Sea fisheries - future catching policy: consultation analysis

7. Additional selectivity for directed fisheries (Q17-19)

Q17. Options to be introduced

Overview

7.1. The consultation document presents a range of technical conservation measures already in place and states that they are intended to help deliver responsible and sustainable fishing practices. Rules have grown in both number and complexity over time which has resulted in numerous technical measures that fishers have to comply with which can lead to confusion.

7.2. One recent reform introduced a new baseline mesh size of 120mm for trawl fishing. The intention of this was to improve selectivity and reduce unwanted catch, whilst also providing for 'directed fisheries' which would be able to use smaller baseline mesh sizes, for example, if targeting Nephrops or squid. However, within the technical conservation rules there is no definition for 'directed fisheries' which has resulted in a lack of clarity in the rules.

7.3. Therefore, the consultation document presents a number of options to address the lack of definition and to further increase selectivity and reduce unwanted catch. These options were as follows:

• Option 1: under the existing technical conservation rules the minimum standard mesh size in Scotland is 120mm unless a vessel is targeting a specific designated species e.g. Nephrops, or if they are using a selectivity device which is proven to be as selective as a 120mm net. Under this option, it would be specified that any vessel seeking to use any gear of less than 120mm to target a designated species e.g. Nephrops, would need to ensure that the target species constituted at least 50% of their total catch.
• Option 2: whilst some parts of the fleet, e.g., whitefish vessels, must now use a 120mm net as standard, for other parts of the fleet working under a specific directed fishery (e.g. Nephrops), vessels are often using a less selective net e.g. 80mm. We are proposing to increase selectivity for these vessels. One way to do this would be to introduce a minimum mesh size of 100mm for defined directed fisheries such as nephrops, with all other trawl fisheries (with the exception of squid and pelagic) required to use a minimum mesh size of 120mm.
• Option 3: Building on Option 2, rather than increasing the baseline mesh size for defined directed fisheries to 100mm, another option would be to increase the effectiveness of Square Mesh Panels via an increase in mesh size and changes to positioning so that they offered an equivalent selectivity to 120mm nets. Evidence suggests that a 200mm Square Mesh Panel rigged at 9- 12m from the cod-line would have similar selectivity as a 120mm cod-end.

7.4. Respondents were asked to select from the options provided to be introduced. A total of 124 respondents (97 individuals and 27 organisations) provided responses to the closed element of this question.

7.5. The most selected option was option 3, to increase the effectiveness on square mesh panels, which was selected by 49% of those who responded to this question.

7.6. A further 17% selected option 1, which was to ensure that the target species constituted at least 50% of their total catch. Fishing organisation were less likely to pick this option than conservation organisations.

7.7. Option 2, introducing a minimum mesh size of 100mm for defined directed fisheries such as nephrops, with all other trawl fisheries (with the exception of squid and pelagic) required to use a minimum mesh size of 120mm, was selected by 17% of respondents. This was largely driven by individual responses.

7.8. Around a quarter (24%) of those who responded to this question selected none of the options. This included half of fishing organisations who responded to this question.

7.9. A total of 64 respondents (35 individuals and 29 organisations) provided reasons for their selection.

Option 1

7.10. A few responses stated that they felt that option 1 should be introduced and that if vessels could not prove that the target species constituted at least 50% of their total catch then they should be made to change gear. The quote below is illustrative of this view:

"Option 1 is a reasonable way forward – if a vessel is targeting a specific designated species with a smaller mesh size than would otherwise be used it is appropriate for that vessel to demonstrate that the targeted species constituted at least 50% of the vessel's catch. However, Option 3 may also be beneficial." [Organisation, Public Sector]

7.11. Of the responses who believed option 1 should be introduced, one reason given was that it made it easier to keep track if boarding a vessel. Another reason given was that this option was beneficial for conservation requirements.

7.12. Another reason given by a respondent was that option 1 was largely an administrative change and therefore would avoid potentially expensive net changes.

Option 2

7.13. One reason given in support for option 2 was that any improvements in selectivity were to be welcomed in the context of nephrops trawls, particularly, in the West Coast being blamed for poor recovery rates of fish stocks there.

7.14. Another view expressed that option 1 would inevitably result in by-catch and that the goal of minimising by-catch was imperative. It was also stated that whichever option should be selected should be the least destructive.

Option 3

7.15. Those who opted for option 3 gave a variety of reasons. One of these reasons was a feeling that simply increasing the diamond mesh size may have limited effectiveness. For example:

"Overall aim 3 may be more effective. Simply increasing diamond mesh size may have limited effectiveness, especially as the load in the cod end increases as the diamond meshes close up." [Organisation, Scientific body/academia]

7.16. Other responses focused on the impact option 3 would have on saving small fish, citing the benefits of this:

"The more juvenile fish that escape the better in the long term for both the fish stocks and commercial fishermen." [Individual]

7.17. There was also a call for the Square Mesh Panel to be placed on the topside of the net within response supporting option 3.:

"A prime concern for nephrops processors is the maintenance of a size mix which provides sufficient larger nephrops for the whole prawn market, and smaller nephrops for the tails market. Selectivity measures could have significant impacts on the nephrops markets if smaller nephrops slip through larger mesh cod-ends, impacting both primary and secondary (scampi) processors.

Research indicates that the best option from this perspective would be the Square Mesh Panel (SMP) placed on the topside of the net. Nephrops tend to move passively along the bottom of the net and are thus retained in the cod end while white fish more actively swim towards the net ceiling allowing escape through the SMP. SMP trials have demonstrated that placement of SMPs in the upper net have very significant reductions in whitefish bycatch with negligible impacts on commercially sized nephrops. For this reason we would favour option 3." [Organisation, Fishing organisations]

7.18. Other reasons given in favour of option 3 were that the option which did the least amount of damage should be favoured and that more work needed to be done to reduce bycatch.

None of the proposed options

7.19. One respondent stated that they felt that the catches needed to be reduced overall and that net sizes need to be increased:

"Catches need to be reduced overall, the size of mesh needs to be increased to give unintended species a chance for escape, and for only full-grown fish of a species to be caught- but with consideration for numbers- as these are the breeding fish for the future. So with this in mind the net size needs to be reduced by at least half- catches smaller- boats smaller - restrictions on size of trawlers in Scottish waters would be fairer for all concerned." [Organisation, Conservation]

7.20. Another view expressed for not favouring any of the options outlined to this question was that a 120mm mesh size was already in place outside 'mud areas' as part of the National Cod Avoidance Plan (in the North Sea) so there would be little gain in adding another layer of regulation on the directed fisheries concerned in this proposal.

7.21. Another argument forwarded for none of the options was the impact on the efficiency and viability of affected fishing vessels. A response from a fishing organisation noted that there had already been significant improvements in gear selectivity in recent years such as low standing nets and square mesh panels. This response also discussed the North Sea cod avoidance plan and using nets of 120mm plus in fish and mud designated areas. This response also called for Marine Scotland to conduct impact assessments on each of the proposed measures in order to share information with FMAC so that this aspect of the FCP could be considered further.

7.22. A response from a fishing organisation noted their position that maintaining the economic fabric of the fleet is also a priority and that any adjustments should be incremental while also noting that it is important to protect spawning aggregations and concentrations of juvenile fish. This response also noted:

"Through their own initiative, fishermen have delivered several improvements to selectivity in recent years. These improvements have delivered real gains regarding unwanted catch. It will be important to deliver further adjustments through a co-management process working with those same fishermen whilst, at the same time, avoiding top-down, prescriptive approaches that create their own resistance to change." [Organisation, Fishing organisation]

7.23. One response which queried whether the options presented did enough expressed concern about any method that achieved only 50% catch of the target species.

7.24. A small number of responses who selected 'None' stated that they felt they did not have enough knowledge to answer the question. They stated that they would need more knowledge or to see evidence on the following:

• An understanding of the design of the trawl and how it works in more detail
• Would need to see bycatch data for options in order to make a judgement

7.25. Other views expressed by those who did not want to see any of the options introduced were as follows:

• This should be discussed and agreed at FMAC
• That top-down approaches should be avoided and that through their own action's fisheries have delivered improvements to selectivity over recent years
• Any changes to the pelagic sector should be avoided as the sector is clean and non-wasteful and can operate with no changes in relation to mesh size and discards

7.26. A group of respondents who believed that none of the options should be introduced stated that they believed that the options did not do enough. This was used as an opportunity by some to again reiterate a desire to see bottom towing and trawling methods banned in inshore areas or to call for the reintroduction of the 3-mile limit.

