List of acronyms and abbreviations used in the report

9 - Developments for the future

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Angling for Change

Appendix 2 - Area Fisheries Management Plan

Appendix 3 - Scientific Advice and Information

Appendix 4 - Area Fisheries Management Committee

Appendix 5 - Access and Management Order

Appendix 6 - Area Fisheries Monitoring Group

Appendix 7 - List of fish species which occur in fresh water in Scotland

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Angling for Change is a unique initiative which has brought together anglers, fishery proprietors, and fish conservation interests to consider the needs of fresh water fish and fisheries in Scotland and develop proposals for the future. This paper sets out our views and recommendations.
   
2. Scotland’s legislative and management structures for fisheries in fresh water should strike a balance so that fish prosper, fishery owners and operators achieve a financial return which is acceptable to them, and anglers enjoy their sport. Effective measures must operate throughout Scotland to provide:-
   
   1. appropriate conservation for all fish species, regardless of their commercial or sporting interest;
      
   2. a scientifically-based approach to fishery management which seeks to achieve the sustainable exploitation of fish as a sporting resource and maintain the biodiversity of fresh water habitats;
      
   3. well-publicised and readily available access for angling at reasonable cost in as wide a range of waters as possible, making adequate provision to meet the demand for angling of all types and fulfil the needs of both local and visiting anglers;
      
   4. recognition for the full diversity of sporting species available and the elimination of restrictions which prevent the use of methods legitimate for pursuing particular species;
      
   5. mechanisms to gather and disseminate accurate up-to-date scientific information on fish populations and other related issues;
      
   6. control and monitoring of the movement, introduction and reduction of stocks of fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants;
3. The present legislation covering angling, freshwater fisheries and fish conservation in Scotland fails to achieve or effectively promote these objectives. It is incomplete in scope and flawed in operation. Fishery management decisions are not always well-informed, and management structures, where they are present, generally fail to consider all species. There are many examples of good practice within the current framework, but there is an urgent need for change to achieve consistent high standards throughout Scotland. In considering what form of legislation and structures are required for the future, we have recognised that it will be particularly important to:-
   
   1. ensure that where possible decisions are taken at a local level by those with an interest in the fisheries concerned and in the protection of local, rare or vulnerable species;
      
   2. provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse interests in different areas in a manner best suited to their needs, and give scope for relationships to develop among the parties and for local structures to evolve over time;
      
   3. build on the strengths of the effective and well-established structures which currently exist in some areas, and promote the spread of best practice to all areas;
      
   4. operate cost-effectively, harnessing and maintaining the voluntary effort currently invested in fish conservation and fishery management by individuals, clubs and other organisations.
4. Our proposals for new legislation and management structures address the weaknesses in the current system, the considerations in the preceding paragraphs, and the lessons to be learnt from the examples of successful conservation and fisheries management that exist in some areas of Scotland.
   
5. At the heart of these proposals is the development for each catchment area of a plan covering fish conservation issues and the sustainable management of fisheries for all species in fresh water, including migratory salmonids. We call this an Area Fisheries Management Plan (AFMP). AFMPs should be constructed and implemented according to certain core principles. They should:-
   
   1. be informed by robust and comprehensive scientific data on the fish populations in the area;
      
   2. contain measures to preserve and enhance those populations on a water-by-water basis throughout the catchment area; and
      
   3. indicate the likely impact of proposed management actions.
6. AFMPs should be assembled from individual fishery management plans drawn up by those who own or run the fisheries in the catchment area. The task of assimilating these into the AFMP would be carried out by a body representing anglers, fishery proprietors and operators and environmental organisations who have an interest in the area. We have called this body the Area Fisheries Management Committee (AFMC).
   
7. For each catchment area there should be provision for a statutory Order which had the same legal impact as current Protection Orders, namely making fishing for freshwater species without legal right or written permission a criminal offence. We have called this an Area Management Order (AMO). Unlike a Protection Order, an AMO would potentially cover all fisheries for freshwater species in the area, provided that the proprietors or operators had submitted acceptable management plans and were prepared to offer reasonable access for angling.
   
8. The operation of the AFMP and the AMO in each area should be monitored by a separate standing body representing the interests of anglers, fishery proprietors and operators and environmental organisations. We have called this the Area Monitoring Group (AMG). Its role is similar to the Liaison Committees which exist in some areas covered by Protection Orders, but the formation of an AMG would be mandatory and its authority more comprehensive.
   
9. We also put forward other proposals centred on:-
   
   1. strengthening the legislation covering the movement and introduction of fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates to provide effective control and create strong centrally-funded monitoring mechanisms to enforce that; and
      
   2. removing unnecessary legal restrictions on legitimate coarse fishing practices.
10. These proposals address the main shortcomings in current legislation and management structures. Our model for new management structures provides comprehensive coverage, encourages extension of access for angling, and places appropriate weight on the need for sustainable, scientifically-informed fisheries management and fish conservation. The proposed mechanisms provide a template into which the structures which already exist in large areas of Scotland - and ought to exist more widely - can grow over time without becoming unduly bureaucratic in operation.
    
11. We recognise that there will nevertheless be a need for an element of additional funding for the management structures - especially at the outset - and for fishery management and fish conservation in general. We have considered possible sources and mechanisms for obtaining that funding:-
    
    1. the introduction of "rod licences" akin to those required in England and Wales, or of "fishery rates" on freshwater fisheries similar to those levied on migratory fisheries to fund DSFBs, would be politically unacceptable and financially ineffective and we have firmly rejected these as potential funding sources;
       
    2. the relief from sporting rates granted to fishery proprietors is essential and must continue.;
       
    3. in some "wild" fisheries anglers may have to bear an element of the cost through new or additional permit charges. It may be possible in many cases, building on models developed in areas such as Assynt, to simultaneously increase the revenue available for fisheries management and improve access for angling through a system of "area permits".
       
    4. provision exists in current legislation for government funds to be made available to enable representative angling organisations to obtain and run fisheries, but it has never been applied. We believe it should be retained and put into practice;
       
    5. There are several areas of existing public funding which are closely relevant to fish conservation, fisheries management or angling. These are as diverse as the gathering of data to meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive, support for tourism, rural and industrial development funding, certain areas of further education, and local authority support for recreational amenities. Opportunities should be exploited to maximise the degree to which these current sources are directed into effective support for fisheries and fish conservation.
12.   We recognise these proposals need further refinement to translate them into a set of working structures and put them into operation. Angling for Change is ready to work in partnership with the appropriate authorities in that process

Diagram of proposed arrangements

List of acronyms and abbreviations used in the report

1 - Background and definitions

1. Angling for Change (AfC) is a unique collaboration between organisations representing anglers, fishery proprietors, and fish conservation interests which was formed in 1999 following an initiative by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Scotland. The aim of AfC is to promote the development of policies for the conservation, sound management and sustainable exploitation of fish of all species in fresh water in Scotland.
   
2. This paper sets out our proposals and the reasons for them in a broad and discursive manner as befits the complex and substantial nature of the matters it seeks to address. There are many interlinked issues involved, and no simple solutions to the problems we have confronted. Because of this we have chosen to avoid setting out a list of bullet point recommendations.
   
3. The contents of the paper represent a consensus view among all the participants, although it should be made clear that each of the bodies concerned remains free to put forward further observations reflecting particular points of importance from its own perspective. A copy of the Angling for Change Consensus Statement, and a list of the organisations involved, can be found at Appendix 1.
   
4. Our work has taken place in parallel with the development and distribution of the SERAD discussion paper Protecting and Promoting Scotland’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries which was issued in April 2000. We cover many, but not all, of the issues put forward for consultation in that document. Because of the close parallels, we have taken steps to produce this paper within the timescale of the consultation period for Protecting and Promoting so that it can act as a contribution to the debate now under way on these matters.
   
5. This paper does not attempt to address all of the problems responsible for currently dwindling wild fish stocks. Matters such as pollution; water abstraction overfishing at sea; marine aquaculture, including the effects of parasites, disease and escapes; and mammalian or avian predators are all largely outwith the control of anglers, proprietors and fishery managers. Yet the need for urgent action to assess and where necessary counteract the impact of these factors cannot be overstated. No amount of good practice by anglers or fishery managers will be of use if the problems they cause are allowed to continue unchecked, although we believe these matters can best be addressed when a more comprehensive infrastructure has been established. For now, however, we urge SERAD and other authorities responsible for dealing with them to place a high degree of emphasis on their resolution.
   
6. Where used in this paper, the terms "freshwater species" or "freshwater fish" should be taken to include any or all of the species listed in Appendix 7 with the exception of salmon and sea trout. The term "migratory salmonids" is used to refer to salmon and sea trout.
   
7. For the purposes of this paper we have defined "commercial fisheries" as stillwater sporting fisheries that are run as a business and are the sole, or main, source of income of the proprietor. We do not include in this definition those fisheries that are run by clubs, hotels etc. which also sell permits to the public as a sideline to their main activities.

2 - Statement of Principles

2.1 At present, Scotland’s legislative and administrative machinery for fish conservation and fisheries management does not cover the whole country or encompass all species. Commentators over a number of years, most recently Maitland and Nickson, have described in detail the problems and weaknesses which arise from the absence of an all-embracing structure.

