NO, MINISTER!
Dr Aileen McLeod may have ducked out of her interview on freshwater fisheries with Scottish Field, but we think she still has a case to answer...
It’s time for Dr McLeod, the Environment Minister, to speak up on her fishery plans
Anumber of weeks ago Scottish Field arranged an interview with the Scottish Government’s Environment Minister, SNP MSP Dr Aileen McLeod. This was to coincide with her announcement of a public consultation on radical changes to the way freshwater fisheries are managed in Scotland. However, a few days before the arranged date (and shortly before the magazine was due to go to print) Dr McLeod pulled out.
Since what is being proposed is so game-changing to the way this key part of rural Scotland is to be managed, rather than allow the proposals to go unchallenged, here is our take on what Dr McLeod ’might’ have said (much of it taken from actual answers she has given on the subject) – plus our own spin-free and jargon-free commentary.
Scottish Field (SF): Why have you suddenly pulled out of the interview to discuss your recently published Fisheries Reform consultation with Scotland’s leading rural magazine?
Minister: I have a very busy schedule, what with trying to deliver a suite of root-and-branch proposals such as Land Reform and Fisheries Reform before the end of this parliamentary session. My diary is full for the foreseeable future.
Comment: To our knowledge this current Environment Minister has not met in person with any local wild fisheries interests in Scotland about these proposals. Scottish Ministers have a habit of being too busy to speak to wild fishery interests. The world-famous conservationist Orri Vigfússon of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF) – who meets regularly with heads of state, American presidents and Vladimir Putin – got an identical response when he recently asked the elusive Dr McLeod from East Kilbride for a meeting to discuss Scot- land’s coastal salmon netting. Interestingly, an FOI request by NASF revealed that from 2010 to 2013 Scottish Ministers met with the fish farm industry more than 30 times for meetings, dinners and award ceremonies. At the same time, they also awarded £100,000 to Scotland’s leading mixed stock salmon netting company. THE PROPOSED CHANGES SF: Can you tell us roughly what is proposed? Minister: I’d be delighted to share our vision for a management system for Scotland’s freshwater fisheries that is fit for purpose for the 21st century. This was born out of the excellent Fisheries Review
‘So in short, you intend to scrap local Fishery Boards and Trusts and centralise control?’
completed last year by Andrew Thin, the ex-Chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Our strategic and holistic reforms suggest the current system of local management by District Salmon Fishery Boards and local scientific and independent Fishery Trusts will be replaced by a two-tier system. We will create a central body in Scottish Government that will oversee a network of locally-based Fishery Management Organisations (FMOs). This central body in Edinburgh will raise funds from salmon fishery proprietors and this will fund Government-directed Management Plans for each of Scotland’s catchments to be delivered by the FMOs. These plans will be evidence-based with an
all-species remit and will seek to protect the biodiverse integrity of the Scottish fisheries landscape.
SF: So, in short, you intend to scrap local Fishery Boards and Trusts and centralise control of freshwater fisheries?
Minister: Scotland’s wild fisheries are a valuable natural and public resource and we need a management framework in place to harness their socio-economic and cultural potential.
SF: We already have a fully-funded, functional and effective management system in place with local boards and trusts – why do we need such a radical change?
Minister: We have a responsibility to protect this
public resource and we must embed a transparent framework so we can demonstrate our domestic and international commitments and obligations.
SF: I think you are referring here to the fact that Scottish Government-sponsored plundering of salmon (an EU protected species) through your endless support for salmon netting and fish farming has landed you in a bit of a pickle with your international neighbours…but more of that later.
Comment: The reality is that all this has far more to do with people (and a sudden realisation that Scotland is now exposed and almost friendless in Europe) than it has to do with fish. Put simply, the Scottish Government doesn’t like toffs, especially the land-owning/fishing beat proprietor variety and while it has the political will and parliamentary arithmetic in its favour, it is attacking all aspects of game and fish management through wild fisheries legislation and the recent Land Reform proposals.
Fishery Boards have been in existence for some 150 years. The Scottish Government would have you believe that they are still run by crusty old Colonels from smoke-filled rooms in Mayfair clubs but nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of boards have very broad representation of membership – including proprietors, netsmen, local anglers, SEPA, SNH, community councils etc – and also gain scientific input and evidence for management from local, independent Fishery Trusts. Legislation introduced last year ensured their activities were fully democratic and transparent.
The Scottish Government would like to sweep aside decades of history and consign Fishery Boards to the scrap heap, but in some instances this is easier said than done. For example, the River Tweed Commissioners (in existence for 200 years), is the equivalent of a Fishery Board on that highly prolific river. It has 81 board members from every walk of life and represents both Scottish beat owners and English proprietors over the border. It remains unclear why English salmon fishing proprietors would agree to the Scottish Government’s proposal that they pay a levy to a Government over which they have no vote, or whether that Government can force them to do so.
