Official Report 552KB pdf
The committee will now take evidence on fishing opportunities for the Scottish fleet in 2011, in advance of the conclusion of current discussions among coastal states and of discussions within the European Union on quotas and fishing effort controls, which will be settled at the end of the year at the fisheries council.
Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for coming here again. I want to talk a little about maximum sustainable yield and about the commitment to move towards MSY by 2015 with our much depleted stocks. Is that commitment achievable? Is the implementation of measures reasonable, bearing in mind the scientific advice? Are the interactions within and between the groups of stocks good enough to support a premise that MSY can be achieved for all stocks simultaneously?
As at previous meetings, I will make a start. I will then give my colleagues the opportunity to add their comments.
The situation is not necessarily new. Stocks that have been at reasonably sustainable levels for several years—such as North Sea haddock, herring and mackerel—are all subject to management plans, which have been one of the success stories of the common fisheries policy. Those management plans are predicated on a consistent long-term yield that has an associated fishing mortality rate, which is very much on the lines of FMSY. In many regards, we are either already there, or we have aspirations to be there for the management plans. We are not dealing with systems that are completely new.
I will add to Nick Bailey’s comments by mentioning two key problems with the MSY approach. The first is whether you can estimate FMSY in the first place. With several stocks, it can be difficult to come up with a precise estimate for FMSY. However, if you are fishing at quite a high rate and all your estimates for FMSY are lower, that is a sufficient signpost that fisheries management should attempt to move into that stock. Getting tied up in questions of what a precise MSY estimate should be is perhaps missing the point slightly.
Thank you very much for your paper, in which this point has been explained, but will you talk a little more about what is meant by FMSY? Somewhere in the paper you talk about F and a factor of 0.4. What does that mean? I suspect that others are not entirely clear about it either.
The fishing mortality rate—the F value—is a measure or descriptor of the rate of removal of fish from the sea. The formulation with a value of 0.4 means something in a particular kind of equation. It equates to something like just over 30 per cent of the stock being removed each year. An F value approaching 1 equates to something around 66 per cent of the stock, I think. It is not a linear scale, but it gives a flavour of how much fish we are taking from the stock each year.
No, that is probably enough. Is the generality of what you are saying that the sustainable catch is in the region of 15 to 20 per cent of the total biomass, although it varies from species to species?
It varies quite a bit from species to species. For some stocks, the figure is as low as that, but not for others. Coby Needle can comment, but I think that the haddock figures are a good bit higher than that.
For haddock, the MSY has historically been higher than we might expect on the basis of the stock. That is because haddock depend on the occasional large year class that comes into the stock, which tends to sustain the fishery for longer than would otherwise be the case. With haddock, when there is a large year class and a lot of young fish come into the population, the trick is to try to sustain that year class for as long as possible.
I thank the witnesses for their written submission. I suspect that the suggestion that management plans have been a success of the CFP might come as a bit of a surprise. You will probably find that one or two people in the industry would take exception to that. Perhaps the biggest problem in recent years has been the year-on-year fluctuations in the quotas and efforts. Does the fact that FMSY is not a new phenomenon suggest that we will be able to smooth out some of those peaks and troughs, or is the situation an inevitable product of what happens to the fish biomass, which means that we will have to continue to respond to that in the way that has proved to be problematic in the past?
I am afraid that your latter analysis is probably the closest to the truth. The situation varies from stock to stock. Taking the range of marine organisms, some show much greater stability in recruits, as we call them—the young fish coming into a population—than others. However, for a great many of our major fish stocks, I am afraid that fluctuation will always exist and we will have to live with it. There is a trade-off between the ability to control the catches on an even keel from year to year, which usually implies accepting that we will fish at a very low level through time, and a system that has slightly greater fluctuation, in which case fishing mortality can generally be a little higher.
I accept that the industry is involved in the discussions on management plans, but the problems are created because, having set that course, it appears that almost on an annual basis there is an attempt to dig up the roots to see whether the plan is working. There is an instantaneous response, but the science on issues such as causal effects does not become clear until slightly later. Is that lag factor in the scientific understanding likely to improve?
One driver behind trying to fish many stocks at the FMSY is that, if they are fished at generally a lower rate from the current one, that builds in a buffer in the population so that, everything else being equal, such fluctuations are less likely. With fishing at a high rate, a lot of the fish are caught before they get old and can join the spawning population, so the fishery is directly dependent on the number of young fish that come into the population each year. Whereas, with fishing at a lower rate, some of those young fish that come into the population are allowed to get old and therefore will contribute to the fishery for many more years than they would have done if they had been caught when they were very young. So, everything else being equal, with fishing at a lower rate, the yield will be higher in the long run and some fluctuations will tend to be smoothed out.
I presume that the fishermen at the grounds cannot readily identify the amount of older fish as opposed to younger fish that they take. Can that be controlled by using the size of the nets that will let the younger fish out so that they can continue to grow and spawn?
Yes. For many fish species, size is a not unreasonable proxy for age. For the practical operations that take place on a fishing boat, the technology that we have at the moment cannot distinguish between age groups, but it can certainly do something in relation to size. That is how the mode of capture operates, even with long lines, in which adjusting the size of the hook can adjust the size and the kinds of fish that are caught. So yes, mesh size is one of the tools that our trawl fisheries can use.
What are the others?
Fishermen are aware of the distribution of different sizes of fish. At a certain time of year, they know that there is a spawning aggregation and a lot of older fish, so if they want to avoid older fish, they do not fish there. They also know where they are likely to catch younger fish at other times of the year in the nursery areas and so on. There is a distributional and temporal aspect to directing fishing effort, which can help in picking out one part of a population as opposed to another.
I am curious about the maximum economic yield and the FMSY. If the maximum economic yield is greater or lower than the high fishing rate, is that related to fish size? Does that apply to current fish stocks? Are there any fish stocks now where the FMEY is lower than the FMSY?
I do not know whether my colleagues can comment, but I cannot give you specific examples. I am talking about the generalities of analyses and comparisons that have been done across the world. I am sorry; I do not have the information to hand to give you. I do not know whether the others do.
As far as I know, we have never done an economic analysis, simply because, from theory alone, one would predict that MEY is at a lower fishing mortality. Because we are so far away from FMSY in many cases, and because it is such a controversial move to go there, no one has thought of going further and cutting fishing mortality to a theoretical MEY.
You say that it is a theory so, theoretically, why is the FMEY lower than the FMSY? One might think, “Well, you’re taking more fish if it’s FMSY.” Is it related to fish size?
