Fisheries Negotiations
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the cod recovery plan and fishing opportunities for 2012. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:45
Once again, we reach an important point in the annual European fisheries negotiations, in which Scotland rightly plays an important role, given our prominent role in the north Atlantic fisheries and our place at the forefront of fisheries conservation. Indeed, given the common fisheries policy’s constraints, Scotland’s progress in recent years in developing responsible fisheries management is something that our industry should be justly proud of and our approach is now being reflected in the increasing abundance of many of the stocks in our waters. Our industry, which accounts for three fifths of all United Kingdom landings, is worth £435 million.
This is a busy fortnight for negotiations. This week, we have negotiations with coastal states and Ireland over the future of many stocks—including the massive mackerel stock that, as we know, has been the subject of dispute between many countries and the Faroe Islands and Iceland—and last Friday, the European Union and Norway fisheries discussions concluded with positive outcomes for Scotland. North Sea herring quota has doubled and haddock, whiting and plaice are up by 15 per cent. Even North Sea cod has just about held steady, with a very marginal cut of only 1 per cent, and we have secured the continuation into next year of our pioneering catch quota trials for tackling cod discards, winning an extra 12 per cent on top of the agreed cod quota.
We now move towards next week’s December fisheries council, at which we will finalise negotiations on the stocks that we share with other EU countries. Here, too, scientists are advising a clear improvement in the health of the key west coast haddock stock, suggesting that we could safely increase the quota by no less than 410 per cent. We will also ensure that we secure revision of the west coast catch composition rules, which, with such an uplift, would simply become a recipe for discards.
Otherwise, the European Commission is proposing automatic blanket cuts in quota for what it calls “data poor” stocks. However, its approach is fatally flawed on two counts. First, for reasons that continue to baffle us, the Commission has not taken into account available information on those stocks. Secondly, the arbitrary cuts that it proposes ride roughshod over the principle that the setting of all quotas should be based on scientific evidence and we will be demanding that each stock is decided on a case-by-case basis. We will also argue that we should remain committed to reaching, where possible, maximum sustainable yield for our stocks by 2015, in accordance with the Johannesburg commitment on sustainable fishing, rather than the Commission’s proposed target of 2013. Overall, I am cautiously optimistic that we will be able to deliver on our core objectives for this year’s final round of negotiations with a range of increased quotas.
Alas, a very dark cloud in the form of the cod recovery plan and limitations on the days at sea allowed to vessels catching cod is hanging over all of our fishermen’s hard-won opportunities. We have always stood by two core principles in our approach to cod recovery: first, that our fishermen must have sufficient days at sea to catch their rightful fishing opportunities and, secondly, that we do our utmost with the industry to incentivise conservation and recovery of cod. That approach is beginning to bear fruit. Since 2007, North Sea cod discards by Scottish vessels have fallen by more than half from 62 to 29 per cent, which is an impressive achievement in anyone’s book. Indeed, it is the biggest drop in the whole of Europe. Moreover, although still low, North Sea cod stocks have been steadily increasing since 2006.
However, as we witness the current CFP’s death throes, it seems that the Commission has saved the worst for last with the prospect that it will seek a massive cut in time at sea for our vessels. For three years, our fleet has endured automatic year-on-year cuts in days at sea and, for 2012, it faces being left with only 45 per cent of the days at sea it enjoyed back in 2006. If the cuts had been applied in full, they would have snatched the time needed to catch the rightful quotas, and our fleet would be much smaller than it is today.
That is why, when the cod recovery plan was drawn up, we insisted that there should be incentives for vessels, allowing them to avoid the cuts if they adopted cod avoidance measures. We delivered a win-win scenario that gave the fleet the lifeline of more days at sea in return for delivering real gains in conservation. Lest anyone think that that was simply a wheeze to buy our vessels extra fishing time, let me make two things clear. First, do not forget that the Scottish fleet went through a massive downsizing over the past decade, when 66 per cent of our white-fish fleet—165 vessels—was decommissioned. Secondly, there is no doubting that, through the approach that we have adopted, Scotland has led the European Union in developing new approaches to fisheries conservation.
