Common Fisheries Policy Reform
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead, which will be an update on common fisheries policy reform. He will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions while he makes the statement.
14:16
I am grateful for the opportunity before the summer recess, which is near, to make a statement to update members on the reform of the common fisheries policy.
Following intense negotiations, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have reached historic political agreements on the basic regulation of the CFP and the regulation that addresses the common organisation of the market for fisheries. Those agreements still remain to be ratified, but few, if any, further changes are expected. Formal adoption by the Council and the European Parliament is expected next month or this autumn at the latest. Before the end of this year, we also expect agreement on a new European maritime and fisheries fund, which will underpin the reformed CFP with financial support.
I confirm that, within the constraints that we face, our key priorities appear to have been achieved. We have a better framework to support sustainable fishing and protect fish stocks and an ambitious but workable discards package to phase out the scandal of discards. We have secured a regional approach to fisheries management, which I hope will at long last bring key decisions much closer to home.
In true European Union fashion, the CFP reform negotiations have been slow, tortuous and bureaucratic. Nevertheless, we have seen the process as a golden opportunity for radical reform that was to be grasped with both hands, given how badly the CFP has failed our fishing communities, our fish stocks and the wider marine environment.
Our fishers are not short of challenges. Only last week, I chaired a meeting with the industry to address the acute pressures that our nephrops fishery faces as a result of biological changes in the prawn grounds. We are working on an action plan to alleviate those pressures where we can. That acutely demonstrates why we need a CFP that supports our fishers in facing those biological challenges—never mind the bureaucratic challenges—rather than hinders them at every turn.
The agreement that has been reached is a product of compromise, and it was never going to fulfil all our wishes. We have had to negotiate with 754 MEPs and 27 member states, with their diverse views, and on a number of occasions we have had to fight with the United Kingdom Government for Scotland’s interests—for example, in ensuring that a strong position was maintained on transferable fishing quotas and on regionalisation.
Although the deal that is on the table is not perfect, it could move us substantially forward. In short, if we realise the opportunities that it offers, it should allow us to take significant strides forward in developing a sensible and sustainable fisheries management framework for the whole of Europe.
We are a nation whose identity, culture, heritage and economy are shaped by the seas that surround us. Those seas have long provided for our people, and they now support an industry that catches more than 70 per cent of the UK’s key quota stocks, provides more than 5,000 coastal jobs and contributes £500 million to Scotland’s economy. That is why I was determined that Scotland’s voice would be heard loudly during the reform process, to ensure that regionalisation, discards and the commitment to sustainable fishing were key features of the final agreement.
Reducing micromanagement from Brussels and returning greater responsibility for fisheries management to Scotland have been my main priority from the start. That is why I expended significant energy in ensuring that the UK position stayed firm on our key objective of decentralising the one-size-fits-all CFP. Without that, we would not have the tools to do the job of moving to a discard-free fishery that is fished at sustainable levels.
I am pleased to report that a regional approach to fisheries management has been agreed, which we must accept is historic. It does not go as far as I would like, and time will tell the extent to which it really will loosen the grip of Brussels on management of our fisheries, but I will work to make it a success.
The agreed model should give member states more flexibility to manage their fisheries by working regionally to develop detailed management measures, in consultation with key stakeholders, that will deliver the high-level objectives that will be agreed at European level and set out in multi-annual plans. The Commission will then be expected to legislate to enable implementation of the actions that have been agreed at regional level, to monitor progress and to support member states in achieving the high-level targets. For example, with the agreement of member states in the region and the Commission’s support, we could establish our own rules for determining days at sea or fixing the composition of catches, which would enable us to cast off the hated straitjacket of the cod recovery plan.
Crucially, that framework will focus on achieving outcomes by whatever routes member states believe are necessary. That is in contrast to the current inflexible fixation on micromanaging the whole process—down to the size and width of nets—from Brussels, as witnessed through the Commission’s current one-size-fits-all CFP approach.
Key among those outcomes is the commitment to achieving discard-free fisheries. I hope that an end is now in sight to the scandal whereby a million tonnes or more of fish are discarded in Europe’s waters every year. We, the industry and our environmental groups all agree on that objective. Dumping perfectly edible fish is ecological madness and is horrendously wasteful. However, the issue is complex and challenging to tackle, which is why it was important to negotiate a discard ban that is ambitious but workable for fishermen and managers, particularly in Scotland’s mixed fishery.
From January 2015, the discard ban will commence for all pelagic species, while the ban for other stocks, including nephrops, cod, haddock and whiting, will be phased in between January 2016 and 2019. It is important that the discards package is supported by a number of measures to aid practical implementation. Vessels will be able to bank or borrow up to 10 per cent of additional quota in a stock from one year to the next. They will also be allowed to transfer up to 9 per cent of quota from a target species to cover any unwanted bycatch of another species, although only if the non-target species is within safe biological limits. Additionally, there are exemptions for some species that are more likely to survive after being discarded, such as skates and rays, and for species that cannot be caught and landed, such as sharks.
