Fisheries Council
Item 6 is the first in a series of oral evidence sessions that will take place in advance of the December fisheries council meeting. At our next meeting on 21 November we will hear views from the Fisheries Research Services, and on 5 December we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment.
Today's witnesses have provided us with written submissions—papers 14 and 15—and we also have a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on fishing quotas, for which I thank Tom Edwards.
I welcome Dr Euan Dunn, who is the head of marine policy for RSPB Scotland, Mark Ruskell, who is the policy officer for RSPB Scotland—the committee also welcomes him as a former colleague—and Helen McLachlan, who is the marine policy officer of WWF Scotland. We will hear evidence from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation immediately after the first panel. If the members of the first panel wish it, I will give them a brief opportunity to respond to what they hear during our discussion with the second panel.
RSPB Scotland and WWF Scotland have made a combined submission. I understand that Mark Ruskell will make an opening statement of no more than five minutes.
Mark Ruskell (RSPB Scotland):
Thank you, convener. It is nice to have an opportunity to get back in the Official Report.
You have introduced my colleagues, Dr Euan Dunn and Helen McLachlan. I should point out that Helen McLachlan and I sit on the north-western waters regional advisory council—one of the bodies that were set up under the common fisheries policy to engage the fisheries community in debates around emerging European Commission policy—and that Dr Euan Dunn sits on the north sea regional advisory council. Both my colleagues have many years' experience of working with the fishing industry, Governments and the Commission.
The picture that we have this year of the state of our stocks and the state of the politics that surrounds them is similar to the picture that we have had in previous years. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is, once again, recommending cuts in the total allowable catch for mackerel, whiting and haddock. It recommends a zero catch for cod off the west of Scotland and in the Irish Sea.
It is perhaps predictable that during the negotiations in the weeks ahead, the member states and the Commission will overshoot the advice of ICES. At best, that will delay recovery of some of our key stocks and could, at worst, lead to their continuing decline.
Against that negative picture, however, there have been two positive changes this year, particularly in relation to cod. The first is that there is a small sign of recovery in cod stocks in the North Sea. The 2005 year class of cod is not particularly big compared to the year classes that we saw in the early 1990s, but it is the biggest that we have seen in the past six years, which offers a small glimmer of hope. We have a golden opportunity to build the health of the stock by leaving it in the sea and allowing it to continue to spawn and reproduce. We would see that as an investment in that stock. If we protect that investment, the fisheries industry will be able to reap a good return. What we should not do is fish out that stock and gamble away that investment.
ICES has recommended a very low rate of removals for North Sea cod this year—both for cod that is caught and landed and for cod that is caught and discarded. It equates to less than half of what was caught in 2006, so ICES is recommending a reduction for North Sea cod. Where the scientific analysis is starting to move a little closer towards the advice that the fishing industry wants to see, the industry itself should move to meet the science. It is important not to undermine ICES's advice for North Sea cod and that that advice be accepted.
The second positive change that we have seen this year is an emerging consensus about the tools that we need to put in place to avoid catching cod and keep it in the sea where it can reproduce and rebuild the stock. For example, pilot projects are currently under way in Scotland for real-time closures. Where juvenile species aggregations are found, they are reported and an area can be closed for 21 days. Gear selectivity is also being piloted and square-mesh panels are being built into gear to enable cod to escape. On-board observers are also being introduced under pilot schemes, which is a positive development that enables us to gather more information and to verify what is happening, particularly with regard to discards.
All those initiatives could be brought together into a strong package that will allow cod to recover. At the moment, however, we have only pilot projects; there are only two on-board observers operating on boats, and there is no international agreement over real-time closures. We have not yet proposed a bycatch quota in this year's talks and we do not have a mandatory requirement for gear selectivity, so it is important that Parliament and the Scottish Government work with the tools that we have to ensure that we have a positive package for the future to enable cod recovery.
I thank Mark Ruskell for his comments. He made a plea for us not to ignore ICES's scientific advice—my question is focused on that advice. ICES has said for the past six years that there should be no catch for cod, and what has happened is that ministers have said, "Okay—we'll have a limited catch," so that advice has not been followed. I am struggling to understand the situation, because ICES's advice is now that cod stocks are recovering and that there can be a minimal catch of cod. Logic dictates to me that somebody has got things wrong. Has ICES undermined itself?
Helen McLachlan (WWF Scotland):
ICES has not undermined itself. It was right in recent years to offer the advice that it offered, because we have to look at the issue in context. Cod are still at critically low levels in the North Sea, and this year's advice reflects the biomass chart, which shows high numbers in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and the severe depletion and bottoming out that occurred after that. The chart is now just starting to show an upward turn, so ICES has been right to give advice as it has done in recent years. It is as a result of that advice and of the strict measures that were put in place that we are now starting to see returns for restricted effort.
ICES has made the important point that all the advice refers to quotas that are based on landings, which are not a reflection of what is happening in the fishery. In the context of the fishery, we should be talking about removals, and what ICES has said this year is that we need to reflect total removals from the seas, which will be a challenge.
As a layperson, I am struggling to understand the logic of the advice. The advice for six years was not to fish any cod; now, as you said, cod stocks seem to be recovering, but the advice is that it is okay to fish cod, I struggle with the efficacy of that advice. Can anyone else say anything to enlighten me?
Dr Euan Dunn (RSPB Scotland):
One of the key points relates to the crucial 2005 recruitment year, which Mark Ruskell mentioned in his introductory remarks. It has taken some time, because of the uncertainty that surrounds fisheries science, to determine how strong that year class is. Only now, after ICES has done successive surveys, are the figures beginning to show that the year class is stronger than we had thought over the past two or three years, which has enabled ICES to shift its position slightly. That is one of the crucial changes.
Des McNulty and Peter Peacock want to comment. Is Peter's question on this point?
Yes.
Would Des McNulty also like to come in on this point?
No.
My understanding is that although ICES is saying that there could be a limited catch, that limited catch would still represent less than half of what is being caught, so in practice it is recommending a significant cut. Is that correct?
Absolutely. ICES recommends a level of catch next year that is half what was caught last year, which constitutes a serious cut.
I am even more confused now. Given that over the past six years ICES has said, "No fishing at all" and ministers have allowed all that fishing of cod to take place, how come ICES is now saying, "Actually, half of that fishing effort is okay after all." Has ICES been wrong for the past six years?
Hold on a second—I do not want a free-for-all. Apart from anything else, it is not fair on the official reporters.
Mike Rumbles has asked a question—I would like to get a response to that. Des McNulty has indicated that he would like to speak: is it on this issue?
Yes.
I ask you to respond to Mike Rumbles, then Des McNulty will come in.
ICES has been giving advice in response to what it has been asked and in response to a plan for recovery of cod stocks. Its advice has been that if we want recovery of cod in the North Sea, the most appropriate course of action will be to have zero catches in the North Sea. From a scientific perspective, it is clear what has to happen. From a socioeconomic perspective, which is where the Commission proposals come in, that was not acceptable because it would mean shutting down the North Sea fisheries, as the associated fisheries that catch cod would have to close down. Thus, the Commission and the Council—representatives of the member states—decided to allocate a small quota to allow the fisheries to stay in business. Over that time, effort was brought down significantly—that was a key factor, in addition to the quota—which means that fishing mortality has decreased over the period, which is important in allowing the population to recover.
After six years of zero quotas, we have seen the 2005 year class come through, as Euan Dunn said; we are starting to see some evidence of that on the ground. The advice from ICES is that classes must be allowed to survive through to maturity before we start to see a healthier population. It is as a result of the zero quota recommendations that appropriate management measures were put into place, which will allow some sort of recovery.
Can we get clarification? ICES may have recommended zero quotas, but in fact we did not have zero quotas. The point is that the cod fisheries have started to recover without the application in practice of zero quotas. That is the nub of the issue. We seek an explanation of how that has happened. Is your contention that if we had had absolute zero quotas, the stocks would have recovered a lot faster?
Helen McLachlan indicated agreement.
Modest recovery has taken place, however, on the basis of what we have done so far. So, in a sense both sides are right—is that correct?
The one caveat to what you correctly say is that there is a paradigm shift in what ICES is recommending this year from the advice that it has given hitherto: it is saying that this year's allocation should be based not just on what is landed on deck, but on what is discarded. That is critical. ICES has not previously recommended that total removals should be on the table. That makes a big difference. In previous years, recommending a zero catch did not take account of fish that was discarded. In some ways, ICES is recommending a quite draconian measure this year, which is what we need to talk to.
I have two questions. My first is about the availability of information. Does a map exist that shows what ICES recommended, what was agreed and what then happened? Is there mapping of scientific advice, political decisions and outcomes over the period? It would help everybody if that information were available. I do not know whether we could get it from you or whether you can point to someone else from whom it could be available. A document going back 10 years that set out that information and any other relevant information would be useful to everyone.
To some extent—
I remind committee members not to make ad hoc comments. There is an issue for the official reporters that we need to address—if members want to speak, they should speak through me.
Some of the information that Des McNulty asks for is in the SPICe paper. Is it possible to provide that information in written form? It is difficult to go through 10 years' worth of statistics in an oral evidence session.
Yes. The European Commission has identified as a major problem for management of our fisheries the fact that the discrepancy between what ICES recommended and the final quota recommendation has been significant in undermining the sustainability—
Can you undertake to provide us with that information in the timescale for our consideration of the issue?
Yes.
Thank you.
How do you see the TAC regime contributing to the increased throwing away of fish that are landed from the sea? What practical steps would you have taken to reduce discards or eliminate them? Can you identify how that would work not only in scientific terms, but in legal and legislative terms?
In taking them from the sea, there are two places where fish might end up. They are either landed because there is quota for them, or they are discarded because it is not desirable to land them: they might be non-marketable or undersize, or there might not be quota for them. Regardless of TACs and quotas, the same amount of fish will be taken year on year if the boats use the same gear and it is business as usual in the fishery.
People can change how they fish by fishing in different areas and avoiding areas where there are high numbers of juveniles, or we can temporarily close areas in which fish come to spawn each year. Where fishing takes place is very important, and the level of discards can be immediately reduced by shifting those areas.
It is also possible to drastically improve the selectivity of gear by using different gear configurations. In the white-fish fleet, for example, a separator trawl can be used to catch haddock and whiting, which swim upwards. That avoids catching cod, which swim downwards and so escape that way. In the nephrops fishery, things such as separator grids can be used—that allows white fish out of the net but retains the nephrops. There are lots of gear developments that can improve selectivity, but unfortunately their use is not standard practice in the fleets that are impacting on cod. Cod is being caught in a range of associated fisheries and we are not doing as much as we could in terms of selectivity.
I am sorry to keep coming back to numbers, but they are important. Is it possible for you—again, not today—to give the committee a sense of the economically useful landed catch versus the tonnage that is discarded? Further, could you give us an analysis of how the steps that you have talked about—such as changing the tackle or how fishing is organised—could change the balance between the economically useful catch and the discarded catch? That might give us a framework for considering the problem, which we have not had up to now.
That would be difficult to do in one piece of documentation. We are talking about a lot of fisheries, even if we are only addressing the situation in the North Sea. However, we can give the committee an idea of landed catch in the fishery and the discard levels. I can give you an example from the otter trawl. In 2005, in the small-mesh fishery, which is generally considered to be a nephrops fishery, 1,651 tonnes were landed and 1,007 tonnes were discarded. The discard is 69 per cent of the total in terms of numbers and 37.9 per cent in terms of weight, which suggest that a lot of small fish are being caught in that fishery. Introduction of a 120mm square-mesh panel would mean that a lot of those juvenile fish would escape and the proportion of landings to discards would be significantly higher. That has been demonstrated in the trials that Fisheries Research Services has been undertaking.
Is there anywhere in the world where people have managed to change the ratio between the landed catch and the discard catch? Perhaps New Zealand or the United States? Are there any positive examples that we in Scotland could learn from?
The system in the United States is by no means perfect, but many measures have been pioneered there that have not yet been trialled in United Kingdom or Scottish waters. For example, in their equivalent of the nephrops fishery—the langoustine fishery—fishing is sanctioned only in areas in which it will not be part of a mixed fishery with white fish, which is a clear example of good spatial separation. That is not always possible in a fishery that is as mixed as the North Sea, but it shows that inventive measures can help, especially with the assistance of incentives.
We are in the thick of negotiations around how the European fisheries fund will be allocated across the devolved countries in the coming years. The European fisheries fund has enormous power to incentivise gear selectivity in the direction that we favour. At the same time, we must make it more costly to fish unselectively, which could be done through the financing criteria that will be used for changes in fishing gear in the future. There is a lot of power to change how people fish that has not yet been used.
My question relates to the biomass of the 2005 cohort. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the estimates of the biomass of the 2005 cohort had altered over time. Is that a technical issue relating to standard errors of measurement in the move from 2005 to 2007 for that cohort? If so, would such errors affect the advice that you are giving? You might be getting reduced standard errors and therefore more precise estimates of the biomass of that cohort.
That question should be put to the scientists when they appear before the committee next week.
ICES's biggest problem with all these data—for the 2005 cohort no less than the others—is that it has been extremely challenging to estimate the level of unquantified removals, be that through discarding, through misreporting or through natural mortality, which is difficult to account for. For ICES, that has been the black hole in the cod story, as it has been for the other white-fish fisheries that it has to deal with.
Part of the way of getting to the heart of the issue is to use observer programmes, which is a strong element of the strategy that the non-governmental organisations endorse. We have to begin to take the best practice from other parts of the world where observer programmes are routine—if a fishing vessel says that it discards a certain amount, it must prove it, so an observer is put on board the vessel to get the data. The regional advisory councils are now becoming good ground for disseminating, using and harnessing the power of fishermen's information. If that practice is coupled with a powerful observer programme, it can give ICES the sort of information that it needs to crunch the figures in a way that will benefit the fishing industry in the long run.
As a layperson, I find it perverse that we discard so much when we have low cod stocks, and that our fishing communities are struggling but we are still killing lots of cod. What is your analysis of why the new technical gear that is available is not being used as widely as it could be in the Scottish fleet? On factoring of effort, my understanding from reading some of the papers is that the mortality rate increases during spawning. Could we factor effort more appropriately, so that there is an incentive for people not to fish during spawning times?
On the second question, that is certainly one of the things that we have been recommending, and there is general agreement among industry managers and in Government that we need to start adopting that approach. If we know where the fish are during spawning periods, we should leave the area alone and fish elsewhere. That seems to make clear sense. Similarly, we recommend real-time closures where juvenile aggregations are indicated. We should avoid those areas, so that we do not catch the fish in the first instance.
Your first question, on why the industry is not keen to adopt some measures, would probably best be put to Bertie Armstrong. Historically, there has sometimes been an economic issue. Depending on the amount of regearing and reconfiguration that has been required, costs can be significant, but for measures such as the inclusion of square-mesh panels, we are talking about an investment of around £300, but what is reaped as a result of that investment will be significantly more than that. Across the industry, there are people who are more enlightened and more inclined to adopt conservation measures than others—we should, by incentives, encourage those people to lead the way.
Is there a case for statutory measures on gear that would provide the fishermen with an incentive to change gear over a period? In turn, I assume, they would be able to catch more cod in future years, because the recovery plan would have allowed the little fish to get bigger. I am just trying to look at the matter from a layperson's point of view.
There is a case for statutory measures. A lot of the operational element has hitherto been based on voluntary uptake. The Scottish demersal fishing fleet has been in the vanguard of promoting better selectivity and has had good uptake within its fleet—I am sure that you will hear that from the next witness. However, we are talking about a mixed fishery in the North Sea—a sort of Rubik's cube of different fleets and fish stocks mixing in different areas. Unfortunately, some of our European competitors are not as compliant as we are with the momentum for better selectivity.
We have reached a critical stage. Let us not beat about the bush: most of our fish stocks are still at historically low levels. In the latest review of the common fisheries policy by Michael Sissenwine and David Symes, the common fisheries policy is seen as performing among the worst of its kind on the planet. Anyone looking at us from another country where they use best practice would say that now is the time to introduce statutory measures.
Jamie Hepburn has a question. We will then have explored the general issue sufficiently and will move on to something else.
I want to focus on improved gear selectivity. Some of the questions that I wanted to ask have been answered already. I was going to ask how the gear works, but Helen McLachlan has answered that—in so far as any of us could understand how it works. The discussion has also touched on where the gear is used. However, it has been said that the cost of the gear can be significant. What does the selective gear cost in comparison with the nets and gear that are being used just now? Where such gear is used, who meets the cost? Is there a form of subsidy? As well as suggesting statutory measures, you have talked about incentivising the use of such gear and I thought that you hinted that some form of subsidy would be useful. Where the gear is used, what was the impetus for its introduction? Did the fishermen themselves decide to use the gear, or was it a matter of statute? Was it, essentially, forced on them?
Let us take the Scottish situation as an example. Something called the coverless trawl is being trialled up in the north-west of Scotland for the nephrops fishery. A coverless trawl means that, instead of having a net coming up off the sea bed, that net is taken away. The nephrops still go into a net at the cod end, but the white fish, which naturally swim upwards, do not hit a net and they come out. That is a good selectivity measure, which fishermen up in the north-west are trialling at the minute. One of the incentives for that is that they want their nephrops to be Marine Stewardship Council certified, to demonstrate the sustainability of their fishery. The fishermen are keen to be able to promote their product on the international market as a Marine Stewardship Council certified Scottish langoustine product. A potential barrier to certification is nephrops gear that is not selective, so that is an incentive for fishermen to change the gear. That may act as an incentive in other fisheries, too.
A coverless trawl costs £5,000 as an investment. I do not have the figures for the landings of nephrops, but it is a high-quality product for the high end of the market, so the fishermen probably get good prices for it. Support for funding the coverless trawls will come from the forthcoming replacement for the current financial instrument for fisheries guidance structural funds—the new European fisheries fund—which explicitly allows for the fund to be used for the purchase and piloting of selective gear. Structural funds are definitely available to support fishermen who move to using selective gear, and there is possibly also member state funding so, for example, the Scottish Government could support that as well.
Dr Dunn, you referred to a paper that we do not have before us. I wonder if, after the meeting, you could supply the reference to the clerks, so that it can be circulated to committee members.
I think that we have exhausted that general area.
If I may add a point, convener, there is a real opportunity in the December talks to put mandatory gear selectivity on to the agenda. I hope that the Scottish Government, and indeed the Parliament, would consider that. There is a clear economic advantage to having a mandatory measure, in that it applies to everyone within the fishery, which creates a level playing field economically. That is important, and it can move us forward. Unfortunately, the voluntary measures have not yet delivered the kind of recovery that we all expected.
If I could make a transition from that subject to another one, I presume that you would essentially be in favour of the EU's kilowatt days proposals and of reducing the number of categories of regulated fishing gear. We are talking utterly about cod, but there are maximum sustainable yields for all the other species, too. There are 33 EU stocks, only three of which are being fished within the maximum sustainable yield. I would like you to discuss that in relation to real-time closures. How do you see those closures developing? How do you see the pilot scheme expanding? Should it expand? How many boats are currently involved? What is the potential for the uptake of such schemes in other member states?
There were quite a few things in there. On your last point, the real-time closures scheme is a worthy initiative by Scottish fishermen. That is just the sort of thing that people said was impossible in the North Sea a few years ago, because it was too difficult a fishery to apply it to, compared with Norwegian, Icelandic or Faroese waters. Let us have the trial, however, let it be well monitored and let us see what comes out of it. That can be done through the processes of the regional advisory councils, which can act as strong drivers for change. If the right feedback comes through the RACs to the Commission, such measures could begin to be applied more widely. It is an important trial; it is a significant development. It has a lot of potential, and it should be taken seriously.
We know that the Scottish Government is in discussion with the Danes, who are another important fleet sector in this and other fisheries. On the point about other species, we must not forget that one of the major commitments under the current CFP is to the progressive implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. That might sound like a confusing term to get to grips with, but the fundamentals are: stop catching juveniles, stop fishing on spawning stocks, be more selective and look at your impact on discard levels of both target and non-target species.
Those are some basic ideas that we should consider implementing across fleets and across all the stocks that we are fishing, not only cod. If we can get cod right, however, the knock-on effect for other fisheries could be very positive. That is the challenge at the moment.
No other members wish to speak, and I am conscious that we have indicated to the panel before us that they may come back briefly after the evidence from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I thank the three witnesses for now, and I ask them to move into the public seats. I invite Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, to come forward.
Welcome to the committee, Mr Armstrong. You may make a brief opening statement; it should last no more than five minutes.
Bertie Armstrong (Scottish Fishermen's Federation):
I am grateful for the opportunity to come to the committee. It is appropriate that parliamentarians understand the process that sets the raw material for the fishing industry, participate in the decision making and, I hope—you would expect me to say this—support the fishing industry's position.
You have received my written submission. You asked what the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is and what our role is in the process. We are a broad-based trade association that can bring a mandated opinion from the fishing industry to discussions with the Scottish Government, with our own scientists, with Whitehall and with Brussels. We can look for innovation and take it forward with the voice of the industry, rather than individuals.
You also asked for our view on the ICES advice on principal target stocks. We referred mostly to cod, which is not the whole picture. There were a couple of incisive questions about the ICES advice. I welcome the discussion because it sheds some light on what must be a puzzle for the general population. There has been a lot of superficiality about the debate over the years in the media, because, by necessity, the discussion has to be simple—it therefore becomes puzzling.
I will make a brief analogy. If you ask an environmental scientist the simple question of how to combat carbon fuel burning and global warming, the answer is dead simple. The pure scientific advice is to shut down world transport and world electricity generation. However, as that is not remotely sensible there has to be another path. That analogy can be applied to the ICES advice. The answer to how we do it is dead easy: stop fishing. However, we have to find another path. The recovery has happened as a result of the political decisions and what has eventually been agreed, and there will be a big discussion at the December fisheries council meeting about the cod total allowable catch. In an effort to find a middle path, it has been necessary for the industry to work closely with my colleagues who gave evidence earlier, with the scientists and with the Government—and we have done all year—to produce a package of measures that says two things. First, the council must not use the TAC, which is a blunt instrument, as bluntly as it has in the past. Our plea is that it must be raised by 15 per cent. I know that that is now the EU position. The intention is not that we should catch another fish, but that we should discard less. At the same time, we would put in place a range of measures that will cause cod avoidance. That is preferable to the blunt instrument of total allowable catch, which is now so small that regulatory discards will happen. The second thing is days at sea, which will be a big part of our December council objectives. The industry needs two things: sustainable amounts of fish to catch and enough time in which to catch them sustainably.
The decision about mackerel stocks has now been made in talks with Norway and with the Faroe Islands. The industry has accepted a 9 per cent reduction in the total allowable catch for mackerel. I am happy to report, because the science by necessity always lags a little, that the industry at sea is seeing a much greater abundance of mackerel—rather as it did with cod—than the science tends to indicate. We hope that the science will catch up next year.
We have discussed North Sea cod to death. It is important to recognise that most of the range of measures that we have discussed came from the industry and represents innovation from within the industry. Everyone needs to recognise that the industry is now a great deal different from what it was in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, a period that Helen McLachlan mentioned with regard to the abundance of stocks that used to exist. At that time, we did not know half as much as we know now. Everybody—including the Governments of Europe—thought that those large fish stocks were stable, so building programmes had Government encouragement. We got that badly wrong. The thistle has been grasped here with two big decommissioning programmes and the present-day Scottish fishing fleet is a shadow of, or very much smaller than, its former self. It is about the right size for the catching opportunity that now exists. Provided that we continue to do what we have done—to innovate and look to meet the aims of sustainability—we have a future.
In line with the questions that I asked the previous panel, I am interested in the relationship between the TAC system, bycatch and discards. There seems to be an unacceptable imbalance between the marketable fish that are caught and the number that are discarded because they are uneconomic or do not come through in the right way.
How much information do we have about that? Do we have crude numbers? Has an analysis broken down the balance between discards and the TAC for the fishery's different elements? Is our information as good as it needs to be to manage the situation sustainably? How does the TAC system operate perversely by increasing the potential discard?
The problem with providing information in the way that you described is that the information is complex. We have a mixed fishery in the North Sea and, to a lesser extent, on the west coast. We cannot catch one species without catching another. All the species are part of the same ecosystem and they eat one another. When we talk about the maximum sustainable yield and reflect on the numbers of cod in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, we find that the nephrops stock then was relatively tiny, because cod eat that stock. When cod return, we will find that the nephrops stock reduces. We will have to guard against people saying that that is the result of overfishing, because it probably will not be.
The information is available, but it is incredibly complicated. No direct connection exists between the two elements, except when the TAC is very small and the management aim is a very small catch of fish. If those fish exist and they are part of a mixed fishery, we will de facto have large discards.
The answer is movement in the right direction, which is to try to avoid cod, for instance. That is what we are doing. When we have a bigger stock, I hope that the system will automatically ease itself. The TAC system becomes perverse and achieves the reverse of its aim when stock levels are very low. When the stock recovers, that will help.
We are moving towards long-term management plans—that has been achieved with mackerel and haddock—under which the stock levels roughly equate to the maximum sustainable yield. In that situation, adjustments need not be emergency responses; they can be small. The widely accepted tolerance is 15 per cent, so we can have no more than a 15 per cent downturn or upturn to make the small adjustments that are needed. That is the direction in which we hope that we are moving.
There are no easy answers in a mixed fishery. The overall requirement is movement in the right direction. With cod, for instance, we have that.
What practical steps can we take to reduce discarding? It is in everybody's interests to reduce that as much as possible. A linked question is to what extent the mechanics of the management regime lead to discarding. That is not entirely clear to me and possibly other committee members.
We have discussed what we can do about discarding. In the short term, we can put in technical measures. During the past decade or so there has been a programme of research on panels of one sort or another—coverless trawls have been mentioned—and innovations from America have yet to be tried. Such measures will help, as will right-sizing the industry, which will make a lot of the problems go away over time. The Scots industry is now right-sized, but that is not the case in other parts of Europe.
When regulation is perverse, we must try to change attitudes. It is interesting that real-time closures, which were an industry initiative, are voluntary. The issue was discussed at some length on Friday with the Scottish Government and scientists, and we were delighted to hear that there is strong evidence from the vessel monitoring service run by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency that fishermen are moving away from aggregations of cod. Even when there is no closure, fishermen come across aggregations that would lead to a catch beyond their available quota, but they are moving away from such areas.
Euan Dunn mentioned best practice elsewhere and Des McNulty asked about that. Norway has a discard ban, in theory, and although no one, including the Norwegian authorities, claims that there is no discarding in Norway, the approach has managed to change attitudes in the fishery. People will be moved away—statutorily—from aggregations, but they try to avoid them anyway. We are taking the first steps towards having such an attitude in our industry and, as other panel members said, we need to ensure that the attitude is internationalised—among our Danish friends in the langoustine fishery, for instance.
You are looking forward to the negotiations in December—maybe "looking forward" is not the right phrase. What is the bottom line for the industry on the different species that you mentioned? What must the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment bring back from the negotiations if the industry in its current size is to prosper? You hinted at some of that.
I am particularly interested in your view on haddock, whiting, herring and cod. If I understood you correctly, you said that the UK position on cod that is emerging is for a 15 per cent increase in the TAC, to allow you to reduce discards and bring more cod to the market. You also said that you envisage a long-term management process for haddock and that in essence you agree with the UK position in that regard. Do you agree with the UK Government's emerging positions on cod and other species? Are those positions in line with your bottom line?
Your question hits the nail on the head and I will respond to it easily and with pleasure. The process is iterative, because we genuinely do not ignore the signs or ask for ridiculous things—asking for ridiculous things is a luxury, because it is easy, but if we do that we will fail.
I will run through the principal target stocks. The position on mackerel is decided at the meeting of the coastal states, because the stock is jointly managed with Norway. The decision has been made; there will be a 9 per cent reduction in the catch. To cut a long story short, the decision is in accordance with the science and has been accepted. Divisions of exactly where the quota will go remain to be done, because Russia is a player, too, but the decision reflects the UK and European position.
On North Sea cod, we are not just arguing for more fish, which would be ridiculous—you might recall that the industry sometimes used to say, "Give us more fish and leave us alone." We are asking to be allowed to reduce discards by increasing the TAC by 15 per cent, and we are asking for a package of measures, which will be accepted by the Commission and, I presume, the December fisheries council, only if it makes realistic sense and will reduce cod mortality. That is what we want. In practical terms, that position would translate into a sensible agreement on days at sea.
Is that likely to be the UK position?
I understand that that is the UK position, which is being discussed with the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary.
North Sea haddock is another jointly-managed stock and is already at a level that equates to maximum sustainable yield. It is subject to a long-term plan. There is likely to be a 15 per cent downturn, in accordance with the science. The UK and EU negotiating position is that that will allow there to be some banking and borrowing with that stock, because it is subject to a long-term plan. The period of one year is relatively arbitrary in relation to a big stock and it might be possible to achieve the aim in a longer period and do some banking and borrowing. This year, for instance, we will not catch all of our haddock quota, because of the weather and the restricted days at sea. Under those circumstances, if the biology of the stock will stand it, why not allow us to bank a little bit of haddock for next year? We are not talking about large percentages.
North Sea herring is important for us as the biomass is still large. However, for five years in a row, recruitment has been very small, disappointingly. We do not understand why that has been. Although that is not the fault of the fishery, it will certainly require there to be a downturn in fishing. In my briefing paper, I mistakenly say that the scientific advice is for a cut in TAC of around 55 per cent. However, the pelagic industry pointed out to me with some vigour that the actual figure is 49 per cent.
The pelagic regional advisory council has formulated a long-term plan that involves a lesser cut, in the order of 35 per cent. However, it pins it at that level for a period of three years and allows no increases. That would give the industry some stability, and that is the UK and EU position that is being advanced at the Norway talks as we speak.
North Sea whiting is another jointly managed stock. The science is uncertain in this area, but it recommends an extremely large downturn of 80 per cent. The EU and UK position is that, given the uncertainty of the science, such a large reduction is not appropriate and that there should be a lesser reduction. However, the Scottish Government is leaving this issue to England, because North Sea whiting is largely an English-caught stock.
In relation to the west of Scotland demersal stocks—cod, haddock and whiting—the picture is gloomy. The UK position is that we should look at the science and consider what can be done. The mainstay stock for the west coast—it is important for the North Sea as well—is nephrops. However, there is no nephrops science this year, so we expect that quota to remain the same next year.
Underlying everything else in the cod recovery programme is effort control, which includes the issue of days at sea. It affects specifically the white-fish industry and the nephrops fisheries. Our major fear is that there will be unacceptably draconian measures in relation to effort control this year. We have therefore been trying to put our house in order and develop a package of measures for cod avoidance. We hope that the fact that we have other ways of reducing cod mortality will mean that we are given a reasonable settlement on days at sea. That is the agreed position that is being taken forward for Christmas time.
Am I correct in thinking that, with the exception of the days at sea issue, the industry and the UK Government are in accord and that there is no fundamental disagreement? Is it your perception that the UK Government is not entering the process with intentions that do not meet the expectations of the industry?
That is a good question. My perception at present is that we have neither overt nor—if we regard the matter suspiciously—hidden intents to push another agenda or to ignore the best interests of the Scottish fleet. Nobody round the table does not appreciate that the Scottish fleet forms the bulk of the UK fleet. That is not a north-south arm-wrestling job, it is just a satellite view of the actuality. By necessity, the Scottish priorities must form a large bulk of the English priorities.
I was intrigued by your written evidence about the common fisheries policy. In essence, you say that it does not work properly and that it has all sorts of contradictions and difficulties. The evidence from the previous panel suggested the same thing. Nonetheless, you say that if we did away with the common fisheries policy tomorrow we would have to create a system that was not dissimilar to it, because we must manage what are on the face of it sometimes irreconcilable pressures, such as the mixed fishery in the North Sea and the fact that other fishing fleets have access to a shared European resource. What is your conclusion on that issue? Is it that we should stick with the current system and try to make it work better because fundamental reform is probably not practical or realistic in the short to medium term, or do you advocate something entirely different from the common fisheries policy?
Thank you for the question—it is a good one. We must stick within the bounds of fighting for realistic opportunities in the shorter term, which, de facto, will be within the CFP. I am not here to defend the CFP and no one will, including the two professors who inspected it on behalf of the Commission and who wrote the interesting paper that you will receive. The CFP has failed in almost all departments. However, I reiterate that we will have to get round a table and, somehow, work the matter out.
Reform is moving in the correct direction, which is that of regionalisation. The CFP is described as a top-down, command-and-control affair in which big decisions are made centrally and imposed on those whom they affect. Regionalisation will, I hope, lead to a shift, in that decision making will come by way of innovation and thought from the stakeholders, and it will then be offered to the Commission as guiding principles. That is the change that we would like, but it would be a big old shift.
At present, the regional advisory councils do not make management decisions—the clue is in the title. Provided that the RACs continue to offer coherent, sensible advice and do not revert to saying, "More fish—leave me alone," they should become more powerful. The shift that we would like is perhaps in the form of transference of management responsibility to the regions, because that is the level at which people first become aware of where the problems are and how to solve them.
I return to the questions that I asked the previous panel. I have two issues. One is how we reduce our mortality rate—I understand that it has gone down significantly since 1999, but there is some way to go. It seems perverse to me, as a layperson, that we allow dead fish to be discarded while our fishing communities are struggling. We must work out a way to balance the two issues. What are your views on the factoring of effort and how it could be progressed further? It seems sensible to allow spawning to take place by moving away from it.
The other issue is gear. I asked the previous panel whether there is a need for statutory provision on new gear. If such provision were introduced, would there be benefit in making available a financial incentive to encourage people to make the shift? What contribution can other member states make to reducing mortality rates? I know that the mesh size that we have been using has helped to reduce the mortality rate, but there is an issue in that other nations do not use that size. Could the UK push that matter during the negotiations to ensure that we all play on a level playing field and that Scotland and the rest of the UK are not disadvantaged?
Those are good questions.
We have already talked about the package of measures for reducing cod mortality. The extension of that package of measures, which involves real-time closures, to spawning areas is under discussion. We have already moved from recommending that just undersized fish be avoided to recommending that juvenile fish, which are a bigger range of fish, be avoided. On Friday, someone made the bright suggestion that the measure be extended to cover spawning areas, so what you have suggested has already been discussed.
Our problem is that it is now 7 November—there is no chance of any of those proposals resulting in hard statutory requirements in this year's set of regulations. However, they are a movement in the right direction. We have been telling the Commission what we have been doing all year, so the chances of our proposals being put into the regulations are much greater. We hope that that will happen.
People have asked why we do not just make such measures statutory, because if they were the law everyone would have to follow them. In my view, and in the view of the fishing industry, the best thing we can do is align incentive with management outcome, as Euan Dunn said. If we want to reduce cod mortality, we should incentivise people. That is not about providing subsidy, which tends to fall foul of competition rules and is a bit of a blunt instrument. If one can manage it, a much better way to proceed is to make fishermen want to take such action because, for example, they will get more days at sea. If a fisherman does not have to look for more days at sea because he has been allowed more days at sea because he has proved to the world, through an observer programme or the gathering of statistics, that he is doing better than he used to do, his operating costs will be reduced.
Putting such measures straight into statute could present a danger, given that there is a long history of unintended effects. What might look like a simple statutory measure can sometimes have perverse side-effects, so in our view it is best to align incentives with the management outcome of reducing cod mortality. We should reward fishermen for achieving that goal.
Your third question was about what other nations are doing. It is natural that we would say, "Not as much as us," but I think that that is a fair statement. The change in mesh size could certainly be put into the regulations. We have started to use 120mm mesh for white fish rather than the gear category of 100mm, so why should we not argue for everyone to use 120mm mesh? The French fishermen who work in the saith fishery, for example, would provide strong arguments for not doing that, but we should inspect those arguments and invite them to join us in reducing cod mortality voluntarily. I agree with the implication of your question, which is that that is what we should do.
I want to ask you about the kilowatt days scheme, which the Scottish Fishermen's Federation says it is not in favour of. What alternatives does the SFF propose? How do you suggest we help whiting stocks to recover? We seem to have dealt almost exclusively with cod, but discussion of the maximum sustainable yields of the other species in the North Sea is important too.
It is not quite correct to say that the SFF is not in favour of kilowatt days; in fact, the initial suggestion came from the SFF's white-fish sector. A big debate is taking place on how the global imposition of a kilowatt days scheme would affect every fisheries sector. Members of the nephrops sector are scratching their heads hard as they examine the potential implications.
The general question whether it would be better to have a top-down imposition of days at sea by Brussels or for Scotland to manage its own bucket is almost self-answering, but the devil is in the detail. The issue is how days at sea are managed and what framework Brussels places around the national bucket. For example, the white-fish fleet might find itself advantaged by a national arrangement because it would provide more flexibility and mean that cod avoidance could be targeted more properly as people would not be penalised through the use of the rather broad instrument whereby everyone gets a particular number of days at sea. However, the nephrops industry, which catches a great deal less cod, might find that all the justifiable headroom that it had with regard to effort is removed at a stroke, because you have imposed a set of regulations that were good for the goose but did not serve the gander so well.
It is not true to say that we disagree with the scheme; it is still under active discussion. Happily, it will not be imposed this year—that is nearly impossible because other member states have not done the work that we have done on the matter. The Scottish Government has been working on it for a while. The scheme will not be imposable because other member states will hold up their hands in horror and say that they are not ready for it. However, it is coming. I detect that the Commission is keen to divest itself of central control. It is best that we discuss the scheme and get used to the idea of it now, so that we are ready for its arrival. It has the potential to allow us to target and factor our fishing more precisely, but the devil is in the detail and we must ensure that there are not a lot of unintended effects.
You said that regionalisation is the way forward. How do you see that concept developing?
It has already happened in that the rules under the CFP apply across whole gear categories—they apply equally on the east coast, the west coast, the southern North Sea, the eastern channel and the north of Shetland. The first step was regionalisation by way of the North Sea regional advisory council, the north western waters regional advisory council and the pelagic regional advisory council, to name the three that are most relevant to our fisheries.
A degree of regulation is regionalised. There is movement away from regulation that applies across great swathes of the industry—a blunt instrument—to regulation that might target our fisheries more specifically. Derogation is now used; extra fiddles are put into the regulations to aim them at a particular fishery. You have to know enough about the fisheries to know which fishery the regulation is aimed at it, but it is possible to scan the rules and see that a regulation is aimed at the French saith fishery or the Fladen Grounds prawn fishery. We need to make the regulations more explicit in that regard.
I want to pick up on your answer to Karen Gillon's question about improved gear selectivity. I was glad to hear that the federation supports the use of such equipment, although if I picked you up right—correct me if I am wrong—you suggested that making use of such equipment statutory would fall foul of competition rules. It was clear from what you said that the federation would not be minded to support such a measure going on to the statute book. Supposing that it did, what would your organisation require to make that palatable? Karen Gillon was trying to eke out an answer from you in relation to subsidies and incentivisation. I am interested to hear what you have to say about that.
Excuse me for providing a confusing answer. When I talked about something falling foul of the competition rules, I was referring to subsidy. The regulations would be unlikely to fall foul of the competition rules. The natural impulse would be to give people money to encourage them to do something, but we might find that that is difficult. I was suggesting that it would be better to embed in the statute incentives to make fishermen want to adopt certain measures, which would not just have the desired management effect but would benefit the fishermen, too. It is about taking the carrot approach, or modifying the stick approach to include a bit of carrot. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the second part of your question.
You have answered it. That was much clearer. Thank you.
Mike Rumbles wanted to ask a question about what the federation hopes to achieve from the negotiations. Are you content that Peter Peacock's questions explored that?
Yes.
I have taken advice on getting a paper on the Norwegian ban on discards, which I think will be available at the next meeting.
I thank Bertie Armstrong for coming, but I have another question before he goes. You spoke about timing issues and how it is too late to have any input into the negotiations at this end of the year. I am conscious that that means there is also a timing issue for the committee as we look at the matter. Do you think it would be preferable for the committee to look at the common fisheries policy much earlier in the year? I seek your advice—would that be a more sensible way to proceed for us as well as for you?
Oh yes, please. That would be very helpful. To mitigate the nonsense of having to take a big fat set of political decisions with enormous complexity over three days at Christmas time, the process of front loading has been applied. When the landscape changes next year, the upshot will be that the science will arrive early. Typically, the science that we are discussing now arrives in October, but next year it will arrive in June. Before that happens, the Commission will make a policy statement about how it expects to deal with the scientific advice. I suggest that the committee might wish to inspect the first output after the scientific advice has arrived, in or around June. At a later point, perhaps in October or November, you would have that first stage of consideration under your belt and you would be better able to target precisely what support we are asking for—
That is helpful because it allows us to think of having our last meeting on the subject in June and a further meeting soon after our return from the summer recess.
Maybe we should not be tied to the science or to the negotiations. It might be worth considering another direction of travel in advance of the annual scientific advice in order to explore some fundamental questions about approach. Rather than wait for the science before we explore the principles, we might let it come in at the back of such considerations.
Absolutely. At some stage in the new year, after the results of the December council have been digested, you might ask a panel to come and tell you what happened, how it looks, what the prospects are and what should be concentrated on for the rest of the year. A series of meetings almost suggests itself.
There is always the matter of the committee work programme, but we will consider your suggestion in December as part of our other discussions.
I seek a small point of clarification. Bertie Armstrong emphasised consistently in his comments that he has good contact with Scottish Government officials and that he meets the minister. Do you also have direct access to UK Government ministers as part of the process? Do you feel included in that process?
Yes. I have to be terribly careful how I say this because ours is an utterly apolitical organisation; we deal with the Government of the day—end of story. If I describe the current situation between Edinburgh and Whitehall as perhaps not lacking in creative tension, one of the outcomes of that has been that access to Whitehall is less difficult. It would be wrong to say that we are sought after, but the industry's grass-roots views are now regarded as being as relevant as they have ever been. I wonder whether I have set up any hostages to fortune with those comments. The short answer is that at this point in history we do not find it difficult to get to Westminster. The practical manifestation of that is a closer alignment with both the Scottish cabinet secretary and the minister at the monthly fisheries councils. We have been included at the previous two councils.
Thank you. We might have reason to be in touch with you again, but thanks for coming this morning.
That ends this morning's business—[Interruption.] I am sorry. The clerk has just reminded me of what I said earlier. I had forgotten that I told the other witnesses that I would allow them a brief opportunity to comment on your evidence, Mr Armstrong. Perhaps you will return to the table.
I emphasise that the opportunity is a brief one and I say to the witnesses that they must not feel obliged to take it up. That said, they are all coming to the table. It looks as if they will take up the opportunity, but I do not want this to become an entire secondary session. That is not what it is about.
As a new committee member, I have come recently to the debate, but I note that there seems to be very little difference between you on the matter. I think that this is our eighth or ninth year of the December rammy over fishing. Compared with previous years, the process appears to have improved. The two sides—environment and industry, so to speak—appear to be much closer. Is that a fair assessment of where we are?
Yes. I return to what I said in my opening comments. There is now consensus on what needs to be done and the tools that need to be put in place to get our fisheries into a healthier state. Where there may be difference is on how we put the package together—and at what speed—and whether we go for mandatory measures or a voluntary approach. That needs to be developed and resolved.
Bertie Armstrong mentioned mandatory gear measures. The issue is clearly one of carrot and stick—incentives need to be put in place. As Helen McLachlan said, if fisheries go down that route, one of the incentives would be that they could go more easily for Marine Stewardship Council certification. And as Karen Gillon said, if we go down that route the long-term advantage is that our fish stocks will also be in a healthier state.
There are issues, but consensus is emerging. The real issue is how quickly we can get recovery for our fishing communities. Can we put something meaningful on the table this December? We need not only two on-board observers on Scottish boats, but much greater coverage and understanding of discards. Addressing that crucial issue will make our fisheries more sustainable.
Do you have any other comment on what you heard from Bertie Armstrong?
No.
I have a comment on a couple of his points about discards data and information availability, which are critical to how we manage our fisheries. If our approach is one of a suite of measures to reduce discards, we will need much better information on where the discards are occurring. That comes down to the use of on-board observers.
As an environmental community, we point to best practice—100 per cent observer coverage is normal practice in some fisheries. At the very least in Scottish and European fisheries, we want a reference fleet for the fishery with on-board observers who will give us the discard information and, importantly, provide credibility for the general public and stakeholders on what is going on in the fleet. The suite of measures that we say we are moving forward with must deliver what it claims to deliver.
Okay. As witnesses have no further comments on Bertie Armstrong's evidence, I thank them for their attendance. If, over the next few days, anything else occurs to anyone, they should not hesitate to get in touch.
Meeting closed at 12:24.