At our “Fishing Safety at Sea” event on 24 October 2023, sponsored by The Seafarers’ Charity, we heard from a variety of speakers on safety management practices, industry-led initiatives, and the need to shift the dialogue and culture surrounding safety in fishing.
Attendees heard from:
Nigel Blazeby - Trustee - The Seafarers’ Charity
Cor Blonk - Secretariat - FISH Platform
Charles Blyth - Risk, Safety and Training Lead - National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
Chris Ranford - Chief Executive - Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation
A full recording of the online event can be found here:
Following the presentations, Parliamentarians and attendees put their questions to the panel. Written summaries of all questions and answers are provided below. Please note that these answers reflect the views of the panelists, rather than the APPG Secretariat or its Members.
QUESTIONS FROM MPS
The new medical certification requirement that is being introduced by the Marine Coastguard Agency (MCA) is causing huge concern for fishers in my constituency. They feel that the requirement is not proportionate, and that the impact on the local economy has not been considered; there has also been no Welsh language consideration in communicating the requirement. Could the speakers comment on these points? (Liz Saville Roberts MP)
Sheryll Murray MP noted that she and several other MPs have raised the matter of the new medical certification requirement to the Secretary of State for Transport Mark Harper MP.
Nigel Blazeby answered that although a consultation was held on the requirement, many fishermen had limited capacity to take part. He agreed that the requirement – which enters effect on 30 November for fishermen working on vessels under 25 metres in length – was not proportionate for fishermen working on small vessels and given the lack of evidence of accidents or deaths being caused by fishermen’s unfitness. Blazeby added that the new requirement was a “gold-plating” of an international regulation.
Robert Greenwood (SafetyFolder) agreed with Blazeby, adding that the fishing industry had during consultation said to the MCA that the strictness of the requirement went beyond what was required by the UK’s adoption of the International Labour Organization Work in Fishing Convention (known commonly as ILO C188). He noted that Ireland has no equivalent to it, and called for implementation of the requirement to be delayed while it was reviewed.
David Duguid MP agreed with Liz Saville Roberts MP and said it was clear that communication of the consultation on the requirement was unsatisfactory.
We recently had an issue of an altercation between a Shetland-based vessel and a foreign one, outside the 12-mile zone. What legal recourse is there for incidents not in the 12-mile zone but within the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)? (David Duguid MP)
Robert Greenwood said that different legal mechanisms apply under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) depending on the circumstances; for example, a serious crime in a nation’s EEZ can be in the jurisdiction of that nation even if beyond the 12-mile zone. The UK’s case is slightly unusual in that much of its maritime legislation is older than a century and pre-UNCLOS, and applying sanctions such as removal of a licence would probably involve reviewing pre-UNCLOS legislation.
In comparison to other countries, is the safety record for the UK’s fishing industry “better”, taking into account the size and composition of the fleet? And, moving forward, how do we achieve universal buy-in to improve safety measures? (Peter Aldous MP)
Charles Blyth said that the UK was “on a safety journey” with the rate of deaths falling, and that while the aim is to reach zero, the UK fishing industry is clearly learning from mistakes. He cautioned that accompanying regulations need to be fit for purpose and proportionate, which the MCA’s incoming requirement does not meet given lack of evidence that unfitness is a cause of accidents and deaths. Blythe concluded that fishermen will buy into changes that they believe are needed, which will be difficult to achieve in the case of the medical certification requirement.
Chris Ranford said that increasing buy-in and improving safety across the industry would be greatly facilitated by a coherent funding strategy designed for the purpose of enabling fishermen to voluntarily meet higher safety standards or to comply with incoming regulations. He noted that the Fisheries and Seafood Scheme in England – currently on pause – had supported safety improvements; but that there is an ongoing issue with grants no longer being available once a measure is made mandatory (e.g. life jackets).
Cor Blonk seconded Ranford’s point on the importance of supporting the industry financially with safety improvements, at least in the short term. He also advised that regulations be established in collaboration with industry, and that locally or nationally-caught fish should be better promoted by the UK seafood supply chain; the latter would help fishermen to afford safety improvements and would reduce the risk of the UK supply chain importing seafood from countries whose fisheries have poorer safety standards.
Nigel Blazeby reiterated that to improve safety, the focus should be on changing working practices. He noted that the majority of the MCA’s surveyors have experience with ships, but comparatively little experience with small vessels, especially ones below seven metres.
If regulations are imposed on fishermen that they don’t see the purpose of, could that have a negative impact on future legislation for fishing that is more justified and necessary? (Sheryll Murray MP)
Charles Blyth answered that he can already see this happening, with the industry increasingly unwilling to respect and listen to any positive and helpful safety messages coming from the MCA.
Should MCA inspectors have to go out to sea on vessels before they can inspect these, to improve their understanding? This has been done in the past for fishermen and Royal Navy submariners, who both experienced working onboard each other’s type of vessel. (Sheryll Murray MP)
Nigel Blazeby said that the industry had offered this opportunity to the MCA, but that it had not been taken up. Cor Blonk added that it would also be useful to take legislators on these kinds of trips, as they lack understanding of the fishing industry and assume that international legislation designed for the shipping industry can easily be applied to fishing vessels.
