Scottish Government

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF INSHORE FISHERIES

This document is also available in pdf format (278k)

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF INSHORE FISHERIES

The Partnership Agreement committed the Scottish Executive to undertaking a strategic review of inshore fisheries. The 3 key tasks of the review are:

• To develop a strategy for the management of inshore fisheries;
• To assess how effective inshore fisheries management has been to date;
• To consider how we move from the present system to any future system.

I enclose a consultation paper which brings together the key conclusions from the strategic review process, and in particular presents a draft strategy and management framework for inshore fisheries. At the end of the paper is a list of questions which we would like you to consider and reply to us on.

Previous Consultation

You may have contributed to an earlier exercise in 2003 which focused on the second task above. We have now reviewed the existing inshore fisheries management regime, including the use of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 and Regulating Orders. RSPB and SNH published a report in December 2003 entitled "Inshore Fisheries Management in Scotland: meeting the challenge of environmental integration" and this report also formed part of the review process. Those processes informed the work on the first and third tasks which is now presented in this paper.

Who is involved?

This review has been undertaken by the Scottish Inshore Fisheries Advisory Group, and the proposals in the attached paper reflect the collective view of the group. The member organisations of SIFAG are listed overleaf. We have sent this consultation paper to fishermen's organisations, producer organisations and others with an interest in fisheries management. Please feel free to pass the paper on to anyone you think might be interested in it, or contact us to issue a copy.

Links to other initiatives

This exercise is intended to complement the strategy development processes for other activities in the marine environment, and in particular we will ensure that the resultant strategy is consistent with the developing strategy for the marine environment.

What happens next?

When this consultation exercise is complete, SEERAD and SIFAG will finalise the strategy and framework for inshore fisheries, and develop an action plan that will detail how and when any changes will be implemented. Any changes to primary legislation that are required would be made by June 2006 at the earliest.

What to do

Please let us have your views on the questions at the end of the paper, and on any other aspect of the paper by 31 August 2004. It is normal practice to make responses to consultation exercises available publicly, so please tell us if you wish your response to be kept confidential.

If you would find it useful to have someone from SEERAD come and give a presentation to your organisation about the strategy and management proposals during the consultation period, please let us know as soon as possible. We cannot promise to fulfil every request, but we will do our best to visit or speak to as wide a range of organisations as possible. Alternatively, you may wish to contact one of the SIFAG member organisations.

You can submit your views to:

I look forward to hearing from you.

GABRIELLA PIERACCINI
Head of Inshore Fisheries Branch

SIFAG member organisations:

(also SEERAD, Fisheries Research Services and Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency)

STRATEGY FOR INSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Overview

SIFAG has developed a draft strategy for inshore fisheries management, and proposals for a local area management structure to implement the strategy. The diagram below illustrates the key elements of the proposals.

High level objectives for inshore fisheries would be set at a national level by SIFAG. These would be wide ranging and would set out the overall general vision and aspirations for Scottish inshore fisheries. In order to focus these high level objectives and ensure they are relevant to the distinct inshore fisheries around the Scottish coast, a network of local area management groups would be established, covering all Scottish inshore waters. These management groups would develop local objectives, complementary to the national ones, which reflected the priorities and circumstances of different areas. They would also develop local management plans to deliver the objectives.

In developing management plans, management groups would select the best management measure or tool to deliver their objectives, and they would apply tests to identify circumstances in which certain objectives might conflict, or have unintended consequences. Management measures would also be supported by performance indicators, which would allow an assessment to be made of the effectiveness of the action. Local management plans would be developed by management groups, and then agreed at a national level by SIFAG. Management groups could then work with SEERAD to introduce secondary legislation under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 or other relevant legislation to implement management plans, or utilise Regulating Orders to implement the plans.

Objectives for Inshore Fisheries

SIFAG has developed the following high level objectives for inshore fisheries:

• BIOLOGICAL: to conserve, enhance and restore commercial stocks in the inshore and its dependent ecosystem;

• ECONOMIC: to optimise long term and sustained economic return to communities dependent on inshore fisheries, and to promote quality initiatives;

• ENVIRONMENTAL: to maintain and restore the quality of the inshore marine environment for fisheries and for wildlife;

• SOCIAL: to recognise historical fishing practices and traditional ways of life in managing inshore fisheries, to manage change, and to interact proactively with other activities in the marine environment;

• GOVERNANCE: to develop and implement a transparent, accountable and flexible management structure that places fishermen at the centre of the decision-making process, and that is underpinned by adequate information and appropriate enforcement.

