Scottish Government

Research Report: The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Angling in Scotland

8 Impact on the Scottish Economy

The models used can provide estimates of the impact at the Scottish and UK levels of a fishery in a particular region ceasing to exist. The knock on effects of a given change in angler expenditure will necessarily be larger at the Scottish and UK level. This is because these larger areas are more capable of supplying both consumers and local industries. However, the larger the area the stronger is the displacement effect. If an angler switches from the Highland Region to the North East it is a loss to the Highlands but not to Scotland as a whole.

The angler survey revealed how angler expenditure would change in circumstances where other types of angling are still available in the region, and the first choice type of angling is still available in other Scottish regions. Unfortunately, the angler questionnaires could not accommodate questions about angler alternatives if a type of angling ceased throughout Scotland, or indeed if all forms of angling ceased in Scotland. It cannot be assumed that a local (Highland) angler who states he would fish for the same species in another region (North East), would fish outside Scotland (e.g. Norway) when faced with closure of a complete fishery type.

The estimation of Scottish level impacts therefore had to rely on making assumptions and distinctions between locals and visitors to Scotland. Table 8.1 below, provides estimates of spending by local anglers (from within the fishery region) Scottish visiting anglers (from Scotland but out-with the fishery region) and Non-Scottish visiting anglers (other parts of the UK plus overseas).

The first scenario is that all angler expenditure is lost (112.5m). This is unrealistic. An alternative assumption is that all Scottish anglers continue to fish in Scotland, whilst all non-Scottish visitors leave when they cannot fish the region/fishery combination they want. From Table 8.1, this second scenario will result in a loss of 58.9m of expenditure. The assumption that no Scottish angler will go elsewhere to fish is too strong. A third scenario is that (in addition to the 58.9m of lost non-Scottish expenditure), Scottish visiting anglers would take 50% of their expenditure (8.4m) elsewhere outside Scotland.

The first row of Table 8.2 informs us that, with the first scenario, the combined impact of the direct, indirect and induced effects would result in a decrease in Scottish output of 164.6m per annum. The second row in Table 8.2 is based on the second scenario and the loss of Scottish output is estimated to be 90.7m. The third row in Table 8.2 is based on the third scenario and it is estimated that the expenditure loss of 67.3m will result in loss of 105m in Scottish output. On the basis of this last scenario, it is reasonable to speculate that angling in Scotland generates over 100m of Scottish output per annum.

Table 8.3 gives the impact on Scottish household income under the same three scenarios. On the basis of the third scenario, it is believed that freshwater angling is responsible for some 48m of Scottish income per annum.

Table 8.4 gives the impact on employment in Scotland. On the basis of the third scenario, the total number of jobs associated with coarse and game angling is around 2,800.

The best estimate therefore is that freshwater angling in Scotland results in the Scottish economy producing over 100m worth of annual output, which support around 2,800 jobs and generates nearly 50m in wages and self-employment income to Scottish households. This is a significant contribution and it should be appreciated that salmon and sea trout angling has probably provided its annual contribution for most of the last century.