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

3. Pelagic

3.1 Q4: Do you agree with the definition of pelagic vessels provided and are there any unintended consequences from using this definition?

The consultation defined pelagic vessels as "refrigerated Sea Water/Chilled Sea Water (RSW/CSW) and freezer vessels, over 12 metres, fishing for small pelagic and blue whiting." This definition set out to be as encompassing as possible for all vessels which could be defined as pelagic vessels, and is thought to be applicable to the entire Scottish pelagic fleet (22 vessels), as well as the estimated 155 non-Scottish vessels which fish in the Scottish zone.

Responses were evenly split between those agreeing or disagreeing with the definition given. Respondents who felt the definition was not clear enough suggested other species such as Norway Pout or sandeel could be included. Others indicated defining net mesh size would be sufficient to define pelagic vessels, regardless of targeted species.

We have taken this feedback on board in order to most effectively ensure that REM requirements are fairly applied to all vessels which could be termed "pelagic". We have taken the consultation responses into account in preparing a suitable legislative definition for pelagic vessels, which will apply to vessels with a length of 12 metres or over.

3.2 Q5: How much lead-in time should pelagic industry be given to prepare for compliance with the mandatory REM requirement?

The consultation asked, based on the information provided within the consultation paper, what an appropriate lead-in time would be for the pelagic industry to prepare to comply with the REM requirement. Noting that this was a new concept on board pelagic vessels in Scottish waters, the consultation took into account the potential logistical complexities associated with sourcing, producing and installing these new technologies on board. The consultation proposed that 12 months could be an appropriate timeframe between the date the legislation imposing the REM requirement becomes law (but with the requirement not entering into legal effect immediately) and the date of the REM requirement then coming into legal effect.

The majority of responses indicated that 12 months sounded like an appropriate amount of time, with some caveats including ongoing consultation with industry, allowances for extensions etc. A smaller group of respondents felt that 12 months was not appropriate – some arguing that the lead in time should be less than 6 months; while others felt that the complexities illustrated would necessitate a longer lead in time of approximately 36 months. Wider feedback not focussing on specific lead in times stressed the importance of consulting with non-UK vessels, and not setting arbitrary deadlines.

Whilst the complexities associated with this roll out cannot be overstated, following further consultation internally with electronic monitoring specialists and operational experts, it is felt that an appropriate lead-in time should not be more than 24 months in total, considering the requirement will be applied to non-Scottish vessels (including international) fishing in the Scottish zone, as well as to Scottish vessels. We intend to use this timeframe in the legislation.

3.3 Q6: Do you agree with the scientific and compliance benefits of REM for the pelagic fleet as set out in this document? Are there other benefits which you can consider, including to industry, the environment, or local communities?

The consultation outlined a number of potential benefits in relation to both science and compliance related to the deployment of REM onboard pelagic vessels. It also asked for feedback on any wider benefits that consultees could identify. The potential scientific benefits outlined in the consultation included providing verification around fishing activity and certainty around landings data, alongside the potential to supplement pelagic data sets to increase the veracity of stock assessments and advice.

For compliance, the potential benefits centred around the potential to demonstrate compliance with duties and obligations under relevant fisheries legislation, for example, the landing obligation, and to increase confidence in the fishing activity taking place.

The majority of responses to this question (74%) answered that they agreed with the scientific and compliance benefits set out within the consultation. For those that agreed, many responses noted the potential for increased richness and availability of data, and the potential to provide confidence in the wider supply chain, for example for consumers. Some identified that the consultation could have gone further in highlighting the polling data that can be gathered through REM systems (via GPS) and the potential to increase spatial data for marine planning purposes.

A number of responses highlighted the importance of making full use of the data gathered, and that the scientific benefits would be dependent on appropriate use being made. Some responses highlighted the importance of making data more readily available, for example to the broader research community. It was also highlighted that REM offered the potential to gather data on bycatch of other marine species which could help with wider marine management (not just in a fisheries context).

In relation to the potential compliance benefits, respondents noted that to be effective, enforcement authorities would need the right analysis tools and resources in place and a number of responses sought reassurance on this point.

For those responses that disagreed with the benefits outlined in the consultation, some queried the advanced monitoring systems and self-sampling schemes already in place for pelagic vessels, meaning that REM could be an inferior addition. In particular, there were a number of responses which disagreed that there would be any scientific benefits to the deployment of REM.

Some consultees felt that the compliance benefits outweighed the scientific benefits, and that the scientific element had been overplayed within the consultation.

The responses to this question in the consultation show a clear split in opinion regarding the potential benefits of REM deployment. A common thread running through the responses was in relation to the use of data, and the fact that the benefits would only be realised through proper analysis and interrogation. As outlined in this report already, to support the delivery of REM legislation, Scottish Government officials are developing operational plans which will apply for both the compliance and science functions. These operational plans seek to ensure that the benefits from REM data can be maximised, with appropriate monitoring taking place in order to deliver confidence and increased data that is fundamental to the success of the REM programme.

We take onboard the responses which have highlighted the often sophisticated systems that pelagic vessels already have onboard, and agree that the current systems in place help support the wider management of pelagic fisheries. We do not agree, however, that these systems negate the need for REM. A crucial part of effective fisheries management is ensuring that vessels are fishing in line with the legislation that is in place. REM will help deliver confidence that this is the case, and in turn this supports our confidence in scientific data and will enable us to demonstrate sustainability within the industry.

