Water & Marine: Sea fisheries

These regulate the sea fishing industry and include provisions on sustainable harvesting of fish stocks, shellfish and crustaceans; monitoring and enforcement of fishing activities; bycatch; fishing vessels and technical provisions (fishing gear, species’ sizes)

We want to hear your views on how we could reduce regulatory burdens, and improve implementation of these regulations; to ensure that we can achieve sustainable fish stocks and a long-term, viable fishing industry in the most effective way. For example could the Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order and the Undersized Edible Crabs, Spider Crabs and Velvet Crabs Orders be merged into one undersized shellfish order?

Visit the Water and Marine theme landing page here.

International

International

International

Sandeels Licensing Order 1989

Order prohibits fishing for sandeels by British fishing boats within Scottish inshore waters.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Whaling Industry (Ship) Regulations 1955

These Regulations revoke and re-enact with amendments the Whaling Industry (Ship) Regulations, 1953, and give effect, in relation to UK & Colonial ships, to certain resolutions of the International Whaling Commission.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Whaling Industry (Ship) (Amendment) Regulations 1958

These Regulations revoke the Whaling Industry (Ship) (Amendment) Regulations 1956 amend the Whaling Industry (Ship) Regulations 1955 and give effect in relation to UK and colonial ships to certain regulations of the International Whaling Commission.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Whaling Industry (Ship) (Amendment) Regulations 1959

These Regulations amend the Whaling Industry (Ship) Regulations 1955 to give effect in relation to UK and Colonial ships to certain resolutions of the International Whaling Commission.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Whaling Industry (Ship) (Amendment) Regulations 1960

These Regulations amend the Second Schedule to the Whaling Industry (Ship) Regulations 1955 by making provision for the total number of baleen whales killed or treated under such licences to be limited to a national quota for the UK.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Whaling Industry (Ship) (Amendment) Regulations 1961

These Regulations amend the Whaling Industry (Ship) Regulations 1955 to give effect in relation to UK and Colonial ships to certain resolutions of the International Whaling Commission.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Anglo-Norwegian Sea Fisheries Order 1961

This Order made under section 23 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1883, enables the provisions of a Fishery Agreement made between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Norway to be applied to vessels registered in the United Kingdom.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) (Variation) Order 1999

Order varies the principal Order (1990/1156) to prohibit fishing for sea fish during the periods specified in the Schedule to the Order.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990

Order prohibits fishing for bass by any fishing boat within the areas in England and Wales described in the Schedule during the periods specified.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

British Fishing Boats Order 1983

Sets out the areas in which other Member States’ fishing vessels may fish within British Fishing Limits outside of 6 and 12 mile limits.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Decommissioning of Fishing Vessels Scheme 2007

Scheme provides for grants to be made for decommissioning fishing vessels.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1984

Scheme provides for the making of grants for fish farming projects.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987

Scheme, which applies to Great Britain, provides for the making of grants for fish farming projects.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fish Producers’ Organisations (Formation Grants) Regulations 1999

Regulations give effect to the relevant provisions of Council Regulation 3759/92/EEC on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fisheries (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2009

Regulations correct errors in the Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005 and the Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2007

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fisheries Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1989

Regulations amend Part I of the Fisheries Act 1981 which makes provision for the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Regulations amend the Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) (England) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1117) to correct an error.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Regulations 1995

Regulations supplement Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3699/93 which lays down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural financial assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Amendment Regulations 1998

Regulations amend the Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Regulations 1995 to take account of amendments made to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3699/93.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) (England) Regulations 2001

Regulations supplement the Community legislation which provides for assistance to be paid from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance in respect of certain categories of investments, projects and actions in the fisheries and aquaculture sector.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishery Limits Order 1997

Order brings British fishery limits into conformity with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fishery Limits Order 1999

Order amends British fishery limits to reflect the Agreement between Denmark, together with the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands, on the one hand, and the UK on the other hand, relating to the Maritime Delimitation in the area between Faroes & UK.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fishing Boats (Belgium) Designation Order 1965

This Order revokes and re-enacts with modifications the provisions of the Fishing Boats (Belgium) Designation Order 1964.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fishing Boats (Electronic Transmission of Fishing Activities Data) (England) Scheme 2010

This Scheme provides for the payment of grants as a contribution towards the cost of purchase or supply of software necessary to record and transmit fishing activities data electronically in accordance with EC Regulation 1966/2006

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Boats (European Economic Community) Designation (Variation) Order 1992

Measurement of UK baseline amended following an ECJ ruling on baseline measurements.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Boats (European Economic Community) Designation (Variation) Order 1996

This Order varies the Fishing Boats (European Economic Community) Designation Order 1983 to add Austria, Finland and Sweden to the list of designated Member States.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Boats (France) Designation Order 1965

France is designated as a country whose registered fishing boats are accorded fishing rights within areas of the outer belt of the fishery limits of the British Islands.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fishing Boats (Marking and Documentation) (Enforcement) Order 1993

Order makes breaches of specified articles of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1381/87 (establishing detailed rules concerning the marking and documentation of fishing vessels) offences for the purposes of UK law

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Boats (Republic of Ireland) Designation Order 1965

The Republic of Ireland is designated as a country whose registered fishing boats are accorded fishing rights within areas of the outer belt of the fishery limits of the British Islands.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices) (England) Scheme 2004

This Scheme makes provision for funding satellite-tracking devices on fishing boats which are administered in England and which are required on board fishing boats over 15 metres as a result of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2244/2003

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Boats (Specified Countries) Designation (Variation) Order 1997

The variation effected by this Order enables boats from Faroe Islands and Norway to fish for herring in ICES division IIa and is pursuant to agreements reached between the European Community and these countries on reciprocal fishing rights

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Boats (Specified Countries) Designation Order 1996

This Order designates the Faroe Islands and Norway as countries whose registered fishing boats may fish for certain species of sea fish in certain areas of British fishery limits outside the area within 12 miles from the baselines

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1990

This Scheme amends the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 relating to grants for the acquisition or improvement of fishing vessels

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987

Scheme enables grants to be made for the acquisition or improvement of fishing vessels

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1997

This Scheme provides for the making of grants in respect of the decommissioning of vessels registered in the UK.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 2003

This Scheme provides for the making of grants in respect of the decommissioning of fishing vessels. The Scheme applies in England only

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987

This Scheme provides for the making of grants for the purpose of re-organising and developing the sea fish catching industry.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Fishing Vessels (Temporary Financial Assistance) Scheme 1982

Scheme provides for the making of grants for the purpose of contributing to the expenses of those engaged in the sea fish catching industry

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Foreign Fishing Boats (Stowage of Gear) Order 1970

Order prescribes how fishing gear is to be stowed on foreign fishing boats while in the fishery limits of the British Islands.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2007

These Regulations provide that the Secretary of State may make payments for the purposes of Title IV of Council Regulation (EC) 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries (England) Order 2005

Order makes provision for enforcement of EC Regulation 812/2004 which requires Member States to monitor the bycatch of cetaceans

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order 2000

This Order prohibits fishing for, and landing of, lobsters and crawfish bearing a V notch or mutilated in such a manner as to obscure a V notch by both relevant British fishing boats and Scottish fishing boats.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls Order 2003

This Order revokes and re-enacts with amendments the Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/650) which prohibits fishing with any net other than a single trawl.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Razor Shells, Trough Shells and Carpet Shells (Specified Sea Area) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1998

This Order prohibits fishing, by means of any type of dredge, for razor shells, trough shells and carpet shells in an area of the Wash

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Receiving of Trans-shipped Sea Fish (Licensing) (Variation) Order 1983

The variation made by this Order extends the prohibition on receiving fish without a licence so that it applies in respect of any pelagic sea fish trans-shipped within British fishery limits from any vessel

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Receiving of Trans-shipped Sea Fish (Licensing) Order 1982

Order prohibits the receiving within British fishery limits by a British or foreign vessel of any pelagic sea fish caught by a British fishing boat and trans-shipped from any such boat unless authorised by a licence

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Scallop Fishing Order 2004

Order places restrictions on the use and carriage of scallop dredges, and applies to British fishing boats within relevant British fishery limits.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fish (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1986

These Regulations make provision for the enforcement throughout the UK of Community Regulations laying down common marketing standards and related rules as to marketing for certain species of sea fish including shellfish.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish (Specified Sea Area) (Regulation of Nets and Prohibition of Fishing Methods) (Variation) Order 1999

Order varies the minimum mesh size of gill and other specified nets which are prohibited in the specified area. This brings the mesh size range for the gill nets and other nets covered by this Order into line with the mesh size ranges of gill nets which a

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish (Specified Sea Area) (Regulation of Nets and Prohibition of Fishing Methods) Order 1989

Order prohibits fishing for sea fish in a specified area by British fishing boats using gill and other specified nets of a stipulated mesh size and the carriage by those boats of such nets in that area.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) Order 1991

Order regulates the carriage of certain nets and other fishing gear in British fishing boats registered in the UK in specified sea areas and restricts the manner in which such nets and gear may be used.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) Order 2001

Order regulates the carriage of certain nets and other fishing gear. The Order applies to nets carried or used by relevant British fishing boats and by Scottish fishing boats in certain specified areas.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Amendment) Order 2003

Order amends the Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/649), which regulates the carriage of certain nets and other fishing gear.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish Licensing Order 1992

Order consolidates the Sea Fish Licensing Order 1989, as varied, which prohibited fishing, subject to exceptions, by British fishing boats in specified areas of sea for sea fish, unless authorised by a licence

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish Licensing (Variation) Order 1993

Amendment to remove the exemption for under 10m vessels fishing for handline mackerel.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish Licensing (Variation) (No 2) Order 1993

Provides exemption from requirement to have a fishing vessel licence for unpowered vessels and for vessels below 10m fishing for common eels.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Days in Port) (Amendment) Regulations 1992

Regulations amend the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations 1992 which make provision for the enforcement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3882/91 fixing for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks the total allowable catches for 19

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations 1992

Regulations make provision for the enforcement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3882/91 fixing for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1992 and certain conditions under which they may be fished.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) Order 2000

Order revokes the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) Order 1997 and the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) (Amendment) Order 1997 and re-enacts provisions for the enforcement of Article 11 of Council Re

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) (Amendment) Order 2002

Order amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) Order 2000 which makes provision for the enforcement of restrictions and obligations contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources t

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000

Order largely re-enacts the provisions of the 1994 Order as well as introducing some new provisions.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) (Amendment) Order 2005

Order amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000 and makes provision for the enforcement of restrictions and obligations contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1382/87 establishing detailed rules for the inspection of

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) (Amendment) Order 2009

Order amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/51) in relation to England.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Licensing Measures) (North of Scotland Box) Order 1984

Order makes a breach of Article 4 of Commission Regulation 2166/83 an offence for the purposes of UK law, and provides penalties and prohibits entry into Shetland box by vessels.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Measures for Spanish and Portuguese Vessels) Order 1986

Order provides for the enforcement of three Community Regulations concerned with fishing within Community waters, outside the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Spain and Portugal, by vessels flying the flag of Spain and vessels flying the fl

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Amendment (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2004

Regulations revoke the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2000 Amendment Regulations 2001 in so far as they extend to England.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2004

Order provides for the enforcement in England of Commission Regulation (EC) 2244/2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009

Order makes provision for the enforcement of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008) and Commission Regulation (EC) 1010/2009 establishing restrictions and obligations relating to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Landing and Weighing of Herring, Mackerel and Horse Mackerel) Order 2009

Order makes provision for the enforcement of restrictions and obligations relating to the landing and weighing of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) Regulations 1994

Regulations make provision in accordance with section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 for the manner in which a sea fishing licence under section 4 of that Act or a licence to receive trans-shipped fish under section 4A of that Act may be grant

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Marking and Identification of Passive Fishing Gear and Beam Trawls) (England) Order 2006

Order makes provision for the enforcement of Community restrictions and other obligations relating to the marking and identification of passive gear and beam trawls deployed by fishing vessels as set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 356/2005.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (North Norfolk Coast) (Prohibition of Trawling) Order 1972

Order prohibits trawling in an area of sea adjacent to the North Norfolk coast within the fishery limits of the British Islands but excluding the territorial waters during the period 1st May to 15th October, both dates inclusive, in every year commencing

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fishing (North-East Atlantic Control Measures) Order 2000

Order makes provision for the enforcement of restrictions and obligations contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 2791/99, for laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Prohibition on the Removal of Shark Fins) Order 2007

Order makes provision for the enforcement of Community restrictions and other obligations relating to the removal of shark fins on board vessels as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Recovery Measures) Order 2008

Order makes provision for the enforcement of restrictions and obligations relating to fishing for cod, northern hake, plaice and sole contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2004

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) Order 2007

Order provides for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Annex IIA and IIC to Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, appl

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Specified Western Waters) (Restrictions on Landing) (Variation) Order 1991

Order varies the Sea Fishing (Specified Western Waters) (Restrictions on Landing) Order 1990 which prohibits, with exceptions, the landing in the United Kingdom of any sea fish (other than salmon or migratory trout) caught in ICES sub-area VII or VIII.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Specified Western Waters) (Restrictions on Landing) Order 1990

Order replaces the the Sea Fishing (Specified Western Waters) (Restrictions on Landing) Order 1987 which prohibited, with exceptions, the landing in the United Kingdom of sea fish of descriptions specified in that Order caught in ICES sub-area VII or VIII

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act 1912 (Amendment) Regulations 1996

Regulations are made in consequence of the internal market provisions of the Treaty which established the European Economic Community and disapply the prohibition on imports of seal skins in section 4 of the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act 1912 in rela

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Several and Regulated Fisheries (Form of Application) Regulations 1987

Regulations prescribe the form of application to be submitted and the manner of submission of such application by applicants for the grant of several or regulating orders in respect of oyster, mussel, cockle, clam, scallop or queen fisheries under section

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Shellfish (Specification of Crustaceans) Regulations 2001

