Official Report 711KB pdf
Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/37)
Agenda item 2 is evidence on the Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/37) from officials who have been involved in the regulations’ construction. I welcome from Marine Scotland Simon Dryden, who is the policy team leader of salmon and recreational fisheries; Keith Main, who is the policy manager for salmon and recreational fisheries; and Stuart Middlemas, who is an ecologist in the freshwater fisheries laboratory of Marine Scotland’s science division. We will also, in the next wee while, be welcoming Jackie Baillie MSP, who will join the committee for this item.
Gentlemen, we will move straight on to the regulations. Can you explain the methodology that you used to arrive at your position? Do you believe that it would stand up to peer review? Indeed, has it been reviewed independently?
In brief, there are lots of details; it is quite a complex modelling process.
Essentially, we take the catches that have been provided for each river and use them to work out how many salmon are coming back. We then convert the number of salmon into a number of eggs and compare that to the egg target for the river. If the number is above the egg target, exploitation or killing is allowed, but if the number is below the target, the river becomes a catch-and-release river. That is a standard process that is used internationally and has been peer reviewed in a number of places. Essentially the same method is used in Norway and Ireland. The general process has been peer reviewed and our work will stand up to peer review.
We used Scotland-specific information rather than taking information from, say, Norway and applying it to Scotland. That bit has not been peer-reviewed, but it has been subjected to a large amount of scrutiny through consultation discussions and preconsultation with Fisheries Management Scotland, local biologists, local trusts and so on. We have considered—we will continue to do so—having it peer reviewed in scientific literature, but that takes time and we must balance going through that process with making the changes that, through our consultation and various discussions, have been suggested.
I hear what you are saying, but would not some system of peer review get you to a position in which you might be subjected to less criticism about the methodology than you have had?
Indeed. The issue is partly down to the speed at which we have to get things in place and, as I have said, is about striking the balance between making changes that have been suggested by other people and updating the methodology, on the one hand, and taking the time to pause, on the other. Peer review is not a quick process, but we are actively looking at it and seeing how we can do it.
On peer review, at a meeting in October 2017, Marine Scotland was asked by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association whether it would stand by the current methodology and whether you would put your name to a scientific paper on the calculation method and data that had been used. Apparently, you replied that you would not.
I do not recollect saying that.
That certainly makes things awkward, because among other things I have here a letter that I received from Gareth Bourhill of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, which is dated 4 March.
In addition, do I understand, from what you said earlier, that you use a completely different methodology—a Scottish solution—which is based on catch, rather than on eggs or the young fish that are available to measure?
We do not count the young fish that are available to measure but—
Is not that accepted practice?
No. The accepted practice is to use adults, as is done in Ireland, England and Wales, and Norway, so we are using international best practice. It is the data that we use that is specific to Scotland. In using catches to figure out numbers of salmon that are coming back to a river, we do not use the information that is used in Norway because that information is specific to Norway. We use the best available information for Scotland. However, the general method is used internationally.
As I said, I do not recollect saying that I would not put my name to the method. We are looking at having it peer reviewed, so of course I will put my name to it. We are not hiding from our use of the method. We are here at the committee meeting, and we have gone out to speak to people, including the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, local trusts, biologists, boards and so on.
Perhaps I can give another example of the balance between going for peer review and developing the model. The current egg target that we use is a national one. To give the committee a little bit of detail, that means that the model currently requires an egg target of between 1.1 and 9.8 eggs per 1m2 of the wetted area. We have had constructive feedback from local biologists to say that not all rivers in Scotland are the same, so that range does not apply to all rivers.
We have said that we will look at that, so this year we aspire to getting a more refined target for the model. We will look at the data to see whether it suggests that we can do so. We might find, for example, that on the east coast the range could be larger than that on the west coast. If that is the case, that would reduce the egg requirement on the west-coast rivers. We are taking that range, doing 10,000 iterations and choosing a figure from the range. If we make the target smaller, that is better; if we can do that, local biologists would agree with us that we have improved the model again. However, it will take a substantial amount of time and research to make sure that we do it properly.
Is it fair to say that that is a work in progress?
Absolutely; it is very much a work in progress. Every year, we have improved on the 2016 model. There have been calls saying that if we are improving it, we should not have any grades until we are happy that we have the best possible model.
The answer is that we do not think that doing nothing is an option. All the evidence that we have suggests that the number of adult salmon returning to Scottish rivers is reducing dramatically. The catch numbers tell us that, as does the anecdotal evidence from this year. We believe that we need to offer protection and to take a balanced approach in the interests of today’s anglers and anglers in the future. If we allow today’s anglers to kill too many salmon, there might not be any salmon for future anglers in some rivers.
If my question can be answered relatively briefly, the answer will be useful; if it is a long answer, it will probably not be.
Representing the constituency that I represent, I am used to the regime around conservation in the oceans and am aware that, even after 100 years, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea continues to refine its processes in that regard. Is there a quick and pithy way of saying how similar the process that ICES and the contributing nations use is to what you are doing in our salmon rivers, in terms of the scientific approach?
The processes are very similar. Some of the ideas that we use have come from the ICES working group on salmon, and our approach has been discussed with international colleagues.
How do you take gaps in data and information into account when classifying rivers?
There are lots of data gaps. We do not have perfect information for each river, so we have to use the best information that is available to us. In many cases, we use all-Scotland average information. With regard to the conversion from catches to numbers of fish, we have that specifically for a set number of rivers. Where we do not have that information, we either use an all-Scotland average or use information about the effect of geographic relationships throughout Scotland, if we can find it. That is how we—and other countries—fill in such missing information.
Particularly in relation to the River Endrick, we are aware that we have missing catch data—specifically, rod-catch data. The model does not add in additional salmon catches to try to take account of catches that have not been reported. We think that any such estimate would be too subjective and that it would be too risky to design a method to make such an estimate.
In the case of the River Endrick, we liaise with the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust and we have identified that we do not have data for just over 11km of river that has fishing on it—that takes into account both banks. We equate that to about 21 per cent of the assessed river area. If we were to uplift the catches by 21 per cent to give a pro-rata figure—which we do not think would give us a sound basis—that would uplift catches by 24, which would not have made the River Endrick a grade 2 river.
As you have raised that particular issue, we will explore it now. Claudia Beamish has a question.
The constituency MSP, Jackie Baillie, has passed on to me some correspondence between her and the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. In that correspondence, the group highlights issues in a slightly different way from Simon Dryden. It says that the data is being collected from a 16km stretch of the river, despite the river being 46km long, that the club has rights only to that 16km stretch, and that it considers fish counters to be the only way to accurately define the numbers. It does not consider that any improvement has been made to the way in which the data has been captured. I appreciate that it is a very complex issue. Can you comment more generally on the fact that, according to the Scottish Government—if I have this right—there are only six fish counters, which will be increased to eight counters.
It might be easier for us to follow up in writing the explanation for the differences from the river length. When we do an assessment, we take into account the wetted area, which is the area in the catchment in which salmon can reside. One might call that the assessment area. That is not the full river length, in the case of the Endrick. There might also be differences when we say that it is not simply about the river length and it might be more appropriate to count left and right banks.
09:45We sat down with the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust for a substantial amount of time and the trust mapped out the river for us. We are fairly confident that we do not have catch data for 21 per cent of the river.
Are you saying that you have catch data for 21 per cent of the river?
No—there is 21 per cent of the river for which we do not have catch data.
I am sorry: my mistake.
Fish counters decrease uncertainty in data. It would be helpful to have more fish counters. However, there is a balance to be struck. For example, this year, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is spending about £7 million on removing barriers from rivers, which helps migration of salmon, so we are reluctant to build a barrier, even if it were to have a fish pass counter in it, because that would be counterintuitive. We need to look for places where a barrier cannot be removed and a fish pass counter can be put in. It is a challenging and expensive process. It is not just about the cost of putting the counter in place: they require a lot of ongoing maintenance and analysis.
We found an opportunity to put a fish counter on the River Ettrick this year and we provided some funding for that. That salmon counter should go live in the next few weeks.
Is not that something that volunteers would be only too keen to help with? That would help your costs. Could citizen science be involved?
We hope so; we hope to exploit such opportunities.
Given that Jackie Baillie has been name checked, I invite her to declare any interests in relation to the instrument, and then to ask her questions.
Thank you convener, and I apologise for being late. I was held up in traffic. The only interest that I will declare—it is not a registrable interest—is that Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association is based in my constituency.
It is a matter of regret that this is not the first time that we have been in this situation. The predecessor committee, of which the convener was a member, considered the issue way back in 2016. Some of the discussion at that time was about the lack of an evidence base for regulations. I regret that we seem to be in a similar position today.
What discussions have the officials had with Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and when?
We opened discussions in October, specifically on the assessment. In that period, we have had extensive dialogue with the association via email, on the phone and in meetings to try to explain how the models work. I note that in correspondence received from them there is concern expressed that we did not use the same wetted area for the assessment as we did in 2016. We have used the same wetted area: we have not changed it. We took on board the suggestions that were made at that time and have remained consistent in our approach.
Knowing that there were difficulties with a lack of evidence for that particular stretch of water, why did you wait 18 months—just a few months before you intended to introduce new regulations—before engaging with the association?
That was partly due to a change in personnel. I am not excusing what Marine Scotland has done, but my team has changed completely. I was unaware of the missing data issue until it was escalated again and highlighted to me in October last year.
I point out with the greatest respect that Stuart Middlemas was there; I see him in the Official Report of the meeting, in March 2016.
We have been in contact with various people to try to get catch data. I do not deal with that—although that is no excuse. The issue of catch data has been taken forward to some extent, but obviously not successfully.
There is an acknowledgement that the data is clearly incomplete and that you have made assumptions based on a fraction of the River Endrick. Is that correct?
Since the issue was highlighted in October 2017, we have had meetings with the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust during which we asked whether it would identify all the proprietors. The sensitive issue here, which we fully respect and understand, is that the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and the trust do not feel able to give us the contact details of the owners, despite us asking for that information. We understand that, because making a return is a statutory requirement, that is difficult.
The trust has provided us with some information, which has allowed us to establish that we are missing 21 per cent of the data. The trust says to us, anecdotally, that the catches in that area were negligible. I accept that we do not have data on returns.
Last Friday, the Scottish Government announced a new wild fisheries governance fund. That gives the opportunity for both those bodies and other proprietors to make a bid to establish a district salmon fishery board with a grant of up to £50,000.
There would be a number of benefits from so doing. One is that the process of establishing a board would involve the sheriff making up a roll of all the proprietors in the district. That is a potential way for us to move forward. I will be in contact with both bodies, now that the situation has changed and funding is available to help should they wish to move to a board, to revisit that idea with them.
That sounds very positive, but the difficulty that I have is that that would happen after you want the regulations passed. Surely a Government that prides itself on evidence-based policy making would gather the evidence first.
As probably a final question—the convener is nodding at me—what are the consequences of making the Endrick a category 3 river? Have you thought them through? The Loch Lomond Angling Association spends a considerable amount of money employing bailiffs and engaging in conservation projects. If its membership drops—which it will if the river becomes a category 3 river—those things will go. Surely that is not the consequence that we all want to see. I therefore ask whether we should wait for the evidence before moving ahead on that river system.
We are aware of the risks of having a river at grade 3, particularly with regard to angling numbers. However, our 2016 data does not suggest—
It is incomplete data.
When we look at the catches in the rivers that were grade 3 in 2016 and compare them with catches in grade 2 and grade 1 rivers, we do not find that the catches dropped disproportionately. If you expect that, once a river is designated grade 3, anglers will stop using it and move elsewhere, you might expect the catches in those rivers to fall quite considerably, but they have not fallen more than the catches in grade 1 or 2 rivers. If the salmon were being displaced, you might have thought that the catch in the grade 1 or 2 rivers would go up. In 2016, which was its last year, the catch on the River Endrick was 113 salmon. That was when it was a grade 3 river, yet that catch is higher than the three preceding years when it did not have a grade. If, in 2016, when we made it a grade 3 river, the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association lost members, as it predicts it will do this year, we might have expected catches to go down, but they did not. They went up and they were only two below the five-year average of 115.
My final point is that we count the catch upstream of fish counters and we have not seen a reduction or a different relationship between the fish going through the counters and the catch. If there was less effort, you would expect the catch rate—the proportion of salmon caught—above the counters to be reduced, and we have not seen that.
Mr Dryden, you quite properly pointed to a reduction in membership of the Loch Lomond association. The reduction this time would be significant. I asked you specifically about the impact on local bailiff and conservation projects and I am not sure that you answered that. I would be interested in your view, because that would be a consequence that nobody wants to see, particularly on the basis of data that is incomplete because not all proprietors have been identified and not all the catch has been identified. That does not add up to evidence-based policy making in my book.
We have a balance to strike. If we changed the grades of rivers and killing went on, that could jeopardise the stock for future anglers and mean that some rivers could become moribund. We just announced on Friday an additional £500,000 of funding for the wild sector to help with research and activities to address the 12 high-level pressures on salmon stocks that we have identified. We are putting a lot more funding into the sector this financial year, which will include activity that will happen in the Loch Lomond catchment area.
