SG Response to Consultation: Marine Resources – Ensuring Long Term Sustainability: Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM)

2. General

2.1 Q1: Do you agree that Scottish vessels required to use REM in the Scottish zone should also have REM operational when operating outside of the Scottish zone?

The consultation emphasised that REM would be operated on a level playing field basis, with the same legal requirements being applied to all vessels within a defined fleet segment when fishing in Scottish waters. However, the consultation also sought views on whether Scottish vessels required to use REM in the Scottish zone should also have REM operational when operating outside of the Scottish zone. Several potential benefits of this were highlighted in the consultation, including the potential to add to the richness of the data set, assisting with compliance, and delivering improved confidence and accountability for the Scottish fleet. The consultation highlighted that this proposal would mean additional monitoring technology would be required for Scottish vessels, over and above that required for other vessels outwith the Scottish zone.

In the consultation responses, there was a majority of support (57%) for Scottish vessels to be required to use REM both in and outside of the Scottish zone. For those who agreed with the proposal, they highlighted the potential improvements for sustainability and accountability, along with the potential for Scotland to demonstrate leadership and promote best practice to others – with the potential for other countries to follow Scotland's lead. Several responses also highlighted the potential for Scottish vessels to be non-compliant with legislation when outwith the Scottish zone, for example, by discarding outwith Scottish waters, if the REM requirement was not applied throughout the whole fishing trip.

There were also some concerns raised, with a number of responses highlighting that the proposal would go against the spirit of a level playing field, meaning that when fishing in non-Scottish waters, Scottish vessels would have to use technology and monitoring over and above that required for non-Scottish vessels. There were concerns that using REM was unnecessary given the widespread use of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) technology as standard (although it should be noted that AIS and VMS are not the same as REM).

The Scottish Government has reviewed the responses to the consultation and, on balance, believes that the potential benefits to be had from Scottish vessels using REM both in and outwith Scottish waters outweigh any perceived negative impacts. The Scottish Government remains committed to ensuring that technology and legislation will be applied equally across all relevant fishing vessels within a relevant fleet segment when fishing in the Scottish zone on a level playing field basis. However, we also believe that there are significant benefits to be had from Scottish vessels keeping REM technology operational when outwith the Scottish zone. We also anticipate that other fisheries administrations would seek to make good use of REM technology on board their flag vessels, and that more widespread use of REM is likely to follow from the Scottish introduction of REM requirements. In that way, we want to show leadership and also help demonstrate to consumers and retailers that Scottish fishing vessels operate in a legal and responsible way no matter where they fish.

We will therefore draft legislation which will require Scottish vessels meeting the REM criteria to have REM technology operational when fishing both in and outwith the Scottish zone, for the duration of the fishing trip.

2.2 Q2: Do you foresee any barriers to vessels meeting the costs associated with the REM systems themselves? This includes upfront and ongoing costs.

The consultation sought views on potential barriers to meeting the envisaged costs, setting out a range of options including whether costs should be met by industry (i.e. the owner(s) of fishing vessels), or paid for through some other means. The consultation outlined the costs split between pelagic, demersal and scallop vessels; then breaking costs down to the upfront cost of hardware (system and installation), the cost of data transfer including system software / licences and the ongoing maintenance of hardware and replacement kit. It should be noted that the figures used were estimates only and depend on the system configuration and also the supplier. The consultation recognised funding challenges could vary between fleet segments, and that grant funding might be appropriate in some circumstances for Scottish vessels. Other fisheries administrations are of course responsible for their own vessels and potential funding streams.

Several responses to the consultation identified barriers to vessels meeting the costs of REM, with fishing organisations particularly likely to not support vessel owners meeting the costs themselves. These responses highlighted existing and likely future challenges faced by the fishing industry. Of the minority of responses that did not foresee cost barriers, very few provided reasoning in their answers.

Most responses, not just from fishing organisations or individuals, suggested some funding assistance should be provided – typically from the Scottish Government - but tended to vary in the extent of funding which in their view should be met by the public purse; ranging from all costs for the duration of a system's lifecycle, to funding the initial (as opposed to ongoing, e.g., maintenance) costs.

Various responses acknowledged differing fleet segments would be impacted in different ways in relation to meeting the costs of REM, noting that these costs would be felt more acutely by smaller vessels. While the feedback does identify some potential barriers to vessel owners meeting the costs of REM themselves, the responses do acknowledge that these barriers are not met evenly across the different fleet segments.

Following review of the consultation responses and the feedback received, the Scottish Government believes that we should approach the issue of funding for REM on a fleet segment by fleet segment basis. This enables us to take account of the differences between Scottish fishing vessels and the relative affordability of meeting the costs associated with REM. This approach is reflected below.

