DEFRA REJECTS SEA USE FRAMEWORK

Defra rejects Sea Use Framework and claims fishing engagement causing ‘stakeholder fatigue’ in response to MPs’ report.

• Government response branded a ‘face saving exercise’ and criticised by EFRA Chair and National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO).

The EFRA Committee has published the government’s response to its report, Resetting the relationship with fishing communities.

The response rejects MPs’ recommendations on developing a Sea Use Framework, giving fishing communities a more direct say in shaping policy, and sharpening its rollout of the £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund.

There is a positive response to the Committee’s call for the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to resume publishing data on its enforcement action.

A summary of Defra’s responses to the Committee’s main recommendations is set out below the quotes.

EFRA Committee Chair Alistair Carmichael said:

“Anyone who speaks to fishers in this country will know that Defra, under this government and previous ones, is held in exceptionally poor regard.

“This response lacks genuine engagement with our report and reads like a face-saving exercise. Officials should instead be facing outwards to the fishing communities who were rocked by this government inking its 12-year reciprocal access deal with the EU. Defra needs to listen to them, and show contrition, in the process of earning their trust.

“To the contrary, officials believe they are in danger of engaging with the sector too much. That will give businesses in Cornwall and Brixham, home to England’s biggest fishing communities, something to laugh about.

“We recommended the creation of Fisheries Management Forums, with a formal role in shaping policy, precisely because all that engagement work by Defra appears to have washed over them.

“An insistence on using the Barnett formula to allocate funding to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a clear case of Whitehall brain winning over common sense. It will most likely sour relations with Defra further still.

“We remain adamant that a Sea Use Framework is required. Our evidence session with Seafish, the Marine Management Organisation and The Crown Estate highlighted how access to the coastline appears to be decided without transparency and at the expense of fishing. A Framework would bring much needed light, coordination and accountability, and give fishers a seat at the table they deserve.”

Mike Cohen, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, said:

“Defra’s response leaves something to be desired. It is true that the Department’s ‘engagement’ with a range of fisherman across the country has increased and this should be commended. Mere activity is not action, however, and repeated failures to act on the recommendations that fishermen have made has led to the current poor state of relations.

“Extending EU vessel access in UK waters for twelve years, and the increasing influence of the EU/UK Specialised Committee on Fisheries on our domestic fisheries management are prime examples where policy regression has unsurprisingly led to relations deteriorating with the fishing sector. There are serious financial, ecological and sovereignty consequences of these choices by government and the fishing industry warned about them all. DEFRA’s Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund is welcome, and we will continue working closely with them on this.

“Defra’s response on spatial squeeze fails to acknowledge the ongoing lack of a strategic response to the many different pressures on the marine environment. It diminishes the significant role it plays in enabling the expansion of offshore wind and associated infrastructure in the sea and on the seabed, as well as the ‘double displacement’ effect its compensatory Marine Protected Areas policy will have on fishermen in favour of offshore developers whose activities are damaging our seas.

“Looking ahead, we urge Defra to work harder to make the case for the fishing industry to the Crown Estate, which in practice is in the driving seat for MSPRi, and to stand firmer to EU demands to influence UK fisheries management. The Fisheries and Coastal Growth Fund must also be ringfenced for its intended 12-year lifespan.”

Sea Use Framework

Recommendation: The UK’s seabed is being squeezed by competing demands to extract raw materials, build energy infrastructure and protect habitats. After Defra published its Land Use Framework earlier this year, the Committee called for a ‘Sea Use Framework’, with the same aim of providing direction to industries 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 decision making.

Response: Defra rejected this recommendation, believing a Sea Use Framework is effectively already in place via its Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme. It said it is taking a strategic approach to managing pressures on marine space, including through the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme (MSPRi). It added that it would not regularly report on the activities of that Programme.

Marine Management Organisation enforcement

Recommendation: to improve transparency and rebuild trust, the MMO should resume publishing inspection and enforcement data, and do so for the previous three years so that comparisons can be made.

Response: Defra confirms that MMO will resume publishing the data in its first annual report, and reports for the previous three years, this autumn.

The rationale for the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Recommendation: The government should provide this Committee with the analysis supporting the £360 million funding level, the 12-year duration and the reasons for establishing a new scheme rather than building on existing ones. It should also set out its rationale for integrating community investment and define measurable long-term outcomes for growth, resilience and competitiveness to enable a proper assessment of progress over the lifespan of the Fund.

Response: Defra says the scheme’s design was based on evidence, engagement and lessons learnt from previous schemes. It declines to provide a rationale. It adds: “As we develop the use of the Fund, and invite applications to schemes supported by it, we will use clear and measurable criteria to ensure the Fund achieves its objectives.”

Devolved nations to share just 16% of the Fund

Recommendation: The Fund should be shared fairly between the UK nations, not by using the Barnett formula. Seafish should be charged with supporting a coherent, UK-wide approach. The three devolved nations stand to receive £56 million of the £360 million total over 12 years. Scotland will receive £28m (8%), Wales £18m (5%) and Northern Ireland £10m (2.8%).

Response: The response does not engage with the recommendation that an alternative to the Barnett formula should be used. It says England will continue to get the vast majority of the Fund, despite having a far smaller fishing sector than Scotland.

Frontloading the £360 million Fund

Recommendation: Defra should consider frontloading the funding to help more ambitious projects get off the ground, or else money could be spread too thinly over the 12 years. The report noted that less than one-twelfth of the funding would be distributed in year one (2026-27) and government should set out year-by-year allocations of the Fund.

Response: Defra has “introduced some front-loading to spending under the scheme”. However, it declines to provide any detail of what the funding allocations will be over the coming years.

Engagement with fishing communities

Recommendation: After failing to engage with vital fishing communities in Brixham and Cornwall during development of the Fund, Defra should ensure they expand their engagement to include these areas. Officials should then continue to engage consistently with the whole sector for the remainder of the Fund’s 12 years.

Response: Defra said the Fund is “underpinned by evidence, independent evaluation and extensive stakeholder engagement, and will continue to evolve as further priorities are developed with industry.”

Fisheries Management Forums

Recommendation: Defra should establish a UK-wide network of Regional Fisheries Management Forums, comprising fishers, marine scientists and environmental organisations. The forums should meet at least three times a year and be given a formal role in reviewing and commenting on draft technical measures or policies affecting UK waters. Forums should be empowered to submit policy recommendations to the relevant administration.

Response: Defra said this would not be the right approach. It instead argues that it already carries out sufficient engagement with the sector and wants to avoid “stakeholder fatigue, given the volume of activity across government affecting the sector”. The response ignores MPs’ point that the Forums would give fishers “a formal role in reviewing and commenting on any draft technical measures or policies affecting UK waters.”

Image: Alistair Carmichael, credit ©House of Commons/Roger Harris