Different objectives of course may not always be compatible and can conflict, but in general the system should help develop, implement and reward good practice. The correct balance will be driven by the circumstances of the individual fishery being considered. In developing these high-level objectives, consideration has been given to the management of fish and shellfish stocks, and the management of the environment that supports the stocks. From a socio-economic perspective, an emphasis on quality has been built into the strategy, and there is an acknowledgement that inshore fisheries are rich in their diversity of fishing practices and patterns. This is balanced with recognition of the changing face of commercial fishing, and the additional pressures that arise from the many activities now taking place in the marine environment.

Management Framework for Inshore Fisheries

At the moment, inshore fisheries are managed centrally, and over the last 20 years this has generally been through a three-yearly review of prohibitions in place under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. An increasing appetite for management at a more regional level has been evident in recent years, and Regulating Orders have been one route to attempt to achieve this aim. SIFAG has developed proposals for a network of local area management groups in order to embed the principle of management at a regional level into the policy and decision-making process, in a way that can be flexible in relation to the quantity and diversity of fisheries and stakeholders in any one area. The proposals cover:

• The geographical distribution of management groups;
• The function of management groups;
• The composition of management groups.

The geographical arrangement of management groups is based primarily on habitat distribution, and draws from the fishery districts utilised by the SFPA. At this stage, we have not attempted to refine the number and location of groups, and the consultation process is intended to provide information on the practicalities of having too many or too few groups, and where boundaries should be drawn. The map overleaf sets out the proposed approximate distribution.

Details on the exact boundaries of groups would be decided following consultation, and we appreciate that the present descriptions are general and incomplete. It would be desirable for inshore fisheries management areas to fit with other management and planning areas (e.g. for aquaculture). In reality, this may well be impractical, but the consultation exercise should highlight where there is scope to dovetail with other marine environment management arrangements.

There are three broad options for the functions of management groups:

• A statutory role;
• A managerial role;
• An advisory role.

In considering these options, the intention has been to develop a common understanding of the basis for inshore fisheries management, and to maximise the ability to tailor the management process at a local level. SIFAG has concluded that the middle option, the managerial role, is the most appropriate for the management of inshore fisheries for the foreseeable future. That view has been reflected in the proposals in this exercise . This option would mean that management groups would be responsible for developing management plans for inshore fisheries, and either submitting plans to SEERAD for implementation through the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 (or other legislation), or implementing the plans through a Regulating Order.

This arrangement would also mean:

• Proactive and reactive planning at local level
• Scope to pilot and test new measures
• Local consultation would be achieved at an early stage of consideration
• An ability to act quickly (through ROs)
• SEERAD would be also able to act quickly (since proposals come from an agreed management plan)
• SEERAD resources could be focused on cross-cutting and strategic inshore issues
• A fairly small amount of additional bureaucracy.

An advisory role was considered to add very little to existing arrangements, with little onus on management groups to think strategically and proactively. The statutory role was considered to be too ambitious in the short to medium term, given the diversity of activity in the inshore throughout Scotland.

With no definitive description of the inshore, it is difficult to describe exactly the extent to which management groups' responsibilities might extend. Clearly, groups would have to work within the boundaries of EU, UK and Scottish management, including TACs and quotas, licensing, effort and so forth, but groups may wish to give consideration to how best to implement various obligations. Certain species, such as scallops and nephrops, may require an additional or separate group to ensure coherence across management group boundaries. A coherent and focused research programme will be necessary to meet the needs of inshore fisheries. FRS is of course already involved in inshore fisheries work, but there are a number of more local scientific establishments with considerable expertise, and there is scope to enhance the collaboration between the relevant bodies. While we clearly do not propose that local area management groups assume responsibilities for all marine environment matters, management groups should be expected to engage proactively with other marine activity processes. The development of local management plans should be done with regard to other activities in the area, and the very existence of management plans should helpfully contribute to the wider process of Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

SIFAG has also considered the composition of local area management groups. The overarching consensus has been that fishermen should form the core of the management groups. However, it is essential that other interests have an opportunity to be involved in the management process, for example:

• Processors
• Environmental interests
• Scientists
• Other advisers
• Other community members
• Other marine users

There are a number of factors to take into consideration. All fishermen, including nomadic fishermen, who fish in the area should have the opportunity to be involved with such groups. Businesses involved in the supply chain could also make valuable contributions to management plans. And liaison between adjacent groups would be important to ensure that the management approach, while flexible for local circumstances, is coherent across a wider area. The pursuit of sustainable fisheries requires sensitivity to and intelligence on wider ecosystem interactions, and so the involvement of environmental interests in some capacity is especially important.

