Sea fisheries - future catching policy: consultation analysis

6. Gillnets and longlines (Q12-16)

Q12. Measures for gillnets and longlines

Overview

6.1. The consultation asked respondents whether they agreed with a need to develop measures with regards to gillnets and longlines in order to ease the pressure on shared marine space and avoid conflict.

6.2. In total, 161 respondents provided closed responses to Q12; 133 of whom were individuals, whilst 28 were organisations. Most of those who responded to the consultation agreed (90%) that there is need to develop measures with regards to gillnets and longlines in order to ease the pressure on shared marine space and avoid conflict, whereas 10% disagreed. Individuals (93%) were more likely to agree with this proposition than organisations (75%).

6.3. A group of responses, with comparable attitudes and similar language, had raised their opposition to gillnets and longlines being in operation at all throughout their responses to the consultation and reiterated this point in this question.

6.4. 72 individuals and 33 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to Question 12.

Views expressed in relation to the need to develop measures

6.5. A common theme amongst open responses was that restrictions ought to be placed on the number of gillnets and longlines in operation, with some – who argued that these are unsustainable and cause damage to the marine environment and wildlife – calling for a complete ban on these. Among this group of responses similar language was used and there was an identifiable shared sentiment within those responses. The general shared sentiment was summarised where one respondent felt that:

"Gillnets should be banned completely. They are indiscriminate, they kill many life forms, and they pollute the environment. There is no escape from them.

Longlines have less of an impact and are more targeted in their approach to fisheries/stocks and wildlife. I would still limit them to set max length/number of hooks, and soak time" [Individual]

6.6. As alluded to in the above quote, several respondents outlined a preference for the use of longlines, as opposed to gillnets, where these:

"Have far better credentials regarding selectivity, entanglement and bycatch" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

6.7. Looking towards practical measures with regards to gillnets and longlines which might ease the pressure on shared marine space and avoid conflict, some respondents recommended that the spatial footprint of mobilegears must be decreased to reduce seabed disturbance and enable ecosystem recovery, whilst others also raised points around maximum net length, soak time and hook numbers. Many respondents who mentioned these (and other) measures answered in list form:

"5-mile gaps between sets of gear. Depth limit on large gillnetters of 250 metres minimum. Gear to be marked and limited to a certain length which can be checked by fishery officers" [Individual]

"Restrict gill net activity to +400m depth. Reduce soak time to 24h. AIS buoys on gear. All gear tagged and monitored to check gear discarding" [Individual]

"Better and more marking buoys with larger buoys and danbuoys" [Individual]

6.8. One response to question 5 commented specifically on gillnet and longlines in the context of the marking of gear arguing that the proposals in the consultation document all related to the management of marine space and gear conflict. This response argued that the management of spatial conflict could be best achieved through good industry practice by clear marking of static gear and use of AIS transponders and through communicating the location of static gear. The response concludes:

"We consider that such practices could be translated into a code of conduct for the industry to work by rather than seeking blunt and disproportionate legislative measures that would discriminate against particular fleet segments. There is no evidence that such an approach has been considered in the lead up to or as part of this consultation. It is considered that where legislation may have a role is to support a code of practice, such as my introducing requirements to use AIS transponders." [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

6.9. In addition, the establishment and monitoring of designated areas, as well as limits on time spent in these, was also suggested as a way of fostering an effective shared marine space and avoiding conflict. One respondent went further by noting the potential assistance of on-board transponders in this scenario:

"Why not set out designated areas for each type of fishing to avoid conflict. Then change those areas periodically, with a 2 or 3 day no fish day in between, again to avoid conflict. Plus any boat wanting to be a commercial fishing boat should have a transponder on board, continually working. They use this system for commercial fishing boats on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. A computer continually monitors boats and their speeds, if a boat is moving at working speed through a restricted area or if they're transponder stops working they are contacted immediately and have to immediately return to port" [Individual]

6.10. Furthermore, a few respondents believed there was a need to avoid using longlines and gillnets on the routes of migratory fish:

"Avoid fishing on salmonid smolt migration routes during migration. Avoid return routes for migratory salmonids where possible" [Individual]

"Ban all such fishing on the routes of migratory fish. Properly police the rules otherwise they're a waste of time" [Individual]

Q13. Separation of minimum distances

Overview

6.11. The consultation asked respondents if they thought there was a need to set minimum separation distances between sets of nets or longlines in order to create corridors for mobile vessels to move through and, if so, what this minimum distance should be.

