Sea Fisheries Bag Limits (S.R.4/2010) - Ministerial Response - 08 June 2010

Findings

Comments

1

The Assistant Minister for Economic Development withdrew  P58/2009  Sea  Fisheries  (Bag  Limits) (Jersey)  Regulations  200-  without  advance notification to the Panel. This was discourteous not only to the Panel and all of the stakeholders who had contributed to the Panel's ongoing Review, but also undermines the work and role of Scrutiny.

It is not unusual for a proposition to be withdrawn without notice where circumstances make such  action  appropriate  as it  was  in this  case. For  absolute  clarity  copies  of subsequent correspondence between the Minister and the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel are attached in appendix A

2

The Panel could find only limited evidence of any other  jurisdiction  proposing  or  introducing  Bag Limits  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  a  local commercial fishing industry.

Many jurisdictions state that they have bag limits in place to share the resource'. i.e. Australia for all fish, France for Ormers, whelks, scallops, lobster and crab and some UK Sea Fishery Committee districts for lobster. This is in areas where commercial exploitation is also allowed. These jurisdictions allow continued commercial fishing often with comparatively large quotas but they have seen it equitable or fair to also limit amateur fishing. This information is a matter of public record and should be available to the Scrutiny Panel

3

Bag Limits  are  common  place  elsewhere for the purpose  of  well  evidenced  conservation  reasons. Indeed, a well evidenced conservation case for Bag Limits presented for a threatened marine species is likely to be accepted across the stakeholder groups, although it would need to be applied across the commercial and recreational sectors.  

Bag limits are commonplace elsewhere but importantly they are often in place where the fish stock is not threatened with extinction and commercial fishing is allowed to continue often on a large scale.

4

Guernsey  makes  use  of  its  licensing  scheme  to control catches, for example to issue licenses to vessels entitled to fish for shellfish, and those that do not have such a licence are only permitted to catch 5 lobsters and 25 crabs per day.  

Jersey has the same system although the number of lobsters permitted is 15, crabs are the same as Guernsey.

5

Stock controls being considered for the recreational sector  must  in  future  be  accompanied  by reasonable controls on the commercial sector.

The commercial sector is currently controlled by quota measures on many finfish species and limitation on gear .i.e. pot numbers. There are no such controls on amateurs.

6

There  are  apparent  inadequacies  in  the  vessel licensing  system  in  Jersey.  There  are  currently about 164 licensed (J registered) boats, but this is not a fixed limit because of the open market for licences throughout the U.K., Jersey and Guernsey.

The vessel licensing system is the same as that in Guernsey and the UK to enable licences to be transferable. If the limit was fixed it would mean a renegotiation of the Jersey-UK Fisheries Management  Agreement  and  exclusion  of  Jersey  vessels  to  UK  waters  and  have  no consequence to amateur fishermen.

7

There  are  insufficient  levels  of  control  over  the licence system in the Island.  

As above.

8

The Panel has serious concerns about the official' representation  of  leisure  anglers  on  The  Marine Resources  Advisory  Panel  and  concludes  that  it was  not  reflective  of  a  significant  proportion  of leisure anglers' views.

The Marine Resources Panel representative for leisure anglers has since been changed. This Panel may consider requesting representatives' ballot their members on important issues in the future.

9

The  failure  to  consult  widely  led  to  the  Minister proposing defective Regulations. Wider consultation would have ensured a more inclusive process with all views taken into account, and a lot of Scrutiny members  and  Officers  time  spent  on  the  matter could have been saved.

The Marine Resources Panel dealt with this issue on at least three occasions over many months and received agreement in writing for the proposal from the angling representative. The regulations as lodged were not defective as they would have achieved the objectives set by the Marine Resources Panel.

10

No economic impact study into the effects of black fish sales on the commercial fishing industry has been undertaken.

The evidence submitted by the commercial industry was accepted at face value and in any event it is extremely difficult when trying to evaluate illegal sales to get a reliable response.

11

The  proposed  introduction  of  the  Bag  Limits, encompassing all leisure anglers, appeared to be a wholly disproportionate response to the problems faced  by  the authorities  in  policing  and  securing convictions under current legislation.

 Leisure anglers are regularly inspected for minimum sizes of their catch. It would take very little extra effort to count the number of fish in addition to assessing the size of each one.

12

The Panel supports the principle of Bag Limits for conservation  purposes  but  is  concerned  that  the limit of 20 would be an unnecessary tool to achieve that end in the case of ormers, as there are existing measures  in  place  under  current  legislation  that protect  ormers  from  commercial  levels  of exploitation.

20 is the same limit as in Brittany – harmonisation was being sought.