Regulations, which apply only in relation to England, add crabs to the types of shellfish falling within section 1(1) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, this enables several or regulated fisheries for crabs to be established by an order under that

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Shellfish (Specification of Molluscs) Regulations 1987

Regulations add scallops and queens to the list of shellfish in section 1(1) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, this enables several or regulated fisheries for these species to be established by order on the sea shore and in the seas adjacent to G

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Shrimp Fishing Nets Order 2002

Order regulates the carriage and use of any fishing nets with mesh size between 16 and 31 millimetres, measured in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2108/1984, sets out the national provisions called for by Article 25 of Council Regulation (

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008

Order prohibits the fishing for tope by any method other than by rod and line.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Undersized Bass Order 1989

Order prescribes a minimum size, namely 36 centimetres, below which it is an offence in Great Britain to land bass of the species Dicentrarchus labrax. In reliance upon the authorisation in Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3094/86, laying dow

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Undersized Edible Crabs Order 2000

Order prescribes minimum sizes for the landing of edible crabs (Cancer pagurus) in certain areas in England (article 3(1)), there is an exemption from the minimum landing size for the landing of edible crabs from foreign fishing boats (article 3(2)), but

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Undersized Lobsters Order 2000

Order prescribes a minimum size for the landing of lobsters (Homarus gammarus) in England (article 3(1)), there is an exemption from the minimum landing size for the landing of lobsters from foreign fishing boats

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989

Order, which applies to Great Britain, prescribes a minimum size for the landing of velvet crabs, there is an exemption from the minimum landing size for the landing of crabs from foreign fishing boats

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Undersized Spider Crabs Order 2000

Order prescribes a minimum size for the landing of male spider crabs (Maia squinado) in England (article 3(1)), there is an exemption from the minimum landing size for the landing of spider crabs from foreign fishing boats

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Behring Sea Award Order in Council 1894

Order aiming to protect fur-seals.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005

Regulations make provision for the administration and enforcement of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 which impose requirements relating to the first marketing and purchasing of fish.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Channel Tunnel (Amendment of the Fisheries Act 1981) Order 1994

Order amends the Fisheries Act 1981 in its application to the tunnel system, the effect is that a levy can be imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on fish or fish products which are brought through the Channel Tunnel, in the same way as the levy imp

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

British Fishing Boats Act 1983

An Act to prohibit the fishing for and trans-shipment of sea fish by or from British fishing boats, in areas specified by order unless those boats satisfy conditions prescribed by an order of those Ministers with respect to the nationality of members of t

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fishery Limits Act 1976

An Act to extend British fishery limits and make further provision in connection with the regulation of sea fishing

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967

An Act to consolidate certain enactments which provide for regulating the commercial use of, fishing for, and landing of, sea fish, and for authorising measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fisheries Act 1981

Act established a Sea Fish Industry Authority with the duty of promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in the UK; to provide financial assistance for that industry; to amend the law relating to the regulation of sea fishing; to make new provisio

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fisheries Act 1968

An Act to make further provision with respect to the subsidies payable to, and the levies which may be imposed on, the white fish and herring industries, to make further provision for the regulation of sea fishing, to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) A

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967

Act grants the right of private (Several) fishery to the applicant, whilst at the same time encouraging the development of the fishery, it also provides IFCAs with the necessary powers to manage existing public shellfish beds (Regulating or Hybrid Orders)

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

South-West Territorial Waters (Prohibition of Pair Trawling) Order 2004

Order prohibits fishing using specified pair trawls in the south-west territorial waters of England (article 3), the carriage of pair trawling nets within the south-west territorial sea is prohibited unless all parts of the relevant gear are lashed and st

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Lyme Bay Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions) Order 2008

Order prohibits dredging for shellfish and demersal trawling in the area of Lyme Bay specified.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fal and Helford Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions) Order 2008

Order prohibits dredging for shellfish and demersal trawling in the area specified.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Solent European Marine Site (Prohibition of Method of Dredging) Order 2004

Order prohibits the deployment of dredges in the Solent European Marine Site.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fishing (Penalty Notices) (England) Order 2011

Order creates a scheme for the issuing and payment of penalty notices for certain offences relating to sea fishing, it revokes the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Measures) (Penalty Notices) Order 2008 except in so far as it applies to Wales or to W

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Territorial Sea Act 1987

An Act to provide for the extent of the territorial sea adjacent to the British Islands

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992

An Act to amend the law relating to licences under sections 4 and 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 1934

An Act to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, to prohibit the taking or treating of whales within the coastal waters of the United Kingdom.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fisheries Act 1868

An Act to carry into effect a Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas adjoining the British Islands and France, and to amend the Laws relating to British Sea Fisheries.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Fisheries Act 1891

An Act to carry into effect an International Declaration respecting the North Sea Fisheries, and to amend the Law relating to Sea Fisheries and Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota and Third Country Fishing Measures Order 2000

Order makes provision for the enforcement of certain enforceable Community restrictions and other obligations relating to sea fishing by both Community and third country vessels set out in Council Regulation (EC) No. 2742/1999

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota and Third Country Fishing Measures) (Amendment) Order 2000

Order amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quotas and Third Country Fishing Measures) Order 2000.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Sea Fish (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) Regulations 1989

Regulations amend the Sea Fish (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1986, which make provision for the enforcement of certain of the enforceable Community restrictions and obligations concerning common marketing standards and related rules as to marketing fo

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991

Regulations supplement Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90, Council Regulation (EEC) No 4042/89 and provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 which respectively contain measures for improving (a) the processing and marketing conditions of agricultu

Read More… (opens in a new window)

EU regulation

Blakeney Harbour Mussel Fishery Order 1966

Order covers the Blakeny Harbour Mussel Society with a right of Several Order for a period of 60 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Horsey Island Mussel Fishery Order 1963

Order confers the grantees with a right of Several Order for a period of 60 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Tollesbury and Mersea (Blackwater Fishery) Order 1999

Order confers a right of several fishery for oysters for a period of twenty years on the Tollesbury and Mersea Native Oyster Fishery Company Limited.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The River Roach Oyster Fishery Order 1992

Order confers on the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee the right of several fishery for oysters in part of the River Roach, Essex.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Calshot Oyster Fishery Order 2005

Order confers on the Calshot Oyster Fishermen Limited a right of several fishery for native oysters (Ostrea edulis) over a portion of the bed of the sea around Calshot Spit in the Port of Southampton.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Stanswood Bay Oyster Fishery Order 1988

Order confers on Stanswood Bay Oystermen Limited the right of several fishery for oysters in parts of Stanswood Bay, Hampshire, which are adjacent to the area in which a similar right was conferred on the company by the Stanswood Bay Oyster Fishery Order

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

River Taw Mussel Fishery Order 1962

Order confirs on South West Water the right of a Several Fishery for a period of 60 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1994

Order confers on the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee the right of regulating a fishery for cockles in the Thames Estuary for a period of 30 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

River Teign Mussel Fishery Order 1966

Regulating Order grants the Teign Musselmen’s Society Ltd a right of regulating rishery for a period of 30 yeards