For example, our conservation credits scheme has won praise across Europe. WWF Scotland states:
“The Scottish Scheme is a leading example of how all those concerned with conserving fish stocks can work together and come up with solutions to address the problems of over-fishing and wasteful discards.”
That innovation will be stopped in its tracks if the Commission gets its way. Officials in Brussels decided, through their interpretation of a legal technicality, that we had reinstated too many days to our vessels, not only this year but also in 2010, when we gave more days at sea to our vessels to expand cod avoidance measures and programmes.
The Commission published a regulation imposing penalties on the UK, which would have reduced by half the time allowed to UK vessels in 2011. It withdrew the regulation a few days ago, because the figures made no sense to anyone, but it has stuck to its legal interpretation. We have made it clear that we do not share the Commission’s interpretation, not least because it would take us on a nonsensical downward spiral, which would eventually mean that no days at sea would be left for any of our vessels. The incentives for vessels to engage in conservation would be pretty much killed off in one fell swoop and years of careful co-operative work with our industry to avoid intensive cod fishing would be put at risk.
As for our vessels’ ability to fish their other quotas, the Commission’s proposals could mean that large parts of our fleet could not go to sea for large parts of the year. That would clearly be devastating for our fishing industry; it would destroy jobs in the fleet and in the onshore sector.
Let us be clear about what this means. Our fishers fish in a mixed fishery in Scottish waters, where cod swim with other fish, such as haddock and whiting. Cod accounts for only 5.5 per cent of the total value of the Scottish catch but, if the Commission’s draconian proposals were to be accepted, our vessels would be prevented from fishing their rightful quotas of all those other stocks—the other 95 per cent of fishing opportunities.
Let us also be clear about how the cod recovery plan is failing. It is already supposed to be under review and it certainly needs revising. Indeed, we were promised that this year but we are now told that it may be 2014 before any changes are implemented.
The Commission’s scientists have concluded that the plan was not delivering reduced mortality for cod and did not have stakeholder support in many areas. The Commission’s advisers concluded that the provision of additional days as an incentive for conservation measures should
“be seen as the cornerstone of the plan.”
However, that is the very part of the plan that the Commission’s latest action threatens to destroy. If it was not true, we could not have made it up.
What are we doing to respond to all that? Let me assure the Parliament and, importantly, our industry, that we will take steps to ensure that our fleets have the time at sea that they need to catch their available quotas. Any other scenario would be a breach of our fishermen’s fundamental rights. I can confirm that we are at one on this issue with the United Kingdom Government. I welcome the support and co-operation of UK Government colleagues, and the First Minister has written to the Prime Minister to outline the importance of the issue.
Meanwhile, we have been working intensively with colleagues in Westminster and Belfast to find a resolution to the issue with the Commission. I am in close and regular contact with industry representatives, whom I met again just yesterday, to hear their views. As members will understand, their view is that enough is enough. RSPB Scotland and WWF Scotland have contacted the Commission to endorse our position.
On Monday, I met the commissioner in Brussels, along with the UK’s Richard Benyon and colleagues from Northern Ireland. Obviously, I left the commissioner in no doubt about why we believe that her proposed actions are wholly unjustifiable and, indeed, counterproductive.
The Commission has agreed not to proceed until after the new year, which gives us an opportunity to explore further a resolution to the issue. I am therefore clear that the issue must be placed at the top of our priorities for next week’s December council. I will ask for a pause on cuts in days at sea and a stop to the continual ratcheting downward year on year. We are in intense discussions with our UK colleagues to agree other options for next week’s council.
The irony is that this threat has emerged just as catching opportunities look brighter and conservation efforts are gaining plaudits. We cannot allow the cod recovery plan to become an industry destruction plan. We must be released from the regulatory quicksand that is threatening to drown our industry. At a time of economic turmoil across Europe, more than ever we must maintain a strong voice to protect our key sectors in Scotland. I assure the Parliament that we will do just that in the coming weeks.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the early advance copy of his statement.
