Wales King Scallop Advisory Group meeting: 7 August 2024

Stakeholders: Jim Evans (JE), Natalie Hold (NH), Mark Roberts (MR), Nicola Cusack (NC), Sophie Bennett (SB), Liam Jones (LJ), Christopher Chambers (ChC), Colin Charman (CC), 

WG: Chair - Julian Bray (JB), Michelle Billing (MB), Alun Mortimer (AM), Seb Evans (SE), Barrie John (BJ), Shelley Vince (SV). 

Apologies: Stuart Jones (SB).

• Thanks everyone for input to date.
• Welcome Sophie who will now be representing Seafish.
• Shelley Vince head of the data team to support discussion on REM.
• Clarified that no changes are proposed to effect of Skomer bylaws follow last meeting’s discussion.
• Feedback outside the meeting is encouraged. One-to-one discussions can be arranged. 

As notes were shared late, please send any comments by the end of August. 

AM delivered a briefing on REM components. MR has kindly shared photos of the REM equipment installed on his vessel. Discussions thus far have been positive from all stakeholders. The Scottish Government (SG) has already introduced REM legislation which may be a useful template. 

Last Year the UK Government consulted on REM for several fisheries in England scallops were not included. Likely we will have to balance alignment across boundaries (which is an FMP requirement) with ideal scallop specification for Wales. 

UK and EU teams are discussing REM compatibility but there is no detail on focus or approach. It appears the Isle of Man will adopt a similar system to the Scottish Government too. 

To summarise, stated benefits of REM are better data for stock assessment, environmental assessment, marine planning, management decisions and enforcement. Stronger controls, monitoring and evidence of fishing and therefore higher compliance. 

MR provided some information from the benefit of his experience in complying with the Scottish Government’s REM regime: 

• Data is sent to the equipment manufacturer only. The device always records which allows the Scottish Government to request the timespan of data that they’re interested in. The system does not record in harbour etc, only when fishing in Scottish grounds - assume there is a geofence trigger.
• To establish the system there was a monitoring trip. A notification of sailing was submitted so that the equipment could be monitored to ensure it was working properly. A one-month grace period allows for issues to be rectified to avoid losing fishing time. The system did crash during the first week which was the fault of the PC. Following this there was a camera fault. The technician who installed the gear noted that the cameras need additional sealing against water ingress and that they are susceptible to vibration issues.
• MR noted that big vessels could take dredges off towbars and keep fishing so having the cameras allows monitoring of how many dredges boats are fishing rather than just when gear is being used. 

The following points were made in discussion: 

• Several concerns were raised about the capacity of vessels, particularly those under 10m in length to adapt to REM, including: physical space required for the IT equipment, degradation of equipment if idle for half the year in saltwater environment, ability to transfer data via mobile or satellite signal, cost of data transfer, energy/battery requirements of system.
• The group considered whether could be saved if only GIGO without cameras was installed.
• The manufacturers website shows a “light” version of the IT equipment and there are many sensor varieties, but this needs more research.
• SV has spoken with Marine Scotland and asked about installation on smaller vessels. The system has been installed on about 20 smaller vessels to date. It was found that a different type of sensor was better but unsure of the exact installation issue. Hydraulic sensors are considered better than proximity as regulators need to know exactly when gear is going in/out. All boats to date have been able to have REM fitted to the specification without issue.
• If the vessel is out of mobile range, the data is sent as soon as signal is restored so there is no satellite needed.
• Although the legislation does not specify a supplier, all equipment for the Scottish REM requirements has been provided by one company (Anchor Lab).
• There was a general concern that there might be a legacy issue with data from the manufacturer should the relationship end, or the company cease trading.
• General consensus that the Scottish Government REM requirements are a starting point. The benefit of harmonisation of regulations should be considered.
• Several members noted discomfort with companies storing data rather than government. Need to consider data security.
• SV has asked Scotland about the costs to fishers: the amount paid to the supplier plus data costs will vary depending on the amount of fishing done. Vessels with Wi-Fi will find it easier and cheaper.
• Scotland has not included type approval for REM. Welsh Government is conscious that things change so it is easier to set the specification only.
• It was noted that setting specific goals for REM, e.g. spatial enforcement, data gathering etc. would help in designing a system for Wales.
• In response to a question about integrating VMS and REM, SV explained that they are separate systems with separate providers. There is some overlap but not to the extent that would allow the use of just one. REM data wouldn’t come through iVMS data transfers. Agree it makes sense to combine them at some point (if technically possible).
• Potting for scallop may be common in future. It would be best if any system could cope with different metiers.
• All recognised the importance of supporting transition with funding.
• Consensus that any new system would benefit from a trial period to refine unless there is something tried and tested which could also be suitable for smaller vessels.
• It was noted that positive approach of fishers to REM may be due to anticipation of allowing fishing in more areas of Cardigan Bay.
• Although accurate fishing location data is useful for science, size and biological data is unlikely to be collected from the video footage. May allow identification of large or obvious bycatch.

AM – At our last meeting a table of measures was discussed. More detail is required from a policy development perspective, and this will form the basis for public consultation.

May need to phase-in changes. Will send out a document for group to comment on after the meeting. A discussion followed on the proposed changes and the following points were made:

Standardise MCRS in Welsh EEZ.

• Recommended that wording reflect FMP so alignment rather than standardise. Agreed.

10-minute VMS polling for scallop dredging in Welsh EEZ (exact phrasing TBC). 

• Consensus that VMS specification regulations need to be retained. REM not able to replace this function yet. This should be in first phase of changes.  
• SV noted that there have been early discussions about standardising iVMS across the UK (specifically, increasing reporting frequency for over 12m vessels) but there is no timescale.
• NH raised that 10-minute VMS polling frequency is minimum required to filter for potting activity and that transmitting every 3 minutes would be better.

Simplify closed season

• All in agreement as per previous discussions. No known scientific reason for differences in closed season within the Welsh zone.

Specify belly ring size inside 12nm limit 

• BJ queried why this is just inside the 12nm limit. Should be same within the EEZ. Consensus that measures should be consistent within the EEZ where possible. 

One permit for Welsh EEZ

• It was confirmed that permits can be issued to non-UK vessels.
• JB noted that a permitting system allows for adaptive fisheries management through variable permit conditions.  
• CC also pointed out that fishing licences can include conditions.
• NC noted that catch limits are most effective measure for conservation and sustainability and that these could be applied through permit conditions. As could effort controls. In the UK, there are 3 scallop fisheries that have a rating of 3 and this is a good opportunity to move the Welsh fishery in that direction.
• Worth considering whether better environmental rating increases value of the catch.
• Pros and cons of permit conditions for monitoring landings were discussed. Need to consider equal access objective. Requiring landing in Wales could be contentious. Might be more acceptable to report on catch on entry and exit.
• BJ advised that there is no existing system for monitoring catch on entry and exit in real time and mis-recording on logbooks is an issue. Enforcement vessels cannot be everywhere all the time. Other approaches could be controlling effort through days at sea or regarding everything landed following fishing in Welsh zone as Welsh catch. 

Introduce ability to set effort limits at sea (via permit conditions)

• Consensus that controls of days (or time) at sea could be useful but less urgent than catch limits. These could be permit conditions too.

Ability to adaptively rotate areas open (or closed) to scallop dredging

• AM advised that although there is interest in this approach to fisheries management for scallop, it is likely that Habitat Regulations Assessment may require additional evidence and stronger controls on fishing activity (for example through REM) before this change could be introduced. Unlikely that we will be able to progress this in the first phase of changes.

• JE – Suggest changes are prioritised and implementation timeframes shared.  Consensus that moving forward ASAP is desirable.
• AM - Any change needs consultation so there will be fair chance to comment on any proposals. Our aim is to concentrate on the priorities shaped by this group. The proposals will continue to be developed so we can take forward changes that have most value and are most achievable with the time and resource available.
• JB confirmed that end of 2025 is target for introducing first phase of changes. We will share the implementation plan as soon as we can.
• SV advised that views on what in the Scottish REM order could work or not work for Wales would be welcome.
• CC noted that trying to incorporate changes to queen scallop regulations is likely to lengthen the process as this fishery has proved challenging in terms of HRAs to date. Agreed that further consideration is required.
• AM Thanks all for attending and your input. 

1. Changes to June meeting record and framework wording as per feedback (AM) - complete

2. Share implementation plan timeframes (AM) - complete

3. Group to send AM any comments on the framework (AM) - complete