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

5. Further rollout

5.1 Q13: What is your view in relation to the various options outlined for deployment of REM to parts of the demersal fleet as outlined in Section 5: REM for large demersal vessels?

In addition to questions around the mandatory introduction of REM to the scallop dredge and pelagic fleet segments, the consultation also sought views on various options for deployment of REM to other parts of the demersal fleet, namely large demersal vessels 12 metres or more in length. Several options were set out, including the use of reference fleets, and broader rollout on a fleet segment basis. The consultation also asked for feedback on alternative options which could be considered. This part of the consultation had a direct read across to the separate Scottish Government consultation on the development of Scotland's Future Catching Policy, which suggested that monitoring and enforcement options will need to be considered alongside development of that policy.

There were differing views from respondents in relation to the use of a reference fleet. Some thought this would be the preferable way forward, with advantages including the potential to provide useful data on bycatch and the potential to test REM ahead of any wider rollout. It was also felt by some that observers could be used in conjunction with reference fleets to provide data which might be richer than just through REM alone. Some responses suggested that lessons could be learned from other international examples, for example, Norway.

There were a number of responses which thought the use of reference fleets might be problematic. In particular, there were concerns that REM needed to be deployed on a level playing field basis so as to not unfairly disadvantage Scottish vessels, and that a reference fleet might make this difficult to achieve. Other responses thought that reference fleets might lead to an over-representation of vessels who were already compliant and therefore would lead to an inaccurate recording of fleet and fishing activity. It was suggested that this might be overcome if reference fleets were randomly selected.

Many responses felt a broader rollout of REM was preferable to the use of a reference fleet. It was noted that this might have longer lead in times and be more complex to deliver, but that the potential benefits would make it worthwhile. In particular, some responses pointed to the need to ensure widespread compliance with obligations under applicable legislation, such as the landing obligation and that a broad rollout of REM could assist with this.

A number of responses highlighted the potential to focus REM on high-risk parts of the fishing fleet. Others suggested it would be an effective way of increasing understanding and monitoring of fleets such as gillnets and longlines in order to improve management.

A number of other views were raised in the consultation responses, in particular around whether or not REM has a place in fisheries management particularly when there are issues around availability of quota and so-called 'choke risks' under the landing obligation.

The responses to this question in the consultation were varied, with no absolute and collective view on the wider deployment of REM in the future. This part of the consultation will be used to inform future policy development in step with policy development on the Future Catching Policy. The Scottish Government recognises the potential benefits that REM can deliver and there is a broad direction of travel towards increased monitoring and the greater use of innovative technology where significant compliance and scientific benefits can be realised.

As set out in the consultation on the Future Catching Policy (FCP), we want to consider monitoring and enforcement options alongside the development of the FCP and therefore intend to use the feedback received as part of this section of the REM consultation in that context.