Sea fisheries - future catching policy: consultation analysis

4. General (Q3-6)

Q3. Broad fleet segments

Overview

4.1. The consultation document sets out that the FCP is proposed to take a fleet segment approach by splitting Scottish fisheries operating in Scottish waters into seven distinct segments. This is to allow a tailored approach to addressing the individual issues with unwanted catch and discards associated with each of these segments.

4.2. The document notes that in partnership with stakeholders, through the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (FMAC), that additional mandatory technical and spatial measures would be developed as required, through a co-management approach to reduce unwanted catch, using the fleet segment approach.

4.3. The consultation document proposes that the fleet segments are divided as follows:

• 1. Pelagic fleet segment (pelagic trawls and purse seiners)
• 2. Offshore whitefish fleet segment (large mesh demersal trawls and seine nets)
• 3. Offshore mixed fleet segment (small mesh offshore demersal trawls)
• 4. Small inshore mobile fleet segment (small mesh inshore demersal trawls and small mesh seine nets)
• 5. Scallop fleet segment
• 6. Pots and creels fleet segment
• 7. Gillnet and longline fleet segment

4.4. A total of 164 respondents (126 individuals and 38 organisations) answered the closed element of question 3 which asked if respondents agreed with the broad fleet segments identified above. A majority (82%) of those who responded agreed that the broad fleet segments looked correct. This was higher among individual respondents (88%) than among organisations (63%). Fishing organisations were more likely to agree with these broad fleet segments while conservation organisations were split on whether these were correct.

4.5. In total, 25 individuals and 28 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to question 3.

Support for proposed fleet segments

4.6. Among those who agreed that the broad fleet segments listed in the consultation document were correct some points of clarification were raised.

4.7. A small number of fishing organisations noted that a separate mention should be granted to inshore squid fisheries as the current classification under the small inshore mobile fleet segment does not accurately reflect the distinctive approach required for this type of fishing.

4.8. Another view expressed was that the broad classifications looked correct but that the proposed segments should not be viewed as fixed or unchangeable, the following quote reflects these views:

"While we have no objection to the segmented fleet approach, we would not wish the segments to be regarded as fixed or unchangeable for other policy purposes and into the future. One of the effects of fisheries regulations over the past few decades has been a regrettable compartmentalisation of the fleet, with all that implies for flexibility and diversification." [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

4.9. One respondent noted that they felt that the creel sector should be split between prawns and shellfish as the two creeler types were sufficiently different to require separate management strategies.

Opposition to proposed fleet segments

4.10. A variety of reasons were given by respondents who did not feel that the broad fleet segments proposed appeared correct.

4.11. Concerns that were raised consistently centred around missing sectors such as diver collection, handlines and emerging fisheries. Others felt that large inshore mobile fleet vessels were also an omission. In addition to concerns around the sectors that were seen to be missing, the view was expressed that the current categorisations did not adequately look to 'future-proof' for novel fisheries that may develop and how these would be dealt with. The following quotes provide a summary of these types of concern:

"There seems to be no future proofing within the policy for new and novel fisheries that may develop and how these will be dealt with." [Organisation, Conservation]

"The small inshore vessel shellfish sector using hand collection, raking or electrofishing does not seem to be included. Similarly with hand diving for scallops. This may be because it is considered there is no substantial discarding by these activities so they do not need including in the FCP, but I would suggest they do need to be included, at least so that any future issues which arise do not just fall between the cracks when issues are considered by the RIFG/FMAC or the alternative route proposed later in the consultation. An alternative could be to subdivide fleet segment 4 into those vessels using demersal trawls or seine nets, and those vessels using the other techniques mentioned above." [Organisation, Scientific body/academia]

4.12. Another view raised, particularly by conservation organisations, was that there was no differentiation between inshore and offshore fleet segments which they felt was an important distinction for fisheries management.