I have a question and whoever feels that they can answer should do so. What would the implications be if—I stress the word “if”—there were a motion to annul the Scottish statutory instrument? I understand that the current 2016 regulations are not time limited, but primary legislation might be required to review an update every two years. Could you clarify that? If there are concerns of the nature that are being highlighted and if there were a move to annul, what would happen? Obviously, it is a European Union directive and it is a protected species. The committee has serious concerns about that and we want to get it right.
Under the current regulations, if a motion to annul were carried, we would revert to the previous year’s regulations, which are the 2016 amendment regulations. You are quite right that they are not time limited and they would continue to apply for the 2018 fishing season, which would have implications for a large number of rivers. For reasons that I understand, we are concentrating today on the Loch Lomond system and Endrick Water, but there are a large number of rivers that will be grade 3 this year. That was part of the public consultation that we did in September and October, and we had a lot of representations about that. The grade change was not entirely a surprise to a lot of the fishing community, because the stocks and catches of salmon have been on a downward trend for quite a while. Therefore, in the entirety of the regulations that are currently being considered by the committee, this is the right way to go.
We model the salmon on the basis of a five-year average; arithmetically, we lost the figure for 2011, which was a good, healthy year for salmon catches, and brought in the figure for 2016 which, if I remember rightly, was something like 63 per cent of the 2011 figure. There could be wide implications; a lot of rivers that would be grade 3 this year might stay at grade 2, for example, and that would allow killing of salmon. Whether that is restricted or by local arrangement, there would be management arrangements in place.
10:00As to whether primary legislation would be required, I am not sure whether that is the case. The primary legislation and the regulations at its base require an annual review of the position for the 17 special areas of conservation around the country, and we will continue to review them year on year. There is not a requirement to make annual regulations. I believe that, when the first regulations came into place, the cabinet secretary said that there would be an annual review and, as a result, this is the third set of regulations coming forward.
In England, the Government went to a public consultation last week on similar conservation measures for the 42 principal salmon rivers in England. Those would be 10-year byelaws with a five-year review. Under the terms of the consultation, if the bylaws came into place, many of the rivers in England would go to mandatory catch and release—the equivalent of our grade 3—for a 10-year period, with very little scope for review.
As Simon Dryden and Stuart Middlemas have said, we are continuing to develop and improve our model year on year. There are hard years, and this is going to be a hard year for quite a number of river systems. We understand that, but we will continue to review the situation and to invest in improving wild fisheries, and I hope that we will see some improvements. As part of our annual review process, we will bring forward regulations again. We have already started this year to think about the regulations for 2019.
On the back of Jackie Baillie’s question, I voice my concern that when you designate a river as grade 3, that sends a big message out that people should not fish it, so fishing effort is reduced. It is quite clear that there is less fishing effort on grade 3 rivers. Given the choice between grades 1, 2 and 3, I would certainly pick a grade 1 river, not necessarily because I would want to kill fish, but because I would want to go to a river that is healthy and where I would have more chance of catching fish.
Will the £500,000 go any way towards mitigating the reduction in income from investment by angling societies and organisations that are looking after the health of rivers?
We have not finalised how we will spend the £500,000 in this financial year, but we are liaising with Fisheries Management Scotland on giving seed funding to a scheme that would seek to increase angling participation, in particular among young people. When we first introduced the regulations in 2016, we gave £100,000 to FishPal to help angling clubs. That funding is still being utilised. The scheme will run through until June, and FishPal hopes to extend it voluntarily with clubs. I have heard in conversations that I have had with angling clubs that that has had a positive impact. Clubs have taken advice on increasing participation; they have created Facebook pages and so on, and they seem to have increased the number of visiting anglers that they get.
Have you done any consultation on the effectiveness of FishPal? My understanding is that FishPal did a lot of that work anyway, and all that happened was that the Scottish Government offset some of its costs but did not actually add to what was already out there.
FishPal has built on its existing model and continues to develop it. The Government’s investment of £100,000 over two years has helped it to extend its offering, to modernise it a little and to go out to clubs and river systems that have not previously engaged with FishPal, and which—as Simon Dryden said—have perhaps not had the social media or public-facing presence that FishPal can offer.
Over the two years so far, FishPal has brought on more than 80 clubs and it is talking to another 40 or so to bring them on. Each club can tailor its presence, but FishPal gives them a better and more obvious internet presence. It offers online booking for people who want to fish and it gives day-by-day, almost hour-by-hour, information on conditions in the water and the number of catches. FishPal has built on an existing model and it has brought on clubs that have not had to pay the initial registration fee, which I think was £250. For the duration of the project, FishPal has not been charging commission on bookings that are made through it, and so on. The offer has been there for two years and quite a number of clubs have taken it up.