2.2 At the heart of the AfC consensus is our shared commitment to fish conservation and sound management of fisheries in fresh water. Scotland requires to build on existing local structures in order to deliver these objectives on a catchment-by-catchment basis across the whole country.

2.3 It is vital that any new structure for fish conservation and fisheries management encompasses the whole of Scotland. Equally, however, it must provide appropriate "subsidiarity". As far as possible, decisions should be taken at a local level by those with a direct interest in the individual fisheries concerned and in the protection of local, rare or vulnerable fish species. A structure based on catchment areas would provide an effective means of promoting the voluntary involvement of local stakeholders, and should help keep to a minimum the costs of management which have to be passed on to anglers. Not only would this build on many well-developed existing structures such as the Tay Liaison Committee or the Loch Lomond and Loch Awe Angling Improvement Associations and the District Salmon Fishery Boards (DSFBs), but it would also sit logically alongside the structures which are set to emerge from the EU Water Framework Directive (EUWFD). It would in addition be compatible with the local focus of UK Biodiversity Action Plans and rural development activities.

2.4 Any new structure must also recognise the very substantial diversity of Scotland’s fisheries and accommodate the varying needs of both users and proprietors in different types of fishery. For example, the majority of Scottish trout anglers nowadays fish commercially stocked fisheries. The fact that these anglers are fishing waters of this type means that pressure is being taken off "wild" fish populations. Any proposed legislation or structures need to take this into account. Controls on fish movement or stocking should not be such as to affect the viability of commercial fisheries, and the commercial impact of any proposed conservation measures must be given due weight.

2.5 We believe that conservation and management decisions must be based on robust scientific information concerning, for example, the health of existing fish populations and the impact of past and proposed actions. Data of this kind must be gathered more systematically and disseminated more effectively than at present (see Appendix 3). The EUWFD will require such information as an essential building block for the broader issues of managing aquatic ecosystems. The AfC philosophy has evolved separately from the EUWFD, but recognises its importance and is very much in tune with its provisions.

3 - Access for angling - limitations of the current system

3.1 The extent to which access is available to allow angling is central to fish conservation and fisheries management. A balance needs to be struck so that fish prosper, fishery owners and operators achieve a financial return which is acceptable to them, and anglers enjoy their sport.

3.2 The main source of control over access to freshwater fishing currently lies in the system of Protection Orders (POs) established under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. POs were devised to give proprietors statutory protection in return for increased and adequate access to fishing for freshwater species. Several - though arguably not all - of the POs presently in operation achieve that goal to a significant degree and have led to a sustained improvement in the opportunities available to anglers.

3.3 In 1998 the then Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Task Force to review the aspects of the 1976 Act concerning Protection Orders. Several AfC member organisations contributed to that exercise and AfC broadly supports its recommendations. Whilst the Task Force recommendations may help current Protection Orders to work more effectively, the Protection Order model itself is fundamentally limited in several respects:-

1. A PO provides no explicit requirement for particular standards of fish conservation or fishery management to be established or maintained, and no mechanism for gathering scientific information or monitoring what standards are being achieved;
   
2. the most readily available fisheries, such as commercially stocked trout fisheries, may paradoxically find it difficult to become eligible for statutory protection, since access to these fisheries is already at the maximum sustainable level;
   
3. whilst POs may increase the extent of access for angling on particular fisheries, the narrow scope of the legislation provides no assurance of a significant improvement in the availability of angling opportunities in whole catchment areas;
   
4. on many waters, proprietors have long allowed anglers to pursue trout or coarse fish without seeking to charge or requiring written permission. A PO may increase the amount of formally permitted angling at the expense of existing access of this kind, with the result that in reality the PO reduces the opportunities available for angling in that water;
   
5. even where a PO genuinely improves access for angling, it does not necessarily optimise it;
   
6. the network of waters covered by POs is fragmented and shows no signs of substantial expansion: even after over 20 years only a handful of largely unconnected areas are covered;
   
7. the application process is costly and time consuming (both of which discourage applications or delay new POs) and yet remains almost universally perceived by consumers as failing to provide for adequate public information and consultation;
   
8. lack of flexibility in the terms and coverage of individual POs prevents "growth by accretion", effectively institutionalising the piecemeal nature of their coverage in each locality and creating little or no incentive for angling interests and proprietors to work together to manage the quality and extent of fishery provision in the area as a whole;
   
9. there is no statutory requirement to monitor the operation of individual POs, and no swift, simple and effective means of addressing problems where proposals for access are not implemented;
   
10. neither the legislation nor the terms of individual POs provides any minimum standards regarding the accessibility, either in location or opening times, of outlets for permits;
    
11. the system provides no assurance of access to fish for species other than those (generally only Brown Trout) specified in the PO;
    
12. ambiguities remain concerning whether a PO can apply in so-called "public" waters.

3.4 These are real and substantial problems which must be overcome. At present the PO system is the only available mechanism for regulating access to angling for freshwater species, but it neither fulfils the task it was designed for nor addresses the vital issues concerned with encouraging good fisheries management.

4.1 It is vital that the health, genetic integrity and biodiversity of current populations of migratory salmonids and freshwater species should be preserved wherever possible. This is not confined to fish which are of commercial value or direct interest to anglers. Indeed, some rare or endangered species require special protection. In order to achieve this, it is essential to have effective statutory controls on the movement and management of fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates. In addition to preventing the spread of disease, parasites and competitor species, these controls are needed to ensure that populations stay genetically separate where this is scientifically desirable.

4.2 The legislation which exists at present to control the movement of fish or other aquatic flora and fauna is fragmented and ineffective. In particular, the current provisions are rendered virtually impotent by the absence of any effective monitoring or enforcement mechanism. The damage caused by the lack of comprehensive and effective controls should not be underestimated. Ill-informed stocking and escapes from fish farms have affected the genetic integrity of brown trout and arctic charr populations. The prolific and largely undesirable ruffe has found its way into Scotland unchecked. Lack of control on commercial rearing of the destructive signal crayfish has led to them invading whole river systems. Poor quality stock fish have brought parasites and diseases to some waters.

4.3 There is a pressing need for comprehensive changes to current legislation, or separate new legislation, concerning the movement, management and introduction of fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates. This must impose effective control over:-

1. the introduction of species of fish, aquatic plants or invertebrates to Scotland which are not already present here;
2. bringing stocks of fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates into Scotland from sources elsewhere, even if the species in question is already present here;
3. the movement of fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates within Scotland.

4.4 There is also a need for restrictions on the arbitrary elimination or reduction of freshwater fish populations. Culling is presently commonplace in respect of some coarse species, often with little or no scientific justification and without subsequent benefit to the conservation and management of other species in the fishery. Current legislation obliges proprietors to seek the First Minister’s permission for the use of otherwise prohibited methods, such as gill-nets or poisons, to remove fish of any species for scientific purposes or to protect, improve or develop stocks. These provisions require to be far more robust. Where more than small scale sampling for research purposes is involved, a comprehensive evaluation of the rationale and a balanced assessment of the impact should be required before permission can be granted.

4.5 We do not suggest that the activities described in the two preceding paragraphs should be completely forbidden. However, they should only take place as part of scientifically-informed fisheries management or conservation programmes. Measures such as mandatory health certification of hatcheries and fish farms must also be established to minimise the risk of disease or parasites being transmitted as a result of fish movements.

4.6 In order for such controls to succeed, they will require to oblige those who own or run a fishery to notify proposed fish movements in advance. This might entail a progressively more detailed process. For example, where the species concerned was already established in the water a simple confirmation of health certification and security against accidental escapes might suffice, while a very searching investigation into the scientific impact of introduction might be needed in the case of a new and potentially prolific species.

4.7 Centrally-funded machinery will be required in order to co-ordinate the gathering and dissemination of information on existing stocks of all species. Above all, it is crucial that central government allocates clear responsibility for the monitoring and enforcement of these restrictions to an appropriate body or bodies, and provides the necessary finance to enable this to be carried out effectively. Although much of that responsibility can and should be devolved to local level, safeguards are needed to provide a fallback mechanism in situations where local organisations are unable to carry out the role effectively.

4.8 The structures we put forward in Section 7 would operate very much in harmony with the provisions described above. For example, we envisage that fisheries will be producing management plans showing their proposals for stocking or removing fish of particular species, and we suggest the establishment of catchment-based management bodies who should, among other things, act as the channel through which such management plans would be co-ordinated. Management plans and stocking proposals would need to be in line with national legislation, and area-based management bodies would be well placed to alert the responsible authorities to practices which appeared to contravene that legislation. In order to strengthen this link, it may be possible to vest certain statutory powers in the management and monitoring bodies we have proposed.

5.1 Current Scottish fisheries legislation unintentionally debars the use of tactics and equipment which coarse anglers in other parts of the UK and elsewhere can legitimately employ to pursue their sport. This arises from the provision which limits legal angling methods to the use of a "single rod and line", and the Courts’ interpretation of this aspect of Scots law as requiring the rod to be held in the hand at all times. These rules were conceived as a measure to prevent over-exploitation of trout and salmon stocks by unsporting methods which have no proper place in angling, such as "set lines" and "cross-line fishing", and to avoid fish being deep-hooked by unattended equipment. However, in coarse fishing it is often not only practicable but essential to fish with the rod placed in purpose-made rests. Similarly, proper rod rests or "pods", combined in most cases with electronic bite detectors, allow anglers to make safe and efficient use of two or sometimes three rods simultaneously when pursuing species such as carp and pike. Coarse anglers, without exception, practice a catch-and-release approach and great care is taken to ensure that these tactics do not result in harm to the fish. The way in which the present legislation is framed, however, leads to these entirely respectable methods being debarred outright or classified as "fixed engines", making them indistinguishable in legal terms from nets, traps or set lines.