4.13. Relatedly, one public sector body queried whether the definition of offshore would be based on vessel characteristics or some other consideration. The quote below summarises views raised in these types of responses:

"[Organisation] recognises the distinction between 'inshore' and 'offshore' as being a useful approach in developing fisheries management policy; however, this is only applied in respect of whitefish and mixed demersal trawl segments. [Organisation] would consider similar distinctions to be appropriate also for the Scallop and Pots/Creels segment, particularly in consideration of measures to "support fishing at sustainable levels". [Organisation, Public Sector]

4.14. A lack of differentiation within the categorisations between quota managed sectors and non-quota managed sectors was an issue in the view of some respondents. The quotes below illustrate these views:

"No, there is no differentiation between inshore and offshore fleet segments and quota managed sectors and non-quota managed sectors. For example, within creel fisheries there are quota species (nephrops) that are shared with the trawl fleet and non-quota species (crab and lobster) which are targeted exclusively by creels. The segments should reflect that inshore demersal dredge and trawl fisheries cannot be managed in absence of consideration of conflicts and competition between and across those sectors." [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

"There are arguably sufficient differences in the fishing practices, quota/non-quota, ecosystem footprint, entanglement risk and mitigation options from nephrops creeling compared to crab and lobster creeling to justify a separate category of subcategory for these two fishing activities." [Organisation, Conservation]

4.15. A few responses focused on the gillnets and longline segments and felt that more detail was needed here to differentiate between gillnets and longlines and types of gillnets within that categorization.

4.16. A small number of respondents noted that they felt the question was too technical for a public consultation, that they did not understand what was being asked or that this was not their area of expertise. For example:

"Don't know, I'm not familiar with every type of commercial fishing enterprise, plus its really hard to learn about it." [Individual]

Q4. Specific geographical differences

Overview

4.17. Respondents to the consultation were asked whether there were specific geographical differences at sea that the FCP should take account of.

4.18. A total of 160 respondents (126 individuals and 34 organisations) responded to the closed element of this question. A majority of respondents (82%) felt that there were specific geographic differences of the sea that the FCP should take account off. This was consistent across individuals and organisations.

4.19. For the open element of the question, 93 individuals and 30 organisations provided reasons for their answer to question 4.

Specific geographical differences to be accounted for

4.20. The most common geographical difference raised by respondents to be accounted for was inshore areas.

4.21. Some respondents, including those from conservation organisations, noted that inshore waters were complex ecologically, contained known nursery areas and therefore should be subject to more stringent management measures. For example:

"In particular, as inshore waters are frequently the most complex ecologically, and have key roles as spawning and nursery grounds for commercial and non-commercial fish stocks, they should be subject to particularly stringent management measures (e.g., spatial zoning to protect the seabed from mobile gears). Such measures could be determined by the stocks, habitats or marine features found in different locations. Alternatively, the whole inshore could be subject to a simpler national inshore limit on the most destructive fishing gears." [Organisation, Conservation]

"There are obviously inshore areas which should be conservation areas, for the preservation of fish stocks, birds and other animals as well as the marine environment. Allow these areas to be destroyed at our peril.... remember, this is for the preservation of future generations of fish, animals, invertebrates, plant species the marine environment and the continued success of our fishing fleet in the future" [Individual]

4.22. A group of responses, largely from individuals and conservation organisations, made explicit reference to protecting inshore waters from dredging and trawling with some calling for this practice to be banned in inshore waters.

4.23. Another view raised with regards to inshore fishing was that inshore waters should be protected from industrial fishing to protect small local fishermen using sustainable methods such as creels.

4.24. A group of responses called for the reinstatement of the 3-mile inshore trawling limit in response to this question.

4.25. A fishing organisation highlighted that West coast mixed fisheries should be taken account of due to the significant difference in their makeup compared to East coast fisheries. They also highlighted that there are specific issues which are not relevant to other parts of Scottish waters and would require local solutions such as high bycatch of spurdog in nephrops fisheries in the Minches.

4.26. Areas where stock has been identified as in a critical state were also identified as areas which could require more targeted measures and innovative management. One response by a conservation organisation focused on this in detail and pointed out that the West of Scotland was where more targeted measures may be needed to support restoring stocks. Within this response there was focus on the protection of critical fish and shellfish habitats through spatial management being an important feature of the Future Catching Policy:

"There are certain sea areas where some stocks are identified as in a critical state - the West of Scotland for example and where more targeted measures and innovative management may be needed in order to support restoring stocks. Protection of critical fish and shellfish habitats throughout Scotland's marine areas is crucial, and therefore we think that the Future Catching Policy, and access to quota, should be linked to spatial management.

