³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes. That is what we are saying: if we can take any learning from FMPs that are already being developed, we will absolutely look to do that. DEFRA has been leading on fisheries management plans for some non-quota species that we do not have FMPs for at the moment. We always knew that those areas would be more complex, so it is really important that we learn from the processes that DEFRA has been through. There is nothing to prevent us from developing FMPs in the future, but our focus right now is to deliver the 21 FMPs that we have set out in annex A of the JFS. However, should anything change in that regard, we can always bring forward the development of a fisheries management plan.

I will respond to your question, but Jane MacPherson can talk more about the process and some of the work that has been done.

I want to make it clear that fisheries management plans are a completely new tool and a completely new process, so that is a point in and of itself.

We knew that the timescales that were set out in annex A of the JFS were ambitious, which is quite right. However, as we have gone through the process, we have recognised that more time is needed to get things right. That is the case for a number of reasons, not least the fact that there is still so much work to be done and that, as the committee has seen from the responses from stakeholders, they have concerns about what they have seen in the initial drafts that were shared with them. Those extra two years will enable us to have full engagement with our stakeholders and to go out to a full public consultation and reflect on the results of that before we redraft the plans and publish the final versions.

Although some of the other Administrations have published some fisheries management plans, we are not alone with regard to the challenging timescales that were set out in the JFS. Other Administrations have found themselves in the same position, and we now know that we need that bit of extra time, which is why we are all jointly going out to consultation.

Although the Scottish Government is leading on 21 FMPs, those are still joint plans, which means that it is not just a case of our having engagement with stakeholders. Engagement is also needed to reach agreed positions with the other Administrations. That has all taken extra time. In the middle of that, we had a UK general election and there is now a new Government in place. Therefore, enabling all those discussions to take place has taken more time than anybody could have anticipated, which is why all the Administrations find themselves in this position.

If it is helpful, I will ask Jane MacPherson to set out a bit more about the process and where we have got to.

We constantly look at that. The regional inshore fisheries groups and the FMAC have been through a bit of a refresh in recent years, and we are in a process of reviewing the FMAC structure, which was put on a more formal footing, with terms of reference and a more established structure than it had previously. However, as with anything, when we make such changes, we have to monitor them to see whether they are working. It is important that we consider whether stakeholders think that the FMAC is an effective forum and whether they are getting what they would like out of it. That work is on-going with regard to FMAC, and we are also doing that with the regional inshore fisheries groups.

As Jane MacPherson outlined in a previous response, once we have a firmer idea of the timetable, we would be happy to share it with the committee. I know that that would be helpful not just for our stakeholders and that it would probably help with your workload, of which there will be a lot over the coming years. As you have said, we could well be into a new Administration then. However, we will absolutely provide as much clarity as we can on that.

Seafish has also assisted with FMPs down south. It has that expertise and knowledge by the very nature of its work. It therefore makes sense for us to utilise that, where possible, rather than potentially replicating or duplicating.

Either way, we want to be as open and transparent with the committee as possible. If there are any issues, we will write to the committee with an update.

I hope that, in her response, Jane MacPherson has been able to illustrate how we consider that, even though we are focusing on individual stocks. I appreciate from the committee’s call for evidence that there was some concern about the merging of the two cod plans, in particular. That has been done in order to match the science and the management approach, as ICES considers that those plans concern the same stock. I realise that this harks back to a discussion that we had about Clyde cod earlier in the year, and work has been on-going to consider that. Our approach does not mean that we are not able to consider different characteristics in the species. If more evidence becomes available, we would consider that.

Jane, having dealt with the process so far, do you want to go into more detail on that?

Again, we already have a suite of work under way. In the work that we have been doing with our fisheries management and conservation group, we generally try to take a bottom-up approach to managing our fisheries and ensuring that we work with our fishers and wider stakeholders as we implement changes.

In relation to the specific measure that you are talking about, there are specific things that we have to cover in a fisheries management plan. I am not aware that that area is being considered at the moment, and it is certainly not being put to me.

Yes, I would be happy to. I know that that was an area of concern that was raised by stakeholders in response to the committee’s call for evidence.

It made sense to do so, because Seafish has a wealth of expertise in that area. I believe that it has also assisted DEFRA in the preparation of some its fisheries management plans. For us, it makes sense to make best use of that expertise and knowledge to assist us in that work.