Regional Inshore Fisheries Group: evaluation

Conclusion

The evaluation of RIFGs sought to understand if the network was still fit for purpose in 2024 and going forward. The purpose of RIFGs, as set out by the Scottish Government, is to improve the sustainable management of inshore fisheries and to give commercial inshore fishers a voice in wider marine management developments. The evaluation looked primarily at the 5 year period between 2019-2023. However, the history of the groups stretches back to the IFG pilots in 2009, and the scope of the project therefore shifted to incorporate this longer term view.

A desk review of the IFG and RIFG networks revealed an active organisation of regional meetings, sub-groups, discussion papers, and proposals put forward to government in the years following the pilot until around 2019. In some cases, this regional work resulted in pilot schemes and new regulations. As the years progressed however, it was clear that for more complex or longstanding management issues, the network still did not enable the progress that some fishers, and wider stakeholders, expected. Therefore a level of discontent emerged owing to the view that delivery from the groups had slowed down.

The 2024 evaluation aimed to delve into these issues and to understand how well the groups are delivering the remit and what is not working. The project team put stakeholder insight at the heart of the evaluation process through carrying out a survey and interviews. What emerged from this process were ten key themes across four categories. The evidence gathered was examined under each theme and key insights brought out.

The broader governance landscape was of interest to respondents, notably how RIFGs engage with the government inshore policy team and FMAC. The information flows and decision making process were deemed by respondents to not be clear enough. The remit and delivery of the remit were raised often by respondents. There was broad agreement with the two parts of the current remit, but respondents required clarity over the specific terminology used and how they can expect to see it delivered in practice. Tangible deliverables as well as transparent reporting was important to respondents.

The people involved in RIFGs was also raised often by respondents. A Chair with a good understanding of inshore fishing and the stakeholder landscape was noted as key to the success of an RIFG. However, respondents were also clear that they wanted clearer direction to be set by the Scottish Government so that stakeholders knew what to expect from Chairs. Engagement with stakeholders should be a key priority of Chairs, but direct engagement with the Marine Directorate was still desired, especially in discussing potential changes to management measures and new scientific information.

Membership was discussed at length with respondents. There was general support for a forum where fishers alone can discuss local management. But, environmental stakeholders were also deemed important in providing additional evidence and the Chairs or the Marine Directorate were seen as the ones expected to engage directly with these groups.

Among most respondents, there was not an appetite for additional regulatory power or additional funding to be given to RIFGs. Instead, the soft powers of a Chair influencing government and enabling local initiatives were deemed suitable to deliver local change. The question of the regional boundary lines for RIFGs garnered some comments, mainly highlighting the variations in fishing experience around the coast of Scotland meaning smaller regions could be beneficial. The island regions appeared to be suitable in scope for an RIFG to function; however, there remains a question about the remit of the Shetland group.

Overall, the evaluation found a network that has for years been a key tool for government to hear from fishers, and a tool for industry to feed into government decision making. There is a sense that the RIFGs have drifted away from the specific remit that they started with in 2009 when Fisheries Management Plans were expected regularly. Instead the groups have become more responsive to specific regional issues. There is the potential that by reshaping the RIFG model, they could become more useful once again.

Overall, key insights emerged from the evaluation. These are presented across the 10 themes:

System: Clarity on the governance landscape of inshore fisheries management will help stakeholders know where to engage and where decisions are taken.

Remit: The remit should be specific, achievable, and measurable. Key elements should include: a Chair-led forum for discussing local issues and potential solutions; ensuring inshore fishers’ voices are heard by government; and supporting sustainability of the sector.

Delivery: Tangible deliverables that align with the remit are essential to ensure value and best use of resources.

Monitoring and reporting: Accountability should be delivered via a monitoring and reporting plan and regular published reports.

Leadership: Direction should be set by the Marine Directorate and local leadership provided by regional Chairs. The Marine Directorate should maintain oversight of delivery, with Chairs taking initiative for local projects and enabling the voice of fishers to be heard by government.

Engagement: Chairs should engage with all relevant stakeholders and prioritise regular interactions with inshore fishers. Removing barriers to the involvement of fishers should be a key priority.

Membership: There is strong support for a forum designed for only fishing representatives, however, stakeholders recognise that the marine space is a shared resource so other marine stakeholders should be brought into management discussions. A more formal membership would improve transparency.

Power: Groups should be enabled by the Marine Directorate to achieve their remit including encouraging locally led approaches that have the potential to become legislation.

Resources: Chairs must be knowledgeable about inshore fisheries and empowered to initiate regional ideas and solutions to inshore management. Chairs should have access to science evidence to ensure it is incorporated into local discussions.

Regions: The regions of the Outer Hebrides and Orkney were deemed suitable to have their own RIFGs. Clarity is needed on the role of a RIFG in Shetland owing to the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2012. Mainland regions were deemed too large, with the North West RIFG and the North and East Coast RIFG suggested as needing new regional lines drawn.