Scotland's future catching policy: strategic environmental assessment report 2026

3. Approach to Strategic Environmental Assessment

3.1 Screening and scoping

The Scottish Government undertook a sustainability appraisal (SA), incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment to inform its proposed programme of Scotland’s Future Catching Policy (FCP). The resulting sustainability report was consulted on alongside a consultation from 15 March to 7 June 2022. The SA Report set out the potential impacts (both positive and negative) on the environment arising from the overarching package of fisheries management proposals to increase sustainable fishing practices. This overarching package did not contain detail on specific fisheries management measures.

This updated SA has been produced in accordance with Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The 2022 SA screening and scoping exercise determined that the FCP is likely to give rise to environmental effects, the following issues scoped into the 2022 SA assessment remain the same for this update to the SA:

• Biodiversity, fauna and flora
• water

For this update to the SA the following issue has also been scoped in upon further consideration of statutory consultees feedback on the 2022 SA:

• Climatic Factors

Table 1 shows the results of the scoping exercise on the draft selectivity proposals on each environmental receptor.

Table 1. Results of the scoping exercise to determine those environmental issues likely to be significantly affected by the selectivity proposals and thus scoped into the SEA^[3]. *

SEA Topic

Biodiversity, flora and fauna

(UK MS descriptors D1, D3, D4)

Potential to cause impacts

Yes

Justification

Fishing activity leads to extraction of, or mortality of/injury to/disturbance to, both target and non-target fish species and sensitive marine species.

These issues are within the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Population

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

The proposed selectivity measures are not likely to result in significant increases or decreases in human population numbers, or changes to in-migration or out-migration.

This issue is beyond the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Human health

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

The proposed selectivity proposals would not result in any significant human health issues. Whilst fishing remains a dangerous vocation, the proposed selectivity measures would not implement any measures which would alter the safety of fishing operations and regulation of the safety of fishing operations falls elsewhere.

This issue is beyond the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Geology and sediments (soil)

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

Fishing practices will remain largely unchanged at the methodological level. Any impacts to sediment quality and the beds of water bodies will remain as before.

This issue is beyond the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Water

(UK MS descriptors D10, D11)

Potential to cause impacts

Yes

Justification

The proposed selectivity measures aim to make fishing practices more environmentally sustainable so there may be scope to reduce the impact of fisheries on water quality. However, the measures proposed are unlikely to affect eutrophication, hydrographical conditions or contaminant levels (descriptors 7-9).

This issue is within the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Air

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

The proposed selectivity measures will indirectly support the climate change objective of the Fisheries Act 2020.

This issue is within the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Climatic factors

Potential to cause impacts

Yes

Justification

The selectivity measures will not intrinsically impact built assets or natural assets as defined in the SEPA guidance

This issue is beyond the scope of this SEA.

SEA Topic

Material assets

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

Fishing practices will remain largely unchanged at the methodological level. Any impacts to cultural heritage will remain as before.

This issue is beyond the scope of this SEA

SEA Topic

Cultural heritage

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

The FCP is unlikely to have effects on landscape and/or seascape over or below what effects the fishing industry currently has.

This issue is beyond the scope of this SEA

SEA Topic

Landscape/ seascape

Potential to cause impacts

No

Justification

* These will be explored and could be adapted as a result of the consultation as the policy adapts and technical measures are agreed

3.2 What is this purpose of this document

The update to the 2022 SA is specifically concerned with the FCP workstream to improve technical and spatial selectivity measures to reduce unwanted fish catch and catch of other sensitive marine species.

Building on the findings of the 2022 SA report, this document sets out the findings of the further, iterative appraisal of the emerging selectivity proposals, including any new or updated SA findings. This assessment focuses on how the proposed selectivity measures to reduce unwanted catch of both fish and other sensitive marine species could give rise to both significant positive and negative environmental effects. The findings of this assessment have been used to inform the development of the selectivity proposals.

3.3 How was this update to the SA undertaken?

As a starting point in preparing this update to the SA, a review was undertaken to identify any comments received on the 2022 SA consultation. No comments were received. The selectivity proposals were then considered for any potential significant environmental effects beyond those already identified in the SA.

3.4 What are the new selectivity proposals set out in the consultation?

The consultation focuses on detailed selectivity proposals to reduce unwanted catch of fish and other sensitive marine species. Selectivity proposals are both technical (e.g. gear configuration) and spatial (e.g. haul by haul reporting).