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Truro Port Fishery Order 1936 (Varied 1975)

Regulating Order grants the Carrick District Council a right of regulating rishery for a period of 40 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Dee Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 2008

Order grants the Environment Agency a right of regulating the cockle fishery over the estuary of the River Dee for a period of 20 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The Wash Fishery Order 1992

Order confers on the Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee rights of several fishery and regulating a fishery for oysters, mussels, cockles, clams, scallops and queens in the Wash for a period of 30 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Poole Fishery Order 1985

Hybrid Order confirs on Southern IFCA a right of regualting several fisheries for various species for a period of 35 years.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Waddeton Fishery Order 2001

Order confers on the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee a right of regulating a fishery for oysters, mussels, cockles, clams and crabs in the River Dart for a period of 25 years

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

This covers Chapter 1 of the Act and it amends The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and therefore will be considered as part of that Act

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

This covers Chapter 2 of the Act and it amends The Sea Fisheries (shellfish) Act 1967 and therefore will be considered as part of that Act

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

This covers Part 8 on Enforcement of the Act and only Chapters 1, 2, 3

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

This covers Part 8 on Enforcement of the Act and only Chapter 4

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

The Scallop (Irish Sea) (Prohibition of Fishing) (Variation) Order 1986

Order prohibits fishing for scallops of the species Pecten maximus from 1st June to 31st October in every year in a specified area of the Irish Sea by any British-owned fishing boat

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Domestic regulation

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

28 comments on “Water & Marine: Sea fisheries

  1. Sarah Goddard (WWF-UK) on said:

    1. Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries (England) Order 2005

    Continuing our campaigning to reduce bycatch in particular under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform process this is a necessary order to ensure the well-being and existence of these vulnerable species.
    This current order implements the last review of the CFP and may need to be reviewed in light of the current reform processes that are underway. However we would hope that reducing cetacean bycatch within fisheries is an important and vital component of a sustainable and ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. We would like to see that the UK is still committed to enforcing all aspects of Council Regulation 812/2004 and the provisions of the Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries (England) Order 2005 in order to minimise cetacean by-catch.

    There have been many revisions to UK laws in recent years, with the effect that they now fail to provide a comprehensive and ecologically sound structure to ensure the long term ‘favourable conservation status’ of cetaceans. A suite of improvements are needed but, as a priority, ‘recklessness’ needs to be reinstated into the Habitats Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to make it an offence to deliberately or ‘recklessly’ capture, kill, disturb, or trade in an animal of European protected species which includes all dolphins, whales and porpoises. Changes are also required within the Regulations to allow the prohibition of the deterioration or destruction of breeding and resting sites to be defined and enforced with regard to mobile marine species.

    2. Sea Fishing (Prohibition on the Removal of Shark Fins) Order 2007

    Sharks have been around almost since the beginning of time first appearing around 400 million years ago. There are over 400 species of shark, and they are found in every ocean of the world.
    Sharks play an important role in balancing marine ecosystems being top predators and scavengers in the ocean. Populations of many shark species have been declining due to unsustainable shark fishery management worldwide and the demand for shark fin soup in some countries. Sharks are particularly vulnerable to overfishing because they grow slowly, are late to mature and produce relatively few young. In recent years as other fish have grown scarce, and the demand for shark fin has rocketed with China’s booming economy, shark have been increasingly targeted for their fins, therefore it is essential that shark finning is prohibited under UK law.

    3. Lyme Bay Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions) Order 2008

    Lyme Bay Order 2008 subject to the appropriate conclusion on the provision of fisheries management measures within the Lyme Bay cSAC, this Order represents an important safeguard to the integrity of reef habitat and associated wildlife.Comment Tags: Cetaceans, fishing, sharks

  2. Natasha Barker Bradshaw on said:

    Maintain the role of the Inshore Fisheries And Conservation Authorities provided by the Marine & Coastal Access Act (2009). They are making a good start to reforming inshore fisheries management and have a lot of potential to effectively manage sustainable fisheries alongside a network of Marine Conservation Zones. They also offer a model of how the European Common Fisheries Policy could implement regionalisation through local/regional committees responsible for developing and implementing fisheries co-management plans. IFCAs should continue to be supported by central and local government as a core delivery service under the Marine & Coastal Access Act (2009).Comment Tags: IFCA

  3. Debbie Crockard on said:

    Marine fisheries are in the poorest state they have ever been, only 1 in 5 commercial stocks in UK waters are considered to be in a healthy state by ICES. This is unacceptable in todays age, we must ensure the future sustainability of our stocks and of our fishing communities, as the latter cannot exist without the former. Innovation from the fihing industry must be encouraged and their consultation on how best to improve our environment should become common practice.

    Damaging fishing activities (such as dredging) should be discouraged and good practice incentivised, to ensure the future of our industry and the protection of the marine environment upon which it depends.

  4. Chris Edwards on said:

    I am responding on behalf of Somerset County Council.

    As a result of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) were established in 2011. Under the funding arrangements for the Devon and Severn IFCA Somerset County Council along with other councils along the Bristol Channel shore and up the Severn Estuary are members of the authority and have to fund enforcement and research activities.

    Somerset County Council represents a view common to a number of these councils that the lack of significant fisheries along these shores makes the current Devon and Severn IFCA membership and structure irrational and in need of serious review. The conservation of the natural environment and sustainability of these inshore fisheries is of real importance, however in the case of the Devon and Severn IFCA there is no proportionality between the amount of work that needs to be done and the membership/contribution required from the different authorities.

    This split IFCA (it includes important fishing areas along the south coast) has already led to significant divisions and is very difficult to manage as one unit. The coastal areas covered differ so widely that the authority will not work with a “one size fits all” approach. Through the Red Tape Challenge Somerset County Council would like to see an early and robust review of the funding, boundaries and membership of IFCA’s facing this issue.

  5. Blue Planet Society on said:

    There are alternatives to the way we treat the marine environment, but they require a change in the way we think and act. Land conservation had its period of enlightenment in the 1950’s and 60’s and it is now long overdue for the world’s ocean to command equal resources and focus. The world’s ocean is unique, and should be treated as such; it hides the damage humans do to it, and hides it so well that it may be too late to do anything by the time we fully realise the extent of our stupidity.

    If we take the current rate of over-exploitation of the ocean to its natural conclusion (in about 2050), 71% of earth will be a biological desert, save for a few billion jellyfish. We must wake up to this fact, and we must act now.

    Stopping the human-caused loss of species and ecosystems is essential but not sufficient. The goal should be to ensure that things do not become endangered in the first place. This means keeping not only the parts (genes, species, ecosystems), but also the processes that generate and maintain the parts.

    Saving the planet is not a luxury that can be left to someone else. It is an imperative that requires us to make fundamental changes in the decision making process. Decision makers need to have options that permit sustainability and rewards for choosing them. At present, individuals and corporations are free to act until it is proven that their actions are harmful. This needs to be changed. Commercial fisheries, the oil and gas industry, mining companies, developers, and others must be made to prove that their activities are not harmful to the world’s ocean before engaging in them. By shifting the emphasis, conservation becomes proactive, not reactive.

