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.

Well, that is the thing. We do not have a fisheries management plan for wrasse, but that has not prevented us from taking measures in the past and it would not prevent us from taking measures now. You have already highlighted the mandatory measures that we introduced in 2021. We did not need an FMP to do that, and that is the case now: if we identify that there is an issue with the stock, we can take action. We do not need to wait for the development of an FMP to address any issues.

Thank you for the invitation to speak to the committee today about the consultation on the draft amendments to annex A of the joint fisheries statement, which relate to the production of the Scottish-led fisheries management plans.

All of us here today understand the importance of Scotland’s fishing industry to our communities, economy and culture. We all want a sustainable and safe industry that has space to thrive alongside other users of the sea and that can fully capitalise on a healthy marine environment. Ensuring that our fish stocks are healthy and being fished responsibly is a key part of that.

Good progress is being made. The Scottish sustainable fishing indicator demonstrates that the sustainability status of commercial stocks in our waters has increased over time, from 37 per cent in 1993 to 70 per cent in 2022. Fisheries management plans should be a tool that helps us to continue to manage sustainability and, where necessary, to deliver improvements in our approach. FMPs will also play an important role in improving transparency around management and the measures that we take, which I know is really important to the committee as well as to our stakeholders more widely.

However, it is important to reflect that, even without FMPs, we already have a strong suite of measures in place and in development to support the management of the fishing sector and to deliver environmental protections. FMPs are about enhancing our approach, not replacing it.

Fisheries management is complex. There is a range of stakeholders who, rightly, want to be listened to, and it is important that we provide the space for that. We also do not operate in a static environment. Fish stocks are ever changing and science is always evolving, and we need to take account of that as we develop FMPs so that they remain relevant and reflective of the broader situation.

The views that were submitted to the committee in response to its call for evidence reflect the complexity of fisheries management and demonstrate the importance of our getting it right. The amendments that are proposed in the draft amended annex A of the JFS are fairly simple in and of themselves. We are extending the deadline for delivery by two years and merging two of the plans for cod into one so that we better reflect the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on the northern shelf cod stock.

Two years can feel like a long time, but the reality is that that time is needed to properly engage with stakeholders, to have meaningful consultation, to ensure that the FMPs are fit for purpose and reflective of the intention of the Fisheries Act 2020 and to properly engage across the United Kingdom Administrations.

In our development so far, we have already found that the steps involved in developing these FMPs are complex and time consuming, but they are necessary in order that the FMPs that are ultimately produced are meaningful. It is better to take the time to get the FMPs right than to do it too quickly.

The consultation on the amendments is on-going, and we are interested in the committee’s views. The proposals made in the consultation provide the right course of action that will enable the best FMPs to be delivered and to allow us to listen to stakeholders and take their thoughts on board.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

We have set out the criteria that were used to identify the species for which we are developing plans. Quite rightly, those are the focus. We have published information on which plans we will bring forward. That is by no means the absolutely definitive and final list of FMPs, but we have set out a timescale for that, which we hope will be extended.

I hope that, as I just outlined in relation to wrasse, if measures need to be taken with any stock, we do not need an FMP in place to do that. However, if it turns out that it would be beneficial to produce an FMP, we will consider that. We know that other authorities are considering plans for other species, and we want to have a look at that. If there is learning that we can take for our approach in Scotland, we will do that. I emphasise that, as Jane said in a previous response, despite all the legislation and regulation that we have in place at the moment, if we need to take action or if there is more work to be done, we can do that, as I hope you have seen with not just wrasse but other species that we have talked about in the committee previously.