It is important that a maximum de minimis level of discarding will also be permitted, which will reduce from 7 per cent of the total annual catch in years 1 and 2 to 6 per cent in years 3 and 4 and to 5 per cent thereafter. However, that will be allowed only for species that are agreed at European level and when it is justified on the ground that total elimination of discards is unachievable scientifically or because of disproportionate costs to the industry.
Importantly, as Scotland demanded, the discards package includes provision for an uplift in quotas. That is absolutely necessary as we move from quotas being based on what is landed to quotas being based on what is taken out of the sea. It also means that vessels can benefit from landing much of what would have otherwise been discarded.
The anti-discards package will be challenging for our complex mixed fishery. It will mean moving to yet more new methods of fishing and more selective gear. However, we have some time in which to make the transition, and I firmly believe that the change is desirable—not only environmentally, but from an economic perspective—and deliverable. It is simply inefficient to catch unwanted fish that have to be thrown back over the side. By avoiding that, we can add to the environmental and the economic bottom lines. To their huge credit, our fishermen have a strong track record of achievement on discards. We will continue to work with them to make good on the new commitment.
Moving to discard-free fisheries that are based on catches rather than landings will also help us to achieve our other key goal of fishing our stocks at what is referred to as maximum sustainable yield—that is, a rate that allows the stock to reproduce. It is important that fisheries management follows the best available science and is not driven by short-term self-interest or political objectives. I am therefore pleased that the reform agreement recognises the need to set fishing levels that will rebuild depleted stocks and maintain them at sustainable levels, which will sustain the fishing communities that depend on them. The limits will be applied by 2015, where possible, and by 2020 at the latest for all harvested stocks. In Scottish waters, we already fish at such levels across many of our commercial stocks and, in time, that will lead to better and bigger stocks and to more stable and plentiful seas.
I remind colleagues that we have successfully fought off the unacceptable element of the Commission’s original proposals—the establishment of a mandatory system of transferable fishing rights across Europe, which posed a direct threat to our historical fishing rights. I hope that all members believe that our fishing rights belong to Scotland and that they must not be sold to those with the deepest pockets in Europe. We fought vigorously against that from day 1. We had to show forceful leadership not only to overcome a threat from Brussels but to make the UK Government see sense on the issue. We welcome its volte-face. I am pleased that our work has paid off and that we can move on to better debates.
Our fishermen face not only a daily struggle while at sea but a bewildering and often contradictory tangle of European regulations. The existing CFP has been no friend to Scotland and I have no doubt that it will continue to make life challenging for our fishing industry. However, a door has been opened to better times through the reform. We might not have the giant leap forward that we wanted, but the reform is a big step forward that we should welcome.
The Scottish Government will work in close partnership with stakeholders and the industry, onshore and offshore, to maximise the potential of our fantastic industry, protect our amazing marine environment and our rich fish stocks and bring benefits to all those connected with our fishing communities.
I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of his statement. Last month’s agreement on the basic regulation of the common fisheries policy is to be welcomed. Good progress has been made on discards and the regional control of fisheries and, if the measures are implemented sensibly, they will benefit Scottish fishing and help to secure a sustainable future. In the UK, the cabinet secretary has played his part, but I also welcome the work of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in securing sensible agreement.
Ensuring that fish stocks are at a healthy level is beneficial not only to the environment but to our fishing industry. Achieving maximum sustainable yield, via the best scientific advice, is vital to ensure a sustainable future. Although the final agreement contains a strong commitment to follow scientific advice and an end to overfishing, there is no clear deadline for when full stock recovery will be achieved. How will the regionalisation element of the CFP aid stock recovery in Scotland? Will clear timetables for the achievement of full stock recovery be set at a regional level or will that be limited by multi-annual plans?
I thank Claire Baker for her comments and the way in which she has approached this important issue.
First, regionalisation should help stock recovery because many of the measures under the current one-size-fits-all approach of Brussels are counterproductive. For example, vessels are often forced into areas where the juvenile fish are—the fish that we want to grow—as opposed to other areas of the sea. That is down to ill-fitting regulations. I hope that, if such details are decided at regional and local levels, we will get them right and we will not have counterproductive consequences for fisheries conservation.
The targets will be laid down in the multi-annual plans, which will be agreed between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I hope—and we take it from the reform proposals—that the high-level objectives will be set at European level but that the management and detail will come to the regions. In that way, we will be able to progress the debate.
I thank the cabinet secretary for an early copy of his statement. I agree that a door has opened to better times through the reform.
