Fisheries and climate change: opinions from the wild capture fishing sector

4 Results

4.1 Links between climate change and Scotland's fishing sector (questions 1-3)

Survey results show widespread recognition of the linkages between the wild capture fisheries sector and the global climate emergency (Figure 2 and Table 3). This is both through the lens of climate change mitigation (i.e., the contribution of fishing activities to Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions; Figure 2 a & b) and of climate change adaptation (i.e., the impact of climate change on Scotland's fisheries; Figure 2c).

When considering the overarching questions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland, and the potential role of the wild capture fishing sector in aiding this reduction, 74.2% of respondents chose "agree" or "strongly agree", 19.7% were undecided and the remaining 6.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. There was a larger spread of opinion in the responses of public sector and fishing industry representatives (Figure 2a). When considering the urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from fishing activity, agreement across all categories reduced to 66.7% and disagreement increased to 16.6% (i.e., shift in distribution between Figure 2a and b). This shift was most noticeable in the industry representatives.

While the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries are becoming increasingly apparent, the opinion of respondents to the urgency was not unequivocal (Figure 2c). 69.7% of respondents agreed that urgent adaptation action is needed, while 16.7% disagreed and 13.6% were undecided.

4.2 Roles and responsibilities for action (questions 4-5)

Across all respondent categories, there is recognition of the shared responsibility of climate action between public sector and fishing industry (Figure 3 and Table 4). The share of responsibility in terms of greenhouse gas reductions (Figure 3a and Table 4) and resilience to climate change (Figure 3b and Table 4) were broadly the same. Respondents also identified a clear role for the retail sector. NGO and research representatives generally shared responsibility across societal actors (e.g., wider distribution across public sector, industry, consumer, and retail; Figure 3a and b). For reducing greenhouse gas emissions, suggestions of others that should be considered in sharing responsibility included processors, maritime industries (propulsion, engines, technology), catering companies, local authorities and accreditation schemes. For building resilience in light of climate change, the suggestions included catering companies, local authorities and an adaptive loop between science and management. Given the small sample sizes across all sectors, it is difficult to give a confident assessment of whether any differences in views on responsibility are significant.

4.3 Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions (questions 6-8)

The majority of industry respondents (71.2%) do not currently estimate greenhouse gas emissions from their activity (Figure 4a and Table 5). This is not surprising given the complexity of such a calculation, and lack of knowledge on methodology and boundaries were highlighted as key barriers. Based on the free text responses, there is a general awareness of the emissions sources in the wild capture fishing sector.

When reviewing the free text responses, there was an obvious range in how respondents interpreted the "calculation of greenhouse gas emissions". For example, some of the pelagic fleet responses refer to the recent study by Sandison et al. (2021) as their calculation method. Other responses included noting that their vessel is electric (implying no emissions calculation is needed) or that the estimate could be made from the fuel use if required.

There is a strong desire across all respondent categories (66.7% answered "yes"; Figure 4b and Table 5) to be given tools to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from the sector. The response from the industry alone is similar (61.5% answered "yes"; Figure 4b). Free text answers mention the need for consistent methodology and boundary setting, and the application of certain detailed methodologies to provide insight and advice (e.g., life cycle analysis). Those in academia, consultancy and public sector with expert knowledge expressed their willingness to advise and support the industry in the quantification of greenhouse gasses emissions.

Based on survey responses, there is no clear "pull" from retail or consumers for the sector to provide detail of the greenhouse gas emissions (74.2% answered "no"; Figure 4c and Table 5). Eight respondents thought that such information would soon be requested. A lack of knowledge, the lack of requirement for accreditation and the increased interest due to COP26 in Glasgow were highlighted by respondents.

4.4 Engagement (questions 9-10)

Stakeholders across the wild capture fishing sector in Scotland are willing to participate in workshops and projects to help support climate action (Questions 9 and 10; Figure 5 and Table 5). There appears a wider spread in engagement in certain fleet segments in the industry (under 10 m and demersal trawl and seine show an almost 50-50 split, not shown). However, respondent numbers are relatively low, so care should be taken to not generalise this to the entire fleet.

4.5 Alternative fuels and other innovation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (questions 11-13)

Respondents give a clear indication that a shift across the wild capture fishing sector to lower greenhouse gas emission fuels would help the sector to reduce its emissions. There is strong support to consider the use of alternative fuels (other than marine diesel) with 77.3% agreement, although a fairly significant percentage don't know (19.7%; Question 11, Figure 6a and Table 6). Currently, just over half of the fishing industry representatives report that they have considered changing fuel, gear or behaviour to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (53.8%, Figure 6b), while one third reported having not made any changes to their practice (33.3%, Figure 6b).