There is a striking disparity between the regulation to reduce fishing effort that was signed on 23 November and the normal EU bilateral agreement last week, which provided for the continuation of the catch quota scheme, albeit perhaps not with the expansion that the Scottish fleet wanted. Also remarkable is the degree of agreement between the Scottish Government, the UK Government, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the RSPB and WWF in opposing Commission implementing regulation EU 1211/2011.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the withdrawal of the regulation illustrates Scotland’s strength in negotiation as part of the UK delegation? I suspect that he will not agree.
Has research been commissioned in Europe to determine whether cuts in days at sea directly correlate with a reduction in fish mortality?
Given that the withdrawn implementing regulation would also have affected France, Germany and Ireland, are ministers in the Scottish Government and UK Government working with counterparts in those states to support one another in opposing the regulation’s reintroduction? Are processes for consultation with stakeholders in Europe in place prior to the submission of any new regulation, particularly given Commissioner Damanaki’s comments about regionalisation and stakeholder participation with regard to reform of the common fisheries policy?
Elaine Murray asked four questions, which I will try to address quickly.
The way in which the Commission issued a decision on its website without warning member states other than at a meeting of EU officials the previous afternoon was unfortunate. The matter does not merit a constitutional debate, but it highlights the flaws in the Commission’s decision-making processes on an important issue, given the devastating consequences that the regulation would have had if it had been implemented. I am thankful that because, at a meeting in London with the UK Administration, the Commission itself could not explain the figures, the regulation has been withdrawn.
One of the ironies of the situation is that the Commission’s own adviser body—the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries—has highlighted that there is no evidence of a direct correlation between cod mortality and effort cuts in relation to days at sea. The Commission takes the view that it is a case of one for one—we cut effort by a certain amount and cod mortality will reduce by a certain amount—but there very much appears to be a lack of evidence to back that up. That is one of the serious flaws in the cod recovery plan.
Elaine Murray was right to say that other countries are affected. We are in contact with some of the affected countries, and there is a lot more of that to be done during the next few days. I think that France shares the view of Scotland and the rest of the UK.
On regionalisation, what has happened surely demonstrates why we cannot have on-going micromanagement from Brussels. So many mistakes are made in Brussels, often at 3 o’clock in the morning during heated and chaotic fishing negotiations. That has to end.
I thank the cabinet secretary for presenting a united front with the UK fisheries minister on the highly sensitive issue of cuts in days at sea, which is of huge importance to people in Scottish fishing communities.
First, how will the cabinet secretary spell out to the commissioner the true impact of unfair micromanagement on the lives of many people in Scottish communities on the east and west coasts and on hundreds of fishing vessels and thousands of jobs in connected onshore businesses?
Secondly, how will the cabinet secretary illustrate the woeful damage to people’s livelihoods and households that will be caused by the fleet’s being able to fish only four days a fortnight?
Thirdly, can the cabinet secretary make Commissioner Damanaki fully understand that hailing the Scottish effort on cod recovery as a success and then instantly punishing the fleet on days at sea has produced righteous fury among Scottish fisherman and generated public Euroscepticism in Scotland and the UK?
Fourthly, is there a way that the Commission’s figures can be closely monitored in the future to prevent a repeat of bombshells of this kind without prior notice? We are grateful that the Commission has suspended the regulation, but how can the cabinet secretary get a guarantee that it will not be laid again so that the UK and Scottish nets, which have done more for true conservation than any other, will not be hung out to dry?
I lost track of the number of questions that Jamie McGrigor asked, but I will answer as many as I can. I am sure that I addressed some of them in my statement.
When it comes to spelling out the devastating impact that the Commission’s interpretation of article 13 of the cod recovery plan would have in Scotland, I can assure the Parliament that we did that in the strongest terms in the meeting the night before last in Brussels with the commissioner and her officials. We will continue to do that in the coming days.