Q18. Unintended consequences

Overview

7.27. Respondents were asked if they could foresee any unintended consequences of the options described in the consultation paper. They were asked to give particular consideration to increase minimum mesh sizes and the adjustment of requirements of the Square Mesh Panel.

7.28. A total of 109 (84 organisations and 25 organisations) gave responses to the closed elements of this question. Overall, 44% stated that they could see unintended consequences as a result of the options described while 56% said they could not. However, individual respondents were much less likely to agree that they could foresee unintended consequences (36%) than organisational respondents (72%). Conservation organisations, in particular, reported that they could foresee unintended consequences from any of these options.

7.29. There were 58 responses to the open element of this question, with 31 provided by individual respondents and 27 by organisational respondents.

Unintended consequences identified

7.30. A number of unintended consequences were identified within the responses to this question.

7.31. These unintended consequences included:

• Boats circumventing rules and potentially lax policing around these requirements
• That option 1 could inadvertently introduce a perverse incentive to discard whitefish to continue to use a 100m mesh net
• That option 2 could encourage switching between nephrops and whitefish fishing depending upon quay prices which could lead to swings in supply as one fishery becomes more profitable than the other
• Further depletion of the marine environment
• That adopting these measures would create a perception of sustainable fisheries when more work would need to be done
• It would lead to costs for the fishing fleet in terms of additional investment on new gear and impacts on viability if less fish could be caught

Q19. Exceptions for low powered vessels

Overview

7.32. The consultation asked respondents whether they believed any exceptions should apply for low powered vessels working in inshore waters. A total of 143 respondents (112 individuals and 31 organisations) provided a response to the closed element of this question.

7.33. A majority (67%) of respondents believed that an exception for low powered vessels should not be considered. Organisations (52%) were more likely to think that an exception should be in place than individuals (28%). The majority of fishing organisations were in favour of an exceptions while the majority of conservation organisations were not.

7.34. A total of 57 respondents (30 individuals and 27 organisations) provided responses to the open element of this question.

Those in favour of an exception

7.35. Those in favour of an exception gave a variety of views. One of these, was that an exception should be granted for smaller boats:

"Absolutely smaller under 8 metre vessels should be exempt. These guys have a hard enough time as it is." [Individual]

"Smaller boats should not come into this - Again a 3 mile, 6 mile and 12 mile limit rule with boat sizes and fishing methods would manage this." [Individual]

7.36. It was also noted that some exceptions may be required in order for low powered vessels to remain economically viable.

7.37. Another possible exception that could be granted was for vessels with an engine output of 300hp or less.

7.38. Another view that was expressed was that exceptions could incentivise low impact fisheries on the ground of lower catching capacity and that smaller inshore vessels tend to be more environmentally aware:

"Sustainable fishing should give more agency to local fishing operators who fish and land locally as this will better distribute employment and give a stronger incentive for more careful management of local fishing grounds. A significantly stronger disincentive should be placed on large corporate fleets who have no disincentive to over catch as they can just sail to another ground (e.g., feeding the "tragedy of the commons" effect)." [Individual]

7.39. Other responses felt that the current exemptions for vessels under 112kw should be maintained.

Those not in favour of an exception

7.40. One view expressed among those who did not feel that there should be an exception argued that for the changes to be most effective they should be applied to all vessels:

"[Organisation] is advocating for comprehensive management measures to control fishing effort in the inshore. These measures should be implemented for all vessels working in the fleet." [Organisation, Conservation]

7.41. Others felt that there was no rationale not to include smaller vessels with some suggesting that there should be no demersal trawling allowed in inshore waters:

"Low powered inshore vessels are the ones which tow the most on nursery grounds, therefore better selectivity is probably even more important for this sector." [Individual]

"The power of the vessel is irrelevant to reducing the amount of unwanted catch. Low powered vessels can catch significant amounts of unwanted catches." [Organisation, Conservation]