Sea fisheries - future catching policy: consultation analysis

9. Process (Q21-22)

Q21. Management decisions

Overview

9.1. The consultation asked respondents to comment on a proposed management system pictured the figure below:

9.2. Question 21 had a relatively high response rate in this consultation, receiving 201 closed responses – 171 from individuals and 30 from organisations. Overall, 68% expressed opposition to the proposed process for making management decisions in a cooperative manner. Opposition was slightly stronger among individuals (69%) compared with organisations (60%).

9.3. A large number of respondents, 163, provided open responses to question 21. The following key themes emerged.

Views on the proposed process

9.4. Firstly, many expressed the view that more groups need to be included in the process. Particularly, many responses argued that not including local communities was a mistake. Many responses of this type used very similar wording, with a key focus on the process being undemocratic to a lesser extent, there were also calls to include more independent scientists, fishermen, conservationists etc.

"The current proposals do not provide any opportunity for communities or the wider public to have a say about how our seas are managed. Our seas are the common good of the people of Scotland and are being run into the ground by a total failure to acknowledge how much we have lost due to bad management, that the current situation is not sustainable, or that we should be taking urgent action to change it […] The Scottish Government should take urgent action to enhance local and national fisheries, and give communities and the wider public more of an opportunity to input." [Organisation, Conservation]

"The current proposals do not provide opportunity for the wider public to have a say about how our seas are managed.

This is inappropriate and counter to local democracy. The Scottish Government should enhance local and national fisheries management and give communities and the wider public more regular opportunities to input to fisheries management." [Individual]

9.5. A minority of responses also put forward that certain groups should have less power in the process, such as eNGOs on one hand or fishermen/industry bodies on the other.

9.6. While a few respondents favoured a consensus style approach, others argued that stalemates could be used to excuse inaction and pointed out the length and complexity of the process could be used to 'kick the can down the road' for issues requiring urgent action.

9.7. It was noted that FMAC's centrality in the process posed issues for inshore fishing as it is perceived to be an offshore forum. Furthermore, the reliance of ICES data was criticised by many groups who believe this to be inaccurate.

Q22. Unintended consequences

Overview

9.8. Question 22 received 138 closed responses – 108 from individuals and 30 from organisations. Overall, 70% of respondents foresaw unintended consequences of making decisions in the way proposed, with organisations more likely to foresee issues (80%) than individuals (68%).

9.9. The 100 open responses - 73 from individuals, 27 from organisations – illuminated the unintended consequences respondents felt were likely. There was significant overlap in open responses to this question and views provided in response to question 21.

Unintended consequences

9.10. Firstly, many identified the length and complexity of the process as possibly hindering urgent action.

"With so many groups and interests involve it will becoming overly bureaucratic and long winded resulting in slow and ineffectual weak management. The sustainable management of the fishery has to be at the centre even if some of the management measures are hard for sectors of the industry to adjust to." [Individual]

9.11. Similarly, there were several concerns about power of the groups involved in the process. Most prolifically, there were concerns that influential well-funded fishing groups could hinder conservation efforts.

"It is very clear that some sectors of the industry are more poorly represented than others. The big money vessels can afford to pay representatives and usually dominate proceedings at these meetings. Marine Scotland must at last wake up to this and make sure that the small vessel sectors in particular are not being misrepresented by larger umbrella groups, particularly on issues where there may be conflicting interests." [Individual]

"Yes, allowing the same old suspects to dominate the same old fisheries management decision making process and marginalising the IFMAC group will only result in more of the same." [Organisation, Other]

9.12. There were also repeated concerns as to how decisions made centrally could be applied to different local situations.