It is more about the costs associated with more activity. The costs rise in an almost linear way. As fishing effort increases, it costs more, and there is a trade-off between the costs and the profits.
We move on to dealing with specific species. John Scott has a question about mackerel.
Mackerel is the most contentious subject, I think. I see that further negotiations start in London today around trying to resolve the mackerel wars that are upon us.
This year, the estimated catch is 930,000 tonnes, which is something like 60 per cent in excess of what the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice recommends. That is clearly unsustainable, and if that catch was to continue in absolute terms, the stock would rapidly approach unsustainable biomass limits within the next three to four years. Going back to our initial conversation, that catch represents a fishing mortality rate that is higher than sustainable. It equates to a fishing mortality rate of 0.31, when an F of 0.2 is considered to be sustainable. If we were to take fish out at the current rate of 0.31, as the stock decreased we would not take out 930,000 tonnes next year. We would take out less, but we would still be at extraction rates that are unsustainable. The stock would begin to decrease and, although projections vary, I would expect it to be five or six years before we got to precautionary limits. In either case, the amount being taken out at the moment is unsustainable.
And do you say that the stocks will crash in three to four years in a similar way to blue whiting?
It depends. At the absolute rates there would be an accelerated decrease, but under the relative rate—the 0.3—it would take a little longer to crash.
So it is imperative that agreement is reached. Are you optimistic that agreement will be reached? Has anybody’s position changed in that regard?
I could not comment on whether that is a possibility. That is not a scientific issue; it is political.
Will you give us some information on the record about why mackerel are available in Icelandic and Faroese waters? I know that the reason involves migratory patterns, but I am sure that you will explain it more elegantly than that.
There has been a lot of talk about changes to migration, but that is not what we currently understand to be the case. By and large, the migration pattern is dynamic, and its timing changes subtly. One thing is sure: mackerel is a dynamic stock and it migrates a huge distance. The adults spawn off the coast of Ireland and down into the Bay of Biscay, but after they spawn in the spring they commonly all move in the summer into the Norwegian Sea. They spend the summer feeding in the Norwegian Sea, and then they move down into the North Sea in the autumn, where our fishery takes them. In later winter, they start their migration back down the west coast of the British isles, ready to spawn again in spring.
You said that EU inspectors are checking whether Icelandic fisheries are really catching mackerel. Are you suggesting that the catch might not be mackerel?
That was the suggestion from a couple of years ago, which is why the EU inspectors are making those checks.
What stock of fish could it be?
Herring and blue whiting also occur in that area at that time. The Icelandic fishery has traditionally been one for fishmeal; it would mash the fish up together and supply fishmeal, so it is slightly different.
I do not want to pit scientist against scientist, but there seems to be a discrepancy between what the Icelanders are saying about migratory patterns and what you are saying about an expansion in the stock.
Yes. One of the current signatories to the agreement—the Faroes— has also taken a significantly larger quota than it had done previously. You are right: there are some small components from other nations that are in excess of what would have been expected.
The Icelanders seemed to suggest in Fishing News last week that what they had allocated themselves outwith the coastal states agreement was within ICES guidance. Your answer to that is presumably, “No, it’s not.”
It is a difficult one to answer, because ICES does not allocate quota among nations; it simply sets the total amount that should be removed. If one nation that does not have a track record or a history of taking fish from that stock suddenly adds an additional quota of that magnitude, ICES can only point the finger and suggest that that is an unsustainable course of action.
With regard to your reference to fishmeal, it was suggested to us in previous meetings that the quality of the mackerel in Faroese and Icelandic waters is lower, particularly in terms of size. Is that the case? Might it change as the population expands?
I am not entirely sure about the quality issues that are associated with those fish. I think it is more to do with the tradition of those fisheries and their access to markets, but I am not familiar enough with the quality issues to comment.
The suggestion that we received was that because the fish in Icelandic waters had been smaller in the past, they were more likely to be used as fishmeal, presumably because they could not be sold to fishmongers. Do you know whether that is the case?
I cannot comment; I do not know about the composition of those areas.
You described the growth in the mackerel stock and how it is expanding. Can you say a bit more about why that is happening? Is it related to the decline of other species? Is the stock occupying territory that was previously occupied by other species? If it is not, will the expansion have an impact on other species?
I would like to think that, as I mentioned before, it is one of the success stories of the management plan. At the start of the decade, the spawning stock biomass was at its lowest in the 20-year time series, and the F was at its highest—we had an F of about 0.45 in the early noughties.
We move to the issue of herring.
The ICES advice says that the nine-year average recruitment of herring from 2002 to 2010 is half that in the previous nine-year period. Can you explain why there is a reduction in the recruitment of herring?
No. It relates back to our earlier discussion. The value of stocks can go up as well as down. Ultimately, it is recruitment that drives the success of a stock once we are at fishing mortality levels that are sustainable such that fishing is not driving them so much.
We have also been told that there was
Again, we do not know why that has happened. It has been suggested that it is due to what is called a density-dependent effect, in that because there has been such low recruitment, the amount of food relative to the number of individuals in the sea is such that they are able to put on weight much more rapidly than they would have been able to do in the past.
Does that indicate that you might expect a few more years of accelerated size classes? If so, are you also expecting a greater level of spawning, and therefore perhaps an enhanced recruitment, with larger fish producing more eggs?
The other comment to make about the estimates of weight and individual age is that they are quite variable from year to year. We can only really rely on empirical data—data that come from our own measurements. Forecasting that, which is the issue at hand, is quite difficult. We always have a forecast based on some average over the past few years, and we revise that forecast once we have some hard data. In this particular case, the hard data for the 2006 year class—and others—suggest that they have put on more weight than we expected. We do not necessarily know why.
To go back to the fact that twice as many fish are now producing half as many young, who is looking into the potential causes of that? What research is being done, or is it just being accepted as a fact? Obviously, it is a matter of concern. Will you give me a fuller answer about what is being done?
I am afraid that we have limited opportunities to look into some of those interesting but extremely challenging issues. We have been posed that question once or twice before. I have to say that very little research is directed at that issue, much as we would like such research to take place.
So your role really is to observe the trend rather than to do anything about it, other than to advise.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to provide an explanation without diverting resources from one of our other assessment or survey functions.
Could the European Commission or coastal states be considering that issue? If there was a problem in any other harvested stock of animals in the world, in that fertility was reduced by 75 per cent—if my arithmetic serves me well—it would be a matter for enormous concern. It is a matter of enormous concern for me that it appears that no one considers it important enough to do any research into why it is happening.