In short, everyone in fisheries management and angling agrees that we need evolution rather than revolution. The reform proposals suggest a standardised approach across the country, but the reality is that some rivers will do fine
while others will continue to suffer, especially on the West Coast. Any sensible reform should be gradual and area-specific rather than trying to impose a central one-size-fits-all solution. But then this is not sensible and well thought out improvement, it is an off-the-cuff reform agenda driven by political dogma. RURAL EMPLOYMENT
SF: There are thousands of people employed in freshwater fisheries throughout Scotland. Do you envisage job losses as a result of these reforms?
Minister: I want to make sure that we retain key people and expertise, harnessing existing good practice, and incorporate them into the delivery vehicles of the newly designed management system.
SF: That really doesn’t answer my question. It also doesn’t address the fact that the entire sector is underpinned by considerable voluntary input – generally anglers with a local interest in the rivers that they fish. Do you really think that volunteers will be happy to do the bidding of the Scottish Government rather than, as they do currently, helping out their local river board or trust?
Minister: We intend to continue to harness the local knowledge and enthusiasm of all those involved in the sector, with everyone working together to bring the benefits of our wild fishery resource to the country as a whole.
Comment: The proposals add a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy that will cost money which will have to come from the already meagre pay packets of rural workers currently employed by Fishery Boards and beat owners.
Currently up to 70% of the income of some Fishery Boards is raised from proprietor levies. This pays the wages and costs of the water bailiffs who enforce national fisheries legislation. The consultation suggests the new local FMOs, which will replace boards, will not have an enforcement function yet will require a large percentage of the proprietor levies to deliver Government-informed management and research. So what will happen to the livelihoods and families of Scotland’s water bailiffs? And who will enforce fisheries legislation?
It is also being suggested that, once Government has collected the money centrally, there will be a redistribution of funds away from larger boards (the big East Coast rivers, for instance) to the smaller less well-resourced boards. There is no financial slack in t he
‘Put simply, the Scottish Government doesn’t like toffs, especially the land-owning/ fishing beat proprietor variety’
current system, so this redistribution will affect the wages currently paid to the staff of larger boards as well as damage current management activities in these regions.
The real short-term losers will be Fishery Board employees such as ghillies and water bailiffs, some of whom have worked on rivers for generations. The intention may be to attack the landed class but the measures will instead threaten the livelihoods of some of the poorest in rural society. It is also highly likely that the army of angler volunteers that currently underpins the work of boards and trusts will disappear, leaving a gaping hole in day-to-day river management. STATUTORY POWERS
SF: Fishery Boards are independent statutory consultees that are consulted on industrial planning applications that could affect the freshwater environment. There appears to be no suggestion in the consultation that the new management bodies (FMO’s) will retain this statutory power. Will this loss of independent scrutiny to planning provide suitable environmental protection?
Minister: We believe we are already well placed with the Government agencies of SEPA, SNH and Marine Scotland Science to ensure suitable environmental safeguards.
Comment: All of these agencies have a woeful history of protecting fish species. A recent document seen by Scottish Field confirmed that Highland Council – the planning authority for many new Scottish fish farms – recently complained that the Government’s own scientific advisors, Marine Scotland Science, refuse to give any advice about the impact of sea lice on wild fish when new fish farm applications are received. SNH and SEPA also plead that they have no remit over such matters.
Particularly worrying is the Scottish Government’s highly contentious target to expand salmon farming by 30% by 2020. Who will provide the necessary environmental safeguards in this expansion if there is no independent statutory body to oversee planning applications? The Scottish Government appears set on ridding itself of the last obstacle to expanding the ecologically-ruinous fish farm industry on the West Coast. FINANCING THE SCHEME
SF: You say change is needed so that the Government can meet its international conservation commitments and also deliver ‘all-species’ fisheries management. Why are salmon fishing proprietors alone being asked to fund the entire proposal?
Minister: We think that it is equitable that those who make commercial gain from their fisher-
‘ Salmon are by far the most economically important fish to rural Scotland. Eels do not make money or support jobs’
ies should be asked to shoulder the largest burden.
SF: Even if the vast majority of small west coast rivers or angling club waters throughout the country are in no way ‘commercial’ fisheries making an income? Minister: Umm…yes. SF: I thought so. You have also introduced a new idea throughout your document that salmon are a ‘public resource’. If that is the case surely the public purse should help fund their protection and management?
Minister: A fish is the property of no one until it is caught so we believe that the burden should fall on those who make money from catching them.
SF: So if a fish is not yet caught it’s not anyone’s, let alone a public ‘resource’. Your logic doesn’t make sense…oh, never mind. Surely a rod licence is the way to go to generate a new source of income to fund all of your aspirations?
Minister: The Scottish Government has an existing policy not to introduce rod licences.