What is the level of concern about regrading river systems in relation to systems that have not been highlighted so far? In 2016, it was highlighted to our predecessor committee that there would be more granularity and localness in development of the science. Could the panel comment on that in the context of concerns, and how the two things interface with each other?
I will let Keith Main respond first.
On levels of concern, we are this year—as we have done in previous years—carrying out a consultation: there is a statutory requirement for a minimum 28-day public consultation. It depends how far we go back, but around this time last year, our scientific colleagues were gathering all the data from the previous year, doing the science, doing the 10,000 iteration run on the model, and coming up with the proposed classifications.
We went to public consultation on that in September and got more than 190 responses. I have to say that more than 50 per cent of them were with regard to the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. However, 32 river systems got back to us. In some cases, we had one letter on behalf of the district salmon fishery board; in others, we had a number of letters that ranged from fairly small concerns, such as Finlay Carson mentioned about a river being graded as grade 3 for the first time, to very detailed scientific concerns.
This is the third year that we have consulted: I think that some of the concerns are more detailed—although I am fairly new to the team—than concerns about the previous two lots of regulations. My predecessors spent a lot of time going around Scotland to clubs and discussing in detail the things that we need to improve. As we have said, we are developing the model as we go.
We have responded to some of the concerns, but we have not been able to respond to all of them. For example, I think that seven systems that were going to be grade 2 this year will be grade 1 instead because we have responded to concerns about uncertainties about how the fish use loch systems.
Stuart Middlemas might be able to respond on granularity.
In the first year, regulations applied at district level and so could involve a number of rivers. We undertook to move to river level. There has been a large process involving consultation of fisheries so that we could get river-level statistics, which we have done for the past two years. That is one of the main changes—we have increased granularity in that respect.
The other main change is that we have gone out and consulted on distribution of salmon in a number of areas. We have had over 3,000 changes to the distribution information that we had, which we have taken on board and fed into the models.
There was previously a lot of discussion about our not being able to take into account angling conditions. The models that we have produced take into account the flow in the river; for example, in particularly dry conditions there is less chance of catching fish. We account for poor conditions as best we can in the model.
Will you briefly explain a little more about that and, more generally, how effort from anglers has been taken into account? The Nith and Annan groups have highlighted to me that they have concerns that the number of anglers is down and that some clubs, particularly on grade 3 rivers, have reduced numbers. That seems to contradict the information that the panel gave to the committee earlier.
The conditions that we account for are that if there is not much water it is harder to catch fish. No one is sure why, but it could be that the salmon are not moving.
I understand that. I have not been clear in my question.
I thought that there were two parts to the question.
It is about the effort, if there is not so much fishing going on.
No one regularly collects information on effort, so we cannot put that into any modelling. However, we accept that it is an issue.
We have tried to collect information on effort, but it has proved to be difficult to do. We are aware that a number of groups are trying to collect information on effort and we are speaking to them. The Galloway Fisheries Trust has received some funding to assess effort and we are discussing with it what can feasibly be collected. Where there is an angling club, effort is different from where there is a private beat. The discussions about what can be done are part of a process to figure out how we can use information in the future.
We do not feel able to say that people must collect that information so that we can use it the following year. As a first step, we asked when people had filled in their catch returns, and that they let us know whether they had fished that month.
Would that skew the results? That matter has been raised with me by fishermen on the Solway.
It would skew the results, but we do not have a handle on how. We need to collect information on effort so that we can go from anecdotal information to something that we can use. We asked the simple question whether people had fished that month, so that we could tell whether a zero catch return was from people fishing but not catching. About 70 per cent of people ticked the box. There are difficulties in getting the information, but we are working with people including the Galloway Fisheries Trust to do that.
We accept that there are inherent uncertainties in any biological model. Effort—how much time is spent fishing and how well it is done—produces a lot of uncertainties. We want to spend a considerable amount of the extra funding on looking at what anglers have called for, which is a complementary juvenile assessment model. That will involve selecting appropriate sample points in rivers, doing electrofishing surveys and counting the numbers of small juveniles. We have the funding and system in place to do that across Scotland this year and to build a model to predict the densities of juvenile fish that should be in rivers, if they are healthy.
Is there a methodology for that yet?
There is a methodology for how we do the electrofishing surveys and where we do them, but we have not finalised the modelling to predict densities. That is ongoing; we hope to produce a report in 2019 with the first outputs. We would then have two models, both with uncertainties. We would have an adult and a juvenile model and could compare the results.
