The control and enforcement of fisheries in England

The report identifies systemic failures in English fisheries enforcement, including a lack of proactive surveillance, low prosecution rates, and insufficient fines that fail to deter IUU fishing. It highlights breaches of EU law regarding the maintenance of a public register of infringements and the misapplication of the points system for serious infringements. Furthermore, it notes a legal gap where environmental damage to European Marine Sites cannot be prosecuted unless a specific local byelaw exists, and argues that the current emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens for business undermines the robust inspection required by EU mandates.

• The English approach to fisheries surveillance is overly restrictive, prioritizing the reduction of regulatory burdens on business over the proactive detection of infringements. This is driven by an interpretation of the Hampton Principles and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 that limits inspections to those based on a specific 'intelligent lead' rather than general risk-based monitoring.
• Prosecution rates for fisheries offences are low, and the penalties imposed are often not dissuasive. The report notes a preference for 'soft' measures like verbal or written warnings over criminal proceedings, and finds that fines are frequently set at low levels that may not deprive the perpetrator of the economic benefit of the illegal activity.
• England is in breach of EU law and the Aarhus Convention because its national register of fisheries infringements is neither complete nor publicly accessible. The register is managed by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), but Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) do not consistently report their data to the system.
• The English system for applying penalty points to fishing licences is improperly restricted to cases resulting in a criminal conviction, which contradicts EU law that requires points for any serious infringement regardless of the legal outcome.
• There is a significant legal gap regarding environmental damage to European Marine Sites; unless a specific local byelaw is in place, there is no mechanism in the English legal system to prosecute individuals for causing such damage.
• The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2015 contain an exemption for commercial sea fishing that the report argues is incompatible with the EU Environmental Liability Directive.
• Enforcement officers, particularly within IFCAs, are deterred from proactive investigative work due to confusion and caution regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the requirements for covert surveillance authorisation.

APA

Druel, E., & Polti, S. (2017). The control and enforcement of fisheries in England. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/itpfxqhx/the-control-and-enforcement-of-fisheries-in-england-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

Druel, Elisabeth, and Sandrine Polti. The control and enforcement of fisheries in England. ClientEarth, 2017. https://www.clientearth.org/media/itpfxqhx/the-control-and-enforcement-of-fisheries-in-england-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Druel |first1=Elisabeth |last2=Polti |first2=Sandrine |title=The control and enforcement of fisheries in England |publisher=ClientEarth |date=September 2017 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/itpfxqhx/the-control-and-enforcement-of-fisheries-in-england-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{druel2017control, author = {Druel, Elisabeth and Polti, Sandrine}, title = {{The control and enforcement of fisheries in England}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2017}, month = sep, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/itpfxqhx/the-control-and-enforcement-of-fisheries-in-england-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }