Scottish Government

REGULATION OF MULTIPLE TRAWLS

This document is also available in pdf format (56k)

REGULATION OF MULTIPLE TRAWLS

The Scottish Executive believes that there is a strong case for considering the prohibition of all trawls of more than two nets in Scottish waters. This letter and the enclosed paper invite you to comment on a number of options and proposals for action in this area. A partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is also enclosed, to which contributions are welcome.

Responses should be sent, by email if possible, to Josie Swan at: josie.swan@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Alternatively, please write to: Josie Swan, Sea Fisheries Division, Room 510, Pentland House, 47 Robb's Loan, Edinburgh EH14 1TY. The deadline for responses is 10 November.

It is our intention that, at the end of the consultation period, this letter and copies of the responses received will be made publicly available through the main Scottish Executive library at K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD. It will be assumed, therefore, that your response can be made publicly available unless you indicate clearly that you wish all or part of your response to be excluded from this arrangement. The library will supply copies on request to personal callers or telephone enquiries (Tel: 0131 244 4565). An administrative charge, to cover the cost of photocopying and postage, will apply.

Yours sincerely,

ANDREW WATSON
Sea Fisheries Division

REGULATION OF MULTIPLE TRAWLS

Introduction

1. The Department considers that the practice of multiple trawling (trawling with more than two nets) poses a potential threat to stocks, due to the sizeable increases in catch efficiency and the level of discards that can potentially result from use of such methods, and may undermine the principles of effort management and the enforcement of quota and landings restrictions. At a time when many key fish stocks are outside safe biological limits and only a small number of Scottish vessels are presently operating multiple trawls, the Executive considers that it may be appropriate to prohibit the practice before it becomes widespread and before a greater number of vessel owners invest in the necessary technology.

2. Under the auspices of Fisheries Conservation Group (FCG), UK Fisheries Departments and the UK fishing industry agreed that the UK should push for effective EU restrictions on multiple trawls. The UK subsequently raised the issue with the European Commission and other EU Member States. The agreement reached at FCG continues to inform UK and Executive policy on the issue and the view of the Department is that there is a strong case for introducing Scottish legislation on multiple trawls as an interim measure. However, the case for introducing new restrictions or a prohibition on multiple trawls must take account of the socio-economic impacts measures could have, recognise the needs of those presently operating with such gear, and must balance the need to ensure sustainable exploitation of our fisheries with the need to encourage innovation, efficiency and modernisation within the industry.

Background

3. The practice of multi-rigging can be seen as a natural development of the use of twin-rig gear to fish for nephrops and other groundfish. The principal advantage of twin-rig gear compared to single trawls is that using two trawls means that there is a much larger bosom area. Wide bosom sections are generally considered a necessity when targeting groundfish and twin-rigs offer the possibility of extending the bosom area without increasing the overall net drag. Increasing the number of codends to three or four therefore offers the possibility of further widening the bosom area.

4. Multi-rigging is currently not widespread in Scotland. While twin-rigging is now a common feature in nephrops fisheries, the number of boats that have used 3 or 4 net rigs is very low (2 or 3 vessels). However, in theory the potential for multi-rig trawls to become more widespread could be considered as relatively high. Many modern fishing vessels are sufficiently equipped to operate multiple trawls without requiring hugely expensive modifications. Gear research and technical developments have helped to improve the ease with which the gear can be used. Evidence gathered from monitoring of existing multi/twin-rig trawls suggests that they offer significant increases to catch efficiency in comparison with single trawls, and that these increases may offset any additional costs, such as increased fuel consumption or vessel maintenance. Furthermore, multi-rig trawls could potentially lead to an increase in effort that would contradict the objectives of existing days at sea provisions, at a time when effort control and effective enforcement of quota and landings restrictions is considered vital to ensuring the sustainability of several stocks and a correspondent fair distribution of opportunities.

5. Nevertheless, investment in multi-rig gear to date has been low, despite the immediate fishing advantage offered by an increase in catch efficiency. Vessel owners have been reluctant to invest in the absence of medium-term security over the continuing legality of such fishing methods. It may also be that skippers consider that catch rates in particular fisheries would not offset the costs of operating multi-rig gear. However, in general terms, a prolonged absence of prohibitive measures may encourage some owners to consider new investment in multiple rigging.

6. Vessels from other EU Member States are undertaking multiple trawls in certain fisheries, for example Danish and Belgian vessels fishing for nephrops in the North Sea. It is for each Member State to regulate its own fishing industry in the absence of relevant Community legislation. Scottish legislation would therefore only affect Scottish vessels, other UK vessels fishing in Scottish waters, and any vessel fishing within the Scottish 12-mile limit. The Scottish Executive and the UK government support the introduction of Community measures to prohibit or restrict the use of multi-rig trawls and have promoted the case at an EU level. However, it must be considered unlikely that such measures could be introduced quickly. Proposals would need to be developed and agreed by all EU Member States and the European Commission. The reform of the EU Technical Conservation Regulation offers the most appropriate means for introducing such new measures, although this reform is unlikely to conclude earlier than the end of 2005 and the outcomes are difficult to predict.

