Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Jane will probably want to come in on that, as she deals more with the day-to-day of this than I do. An example that I would highlight is the interim measures that were introduced for the inshore fisheries this year, which were on the back of evidence that we received. We cannot forget the forums that exist to discuss matters with our stakeholders. We hear about issues through our regional inshore fisheries groups or the inshore sub-group of the FMAC. All the issues are discussed in those forums, and that is where some of the measures that we have taken have come from.

Do you have anything to add to that, Jane?

Yes, I would be happy to.

As I outlined in a previous response, we know that a range of different issues led to the delay. It is not necessarily just a resource problem.

As both Jane MacPherson and I have outlined already, this—all the steps that we have had to go through and that we still need to go through—is a completely new process. Again, even though the Scottish Government is leading on them, they are joint plans, so we still must have those discussions with other Administrations. Those discussions, by their very nature, take time and will continue to do so, which is why we are looking for the extension.

We have discussed budget and resources during my past few appearances at the committee. There is probably no part of Government that would say that it could not do with more budget and resource. As with all other areas, we are working within the best resources available.

Like the other Administrations, we have had to ask for an extended timeline to allow us to complete that process. However, we believe that it can be achieved within the additional time, if that is agreed.

I will touch on that first, and then Jane may have more to add.

How the fisheries management plans relate to the fisheries objectives is set out in the JFS. It states that:

“The design and structure of FMPs directly relate to the sustainability, precautionary, scientific evidence, ecosystem and equal access fisheries objectives by delivering sustainable fisheries”

and some of the other issues that are covered in there. It also states that FMPs can also address the wider objectives.

I would fully expect how we are looking to achieve the objectives in the 2020 act to be set out in the fisheries management plans.

We could do that.