QUESTIONS FROM other attendees
Noting that adequate rest time is an important element of fishing safety, how do UK fishermen record their working and rest time? And how are working and rest times decided?
Charles Blyth explained that this can be done using timesheets, or by posting a timetable of shipboard working arrangements in the galley and also giving this to each crew member so they know their hours. He added that there is also the alternative of a “safe manning document”, where the MCA decides the appropriate manning level for a specific vessel, although this has proven a challenging process for vessels that have elected to go down this route.
Nigel Blazeby said that it was vital to consider the circumstances of the specific fishery in determining working and rest times; for example, a boat fishing for squid at night is able to give crew a long opportunity to rest during the day. He added that regulators need to create regulations that work well with fishing activities and fisheries.
Cor Blonk said that in the Netherlands, working and rest times were registered in writing onboard vessels. This complies with the EU’s Directive 2017/159/EU which is based on ILO C188.
How can UK fisheries demonstrate transparency in the supply chain?
Chris Ranford said that the forthcoming Fisheries Management Plans as part of the Joint Fisheries Statement framework may help fisheries to demonstrate transparency to a degree prior to fish being landed – but not after landing onshore.
Is vessel instability more likely to result from poor design or from poor practice such as overloading?
Charles Blythe said that it was a mix of both, and that there was an economic link; given the often very small profit margins that fishermen face, it is difficult not to take a large haul onboard even if this increases the risk of instability and thus capsizing. He added that some existing fisheries management regulations have contributed to the issue of instability, because licencing and quoting conditions have incentivised owners and skippers to use smaller vessels while fishing for the same amounts of fish.
Should all fishing vessels be equipped with stability monitors to reduce the risk of capsizing, especially when in many cases, additional equipment like gantries, hoists, or elevated net drums are added post-original vessel design?
Nigel Blazeby said that in his opinion, stability monitors will not prevent capsizing as they can only provide information in real-time and cannot forecast conditions or circumstances ahead, and therefore fishers lack time to respond. He added that adhering to loading parameters and limits for water on deck were useful, but emphasised that good vessel design, and competent and safe working practices were most important in preventing capsizing.
Returning to David Duguid MP’s question on legal recourse for altercations between vessels on the high sea, what can be done in such cases?
Nigel Blazeby acknowledged that this was a difficult subject. In the case of the recent altercation involving a Shetland vessel and a foreign one, he recommended taking available CCTV and AIS evidence to regulators via or with the support of the local MP; however, there is a risk of such cases not clearly being in the remit of either Defra or the MCA and falling through the gaps as a result. He added that future incidents could be better managed if access to the UK’s EEZ were to be made contingent on adherence to high safety standards.
Following on from Nigel Blazeby’s point, is there a case to be made for a single government department to manage fishing vessel safety (e.g. Defra only, rather than Defra and the Department of Transport)? (Sheryll Murray MP)
Nigel Blazeby said this would be ideal, but would be difficult in practice. He noted that there remains a lack of joined-up thinking between departments with remit over different maritime aspects; for example, the MMO carries out boardings of fishing vessels at sea as part of its fisheries compliance programme, but does not to his knowledge raise to Defra any safety issues they may have encountered during inspections.
Fishermen, some of whom do not have a high level of literacy, often have to deal with regulatory paperwork that is written in inaccessible language and can be several hundred pages long at a time. What can be done about this issue?
Charles Blyth said that in principle, he agreed that regulations and codes of practice needed to be written in a way that is appropriate for their audiences. Cor Bonk also agreed, adding that the issue of inaccessible language also applies to fisheries management regulations more widely. Nigel Blazeby considered that the amount of regulatory reading required of fishermen was disproportionate, especially in comparison to similar occupations such as farming. On fisheries management specifically, Chris Ranford commented that the language involved in this often goes “beyond degree level”, and blocks fishermen from participating in dialogues and consultations. He added that the MCA and other agencies need to understand the language of fishing better, to make messages as simple as possible, and to use digital tools such as catch reporting apps to bridge gaps where this is appropriate and practical.
To what extent does fisheries management affect fishing safety, and what hope does co-management offer for long-term improvement in safety?
Nigel Blazeby answered that because coastal states and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) control access to fish in the waters they respectively have authority over, both of these types of entities have the opportunity to link access to fish to safety. This has been done in the Falklands Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where vessels that lack high safety and welfare standards or breach safety regulations can have their fishing licence suspended or revoked. There is an opportunity for the UK government to implement a similar system to promote safer working practices for fishers.
The wide range in the estimated numbers of fatalities highlights the need for the establishment of a global repository so that gaps can be filled to target assistance. How could this be developed and implemented and who is best to lead?
Robert Greenwood drew attention to the FISH Platform, whose new project on this issue is expected to result in a report and methodology which – in collaboration with the ILO and IMO – can be used to help develop a globally-accepted safety standard. Greenwood added that although the EU has a reporting system on fishing incidents via the European Maritime Safety Agency, a lack of consistent data remains an issue across the EU; there is thus a need for improved collection of data to support safety improvements.