Jeff Gibbons Scottish Government 1B-North, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ 2 May 2016 Dear Mr. Gibbons, CONSULTATION ON DRAFT PROVISIONS FOR A WILD FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL/DRAFT WILD FISHERIES STRATEGY Thank you for asking Scottish Natural Heritage to comment on the consultation on the draft provisions for the new Wild Fisheries Bill and the draft Wild Fisheries Strategy. As the reform process has entered the stage where the shape of the new management structure is now being determined, and draft provisions are now being considered, we look forward to continuing our engagement in the reform process. Our response to the consultation is attached at Annex A. If anything in this response requires clarification, please contact Professor Colin Bean in the first instance. Yours sincerely, Eileen Stuart Head of Policy & Advice Scottish Natural Heritage, Caspian House, 2 Mariner Court, 8 South Avenue, Clydebank, G81 2NR Tel 0141 951 4488 Fax 0141 951 4510 www.snh.org.uk ANNEX A Q1. Are you content with the structure and content of the draft National Wild Fisheries Strategy? The draft National Wild Fisheries Strategy is a high-level document which sets out the broad vision for the way in which wild fisheries should be managed in Scotland, the key overarching principles and a series of themed indicators for delivery. In particular, we welcome the desire to integrate this strategy with wider national obligations, such as delivery of relevant Natura and Water Framework Directive objectives. Explicit mention could be made of the need to adopt an ecosystem approach to the management of freshwater environments and the ecosystem services that they provide. The list of national processes could, therefore, also include a link to the Land Use Strategy 2016-2022 which was published earlier this year. More emphasis should be placed on sustainable exploitation of fish stocks in catchments which are well managed, not only for fish, but for the wide range of biota that they support and the ecosystem services that they provide. Mention, therefore, could be made of a wider range of relevant initiatives, such as the Scotland’s Biodiversity Route Map to 2020 and Flood Risk Management strategies. We strongly support plans, mentioned in Theme 2 (Science and research), to ensure that all data will be made publically available and accessible. There are a number of options available for achieving this, such as SE-Web, the newly developed Atlas for Scotland and the National Biodiversity Network, as well as the databases currently maintained by the Scottish Freshwater Fisheries Co-ordination Centre. These can contribute to the delivery the second overarching objective of the Strategy “Promoting an effective, evidence-based fishery management through integrated data gathering, research and dissemination”. This must be supported, however, by a nationally co- ordinated programme of data gathering, possibly through the development of a national fish monitoring strategy. Q2. Which of the current areas within the draft Strategy would you prioritise, and why? Theme 1 outlines the activities required to deliver the key objectives of the Strategy and include the development of a national approach to the protection of fish and their habitats; the identification of national and local priorities for management; the delivery of management and conservation plans; and enforcement. Greater emphasis, therefore, should be placed on the delivery of national objectives by the network of FMOs. Whilst the activities included in Themes 2 and 3 remain important components of a fully functioning evidence-based and well managed wild fisheries sector, the necessary building blocks for the new national structure are largely contained within Theme 1. 2 Q3. Do you agree with the proposed high level duties on Scottish Ministers? Yes - these are, as the draft legislation indicates, a high level commitment to promote the conservation of all species of freshwater fish and their fisheries, and to promote best practice in their management. In terms of the overall balance of powers and duties between the national and local functions, and in particular their role in the delivery of obligations under the Habitats Directive, the role of FMO’s will have as a Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations (perhaps replacing the Competent Authority role that is currently held by District Salmon Fishery Boards) should be made explicit. Q4. Do you agree that the criteria set out in paragraph 31 are the correct criteria for identifying the number of FMAs? Yes, we agree that these are the correct criteria for identifying the number of FMA’s. We offer no firm view on the number and size of FMOs. However, as suggested in our response to the previous consultation Wild Fisheries Reform (6 August 2015), we suggest that these should be of a number and size that are manageable by the staff complement within each FMO. It is presumed that a relatively common