FMAC/12/23
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION (FMAC) GROUP
MINUTE OF MEETING HELD ON 30 AUGUST 2012 IN THE THISTLE ALTENS
HOTEL, ABERDEEN
SUMMARY OF ACTION POINTS:
No. ACTION
1.
Cabinet Secretary to be invited to next meeting.
2.
Comments from WWF Scotland on risks of using
FCAP to be included in minute of 24 April 2012
meeting.
3.
Marine Scotland to work with industry
representatives to consider whether arguments
could be developed to support a transfer of effort
from TR2 to TR1 to address any emerging TR1
effort pressures.
4.
Producer Organisations to provide example of
apparent mis-recording of catches.
5.
Develop an outcomes-based case to the
European Commission to introduce flexibility to
transfer effort between geographical areas in our
waters. Propose flexibility for UK waters only on
the basis we would comply with certain
conservation conditions (highly selective gears,
spatial measures, etc) as a quid pro quo;
concept
could
be
extended
to
other
Member States if they complied with the same
conditionality.
6.
Work up a rationale for responding to the ICES
advice on North Sea cod which places the pace
of change for cod recovery on a longer time
frame and allows for a mitigation in the reduction
to avoid widespread discarding.
7.
Consider further the proposal from Orkney FA to
allow access to Real Time Closures for vessels
not targeting cod or haddock.
8.
Revised Deep Water Line co-ordinates to be
included in next revision of Scheme rules.
9.
TR1.5 proposal from Shetland to be raised as
part of discussions at ICES Cod Information Day.
10. List of Fishing Industry Science Alliance (FISA)
proposals to be circulated.
A3912572
1
RESPONSIBILITY
Secretariat.
Secretariat.
Marine Scotland
industry.
and
Producer Organisations.
Marine Scotland
industry.
and
Marine Scotland
industry.
and
Marine Scotland.
Marine Scotland.
Marine Scotland.
Marine Scotland Science.
FMAC/12/23
1.
Welcome, introduction and apologies
1.
Neil Hornby, Head of Sea Fisheries Conservation, and Andrew Clayton, Head
of the CFP Reform Team, from DEFRA were introduced as observers along with
Jim Watson, Head of Fisheries Reform at Marine Scotland. Simon Dryden was also
observing on behalf of Marine Scotland Compliance colleagues.
2.
Apologies were received from Alistair Sinclair, Robert Stevenson and
Mireille Thom.
3.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation reported a heightening distress level in
the fishing industry. The revision of the Cod Recovery Plan (CRP) was vital to the
future of the industry, especially the target of obtaining an effort freeze. It was
requested that the Cabinet Secretary be invited to the next meeting of the Group to
hear the main message that currently things were “not business as usual”.
Marine Scotland recognised the pressures being placed on the industry and were
lobbying the European Commission on reform of the Cod Recovery Plan. In
September the EC proposals for a revised CRP would be made known. The voice
from Scotland would be strongest if presented as a joint position with industry.
Marine Scotland had left the Commission in no doubt that an effort freeze was the
top priority but recent developments concerning changed fishing patterns in the TR2
feet suggested further flexibilities should be pursued. Marine Scotland would
continue to make strong representations to the EC on the relationship between ‘F’
and effort; flexibility; socio-economic factors; and exceptional circumstances.
ACTION POINT 1: Secretariat
2.
Minutes of previous meetings
2.1
24 April 2012 meeting in Aberdeen
4.
Comments had been received from WWF Scotland on the risks of including
FCAP as a highly selective gear option while scientific trials remained incomplete.
This would be clarified prior to the minute being finalised. Subject to that
clarification, the minute was agreed. The minute of the TR1 Sub Group was also
agreed.
ACTION POINT 2: Secretariat
2.2
5.
13 June 2012 meeting in Edinburgh
The minute of the meeting was agreed.
6.
It was noted that proposals for restricting fishing with TR2 gear on the West
Coast, discussed at the FMAC conference call convened at short notice on 27 July,
did not have the agreement of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the Mallaig
and North West Fishermen’s Association.
3.
Matters arising
3.1
A3912572
Action points from previous meetings
2
FMAC/12/23
3.1.1 24 April 2012 meeting
7.
Action point 2 on the minimum landing size for Nephrops tails had been
included in the creel limits consultation recently issued by Marine Scotland. Action
points 5 (frustration at hold up of Inshore Management Plan by SNH) and 7 (shared
understanding of gear conflict) would be discussed further during this FMAC meeting
on 31 August. Action point 10 on escapement potential of combined TR1 selective
gear options remained ongoing.