Below sets out what is currently in place for each fleet segment we are proposing improvements on selectivity and, what we propose to introduce:

Haul by haul reporting

1. What is currently in place

Currently there is a requirement that fishing vessels fitted with an electronic reporting system must transmit an Electronic Logbook (e-Log) report at least once a day and not later than 24:00 hours when at sea. E-log reports capture key information such as location, time, species caught, quantities of catch and gear used.

While this approach has proven effective for broad monitoring, it lacks a granularity of data which can miss critical detail about when, where and in what quantities fish are caught throughout the day.

2. Proposed change and outcome

We are proposing that all fishing vessels in Scottish waters that are currently required to use an e-log (vessels 12m and over in length) move to a system of haul-by-haul reporting. In simple terms, haul-by-haul reporting refers to the practice of recording detailed data for each individual fishing haul, after that haul has occurred. This is proposed in place of the, the current system where fishers summarise their catches at the end of a 24 hour period, or before they return to port – whichever comes first. For mobile gear fishing vessels (i.e. trawlers) this would be required after every fishing operation i.e. the nets have been deployed, towed and then recovered or “hauled” aboard. For static gear vessels (i.e. gill nets, longlines, creels) this would be required after every fleet is recovered, as opposed to after every pot or line.

3.5 Large Mixed Demersal fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

A requirement for demersal bottom trawls to have a minimum of 120mm mesh size in the codend. These are almost universally rigged in a diamond mesh format. They also operate with an additional 120mm square mesh panel in the top of the extension piece if fishing east of the Cod Recovery Line in ICES Via (French line).

2. Proposed change and outcome

We propose to allow codends with square mesh of a minimum of 100mm. Diamond meshes would still need to be above this limit, but we would add a stipulation for a smaller allowed mesh if using the square configuration. Fishers would be able to choose whether they use the diamond mesh or square mesh codend. This will result in the potential wider spread use of square mesh codends, with potential to result in less retention of small fish.

3.6 Mixed demersal fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

A one-net rule that prohibits the carriage of nets both above and below 100mm codend mesh size on a vessel at the same time, but does not prevent a vessels from carrying 120mm codend mesh minimum for whitefish, and 100mm+ codend mesh minimum for directed fisheries (such as Nephrops) at the same time.

2. Proposed change and outcome

A one net rule is currently in place in fishing vessel licence which stipulates that multiple nets may be carried aboard a fishing vessel, provided they are both above 100mm or both below 100m. However separate legislation draws the line for targeting whitefish at a minimum of 120mm.

As such, the one net rule is currently not fit for purpose as it creates issues around whitefish being targeted with a net that is below this 120mm minimum. The proposal is to update the one net rule in order to ensure that the minimum standard for selectivity is met, dependent on the targeted species i.e. a vessel is either fishing purely for whitefish, in which case they are using 120mm and over nets, or they are a “directed fishery”, in which case they are allowed to use under 120mm nets but will be subject to additional selectivity measures e.g. square mesh panel, catch-composition and spatial measures (such as move-on rules).

If partaking in a directed fishery catch-composition rules will apply (requiring vessels to move-on and/or return to port if they cannot meet their catch composition requirements). These rules would stipulate an expected percentage or ratio of the targeted catch (e.g. Nephrops) alongside a realistic margin of expected unwanted or unavoidable catches. Failure to meet these expected percentages would result in having to move on to another location to reduce unwanted catch and maximise catches of the target species or returning to port to change nets. At this stage we are consulting on the principles of the proposed catch composition rules and do not have detail in regard to percentages or ratios of the target catch.

We propose to introduce legislation to allow fishers an alternative approach of using a dual codend separator gear to pursue both whitefish and directed species. Fishers could either choose to purchase a full dual cod-end separator rig or utilise current fishing gear by modifying the gear by using 80/120mm cod-ends attached to the elevator panel in the bag which is ready to sew on.

3.7 Small Mesh Demersal

1. What is currently in place

Currently this fleet segment use demersal bottom trawls to catch mainly Nephrops and some ground fish and utilise nets with a cod-end mesh size of between 80mm – 119mm. A suite of additional selectivity requirements such as square mesh panels or other selectivity attachments are also used, depending on vessel power exemptions.

For example, most vessels in the Firth of Clyde using 80mm – 119mm codends, must have a square mesh panel installed of 3m length and 300mm mesh size – however if the vessel is below 112kw or 12m in overall length, they may use a square mesh panel of 2m and 200mm.