    Public education needs to be stepped up significantly too, and this can be done relatively quickly if the conservation sector educates the mass-media first. It should no longer be acceptable for the pages of newspapers or TV shows to scream ‘shark attack’, or for a huge marlin strung up by its tail seen to be something to be proud of, or wild marine animals to be treated as nothing more than another type of food. In other words, wild marine animals should be afforded the same treatment in the media as wild animals on land. Only then will marine animal consumption go down.

    Whichever way you look at it, the world’s ocean has reached crisis point and much more action is needed if we are to avert a global catastrophe. Some people say that humans are at their best when faced with dire choices, that they only act decisively when they are on the precipice of such a catastrophe; well that time has come for the world’s ocean. If only humans had evolved the ability to breath underwater, this message probably wouldn’t be taking such a dangerously long time to sink in.Comment Tags: marine conservation

  6. Gill Bell on said:

    Fisheries management and legislation is complex and does need reform to ensure that it is sustainable and enforceable. With 88% of European fish stocks overfished there is need to undertake an urgent review of how we manage our inshore fisheries. The establishment of Marine Conservation Zones within a network of marine protected areas have been shown to increase abundance of species and allows fish stocks to recover. These areas need to be properly protected, managed, monitored and enforced with stiff penalities for any vessels breaking protection and fishing regulations.Comment Tags: Marine protected areas, sustainable

  7. Kat Stephenson on said:

    Please, please, please focus on the one thing that will protect jobs in the long term and protect our fish stocks too – i.e. sustainability in the true meaning of the word. Why waste money on getting the best scientific advice then habitually ignore it? As many have commented the quota system fails fisheries and conservation workers – we have an opportunity to reform the CFP very soon so please use this opportunity to LISTEN to people who understand the problems and have come up with solutions such as no take zones and fishing credit systems, and then ACT before it is too late. It will hurt in the short term given the need to reduce the fishing fleet, but in the long tern this is better than no fleet and no fish.Comment Tags: ; CFP reform, no fis, no take zones

  8. Gary Kennison on said:

    I am commenting on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council.

    Recently Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) have been replaced with Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. In certain places across the country non members of SFCs now find themselves members of IFCAs through circumstances beyond their control. This may be acceptable if it were not for the fact that a number of local authorities do not believe that there was adequate justification for their inclusion within the new IFCAs.
    Taking the Devon and Severn IFCA as an example the third highest levy falls to Gloucestershire County Council despite it not having within its administrative area a demonstrable marine fisheries resource that needs protecting and managing. This position is clearly unacceptable and so the Red Tape Challenge is welcomed as an opportunity to highlight the need for an early review of IFCA boundaries. This is important so that the work of new IFCAs is not undermined by inappropriate membership and financial levies.
    The main reasons for why the government needs to look at this issue are as follows:
    1. There are questions over the consistency of inclusion or exclusion of local authority areas within IFCAs nationally. The legislation does not rule out that a European Marine Site (such as the Severn Estuary) cannot be split by administrative area if a substantive marine fishery resource which needs protecting and managing is not actually present.
    2. The unfair manner in which the application of criteria underpinning IFCA finances can give an annual contribution for a local authority significantly out of proportion to the sea fishery resource or industry or other related activity present. This is exemplified in the Devon and Severn IFCA where Gloucestershire County Council’s contribution is heavily based on a seashore length of some 94.4 miles which is clearly not justifiable for an inland authority.
    3. Inland local authorities, in contrast to counties that have a true maritime coastline (in common-sense terms), are unlikely to be able to recoup any of their levied contributions to IFCAs through charging for the issuance and administration of permits.
    4. In a time of severe financial pressure on local government budgets there has been little regard to the levying of substantial contributions towards a regime of practical insignificance to a number of local authority areas. It is noted that a New Burdens Grant from Defra is offsetting some of the current costs to local authorities in the short term, but the obligation to fund an IFCA after that falls heavily on the Council Tax payers of areas like Gloucestershire. It has been suggested that local authorities might renegotiate their contributions by agreement with other members within the IFCA. However, it is difficult to see why other paying members (i.e. local authorities) would be keen to agree to a move which would increase their own contribution to an IFCA, whilst providing them with no additional benefit.
    Gloucestershire County Council urges the government through its Red Tape Challenge to revisit the grievances of certain local authorities by reviewing the boundaries, membership and financial arrangements for each IFCA in England.Comment Tags: IFCA, local authority

  9. Bristol City Council on said:

    In 2011 Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) were replaced with Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Bristol City Council supports the protection and enhancement of the inshore marine environment and modernisation of the SFCs however the Red Tape Challenge is welcomed as an opportunity to highlight the need for an early review of IFCA organisational and funding arrangements.
    The main reasons why the government needs to review the legislation are,
    ORGANISATIONAL
    1. A number of local authorities that were not members of SFCs (since fishing activity has little or no impact in their areas) were nevertheless brought into the scope of the new IFCAs. In one particular IFCA, for Devon and Severn, the organisational and funding arrangements do not relate to need, are not fit for purpose or value for money for the ‘new’ local authorities in the Severn. The one size fits all IFCA model for the Devon and Severn area is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and requires a more flexible approach.
    2. The Devon & Severn IFCA area is too large and cannot be managed successfully in a homogenious way. Resource needs for the Devon part of the IFCA are significantly greater than that of the Severn and relate mostly to enforcement of fisheries. The Severn part of the IFCA requires only a ‘light touch’ solely with respect to conservation not enforcement and there are unlikely to be any significant issues to be addressed related to fishing activity. A comparison with the Habitats Directive duty shows that it could be discharged in a more cost effective manner. Because the overheads to enforce fishing in Devon, both staffing and consumables e.g. boats and monitoring equipment, are so great it is a disproportionate cost to the Severn local authorities who do not have need for these resources in their area. The needs of the two areas are quite different. The needs of the two areas are quite different. This arrangement serves neither the Devon or the Severn areas well.
    3. The IFCA area is so large there are unnecessary tensions and time wasted at meetings when members representing Devon have to consider Severn issues and vice versa. Whilst a Marine Management Organisation appointee may hypothetically be able to relate to any geographical area it is not an efficient use of their time if matters do not relate to their local knowledge or area of interest. In the long term if elected members and Marine Management Organisation appointees do not feel the IFCA reflects their interests or needs they will cease to participate.
    FUNDING
    4. The unfair manner in which the application of and selection of the criteria that underpins the funding formula is disproportionate to the sea fishery activity or financial benefit it accrues. As a consequence the Severn local authorities now subsidise the Devon fishing industry, which is not democratically acceptable to their respective council tax payers.
    5. Inland local authorities, in contrast to counties that have a true maritime coastline (in common-sense terms), are unlikely to be able to recoup any of their levied contributions to IFCAs through charging for the issuance and administration of permits. Indeed there is likely to be little or no IFCA activity along these stretches of inland waterway, for instance the River Avon through Bristol, but nevertheless their actual length is used in the funding formula. These are stretches that do not have sea fisheries but come under the remit of the Environment Agency for EU protected species such as salmon. They do not have significant fisheries or conservation issues and are not best served by coming under the remit of the IFCA. Consideration should be given to transferring back responsibility for inland fisheries of these stretches to the Environment Agency.
    6. In a time of severe financial pressure on local government budgets there has been little regard to the levying of substantial contributions towards a regime of practical insignificance to a number of local authority areas. It is noted that a New Burdens Grant from Defra is offsetting the current costs to local authorities for the first four years of IFCAs, but the obligation to fund an IFCA after that falls heavily on the council tax payers of areas like Bristol. It has been suggested that local authorities might renegotiate their contributions by agreement with other members within the IFCA. However, it is difficult to see why other paying members (i.e. local authorities) would be keen to agree to this when it would increase their own contribution, whilst providing them with no additional benefit. Since the funders can easily be outvoted on the budget by the MMO appointees they currently have no real control over their financial contributions and cannot bring them in line with other financial arrangements in their authorities. They only have the ability not to pay once the budget has been set.
    SUMMARY
    7. Bristol City Council urges the government through its Red Tape Challenge to revisit the concerns of local authorities by reviewing the legislation on the boundaries, membership and organisational arrangements particularly with regard to those local authorities with New Burdens.Comment Tags: avon, bristol, severn

