Hansard

It is that time of year again when we get that feeling of déjà vu and are back once more at the fishing negotiations debate. Every year, the UK fisheries negotiations in the EU are watched closely by fishermen throughout the country, as policy develops that will, ultimately, govern their livelihoods.

Sweeping regulations, such as the landing obligation and the TAC quotas, are handed down from Brussels to our Scottish shores, where they directly affect the business of our Scottish vessels and fishermen, which has knock-on effects on our processing and haulage sectors. However, as we heard from the cabinet secretary, there is a much more positive outlook this year—not least due to the large increase in cod stocks and the forthcoming rising quotas.

Scotland’s relationship with the European Commission’s directorate-general for maritime affairs and fisheries has, of course, been complex over the years. However, the healthy relationship that reflects Scotland’s prominent role in North Sea and north Atlantic fisheries is welcome.

Just last month, the Commission rightly sympathised with British and Irish fishermen when it abandoned a proposal to adopt a blanket drift-net ban. The ban, which was an attempt to address abusive large-scale practices in the Mediterranean, would have jeopardised the livelihood of thousands of small-scale fishermen in Scotland and around the UK, where drift-net fishing is practiced responsibly on a seasonal basis. By opting instead for regional regulation, the Commission allowed for greater flexibility. Issues that are unique to different fisheries and environments can be appropriately addressed. It is an approach that should be extended to other areas of policy.

The European Commission’s landing obligation, which began this year with pelagic fisheries and will be phased in to all TAC species by 2019, is an example of a blanket approach that has had negative ramifications beyond the immediate good that the policy intended. The discards ban, which will be fully implemented by 2019, will mean that all fishermen in EU waters will be banned from discarding any or all of their catch. In an attempt to remedy the shortcomings of the TAC quota system, which perversely incentivised fishermen to discard species, the European Commission has enacted another policy that has its own set of adverse consequences.

Just last week I was delighted to host and chair a WWF briefing on implementing the discards ban in Scotland. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary was able to attend the briefing, which touched on the well-intentioned attempt to curb wasteful practices as well as on the adverse consequences that will be associated with the ban’s implementation.

The motivation behind the total allowable catch quota system was, rightly, the need to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries, but in an effort to comply with the legislation, fishermen discarded catches that violated the quota. Discarding occurred for a variety of reasons, of which we are all aware.

The central issue is that the Commission did not address the incentives to discard. It has tackled the symptom—discarding—instead of the core problems that are caused by its own TAC quota policy.

However, we are where we are, and the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland have produced guidance for fishermen on disposing of undersized catches, which will now have to be landed, as well as on managing quota and effort under the landing obligation.

The TAC quota, coupled with the discards ban, leaves fishermen in a difficult scenario as they try to meet the obligations that are imposed by the two policies. In particular, the emergence of choke species will inhibit fishermen in their efforts to meet their quotas on certain species while avoiding exceeding their quota on others. Scottish fishermen operate in a mixed fishery in which multiple species of fish overlap in a single area, so bycatch becomes an issue as fishermen seek one species but unintentionally trap others in their catch. The North Sea Advisory Council said that

“Choke species may have a strong negative effect upon fishing businesses. Potentially large quantities of quota could remain uncaught”

and that

“choke species pose a threat to the economic viability of fishing businesses”.

Even if we use various policy instruments, such as quota uplift, de minimis discard allowances, interspecies flexibility and survivability exemptions, it will be difficult to mitigate the negative effects on revenue of unfilled quotas. We will have to wait and see.

The other problem that the landing obligation poses relates to compliance and enforcement. Traditional methods of enforcement are limited: they deter non-compliance only when they are in the vicinity of the vessel, which encompasses only a small percentage of a vessel’s fishing effort, or they rely on self-reporting. A recent WWF report asserted that remote electronic monitoring coupled with closed-circuit television would be the most efficient means of monitoring compliance; it would provide a continuous monitoring presence and high-quality evidence. It would also be economically viable, compared with traditional methods.

However, it will be unfair to subject Scottish fishermen to such an intense level of monitoring if boats from other nations are not subject to the same measures, as Tavish Scott said. In the interests of having a level playing field, monitoring and enforcement legislation must be as universal as the discard ban that necessitates such laws. Mike Park raised that issue last week.

Scottish fishermen should be commended for their proactive approach to reducing discards and pursuing sustainability. Many have adopted more selective gear to reduce bycatch, and strategies such as spatial management and seasonal closures have been employed to ensure sustainable stocks.

Time is running out, as always. I wish the cabinet secretary and Scottish Government officials well in the upcoming negotiations in Brussels. The recommendations from ICES, which proposed increases in many of Scotland’s key stocks, are encouraging and we expect other nations that will be present at the negotiations to share the view that sustainable fisheries are desirable, in accordance with the scientific recommendations.

Given that Scotland lands 80 per cent of the fish that are caught in British waters, and given that Europe’s longest-serving fisheries minister is our very own Richard Lochhead, I hope that Westminster will see the good logic of allowing Scotland to lead the UK voice in the upcoming negotiations. The situation last year, when the unelected Lord Rupert Ponsonby, seventh Baron de Mauley, represented the UK Government in a crucial discussion about fish discards, was totally unacceptable.

I wish the cabinet secretary and his officials well.