The inshore area is particularly important for providing critical fish and shellfish habitats, many of which are Priority Marine Features (PMFs), and this should be recognised as a geographical area in which only lower impact activities are allowed. Furthermore, there are some sea areas which we know are important for certain protected or vulnerable species like cetaceans or seabirds which should be factored into management decisions given the commitment to make fisheries management help contribute to the achievement of GES. For example, the large MPA designated for cetaceans and other wildlife to the west of Scotland and 14 marine SPAs for marine birds. Certain gear types and areas known to be associated with entanglement and bycatch should be prioritised for mitigation and monitoring. [Organisation. Conservation]

4.27. Relatedly, differences between North Sea in terms of its geography, depth and structure compared to the seas off the West coast was raised as a specific geography requiring attention. The reason given for this was that the continental shelf, slope, marine and ecosystem habitats were thought to be more fragile in the North Sea.

4.28. Another view raised was that regional areas should be smaller to better manage stocks. Reasons given for this were in relation to research due to different stock levels of different fish (such as cod) in different regions.

4.29. One respondent raised the view that it was essential that fallow areas be taken account of within the FCP.

4.30. One respondent noted that the continental shelf edge from north Shetland to St Kilda had to be considered:

"The continual blanketing of the continental shelf edge from north Shetland to St Kilda has to stop, this is a disaster in the making." [Organisation, Conservation]

No specific geographical differences should be accounted for

4.31. A small number of responses gave reasons why they felt that no specific geographical differences should be accounted for in the FCP.

4.32. A small number of responses, one from a fishing organisation, stated that the sea was one interconnected entity and should be managed as such.

4.33. One response stated that they felt Marine Scotland was best placed to determine whether the Catching policy should take into account geographical areas:

"Marine Scotland is best placed to determine whether its Catching Policy should take into account geographical areas, for example, North Sea, West Coast, etc. In particular, the overall health of quota species between different stock-management areas may inform the approach to further regionalisation of catching policy, and whether permitted discards may have consequences for "choke" scenarios in specific areas." [Organisation, Conservation]

Q5. Proposed actions

Overview

4.34. The consultation asked respondents whether the proposed actions set out for each fleet segment in the consultation document were appropriate.

4.35. There was a total of 135 responses (104 individuals and 31 organisations) to the closed element of this question with 36% of respondents stating that they felt the proposed actions were appropriate and 64% stating that they did not think they were appropriate. Individual respondents (39%) were more likely to think that the proposed actions were appropriate than organisational respondents (26%). Conservation organisations were particularly likely to feel that the proposed actions were not appropriate.

4.36. There were 93 responses to the open element of this question from 63 individuals and 30 organisations.

The proposed actions sound appropriate

4.37. Very few respondents gave reasons why they felt that the proposed actions set out in the consultation document were appropriate.

4.38. However, one respondent noted their support for the measures in relation to the scallop and pot and creel sectors. With relation to the scallop sector, there was a recognition of work carried out by the Scottish Government to promote Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) across the fleet and to support improved transparency. On the pot and creel sector, this response raised the view that bycatch is a minor concern for these fisheries but agreed that there was a need to consider some means of limiting activity in this segment given the increasing creel numbers related to the landings of brown crabs decreasing.

4.39. One response stated that they felt that the appropriateness depended on the region and fleet and encouraged agreements to be reached at FMAC/IFGs (Fisheries Management and Conservation Group/Inshore Fisheries Groups).

4.40. Another response stated that they felt they were appropriate and that some fishing must be allowed for local fishermen, while stating their view that deep sea trawlers and bottom trawlers should not be authorised within marine conservation areas.

The proposed actions do not sound appropriate

4.41. Respondents who did not feel that the proposed actions for each fleet segment were appropriate gave a variety of reasons.