Current rules state that a square mesh panel, when installed must have no more than two open diamond meshes between the longitudinal side of the panel and the adjacent selvedge in the West of Scotland and no more than five in the North Sea. This can cause some confusion for fishers and inhibits the ability for fishers to move across the North/West line without changing their gear.

Current legislation states that the overall length of the square mesh panel will be positioned no further than 9-15 metres from the cod-line (i.e. the rearmost row of meshes of the panel shall be no more than 15 metres from the cod-line).

A lifting strap is a piece of rope or wire loosely encircling the circumference of the codend or the strengthening bag, if any, and attached to it by means of loops or rings. More than one lifting strap may be used at any time. This helps to safely lift heavy hauls.

Flotation buoys are often used around the Square Mesh Panel in order to keep the larger meshes open, to better facilitate the escape of fish, however there is no legislation regulating their use and this can cause issues with selectivity if attached incorrectly.

2. Proposed change and outcome

We propose to consider increasing minimum codend mesh size to 100mm. It is considered that in high fish abundant areas this would result in less small fish being caught but could potentially lead to loss of marketable Nephrops. However, it may also result in small unmarketable Nephrops with high survivability being selected out, having a positive impact on sustainability and reducing burden on businesses to deal with such catch.

We propose to unifying square mesh panel requirements across the small mesh demersal fleet segment so that all directed fisheries are fishing at the same standard (i.e. 80mm diamond mesh codend minimum, with a square mesh panel in the top of the extension piece of at least 300mm at 3m long).

We are seeking views on the low power exemption for square mesh panels in order to deliver standardisation.

We propose to amend current requirements on the standard for position of square mesh panels from the cod-line. Data suggests that the closer the panel is inserted towards the cod-line, the more effective it will be at selecting out fish. The current standard of no less than 15m can be improved upon and we propose this range should be amended to 6-12m.

We are proposing to allow floats to be used around the square mesh panel, provided they do not block the openings of the square mesh or are attached directly to it.

We propose to require lifting straps be made of a non-elastic material in order to prevent the use of bungee cords as a means of circumventing the measurement stipulations.

We propose to increase the twine thickness allowed in the square mesh panel when the mesh size exceeds 300mm. This should aid in helping maintain the square meshes open shape.

As outlined under the mixed fleet segment measures, all directed fishing vessels be subject to additional management measures, and catch composition rules. However, we understand that there is great variance in the small mesh fleet and so we would look to tailor these rules depending on the type of operation (e.g. varying reporting requirement thresholds depending on the length of the trip).

3.8 Gill Net

The consultation does not include particular proposals for gill nets, rather, within this consultation we are seeking a call for evidence on any further selectivity measures that may be implemented within this fleet segment to reduce bycatch of sensitive marine species or improve knowledge regarding this bycatch.

3.9 Long Line fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

There is no legal requirement to deploy mitigation measures in the fishery in UK waters. However, some mitigation measures are used voluntarily by vessels fishing in Scottish waters.

2. Proposed change and outcome

There has been a great deal of partnership working with the fleet, which has invested significant effort in developing and trialling practicable and effective mitigation measures. This has included development of bird scaring lines, or ‘streamers’ which are brightly coloured lines that are towed from the vessel, over the area where the baited hooks are deployed to deter birds from entering that area. We would require that the fleet deploy streamers as part of their fishing operation.

Other best practice measures would also be encouraged including offal management and night setting, where appropriate. Offal management is an important issue because discarded offal (fish waste such as heads, guts, and frames) during line setting or hauling can attract seabirds, leading to entanglement or hooking. One aspect of offal management is the discharge location, with best practice to discharge offal on the opposite side of the vessel from where the gear is being hauled. For many this would re-quire re-routing which would require modification to the vessel.

3.10 Pots and Creels fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

Best practice guidance for the creel fishery^[4] to reduce the incidence of entanglement of minke whales and basking sharks.

2. Proposed change and outcome

We propose to continue to support and promote the use of the sinking ground line and look at ways to incentivise its use. The Scottish Entanglement Alliance have been undertaking trials with sinking groundline rope to test their use in creel fleets against normally used floating groundline rope which increases entanglement risk.

Supporting the use of sinking groundline should help to reduce the entanglement of whales and basking sharks by decreasing interaction with gear as the groundline will sit lightly on the seabed with minimal movement rather than floating in loops in the water column.

3.11 The above selectivity proposals were not previously considered by the 2022 SA and an appraisal was therefore undertaken; the findings of which are set out in section 6 below.