We need to move on. I will allow two brief supplementaries.
This is not an exact science. Are you saying that if we do not do this, the anglers of the future will not have any fish to catch?
I am saying that that is a significant risk.
Briefly, you said that when a river’s designation is lowered, the catch goes up.
The catch went up on the River Endrick. I said that the catches in 2016 were higher than in the three previous years. The good news was that all the fish were released, whereas in the previous years some of the caught fish were taken.
Are we doing this for conservation?
We are absolutely doing this for conservation.
Thank you.
10:15
Not all of the released fish survive.
That is right. We may start some research this year to look more closely at the mortalities among rod-caught fish that were released. At the moment, the model assumes that 10 per cent of the released fish will die. That is based on historical research, but we want to check whether that figure remains valid, is too high, or is too low. We take a precautionary approach at the moment.
Do you acknowledge that all rivers are different and, therefore, that we cannot generalise? That is why evidence is important in deciding what to do, and there is a lack of evidence, certainly on the Lomond system.
I will ask a question that I asked in March 2016. Have you done an equality impact assessment and, if so, will you provide it to the committee? I ask that question because 30 per cent, if not 40 per cent, of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association members have protected characteristics.
I would have to go and look at that. I know that you asked about that before, and I think that the cabinet secretary gave an assurance that an equality impact assessment had been done. I am not sure when that happened, but I will check and write to the committee.
I saw no evidence that it had been done, so if it has been done this time that would be welcome.
Perhaps you could write to the committee about that before next week’s meeting and, as far as you can, provide information on the scale and nature of the concerns that were expressed about the 32 rivers to which you referred. It would be useful for members to have that information.
I am one of the ineffective fishermen who contribute to effort, but not to catching. Fifty years ago, my brother and I were water bailiffs for 40km of the Tay. That was not for rod fishing, but for commercial netting, essentially, which is a wee bit different.
In my constituency, where there is offshore fishing, the approach to conservation has been that people need to prove that there are enough fish before they are allowed to go and catch them. For about five years, the fishermen have suffered significant constraints on catching, particularly of cod, but now one might almost say that we have a superabundance of cod.
Should the decision on moving the grading of a fishery from grade 2 to grade 3 be made on the precautionary principle, whereby a river is highly rated only if it can be proved that it will be sustainable to allow fish to be taken from that river and killed? The discussion so far seems to have been the other way around—it has had to be proved that there is a need for the river to go down in categorisation.
For white fish offshore, proof is required in the other direction—it has to be proved that there are fish to catch before the grading is moved up to catchable status. Which approach is being taken, particularly when a change of grading from 2 to 3 is being considered? That is perhaps the critical change.
Our approach is based on whether we feel that there are sufficient fish to catch. We say that a fishery will be a grade 2 only if we judge that the average over a five-year period will be a 60 per cent or more chance—
May I stop you for a second? You said that a more than 60 per cent chance gets the grading up to 2.
Yes. Checking to my right, I see that Stuart Middlemas agrees. More than 60 per cent gets the grading up to 2. The model asks what the chance is of reaching the requirement in each of five years and then takes the mean of that statistic—the percentage given—over the five years. Therefore, for a grade 2 river, we believe that the chance of the egg requirement being met is 60 per cent or more; for a grade 1 river, the chance is 80 per cent or more.
But my fundamental point is that the burden of proof is that there will be sufficient fish to catch before a river is moved from grade 3 up to grade 2 or grade 1. If there is an absence of data, we must not authorise the catching of fish from that river, given the overall picture in Scotland. In 1968, when I was a water bailiff, we were worried about declining stocks, so that is a continuing and long-running issue.
That would be our view, of course. We are saying that if we have got it wrong for the River Endrick, to come back to that river, we are being more cautious than we need to be, and the stock should recover more quickly and we will move to grade 2. If, as policy makers, we were less cautious and, in fact, were being cavalier, we would be jeopardising the populations for future anglers and we would be scared that too many salmon were being killed.
Internationally, is it the same in other jurisdictions that might be similar? Ireland, England and Wales have been referred to. Do they sanction catching only when the evidence is present and available to say that there is sufficient fish to catch?
As my colleague said, England is moving to that position. They are consulting now on a 10-year byelaw that will say that for all bar 10 of their 42 salmon rivers, there will be mandatory catch and release for 10 years, which will be reviewed after five years.
Donald Findlay. I am sorry, I meant Donald Cameron—my apologies. [Laughter.]