  10. Shaun Krijnen on said:

    I have been a shellfish farmer for 18 years, one of the species I farm is mussels. Mussels are sourced as seed from the wild by means of a seed fishing licence. The process of obtaining the seed licence is by way of annual application using form MUS1. This is sent to my local fishery office, who send it on to the regional office, who send it on to the head office, who send it back to the regional office who send it on to me (Holyhead-milford haven-london-milford haven-me). This process took 3-4 weeks a number of years ago. This process now takes 3-4 months. Why? Well according to the office in London, all and sundry have to be consulted (CCW, Defra, MMO, English nature etc) .

    Permission is granted to obtain seed when availabl, yearly. The seed is located in the same region every year, is harvested in the same manner and to a current code of conduct implemented by our industry, yet the time taken to get the licence is steadily increasing. I appreciate that Wales is now responsible for its own fisheries and may affect the delivery time.

    Despite having the licence to fish for mussels in the selected location, I would need to seek further permission in writing to actually go out and harvest them from my local WG fisheries office in Menai Bridge. The mussel seed resource is a time limited offering. Storms or starfish can result in the total loss of seed in as little as a day, therefore taking nigh on 5 months to get permission to pursue an ongoing activity that is only conducted by those persons having a registered shellfish farm (currently 3 companies here) is disproportionate. It would be nice to have the licence to obtain seed as part of the farm registration so that the decision on when to harvest could be made by the local fishery office, completey doing away with the annual MUS1 fiasco. After all a local fishery officer can assess the local stock better than a man in an office in London.

    PS I still use the MUS1 form it may well have changed to something with the MMO logo on.Comment Tags: Mussel seed fishing

  11. Stephen Grant on said:

    What would improve the this piece of legislation is an unrelenting focus on the core objective, namely “to ensure that we can achieve sustainable fish stocks and a long-term, viable fishing industry in the most effective way”.

    Collapsing stocks are the problem, caused by decades of overfishing. The only respite was the second world war, depth charges included!

    Politicians continually ignore the scientific advice: “72 moratoriums recommended as essential, zero implemented” tells the story.

    As one of the previous responedents commented, “The quota system is a failure. A better system would be to set up protected areas – possibly movable, where no fishing would be allowed at all”.

    The solution must entail a reduction in fishing effort, allied with the introduction of extensive (30-40%) protected areas. An added benefit is that fewer ships and known ‘ no take’ zones would be easier to police than the current distributed quota system.Comment Tags: find your fish, First

  12. Mabel Cheung on said:

    Hard won legislation to protect freshwater, coastal and marine habitats and the environment (such as the Environment Act 1995; The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 and Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) are essential to protect them from harm. Such legislation is also vital to ensure that the environment and biodiversity is maintained for knock-on benefits to human health, recreation and fishing-related industry. Therefore, it is imperative that legislation such as these must not be weakened or removed.

  13. Stephen Evans on said:

    All commercial and ‘hobby’ gill netting in inshore waters must be prohibited. Minimum Landing Size (MLS) of bass must be increased. Commercial exploitation of all fish species during their spawning period must be prevented and made a criminal offense. Existing legislation must be enforced and those that choose to ignore the current regulations must be heavily fined – No exemptions or excuses!

  14. Alan Deeming on said:

    There is a general perception of Commercial (sea) fishermen that they are flouting current regulations whenever they feel they can get away with it due to ineffective enforcement.
    To quote Martin Salter’s recent address to the Environmental Audit Select Committee’s inquiry into Wildlife Crime on the 7th March by way of example:-
    “Last month’s prosecution in Scotland of 17 skippers found guilty of illegal catches worth over £62 million puts the Brinks Mat robbery into the shade yet those convicted got off with pathetically weak fines of no more than £80,000 each – representing just a fraction of the illegal profits made from robbing a public resource and damaging an important fishery.
    Furthermore it is clear that a large proportion the commercial sector are intent on short term gains whilst ignoring the long term damage to sustainability of stocks that the scientific community has been warning of for many years.
    Anyone still in denial on the subject of diminishing fish stocks would be well advised to read Professor Callum Roberts book “The Unnatural History of the Sea”.
    Any process of rationalisation or streamlining of current legislation should not be allowed to be high jacked by the commercial fishing industry as a means to allowing them to get away with plundering yet more of our ever diminishing fish stocks.
    I can, of course, fully sympathise with the extreme concern felt by all at the apparent unwillingness of our EU neighbours to enforce even rudimentary conservation measures.
    It needs to be recognised that sea fish stocks belong to the entire population and not just the commercial sector. The UK government has recently been woken up to the fact that the contribution to the UK economy made by Recreational Sea Anglers (RSA) far outweighs that of the commercial fishing industry yet the make up of the newly formed IFCA committees is still biased well in favour of the commercial sector.
    One had hoped that the inclusion of a requirement for conservation as part of the IFCAs terms of reference would have heralded a new attitude towards the maintenance & improvement of fish stocks but current evidence suggests that the commercial representatives are still calling the shots and blocking any additional conservation measures.
    There should also be a review of what species of fin fish are subject to legislation regarding catch limits as well as the targeting of breeding stocks of sporting stocks important to RSAs such as Black Bream.
    One significant area that stands out as needing harmonising is the need to record fin fish catches at no later than the point of landing for all vessels working both within the 6 mile zone controlled by IFCAs and outside as controlled by the MMO.
    RSAs are increasingly adopting catch and release tactics as a means to conservation of stocks that are important to them. There is, however, an element of commercial rod & line fishing for the black economy which needs more effective control all be it that this needs to be seen to be in conjunction with improved enforcement on the entire commercial fleet.
    I think that the bottom line is that unless more is spent on enforcement of regulations relating to catch limits set in full recognition of scientific facts, the commercial sector will continue to decimate our various fin fish stocks to a point where we have complete collapses of stocks such as happened round the Grand BanksComment Tags: conservation, IFCA, seafish stocks

    • Red Tape Challenger on said:

      Have you got any suggestions about how these issues can be addressed?

    • Shaun Krijnen on said:

      Just a quick point. I have been lead to believe that if i catch cod on a registered vessel I am limited to no more than 50kg/month. If i go out with an unregistered boat there is no limit to what I can catch as long as it is for my personal consumption. These catches will be unrecorded yet are considered insignificant. Fishing forums usually have tales of vessels coming home with substantial landings that would provide someone with a better living than a licenced commercial fisherman, yet only commercial fishermen are the bad boys! 400,000 bass anglers each catching and retaining one fish per week is 20800000 fish per year! Do this to all fish and it makes a difference to stock levels that are being blamed on the commercial sector.

      The shore crab in the UK is in decline and given the numbers of people I see looking for peeler over my local beaches I am not surprised, yet funnily enough the blame is put at the mussel farmers not the persons removing the breeding females for bait! (Crabs can only breed when the female has moulted and is soft).

      The Grands Banks fishermen are probably glad the cod has gone, they make more money from the prawns that are no longer eaten by the cod. But as a point of fisheries managemant the cod over there are now smaller and slower growing as this means they are less likely to be caught. Thus fishing pressure removed the biggest best fish leaving small slow growing behind from which all stocks now originate.

      I have heard of the fishing model that allows the complete removal of all sized fish from a fishery and it doesn’t result in collapse. The reason being that big fish produce bigger and more eggs than small fish. They are better eggs. By leaving more big fish it helps the smaller year classes. Big fish eat small fish thereby reducing the population. This is good as having too many small fish all feeding on the same diet can lead to a food shortage for these fish which begin to starve and not breed. Therefore removing these small fish means the remaining have more food and don’t starve. It is a method of fishing that maintains the population pyramid shape and you will still have big fast growing fish in the population. I think the Faroese adopt this kind of strategy they land everything caught regardless of size and fish overpopulated cohorts to reduce numbers to give the fish in that cohort more food. It makes sense when thought about. The fastest way to destroy a population of anything is to target the best breeders and remove them. It is the CFP management policy that has destroyed fishing in EU waters not the fishermen. Fish quota managemant is bad for fish and bad for fishermen.Comment Tags: conservation, management strategy

  15. David Jarrad on said:

    The SAGB will be responding to the RTC in due course, however I wish to comment on this website, following receipt of comments from our members.
    The complexity of this site and the un-user freindly manner in which it is laid out will, I believe negate any meaningful response by many. Is is very difficult to ascertain the relevant legislation that you wish to comment upon. Therefore the majority of comments are generic in nature and NOT legislation specific.
    We are pleased that the deadline for responses has been extended on this important piece of work.

  16. Tim Wilson on said:

    I have been horrified at the (unintended) practices that have flowed from fishing quotas. Stocks of fish are falling whilst we are faced with the travesty of unwanted dead fish being thrown back after catch because they cannot be sold. The quota system is a failure. A better system would be to set up protected areas – possibly movable, where no fishing would be allowed at all. These would form areas of conservation; allow marine life to grow without exploitation; be easier to police and eliminate the travesty of throwing away unwated catches.Comment Tags: fishing; protected; conservation

    • Red Tape Challenger on said:

      That is an interesting point. How could we do this and balance the impact it would have on the fishing community? What could we do to encourage people to consume or otherwise use the unwanted fish?

  17. John Graham on said:

    I am horrified by the waste, and would urge the government to act on the message from Hugh Fernley- Whittingstall’s program.Comment Tags: want not, waste not

    • Red Tape Challenger on said:

      We are interested to hear of anything specific you would like us to consider.

  18. Peter Hebard on said:

    The Balanced Seas and related local consultations on the designation of MCZs were unique in that it was the first time that the Government had invited local stakeholders to be involved in the designation of Conservation Areas from the very start, rather than comment on a fait accompli when it is too late to change, which is to be welcomed.

    As several presentations at the inaugural conference of the Marine Management Organisation in Plymouth late last year and this year’s Coastal Futures revealed, it is far better to engage with fishermen, recognise their undoubted expertise and work with them to make the best of our marine environment, as has also been proven to work by conservationists in the US.

    Richard Benyon’s approach to do just that and fight hard to ensure the long term sustainability of their business is to be applauded and reflects the wider policy suggested in these submissions.

    It makes eminent sense to provide the good husbandry to foster more fish, rather than just placing yet more restrictions on fishing, although both have an important place in ensuring sustainability. As every farmer appreciates, whilst it is your duty to look after biodiversity in the hedgerows (i.e. the MCZs) your prime purpose is farm the fields (i.e. the sea bed).

    It was significant that, as reported in the conferences, in areas around Scotland and around the Isle of Man, for instance, fishermen are now taking control of their own destiny, commissioning their own research, designating and enforcing their own no-take zones and even laying artificial habitat and seeding areas. Even the Conservation organisations were expressing a preference for marine management, rather than solely for protection.

    Whilst we are excluding fishermen, not only not only from MCZs but from wind farms and aggregate dredging sites, etc, the expertise exists in such organizations as the National Oceanography Centre, to make our remaining seas more productive to compensate them at least partially for lost fishing grounds, through laying artificial reefs, seeding shellfisheries or other proactive measures.

    Prototypes in Poole Bay for instance, have been proved highly successful and benign over decades. Far from being a threat to the environment they can help to foster biodiversity to and more could be laid at negative cost. The Wreck-to-Reef project is even more visionary in that it includes oto only a sunken ship for the benefit commercial fishermen, Sea Angling and Dive boats but a rock reef seeded with lobsters and a separate Biodiversity reef too.

    The Solent was the largest Oyster Fishery in Europe just a decade or so ago. Shellfisheries are still very successful export and are reputed to be the best way to feed the world. Across the Channel, Brest Scallop fisheries are highly productive and fully sustainable whilst ours are often fished out and a plan to develop the largest offshore mussel fishery in Europe has had to undergo years of environmental and other impact assessments.

    Equally the Crown Estate is looking at farming seaweed for bio fuels and pharmaceutical feed stocks, which may well provide productive feeding grounds for fin fish.

    Rather than seeking to co-locate Marine Conservation Areas, with all the regulatory imposition and inconvenience that would impose on the operators, it would make sense to ask them to customize the scour protectors. cable runs and exclusion areas to provide habitat for fish catches. Since they will have to be “no take” zones it is important to make them as productive as possible, hopefully fostering biodiversity as well.

    As highlighted in a more comprehensive response by the undersigned under Flood and Coastal Erosion, our marine and coastal environment offers the opportunity for far faster Economic Regeneration than its industrial counterparts and the recently announced Coastal Communities Fund will hopefully allow local communities to demonstrate the widest range of employment opportunities, whilst helping to fund environmental management.

    The Marine Management Organisation is working hard to develop marine plans, which are important, but they are again a restrictive process. What is also needed is a parallel proactive management process to make the best of our seabed and the change of mindset to harness the productivity of each area and realize the potential so or ever possible source of revenue or side benefit, such as the “ecosystem services” that our scientists are now starting to highlight.