To address Jamie McGrigor’s subsequent questions, we have a situation in which, on the one hand, because of the good work that is happening in Scotland and elsewhere, stocks of a number of very important species to Scotland are increasing and we will, I hope, benefit from increased quotas. That is good news for the fleet and a reward for its good, hard work over the past number of years. On the other hand, the Commission appears to think that it is possible for the fleet not to be allowed to leave port but to catch those quotas at the same time. As I said in my statement, that is a breach of our natural rights and we should not allow it to happen.
We have a mixed fishery: that is the point that we have to get across to the European Union and the Commission. We have a mixed fishery: the fish swim together. We have different quotas for different species. We cannot have the fleet being kept in port in case a cod is caught at sea. We must continue with what we are doing in Scotland, which is to allow our fleet to go to sea to catch its other quotas, but at the same time do its utmost, under very difficult, complex circumstances, to avoid cod. Scotland has received plaudits, as Jamie McGrigor said, over the past few years, because we have developed innovative ways of doing that.
There are two ways in which we can save the stock. We can either allow our fleet never to fish again, or we can allow the fleet to go to sea to catch its other quotas but avoid cod. I am sure that the Parliament is united in pursuing the latter.
David Milne, the chair of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, has said that fewer days at sea would wipe out the whole industry—everyone from fishermen to fish processors. How optimistic is the cabinet secretary that the combined efforts of the Scottish and UK Governments will make the European Commission understand the devastating potential consequences for the Scottish fishing industry and ensure that they row back?
We must give the Commission credit where credit is due: the regulation has been withdrawn and there is an agreement to negotiate with the Scottish and UK authorities over the next few weeks. Of course, we will be taking full advantage of that. The first opportunity for the Commission to show that it understands the issue is for it to agree a pause in the already programmed cut in effort, which is due to be put in place in next week’s December fisheries council. We must use the negotiations over the coming weeks to get the right result for Scotland.
I cannot give a guarantee that we will be able to make the Commission understand the devastating consequences; I can say that the UK and Scottish authorities must work together to ensure that our fleet has the opportunity in 2012 to go to sea and catch its quotas.
The cabinet secretary said that he will take steps to ensure that our fleets have the time to catch their available quotas. What alternative proposals will he submit, alongside colleagues, and what will be the outcome of the discussions next week? How optimistic is he of getting the right result?
An important point to make is that our position all along has been that there needs to be a cod recovery plan, but we need the current plan to be changed because it does not work. The Commission’s advisers recognise that the plan is not working: I already mentioned the STECF; there is also the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the scientists who advise the Commission. We therefore need some urgency from the Commission to address the issues and fix the plan so that our fleet can go to sea and catch its other quotas—the other 95 per cent of fishing opportunities—but at the same time continue its good work, which is paying dividends, in avoiding cod. That is how we will take the issue forward in the next few weeks.
The Scottish fishing fleet has been working extremely hard to become one of the most responsible in Europe in managing and conserving cod stocks in the North Sea in a sustainable and effective manner, but it seems to be taking more than its fair share of the pain from this year’s round of European fisheries negotiations. Given that the cabinet secretary has made the case in the past for devolving powers in fisheries management to a more local level, will he continue to push the case, especially in the context of the current round of CFP reforms, for greater decentralisation of power, so that real management decisions are left to our fishing nations, working regionally, with the EU setting only the broad principles?
It certainly appears that we are taking a disproportionate share of the pain, in the North Sea and elsewhere, in terms of the cod recovery plan. At the same time, we must accept that we have a big responsibility, because we have the biggest share of the North Sea cod stock. Indeed, the west of Scotland is important in that regard, too. We must recognise that responsibility, but I believe that we are doing that. I pay a huge tribute to the Scottish fishing industry for the sacrifices that it has made over recent years and the innovative measures that it has proposed to Government, which have meant that we have been able to work in partnership to try to allow the cod stock to recover. As I said, those measures are being praised throughout Europe.