On balance, the Scottish Government believes that the benefits outlined within the consultation are correct. As we develop our operational plans, and start to implement REM on pelagic vessels, we will build in appropriate review points to ensure we can evaluate progress and demonstrate that the anticipated benefits are being met.

3.4 Q7: Do you agree that the system as outlined in section 3.4.2 (System specification) should be able to meet the benefits described in Section 3.3?

Further to question 6, the consultation outlined a draft system specification which was intended to support the delivery of the science and compliance benefits outlined in the previous section. The consultation indicated that the specification was in draft format and was therefore subject to change.

The majority of responses to this question agreed that the system specification could deliver the benefits outlined. A number of responses echoed the concerns already raised in relation to question 6, that the benefits from the REM proposals were not as outlined and therefore it followed that the system specification would not realise those benefits.

There were a number of issues raised in the responses to this question, including:

• potential challenges with standardising systems across different vessel types and different countries which could undermine the level playing field principle.
• Questions around whether the technology was available to monitor the activities outlined in the consultation, for example the ability of cameras to monitor and determine composition, length and weight of fish.
• There were questions around the accuracy of pump rates and the variability of pump rates during the fishing operation.
• The ability of monitoring authorities to manage the large data sets which would be generated through REM.

The responses to the consultation have been used to develop the REM system specification, data pathway, operational plans and draft legislation. On standardisation, the Scottish Government believes that the system specification offers sufficient capacity to accommodate different layouts and vessel types, whilst ensuring that the basic requirement is applied on a level playing field basis. By approaching the REM requirement in a way that requires individual vessels to procure and install their own systems which must meet the system requirements, this will ensure that the systems are standardised, without requiring uniformity at a vessel level.

The system specification is designed to provide multiple forms of data, which will then be cross-referenced for analysis purposes. There are no single points of failure – for example, average pump rates can be compared with visual camera footage, which in turn can be cross-referenced with landings data in order to determine compliance with legislation and accuracy in terms of catch and landings data. For pelagic vessels, scientific technology in relation to machine learning (and the ability to determine composition, length and weight of fish) is not yet advanced enough to enable automated data analysis of REM data. Instead, for pelagic vessels, camera footage will be utilised by both science and compliance analysts, with visual verification taking place on a manual basis.

The operational and data collection plans being developed by science, compliance and analytical experts within the Scottish Government are focused on ensuring that appropriate data analysis of REM data can be carried out in such a way and at such a scale that will allow the benefits of REM to be realised. We are also considering what data sharing arrangements need to be in place and how we can engage with other fisheries authorities and experts to scale up the use of REM data and integrate it into our broader data collection plans. Further detail in relation to data will be provided with the Data Protection Impact Assessment that will accompany the legislation.

3.5 Q8: Do you foresee any specific operational problems with the system specification set out within the document?

This question within the consultation was intended to provide an opportunity for consultees to highlight any operational problems they thought might be associated with the system specification.

A number of responses flagged specific technical considerations relating to implementation of the REM systems. These included:

• Concerns around what would happen if a system malfunctioned at sea and whether or not a vessel would be required to return to port if the REM system stopped working – with some responses suggesting they should and others suggesting they shouldn't.
• The need for systems to be tamperproof
• Questions around how the system specification would apply to freezer vessels and whether or not the factory operation of freezer vessels would be covered by the REM system.
• Data security and privacy concerns.

As per the responses to previous questions, the responses to the consultation have been used to develop the REM system specification, data pathway, operational plans and draft legislation.

On system malfunctions, as per Question 3, 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.

On the need for systems to be tamper proof, this requirement is being incorporated into the system specification which REM systems must comply with under the REM legislation. In addition, the REM legislation will provide that if any person tampers with an REM system, that person, along with the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of the fishing boat each commit an offence.

In relation to freezer vessels, following further engagement with experts, including those in other fisheries administrations, we will ensure that adequate coverage of the factory operation onboard freezer vessels is provided for within the legislation.

Finally, on data security and privacy concerns, these have been considered as part of the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) process. In addition, we have consulted with the Information Commissioner's Office on the data protection elements of the pelagic-specific REM provisions. A DPIA and privacy notice will be produced to support the legislation, including in relation to the use of REM data for law enforcement purposes (LEP).

3.6 Q9: Do you believe that we should require net sensor data as part of the system specification at this point?

The consultation asked whether net sensor data would be desirable in any finalised REM specification. Net sensor data was flagged as having the potential to add another point of verification in relation to catch levels, which in turn could be compared to estimates of catch via camera footage and landings data.

A majority of respondents were in favour of requiring net sensor data as part of the system specification, although some of these responses focused on sensor data in general rather than just net sensors. Conservation organisations were more likely to support the addition – flagging the potential to monitor catch to deliver more scientific benefits of the data collected from the system. Others felt the addition of this technology should be considered separately from the general introduction of REM.

Respondents opposed to the addition of this requirement indicated concerns about whether the sensors would be able to deliver accurate data, and that the requirement would introduce additional costs to what was perceived to be an already expensive requirement.

Further internal discussions with operational experts within the Scottish Government have indicated that while the addition of net sensor data may be helpful, it would not be essential for the system to still deliver on the intended benefits. Given also that net sensor technology as applied here is still in its relative infancy, we do not intend that net sensors will be a required component at this stage of the REM roll-out. This will be reviewed going forwards.

It should be noted that the system specification for REM systems will include the use of winch sensors, which will indicate the shooting and hauling of fishing nets, and which are an established part of REM technology.