My understanding of the situation—Paul Fernandes can correct me if I am wrong—is that there is not a problem with the fertility of the fish. The problem is with the survival of the young fish once they reach critical stages. Various surveys of larvae at the very small stages suggest that, in many years, there are plenty around but they do not survive. The challenge of trying to sort out what is causing that in an area as large as the North Sea is a big one, involving enormous amounts of resource. It is the kind of project that the EU has funded in the past, through its various co-ordinated schemes involving several laboratories around big sea areas. However, I repeat the point that, at the moment, the challenges are so great in so many other areas of science that the problem has not been elevated to one of the most important, recognising that it would suck up an enormous amount of resource.
I reiterate Nick Bailey’s point. We had a look at the situation three or four years ago, as I mentioned, in examining parasitic infections. We did that because we have an idea of the productivity of the adult stock—the spawning potential—by monitoring the larvae as soon as they hatch from the eggs. A co-ordinated European larval survey takes place in the autumn and winter, which is used by the assessment to produce the figures. Those numbers suggest that the amount of larvae being produced is similar to the amount that has been produced for many years in which there has been a lot of recruitment.
I want to make a point that is not specifically to do with mackerel or herring but which will give you an idea of the scale of the problem. The difficulty in trying to forecast the size of the incoming year class—the recruitment number—has been well known as one of the key unsolved dilemmas of fisheries science for more than 100 years. Ever since it was first realised that it would be a problem, people have been chipping away at it.
I think that the fishing industry’s perception was that the MSY approach could have allowed herring catch to increase, but it would have meant departing from the long-term management plan, so it was not done. That creates tension between the scientific advice and what the fishermen themselves are experiencing. Do you have any comments on that?
We touched on that earlier in the meeting. I think that Liam McArthur mentioned the year-on-year niggles and negotiation. When science, at the request of the Commission, produces a new set of advice—in this case in relation to FMSY—and the options include the wonderful carrot that it looks like you will be allowed to take several hundred more tonnes of fish than you could have taken under the method that you already have, that is clearly very attractive and people start to ask questions.
Let us move on to cod.
The ICES assessment of North Sea cod suggested that there had been a sharp increase in fishing mortality post 2007. You and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science carried out an alternative assessment—you still think that there needs to be a reduction in fishing mortality to achieve the management plan, but you do not agree that there was a large spike in 2008-09. What is the explanation for the fact that your findings are so different from ICES’s findings on that?
I will answer that, because I was at the ICES working group in May. Scientists from CEFAS run the assessment, but what comes out of the assessment is essentially a working group decision. The working group could not reach a final conclusion on the ICES assessment. The report said that the update assessment was not accepted as the final assessment for 2010. The working group’s suggestion was for further work to be done on the assessment over the summer to reach a final conclusion by about this time of year.
Does all of this affect the number of kilowatt days that the white fish and nephrops fishermen are likely to be allocated?
There are two points to make in that regard. First, cuts in kilowatt days are associated with the North Sea route map on changes in mortality. In that respect, a further 10 per cent cut for 2011 is in the recipe book.
Is the matter likely to be resolved over the next few weeks? Is progress likely to be made?
To update you, I can say that a letter has gone from the Commission to ICES, seeking a re-look at the assessment. We have sent to ICES summaries of the new results, and it has access to the raw data and the workings of the assessments. We understand that some other countries are similarly concerned and that they, too, have made representations. Beyond that, however, it is difficult to know where we have got to.
When people go to the fishmongers at a certain time of year, they are astounded that they can buy cod roe, yet cod are supposed to be the most threatened species. I realise that cod are a bycatch sometimes, but would there be any point in saying that during the months of X, Y and Z it is not permissible to catch them, so as to allow more roe to mature?
Those measures are in the toolbox. Coby Needle touched earlier on the recognition that there are spatial patterns in spawning areas. One of the ideas behind the real-time closures component of conservation credits was that it would pick up aggregations of spawning fish, with the areas concerned being closed according to a rolling programme. Last year there were 144 such closures, quite a lot of which applied through the spawning period. That will have contributed, one would think, to stopping some of the capture. Nevertheless, real-time closures do not pick up all the spawning aggregations, and spawning fish are caught sometimes. I suppose that, once the product is on board, it will be marketed.
We have covered quite a bit of the issue now. It is interesting that the conservation credits scheme has allowed some flexibility on how the management is operated through the technical measures and through the permanent and temporary closures to which you have referred. Ministers have understandably sought to draw attention to the effort that is being made on behalf of fisheries managers and the industry to respond to the challenges around stocks. The Government has not always found a faithful echo in the Commission, which has often tried to downplay expectations in this area. It seems from what you are telling us that you fall somewhere in the middle, with scientific disagreement about the impacts of the scheme. Clearly, however, if the scheme is not delivering in the way that we would want, there will be associated costs to the industry.
I can answer that. As part of the exercise throughout 2009, it was recognised that we had to collect a variety of materials to demonstrate progress in the Scottish scheme. We discussed the ICES assessment of the international scene earlier, and not everyone has contributed or played the same role as we have. Different countries have taken different approaches to the overall cod recovery plan. Scotland has implemented the method of conservation credits, and it was always clear that we would have to provide a justification. That took place during the summer at the STECF plenary meeting, when we presented a raft of information connected with real-time closures, the gear measures that were put in place and so on, with attempts to evaluate the contribution that they made.
Is there scope within how the regulation works to allow that granularity to be reflected in effort allocations for next year, or are we all sunk by the fact that the measures are not making enough of a difference across the piece?
At a talk at an ICES meeting earlier this year, I described the situation as another version of the tragedy of the commons. You have just articulated the risk that we do some good things that are lost in the big picture. Our argument is that we need to find ways to elaborate on the message of what our contribution has been and ensure that it gets through. However, providing that information is a serious challenge for all member states, and it is confounded to some extent by the fact that some member states unfortunately still do not provide discard or full catch information, which means that the calculations of the partial contributions are difficult to make. All that we can do is present our information as completely and openly as we can, present the good points in it, and keep banging the drum to show what we have done despite what might be seen in the overall picture.
I will take you on to catch quotas. You have illustrated some of the problems in taking action and talked about whether action is rewarded through allocation of future effort or quota.
I will start and then hand over to Coby Needle, if there is time to do so.
