The findings of a major report commissioned by the NFFO and SFF demonstrate that the fishing industry continues to be shoved aside in the race for offshore energy, with more than a third of English and Welsh waters and half of Scottish waters expected to be off-limits by 2050.
‘This paints a frightening picture,’ said SFF chief executive Elspeth Macdonald.
The Spatial Squeeze in Fisheries report has been prepared for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) and National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) by independent marine consultancy ABPmer. This is the first time that the cumulative and anticipated effects of increasing competition for marine on the fishing sector have been quantified.
Change is being driven by the UK’s net zero by 2050 (2045 in Scotland) aims and a headlong expansion into primarily wind energy, but also wave and tidal power generation, plus increasing designation of Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) which are closed to fishing activity.
Worst vs best case
According to ABPmer’s analysis, a worst-case scenario could see a loss of access to close to half (49%) of UK fishing grounds. Even a best-case scenario envisages the loss of access to 38% of UK waters.
‘We are looking at displacement on a scale not seen before,’ said NFFO chief executive Barrie Deas, commenting that the sheer pace of change has been dramatically accelerated as the previous approaches to consultation and planning have been abandoned by government.
‘We used to have a process of evidence and discussion, but this has been replaced,’ he said, commenting that the current ‘top down’ approach is that of a ‘bulldozer’ with industry involvement limited to the very final stages – the implication being that by then any consultation is cosmetic.
‘We have moved away from constructive discussion with government in a thoughtful and considered way,’ said Elspeth Macdonald, commenting that the Scottish government is only now starting to pay attention to blue economy issues.
‘This is a dialogue that should have been taking place a decade ago,’ she said.
‘The report shows that expansion of both offshore renewable energy generation and marine conservation are being prioritised above fishing, despite fishing’s value in producing low carbon, healthy and sustainable food, contributing to our food security and supporting thousands of jobs in our coastal communities.’
Sidelined
The two organisations state that the fishing industry’s interests are being sidelined in the overall strategy for marine planning, and in relation to individual planning decisions. They argue that while there is no dispute about the need for renewables in dealing with climate change – but the current process is liable to shut down much of an already climate-smart industry.
‘It’s deeply unjust that fishing businesses and fishing communities are being denied an equal say when we are the sector likely to feel the most significant impact. We need a proper seat at the table and for consultation to be meaningful, not just lip-service,’ Barrie Deas said.
The ABPmer report, which focuses on demersal trawling and which requires further work on shellfish and pelagic fisheries, demonstrates the extent of the squeeze on fishing – but also indicates that it’s not too late to minimise the impact on fishing considerably, through much better planning and design and the implementation of mitigation measures.
‘The UK and Scottish governments both need to recognise the importance of sustainable fisheries for both food production and livelihoods, and more effectively integrate our industry into the marine spatial planning and decision-making systems. The benefits of climate-smart energy should not be at the expense of climate-smart food,’ Barrie Deas said.
‘Fishing industry representatives need to be given a stronger and more effective voice in the planning process, at both strategic plan and project level, to ensure that the potential impact on the fleet of proposed developments and conservation zones are adequately expressed and considered so that impacts can be avoided or minimised. There must be real, meaningful consultation, not just lip service.’
