Scottish Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement Call For Evidence Published

The Scottish Government has published the analysis report stemming from its Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement (IFMI) Programme’s Call for Evidence.

This initiative, which ran from 26 November 2024 to 18 February 2025, sought expert input to transition inshore fisheries management towards a more agile model, with co-management positioned at its core. The stated vision for this framework is to enable the tailoring of a broader range of management tools, aiming to better manage inshore fisheries for the evolving demands of the marine environment and the fishing community, relying on the best available scientific data.

A total of 100 responses were received during the Call for Evidence, with submissions coming from 52 individuals and 48 organisations, representing views from across Scotland as well as national bodies. The analysis reveals a complex and often polarised set of opinions among stakeholders.

Regional Management and Co-Management Gain Support

A majority of respondents expressed support for a regional approach to inshore fisheries management in Scotland. The Scottish Marine Region was the most commonly preferred delineation for managing Scotland’s inshore fisheries. There was also significant support for an improved model of co-management, though specific views on its ideal structure varied considerably among respondents. Discussions about the existing Regional Inshore Fisheries Group (RIFG) network yielded diverse opinions, mirroring those previously received and acted upon during a recent review of the RIFG network.

Respondents consistently highlighted the necessity of utilising the best available data to inform decision-making, alongside a demand for greater transparency and adequate resources to facilitate an improved inshore fisheries management model. The issue of creel limits also emerged as a prevalent theme across numerous questions, with many respondents indicating a future need for such measures.

Current Management Successes and Failures Identified

The IFMI Programme was initiated in 2024, partly in response to stock assessment advice and stakeholder concerns regarding sustainability issues affecting Scotland’s crab and lobster stocks. Key stakeholders also expressed a desire to move away from the prevailing national approach to inshore fisheries management. While interim management measures were developed for specific stocks, the process underscored that most management options would benefit from regional variation, a capability the current framework is not well-equipped to deliver.

When questioned on what works well with the current national approach, 88 respondents offered details. The introduction of vessel monitoring technology, particularly remote electronic monitoring (REM) for scallop dredgers, was a common positive theme. Some respondents noted that scallop REM has led to increased compliance and fewer instances of illegal fishing. One respondent suggested this was aiding transparency, while another commented on the potential for data to support stock assessments. A small number of respondents viewed the expansion of such technology to the pelagic or under 12m fleet as a positive step for sustainability.

The sandeel fishery ban was also positively received by some respondents, who viewed it as a significant step forward, helping to protect seabirds and safeguarding fisheries. The ban on berried crab and lobster hens was also cited as an effective measure by some, with one respondent observing an increase in hen size as a result.

The Outer Hebrides Creel Limitation Pilot garnered positive feedback from some respondents, who stated it worked effectively and yielded benefits. A small number of respondents felt it led to improved catch per effort, financial gains, and reduced gear conflict. One respondent summarised the scheme’s positives, stating: “The introduction of a pot limitation scheme, again with fishermen’ support, is another example of positive co-management of fishery assets. Fishermen also worked with St. Andrews University to produce a cheap tracking device which has surpassed all expectations. The reduction in pot numbers also appears to have improved catch per unit effort and enhanced the size and quality of Nephrops caught”. Some respondents desired the permanent reintroduction of this Pilot, with one noting its success stemmed from a local approach to a local issue. Increases in Minimum Landing Sizes were also identified as a successful national measure by some.

Conversely, a common theme among respondents detailing what is not working well was a perceived lack of action and delays in policy implementation. Several respondents raised concerns that available data and scientific evidence are not adequately informing inshore fisheries management. There was a sentiment that insufficient resource impedes effective science, monitoring, and compliance. Some respondents also expressed concern regarding larger vessels, suggesting they cause disproportionate damage to fishing grounds due to gear size, weight, and high fishing frequency.

Vision for Successful Management: Economic, Environmental, and Social Outcomes

Respondents outlined various desirable economic outcomes for inshore fisheries management. A common theme was the desire for fishing to be low impact and sustainable, presumably to protect the fishing industry for future prosperity. Viability of fishing businesses was also frequently raised, with several respondents advocating for economically healthy, sustainable, secure, and profitable fishing enterprises. Some respondents also called for greater investment to encourage new entrants into the fishing sector and support the transition to more sustainable fishing gear. The need for creel limits was also mentioned by a small number of respondents as a means to achieve greater economic sustainability. Boosting local economies and thriving local communities were common broader economic outcomes identified.

From an environmental perspective, key outcomes included healthy marine ecosystems, biodiversity, and fish stocks. The use of science and evidence in decision-making was deemed an important environmental outcome by some respondents, who also highlighted the need for more robust, up-to-date data and monitoring.

Regarding social outcomes, ensuring the fishing industry can flourish was a key point, with some respondents noting current struggles in the sector. Local management was deemed important, providing opportunities for local people and coastal communities, and ensuring local fishermen feel heard and represented. Encouraging new entrants into the fishing industry and ensuring fishing can be passed down through generations were also frequently cited social outcomes. The provision of local seafood and ensuring local supply chains were also considered important social outcomes.

Governance and Transparency Remain Key Challenges

The report details that 90 respondents offered opinions on which stakeholder groups should be involved in developing inshore fisheries management measures. The fishing industry and its representatives were the most commonly identified stakeholders for participation (50 respondents), closely followed by environmental groups (30 respondents), the public/community (28 respondents), and “all stakeholders” (26 respondents).

A small number of respondents stressed the need for greater transparency in inshore fisheries management, particularly regarding decision-making processes and the representation of organisations involved. Some respondents also expressed concern that too many conflicting views in decision-making can impede progress, potentially leading to “paralysis”. Several respondents suggested that meeting minutes and associated paperwork should be publicly published to improve transparency and accountability. The importance of data accessibility, including vessel compliance, landings, and population levels, was also raised to foster transparency.

This report, while summarising the views from the Call for Evidence, does not necessarily represent the views of all those with an interest in Scotland’s inshore fisheries management, nor does it seek to respond to the views submitted. The data and other evidence sources provided by respondents will be considered in parallel with this report as the IFMI framework continues to be developed.