Scottish Fisheries Management

1
Scottish Fisheries Management

• Investigation into Structures for the Management
  of Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland

Dr Keith Hendry
2
Introduction

• Current Structure
• DSFBs manage own catchments
• DSFBs decision makers within remit of law
• DSFBs implement management action
• Aided by recent development of Trusts
• Salmon Sea Trout only species covered in law

3
Objectives

• Investigate potential new structures for the
  management of freshwater fisheries in Scotland
• Canvas opinion of those involved
• Questionnaire based interview of 20 organisations
  representing a variety of public private
  fishery related bodies and user groups

4
Current Scottish System Positive Aspects
5
Current Scottish System Negative Aspects
6
Review of Current Scottish System

• Do you agree with the need for a fundamental
  review of fisheries management in Scotland?

7
Review of Current Scottish System

• Is a unitary body (or group of bodies) with
  responsibility for managing all freshwater
  fisheries the way forward?

8
Areas of Agreement 1.

• Change needed
• Retain good aspects of current system
• Legislation - all freshwater fish in all waters
• Public funding essential in partnership
• Accountability audit for public funds
• Resolve fragmentation geographic scale?

9
Geographic scale
Regions
Catchments
In addition, one respondent said local need
should dictate scale
10
Areas of Agreement 2.

• Catchment / local management decision making
  favoured
• BUT
• Number of organisations needs to be reduced and
  co-ordination improved

11
Areas of Agreement 3. Fragmentation Geography

• Majority lt 25 Boards
• BUT
• 10 most popular choice
• 10 Regions identified by SEPA for WFD

12
Management Principles

• Management Regulation Keep Separate
• National or Local Management?
• Federal Model overwhelming support
• Locally delivered decision making management
  within National Framework
• Public private sector partnerships
• Principle of Public/Private interaction
• Co-Management

13
Public/Private Co-Management
Public Sector Influence
Private Sector Influence
14
Public/Private Co-Management
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
15
Public/Private Co-Management
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
16
Public/Private Co-Management
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
17
Common Features 1. Proposed Unitary Fisheries
Body(s) Functions?

• Collect Data
• Fish, fisheries their habitats
• Collate, Analyse Supply Information
• Status of all fish species, fisheries habitats
• Undertake Fisheries Management
• Exploitation, stocking, predators, habitat
• Undertake Research
• Local management orientated
• Raise Finance

18
Common Features 2.National Umbrella Body

• National Freshwater Fisheries Authority
• Central Hub to oversee management
• High level liaison with SEPA, SNH Govt
• Develop Guidelines for management
• Based on policy legislation
• Formalise monitoring reporting standards
• Fisheries Action Plans (FAPs) all rivers
• Audit FAPs allocate funds accordingly

19
Common Features 3.Fisheries Action Plans

• Statutory requirement for All Rivers
• Cover all fish species their habitats
• Functions
• Assess status of all fish species habitats
• Define management actions
• Report on progress
• Audit on 6 year cycle
• Performance linked to future (public) funding

20
Common Features 4.Role of Fisheries Trusts

• Not included in new structure but should be
  maintained where there is need
• Local involvement Independent Voice
• Charitable status Funding
• Role in Habitat Restoration
• Role in Education
• Contribute to management actions locally

21
Common Features 5.Potential Funding Sources

• Private
• Fishery Assessment or Levy
• Permit /day ticket tax
• Service charge or Sporting Rate
• Public
• Grant in Aid (GIA from SEPA SNH)
• Individual
• Rod Licence (e.g. 24 trout coarse fish, 64
  salmon)
• Tagging System

22
Proposed Structures

• 4 Possible Management Models Proposed
• Based on Co-management Continuum
• Different levels of Public/Private interaction
• Range from Public sector dominated to Private
  sector dominated.

23
Proposed Structures1. Regional Fisheries Agency

• New Public Body (centralised structure)
• DSFBs disbanded (new legislation)
• 10 Regional Fisheries Agencies operating under
  guidance from NFFA
• Funding primarily from public sector
• GIA
• Rod Licence
• Fisheries Assessment maintained in some form
• Advisory committees without executive power

24
Model 1 Regional Fisheries Agency Public
(centralised) with Advisory Committee
SEERAD
FRS
SNH
SEPA
? 1

• DSFB Disbanded
• New Legislation
• Publicly Funded
• RFAs undertake Management Enforcement

Regional Fisheries Agency
Officers (executive decisions)
? 10
Advisory Committee (non executive)
25
Model 1 Regional Fisheries Agency Public
(centralised) with Advisory Committee
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
26
Proposed Structures 2. Regional Fisheries Boards

• DSFB Retained
• Remit extended to cover all species
• DSFB encouraged to merge (multi-catchment)
• 10 Regional Offices (Autonomous)
• Operating under guidance from NFFA (FAPs)
• Additional funding from public sector
• GIA
• Rod Licence
• Fisheries Assessment maintained
• Privately managed but publicly accountable

27
Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised
with Executive Committee
SEERAD
FRS
SEPA
SNH
? 1

• DSFB Maintained
• Legislation Modified
• Wider Committee representation

Regional Fisheries Board
Executive Committee (locally elected with exec.
power)
? 10
? 1-6 ?
28
Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised
Structure
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
29
Proposed Structures 3. Regional Fisheries
Councils

• DSFBs retained but with modified powers
• Responsibilities for enforcement
• New equivalent public mirror body
• Responsibilities for management reporting
• 10 Regions each with local committee
• Wider representation than present
  (public/private)
• Executive Power

30
Proposed Structures 3 (cont). Regional Fisheries
Councils

• 10 Regional Offices operate under guidance from
  NFFA (FAPs)
• Funding from public private sector
• GIA
• Rod Licence
• Fisheries Assessment maintained
• Management combines public private sector
  involvement

31
Model 3 Regional Fisheries Council decentralised
with Executive Committee
SEERAD
FRS
SEPA
SNH
? 1

• DSFB Maintained
• Legislation modified
• Wider Committee representation
• Public/Private partnership

Regional Fisheries Council
Executive Committee (locally elected with exec.
power)
? 10
Management
Enforcement
Officers (Public Sector)
? 1-6 ?
32
Model 3 Regional Fisheries Council Decentralised
with Executive Committee
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
33
Proposed Structures4. Regional Fisheries Service

• DSFBs Disbanded (New legislation)
• 10 Regions each with local committee
• Wider representation (public/private)
• Executive Power
• 10 Regions operate under guidance from NFFA
• Funding from public private sector
• GIA, Rod Licence,
• Fisheries Assessment maintained
• Management combines public
  private sector involvement

34
Model 4 Regional Fisheries Service Centralised
with Executive Committee
SEERAD
FRS
SEPA
SNH
? 1
Regional Fisheries Service

• DSB Disbanded
• New Legislation
• Wider Committee representation

Executive Committee (locally elected with
executive power)
? 10
Officers instructed by Exec. Comm.
35
Model 2 Regional Fisheries Service Centralised
with Executive Committee
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
36
Favoured Regional Structures
Instructive
Consultative
Cooperative
Advisory
Informative
37
Recommended structure
Suggest two models for consideration
Model 3 Regional Fisheries Council Decentralised
with Executive Committee
Model 4 Regional Fisheries Service Centralised
with Executive Committee
38
Positive Aspects Retained
?
?
?
?
?
39
Negative Aspects Addressed
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
40
Funding

• Anglers contribute 113M to Scotland
• Very little public sector support!
• Potential Public Sources
• Rod licence - 4.0 M (resident visitors)
• Grant in Aid - 3.5M matched funding
• 20M if given parity with SEPA SNH
• Potential Private Sources
• Fishery Assessment (Levy) - 3.5M
• Combining public, individual private s
• Total Annual Income 11M

41
Staffing

• 11M Available
• Public sector average employment cost of 50K
  p.a. (oncosts, overheads, offices etc)
• 220 Staff in Total
• 20 Staff in NFFA (Hub)
• Administration, finance, fisheries specialists
• 20 Staff in each Regional Office
• Fisheries monitoring management, enforcement,
  administration
• Staffing to be locally determined by each Regions
  needs

42
Summarise

• Maintain private sector and voluntary sector
  vigour enthusiasm
• Executive decision making powers vital should
  be retained
• However, broader representation accountability
  are essential
• Local management (FAPs Funding)

43
Where Next?

• Feedback
• Refine models
• Further investigate finance
• GIA, rod licence, tagging schemes
• Make recommendations to the Minister