7. The Executive also considers that, at an EU level, the issue of improving existing levels of fishing power to levels that could undermine the principles of effort control goes beyond the use of multiple trawls. There are examples throughout the Community of vessels operating with comparably inefficient gears that might wish to consider a number of options for upgrading. So while Scottish or Community action on the single issue of multiple trawls may be desirable, the Executive believes that there is also a need to examine whether a package of more general gear restrictions might be required at EU level to ensure that fishing power does not increase to an unsustainable level.

Effects of multi-rig trawls

8. Research into the effects of multiple trawls is relatively limited, reflecting the limited commercial use of such methods to date, particularly by UK vessels. However, research conducted by the Fisheries Research Service into single and twin-rig trawls does offer evidence of the increased fishing effort that twin-rig trawls can exert, in comparison to single trawls.

Catch efficiency

9. As compared to a single trawl, twin trawls have been found to improve substantially the catch of nephrops. The increases in catches of nephrops appear to be greater than for other species, suggesting some species-specific advantage in that fishery. There is less clear evidence about whether twin trawling is an advantage in other fisheries (e.g. for flatfish and monkfish). While improvement to catch efficiency in itself should not be viewed as a negative impact - it is only right that any business should seek to make its operating methods more effective - the relationship between fishing power and effort control does offer cause for concern. Effort control as a tool for securing the future sustainability of stocks relies on effective enforcement of quota uptake and landings restrictions. Fishing effort is the product of the fishing activity of the fishing unit and its fishing power. Controlling fishing days does not fully control the fishing power of the gear and therefore significant increases in the operation of multiple trawls risk undermining the effectiveness of effort controls.

Discards and selectivity

10. Catching methods are not the sole factor that determine discard rates. However, given the increases in catch efficiency that can result from multiple trawls, there is a risk that greater numbers of juvenile or non-target species could be caught and discarded, and of increases in high-grading and the discarding of less marketable quota species. Research does not suggest that the use of multiple trawls has a significant impact on net selectivity in comparison with single trawls. Indeed, some within the industry assert that there is a reduction in the bycatch of juvenile whitefish. However, because of the increase in catch efficiency, it can still be argued that the use of multiple trawls may increase the total catch, and therefore volume of discarding, of juveniles and non-target species in mixed fisheries.

Existing legislation

11. Some restrictions on multiple trawls already exist. The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (No. 2) (Scotland) Order 2000, as amended, places a prohibition on all trawls other than a single trawl, with exceptions for beam trawlers, trawls with a mesh size of 80mm or above in certain waters, or any trawls with a mesh size of 95mm or above.

Options for regulating multiple-trawls

12. The Department considers that there are four principal options that should be considered. Views are invited on the relative merits of each.

A. Prohibit all multiple trawls through Scottish legislation

13. A prohibition of all trawls of more than two nets could be introduced by amending the 2000 Order. The intention would be to provide for a blanket ban, which would in practice include the prohibition of fishing for nephrops anywhere in Scottish waters with more than two nets and the prohibition of any trawl with more than to two nets regardless of the mesh size used.

Advantages

• This would remove the possibility of increased use of multiple trawls by Scottish vessels and other UK vessels fishing in Scottish waters, therefore offering additional long-term protection to stocks;
• Taking this action now would negatively affect only a small number of vessels - the majority of Scottish vessels would be unaffected;
• It would be possible to implement such a measure relatively quickly;
• It may encourage other Member States to consider more actively the case for equivalent measures.

Disadvantages

• There would be a financial impact on those vessels which have already invested in multi-rig gear;
• Scottish legislation would not protect stocks from the operation of multiple trawls in Scottish waters by vessels from other EU Member States, except within the 12-mile limit;
• Future EU legislation might not be compatible with Scottish measures.

B. Prohibit multiple trawls in Scottish waters but with a derogation for 120mm mesh size

14. Existing legislation provides a derogation from the prohibition of multiple trawls for certain types of net. In seeking to strengthen existing legislation, an option is therefore to further limit those derogations, rather than to establish a complete ban. The use of mesh size of 120mm or above is considered to offer a reasonable level of selectivity in whitefish and nephrops trawls. It could therefore be argued that continuing to allow the operation of multiple trawls with 120mm mesh or above should offer some additional protection to juvenile stocks. However, it is possible that such a derogation could lead to an increase in effort on the larger size of prawns. A derogation would also reduce the ease with which legislation can be enforced and would also undermine the general intention to promote decisive action at EU level on multiple trawls. A derogation would also not address and the risk that increases in fishing power could pose to effective effort control.