    Whereas the cost of such proactive management might at first seem prohibitive, the key is to identify multiple benefits and sources of funding. For example, a coastal sub-surface reef could be tailored to provide spawning ground for a local fish catches, cuttlefish perhaps, and nursery area for others, as they have been proven to do in the Southern Hemisphere. It could provide recreation for surfers and or eco-tourism for scuba divers, whilst retaining beach replenishment or delaying coastal erosion.

    The effect on real estate values can be verY powerful, such that on the Gold Coast, Australia, for instance, every Australian Dollar has been shown to return fifty to the local economy, Narrowneck reef has reduced the demand for beach replenishment markedly and therefore for the marine aggregate dredging that is so damaging to our sea beds and hated by fishermen.

    There are now far more cost effective ways of building much larger such reefs far more cost-effectively and they may even provide the base for a more survivable form of wave energy generation now under development.

    Similarly, training walls have been used in past centuries to ensure harbour entrances remain self-dredging but they can also provide productive habitat for fin and shellfish.

    The techniques of agitation dredging are only just starting to be fully understood but allowing shellfish dredgers to dredge channels and unwanted sandbanks and perhaps seeding them to encourage them to do so, can be a very useful way of reducing dredging costs, as, once agitated, the sediment on the channel bank or bed tends to remain fluid for some hours or even days and flows out to sea under the tide.

    To sum up, rather than revision of the regulations alone, it is the change in mindset amongst the regulators that is most needed and a shift in the balance of their priorities, from imposing restrictions to providing advice on proactive measures to make our seas more productive.

    It is encouraging that the IFCAs and the MMO are working towards that end but there are still pressures from leading personnel in the older established agencies to focus on enforcement, when engagement and more proactive measures have now been proven irrefutably to offer far better returns for both the Marine Economy and its Environment.

    [Deleted Text]Comment Tags: Crown Estate, fisheries, MMO, reefs, shellfisheries

    • John Catchpole on said:

      Thank you Peter Hebard for your analysis of the fishing industry. Unfortunately we are all suffering from the governments of the day that in conjunction with the EU managed to destroy a valuable industry which supported many communities around the UK seaboard. Unfortunately the British invented cricket with an honour code unrecognised by many europeans. Without the common fisheries policy the allowing of EU members being able to fish lucrative waters close to the UK and in general making the fisheries rule which we as brits simply obeyed to our cost, continentals happily carried on taking undersized fish as had been the habit of a lifetime. It was not a uncommon sight to see the wheel house of a Belguin trawler with undersized plaice drying on top. I have walked around French fishing ports and found fishstalls selling well undersized fish .
      My suggestion would be to opt out of the fisheries laws and go back to control of our own waters. There is a shipyard in Gt Yarmouth well capable of building new ships, fishdocks and the means to train crews. The infrastucture is still there why not use it to our advantage.Comment Tags: Water and Marine Sea Fisheries

    • Peter Hebard on said:

      I agree, John Catchpole, but Richard Benyon, I think, is dealing with the art of the possible in his dealings with the EU. Taking back control of our own waters, much as we would all like to see it happen, is a long way off.

      In the meantime, there is much that can be done to rationalise our own UK regulators and change their mindsets, from making life difficult for our fishermen and others active in the Marine Environment, to helping to make their businesses more successful, challenging and empowering them to take control of their own destiny and persuading other major players to assist them by providing Artificial Habitat and good husbandry to make our seas more productive, particularly in any exclusion zones around their installations To use a farming analogy, the Marine Conservation Zones, soon to be confirmed, may become “hedgerows” to foster biodiversity but all the other exclusion zones imposed on fishermen from those around wind farms and oil rigs to the deserts left after aggregate dredging can be made to foster the fish the fishermen can the catch around them . Thereafter, it will be important to take every measure to farm the ” fields” in between or at least take some proactive but sympathetic measures to maximise their long term sustainable productivity..

      The pilot Voluntary Marine Plan for Dorset C- Scope Project has been compiled with just such an objective and is a highly constructive document. Sadly the MMO may have been launched with the same aspiration – to make the best of our marine resources -, However, the regulatory requirements of the Marine and Coastal Access Act requires them to consult every ill-informed “Top-Down” agency and comply with many overlying EU directives and related UK Legislation, which renders it virtually impossible to identify any opportunity for constructive collaboration between local stakeholders, still less to give locals a chance to take the lead or indeed fulfil David Cameron’s aspiration s for “Localism”. Right now the priority must be for Economic Regeneration and our coastline and seabed offer some of the fastest and best opportunities to achieve that.

      It must be every government agency’s prime task to foster that, in addition to any other responsibilities . Since most opportunities to do so depend upon the sustainable exploitation of their environment, locals are as keen as anyone to look after it and no amount Bureaucratic interference will will help.

      Once fishermen can see help on the horizon and sensible proactive measures that they believe will work, they are far more likely to comply with those regulations still needed. Right now we all know there are pirates and many fishermen know how to outwit those regulators for whom they have least respect, but their fellow fishermen know better then any regulator what they are up to and in the end the best fleets police themselves.

      It does not take much when you are next in a French fish market , a flash with your phone to Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall’s and Richard Benyon’s Twitter accounts. Job done!

      Simplistic I admit but not so very far from how some overseas fleets have succeeded by working with the regulators, rather than against them.Comment Tags: Economic Regeneration, fishing, Marine Environment, productivity

  19. dave clayton on said:

    the red tape is causing endless issues and has become unworkable, due to stupid amounts of paperwork and EU interference and bad management and backroom deals. give the UK fleet self control and get EU boats out of our watersComment Tags: EU bad

    • Red Tape Challenger on said:

      Thanks for your comment. Can you be more specific about which paperwork you find overly burdonsome?

  20. I would like to see legislation aimed at commercial fishermen applied to anglers too. Recreational and sport angling is affecting our fish stocks. One example would be the Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990, which prohibits the use of sand eels as bait for fishing vessels (this includes a man in a boat with a rod). Sand eels can be used as bait in the same area by anglers, which seems somewhat unfair.

    There are several incidences of this in legislation and in the age of promoting sustainability, the Government needs a blanket policy, not one which alienates the commercial sector.

    • Brian on said:

      This is misleading and inaccurate, which is a shame because I suspect it has come from the Marine Management Organisation.

      Sand eels can only be used by anglers fishing from the shore, not from a vessel. Therefore the order applies to everyone fishing from a vessel.

      The Bass Nursery Areas (as they are known) were largely driven by the recreational sector and represent one of the few conservation measures there are for this non quota species.

      The fishing mortality from recreational shore anglers in these areas in minimal as most anglers respect the request that even bass caught from the shore are not targeted or retained in these areas.

      Maybe the prohibition of fishing order should be extended to cover the netting of all finfish species using these areas as nursery grounds. This would facilitate enforcement significantly.

      The fact that there are virtually no measures that have ever been taken to enhance or develop the recreational fishing sector is an indication that it is this group of stakeholders who have been alienated over the years — not the commercial sector!

Bookmark and Share