I will take that comparison.
It was a legal comparison.
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding fishing. Am I right in thinking that you are working on the current model in relation to getting more local variable habitats involved?
Yes, that is right. We are working, particularly for the egg requirements, on coming up with something other than an all-Scotland number, which is the only information that we have just now. We are trying to produce something that will give us regional targets so that we can see how they vary between rivers.
That will not affect the 2018 gradings, but it will play into the 2019 gradings. Given that, is there a danger that the 2019 gradings might be more accurate than the 2018 gradings?
We hope that every time we make changes, after discussion with stakeholders and getting ideas and more data, the gradings will become more accurate. At the moment, we use the best available information and science that we have. Information can always be improved, as can science. If we get more counters, for example, that gives us more information. We hope that bringing in complementary approaches, such as the model for juveniles that Simon Dryden mentioned, will improve the information.
Given the quite startling move in grade 3 changes from 2017 to 2018—I think that the number of rivers that changed from grade 2 to grade 3 almost, but not quite, doubled—there will be a lot of concerned stakeholders in the general fishing sector. Can you explain what the appeals process might be for those stakeholders?
There is not a formal appeals process as such—there is no statutory appeal. The engagement, if you like, is first and foremost the 28-day consultation period in the autumn, to which I referred, as well as our on-going discussions with individual clubs, district salmon fishery boards and trusts and with various groups, such as the salmon liaison group—or the local biologist liaison group—that we have in place as part of developing the model. Last May, when the initial results started to come out for the set of regulations that are being considered, the salmon liaison group had accepted and was happier with the model, which has now been developed for this set of regulations.
As I said, 32 river groupings responded to the consultation, many of which expressed concerns. That is 32 out of 171 river systems that we consulted on. We will certainly write to the committee and summarise the issues that were raised. As with any consultation that the Government undertakes, we were saying, “These are our proposals—let us have your representations.” We will consider the responses. We have read every one of them and we have reported to the cabinet secretary, but the decision involves balancing the weight of the objections or representations with our proposals, if you like.
I may be corrected by Jackie Baillie, but I think that I am right in saying that, in 2016, the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association had an objection upheld. What happens in that scenario?
That is a matter of language. We listened to the feedback that we were given and reacted. There was no appeal or anything that was upheld. Using that association’s feedback, we established that we could change the wetted area. The wetted area for the catchment area was reduced, which obviously meant that there was a lower egg requirement—we are talking about eggs per square metre. We were given more information and we listened and said that the information was valid and that we would take it on board. As I said, we have kept the same basis for the current grading. The association was concerned that we have changed it, but we have not.
I know the answer to this question, but I want to tease out the issue on the record. As you say, you base your decisions on the best available science. Given that there is no formal process, I guess that it is therefore almost impossible for an appeal to be successful unless those who are complaining about your decision can produce alternative science to challenge it. Therefore, for all that people have voiced opposition to your decisions, I suspect that not a single change has been made as a result.
As Keith Main said, we have made seven changes in grading in this consultation period.
Okay—sorry.
In essence, however, I support what you are saying. Those seven changes were a change in policy decision. We assess the populations and take into account loch areas, where they are on a river, as well as the river area. In a situation in which, when we include lochs, we would grade a river as a grade 2 but, taking the river only, it would be a grade 1, our policy approach used to be to make it a grade 2. However, we now accept that, in that situation, we will choose the river-only grading.
Have there been any instances in which you have graded a river as a grade 3 and you have had objections and changed it to a grade 2 as a result?
No. So far, we have not had additional evidence, such as scientific evidence or more catch data, to say that the catches have changed. If we had been able to acquire more catch data from the River Endrick in the period from October until we laid the regulations, we would have taken that into account. We made strenuous attempts from October to identify the owners and get the data for the 21 per cent that we are missing.
There have been one or two other changes historically. For example, the change to the Loch Lomond wetted area was a result of dialogue, and there have been other changes as a result of such dialogue. For example, in the new regulations, there are changes to the outflow points for two rivers. The outflow point is effectively the limit of the river, upstream of which we count the fish catches. Those changes are made in response to representations that we had last year, and we gave an exceptional commitment to talk to those involved in the three rivers. In two of the three cases, we were able to respond and we accepted that the outflow points should change. Although that is not the headline grading of the river as such, it will make a difference to the catches and to who will be able to fish in those rivers this year.
10:30
Although it did not happen this year, in previous years the Nith was consolidated at grade 3. The stakeholders came back to us and said that certain catch returns had not been put in, so we went through our records, accepted those figures, and the catches went up; the grade went up from a 3 to a 2, so it has happened previously, even if it has not happened in the past year.