5.2 We recognise that with the possible exception of certain forms of "trolling" or "harling" practiced from boats, these methods are inappropriate to fishing for trout or salmon. In a game fishing context we would recommend that the legislation continues to forbid these practices. Equally, however, methods which employ rod rests and multiple rods are intrinsic to the effective pursuit of coarse anglers’ sport. No blanket statutory restriction outlawing the use of either rod rests or multiple rods exists anywhere else in GB, Europe or the USA, and we consider that legislation in Scotland should be framed in such a way as respect to permit these practices in the context of bona fide coarse angling. Within the structure we propose, it would then be for the managers of individual fisheries to set out what techniques they consider legitimate for particular species in the light of their own circumstances and priorities. This reflects AfC’s general principle of fostering local decision-making wherever possible.

6.1 The development and management of a fishery is a long term process. The investment, both financial and in terms of personal effort, put in by angling clubs or fishery operators can be considerable. Some clubs and associations, for example, have been looking after fishings for periods in excess of a hundred years. A considerable amount of Scotland’s salmon fishing is managed by angling clubs or associations with secure long-term leases or outright ownership which allow them to invest with confidence in the better management of the resource. The same is not true of many trout and coarse angling clubs or fishery operators, however, and anecdotal evidence suggests that few of them are able to secure leases of more than five years’ duration. Nor is there any mechanism to safeguard angling leases. We believe that the incentive to develop and manage fisheries with an appropriate long term perspective could be enhanced if the short nature and perceived insecurity of tenure of angling leases was less prevalent.

6.2 That said, we recognise there is little that can be done to create formal restrictions or protection for those who lease fisheries. It may be superficially attractive to suggest that if a lease was withdrawn, or not renewed, then the club or fishery operator should be compensated for all the work that has been done. However this would bring corresponding burdens so that the owner would have to be entitled to compensation if the anglers had not done any improvement work. It would also effectively mean that an owner would not be able to manage or dispose of his property as he wanted and it would therefore become near worthless.

6.3 We nevertheless flag this issue up as one where Government might be able to provide encouragement and incentives to proprietors who are prepared to take a long term approach. At the very least, given that many fishing rights lie ultimately in public ownership, Government may be in a position to act as an exemplar of good practice by offering leases in these cases on a longer term basis.

7.1 Scotland’s existing fisheries structures, and the legislation which underpins them, suffer from the broad weaknesses identified at para 2.1, and are incapable of dealing with the issues set out in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 above. Fundamental and far-reaching change is essential.

7.2 Having established that Scotland needs new structures for the sustainable management of freshwater fisheries and access to angling, we have asked ourselves what such structures should look like. Some models might be ideal if there were no limits to financial resources or the capacities of available fisheries. Others might be worth considering if some of the characteristics of current structures were different. But we live in the real world, and the process has to start from where we are now. We have therefore assumed that certain features of the present legislative and administrative environment will remain, such as the fact that the right to fish lies in private ownership and that fishing rights for freshwater species are legally separate from those relating to migratory salmonids.

7.3 On a more detailed level, the benefits of any particular change have to be weighed against the cost in time and resources of setting up and maintaining them, and the need to establish support among interested parties. There is much to be commended about the structures for management and conservation that have evolved in some localities. It would be expensive at best, and detrimental at worst, to destroy these in the name of uniformity. It is also the case that Scotland has many pieces of water, from upland burns to lowland ponds, to which access is freely available for fishing at present but which are unmanaged and not considered by riparian owners to be "fisheries" in any meaningful sense. Some level of management may be desirable in these waters, but it would be contrary to the interests of those - often the young or the unwaged - who regard them as amenities if any new framework either directly prevented their use or created burdens on riparian owners so that they become minded to withdraw access rather than comply with onerous legislative requirements.

7.4 One strong recurring theme in our considerations has been the extent to which the effectiveness of any new structure will depend on maintaining the level of voluntary commitment which is one principal strength of current, non-commercial fishery management in Scotland. With the exception of wholly commercial concerns, the bulk of the administration, management, and physical work involved in maintaining Scotland’s freshwater fisheries is carried out on a goodwill basis by anglers and proprietors with little or no direct recompense for those who give their time and labour to it. No matter how well it might be funded, no new framework is likely to succeed if it fails to encourage these people to continue to contribute, and it is doomed to fail if it alienates them.

7.5 In developing our proposals we have therefore sought to build on the best of Scotland’s current structures, leaving them largely intact where possible and creating incentives to spread the best aspects of current practice throughout. Our proposals offer a template into which various current institutions can grow over a fairly short period of time. This may make the structure appear less "crisp", and perhaps adds a degree of complexity in order to accommodate the diverse patterns already in place. In our view that flexibility is a strength in itself, and it is infinitely preferable to creating a framework which could only be implemented by dismantling those existing structures.

7.6 There are certain material variations in fisheries legislation in respect of particular waters or localities in Scotland. The provisions which apply, for example, in the Tweed or the Solway rivers differ from those elsewhere. Plainly it is necessary for the Scottish Executive to review all of these anomalies and consider whether they should continue in the context of any new legislation and structures. As already stated (paras 2.1 - 2.2) we believe that any new structure for fish conservation and fisheries management should encompass the whole of Scotland. This would be best served by including all of these waters in a single consistent overall legislative and management regime, although as we note at para 2.3, the principle of "subsidiarity" should provide for appropriate local variations in practice.

7.7 The heart of our proposed structure is the development and implementation of a plan covering fish conservation issues and the sustainable management of fisheries for all species, including both freshwater fish and migratory salmonids, in each catchment area. We have called this an "Area Fisheries Management Plan" (AFMP). Further information is given in Appendix 2.

7.8 We envisage considerable flexibility in the way in which AFMPs will be created and applied, underpinned in all cases by certain core principles:-

1. Plans should be informed by robust and comprehensive scientific data on the fish populations in the area. They should include measures which may be desirable to preserve and enhance those populations on a water-by-water basis, and indicate the likely impact of proposed management actions. Details of sources for such information are given in Appendix 3.
   
2. Plans would be drawn together by a body representing the anglers, holders of fishing rights and environmental organisations who share an interest in the fisheries and fish populations of all species in the area. In some areas various existing organisations, or combinations of organisations, may be well placed to take on that role, whereas in other areas the parties may find it more appropriate to establish an entirely new organisation for this purpose. We have given these bodies, whatever their origins, the general title of "Area Fisheries Management Committees" (AFMC). The functions and composition of AFMCs are discussed in Appendix 4.
   

7.9 There is a need to provide for optimum access for angling, but this should be linked to sound fishery management and may require to be regulated to ensure that fisheries are sustainable in the long term. We propose that provision should be established for a statutory Order in each area which had the same legal impact as current Protection Orders, namely making fishing for freshwater species without legal right or written permission a criminal offence on fisheries within its scope. We have called this an "Access and Management Order" (AMO). AMOs would be developed locally by the AFMC, subject to the final approval of the First Minister. Details of how AMOs might operate are given in Appendix 5. There are crucial differences between these and the POs which exist under current legislation:-

1. an AMO would cover the entire area, with certain exceptions, whereas a PO is confined to specific lochs or stretches of river;
2. an AMO would provide for the flexibility to add or remove particular fisheries, or to alter the terms and extent of access for angling on a fishery, in response to changes in circumstances;
3. the protection of the criminal law would be available under the AMO only where the management plan for the fishery had been accepted by the AFMC and satisfactory arrangements for access for angling were established and maintained.

7.10 The establishment of AFMPs and AMOs places considerable authority in the hands of the AFMC. Experience of the Protection Order system under the 1976 Act suggests that checks and balances, in the form of a strong and independent monitoring body, are essential if all parties are to be confident that such mechanisms are working effectively, and to help resolve problems where they are not perceived to do so. We therefore propose that AFMPs and AMOs should be monitored by a separate body representing those who fish or manage fisheries in the area and environmental organisations with an interest in fish species in the area. We have called this the "Area Monitoring Group" (AMG). The role of the AMG may be likened to an expansion and strengthening of the functions of the current Liaison Committees. Indeed we believe that it will be both appropriate and desirable for some current Liaison Committees to reconstitute themselves so that they continue to function in this new capacity. The full role and composition of the AMG is described in Appendix 6.

7.11 We contemplated alternative models for all these structures. The concept of a "District Freshwater Fisheries Board" to function as a full mirror image of the DSFB may seem superficially attractive. However, this model fails to recognise that freshwater fisheries are more numerous and fragmented than migratory fisheries, and that most of them do not share the particular features which dictate the roles and structure of DSFBs and enable DSFBs to operate their present system of funding. We have concluded that a "Freshwater Fisheries Board" structure would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and, as it could not readily be funded in the same manner as a DSFB, financially unsustainable.

7.12 We also considered the merits of a "single body" structure under which all current DSFBs would assume wider responsibilities for the management of all species in all waters in the relevant catchment. This model would have to resolve funding anomalies. It would be absurd to expect DSFBs to support the funding of the entire structure, yet there is no equitable way to levy freshwater fisheries in the way in which current DSFBs’ funding is derived from migratory fisheries. It is additionally difficult to see how this model could be established in those Districts where no DSFB has been formed. In many cases it would also be difficult to ensure a genuine balance of all the relevant interests within this model. Whatever the makeup of such a body, there would be a risk that the proprietorial interests of migratory fisheries would dominate, or be perceived as doing so, due to the higher revenue earning power of salmon and seatrout fishing. This model would require a high degree of mutual trust and a well-established tradition of collaboration in order to become acceptable to all the relevant interests. Such traditions exist in some areas, and in time they may evolve in others, but they are not as yet found widely enough to support this model generally. It could function in some localities and can be accommodated within our proposals where it is felt appropriate by all parties. For instance, the Tweed Commission is effectively this type of body and is widely - if not universally - considered successful.

7.13 We eventually reached the conclusion that the key to a sustainable cost-effective structure is flexibility. If, for instance, all the parties in a particular area were in agreement, it would be open to them to designate an existing body, such as the Tweed Commission, a River Management Trust or a District Salmon Fisheries Board, to take on the role of the AFMC for that area. Some such bodies may require to modify their constitutions or expand their membership in order to achieve an appropriate balance of interests, but they could still retain a substantial degree of continuity and in fact may find wider participation advantageous. If, on the other hand, the parties concerned in an area prefer to engage with each other on more of an arm’s length basis, our proposed structure can accommodate that. In time, closer links may evolve in time as relationships develop. It is even possible within our proposed structure for an AFMC based largely on freshwater fishery interests to expand its role to encompass management of migratory fisheries where there is no DSFB, or to subsume an existing DSFB.

8.1 Any new framework will need to have a wider remit than current structures, and will have to cover parts of Scotland for which no adequate machinery presently exists. Inevitably that will require an increase in resources. Our proposed model seeks to sustain the level of voluntary effort currently contributed to the process, and places the responsibility for obtaining scientific guidance primarily in the hands of charitable fisheries trusts which have the potential to raise funds from sponsorship and donations. These features of the model would help keep the additional cost to a minimum.

8.2 Nevertheless, even in the most favourable circumstances the proposal will not succeed without some injection of finance. This is especially true in respect of the initial costs of establishing the structures concerned throughout the country.

8.3 Insufficient data is available to enable us to offer a full and detailed costing for our proposals. For example, we have evidence that the overall revenue of the existing scientific Fisheries Trusts is in the order of £900k, and that they appear to cover around 60% of the country. On the surface it might appear that the additional Trusts needed to provide full coverage would therefore require to find another £600k. However, the existing Trusts are almost without exception operating below the level of resource which would enable them to provide a comprehensive service across all waters and all species. As a result, the data gathering and fisheries management advice they currently provide focus mainly on a proportion of the larger fisheries in each area - often only those containing migratory salmonids - and tends to concern non-commercial species or coarse fish only insofar as they impact on the salmonid populations. The proposed structure envisages a need for wider and growing use of such services. It would be dangerously simplistic to project the cost of scientific support for fisheries management and conservation by multiplying current Trusts’ costs by a proportional constant.

8.4 There are other costs over and above the extension of scientific support to fisheries management. For instance, although we might reasonably assume that much of the work of AFMCs and AMGs will take place on a voluntary basis, there will be a substantial need, especially in the initial stages of implementation, for these bodies to establish some form of "secretariats" to deal with the significant volume of communication associated with the formation of AFMPs and AMOs. If they are to attract and retain appropriately qualified people, both as members and in roles such as fishery wardens, there may be a need for some modest level of compensation to the individuals concerned. Considerable expenditure would also be required in public consultation over the terms of AFMPs and AMOs, and we believe this would have to be centrally-funded. In addition, there will be an ongoing and vital requirement for Scotland’s fisheries to receive more effective publicity, and in particular for details of local fishery regulations, prices and outlets for permits to be made widely and readily available.

8.5 There is an urgent need for a detailed investigation of the costs of current and projected conservation and fisheries management structures. This should in particular seek to assess the contribution of voluntary activities in a way which reveals and recognises formally the full value of the work which the unpaid army of angling club members and others make to fishery management. It should also explore the potential for drawing on sources such as EU budgets and Lottery Heritage funding in order to bring in finance, at least on a "matching" basis, to resource the necessary structures and activities. In the remainder of this section we discuss some other funding options and certain existing models which appear both successful and cost-effective

8.6 Whatever might be considered appropriate by way of providing additional finance for the structure, it is critical to recognise the need at the very least to retain present levels and sources of funding. In that context, the relief from Sporting Rates currently granted to fishery proprietors is of vital importance. This is particularly true of proprietors of salmon fishing rights, who are already subject to the levy of District Salmon Board Fishery Rates (see 8.7 [b] [ii] below). If a Sporting Rate charge were to be added to this levy, it would unquestionably tip the already precarious balance of funding essential habitat maintenance and improvements in many salmon fisheries beyond economic continuation. In the case of the West Coast Fisheries Trusts, for instance, the imposition of Sporting Rates would almost certainly result in the failure of the voluntary support on which the Trusts depend. Sporting Rate relief for salmon and sea trout fisheries, through the scientific data gathering and guidance it supports for management of fisheries as a whole, has benefited wider conservation and fishery interests in many lochs and river systems. Sporting Rate relief for other fisheries has enabled funds to be channelled into fish stocks and management activities, and helps maintain affordable permit prices. This relief must therefore continue in respect of fisheries for all species in order to help ensure the funding of our proposals.

8.7 We have considered and rejected two potential sources of additional funding:-

1. Rod Licences, whilst taken as a fact of life in England & Wales, would be adamantly resisted by most anglers in Scotland. Given the particular difficulty of covering the large geographical area concerned, they would also be almost impossible to police. A charge higher than the rate in England & Wales would be politically unacceptable. Even at an equivalent level, it is extremely likely that the cost of administration and collection would take up the majority of the revenue raised, as indeed we understand it does in England and Wales.
2. Fishery Rates, whilst long established as a means of levying salmon and sea trout fishery proprietors in order to fund the work of District Salmon Fishery Boards, would also founder in respect of freshwater fisheries on two bases:-
   
   1. The majority of "wild" freshwater fisheries are financially marginal and are run as amenities by users rather than as commercial concerns. The potential yield, assuming a similar basis was used to calculate rateable values as applies to salmon fisheries at present, would in these cases be very low. For some fisheries, adding to the cost burden would simply drive proprietors to cease operating, resulting in a loss of amenities and increased pressure on those fisheries which remain, neither of which can be regarded as desirable.
      
   2. Commercially run freshwater fisheries are often small and usually self contained. The burden of any specific angling rate would fall heavily on them as the majority of trout anglers in Scotland use this type of fishery on a regular or casual basis. However, they would in general benefit little, if at all, from a broad area-based management framework. The imposition of a fishery rate would simply result in the commercial fisheries increasing their prices to the trout anglers in what is already a very price sensitive market and could easily affect their commercial viability. This would be grossly inequitable and is likely to be politically unacceptable.

8.8 In some lochs and river systems where well-developed management structures have evolved in recent years, anglers themselves have contributed through higher permit charges or the introduction of permit charges where none had previously existed. In these cases an element of the permit revenue has been used, for example, to fund Management / Liaison Committees or support the work of scientific Fisheries Trusts. This is not universally supported by anglers, particularly as many of the fruits of more effective conservation and management structures only become evident in the long term. Nevertheless a similar approach may be appropriate in relation to many of the "wild" waters which are currently subject to little or no systematic management. It would however be wholly inequitable to impose any blanket levy on fishing permits, particularly if it encompassed salmon fisheries and commercially stocked trout waters. Permit charges paid by anglers on these fisheries already include significant elements to meet the proprietors’ or operators’ management costs. Any further levy would have the same unacceptable impact as described for fishery rates in 8.7(b)(ii) above.

8.9 Many of the anglers who pursue their sport in "wild" fisheries may be willing to accept some new or increased charges if they go hand in hand with tangible short term benefits in the form of wider access, better information or more readily available sources for permits. One way to address this may be to promote the creation of "area permits" which would give general access to fish for freshwater species on a number of waters in the area. Proprietors and angling clubs could delegate the AFMC or the AMG to publicise the facility and collect permit revenue on their behalf. This would benefit anglers by simplifying and extending the availability of permits and replacing currently fragmented and often ill-publicised access arrangements, while at the same time it would increase overall permit sales and reduce administrative burdens for proprietors and clubs.

8.10 One current model for this type of arrangement can be found in the Assynt Angling Group, an umbrella organisation which was formed by the four major estates in that area with the objective of jointly running the trout fishing and making more fishing available to the public on a day ticket system. The group includes the Assynt Angling Association (AAA), a partnership between the Assynt Angling Club and Assynt Estate (the largest estate in the area) and now controls fishing on more than 150 lochs. This is the first time that the public have been able to fish many of these lochs, and this initiative not only means that fishing is available, but also that it is controlled and managed by the local anglers. The public can buy daily, weekly or season tickets for bank fishing at Tourist Information Centres, Post Office, hotels etc. throughout the area. They can also hire boats through two central points.

8.11 The money raised from permit sales is proportionally divided up among the four estates and the AAA. The AAA funds will be used to manage the fishing from a sporting and conservation viewpoint, carry out survey work etc., maintain the boats, and advertise the facilities. In a real sense, everyone wins in this scenario. The proprietors obtain a return on their assets, and the anglers can raise funds to carry out works. Visiting anglers are presented with a wider choice of angling without the hassle of trying to find obscure permit outlets etc. and therefore are more likely to come to the area. The larger grouping of fisheries allows for better, and more cost-effective marketing.

8.12 This type of arrangement may not be universally achievable, but it could be easily adapted to include sections of river systems that are under multi ownership and in some cases could open the door to providing a "rover ticket" system for an entire catchment area.

8.13 The concept may be taken even further. In 1974 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State formally mooted the suggestion that funds might be provided for a representative national anglers’ organisation in Scotland which would be able to acquire or manage fisheries that became available for sale or lease. Statutory authority for such funding was subsequently established as Section 5 of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 states that the Secretary of State may "....make payments out of money provided by Parliament of such amount and subject to such conditions as he may determine to any organisation approved by him and having as their object ...... the development and improvement of freshwater fisheries and the making of such fisheries available for letting or fishing.....". No such payments have in fact ever been made, but perhaps this is an idea whose time has now come. We suggest that capital for the acquisition of fisheries should be made available to appropriate anglers’ organisations, nationally or perhaps even locally, on the basis that sums equivalent to a nominal interest charge would be repaid from permit income, leaving any remaining revenue to be ploughed into fishery management and funding scientific fisheries trust activities.

8.14 We do not claim that we have resolved the funding issues in detail. Our proposed structure is as cost effective as any framework could be. A great deal of what it contains, particularly as regards the physical management of individual fisheries, is already in place and being funded - albeit in some cases not as well as it should be - by anglers and proprietors. If the opportunity is taken to exploit the benefits of delegating or sub-contracting certain functions to local bodies the net additional cost will be modest. It will be essential, however, for central government to provide appropriate funding to support that additional cost.

8.15 In broad terms, the financial implications of our proposals can be divided into support for the infrastructure and resources for particular project activities. The infrastructure will require significant "pump priming" in the formative stages to enable the appropriate structures to be put in place throughout Scotland, but some level of ongoing support will also remain important in the long term. We believe that to ensure the structures are consistently resourced this should properly emanate from the centre. Project activities, on the other hand, will have a local focus and funds for these should largely be raised in the area affected.

8.16 Not all of the funding required would have to be "new" money. It may be possible to draw substantially on a number of sources within the spectrum of current public spending to divert or free up finance which is appropriate to particular aspects of the proposed new structures. We have identified various existing channels through which that funding might perhaps be provided:-

1. The network of fisheries trusts which provides sound scientifically based fish and fisheries management advice is central to the structures we propose, and indeed to any effective model for the management of Scotland’s freshwater fisheries. This needs significant strengthening in the form of grant in aid from organisations with whom they will inevitably have to work more closely in the future, and support from SNH and SEPA’s sponsoring Departments will be essential. Discussions with SEPA and SNH are already moving towards a formula whereby trusts provide, on a pre-agreed contractual basis, fisheries and other environmental data in exchange for financial support. It is widely acknowledged that the benefits of this will be threefold:-
   
   1. It will provide data to these agencies which will be required to meet their basic obligations to both the WFD and Habitats Directive in a cost effective way which those organisations would find hard to match;
      
   2. It will provide a reliable source of core-funding for Trusts/Foundations to whom funding remains a continuous problem;
      
   3. It will provide, through the above, for much enhanced lines of communication, co-ordination of effort and exchange of information between organisations with complementary objectives.
      
2. In 1998, 3% of British tourists and 1% of overseas visitors to Scotland reported participating in angling. The proportion of tourism dependant on angling is known to be substantially higher in certain areas such as the Western Isles. Angling tourists who visit Scotland spend at least £55m each year. In reality, the benefits of angling to our tourist industry are likely to be much greater, both through expenditure by non-fishing partners and children and by the fact that our fisheries contribute substantially to wider public perceptions about the kind of environment we have here.
   
   

1. Salmon fishing is perhaps the best known form of angling tourism, but it is far from the only attraction to visiting anglers. A number of Scotland’s commercially stocked trout fisheries such as Loch Leven, Lake of Menteith and North Third have a strong international reputation and attract significant numbers of visiting anglers from throughout the UK and from overseas. Anglers are coming to Scotland specifically to fish all these waters in much the same way as golfers visit here to play on Scotland’s famous courses. Similarly, the reputation of Scotland’s coarse angling facilities, particularly the pike fisheries in waters like Loch Lomond, Loch Ken and Loch Awe, attracts many visitors from England and abroad.
   
   At present, apart from very limited funding for some promotional activities, and small donations to individual Fisheries Trusts from local tourist bodies, fisheries do not benefit from national and local support for tourism development. A proportion of the funding presently disbursed by the STB should be channelled into angling. Whilst it may not generally be appropriate to target this at directly enhancing fisheries themselves, there would be significant benefits for both fishery operators and providers of accommodation or other tourist services if money was invested in publicising the availability and quality of fisheries in all parts of Scotland more effectively than at present.
   
2. There is no comprehensive information available demonstrating the overall contribution which recreational fisheries make to the Scottish economy, although the evidence which does exist suggests that it is very substantial indeed. Nickson quoted estimates by the Centre for Marine Resource Economics in 1988 which put the net economic value of Scotland’s rod fisheries for salmon alone at over £250M, and research by MacKay Consultants from the same year which concluded that salmon anglers in Scotland spent £34m per year, supporting 3400 jobs. The overall value of Scottish fisheries is patently very much higher. Anglers spend more than 400,000 rod-days each year on commercial trout fisheries in Scotland, and many more on "wild" trout and grayling fisheries and coarse fishing waters.
   
   Rural communities benefit most from angling-related jobs and anglers’ expenditure. There could be few more effective ways to stimulate the economies of these areas than to maintain and enhance the quality of the fisheries in them. On that basis, fisheries management and fish conservation should receive support from rural development funding, perhaps by way of grants for environmental improvement projects and stocking programmes.
   
3. We propose in Appendices 4 and 6 that fishery wardens and the members of management and monitoring bodies should have, or aspire to, relevant competences in the field of fisheries management. The concept of encouraging people to pursue formal qualifications in this context is very much in tune with current government thinking on life-long learning. It may be appropriate to consider making funding for appropriate training available through LECs.
   
4. Tourists are not alone in being influenced by Scotland’s positive environmental image; it has an impact in the decisions made by inward investors for whom "quality of life" issues are a significant factor in determining where to locate. In this context, Scotland’s fisheries are not just a public good but a unique selling point which helps define our distinct identity in an intensely competitive global market. As such, there is a reasonable case to suggest that some small element of industrial development funding should be devoted to helping preserve and enhance that asset, perhaps also channeled into the activities described at item (c) above.
   
5. Several local authorities, water authorities and other public bodies across Scotland provide support for angling as a leisure activity, albeit generally on a fairly modest scale. Many of them provide angling opportunities in publicly-owned facilities such as reservoirs, country parks or "town stretches" of rivers, and some have given financial support for stocking programmes and the creation of access for anglers with disabilities. Such provision is not universal, however. East of Scotland Water, for example, operates a valuable set of fisheries, largely for trout, in the reservoirs around Edinburgh, while on the other hand the reservoirs in the Glasgow area are largely unmanaged or deny access for fishing. The former District Councils in Glasgow, Monklands, and Cumbernauld & Kilsyth, among others, all supported the development of coarse fisheries in public park waters, while the park lochs under the control of the former Edinburgh District Council remain closed to angling.

It may be impracticable to expect it to become mandatory for local authorities and public bodies to make provisions for angling, but there is scope for some expansion in the number of publicly-owned waters available, and particularly for more substantial support to develop further those facilities that are already available and manage them more effectively. This in a large measure is a matter for local angling clubs to pursue, perhaps co-ordinated and supported by AFMCs or national angling organisations. However, it would be helpful if central government was also to signal to local government and other public bodies that providing and supporting angling amenities was seen as desirable and should be the norm where possible. Central government should also gather, or fund the gathering of, information on the range of publicly owned angling facilities available and help spread best practice in their development and management.

9.1 This report has sought to identify and put forward remedies for the main weaknesses in the legislation and structures which currently apply in respect of fish conservation and fisheries management in freshwater in Scotland. We have proposed new legislation and structures which build on the best of the local arrangements which have evolved in recent and past years and will provide a positive framework for the future of Scotland’s fisheries. Our proposals can deliver real benefits at modest cost and in a reasonably short space of time.

9.2 We recognise that many details still require to be finalised before these proposals can be translated into a comprehensive set of working structures. In particular, there are unresolved matters of funding and the allocation of statutory powers which may need further attention. A considerable body of work will then be required to put them in place and set them into operation. We believe, however, that our proposals are now sufficiently well developed to constitute a basis for wider consideration, and in particular that they form a positive and comprehensive joint contribution to the dialogue surrounding the SERAD discussion paper Protecting and Promoting Scotland’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries.

9.3 AfC is a unique consensus of interest spanning fish conservation, fishery proprietors and anglers. We support these proposals collectively and as individual organisations. We offer our continued commitment to work together in future to facilitate the effective long term implementation of policies for the conservation, sound management and sustainable exploitation of fish of all species in fresh water in Scotland. There will be a need for close co-ordination between SERAD, SEPA and SNH in establishing and maintaining the structures which will achieve these goals. We wish to emphasise our full support and would be glad to take all available opportunities to work in partnership with the relevant authorities in that process.

Representatives of the following organisations have been actively involved in the development of the proposals in this report:-

Association of Salmon Fishery Boards

Association of Scottish Stillwater Fisheries

Association of West Coast Fisheries Trusts

Atlantic Salmon Trust

Fish Conservation Centre

The Grayling Society

Institute of Fisheries Management (Scottish Branch)

Salmon and Trout Association

Scottish Anglers National Association

Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling

The Tweed Foundation

WWF Scotland

 In addition, the following organisations were signatories to the Angling for Change Consensus Statement and have also endorsed the principles set out in this report:-

Caithness & Sutherland Trout Angling Group

Scottish Environment Link

Our thanks to all the members of the AFC Committee, with special thanks to Ron Woods and Brian Davidson for all their help with the drafting.

Consensus Statement

    A copy of the text of the original consensus statement was inserted into the document at this point. It is on a separate page and can be seen by clicking here.

1. As we have already stated, the focus of fisheries management and fish conservation should lie primarily at local level. We have considered what "local" means in this context. The first level of management and conservation is in the hands of the holders of fishing rights and the users of each individual piece of water. These people have a direct interest in the fishery, and they should as far as possible be free to determine how it is run. Fisheries rarely, however, exist in total isolation from each other. The fishing rights on large lochs are often shared, and on any river the management and use of one fishery can have a profound impact on the aquatic environment in the rest of the system. There is a need to identify a common point at which management and conservation can be effective, the aspirations of all the different interests in that area can be assembled into a coherent whole, and any conflict between them can be mediated.
   
2. AfC have considered a number of alternatives and reached the conclusion that a structure based on individual fisheries, or the smaller current Salmon Fishing Districts, would create units which were not large enough for this purpose. Equally, a structure which came together only for Scotland as a whole, or at the level of the three River Basins designated in EU Water Framework Directive would create units which were too large and unwieldy. Political divisions, such as local authority boundaries, would produce an irrational split between naturally linked fisheries. We have therefore settled on catchment areas as the optimum unit for planning as well as for fish conservation. It is at this level that we believe Area Fisheries Management Plans (AFMPs) should be constructed.
   
3. We have not sought to define the precise catchment areas concerned at this stage. Their boundaries should follow the natural dividing lines between river and loch systems, or groups of river and loch systems. The units should be large enough to make the structure efficient and cost-effective, without being so large as to lose local identity. Ideally the fisheries management area boundaries should coincide with those of existing DSFBs and scientific Fisheries Trusts, and they should not be incompatible with the boundaries between the sub-basin catchment areas envisaged in the EUWFD. In the absence of local consultation we believe it is not appropriate to propose exactly how many catchment areas there should be, or to delineate specific boundaries; but we envisage the number would fall into much the same range as suggested by Maitland (25 areas), and Nickson (21 areas).
   
4. AFMPs would start from a core set of broad principles for the management of fisheries in the area coupled with an aggregation of separate plans for individual fisheries prepared by owners/tenants of the fishing rights concerned. FFL, SNH and SEPA would also be consulted in formulating each AFMP.
   
5. AFMPs would normally cover all non-tidal waters within the catchment area concerned, including those currently considered "navigable" or "public" waterways. Provision should exist for the AFMP to encompass tidal reaches of rivers, estuarine areas or lochs with tidal inflows where local circumstances make it logical and desirable to do so.
   
6. AFMPs would encompass fishery plans for both migratory salmonids and freshwater species.
   
7. AFMPs would have a long term focus, covering a rolling five year term and regularly updated.
   
8. Scientific guidance from the relevant fisheries trust should be available to those preparing individual fishery plans as well as to the AFMC itself.

A - Current Structures

Scientific Fisheries Trusts

1. Over the last 10 years scientific Fisheries Trusts, supported by District Salmon Fishery Boards and the Fisheries Research Service (FRS), have been playing an increasingly important role in the co-ordination, development, conservation and management of Scotland’s freshwater resources. These fisheries trusts, most of which are set up as charitable research organisations, involve a broad cross-section of the community and have strong links with local users, government and non-government agencies, commercial interests, local authorities and educational establishments. They have as their principal objectives:-

1. The provision of high quality information on the fisheries, riverine and habitat resources in their areas;
   
2. The co-ordination of management and conservation of these resources; and
   
3. The education of local communities about the use of these resources.

Fisheries trusts are contributing substantially to the delivery of concepts such as integrated catchment management, the formation of policy on the management of Scotland’s freshwaters and the implementation of Local Authority Bio-Diversity Action Plans, as well potentially making a valuable contribution to European initiatives such as the Water Framework Directive.

Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre

1. In 1997 a group of fisheries trusts identified the need for better national co-ordination of their work in areas such as data collection, the establishment of protocols, training, and systems for managing and exchanging information. To meet this challenge the Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) was established. SFCC is a partnership between fishery trusts and management bodies whose principal aims are to promote a better understanding of the national fishery resource and to encourage collaboration and co-ordinate information exchange between public sector, private sector, charitable, and educational organisations involved in fisheries and catchment management in Scotland. It has attracted considerable interest from a wide cross section of organisations involved in water resource management in Scotland. Techniques and Information Technology tools being developed by SFCC are recognised to be both innovative and effective by other organisations working in that field.
   
2. The Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry (FFL), the principal freshwater research agency in Scotland, plays a key role in supporting the SFCC partnership as does the Department of Geography at the University of Durham which is one of the foremost authorities in the UK in the field of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Geographical IT. A number of other important organisations representing angling, conservation and fisheries management interests are actively supporting SFCC or seeking to become involved in the partnership. SFCC now consists of thirteen organisations covering two-thirds of Scotland, and within the next five years seeks to achieve full coverage of Scotland’s freshwater systems. See Annexe for details of current coverage.
   
3. SFCC’s long term aim is to offer an efficient delivery system for best practice, minimising duplication of effort and maximising the benefits to fisheries management and research. Its broad goals are:-
   
   1. To create and maintain high quality databases on fish and related aquatic resources to achieve a better understanding of the national fishery resource;
      
   2. To provide direct assistance for local fisheries management initiatives, in particular through the provision of appropriate information technology;
      
   3. To provide a high quality research support facility for partner organisations based on an integrated catchment management approach.

Institute of Fisheries Management

The Institute of Fisheries Management (IFM) is recognised in the UK as an organisation with a high level of fisheries management expertise. In England and Wales the IFM certificate qualification is regarded as a pre-requisite for fisheries officers employed by the Environment Agency (EA). The main objective of the Scottish Branch of IFM is "to promote the advancement of fisheries management in all or any of its aspects in Scotland, and to improve and elevate the technical and general knowledge and efficiency of persons engaged in fisheries management". At present there are over 120 members and friends of the IFM branch in Scotland with a very wide range of expertise that can be called upon if required.

At present the Scottish Branch of IFM is in the process of reviewing the training material for its Certificate course in the light of increased appreciation of the need to improve the level of professionalism required to effectively manage Scotland's fishery resources. By the end of 2000 it is planned to have available a focused, flexible training course applicable to a wide range of interests . Once the course modules have been finalised it is also hoped to obtain SVQ status for the course.

Fish Conservation Centre

The Fish Conservation Centre maintains a computer database and mapping facility of the distribution of all freshwater fish species in Scotland, which was initiated in 1966.

Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), as the state conservation agency, has general responsibility for fish conservation and, in particular those species listed in the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and in the EC Habitats Directive 1992. It issues licences to anyone wishing to work on protected species. SNH also maintains substantial databases concerning fresh waters all over Scotland and has supported a programme of research on threatened fish species in recent years.

B - Proposed developments

Under the structure proposed by AfC, scientific Fisheries Trusts would have a remit, among other things, to gather data and provide scientific guidance on conservation and fisheries management issues to inform the construction of the Area Fisheries Management Plan. Where they are not already established, the formation of new scientific Fisheries Trusts should be encouraged, and indeed this is already happening. Where it is not practicable or cost-effective to set up a trust exclusively for a particular area, a single trust may be able to serve a group of areas in the same way that some current trusts serve groups of District Salmon Fishery Boards.

In the event that no scientific fisheries trust is established or identified to serve the needs of a particular area at the time the AFMP is being drawn up, AFMCs would be obliged to identify a competent source for scientific information and guidance. In these circumstances, it may be possible for fishery biologists employed by a local District Salmon Fisheries Board to provide their services to other fisheries or to the AFMC, probably on a repayment basis. Alternatively, SFCC may be able to help find, for example, fisheries trusts from other areas, or academic experts who may be able to assist.

Current scientific fisheries trusts are largely set up as charitable organisations, mainly in order to be able to raise funds through donations and sponsorship. In future, they may also contemplate setting up "trading arms" which would seek to generate revenue by taking on delegated responsibility for gathering data etc. on behalf of government agencies such as SEPA , SNH, or FFL; or by offering their services on a repayment basis to individual fishery proprietors.

At first sight it appears logical to suggest that FFL could offer an alternative source of information and guidance to AFMCs. We have concerns, however, that by taking on this role FFL might find itself compromised if it also advises the Secretary of State in whether or not the AFMP is to be finally approved. In those circumstances, it could be held that by taking a part in the earlier process FFL may be put in the position of "judge in its own case" on the substance of the AFMP.

It is nevertheless of great importance that the Scottish Executive continues to support SERAD’s freshwater fisheries role and particularly its Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) division. There is a clear need for a dedicated freshwater fisheries department within SERAD with responsibility for the development of policy on the management of fisheries (as opposed to fish, which will fall under the responsibility of natural heritage agencies). Equally, the importance of a dedicated government research facility such as FRS / FFL, to support these fisheries from both a management and ecological standpoint, is indisputable.

With the emergence of the network of fisheries trusts / foundations and the development and reorganisation of fishery boards, the future remit of FFL may benefit from reassessment. The relationship between FFL and the Trusts / Foundations needs strengthening and co-ordinating to better mutual advantage to allow both organisations to play to their strengths. It may be suggested, for example, that much of the monitoring and practical research responsibilities for migratory salmonids should now lie with the Trusts / Foundations, whereas well-targeted research aimed at resolving specific fisheries problems that would normally be beyond the reach of most fisheries trusts, should now be the priority of FFL as well as providing advice to Government on policy. It is also of considerable importance that FFL places all the information gathered in its research fully into the public domain with the minimum of delay.

In reviewing freshwater fisheries management, SERAD should acknowledge the changes in the dynamics of the management of Scotland’s freshwater fisheries and should examine the roles played by the constituent parts and how they might better complement each other.

Appendix 4 - Area Fisheries Management Committee

1. Each Area Fisheries Management Committee (AFMC) will be formed by representatives of:-
   
   1. local anglers and angling clubs;
      
   2. anglers and angling clubs from other localities who use fisheries in the area;
      
   3. proprietors and others who operate freshwater fisheries in the area (including a representative of the ASSF, where appropriate);
      
   4. proprietors of migratory salmonid rod fisheries in the area (including representatives of any local DSFB[s]);
      
   5. the relevant scientific Fisheries Trust;
      
   6. other bodies with a contributing role, eg on conservation or land use in the area.

    

1. The role of the AFMC would be:-
   
   1. to agree and publish a statement of the core principles of the Area Management Plan;
      
   2. to apply these principles to scrutinise individual plans submitted for inclusion;
      
   3. to seek to reconcile any differences among individual fishery plans, and between fishery plans and the Area Management Plan voluntarily;
      
   4. to agree and publish the aggregate Area Management Plan;
      
   5. to consider proposals for access to each fishery and make recommendations to the First Minister regarding the inclusion or otherwise of that fishery in the terms of an Access and Management Order (AMO) for the area (see Appendix 5);
      
   6. to consider information provided for monitoring purposes and incorporate appropriate changes in subsequent statements of core principles;
      
   7. to collect and publish information, including catch returns, about fisheries and fish populations in the area;
      
   8. to produce an annual report and accounts, which should be available for public scrutiny.
2. The role of the AFMC is a highly responsible one. AFMCs would largely comprise volunteers, but it is vital that they should not operate in an amateurish fashion. Members will need good judgement and people skills, a body of local knowledge, and a broad awareness of angling and fish conservation issues. In particular, they will require sound understanding of the principles of fishery management. We believe it will be desirable to encourage fisheries scientists and experienced fisheries managers to become members where possible, but many of the people who may be willing and available to take part will not have these kinds of background. We therefore consider that it would be desirable to encourage AFMC members to aspire to relevant qualifications in the field of fisheries management. This may encompass, for example, studying on a distance learning basis for certification at SVQ level in schemes currently under preparation by the Institute of Fisheries Management. The lack of such qualifications should not pose a barrier to an individual’s participation in an AFMC, but support and incentives should be directed towards promoting their acquisition.
   
3. In relation to para 2(i) above, the AFMC should seek to consider the general balance of angling provision in the area and the availability of waters suitable to be developed or managed for different species and types of fishing. It is not the role of the AFMC to dictate that facilities for certain types of angling should be provided or not, but to encourage angling clubs and proprietors to contribute to a balance of provision which gives fishery users breadth of choice and avoids undue pressure on stocks in some waters because of general under-provision compared to the demand for angling of that type in the area. For example, an AFMC might seek to encourage wider access to grayling fishing in winter.
   
4. It must be recognised that the majority of migratory salmonid fisheries and a substantial proportion of fisheries for freshwater species, particularly commercially stocked trout fisheries, are run as businesses by the proprietors or tenants concerned. Matters such as the numbers, size range and intervals of stocking are commercially sensitive to those who run these businesses. Catch statistics have a similar significance for the proprietors of salmon fisheries. The information required in individual management plans should not be such as to compromise these or other legitimate commercial confidentialities.
   
5. It will be essential for the AFMC to seek to reach agreement on individual plans rather than purely to decide one way or the other. A persuasive approach must be adopted, recognising the sensitivities that will arise if those who own or manage a fishery perceive the system as depriving them of freedom regarding how they manage what is after all their own property. It may be necessary to promote change in policies over a period, rather than seeking abruptly to stop practices which are long established. The key will be to work with the parties, not to seek to direct them by threats.
   
6. From time to time AFMCs may have to try to resolve differences in views over what should be the priority in conservation and management between different species in the same water. No hard and fast rule can be applied, and whilst financial comparisons between different ways of developing the fishery must play a major part in the equation, cases should not be determined purely on that consideration. In the main, AFMCs should wherever possible respect the wishes of those who own or lease the fishing rights, tempered by a broader consideration of the impact on the conservation interests of other species in the water and the effect on overall provision in the area. In particular, as a matter of principle the AFMC should not seek without good cause to interfere with the legitimate plans and aspirations of those who are running fisheries as businesses.
   
7. Some form of central arbitration will be required to deal with the small minority of cases where local discussions fail to resolve matters in dispute concerning individual fishery management plans. In such cases it may be that the First Minister could call on the expertise of FFL, SNH, or an independent body such as SFCC for guidance.
   
8. There would be a presumption that individual fishery plans would be rejected only as a last resort. The situations where this might take place would include plans which:-
   
   1. lacked the required information; or
      
   2. failed to provide for adequate access to angling in the water concerned; or
      
   3. indicated an intention to pursue activities which were incompatible with the core principles established by the AFMC; or
      
   4. in cases where two or more fisheries were linked, for example as part of the same river or loch, and their respective plans were not compatible with each other.

   Where an individual fishery management plan was rejected, it would follow that the fishery would be excluded from the AMO, and therefore that the owners or managers of the fishery would not be able to rely on the protection of the criminal law against those who fish without legal right or written permission.

9.   There may be other activities, such as administering arrangements for fishery wardens or the collection of permit charges, which an AFMC might take upon itself. AFMCs should be encouraged, wherever possible, to stimulate co-ordination and co-operation among proprietors, and between proprietors and anglers, to make access arrangements as user-friendly as possible and minimise the fragmentation of permitting arrangements.

Appendix 5 - Access and Management Order (AMO)

1. When submitting their individual management plans, the proprietors of each fishery would be obliged to include details of all fish species present, access and permit provision, proposals for any restrictions, and procedures for dealing with complaints. These proposals, if accepted, would form the building blocks of the Access and Management Order (AMO) for the area. AMOs would have the same legal impact as current Protection Orders, namely making fishing for freshwater species without legal right or written permission a criminal offence on fisheries within its scope. Like Protection Orders, AMOs would concern only fishing for freshwater species, but they would differ from POs in other crucial respects:-
   
   1. the AMO would cover the whole area, but with provision for exceptions. Individual fisheries would have the chance to opt out, rather than as under the current position where they opt in. Opting out would be by one of three means:-
      
      1. a positive decision not to be bound by the access provisions (for instance, on waters run by closed syndicates); or
         
      2. by failing to submit a management plan for inclusion in the Area Fishery Management Plan (for instance, on waters which proprietors do not regard as "fisheries"); or
         
      3. where there were sound reasons for preventing or restricting fishing on a water or in a particular part of it on the grounds of conservation, personal privacy, or public safety.

      In cases under (iii) above it would be open to the AFMC to recommend that protection be granted within the AMO, despite there being little or no access for angling. In all cases, the owner may still be bound by certain terms of the Area Management Plan concerning conservation etc, and would be obliged to avoid taking any actions which were detrimental to other fisheries in the area.

   2. the AMO could apply to any non-tidal waters, including "navigable" or "public" waterways. Provision should exist for an AMO to be able to encompass, where local circumstances make it logical and desirable, the tidal reaches of rivers, estuarine areas or lochs with tidal inflows.
      
   3. the AMO would be administered, and largely approved, locally. This would be a considerably swifter and cheaper process, particularly if the Internet and local newspapers were exploited as media for consulting angling interests. Since an AMO involves a statutory power there would be a need for the First Minister’s authority in each case. There would be a presumption that terms agreed between the AFMC and a fishery owner would normally be approved. However, there would be benefits in a degree of voluntary central co-ordination of best practice and a mechanism to resolve issues which arise at local level. We propose that the First Ministers Consultative Committee (FMCC) should be retained and that among other things (see Appendix 6) it should advise the First Minister on acceptance of proposals for AMOs, as it does with current Protection Orders, Only where any dispute remained unresolved at local level would the First Minister require to act, essentially in the role of arbiter.
      
   4. the provisions of the AMO would not be based on "increasing" access for angling but on "optimising" it. "Optimum" access would reflect the maximum consistent with scientific advice regarding conservation of the aquatic environment and the sustainable long term management of the fishery.
      
   5. wardens would be afforded statutory enforcement powers and appropriate training would be provided;
      
   6. most important, the AMO would be closely linked with the submission of a robust management plan for the fishery concerned, ensuring that access goes hand in hand with sustainable exploitation of the fishery.
2. There would be a presumption that fishing should be restricted as little as possible and that any restrictions should be consistent with the conservation and management interests of each species in each fishery. It should not be assumed, for instance, that preventing anglers from employing practices such as night fishing or bait fishing will be the only or indeed the most effective measures to promote conservation or deter poaching. Potentially legitimate angling tactics such as these can be skilful and appropriate in some circumstances and conditions. They should not be ruled out unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. It should be noted, however, that for obvious staffing and economic reasons it is common practice at most commercial fisheries for the fishery to close at night. Because of this, nothing in the above should be taken to imply that commercial fisheries will be forced to open outwith their normal hours.
   
3. Any proposed restrictions or requirements would be set out within the AMO. These may vary for individual species within each fishery, and for different fisheries in an area. Restrictions might include, for example, seasons, baits, size limits, bag limits or fishing methods. Requirements should normally include an obligation to render catch returns and may also extend to, for example, "catch and release" practices in "wild" fisheries or for coarse species.
   
4. Opinions will vary between anglers who pursue different species as to what constitutes "optimum" access to angling for each type of fish as mentioned at para1 (d) above. In many, but not all, cases there will be scope for all types of angling to be pursued without coming into conflict. Where this is not possible, AFMCs should start from the principle that access to fish for any species present should normally be permitted provided it does not significantly disrupt the activities of those for whom the fishery is primarily managed. The AFMC would also have to consider whether allowing access to fish for a particular species might act to the general detriment of the management of the fishery or the conservation of other species in it. Constructive compromise will be the keynote. So, for example, the proprietors of a loch which contains pike but is managed primarily as a trout fishery might allow access for pike angling at certain times of the year, but with restrictions on methods to preclude the risk of accidentally catching trout or transmitting disease or parasites, and limit the parts of the water to be fished so that known trout-spawning areas were not disturbed. Similarly, there is no reason why properly controlled fishing for freshwater species should not be allowed on most salmon and seatrout waters on Sundays or, in the case of grayling and coarse fish, during the close season for salmonid species. Plainly in such cases there would be a need to protect particularly sensitive spawning sites, but once more this should be addressed as a matter of sensible compromise rather than blanket restriction. We discuss allied, and perhaps wider, issues concerning the balance of fishery management between species in paras 3 - 5 of Appendix 4.
   
5. The AMO would oblige proprietors to provide access for angling at reasonable cost, to make permits readily available, and to publicise the outlets from which permits can be obtained. "Readily available" should be taken to imply that wherever possible permits should be obtainable from outlets local to the fishery which are open all day on each day of the week. Permits should clearly set out details of fishery rules, fishery boundaries, and correspondence addresses for the FMG and whoever is responsible for dealing with queries or complaints concerning the management of the fishery. "Reasonable cost" should be taken to imply a fair price based on the facilities and quality of fishing available., It is recognised that pricing at a commercial fishery will often be significantly higher than at a club water but this should not be taken to imply that the commercial pricing is not reasonable.
   
6. It would not be consistent with the principles which underlie AMOs if access was wholly restricted to local anglers. However, in certain areas, angling clubs’ established management policies allow local anglers to enjoy more favourable terms or greater levels of access. Such policies, whilst not necessarily appropriate in every case, would not of themselves present a barrier to inclusion of a fishery in the terms of an AMO, provided there was still reasonable access to visiting anglers at reasonable cost. Each case would require to be considered on its own merits.
   
7. AFMCs would be urged to encourage proprietors to band together to bring collective proposals for inclusion in the Management Plan and the AMO. The structure will function all the more smoothly if this approach is adopted. Bureaucracy, and the time devoted to meetings and other communication to resolve inconsistencies at area level will be kept to a minimum. Most important, the structure will actually achieve far more positive results if proprietors or angling clubs who share responsibility for different sections of a distinct piece of water such as a loch or river system actively co-ordinate their plans and objectives. This collaboration will be especially beneficial where it involves the proprietors of migratory salmonid fisheries and those who manage fisheries for freshwater species in the same piece of water. In some cases mutual trust and the close working relationships this will require may take time to develop, but they should be seen as an aspiration within the system. The adoption of a collaborative approach between proprietors and angling clubs who manage a number of fisheries in the area may also provide a foundation for the development of "area permits" as discussed in para 8.9 - 8.12.
   
8. After the proposals for the AMO have been assembled, there will be a need for wider public consultation. A structure must be set in place which will ensure that the general angling public is informed of:-
   
   1. the existence of the proposals;
      
   2. how and where copies may be obtained; and
      
   3. how and to whom representations may be made

   The system for consultation must be both less expensive and more effective than the previous system for Protection Orders. An adequate minimum time must be set for consultation, and use should be made of the local and (Scottish) national press, angling publications and the Internet. Certain organisations, including the governing bodies for game and coarse angling, should be consulted as a matter of right.

9. . Where an AMO applies, provisions should be established to ensure that if riparian ownership changes the incoming proprietor is made aware of the existence and terms of the AMO. One way to do this may be to create a requirement to record the existence of an AMO in the Register of Sasines as a burden on the property.
   
10. At present, the First Minister’s Consultative Committee exists as the representative body which, among other things, examines proposals for Protection Orders and offers recommendations to the First Minister as to whether they should be accepted. Within our proposed structure, this role would primarily be devolved to local level and undertaken by the Area Monitoring Group (See Appendix 6). However, we believe that a new and more strategic role may exist for the FMCC. A key part of this should be to monitor and assess the performance of all the new management structures in operation. The FMCC is also well placed to act as the first level of mediation to resolve disputes within AFMCs, or between AFMCs and AMGs.
    
11. In order to promote consistency, we propose that the First Minister publishes a Code of Practice for the construction of AMOs. This should be general enough to cover the majority of common issues which are likely to emerge; but specific enough to indicate the factors which should be taken into consideration and the standards which should be sought. A review mechanism should be built in so that the Code of Practice can be updated from time to time to reflect experience and the development of best practice. We suggest that the FMCC may be an appropriate body to gather information on best practice and advise the First Minister on updating the Code of Practice accordingly.

Appendix 6 - Area Monitoring Group (AMG)

1. The AFMC would agree fisheries management proposals in the AFMP, and make recommendations to the First Minister concerning proposals for access to fisheries for freshwater species which would then form the AMO. Monitoring of management and access to fisheries for freshwater species would be the responsibility of a separate "Area Monitoring Group" (AMG) comprising representatives of:-
   
   1. local anglers and angling clubs; and
      
   2. anglers and angling clubs from other localities who use fisheries in the area; and
      
   3. proprietors and others who operate freshwater fisheries in the area (including a representative of the ASSF, where appropriate);
      
   4. proprietors of migratory salmonid rod fisheries in the area (including representatives of any local DSFB[s]);
      
   5. other bodies with a contributing role, eg on conservation or land use in the area
      
2. The AMG must be distinct from the AFMC. Where there is agreement among interested parties, its function may be assumed by a suitably constituted body already in existence, such as a current Liaison Committee. Alternatively, an entirely new body may be set up. The role of the AMG would be:-
   
   1. to review the composition of the AFMC to ensure that it represents an appropriate balance of those who own, operate and make use of fisheries in the area and other relevant interests;
      
   2. to monitor the operation of the management plans for fisheries in the area, including any provisions for the protection of rare or endangered species;
      
   3. to monitor the operation of the AMO;
      
   4. where the provisions of the AMO are not perceived to be operating effectively, to liaise between anglers and proprietors or fishery operators with a view to resolving problems;
      
   5. to report to the First Minister regarding consistent failures to observe the agreed terms of the AMO, with a view to consideration of suspending or withdrawing the fishery from the AMO;
      
   6. to report periodically to the First Minister, thorough the FMCC, on the general operation of access and management provisions for freshwater fisheries in the area, highlighting examples of good practice to facilitate the development of the First Minister’s Code of Practice.
3. Monitoring of the management of fisheries for migratory salmonids would normally lie in the hands of the relevant District Salmon Fisheries Board(s). Where there is no DSFB in existence, or otherwise by agreement with the interested parties, the AMG could also assume this role.
   
4. As with the AFMC, members of the AMG will require a range of knowledge and competences. The desirability of members possessing or acquiring relevant fisheries management qualifications applies to AMG members in the same way as it does to those who serve on the AFMC. We therefore suggest that the training described in Appendix 4 para 3 should also be encouraged for AMG members.

Appendix 7 - List of fish species which occur in fresh water in Scotland

(Reproduced from Review of Policies Concerning Freshwater Fish in Scotland [Maitland] -1996 by kind permission of the author)

Note: A: Angled in Scotland, B: Fished or farmed commercially in Scotland, C: Angled, fished or farmed commercially elsewhere in Europe, D: Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, E: Annex II or V of the EC Habitat and Species Directive.