Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would come back to the points that Jane MacPherson just made, which are really important in relation to all the different issues that you touched on.

FMPs will be a really useful tool for setting that out clearly and in a way that is open and transparent. As Jane said, and as we no doubt all glean from discussions and from the various appearances at committees before, managing our fisheries is complex. The more that we can do to show that, and to evidence how we are meeting our objectives, the better.

I do not particularly believe that to be the case. Of course, as with anything, when we commission somebody to do work, it is only right that we would expect to pay them for that work. Again, it has a wealth of expertise in that area. It is not as if there will be a way of developing a plan completely in isolation.

We have a process, which I hope that we have been able to illustrate and outline today. The stakeholder engagement element of that is critical. We will work with our wider stakeholders and with industry. We will also have to have discussions with other Administrations, and there will be a full public consultation. All of that will be set out transparently. However, Seafish has that expertise, which is what we are looking to utilise.

Yes.

Yes. First, I will touch on your first point: you are absolutely right about sustainable livelihoods. What comes through in the Fisheries Act 2020 is the issue of how we balance all the objectives. Our environment is critically important, and supporting a healthy marine environment is good for the livelihoods of our fishermen as well. However, we have to balance that against the economic situation, too. Our fishermen do their very best to fish sustainably and it is in all our interests to see that happen.

On the concerns about merging the two plans that you outlined, it has only been since last year that ICES has considered North Sea and west of Scotland cod to be part of the same biological stock, which is why we decided to merge the plans. That is designed to reflect the latest scientific understanding of the stock, in line with ICES’ advice structures. I hope that that helps to explain our approach. However, if any area-specific management measures need to be taken between the North Sea and the west of Scotland, we would consider those through the FMP process. I hope that that provides some reassurance on that front.

Well, that is the thing. We do not have a fisheries management plan for wrasse, but that has not prevented us from taking measures in the past and it would not prevent us from taking measures now. You have already highlighted the mandatory measures that we introduced in 2021. We did not need an FMP to do that, and that is the case now: if we identify that there is an issue with the stock, we can take action. We do not need to wait for the development of an FMP to address any issues.

Thank you for the invitation to speak to the committee today about the consultation on the draft amendments to annex A of the joint fisheries statement, which relate to the production of the Scottish-led fisheries management plans.

All of us here today understand the importance of Scotland’s fishing industry to our communities, economy and culture. We all want a sustainable and safe industry that has space to thrive alongside other users of the sea and that can fully capitalise on a healthy marine environment. Ensuring that our fish stocks are healthy and being fished responsibly is a key part of that.

Good progress is being made. The Scottish sustainable fishing indicator demonstrates that the sustainability status of commercial stocks in our waters has increased over time, from 37 per cent in 1993 to 70 per cent in 2022. Fisheries management plans should be a tool that helps us to continue to manage sustainability and, where necessary, to deliver improvements in our approach. FMPs will also play an important role in improving transparency around management and the measures that we take, which I know is really important to the committee as well as to our stakeholders more widely.

However, it is important to reflect that, even without FMPs, we already have a strong suite of measures in place and in development to support the management of the fishing sector and to deliver environmental protections. FMPs are about enhancing our approach, not replacing it.

Fisheries management is complex. There is a range of stakeholders who, rightly, want to be listened to, and it is important that we provide the space for that. We also do not operate in a static environment. Fish stocks are ever changing and science is always evolving, and we need to take account of that as we develop FMPs so that they remain relevant and reflective of the broader situation.

The views that were submitted to the committee in response to its call for evidence reflect the complexity of fisheries management and demonstrate the importance of our getting it right. The amendments that are proposed in the draft amended annex A of the JFS are fairly simple in and of themselves. We are extending the deadline for delivery by two years and merging two of the plans for cod into one so that we better reflect the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on the northern shelf cod stock.

Two years can feel like a long time, but the reality is that that time is needed to properly engage with stakeholders, to have meaningful consultation, to ensure that the FMPs are fit for purpose and reflective of the intention of the Fisheries Act 2020 and to properly engage across the United Kingdom Administrations.

In our development so far, we have already found that the steps involved in developing these FMPs are complex and time consuming, but they are necessary in order that the FMPs that are ultimately produced are meaningful. It is better to take the time to get the FMPs right than to do it too quickly.