4.42. One concern that was raised by some respondents was in relation to Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS). One respondent felt that the proposals as they stand allowed for the continued discarding of over MCRS whitefish by small inshore vessels which they felt was wrong:

"The argument is that landing them would be economically too costly due to a lack of fishmeal processing facilities, which is true. However, surely a better alternative would be to reallocate a small portion of whitefish quota from offshore to the inshore vessels allowing them to land and market what seems to be a small amount of prime whitefish. This would also act as a stimulus to local fish markets e.g. Mallaig, Oban which are presently entirely dominated by shellfish which are mainly exported out of the local area. [Organisation, Scientific body/academia]

4.43. One response from a fishing organisation made detailed comments in relation to the offshore whitefish fleet and gillnet fleet. These comments noted the need for engagement with the active fleet to provide credible stock advice and that engagement with the active fleet would provide the sound and robust data necessary, as well as fostering confidence within the fishing industry that the data reflects what fishers see on the ground.

4.44. Another concern raised in relation to MCRS was that the proposals allowed for the continued discarding of below MCRS fish which would not assist in the reduction of bycatch or fish conservation. The following quotes reflect these views:

"The proposal to allow discarding of <MCRS fish just brings the law down to the level of enforcement, where discarding is being allowed now. This replicates previous failures to control razor fishing by legalising previously illegal behaviour rather than controlling it.

Why isn't the law enforced? Why aren't observer data being used to identify the problem and target enforcement? Why are so few boats fitted with REM? The bycatch problem could be addressed through better monitoring, and spatial management to move high-bycatch fisheries away from areas with large numbers of MCRS fish, rather than giving up on this measure." [Individual]

"The introduction of de minimis exemptions of by catch below MCRS would not assist in the reduction of bycatch nor in fish conservation. Without a healthy juvenile population the adult stock will continue to decline. Discard in each sector should be reduced by spatial and technical means with the retention of the landing obligation paramount in order to fully monitor stocks and the effectiveness of the measures introduced." [Individual]

4.45. A few respondents stated that they felt that the proposed actions around discards were taking a step backwards. For example:

"The policy will:

Backtrack on the discard ban and legalise the controversial practice of discarding fish at sea, including already depleted populations of cod.

Deregulate unsustainable practices and damage seabed carbon stores and inshore nursery grounds.

Fail to commit to spatial management plans to resolve conflict between large industrial and small-scale lower impact fisheries, despite promising to deliver such measures.

Backslide on EU law and weaken post-Brexit environmental protection." [Individual]

"We consider the intention to relax current rules around discards for some segments of the fishing fleet to be a retrograde step and not justified at the current time, particularly whilst there are acknowledged issues with monitoring and compliance. Until these have been addressed and any additional technical and spatial measures put in place, we believe the discard ban should stay in place." [Organisation, Third Sector]

4.46. One response called for a shift towards a regime of incentives to minimise discards:

"The [organisation] would stress again, the need to shift towards a gradual reduction towards a minimum level of discarding that will account for those discrepancies created by the method of quota allocation and compatible with errors and fluctuations in the quality of the available science. The shift toward a regime of incentives to minimise discards (inspired to the Norwegian model) would be considered very positive.

In addition, the bare definition of the Landing Obligations creates an unnecessary complication to the whole process. It does not make sense in terms of biological sustainability to actually land even a minimised biomass, when that could be made available to the trophic chain at sea and also avoid the burden of its disposal ashore. It is fundamental instead to move towards a full documentation and monitoring of the catch.

We would also suggest that data collection programmes should move beyond the idea of collecting data on landing and discards but should move towards sampling methods focusing on the catch profile." [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

4.47. Other responses stated that they felt that other nations' vessels would have to comply fully through license conditions to the conditions of the FCP in order to ensure a level playing field in Scottish waters.

4.48. A group of respondents used this question to reiterate their desire for dredging, longlining and gillnetting to be banned.

4.49. Other issued raised by respondents included:

• Limitations on gear
• Concerns around the implementation of mandatory REM
• That the current proposals still allow for overfishing

Q6. Restriction on gear soak time

Overview

4.50. Question 6 asked whether respondents thought that a restriction on gear soak time should be set.

4.51. Of the 150 (116 individuals and 34 organisations) who gave a response to the closed element of this question a majority (78%) felt that some restrictions should be set. Individuals (82%) were more likely to believe this should be applied than organisations (65%) as a whole. There was broad support for these restrictions across organisation type.

4.52. A total of 100 respondents (65 individuals and 35 organisations) responded to the open-response element of the question.

Restrictions on gear soak time should be set

4.53. The most common view expressed among those who felt that restrictions on gear soak time should be set was that there should be strict rules on the time set for gillnets and longlines with some suggesting a maximum of 48 hours, some 24 hours and some stating that this practice should be banned. The following quotes reflect these views:

"Gillnetters and longlinetters must not be allowed to leave their gear unattended as they are a danger to mobile gear users." [Individual]

"All gill netting and longlines should be hauled and taken ashore when the vessel lands like the Norwegian model. Leaving gear in the water when the vessel is away landing is dangerous as it gets snagged by other vessels and has to be cleared from fishing gear and taken ashore, sometimes during severe weather conditions." [Organisation, Conservation]

"A 24-hour soak time should be applied to the gillnet and longline fleet segment." [Individual]

"Gillnet and longline 48h max and gear to be brought in when landing" [Individual]

4.54. One caveat notedby respondents in favour of restrictions on gear soak time was the importance of taking weather conditions and seasonal temperatures into account. For example:

"Excessive gear soak times are not conducive to well managed fisheries, but any rules would have to take into account variable weather conditions and that recovering gear after a certain time is not always practical." [Organisation, Scientific body/academia]

4.55. Some respondents called for the electronic tagging of all gear to monitor fishing activity and accountability. For example:

"We believe a restriction on gear soak time should be set and that all gear should be electronically tagged in order to help monitor fishing activity and accountability. While this is aimed to manage displacement issues, and avoid potential gear conflicts, restricting soak time can also be used to minimise wildlife-fishery interactions, increasing the ability for vulnerable bycatch species to be released alive and also has benefits for the quality and freshness of the catch." [Organisation, Conservation]

4.56. Other respondents focused on the usefulness of these restrictions for limiting bycatch and as a conservation tool:

"There has to be limits set in order to allow the environment, as well as the fish/species which may be affected by undisturbed aggressive access/overfishing. There has to be a built in avoid and recover policy adopted to ensure future stocks. All segments should be addressed (especially foreign fleets) either by time at sea, length of tow, soak time, legislated and monitored prohibited areas and the strict enforcement of inshore limits." [Individual]

"Time restrictions should also take into account the welfare of the aquatic animals captured" [Organisation, Conservation]

"The longer the gear is left in the water the more dead bycatch. This must be managed." [Organisation, Conservation]

Restrictions on gear soak time should not be set

4.57. A few respondents who did not support the setting of restrictions on gear soak time noted that they felt that as different gears required different soak times,limits should not be set.

4.58. Others questioned how such restrictions could be enforced in a practical way. For example:

"There are reports from throughout the UK that static-gear vessels 'hold ground' by keeping pots/creels on the seabed, often un-baited, for significant soak periods. This practice is undesirable from a fisheries management perspective in the context of displacement and gear-conflict; however, determining and monitoring soak time through monitoring systems is often difficult unless those systems include string-specific loggers that capture this information." [Organisation, Public Sector]

4.59. One response felt the question was misplaced as they were of the view that it only related to two fleet segments. However, they also called for the establishment of a spatial plan for all segments which was a view shared by other respondents. The extract from this response below sets this out in further detail:

"This question is incoherent given by definition it can only relate to two of the proposed fleet segments.

Regardless, we disagree with establishing a soak time limit as a means to managing the space available for various types of fishing and any reduction in it. Clearly soak time regulation would not have any impact on displacement of the fishing segment which will most likely be impacted by reduction in marine space (e.g., by offshore windfarms being placed on offshore sandbanks).

Instead, a spatial plan for all segments is needed, establishing where each segment is given priority access and the areas which are shared, and then both effort and catch levels controlled within each area.

Doing so would secure sustainable stock management, ensuring that a stock is not overfished by limiting catch to sustainable levels, and link this to reducing unwanted catch, by ensuring that one segment is not overlapping with and inadvertently catching another segment's target species. We would support such a plan instead of these proposals." [Organisation, Conservation]