Scottish Fisheries Management Investigation into Structures for the Management of Freshwater...

Scottish Fisheries Management

Scottish Fisheries Management

Investigation into Structures for the Management

of Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland

Investigation into Structures for the Management

of Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland

Dr Keith HendryDr 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 AspectsCurrent Scottish System: Positive AspectsCurrent Scottish System: Positive AspectsCurrent Scottish System: Positive Aspects

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Localinvolvement

Control byfinanciallyinvolved

Good forsalmon/sea

trout

Trust work Enthusiasm Voluntaryinput

Per

cen

tage

Current Scottish System: Negative AspectsCurrent Scottish System: Negative AspectsCurrent Scottish System: Negative AspectsCurrent Scottish System: Negative Aspects

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Salmocentric Fragmented Area coverage Boardmembership

Fundingproblems

Poormanagement

Duplication

Per

cen

tage

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

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

Yes No

Review of Current Scottish SystemReview of Current Scottish SystemReview of Current Scottish SystemReview of Current Scottish System

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

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

YesNo

Review of Current Scottish SystemReview of Current Scottish SystemReview of Current Scottish SystemReview 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 scaleGeographic scaleGeographic scaleGeographic scale

0

10

20

30

40

50

60P

erce

nta

ge

Catchment onlyNational & CatchmentRegional onlyNational & Regional

In addition, one respondent said local need should In addition, one respondent said local need should dictate scaledictate scaleIn addition, one respondent said local need should In addition, one respondent said local need should dictate scaledictate 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-ManagementPublic/Private Co-Management

Centralised

Decentralised

Government based management

English Environment Agency

User group based management

Scottish DSFB System

Public Sector Influence

Private Sector Influence

Centralised

Decentralised

Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative



Government bodies are the decision makers. Limited information exchange with user groups, they are informed of decisions made.



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.


• 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.Common Features 1.

Proposed Unitary Fisheries Body(s) Functions?

Common Features 1.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 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

Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency –

Public (centralised) with Advisory CommitteePublic (centralised) with Advisory Committee



SEPASEPASEPASEPA

1 1NFFANFFA

SNHSNHSNHSNH

TrustsTrusts

Regional Fisheries AgencyRegional Fisheries Agency

Advisory Committee (non executive)

10 10

SEERADSEERADSEERADSEERAD

Officers (executive decisions)

• DSFB Disbanded

• New Legislation

• Publicly Funded

• RFAs undertake Management & Enforcement

FRSFRSFRSFRS

Centralised

Decentralised


1. Fisheries Agency





• 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 BoardsModel 2: Regional Fisheries Boards

Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee

Model 2: Regional Fisheries BoardsModel 2: Regional Fisheries Boards


SEPASEPASEPASEPA

1 1NFFANFFA

SNHSNHSNHSNH

TrustsTrusts

Regional Fisheries Board Regional Fisheries Board

Executive Committee (locally elected with exec. power) 10 10


• DSFB Maintained

• Legislation Modified

• Wider Committee representation

DSFBDSFB

1-6 ? 1-6 ?

DSFBDSFB DSFBDSFB

FRSFRSFRSFRS

DSFBDSFB

Centralised

Decentralised


2. Regional Fisheries Boards

1. Fisheries Agency

Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised Structure Decentralised Structure

Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Model 2 Regional Fisheries Boards Decentralised Structure 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 CouncilModel 3: Regional Fisheries Council

decentralised with Executive Committeedecentralised with Executive Committee


decentralised with Executive Committeedecentralised with Executive Committee

SEPASEPASEPASEPA

1 1NFFANFFA

SNHSNHSNHSNH

TrustsTrusts

Regional Fisheries Council Regional Fisheries Council

Executive Committee (locally elected with exec. power) 10 10


• DSFB Maintained

• Legislation modified


• Public/Private partnership Officers

(Public Sector)DSFBDSFB

1-6 ? 1-6 ?

Enforcement Management

FRSFRSFRSFRS

Centralised

Decentralised

Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative3. Fisheries

Council

1. Fisheries Agency






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

Model 4: Regional Fisheries ServiceModel 4: Regional Fisheries Service

Centralised with Executive CommitteeCentralised with Executive Committee



SEPASEPASEPASEPA

1 1NFFANFFA

SNHSNHSNHSNH

TrustsTrusts

Regional Fisheries Service Regional Fisheries Service

Executive Committee (locally elected with

executive power)

10 10


• DSB Disbanded

• New Legislation


Officers instructed by Exec. Comm.

FRSFRSFRSFRS

Centralised

Decentralised


4. Fisheries Service

1. Fisheries Agency






3. Fisheries Council

Centralised

Decentralised


Favoured Regional StructuresFavoured Regional Structures

Agency

Service

Council

Boards

Recommended structureRecommended structureRecommended structureRecommended structure

Suggest two models for consideration;









Positive Aspects RetainedPositive Aspects RetainedPositive Aspects RetainedPositive Aspects Retained

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Localinvolvement

Control byfinanciallyinvolved

Good forsalmon/sea

trout

Trust work Enthusiasm Voluntaryinput

Per

cen

tage

PartialPartial

Negative Aspects AddressedNegative Aspects AddressedNegative Aspects AddressedNegative Aspects Addressed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Salmocentric Fragmented Area coverage Boardmembership

Fundingproblems

Poormanagement

Duplication

Per

cen

tage

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

Scottish Fisheries Management Investigation into Structures for the Management of Freshwater...

Documents

Transcript of Scottish Fisheries Management Investigation into Structures for the Management of Freshwater...