3.1.2 13 June 2012 meeting
8.
Action point 1, monitoring of effort uptake on the West Coast, was ongoing.
Action point 2 had been cleared with a revised version of the rules issued on
25 June.
4.
Effort uptake 2012
9.
With the temporary restrictions for fishing with TR2 gear on the West Coast
having come into force on 1 August it is expected North Sea TR2 effort uptake will
start to increase. Modelling of TR2 effort uptake on the West Coast indicated that it
had continued largely as projected in July and therefore even with the temporary
restrictions in place an end year overshoot on the Scottish control total remains very
likely. As noted in the telephone conference of 27 July, Marine Scotland held in
reserve the option of enforcing an Area VIa sea area closure after the Christmas
market, possibly reopening in January when the final calendar year position is
known.
Marine Scotland were working to contain any UK overshoot within
5 per cent.
10.
There was no real change to TR1 projections. However, as noted in the draft
letter to affected skippers tabled at the meeting, it was expected that core (Article 12)
TR1 effort on the West Coast would be exhausted towards the end of October or at
the beginning of November. It was noted that the buy-back of 50 per cent of effort
expended south of 59 degrees latitude on the West Coast had not significantly
changed fishing patterns in the way expected by Marine Scotland and SFF and this
meant the overall control total had not increased in the fashion hoped for.
11.
TR2 effort uptake in the Irish Sea would be monitored following a small but
significant increase in uptake.
12.
It was suggested by SFF that unused North Sea TR2 effort might be
transferred to TR1 vessels to alleviate the TR1 effort shortage. Marine Scotland
noted that TR2 vessels had effort to spare as a result of supplementary Article 12
allocations secured through conservation measures and that a view could be taken
that this effort should be available to TR2 vessels only, rather than available to TR1
vessels who were not fishing with gears with equivalent cod escapement potential.
However Marine Scotland agreed to work with the SFF to consider whether an
arguments could be developed to support a transfer of effort from TR2 to TR1 to
address any emerging TR1 effort pressures.
ACTION POINT 3: Marine Scotland
A3912572
3
FMAC/12/23
13.
In considering the impact on a potential shift of TR1 effort from West to East
clarification was sought on catch recording between ICES Areas IV and VI. It was
suggested that Producer Organisations provide examples that could then be
investigated.
ACTION POINT 4: Producer Organisations
14.
The meeting also discussed the issue of transferring effort between sea
areas, which the CRP does not permit. But it was agreed that there was potential for
a case to be made to the European Commission to introduce greater flexibility. This
would need to be conditional on measures to ensure conservation objectives were
met. The concept could then be extended to other Member States should they
comply with the same conditionality. Marine Scotland undertook to develop this
proposal.
ACTION POINT 5: Marine Scotland
15.
Recording of time at sea through eLogs was raised as an issue for the sectors
of industry most affected by the restrictions in place for fishing with TR2 gear on the
West of Scotland.
Issues with landing declarations were also raised.
Marine Scotland reported that the current transitional period for introducing eLogs
had highlighted some teething troubles particularly in the West, although there had
been significant success introducing eLogs on the East Coast and in Shetland.
There appeared to be particular challenges on the West that were difficult to
pinpoint. Dual use of eLogs and paper log books had been allowed as a way of
easing the transition and the number of problem cases was reducing week by week.
SFF members requested flexibility as eLogs issues had removed the ability to
accurately record time at sea including use of non-designated landing ports for part
landings.
16.
Marine Scotland undertook to provide clarity in response to the issues raised.
Although new software which would help to better validate data was due imminently
it was agreed these discussions would continue outwith the Group. Objections to the
current situation were noted.
5.
Update on TR2 Highly Selective Gear
17.
Marine Scotland reported that trials of the FCAP gear had now been
completed, where an amended version of the gear had met the target of a
60 per cent reduction in cod catches when compared to standard TR2 gear. This
was achieved by increasing the fish outlet holes. The Group were requested to
agree the relevant changes to the Scheme rules to introduce this amended gear as a
highly selective gear option. SFF asked that adjustments be made to the addition of
outlet holes (to move them closer to the top of the net) to ensure that their
positioning did not threaten the prawn catching capacity of the gear. Marine Scotland
agreed that this new design should be trialled as soon as possible, with a view to
demonstrating effectiveness both in terms of cod avoidance (60% + reduction in cod
catches). The results of such a trial could then be put to STECF, as well as the
results of the now completed trial. The meeting also noted the Marine Scotland
proposal to decrease the size of the mesh in the fish escape panel, but did not agree
it. The proposal was not pursued.
A3912572
4
FMAC/12/23
18.
Marine Scotland noted that a risk had been taken by all parties in making the
FCAP gear available without the final version having been fully tested. In
concluding, Marine Scotland noted that it would continue to keep the
European Commission informed of developments in Scottish highly selective gears.
6.
Cod management for 2013
19.
Following ICES advice for a reduction in 2013 North Sea cod quota of
20 per cent initial thoughts were requested in coming to an agreed position ahead of
December Council. Although this signified a large reduction it was noted that
North Sea cod TACs had been at a lower level in 2007-08 so this was not
unprecedented. Following through with a 20% reduction in the North Sea cod TAC
was highly likely, if there was no substantial increase in cod avoidance, to lead to
widespread cod discarding and to force the cessation of the catch quota scheme in
2013. There was some discussion of what Scotland’s response to the advice should
be and it was agreed that a strategic approach should be developed, in consultation
with DEFRA, which argued the case for adjusting the pace of change for achieving
cod MSY, thereby securing a mitigation in the TAC reduction.
ACTION POINT 6: Marine Scotland
7.
Access to Real Time Closures (RTCs) for vessels not targeting cod and
haddock
20.
Orkney Fisheries Association introduced the paper seeking access to RTCs
for vessels targeting monkfish and megrims as an opportunity to reward good fishing
behaviour and to allow the continuation of fishing opportunities.
21.
The principle of the RTC scheme is to encourage good behaviour the Group
should be cautious about setting precedents that may cause the system to be
abused. There are measures already available to avoid catching cod that would
reduce the likelihood of certain RTCs coming into force. It was further explained that
should the proposal be agreed, the entire prawn fleet would have a case for
accessing RTCs making the system complicated to manage. RTCs can be modified
to allow for fishing in areas of lower cod abundance and Marine Scotland are able to
make these adjustments quickly.
22.
The Group agreed there were a number of issues to be clarified and
considered before a formal decision could be made.
ACTION POINT 7: Marine Scotland
8.
Research into future management of Scottish fishing opportunities
23.
Marine Scotland notified the Group of a proposed research project to inform
thinking on options for the management and allocation of quota. This would
underpin policy discussions on quota management with a body of evidence and
would not duplicate work already carried out in previous years, which had taken the
form of a consultation on policy proposals rather than academic research.
A3912572
5
FMAC/12/23
24.
The industry members of the Group were concerned that this research could
destabilise the industry and lead to speculation which might affect the willingness of
financial institutions to provide the industry with necessary credit. Marine Scotland
undertook to relay these comments back to the Cabinet Secretary.
9.
Any other business
Reputational management
25.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation suggested that the reputation of
fishermen should be realigned in a similar fashion to the change in reputation now
enjoyed by farmers, who tend to be seen in a positive light as stewards of their
sector. Help was requested from all members of the Group in pursuing this change.
This would help allay many mistruths about the fishing industry.
Revised Deep Water Line co-ordinates and TR1.5
26.
Revised Deep Water Line co-ordinates were circulated in FMAC/12/22 which
refined the line using various software packages. The Group agreed the revised
co-ordinates should be included in a revised version of the Scheme rules.
ACTION POINT 8: Marine Scotland
27.
The Shetland Fishermen’s Association reiterated their proposal for an
allowance for fishing in certain areas of lower cod abundance around Shetland.
While the ratio of the saving of cod stocks against the reward offered for fishing in
these areas still had potential to be a sticking point, the issue would be discussed as
part of the ‘Cod Information Day’.
ACTION POINT 9: Marine Scotland
FISA (Fishing Industry Science Alliance)
28.
The FISA (successor to SISP - Scottish Industry/Science Partnership)
Steering Group would meet shortly to develop themes and bids for science projects.
A list of project proposals would be circulated to the Group with a call issued before
the end of September with a view to bids being submitted by the end of October to
allow projects to get underway in November. It may be necessary to convene a
group of experts to evaluate projects. Communications around FISA would
commence early next year.
ACTION POINT 10: Marine Scotland Science
29.
The Chair of the Scottish Seafood Partnership (Iain MacSween) reported on
the meeting of that Group held the day before.
A3912572
6
FMAC/12/23
10.
Dates of future meetings
30.
Dates of future meetings remain as circulated on 28 June:
 21 November 2012, dependant on the dates of negotiations;
 tentatively 19 December 2012, dependant on the dates of Fisheries
Council negotiations; and,
 16 January 2013.
FMAC Secretariat
Marine Scotland
November 2012
A3912572
7