13

The extent to which unlicensed commercial fishing (and  sales  of  those  fish)  contributes  to  the commercial problems outlined as the key reason for proposing Bag Limits for lobster and bass, has not been established.

It has been established by the Scrutiny Panel see paragraph 19

14

Despite  claims  from  the  Minister  for  Economic Development  that  the  introduction  of  Bag  Limits would be good for tourism, no evidence was found to support this. Indeed, the Panel understands that there  has  already  been  a  negative  impact  on tourism resulting from the proposals for Bag Limits.

It was the angling Marine Resources Panel member that initially suggested bag limits were good for Tourism and evidence from other jurisdictions indicates that well regulated fisheries are attractive for Tourism.

The Scrutiny Panel should provide the evidence for the negative impact referred to.

15

There  is  a  general  lack  of data  around  Jersey's marine resources which is a barrier to achieving informed policy development.

Significant research and data collection is carried out and resources are generally directed towards the key commercial species.

16

It is currently illegal for a non licensed fisherman to fish commercially in Jersey waters, although selling his catch is currently only evidence of a possible illegal  act,  that  of  catching  those  fish.  Clearly, policing the catching of fish is more difficult than policing the sale of those fish.

This  has  been addressed  by  an addition  to  the  Sea  Fisheries  (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment No.5)(Jersey) Regulations 2009.

17

Despite  reassurances  of  the  possibility  of  using more voluntary fisheries officers on an occasional basis, and that bag limits are almost self-policing as 90 per cent of boats at least that go to sea go from the  same  slipways  and  everybody  sees  what everybody else is landing, the Panel found that the capacity  of  the  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources Section to police and enforce the Bag Limits  was limited.

Anglers are regularly inspected for minimum size – counting the catch is a very small extra piece of work. (see also paragraph 11)

18

The Fisheries and Marine Resources Section has very limited resources and is unable to effectively enforce  the  current  legislation,  which  has significantly narrower targeting, and could not be expected to police and enforce the Regulations that targeted almost 1800 leisure anglers.

We would welcome the evidence that Jersey is any worse than any other jurisdiction in regard to enforcing legislation. In fact we understand generally fishermen accept that we have better control than neighbouring jurisdictions.

19

There is an issue with some non-licensed fishermen selling their catches, but the Panel found this to be a practice carried out by only a very limited number, approximately 20, of the near 1800 leisure anglers in the Island, particularly on any significant level. Indeed,  this  was  openly  accepted  across  the stakeholder  groups,  including  the  Minister  for Economic Development. In addition, most of these are known to the authorities.

20 leisure fishermen selling wet fish on the open market can have a dramatic effect on the market place in a small community.

20

From  a  policing  aspect  putting  the  onus  on  a commercial purchaser to prove that they purchased their fish from a legitimate source would be simpler than  the  current  system  of  proving  illegal  sale. However,  this  is  just  one  small  aspect  of  the necessary policing.

We welcome this suggestion which will be examined.

21

The  tagging  of  fish  initiative  adopted  by  the commercial fishermen was sound in principle.

Agreed. This initiative was agreed by the Marine Resources Panel and paid for by States of Jersey funds.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The Assistant Minister should fully explain publicly the decision to withdraw P58/2009 Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey) Regulations 200- and confirm any  future  intention  to  bring  this  or  a  related proposition to the States.

Accept

Copies of correspondence attached (appendix A)

Done

2

The  responsible  Minister  should  develop conservation policy around spawning and minimum fish sizes.

Accept

Minimum  size  and  spawning  stock  biomass enhancement  measures  are  examined alongside other management measures.

Ongoing

3

The  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources  Section should  be  provided  with  adequate  research resources to provide fuller information on Jersey's marine environment in order to better inform policy development.  

Accept

When resources become available.

4

More work should be  undertaken to assess the viability  of  amending  current  legislation  or introducing new legislation, other than Bag Limits, to  address  the  specific  issue  of  the  commercial sale of fish by non-licensed fishermen, and to find a solution which reconciles the interests of all fishing sectors and is feasible and effective.

This work should include:

1. examination of different ways of placing a burden  of  proof  on  the  commercial purchaser  regarding  the  provenance  of their fish, including tagging systems
2. a review of the licensing system
3. monitoring and improving the understanding of fish stocks
4. imported fish (wild and farmed)

Any future development of such proposals should include a full stakeholder consultation.

Accept

Accept

Reject Accept

Accept

1. This  has  been  addressed  by  Sea Fisheries  (Miscellaneous  Provisions) (Amendment No.5)(Jersey) Regulations 2009
2. Licences  only  apply  to  commercial fishermen.

d) This recommendation is not understood.

Done

N/A Ongoing