Upload
gerard-howard
View
222
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Public/Private Co-ManagementPublic/Private Co-Management
Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative
Government bodies are the decision makers. Limited information exchange with user groups, they are informed of decisions made.
Public/Private Co-ManagementPublic/Private Co-Management
Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative
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-ManagementPublic/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.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
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
Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative
1. Fisheries Agency
Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency –
Public (centralised) with Advisory CommitteePublic (centralised) with Advisory Committee
Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency – Model 1: Regional Fisheries Agency –
Public (centralised) with Advisory CommitteePublic (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 BoardsModel 2: Regional Fisheries Boards
Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee
Model 2: Regional Fisheries BoardsModel 2: Regional Fisheries Boards
Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee
SEPASEPASEPASEPA
1 1NFFANFFA
SNHSNHSNHSNH
TrustsTrusts
Regional Fisheries Board Regional Fisheries Board
Executive Committee (locally elected with exec. power) 10 10
SEERADSEERADSEERADSEERAD
• DSFB Maintained
• Legislation Modified
• Wider Committee representation
DSFBDSFB
1-6 ? 1-6 ?
DSFBDSFB DSFBDSFB
FRSFRSFRSFRS
DSFBDSFB
Centralised
Decentralised
Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative
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
Model 3: Regional Fisheries CouncilModel 3: Regional Fisheries Council
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
SEERADSEERADSEERADSEERAD
• DSFB Maintained
• Legislation modified
• Wider Committee representation
• 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
Model 3: Regional Fisheries CouncilModel 3: Regional Fisheries Council
Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee
Model 3: Regional Fisheries CouncilModel 3: Regional Fisheries Council
Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee
2. Regional Fisheries Boards
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
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
SEERADSEERADSEERADSEERAD
• DSB Disbanded
• New Legislation
• Wider Committee representation
Officers instructed by Exec. Comm.
FRSFRSFRSFRS
Centralised
Decentralised
Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative
4. Fisheries Service
1. Fisheries Agency
Model 2: Regional Fisheries ServiceModel 2: Regional Fisheries Service
Centralised with Executive CommitteeCentralised with Executive Committee
Model 2: Regional Fisheries ServiceModel 2: Regional Fisheries Service
Centralised with Executive CommitteeCentralised with Executive Committee
2. Regional Fisheries Boards
3. Fisheries Council
Centralised
Decentralised
Instructive Consultative Cooperative Advisory Informative
Favoured Regional StructuresFavoured Regional Structures
Agency
Service
Council
Boards
Recommended structureRecommended structureRecommended structureRecommended structure
Suggest two models for consideration;
Model 3: Regional Fisheries CouncilModel 3: Regional Fisheries Council
Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee
Model 3: Regional Fisheries CouncilModel 3: Regional Fisheries Council
Decentralised with Executive CommitteeDecentralised with Executive Committee
Model 4: Regional Fisheries ServiceModel 4: Regional Fisheries Service
Centralised with Executive CommitteeCentralised with Executive Committee
Model 4: Regional Fisheries ServiceModel 4: Regional Fisheries Service
Centralised with Executive CommitteeCentralised with Executive Committee
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