I presume that there are application difficulties in a mixed fishery. To which parts of the fisheries can a catch quota regime be applied? How might that work? In the absence of other member states collating discard data—which, as you have said, undermines aspects of the conservation credits payback—will we butt up against the same problems with catch quotas?
The UK is not the only member state that has an interest in the matter; quite a number have signed up to the initiative. Therefore, I think that the days of discard data shortages are numbered. The situation will certainly improve, and a move towards catch quotas will accelerate that process.
Last week, a colleague of mine was in Vancouver on a fact-finding mission in the British Columbia fisheries. Those fisheries are fully monitored by CCTV cameras. I think that catch quotas are in place for all species that are fished there. Such a system appears difficult to operate, but my colleague asked the fishermen whether they would go back to their original system, with no monitoring and the allowing of discards. All those in the industry in British Columbia said that the current system is much better, as they could demonstrate to their markets that they are not discarding and wasting fish but are using the resource to the best of their ability.
Consider the problems on the west coast, where the stocks of cod and haddock virtually crashed. Although whiting is still most successful, major problems remain. This year, the Scottish Government submitted alternative proposals for technical measures, which it had worked up with the industry. What evaluation of those proposals has been done for the management plan, particularly for haddock in the west of Scotland fishery?
There are several points related to that question. I will get Coby Needle to deal with the haddock management plan, which is one issue.
Yes. I want to know what action will be taken to try to start reducing or resolving the problem.
I described the evaluation that is in place, which relates to four issues. One is the proposal to change the bycatch regulation in the current rules, which limit the proportions of cod, haddock and whiting, in order to deliver a much more flexible system for haddock such that, if a certain proportion of the TAC was not used by a certain date, the bycatch limit could be relaxed for the latter part of the year.
In consultation with the north-west waters regional advisory council and the various industries and stakeholders that are involved, it was decided earlier this year that the draft form of the haddock management plan for the west coast would have more or less the same structure as the North Sea haddock management plan. Therefore, the basis of the management plan is essentially a target fishing mortality that is related to FMSY as best we can estimate it, and constraints on the amount that TACs can change from year to year.
What is the timescale for implementation?
In our minds, the long-term management plan will be implemented as soon as possible, but I do not know how that will play out in the Council or whether it will end up as one of those measures that gets put to the European Parliament. The issue about the technical measures that I have described will not be resolved until next spring and will, I believe, be dealt with by the European Parliament, not the Council.
Will you speculate on the current state of the cod and whiting stocks, given the dangerously low levels at which they appear to be?
Your initial comment was right: all three gadoid stocks—haddock, cod and whiting—are in a parlous state on the west coast. However, the slight difference with haddock is that we have been able to demonstrate that fishing mortality in the stock has reduced in recent years and that the stock itself is suffering more than most from poor recruitment. That is just an unfortunate natural circumstance.
Liam McArthur has a quick question. I point out that we have only five minutes to get two more questions in.
Great stuff.
I ask Paul Fernandes to respond on the question of monkfish and to talk about megrim, which I am not sure that our submission says much about. Coby Needle will comment on Rockall haddock.
On monkfish, there is light at the end of the tunnel. We have much better information now as a result of Scottish initiatives. We have a dedicated industry-science survey, which has been running for six years, so we have good information. The picture is a little mixed. At Rockall and on the west coast, the indications are that the biomass is being sustained, but in the North Sea abundance and biomass have declined, so the recommendations might be for a cut in the North Sea area. Although that assessment process is not a formal one in the ICES tradition, it has been made with a lot of industry input. Because of that, monkfish is the one stock on which there is no debate. The industry is not happy with the situation, but it is happy with our evaluation of the situation in the North Sea. It recognises that the biomass has declined in the North Sea. On the west coast, the biomass has been sustained. I do not expect a change to the monkfish quota on the west coast or at Rockall—not that that distinction will be made.
For Rockall haddock, the assessment this year indicates that the fishing mortality rate is very low and is below what we consider to be a proxy for FMSY. However, as with other gadoid stocks on the west coast, recruitment has been lower than expected for a number of years, so even with a very low fishing mortality rate, the spawning stock biomass in that stock is declining and will do so until we get another substantial recruitment. It is not clear why the low recruitments are occurring.
Finally, we come to nephrops.
On west coast nephrops, the market for the product has declined substantially because of the recession, so fishing effort has declined, too. As I recollect matters, the effort has been below quota for a number of years, but there is a recommendation of a further 15 per cent cut. At one level, that would be a cut only on paper, but if the recession ends or trading conditions become better, will that 15 per cent cut begin to have a material effect on the fishery and its economics, given the trends in past catches?
It is difficult to answer that, because there are a lot of ifs and buts. We should remember that the move to the 15 per cent cut is a move towards fishing at the FMSY, which we believe in the long term is a good place to be. Any difficulty that is created must be balanced against the fact that, recently, most of those stocks have been at among their lower levels in the cycle, but they have been a lot higher and there is no reason to suppose that the cycles will not continue and we will not have good abundance again. In that case, within a couple of years, we might be predicting increases in TACs, even though we are fishing at that new lower level. I do not think that the prognosis for nephrops is too bad. We just need to hold our nerve. If a cut of that kind is required, harsh as it sounds, given the current limitations in markets, it is, in a sense, not a bad time for it to happen.
Given that the fishing effort has reduced because of market conditions, is any monitoring done of the impact of that lower effort on stock recovery?
The stocks are surveyed every year using underwater television systems. There is no question that the stocks need recovery—most of the stocks that we are talking about are cycling in a perfectly acceptable way that is well above their biomass trigger, or the point at which more serious action needs to be taken, so there is not an issue of recovery.
We understand that the clear scientific advice is that the stocks should be managed stock by stock, rather than as a total. Why is that not happening?
There are a variety of reasons for that. That is a question for managers and industry discussion about the benefits of moving to such a system. The clear indication from the science is that the stocks would benefit from being handled individually. There are some examples of nephrops stocks—mercifully, not in our waters at present—in which there have been issues and problems and the stocks have shown some decline. In one or two cases, that is a result of uncontrolled activity moving into an area. That is the kind of thing that the science is advising we should try to avoid. There is a variety of ways of achieving that. ICES gives advice on TACs for those stocks, and the interpretation of that is that it means individual TACs.
Is there a lack of political will on the part of ministers to make that happen, given that it should happen?
I am sorry—I cannot comment on that.
Possibly not.
That has exhausted our questions. The session has been extremely informative. I thank our witnesses very much for attending. If there is any other information that you think we need to know quickly, please provide it to the clerks.