Aileen McLeod is right. The fact that we have the biggest responsibility and appear to be taking a disproportionate share of the pain at the moment illustrates why we need decentralisation of fishing policy from Brussels back to member state level. As well as having a bigger share of the stock, I believe—I am sure that we all agree—that we have the biggest share of expertise and are therefore much better placed to put in place the measures that are required for Scotland’s mixed fishery. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding by Brussels of the complications and challenges of managing the mixed fishery that we have in Scottish waters.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and for meeting me and some others last week on this issue.
While the introduction of the regulation has thankfully been delayed, the Commission is sticking to the principle that underpins it. Will the Government be ready to compensate vessels that may have to adapt their gear or reduce their days at sea if some form of compromise agreement with the Commission is reached? The cabinet secretary will be aware that there are disputes among the various bodies that produce the science on the sustainability of stocks. Has he considered asking for an amnesty to allow us to consider the science so that we can be clearer about the facts?
I hope that Jim Hume will forgive me for not contemplating losing the argument with the European Commission at this point and preparing for defeat on the interpretation of article 13. There is a genuine dispute between, on the one hand, the UK authorities, some other countries and Scotland and, on the other hand, the Commission about the legal interpretation of a technicality within article 13 of the cod recovery plan. I make it clear that, had we gone with the Commission’s interpretation, our fleet today would be much smaller than it is. Our interpretation was therefore the only interpretation that could make that article work—that is, give an incentive to the fleet to have days at sea in return for avoiding cod, which is the crux of the debate. I am convinced that we can reach a commonsense solution with the Commission, if it is willing to be reasonable with us.
The question about the clarity of the science is a good one; that debate is on-going. There is always a lag between the science and the decisions in Brussels. Again, as part of the CFP negotiations, we must somehow find a way of addressing that.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s chief executive, Bertie Armstrong, told Holyrood magazine in January that unless fishermen could see the rewards of conservation schemes, such schemes would be
“at the edge of credibility.”
As the cabinet secretary identified, RSPB Scotland and WWF have expressed their concerns to the Commission that the reduction in days at sea could push fishermen to abandon ecological methods and adopt more market-appropriate ways of fishing. What encouragement can we give fishermen to stay on board with conservation measures?
The best reward that we can give the fleet for its conservation measures is not to have a massive reduction in time at sea as proposed by the European Commission. Paul Wheelhouse is perfectly correct, in that we are at an important crossroads. The Scottish industry has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years and has taken our conservation policy to new levels. We must not lose that good will and co-operation. If anything remotely like the regulation that was published a few days ago were to be implemented in Scotland, the cause of fisheries conservation would be set back by decades. No one wants to see that. That is why the scientists, the non-governmental organisations, the industry and, indeed, the Parliament, other UK authorities and the Scottish Government are all united in wanting to continue with the good way in which we approach fisheries conservation at the moment. That is what we have to fight to safeguard.
How will the cabinet secretary guarantee that fishermen will balance the need to fulfil quota with their environmental responsibilities, under an effort-restricted system?
As I indicated in a previous answer, the position of the Scottish Government and the Scottish industry is that, with regard to, for instance, the challenges facing the cod stock, we need a cod recovery plan. There is no dispute over that key principle. We need a cod recovery plan that is workable and which is suited to the mixed fishery that we have in Scottish waters, where various fishermen with the same gear and the same vessels are catching a variety of stocks at the same time. There are ways of avoiding cod in such a fishery, and those are what we have been developing in recent years. Unfortunately, the cod recovery plan—and certainly the Commission’s interpretation of one part of the cod recovery plan—does not reflect some of those innovative approaches.
We have a lot more opportunities to continue to improve the cod stock. A number of new gears are being trialled by the fleet. We must give that a chance to succeed.
The cabinet secretary might be aware that the European and External Relations Committee was on a delegation to Brussels last week and met a senior spokeswoman of Commissioner Damanaki. We made representations on the issue that we are discussing today, and received a puzzling response, which was to the effect that the Scottish fishing fleet has received a greater part of the buy-back effort than other member states. To me, that showed a worrying lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the scheme. Does the cabinet secretary feel that it would be useful to facilitate an invitation to the commissioner to spend some time on a Scottish fishing boat?
