SFFF SG 8-2: ACTION POINTS AND ISSUES RAISED AT FISHERIES FORUM STEERING GROUP (MANAGEMENT SUB GROUP) MEETING HELD AT STIRLING ON FRIDAY 13 MAY 2005
1. SEERAD confirmed that there would be no prospect of inclusion of management provisions in the forthcoming fisheries/aquaculture bill. It would, however, be possible for SE/Ministers to make clear policy signals about a consensual way forward for freshwater fisheries management, taking into account stakeholders views within the consultation exercise. The Steering Group representing stakeholders would be pivotal in shaping these views. SEERAD confirmed that they are generally supportive of the Unitary Authority approach for fisheries management in Scotland. A clear and carefully considered plan would be required in order to present any proposals to Ministers and justification would be required to be considered for public funding. This would have to refer to membership of any unitary structure, how that would be arrived at and the cost involved. SEERAD explained that it would also be theoretically possible to 'piggy back' any management proposals onto a separate bill, therefore possibly negating the need to bid/wait for a specific legislative slot.
2. Questions were raised as to whether the way the consideration of management issue were being progressed was the best way.these included whether the sub-group consist of the right people to look at management, and is their mandate from Fisheries Steering Group, now that the Executive is taking this forward in collaboration with the sub group correct? Should the sub-group have terms of reference? How should discussions with regard to future Future Fisheries Management be handled ?- Should the Executive be in the chair- perhaps OSSE could attend the next meeting?
3. It was thought that a business plan was needed, to demonstrate clear public benefit etc and a there may be a requirement to bring in technical expertise. Ref-Nixon report.
4. It was acknowledged that the issues presently under consideration for the forthcoming bill would be better served by a Unitary Authority - this was recognised as a significant issue.
5. Any lobbying should be undertaken collectively where possible - ideally under the aegis of the Steering Group/Forum umbrella. This would allow a more cohesive and concerted approach to Ministers, Parties and individual MSPs. Individual organisation should , when the opportunity arises stress that the sector is working towards a sensible model for fisheries management and potential exists for MSPs to be lobbied prior to the election so that the issue could be considered during the next Parliament.
6. It was agreed that the Forum should continue in the current form beyond the forthcoming legislation. This would be essential due to the significant body of work ahead of it when considering the management issues. In that regard, it was agreed it would be most beneficial if SEERAD continued to Chair the Forum.
7. The following key principles were identified for the purpose of defining how the Sub Group might refine its thinking further on a Unitary Authority:
- Management of all fish species
- It should cover three main areas -
- Science (research, monitoring, informing sound management)
- Law (effective enforcement of fisheries legislation)
- Economics (promotion of sustainable angling - key financial driver)
8. As a general overarching principle, it was agreed that the strategy should be to aim higher than just simply conservation and that the Socio-economic benefits must be maximised within the parameters of sustainability - this had logical links to Ministers' desire to grow Scotland's economy.
9. It was agreed that it would be benficial to look at other examples of fisheries management and to analyse the Irish structure, assessing boths strengths and weaknesses.. John O'Connor at the Central Fisheries Board and Frank Sheehan/George O'Docherty at the Dept of Marine were suggested as possible first contacts. Consideration should be given to how many authorities would be required- Should the WFD be taken into consideration- what area should they cover, could FRS, SFCC be restructured and avoid another NDPB.
Action - Alastair Stephen
10. The role of a national authority to oversee regional organisations was discussed. It was suggested that the role and composition of such a body should be fleshed out further and Andrew Wallace agreed to give this some thought. It was agreed that in pulling together and presenting any ideas form the Sub Group, it would be very important not to present these as a fait accompli - a full analysis of all the options must be avaialable and it was recogniosed that a great deal of work in considering/discounting various options had already been done.
11. It was suggested that a close examination of catchment fisheries management could reveal what works at present, how it works, and what doesn't work. This could reveal real-life issues, identify gaps and greatly assist informing the process of what might be required to optimize management. This would help inform what a unitary authority might look like, what it would do and how it would be funded, regardless of scale. It ws recognised that more than one example might be required to cover different situations in different locations. In considering these issues, it should be assumed that funding is not restraint and this approach would allow all issues to be freely explored. The Tweed , Tay and Galloway were seen as providing the ability to provide good examples of differing problems.
Action- Andrew Wallace and Alastair Stephen to consider the detail of such a model.
12. To advance thinking further on management structures, It was suggested that a study might be centrally commissioned by SE to look at the current situation and provide a properly-researched report on current structures and their shortcomings - it was agreed that the Sub Group should consider a project specification for such a study.
Action - All members.