Advantages

• Would allow vessels currently using multiple trawls to continue operating;
• Would provide some additional stock protection by guaranteeing certain levels of selectivity.

Disadvantages

• Would leave a loophole for anyone to fish with multiple gear if they wished and therefore might not prevent future expansion and increases in fishing power;
• Reduces ease of enforcement;

C. Seek to prohibit or restrict multiple trawls through EU regulation only

15. Prohibiting or restricting the use of multiple trawls throughout all or certain Community waters and by all Community vessels would require negotiating amendment to the EU technical conservation regulation (EC Council Regulation 850/98). A review of the regulation is being undertaken but it is unlikely to conclude before end-2005. It would be possible to put a case for the prohibition or restriction of multiple trawls as an individual measure, rather than as part of the overall process of reforming the technical conservation regulations. However, it is unlikely that an early agreement could be reached at an EU level because of the different priorities of each Member State, and there may be opposition to dealing with a particular issue in isolation at a time when more general review and reform is ongoing.

Advantages

• The successful adoption of EU measures would require all EU Member States to address the problem and should therefore offer significant conservation benefits;
• It would not disadvantage Scottish/UK vessels in comparison to vessels in other EU fleets.

Disadvantages

• It must be considered unlikely that it would be possible to agree and implement new Community measures in the short-term;
• Time lag may encourage investment in multi-rig gear;
• The outcomes of discussion at Community level are difficult to predict.

D. Do not proceed with any prohibition or restriction of multiple trawls

14. The use of multiple trawls by Scottish vessels or other UK vessels fishing in Scottish waters is not currently widespread. The immediate conservation benefits of a Scottish prohibition on multiple trawls may therefore not be substantial. It could be argued that introducing Scottish legislation at this stage is not an urgent requirement. However, the introduction of legislation now rather than in future would act as a preventative rather than an overly punitive measure, that would incur no direct costs on most parts of the industry. Preventative Scottish legislation could help to promote similar moves elsewhere in the Community. It would also send a clear message that resources that might otherwise be devoted to developing multiple trawl technology could be better applied elsewhere. Successfully promoting EU legislation now or in the near future would have a more significant immediate conservation impact, because it would cover a larger number of vessels already operating with multiple trawls.

15. The Department therefore considers that action is required in the short-term at a Scottish level and at an EU level as soon as practicable.

Conclusion

16. The Department considers that the case for prohibiting or further restricting multiple trawls should be pursued at an EU level, but in the absence of a guarantee of early action proposes to introduce a Scottish prohibition as an interim measure - Option A.

17. Views are invited on the Department's preferred course of action. Views are also invited on any aspect or effect of a prohibition on multiple trawls, including for example comments on timescales for implementation, the costs involved, current and potential future uptake of multi-rig trawls in the absence of a prohibition, fisher's experience of the catch efficiency and selectivity of multi-rig trawls, and any alternative suggestions to the options outlined in this paper.

18. The regulation of multiple trawls is one of many gear issues that require exploration as the review of the EU technical conservation regulations is taken forward during 2004 and 2005. The Department will work with other UK Fisheries Departments to arrange a programme of consultation once the timetable for the review becomes clearer. However, early comments on what other amendments to existing gear regulations might be desirable in minimising potential increases in fishing power would be welcome.

19. In anticipation of future Scottish legislation, a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment has also been prepared. Contributions to this document, most notably on the likely costs to business of the Department's proposals, would also be welcome.

Scottish Executive
ERAD: Sea Fisheries Division

18 August 2004

PARTIAL REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. Title:

PROHIBITION OF MULTIPLE TRAWLS IN SCOTTISH WATERS

Purpose and intended effect of the proposals

2. Scottish Statutory Instrument 405/2000 prohibits the use of trawls with more than one net with certain exceptions, relating to the mesh size of the nets used and the sea areas in which trawls are undertaken. The intention behind making further legislation to prohibit all use of multiple trawls (trawling with more than two nets) is to offer additional protection to stocks. Placing limits on levels of fishing power will help to support existing effort controls and can minimise the discarding of small fish or non-target species.

Risk Assessment

3. The measures will apply to all Scottish vessels, to all other UK vessels in Scottish waters and to any vessel within the Scottish 12-mile limit. In practice, only a very small number of Scottish/UK vessels are currently operating multiple trawls in Scottish waters, so the costs on the fishing industry of complying with the proposed restrictions will be minor. However, investment by individuals in the small number of active multi-rig vessels will have been significant (up to an estimated 20,000).