The consultation on the amendments is on-going, and we are interested in the committee’s views. The proposals made in the consultation provide the right course of action that will enable the best FMPs to be delivered and to allow us to listen to stakeholders and take their thoughts on board.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

We have set out the criteria that were used to identify the species for which we are developing plans. Quite rightly, those are the focus. We have published information on which plans we will bring forward. That is by no means the absolutely definitive and final list of FMPs, but we have set out a timescale for that, which we hope will be extended.

I hope that, as I just outlined in relation to wrasse, if measures need to be taken with any stock, we do not need an FMP in place to do that. However, if it turns out that it would be beneficial to produce an FMP, we will consider that. We know that other authorities are considering plans for other species, and we want to have a look at that. If there is learning that we can take for our approach in Scotland, we will do that. I emphasise that, as Jane said in a previous response, despite all the legislation and regulation that we have in place at the moment, if we need to take action or if there is more work to be done, we can do that, as I hope you have seen with not just wrasse but other species that we have talked about in the committee previously.

In relation to some of the points that you have raised, perhaps Jane MacPherson can talk a bit more about the process of the plan. The JFS has ultimately set out the criteria by which we determine what plans we are going to bring forward and within what timescale.

I do not agree with some of the evidence that says that there is no action on fisheries in the absence of an FMP. I would absolutely refute that, because we have a suite of management measures in place. We also have a range of work on-going in relation to how we manage our fisheries, whether that relates to inshore fisheries or the on-going work on the fisheries management measures for marine protected areas and priority marine features. I do not agree with those assertions, because the situation does not prevent us from undertaking any of the work that we are doing already.

As I said in my opening comments, we have specific obligations and there are some things that we have to set out in FMPs, but they are really about setting out in a more transparent way all the work that we are doing. The FMPs pull together a lot of that work and are an additional tool rather than something that is completely absent at the moment. I want to be clear on that.

Jane MacPherson will be able to talk through the estimated times for each of the stages. As I set out, there will be engagement with stakeholders, assessments need to take place and we will need to have discussions with the other Administrations. There will then be a consultation and then a redraft before we publish the final FMPs. We believe that the additional two-year timescale that we have set out allows us enough time to work through those processes. Jane MacPherson can talk through how that timescale and timetable are looking as a result.

You mentioned the FMPs that have been published by other Administrations. As Jane set out, some of those were the front-runner FMPs. It is important to point out that we have to work through our processes. Although some FMPs have been published, all Administrations are finding themselves in the same position and need additional time for the remaining FMPs that are in annex A.

As you will see from the evidence that the committee received, there has been some criticism of the early drafts that have been shared with stakeholders. As Jane MacPherson outlined, there were initial discussions with stakeholders to consider what FMPs might look like and what information they would contain. We fully intend to have that discussion with stakeholders again, as only very initial drafts were shared with them. There will, of course, be future drafts, and we will continue those discussions. The additional time is needed to enable that to happen in a meaningful way.

The plans are very much complementary to what we are doing. They will be helpful in setting out, in a more transparent way, how we manage our fisheries; they will make that a lot clearer for people.

I mentioned that we already have a number of strands of work under way, which will all add to the sustainable management of our fisheries. On some of the work that the committee has already dealt with, I note that I appeared in front of the committee to discuss our proposals for remote electronic monitoring. We also had the consultation on the wider roll-out of the vessel monitoring system. I know that concerns were raised in some of the stakeholder evidence about bycatch and about how we were looking to tackle the issues. We consulted on the future catching policy a couple of years ago and have been developing work on that to tackle some of the challenges that we know exist.

The FMP process does not stop any of that work happening. It will happen anyway, because we know that we can always improve, which is what we always strive to do. We were the first nation in the European Union to lead on REM work; it is really quite exciting in that regard.

As with anything, we know that there is more work to do, and that is why we are continuing those strands of work.

I also mentioned the work that is being done to deliver the fisheries management measures for the MPAs and the priority marine features, which has been on-going. That is another big and complex piece of work, given the number of sites that are involved.

All of that will continue and I think that it will very much complement what is happening with the FMP process. It will draw some of that together throughout that process.

I do not know whether Jane MacPherson wants to add anything further.