I have two points. First, will the cabinet secretary give more detail on how the new discards policy will work in practice at Scottish landing ports? In English ports, Government officials have already helped to plan how to use discards and previously unwanted fish. What provisions has he organised for Scottish ports?
Secondly, on nephrops, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, will he guarantee that he will make it a personal priority to persuade the Commission that there should be an exemption from the effort limits in the cod recovery plan for inshore prawn vessels that can document a minimal bycatch of cod? That would make a huge difference to our artisanal prawn fishermen on the west coast.
In preparing for the discard ban, our first objective is to minimise the unwanted catches that are brought back to shore—that is why it is useful to have the flexibilities that the agreement provides for. When unwanted catches are brought back to shore, they will no doubt make their way to fishmeal and there will be cost recovery for fishermen, but we must ensure that there is no profit and that there is a disincentive to bring back unwanted catches.
Most of the fisheries management measures will take place at sea, so that people avoid catching fish that are not wanted in the first place. As members know, Scotland is very much blazing a trail on closed areas, real-time closures and other forms of spatial management, catch quota schemes and so on, and we want to build on such approaches to minimise unwanted catches.
On the interaction between the cod recovery plan and the nephrops fishery, we are currently experiencing a biological problem, in that the prawns are simply not appearing. That is particularly the case in the Fladen ground, but it is also a west coast issue, with landings 50 per cent down, despite the quotas there. We have found it difficult to find flexibility to offer vessels other fishing opportunities, because of the cod recovery plan. If such decisions are taken closer to home, we will be able to build in better flexibilities and to balance fisheries conservation with measures to allow vessels to fish elsewhere when the prawns do not appear. I hope that that is one big difference that the new approach can make.
I welcome the CFP quota adjustment process to accommodate the new discard-free policy. Will the cabinet secretary expand on his views about plans to survey fishing effort to confirm the effectiveness of the new discards regime at sea?
I pressed hard in Europe on ensuring that we have the enforcement capability to ensure that the flexibilities in the agreement, in relation to the discards de minimis rules, are not exploited. Some countries wanted the biggest possible de minimis and the ability to discard a huge percentage of fish of all kinds of species; they also wanted some species to be exempt from the discard ban. I was pleased that those countries were defeated in the negotiations and did not get their way—I pushed hard on that. A compromise was reached, and in my statement I gave the percentages that we got to. The flexibilities will be useful, given Scotland’s circumstances, because we have a complex mixed fishery.
Over the next year or two, before the bans come into place, there will be much effort and learning on how we monitor and enforce the discard rates. Of course, the de minimis rules are not a blanket provision. States that want to use flexibility must present evidence that there are good scientific reasons for doing so.
I understand from the statement that we expect agreement on a new European maritime and fisheries fund before the end of this year. Will the cabinet secretary give details of discussions on the fund, particularly to take account of the need of fragile coastal fishing communities to achieve social and economic sustainability, including sustainability through diversification when appropriate?
I can say to Claudia Beamish that those issues were discussed in the negotiations. A major priority for Scotland is to ensure that the funding is aligned with the need, to make the transition from where we are with discards to the discard ban and to help the fleet to adapt to the new circumstances. The resources that come from the fund should be aligned with the need to adopt new measures—new nets and gear and so on.
It is also important that we support our onshore sector in adapting to where quotas might go in the future, in relation to different species, for example. We are taking account of not just the offshore sector but the onshore sector.
The welcome decentralisation of the hugely damaging one-size-fits-all CFP is crucial if we are to protect the Scottish fishing fleet’s future. Will the proposed decentralisation allow, for example, scientific research on spur dogfish, which can be unintentionally caught by vessels that trawl for nephrops on the west coast? Such catches are currently discarded, but the industry is concerned at the loss of income from the bycatch. Will decentralisation allow a sustainable bycatch fishery for spurdog to reopen, particularly in the months from October to December?
The member may be aware that the on-going scientific advice for spurdog is that the species has to be protected, given that the state of the stock indicates that it is under threat. We are working with the industry to develop measures to avoid that bycatch.
On decentralisation, it is hoped that the detail of some measures will be decided at a more regional level. However, if the scientific advice continues to be that a stock is below safe levels, we will have to take that into account.
I thank the cabinet secretary for a copy of his statement. Will he accept that there is the width of the North Sea between the rhetoric on discards and the practical implementation of the policy, which could be extremely difficult in a mixed fishery? Will he also accept that, in implementing that policy, he needs to get the balance right between achieving the policy on discards and ensuring that boats have a sustainable future? Will he assure Parliament that the policy will include the full flexibility to allow us to achieve that?
Will the cabinet secretary ensure that, when the regionalisation elements of the new common fisheries policy are implemented, no Scottish boat will have a stricter or more onerous regime applied to it than will be applied to other EU vessels in our coastal waters?
