Response 409411206

Back to Response listing

Questions

1. Do you agree that Scottish vessels required to use REM in the Scottish zone should also have REM operational when operating outside of the Scottish zone?

Please select one item
Radio button: Unticked Yes
Radio button: Ticked No
Radio button: Unticked Don't know
Please provide details in the text box below
MNWFA have two considerations to make. The first is that a great amount of planning must take place prior to introducing REM into complex mixed fisheries such as the offshore whitefish and mixed fleet segments. With regard to what our members view as a logical sequence, it will be both necessary and important to have a suitable catching policy embedded well ahead of the introduction of REM.
If introduced, MNWFA members hold the position that the use of REM should be applied across all fishing vessels, irrelevant of flag, fishing the same area for the same stocks. In that respect, we take the position that the use of REM should not apply outside Scottish waters if it delivers a departure from this level playing field.

2. Do you foresee any barriers to vessels meeting the costs associated with the REM systems themselves? This includes upfront and ongoing costs.

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked No
Radio button: Unticked Don't know
Please provide details in the text box below
Our members believe that both the purchase and installation costs for REM should be met by government. It is unlikely that a price differential will be gained through the introduction of REM - we have seen very little price differential from MSC certification of several key commercial stocks. As a result, it is unlikely that an improvement in the reputation of the Scottish Fishing industry would financially compensate against the cost incurred.
Whilst the ongoing running costs would seem less onerous it is nevertheless a further cost to the industry at a time when running costs are escalating. The economic stress on a fishing business is currently high and coupled with planned inefficiency as a result of spatial squeeze and displacement, the prognosis for economic viability in the future does not look good, or as good as it should.
In addition, the ongoing commitment to manage our carbon footprint through investment in lighter gears, vessel design and engine efficiency as a result a result of ongoing R and D, will mean less money available for other projects.
On that basis we believe that all costs should be borne by the management authorities.

3. Are you aware of any issues we need to take account of when we apply REM across all pelagic fishing fleets fishing in Scottish waters on a level playing field basis?

Please provide details in the text box below
We make no comment on this issue.
Please select one item
Radio button: Unticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked No
Radio button: Ticked Don't know

4. Do you agree with the definition of pelagic vessels provided and are there any unintended consequences from using this definition?

Please provide details in the text box below
"We make no comment on this issue."

5. How much lead-in time should pelagic industry be given to prepare for compliance with the mandatory REM requirement?

Please provide details in the text box below
Given this question is generic and not just applying to Pelagic vessels we would suggest that each fleet metier, as they are introduced to REM, should be given 36 months lead-in time. Fitting cameras onboard the limited number of pelagic vessels will be a significantly easier task than fitting cameras across other sectors where the number of vessels runs to the hundreds not the tens, as is the case with the pelagic fleet.

6. Do you agree with the scientific and compliance benefits of REM for the pelagic fleet as set out in this document? Are there other benefits which you can consider, including to industry, the environment, or local communities?

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked No
Please provide details in the text box below
Once again, we feel this is a broader question than it just being focussed on the pelagic sector. MNWFA members believe that the medium to long term focus on the benefits derived from REM should be the scientific element.
Our position regarding the scientific status of a fishing vessel has been made public on many occasions. We view every fishing vessel as being a scientific platform, and as such we should find ways of harvesting the available information that they can provide.
The compliance aspects of REM are, in our members view, a secondary element given that we have the ideal opportunity to create a functional catching policy which will stimulate a culture of compliance.

7. Do you agree that the system as outlined in section 3.4.2 (System specification) should be able to meet the benefits described in Section 3.3?

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked No
Please provide details in the text box below
We have nothing to say regarding the specifics of the pelagic fleet but reiterate our position as set out above that the focus should be on improving scientific information on the stocks.

8. Do you foresee any specific operational problems with the system specification set out within the document?

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked No
Please provide details in the text box below
Whereas we accept that safeguards need to be in place to prevent against gaming, our members hold the view that it would be unreasonable to insist that vessels return to port on the occasion where REM equipment on board fails. For offshore vessels this would be a tiresome obligation and we suggest that in such cases vessels are allowed to complete their trips with the proviso that it must not leave port with defective gear.

9. Do you believe that we should require net sensor data as part of the system specification at this point?

Please provide details in the text box below
We have no comment to make.

10. Are you aware of any issues we need to take account of when we apply REM requirements consistently across all scallop dredge vessels in the Scottish zone, regardless of scallop species being targeted or number of dredges being deployed?

Please provide details in the text box below
We have no issues to raise.

11. Do you agree that REM requirements on vessels carrying and/or deploying scallop dredge gear in the Scottish zone should be broadly aligned to existing REM requirements provided for in Regulation 6 of the 2017 Order?

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked No
Please provide details in the text box below
We agree that it makes sense to broadly aligned to existing REM requirements although it is more important to ensure that current regulation relating to REM aligns broadly with any future regulation on the same.

12. Do you consider that any other changes (in addition to the ability to record footage to a minimum of 5 Frames per Second) should be made to the REM system specification?

Please provide details in the text box below
We have nothing to recommend at this time

13. What is your view in relation to the various options outlined for deployment of REM to parts of the demersal fleet as outlined in Section 5: REM for large demersal vessels ?

Please provide details in the text box below
We have nothing to recommend at this time

About you

What is your name?

Name
Mark Robertson

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button: Unticked Individual
Radio button: Ticked Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
MNWFA