Analysis of consultation responses
The consultation described three options:

Option 1. The discard transfer is allocated to Producer Organisations on a predefined basis, and is thereafter fully under their control;

Option 2. The discard transfer is allocated to Producer Organisations once they have
met conditions that are defined by the Scottish Government; or,

Option 3. The discard transfer is retained nationally and allocated to individual
vessels that pursue agreed objectives.
Overview
Of the 40 respondents, 33 (83%) supported option 1. 5 respondents supported option 2 and
2 respondents supported option 3.
Supported Option by Number of Respondents
35
30
33
25
20
15
10
2
5
5
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 1. The discard transfer is allocated to Producer Organisations on a pre-defined
basis, and is thereafter fully under their control
Responses to the consultation revealed strong majority support for option 1 – that the
discard transfer is allocated to Producer Organisations (PO) on a on a pre-defined basis,
and is thereafter fully under their control. 83% of responses were in favour of this approach.
Arguments for allocating the discard transfer quota to POs focused on their experience in
managing and allocating quota.
Support for Option 1: Respondents by Group
0
Local Authority
1
Fishing Association
4
Agent
21
Vessel Owner
7
PO
0
NGO
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of Respondents
Excerpts from a number of responses to illustrate these arguments:
“POs and PO managers have the best knowledge to handle the additional quota.”
(Fishing vessel owner).
“POs are the obvious choice due to their experiencing in allocating and the transfer of
quota.” (Fishing vessel owner).
“the certainty of a fixed starting point will allow a better degree of fishery planning for
POs and their membership.” (Don Fishing).
In allocating the discard transfer between the POs, of the 33 respondents that supported
option 1, 8 specified that the FQA holdings of licensees in POs’ membership should be used
as the basis of allocation. 1 respondent favoured an approach that would allocate the
discard transfer between POs based on an index of landings and quota uptake. 2 gave no
view as to how the allocation should take place.
Respondents that favoured an approach that allocated the discard transfer between POs on
another basis, such as landings, referred to the potential for the use of FQAs holdings to
“exacerbate the problem…only serve to benefit quota traders”. (Scottish Fishermen’s
Organisation). The suggested use of a landings/quota uptake index was seen to “meet the
majority of Scottish Government objectives: it is relatively easy to administer [and] reduces
the possibility of the uplift becoming a speculative asset.” (Scottish Fishermen’s
Organisation).
Of the 33 respondents in support of option 1, 21 respondents recommended that allocation
on the basis of the FQA holdings be made subject to additional conditions. Several
respondents in this category defined their response to the consultation as indicating a mixed
approach based on options 1 and 2. These have been included in the option 1 category and
differentiated from option 2 as the conditions referred to did not involve conditions defined by
the Government. The majority referred to conditions decided by POs and included allocation
to:

Those with a permanent or semi-permanent interest in the active fishing industry
(13 respondents);

Vessels affected by the landing obligation (9 respondents);

Members that need quota the most (5 respondents);

