Fishing - Quota Management Group (QMG) trial: evaluation
The trial met its objectives and has improved the Scottish Government’s understanding of quota management and its use. The QMGs met their stated objectives. The QMGs appear to be a suitable alternative model of fish quota management (in comparison to POs).
8. Recommendations
Based on the information analysed for this evaluation research team recommends either option 2 (formalise) or option 3 (formalise and increase), depending on the Scottish Government’s objectives and future work planning. The QMG trial has been shown to have achieved its aims, improving the information available to the Scottish Government, while being at least a neutral alternative to POs in the sectoral space.
If the Scottish Government is looking to undertake a full sectoral review in the near future, with the view to better understand industry consolidation and compliance, then option 2 is recommended. This is due to the differentiated services both QMGs and POs provide, with QMGs obliged to provide fewer services (particularly in marketing) while having reduced powers and responsibilities in this space. It is expected that any subsequent review, while possibly adjusting the way the sector operates, would likely maintain differentiation between QMGs and POs.
If a sectoral review is not likely to occur in the near future, the Scottish Government should consider the risks of accelerated industry consolidation and how compliance is managed. If the Scottish Government would like to proceed with additional caution, then option 3 is recommended. This option can mitigate some of the risks highlighted through the QMG trial. For example, QMG creation requirements could be raised to a level that would allow the existing organisations to continue but ensure that only large organisations, likely already existing, can make the shift.
Options 1 is not recommended due to the reduction in competition in the sector, the possible increase in administration cost for the existing groups, and the insufficient benefits arising from having a single system. QMGs are differentiated from POs in several ways and so a dual system is reasonable. Furthermore, the benefits of additional information from QMGs can support potential future sectoral reviews.
Option 4 is not recommended due to the risks of lowering the effectiveness of quota management system in Scotland. While there are possible savings in reduced obligations on the industry, the risks are notable. Additionally, if this option is preferred, it should be considered a full sectoral review to better assess potential impacts.
Further to these options, the research team recommends that the Scottish Government commercial fisheries policy team considers a full sectoral review (including POs), consider the viability of publishing future annual reports or parts of the reports, and consider the addition of a probation period for new sectoral groups. The interviews highlighted that there was a desire by some interview participants to revisit the PO rules and objectives given that we have left the Common Fisheries Policy. A sectoral review could also allow a review and decision on the consolidation in the industry. If publishing of annual reports were possible without detriment to the commercial operation of the sectoral groups, it could allow more scrutiny of the system. This could be beneficial for maintaining robust standards and could allow a more open conversation in any future sectoral reviews. Finally, given the limited size of the trial participation, it could be useful to add a probation period for new QMGs to mitigate the risks associated with allowing new actors to enter the sector.