I welcome the second panel to give evidence today. Richard Lochhead MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, is joined by Nick Bailey, who is with us again in his role as fisheries management advice co-ordinator; David Brew, head of sea fisheries; and Allan Gibb, head of sea fisheries compliance and licensing—all from the Scottish Government.
CFP reform appears to be as elusive as ever. It is like the search for the holy grail. It is about 18 months since the green paper came from the Commission, and the Scottish Government has given its response to that. Cabinet secretary, it would be interesting to hear your perceptions of how the Scottish Government’s position has been received, and of the direction of travel on CFP reform that you detect.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to come along this morning. I will do my best to answer members’ questions. I hope that the committee saved all the scientific questions for my colleagues who were on the earlier witness panel.
Does that have an impact on the timescales that are envisaged for making some progress? Are we looking at a longer timescale, or is there a defined time within which decisions should be made?
In Brussels in November, there will be a gathering of stakeholders and, no doubt, representatives of Governments and Administrations across Europe. I hope that that conference will give us a better idea of what the Commission is proposing. The communication that will give us the first indication of what the Commission envisages for the future of the CFP will probably come in March or April. That is the current timetable, and there is no indication that it will change because of some of the Commission’s difficulties in identifying how to decentralise fishing policy.
That is very helpful. Thank you.
Let us move on to fishing opportunity and the future of the Scottish fleet. The Fishing News reported that about 40 boats have accepted an offer of a Scottish Government grant to be scrapped. At the meeting on 6 October, Bertie Armstrong was asked about that, and he explained that it was needed to help the remaining vessels stay viable. What would have happened without that scheme? Why does the Government need to intervene instead of allowing natural wastage to occur?
The question is fundamental to the future of our fishing industry and our white-fish fleet, which has gone through a torrid time in the past 10 years and particularly the past couple of years, when we have had the combination of the draconian restrictions that the cod recovery plan delivered, which have had a big impact on that fleet, and the recession, which has had an impact on prices for the white-fish and prawn sectors. I do not need to tell any member of the committee that the past couple of years have been difficult for a number of vessels—but by no means all—in the fleet.
What will happen to the quotas of decommissioned vessels? Will skippers be obliged to sell quotas or will they be able to continue to lease quotas to other boats?
The scheme that we are funding is different from previous schemes—it is not a decommissioning scheme per se. Vessels might be removed, but fishing entitlements and capacity will be transferred to remaining vessels—for instance, the effort that was allocated to two vessels would be amalgamated for one vessel.
I have a small point. The arrangement that you describe makes eminent economic sense for the businesses that are involved. What impedes them from taking such action anyway, without a Government scheme or incentive?
That relates to the ability to transfer effort from one vessel to another.
That effort attaches to a specific vessel.
Yes. The effort would be attached to the licence that was removed from the vessel. Basically, licences are being amalgamated. The financial support helps with vessels.
Will that help with new vessels or just decommissioning?
The help is to remove a vessel.
Is that because a debt might exist on the vessel?
Yes. Businesses can get up to £250,000 to help them remove a vessel. For example, two businesses may decide to become one business, or two skippers may decide to share one vessel. There are different models. The financial help would help with removing one vessel, and the legislative help, if you like—the Government’s intervention—would help to amalgamate the licences.
I guess that in other sectors of the economy, people would be expected to have to bear that cost. I am interested in why we need such a financial incentive if it makes business sense to do what you are suggesting anyway.
Some businesses are taking advantage of the ability to transfer their effort to one vessel—they are taking advantage of the scheme but they do not require the financial help. The financial help is available for businesses that require it, but if a skipper feels that he can sell his vessel and get more money than we are offering him through the scheme, he can do that and can still take advantage of the scheme by amalgamating his effort.
There has been quite a bit of interest in taking up either the element of transferring the effort or the financial support. Has that interest been concentrated on a particular component of the white-fish fleet, in terms of size, regional spread or whatever? Can you give us any sense of the impact of the licence parking scheme?
I will check with officials whether we have the breakdown in front of us, but the applications have come from across the white-fish sector and the prawn sector. Certain sectors can apply, but within those sectors there has been a spread of applications. The applications have not all been for white-fish vessels, as there have also been some for prawn vessels. Although, for obvious reasons, a fair number of the vessels are from north-east Scotland, there is also a geographical spread among the applications.
It would be interesting if you could provide the committee with the figures. The implications for the shore-side component of the industry will be interesting.
I will send the committee a formal note, but the split between the industry sectors is roughly as follows: there are 16 white-fish vessels, 24 nephrops vessels and one scallop vessel. That gives you a brief breakdown, but I will give you the figures and the locations of the vessels in a formal note.
I am interested in the business model of providing £8.1 million to people who are essentially leaving the industry. Do you see that being rolled out in, for example, agriculture, where single farm payments could be transferred to another farmer?
Are you declaring an interest?
I declare an interest—thank you, Liam.
As you will appreciate, the two regimes are completely different. Single farm payments are largely determined by EU legislation. We also have to abide by EU legislation in relation to how we use the European fisheries fund for the scheme that we are introducing. However, as long as it comes under broad headings, we have the flexibility to use the resource for that purpose. Farming and agriculture legislation is different. Of course, £0.5 billion of single farm payment goes to the agriculture sector, whereas there is no direct support for the fishing sector, so you are not comparing like with like.
You mentioned that recipients of parked licences may be able to revitalise them after 2016 and may be able to build a bigger boat if the prospects in the fishing industry are better. What payments do people make for the parked licence? Is the scheme effectively the same as a tie-up scheme? Is it value for money in comparison with permanent decommissioning?
We think that the scheme is value for money, which is why we have introduced it. It is about underpinning the profitability of the white-fish fleet, because helping X number of businesses is still to the benefit of the rest of the sector. Of course, the scheme also benefits the onshore sector by allowing the remaining vessels in the fleet to be profitable. It is about looking at the white-fish and nephrops fleets as a whole and trying to intervene, in this case at the request of the industry itself, to benefit their profitability.
Perhaps it will help if I explain that the conditions of grant are such that, if someone wished to revive a licence once the first five years were up, they would be required to repay the full grant with interest in order to exercise that facility. The condition of providing grant to the vessel owner is that, if they wish to revive the licence entitlement in due course, the full grant must be repaid with interest.
What is the rate of interest?
It would be determined by the public sector borrowing rates, as I understand it.