Options

Prohibit all multiple trawls through Scottish legislation

4. This would remove the possibility of increased use of multiple trawls by Scottish vessels and other UK vessels fishing in Scottish waters, and by any vessel within the Scottish 12-mile limit, therefore offering additional long-term protection to stocks. The measure would be easy to enforce and would avoid creating any loopholes that could be used to undermine the principles of effort control. While EU legislation would offer more comprehensive protection to stocks, it will take time to agree measures with all interested parties and the outcomes of such discussion must be considered uncertain. By comparison, and as an interim measure, Scottish legislation would be quick and easy to implement.

Prohibit all multiple trawls through Scottish legislation, except nets of more than 120mm mesh

5. This would allow vessels currently using multiple trawls to continue operating, provided they used nets of a large mesh size. This could provide some additional stock protection by guaranteeing certain levels of net selectivity. However, it would leave a loophole for anyone to fish with multiple gear if they wished and therefore might not prevent future expansion in usage and fishing power, would reduce ease of enforcement.

Prohibit multiple trawls through EU legislation only

6. The successful adoption of EU measures would require all EU Member States to address the problem and should therefore offer significant conservation benefits. It would also not disadvantage Scottish/UK vessels in comparison to vessels in other EU fleets. However, delivering such a prohibition, or new restrictions, is not in the Executive's gift. Reaching agreement with the European Commission and other EU Member States could take some time and the outcomes are uncertain.

Do not prohibit multiple trawls

7. Not introducing Scottish measures would avoid the imposition of financial losses on the small number of fishermen currently working with multi-rig gear. However, the measures are intended to support efforts to promote the recovery of some of Scotland's key fish stocks, to the benefit of the fishing industry at large, and to act as an interim measure in advance of a potential EU prohibition or new restrictions on multiple trawls.

Benefits

8. The introduction of these measures should protect juvenile whitefish and nephrops stocks in Scottish waters and therefore should enhance catch opportunities in future years. By legislating now, when few Scottish and UK fishermen have invested in multi-rig gear, it is possible to avoid potentially more widespread financial losses in future years.

9. As well as applying to UK vessels, the legislation would also prevent foreign vessels from operating with multi-rig gear within the Scottish 12-mile limit. The use of multi-rig gear is more prevalent in the fleets of some other EU Member States, which fish in Scottish waters. Although the bulk of their activity may in practice take place outside the 12-mile limit, the Executive's legislative proposals would reduce the area in which they could potentially fish.

Compliance costs for business

10. There will be no compliance costs on the large majority of fishing businesses. However, those presently operating multiple trawls will be required to adjust their gear and may lose the benefits of significant previous investment in their vessels. It is possible that these individuals may incur financial losses as a result of a reduction in levels of catch efficiency.

Small Firms Impact Test

11. The size of the crews of vessels potentially affected by the measures mean that they would all be classed as small or micro businesses. [These businesses were consulted via the Scottish and other UK fisheries associations whose members could potentially be affected by the measures. Views were sought on all aspects of the Executive's legislative proposals].

Other costs

12. The measures would not give rise to further costs to Government. Enforcement of the legislation would be achieved within the existing provision for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency.

Competition Assessment

13. There will be limited negative competitive impact arising from this regulation as few Scottish or UK vessels currently operate multiple trawls. The very small number of vessels that do would be subject to restrictions not imposed in full on those vessels from other EU Member States which fish with multi-rig gear in Scottish waters. Other EU vessels would continue to have the option of fishing in Scottish waters with multi-rig gear provided they operate outside the 12-mile limit. However, the majority of Scottish and UK vessel owners have to date chosen not to fish with multi-rig gear, so the restrictions would not introduce a new competitive impact.

14. The proposed legislation neither restricts the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products, nor will it lead to a differentiation in costs between new and existing fishermen. The proposed legislation is unlikely to affect the market structure.

Results of consultation

15. The Scottish Executive issued a public consultation on its proposals on xx August 2004. [Enter results of consultation].

Summary and Recommendations

16. It is recommended that legislation prohibiting the use of multiple trawls in Scottish waters is introduced.

Enforcement, sanctions, monitoring and review

17. Enforcement would be undertaken predominantly by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, operating under Scottish legislation. If the measures are found to have been contravened, a fine not exceeding 5000 may be levied. The court may also impose an additional fine not exceeding the value of the fish caught with the net or order the forfeiture of the net.

18. The Fisheries Research Service is responsible for monitoring levels of fishing activity and the effect of particular fishing methods on stocks in Scottish waters, within the framework of a strategic work programme determined by the Scottish Executive. It will be possible to review the effect of these measures by assessing landings data from before and after their introduction.

Ministerial Declaration