Members on the basis of recent landings (1 respondent); and/or,

Members on the basis of their members’ track record of discarding (1
respondent).
The condition most commonly referred to - that POs allocated their FQA-derived share to
vessels in their membership that can demonstrate a permanent or semi-permanent active
link to the fishing industry – was stated by one respondent as a way to “prevent the uplift
from becoming an intangible asset which could be transferred by third parties not associated
with the landing obligation.” (Aberdeen Fish Producer Organisation).
Within the practical and administrative aspects identified in relation to option 1, two further
issues were raised. The first concerned the need for POs to receive “powers though
government to restrict individual vessels in order to protect other members interests.”
(Donald Anderson, Fishing vessel owner). 13 respondents referred to this condition when
discussing their support for option 1.
“POs ability to control this would be greatly enhanced with the introduction of the
suspension of individual licences.” (Fishing vessel owner).
“The introduction of new PO powers is essential… increased management
responsibilities and tools for the POs in order that we can operate quickly and
effectively in real time.” (Scottish PO).
The second most common condition referred to was for a pre-2016 FQA reconciliation
exercise to take place. 7 respondents referred to this condition. The rationale given for this
was “in order to make the allocation of the discard transfer more appropriate, relevant and
accurate” (Fishing Vessel Owner).
Option 2. The discard transfer is allocated to Producer Organisations once they have
met conditions that are defined by the Scottish Government
5 respondents supported option 2. Responses in this category differed from those supporting
option 1 with conditionality in that they either suggested processes that went beyond how the
POs should internally allocate their share of the discard transfer or proposed specific tools
and programmes to be employed by the POs. Responses referred to a “structured approach
with certain mandatory conditions” (Shetland Fish Producer’s Organisation).
Support for Option 2: Respondents by Group
1
Local Authority
Fishing Association
0
Agent
0
Vessel Owner
0
3
PO
1
NGO
0
2
4
6
8
10
Number of Respondents
Referring to the initial allocation of the discard transfer between POs, 2 respondents
supported the use of FQA holdings of licensees in POs’ membership. 2 respondents in
support of option 2 gave no preference and 1 “propose[d] a system whereby the discard
transfer is allocated to POs on the basis of their members’ needs…reflect fishing patterns,
geographical sensitivities and the distribution of fish stocks.” (Shetland Fish Producer
Organisation).
The arguments in support of option 2 focuses upon the opportunity this approach offered to
support innovation, positive behavioural change and in facilitating vessels in meeting the
requirements of the landing obligation. Excerpts from a number of responses to illustrate
these arguments:
“[Option 2] provides an opportunity to increase innovation…to use quota as a positive
economic incentive to drive industry sustainability as well as help professionalise
areas of the sector that need further support [and] a good opportunity to drive high
performance standards amongst Producer Organisations” (Environmental Defense
Fund).
“to give the most vulnerable vessels and sectors an opportunity to meet the
requirements of the landing obligation…to create conditions which actively support
changes in practice over a period of time”. (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar).
“to mitigate the impacts of the landing obligation on individual member vessels”.
(Shetland Fish Producers Organisation).
The responses included examples of conditionality against which access to discard transfer
quota could be assessed. These included: selectivity improvement, additional catch
monitoring, local buffer/risk pools, participation in new trials, adherence to spatial
management tools. 3 respondents referred to POs operating local buffer pools.
Excerpts from a number of responses to illustrate these arguments:
“it would be for the government to determined conditions on the PO that would
achieve the government’s desired outcome… Key objective [for conditions] is to have
the quota passed on to the active fleet with no cost burden.” (Klondyke Producer
Organisation).
“POs would…consider a common, structured approach with certain mandatory
conditions as being appropriate to ensure effective utilisation of the discard transfer.”
(Shetland Fish Producer Organisation).
“The discard transfer should be used to create buffer pools… to mitigate the impacts
of the landing obligation on individual member vessels [and]… should remain distinct
from the FQA holdings of individual members….individuals should not be permitted
to buy, sell or lease discard transfer holdings.”(Shetland Fish Producer Organisation).
Practical and administrative aspects
Three clear concerns regarding practical and administrative aspects of how option 2 would
operate were conveyed. The first outlined the need for a provision to enable POs to transfer
or swap allocated shares of the discard transfer in order to support flexibility and the
movement of quota.
“[To] achieve the desired level of flexibility…[there] will need to be a mechanism for
inter-PO transfers of the discard transfer quota…sanctioned on a temporary in-year
basis” and a
“provision for POs to transfer or swap discards transfer quota on a non-commercial
basis.” (Shetland Fish Producers Organisation).
The second comment referred to the need to consider and frame conditionality to support
and avoid interfering with local community quota schemes already in operation. The third
practical aspect was that the conditions set should be “high level to enable each PO the
opportunity to design a system that best suits the catching profile of its members”.
(Environment Defense Fund).
Option 3. The discard transfer is retained nationally and allocated to individual
vessels that pursue agreed objectives
Of the 40 responses to the consultation, 2 respondents supported option 3 – that the discard
transfer is retained nationally and allocated to individual vessels that pursue agreed
objectives.
Support for Option 3: Respondents by Group
Local Authority
0
Fishing Association
0
Agent
0
Vessel Owner
0
PO
0
2
NGO
0
2
4
6
Number of Respondents
8
10
The arguments for this approach focused on the potential of this option to create a national
reserve of quota to be used to incentivise changes in fishing practices that support the
landing obligation. Excerpts from a number of responses illustrate these arguments:
“the main objective of retaining and managing the discards transfer centrally should
be to incentivise the most sustainable fishing practices by Scottish vessels… now,
more than ever, there is a need to demonstrate innovation and that applying option
one could represent a ‘business as usual’ approach which we do not believe makes
the best use of this opportunity in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
consultation.” (World Wildlife Fund).
“a main objective in allocating the discard transfer should be to incentivise changes in
fishing practice that support the landing obligation……This ‘extra quota’ must be
considered as a national reserve, the allocation of which must be used to incentivise
sustainable fishing practice and so benefit wider society while smoothing Scotland’s
transition to being discard free”. (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds).
In terms of how the nationally retained quota should be held and allocated to individual
vessels, both responses referred to the creation of a system similar to the Scottish
Conservation Credits Scheme.
“We envisage that a system not dissimilar to the Scottish Conservation Credit
Scheme could be established in order to administer the quota… quota could be
allocated to vessels which are able to demonstrate that they have deployed
appropriate behaviour and gear change in response to the challenges of meeting the
landing obligation.” (WWF).
“Conditionality must be associated with driving behavioural change, or projects and
activities which incentives such practices.. A ‘Scottish Quota Credits Scheme’ could
award preferential use of quota to vessels which demonstrate they have done
everything possible to avoid catching unwanted fish… The SCCS earned the Scottish
industry and Scottish Government well-deserved recognition and acclaim… A
Scottish Quota Credits Scheme could bring similar commendation by again show
casing Scotland’s innovative approaches to sustainable management to the media
and wider public at home and abroad.” (RSPB).
While it was accepted by both respondents that option 3 would pose an administrative
burden on Marine Scotland it was felt this was justifiable on account Marine Scotland’s
capability and responsibility for managing Scottish natural resources.
“We feel this is an approach that Marine Scotland would be capable of dealing with
effectively given the initiative that have been taken in recent years and with the
support of the existing Scottish stakeholder process.” (WWF)
“Option 3 could prove administratively complex and result in increased costs to the
Scottish Government. However, it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to
manage our natural resources sustainably and to ensure that the Scottish
Government’s wider objectives are met.” (RSPB)
Responses to Question 9. ‘What period (years) should the policy be in place for?’
The responses to question 9, concerning the period over which the policy should be in place
for, indicated two general trends in the responses can be identified. The first is that the
policy is subject to annual reviews. The second is that the policy runs at least for the
introductory years of the landing obligation (2016-2019) with several responses suggested a
long-term policy covering the duration of the discard plan.