Scottish Fisheries Management Investigation into Structures for the Management of Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland Dr Keith Hendry

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

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

Current Scottish System: Positive Aspects

Current Scottish System: Negative Aspects

 Do you agree with the need for a fundamental review of fisheries management in Scotland? Review of Current Scottish System

 Is a unitary body (or group of bodies) with responsibility for managing all freshwater fisheries the way forward? Review of Current Scottish System

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?

Geographic scale In addition, one respondent said local need should dictate scale Catchments Regions

Areas of Agreement 2. Catchment / local management & decision making favoured BUT Number of organisations needs to be reduced and co-ordination improved

Areas of Agreement 3. Fragmentation & Geography Majority < 25 ‘Boards’ BUT 10 most popular choice 10 Regions identified by SEPA for WFD

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

Public/Private Co-Management CentralisedDecentralised Government based management English Environment Agency User group based management Scottish DSFB System Public Sector Influence Private Sector Influence

CentralisedDecentralised InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative Public/Private Co-Management

InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative Government bodies are the decision makers. Limited information exchange with user groups, they are informed of decisions made. Public/Private Co-Management

InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative Government bodies are the decision makers. Limited information exchange with user groups, they are informed of decisions made. Government make decisions but there is frequent consultation between government and user groups. Equal input of government and user groups to decision making. Often combination of public and private bodies act upon these decisions. User groups have an advisory role and their decisions gain endorsement from the government. User groups are the decision makers. The government remains fully informed. Public/Private Co-Management

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 Common Features 1. Proposed Unitary Fisheries Body(s) Functions? Common Features 1. Proposed Unitary Fisheries Body(s) Functions?

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

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

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

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

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.

Proposed Structures 1. 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

Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Public (centralised) with Advisory Committee Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Public (centralised) with Advisory Committee SEPASEPA  1 NFFA SNHSNH Trusts Regional Fisheries Agency Advisory Committee (non executive)  10 SEERADSEERAD Officers (executive decisions) DSFB Disbanded New Legislation Publicly Funded RFAs undertake Management & Enforcement FRSFRS

CentralisedDecentralised InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative 1. Fisheries Agency Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Public (centralised) with Advisory Committee Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Public (centralised) with Advisory Committee

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 Proposed Structures 2. Regional Fisheries Boards

Model 2: Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised with Executive Committee Model 2: Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised with Executive Committee SEPASEPA  1 NFFA SNHSNH Trusts Regional Fisheries Board Executive Committee (locally elected with exec. power)  10 SEERADSEERAD DSFB Maintained Legislation Modified Wider Committee representation DSFB  1-6 ? DSFB DSFB FRSFRS DSFB

CentralisedDecentralised InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative 2. Regional Fisheries Boards 1. Fisheries Agency Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised Structure

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 Proposed Structures 3. 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 Proposed Structures 3 (cont). Regional Fisheries Councils

Model 3: Regional Fisheries Council decentralised with Executive Committee Model 3: Regional Fisheries Council decentralised with Executive Committee SEPASEPA  1 NFFA SNHSNH Trusts Regional Fisheries Council Executive Committee (locally elected with exec. power)  10 SEERADSEERAD DSFB Maintained Legislation modified Wider Committee representation Public/Private partnership Officers (Public Sector) DSFB  1-6 ? Enforcement Management FRSFRS

CentralisedDecentralised InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative 3. Fisheries Council 1. Fisheries Agency Model 3: Regional Fisheries Council Decentralised with Executive Committee Model 3: Regional Fisheries Council Decentralised with Executive Committee 2. Regional Fisheries Boards

Proposed Structures 4. 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

Model 4: Regional Fisheries Service Centralised with Executive Committee Model 4: Regional Fisheries Service Centralised with Executive Committee SEPASEPA  1 NFFA SNHSNH Trusts Regional Fisheries Service Executive Committee (locally elected with executive power)  10 SEERADSEERAD DSB Disbanded New Legislation Wider Committee representation Officers instructed by Exec. Comm. FRSFRS

CentralisedDecentralised InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative 4. Fisheries Service 1. Fisheries Agency Model 2: Regional Fisheries Service Centralised with Executive Committee Model 2: Regional Fisheries Service Centralised with Executive Committee 2. Regional Fisheries Boards 3. Fisheries Council

CentralisedDecentralised InstructiveConsultativeCooperativeAdvisoryInformative Favoured Regional Structures AgencyServiceCouncilBoards

Recommended structure Suggest two models for consideration; Model 3: Regional Fisheries Council Decentralised with Executive Committee Model 3: Regional Fisheries Council Decentralised with Executive Committee Model 4: Regional Fisheries Service Centralised with Executive Committee Model 4: Regional Fisheries Service Centralised with Executive Committee

Positive Aspects Retained Partial

Negative Aspects Addressed

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

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

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)

Where Next? Feedback Refine models Further investigate finance –GIA, rod licence, tagging schemes Make recommendations to the Minister