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.