Thank you. On the broader picture, cabinet secretary, what does your crystal ball suggest might happen to the white-fish and nephrops sectors? Regrettably, I am not optimistic that the boats will return in 2016. Do you share that view? Will those sectors go in the same direction as the pelagic sector and be concentrated in the hands of fewer and larger boats?
From my experience of three and half years of doing this job, I have two things to say. First, as has been touched on in previous answers, we need some fundamental changes to fishing policy to help to conserve fish stocks. That is essential. Secondly, I put my hands up, as I hope every other politician in the Parliament would do, and say that, in the past 10 or 11 years of devolution, we have spent so much time discussing regulations and coping with the common fisheries policy and what it foists on Scotland that we have perhaps taken our eye off the ball in terms of the market for seafood. Ultimately, what matters for any business is its income, its outgoings, its profit and its bottom line. That is influenced as much by the market as it is by regulations and by how much quota is allocated to a vessel.
So better supply chain management and catching for the market has to be the way forward. Do you foresee more co-operation between boats, or even the formation of vertically integrated co-operatives? We discussed that with Bertie Armstrong last week. Do you see that as a possibility?
Yes. I and the Government have put in a lot of effort in the past year or two to try to get that much higher up the agenda. We have funded consultancy work—at significant expense—for the industry, which has very much welcomed that. We have been doing our best to bring the processors and the catching sector closer together, involving, of course, the retailers as well. You are right—improving the supply chain relationship is the key to the seafood sector getting much more value from the marketplace. There is a lot of good work going on across the industry to improve the supply chain.
I utterly agree with you.
I want to follow up what you said, cabinet secretary, which is interesting. You recognise the realities of where we are for regulatory and market reasons. Equally, however, it is important for people to think through what that means for the shape of our fishing communities. The traditional view is of harbours jam packed with small boats, which are all trying to make a living and which have been making a living in that way for many decades, but in future we can expect far fewer boats. Does that imply that there will be larger boats, as John Scott said? Will there be a move to be more like the pelagic sector, with a few very large and very efficient boats, which effectively concentrates the business and the wealth in fewer hands? Is that trend inevitable?
That will very much depend on the pace of change in fishing management and policy. The sooner we change some of these policies, the sooner we can put the fleet in Scotland on a much more stable, sustainable footing.
I want to get your thoughts about the way in which the Commission is implementing the maximum sustainable yield. Do you think that 2015 remains a realistic target date for all stocks?
That is a good question. The obligation to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015 underpins the cod recovery plan, which I believe is seriously flawed—I do not think that it is delivering what it is supposed to deliver. Although in principle it is a good thing to have targets for getting all stocks on to a sustainable footing, what is difficult is the lack of flexibility in how to get there. At the moment, the MSY targets are often in ranges. We do not have to achieve a particular target by a certain date; we have to achieve within a range by a certain date, which gives us a wee bit of flexibility.
There has been a mixed response from the industry. We have heard that it has not yet seen the benefits of the move towards MSY, even in those cases in which quota increase would have been in accordance with MSY. How do you respond to that? When can the industry expect to see a benefit from MSY?
Again, it comes down to how we achieve the 2015 target. At the moment, we have a rigid cod recovery plan. We have maximised the flexibility that the plan gives us in Scotland, but we need more flexibility. The plan does not reward those countries that make a disproportionate contribution to cod recovery. That is wrong. It is vital that the negotiations this autumn reward the Scottish industry, which, in the case of cod, has made a disproportionate contribution to stock recovery.
We heard evidence from the previous panel about activity in British Columbia, where there has been a sort of trading of quotas. If a vessel has caught a particular type of fish that is not part of its quota, it can call up another vessel and say, “I’ve got this. Can I use some of your quota?” What is the Scottish Government’s approach to discards?
This committee and most rational, sensible people would agree that discards are the biggest blight on the common fisheries policy. Right now, for instance, more cod is being discarded in the North Sea than is allowed to be landed in the whole of the United Kingdom. At a time when we are supposed to have a cod recovery plan, we have policies that are forcing us, as we all aware, to throw the stock back into the sea dead, which is a complete economic and food waste. We want to eliminate discards as soon as possible. It is not simple—there is no silver bullet to achieving that—but the right approach is if we all sign up to try to stop that waste.
Liam McArthur has a question about mackerel.
It may make sense for me to stick with catch quotas and to come back to the issue of mackerel.
We have spent a lot of time trying to persuade the Commission that there must be fundamental changes in the way in which the cod recovery plan is implemented. I think that we are making progress on that. We see catch quotas as one fundamental way of changing the plan. Our aims at the autumn negotiations are to be given the opportunity to expand catch quotas in Scotland, because the scheme will work only if there is a reward for the fishermen who participate. That reward must be negotiated. If an increase in quota is to be given to those fishermen who participate, as a reward for participating in stopping discards, that must be negotiated through the EU-Norway negotiations and within the EU. We cannot do that without the EU’s and the commissioner’s support.
So haddock is the stock for which you would like to introduce catch quotas in the next couple of years.
Whiting is also a candidate. We are in the middle of discussing with the industry our preferred negotiating stance. The inclusion of more stocks in the catch quota regime would give us the opportunity to give more quota to the participating vessels. The more we expand catch quotas, the better the result for our fleet.
Some concerns were expressed about the way in which CCTV proposals were instigated and rolled out. Many of those have been taken up. I do not want to read too much between the lines of what Bertie Armstrong was saying the other week in Fishing News, but there is a concern to ensure that there is close engagement with the industry every step of the way. I appreciate that it is difficult to do that in negotiations, but how do you envisage consultation with the industry developing through the dynamic process of your engagement with the Commission?
I will ask Allan Gibb to comment in a second, because some meetings are planned and a great deal is happening to ensure that we have close engagement with the industry on where we go with catch quotas at this year’s negotiations. The industry will acknowledge that the relationship at the negotiations has been close in the past few years. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that there is real-time consultation with the industry during the complex negotiation at the annual fishing council, at which mistakes are easily made and very complex regulations for a host of different fisheries—not just in Scotland, but throughout Europe—are discussed. That is why real-time consultation with industry leadership in Brussels is important.
As you would imagine, there is on-going engagement with the 17 vessels that are involved in the trial that is being undertaken in Scotland and with Bertie Armstrong and representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. The next formal session is planned for 3 November in Aberdeen. It will be very detailed, and a lot of time will be set aside for representatives from Marine Scotland science and compliance and sea fisheries policy to meet Scottish industry representatives to discuss the very issues that are being raised today.
