Developing a Just Transition Framework for UK Fisheries

Year: 2024

eftec Team: Rob Tinch, Claudio Contento, Tiziana Papa, Ian Dickie

Partners: ABPmer

A bird's-eye view of a boat casting a large trawling net

Bottom towed fishing is one of the most destructive forms of fishing, using equipment such as dredges and trawls that directly impact the seafloor and degrade and destroy marine habitats and ecosystems. Transitioning away from destructive fishing practices can have significant environmental benefits, but also notable socio-economic repercussions—particularly for fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on this practice. As a result, it is essential that any transition of fishing practices is approached in a fair and inclusive way, ensuring that those most affected are supported through a just transition. 

Blue Marine Foundation (BMF) is campaigning to ban bottom trawling in all Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) while advocating for a transition to lower impact activities. Crucially it supports the principles of a just transition: aiming to ensure that a move to lower-impact practices does not have an unjust impact on existing small-scale fishing communities.

To support this effort, we worked with BMF and ABPmer to develop a Just Transition Analysis Framework for fisheries and marine spatial management in the UK. The framework enables analysis of the expected social, economic, and environmental impacts across stakeholders caused by pursuing various transition approaches. We tested this framework across three hypothetical fishery transition scenarios.

Developing the Framework

Drawing from our experience in cost-benefit analysis, natural capital accounting, and appraisal, we developed the following framework which can be used for cost-benefit analysis of just transition models for UK inshore fisheries. This framework enables prediction and demonstration of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of different transition options.

Drawing from our experience in cost-benefit analysis and natural capital accounting, we developed the following framework for prediction, measurement and comparison of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of different transition options.

The framework includes the following steps:

Scope: Identify the actions, areas, industries, stakeholders, species, habitats and timescales involved in and impacted by the transition.
Baseline data: Collect and analyse data on fisheries management and activities, products and pricing, fish stocks, habitats and species to establish the no transition baselines.
Transition scenario modelling: Consider one or more transition options by assessing the one-off costs and benefits of initiating the transition and produce a static assessment of the changes to costs and benefits compared against the baseline. This should also consider potential indirect costs and impacts.
Dynamic impacts and timescales modelling: Enable analysis of long-term and second-order effects of the transition by assessing the impacts on habitat and fish stock recovery, displacement of effort (such as fishing moving to another locations post transition and not ceasing), market price responses, and other potential impacts.
Transition outcome: An overall assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed transition by presenting a physical, economic, and socio-economic assessment of outcomes to determine the net value of the transition.

Just transition framework outline, from our report to BMF

Our Findings

The framework was tested in three hypothetical fisheries transition scenarios:

Change in fishing method within the same fishery or target stock to reduce environmental impact;
Fishing effort moving to a different target stock or area in response to spatial displacement, and
Fishing effort moving to a different industry in response to loss of fishing opportunity.

Overall, the analysis highlighted that transitioning away from higher impact fishing practices could have significant environmental benefits, such as improvements in benthic habitats in the short term and significant increases in biodiversity and fish stocks over time.

Transitions also affect socioeconomic factors such as jobs and income, both positively and negatively. Any transition would entail costs, particularly in the short term (e.g., for vessel refitting or retraining) and losses in terms of jobs and incomes across the fishing and seafood supply chain.

At the same time, the transition could create opportunities for less damaging fishing practices. Some of the costs of transition could be offset by switching to other fishing activities or new employment opportunities in other, emerging sectors such as offshore wind, marine tourism, or recreational fishing.

Overall, costs and negative impacts on affected fishers could be minimised, if not recovered, with support for adaptation and adoption of new opportunities in other fishing activities or emerging sectors. This would require careful planning, early engagement with affected sectors, investment, and coordination with the transition timeline. New employment opportunities and required associated infrastructure, financial and wellbeing support, training, and any necessary payments could be provided to minimise disruptions for those affected by new fisheries restrictions.

The analysis also highlighted that it is good practice to consult with affected stakeholders (fishers as well as those that rely on the fishing industry at all stages of the value chain) on changes in management of natural resources and space. Greater involvement of affected stakeholders can also allow more robust data to be gathered on the costs, prices, revenues and profits in the fishing industry in a specific area.

Outcomes and Recommendations

The framework is intended to be used in future analysis of transition scenarios to enable decision makers to understand and predict the scale of costs and benefits and who, and what, will be impacted.

The framework was presented at the World Fisheries Congress in March 2024 and will be used to inform government policy on equitable use of our marine resources alongside environmental protection.

Recommendations for its use include:

Application of the framework should follow a step-by-step process as summarised above - iterations between the steps should be expected.
It is essential to use robust data which matches the scale at which the transition scenario would take place.
Analysis should incorporate the timeframe of proposed policy changes beyond the 10-year period to fully capture environmental improvements, even if future impacts are more uncertain.
Analysis should consider potential lags in achieving the transition outcome, particularly in the case of access to alternative employment opportunities.
Future economic impact assessments of fisheries management measures should be expanded to assess alternative employment options including in other industries or uses of alternative fishing gears.
The assessment needs to take into consideration the skills profile of existing fishers and the infrastructure, training and support systems required to actively and fairly support a just transition.
Early engagement with all potentially affected stakeholders is crucial to identify options and support that would facilitate a just transition.