Sea fisheries - future catching policy: consultation analysis

3. The principles of the landing obligation (Q1-2)

3.1. The consultation paper discussed proposals for the FCP to ensure that additional spatial and technical measures are put in place to reduce unwanted catch (e.g., increased gear selectivity), particularly in relation to undersized and juvenile fish. The intention set out is to help fishers to avoid unwanted catch in the first place, and therefore remove one of the primary reasons that causes discarding to occur. The consultation paper also states that the Scottish Government supports the principles underpinning the EU landing obligation regarding reducing waste and increasing accountability.

Q1. Rules around the landing obligation

Overview

3.2. In total, 230 respondents (191 individuals and 39 organisations) provided closed responses to Q1. Most of those who responded to the consultation did not agree (57%) that the current rules around the landing obligation need to be adjusted through various spatial and technical measures, whilst 43% agreed.

3.3. Almost identical levels of organisations (46%) and individuals (43%) agreed that the current rules around the landing obligation needed to be adjusted. Conservation organisations were particularly likely to disagree that the current rules around the landing obligation need to be adjusted, while fishing organisations were more likely to agree.

3.4. 157 individuals and 38 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to question 1.

Rules do not need adjusted

3.5. The majority of those who did not agree that the existing rules around the landing obligation need to be adjusted thought that those currently in place are suitable, necessary, and fit for purpose. Indeed, some within this cohort felt that any adjustments to the rules might reduce their effectiveness:

"These rules were implemented for a very good reason - to protect fish stocks - weakening them would be regressive and out of touch" [Organisation, Conservation]

"The existing rules banning discards are good, have been proven so and need to be maintained" [Individual]

"The current rules are not perfect, but the suggested changes are definitely worse. By all means try to find better solutions, but not this one. Keeps things as they are" [Individual]

Rules need adjusted

3.6. On the other hand, others believed that the current rules around the landing obligation are ineffective – particularly where goals and implementation timelines are contradictory or difficult to meet - and therefore agreed with a need to adjust them:

"It was widely recognised even before the UK left the EU that the Common Fishery Policy and in particular Article 15 (The Landing Obligation) was not meeting its objectives. The principal reasons for this were that the Regulation was too broad and simplistic and didn't take into account the individual sectors and fisheries. Its goal of combining Maximum Sustainable Yield with zero discards was a virtual impossibility in most mixed fisheries. The timelines for implementation also were very challenging and resulted in widespread non-compliance as the rules were often contradictory or opaque" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

"…the EU's failed landings obligation policy has delivered quite the opposite of its intended effect. Instead of increasing reliability in accounting for total fishery removals, it has instead resulted in a lack of confidence in the stock assessment and management process and contributed to a culture of mistrust between government and industry" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

Spatial and technical measures

3.7. Several respondents mentioned spatial and technical measures they might want to see implemented. Within these discussions, there were suggestions that such measures already exist but are not being sufficiently deployed and monitored.

3.8. Indeed, one respondent from a conservation organisation recommended that greater focus be centred on additional technical and spatial measures where they have potential to address accidental catch, rather than allowing exemptions to the current discard ban, particularly in relation to juvenile fish.

3.9. The importance of holistic, sustainable measures, which take eco-stocks and socio-economic issues into account, was also discussed. The regular review of spawning areas, for instance, was highlighted as a potential guiding factor when making spatial management decisions, to ensure that stocks and timescales are proportionate to any changing eco-systems. However, careful consideration of spatial measures was also deemed imperative, so as to avoid triggering unintended consequences on stock health.

3.10. A few of those who disagreed with adjustment to the existing landing obligation rules put forward the protection of specific areas as an example of suitable spatial measures:

"More protected areas like Lamlash [Bay No Take Zone (NTZ)]". [Individual]

3.11. As indicated by respondents, no marine life can be removed from such areas, by any method, potentially aiding the recovery of commercially important fish species.

3.12. On the other hand, respondents who agreed with a need to adjust the current rules were sometimes wary of limitations and the potential to 'over think' the spatial element of fisheries, noting that:

"Fishermen are hunters and require a certain amount of freedom to operate within the current limits of quota availability and indeed other restrictions, such as protected areas etc. The ongoing spatial squeeze dictates that spatial measures to manage our fisheries should be at the bottom of the list of potential measures. [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

3.13. The respondent quoted above went further by pointing out a need to review the appropriateness of technical measures before making resourcing decisions:

"It is important, when talking about selectivity and technical measures, we look more at what the measure provides as opposed to increasing on what is already in place. As an example, is it more prudent in terms of selectivity to increase the size of the diamond mesh or to reduce the size of the mesh in favour of square mesh? This is only one example of where we could move away from what is now accepted as the norm." [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

Wider points

3.14. Beyond notes on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the current rules, respondents made points around the availability, adjustment or removal of quotas, for example:

"Quota should be available, but strictly regulated, for unwanted fish to be landed legally" [Individual]

"Quotas of stocks which are difficult to catch on their own and are part of a mixed fishery should be set at a level which takes this into account. For instance, to cut Ling quota and simultaneously try to have a megrim fishery North of Shetland leads to a shutdown of the ling quota when there's still a lot of megrim to catch" [Individual]

"No more sellable fish should be thrown overboard due to lack of quota" [Individual]

3.15. Respondents who argued for current landing obligation rules to remain in place were generally more inclined to mention quotas and the incentivisation of fishermen to avoid unwanted catch – as opposed to spatial and technical measures – though some suggested that alternative gear be used in areas where bycatch is high.

Q2. Issues addressed by FCP

Overview

3.16. The consultation asked respondents whether the FCP should address issues with unwanted catches of fish and accidental bycatch of other species. The consultation paper noted an awareness of wider issues around bycatch which could be addressed through the introduction of additional effective technical measures and adjusting operational practices while at sea.

3.17. For instance, REM (Remote Electronic Monitoring) – around which a coinciding public consultation has taken place – could help provide scientific benefits in terms of monitoring stocks which might include addressing negative impacts on the wider marine environment, including sensitive species bycatch.

3.18. Such bycatch can have a negative impact on fishers, for example, by reducing the amount of fishing time and gear lost due to entanglements e.g., of whales. It can also have a significant impact on the welfare, health and survival of such species and affects the wider operation of the marine ecosystem.

3.19. In total, 210 respondents (173 individuals and 37 organisations) provided closed responses to Q2. The vast majority of those who responded to the consultation agreed (94%) that the FCP should address issues with unwanted catches of fish and accidental bycatch of other species, such as cetaceans, seals and seabirds, where appropriate, whereas 6% disagreed.

3.20. 71 individuals and 37 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to question 2.

Addressing issues with unwanted catch

3.21. There was wide support that the FCP should address issues with unwanted catches of fish and accidental bycatch of other species, where appropriate:

"Of course. We must constantly strive to eliminate bycatch. As technology improves, we must incorporate it into gear and tackle" [Individual]

"Every measure possible should be taken to avoid bycatch of these species and recording and reporting accidental catches should be compulsory" [Individual]

3.22. Various respondents mentioned that accidental bycatch of other species can be specially related to seasonality, the depth fished and geographical areas, and commented that technical improvements to gear, alongside the effective use of good practice documents or codes of conduct, could help manage this issue.

3.23. Several respondents also suggested a need to address the effect of static fishing methods on fish and other species, whilst others recommended banning of certain gear, equipment and practices – such as gillnets, longline practices and scallop dredging – as a possible way of addressing problems around unwanted or accidental bycatches. Apart from one fishing organisation, the remainder of those organisations who shared this view worked in the conservation sector. Individuals were typically more likely than organisations to make these suggestions, perhaps given the general distribution of respondents:

"The FCP should address the effect of static fishing methods on cetacean deaths and also look at ways of reducing discarded fishing gear or making it more biodegradable" [Individual]

3.24. A small number of responses queried the meanings and definitions of 'wanted' and 'unwanted' catches and a potential need to treat unwanted catches and accidental bycatch of other species as separate issues:

"Unwanted catches and accidental bycatch of other species are typically separate issues and should be addressed using specific policy and technical / spatial / temporal measures. The Project UK Nephrops FIP (and the other FIPs) address each under specific performance indicators and strategies through the respective action plan" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

"To avoid misunderstandings, it may be prudent to explain the specific meaning, within the policy, of 'unwanted' and 'wanted'. As I understand these are pragmatic technical terms that arose in the context of the CFP and ICES as a blanket term that covers fish of low or no market value, or fish that cannot be marketed for human consumption because a vessel or a nation has insufficient quota. It might be helpful to state unambiguously whether accidental captures, e.g.

entanglements of marine mammals and sea-birds are included as 'unwanted catch' in the narrow technical sense" [Organisation, Other]

3.25. There were also examples of other solutions and ways to address such issues, including a re-introduction of a three-mile limit, the exclusion of high bycatch fisheries from inshore waters, and, in line with question 1, the implementation of spatial and technical measures, such as REM, to reduce the catching of these species at source:

"A 3-mile limit should help reduce catches of birds, seals. Known nursery grounds could have restrictions depending on the season." [Individual]

"Bycatch minimisation must be underpinned by effective monitoring to understand bycatch rates and risks and mitigation use. REM is a highly effective tool for both determining levels of non-target species bycatch and ensuring vessels are compliant with mandated mitigation measures" [Organisation, Conservation]

"Practical measures such as leaded lines between creels, avoidance of overly long buoy lines could be implemented immediately. Mandatory tagging of creels to monitor gear loss. Spatial management to reduce gear conflict, reducing damaged and lost gear on/near the seafloor" [Individual]