2.2.1 For pelagic vessels

Based on the current profitability of the Scottish pelagic fishing fleet it is our view that the pelagic fleet is sufficiently well resourced to fund any REM changes without the need for public funding, due to the maximum purchase and installation costs being estimated to be less than 1% of the average vessel's annual net profit.

On this basis, owners of pelagic vessels will be responsible for all costs associated with sourcing, purchasing, installing and maintaining REM systems which meet the requirements set out in the system specification. Vessel owners will also be required to pay any costs, fees or charges associated with arranging and maintaining Scottish Ministers' access to data storage systems, for example, relating to data transfer and system software licences.

2.2.2 For scallop dredge vessels

Scottish Government officials have been working with the Scottish scallop dredge sector to deliver a voluntary programme deploying funded^[1] REM systems on the active fleet. This work was initially adversely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic but the vast majority of the active fleet now carry REM systems, with early adopters in the programme also benefitting from maintenance and licence fees for the first year after installation.

By the time draft legislation is laid in the Scottish Parliament - which will have the effect of requiring REM systems to be operational onboard all scallop dredge vessels fishing in the Scottish zone and onboard all Scottish scallop dredge vessels fishing outwith the Scottish zone - the active Scottish fleet will have had sufficient opportunity to take advantage of a fully funded REM installation.

Thereafter, vessel owners will be responsible for ongoing and maintenance costs (including costs associated with ensuring Scottish Ministers' access to data storage systems, for example, relating to data transfer and system software licences). When the funded REM systems reach their end of life, fishers will have had time to prepare for financing replacement devices.

REM technology continues to develop at pace, with an emerging market for devices produced specifically for smaller vessels. Working with our industry, we will keep abreast of such market developments.

2.2.3 For demersal vessels

We are not yet in a position of rolling out an REM requirement to this fleet segment. As the policy develops, we will undertake a cost/benefit analysis to determine how the costs of REM systems should be met for this fleet segment. This will be subject to a Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA).

2.3 Q3: Are you aware of any issues we need to take account of when we apply REM across all pelagic fishing fleets fishing in Scottish waters on a level playing field basis?

The consultation sought views on the application of REM to pelagic vessels on a level playing field basis within the Scottish zone. It set out the Scottish Government's intention to introduce a legal requirement for all pelagic vessels licenced to fish within the Scottish zone to have a fully operational REM system on board when fishing in the Scottish zone. The consultation highlighted that there are a range of non-Scottish vessels which fish for pelagic species in Scottish waters and asked for consultees to highlight any specific issues they anticipated with the legislation being applied on a level playing field basis in the Scottish zone.

Some responses highlighted issues that need to be taken into account when applying REM, examples of which are listed below. In addition, some consultees responded 'don't know' to the question, which is perhaps reflective of the stage that REM had reached in the development process at the time of the consultation and the complexity around the technical detail.

Issues highlighted included:

• consistency of monitoring across all nations, and ensuring that all REM is adequately monitored regardless of nationality
• the need for data sharing arrangements between administrations
• the need for verification that REM had been installed properly on Scottish and non-Scottish vessels
• the requirements for sufficient and timely assistance in the case of REM system breakdown and for a consistent and fair approach in the case of system failure
• the challenge of ensuring that technology is applied consistently and that it takes account of differences between pelagic vessels.

The responses to the consultation have been used to help develop the REM system specification, data pathway, operational plans and draft legislation. There are examples internationally of where REM has been deployed successfully on a level playing field basis, and a range of tools can help ensure consistency in approach. The majority of the issues above will be dealt with through the development of robust operational plans by Scottish Government compliance and science experts, to ensure that monitoring is consistent in terms of quantity and quality.

We are engaging with other fisheries administrations and will develop data sharing agreements as required. We are also building a level of system checking into our legislative requirements, so that we can ensure that an REM system has been installed according to the system specification, and that it meets the legal requirements – with remedial action needed if the requirements are not met. This will be consistent across Scottish and non-Scottish vessels.

We recognise that not all pelagic vessels are the same, and we have designed the system specification to accommodate differences in individual vessel layouts and operations. For example, the system specification is designed to ensure that key fishing, catch sampling, pumping and, where appropriate, freezing and processing activities on a vessel will be captured by the digital cameras, however, the number and position of the digital cameras required to achieve this overall outcome may differ between different vessels, to account for differences in individual vessel design, whilst also ensuring that the data requirements are met.

In relation to system breakdowns, we have taken on board the feedback from the consultation and will ensure that an appropriate approach is applied through the legislation to account for instances where this may occur.