On the member’s latter points, I have continually said that, under regionalisation, member states must have the power to ensure a level playing field in their own waters. As the regional discussions and negotiations are taken forward, I will continue to press for that. Under European regulations, we cannot have vessels fishing side by side to which different rules apply, although member states have different stocks and different priorities, which we have to take into account.
In the overall debate during the negotiations, it was clear that implementing the discard ban will be problematic in some circumstances, given the complexities of operating in Scottish waters, where we have perhaps 30 commercial stocks being fished together. That is why the flexibilities that were secured are important.
As the Parliament will be aware, during the negotiations, some countries—which perhaps had a minimal interest in fisheries—said that they wanted no flexibilities; other countries wanted the maximum flexibilities, which would have amounted to no discard ban. We have reached a reasonable compromise, which the industry in Scotland has warmly welcomed as something with which it can work in the years ahead. The environmental non-governmental organisations to which I have spoken also recognise that there must be an element of flexibility, given the complexities of Scotland’s mixed fisheries.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement and in particular the recognition of the problems on the west coast with prawns, crabs and so on. More generally, it is important that people know where their food, especially their seafood, comes from and that they can make an informed choice when they buy quality and sustainable Scottish produce. What agreement has been reached on improving the labelling of fishery and aquaculture products? What is the timetable for implementing those measures in Scotland?
The timetable for introducing the new CFP is 1 January next year, although it will take some time for some measures to be implemented thereafter. Labelling is a feature of the common market organisation regulation. The labelling of fish products must include the area of sea in which the fish are caught and the method of gear used—for instance, “Caught by trawl in west of Scotland waters.” There was a proposal to make the inclusion of the date and time of capture on labels mandatory, but we felt that that should be voluntary, given the bureaucracy involved.
The origin of fish products is an issue that I am pursuing. In the average supermarket, it is difficult to tell where fish are from. That must be rectified, because it is unacceptable in this day and age that, when people buy fish products from supermarket shelves, they cannot tell where those products came from or in which country they were processed.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. Reference has been made to the implications for the onshore processing industry. Will he give us a wee bit more information about how he will engage with that industry as we move forward with the changes?
We have worked with the onshore sector through the sea fisheries partnership, which is the advisory group that we set up. The industry and NGOs are members of that group.
Part of that work is to ensure that we have the marketing right. We have just received proposals from the group about how we can better market Scottish seafood and use the Scottish branding to more effect. The onshore sector is centre stage in those discussions.
We have also had a lot of dialogue with the sector on moving forward with the discard ban and other fisheries management measures to ensure continuity of supply for our processors. We will ensure that that continues to be the case.
How will the banking and borrowing of quota across adjacent years be administered in Scotland? In particular, will it be possible, after the end of a year, to borrow or bank back across to the year that has just passed?
The short answer is yes. That is one of the flexibilities.
It is worth pointing out that we have always had the ability to bank and borrow quota so that the take-up of quota from year to year is balanced efficiently. The new measure is that quota can now be swapped for quota to help with the discard ban. In other words, if fishermen do not have quota for what they catch, they can surrender other quota and convert it into the quota that they need to land the catch legally without it going to fishmeal, provided that the country meets its overall quota limits and the catch is within sustainable limits. There are some new flexibilities that will be important for implementing the discard ban in Scotland.
I am glad that the threat of tradeable rights has been seen off. What are the Government’s intentions for allocating fishing opportunities in Scotland? Article 16 in the new regulation allows for those who fish in more sustainable ways and contribute to coastal communities to get priority access. Will the cabinet secretary take advantage of that new provision? Will rights be allocated to those who can fish most sustainably and best support the local economy, instead of just to those who have fished the most in the past?
There is a genuine debate to be had on that. We recently commissioned research into quota management issues in Scotland to understand who holds the quota and how it is being used.
No right is more God given to Scotland than the fishing rights for our own waters. That is the birthright of our fishing communities, and we do not want that to leave Scotland or get into the hands of the wrong people, who are not active fishermen. Unfortunately, the pre-1999 Administration introduced the current system, which is far from perfect. If we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, we would design a different quota-management system.
Alison Johnstone raises legitimate issues for the debate moving forward.
Does the cabinet secretary consider that the Scottish fleet might have been in an entirely different position today if Westminster Governments had not regarded Scotland’s fishing interests as expendable? A Scottish Office memorandum from 1971, which was released under the 30-year rule, said:
“in the wider UK context, they”—
that is, the Scottish fishing industry—
“must be regarded as expendable”.
I completely agree that, if the Tory UK Government had not taken Scotland into the common fisheries policy back in the early 1970s, the country would have many more thriving fishing communities. Although the reform package is welcome because it certainly improves matters—greatly, I hope, in some cases—we will still have the CFP to contend with, and the situation will still be complex and difficult. Much of that could have been avoided if the Tory party had not taken Scotland into the CFP and sold out our fishing communities.