Chamber and committees

Every farm business is different. In the consultation, we have set out that, when we are considering what the future framework might look like, we will be looking at a whole-farm plan and all the different actions that will take place within it. We have many examples of people undertaking the practices that we want to develop and see going forward. We know that there is a lot of capacity for better integrated land use, but it is not happening in some places. Therefore, there is a lot of scope for it to happen.

However, I do not want to encourage such debates or go down the track of saying that this is an either/or situation. Instead, we must encourage businesses to look at the matter as a whole and consider all the actions that can be taken.

The future framework also covers levels of support, which include elective payments and complementary support. There is work that can be done on a landscape scale; indeed, we are already seeing that develop. For example, managing specific habitats might not involve only one farm area—it will be about tackling such problems on a landscape scale. All those factors will be really important, as is the feedback on the proposals in the framework.

No problem—I will try to answer that as best I can.

We absolutely support the overall objectives of the common fisheries policy and what the EU wants to achieve with the landing obligation, and we are trying to follow the same objectives. We know that the current system does not work; it is very complex and hard for people to adhere to. We are looking to simplify the system and to prevent unwanted catch in the first place.

With the fisheries management and conservation group, we have developed proposals on how to prevent unwanted catch in the first place through technical and spatial measures. We have also considered how to simplify the system and make it more transparent—and ultimately more accountable and effective—in delivering the objectives of the landing obligation in the CFP. That is ultimately what we set out in the consultation.

The consultation was an important step, because we want to know what people think about the policy. The consultation closed on 7 June and we are currently analysing the responses, so I cannot give the committee an answer on the outcomes yet, but I am happy to come back with further information once we have done that analysis.

I was not aware of the motion that Shetland Islands Council passed yesterday, but I am happy to examine it in more detail. I have, of course, previously had correspondence on the matter.

It is a legal method of fishing. We know that there are conflicts and we looked at the issue through the future catching policy, too. We will consider the responses that we have had to that before we set out next steps.

Your point about scientific research and evidence is an important one, and, of course, we want to ensure that our evidence base is as robust as possible. However, given the nature and size of our marine environment, it is just not possible for us always to undertake every bit of research that we would like. In a previous appearance before the committee, I talked about how we can work with others, be they our academic institutions or the industry, to help us with the various bits and pieces of research that we need to carry out.

As for your reference to blanket restrictions, I do not know whether you are referring to, say, the 3-mile limit, which I know there have been calls for. That is not something that we have been considering, because that kind of blanket approach is not a route that we would like to pursue. We do not think that it would have the impact that some might think, and we do not agree with those sorts of blanket restrictions. That said, we will, of course, continue to undertake the work that we need to do and identify any research gaps that we might have. That process will be very important.

I am happy to come back to you on the specific issue of monitoring. I think that, if we implement a policy, it is important that we find out what the impact of that has been and see whether it is meeting the objectives that we hoped that it would.

I am happy to look at various suggestions that have been made. In relation to aquaculture, when I went to Colonsay, I saw the impact that more direct investment from a company has had. I am happy to continue to have that discussion with the industry.

I cannot give you a definite date at the moment, because various pieces of work are being done in relation to the plan, but I would be happy to keep the committee updated on that work.

Other work is being done in relation to population and depopulation. I cannot remember whether I touched on this during my previous committee appearance, when we were discussing the islands plan. Part of the work is to undertake pilots with the convention of the Highlands and Islands. We are looking at other work that we can take forward, which is continuing in the background. I would be happy to come back with more information on the addressing depopulation action plan.

I am happy to follow up in writing, but I will say that a number of pieces of work have been undertaken. The recent avian flu outbreak has been the biggest we have ever seen. We have lost a third of the world’s Svalbard barnacle goose population, and we have lost more than 7,000 gannets—5,000 from the Bass Rock alone.

Yes. It is horrifying to see what has been going on.

In relation to domestic flocks, work is being carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to consider changes. For example, we do not ask people to register birds if they have fewer than 50, so that work is considering whether we need to change that. The aim is to learn lessons from what we have been through in relation to domestic flocks.

NatureScot has a task force on wild birds. I will provide the committee with more information on that, because it provides fortnightly updates on the work that it is undertaking.

I give the assurance that we are looking to learn from the situation. It is hard to intervene, especially in relation to wild birds, but we must take whatever action we can—if not to prevent such outbreaks, then at least to manage them as best we can.

We ran the survey over the summer and it closed at the end of August. As George Burgess said, we had a strong uptake—I think that about 1,000 people took part, which surpassed our expectations with regard to planned uptake. That was really positive. The information will inform the next stage as we test the actions that we will take forward. As we look to carry out a more intensive pilot of that work, we will think about what conditionality might look like, the tools that we will need and how we standardise those tools and make improvements. The survey has informed that work.