The size of the management groups will have a bearing on how efficient and effective they are in operation. The groups must be small enough to ensure that business is managed effectively, but equally there must be mechanisms to ensure that a wide range of interests can contribute to the process. A potential model might be to have a core of members to make decisions, with experts drawn in as appropriate to provide advice to inform those decisions, and a wider forum process to permit a wide range of interests to make their views known. One option may be to have an independent chair, another to have the position rotate. Administrative support may be shared between groups, or with other organisations in the area.

In some areas, organisations are already formed to operate or apply for a Regulating Order. In considering applications for Regulating Orders, SEERAD has taken the view that in the short term, Regulating Orders can be granted to organisations already in existence for the process, but in the medium and longer term, Regulating Orders would be granted to local area management groups. This approach would provide for existing bodies set up for RO purposes to merge with management groups, and would ensure that RO proposals were consistent with the inshore strategy. It would also permit management groups to learn from the experiences of RO groups, and at the same time would alleviate concerns about the composition or motivation of RO applicant organisations.

Roles of other organisations

SEERAD would develop the high level objectives and policy for inshore fisheries, prepare guidance, and approve management plans, all in liaison with SIFAG. SEERAD would also implement management measures through the relevant legislation. SEERAD would ensure compliance with wider policy commitments and integration with management of other marine resources, and in particular would retain legal responsibility for ensuring that management plans are compatible with CFP obligations and policies.

SIFAG, or an appropriate successor body , would approve management plans and ensure that they were consistent with national objectives. SIFAG would ensure a measure of consistency across the country, and would have a role to bear CFP obligations and policies in mind. SIFAG could also be a focus for developing the necessary programme of scientific work to support inshore fisheries, linking input from FRS, SNH and other relevant institutions.

FRS would focus effort on "national" inshore stocks, possibly with a modest rolling programme of project work for individual management groups. FRS could also provide advice and guidance on assessment needs, but would not necessarily undertake all the scientific work required.

SFPA will continue to enforce measures under EU and national legislation, and would also enforce Regulating Order measures (following the necessary amending primary legislation).

SNH would provide advice on natural heritage and fishery interactions, and assist with the development of national guidance and objectives, and the development of area management plans and area objectives. They would also have a role to play in the development and monitoring of performance indicators regarding environment and natural heritage objectives, and in the environmental assessment of management proposals.

As work continues on Regional Advisory Councils, we should ensure that inshore management groups develop a working and reporting relationship with the RACs. Inshore management groups may contribute to the development of RACs by acting as test grounds for area management, and will certainly have a contribution to make when considering the management of whitefish and pelagic nursery grounds

Management Groups will clearly require some level of financial resource, for administrative costs, to fund any initiatives or projects, and potentially to purchase scientific and economic advice. One argument might be that groups should be self-supporting; another that basic running costs should be provided centrally to maintain a core level of activity. "Start up" costs from central funds might also be appropriate. There are potentially a number of organisations who may wish to contribute financially to the operation of management groups, and individual fishermen may wish to contribute, but a balance would need to be struck to ensure that all groups were able to operate to a minimum capacity, and that there was no improper influence attached to the provision of funding.

Managing Inshore Fisheries

Local Objectives and Management Plans

Long term, medium term and short term local objectives for management areas would be developed by management groups. These must be consistent with national objectives, but would vary according to the management area under consideration. Examples of local objectives might be:

• to develop a lobster hatchery or V-notch scheme to improve stocks;
• to improve the quality of nephrops catch to supply a particular market;
• to protect maerl beds which act as nursery ground for scallops;
• to agree access arrangements between different sectors.

The objectives and management plans should be informed by the environmental character and resources of the areas and the objectives of other stakeholders in the area concerned. Management groups can then decide what action is to be taken to implement local objectives. The stewardship of local fisheries, underpinned by customised management plans and supporting legislation, should hopefully promote an adherence to the rules or regulations that feature in any management plan. For legislative action, managers can consider:

• The Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984;
• Regulating or Several Orders;
• Other legislation (e.g. for minimum landing sizes).

