194. Our principal conclusions and recommendations
are as follows:
1. Our own conclusions
based on this inquiry suggest five essential objectives of any
fisheries management system. It should:
- promote sustainability of resources, to safeguard
the long term success of both the stocks and the industry;
- ensure that the stocks are exploited in the
most efficient way, so that fishermen are not drawn into a race
for fish;
- encourage the profitability and competitiveness
of the fishing industry from vessel to retailer;
- minimise both the cost to the public purse
and the level of Government intervention; and
- minimise the complexity of regulation while
maximising the responsibility for that process given to the industry
consistent with securing compliance.
In some of these respects we are not our own masters,
being dependent, particularly for the second, on European decisions
under the Common Fisheries Policy. Yet there are other important
criteria which the Government should consider, such as rationalising
the fleet, securing a way of life for the more vulnerable fishing
communities where there are few alternative sources of employment,
and maintaining fishing centres with the necessary concentration
of services and facilities. These depend upon the Government first
deciding on the type of industry it wishes to see and the level
of intervention it wishes to retain. We support the concept of
regulation by the industry itself as far as is consistent with
the acknowledgement that there is a common interest in protecting
the sea and its resources. However, our overriding concern is
that the Government establish a settled, transparent long-term
strategy for management of fisheries which takes into account
the competitive position compared to other EU countries and within
which the industry can plan, confident that any necessary changes
will apply equally and be introduced fairly, with proper consultation
and with regard to clear and agreed objectives. There is a very
bright future for the UK sea fishing industry and the Government
has to play its part in helping to bring this about (paragraph
3).
2. We recommend that the Government establish
for the first time a clear, agreed and coherent strategy for the
management and development of the UK fishing industry which will
unite all concerned in working towards greater efficiency and
competitiveness (paragraph 193).
Economic research
3. We recommend that the Government commission
regular research into the profitability of the sea fishing industry
for use in determining management policy (paragraph 13).
Advice on TACs
4. We recommend that the Government encourage
ICES to present its advice on TACs in a more generally comprehensible
form and to improve its efforts to communicate the advice to the
fishing industry (paragraph 19).
5. We recommend the formal inclusion of economic
analysis of the implications of TACs and national quota allocations
at an earlier stage in the annual cycle. However, we caution strongly
against the temptation to use economic and social criteria to
"invent fish" in the interests of the political convenience
either of Ministers or the industry (paragraph 20).
6. We recommend that the Government support
the European Commission's proposals for earlier notification of
the recommendations for TACs so that the fishing industry has
more time to prepare for changes in quota. In the longer term,
we recommend that TACs be set on a multi-annual basis where stocks
are not threatened (paragraph 21).
The precautionary approach
7. Whilst we endorse the precautionary approach
to fisheries management, we believe that much more planning, consultation
and forethought should have been put into its implementation by
the ACFM. As it is, we deplore the damage done to the relationship
between scientists and fishermen by the abrupt introduction of
this method and we recommend that the Government ensure that any
future changes in the approach, as are inevitable as the system
beds down, be made only once they have been fully explained to
the industry and its views taken into consideration (paragraph
26).
Co-ordination of research programmes
8. We believe that with devolution altering
the management of some of the programmes it would be wise to review
arrangements for co-ordination of fisheries research in the UK
to make sure duplication does not occur. We recommend that this
be done (paragraph 28).
Collaborative research
9. We were reassured by the evidence of international
collaboration between scientists. Given the international concern
for the sustainability of stocks and the recognition that the
principles of fisheries management extend beyond domestic boundaries,
it is vital that scientists work together to improve their knowledge
of the sea and to develop the least environmentally damaging methods
of catching fish. We are pleased that the UK is playing such a
strong role in collaborative research (paragraph 29).
Funding of research
10. We recommend that MAFF guarantee funding
for research into fish stocks of at least current levels for the
remainder of this Comprehensive Spending Review period and that
it give an undertaking that funding for such research will remain
a priority thereafter (paragraph 35).
Multi-species modelling
11. We recommend that multi-species research
be applied more thoroughly in waters around the United Kingdom
other than the North Sea (paragraph 38).
Research into new fisheries
12. We believe that it should be part of
the role of CEFAS and FRS to assist in the development of new
fishing grounds through proper stock assessments. We also believe
that as part of that research the scientists should ensure that
the environmental impact of fishing for new species or in new
grounds should be taken fully into account (paragraph 39).
Future research needs
13. We recommend that MAFF commission a study
of the research needed to fulfil the UK's obligations on stock
assessments over the next ten years, taking into account developing
fisheries, the existing number of precautionary TACs and new,
more accurate methods of conducting such research. We further
recommend that this study include comparisons with the funding
and scope of CEFAS's counterparts in the other EU and ICES member
states and that it highlight areas where further collaboration
might be encouraged (paragraph 41).
Fishermen and scientists
14. We recommend that MAFF consult with the
scientific community and the fishing industry on the best way
to establish a permanent formal procedure for collaboration and
consultation on fisheries research. We further recommend that
MAFF encourage its counterparts in Scotland, Northern Ireland
and Wales to participate in developing such procedures (paragraph
49).
15. We conclude that, although in the present
circumstances it would not be appropriate to charge the industry
for research, fishermen's organisations should be encouraged to
invest in their own scientific projects and be assisted in applications
for European funding for this purpose (paragraph 50).
MAGP
16. We recommend that the Government fully
support any proposals for stronger sanctions on Member States
to ensure compliance with MAGP targets and for greater transparency
as to the cost of restructuring measures to public funds in the
different Member States (paragraph 57).
Safety at sea
17. We conclude that the linkage between
an ageing fleet and an unsafe fleet is unproven but we recommend
that further research be conducted in this area and the results
published and distributed to the fishing industry. Safety at sea
is vitally important. The existing data do not sustain a case
for the industry to be given public money for building new vessels
on safety grounds alone (paragraph 63).
18. We recommend that the vessel safety equipment
grant scheme be reinstated (paragraph 71).
Grants for new build
19. We have sympathy with the complaints
of the industry about the money received by their counterparts
in other EU states for building new vessels. We support the Government
in its attempts to tighten up the rules for such assistance. Nevertheless,
we do not recommend that the Government adopt an industry-wide
scheme to aid the construction of new fishing vessels, whether
or not under a scrap and build approach (paragraph 75).
20. We recommend that any publicly-financed
grant scheme for the modernisation of vessels working within low-impact
fisheries meet the criteria of the continual reduction of fishing
capacity in line with available fish stocks, safety, the sustainability
of the fishing method, and that short-term targeted assistance
would be effective (paragraph 76).
Licences and quota
21. We recommend that MAFF provide clear
guidance on the legal title to licences and quota in the context
of transactions between individuals and/or organisations (paragraph
86).
22. We believe that there is a strong case
for taking certain low-impact fisheries such as mackerel hand-lining
out of the quota system altogether which would encourage new entrants,
and we urge MAFF to examine this possibility with care (paragraph
97).
23. We recommend that, in conjunction with
representatives of the fishing industry, the Government devise
proposals for managing the existing trade in licences and quota,
with a view to introducing them as a matter of urgency (paragraph
101).
24. We recommend that the Government consult
the fishing industry on the merits and drawbacks of tradeable
quotas and the most appropriate form for their introduction in
the UK, including the future management role of the POs and the
extent of safeguards, for example to protect fishing-dependent
communities, and report on the outcome of these consultations
within a year (paragraph 101).
No take zones and closed areas
25. We support the principle of no take zones
and closed areas and we recommend that MAFF sympathetically consider
and encourage research into specific proposals brought forward
by the industry. However, we emphasise that under the CFP these
measures would have to be non-discriminatory and apply to all
vessels not just UK fishing. They would therefore have to be agreed
on a European basis (paragraph 106).
Non-profit sale of over-quota fish
26. We recommend that MAFF examine the feasibility
and effectiveness of introducing in the UK a similar system to
the Icelandic arrangements for the non-profit sale of over-quota
fish (paragraph 108).
