23 January 2009
Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca-Davies gave the fishing industry clear assurances on its central involvement in the process of designating marine conservation zones, at a recent meeting with industry representatives.
Officials alongside the Minister indicated that there was no question of the Government agreeing to a target of 30% or any other arbitrary percentage of the marine environment to be set aside as marine protection zones. The Government would proceed carefully and thoroughly.
The Minister emphasised the Government’s commitment to establishing a network of ecologically coherent marine conservation zones but stressed that this needed to be done in engagement with stakeholders, particularly the fishing industry, who potentially have most to lose.
The powers to establish MCZs are enshrined in the Marine Bill currently passing through Parliament. MCZs will complement the European Special Areas of Conservation required under the Habitats Directive. Both would mean defined areas in which particular features would be protected. Protection could range from some fairly light management activities, up to complete closure. Some environmental lobbyists have called for 30% of the marine environment to be closed to fishing.
The Government’s statutory advisors on conservation Natural England (0-6 miles) and JNCC (6 to 200 miles to the median line) have been given the task of identifying areas for designation as MCZs.
At the meeting the NFFO stressed the following points:
- Objectives There is a lack of clarity in what MCZs are for. Certainly the claims made about their capacity to rebuild commercial fish stocks are hugely overblown and mainly depend on evidence from tropical reef fisheries whose relevance to most of the species found in our waters is slight. We accept that MCZs have a role to play in protecting marine biodiversity but they should only be introduced:
- After a baseline study has identified what is in the area
- After clear objectives are set
- After arrangements are put in place to monitor the area to see if the objectives are being met
- After a clear exit strategy is agreed in the event that the area serves no purpose
- Impact on Fishing. It is essential that the fishing industry at both regional and national levels is given a central say in the design and location of MCZs because fishing activity is more dispersed than say oil or aggregate extraction and the impact on livelihoods is therefore likely to be greater than in any other sector affected by MCZs and marine spatial planning generally.
- Sincerity. If the Government is serious about working collaboratively with the fishing industry in establishing a network of MCZs, whilst minimising the adverse impact of fishing livelihoods as much as possible, it has to build trust and confidence in the process. At present we are receiving very mixed messages from the upper and middle echelons of Natural England. Whilst the middle level officials were talking of working collaboratively with the fishing industry, very senior officers in NE had used very wild and extreme language to describe the environmental impact of fishing to justify MCZs. Doubtless this is about sending different signals to different audiences but it undermines the fishing industry’s confidence in the process. The complete lack of transparency and bullying approach in the Lyme Bay closure has already seriously undermined confidence in Natural England’s approach.
- Information. If a collaborative approach is to work in the establishment of MCZs it must start with the information used to designate sites. Currently, various projects are being used to map fishing activity as a prelude for marine spatial planning. These include a Cefas/dredging industry collaboration and the Round III wind-farm planning exercise. If there is a genuine will to ensure that fishing interests are protected as far as possible, the industry should be involved, not just in the regional projects that will make recommendations on the designation of sites but in oversight of the information used to identify potential sites. Mapping fishing activity is a complex process and even with VMS data, interpretation is required by people who know what is happening below the surface of the data. A forum is required which allows all stakeholder groups to review the quality and meaning of the spatial data being collected. Without a consensus on the relevance and accuracy of this data it will be very difficult, at the next stage, to arrive at a consensus on the location of MCZs.
- Displacement. The most critical aspect of designating MCZs is the recognition that in some (perhaps many) areas fishing activity will be displaced from where it has customarily taken place. Notwithstanding the fact that the management regimes within MCZs will range from the light to complete closure, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. The first step must be to design the MCZs to minimise their impact whilst still achieving their objectives. Where fishing effort is displaced, there can be two consequences:
- For vessels of limited range, displacement could mean loss of livelihoods and in the most extreme of circumstances, the economic viability of whole communities could be undermined
- Where vessels are capable of moving fishing grounds there is a real prospect that unless care is taken displacement could lead increasing environmental damage outside the MCZ. The Dogger Bank provides an example where displacement would force beam trawlers from a low discard fishery to a high discard areas, with an overall increase in environmental impact.
These examples demonstrate that overall coherence and minimising unintended consequences should be central tenets is establishing MCZs and both require close cooperation with the fishing industry.
- Negotiating the Boundaries of MCZs It is vitally important that there is scope for the fishing industry to negotiate the boundaries of a MCZ. Often it is possible to find an accommodation that affords protection to whatever feature is deemed to require it without impacting on fishing activities. This is only possible if there is a built in flexibility that allows this type of negotiation to tale place.
- Transparency, Trust and Confidence should be the basis for moving forward with MCZs
A national Stakeholders Group will now be established to complement the work of the regional projects and the NFFO will use this platform to scrutinise the process though which MCZs will be established and to hold ministers, and their statutory advisors to account for any departure from the assurances given at the meeting.