When comparing responses to questions on changing fuel, fishing behaviour or gear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, industry representatives show strong agreement on changing fuel (74.4% yes, 2.6% no and 23.1% don't know) and gear (79.5% yes, 7.7% no and 12.8% don't know), and lower agreement to behaviour change (56.4% yes, 28.2% no, 15.4% don't know). This pattern is also seen more generally when considering all respondent categories (Questions 11, 13 and 14, Table 6, Figures 6 and 7). Elaboration in free text suggests that changes in behaviour were considered misplaced as the industry already is efficient, or that this focus is generated from conflict over use of marine space, particularly between static and mobile gears.

48.5% of respondents mentioned hydrogen in their free text answer on which alternative fuels should be considered (Table 7). Other fuels which were mentioned by a large number of respondents were electric engines (19.7%), hybrid engines (16.7%) and biofuels (16.7%).

One of the greatest perceived barriers to adopting low carbon fuels is cost: 19.7% of respondents mentioned cost in general, while the cost of retrofitting was raised by a further 9.1% (Table 8). Other costs highlighted were the cost of fuels and the cost of replacement. Other significant barriers were the unproven nature of the technology (15.2%), the availability of alternative fuels in ports (15.2%), port infrastructure (12.1%) and safety (10.6%).

4.6 Gear innovation (questions 14-16)

Gear innovation was recognised by all respondents as one possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from wild capture fishing, with 86.4% responding "yes" (Table 6 and Figure 7). Industry representatives showed lower agreement with the statement (79.5% "yes"). Innovation to reduce the impact on naturally occurring seabed carbon stores was also perceived as important (71.2% in agreement; Table 6), although again the responses from industry representatives is more distributed (61.6% yes, 15.4% no and 23.1% don't know; Figure 7b). More details on interactions between fisheries and natural carbon stores will be presented in Section 5.2.

There is no clear response as to whether gear innovation is sufficiently accessible, and respondents appear to lean more towards "don't know" (24.2% yes, 33.3% no, 42.4% don't know; Table 6 and Figure 7c). In the industry representatives sector, there is also no clear agreement, although this sector appears to lean more towards "yes" (38.5% yes, 30.8% no, and 30.8% don't know). Perceived barriers to gear innovation included a lack of coordination of innovation and trials, concern over the balance between innovation and viability of the business, and translation of trials into industry applications. Responses did suggest that gear innovation could have benefits for other drivers for change (e.g., environmental impact and bycatch reduction), and several respondents proposed a change from mobile to static gears.

4.7 Deck machinery and refrigeration (questions 17-18)

The role of modifications to deck machinery and refrigeration appear less of a priority in addressing greenhouse gas emissions (generally an equal spread across the three answers; Questions 17 and 18, Table 6 and Figure 8). Free text responses mentioned a need for improved understanding of refrigeration (six responses), a lack of knowledge (four responses), and that it is thought not significant (four responses) or not urgent (two responses). Solutions mentioned by respondents included the possibility of electrifying deck machinery and regenerating electricity from winches.

Almost half of industry representatives mention they have already made changes to reduce energy use (48.7% yes). The main changes were to the refrigerants in use, which could be due to changes in legislation to ban F gas in 2020 (The Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019).

4.8 Impacts of climate change and resilience (question 19)

Nearly half of respondents (48.5% yes; Question 19, Table 6 and Figure 9) mentioned that they are already observing changes due to climate change. These changes include increased storminess, migration of species, growth rate of species, seasonality of species, algal blooms, and increased lice in salmon farms. One diver noticed an increase in marine life after lockdown. One respondent also mentioned the need to move operations due to increased presence of cod. Although climate change may have played a role in changes to cod stocks, other factors such as fishing pressure and interspecies competition are also important. Recent increases in biomass have occurred despite a continued warming trend, and are more likely to be due to improved stock assessments, enhanced management measures, and better fishery compliance with these measures.

4.9 Other suggested climate action

In free text answers, respondents were asked to highlight other actions (for government, the fishing industry or others) that should be included in government considerations. Common themes in the responses were the consideration of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) or similar vessel monitoring (seven mentions), the provision of preferential access to marine space for low impact gears (six mentions), the consideration of blue carbon habitat impact (six mentions), the consideration of a three mile limit (five responses) and, related to this, a shift from mobile gears to static ones (two responses), and a ban of inshore trawling/dredging (two responses). Improved communication and collaboration across all parties (public sector, industry and science) were both mentioned in four responses.