structure and set of skills will exist within each FMO to ensure that each can consistently deliver its obligations and functions across its own area and in a manner comparable with others. A common structure or skill sets may allow an indicative cost per FMO to consider alongside resources available in a prospective FMA. Whilst we note that the potential number of FMA’s may range from 12-18, we suggest that consideration also be given to aligning FMA boundaries to the existing network of 11 Area Advisory Groups currently used by SEPA to manage delivery of WFD obligations in Scotland. Further analysis may reveal that AAG boundaries may not be the best option for developing FMAs at the desired scale, but could serve as a useful starting point. Q5. Do you agree that the legislation should not include a specific requirement to have an FMO in every part of Scotland? No, our repeated view is that fisheries management at a national and local level should cover the whole of Scotland. Again, in our response to the previous consultation on Wild Fisheries Reform, we stated that the FMO network should cover all of Scotland, including the Northern and Western Isles. We also stated in that response that gaps in coverage may impact the ability of the National Body to deliver its desired national and international reporting functions. This view supports those made in Recommendation 17 of the Thin Report which proposed that “The national unit should be required to ensure coverage of the whole of Scotland by a network of approved FMOs”. Whilst we recognise that not all FMAs may have an FMO in place within this first appointment process, we think it essential that full FMO coverage is achieved to ensure that all of Scotland’s valuable fish and fishery assets benefit from the advantages of the new system. We offer two prospective mechanisms by which full coverage could be achieved below. 3 If gaps in FMO coverage occur across Scotland, then consideration could be given to enlarging an existing FMO or developing a temporary working arrangement where neighbouring FMO’s work together to cover an area where an FMO is currently absent. Alternatively, if a gap in FMO coverage is evident after the initial FMO identification process then there could be an obligation or duty to fill this gap in the period before commencement of the next FMO appointment and plan preparation cycle. This would allow the benefits and advantages to local management to emerge but would not allow an ongoing situation where potentially important and valuable areas of Scotland’s national fish and fisheries resource do not secure the benefits and advantages that an effective FMO would bring. Q6. Do you agree with the proposed approach to designation of FMOs? Section 8(2) of the draft Bill makes provision for an FMO to be designated for more than one FMA. In line with our response to Q5 (above), we suggest that an option for an FMO to be designated to manage part of a neighbouring FMA, possibly in conjunction with other FMOs, could be included. It would, however, be important to ensure that the entire FMA is managed. We fully agree with the view that view of the Stakeholder Reference group and the wider fisheries stakeholder community that form should follow function, and that the structure of each FMO should be determined by the management issues that exist within each FMA, and its size. We note that the draft provisions neither require, nor preclude, FMOs from being constituted as charities. In our response to the consultation on Wild Fisheries Reform we indicated that, whilst charitable status offers the means of continuing on-the- ground conservation work which will help restore and protect the wider habitat, it remains unclear how such charities can carry out statutory duties (see response to Q3), and remain independent of Ministerial direction. Q7. Do you agree with the proposed approach and timeline for approval of local fisheries management plans? Yes, we agree that the timeline for submission of a local fisheries management plan to Scottish Ministers with a period of three months post- FMO designation, as detailed in Section 10 of the draft provisions, should be adequate. This anticipates, however, that ‘potential FMOs’ must provide an outline draft plan as part of the application process. This plan should already be set out in line with the priorities identified within the draft National Wild Fisheries Strategy. Clear guidance should, therefore, be given to ‘potential FMOs’ relating to the structure and content of such a plan at the earliest possible stage. This should include an assessment of any new plan against the conservation objectives for protected sites and species within the plan area, and take account of any plans or measures which are either scheduled or in place. Section 10 of the draft Bill states that an FMO should show how it, “has involved those appearing to it to have an interest in the management of wild fisheries in its Area in 4 the preparation of the Plan”.