6.12. In total, 146 respondents (123 individuals and 23 organisations) provided closed responses to Q13. The majority of those who responded to the consultation agreed (77%) that minimum separation distances between sets of nets or longlines should be set in order to create corridors for mobile vessels to move through, whereas a small proportion of respondents did not think there was a need for this (23%). Just over half (57%) of those organisations, and 81% of individuals, who responded agreed with this idea.

6.13. 54 individuals and 30 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to Question 13.

Discussion of separate distances

6.14. Several respondents suggested various minimum separation distances in miles, nautical miles, metres and other metrics. It should be noted that, to ensure readability, these have been converted into miles to determine their correct subheading categorisation, though the metrics given in quotes remain unchanged. Some felt that these minimum separation distances should be set at less than one mile:

"Enough to give a safe way through. That will likely be obvious, but say 50 metres" [Individual]

"Half a mile" [Individual]

6.15. Others recommended distances of one to two miles, whilst distances of three miles or more were frequently mentioned alongside rationale:

"We believe a minimum separation distance should be applied with the minimum distance between sets of 2 miles" [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

"Given the effect of tide on static gear, three nautical miles would be a reasonable minimum separation distance" [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

"Yes, these nets should not be placed any closer than 5 miles within one another. This would allow plenty of space for mobile fishing vessels to fish in between static nets/lines. This would also allow sufficient separation distances between the nets/lines for marine mammals to pass safely, this reducing the huge numbers of mammals being killed in the 1000s of miles of static gear permanently deployed in our waters" [Individual]

6.16. Greater minimum separation distances such as 20 or 50 miles were suggested by a few respondents. However, most responses comprised more general remarks, including those around the impact of nets and longlines on the marine environment and a perceived need to reduce or ban longlines. One respondent suggested that:

"Access Codes should be developed amongst marine users in areas of heavy concentration of set nets or longlines and corridors or gates should be recognised to allow vessels to trawl between fleets. Gear should be set in a certain direction by all vessels so that mobile vessel could tow alongside and set gear in the knowledge that it would be easy to avoid gear" [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

6.17. Others were uncertain as to whether such minimum separation distances between sets of nets or longlines would be practical and questioned the importance of creating corridors for mobile vessels as opposed to other vessels:

"Possibly. But some nets will be set according to seabed topography or seabed type, which will not follow neat corridors. Another possibility is that some nets will only be set during certain states of the tide (spring vs. neap), which may provide opportunities for cohabitation" [Organisation, Other]

"Maybe in some instances but why should the mobile sector get priority? They have access to a much greater space and their fishing methods are typically less selective and sustainable and should not be given priority" [Individual]

Q14. Gillnet depth

6.18. The consultation asked respondents if they felt there was a need for the FCP to adjust the depth at which gillnets can be set (minimum and maximum) in order to further utilise the marine space and avoid gear conflict.

6.19. In total, 132 respondents (106 individuals and 26 organisations) provided closed responses to question 14. Most of those who responded to the consultation agreed (79%) there was a need to adjust the depth at which gillnets can be set in order to further utilise the marine space and avoid gear conflict, whereas 21% did not see a need for adjustment. Over three quarters (78%) of those individuals, and 81% of organisations, who responded agreed with this idea.

Discussion on depths at which gillnets should be set

6.20. Several respondents recommended various depths at which gillnets should be set in miles, fathoms, metres and other metrics. A few respondents suggested depths of under 150 fathoms (equivalent to 274 metres/0.17 miles/900 feet), while others believed that these should be 150 fathoms or more:

"No less than 150fthm [fathoms], but preferably 200 fthm" – [Individual]

"Outside 200 fathoms but banning them in our waters is by far a better option" [Individual]

"Yes, consideration should be given to increasing the maximum depth to 800m. This would ease pressure in shallower waters that resulted from displacement when the depth was reduced from 800m to 600m" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

6.21. Some respondents suggested greater spatial management of the mobile fleet to reduce gear conflict and the use of depth zoning, whilst others felt that gillnet depth adjustments should only be implemented alongside measures which also restrict the use of mobile gears. A few respondents queried the potential impact of depth adjustments for gillnets on smaller inshore vessels and felt they may be acceptable if they do not stop small local inshore vessels from gillnetting. Others believed that anyproportionate measures – including gillnet depth adjustment – which can be implemented to provide fairer access to marine space and avoid gear conflict, should be investigated, noting that:

"adjusting [the] depth at which gillnets are set may also help reduce wildlife bycatch and this should be a key consideration when determining minimum and maximum depth at which gillnets can be set" [Organisation, Third Sector]

Q15a. Restrictions on numbers of gillnet and longline vessels

Overview

6.22. The consultation asked respondents if they saw a need to restrict the numbers of gillnet and longline vessels operating in Scottish waters at any one time.

6.23. In total, 155 respondents (127 individuals and 28 organisations) provided closed responses to Q15a. The majority of those who responded to the consultation agreed (93%) there was a need to restrict the numbers of gillnet and longline vessels operating in Scottish waters at any one time, whilst 7% did not see a need for this.

6.24. 53 individuals and 35 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to Question 15a.

Views on restricting gillnet and longline vessels

6.25. As was noted in the analysis of previous questions, many respondents felt that levels of gillnet and longline vessels operating in Scottish waters at any one time ought to be restricted in certain circumstances or banned. Although similar numbers of individual and organisational respondents mentioned a need for restrictions on gillnet and longline vessel operation, the majority of calls to ban these came from individual respondents:

"All fisheries need management, but to allow the effective management of other fisheries the mobile fleet must be restricted and not granted almost blanket access to our seabed" [Organisation, Conservation]

"Restrict them to zero 100% of the time" [Individual]

6.26. Indeed, respondents offered further rationale around the perceived advantages of such restrictions, particularly around sustainability and the conservation of fish stocks:

"I have no doubt these play a part in the decline of wild salmon and removal, even for a prescribed period, would assist in re establishing stock levels" [Individual]

"Restrictions should come into force whenever stocks are found to be in danger of falling below sustainable levels" [Individual]

6.27. Others believed that whilst restrictions on the numbers of gillnet and longline vessels operating in Scottish waters at any one time may not be necessary, limits on the amount of gear that they can use could prevent large areas being 'boxed off'. Similar points were made around potential restrictions on the number, location and timing of gillnets and longlines that are deployed, rather than the number of vessels that deploy these gears:

"Restricting the number of vessels alone would not necessarily correlate to a reduction in fishing effort as vessels may set many sets of hooks or nets. As such the focus should be on overall fishing effort in the water and the use of effective mitigation measures" [Organisation, Conservation]

6.28. More generally, a few respondents felt that Scottish registered gillnet and longline vessels should have priority over non-Scottish and non-UK vessels where space in Scottish waters is limited. Though this view was shared by both individual respondents and those from organisations, individuals were typically twice as likely to make this point; this is perhaps reflective of the general breakdown of respondent types for this question.

Q15b. Restrictions on vessels using mobile gear

Overview

6.29. The consultation asked respondents if they saw a need to restrict the numbers of vessels using mobile gear operating in Scottish waters at any one time.

6.30. In total, 157 respondents (126 individuals and 31 organisations) provided closed responses to Q15b. Most of those who responded to the consultation agreed (78%) that there was a need to restrict the numbers of vessels using mobile gear operating in Scottish waters at any one time, whereas 22% did not see a need for this. 82% of those individuals who responded agreed with this idea, as did 65% of organisations; just over one third (35%) of organisations did not agree with the application of such restrictions on vessels using mobile gear.

6.31. 37 individuals and 31 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to Question 15b.

Discussion on restrictions

6.32. Most respondents who agreed with this proposal felt that there should be no exceptionsto the application of restrictions on numbers of vessels – and vessels using mobile gear, in particular – operating in Scottish waters at any one time, in order to ensure sustainability and optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes:

"Yes of course. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that you have to restrict the numbers of vessels and or their deployed gear in every fisheries sector to ensure our fisheries are both sustainable and optimised from a social, economic and environmental perspective. This is especially true of mobile gears where technological creep has masked a decline in catch per unit effort, where mobile gears are providing sub optimal social, economic and environmental outcomes and where the current demersal fleet is obviously above capacity…Restricting the numbers of and spatial extent of mobile gears is required with the utmost urgency!" [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

"Trawls and dredges MUST be restricted. Damage to fish nursery grounds limits other sectors as well as the tourism sector. More fish, more to see, more tourists, greater income" [Individual]

6.33. Some respondents went further by providing examples where time-based restrictions have been effective:

"The existing weekend ban on mobile gear use in the Firth of Clyde is one functional example of temporal measures already in operation. The reduction in harm to the ecosystem (from e.g., reduced benthic disturbance, and lowered bycatch) arising from restricting mobile gears would benefit the entire fishery (through stock recovery and a reduction in gear conflict) and the wider marine economy" [Organisation, Conservation]

6.34. Others offered broad support for the application of these restrictions, though caveated this with a need for further examination of how these could be fairly implemented in practice:

"We believe that restrictions on numbers are warranted, especially as fishing effort can be concentrated in relatively small areas. Further discussion is warranted, however, as it is not immediately obvious how a level playing field could be established across different types of mobile gear" [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

6.35. Many respondents who did not see a need to restrict the numbers of vessels using mobile gear operating in Scottish waters at any one time felt thatsuch gear is typically well managed and that the mobile nature of these vessels – in that they do not remain static in one area – reduced any potential for conflict. Comparisons to other vessel types were also made:

"Trawlers and seine netters are mobile by definition, hence they tend to fish with a different approach and have the prerogative to move around. As per their own nature they don't block extended areas of the marine space for lengthy period of time. It is gillnetters' and longliners' static nature that prevents a harmonic coexistence and, on that basis, there is no need for similar restrictions to be applied for mobile gear" [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

6.36. Other respondents considered there to be certain circumstances where restrictions on the numbers of vessels using mobile gear operating in Scottish waters at any one time may be appropriate, for instance, in 'sensitive' areas like nursery fish reproduction areas. Again, a few respondents believed that priority should be given to Scottish vessels, as opposed to foreign or flagship vessels, if restrictions are implemented.

Q15c. How measures should apply

Overview

6.37. The consultation asked respondents to consider whether the measures discussed in Q15a and 15b should apply generically or in a specific geographical area.

6.38. In total, 142 respondents (118 individuals and 24 organisations) provided closed responses to Q15c.

6.39. Responses were mixed; slightly more respondents thought that these measures should be applied generically (53%) than in a specific geographical area (47%). Those responding as organisations were more likely to agree with the targeted application of measures in specific geographic areas (71%) as opposed to generic application (29%) when compared to individual respondents; 42% and 58% of individuals chose 'specific geographic area' and 'generically', respectively.

6.40. 25 individuals and 27 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to Question 15c.

Discussion

6.41. Most respondents who believed that the measures discussed in Q15a and 15b should apply in a specific geographical area felt that this would better respond to, and take into account, the specific geographical conditions and fishing patterns of individual areas, enabling the development of adaptive management solutions. The tailored application of measures was also considered necessary for areas which are essential for conservation:

"If any restrictions are introduced they should be by geographical area, supported by RIFGs [Regional Inshore Fisheries Groups], reflecting the issues faced in that particular area" [Organisation, Public Sector]

6.42. Similarly, others noted that both manners of application might be effective, dependent on trends in stock, patterns and conditions:

"Restrictions on use of fishery management measures should preferably be applied in specific geographical areas, in response to local fishing patterns and ecosystem conditions. However, it may be that, in certain instances these patterns and conditions will apply in all areas and so the measures could be applied generically" [Organisation, Conservation]

6.43. As seen in responses to other questions, some respondents also called for the establishment of a three-mile limit, on the basis that this might help define areas of application:

"Measures should apply geographically dependent on stock health and conservation status. The reintroduction of the 3 mile limit will further promote this" [Individual]

6.44. Moreover, further monitoring of local, regional and national evidence and data, alongside greater communication between sectors, was deemed to be important in determining the most suitable application of measures:

"Given there is often excellent, freely available data about local habitat, bathymetry, stock and vessel data at fine resolutions, and the aim of any fishing measures is to balance the benefits vs the harms, any measures ought to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the waters being fished" [Individual]

"Such management should be assessed through an FMP [Fisheries Management Plan], the appropriate temporal and spatial controls implemented on a sea area basis with regular updates and reviews" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

"It is best that specifically referenced geographic areas are addressed through communications between respective industry segments through agreement on good practice and defined any gear clearance or corridors" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

Q16. Additional measures

Overview

6.45. The consultation asked respondents whether there are any additional measures that should be considered within the FCP, which, for example, might help prevent entanglements in the gillnet and longline fishery.

6.46. In total, 122 respondents (92 individuals and 30 organisations) provided closed responses to Q16. The majority of respondents (79%) thought that there were additional measures which the FCP should be considering, with almost all respondents from organisations sharing this view (93%).

6.47. 56 individuals and 31 organisations provided open responses explaining their answer to Question 16.

Additional measures

6.48. Alongside limits on net length, hook numbers and soak time, respondents gave examples of other practical tools and solutions to prevent entanglements in gillnet and longline fishery:

"There is considerable research on anti-entanglement solutions for sea mammals from other areas in the world e.g. ropeless retrievable creels, in Canada" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

"With respect to longlines, international best practice includes technical measures (e.g., hook design modification), spatial measures (e.g., avoidance of locations frequented by cetaceans) and temporal (e.g., avoidance of specific grounds in certain migratory routes at specific times)" [Organisation, Conservation]

6.49. Others advocated for measures to prevent catching small, juvenile fish in inshore nursery grounds in the first instance and a need for more stringent policy and policing to halt inshore trawling and protect nursery grounds, sea grass and reefs. A few respondents believed that catch should not be driven by boat size or surface capacity but rather the health of fish stocks and their recovery.

6.50. More broadly, several respondents believed there is an additional requirement for data collection and monitoring, education around fishing practices, as well as the sharing of knowledge and best practice:

"Deep education and passed skill sets for operating at sea, requiring a knowledge of species and of the impact on pollution" [Individual]

"Yes, apart from the obvious need to reduce the mobile sector and introduce extensive spatial management. There is an obvious requirement to ensure best practice is applied to any gill-net and or longline fishery. This should mean highly detailed accounting of the fishing effort, and accounting (along with appropriate mitigations) for the bycatch and any gear losses" [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

6.51. There were repeated suggestions for the use gillnets and longlines to be reduced or banned, particularly where respondents stated their opinion that their use had environmental and/or animal welfare implications.

6.52. A few respondents suggested that gillnets and longlines to be verified at the beginning and end of voyage to combat issues of abandoned gear or, alternatively, that gears should have identification tags.

6.53. It was noted that there are likely to be further measures which should be explored with fishermen, environmental groups and scientists in the IFMACs/FMACs [Inshore Fisheries Management and Conservation Groups/Fisheries Management and Conservation Groups] and with fishermen in IFGs [Inshore Fisheries Groups].