I came across this news piece on the NFFO website whilst looking for their views on the Greenpeace Dogger bank action (nothing yet). It reminded me of the Yes Minister episode where Sir Humphrey explains to the Minister how you discredit a report. (Interestingly interspersed with Australian politicians arguing why they shouldn’t act on climate change.)
NFFO 24th July 2020 ‘A recent teleconference organised by Defra, was held to discuss the contents of the Benyon Report, by ex-Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon, on Highly Protected Marine Areas. The meeting revealed the strength of feeling across the fishing industry against an attempt to shoehorn No Take Zones into the already established process for designating and managing marine protected areas.
Comments from across the industry spectrum emphasised that there is much in the report to concern the fishing industry, both in the content of the report and the way it came about.
Questions were raised about the independence of the Chairman, the balance within the panel, and why organisations representing the fishing industry had been excluded. The Chairman’s past judgement as a leading proponent of the EU landing obligation, and in his subsequent action in joining the Blue Marine Foundation were also highlighted.
The confusion at the heart of the report about what Highly Protected Marine Areas would be for was commented on. Was the purpose of HPMAs to:
- Provide a scientific control area? In which case, no rigorous case had been made that would stand up to scientific scrutiny
- Or were HPMAs being pushed as part of a wider advocacy campaign for No Take Zones? – a back-door way of managing fisheries – or more extreme – a romantic project for rewilding the seas.