Now it has gone to grade 1.
Yes, I think that that is right.
What was the basis for that change? Was it because of the increase from 60 to 80 per cent?
Yes. That is what happened previously.
Am I correct in saying that, according to the grading for 2018, 48 rivers have fallen one level, 12 rivers have fallen two levels, and five rivers have been raised by one level, including—I am pleased to say—the Clyde, which has gone from grade 2 to grade 1?
That is correct.
I was a bit alarmed earlier when I heard that there were 11km of the Endrick for which you were unable to get data because you did not know who the riparian owners were. Can you identify which bit of the Endrick that is? Is it the Jackie Baillie bit or is it further up?
It might even be the Roseanna Cunningham bit.
Or the Donald Findlay bit.
I am sorry, but I do not have the details with me. I would need to write to the committee to give you the precise areas of the river that were covered by those 11km.
I find it quite remarkable that you do not know who the owners are. If you are talking about the Fintry area above Bogside farm, the vast majority of that area is owned by the Forestry Commission. I am concerned that you do not know who the owners are and that you are unable to contact them and establish proper data as a result of that.
I will leave that there, but I have a further question on the EU habitats directive. Do the concerns around the habitats directive apply to all the grade 3 rivers, or just to the rivers identified as special areas of conservation?
It is just the 17 rivers that are identified as special areas of conservation.
Okay—so it does not apply to the wider rivers.
No, it does not.
What is your understanding about the sufficiency of the actions that were taken in 2016 as mitigation in relation to the EU habitats directive, to avoid infraction proceedings?
Stuart Middlemas may correct me on this, but my understanding is that formal infraction proceedings had not started but the Commission had indicated that it would begin infraction proceedings, and that we were conscious of that at the time. Off the top of my head, I am not entirely familiar with the exact stages, but the process had begun. That is one of the reasons that led us to introduce this set of conservation regulations and other regulations on annual close times and such things; there is a raft of measures, of which these regulations are part. As a result of our doing that work and introducing the model and the first set of regulations, the infraction proceedings did not go ahead, and there is no current outstanding infraction threat.
That threat has been withdrawn.
Yes.
It appears that a framework needs to be brought in fairly rapidly, but the Scottish Government appears to have kicked the wild fisheries bill into the long grass. Can you give us any indication of when legislation relating to wild fisheries will be brought forward?
The situation has not changed since the cabinet secretary’s answer to the committee, which I can repeat. She said:
“There will be a place for the wild fisheries bill in the current parliamentary session, but I do not want to preempt a future programme for government. It was never intended to be a year 1 bill, so it is not imminent. I would have expected it to be introduced in around year 3, potentially. A lot of the legislative programme is subject to Brexit consequentials, which we are looking at carefully.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 31 October 2017; c 3.]
There is a final, final question from John Scott.
What use will the moneys of £700,000 that were announced on Friday be put to? We are pushed for time, so the answer needs to be in one sentence.
Of that sum, £200,000 is for a wild fisheries governance fund to help boards to voluntarily merge or to help form new boards. The use for the other £500,000 is yet to be finalised, but a substantial proportion will be for a new national juvenile sampling strategy across 27 regions of Scotland so that we sample juveniles all around Scotland.
Does that suggest that the current system is inadequate, given that it needs £500,000 to be spent on it?
We will not be spending £500,000 on the system, but we accept that there are inherent uncertainties in any biological model. If we can introduce a juvenile assessment model to sit alongside an adult model, we can reduce those uncertainties.
Claudia Beamish has a final, final, final question.
It is a quick question. I do not know whether you are able to comment because I understand that it is a legal case at the moment, but perhaps you could say whether there are any other cases. The Annan common good fund is seeking compensation for the loss of money from the local fisheries to support that very good cause; I hope that it has been in dialogue with Marine Scotland about that. Can you comment on that? If there is any other compensation, will that relate to the fund that was announced on Friday?
It will not relate to the fund that was announced on Friday. From April, we will move into the third of three years of compensation being paid to coastal netsmen. We have not paid any compensation to netsmen or the boards of angling clubs within estuaries or rivers.
That relates to half-netters, does it not?
It means that we have not offered any compensation to half-netters.
Thank you. I just wanted that on the record.
Gentlemen, I thank you for your time. There are a number of items on which you have undertaken to write to the committee. Please do so as quickly as possible and certainly in advance of this time next week.
10:38 Meeting suspended.