We should predicate discussions on success, not failure, but in the event that we do not get the result that we seek from the discussions that will be held at the December fisheries council, have legal proceedings been countenanced with regard to this extremely important matter?
Annabelle Ewing raises an important point, which is the fundamental purpose of this particular part of the cod recovery plan, which is about incentives. There should always be a relationship between the measures that are taken by the fleet to avoid cod and the days that are awarded to the fleet as a reward for doing that. The greater the amount of cod that is avoided by the fleet, the more days at sea it should be awarded. The Commission official to whom Annabelle Ewing spoke perhaps does not understand that fundamental point. Being given more days in which to go to sea is a sign of having done the right thing.
The commissioner always has an open invitation to visit Scotland; I issue that to her every time that I speak to her. She has been here before, and she should certainly come back here if she insists on continuing with the regulation that she tabled a few weeks ago, as that would enable her to understand, from first-hand experience, the implications that it would have for Scotland.
I hope that the discussions that we will have in the next few weeks will be productive and give us the right result for Scotland.
If, after dialogue with the Government, the European Commission decides not to cut days at sea, how would the cabinet secretary prove to the maritime and fisheries commissioner that conservation of stocks and the wider maritime environment are at the heart of the Scottish Government’s fisheries policy?
I can assure the commissioner, as I always have done, that conservation policy and the future of our maritime environment are at the heart of what we do. That is why we have a united front in Scotland, with the WWF, the RSPB, our scientists, all political parties—I hope—and others all speaking with one voice and sending the message that we must continue with our conservation measures, which are paying dividends in Scottish waters, and not have them being completely undermined by a flawed legal interpretation of one part of the cod recovery plan.
While I recognise the Scottish Government’s conservation efforts, it is clear that fish stocks are still in crisis. Will the minister commit to enhanced conservation measures to ensure a sustainable future as part of the conservation credits scheme?
I was disappointed that the catch quota scheme was not expanded, due to resistance from the Norwegian authorities at last week’s negotiations between the European Union and Norway. However, that scheme alone shows that we are ahead of the game. We want to expand such programmes to build up the stocks that require to be built up, particularly the cod stock.
I caution Alison Johnstone not to say that Scottish fish stocks are in crisis. Many Scottish fish stocks, particularly some of our key commercial stocks, are being fished to sustainable levels. That is why the science recommends—as I outlined in my statement—a significant increase for a number of important stocks in Scotland. We need to do a lot more work to help some stocks—particularly cod—to recover, but we should not tar all stocks with the same brush. More than 50 per cent by volume of Scottish species are now Marine Stewardship Council accredited, which is a big feather in the cap for Scotland. We should recognise that, and I ask Alison Johnstone to use every opportunity to acknowledge it when she talks about the subject.
The cabinet secretary rightly mentioned in his statement that all the European Commission proposals will have an impact on the onshore sector. Indeed, he will be aware that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recently took evidence from representatives of that sector, who highlighted the precarious state that it is already in.
What representations has the cabinet secretary made to ensure that the commission is fully aware of the relationship between days at sea and the sustainability of the onshore sector? Does he feel that the commission takes into account the state of that sector when it introduces such proposals?
I assure Alex Fergusson that at the meeting with the European commissioner on Monday evening, we raised the point that the onshore sector in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK would be severely affected if the continuity of supply was disrupted because the fleet was not allowed to go to sea to catch its quotas.
The onshore sector is completely perplexed at present. People read in their newspapers and see on the television that there are increased quotas for Scotland, yet they hear from the European Commission that we may not allow the fleet to go to sea to catch those very same quotas. It is important that we give an assurance to the onshore sector—fish processors, customers and everyone else in the retail sector—that we will give our fleet time to go to sea in 2012 to catch the legitimate quotas.