The idea of an ITQ system was raised earlier. I know that that will not necessarily gladden the cabinet secretary’s heart, as there are issues in the European context that do not arise in relation to British Columbia.
We oppose the international trading of quotas because it effectively involves, in my book, the privatisation of historic fishing opportunities. What matters is that a nation is given its historic fishing opportunities each year—that is the baseline. What happens with our country’s fishing opportunities thereafter is more flexible.
Talking of real-time issues, can I take you on to the issue of mackerel quotas? Negotiations are taking place in London today and, possibly, tomorrow. A serious issue has arisen in recent months, and you are quoted in the oracle of Fishing News as suggesting:
At the moment, we are involved in a complex negotiation to resolve a difficult situation in the absence of some of the parties that we need round the table to sign up to the international agreement on the future of the mackerel stock. The fact that two countries have set unilateral quotas poses a big risk to a massive stock that has been really well managed for the past 10 years. We want the stock to be well managed for the next 10 years, and it is in everyone’s interest that we ensure that.
When we had Ian Gatt and Bertie Armstrong before the committee just after the summer recess, Ian Gatt was at pains to point out that the mackerel stock is one of the success stories of the CFP structure—indeed, the coastal states structure—and that a move towards a more localised management structure, which is the direction of travel that we are trying to pursue in white fish, would be disastrous for the pelagic sector. In the negotiations, is there any distinction between the position of the Faroese, who are inside the coastal states structure, and that of the Icelanders, who are knocking on the door? Could we reach a deal with one but not the other? Would that be acceptable, at least in the short term, as we try to unlock this?
Yes. Our preference is for both Iceland and the Faroes to sign up to the international agreement. However, if that is not possible, we would support the idea of signing a deal with the Faroese. The more countries that we get to sign up to the international agreement, and the sooner that they do so, the better. That is our approach, and the European Commission has a great deal of sympathy for that position.
Given your staunch criticism of the CFP in the past, would you care to offer an observation in relation to Ian Gatt’s comment about how it operates in the pelagic sector?
I point out that Norway is an influential negotiating party in the international agreement, and it has the biggest share of the mackerel stock. It is not part of the CFP, of course. That reminds us that, whether we are in or out of the CFP, we still have to be part of international agreements. The CFP clearly just involves European nations, and countries outside Europe also have a stake in some international stocks.
We heard some interesting evidence from the previous panel regarding the differences between the ICES analysis of the North Sea cod stock, particularly regarding the perceived spike after 2007, and the research that has been done by Marine Scotland and others. My understanding of what was said is that there is likely to be a reduction in fishing effort, of perhaps 25 per cent, with the quota possibly being reduced by that amount. If the ICES assessment takes precedence over the other assessments, there could also be a reduction of 10 per cent in kilowatt days. Is that your understanding of what might happen? What are your chances of negotiating downwards and securing a possible reduction?
There are two issues there. First, there is the cod recovery plan, which envisages year-on-year reductions in fishing effort. As you know, that is controlled through days at sea. We face a further cut in days at sea for those vessels that are caught under that regulation, both at this year’s negotiation and at next year’s. In effect, that will happen by default, as the cod recovery plan is there—it is not up for review. That is why we are putting a lot of effort into securing changes to the way in which we implement the cod recovery plan, so as to help the vessels that are affected.
My understanding was that the ICES assessment would result in a reduction in kilowatt days, if it prevails through the negotiations.
There are two issues there. First, there is the target, under the cod recovery plan, for what the cod stock should be by 2015. That leads to the proposed cut in the total allowable catch. The proposal for that is likely to be 20 per cent, as the management plan says that there is a 20 per cent ceiling to what the cut in the cod quota can be. That is the science with regard to the cod stock. As for the effort regime, we have not achieved our 2015 target yet, so the planned cuts in effort through days at sea will continue until that target is reached.
What are your plans regarding conservation credits next year?
Through the conservation credits scheme, which has won plaudits throughout Europe for its new approach to how fleets are incentivised to conserve cod stocks, we have offered buy-backs so that, although there is a baseline cut that keeps being delivered by the cod recovery plan—say, another 10 per cent—vessels can mitigate that, as we will reduce that cut in response to their adopting new conservation measures. If vessels change behaviour and protect cod stocks, we will mitigate the cut and give them more days back at sea.
If the evidence is there, the scheme can continue. It takes a while to analyse the effects of such schemes—are you confident that it will be able to continue?
The scheme will continue. Clearly it will be more relevant to vessels that are not on catch quotas, as they will still be affected by cuts in days at sea and will be looking to adopt new conservation measures to buy back days. Vessels on catch quotas are not in the days-at-sea regime and therefore do not have to worry about that quite as much. All of this forms part of our attempt to mitigate the cod recovery plan’s impact on vessels.
You have been quite critical of the cod recovery plan, saying that it is seriously flawed, is not delivering what it should be and is not sufficiently flexible. However, you said a couple of minutes ago that it was not up for review. It was last reviewed in 2008—when is the next opportunity for a review?
The plan is up for review in 2011.
I am sorry—I must have misunderstood what you said.
I said that the principle of cod recovery is not necessarily up for review, because the policy is still to recover cod stocks. However, the current plan is up for review in 2011.
What are the chances of an improved plan being renegotiated?
There has to be a chance. We do not necessarily argue with the principle of having a cod recovery plan, but the plan itself—as I said, it is up for review—has to be changed, and we have to use the review to ensure that we make the changes that we want to be made.
What needs to be altered?
The plan contains a number of fundamental flaws. First, the days-at-sea regime is fundamentally flawed because it measures the time that a vessel spends at sea, not the time that is spent actually fishing. Given that we are trying to influence the amount of fish that is being taken out of the sea, that, and not the time that a vessel spends away from port, is what should be regulated.
Apparently, an impasse has been reached on the adoption of new management plans for west of Scotland stocks as a result of a dispute between the European Commission and the Parliament post the Lisbon treaty’s enactment. What are the chances of getting the technical measures on the west coast changed? What is the likely timescale for that happening and will it require the European Parliament’s approval?
I am sure that the committee is well aware of the history of this issue and of how angry and infuriated the Government and, more important, the industry on the west coast were when the emergency measures were imposed on Scotland. We were pleased that we were able to prevent the complete closure of the west of Scotland fishery, but the emergency measures that were put in place instead of complete closure, which still allowed the fleet to go to sea, are far from perfect and are extremely painful for the west coast. Initially, of course, we were told that they were going to be temporary, but, in effect, they keep getting rolled over to the next period by the Commission. We are angry about that and will continue to complain about it.
