The main reasons why the government needs to review the legislation are,
   ORGANISATIONAL
   1. A number of local authorities that were not members of SFCs (since fishing activity has little or no impact in their areas) were nevertheless brought into the scope of the new IFCAs. In one particular IFCA, for Devon and Severn, the organisational and funding arrangements do not relate to need, are not fit for purpose or value for money for the ‘new’ local authorities in the Severn. The one size fits all IFCA model for the Devon and Severn area is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and requires a more flexible approach.
   2. The Devon & Severn IFCA area is too large and cannot be managed successfully in a homogenious way. Resource needs for the Devon part of the IFCA are significantly greater than that of the Severn and relate mostly to enforcement of fisheries. The Severn part of the IFCA requires only a ‘light touch’ solely with respect to conservation not enforcement and there are unlikely to be any significant issues to be addressed related to fishing activity. A comparison with the Habitats Directive duty shows that it could be discharged in a more cost effective manner. Because the overheads to enforce fishing in Devon, both staffing and consumables e.g. boats and monitoring equipment, are so great it is a disproportionate cost to the Severn local authorities who do not have need for these resources in their area. The needs of the two areas are quite different. The needs of the two areas are quite different. This arrangement serves neither the Devon or the Severn areas well.
   3. The IFCA area is so large there are unnecessary tensions and time wasted at meetings when members representing Devon have to consider Severn issues and vice versa. Whilst a Marine Management Organisation appointee may hypothetically be able to relate to any geographical area it is not an efficient use of their time if matters do not relate to their local knowledge or area of interest. In the long term if elected members and Marine Management Organisation appointees do not feel the IFCA reflects their interests or needs they will cease to participate.
   FUNDING
   4. The unfair manner in which the application of and selection of the criteria that underpins the funding formula is disproportionate to the sea fishery activity or financial benefit it accrues. As a consequence the Severn local authorities now subsidise the Devon fishing industry, which is not democratically acceptable to their respective council tax payers.
   5. Inland local authorities, in contrast to counties that have a true maritime coastline (in common-sense terms), are unlikely to be able to recoup any of their levied contributions to IFCAs through charging for the issuance and administration of permits. Indeed there is likely to be little or no IFCA activity along these stretches of inland waterway, for instance the River Avon through Bristol, but nevertheless their actual length is used in the funding formula. These are stretches that do not have sea fisheries but come under the remit of the Environment Agency for EU protected species such as salmon. They do not have significant fisheries or conservation issues and are not best served by coming under the remit of the IFCA. Consideration should be given to transferring back responsibility for inland fisheries of these stretches to the Environment Agency.
   6. In a time of severe financial pressure on local government budgets there has been little regard to the levying of substantial contributions towards a regime of practical insignificance to a number of local authority areas. It is noted that a New Burdens Grant from Defra is offsetting the current costs to local authorities for the first four years of IFCAs, but the obligation to fund an IFCA after that falls heavily on the council tax payers of areas like Bristol. It has been suggested that local authorities might renegotiate their contributions by agreement with other members within the IFCA. However, it is difficult to see why other paying members (i.e. local authorities) would be keen to agree to this when it would increase their own contribution, whilst providing them with no additional benefit. Since the funders can easily be outvoted on the budget by the MMO appointees they currently have no real control over their financial contributions and cannot bring them in line with other financial arrangements in their authorities. They only have the ability not to pay once the budget has been set.
   SUMMARY
   7. Bristol City Council urges the government through its Red Tape Challenge to revisit the concerns of local authorities by reviewing the legislation on the boundaries, membership and organisational arrangements particularly with regard to those local authorities with New Burdens.Comment Tags: avon, bristol, severn
10. Shaun Krijnen on March 31, 2012 at 9:40 am said:

    I have been a shellfish farmer for 18 years, one of the species I farm is mussels. Mussels are sourced as seed from the wild by means of a seed fishing licence. The process of obtaining the seed licence is by way of annual application using form MUS1. This is sent to my local fishery office, who send it on to the regional office, who send it on to the head office, who send it back to the regional office who send it on to me (Holyhead-milford haven-london-milford haven-me). This process took 3-4 weeks a number of years ago. This process now takes 3-4 months. Why? Well according to the office in London, all and sundry have to be consulted (CCW, Defra, MMO, English nature etc) .

    Permission is granted to obtain seed when availabl, yearly. The seed is located in the same region every year, is harvested in the same manner and to a current code of conduct implemented by our industry, yet the time taken to get the licence is steadily increasing. I appreciate that Wales is now responsible for its own fisheries and may affect the delivery time.

    Despite having the licence to fish for mussels in the selected location, I would need to seek further permission in writing to actually go out and harvest them from my local WG fisheries office in Menai Bridge. The mussel seed resource is a time limited offering. Storms or starfish can result in the total loss of seed in as little as a day, therefore taking nigh on 5 months to get permission to pursue an ongoing activity that is only conducted by those persons having a registered shellfish farm (currently 3 companies here) is disproportionate. It would be nice to have the licence to obtain seed as part of the farm registration so that the decision on when to harvest could be made by the local fishery office, completey doing away with the annual MUS1 fiasco. After all a local fishery officer can assess the local stock better than a man in an office in London.

    PS I still use the MUS1 form it may well have changed to something with the MMO logo on.Comment Tags: Mussel seed fishing
11. Stephen Grant on March 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm said:

    What would improve the this piece of legislation is an unrelenting focus on the core objective, namely “to ensure that we can achieve sustainable fish stocks and a long-term, viable fishing industry in the most effective way”.

    Collapsing stocks are the problem, caused by decades of overfishing. The only respite was the second world war, depth charges included!

    Politicians continually ignore the scientific advice: “72 moratoriums recommended as essential, zero implemented” tells the story.

    As one of the previous responedents commented, “The quota system is a failure. A better system would be to set up protected areas – possibly movable, where no fishing would be allowed at all”.

    The solution must entail a reduction in fishing effort, allied with the introduction of extensive (30-40%) protected areas. An added benefit is that fewer ships and known ‘ no take’ zones would be easier to police than the current distributed quota system.Comment Tags: find your fish, First
12. Mabel Cheung on March 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm said:

    Hard won legislation to protect freshwater, coastal and marine habitats and the environment (such as the Environment Act 1995; The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 and Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) are essential to protect them from harm. Such legislation is also vital to ensure that the environment and biodiversity is maintained for knock-on benefits to human health, recreation and fishing-related industry. Therefore, it is imperative that legislation such as these must not be weakened or removed.
13. Stephen Evans on March 19, 2012 at 9:14 am said:

    All commercial and ‘hobby’ gill netting in inshore waters must be prohibited. Minimum Landing Size (MLS) of bass must be increased. Commercial exploitation of all fish species during their spawning period must be prevented and made a criminal offense. Existing legislation must be enforced and those that choose to ignore the current regulations must be heavily fined – No exemptions or excuses!
14. Alan Deeming on March 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm said:

    There is a general perception of Commercial (sea) fishermen that they are flouting current regulations whenever they feel they can get away with it due to ineffective enforcement.
    To quote Martin Salter’s recent address to the Environmental Audit Select Committee’s inquiry into Wildlife Crime on the 7th March by way of example:-
    “Last month’s prosecution in Scotland of 17 skippers found guilty of illegal catches worth over £62 million puts the Brinks Mat robbery into the shade yet those convicted got off with pathetically weak fines of no more than £80,000 each – representing just a fraction of the illegal profits made from robbing a public resource and damaging an important fishery.
    Furthermore it is clear that a large proportion the commercial sector are intent on short term gains whilst ignoring the long term damage to sustainability of stocks that the scientific community has been warning of for many years.
    Anyone still in denial on the subject of diminishing fish stocks would be well advised to read Professor Callum Roberts book “The Unnatural History of the Sea”.
    Any process of rationalisation or streamlining of current legislation should not be allowed to be high jacked by the commercial fishing industry as a means to allowing them to get away with plundering yet more of our ever diminishing fish stocks.
    I can, of course, fully sympathise with the extreme concern felt by all at the apparent unwillingness of our EU neighbours to enforce even rudimentary conservation measures.
    It needs to be recognised that sea fish stocks belong to the entire population and not just the commercial sector. The UK government has recently been woken up to the fact that the contribution to the UK economy made by Recreational Sea Anglers (RSA) far outweighs that of the commercial fishing industry yet the make up of the newly formed IFCA committees is still biased well in favour of the commercial sector.
    One had hoped that the inclusion of a requirement for conservation as part of the IFCAs terms of reference would have heralded a new attitude towards the maintenance & improvement of fish stocks but current evidence suggests that the commercial representatives are still calling the shots and blocking any additional conservation measures.
    There should also be a review of what species of fin fish are subject to legislation regarding catch limits as well as the targeting of breeding stocks of sporting stocks important to RSAs such as Black Bream.
    One significant area that stands out as needing harmonising is the need to record fin fish catches at no later than the point of landing for all vessels working both within the 6 mile zone controlled by IFCAs and outside as controlled by the MMO.
    RSAs are increasingly adopting catch and release tactics as a means to conservation of stocks that are important to them. There is, however, an element of commercial rod & line fishing for the black economy which needs more effective control all be it that this needs to be seen to be in conjunction with improved enforcement on the entire commercial fleet.
    I think that the bottom line is that unless more is spent on enforcement of regulations relating to catch limits set in full recognition of scientific facts, the commercial sector will continue to decimate our various fin fish stocks to a point where we have complete collapses of stocks such as happened round the Grand BanksComment Tags: conservation, IFCA, seafish stocks
    • Red Tape Challenger on March 15, 2012 at 12:58 pm said:

      Have you got any suggestions about how these issues can be addressed?
    • Shaun Krijnen on March 31, 2012 at 10:38 am said:

      Just a quick point. I have been lead to believe that if i catch cod on a registered vessel I am limited to no more than 50kg/month. If i go out with an unregistered boat there is no limit to what I can catch as long as it is for my personal consumption. These catches will be unrecorded yet are considered insignificant. Fishing forums usually have tales of vessels coming home with substantial landings that would provide someone with a better living than a licenced commercial fisherman, yet only commercial fishermen are the bad boys! 400,000 bass anglers each catching and retaining one fish per week is 20800000 fish per year! Do this to all fish and it makes a difference to stock levels that are being blamed on the commercial sector.

      The shore crab in the UK is in decline and given the numbers of people I see looking for peeler over my local beaches I am not surprised, yet funnily enough the blame is put at the mussel farmers not the persons removing the breeding females for bait! (Crabs can only breed when the female has moulted and is soft).

      The Grands Banks fishermen are probably glad the cod has gone, they make more money from the prawns that are no longer eaten by the cod. But as a point of fisheries managemant the cod over there are now smaller and slower growing as this means they are less likely to be caught. Thus fishing pressure removed the biggest best fish leaving small slow growing behind from which all stocks now originate.

      I have heard of the fishing model that allows the complete removal of all sized fish from a fishery and it doesn’t result in collapse. The reason being that big fish produce bigger and more eggs than small fish. They are better eggs. By leaving more big fish it helps the smaller year classes. Big fish eat small fish thereby reducing the population. This is good as having too many small fish all feeding on the same diet can lead to a food shortage for these fish which begin to starve and not breed. Therefore removing these small fish means the remaining have more food and don’t starve. It is a method of fishing that maintains the population pyramid shape and you will still have big fast growing fish in the population. I think the Faroese adopt this kind of strategy they land everything caught regardless of size and fish overpopulated cohorts to reduce numbers to give the fish in that cohort more food. It makes sense when thought about. The fastest way to destroy a population of anything is to target the best breeders and remove them. It is the CFP management policy that has destroyed fishing in EU waters not the fishermen. Fish quota managemant is bad for fish and bad for fishermen.Comment Tags: conservation, management strategy
15. David Jarrad on March 13, 2012 at 9:54 am said:

    The SAGB will be responding to the RTC in due course, however I wish to comment on this website, following receipt of comments from our members.
    The complexity of this site and the un-user freindly manner in which it is laid out will, I believe negate any meaningful response by many. Is is very difficult to ascertain the relevant legislation that you wish to comment upon. Therefore the majority of comments are generic in nature and NOT legislation specific.
    We are pleased that the deadline for responses has been extended on this important piece of work.
16. Tim Wilson on March 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm said:

    I have been horrified at the (unintended) practices that have flowed from fishing quotas. Stocks of fish are falling whilst we are faced with the travesty of unwanted dead fish being thrown back after catch because they cannot be sold. The quota system is a failure. A better system would be to set up protected areas – possibly movable, where no fishing would be allowed at all. These would form areas of conservation; allow marine life to grow without exploitation; be easier to police and eliminate the travesty of throwing away unwated catches.Comment Tags: fishing; protected; conservation
    • Red Tape Challenger on March 15, 2012 at 12:55 pm said:

      That is an interesting point. How could we do this and balance the impact it would have on the fishing community? What could we do to encourage people to consume or otherwise use the unwanted fish?
17. John Graham on February 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm said:

    I am horrified by the waste, and would urge the government to act on the message from Hugh Fernley- Whittingstall’s program.Comment Tags: want not, waste not
    • Red Tape Challenger on March 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm said:

      We are interested to hear of anything specific you would like us to consider.
18. Peter Hebard on February 20, 2012 at 1:11 am said:

    The Balanced Seas and related local consultations on the designation of MCZs were unique in that it was the first time that the Government had invited local stakeholders to be involved in the designation of Conservation Areas from the very start, rather than comment on a fait accompli when it is too late to change, which is to be welcomed.

    As several presentations at the inaugural conference of the Marine Management Organisation in Plymouth late last year and this year’s Coastal Futures revealed, it is far better to engage with fishermen, recognise their undoubted expertise and work with them to make the best of our marine environment, as has also been proven to work by conservationists in the US.

    Richard Benyon’s approach to do just that and fight hard to ensure the long term sustainability of their business is to be applauded and reflects the wider policy suggested in these submissions.

    It makes eminent sense to provide the good husbandry to foster more fish, rather than just placing yet more restrictions on fishing, although both have an important place in ensuring sustainability. As every farmer appreciates, whilst it is your duty to look after biodiversity in the hedgerows (i.e. the MCZs) your prime purpose is farm the fields (i.e. the sea bed).

    It was significant that, as reported in the conferences, in areas around Scotland and around the Isle of Man, for instance, fishermen are now taking control of their own destiny, commissioning their own research, designating and enforcing their own no-take zones and even laying artificial habitat and seeding areas. Even the Conservation organisations were expressing a preference for marine management, rather than solely for protection.

    Whilst we are excluding fishermen, not only not only from MCZs but from wind farms and aggregate dredging sites, etc, the expertise exists in such organizations as the National Oceanography Centre, to make our remaining seas more productive to compensate them at least partially for lost fishing grounds, through laying artificial reefs, seeding shellfisheries or other proactive measures.

    Prototypes in Poole Bay for instance, have been proved highly successful and benign over decades. Far from being a threat to the environment they can help to foster biodiversity to and more could be laid at negative cost. The Wreck-to-Reef project is even more visionary in that it includes oto only a sunken ship for the benefit commercial fishermen, Sea Angling and Dive boats but a rock reef seeded with lobsters and a separate Biodiversity reef too.

    The Solent was the largest Oyster Fishery in Europe just a decade or so ago. Shellfisheries are still very successful export and are reputed to be the best way to feed the world. Across the Channel, Brest Scallop fisheries are highly productive and fully sustainable whilst ours are often fished out and a plan to develop the largest offshore mussel fishery in Europe has had to undergo years of environmental and other impact assessments.

    Equally the Crown Estate is looking at farming seaweed for bio fuels and pharmaceutical feed stocks, which may well provide productive feeding grounds for fin fish.

    Rather than seeking to co-locate Marine Conservation Areas, with all the regulatory imposition and inconvenience that would impose on the operators, it would make sense to ask them to customize the scour protectors. cable runs and exclusion areas to provide habitat for fish catches. Since they will have to be “no take” zones it is important to make them as productive as possible, hopefully fostering biodiversity as well.

    As highlighted in a more comprehensive response by the undersigned under Flood and Coastal Erosion, our marine and coastal environment offers the opportunity for far faster Economic Regeneration than its industrial counterparts and the recently announced Coastal Communities Fund will hopefully allow local communities to demonstrate the widest range of employment opportunities, whilst helping to fund environmental management.

    The Marine Management Organisation is working hard to develop marine plans, which are important, but they are again a restrictive process. What is also needed is a parallel proactive management process to make the best of our seabed and the change of mindset to harness the productivity of each area and realize the potential so or ever possible source of revenue or side benefit, such as the “ecosystem services” that our scientists are now starting to highlight.

    Whereas the cost of such proactive management might at first seem prohibitive, the key is to identify multiple benefits and sources of funding. For example, a coastal sub-surface reef could be tailored to provide spawning ground for a local fish catches, cuttlefish perhaps, and nursery area for others, as they have been proven to do in the Southern Hemisphere. It could provide recreation for surfers and or eco-tourism for scuba divers, whilst retaining beach replenishment or delaying coastal erosion.

    The effect on real estate values can be verY powerful, such that on the Gold Coast, Australia, for instance, every Australian Dollar has been shown to return fifty to the local economy, Narrowneck reef has reduced the demand for beach replenishment markedly and therefore for the marine aggregate dredging that is so damaging to our sea beds and hated by fishermen.

    There are now far more cost effective ways of building much larger such reefs far more cost-effectively and they may even provide the base for a more survivable form of wave energy generation now under development.

    Similarly, training walls have been used in past centuries to ensure harbour entrances remain self-dredging but they can also provide productive habitat for fin and shellfish.

    The techniques of agitation dredging are only just starting to be fully understood but allowing shellfish dredgers to dredge channels and unwanted sandbanks and perhaps seeding them to encourage them to do so, can be a very useful way of reducing dredging costs, as, once agitated, the sediment on the channel bank or bed tends to remain fluid for some hours or even days and flows out to sea under the tide.

    To sum up, rather than revision of the regulations alone, it is the change in mindset amongst the regulators that is most needed and a shift in the balance of their priorities, from imposing restrictions to providing advice on proactive measures to make our seas more productive.

    It is encouraging that the IFCAs and the MMO are working towards that end but there are still pressures from leading personnel in the older established agencies to focus on enforcement, when engagement and more proactive measures have now been proven irrefutably to offer far better returns for both the Marine Economy and its Environment.

    [Deleted Text]Comment Tags: Crown Estate, fisheries, MMO, reefs, shellfisheries
    • John Catchpole on February 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm said:

      Thank you Peter Hebard for your analysis of the fishing industry. Unfortunately we are all suffering from the governments of the day that in conjunction with the EU managed to destroy a valuable industry which supported many communities around the UK seaboard. Unfortunately the British invented cricket with an honour code unrecognised by many europeans. Without the common fisheries policy the allowing of EU members being able to fish lucrative waters close to the UK and in general making the fisheries rule which we as brits simply obeyed to our cost, continentals happily carried on taking undersized fish as had been the habit of a lifetime. It was not a uncommon sight to see the wheel house of a Belguin trawler with undersized plaice drying on top. I have walked around French fishing ports and found fishstalls selling well undersized fish .
      My suggestion would be to opt out of the fisheries laws and go back to control of our own waters. There is a shipyard in Gt Yarmouth well capable of building new ships, fishdocks and the means to train crews. The infrastucture is still there why not use it to our advantage.Comment Tags: Water and Marine Sea Fisheries
    • Peter Hebard on March 4, 2012 at 9:08 pm said:

      I agree, John Catchpole, but Richard Benyon, I think, is dealing with the art of the possible in his dealings with the EU. Taking back control of our own waters, much as we would all like to see it happen, is a long way off.

      In the meantime, there is much that can be done to rationalise our own UK regulators and change their mindsets, from making life difficult for our fishermen and others active in the Marine Environment, to helping to make their businesses more successful, challenging and empowering them to take control of their own destiny and persuading other major players to assist them by providing Artificial Habitat and good husbandry to make our seas more productive, particularly in any exclusion zones around their installations To use a farming analogy, the Marine Conservation Zones, soon to be confirmed, may become “hedgerows” to foster biodiversity but all the other exclusion zones imposed on fishermen from those around wind farms and oil rigs to the deserts left after aggregate dredging can be made to foster the fish the fishermen can the catch around them . Thereafter, it will be important to take every measure to farm the ” fields” in between or at least take some proactive but sympathetic measures to maximise their long term sustainable productivity..

      The pilot Voluntary Marine Plan for Dorset C- Scope Project has been compiled with just such an objective and is a highly constructive document. Sadly the MMO may have been launched with the same aspiration – to make the best of our marine resources -, However, the regulatory requirements of the Marine and Coastal Access Act requires them to consult every ill-informed “Top-Down” agency and comply with many overlying EU directives and related UK Legislation, which renders it virtually impossible to identify any opportunity for constructive collaboration between local stakeholders, still less to give locals a chance to take the lead or indeed fulfil David Cameron’s aspiration s for “Localism”. Right now the priority must be for Economic Regeneration and our coastline and seabed offer some of the fastest and best opportunities to achieve that.

      It must be every government agency’s prime task to foster that, in addition to any other responsibilities . Since most opportunities to do so depend upon the sustainable exploitation of their environment, locals are as keen as anyone to look after it and no amount Bureaucratic interference will will help.

      Once fishermen can see help on the horizon and sensible proactive measures that they believe will work, they are far more likely to comply with those regulations still needed. Right now we all know there are pirates and many fishermen know how to outwit those regulators for whom they have least respect, but their fellow fishermen know better then any regulator what they are up to and in the end the best fleets police themselves.

      It does not take much when you are next in a French fish market , a flash with your phone to Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall’s and Richard Benyon’s Twitter accounts. Job done!

      Simplistic I admit but not so very far from how some overseas fleets have succeeded by working with the regulators, rather than against them.Comment Tags: Economic Regeneration, fishing, Marine Environment, productivity
19. dave clayton on February 19, 2012 at 9:33 am said:

    the red tape is causing endless issues and has become unworkable, due to stupid amounts of paperwork and EU interference and bad management and backroom deals. give the UK fleet self control and get EU boats out of our watersComment Tags: EU bad
    • Red Tape Challenger on February 20, 2012 at 9:01 am said:

      Thanks for your comment. Can you be more specific about which paperwork you find overly burdonsome?
20. Beshlie on February 18, 2012 at 10:48 am said:

    I would like to see legislation aimed at commercial fishermen applied to anglers too. Recreational and sport angling is affecting our fish stocks. One example would be the Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990, which prohibits the use of sand eels as bait for fishing vessels (this includes a man in a boat with a rod). Sand eels can be used as bait in the same area by anglers, which seems somewhat unfair.

    There are several incidences of this in legislation and in the age of promoting sustainability, the Government needs a blanket policy, not one which alienates the commercial sector.
    • Brian on April 5, 2012 at 5:02 pm said:

      This is misleading and inaccurate, which is a shame because I suspect it has come from the Marine Management Organisation.

      Sand eels can only be used by anglers fishing from the shore, not from a vessel. Therefore the order applies to everyone fishing from a vessel.

      The Bass Nursery Areas (as they are known) were largely driven by the recreational sector and represent one of the few conservation measures there are for this non quota species.

      The fishing mortality from recreational shore anglers in these areas in minimal as most anglers respect the request that even bass caught from the shore are not targeted or retained in these areas.

      Maybe the prohibition of fishing order should be extended to cover the netting of all finfish species using these areas as nursery grounds. This would facilitate enforcement significantly.

      The fact that there are virtually no measures that have ever been taken to enhance or develop the recreational fishing sector is an indication that it is this group of stakeholders who have been alienated over the years — not the commercial sector!