Chamber and committees

I would not say that there is a presumption of anything in particular. The way that I would frame it would be to say that conservation of the marine protected areas is the main objective but, where possible, sustainable fishing can be allowed.

It is a useful example. Although you may be saying that we do not want to home in on static gear in particular, it is important that I address some of the points that I heard when you were taking evidence but also talk about how the static gear sector itself has been innovative in this space. First of all, it has already done an awful lot to reduce the bycatch of birds and marine animals associated with its practices, and that will be particularly important as we go forward in looking at the inshore MPAs. I absolutely accept that the sector takes its environmental responsibility very seriously.

The JNCC said that there could still be an impact from static gear operators’ practices, in particular on the corals, which are slow-growing, very vulnerable features. I think that the Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation mentioned a study that its members had been involved in, I think with the University of St Andrews. The data that they provided backed up what the JNCC was saying, because that study identified an impact as well.

That said, Ms Grant, you are right that, if, in however many years—in a decade, for example—there is more robust evidence and data to suggest that we might allow certain types of gear to be used in areas and that it will not have an impact because the data and the evidence have come forward, of course we would adapt. That is very much the case. Similarly, if the industry came up with an innovation in the gear that it was putting forward or investing in such that there was no contact—I am not a fishing expert—and the pressures that had been identified in the evidence were no longer present, of course that would be a development.

It comes back to the adaptive approach. Again, you said that you did not want to home in on a particular sector but, when we were in the EU, the static gear sector was very involved in the discussions about all of this. Evidence and data change and that is part of the adaptive process. There are a couple of MPAs in which the JNCC advised that there might be long-term potential damage to very vulnerable types of benthic structures, particularly in coral.

Yes. Over the past few years, in particular, we have tried to address the gaps in some of the data coming forward. I mentioned the REM equipment that is now in inshore vessels, but we also have the vessel monitoring systems in the marine directorate. They do not just provide data; they monitor compliance as well. We also have fisheries protection vessels and aircraft, and monitoring associated with that.

This is probably a good chance for me to bring in John Mouat with the detail of some of the work that has been done over the past few years, because we recognise that, with the marine environment, there are data and evidence gaps that need to be filled, and Governments have an important role in making sure that those data gaps are filled.

“As long as” is very important.

For the record, Keith Whyte is a constituent of mine and I know him well. I heard his comment and I agree with what he said. In any area, regardless of whether we are talking about the measures in the regulations or any other measures, you cannot just look at the impact on that particular sector. You have to look at the impact that it has on the supply chain and on the communities that are associated with that sector as well.

When we are making decisions on any aspect of the economy, we will have very robust financial assessments on their impact. In this case, we cannot just base our decision on what will happen to the fishing sector; we must also think about the impact that there might be on the ports and harbours and on the local population. If you are making a decision that affects a particular sector, you need to look at the impact that it might have on everything, down to the school rolls.

We also have to think about the viability of our fishing sector. The sector is very important for Scotland culturally and economically. Fish is also a very good source of protein that is sold in our supermarkets and to markets throughout the world. We have to take all of that into account.

Probably the more stark question is, will there be any compensation? No compensation will be given directly to fishing vessels, because we have assessed that the economic impact of the measures on those vessels will not be particularly high. That is because we have taken a zonal approach and we have not ruled out sustainable fishing.

In terms of Government—public—money that will be provided, it is important to recognise the amount of effort that is being made by, and the funding that will go in through, my portfolio and that of Mairi Gougeon in particular. That includes the support for all the evidence gathering that is associated with the decisions that we make, the money that we have put into the marine directorate and into the systems that it uses, and the funding that we give to universities that will be carrying out quite a lot of the studies that are associated with the marine environment, which will feed into the JNCC’s work as well.

There is a holistic, whole-Government approach in improving the data, adapting to the science, supporting the collection of that data, supporting the ability for everyone to feed into our consultations on the regulations, and having direct relationships with my officials when we look at measures and do our on-going monitoring of their efficacy.

I keep coming back to the fact that we will take cognisance of any static gear that might be available in the future that might not have an impact on the seabed or of any evidence to support that more activities can happen sustainably in MPAs. I would say that the Government support is holistic support to provide that evidence base, which will allow us to adapt our decisions as we go forward

First of all, I want to go back to what I said about the fact that the representatives from the static gear sector on your panel have been very innovative in this space, and I absolutely respect everything that they have done in that regard. However, it is not true to say that they were not able to access any of the fora that were available as this discussion took place. There was a series of meetings on the issue when we were in the EU, including regional advisory councils, in which every representative of the fishing industry could be involved. All parts of the fishing sector could attend that. Indeed, many representatives from the static gear sector from other EU countries were involved in them as well.

I want to talk about one of the areas that was mentioned. The west of Scotland MPA was designated only in 2020, and that was the point at which we reached out to have those meetings. John Mouat might be able to provide details on those meetings.

There were three substantial meetings with our colleagues in the Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation. It could have been involved in all the discussions that the SFF and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association were involved in as well. With the greatest respect to AFPO, it might have been working on an assumption that the measures would not affect it. However, as I said, data, science and evidence changes, so it is very important that it makes it voice heard.

Having said that, I would say directly to the organisation that, going forward, it should establish those relationships with my team and work shoulder to shoulder with all other stakeholders. The opportunities were there and those opportunities are there. It might feel like it was invited late, but we cannot track down absolutely everyone. The meetings are open to everyone who is a stakeholder in the marine environment. How many consultations do we put out over the years? There is an ability to feed back.

Indeed.

Before I hand over to John Mouat, I want to say that I feel that my portfolio has a constructive relationship with the fishing industry. I welcome the many offers that I get from the various parts of the industry, whether it be the pelagic sector or the inshore fisheries sector, to do more to gather evidence and provide data. There is a great willingness for fishers to be more involved in informing the decisions that are made. I welcome that and I can only see that happening more and more as we go forward. The engagement has been very constructive.

With regard to the monitoring of the MPAs in order to inform later reviews and decisions, I ask John Mouat to give you the details of that.

Some work has been done since we said that we would have that review, which is still on-going.

One of the pieces of work that has been done to inform that review has been a survey concerning the fishers’ behaviours and attitudes towards compliance and enforcement. That is informing a lot of the work that we are taking forward in relation to penalties. It is obviously in the interests of the fishing sector to make sure that members and the vessels that are associated with them comply with all the enforcement measures—and, indeed, everything that we are putting forward today and beyond—because, if we see vessels infringing on the measures or not taking them into account, there might be a need to increase the penalties. If we have compliance across the board, it is unlikely that we will have to go down that route.