Slightly tangentially, I note that it was raised in the earlier session that one of the reasons for the continuing decline of the fish stocks on the west coast might be the seal population. Have you any views on that?
All the evidence that I have seen shows that the mortality that is caused by the seal population is a small fraction of unaccounted-for mortality of stocks in our waters. It is important that we pay attention to that, but I stress that I have met few people who believe that the seal population is responsible for the overall decline in some of our fish stocks.
You have pointed out the pain that is caused by these emergency measures. It is generally accepted that the catch composition component was nigh-on unworkable.
That is not my understanding. The proposals that we have put forward were developed through work with the industry.
Has the industry had an adequate opportunity to comment on those proposals? I have been told that they were given between 24 and 48 hours to comment on them before a key meeting took place to agree them.
A lot of work has been put into this over the past year to 18 months, and I assure you that the industry has been involved a lot. Once we had the final package after discussions with the industry, we presented it to the industry and then submitted it to the Commission.
Bill Wilson wants to ask about Rockall haddock, monkfish and megrims.
Yes. Obviously, Rockall haddock, west coast monkfish and megrims are important sources of alternative catching opportunities for west coast boats. Can the cabinet secretary tell us anything about the quotas for those species for 2011?
In last year’s negotiations, we were pleased finally to get flexibility on the North Sea and west coast quotas for monkfish. That allowed the fleet a bit of flexibility on where to catch the quotas. The industry had asked for that for many years, and it was a big breakthrough.
We move on to nephrops.
What is the cabinet secretary’s position on the way in which the MSY approach is being applied to setting quotas for nephrops and the prospects for 2011?
The nephrops quota is, of course, the second most valuable in Scotland after the mackerel quota. As we all know, many vessels have diversified into the prawn fishery over recent years. We are therefore paying close attention to the nephrops quota this year. We are facing a proposal to cut the North Sea quota by 8 per cent. There is a bit of a cushion, of course, as we do not catch our full nephrops quota in the North Sea or on the west coast, so the fleet should have available to it next year the same fishing opportunities that it has taken this year. However, we continue to pay close attention to the nephrops quota proposals.
I appreciate that much of the low catch is down to there not being a good return from the market, but does regulation play any part in that as an inhibitor or barrier to catching?
Would you say that again? I am sorry.
I appreciate that there is currently a lack of market demand for nephrops, but does regulation present any barriers to catching them?
It is clear that an issue with the cod recovery plan is that it impacts on other stocks. Notwithstanding any cuts that may happen this year, we have healthy quotas for nephrops, and they are being sustainably fished, but the cod recovery plan impacts on vessels that catch healthy quotas. That is one of the flaws in that plan. The Commission quite often assumes that boats that fish for other healthy quotas catch cod as well, which is why they get caught in the cod recovery plan regime. Therefore, there are obstacles that the prawn fleet has to face up to, unfortunately, and we are always trying to mitigate the effect of those obstacles. However, the prices of prawns and Scottish langoustine, which is a luxury product, have been recovering in recent months. I do not think that we should say that they are depressed at the moment; rather, they are recovering. They have had a very rocky ride over the past year or two because of the recession, which has had an impact on the Spanish and French markets, but they are recovering. Optimism is returning to that sector, notwithstanding some of the wider challenges.
Given that the science suggests that prawn stocks should be managed on an area-by-area basis, why is that not happening?
That is an issue that has come on to the agenda recently. We are not necessarily ruling out the principle of managing the prawn quota through such functional units because stocks are healthier in some parts of the sea than in others, but we must understand fully the impact of introducing that system in Scotland, so I do not think that it will be introduced this year. We must continue to get a better understanding of what it would mean for Scotland’s fleets.
You seem to be fairly sanguine about the possibility of an 8 per cent cut in the nephrops quota for the North Sea and a 15 per cent cut for the west coast because that would allow the same fishing opportunity next year as this year, as people have been fishing below their quota. However, if the markets in Spain and France were to recover significantly over the next year or so, would the new quotas have a practical effect on the volume that could be sold to those markets, or is there still a bit of headroom between the quotas and what demand is likely to be, even after an economic recovery?
You used the word “sanguine”. I was just making the point that the proposed cuts would not necessarily impact on current fishing patterns, given the expected uptake of this year’s quotas. We have a healthy nephrops quota. I know that headlines about quota reductions are not always positive but, if there is a scientific case for reducing quotas, we must ensure that things are kept in perspective, as present stocks are being fished sustainably and we want stocks to be there for future generations. Moreover, some people in the industry might say that we are landing far too many nephrops and that that is affecting the price, so they will not necessarily oppose limiting how much can be caught.
Liam McArthur has a question on the Government’s fisheries plan.
I think that the minister’s keynote announcement during last year’s annual fisheries debate, which was front-loaded to the beginning of November, was about the development of a four-point action plan with the industry. He said:
The four-point plan was a reflection of our desire to work with the industry on the four key areas on which we felt that we had to focus our energy in the times ahead, reflecting what has happened over the past few years. One part of the plan is about looking at how we influence the future of fisheries management and another is about looking at how we catch for the market, which is a welcome new emphasis. We have discussed both of those aspects today. Another element is about looking at how the fleet can be made more resilient and, again, we have discussed the package that has come forward as part of that. The other part of it is about ensuring that we get our fisheries management right, where we have the ability to influence that in Scotland by working with the producer organisations and so on. Those are the areas that we have put a lot of focus on in the four-point plan.
What about the delays in bringing it forward?
We brought forward the pillars and then, over the course of 2010, we discussed more of the detail of what we wanted to introduce under those headings. Now we have delivered the £8 million for the business amalgamation proposals that arose from the four-point plan. We had discussions with the industry on the theme of how we can make the fleet more resilient, and during the year a scheme was proposed to us that we worked up, which it took us a few months to do. Now we have delivered it. That accounts for the timescale.
Does that suggest that there have been areas of major disagreement in those discussions or does it simply reflect the complexity of pulling the plan together?
To be fair, the four-point plan has been a living, breathing thing. It has not been the case that everything stopped while we waited for the plan to be published at the most recent meeting of the Scottish fisheries council. A lot of the catching-for-the-market work has been done over the past few months. That is because we agreed with the industry the four pillars around which we wanted to develop policy, and that process started immediately.
I think that that concludes all the questions. I thank all the witnesses for the evidence that they have given us.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation