|
THE fishing industry in South East England must prepare itself for a dialogue with fisheries managers at individual site level on marine protection zones.
That was the clear message sent out from the NFFO’s South East Committee when it met in Shoreham, Sussex recently.
The NFFO said there was recognition that a handful of local representatives had worked tirelessly to ensure that their voice was heard in the Balanced Seas regional project but it was agreed that there was still much to do to defend access to critical fishing areas.
Before the recommended marine conservation zones are confirmed by ministers and management measures applied within them, it was vital that fisheries managers sat down with the vessel operators potentially affected. The experience of Lyme Bay had ecome a byword of how not to introduce marine protected areas in a heavy handed, top-down, rushed and brutal way on the basis of patchy evidence. If the mistakes of the Lyme Bay were to be avoided there had to be detailed discussions on a site-by-site basis to find the right balance between protecting the vulnerable feature - and allowing fishing to continue within the area. Often some kind of zoning provides the solution.
The Committee believed this required the industry as a whole, to identify the main fisheries in each candidate marine protection area ( MPA) and to select individuals from each of the main gear groups who can engage with the decision-makers.
The NFFO in discussions with Defra, the MMO, and Natural England have been led to believe that the management authorities are keen to develop this approach so there is a heavy responsibility on the industry to organise itself.
"One possible obstacle to the consensual and thorough approach to management measures within marine protected areas, advocated by the NFFO and the MPA Fishing Coalition, lay in the emergence of an adversarial legal strand within some of the more aggressive environmental NGOs.
“The recent letter from Client Earth/ Marine Conservation Society to the MMO, threatening legal action unless all fishing is banned from European SACs in UK waters, pending prolonged and costly impact assessments, opens the real threat of displacement from fishing grounds at an early stage and on a huge scale. This has been one of the MPA Fishing Coalition’s main fears from the outset, as large scale displacement will have serious ecological, as well as economic and social consequences - if a legal challenge is successful.
"We are confident that the MMO has more than sufficient arguments to counter such a blunt and aggressive approach but experience tells us that the law works in mysterious ways and this import from the USA is very unwelcome. There can be no guarantee that a court (at least in the first stages of an action) would not be persuaded to support such a step. Although the threat of legal action is initially focused on the introduction of European Natura sites, this litigious approach could equally be applied to domestic marine conservation zones under the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act. The South East Committee took full account of this unwelcome development."
More than a few fishermen expressed surprise at the work that is going on within the Federation on their behalf. It was agreed that there was a two-way communications problem and it was hoped that the new invigorated South East Committee would go some way to resolving this.
Should people be 'stimulated' to eat white fish alternatives to cod?