Tools

SEERAD is drawing up guidance for the use of provisions in Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, Regulating and Several Orders. This will outline the different tools available and suggest suitable (and unsuitable) use, and will assist management groups in selecting the appropriate tool to achieve their objectives. The guidance will also include consideration of the intended and unintended effects of the provisions, and administrative, monitoring and enforcement implications. This is based on the 2003 consultation on the effectiveness of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. SEERAD would be responsible for implementing national legislation to deliver objectives set out in management plans, but Regulating (or Several) Orders could also be granted to management groups to implement management plans and deliver objectives.

Measurements of success

One of the inspirations for the strategic review of inshore fisheries management was the need for a review process to be embedded into inshore fisheries management provisions, especially legislation under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. SIFAG proposes that at the point of implementation of any management measures, the following considerations be made:

• Clear link between action and objective
• Clarity on baseline situation
• Timescale for review of measure
• Identification of "success" of measure
• Identification of monitoring tool
• Consideration of effect of measure on non-target fisheries & activities.

We do not envisage that all measures would need be monitored with a dedicated scientific or other analytical process. However there should be a simple mechanism in place to assess what success looks like, and how it will be gauged.

Resolving Conflict between Objectives

In planning a course of action to deliver local objectives, it is likely that management groups will find that a number of different objectives may conflict. For example, pursuit of an economic objective may be detrimental to pursuit of an environmental priority. In order to assess the potential for conflict between objectives, and the all-round potential impact of any management measures, SIFAG has developed an assessment procedure to identify any areas that need further consideration.

Management groups should undertake a basic assessment of the biological, economic, environmental and social implications of any management measure that is proposed in pursuit of a local objective. The questions which might form this assessment are listed overleaf, along with a scoring system. If any of the questions result in a "-2" or "-3" scoring, or the total of all the scores is a negative number, this would flag up the need for further consideration, or revision, of the measure.

This scoring system is not intended to be a robust or rigorous assessment of the risks involved in any management action. For such a system to be created and be entirely reliable, the criteria would need to be very tightly documented and assessed, and leave no risk of subjective consideration, and it may not be possible to be sufficiently definitive for the complex nature of fisheries management. However, applying the simple system overleaf should help management groups to focus on the most important or controversial issues, and help them to understand the positive and negative effects of a particular management measure before its approval and introduction. If potential risks are flagged up at an early stage, management groups can consider whether they would like to utilise bespoke mechanisms such as an Environmental Impact Assessment, or a cost benefit analysis to fully assess the impact of a management measure.

Biological impact of measures

• What impact will the measure have on the target species in the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on other species in the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on species outwith the target area?

Economic impact of measures

• What impact will the measure have on vessels working in the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on vessels working outside the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on other processes in the supply chain?

Environmental impact of measures

• What impact will the measure have on the environment in the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on the environment outwith the target area?

Social impact of measures

• What impact will the measure have on fishermen working in the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on fishermen working outwith the target area?
• What impact will the measure have on other marine users in the target area?

QUESTIONS

Overview and Strategy

2. Is the draft strategy and management framework, outlined on page 3, the right one for inshore fisheries management?
4. Are the high level objectives on page 4 the correct ones for inshore fisheries?
6. Is there anything missing from the draft strategy?
8. Do you think that an inshore strategy should be weighted in favour of those who fish only in the inshore, or weighted evenly across all those who fish in the inshore? Why?

9. Management framework

10. Do you think that the general geographical distribution of inshore area management groups on page 7 is correct? Why? If not, what should be different?
12. Do you agree that management groups should be managerial i.e. develop management plans to be implemented by SEERAD through legislation, or through Regulating Orders? If not, why not?
14. Do you think inshore management groups should manage all species, or only non-quota species? Why?
16. Do you think inshore management groups should manage fisheries within 3, 6 or 12 miles? Why?
18. Who do you think should be involved in management groups?
20. What roles do you think different sectors should have in management groups (decision makers, observers, advisers etc)?
22. How do you think management of straddling or mobile stocks should be handled by management groups?
24. What costs do you think would arise from management groups, and who do you think should pay for them?

25. Resolving conflict

26. How do you think management groups should deal with conflict (internally and between adjacent groups)?
28. Do you think the scoring system on page 10 is useful in order to flag up potential areas of conflict between priorities?

29. General

30. Do you think the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 needs amendment? If so, in what way, and why?
32. Do you think that the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (which provides for Regulating and Several Orders) needs amendment, other than to provide for SFPA enforcement? If so, in what way, and why?