Government needs ‘Sea Use Framework’ and targeted funding to rebuild fishing communities’ trust, say MPs
|
The EFRA Committee today publishes its report, ‘Resetting the
relationship with fishing communities', outlining how the
Government can help the UK fishing
industry thrive after a number of unforced
errors. The report (available online) highlights a
lack of trust and understanding between fishing
communities and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), following the perceived shortcomings...Request free trial
The EFRA Committee today publishes its report, ‘Resetting the relationship with fishing communities', outlining how the Government can help the UK fishing industry thrive after a number of unforced errors. The report (available online) highlights a lack of trust and understanding between fishing communities and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), following the perceived shortcomings of the UK's agreement of a 12-year reciprocal access deal with the EU. Fishing communities are concentrated in a small number of seaside towns and cities but are vital to the economies and identities of those places, MPs heard. The cross-party Committee makes recommendations on how a productive relationship can be forged through effective administration of the new Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund and sending officials to work and mix with fishers in their communities. It also recommends the creation of a Sea Use Framework and regional strategies to help the sector and others operate with long-term certainty along the UK's spatially challenged waters. The Marine Management Organisation must also return to publishing enforcement data, after its abandonment of this standard of transparency fuelled mistrust. A summary of the report's conclusions and recommendations is included below. EFRA Committee Chair Alistair Carmichael MP said: “DEFRA's Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund stands a chance of doing real, lasting good in fishing communities where morale and trust, after successive governments, is as low as the sea floor. But it was to our surprise that the Department seemed unable to answer fundamental questions on how and why the Fund was set up in the way that it is. “Alongside the botched communication with the sector about new technical regulations for 2026, these examples depict DEFRA as a ship without a sail, and somewhat divorced from the sector it is supposed to serve. “There is a litany of clumsy communication and a lack of engagement and transparency. In this report, we make recommendations to help the Department rebuild bridges with fishing firms and help secure the sector's future. We would like to see its officials dispatched regularly to coastal communities to better understand the fishing trade and the real-life implications of DEFRA's work. “We also believe the Government needs to be more assertive in the management of the UK's marine space by producing a Sea Use Framework, in a similar vein as DEFRA's recent Land Use Framework. With this and all work streams, the voices of working coastal communities must be at the heart of government policy making.” A ‘Sea Use Framework' The UK's coastline is being squeezed by competing demands for new energy infrastructure and conservation of marine ecosystems. Fishing risks gradually being crowded out. Between DEFRA and The Crown Estate, which owns 103,400 square miles seabed around the UK, there is also a lack of coherent governance of the sea floor. Recommendation: After recently publishing its Land Use Framework, the Committee calls on DEFRA to develop a ‘Sea Use Framework', with the same aim of providing direction on suitable activities along the coastline. This must be developed collaboratively and place fishing and coastal communities at its heart. It should include a formal mechanism enabling coastal communities to participate in decisions that affect them, and should address the use of the seabed, the shore, and the wider marine environment. The Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund DEFRA has not clearly explained the rationale for committing £360 million over 12 years to the new Fund, for investments in projects such as skills training and port infrastructure. Whilst the Fund was welcomed, it was seen by some fishers as a “consolation” offered by the Government after it signed a 12-year EU reciprocal access deal that was criticised for disadvantaging the UK fishing industry. No alternative explanation has been given for why the Fund's 12-year period matches the reciprocal access deal, or for its size. Recommendations:
How will the Fund be allocated to nations? There has been criticism of the Government's use of the Barnett Formula to allocate the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund between the UK nations. In Scotland there has been frustration that its fishing sector will receive 8% (£28m) of the fund, using the Barnett formula. This is despite more than half of the UK's entire catch being attributed to Scotland's fishers. England's share over the 12 years will be £304m. Asked why the Barnett formula was used, the then Secretary of State told the Committee that the Scottish Government insisted that administration of the Fund be devolved. He said the Barnett formula was therefore chosen as it is the standard method of allocating funding between the nations. The Committee's report states that it is not credible for a devolved administration to complain about its funding allocation after insisting that the Fund was devolved. Recommendation: the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved governments on the design and allocation of the Fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year two. Seafish should be used to support a coherent UK-wide approach. Communities not included in discussions The Committee was surprised to learn that a list of locations which DEFRA officials consulted with whilst developing the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund did not include any communities in Cornwall – the local authority area with England's largest fishing industry. Other prominent locations such as Brixham were also not included. Recommendation:
Rebuilding trust after regulations mix-up During a visit to Brixham, MPs met fishers and local representatives who spoke of the detrimental impacts of rising regulatory demands, fragmented policymaking and limited engagement with DEFRA. Those operating smaller vessels or businesses said the administrative burden was increasingly unmanageable, with some indicating they may quit the industry. Trust had been badly damaged by confusion and poor communication over regulatory changes introduced since Brexit. A recent example was when the sector was initially left with only six months to prepare for technical changes resulting from the annual UK–EU consultations for 2026. Further confusion arose when Ministers announced a longer lead-in time for the changes, which was not communicated to the Marine Management Organisation. Recommendations:
Regional seafood planning DEFRA has been trialling regional seafood planning, where, in four geographical areas, local fishing businesses and communities will be able to shape a strategy to support growth and sustainability, with the possibility that the plans could support funding bids to the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. Recommendations:
Publishing enforcement data Another issue that has damaged trust with DEFRA and fuelled suspicion was the MMO's decision to cease routinely publishing inspection and enforcement data. Since the Committee's evidence session with the MMO in January 2025, the organisation is now developing a plan to routinely publish its enforcement activity. It will also “look to engage stakeholders as part of this review to confirm which of this data will be valuable and relevant.” Recommendation: As well as routinely publishing inspection and enforcement data going forward, the MMO should also publish data for the last three years so that meaningful comparisons can be made. How the Committee produced this report The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on extensive evidence gathering with the sector, experts and relevant stakeholders.
|