Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Area Fisheries Management Plan for the
South East Inshore Fisheries Group
(Document 2)
APPENDICES
June 2012
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table of Contents
Page
Area Fisheries Management Plan for the South East Inshore
Fisheries Group (Document 1) (See separate document)
/
ACCRONYMS
6
APPENDIX A The Formation of Scottish Inshore
Fisheries Groups
7
A1. Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland
A2. Formation and Structure of Inshore Fisheries Groups
A3. Scottish Government Fisheries Policy
A4. Inshore Fisheries Groups Early Policy Review
by Marine Scotland
A5. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
A6. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Plans and Projects
7
8
9
APPENDIX B The South East Inshore Fisheries Group
14
B1. Geographic Area and Scope for Fisheries Management
B2. Composition of the SEIFG Executive Committee
B3. Meetings of the SEIFG Executive Committee
B4. Scope of the Work Undertaken by the SEIFG Executive Committee
B5. Composition of the SEIFG Advisory Group
14
14
15
15
16
APPENDIX C Characteristics of the SEIFG Operational Area
17
C1. Overview of the Marine Region
C2. The SEIFG Area Coastal and Marine Natural Environment
C2.4 Priority Marine Features and Marine Protected Areas
C3. The South East Scotland Transitional and Coastal Waters
C4. Marine Strategy Framework Directive
C5. The SEIFG Area Shellfish Harvesting Waters
C6. Fisheries Legislation and Closures within the SEIFG Area
C7. Marine Renewable Energy Developments within the SEIFG Area
 Developers Uptake of the Sectoral Plan for Marine
Wind Energy
 Limitations of the Plan for Wind Energy in STWs
 Wider Marine Renewables Implications for Fisheries
 Pentland Firth Renewable Energy Developments- Implications
for SEIFG
C8. Ministry of Defence Marine Activity
C9. Ports and Harbour Facilities for Inshore Fishing Vessels
 Buyers and Sellers Legislation and Designated Markets
 Fish Buyers, Processors and Distributors
17
18
30
31
33
34
35
39
10
11
12
41
42
43
43
44
45
48
48
2
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
page
APPENDIX D Official Fisheries Statistics for the SEIFG Area
51
D1. Introduction
D2. Employment in the Scottish Fish Catching Industry
D3. Regional Fishing Activity within the SEIFG Area
D4. Regional Fishing Fleet Structure
51
51
53
57
APPENDIX E Profile of Local Fisheries within the SEIFG Area
59
E1. Fisheries Currently Prosecuted
E1.1 Nephrops
E1.2 Lobster
E1.3 Brown Crab
E1.4 Velvet Crab
E1.5 King Scallop
E1.6 Mackerel
E1.7 Squid
E1.8 Surf Clam
E1.9 Razor Fish
E1.10 Whelk
E1.11 Atlantic Salmon
E2. Fish Species Currently Unexploited
E2.1 Sprat
E2.2 Bivalve Shellfish Stocks – St Andrews Bay
E3. Potential Management Measures to Improve the Fisheries
E3.1 The SEIFG Area Creel Fishery
E3.2 SEIFG Process of Developing New Fisheries
59
59
61
62
64
66
66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
69
69
71
APPENDIX F Scientific Assessment of Fish and Shellfish Stocks 74
F1. Introduction
F2. Marine Scotland – Science Shellfish Stock Assessment Areas
F3. Marine Scotland Shellfish Stock Assessment Advice
F3.1.1 Nephrops
F3.1.2 Crab and Lobster
F3.1.3 King Scallop
F3.1.4 Other Shellfish
74
76
79
79
81
83
83
APPENDIX G Sustainable Fisheries and their Management
84
G1. United Nations Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
84
G2. Marine Stewardship Council and Fisheries Accreditation
105
3
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
FIGURES
Page
Figure C1. Scottish Territorial Waters Offshore Wind Farms
41
Figure D1. ICES Statistical Rectangles and the Boundaries of the
Inshore Fisheries Groups.
54
Figure E1. Nephrops Landings into Pittenweem Fishery District 1999-2009
60
Figure E2. Nephrops Landings into Eyemouth Fishery District 1999-2009
60
Figure E3. Lobster landings into Pittenweem District 2000-2009
62
Figure E4. Lobster Landings into Eyemouth District for the
Period 2006-2009
62
Figure E5. Brown Crab Landings into Pittenweem Fishery
District 1999-2009
63
Figure E6. Brown Crab landings into Eyemouth Fishery District 1999-2009 64
Figure E7. Velvet Crab Landings into Pittenweem Fishery
District 2004-2009
65
Figure E8. Velvet Crab Landings into Eyemouth Fishery District 2006-2009 65
Figure E9. Velvet Crab Landings into Arbroath/Montrose Ports 2004-2009
66
Figure F1. ICES Fisheries Management Divisions Around the UK
75
Figure F2. Nephrops MS-S Stock Assessment Areas
76
Figure F3. Brown Crab, Velvet Crab, and Lobster MS-S Stock
Assessment Areas
77
Figure F4. Scallop MS-S Stock Assessment Areas
78
Figure F5. Nephrops Abundance in the Firth of Forth
80
Figure F6. Firth of Forth TV Survey Distribution and Relative
Density of Nephrops 2008-2009
81
4
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
TABLES
page
Table C1. Fishery Acts and Statutory Instruments in Force and
Relevant to Fisheries in the SEIFG Area.
36
Table C2. Prohibitions within the SEIFG Area under the
Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Order 2004.
38
Table C3. Potential Wind Farm Development Sites within the East Coast
Region
42
Table C4. Numbers and Types of Processing Companies and Employees
Based in the South-East of Scotland
49
Table C5. Number of Fish Processing Companies Handling Specific
Seafood Types and Based in the South-East of Scotland
50
Table D1. Value of Scottish Based Vessel Landings into Selected
Regions of Scotland, in Relation to the Labour Force and
Fishermen Employed During 2009.
52
Table D2. Numbers of Fishermen Working from SEIFG Area
Harbours in 2009
53
Table D3. Number of Voyages Ending in Districts and Landings
into Fishery Districts Within the SEIFG Area During 2009
55
Table D4. Landings of Individual Species into Eyemouth and
Pittenweem Fishery Districts and Arbroath and Montrose
by Tonnage and Value During 2009
55
Table D5. Numbers and Length Groups of Active Scottish Based Vessels
by Base Fishery Districts Within the SEIFG Area in 2009
57
Table D6. Distribution of Creel Vessels by Port and Numbers
Within the SEIFG Area
58
Table E1. Sprat Landings into Eyemouth, Leith, and
Pittenweem Districts 1971-1982
68
5
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
ACCRONYMS
CPA
EA
EFF
EIA
EMF
EU
FEPA
FMAC
FMP
GES
HLO
HRA
ICES
IFCA
IFG
MLS
MOD
MPA
MSA
MSFD
MS-C
MS-S
MS-P
MSP
NGO
nm
NMP
OFTO
PAS
PMF
SAC
SEA
SEIFG
SEPA
SFC
SI
SIFAG
SISP
SMR
SNH
SPA
SSP
SSSI
STW
TAC
WFD
Coast Protection Act (1949)
Environmental Assessment
European Fisheries Fund
Environmental Impact Assessment
Electro - Magnetic Field
European Union
Food and Environment Protection Act (1985)
Fisheries Management and Conservation (Group)
Fisheries Management Plan
Good Environmental Status
High Level Objective
Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appropriate Assessment)
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas
Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (England)
Inshore Fisheries Group
Minimum (Legal) Landing Size
Ministry of Defence
Marine Protected Area
Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Marine Scotland - Compliance
Marine Scotland – Science
Marine Scotland – Policy
Marine Spatial Planning
Non-Governmental Organisation
Nautical Mile
National Marine Plan (MSA)
Offshore Transmission Operators
Post Adoption Statement (SEA)
Priority Marine Feature (MPA)
Special Area of Conservation (Natura Site)
Strategic Environmental Assessment
South East Inshore Fisheries Group
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Scottish Fisheries Council
Statutory Instrument
Scottish Inshore Fisheries Advisory Group
Scottish Industry Science Partnership
Scottish Marine Region (MSA)
Scottish Natural Heritage
Special Protection Area (Natura Site)
Scottish Seafood Partnership
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Scottish Territorial Waters (0-12nm)
Total Allowable Catch
Water Framework Directive
6
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX A
The Formation of Scottish Inshore Fisheries Groups
A1. Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland
A1.1 The strategic framework document “A Strategic Framework for Inshore
Fisheries in Scotland” was published by the Scottish Executive in 2005 and marked
the end of a strategic review of Scottish inshore fisheries which began in 2002. The
review was undertaken by the Scottish Inshore Fisheries Advisory Group (SIFAG)
and identified a strategic direction for inshore fisheries policy. This included the
establishment of a network of inshore fisheries groups (IFGs) around Scotland to
make local plans for the management of inshore fisheries. The policy document can
be found at www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/inshorefisheries/sifag
A1.2 The Scottish Inshore Fisheries Advisory Group was formed as a joint initiative
between the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Executive with a range
of fishing industry bodies and stakeholder interests participating including:
Sea Fish Industry Authority
Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Scottish Environment LINK
Scottish Natural Heritage
Fisheries Research Services (Scottish Executive)
Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (Scottish Executive)
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
A1.3 SIFAG was charged with establishing a set of High Level Objectives (HLOs) to
reflect shared goals for inshore fisheries throughout Scotland. These were;

Biological: to conserve, enhance and restore commercial stocks in the inshore
and its supporting ecosystem.

Economic: to optimise long term and sustained economic return to
communities dependent on inshore fisheries, and to promote quality initiatives.

Environmental: to maintain and restore the quality of the inshore marine
environment for fisheries and for wildlife.

Social: to recognise historic fishing practices and traditional ways of life in
managing inshore fisheries, to manage change, and to interact proactively with
other activities in the marine environment.

Governance: to develop and implement a transparent, accountable and
flexible management structure that places fishermen at the centre of the
decision making process and that is underpinned by adequate information,
legislation and enforcement.
7
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
A1.4 The governance objective was supported through the development of a
constitution in line with which each IFG was expected to conduct its business. The
constitution can be found at;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/inshorefisheries/ifgsmap
A2. Formation and Structure of Inshore Fisheries Groups
A2.1 The SIFAG constitution allows for an IFG to be structured on the basis of
membership being drawn from fishermen’s associations who are comprised of at least
ten owners of registered fishing vessels (and with at least one vessel fishing regularly
within the IFG area), an elected representative of non-affiliated fishermen fishing in
the area, an independent co-ordinator whose responsibility is to manage the group and
an independent Chair person. The Chair person is subject to an open selection process,
endorsed by the Group and appointed by Marine Scotland to hold office for three
years.
A2.2 The nominated representative of each fishermen’s association, the elected
representative of non-affiliated fishermen and the co-ordinator together with the Chair
person make up the Executive Committee which is charged with the running of the
IFG. Minutes of Executive Committee meetings are made publicly available at;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/inshorefisheries/ifgsmap
A2.3 The IFG through its Executive Committee has set objectives:
 To prepare, deliver, maintain and review management plans for the sustainable
exploitation, management and regulation of sea fisheries within the IFG area;
 To initiate and develop proposals which will serve in the implementation of
the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP);
 To assist Scottish Ministers in their task of creating a Scottish sea fishing
industry that is sustainable and profitable and supports strong local
communities, managed effectively as an integral part of coherent policies for
the marine environment.
A2.4 In the preparation of a FMP the Executive Committee should be advised and
assisted by an Advisory Group. The Group are to advise the Executive Committee in
the development of the FMP and any other proposal or initiative as appropriate. This
is with the aim of ensuring that the Executive Committee takes into account relevant
technical expertise, the wider national and international policy context and the views
of key stakeholders.
A2.5 The Advisory Group shall comprise a representative each from:
 Marine Scotland – Science
 Marine Scotland – Compliance
 Scottish Natural Heritage
 Scottish Environment Protection Agency
 Local Authorities with coastline in the area
 Relevant Enterprise Networks
 Sea Fish Industry Authority
 Seafood-Scotland
8
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012


An environmental non-governmental organisation which is in membership of
Scottish Environment LINK or as appropriate another environmental NGO
which the Executive Committee shall deem to be appropriate
Any other persons or bodies that the Executive Committee deem relevant to
provide advice.
A2.6 The first 3 pilot IFGs were constituted in January 2009 and encompassed the
Outer Hebrides, Clyde, and the South East of Scotland. Three further IFGs were
created in September 2009 and covered the North West, Mull and the Small Isles, and
the Moray Firth. Details of the relevant areas of coastline covered can be found at;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/inshorefisheries/ifgsmap
A3. Scottish Government Fisheries Policy
A3.1 The formation of IFGs with the objective of creating FMPs for inshore regions
of the Scottish coastline should be considered in the context of wider Scottish
Government fisheries policy. The Scottish Fisheries Council (SFC) was established as
a high level working group between Scottish Government and key stakeholder groups.
These included fish catching, processors, retailers, community representatives, fishery
scientists, policy makers, environmental groups, fisheries compliance and fish
industry representative bodies. Details of the activities of the former SFC can be
found at; WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/scottishfisheriescouncil
A3.2 The SFC instigated sub groups of specialists looking at fisheries management
issues on a Scotland wide basis and these consist of species groups for Langoustine
(Nephrops), Scallop, Crab and Lobster together with a generic grouping termed
Communities to consider impact of policy on fishing communities. While no formal
links were created between the SFC and the IFG network it was perceived that where
fisheries management issues had an over riding national or international perspective
the IFG FMP proposals would support or take account of the framework of measures
created to deal with national issues.
A3.3 During summer 2011 the Scottish Government announced the formation of a
new group to supersede the SFC as a way of streamlining liaison with the fishing
industry and statutory bodies with regard to all fisheries management considerations.
The Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (FMAC) was established with all
key industry sectors represented together with relevant statutory bodies and an NGO.
Chaired by Marine Scotland and constituted to allow co-management decision making
it has the ability to form time limited working groups to investigate and address issues
identified by the main Group. Linkage to the IFG network has been established
through the Scottish IFG Liaison Officer having a place on FMAC. The Scottish
Seafood Partnership (SSP) was established at the same time by Scottish Government
as a complementary group to FMAC charged with looking strategically at the supply
and demand side for fisheries products and ways in which Scottish fisheries resources
can be utilised to best effect for both the fish industry and related communities.
Details of the structure and activities together with Minutes of meetings for the
FMAC and SSP groups can be found at;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/fmac
9
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
A4. Inshore Fisheries Groups Early Policy Review by Marine Scotland
A4.1 The six pilot IFGs were the subject of an early policy review by Scottish
Government in the light of the original intention to create 12 IFGs covering the entire
Scottish coastline. The report “Inshore Fisheries Groups in Scotland: Early Review
and Policy Appraisal” can be found at;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/inshorefisheries
A4.2 The early policy review study was commissioned by Marine Scotland in April
2010 and undertaken by independent consultants who had a remit to:
 Assess the operations of the 6 established pilot IFGs
 Identify evidence of costs and benefits associated with their operations
 Determine if realistic alternatives to the IFG system could be identified
A4.3 The consultants summary findings with respect to costs and benefits based on
the limited time span the pilot IFGs had been in existence were:
 The IFG management process had potential to add value to the outputs from
inshore fisheries
 The direct economic benefits were difficult to quantify based on limited data
sources with good local resolution. In addition it was noted that benefits
arising from IFG activities would take time to be realised
 The potential long term benefit of effective inshore fisheries management
could amount to several £M / annum
A4.4 In terms of the future development of Scottish inshore fisheries management the
consultants put forward 3 possible models for consideration:
 Integrating IFGs with other coastal initiatives such as the Scottish Marine
Regions under the National Marine Plan delivered by the Marine (Scotland)
Act 2010.
 Evaluating the Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority approach as adopted
in England through the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. This was
noted to be an expensive option.
 Maintain the IFG concept while altering the total number of individual IFGs
required to cover the entire Scottish coastline. Through boundary changes it
was suggested that 6 or 7 IFGs could effectively manage the mainland and
island groups (excluding Shetland Isles).
The consultants also noted that to maintain management options for specific local
fisheries the ability for IFGs to utilise Regulating Orders as originally proposed in
the Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland document, should be
retained as an identified option.
A4.5 The consultants overall conclusions were that:
 The establishment of 6 or 7 IFGs for Scotland would maximise the cost to
benefit ratio of introducing inshore fisheries management.
 Possible amalgamation of IFGs with the administrative structures for Scottish
Marine Regions may have a cost benefit but this could only be established if
SMRs were created.
10
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012

Funding for IFGs should be maintained by Government for core
administrative functions and some associated project costs. However, seeking
funding for such core costs directly from industry was considered to be
discriminatory for those only able to prosecute inshore fisheries and that the
functioning and funding of IFGs should be reviewed by Government after a
period of 5years.
A4.6 Marine Scotland considered the consultants recommendations in the context of
developing fisheries management policy for Scottish inshore waters and with regard
to wider marine social, economic and environmental developments.
A4.7 In January 2012 Scottish Government announced a revised strategy for inshore
fisheries management and the development of the six pilot IFGs. This included the
proposal for the IFG network to cover the whole Scottish coastline; to work towards
their integration with marine planning partnerships established through the Marine
(Scotland) Act 2010 (see A5.), and to allow a greater degree of flexibility in the
membership of the Groups. The five main themes were;
 Continuing support for the IFG initiative including commencement of
implementation of the priorities identified in the fisheries management plans
 Obtaining the science and data required for effective management of the
fisheries
 Improved engagement with the static gear sector at both local and national
levels
 Formal consultation on proposals for creel controls
 A national conference on inshore fishing in Scotland
A5. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
A5.1 The appraisal of the potential future development of IFGs was undertaken by the
Scottish Government in the light of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 which seeks to
implement a system of marine planning for territorial waters out to 12nm. Devolved
responsibilities resulting from the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 also takes
marine planning, nature conservation, fisheries management and enforcement
considerations from 12 to 200nm. Details of the Marine Scotland Act and UK Marine
and Coastal Access Act can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seamanagement/marineact
A5.2 The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out to deliver within Scottish territorial
waters a system of marine planning, licensing and nature conservation which is
integrated with social and economic uses of the seas. In addition the Act seeks to
introduce specific measures for the conservation of seals and to enhance enforcement
powers for marine nature conservation and licensing within the 0 – 200nm zone
around Scotland. The licensing of fishing vessel activity is not part of the Act but the
impact of the industry on the marine environment is subject to appropriate controls
and safeguards.
A5.3 In the UK context the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 makes provision for
a UK wide Marine Policy Statement setting out high level objectives for the
sustainable use of the marine environment. The Scottish Government is a signatory to
11
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
the aims of the UK Marine Policy Statement and this serves to guide the development
and implementation of a Scottish National Marine Plan.
A5.4 In order to implement the provisions of the Marine (Scotland) Act a National
Marine Plan (NMP) requires to be established and is currently the subject of
consultation by Scottish Government. Details can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/21114728/0 The NMP must include:




Policies for the sustainable development of Scotland’s seas;
Policies on nature conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and links to
other conservation networks;
Economic, social and marine ecosystem objectives and further objectives for
the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change;
An assessment of the condition of the Scottish marine environment to include
a summary of significant pressures and human impacts.
A5.5 Provisions within the NMP will have statutory force with respect to decisions
undertaken by public bodies including the Crown Estate Commissioners. The
licensing of all activities must have due regard to provisions within the NMP. The
establishment of Scottish Marine Regions under secondary legislation is the method
by which national planning provisions in the marine environment will be delivered at
a local level and SMR planning partnerships must have regard to the provisions of the
NMP. With respect to the management of fisheries the competent authority in
Scotland issuing a licence to a registered British vessel to allow it to fish in a set area
or for a set species is Marine Scotland Compliance and in doing so they will have to
have due regard to the provisions of the NMP.
A5.6 In order to fulfil the provision of the NMP relating to an assessment of the
condition of the Scottish marine environment the Scottish Government has published
a marine atlas (www.scotland.gov.uk/marineatlas ). This publication also serves to
fulfil some of the requirements associated with the adoption of the EU Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (see section C4). Details of the Scottish
Government approach to the implementation of this Directive can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seamanagement/international/msfd
A6. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Plans and Projects
A6.1 The “A Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland” document (see
A1.1) envisaged IFGs developing FMPs, submitting them to SIFAG through
Government and following approval, Scottish Government to implement the
appropriate provisions. This process predated the Environmental Assessment
(Scotland) Act 2005.
A6.2 The Environmental Assessment (EA) (Scotland) Act 2005 implements the
European Union Directive 2001/42/EC (commonly referred to as the Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive) which serves to ensure that the
environmental effects of public plans that fall within its scope are properly assessed
and are outlined in an Environmental Report. The Environmental Report and the plan
to which it relates must then be subjected to public consultation. This must be
undertaken at an early stage in the preparation process, to give interested parties an
12
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
opportunity to comment and help shape the content of the plan, prior to its adoption.
Further details relating to the EA (Scotland) Act 2005 can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/doc/921/0096200.pdf
A6.3 Given the existing structure and constitution of the IFG network any FMP
developed by an Executive Committee is unlikely to fall within the scope of the EA
(Scotland) Act 2005 as it is not a public plan, project or strategy. However, where
Scottish Government seeks to approve such plans or elements of plans which fall
within the scope of the Act there will be a requirement for those plans or elements of
plans to be subject to a SEA and an Environmental Report to be produced.
A6.4 The alternative options for structuring inshore fisheries management within
Scotland were the subject of an Early Policy Review (see A4.). Given the outcome of
this review and the revised strategy for inshore fisheries (see A4.7) Marine Scotland
are in the process of assessing the requirement for individual FMPs (or elements of
them deemed to have a potential environmental impact) to be the subject of a
Strategic Environmental Assessment as necessitated by relevant Scottish Government
approval and the creation of a public plan, project or strategy.
13
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX B
The South East Inshore Fisheries Group
B1. Geographic Area and Scope for Fisheries Management
B1.1 The South East Inshore Fisheries Group has established a constitution with the
physical area of operation delimited by the 6nm fishery limit between the North Esk
River (near Montrose) in the North to the Scottish / English border in the South.
(Document 1, Figure 2).
B1.2 The 6nm fishery limit is the area within which there are no historic access rights
for fishing vessels from outwith the United Kingdom and as such the Scottish
Government has sole jurisdiction over the waters for fisheries management purposes.
Scottish territorial waters extend to 12nm and between 6 and 12nm there are no
historic access rights for vessels from out with the UK with respect to shellfish
species. Consequently the Scottish Government has jurisdiction for fisheries
management purposes for these species within the area. However, as the UK is a
Member State of the European Union the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP) apply to all sea areas where member states have established fishing rights.
Technical conservation measures under the CFP include the setting of a Minimum
Landing Size (MLS) for species of fish and shellfish which applies to all member
states. In its’ territorial waters the Scottish Government could seek to increase the
MLS for species or enhance technical conservation measures but as such these would
only apply to its own Member State vessels. Where historic access rights exist for
other member states any change to fisheries management measures would require to
be introduced through the EU under the CFP provisions.
B2. Composition of the SEIFG Executive Committee
B2.1 The SEIFG Executive Committee is comprised of representatives from the
following fishermen’s organisations;
Fishermen’s Association Ltd
Scottish White Fish Producers’ Association
Scallop Association
Anglo-Scottish Fishermen’s Association
FMA (Pittenweem) Ltd
The 10m and Under Association
Fife Creel Fishermen’s Association
Arbroath and District Static Gear Association
Scottish Creelers and Divers Association
Usan Salmon Fisheries Ltd
Cockenzie & Port Seton Fish Selling Association
Fife Fishermen’s Association
Scottish Static Gear Association
Independent Fishermen’s Representative
14
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
B2.2 The Chairman George White was appointed in May 2009 by Scottish
Government through an open selection process with the office held for a maximum
period of three years. The stated criteria for selection was “The Chair shall be a
person who appears to have no such financial or commercial interests as are likely to
affect him or her in the discharge of his or her function as a Chair independent of the
sea fish industry”.
B2.3 The former Deputy Chairman was Jim Buchan and latterly Brian Beckett who
were selected by the fishermen’s organisations representatives who sit on the
Executive Committee.
B2.4 The SEIFG co-ordinator Nick Main was appointed in May 2009 through an open
selection process with the involvement of representatives of the Executive Committee.
Employment was on the basis of tenure to the end of March 2012.
B3. Meetings of the SEIFG Executive Committee
B3.1 SEIFG Executive Committee meetings were held at approximately 6 week
intervals during the period May 2009 to March 2012. The Minutes of each meeting
were approved at the following Executive Committee meeting and made publicly
available on the Scottish Government website;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seafisheries/inshorefisheries/ifgsmap/southeasti
fg
B4. Scope of the Work Undertaken by the SEIFG Executive Committee
B4.1 The agenda for each Executive Committee meeting was compiled by the coordinator and agreed by the Chairman/Deputy Chairman on the basis of any specific
requests from Executive Committee members. The co-ordinator was responsible for
compiling any papers to support agenda items and for the production of a draft FMP
to be considered by the Executive Committee.
B4.2 Information on specific subjects has been sought through invitations to attend
meetings extended to both statutory and non-statutory organisations. Marine Scotland
(MS) had a standing invitation to attend and receive the meeting Agenda and any
papers.
B4.3 Specific presentations have been received from a range of organisations
including:
 Crown Estate – Fisheries Liaison Officer for Marine Renewables
Developments
 Marine Scotland Science – Fish stock assessments for the south-east
 SNH – Marine Protected Area designation process in Scotland
 Brown and May Ltd – Fisheries liaison and wind farm developments
 Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee (now IFCA) creel limit scheme
 Scottish Coastal Forum – Scottish Marine Regions
B4.4 In addition papers have been tabled at meetings covering a wide range of issues
including:
15
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012


Marine Protected Areas in the Seas around Scotland and Priority Marine
Features
Marine Licensing for Scotland under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
B4.5 The SEIFG has also made responses to consultations from both statutory and
non-statutory bodies on an on-going basis. These have included responses to proposed
renewable energy developments from companies including:
Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd
Fred Olsen Renewables Ltd
Airtricity Holdings (UK) Ltd
N Power Renewables Ltd
Sea Energy Renewables
B5. Composition of the SEIFG Advisory Group
B5.1 The SEIFG through the Executive Committee is constituted to seek advice on
fisheries management issues either through routine meetings or specifically from the
Advisory Group members. The following organisations were invited to have a
representative sit on the SEIFG Advisory Group and attend meetings:
Marine Scotland – Compliance
Marine Scotland – Science
Marine Stewardship Council
Scottish Enterprise
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Food Standards Agency Scotland
Scottish Natural Heritage
Sea Fish Industry Authority
Seafood Scotland
The Crown Estate Commission
Angus Local Authority
Fife Local Authority
East Lothian Local Authority
Scottish Borders Local Authority
B5.2 The full Advisory Group was asked to consider the “Draft South-east Inshore
Fisheries Group Management Plan” once approved by the Executive Committee as
proposals they wished to submit to Scottish Government seeking approval for
implementation. Issues raised by Advisory Group members were subsequently
considered by the Executive Committee prior to the FMP being submitted to Marine
Scotland for subsequent comment and approval by members of the Scottish Inshore
Fisheries Advisory Group (SIFAG).
16
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX C
Characteristics of the SEIFG Operational Area
C1. Overview of the Marine Region
C1.1 In collating information for the National Marine Plan (NMP) as part of its
responsibilities under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 the Scottish Government have
published “Scotland’s Marine Atlas” (www.scotland.gov.uk/marineatlas).
C1.2 Scotland’s Marine Atlas provides an assessment of the status of the seas around
Scotland and in particular the physical characteristics, impacts of natural or
anthropogenic inputs, the natural environment and human uses of the resource. In
relation to the wider environment in which the SEIFG is seeking to introduce a FMP
for the inshore area, it is worth noting the Marine Atlas overall assessment for the
Forth and East Scotland Coast the two Marine Atlas designations which encompass
the SEIFG area.
C1.3 The East Scotland Coast extends from Rattray Head in the North to the Scottish
/ English border, the Forties area is offshore (>12nm) from this while the Forth
designation covers the Firth to its fully marine extremities. These areas are important
for oil and gas with 26% by value of all production from the Forties area and 26% of
seabed pipelines between them. The only oil refinery in Scotland is in the Firth of
Forth at Grangemouth.
C1.4 There are many important ports. The Forth handles 44% by volume of all
Scotland’s cargo and 19% of calling vessels. The significant port activity means that
76% of all Scottish dredge spoil disposal is generated in the area. There is also a
large amount of treated urban waste water and industrial effluent disposal. Water
abstraction, mainly for power generation, accounts for 73% of total abstraction by
volume in the Forth.
C1.5 There is a large inshore fleet of smaller classes of fishing vessels operating
mainly from the Firth of Forth and Eyemouth. Recreational activities including
sailing, bathing beaches, diving and wildlife tourism, are popular mainly because of
the close proximity to centres of population.
C1.6 Pressures resulting from these activities include possible localised
contamination from oil and gas activity and dumping of dredge spoil from harbour
maintenance. Trawling results in the abrasion of the seabed.
C1.7 Water quality at an area level is good with few or no concerns for many of the
components assessed (hazardous substances, radioactivity, oil/chemical spills, algal
toxins and microbiology of bathing and shellfish waters. However, elevated but
decreasing concentrations of hazardous substances are detected in the Forth Estuary.
C1.8 Intertidal habitats and subtidal rock within the areas are in relatively good
condition. In general, subtidal sediments are in poor condition because of
considerable pressure from both inshore and offshore fishing activities. Harbour
17
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
seals are in a depleted state and continue to decline whereas grey seal numbers are
increasing.
C1.9 In the future decommissioning of oil and gas offshore production facilities will
become more prominent. Development of carbon dioxide storage is expected and
possible new electricity generation capacity could change water abstraction
requirements.
C1.10 There is a significant resource to support the generation of marine renewable
energy, mainly from offshore wind. Growth of the industry and development of
associated infrastructure including seabed cables is anticipated. Some smaller coastal
ports will provide increasing support during development and operation phases of the
renewable energy industry. The Forth has been identified as a possible site to
accommodate additional container traffic, which may require associated dredging.
C1.11 Fishing will continue to be an important industry for the foreseeable future
although careful management will be required to ensure future sustainability. There is
a presumption against finfish farming in these areas.
C1.12 This assessment of the background conditions in the SEIFG area and the wider
North Sea presents a clear overview of key stakeholder activities and environmental
conditions under which the SEIFG are seeking to establish a Fisheries Management
Plan.
C2. The SEIFG Area Coastal and Marine Natural Environment
C2.1 Set against the general background features of the northern North Sea region the
SEIFG area has specific interests from a nature conservation perspective. Some of
these while locally significant are also regarded to be important at both a national and
international level and are designated accordingly. It is in conjunction with such
designations that the SEIFG fisheries management plan has to be implemented and
needs to recognise the nature conservation features of importance. Scottish Natural
Heritage has sought to identify the range of issues and designations which need to be
taken into account within the FMP and these are reproduced below;
Natural heritage features of the marine and coastal environment in the
South East IFG area:
1. INTRODUCTION
The marine environment of the South East of Scotland comprises a long relatively linear
coastline, indented by two large firths, the Forth and the Tay, plus other smaller estuaries such
as Montrose Basin. This coastline has a variety of features including extensive salt marshes,
redbuds, mudflats and sand flats. Much of the North Sea coast is rocky with sizeable cliffs in
some locations. The firths are relatively shallow with the seabed dropping off further
offshore, but with most of the seabed in the area at less than 100m deep. A number of large
submarine sandbanks including Marr Bank and the Wee Bankie provide important feeding
and breeding areas for marine species which in turn attract seabirds. A number of islands are
found in the Firth of Forth which provide nesting sites for many thousands of seabirds while
other large seabird colonies exist in the Borders and Angus. Colonies of seals are found at a
number of other locations along the coast.
18
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Scottish Natural Heritage has a statutory duty to secure the conservation and enhancement of
Scotland’s natural heritage and encourage its sustainable use. This includes helping the
Scottish Government meet its responsibilities under European environmental laws,
particularly in relation to the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives.
Inshore fisheries groups (Ifg's) exist as a co-operative organisation of individuals representing
the interests of many small businesses. However, Ifg's are publicly funded, so there is some
expectation that their work will not compromise and, where possible, make a positive
contribution to the biodiversity duty and other policies and statutory functions of the Scottish
Government.
The following sections provide a summary of key features of the South East Scotland marine
environment that can help inform the work of the Inshore Fisheries Group, including
protected areas and species, selected important species and habitats in the wider seas and the
status of any invasive non-native species.
2. PROTECTED AREAS1
Internationally Important Sites
Special Areas of Conservation (SACS).
Designated by Scottish Ministers under the EC Habitats Directive, these areas represent the
range and variety of habitats and (non-bird) species within the EU, as listed in Annexes I & II
of the directive. The South East IFG area has 8 Sacs by or on the sea, all of which have
qualifying marine and/or coastal features. Section 1 summarises generic advice on the
vulnerability and sensitivity of the features of these SACs to fisheries operations.
Section 1
Marine SACs in South East Scotland are designated for particular features. Generic advice
can be given on the vulnerability and sensitivity of these features to fisheries operations:
 Large shallow inlets and bays: Various fisheries operate in these areas, where biological
and substrate conditions can also be variable. Highly mobile substrates and associated
fauna tend to recover relatively quickly from physical disturbance.
 Intertidal mudflats and sandflats: Intertidal areas may be among the most important
spawning and nursery grounds for several species of economically important fish.
Accessed for intertidal fisheries and bait-digging, the severity of physical disturbance is
influenced by various factors, including gear type, fishing intensity, substrate type and the
biology of species therein. Highly mobile substrates and associated fauna tend to recover
relatively quickly from physical disturbance.
 Reefs: Reef biota tends to be slow-growing and highly sensitive to physical disturbance.
 Shallow subtidal sandbanks: Various fisheries operate within these areas. The
vulnerability and sensitivity of features to fisheries depends on various factors, including
the substrate type, fishing gear and fishing intensity. Sensitive habitats such as maerl and
seagrass beds are associated with this feature.
 Estuaries: May contain several of the features above
1
For complete information on protected areas, including complete lists of qualifying features and
conservation objectives, see Sitelink at www.snh.org.uk/snhi/
19
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
 Sea caves: Interaction with sea fisheries generally unlikely.
 Grey & common seals: Fisheries and seals may compete for some of the same fish
resources. Near haul-out sites, seals may be vulnerable to disturbance.
 Otters: Potentially relevant to some intertidal and shallow subtidal fisheries, otters are
sensitive to disturbance in the vicinity of there land-based resting and breeding sites.
Competition for marine food resources is unlikely to be an issue.
Some non-marine features within SACs may be relevant to marine activities. Coastal
vegetation and dune systems may be vulnerable to damage where access to intertidal
fisheries occurs through these areas. Also, although Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey and river
lamprey are designated within freshwater SACs, their exposure to possible human-induced
impacts during the marine phase of their life-cycle is relevant. SACs with these features are
included in Table 1.
20
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table 1
SAC name
Berwickshire & North Northumberland Coast





Qualifying features
Grey seals
Sea caves
Shallow inlets and bays
Reefs
Intertidal mudflats and sandflats
Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary




Common seal
Estuaries
Intertidal mudflats and sandflats
Subtidal sandbanks
Isle of May



Grey seals
Reefs
Atlantic salmon
River Tay



Atlantic salmon
Sea & river lampreys
Otter
River Teith



Atlantic salmon
Sea & river lampreys
Otter
River Tweed



Atlantic salmon
Sea & river lampreys
Otter
St. Abbs to Fast Castle

Vegetated sea cliffs
River South Esk
Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
Classified by Scottish Ministers under the EC Birds Directive2, these are areas identified as
the most important for rare and regularly occurring migratory birds in the EU. The South East
IFG area has 6 SPAs adjacent to the sea, all of which have qualifying species with links to the
marine environment (including human access across coastal breeding habitat to intertidal
beaches) (Table 2). Section 2 summarises generic advice on the vulnerability and sensitivity
of the features of SPAs within the South East IFG area to fisheries operations.
2
DIRECTIVE 2009/147/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30
November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds
21
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Section 2
SPAs in South East Scotland are designated for particular bird species or aggregations of
birds. For the purposes of this document, those that are relevant to the marine environment
can be categorised for the provision of generic advice on the vulnerability and sensitivity of
these features to fisheries operations:
 Breeding seabirds: some breeding seabirds are particularly dependent on marine food
sources, which may be adjacent to their nesting sites or may be further offshore. Where
prey species include small gadoids and sandeels there is potential for fisheries to impact
seabird populations through either direct or indirect impacts of food sources. Disturbance
of seabirds by fisheries operations is generally unlikely, except potentially terns, which
often breed on near shore coastal vegetation and shingle, rather than on sea cliffs; some
intertidal fisheries operations may disturb breeding terns when accessing beaches.
 Non-breeding waders and wildfowl: Wildfowl and waders feeding in the intertidal may
be disturbed by intertidal fisheries operations and some species, such as oystercatchers,
may be in direct competition for shellfish resources (i.e. cockles).
o
A Nature Conservation Order (NCO) in parts of the Firth of Forth SPA and SSSI
prohibits the commercial collection of cockles due to the potential impacts on
qualifying features of the European Marine Site & the SSSI. Re-opening of this
fishery would require the adoption of appropriate management measures.
Table 2
SPA name
Firth of Forth

Qualifying feature categories
Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary


Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Breeding seabirds
Forth Islands

Breeding seabirds
Imperial Dock Lock

Breeding seabirds
Montrose Basin

Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
St. Abbs to Fast Castle

Breeding seabirds
Ramsar. Meeting UK commitments under the Ramsar Convention, these sites are recognised
as wetlands of international importance. In the South East IFG area there are three Ramsar
sites: Firth of Forth, Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary and Montrose Basin. They share the same
boundaries as the equivalent SPAs and largely the same qualifying features.
22
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Nationally Important sites
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
These areas provide protection for the best examples of the UK’s biological, geological or
physiographical features, down to mean low water of spring tides (MLWS). Many SSSIs
overlap with SACs and SPAs. The South East IFG area has 30 SSSIs on or adjacent to the
coast, 27 of which have features that are intertidal or have a link with the marine environment
(Table 3). Section 3 puts the features into broad categories summarising generic advice on the
vulnerability and sensitivity of the features of SSSIs within the South East IFG area to
fisheries operations.
Section 3
SSSIs in South East Scotland are designated for particular species, habitats and geological
features. For the purposes of this document, those that are relevant to the marine environment
can be categorised for the provision of generic advice on the vulnerability and sensitivity of
these features to fisheries operations:
 Breeding seabirds: as in Section 2
 Breeding waders and wildfowl: Possible impacts when accessing the sea through coastal
habitats such as sand dunes and through intertidal fisheries due to competition for prey
species or disturbance.
o
A Nature Conservation Order (NCO) in parts of the Firth of Forth SPA and SSSI
prohibits the commercial collection of cockles due to the potential impacts on
qualifying features of the European Marine Site & the SSSI. Re-opening of this
fishery would require the adoption of appropriate management measures.
 Non-breeding waders and wildfowl: as in Section 2
 Grey seals: as in Section 1
 Otters: as in Section 1
 Atlantic salmon, sea lampreys and river lampreys: as in Section 1
 Maritime cliff: Interaction with sea fisheries unlikely
 Salt marsh: May be very important spawning and nursery grounds for several species of
fish. Potential damage to salt marsh habitat through access to intertidal fisheries.
 Intertidal mudflats and sandflats: as in Section 1
 Reefs (intertidal): as in Section 1
 Sea caves: Interaction with sea fisheries generally unlikely.
 Lagoons: as in Section 1
 Shingle: Interaction with sea fisheries unlikely
 Coastal vegetation and dune systems: as in Section 1
23
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
 Geological features: Interaction with sea fisheries unlikely
Table 3
SSSI Name
Barns Ness Coast



Designated features
(biological features only)
Saltmarsh
Sand dune
Shingle
Barnsmuir Coast



Maritime cliff
Saltmarsh
Shingle
Barry Links


Breeding seabirds
Sand dunes
Bass Rock

Breeding seabirds
Berwickshire Coast (Intertidal)


Reefs
Sea caves
Burnmouth Coast

Maritime cliff
Earlshall Muir

Sand dune
Eden Estuary




Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Mudflats
Saltmarsh
Sand dune
Elliot Links

Sand dune
Fife Ness Coast


Maritime cliff
Saltmarsh
Firth of Forth






Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Breeding waders and wildfowl
Maritime cliff
Saltmarsh
Saline lagoon
Sand dune
Forth Islands

Breeding seabirds
Inchmickery

Breeding seabirds
Inner Tay Estuary



Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Breeding birds
Saltmarsh
Isle of May

Non-breeding waders
24
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012



Breeding seabirds
Grey seals
Maritime cliff
Long Craig Island

Breeding seabirds
Monifieth Bay

Non-breeding waders
Montrose Basin




Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Breeding wildfowl
Saltmarsh
Mudflats
Pease Bay Coast


Maritime cliff
Saltmarsh
Rickle Craig - Scurdie Ness

Saltmarsh
River Tweed


Atlantic salmon
Sea & river lampreys
St. Abbs to Fast Castle


Breeding seabirds
Maritime cliff
St. Andrews - Craig Hartle


Maritime cliff
Saltmarsh
St. Cyrus & Kinnaber Links



Saltmarsh
Sand dune
Shingle
St. Margaret's Marsh

Saltmarsh
Tayport - Tentsmuir Coast




Non-breeding waders and wildfowl
Common seal
Mudflats
Sand dune
Whiting Ness - Ethie Haven


Non-breeding waders
Breeding seabirds
3. PROTECTED SPECIES
European Protected Species (EPS).
Listed on Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive as species in need of strict protection,
marine EPS in Scotland are otters, cetaceans and marine turtles. It is an offence to deliberately
or recklessly injure, capture, kill, harass or disturb an EPS (for legal detail see the
Conservation Regulations 1994).
25
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Otters
Otters are distributed throughout the South East of Scotland and were recorded as present in
between 86% (Fife, Falkirk, Lothian and Borders) and 94% (Tayside) of sites surveyed during
the last national otter survey. While most of these sites will be inland otters are known to be
found on almost the entire south east coastline. Coastal otters will have holts near the
shoreline but require access to freshwater within their territories. Otters could be disturbed
when access is taken through coastal habitats. Interactions with coastal fisheries are unlikely.
Cetaceans
Four species of cetaceans are found regularly in the IFG area:




harbour porpoise
northern bottlenose dolphin
minke whale
white beaked dolphin
Of these the harbour porpoise is resident while the others are largely seasonal visitors,
generally visiting in the summer although there is little detailed information on their
movements. The bottlenose dolphins come from the Inner Moray Firth SAC population and
visit the area sporadically throughout the year. Minke whales come to feed in certain areas in
the summer, for example just off the Isle of May while white beaked dolphins can be found
all year round but mainly in the summer. All these species feed on fish.
Several more species are occasional visitors, appearing annually or less often. These include:




Atlantic white-sided dolphin
killer whale
Risso’s dolphin
humpback whale
Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended)
Marine species with special protection under schedules 5 and 8 of this act include: otters, all
cetaceans, marine turtles. Schedules 5 and 8 are reviewed every 5 years. Schedule 1 lists
various protected bird species. For more information see the JNCC pages.
Marine turtles
Turtles are rare in the North Sea but it is likely that they are annual visitors to the South East
area. Most records have been of leatherback turtles, the largest and most cold-tolerant species.
Turtles are at risk from entanglement in fishing nets and from collisions with boats and their
propellers. No offence is committed if turtles are caught accidentally in fishing gear. Nor is it
an offence to help turtles if entangled or stranded, or temporarily to hold dead turtles for later
examination by experts. The UK Turtle Code gives information on what to do if one is seen or
accidentally caught.
Seals
The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 significantly improves the level of protection for Scottish
seals, including a new licensing system to kill or take seals at any time, which is due to come
into force in early 2011.
Two species of seal live and breed in the South East; the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and
the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), which is also known as the common seal.
Approximately 7% of the UK grey seal population live within the south east of Scotland, with
the Isle of May being the fourth largest breeding colony in the UK. Smaller colonies are
found along the coast including a new colony at Fast Castle which is thought to comprise
26
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
animals from the Isle of May. In 2009 there were 3346 pups born on the Isle of May and at
Fast Castle.
Grey seals pup, then mate during the autumn months (September - November) and favour
relatively inaccessible sites such as rocky islands. Pups are born with a white fur covering
(laguno) and will go to sea aged approximately one month. Grey seals will range over great
distances for feeding, covering 100km in a day but will normally stay within 40 to 100km of
their haul out. They have been recorded several hundred kilometres out to sea on feeding
trips. In the central North Sea their main prey are sand eels and gadoids.
Harbour seals are less common with around 450 in the South East of Scotland, about 2% of
the UK population. The largest colony in the area is at Abertay Sands on the north east tip of
Fife where the most recent count found 215 seals. Numbers here, and throughout the region,
have declined by almost 50% since 2000.
Harbour seals give birth in the summer mostly on sand banks and beaches. In contrast to grey
seals their young can swim almost immediately. They tend to be more coastal in their feeding
but still feed up to 50km form their haul out site. Less is known about their prey than about
that of grey seals but a study of seals in St Andrews Bay found that sandeels and whiting were
the main prey.
For further information on seals in the Scotland see the latest Special Committee on Seals
report at the following link.
4. WIDER SEAS
There are some marine species and habitats present in the South East IFG area which do not
receive explicit protection (except where designated as features of protected areas), but are
particularly important in the context of biodiversity conservation and/or ecosystem function –
many are listed under the Scottish Biodiversity List, UK Biodiversity Action Plan and
OSPAR lists and may be vulnerable to fisheries impacts. The information below provides a
summary of key species and habitats selected from the ‘SNH Draft Priority Marine Features
List’3 for which SNH has records4. Mobile fish and shellfish of conservation importance,
including commercial species, are not included here as this data is mostly held by other
organisations, focussing instead on attached and low-mobility seabed species and habitats.
 Seagrass beds – important for juveniles of many fish and shellfish species, including some
commercial species. Seagrass beds are primarily sensitive to mobile gear, though at lowtide may also be damaged by vehicles accessing intertidal fisheries. Known locations
include Montrose Basin, Belhaven Bay and Culross Bay.
 Inshore burrowed mud – associated faunal communities can be sensitive to mobile gear.
This habitat is fairly extensive in the outer Firth, but best recorded around the Isle of May.
The Fireworks anemone and the amphipod Maera loveni also have isolated records
associated with inshore burrowed mud in the Firth of Forth.
 Intertidal sediment flats – intertidal mudflats and sand flats may be commercially
exploited, particularly for various bivalves, but are also often of conservation importance.
Intertidal sandflats and mudflats are widely distributed in the South East IFG area,
3
The SNH Priority Marine Features list is intended to focus future work on the conservation of
marine species and habitats. Currently in draft form, this list will go to consultation during
2010. Consequently, the list may change and require subsequent amendment to this
document.
4 SNH marine data is updated regularly, as should this information, forming part of the IFG
Management Plan as a living document.
27
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
including Montrose Basin, St. Andrews Bay, Tyne Mouth, Pease Bay, the Tay Estuary,
Forth Estuary and the outer Firth of Forth.
 Iceland cyprine – Arctica islandica is a large, long-lived bivalve capable of inhabiting a
wide range of sediment types and water depths. Records include those from St. Andrews
Bay, Tentsmuir, Cramond, Bell Rock and St. Abbs.
 Native oysters. There have not been known beds of Native Oysters in the Firth of Forth
since the first half of the 20th century, but the recent discovery of some individual oysters
on the southern side of the firth is worthy of note here.
The above is not a comprehensive list of species and habitats of conservation interest in the
South-east, but identifies some of the most important benthic features which are most relevant
to fisheries and for which SNH has data. Others which are less likely to be impacted by
fisheries, but are still worthy of note include Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral
sediment and Low or variable salinity habitats. Features which may be impacted by
fisheries but for which data is limited include Horse mussel beds and Burrowing heart
urchins. Further to those mentioned in sections 2 and 3, other unprotected bird species may
be subject to direct or indirect impacts from fisheries operations. Also note that fish and
shellfish species of conservation importance are not listed here.
Seabed mapping resources. Various projects have sought to compile existing data and use
modelling techniques (and knowledge of physical environmental attributes) to fill gaps with
predictive mapping of biotopes, habitats and dominant biota. These are available at various
scales and resolutions. Such modelled data should be used with caution, being more accurate
in some areas than others, but may provide a useful starting point in data deficient areas.
 MESH (www.searchmesh.net) maps broad habitat types over a very large area (to the
EEZ of 5 countries in NW Europe), but at a limited resolution.
 UKSeaMap 2006 (www.jncc.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=2117) mapped marine landscape
features at the scale of the UK marine area.
 UKSeaMap 2010 (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2117) will produce a new seabed habitat
map for the UK marine area, building on the 2006 work and the MESH project.
5. INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES
The introduction of non-native species can be a risk to some fisheries sectors by competing
with native species, causing imbalance in natural food-webs or interfering with the operation
or efficiency of fishing gear. Non-native species can thrive in a new environment where there
is a lack of natural predators or competitors5. Vectors for the introduction of non-natives
include ships ballasts, fouled hulls and fishing gear, or through the movement or release of
live plants and animals. Fishermen may be in a good position to report on the presence of
non-native species and to take action to reduce the risk of introducing non-native species.
Table 4 provides specific information on risk species, which may be a particular issue for the
South East IFG area, possible consequences for fishing activities, actions to reduced risk of
introduction and the relevant contacts and links for reporting sightings:
5
Climate change also enables species to populate new areas; where existing species are
unable to adapt at the rapidity of climate change the consequence of these distribution shifts
may be similar to non-native introductions.
28
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table 4
Species
UK Status
*South-east
likelihood of
introduction
Low
Long-term
Potential
fisheries
impacts
May inhibit
oyster bed
recovery.
Entanglement in
propellers and
fishing gear
Wireweed
Well
established in
England, Wales
and Northern
Ireland. Found
on west coast
of Scotland as
far north as
Skye
Carpet sea
squirt
Found in
Wales,
Northern
Ireland and
south coats of
England. One
population in
Scotland, in the
Firth of Clyde
Low
Long-term
Important
nursery habitats
(e.g. maerl) and
some fishing
grounds may be
smothered.
Leathery
sea squirt
Found in
England,
Wales, SW
Scotland
Medium
Long-term
Slipper
limpet
England and
Wales. Not yet
found in
Scotland
Medium
Long-term
Chinese
mitten crab
England and
Wales. Not yet
found in
Scotland
On east coast
of England,
found as far
north as the
River Tees
High
Short-term
Static fishing
gear may be
smothered.
Fouling on hulls.
Fouling of oyster
and mussel beds
Where attached
to bivalves,
additional
processing costs
for cleaning.
Habitat loss for
mussels and
oysters.
Juveniles inhabit
estuaries,
predating upon
invertebrates &
fish eggs,
including
commercial
species.
Other impacts
Actions to reduce
risks
More
information
Competition
with native
species
Hazard to
commercial
and
recreational
boating through
the
entanglement
of propellers or
blocking
engine cooling
systems
Smothers
native species
Smothering of
aquaculture
equipment and
other
underwater
structures e.g.
pontoons
Keep boat hulls,
www.snh.org.
buoys and pontoons uk/wireweed
clean and dispose
of fouling onshore. www.nonnativ
especies.org
Keep fishing gear
clean
Competition
with native
species
A fouling pest
on ships’ hulls
and oyster beds
Competition
with native
species. Causes
increased
sedimentation
which smothers
other species
Keep hulls clean
and dispose of
fouling onshore.
www.marlin.a
c.uk/marine_a
liens/species.a
sp?SpID=17
Keep hulls clean
and dispose of
fouling onshore.
www.nonnativ
especies.org
Keep boat hulls,
www.snh.org.
buoys and pontoons uk/carpetseasq
clean and dispose
uirt
of fouling onshore.
http://woodsh
Keep fishing gear
ole.er.usgs.go
clean (allow to dry v/projectout periodically).
pages/stellwag
en/didemnum/
www.marlin.a
c.uk/speciesfu
llreview.php?s
peciesID=308
6
Structural
damage to
riverbanks.
Predation on
native species
Competition
with native
species
www.nonnativ
especies.org
www.marlin.a
c.uk/marine_a
liens/species.a
sp?SpID=19
29
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
*Time scales could be dramatically shortened if species are directly transported by human
vectors.
C2.2 One key consideration in the production of a Fisheries Management Plan for the
SEIFG area is that a significant number of statutory designations for nature
conservation purposes exist. This point has been made reference to by SNH in their
identification of natural heritage features and in commenting on the outline Fisheries
Management Plan and these inputs require to be noted and acted upon.
C2.3 In addition SNH have a responsibility to prepare advice under Regulation 33(2)
of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) 1994 (Habitats Regulations) (as amended
by The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations
2004). This requires that SNH advises other relevant authorities as to the conservation
objectives of the site and identifies any operations which may cause deterioration of
natural habitats or the habitats of species, or disturbance of species in so far as such
disturbance could be significant, for which the site has been designated. In the context
of inshore fisheries the Relevant Authority to which such advice would be given is
Marine Scotland – Compliance who is responsible for licensing any fishing activity.
C2.4 Priority Marine Features and Marine Protected Areas
C2.4.1 The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 makes provision for the designation within
Scottish Territorial Waters of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for the following
purposes;
 Nature Conservation MPAs for biodiversity and geodiversity features
 Demonstration and Research MPAs
 Historic MPAs
C2.4.2 The UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) includes equivalent provisions
for Scottish Ministers to designate MPAs for biodiversity and geodiversity features
(Nature Conservation MPAs) in offshore waters (12 – 200nm) adjacent to Scotland.
C2.4.3 The MPA network in Scotland is part of the Scottish Governments Marine
Nature Conservation Strategy. For details of this see
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marine-environment/conservationstrategy
C2.4.4 Guidelines have been established for the selection of MPAs within Scotland
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/mpaguidelines
and these set out the Scottish Government approach to delivering its contribution to
MPA networks at the national, UK, European and international levels based on
establish commitments. The Nature Conservation MPAs will combine with existing
designations of SACs and SPAs (Natura sites) under European Directives such as the
Habitats and Species Directive and will include relevant parts of coastal Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
C2.4.5 While guidelines for the selection of MPAs have been published the Scottish
Government has yet to identify and consult on any areas selected to become MPA
sites. This process seems likely to proceed during the summer of 2012. However, the
identification of the habitats and species which are considered to require protection
through the MPA designations have been determined.
30
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C2.4.6 The statutory nature conservation advisors to Scottish Government (Scottish
Natural Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee) have produced a
provisional list of MPA search features (alternatively termed Priority Marine Features
(PMFs)) considered important for meeting the objectives of developing the MPA
network. The search features are presented in Annex 3 of the guideline document (see
C2.4.4).
C2.4.7 The MPA search features are sub-divided into interests found within Scottish
Territorial Waters and those Offshore. While the number, types and scale of MPA
sites have yet to be consulted on some of the search features listed could be found in
the SEIFG area. These include; blue mussel beds, burrowed muds, horse mussel beds,
kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment, native oyster beds, shallow
tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves, tide swept algal communities and
ocean quahog aggregations. In terms of mobile fish species the common skate is
identified as a species requiring protection.
C2.4.8 The selection of nature conservation MPAs is on the basis of scientific
evidence of the species or habitat being present and of its significance at national, EU
and international levels. However, the MPA guidelines make provision for the
boundaries of sites and the management of activities within sites to be the subject of
consultation with key stakeholders who operate within the areas. On this basis it is
anticipated that the SEIFG will be involved in the consultation process regarding any
possible MPAs within the SEIFG area.
C3. The South East Scotland Transitional and Coastal Waters
C3.1 The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (200/60/EC) has established a
framework for the protection, improvement, and sustainable use of rivers, lochs,
transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater throughout Europe. The WFD
requires the competent monitoring authority within each Member State to divide
surface waters into water bodies and assess their status through a range of biological
and physical/chemical characteristics. In Scotland the work required to implement the
Directive is being delivered by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
C3.2 The monitoring of transitional and coastal water quality under the WFD and the
implications for inshore fishing activities have been outlined by SEPA as part of the
process of developing FMPs for sustainable inshore fisheries. The details of the
process as it relates to water bodies where inshore fishing activity is likely to take
place is outlined below.
Environmental Quality
River basin management planning
River basin management plans (RBMPs), published by Scottish Government in 2009,
ensure that public sector bodies, businesses and individuals work together to protect
the water environment and address significant impacts by coordinating all aspects of
water management for the next 6 years. The plans have been produced as one of
the requirements of the European Union's Water Framework Directive (WFD),
transposed into Scots law by The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland)
Act 2003.
31
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
The plans include all of Scotland’s waters – rivers, lochs, transitional (estuaries),
coastal (out to 3 nm) and ground waters, as well as water dependant protected
areas. The aim of the river basin management plan is to ensure all Scottish waters
reach ‘good ecological status’ or ‘good ecological potential’ by 2015.6 This is
assessed by looking at many different aspects of water quality (including a range of
ecological parameters and biological indicators), water quantity, physical form of
beds and banks and whether invasive non native species are present. If waters
cannot reach good ecological status or potential by 2015 and the reason can be
justified, ie disproportionate cost or there is not currently a known solution, then
future dates of 2021 and 2027 may be set.
The river basin management plan has to link with, and reflect the requirements of,
other plans and processes; including the Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) Fishery
Management Plans and vice versa. The IFGs should therefore ensure that any
actions in their Fishery Management Plans will not cause deterioration in the water
environment and will contribute to improving the water environment where it is
currently less than good ecological status.
Further information on the river basin management plans, the area management
plans and catchment summaries where available can be found on RBMP pages of
the SEPA website.
Detailed information on the classification, pressures and measures for individual
water bodies including those covering the south-east of Scotland can be found on the
interactive map application on the web pages above.
Under the WFD, coastal waters are classified out to the 3nm limit (1 nm in England
and Wales). The WFD specifies what elements of the ecosystem are to be used to
derive an overall classification; fish are included as a quality element in transitional
(estuary) waters but not in coastal waters (Directive 2000/60/EC p. L327/36). SEPA
has followed the Directive, and monitors fish in relevant estuaries. Through
ecosystem elements such as benthic invertebrates, the coastal
classification responds to the damage that certain harvesting procedures can have
on seabed habitat.
A high quality of water environment is a key requirement for many of the
economically important activities of the area including those that are the subject of
the Inshore Fishery Management Plan; angling, fin fish and shellfish farming and
inshore fishing. Environmental quality is also reflected in the high number of sites
designated to protect important features, including those relevant to the inshore
fisheries management plan such as shell fish growing, freshwater fish and nature
conservation. It should be noted in the Inshore Fishery Management Plan that under
6
Ecological status is divided into five classes: high, good, moderate, poor and bad. This
encompasses the spectrum from water bodies in a near natural condition which are at high
ecological status, to those whose ecological quality has been severely damaged and which
are at bad ecological status. Water bodies which have been significantly altered for human
uses (such as for hydropower generation), are known as heavily modified water bodies. They
are classified according to the same spectrum of five classes, but by ecological potential
instead of status. This is a measure of the extent to which each water body’s ecological
quality has been maximised, given the limits imposed by the physical modifications necessary
for its use.
32
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
the WFD, these protected areas must meet the standards required by their
designation as well as reaching good ecological status.
Invasive non-native species (INNS) can have significant adverse impacts on the
aquatic and riparian ecology of WFD water bodies and water dependant protected
areas. WFD-relevant INNS include those that can be present in the estuarine or
coastal environment see the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) high impact list.
The SEIFG Inshore Fisheries Management Plan should ensure that any actions do
not lead to the deterioration of the water environment by preventing the introduction
of INNS and contribute towards the control and eradication of any species present.
C4. Marine Strategy Framework Directive
C4.1 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) has been introduced
with the aim of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) within European waters
and is in the process of being implemented at UK and Scottish levels. Details of the
Scottish Government proposals for implementation can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/seamanagement/international/msfd
C4.2 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was transposed into UK
legislation in July 2010 (The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010). The Directive
requires Member States to prepare national strategies to manage their seas (territorial
waters) to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020. It is
recognised that this requires a co-operative approach between Member States if GES
is to be achieved throughout European marine areas.
C4.3 The key requirements of the MSFD in terms of the UK are;
 That an assessment of the state of the seas is prepared by July 2012
 The formulation of what GES represents and associated UK indicators and
targets is agreed by July 2012
 The establishment of a monitoring programme to track progress towards GES
is achieved by July 2014
 The introduction of a programme of measures seeking to achieve GES is in
place by 2016
C4.4 With respect to implementation within Scotland the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
has recognised the requirements of the Directive within measures proposed and the
publication of Scotland’s Marine Atlas largely fulfils the requirement to assess the
state of the seas (see A5.6).
C4.5 The Directive identifies eleven high level descriptors of what is likely to
constitute GES within the range of sea types found within the EU. These include;
 Making sure that populations of fish and shellfish are within safe biological
limits
 Maintaining the biological diversity of marine habitats and species
 Limiting contaminants to the marine environment to levels which do not cause
pollution
C4.6 In terms of the requirements of the SEIFG to formulate a FMP for the
development of sustainable inshore fisheries, the MSFD raises specific issues given
33
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
the nature of the area. While the three descriptors identified above (C4.5) are key to
the success of the FMP the south-east of Scotland is noted to be strategically
important for other marine activities and industry (see section C1). Some of the
challenges faced in securing sustainable inshore fisheries relate to the resource
interactions with other key stakeholders and it is anticipated that the MSFD will serve
to identify the acceptable limits of each sectors impacts on the marine environment
which should assist the fishing industry with maintaining access to resources.
However, it should be recognised that the fishing industry itself may well impact the
marine environment and fish stocks and so faces having to justify or possibly amend
activities based on the criteria of the MSFD.
C4.7 Public consultation on the UK transposition of the MSFD was undertaken by the
UK Government and Devolved Administrations in October 2009 (for details and
responses see; www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/msfd ). The findings from this
initial consultation have resulted in a second consultation in March 2012 seeking
views on:
 The draft initial assessment of the state of the UK’s seas;
 The proposals for UK characteristics of GES; and
 The proposals for detailed UK targets and indicators of GES
C4.8 The outcomes from this consultation process will be available during summer
2012 and for certain of the GES indicators and specifically those relating to seabed
integrity and biological safe limits for target fish stocks, these will require to be
recognised within any local fishery management measures detailed within the SEIFG
FMP.
C5. The SEIFG Area Shellfish Harvesting Waters
C5.1 The classification of shellfish harvesting areas around the Scottish coastline is
undertaken by the Food Standards Agency Scotland with the aim of ensuring that only
shellfish safe for human consumption are placed on the market.
C5.2 European Union shellfish Directive 91/492/EEC lays down the health conditions
for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs (oysters, mussel,
cockles etc). On the basis of the Directive the Food Standards Agency must establish
the location and fix the boundaries of production areas for shellfish harvesting arising
from either aquaculture or fisheries. The production areas are classified on the basis of
samples collected and submitted for analysis on a regular basis and the degree of
contamination by faecal indicator bacteria present in samples of mollusc flesh. The
designations are made on the basis of the species of bivalve molluscs harvested and
are not generic for all species of shellfish found within the location.
C5.3 Shellfish harvested from Category A waters are suitable for direct human
consumption; Those originating from Category B waters must be appropriately treated
(either through cooking or depuration in an approved facility) before being placed on
the market; while those from Category C must be re-laid for at least two months in
designated areas of cleaner water and only marketed when they meet the Category A
or B requirements. For all bivalve molluscs placed on the market “end product
standards” under Regulations (EC) 853 and 854/2004 must be met to ensure that the
products have been handled and stored correctly, are free of a range of potential
34
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
contaminants, and are safe for human consumption. Enforcement powers are provided
by the Food Hygiene (Scotland) 2006 Regulations. Further details of the requirements
for the placing on the market of shellfish products can be found at;
www.food.gov.uk/scotland/safetyhygienescot/
C5.4 The full list of designated shellfish harvesting sites in Scotland can be found at;
www.food.gov.uk/scotland/safetyhygienescot/shellmonitorscot/
C6. Fisheries Legislation and Closures Within the SEIFG Area
C6.1 The fishing industry is subject to a range of EU technical conservation measures
and fisheries regulations under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). These are the
subject of frequent updating and tailored to the specific areas fished by Member State
vessels. Details of the CFP measures in force for any specific area within Scottish
waters can be obtained from Marine Scotland – Compliance (MS-C). The
organisation has a range of coastal offices and is responsible for the enforcement of
EU, UK and Scottish Fisheries legislation. Local Compliance offices and British Sea
Fisheries Officers should be regarded as the most up to date and authoritative source
of information relating to current legislative provisions. MS-C offices covering the
SEIFG area can be found at Aberdeen, Pittenweem and Eyemouth.
C6.2 It should be noted that areas designated as Natura sites under the EU Habitats
Regulations (see C2) or other designations to protect the natural environment (or
species) may be subject to controls to prevent damaging activities occurring. In
addition certain marine species have conservation protection regardless of their
location. In the context of the EU Habitats and Species Regulations the relevant
authority responsible for controlling any licensed fishing vessel interaction is Marine
Scotland – Compliance. Where nature conservation restrictions may be an issue it is
recommended that the MS-C offices are contacted to determine the statutory
provisions in force within any area.
C6.3 The primary method of introducing controls for fishing vessel activities, gear
restrictions or technical conservation measures for specific species of fish in Scottish
waters is through Statutory Instruments passed by Parliament under key fishing Acts.
The full details of relevant Acts and Statutory Instruments (SIs) currently in place
within the UK can be found at; www.statutelaw.gov.uk
35
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C6.4 Table C1 summarises the key Fishery Acts and SIs which have particular relevance to fisheries conducted within the SEIFG area.
Table C1. Fishery Acts and Statutory Instruments in Force and Relevant to Fisheries in the SEIFG Area
Year
1984
Number
c.26
ACTS of PARLIAMENT and STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS for FISHERIES PURPOSES
Title
Summary
The Act makes provision for Scotland with respect to the regulation of inshore
Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984
1989
919
The Undersized Velvet Crab Order 1989
1994
1996
c.27
1907
(S.157)
Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1994
The Inshore Fishing (Monofilament Gill
Nets) (Scotland) Order 1996
1999
88
2000
197
The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of
Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 1999
The Undersized Lobsters (Scotland) Order
2000
2000
198
The Undersize Spider Crabs (Scotland)
Order 2000
2000
228
The Undersize Edible Crabs (Scotland)
Order 2000
sea fishing and connected purposes. Orders under the Act may prohibit fishing
for; all sea fish; a specified description of sea fish; by a specified method;
from a specified description of fishing boat; specified periods or in specified
areas.
The Order sets within Great Britain a minimum landing size for velvet crab
(Liocarcinus puber) of 65mm carapace width. The Order applies to both the
carriage and sale of the species.
The Act makes provision for the control of fishing by vehicles or equipment.
The Order prohibits fishing for sea fish with a monofilament gill net in
Scottish territorial waters and the carriage of any such net with a mesh size of
less than 250mm in any British fishing boat.
The Order prohibits the landing of lobster (Homarus gammarus) and crawfish
(Palinurus spp.) bearing a V-notch or mutilated to obscure a V-notch.
The Order prescribes a minimum landing size for lobster (Homarus
gammarus) of 87mm carapace length. The Order applies to both the carriage
and sale of the species.
The Order prescribes a minimum landing size for male spider crab (Maia
squinado) of 130mm carapace length. The Order applies to both the carriage
and sale of the species.
The Order prescribes a minimum landing size for edible crab (Cancer
pagurus) in selected Scottish waters. The east coast south of 56 degrees North
(excluding Firth of Forth) 130mm carapace width. The west coast and Firth of
Forth 140mm carapace width.
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan - June 2012
Table C1. Fishery Acts and Statutory Instruments in Force and Relevant to Fisheries in the SEIFG Area (con’t.)
Year
2003
Number
371
2004
276
2005
330
2006
383
Title
The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops
(Scotland) Order 2003
The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing
and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2004
The Prevention and Monitoring of Cetacean
Bycatch (Scotland) Order 2005
The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing
for Cockles) (Scotland) (No.2) Order 2006
Summary
The Order bans the use of a “French dredge” (or modification of a scallop
dredge to obstruct the rings or netting) in Scottish territorial waters.
The Order amends the same titled Order 1989 by: defining parlour creel and
setting a minimum mesh size of 60mm; setting a maximum landing size of
155mm for female lobster; introducing seasonal and vessel size prohibitions
on creel fishing in specified areas; prohibits fishing with mobile or active gear
in specified areas and at specified times; and other specified provisions.
The Order implements in Scotland the EU Council Regulation EC812/2004(c)
measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries.
The Order prohibits fishing for the cockle (Cerastoderma edule) by means of
any vehicle, except in specified areas.
37
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C6.5 Table C2 summarises fishery closures specified within “The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland)
Order 2004” which directly relate to the SEIFG area.
Table C2. Prohibitions within the SEIFG Area under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Order 2004
Item
28
PROHIBITION OF FISHING FOR SEA FISH WITH MOBILE OR ACTIVE GEAR
Area within which
Period of prohibition Additional period
Method of fishing for
prohibition applies
of prohibition of
species of sea fish excepted
suction dredging
from prohibition
Doolie Ness to Lang Craig In respect of waters (a)
29
Lang Craig to Arbroath
30
St Andrews Bay
31
St Abbs Eyemouth Area
Period of exception
within 1 mile of MHWS
tides 1st January to 31st
March and 1st October to
31st December each
year; and (b) within 0.5
mile of MHWS tides 1st
April to 30th September
in each year
In respect of waters
within 2 miles of
MHWS tides 1st January
to 31st December in each
year
1st January to 31st
December in each year
In respect of waters
within 1 mile of MHWS
tides 1st January to 31st
December in each year.
38
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C7. Marine Renewable Energy Developments within the SEIFG Area
C7.1 The Scottish Government has produced a plan for the development of marine
wind energy which has implications for fishing activities within the SEIFG area.
Details of “BLUE SEAS – GREEN ENERGY A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore
Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters” can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wind
C7.2 The sectoral plan has been developed as part of a wider process started through
the application of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The Draft Plan and
SEA were consulted upon before the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) and
socio-economic assessment were applied to inform the contents of the final plan (the
consultation details can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2010/05/14155137/1
C7.3 Scottish Ministers have adopted the Plan identified within “BLUE SEAS –
GREEN ENERGY” and have produced a SEA Post-Adoption Statement (PAS)
identifying how the Draft Plan consultation was used to determine the final plan (for
details of the PAS see; www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wind
C7.4 The outcomes of the SEA, HRA, socio-economic assessment, and consultation
process were used to inform “BLUE SEAS – GREEN ENERGY A Sectoral Marine
Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters”. The main findings are;



The Plan is currently restricted to Scottish Territorial Waters (0-12nm) but
there exists the opportunity for further development in addition to the short
term options and medium term areas of search identified in the Plan.
There are generic issues related to shipping, fishing and environmental impact
which apply in all offshore wind plan regions around Scotland.
Scottish Ministers have decided that 6 short term sites and 25 medium term
areas of search should be progressed under the Plan. It is acknowledged that
there are significant opportunities for further areas to be identified in both
Scottish Territorial and Offshore Waters.
C7.5 With respect to implementation of the Plan a range of key considerations have
been identified including;

“Cumulative and In-combination Effects – Further assessment work at the
regional level is required to address these effects. Issues such as the scheduling
of the development of projects within Scottish Territorial and Offshore Waters
should be carefully monitored. There is a need to ensure that cumulative and
in-combination effects are fully recognised and taken into account at the
regional and project level through Plan monitoring and review. In addition,
developer-led work should contribute to addressing these issues in a suitable
and effective manner”.
C7.6 In terms of Key Actions arising from the implementation of the Plan these
include;
 “Action 4 – The Plan will be interfaced with the developing marine
renewables plan and incorporated into the national marine planning system
39
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
The Plan focuses on the opportunities and challenges arising form offshore
wind energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. Work has commenced on a similar
Plan for Marine Renewables (wave and tidal energy) in Scottish Waters. Both
sectoral plan processes will seek to integrate work to ensure cumulative and
in-combination issues are recognised so they can be assessed. The key
recommendations from these sectoral plans will be integrated into the National
Marine Planning System. Further consultation and a sustainability appraisal of
the National Marine plan will also be undertaken. This will allow for further
consideration of the interactions between renewable energy, the marine
environment and other users of the sea.”

“Action 5 – Further integration of on and offshore planning
There is a recognised need to identify and deliver the reinforcement and
further development of Scotland’s onshore and offshore (electricity) grid
network that will connect and transport Scotland’s energy potential….. . The
Scottish Government will continue to work with UK and EU Governments,
Ofgem and transmission system operators in a number of strategic groupings
envisaging future grid offshore networks at UK and EU levels, and the
required onshore grid to accommodate offshore energy. The aim is to ensure
Scotland capitalises on ….”
C7.7 The Plan identifies that the application of appropriate mitigation measures is key
to the sustainable development of offshore wind. In terms of fishing the potential
mitigation measures are described as;
 “The Scottish Government encourages offshore wind energy developers to
actively engage with national and local fishing organisations to ensure that
fishing activities can continue with minimal disturbance. The knowledge and
expertise of the marine environment which exists within this sector should be
utilised to ensure the sustainable development of offshore wind energy in
Scottish Territorial and Offshore Waters.”
 “Developments should be fully assessed to identify and where possible
mitigate their effects on fishing activity. Fishing grounds of particular
economic importance to coastal communities, where known, should be
avoided or the effects of development mitigated through appropriate
positioning within the option boundary. Cumulative effects on fishing and
potential effects of displacement of fishing activity require further work within
the Plan review process and at the project level.”
 “There is an identified need for better information on the distribution of
fishing activity, especially small vessels which are not covered by the Scottish
Government vessel monitoring scheme (VMS). The Scottish Government is
working with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to develop a method to map
fishing activity through a pilot study in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters.
(For details see www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wave ) If
the methodologies prove tractable and robust they will be rolled out in other
sea areas. It is anticipated roll out will be prioritised in consultation with
Scottish fishing industry representative bodies. The fishing activity data
gathered at the regional level will be used to inform the Plan review and
project level assessments.”
40
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C7.8 In outlining “Guidance for Further Assessments” the Plan notes the following;
 “Further socio-economic evaluation of the effects of developments will be
required at the project level. Developers will be expected to establish a net
benefit from their proposals overall, for the people of Scotland and the
proximate communities affected by the developments.”
Developers Uptake of the Sectoral Plan for Marine Wind Energy
C7.9 Within the south east coast region covered by “Blue Seas – Green Energy” the
Crown Estate under Round 3 of renewable energy leasing provisions (see
www.thecrownestate.co.uk/round3 ) established the Firth of Forth zone. This was
identified along with 4 other potential sites as illustrated in Figure C1. It should be
noted that where developments occur in offshore waters (>12 – 200nm) they are
subject to consideration under the UK Government Department for Energy and
Climate Change Offshore Wind SEA. Details of the UK Government SEA for
Offshore Wind development can be found at; www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/index.php
Figure C1. Scottish Territorial Waters Offshore Wind Farms – East Coast
(Scottish Government discussion document for potential development areas
2010)
41
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C7.10 The nature and extent of the sites currently under investigation for wind farm
developments in the SEIFG area are indicated in Table C.3
Table C.3 Potential Wind Farm Development Sites within the East Coast Region
(Site numbers refer to those indicated in Figure C1.)
SITE NAME
Inch Cape
(Site 7)
COMPANY
N Power Renewables Ltd
Sea Energy Renewables Ltd
Neart na Gaoithe
(Site 9)
Round 3 Zone - Firth
of Forth
( Site - non-hatched
outline area)
Mainstream Renewable Power
Ltd
Sea Green
SIZE(MW)
905
AREA(SQ KM)
149.9
420
105.1
Phase 1
1,075
Phase 2
1820
Phase 3
790
Phase 1- 597
Phase 2 – 932
Phase 3 - 748
C7.11 The SEIFG has been in discussion with the Forth and Tay Wind Developer
Group, since the Neart na Gaoithe Workshop in October 2009. This group were
invited to, and attended Executive committee meetings in January and March 2010.
The SEIFG were instrumental in making clear the importance of fishing in the SEIFG
area. Of the four initial sites proposed for development - the Bell Rock (Site 8) would
have been extremely damaging to fishing vessels with around £1m worth of lobster,
crab and scallop caught from this ground in 2008. Following additional objections
from the MOD, because of potential radar interference to Leuchars Air Station, and
concerns regarding bird migrations in the area, plans to develop this site (together
with Site 10 (Forth Array development)) have been placed in abeyance. In order to
provide data as to the importance of the area the SEIFG provided clear mapping of the
sites, and a questionnaire for the fishermen, in a bid to inform the developers, as to the
extent of fishing in the area. There are still potential concerns with regard to the
cabling from the sites to the mainland, and it is anticipated that with the developer’s
Fishery Liaison Officers and Industry Representatives the SEIFG will maintain a
dialogue as any proposals develop.
C7.12 Both UK and Scottish offshore wind development plans require cumulative and
in combination effects and cumulative impacts to be quantified and where necessary
addressed through mitigation measures. In recognition of this the Forth and Tay Wind
Developer Group has been formed in partnership with the Crown Estate. The Group
aims to work collaboratively on potential regional cumulative impacts arising from
their proposed offshore wind developments.
Limitations of the Plan for Wind Energy in STWs
C7.13 The primary limitation is the Plan (“Blue Seas - Green Energy”) for offshore
wind energy can only make Scottish Government provisions for activities occurring
within Scottish Territorial Waters. While this allows directions to be given to
42
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
developers with regard to the environmental impact of activities within STWs there is
no direct control or linkage to activities occurring outside of this zone. Cumulative
impacts are consequently determined on a voluntary basis. With respect to the fishing
industry it is the combined impact of all activities and areas utilised for renewable
energy production (and other sectors activities such as oil and gas developments etc)
which are likely to dictate available fishing opportunities and access to traditional
fishing grounds. One important aspect of this is the potential displacement of fishing
activity from large scale sites utilised for renewable energy production. Developments
outside of STWs (and from other regions of the UK) have the potential to displace
fishing vessels onto other fishing grounds including inshore areas.
C7.14 From an inshore fishing industry perspective one of the greatest shortfalls of
the Plan is the lack of reference to export cable requirements for the offshore
developments. The cabling requirements to transmit power from the wind farm sites
to the shore are not part of the SEA process and are being dealt with separately by the
UK Government under the Offshore Transmission Operators (OFTO) process. The
requirement for appropriate electricity grid connections is made reference too within
the Plan (see C7.6 Action 5) however, no SEA has been conducted on the potential
impact of such cabling operations on inshore fisheries and the environment.
C7.15 The draft Plan and SEA for offshore wind energy has been the subject of
consultation by Scottish Government (see
www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2010/05/14155137/1 ).
Wider Marine Renewables - Implications for Fisheries
C7.16 Within “Blue Seas – Green Energy” the associated development of wet
renewables (wave and tidal) and the requirement for an appropriate SEA and Plan has
been noted (see C7.6 Action 4). The point of reference being the need for both
sectoral plan processes seeking to integrate work to ensure cumulative and incombination issues are recognised in order that they can be assessed.
C7.17 On the basis that it has been estimated that up to 10% of Scotland’s electricity
generation could derive from wave and tidal stream power by 2020, the Scottish
Executive in 2007 commissioned a SEA of the sector. Details of the Environmental
Report can be found at; www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk . The non-technical summary
of the SEA was published in 2007 by the Scottish Executive and details can be found
at; www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wave .
C7.18 The development of an updated SEA and Plan for the wet renewables sector is
based on geographic areas having suitable hydro graphic and oceanographic
conditions for power generation and these principally are found on the west and north
coasts of the Scottish mainland and island groups. Consequently it has been
anticipated that only limited interaction with fishing activities within the SEIFG area
would be likely to occur and this principally from potentially displaced fishing
vessels.
C7.19 Details of the provisions of the marine licensing regime under the MSA can be
found at; www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/licensing/marine/licensingmanual . The
draft manual has an annex devoted to the issues of wave and tidal renewable energy
43
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
developments and consideration is being given to the inclusion of OFTO provisions
within the licensing system.
Pentland Firth Renewable Energy Developments – Implications for SEIFG
C7.20 The Pentland Firth has been recognised as a highly important area for the
development of tidal energy. In addition areas around the Orkney coastline are also
regarded as highly suitable for wave energy developments. In order to develop
renewables in the area it has been designated as the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters
strategic leasing area by The Crown Estate. Details of the proposals for the area can
be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wave/rlg/pentlandorkney
C7.21 In order to develop the area for wet renewables the Scottish Government would
wish for developments to be implemented with regard to existing uses of the area and
in a way to protect the marine environment. The process to achieve this under the
Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 would be to develop a Regional Marine Plan for the area
as part of the wider National Marine Plan process. However, the implementation of
Regional Marine Plans is subject to further consultation and there is a requirement to
introduce measures for the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters (PFOW) areas in the
short term. In order to facilitate this Scottish Government has implemented a Marine
Spatial Plan (MSP) Framework for the area. Details can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wave/rlg/pentlandorkney/mspfinal.
The development of the Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) for the area is subject to Regional
Locational Guidance which will act as a template for the development of Regional
Marine Plans in other Scottish locations. Details of the Regional Locational Guidance
can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/marineenergy/wave/rlg/pentlandorkney/rlgfinal.
C7.22 The importance of the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters developments are two
fold with respect to fisheries within the SEIFG area. There is the potential for fishing
effort to be displaced from the PFOW area down the Scottish East coast. In addition
the development of a MSP for the area involves documenting existing fishing activity
and this is the subject of a project by Marine Scotland (see C7.7). If the project is
successful and able to accurately record fishing activities within the area there is the
potential for it to be rolled out to other Scottish regions and be used by the Inshore
Fisheries Groups for fisheries management purposes.
C8. Ministry of Defence Marine Activity
C8.1 Within the SEIFG area there are various exclusion zones for MOD related
activities. These include areas within the Firth of Forth related to harbour and
dockyard facilities.
C8.2 The bombing range at Buddon Ness is closed to all fishing activity when live
firing is taking place.
44
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C9. Ports and Harbour Facilities for Inshore Fishing Vessels
C9.1 The following descriptions of port facilities typically used by vessels working
inshore fisheries within the SEIFG area serves to illustrate the geographic range and
importance of the landing places.
C9.2 MONTROSE
More a port than a harbour, Montrose used to be popular with visiting trawlers, as it has no
tidal constraints and a good road network. The port is situated on the northern boundary of the
SEIFG area at the mouth of the River South Esk. There are seven creel vessels and one
trawler working from here. Montrose is also used regularly for scallop landings.
C9.3 ARBROATH
Situated to the North of the Tay estuary, Arbroath is an important harbour for a creel fleet of
fourteen vessels. These are heavily dependant on the fishing grounds situated at the Bell
Rock. Once a thriving harbour for whitefish vessels, complete with a market, ice plant and
Fishery Office; only the market remains, and there is now only one trawler Crystal Tide AH
135 based at Arbroath. The creel vessels fish for, and land lobster, brown and velvet crab on a
daily basis. Catches are collected by Deveron Shellfish and Ivor McBay. Scallop dredgers
also land their catches at Arbroath.
C9.4 ST ANDREWS
St Andrews harbour is situated, where the Eden Estuary meets the North Sea. It is a drying
harbour, with on average tides, a window of four hours for departure, or arrival on each tide.
There are a dozen under 10 metre creel vessels based here, mainly fishing the prolific water of
St Andrews Bay, with a few venturing further afield. As is the case in Crail, lobster is the
main catch, with the vessels fishing on a daily basis, mainly on weekdays. Collections of
lobster are made by Deveron Shellfish and Ivor McBay on a weekly basis.
C9.5 CRAIL
Crail harbour is situated on the tip of Fife, at a point where the Firth of Forth meets the North
Sea. It is a drying harbour, and on average tides, there is a window of around six hours on
each tide, when vessels can arrive or leave. The harbour, built by Dutch engineers in the 1600
century, contains a fleet of 10 creel vessels, who mainly fish for lobster. The vessels are all
under 10 metres. They tend to leave in the morning, landing back mid-morning to midday.
The catches are sold to Deveron Shellfish, who has vivier premises at Crail harbour. The
catches are ‘graded ‘and kept in lobster trays according to size and condition. Depending on
supply the lobster are then trucked up to Deveron Shellfish’s’ main premises in Macduff.
C9.6 ANSTRUTHER
Situated a mile East of Pittenweem, the great size of this harbour gives a clue to its past, when
it was home to more than 100 herring drifters. These days, it is increasingly used by yachts,
and more and more of the harbour’s area is given over to pontoons. There is still a fleet of six
creel vessels using this harbour, though the last Nephrops trawler was sold in 2010. There are
harbour offices with a Harbour Master, a Lifeboat Station, and the Marine Scotland
Compliance Fishery Office is situated near the harbour. A mile to the East lies the small
harbour at Cellardyke. This harbour shelters a small fleet, one of which is a creel vessel.
45
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
C9.7 PITTENWEEM
Pittenweem is the largest fishing harbour serving the East Neuk of the SEIFG area. It has a
modern market, which opened in 1994, an ice plant, and the entire necessary infrastructure for
a modern fishing harbour. There is a harbour office with a harbour master and deputy harbour
master.
Home to twenty Nephrops trawlers, 10 creel vessels (a couple of which also fish for bivalves)
as well as seasonal visitors, the harbour sees daily landings of langoustine, lobster, brown and
velvet crab, as well as less frequent landings of surf clam, razor clam and scallop. There are
also seasonal fisheries landings for mackerel and squid in the summer months. There are also
occasional landing of whelks and halibut. The harbour accommodates approximately 5,000
vessel landings a year; on average a dozen landings a day. Landings are predominately
Nephrops, lobster, brown crab, velvet crab, king scallop, surf clam, razor clam, whelk, as well
as squid and mackerel. There is little whitefish landed, and halibut for a period, was the most
commonly landed whitefish species! The last haddock vessels were sold away from
Pittenweem in 2000.
The Nephrops fleet comprises fourteen vessels, of which 10 are under 10 metres. On a busy
day more than two hundred boxes of Nephrops are landed, both as whole and tailed. More
recently, several vessels have been landing live Nephrops in tubes, where quality is
paramount. This effectively is a value added product for export to Spain.
All the catches are sold by contract, and Fishermen’s Mutual Association (Pittenweem) Ltd
lorries take the catches away, usually on the day of landing, or the following morning. The
vast majority of Nephrops is exported to France, Italy and Spain.
There are 10 Pittenweem based creel vessels, and they tend to sail every weekday, to check
their fleets of creels. They land their catches of lobster and crab in the early afternoon, and
they are stored live in vivier tanks on the market. They all fish local grounds, with some
venturing further afield to grounds such as the Bell Rock. Creel vessels work the majority of
their creels in fleets of 10, and some vessels fish more than 1,000 creels.
The squid fishery is sporadic, with some years seeing a good fishing of squid from June until
September. Catches fluctuate greatly both within and between years and the squid caught in
the south-east is consigned to Fraserburgh market for sale. Vessels fishing for squid are
Nephrops trawlers, who utilise smaller mesh nets for the fishery. Again the bulk of the
catches are destined for export.
C9.8 ST MONANS
St Monans harbour is situated on the North shore of the Firth of Forth, about two miles west
of Pittenween. Again the size of the harbour attests to the size of the fleet that used this
harbour in the past. There was until recently, a shipbuilding yard, Miller’s of St Monans
which had been in operation for over two hundred years, and had built many fishing vessels.
These days the harbour is used by around six creel vessels. There is a part time harbour
master.
C9.9 METHIL
Methil docks are owned by Forth Ports. Located on the North shore of the Firth of Forth, 12
miles west of Pittenweem, Methil docks, aside from commercial cargo activity, has several
fishing vessels based at the adjacent fairway. The fleet of Nephrops trawlers has diminished,
from the five or six that were operating from here 10 years ago, to one. There is however a
46
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
more substantial creel fleet, which numbers six. There are also around six vessels that carry
divers when fishing for razor clams.
The fishing vessels berth at the wooden fairway, where catches are also landed. There is no
ice plant. There are large numbers of privately owned craft, and some of these fish
recreationally for lobster, crab and fish. Shellfish are collected at Methil by various shellfish
vivier trucks.
C9.10 BURNTISLAND
Burntisland, in addition to being a harbour for two creel vessels and a couple of scallop
dredgers, is also a dock and the base for Briggs of Burntisland. Vessel repairs, including navy
vessels, are carried out here. In days gone by, such was the importance of the sprat fishery in
this area of the Firth of Forth, that there was a railhead at Burntisland, where sprats were
taken by train to the pet food factory at Melton Mowbray.
C9.11 NEWHAVEN AND GRANTON
Two of Edinburgh’s three harbours, the other being the much larger and nearby Leith Docks,
these harbours have an interesting history. At the height of the oyster fishery that lasted from
the mid 1600s to 1830, these harbours were used extensively for landings by oyster dredgers.
Later in the 1960s and ‘70s once again they were the harbours for those vessels fishing for
sprat on the Firth of Forth. These days there is little fishing activity from them. Currently
there are only two registered creel vessels fishing from Newhaven, and none from Granton.
Newhaven harbour lies adjacent to Newhaven Fish Market, where seafood is brought from
other areas for sale.
C9.12 PORT SETON
Port Seton is located about 15 miles East of Edinburgh. It is a drying harbour, so vessels work
around the tides. There is a fleet of 12 trawlers fishing and landing to the harbour every day.
Langoustine are generally landed whole, and are handled by JSB Supplies Ltd. In common
with most Nephrops trawler fishing within the SEIFG area, voyages are generally day trips,
either in daylight, or at night, depending on the season. There are also half a dozen creel
vessels based in Port Seton.
C9.13 NORTH BERWICK
North Berwick harbour is situated below the Seabird Centre. The harbour is a base for four
creel vessels and also used by vessels deploying divers to collect razor clams.
C9.14 DUNBAR
The interesting double harbour of Dunbar is located in East Lothian, between Port Seton and
Eyemouth. The original Old Harbour was extended in 1655 by Oliver Cromwell, and the
newer Victoria Harbour was built in 1842. Dunbar was once a thriving herring port and home
to a large fleet of herring drifters. These days, it has a smaller fleet of six Nephrops trawlers
and twelve creel vessels. Nephrops is landed on a daily basis, and taken to local processors in
Port Seton.
C9.15 ST ABBS
Another big harbour, St Abbs’ herring catches at one time vied with those landed at
Eyemouth. The original harbour was built in 1832, and it is seen as the safest harbour from
47
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
the Firth of Forth to North Shields, with a safe entrance and at least four feet of water at
anytime. There are 11 creel vessels based here.
C9.16 EYEMOUTH
Eyemouth is situated 10 miles north of Berwick, and is the biggest fishing harbour on the
South side of the Firth of Forth. A small harbour at the mouth of the Eye Water is adjacent to
quayside space on both sides of the river, leading to ship building facilities. The Eyemouth
fleet still has four trawlers, which fish for whitefish, when they have quota; this is steadily
reducing, as more vessels are forced to turn to Nephrops fishing. Eyemouth has twelve
Nephrops trawlers, seven creel vessels, and a couple of scallop vessels. In addition to the local
fleet, Eyemouth is frequently used by visiting vessels, mainly from the north-east of England.
The bulk of landings at Eyemouth are Nephrops, lobster, brown crab, velvet crab, scallop and
squid. The market at Gunsgreen is mainly used for shellfish storage. This building also houses
the Harbour Office and Marine Scotland Compliance Fishery Office. Because of its open
location by the North Sea and facing eastwards, Eyemouth can be affected by northerlies and
easterlies, which can close the harbour for days at a time.
C9.17 BURNMOUTH
A very steep descent leads to Burnmouth Harbour, which lies at the bottom of 100m cliffs. It
was built in the 1830s and is the first harbour on the East coast of Scotland coming north. The
size of the harbour shows it was built to harbour herring drifters; these days it has six creel
vessels operating from it.
C9.18 OTHER HARBOURS
There are more than a dozen other minor harbours or landing sites in the SEIFG area and
some of these will have a small numbers of creel vessels based at them.
Buyers and Sellers Legislation and Designated Markets
C9.19 The first sale of fish or shellfish must be undertaken either through a designated
market or as a registered seller or buyer. Details regarding the Buyers and Sellers
legislation can be found at; www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/sea-fisheries/fishregister/introduction . The full list of registered Buyers and Sellers of fish in the
SEIFG area can be found at; www.fishregister.gov.uk
C9.20 The sale of fish through designated markets was introduced as a fisheries
control measure to improve compliance with the requirement to report all fish
landings. The Designation of Auction Sites (Scotland) Regulations 2005 have limited
the number of approved sites within the SEIFG area to markets at Eyemouth and
Pittenweem.
Fish Buyers, Processors and Distributors
C9.21 The SEIFG area has links with a wide range of companies involved in fish
buying, processing and distribution within Scotland. Details can be found on the
Seafood Scotland industry database (www.seafoodscotland.org/en/industrydatabase.html )
C9.22 At the northern end of the SEIFG area, Arbroath harbour still has a market, but
no longer are there auctions of landings. The market is still used, albeit on a far less
48
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
regular basis than in days gone by; creel vessels use it, when landing their catches to
shellfish companies. However Arbroath no longer has an ice plant, or a Fishery
Office. Some fifty miles to the South, on the shores of the Firth of Forth, is
Pittenweem. Here, there are modern market facilities, a Harbour Office and ice and
fuel supply services. Very little whitefish is landed these days, but there are daily
landings of Nephrops, supplemented with regular landings of lobster, brown crab,
velvet crab and landings of scallop, surf and razor clam, squid and whelks.
Pittenweem is the domain of the Fife Mutual Fishermen’s Association and market
landings are handled by them. Nephrops is either landed in the morning or evening,
dependant on fishing patterns, and is all sold by contract and dispatched every
weekday, to processors at Bellshill and Eyemouth. Lobster, brown crab and velvet
crab are collected by Imex International and mainly are exported to Spain. Shellfish
landed at nearby Anstruther is collected by Ivor McBay Shellfish of Gourdon and
Buckhaven Shellfish of Methil.
To the South of the Forth, in Eyemouth, the new fish market has never really been
used as a main point of landing, with vessels preferring to continue to land on the
town side. These days the market is used for lobster and other shellfish storage.
Processors in Eyemouth include DR Collin & Sons, now the biggest seafood
processor/transporter in Scotland and Burgon (handling lobster and crab). In
Edinburgh there are several processors, as well as the fish market at Newhaven. This
market is dry i.e. catches are brought to it by road transport, though it is adjacent to
Newhaven harbour.
At Port Seton harbour, J.S.B. Supplies handle the landings made by the dozen
Nephrops trawlers based here. The company was owned by Jim Buchan, former
Deputy Chairman of the SEIFG. J.S.B. Supplies also handle Nephrops landed by the
six Nephrops trawlers fishing out of Dunbar.
C9.23 Table C4 indicates the importance of the processing sector within the southeast of Scotland. Primary processors typically wash grade and package shellfish or gut
and possibly fillet finfish while mixed processing may involve further preparation
such as cooking and dressing crab or enrobing fish fillets etc. It can be seen that
companies involved in mixed forms of processing predominate the sector with almost
400 full time equivalent jobs dependent on fish processing overall.
Table C4. Numbers and Types of Processing Companies and Employees Based in
the South-East of Scotland.
Companies
Primary Mixed Processing Total
6
17
23
South-east
285
389
Full time employees 104
C9.24 Table C5 provides a breakdown of the 23 companies involved in fish
processing and the types of fish species and numbers of individual companies
involved with each activity. It can be seen that the majority of companies handle both
shellfish and demersal species and are involved in more than just primary processing
activities.
49
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table C5. Number of Fish Processing Companies Handling Specific Seafood
Types and Based in the South-East of Scotland.
Seafood type
Shellfish
Demersal
Mixed species
Primary
3
1
2
Mixed processing
2
2
13
Total
5
3
15
50
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX D
Official Fisheries Statistics for the SEIFG Area
D1. Introduction
D1.1 In order to identify the range of fishing activities currently undertaken in the
SEIFG area reference is made to national statistics collected by the Scottish
Government. The source of information contained within this Appendix and made
reference to throughout the Fisheries Management Plan is “Scottish Sea Fisheries
Statistics 2009” published by Scottish Government and available on the website;
WWW.scotland.gov.uk/statistics.
D2. Employment in the Scottish Fish Catching Industry
D2.1 The total Scottish labour force in 2009 amounted to 2.49M people and of those
5409 were recorded as working in the fish catching sector. Employment in this sector
as a proportion of the total labour force has remained relatively constant over the 2002
to 2009 period at 0.2%. However, there are strong regional variations within Scotland.
Table D1 indicates the value of landings and fishermen employed in selected coastal
regions of Scotland during 2009.
D2.2 It should be noted that the Scottish island groups (Outer Hebrides, Orkney and
Shetland) had the highest dependency on fish catching for employment of fishermen
(3.79% of the total workforce). While considerably lower, Aberdeenshire, the
Highlands and Moray all showed employment of fishermen to be significantly higher
than the average figure for Scottish coastal regions (0.44% of the total workforce). In
terms of the SEIFG area and figures for Angus, Edinburgh, East Lothian, Fife and the
Borders, the average as a % of the labour force was 0.1%. The total numbers of
fishermen employed within the SEIFG area amounted to 383 full time equivalents.
51
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table D1. Value of Scottish Based Vessel Landings into Selected Regions of
Scotland, in Relation to the Labour Force and Fishermen Employed during
2009.
Region
Landings
£M
78.1
Labour Force
(x 1000)
35
Fishermen
Employed
1 328
As % of
Labour Force
3.79
145.0
130
1 335
1.03
71.1
117
949
0.81
Moray
3.5
44
273
0.62
Angus
1.2
52
58
0.11
Aberdeen City
3.7
117
46
0.04
Edinburgh City
East Lothian
Fife
Scottish Borders
0.4
2.3
4.5
3.4
245
47
172
54
4
68
174
79
<0.01
0.14
0.10
0.15
Scottish Coastal
Regions Total
339
1 231
5 409
0.44
Outer Hebrides
Orkney, Shetland
Aberdeenshire
Highland
D2.3 Table D2 identifies the harbours within the SEIFG area and the numbers of full
and part time fishermen that work from them.
D2.4 In terms of full time employment the harbours of Pittenweem and Eyemouth are
associated with the largest number of fishermen (60 each), but employed fishermen
can be seen to be operating widely throughout the SEIFG area.
52
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table D2. Numbers of Fishermen Working from SEIFG Area Harbours in 2009
Harbour
Montrose
Arbroath
Carnoustie
Easthaven
St Andrews
Crail
Cellardyke
Anstruther
Pittenweem
St Monans
Elie
Methil
Kinghorn
Kirkcaldy
Burntisland
Newhaven
Granton
Port Seton
North Berwick
Dunbar
Cove
Eyemouth
Burnmouth
St Abbs
Total
Full Time
11
26
4
7
9
24
60
2
1
28
1
1
4
2
32
4
25
2
60
9
6
318
Part time
10
4
2
1
6
4
1
6
3
4
6
1
4
1
1
4
2
1
61
Total
21
30
6
1
13
13
1
30
63
6
1
34
1
2
8
3
1
36
4
25
2
62
9
7
379
D3. Regional Fishing Activity within the SEIFG Area
D3.1 The SEIFG area covers from the River North Esk near Montrose down to the
Scottish / English border near Berwick. National landing statistics are collated
through specified fishery districts designated by Marine Scotland in order to
administer the fisheries and landings. The SEIFG area encompasses 2 complete
fishery districts Eyemouth (covering ports; Burnmouth, Cove, Dunbar, Eyemouth,
Granton, North Berwick, Port Seton, St Abbs) and Pittenweem (covering ports;
Anstruther, Burntisland, Crail, Methil and Leven, Pittenweem, St Andrews, St
Monans) and part of the Aberdeen district (covering ports; Arbroath, Montrose).
D3.2 It should be noted that for fisheries management purposes ICES have divided
the seas into a grid of 35km by 35km statistical rectangles which are used for catch
and stock assessment purposes. Figure D1 indicates the divisions in the seas around
Scotland. The SEIFG area (out to 6nm) covers landings recorded from statistical
rectangle 41E7, 41E6 and parts of 42E7, 40E7, 40E6. It is possible to determine
specific landings originating from each of these areas based on statistics collected by
Marine Scotland. However, such detailed interpretation needs to be treated with some
caution and in the current context only landings into each of the fisheries districts will
be considered.
53
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure D1. ICES Statistical Rectangles and the Boundaries of the Inshore
Fisheries Groups. (Note: The seaward limit indicates Scottish Territorial Waters
(12nm))
54
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
D3.3 Table D3 outlines the relative importance of each of the fishery districts and
areas in relation to the number of fishing trips ending in each during 2009 and the
associated tonnages and values of landings.
TABLE D3. Number of Voyages Ending in Districts and Landings into Fishery
Districts within the SEIFG Area During 2009
District
Eyemouth
Pittenweem
Arbroath/Montrose
Total
Voyages
5,384
5,389
756
11,529
Tonnes
2,451
2,117
296
4864
Value
£6.67m
£4.62m
£1.20m
£12.49m
D3.4 It can be seen from Table D3 that Eyemouth and Pittenweem ports were equally
utilised during the year with similar tonnages of fish landed. However, in terms of
value Eyemouth ports were handling higher value species than Pittenweem as the
gross value was approximately £2M greater.
D3.5 Table D4 indicates the landings of all individual fish species into the Eyemouth
and Pittenweem fishery districts and to Arbroath and Montrose during 2009.
TABLE D4. Landings of Individual Species into Eyemouth and Pittenweem
Fishery Districts and Arbroath/Montrose by Tonnage and Value During 2009
Eyemouth
Pittenweem
Arbroath/Montrose
Species
Tonnes £’000 Tonnes £’000 Tonnes
£’000
Haddock
138
133
Lemon Sole
23
40
Plaice
20
14
Whiting
54
30
Squid
11
18
1
2
Other Demersal
46
96
1
2
Total Demersal
292
331
2
4
Mackerel
Total pelagic
25
25
19
19
18
18
17
17
22
22
16
16
Brown crab
Lobster
Velvet crab
Nephrops
Scallops
Other shellfish
Total shellfish
211
149
72
1,792
235
14
2,473
226
1,594
116
4,001
384
19
6,340
116
122
91
1,524
74
229
2,156
123
1,217
160
2,595
116
402
4,613
64
88
54
11
69
61
887
105
27
116
286
1196
Total landings
2,790
6,690
2,176
4,634
308
1,212
55
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Eyemouth Fishery District
D3.6 Landings of demersal fish species can be seen to be primarily into the Eyemouth
district with the majority into the port of Eyemouth. In total volume terms demersal
species only account for approximately 10%, and 5% by value of all species landings
into the district. Pelagic landings consist of a small quantity of hand line caught
mackerel which is locally important as it serves a high value niche market which is
not recognised by the official landing valuation figures.
D3.7 Shellfish landings into the Eyemouth district exceed those of the other districts
within the SEIFG area. In volume and value terms Nephrops accounted for the highest
landings at almost 1 800 tonnes valued at £4M. In value terms lobster was the second
most important species with landings of 149 tonnes worth almost £1.6M. Landings of
scallops of 235 tonnes were valued at £0.384M making them the third most important
species ahead of brown crab at 211 tonnes and £0.226M. In total a further 72 tonnes
of velvet crab were landed together with 14 tonnes of other shellfish species.
Eyemouth showed the only significant squid landings during 2009 amounting to 11
tonnes in total.
D3.8 Total fish landings into the Eyemouth fisheries district during 2009 accounted
for 53% in both volume and value terms for all landings in the SEIFG area.
Pittenweem Fishery District
D3.9 There was insignificant landings of demersal species into the Pittenweem fishery
district during 2009. In a similar position to the other fishery districts in the SEIFG
area a small but locally significant hand line fishery for mackerel produced landings
of 18 tonnes. In line with the other fisheries districts shellfish species accounted for
the majority of landings.
D3.10 Nephrops was the most important species with just over 1 500 tonnes valued at
almost £2.6M. In a similar position to the Eyemouth district lobster was the second
most valuable species with 122 tonnes valued at just over £1.2M. In contrast to other
districts “Other” shellfish were reported as the third most valuable at just over £0.4M.
It has been suggested that “Other” shellfish consisted of 60% razor fish and 40% surf
clams indicating the importance of these fisheries within the district. Velvet crab
accounted for £0.16M of landings ahead of brown crab and scallops at around
£0.12M.
D3.11 Total fish landings into the Pittenweem district during 2009 accounted for 41%
by volume and 37% by value of all fish landings into the SEIFG area.
Arbroath/Montrose Ports
D3.12 Fishery landings associated with these ports showed no demersal species
during 2009. In a similar position to other districts within the SEIFG area there was a
small but significant mackerel hand line fishery recorded with landings of 22 tonnes.
D3.13 The shellfish species of prime importance was lobster with recorded landings
of 88 tonnes valued at almost £0.9M. In contrast to the other fisheries districts
56
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Nephrops landings were limited at 11 tonnes valued at £0.03M. The second most
valuable species was scallop with 69 tonnes valued at almost £0.12M. Velvet crab
amounted to 54 tonnes at a value of £0.11M while brown crab landings achieved 64
tonnes and £0.06M.
D3.14 Total fish landings into Arbroath and Montrose during 2009 amounted to 6%
and 10% by volume and value of the total fishery landings within the SEIFG area.
D4. Regional Fishing Fleet Structure
D4.1 Table D5 indicates the numbers in various size groups of active Scottish based
vessels in relation to base fishery districts within the SEIFG area during 2009.
D4.2 The total number of fishing vessels based within the fishery districts (313)
represents 14% of active Scottish based fishing vessels. However, this is an over
estimate for the SEIFG area as a whole as only two ports (Arbroath and Montrose) are
in the Aberdeen fishery district.
D4.3 It can be seen that the largest fleet sector is for <10m vessels which make up
over 80% of the total number of boats. If vessels up to <15m are included these
account for 93% of the fleet.
Table D5. Numbers and Length Groups of Active Scottish Based Vessels by Base
Fishery Districts within the SEIFG Area in 2009.
Fishery
District
Vessel
Length
< / = 10m
Aberdeen Pittenweem
Eyemouth
TOTAL
81
100
73
254
>10 <15m
8
13
16
37
15 < 18m
/
2
3
5
18 < 25m
5
2
7
14
25 < 35m
2
/
1
3
35 < 50m
/
/
/
/
> / = 50m
/
/
/
/
TOTAL
96
117
100
313
D4.4 The distribution of the smaller size vessels used for creeling within the SEIFG
area is shown in Table D6.
57
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Table D6. Distribution of Creel Vessels by Port and Numbers within the SEIFG
Area.
North side
South side
Harbour
No of vessels
Harbour
No of vessels
Montrose
7
Newhaven
2
Arbroath
14
Port Seton
6
Carnoustie
3
North Berwick
4
Easthaven
4
Dunbar
12
St Andrews
12
Cove
2
Crail
10
Eyemouth
7
Cellardyke
1
Burnmouth
6
Pittenweem
10
St Abbs
11
St Monans
6
Elie
1
Methil
6
West Wemyss
3
Kinghorn
1
Pettycur
1
Burntisland
2
Rosyth
1
North Queensferry
1
D4.5 The importance of creel fishing for crabs and lobster is indicated by the wide
spread distribution and total numbers of such vessels within the SEIFG area. In total
during 2009 there was reported to be in the order of 144 vessels fishing for lobster.
58
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX E
Profile of Local Fisheries within the SEIFG Area
E1. Fisheries Currently Prosecuted
E1.1 Nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus) (Langoustine or Dublin Bay Prawn)
In 2009 over half of the SEIFG area fishing revenue came from Nephrops trawling,
with around 50 locally based vessels operating in this fishery. Nephrops are landed in
both whole and tailed form with the majority of landings going for export to the
continent. Nephrops have been fished for in the south-east of Scotland since the
1950’s.
The Nephrops trawl fishery is managed by quota with vessels allocated an entitlement
in one of the following ways:
Producer Organisation (PO) members are allocated their quota by their respective PO
Manager. The majority of the vessels in the south-east of Scotland are either in the
Anglo-Scottish PO or Fife Fishermen’s PO.
Under 10 metre vessels are allocated a quota (vessel monthly allocation) by the
Scottish Government through the Marine Scotland management system.
Non Sector over 10 metre vessels not in a PO are allocated their quota in the same
way as under 10 metre vessels.
The Nephrops fishery quota allocation is managed by all parties in order to allow the
fishery to remain open all year.
The current EU minimum landing size for Nephrops is 24mm carapace length, with a
total length of 85mm. In terms of fishing gear restrictions and the requirement to
minimise any bycatch of demersal fish species Nephrops trawls must have a square
mesh panel fitted.
In terms of revenue, the Nephrops trawl fishery is the most important in the SEIFG
area. Landings of 3,316 tonnes in 2009 had a first sale value of £6,623,000,
accounting for 58% of the total revenue and 67% of total tonnage. Nephrops was
landed in 2009 by a total fleet of 53 local trawlers, plus some visiting vessels. The
numbers of local vessels typically fishing from the following harbours were;
Pittenweem - 22
Eyemouth - 12
Port Seton - 12
Dunbar - 6
Methil - 1
The bulk of the fleet fish mainly within the Firth of Forth and land Nephrops on a
daily basis from Monday to Friday. In summer, during the short hours of darkness,
and in clear water, Nephrops are fished primarily at night. During the rest of the year
it is a daytime fishery. Peak catches tend to be landed during the autumn. Around
April/May, when the spring algal bloom dies and falls to the seabed, Nephrops
catches typically decline, and a proportion of the local fleet will leave south-east
harbours, to fish on the West coast, usually returning by August/September.
59
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
This fishing pattern is reciprocated, with visiting trawlers typically coming from the
north-east of England, to fish from Eyemouth; with those visiting Pittenweem usually
coming from West Coast harbours, the Moray Firth or Fraserburgh. In the SEIFG area
landings are both in whole form and as tails only, with the format principally dictated
by the market. On the South side of the Firth of Forth the bulk of landings are as
whole animals.
Landings of Nephrops into the Pittenweem and Eyemouth Fisheries Districts over the
period 1999 to 2009 are indicated in Figures E1 and E2 respectively.
Figure E1. Nephrops landings into Pittenweem District 1999-2009
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
Tonnes
600
400
200
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure E2. Nephrops landings into Eyemouth District 1999-2009
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Tonnes
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
60
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
The landing profiles of the two districts are very similar, which is perhaps not
surprising given that the two fleets generally fish the same Nephrops grounds and they
contain an even match of vessel numbers and sizes.
It can be seen for the two districts that catches declined during the early part of the
decade reaching a minimum of around 600 tonnes in 2003 and since then have
steadily increased fluctuating around 1500 to 1800 tonnes in Eyemouth district and
1200 to 1500 tonnes in Pittenweem.
Nephrops are sold primarily by contract rather than at auction with the bulk of them
transported on a daily basis to West Coast processors including Angelbond,
Dawnfresh, Scotprime and also to Seafood Ecosse, Peterhead, Aquamart, Marnic, DR
Collin & Sons and R&J Dougal, Eyemouth. The majority of Nephrops are
subsequently exported directly to France, Spain and Italy.
E1.2 Lobster (Homarus gammarus)
In terms of participating vessels this is the largest fleet sector in the SEIFG area, with
over 140 vessels prosecuting the fishery. Lobster landings accounted for £3,698,000
(78%) by value of all creel landings in 2009. Typically prosecuted as a mixed fishery
with brown crab the more recent presence of velvet crab on traditional lobster grounds
has meant that both velvet crab and lobster have been able to be successfully
prosecuted as a year round fishery. This has been the fastest growing sector within the
SEIFG area in recent years.
Lobsters are caught primarily from the rocky coastal fringes of the coastline of Angus,
down along similar quality ground between St Andrews and Crail, then into the Firth
of Forth, where there are sizeable fleets at Pittenweem and Methil and creel vessels at
most harbours. Lobster stocks are more dissipated at the western end of the Firth of
Forth, as hard ground gives way to silt – beyond the Forth road and rail bridges, there
are fewer lobster. The stocks pick up again on the southern shore of the Firth heading
East, with a couple of lobster boats at Newhaven; fleets of creel vessels are found at
Port Seton, Dunbar, North Berwick, Cove, Eyemouth, St Abbs and Burnmouth.
After capture lobster are generally kept alive in keep creels, and landed once or twice
a week to shellfish processors.
Every year sees fluctuations in the lobster price in Scotland, with it varying from as
low as £7/kg in summer, rising to about £20/kg around Christmas. Oversupply of
Scottish lobster, combined with imports of cheaper Canadian lobster, has the potential
to depress the prices especially in the summer months.
Figure E3. indicates the landings of lobster into the Pittenweem fishery district
between 2000 to 2009, while Figure E4. shows landings into the Eyemouth fishery
district for the period 2006 to 2009.
61
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure E3. Lobster landings into Pittenweem District 2000-2009
140
120
100
80
Tonnes
60
40
20
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure E4. Lobster landings into Eyemouth District for the Period 2006-2009
160
140
120
100
80
Tonnes
60
40
20
0
2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure E3 indicates that landings of lobster in the Pittenweem fishery district have
progressively increased from a low of around 20 tonnes in 2001 to approximately 120
tonnes in 2009. Such large increases in landings are also indicated in the Eyemouth
fishery district with catches doubling from around 70 tonnes in 2006 to over 140
tonnes in 2009. Doubling of landings over the same period is also shown in the
Pittenweem fishery district.
E1.3 Brown Crab (Cancer pagurus)
This species is fished for using creels in a similar manner to lobster and velvet crab
but with stocks found on softer grounds of reef edge or sandy sediments. While fewer
vessels in the SEIFG area fish for this species than lobster it is still an important
62
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
source of revenue for creel vessels from Arbroath, Pittenweem, Burnmouth and St
Abbs.
There were 390 tonnes (7% of 2009 total landings) of brown crab landed in the
SEIFG area in 2009, fetching £410,000 (3% of 2009 revenue). Generally these are
caught from deep water marks. There is a well established fishery out of Arbroath for
brown crab. In Pittenweem there are around half a dozen vessels who regularly fish
for the species. The requirements for crab creeling differ slightly to lobster, with
respect to more bait in the form of fish carcasses being used to attract the animals into
the creels. Historically crab prices have remained low, and sometimes are as low as
£0.80/kg; this is a fishery where quantity compensates for the low unit price. Bulk
catches by large UK vivier vessels have played a major role in depressing prices in
recent years.
Figure E5 indicates the landings of brown crab into the Pittenweem fishery district
during the period 1999 to 2009 while Figure E6 shows similar figures for the
Eyemouth fishery district.
Figure E5. Brown Crab Landings into Pittenweem Fishery District 1999-2009
140
120
100
80
Tonnes
60
40
20
0
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Both fishery districts indicate landings of around 50 tonnes in 1999 with a general
trend of increases up to a maximum of around 130 tonnes in 2006. In 2002 and 2004
there was a decline in landings away from the general trend in both fishery districts.
From 2007 onwards there was a slight decline in landings into both fishery districts
with each recording landings of almost 120 tonnes of brown crab in 2009.
63
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure E6. Brown Crab Landings into Eyemouth Fishery District 1999-2009
140
120
100
80
Tonnes
60
40
20
0
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
E1.4 Velvet crab (Necora puber)
This species was rarely caught in south-east of Scotland waters until about ten years
ago but since then catches have increased. The reason given by local fishermen for the
population expansion is the perceived increase in water temperatures, and the last
three colder winters and drops in catches are taken to support this theory. A very
important by-catch to the lobster fishery, velvet crab is mainly exported to Spain.
Velvet crab is also an important fishery in its own right within the SEIFG area with
typically a higher unit value achieved than for brown crab. In 2009 218 tonnes (4% of
total landings) of velvet crab was valued at £381,386 (3% of 2009 revenue) at an
average of £1.70/kg, with the larger sizes fetching up to £2.50/kg. Velvet crab are
usually landed once a week, packed in crates, which are placed in tanks onboard
vivier trucks, for onward transportation to Spain. Recently there have been voluntary
moves to limit landings in the warmer summer months, as the animals do not survive
well if exposed to higher temperatures / lower oxygen concentrations in the vivier
water.
Figure E7 indicates velvet crab landings into Pittenweem fishery district from 2004 to
2009. Figure E8 presents similar data for the Eyemouth Fishery district for the period
2006 – 2009 while Figure E9 shows landings into Arbroath and Montrose for the
period 2004 to 2009.
Landings into each fishery district and port peaked in 2007 at over 90 tonnes in
Pittenweem district, around 110 in Eyemouth and at over 160 tonnes at
Arbroath/Montrose. However, landings have progressively declined to around 90
tonnes, 70 tonnes and 80 tonnes in the 3 respective locations. In Pittenweem the
reduction over the period has been marginal as it has in Eyemouth. However, in
Montrose/Arbroath this equates to a halving of landings over a 3 year period.
64
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure E7. Velvet Crab Landings into Pittenweem Fishery District 2004-2009
100
80
60
Tonnes
40
20
0
2004
2006
2008
Figure E8. Velvet Crab Landings into Eyemouth Fishery District 2006-2009
120
100
80
60
Tonnes
40
20
0
2006
2008
65
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure E9. Velvet Crab Landings into Arbroath/Montrose Ports 2004-2009
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tonnes
2004
2006
2008
E1.5 King Scallop (Pecten maximus)
The king scallop is landed into Pittenweem, Eyemouth, and Montrose. This is a high
value species which can sell in a supermarket at around £1 per shell. Scallop vessels
are nomadic, and when fishing in the SEIFG area, tend to prosecute stocks around the
location of the Bell Rock. In general gear conflict has not been a significant issue for
the SEIFG although there has been some gear interaction between the static creel
sector and the mobile scallop fleet.
E1.6 Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)
Caught by handline within the SEIFG area, mackerel has provided an excellent source
of revenue for creel vessels turning their efforts to this fishery. By the end of the
season in November 2010, 13 vessels had caught 64.75 tonnes of mackerel for
£55,982. At a quota of 500kg/vessel/week initially (then halved to 250 kg), with very
low operating costs, this fishery provided a much needed diversion from creel fishing,
and it is hoped in the future the quota and/or the season can be extended. The price in
2011 has remained at around £1/kg.
E1.7 Squid (Loligo spp)
The squid fishery in the SEIFG area is sporadic, and dynamic, with landing levels
varying dramatically from year to year. However when stocks are able to be caught it
provides an important alternative source of revenue for Nephrops trawlers. Squid is
landed into Pittenweem and Eyemouth and consigned to Fraserburgh fish market to be
sold.
This is a relatively new fishery in the area, with catches varying markedly from year
to year. Squid stocks of small individuals become evident around July in the southeast of Scotland and typically in the sheltered Firths. It is a non quota species and
provides a welcome diversion especially for vessels short on Nephrops quota. In
2010, vessels from Eyemouth and Pittenweem prosecuted the squid fishery in the
66
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
SEIFG area. Squid is a biologically fast growing species and landing prices increase
significantly with the larger sizes of individuals. Catches of up to 30 boxes a day have
been reported in 2010. This fishery could yield greater revenue, if the fishing season
was delayed in order to target larger size individuals. Prices achieved at first sale are
likely to range between £1-£3/kg depending on the size of individuals.
E1.8 Surf Clam (Spisula solida)
Also known as thick trough shell, surf clams are found on clean sand on lower
shore/littoral grounds. In the SEIFG area they are fished for by dragging a small cage
behind the vessel. This fishery has at times in recent years had up to 10 vessels
fishing for the species and landing into Pittenweem and Anstruther. There is currently
a limited local market for this species. The average price for surf clam in 2010 was
£1/kg.
E1.9 Razor Fish (Ensis spp)
Razor fish can be caught by divers working from vessels towing an electric cable
along the seabed, which stimulates the razor fish to come to the sediment surface,
where they are hand collected. Currently this method is illegal under EU legislation.
Not surprisingly, it is seen as a more dangerous fishing method than conventional
hand gathering or dredging. The use of electricity has been noted to increase the rate
of gathering by up to a factor of four in comparison to traditional diver hand
gathering. Until scientific trials have assessed as to whether electric fishing can be
allowed, the SEIFG would advocate hand gathering. Note: a report on electric fishing
for razor fish has recently been produced by Marine Scotland Science.
E1.10 Whelk (Buccinum undatum)
Whelks are sometimes fished for, using plastic pots, and again this non TAC species
provide sources of income, with whelk meats being exported to Korea.
E1.11 Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout (Salmo salar / Salmo trutta)
There is an important marine fishery in the SEIFG area for these species and which
has the potential to interact with other fish stocks and the wider marine environment.
One of six coastal stations still operating in Scotland, Usan Salmon Fisheries Ltd,
Salmon netting station at Usan, opened in 1983, and is owned by the Pullar Family.
The station harvests salmon and sea trout caught in stake, jumper and bag nets and the
company supplies markets around the world. Currently stock conservation for seatrout
is being assisted through a scheme in partnership with the Esk River Fishery Board
(District Salmon Fishery Board) whereby sea trout are released back to sea. The
season for this fishery is 16th February – 31st August.
67
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
E2. Fish Species Currently Unexploited
E2.1 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)
In the Firth of Forth up until 1982 (centred in the area between Edinburgh and
Burntisland) there was an established sprat fishery which had been operating since the
1960s. Sprats were caught by mobile gear in the form of a small mesh trawl. The
fishery at its peak had over 100 vessels prosecuting it during the winter months.
Sprats were canned, sold to klondykers, or delivered by train from Burntisland, to the
pet food factory at Melton Mowbray. The fishery was closed, when it was found that
some catches contained more than the permitted herring by-catch of 10%. Fishing for
sprat West of 3 degrees West has been prohibited by EU Regulation EC Reg 850/98
since 1998. The closure was one of a series of inter-related closures introduced across
the North Sea in order to protect the herring stock.
Table E1. Sprat landings into Eyemouth, Leith and Pittenweem Districts 19711982
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
Unit
cwt
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1982
tonnes
Eyemouth
12,364
580
600
375.5
152.3
Leith
39,220
63,787
52,119
116,520
Pittenweem District
9,137
2,219
2,370
4,591
1,537
9,600
4,586
2,815
174
135
137
1.3
39
2,469
11
13
There were two sprat surveys carried out by Napier University in 2004. Only
negligible (<1%) amounts of herring were caught at this time and no subsequent
surveys have been undertaken.
In addition to the Sprat being a human food source it is important to recognise that
any such stocks in areas containing bird populations are also likely to be used as a
resource by various species of seabirds.
E2.2 Bivalve Shellfish Stocks – St Andrews Bay
The Scottish Ocean’s Institute Ltd, St Andrews University has been commissioned to
investigate the status of bivalve shellfish stocks in St Andrews Bay an area closed to
mobile gear fishing (see C6.).
68
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
The area is closed to protect plaice nursery grounds and there are known to be several
species of bivalve shellfish present. Currently only static gear is allowed in the Bay
and the area is subject to creel fishing.
The bivalve survey was scheduled to be carried in February 2011 with sample
collection taking 12 days depending on weather conditions. The Scottish Ocean’s
Institute Ltd research vessel carried out grab sampling, with a scientist on board
analysing the sample contents. The area to be sampled was initially defined by the
researchers and in order to avoid conflict with the creel fishery in the area a section of
the survey area at the southern end was omitted as it was considered to not
compromise the overall investigation. The aims of the survey were:

Determination of bivalve species diversity within the sample area.

Assessment of the bivalve biomass within the sample area.
There is historic evidence that stocks of the following species are likely to be found in
the bay:
Surf clam or thick trough shell (Spisula solida)
Cockle (Cardium edule)
Razor Clams (Ensis spp)
Tellins (Tellina spp)
Pallourde/Carpet shell (Tapes rhomboides)
The cost of the bi-valve survey was £65,590.85, of which £13,200 was raised from the
following Councils: Angus (£5,000) Fife (£5,000) East Lothian (£1,200) and Borders
(£2,000) all of whom have fishing interests in their respective areas. An application
for the balance £52,390,85 was successful with a commitment from the European
Fisheries Fund (EFF).
E3. Potential Management Measures to Improve the Fisheries
E3.1 The SEIFG Area Creel Fishery
Creel capping and identification
There is a growing awareness and concern amongst the creel community regarding
the ever increasing creel numbers in the SEIFG area principally targeting the lobster
stock. The general belief is that there should be a capping of fishing effort in the creel
fishery. This could be achieved by limiting new entrants into this fishery, and also
limiting creel numbers per vessel. This is one of the SEIFGs key objectives in seeking
to introduce fisheries management within the area.
Following extensive discussion with the creel associations in the SEIFG, the
suggested limits that have been brought to the Executive Committee table is 400
creels/man, limited to 1000/vessel. At the moment the number of creels fishing
within the area is unknown. The estimated total number of creels will be: numbers of
licensed vessels + other creel vessels × creels. The true figure is difficult to quantify
as there is no obligation to declare the number of creels worked by registered/licensed
69
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
vessels. Fisherman are required by Marine Scotland to declare the number of creels
used to land the declared catch on the SHELL 1 form but this is currently difficult to
enforce and importantly not subject to any verification. There are also some
unlicensed fishing vessels operating in the area and also leisure creeling activity and
so making an assessment of total numbers of creels deployed is extremely difficult.
Potential benefits of the introduction of a creel cap system are considered to be:
-Fewer creels in the water meaning less saturation of the lobster grounds. This
could allow greater opportunities for moving gear around, without losing ground.
-Greater creel mobility for all the creel vessels; the ratio of creels to productive
ground reduces. This does not necessarily mean that less lobster will be caught.
-Less gear in the water reduces snagging risks to vessels.
-If overall fishing mortality were reduced this could control any growth
overfishing. Presently the stocks of smaller lobster are at high levels, and arguably can
sustain the current effort level. However this situation may not continue indefinitely,
and if left unchecked, the picture of the overall fishery would be one of diminishing
returns with the attendant negative effects of this.
-Possible negative effect of an overall reduction in the earning power of the
fishery, with the current amount of vessels/creels there are at present. With any
reduction in catches in the short term there may be a local unit price increase which
may compensate for any supply drop (However, this is only likely to occur if supplies
from other lobster fisheries are dwindling). In the longer term if the fishery is left
unmanaged any reduction in the stocks will force some out of the sector. This
situation occurred in the Firth of Forth around twenty years ago.
Capping of Creel Vessel Numbers
There is likely to be little benefit from creel number reduction per vessel, if there is
not a move to limit creel vessels from entering the fishery. This situation is occurring
in the south-east of Scotland, with Nephrops trawlers being sold, and creel vessels and
creels being bought. These “additions” to the creel fishery without any evidence of
vessels leaving the fishery, only serves to increase pressure on the fishery.
Consequently creel vessel numbers would require to be capped if any benefits in the
reduction of total creel numbers are to be seen.
Assessed against the SIFAG HLOs the potential benefits of the introduction of a
creel limitation scheme are considered to be:
Biological: a reduction in pressure on a fast increasing pressurised fishery. It has been
said that the lobster stock is at a historically high level, and appears to be healthy,
despite the increasing pressure. This is reflected in landing data. However the
economic potential of the fishery is not being reached, because of growth overfishing
in certain areas within the fishery i.e. St Andrews Bay, where lobsters are removed as
they reach the legal size. If the rate of capture of this fishery were reduced, there
would be a greater possibility of lobsters growing larger, therefore providing a higher
70
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
economic benefit. Benefits may also accrue if less berried hens are landed, with the
possibility of greater recruitment into the fishery.
Economic: From a market perspective, the higher the supply, especially in the
summer months, the lower the unit value; the last few years have seen the
price/kilogramme drop to an all time low at £7.00/kg. Lobster fishing is less seasonal
than it once was; also the price in one area is governed by the overall price i.e. all
lobster in Scotland/UK. Additionally the Scottish price is being negatively affected by
the price of imported Canadian lobsters selling at £4.50 a lobster. Though regarded as
being inferior to the Scottish product, the lower price here drives consumer buying.
Environmental: Although the lobster stocks are presently high, there is no guarantee
that this situation will remain from season to season. An overall reduction of creels on
the lobster grounds can allow grounds to be rested and regenerated. Lobster stocks in
common with other stocks are subject to natural variability in recruitment levels; the
last stock collapse in the south-east of Scotland occurred in the late eighties/early
nineties, with a commensurate reduction in the creel community, and a reduction in
the value of the fishery. It is to everybody’s benefit if the stocks can be harvested
sustainably.
Social: There is considered to be a direct relationship between maintaining strong
fisheries and also village communities.
Governance: Creel capping and identification would provide a far greater level of
information and relevant fisheries data in order to better manage the sector.
In this respect the identification of creels with PLN and assigned numbers would
provide:
Creel numbers fished by a vessel and identification of that vessel.
Overall creel numbers
Catch per unit effort information (catch numbers/weight from creel numbers if
declared)
Identification of those eligible to participate in the fishery.
Removal of those vessels unlicensed for commercial fishing
Ways of preventing potential loopholes such as fishermen purchasing cheap dummy
vessels to get extra allocations would have to be examined. Also the tags would have
to be unique/identifiable enough to prevent copies appearing on the open market.
The biggest hurdle to overcome for these proposals, would be finding the resources to
set up this management structure. Northumberland IFCA, who have pioneered a creel
capping/identification scheme, have 6 officers, 3 patrol vessels and administrative
back up to operate and police a 65 mile coastline. An alternative and certainly less
costly way of implementing these proposals would be through self policing.
E3.2 SEIFG Process of Developing New Fisheries
One of the central aims of the SEIFG is to develop new fisheries, and re-open areas
that supported fisheries in the past. To do this responsibly, it is necessary to firstly
71
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
establish whether this would be consistent with the SIFAG HLOs, and examine
whether the IFG could justify taking the first steps. This process would involve:
Identification, geography - where the potential exists?
History - when the fishery existed.
What the fishery produced?
How the target species were caught, and in what quantities (this could have changed
now).
The reasons for the fishery declining or being closed?
What legislation impacts the fishery?
Surveys/Stock Assessments
These will be required to establish whether;
The previously fished for stock is still in the area?
If so in what quantities?
Species diversity extent. Has the stock been added to/reduced/moved and is the area
harbouring new species?
Is a sustainable level of harvest from the stock sufficient to support an economically
viable fishery?
Other factors in this decision will be the extent of present and future markets, the
availability of catching vessels, competing requirements on the resource (birds, seals)
Justification for opening/reopening the fishery. Using the ‘new’ stock assessment
information gained, combined with the necessity for IFG’S to develop their
philosophy of maintaining strong coastal communities, through developing new
fishing opportunities.
Getting the legislation presently closing the fishery revoked/ amended to allow for
changes in circumstances.
Implementation
Managing the fishery. Will it be managed using one, or a combination of the
following:
Quotas-either individual vessel quotas, fleet quotas or temporal quotas. Vessel/fleet
quotas can really only work practically in fisheries where:
Unwanted species and undersized target species can be returned alive. (Shellfish
fisheries: creels and some bivalves)
Finfish fisheries which by their very nature e.g. method being used/species being
sought: mackerel handlines, trolling for bass and pollack. The catches from the
fishery are the species being sought, and the discard rate is minimal.
Therefore, either effort limitation or quotas NOT both.
72
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Identification and quantifying of static fishing gear
License conditions
The establishment of Regulatory Orders to protect the fishery for members. This is
only applicable to shellfish fisheries.
A permit system, to be used by SEIFG members. If there is a requirement to allocate a
percentage of permits to visitors then that would have to be included.
Administration
The vessels involved in the fishery will be licensed/ registered, and under current
legislation, be required to submit vessel landing declarations to Fishery Offices.
Positively, new information will be provided to Marine Scotland Compliance and
Science on landing levels, stock levels, sizes, seasonality, marketing and
administration.
New Product/Markets
Ultimately, the existence of a market for that product, defines whether a fishery can
be established in the first place. If markets are identified, to justify this, expanding
markets can allow the fishery to grow (if stock assessments justify this). The
establishment of new markets can have an overall positive effect to Scottish sea food,
whether through domestic consumption or export. Other benefits include:
Shorter journey times for buyers, smaller carbon footprints, fresher produce, more
consumer choice, development of the concept of high quality local produce and its
attendant benefits.
The identification development and implementation and operation of new fisheries in
the SEIFG area will have benefits for all those involved in this, from fishermen and
gear manufacturers to processors, local infrastructures, markets and consumers.
73
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX F
Scientific Assessment of Fish and Shellfish Stocks
F1. Introduction
F1.1 Scientific stock assessments are undertaken at various levels within the European
management system for fish and shellfish. (It should be noted that in the context of
this document reference to “fish stocks” is used generically to include both marine
finfish and shellfish species unless specifically identified). The International Council
for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) typically provides scientific stock assessment
advice at the EU level with Member States contributing directly to the process
through monitoring programmes and expertise. Within individual countries
governments resource monitoring and information collection programmes to both
support evaluations of jointly managed stocks and provide guidance for more
localised stocks. The Scottish Government through Marine Scotland Science (MS-S)
publish an annual assessment of fish stocks both managed jointly with the EU and
third party countries (e.g. Norway, Faroe Islands, Iceland etc.) and also for those of
importance within solely Scottish Territorial Waters. Details of the publication for
fish stocks in 2010 can be found at;
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/science/publications/publicationslatest/fishandsh
ellfishstocks
F1.2 In addition to contributions for international and national stock assessment
programmes MS-S also publish information relating to regional or species specific
fish stock issues. One example of this is “Marine Scotland Science Internal Report
16/09 - Crab and Lobster Fisheries in Scotland: An Overview and Results of Stock
Assessments, 2002-2005. (2009)”. In addition to publicly funded work MS-S also
undertake privately commissioned studies. Details of all stock assessments undertaken
by MS-S and supporting fisheries information published in the public domain can be
found at; www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/science/publications
F1.3 Typically the one common feature for all fish stock assessments is the
requirement to accurately describe the location and extent of stocks being surveyed.
Standardisation of this process is facilitated by reference to fixed areas denoted and
defined by ICES. In the broadest context northern European waters are divided up
into regions and the SEIFG area falls within the ICES division IVb. Details of the
designated divisions around the UK coastline are shown in Figure F1. In addition
specific areas within the larger divisions can be defined in relation to a grid of 35 by
35 km coded “squares” referred to as ICES statistical rectangles (see Figure D1.).
F1.4 Marine Scotland Science in undertaking fish stock assessments for a range of
species around Scotland has created specific assessment areas based on the species
and nature of the stocks being considered. For shellfish stocks these typically will be
predominantly in coastal waters and include multiple ICES statistical rectangles in
any one grouping.
F1.5 In relation to the Inshore Fisheries Groups the stock assessment areas for the key
species of shellfish are typically more extensive than the IFG boundaries.
74
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Consequently the details of the public programme of stock assessments require to be
interpreted in relation to the management requirements of the individual IFGs. In
order to consider the Marine Scotland information regarding stock assessments
covering the SEIFG area details of the stock assessment boundaries used by MS-S for
individual shellfish species are provided below. All of the following figures are
reproduced from the MS-S 2010 publication (see F1.1).
Figure F1. ICES Fisheries Management Divisions around the UK
75
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
F2. Marine Scotland – Science Shellfish Stock Assessment Areas
F2.1 The following figures indicate the areas used by MS-S for individual shellfish
species stock assessment purposes. Figure F2 is for named North Sea Nephrops
grounds; Figure F3 indicates named brown crab assessment areas. It should be noted
that the same assessment areas are also utilised for velvet crab and lobster; Figure F4
presents the named areas for king scallop assessment studies.
Figure F2. Nephrops MS-S Stock Assessment Areas
D9
E0
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
F0
F1
F2
F3
53
62
52
51
61
50
49
60
48
Noup
47
Fladen
59
46
North Minch
45
Moray Firth
58
44
43
South Minch
57
42
Devils Hole
41
Firth of Forth
56
40
Clyde
39
55
38
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
76
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure F3. Brown Crab, Velvet Crab, and Lobster MS-S Stock Assessment Areas
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
61
50
49
Papa
60
48
Shetland
Sule
47
59
North Coast
46
Orkney
Hebrides
45
58
Ullapool
44
East Coast
43
57
Mallaig
42
South Minch
41
South East
56
40
39
Clyde
55
38
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
77
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure F4. Scallop MS-S Stock Assessment Areas
E0
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
F0
53
62
52
51
Shetland
61
50
49
60
48
47
Orkney
59
46
North West
North East
45
58
44
43
57
42
East Coast
41
56
Clyde
40
West of Kintyre
39
55
38
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
78
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
F3. Marine Scotland Shellfish Stock Assessment Advice
F3.1 The management advice provided by Marine Scotland in relation to the fish
stocks found in the SEIFG area and surrounding waters where relevant has been
identified on a species specific basis and is summarised below.
F3.1.1 Nephrops
Nephrops stocks in the North Sea (Sub-area IV) are managed under the Common
Fisheries Policy by the European Commission. Management advice, formulated by
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), is based on
underwater TV surveys estimates of abundance and catch (landed and discarded)
length composition data. The distribution of mud habitat suitable for Nephrops
defines the species distribution and stocks in the North Sea are assessed as separate
Functional Units (FUs). ICES recommends that management should be at the
functional unit level. However, the TACs have in the past and continue to be applied
to the larger ICES subareas.
There are no precautionary reference points for Nephrops and no formally agreed
management objectives or plans. Under the ICES MSY (maximum sustainable yield)
framework which was adopted in 2010, exploitation rates which generate high long
term yield with a low probability of over fishing have been estimated and proposed
for each functional unit. It is not possible to estimate FMSY (fishing mortality (F)
maximum sustainable yield) for Nephrops directly; therefore ICES use a series of
FMSY proxies. The most appropriate proxy for each functional unit is selected on the
basis of a number of factors including burrow density, harvest rate, stability of stock
size and nature of the fishery. In general, F35%SpR, is used as a proxy for FMSY.
Nephrops in the Firth of Forth (Functional Unit 8)
The functional unit of most relevance to the SEIFG area is the Firth of Forth (FU 8).
It comprises ICES rectangles 40-41 E and 41E6 and most of the muddy sediment is
within the SEIFG area. Landings from FU 8 were 2,600 tonnes in 2009.
The TV survey data suggests that the population in the Firth of Forth has been at a
relatively high level since 2003 and the decline of 15 % observed in 2009 is not
significant. This, taken together with information showing stable mean sizes,
suggests that the stock does not show signs of overexploitation. However, the
calculated harvest ratio in 2009 (dead removals/TV abundance) is above FMAX.
ICES management advice in 2010 was based on the transition scheme to MSY. It
recommends landings of no more than 2000 tonnes from the Firth of Forth in 2011.
ICES also notes that Nephrops discard rates in the Firth of Forth are high (34% by
number and 14 % by weight in 2009) and an unwanted by-catch of haddock and
whiting occurs. There is a need to reduce these and to improve the exploitation pattern
of the 80 mm mesh size trawl net fisheries.
Figure F5. indicates the abundance over time of Nephrops stocks in the Firth of Forth
(FU 8).
79
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
1400
Abundance (millions)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
0
Year
Figure F5. Nephrops abundance (millions) in Firth of Forth (FU 8). Time series of
bias adjusted estimates with 95% confidence intervals, 1993-2009.
Recent information provided by MS-S for 2011 is that Nephrops stocks in FU8
remain at a high level well above the trigger point for managing the fishery at
maximum sustainable yield. However, the harvest rate had remained slightly above
FMSY. Further information can be obtained at
http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/Neph-IV.pdf
Figure F6. indicates the areas of Nephrops abundance found in and around the Firth of
Forth functional unit during 2008 and 2009 together with suitable sediment types for
the species.
80
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
Figure F6. Firth of Forth (FU 8). TV survey distribution and relative density of
Nephrops (2008-2009). Green and brown areas represent areas of suitable sediment
for Nephrops. Densities are proportional to each circles radius. Red crosses represent
zero observations.
F3.1.2 Crab and Lobster
Marine Scotland Science (MSS) conducts assessments of crab and lobster around
Scotland. Assessments are done tri-annually on a regional basis using length cohort
analysis (LCA). Because of their different growth characteristics, males and females
are assessed separately.
The LCA method uses the commercial catch size composition data (carapace length
or width frequency data) along with estimates of growth parameters and natural
mortality to estimate stock biomass and fishing mortality at length. The key
assumption of the approach is that the length distribution is representative of a typical
cohort over its lifespan. However, this is only true of length frequency data from a
single year if the population is in equilibrium and therefore the LCA is usually applied
to data averaged over a number of years during which recruitment and exploitation
rates have been stable. LCA also assumes uniform growth among all animals.
The results can be used to predict long-term (equilibrium) changes in the stock
biomass and yield-per-recruit based on changes in mortality, fishing effort or
maximum size regulations. The approach gives an indication of the exploitation of the
stock in terms of growth overfishing, but not recruitment overfishing. It is therefore
best to interpret the LCA analyses in conjunction with other information such as catch
rate (CPUE) data.
The SEIFG area includes most of the MS-S’ South East assessment area and part of
MS-S’ East Coast assessment area.
There are no precautionary reference points for crab and lobster and no formally
agreed management objectives or plans. Marine Scotland Science currently evaluate
stock status in terms of growth overfishing by comparing the estimated fishing
mortality (F) with FMAX, the fishing mortality rate associated with maximum yieldper-recruit.
81
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
MS-S’ most recent assessments, based on data collected between 2006-2008, indicate
that the crab and lobster stocks of relevance to the SEIFG area were fished at or above
Fmax, (for details see below). Any increase in fishing mortality could potentially
reduce the biomass and the yield per recruit in the long term.
Brown crab in the MS-S SE assessments area F is above Fmax, for both males and
females;
Velvet crab in the MS-S SE assessments area F is at or around Fmax
Lobster in MS-S the SE assessments area F is above Fmax, for both males and
females
Brown crab in the MS-S East Coast assessment area F is above Fmax, for both males
and females
Velvet crab in the MS-S East Coast assessment area F is at or around Fmax,
Lobster in the MS=S East Coast assessment area fishing mortality is above Fmax for
both males and females
Lobster
Current management of the lobster creel fishery is based on a range of technical
measures. In order to fish commercially, the fishing vessel prosecuting the fishery
must have a license with a shellfish entitlement attached to it. This allows the vessel
to land as many lobsters as they may wish. There is no lobster quota, effort limitation
i.e. hours at sea or closed areas applied within the SEIFG area. There is a Marine
Scotland Compliance reporting obligation to submit a SHELL 1 landing declaration
on a weekly basis. The landing size for lobster must be at or above the current
national size limit of 87millimetres carapace length. The maximum landing size limit
is 155mm carapace length, for females only and animals with a V-notch (or mutilated)
tail must not be commercially landed.
Brown Crab
Current management of the brown crab fishery is based on a range of technical
measures with no statutory landing quotas set. Limitations with respect to commercial
fishing vessel operation is that the vessel license must have a shellfish entitlement.
There is a Marine Scotland reporting obligation for each vessel to submit a SHELL 1
landing declaration on a weekly basis. The EU minimum landing size for brown crab
in Scotland varies from area to area. It is 140mm carapace width North of 56 degrees
in area IVb and 130 mm South of 56 degrees.
Velvet Crab
Management is conducted in the same way as for the brown crab fishery with an EU
minimum landing size set for velvet crab of 65mm carapace width.
82
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
F3.1.3 King Scallop
Assessment of king scallop stocks is typically undertaken using Virtual Population
Analysis (VPA) based on reported landings and market sampling data (age and
length/frequency) to determine estimates of spawning stock biomass, fishing mortality
and recruitment. Annual dredge surveys at fixed stations allow a fishery independent
indication of stock trends.
The SEIFG falls within the MS-S East Coast scallop stock assessment area which is
not sampled using the VPA technique. For the East Coast survey catch rate data are
the main source of information on stock dynamics. The adjacent MS-S stock
assessment area is termed the North East and covers the Moray Firth IFG area and this
is subject to VPA assessments. This technique indicates that in the North East king
scallop spawning stock biomass has declined from comparatively high levels in the
1990s but has been relatively stable in recent years. In the East Coast MS-S
assessment area dredge surveys show an increase in the catch rate of scallops above
100mm. However, recruitment in areas subject to VPA including the North East is
indicated to have declined to low levels in recent years in comparison to historical
values. This trend is borne out by survey catch rate data of scallops below 100mm
which have declined in all areas including the East Coast (SEIFG area).
The MS-S management advice during any period of low spawning stock biomass and
reduced recruitment is for no increase in fishing effort and that measures aimed at
increasing spawning stock biomass such as an increase in minimum landing size
should be pursued.
The carriage and landing of the king scallop is managed through the enforcement of a
minimum landing size in Scottish waters which under EU legislation is currently set at
100mm shell height for the East coast. The stock is not managed through the setting
of a TAC; however, additional management measures in the UK and Scottish waters
are in place to improve the conservation of the fishery. For vessels of greater than
12m there is a restricted scallop licence required to prosecute the fishery. Inside 6nm
in Scottish waters a maximum of 8 dredges per side can be towed, while out to 12nm
the maximum is 10 per side. In addition the use of any means of covering/blocking
the ring belly or netting of the dredge is prohibited along with the use of the French
dredge having fixed teeth and a water deflecting plate. Bycatch of king scallop up to a
total of 20% of the total weight of fish retained on board is permissible for other (non
scallop licence) size vessels and fishing techniques.
F3.1.4 Other Shellfish Species
For the remainder of shellfish species encountered within the SEIFG area the key
management provision is limited to the setting of an EU minimum landing for
selected species.
83
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
APPENDIX G
Sustainable Fisheries and their Management
G1. United Nations Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
G1.1 The full details of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries can be found at;
www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm
G1.2 The Code of Conduct is a voluntary approach by the international community to
establish rules and procedures associated with the operation and management of
fisheries and aquaculture enterprises. Its scope includes activities both in developed
and developing countries together with operations in coastal and offshore waters.
While elements of the Code are not directly relevant to the role of IFGs in Scotland
many of the guiding principles for Fisheries Management; Fishing Operations; and
Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Area Management are directly applicable and
evidence of best practice.
G1.3 It should be noted that the Marine Stewardship Councils’ fisheries accreditation
scheme (see G2.) is based on key elements of the UN Code of Conduct which has
been developed by the MSC to allow market forces, through public recognition of
issues, to influence demand for sustainably harvested fisheries products.
G1.4 The key elements of the UN Code of Conduct as they relate to the issues
associated with the management and operation of inshore fisheries in Scotland have
been reproduced below for reference (the structure and continuity of the original
document has been maintained by identifying chapter headings {but with those with
text omitted shown in italics}. For full details please refer to the original document);
UN Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
Fisheries, including aquaculture, provide a vital source of food,
employment, recreation, trade and economic well being for people
throughout the world, both for present and future generations and
should therefore be conducted in a responsible manner. This Code
sets out principles and international standards of behaviour for
responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective
conservation, management and development of living aquatic
resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. The
Code recognises the nutritional, economic, social, environmental and
cultural importance of fisheries, and the interests of all those concerned
84
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
with the fishery sector. The Code takes into account the biological
characteristics of the resources and their environment and the interests
of consumers and other users. States and all those involved in fisheries
are encouraged to apply the Code and give effect to it.
1 - NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CODE
1.1 This Code is voluntary. However, certain parts of it are based on
relevant rules of international law, including those reflected in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December
19821. The Code also contains provisions that may be or have already
been given binding effect by means of other obligatory legal
instruments amongst the Parties, such as the Agreement to Promote
Compliance with International Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, 1993, which,
according to FAO Conference resolution 15/93, paragraph 3, forms an
integral part of the Code.
1.2 The Code is global in scope, and is directed toward members and
non-members of FAO, fishing entities, subregional, regional and global
organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, and all
persons concerned with the conservation of fishery resources and
management and development of fisheries, such as fishers, those
engaged in processing and marketing of fish and fishery products and
other users of the aquatic environment in relation to fisheries.
1.3 The Code provides principles and standards applicable to the
conservation, management and development of all fisheries. It also
covers the capture, processing and trade of fish and fishery products,
fishing operations, aquaculture, fisheries research and the integration
of fisheries into coastal area management.
1.4 In this Code, the reference to States includes the European
Community in matters within its competence, and the term fisheries
applies equally to capture fisheries and aquaculture.
2 - OBJECTIVES OF THE CODE
The objectives of the Code are to:
a. establish principles, in accordance with the relevant rules of
international law, for responsible fishing and fisheries activities,
taking into account all their relevant biological, technological,
economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects;
b. establish principles and criteria for the elaboration and
implementation of national policies for responsible conservation
85
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
of fisheries resources and fisheries management and
development;
c. serve as an instrument of reference to help States to establish or
to improve the legal and institutional framework required for the
exercise of responsible fisheries and in the formulation and
implementation of appropriate measures;
d. provide guidance which may be used where appropriate in the
formulation and implementation of international agreements and
other legal instruments, both binding and voluntary;
e. facilitate and promote technical, financial and other cooperation
in conservation of fisheries resources and fisheries management
and development;
f. promote the contribution of fisheries to food security and food
quality, giving priority to the nutritional needs of local
communities;
g. promote protection of living aquatic resources and their
environments and coastal areas;
h. promote the trade of fish and fishery products in conformity with
relevant international rules and avoid the use of measures that
constitute hidden barriers to such trade;
i.
promote research on fisheries as well as on associated
ecosystems and relevant environmental factors; and
j.
provide standards of conduct for all persons involved in the
fisheries sector.
3 - RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
3.1 The Code is to be interpreted and applied in conformity with the
relevant rules of international law, as reflected in the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Nothing in this Code
prejudices the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under
international law as reflected in the Convention.
3.2 The Code is also to be interpreted and applied:
a. in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of the
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10
86
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management
of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks;
b. in accordance with other applicable rules of international law,
including the respective obligations of States pursuant to
international agreements to which they are party; and
c. in the light of the 1992 Declaration of Cancun, the 1992 Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, and Agenda 21
adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), in particular Chapter 17 of Agenda 21,
and other relevant declarations and international instruments.
4 - IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND UPDATING
4.1 All members and non-members of FAO, fishing entities and
relevant subregional, regional and global organizations, whether
governmental or non-governmental, and all persons concerned with the
conservation, management and utilization of fisheries resources and
trade in fish and fishery products should collaborate in the fulfilment
and implementation of the objectives and principles contained in this
Code.
4.2; 4.3
4.4 States and international organizations, whether governmental or
non-governmental, should promote the understanding of the Code
among those involved in fisheries, including, where practicable, by the
introduction of schemes which would promote voluntary acceptance of
the Code and its effective application.
5 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
6 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
6.1 States and users of living aquatic resources should conserve
aquatic ecosystems. The right to fish carries with it the obligation to do
so in a responsible manner so as to ensure effective conservation and
management of the living aquatic resources.
6.2 Fisheries management should promote the maintenance of the
quality, diversity and availability of fishery resources in sufficient
quantities for present and future generations in the context of food
security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development.
Management measures should not only ensure the conservation of
target species but also of species belonging to the same ecosystem or
associated with or dependent upon the target species.
6.3 States should prevent overfishing and excess fishing capacity and
should implement management measures to ensure that fishing effort
is commensurate with the productive capacity of the fishery resources
87
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
and their sustainable utilization. States should take measures to
rehabilitate populations as far as possible and when appropriate.
6.4 Conservation and management decisions for fisheries should be
based on the best scientific evidence available, also taking into account
traditional knowledge of the resources and their habitat, as well as
relevant environmental, economic and social factors. States should
assign priority to undertake research and data collection in order to
improve scientific and technical knowledge of fisheries including their
interaction with the ecosystem. In recognizing the transboundary nature
of many aquatic ecosystems, States should encourage bilateral and
multilateral cooperation in research, as appropriate.
6.5 States and subregional and regional fisheries management
organizations should apply a precautionary approach widely to
conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources
in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment, taking
account of the best scientific evidence available. The absence of
adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for
postponing or failing to take measures to conserve target species,
associated or dependent species and non-target species and their
environment.
6.6 Selective and environmentally safe fishing gear and practices
should be further developed and applied, to the extent practicable, in
order to maintain biodiversity and to conserve the population structure
and aquatic ecosystems and protect fish quality. Where proper
selective and environmentally safe fishing gear and practices exist,
they should be recognized and accorded a priority in establishing
conservation and management measures for fisheries. States and
users of aquatic ecosystems should minimize waste, catch of nontarget species, both fish and non-fish species, and impacts on
associated or dependent species.
6.7 The harvesting, handling, processing and distribution of fish and
fishery products should be carried out in a manner which will maintain
the nutritional value, quality and safety of the products, reduce waste
and minimize negative impacts on the environment.
6.8 All critical fisheries habitats in marine and fresh water ecosystems,
such as wetlands, mangroves, reefs, lagoons, nursery and spawning
areas, should be protected and rehabilitated as far as possible and
where necessary. Particular effort should be made to protect such
habitats from destruction, degradation, pollution and other significant
impacts resulting from human activities that threaten the health and
viability of the fishery resources.
6.9 States should ensure that their fisheries interests, including the
need for conservation of the resources, are taken into account in the
88
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
multiple uses of the coastal zone and are integrated into coastal area
management, planning and development.
6.10 Within their respective competences and in accordance with
international law, including within the framework of subregional or
regional fisheries conservation and management organizations or
arrangements, States should ensure compliance with and enforcement
of conservation and management measures and establish effective
mechanisms, as appropriate, to monitor and control the activities of
fishing vessels and fishing support vessels.
6.11 States authorizing fishing and fishing support vessels to fly their
flags should exercise effective control over those vessels so as to
ensure the proper application of this Code. They should ensure that the
activities of such vessels do not undermine the effectiveness of
conservation and management measures taken in accordance with
international law and adopted at the national, subregional, regional or
global levels. States should also ensure that vessels flying their flags
fulfil their obligations concerning the collection and provision of data
relating to their fishing activities.
6.12 States should, within their respective competences and in
accordance with international law, cooperate at subregional, regional
and global levels through fisheries management organizations, other
international agreements or other arrangements to promote
conservation and management, ensure responsible fishing and ensure
effective conservation and protection of living aquatic resources
throughout their range of distribution, taking into account the need for
compatible measures in areas within and beyond national jurisdiction.
6.13 States should, to the extent permitted by national laws and
regulations, ensure that decision making processes are transparent
and achieve timely solutions to urgent matters. States, in accordance
with appropriate procedures, should facilitate consultation and the
effective participation of industry, fishworkers, environmental and other
interested organizations in decision making with respect to the
development of laws and policies related to fisheries management,
development, international lending and aid.
6.14 International trade in fish and fishery products should be
conducted in accordance with the principles, rights and obligations
established in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement and
other relevant international agreements. States should ensure that their
policies, programmes and practices related to trade in fish and fishery
products do not result in obstacles to this trade, environmental
degradation or negative social, including nutritional, impacts.
6.15 States should cooperate in order to prevent disputes. All disputes
relating to fishing activities and practices should be resolved in a timely,
89
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
peaceful and cooperative manner, in accordance with applicable
international agreements or as may otherwise be agreed between the
parties. Pending settlement of a dispute, the States concerned should
make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical
nature which should be without prejudice to the final outcome of any
dispute settlement procedure.
6.16 States, recognising the paramount importance to fishers and
fishfarmers of understanding the conservation and management of the
fishery resources on which they depend, should promote awareness of
responsible fisheries through education and training. They should
ensure that fishers and fishfarmers are involved in the policy
formulation and implementation process, also with a view to facilitating
the implementation of the Code.
6.17 States should ensure that fishing facilities and equipment as well
as all fisheries activities allow for safe, healthy and fair working and
living conditions and meet internationally agreed standards adopted by
relevant international organizations.
6.18 Recognizing the important contributions of artisanal and smallscale fisheries to employment, income and food security, States should
appropriately protect the rights of fishers and fishworkers, particularly
those engaged in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries, to a
secure and just livelihood, as well as preferential access, where
appropriate, to traditional fishing grounds and resources in the waters
under their national jurisdiction.
6.19 States should consider aquaculture, including culture-based
fisheries, as a means to promote diversification of income and diet. In
so doing, States should ensure that resources are used responsibly
and adverse impacts on the environment and on local communities are
minimized.
7 - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
7.1 General
7.1.1 States and all those engaged in fisheries management should,
through an appropriate policy, legal and institutional framework, adopt
measures for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of
fisheries resources. Conservation and management measures,
whether at local, national, subregional or regional levels, should be
based on the best scientific evidence available and be designed to
ensure the long-term sustainability of fishery resources at levels which
promote the objective of their optimum utilization and maintain their
availability for present and future generations; short term
considerations should not compromise these objectives.
7.1.2 Within areas under national jurisdiction, States should seek to
90
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
identify relevant domestic parties having a legitimate interest in the use
and management of fisheries resources and establish arrangements for
consulting them to gain their collaboration in achieving responsible
fisheries.
7.1.3 For transboundary fish stocks, straddling fish stocks, highly
migratory fish stocks and high seas fish stocks, where these are
exploited by two or more States, the States concerned, including the
relevant coastal States in the case of straddling and highly migratory
stocks, should cooperate to ensure effective conservation and
management of the resources. This should be achieved, where
appropriate, through the establishment of a bilateral, subregional or
regional fisheries organization or arrangement.
7.1.4; 7.1.5; 7.1.6
7.1.7 States should establish, within their respective competences and
capacities, effective mechanisms for fisheries monitoring, surveillance,
control and enforcement to ensure compliance with their conservation
and management measures, as well as those adopted by subregional
or regional organizations or arrangements.
7.1.8 States should take measures to prevent or eliminate excess
fishing capacity and should ensure that levels of fishing effort are
commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery resources as a
means of ensuring the effectiveness of conservation and management
measures.
7.1.9 States and subregional or regional fisheries management
organizations and arrangements should ensure transparency in the
mechanisms for fisheries management and in the related decisionmaking process.
7.1.10 States and subregional or regional fisheries management
organizations and arrangements should give due publicity to
conservation and management measures and ensure that laws,
regulations and other legal rules governing their implementation are
effectively disseminated. The bases and purposes of such measures
should be explained to users of the resource in order to facilitate their
application and thus gain increased support in the implementation of
such measures.
7.2 Management objectives
7.2.1 Recognizing that long-term sustainable use of fisheries resources
is the overriding objective of conservation and management, States
and subregional or regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements should, inter alia, adopt appropriate measures, based on
the best scientific evidence available, which are designed to maintain
or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable
91
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors,
including the special requirements of developing countries.
7.2.2 Such measures should provide inter alia that:
a. excess fishing capacity is avoided and exploitation of the stocks
remains economically viable;
b. the economic conditions under which fishing industries operate
promote responsible fisheries;
c. the interests of fishers, including those engaged in subsistence,
small-scale and artisanal fisheries, are taken into account;
d. biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems is conserved
and endangered species are protected;
e. depleted stocks are allowed to recover or, where appropriate,
are actively restored;
f. adverse environmental impacts on the resources from human
activities are assessed and, where appropriate, corrected; and
g. pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear,
catch of non-target species, both fish and non- fish species, and
impacts on associated or dependent species are minimized,
through measures including, to the extent practicable, the
development and use of selective, environmentally safe and
cost-effective fishing gear and techniques.
7.2.3 States should assess the impacts of environmental factors on
target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or
associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, and assess the
relationship among the populations in the ecosystem.
7.3 Management framework and procedures
7.3.1 To be effective, fisheries management should be concerned with
the whole stock unit over its entire area of distribution and take into
account previously agreed management measures established and
applied in the same region, all removals and the biological unity and
other biological characteristics of the stock. The best scientific evidence
available should be used to determine, inter alia, the area of distribution
of the resource and the area through which it migrates during its life
cycle.
7.3.2 In order to conserve and manage transboundary fish stocks,
straddling fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks and high seas fish
stocks throughout their range, conservation and management
measures established for such stocks in accordance with the
respective competences of relevant States or, where appropriate,
through subregional and regional fisheries management organizations
and arrangements, should be compatible. Compatibility should be
achieved in a manner consistent with the rights, competences and
interests of the States concerned.
92
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
7.3.3 Long-term management objectives should be translated into
management actions, formulated as a fishery management plan or
other management framework.
7.3.4 States and, where appropriate, subregional or regional fisheries
management organizations and arrangements should foster and
promote international cooperation and coordination in all matters
related to fisheries, including information gathering and exchange,
fisheries research, management and development.
7.3.5 States seeking to take any action through a non-fishery
organization which may affect the conservation and management
measures taken by a competent subregional or regional fisheries
management organization or arrangement should consult with the
latter, in advance to the extent practicable, and take its views into
account.
7.4 Data gathering and management advice
7.4.1 When considering the adoption of conservation and management
measures, the best scientific evidence available should be taken into
account in order to evaluate the current state of the fishery resources
and the possible impact of the proposed measures on the resources.
7.4.2 Research in support of fishery conservation and management
should be promoted, including research on the resources and on the
effects of climatic, environmental and socio-economic factors. The
results of such research should be disseminated to interested parties.
7.4.3 Studies should be promoted which provide an understanding of
the costs, benefits and effects of alternative management options
designed to rationalize fishing, in particular, options relating to excess
fishing capacity and excessive levels of fishing effort.
7.4.4 States should ensure that timely, complete and reliable statistics
on catch and fishing effort are collected and maintained in accordance
with applicable international standards and practices and in sufficient
detail to allow sound statistical analysis. Such data should be updated
regularly and verified through an appropriate system. States should
compile and disseminate such data in a manner consistent with any
applicable confidentiality requirements.
7.4.5 In order to ensure sustainable management of fisheries and to
enable social and economic objectives to be achieved, sufficient
knowledge of social, economic and institutional factors should be
developed through data gathering, analysis and research.
7.4.6 States should compile fishery-related and other supporting
scientific data relating to fish stocks covered by subregional or regional
93
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
fisheries management organizations or arrangements in an
internationally agreed format and provide them in a timely manner to
the organization or arrangement. In cases of stocks which occur in the
jurisdiction of more than one State and for which there is no such
organization or arrangement, the States concerned should agree on a
mechanism for cooperation to compile and exchange such data.
7.4.7 Subregional or regional fisheries management organizations or
arrangements should compile data and make them available, in a
manner consistent with any applicable confidentiality requirements, in a
timely manner and in an agreed format to all members of these
organizations and other interested parties in accordance with agreed
procedures.
7.5 Precautionary approach
7.5.1 States should apply the precautionary approach widely to
conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources
in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment. The
absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a
reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management
measures.
7.5.2 In implementing the precautionary approach, States should take
into account, inter alia, uncertainties relating to the size and productivity
of the stocks, reference points, stock condition in relation to such
reference points, levels and distribution of fishing mortality and the
impact of fishing activities, including discards, on non-target and
associated or dependent species, as well as environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
7.5.3 States and subregional or regional fisheries management
organizations and arrangements should, on the basis of the best
scientific evidence available, inter alia, determine:
a. stock specific target reference points, and, at the same time, the
action to be taken if they are exceeded; and
b. stock-specific limit reference points, and, at the same time, the
action to be taken if they are exceeded; when a limit reference
point is approached, measures should be taken to ensure that it
will not be exceeded.
7.5.4 In the case of new or exploratory fisheries, States should adopt
as soon as possible cautious conservation and management
measures, including, inter alia, catch limits and effort limits. Such
measures should remain in force until there are sufficient data to allow
assessment of the impact of the fisheries on the long-term
sustainability of the stocks, whereupon conservation and management
measures based on that assessment should be implemented. The
latter measures should, if appropriate, allow for the gradual
94
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
development of the fisheries.
7.5.5 If a natural phenomenon has a significant adverse impact on the
status of living aquatic resources, States should adopt conservation
and management measures on an emergency basis to ensure that
fishing activity does not exacerbate such adverse impact. States should
also adopt such measures on an emergency basis where fishing
activity presents a serious threat to the sustainability of such resources.
Measures taken on an emergency basis should be temporary and
should be based on the best scientific evidence available.
7.6 Management measures
7.6.1 States should ensure that the level of fishing permitted is
commensurate with the state of fisheries resources.
7.6.2 States should adopt measures to ensure that no vessel be
allowed to fish unless so authorized, in a manner consistent with
international law for the high seas or in conformity with national
legislation within areas of national jurisdiction.
7.6.3 Where excess fishing capacity exists, mechanisms should be
established to reduce capacity to levels commensurate with the
sustainable use of fisheries resources so as to ensure that fishers
operate under economic conditions that promote responsible fisheries.
Such mechanisms should include monitoring the capacity of fishing
fleets.
7.6.4 The performance of all existing fishing gear, methods and
practices should be examined and measures taken to ensure that
fishing gear, methods and practices which are not consistent with
responsible fishing are phased out and replaced with more acceptable
alternatives. In this process, particular attention should be given to the
impact of such measures on fishing communities, including their ability
to exploit the resource.
7.6.5 States and fisheries management organizations and
arrangements should regulate fishing in such a way as to avoid the risk
of conflict among fishers using different vessels, gear and fishing
methods.
7.6.6 When deciding on the use, conservation and management of
fisheries resources, due recognition should be given, as appropriate, in
accordance with national laws and regulations, to the traditional
practices, needs and interests of indigenous people and local fishing
communities which are highly dependent on fishery resources for their
livelihood.
7.6.7 In the evaluation of alternative conservation and management
measures, their cost-effectiveness and social impact should be
95
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
considered.
7.6.8 The efficacy of conservation and management measures and
their possible interactions should be kept under continuous review.
Such measures should, as appropriate, be revised or abolished in the
light of new information.
7.6.9 States should take appropriate measures to minimize waste,
discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species,
both fish and non-fish species, and negative impacts on associated or
dependent species, in particular endangered species. Where
appropriate, such measures may include technical measures related to
fish size, mesh size or gear, discards, closed seasons and areas and
zones reserved for selected fisheries, particularly artisanal fisheries.
Such measures should be applied, where appropriate, to protect
juveniles and spawners. States and subregional or regional fisheries
management organizations and arrangements should promote, to the
extent practicable, the development and use of selective,
environmentally safe and cost effective gear and techniques.
7.6.10 States and subregional and regional fisheries management
organizations and arrangements, in the framework of their respective
competences, should introduce measures for depleted resources and
those resources threatened with depletion that facilitate the sustained
recovery of such stocks. They should make every effort to ensure that
resources and habitats critical to the well-being of such resources
which have been adversely affected by fishing or other human activities
are restored.
7.7 Implementation
7.7.1 States should ensure that an effective legal and administrative
framework at the local and national level, as appropriate, is established
for fisheries resource conservation and fisheries management.
7.7.2 States should ensure that laws and regulations provide for
sanctions applicable in respect of violations which are adequate in
severity to be effective, including sanctions which allow for the refusal,
withdrawal or suspension of authorizations to fish in the event of noncompliance with conservation and management measures in force.
7.7.3 States, in conformity with their national laws, should implement
effective fisheries monitoring, control, surveillance and law enforcement
measures including, where appropriate, observer programmes,
inspection schemes and vessel monitoring systems. Such measures
should be promoted and, where appropriate, implemented by
subregional or regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements in accordance with procedures agreed by such
organizations or arrangements.
96
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
7.7.4; 7.7.5
7.8 Financial institutions
8 - FISHING OPERATIONS
8.1 Duties of all States
8.1.1 States should ensure that only fishing operations allowed by them
are conducted within waters under their jurisdiction and that these
operations are carried out in a responsible manner.
8.1.2 States should maintain a record, updated at regular intervals, on
all authorizations to fish issued by them.
8.1.3 States should maintain, in accordance with recognized
international standards and practices, statistical data, updated at
regular intervals, on all fishing operations allowed by them.
8.1.4
8.1.5 States should ensure that health and safety standards are
adopted for everyone employed in fishing operations. Such standards
should be not less than the minimum requirements of relevant
international agreements on conditions of work and service.
8.1.6 States should make arrangements individually, together with
other States or with the appropriate international organization to
integrate fishing operations into maritime search and rescue systems.
8.1.7 States should enhance through education and training
programmes the education and skills of fishers and, where appropriate,
their professional qualifications. Such programmes should take into
account agreed international standards and guidelines.
8.1.8
8.1.9 States should ensure that measures applicable in respect of
masters and other officers charged with an offence relating to the
operation of fishing vessels should include provisions which may
permit, inter alia, refusal, withdrawal or suspension of authorizations to
serve as masters or officers of a fishing vessel.
8.1.10 States, with the assistance of relevant international
organizations, should endeavour to ensure through education and
training that all those engaged in fishing operations be given
information on the most important provisions of this Code, as well as
provisions of relevant international conventions and applicable
97
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
environmental and other standards that are essential to ensure
responsible fishing operations.
8.2 Flag State duties
8.3 Port State duties
8.4 Fishing activities
8.4.1 States should ensure that fishing is conducted with due regard to
the safety of human life and the International Maritime Organization
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, as well as
International Maritime Organization requirements relating to the
organization of marine traffic, protection of the marine environment and
the prevention of damage to or loss of fishing gear.
8.4.2 States should prohibit dynamiting, poisoning and other
comparable destructive fishing practices.
8.4.3 States should make every effort to ensure that documentation
with regard to fishing operations, retained catch of fish and non-fish
species and, as regards discards, the information required for stock
assessment as decided by relevant management bodies, is collected
and forwarded systematically to those bodies. States should, as far as
possible, establish programmes, such as observer and inspection
schemes, in order to promote compliance with applicable measures.
8.4.4 States should promote the adoption of appropriate technology,
taking into account economic conditions, for the best use and care of
the retained catch.
8.4.5 States, with relevant groups from industry, should encourage the
development and implementation of technologies and operational
methods that reduce discards. The use of fishing gear and practices
that lead to the discarding of catch should be discouraged and the use
of fishing gear and practices that increase survival rates of escaping
fish should be promoted.
8.4.6 States should cooperate to develop and apply technologies,
materials and operational methods that minimize the loss of fishing
gear and the ghost fishing effects of lost or abandoned fishing gear.
8.4.7 States should ensure that assessments of the implications of
habitat disturbance are carried out prior to the introduction on a
commercial scale of new fishing gear, methods and operations to an
area.
8.4.8 Research on the environmental and social impacts of fishing gear
and, in particular, on the impact of such gear on biodiversity and
coastal fishing communities should be promoted.
98
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
8.5 Fishing gear selectivity
8.5.1 States should require that fishing gear, methods and practices, to
the extent practicable, are sufficiently selective so as to minimize
waste, discards, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish
species, and impacts on associated or dependent species and that the
intent of related regulations is not circumvented by technical devices. In
this regard, fishers should cooperate in the development of selective
fishing gear and methods. States should ensure that information on
new developments and requirements is made available to all fishers.
8.5.2 In order to improve selectivity, States should, when drawing up
their laws and regulations, take into account the range of selective
fishing gear, methods and strategies available to the industry.
8.5.3 States and relevant institutions should collaborate in developing
standard methodologies for research into fishing gear selectivity,
fishing methods and strategies.
8.5.4 International cooperation should be encouraged with respect to
research programmes for fishing gear selectivity, and fishing methods
and strategies, dissemination of the results of such research
programmes and the transfer of technology.
8.6 Energy optimization
8.6.1 States should promote the development of appropriate standards
and guidelines which would lead to the more efficient use of energy in
harvesting and post-harvest activities within the fisheries sector.
8.6.2 States should promote the development and transfer of
technology in relation to energy optimization within the fisheries sector
and, in particular, encourage owners, charterers and managers of
fishing vessels to fit energy optimization devices to their vessels.
8.7 Protection of the aquatic environment
8.7.1 States should introduce and enforce laws and regulations based
on the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto
(MARPOL 73/78).
8.7.2; 8.7.3; 8.7.4
8.8 Protection of the atmosphere
8.9 Harbours and landing places for fishing vessels
99
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
8.9.1 States should take into account, inter alia, the following in the
design and construction of harbours and landing places:
a. safe havens for fishing vessels and adequate servicing facilities
for vessels, vendors and buyers are provided;
b. adequate freshwater supplies and sanitation arrangements
should be provided;
c. waste disposal systems should be introduced, including for the
disposal of oil, oily water and fishing gear;
d. pollution from fisheries activities and external sources should be
minimized; and
e. arrangements should be made to combat the effects of erosion
and siltation.
8.9.2 States should establish an institutional framework for the
selection or improvement of sites for harbours for fishing vessels which
allows for consultation among the authorities responsible for coastal
area management.
8.10 Abandonment of structures and other materials
8.10.1 States should ensure that the standards and guidelines for the
removal of redundant offshore structures issued by the International
Maritime Organization are followed. States should also ensure that the
competent fisheries authorities are consulted prior to decisions being
made on the abandonment of structures and other materials by the
relevant authorities.
8.11 Artificial reefs and fish aggregation devices
8.11.1 States, where appropriate, should develop policies for
increasing stock populations and enhancing fishing opportunities
through the use of artificial structures, placed with due regard to the
safety of navigation, on or above the seabed or at the surface.
Research into the use of such structures, including the impacts on
living marine resources and the environment, should be promoted.
8.11.2 States should ensure that, when selecting the materials to be
used in the creation of artificial reefs as well as when selecting the
geographical location of such artificial reefs, the provisions of relevant
international conventions concerning the environment and safety of
navigation are observed.
8.11.3 States should, within the framework of coastal area
management plans, establish management systems for artificial reefs
and fish aggregation devices. Such management systems should
require approval for the construction and deployment of such reefs and
devices and should take into account the interests of fishers, including
artisanal and subsistence fishers.
100
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
8.11.4
9 - AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
9.1 Responsible development of aquaculture, including culture-based
fisheries, in areas under national jurisdiction
9.1.1; 9.1.2; 9.1.3
9.1.4 States should ensure that the livelihoods of local communities,
and their access to fishing grounds, are not negatively affected by
aquaculture developments.
9.1.5
9.2 Responsible development of aquaculture including culture-based
fisheries within transboundary aquatic ecosystems
9.3 Use of aquatic genetic resources for the purposes of aquaculture
including culture-based fisheries
10 - INTEGRATION OF FISHERIES INTO COASTAL AREA
MANAGEMENT
10.1 Institutional framework
10.1.1 States should ensure that an appropriate policy, legal and
institutional framework is adopted to achieve the sustainable and
integrated use of the resources, taking into account the fragility of
coastal ecosystems and the finite nature of their natural resources and
the needs of coastal communities.
10.1.2 In view of the multiple uses of the coastal area, States should
ensure that representatives of the fisheries sector and fishing
communities are consulted in the decision-making processes and
involved in other activities related to coastal area management
planning and development.
10.1.3 States should develop, as appropriate, institutional and legal
frameworks in order to determine the possible uses of coastal
resources and to govern access to them taking into account the rights
of coastal fishing communities and their customary practices to the
extent compatible with sustainable development.
10.1.4 States should facilitate the adoption of fisheries practices that
avoid conflict among fisheries resources users and between them and
101
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
other users of the coastal area.
10.1.5 States should promote the establishment of procedures and
mechanisms at the appropriate administrative level to settle conflicts
which arise within the fisheries sector and between fisheries resource
users and other users of the coastal area.
10.2 Policy measures
10.2.1
10.2.2 In order to assist decision-making on the allocation and use of
coastal resources, States should promote the assessment of their
respective value taking into account economic, social and cultural
factors.
10.2.3; 10.2.4; 10.2.5
10.3 Regional cooperation
10.4 Implementation
10.4.1
10.4.2 States should ensure that the authority or authorities
representing the fisheries sector in the coastal management process
have the appropriate technical capacities and financial resources.
11 - POST-HARVEST PRACTICES AND TRADE
11.1 Responsible fish utilization
11.1.1; 11.1.2; 11.1.3; 11.1.4
11.1.5 States should give due consideration to the economic and social
role of the post-harvest fisheries sector when formulating national
policies for the sustainable development and utilization of fishery
resources.
11.1.6 ;11.1.7
11.1.8 States should encourage those involved in fish processing,
distribution and marketing to:
a. reduce post-harvest losses and waste;
b. improve the use of by-catch to the extent that this is consistent
with responsible fisheries management practices; and
102
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
c. use the resources, especially water and energy, in particular
wood, in an environmentally sound manner.
11.1.9 States should encourage the use of fish for human consumption
and promote consumption of fish whenever appropriate.
11.1.10
11.1.11 States should ensure that international and domestic trade in
fish and fishery products accords with sound conservation and
management practices through improving the identification of the origin
of fish and fishery products traded.
11.1.12
11.2 Responsible international trade
11.3 Laws and regulations relating to fish trade
12 - FISHERIES RESEARCH
12.1 States should recognize that responsible fisheries requires the
availability of a sound scientific basis to assist fisheries managers and
other interested parties in making decisions. Therefore, States should
ensure that appropriate research is conducted into all aspects of
fisheries including biology, ecology, technology, environmental science,
economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional science. States
should ensure the availability of research facilities and provide
appropriate training, staffing and institution building to conduct the
research, taking into account the special needs of developing
countries.
12.2 States should establish an appropriate institutional framework to
determine the applied research which is required and its proper use.
12.3 States should ensure that data generated by research are
analyzed, that the results of such analyses are published, respecting
confidentiality where appropriate, and distributed in a timely and readily
understood fashion, in order that the best scientific evidence is made
available as a contribution to fisheries conservation, management and
development. In the absence of adequate scientific information,
appropriate research should be initiated as soon as possible.
12.4 States should collect reliable and accurate data which are
required to assess the status of fisheries and ecosystems, including
data on bycatch, discards and waste. Where appropriate, this data
should be provided, at an appropriate time and level of aggregation, to
relevant States and subregional, regional and global fisheries
organizations.
103
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
12.5 States should be able to monitor and assess the state of the
stocks under their jurisdiction, including the impacts of ecosystem
changes resulting from fishing pressure, pollution or habitat alteration.
They should also establish the research capacity necessary to assess
the effects of climate or environment change on fish stocks and aquatic
ecosystems.
12.6 States should support and strengthen national research
capabilities to meet acknowledged scientific standards.
12.7 States, as appropriate in cooperation with relevant international
organizations, should encourage research to ensure optimum utilization
of fishery resources and stimulate the research required to support
national policies related to fish as food.
12.8 States should conduct research into, and monitor, human food
supplies from aquatic sources and the environment from which they are
taken and ensure that there is no adverse health impact on consumers.
The results of such research should be made publicly available.
12.9 States should ensure that the economic, social, marketing and
institutional aspects of fisheries are adequately researched and that
comparable data are generated for ongoing monitoring, analysis and
policy formulation.
12.10 States should carry out studies on the selectivity of fishing gear,
the environmental impact of fishing gear on target species and on the
behaviour of target and non-target species in relation to such fishing
gear as an aid for management decisions and with a view to minimizing
non-utilized catches as well as safeguarding the biodiversity of
ecosystems and the aquatic habitat.
12.11 States should ensure that before the commercial introduction of
new types of gear, a scientific evaluation of their impact on the fisheries
and ecosystems where they will be used should be undertaken. The
effects of such gear introductions should be monitored.
12.12 States should investigate and document traditional fisheries
knowledge and technologies, in particular those applied to small-scale
fisheries, in order to assess their application to sustainable fisheries
conservation, management and development.
12.13 States should promote the use of research results as a basis for
the setting of management objectives, reference points and
performance criteria, as well as for ensuring adequate linkages
between applied research and fisheries management.
12.14; 12.15
12.16 States should, where appropriate, support the establishment of
104
Appendices SEIFG Fisheries Management Plan – June 2012
mechanisms, including, inter alia, the adoption of uniform guidelines, to
facilitate research at the subregional or regional level and should
encourage the sharing of the results of such research with other
regions.
12.17; 12.18; 12.19
12.20 Relevant technical and financial international organizations
should, upon request, support States in their research efforts, devoting
special attention to developing countries, in particular the leastdeveloped among them and small island developing countries.
Annex 1
BACKGROUND TO THE ORIGIN AND ELABORATION OF THE
CODE
Annex 2
RESOLUTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------G2. Marine Stewardship Council and Fisheries Accreditation
G2.1 The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an international organisation whose
role is to promote the development of sustainable fisheries and products. In order to
focus public attention on the sources of fishery products they operate an
independently verified accreditation scheme. Full details of the MSC and its activities
can be found at; www.msc.org
G2.2 It should be noted that the MSC have based many of their principles on the
issues raised within the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The
developments MSC have made build on the Code to ensure that the process of
recognising sustainable fisheries and sustainably managed fisheries is taken to the end
consumer level. It is by advising those that purchase fishery products of their
sustainability through a simple logo that purchasing decisions are fed back through
the supply chain and ultimately to the fishing industry/fishery managers.
G2.3 In the context of the IFGs and the management of fisheries within Scottish
coastal waters it is extremely important to recognise that fulfilling the conditions laid
out in the UN Code of Conduct would be a precursor to establishing basic
management systems. Only when such systems are in place for each fishery
prosecuted can it be assumed that the MSC standards have the potential to be met.
105