SF: The suggestion is that FMOs are set up as charitable companies, to duplicate the charitable donations and project funding currently received by Fishery Trusts. How can a charity be seen to improve salmon fishing which are in some cases highly commercial, valuable and heritable assets? Surely it would be like a charity being set up to improve bird numbers on a private grouse moor. Minister: We may need to give that more thought.
Comment: It is clearly unfair that the owners of salmon fishing rights – whether commercially viable or not – should pay for the management of all fish species, especially as anglers are not being asked to make a contribution.
In England, the Environment Agency bring in £23 million a year from selling rod licences. In Ireland the funds generated from the £100 salmon fishing rod licence are ring-fenced for salmon improvements and management. Why is the Scottish Government so resistant to rod licences given the considerable resources they could generate? Again, it’s down to pure politics – there is fierce resistance from core SNP voters, irrespective of its clear benefits demonstrated elsewhere.
SCIENCE VERSUS PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT
SF: Your proposals repeatedly underline the need for evidence-based decision making in fisheries management. The vast major-
ity of rivers in Scotland are already managed superbly with the best evidence available. Did Andrew Thin uncover any ‘evidence’ of a lack of evidence-based decision-making in the current system before making his suggestions?
Minister: I’m not sure I understand your
question.
SF: It seems rather ironic that you are proposing a whole raft of changes based on absolutely no evidence of your own! Does the focus on ‘evidence-based decision-making’ just mean more work for fisheries biologists at the expense of more practical river management operations (hatchery operations, habitat improvements and predator control currently being undertaken by many fisheries boards) to maximise salmon numbers?
Minister: We will seek to deliver best practice at all levels of the management function.
Comment: There is a widely held view amongst anglers that while Scotland’s salmon numbers have collapsed most of the resources in recent years have been spent on ‘evidence gathering’ and monitoring in freshwater by fisheries biologists. This is in contrast to other, far more abundant and popular fishing destinations – notably Iceland and Russia – where more practical measures, such as maximising smolt production and predator control, are favoured. A general move in Scotland by river management bodies towards a ‘biodiverse and all-species agenda’ over the last few years has meant a focus away from maximising salmon abundance, an approach that has coincided with a collapse in rod catches. Salmon are by far the most economically important fish to rural Scotland. Sticklebacks, eels and goosanders do not make money or support jobs.
About 95% of all salmon die at sea, an inconvenient fact that is being ignored. Why continue to focus resources on the freshwater environment when the solution to the problem lies elsewhere? A genuine desire to deliver ‘an evidence-based management system’ would largely leave the freshwater operations alone and focus on the sea, where mixed stock nets, fish farms, seals, dolphins and climate change wreak havoc on salmon numbers. CONSERVATION PROPOSALS
SF: As part of your Fisheries Reform you are proposing some new conservation measures to be brought in from next season. Can you explain these and what their aim is?
advised Minister: urgent Andrewaction to Thin protectin his and Fisheries conserve Reviewwild salmon.2016 there As willa resultbe no we killingare proposingof any wild that salmon from in Scotland except under licence from the Scottish Government and that a carcass tagging scheme will be introduced to support enforcement of the system.
SF: So as a reaction to allowing nets to plunder stocks for decades with no restraint, you are now proposing limitations on both anglers and nets because you are in trouble with Europe?
Minister: We are sure that everyone who harvests wild salmon will want to play their part.
SF: Anglers have been conserving stocks since numbers started declining, with more than 82% of rod-caught salmon released in 2014. Netting stations by contrast kill everything. Andrew Thin recently told the Rural Affairs Committee that anglers killing salmon was a ‘significant factor’ in their decline. Would you really agree with that statement? And is it fair that anglers are being targeted having taken a highly responsible course of action for the last few years?
Minister: …erm.. I’m not really sure actually. Look, to be honest, I’ve never had much of an interest in fishing. SF: Thank you for your most honest answer yet. SF: Are you aware that a recent tagging scheme on Loch Lomond found the kill rate by anglers actually went up after tags were introduced – it seems that if anglers are issued with a tag they are more likely to use it and kill a fish than if they did not have one. Minister: I was not aware of that. SF: It has not yet been announced what these new tags will cost, but inevitably it will be considerable to pay for all the bureaucracy. Is it fair that responsible anglers and fragile local angling clubs are being asked to pay for your incompetence as an administration to control the worst excesses in the salmon netting industry? Minister: I think this interview is now over. SF: Well thank you Dr McLeod for (not) answering our questions.
Comment: To run a proper quota system with the annual issuing of tags the amount of salmon present needs to be known in real time. Without a network of fish counters, such as that found in other countries such as Ireland (who run quotas and carcass tagging schemes using fish counters paid for by a national rod licence) then these numbers can never be known. Bearing in mind the consultation’s emphasis on evidence-based decision making, it is absurd that the entire conservation proposals will be based on a complete lack of concrete evidence.