Discards
27. We recommend that MAFF consider measures
to reduce discards through more flexible quota management and
that it continue to promote within Europe the use of more selective
fishing gear (paragraph 109).
Devolution
28. We recommend that the Government attend
to the publication of the concordat on fisheries management as
a matter of urgency (paragraph 111).
Fisheries management
29. We recommend that the jurisdiction of
the Sea Fisheries Committees and the Environment Agency be reviewed
to ensure consistency of approach within individual fisheries
(paragraph 112).
30. We recommend that the Government set
out its objectives for the future role of POs, including the devolvement
of further responsibilities in order to streamline the management
process, taking into account the cost and ability of POs to take
on those responsibilities, and the position of the non-sector
fleet. Duplication of tasks between willing POs and MAFF should
be eliminated, subject to appropriate audit checks (paragraph
115).
Electronic communications
31. We recommend that the Government make
more use of electronic communications in licence issues, particularly
with regard to the single licence rule for the pelagic fleet (paragraph
118).
Regulations
32. We recommend that the Government prepare
an audit of all regulations and their compliance costs relating
to the UK fishing fleet and that this work be used as a database
which can be updated to provide accurate and accessible information
on the regulatory burden when considering new measures. We also
recommend that similar audits and databases be established for
compliance costs with regulations in each of England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland (paragraph 119).
33. We recommend that the Government either
commission itself or bring pressure to bear on the European Commission
to initiate research into the comparative costs to the fishing
industry of compliance with the regulatory framework in the different
Member States, of other charges pressing on it and the comparative
levels of support (paragraph 120).
34. We recommend that UK diplomatic posts
be charged with monitoring the means of implementing EU directives
and the costs pressing on the industry in other Member States
and that this information be disseminated to the UK industry.
Where there are clear discrepancies in approach, the UK Government
should provide an explanation for the additional requirements
it has introduced, although the presumption should always be in
favour of ensuring UK fishermen are treated equally with their
counterparts in other Member States. The approach to regulation
should always be guided by the principles we set out in paragraph
3 of this Report (paragraph 122).
35. We recommend that the Government continue
to review all regulations imposed on the fishing industry with
a view to ensuring that the regulatory system be streamlined and
restrictions removed unless there is reason for their continuance
consistent with the objectives we have set. However, we recommend
the continuation of the designated ports scheme as a means of
concentrating the industry and ensuring more effective management
(paragraph 131).
Satellite monitoring
36. We recommend that if the satellite monitoring
requirements are extended to vessels under 24 metres in length
the Government either take up any EU funding available to subsidise
the installation of the necessary equipment by the industry or
produce reductions in the regulatory burden on fishermen to balance
the costs (paragraph 127).
Infringements
37. We recommend that the Government commission
a review of how the prosecution process for fishing offences could
be made more efficient, more speedy and more consistent (paragraph
136).
38. We recommend that the penalties for serious
breaches of fisheries regulations be increased and that information
tables be published on the fines levied in different courts to
ensure common levels of charges. We also recommend that licences
be revoked for second offences (paragraph 136).
Enforcement in other EU Member States
39. We recommend that to increase transparency
the Government propose that the European Commission speed up publication
of its reports on enforcement so that both areas of difficulty
and improvements, in general and in individual Member States,
are highlighted in a timely fashion (paragraph 139).
40. We urge the Commission to ensure more
regular inspections of European port practices and to produce
an annual report to the European Parliament (paragraph 139).
41. We recommend that MAFF encourage reciprocal
visits by fishermen to other Member States in order to build up
trust between fishermen and to encourage the sense of a common
purpose. Furthermore, we recommend that the Government promote
visits by its own regulators to other Member States to exchange
knowledge on best practice. We also recommend that the Government
monitor the standards of enforcement applied in the Member States
through its embassies and rigorously pursue any breaches with
the European Commission (paragraph 141).
Enforcement in the UK
42. We conclude that in general the UK is
providing an acceptable standard of enforcing regulations and
that it has taken steps to address areas of weakness identified
by the European Commission (paragraph 142).
43. The Minister pointed out that enforcement
"is about sustainable management." This message has
to be brought home to the industry but this can only be achieved
where there is trust between the two sides. We can offer no easy
solutions to this problem, only a reiteration of our conviction
that the Government must set out a clear framework for its strategy
on fisheries and must work with the industry to ensure parity
of treatment within the EU. It should also seek to transfer a
proportion of the regulatory task to fishermen so that ownership
of the process is genuinely shared (paragraph 143).
Sea Fisheries Committees
44. We recommend that MAFF initiate a full
review of the powers of the Sea Fisheries Committees and publish
it together with a timetable for any necessary action (paragraph
147).
45. We recommend that the funding arrangements
for Sea Fisheries Committees be re-examined in order to establish
a secure, permanent financial framework within which they can
plan and perform their duties (paragraph 149).
46. We recommend that the Ministry investigate
the powers available to Sea Fisheries Committees and other local
management bodies to take action on environmental grounds and
publish proposals for consultation on action needed to close the
loopholes (paragraph 150).
Coastal and zonal management
47. We recommend that the Government publish
outline proposals within the next twelve months for the introduction
of coastal and zonal management of fisheries which should involve
the management of research, monitoring of activities and common
regulatory processes (paragraph 153).
6 and 12 mile limits
48. We of course welcome the reassurance
by the European Commission and others that the 6 and 12 mile limits
will be carried over into any future shape the CFP might take
and we fully support the retention of the 6 and 12 mile limits
after 2002 (paragraph 154).
Electronic auctions
49. We recommend that SFIA undertake a campaign
aimed at the industry and port officials to persuade them of the
benefits of electronic auctions and that guidance be given where
necessary on the updating of the grading equipment (paragraph
159).
Marketing of UK fish
50. We recommend that the SFIA, in consultation
with the industry and taking account of the views of supermarkets,
devise a marketing strategy to cover the catching sector through
to the suppliers with the aim of increasing the competitiveness
of the UK fishing industry (paragraph 169).
51. We recommend that a forum be established
under the auspices of the SFIA to bring together retailers and
merchants and industry representatives on a regular basis to discuss
how both sides can adjust to the needs and concerns of each other
(paragraph 169).
52. We recommend that a separate working
group be established to focus on areas of difficulty and opportunity
for UK fish sales to the catering sector. (paragraph 169).
53. We recommend that the marketing, processing
and port facilities scheme be reinstated in order to enhance the
competitiveness of the UK sea fishing industry (paragraph 169).
54. We recommend that the Government together
with the SFIA and the Food Standards Agency initiate a campaign
to promote the perception of fish as a healthy, convenient meal
option for all ages (paragraph 172).
SFIA levy
55. We recommend that the Government consider
extending liability for paying the SFIA levy to the aquaculture
sector (paragraph 181).
Urban Waste Water Directive
56. The availability of grants in other EU
Member States to help processors there meet the requirements of
the Urban Waste Water Directive seems to us a clear-cut case of
the UK industry being disadvantaged in a competitive market. Unlike
fishermen with quotas, merchants and processors are not guaranteed
a percentage share of the market and they are forced to compete
with their counterparts in other Member States for the custom
of supermarkets and caterers. The impact of the charges on their
competitiveness does not even appear to have been assessed by
the Government (paragraph 188).
57. It is essential that the imposition of
the increased charges on processors by the water authorities be
delayed, and then only phased in, to give the industry time to
develop alternatives and to minimise waste (paragraph 189).
Fisheries education
58. We commend the far-sighted proposal for
a National Institute of Fisheries in Grimsby to the Government
and urge MAFF to explore with the Department for Education and
Employment the possibility of establishing such an Institute,
to provide for the whole fishing industry a similar range of training,
research, advisory and scientific study to that provided by the
North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland and national institutions
in other EU countries (paragraph 192).
