1 / 43

Scottish Fisheries Management

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

ping
Télécharger la présentation

Scottish Fisheries Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 < 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. User group based management Scottish DSFB System Decentralised Government basedmanagement English Environment Agency Centralised Public/Private Co-Management Public Sector Influence Private Sector Influence

  14. Decentralised Centralised Public/Private Co-Management Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative

  15. Government bodies are the decision makers. Limited information exchange with user groups, they are informed of decisions made. Public/Private Co-Management Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative

  16. User groups are the decision makers. The government remains fully informed. User groups have an advisory role and their decisions gain endorsement from the government. Equal input of government and user groups to decision making. Often combination of public and private bodies act upon these decisions. Government make decisions but there is frequent consultation between government and user groups. Government bodies are the decision makers. Limited information exchange with user groups, they are informed of decisions made. 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 NFFA Trusts 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 Decentralised 1. Fisheries Agency Centralised Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative

  26. Proposed Structures2. 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 NFFA DSFB DSFB DSFB DSFB Trusts SEERAD FRS SNH SEPA  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 Decentralised 2. Regional Fisheries Boards 1. Fisheries Agency Centralised 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 NFFA DSFB Trusts SEERAD FRS SNH SEPA  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 Decentralised 3. Fisheries Council 1. Fisheries Agency 2. Regional Fisheries Boards Centralised 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 NFFA Trusts SEERAD FRS SNH SEPA  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 Decentralised 4. Fisheries Service 1. Fisheries Agency 2. Regional Fisheries Boards 3. Fisheries Council Centralised Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative

  36. Decentralised Agency Service Council Boards Centralised 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. Partial 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

More Related