Top menu

Fishing and Aquaculture Policy S-FISH-2

Proposals that may have significant adverse impacts on access to, or within, sustainable fishing or aquaculture sites must demonstrate that they will, in order of preference:

a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate; significant adverse impacts
d) If it is not possible to mitigate the significant adverse impacts, proposals should state the case for proceeding.

Policy Considerations

1. Proposals must identify any significant adverse impacts on access to, or within, sustainable fishing or aquaculture sites.
2. If the proposal cannot avoid significant adverse impacts on access to, or within, sustainable fishing or aquaculture sites it must show how it will minimise or mitigate impacts, and include how this will be achieved. For example:

  • minimise: adjusting the area used or the times of the day or year when activities are operating
  • mitigate: moving the activity or proving support for new activities that generate similar social benefits

3. The following organisations can possibly help understand where fishing or aquaculture activities are and how a proposal may affect them. Understanding and responding to activity patterns can help reduce potential impacts to the fishing industry:  

  • Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (Devon and Severn, Southern, Sussex)
  • Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  • National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
  • New Under Ten Fishermen's Association
  • North Western Waters Advisory Council - English Channel Working Group

4. Co-existence and fisheries liaison plans or other evidence of discussion with stakeholders can be included. Discussion is most appropriate when undertaken early in the process.
5. Fisheries Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables group provided guidance on liaison with the fishing industry during EIA and on managing fishing industry interactions.

VMS

Port Landings