Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement: call for evidence analysis report

Part 3: What Does Successful Inshore Fisheries Management Look Like?

Question 5: What are the most important economic outcomes for inshore fisheries management, to you?

92 respondents provided details of economic outcomes they believed are important for inshore fisheries management. For ease, these are divided into fishing-related outcomes and broader outcomes.

Fishing-related outcomes

Lower impact, more sustainable fishing

A common theme raised by respondents was that more fishing should be low impact and sustainable as an economic outcome of inshore fisheries management, presumably to protect the fishery for future prosperity. Several respondents felt that fishing methods should be more local, with some respondents feeling that there should be more focus on small-scale local fishing boats to support the local economy. Some respondents felt that lower impact fishing methods (such as creeling or diving) can help to generate greater financial returns, employment and economic benefits than more intensive fishing methods. Some respondents also felt there is a need to use lower impact fishing methods to limit potential negative impacts, including on fish stocks and the environment.

It was the view of a small number of respondents that lower impact fishing methods should be given greater preference, with a small number of respondents also feeling that lower impact methods should be incentivised or rewarded. A small number of respondents thought that more research and effort should go into developing more low impact fishing gears, and that methods should result in less waste and be more selective. A small number of respondents criticised the use of dredging and trawling and called for high impact fishing methods to be restricted. One respondent also felt that static gear use should be regulated.

Healthy fish stocks

Similar to the previous theme, a common theme raised as an important economic outcome by respondents was healthy fish populations. Several respondents felt that the economic success of inshore fisheries depends on healthy fish stocks, and as a result these should be supported. Some respondents felt that unsustainable fishing effort, inadequate management and declining stocks has meant that fishing has declined in some areas.

Some respondents outlined an overall ambition of having improved and well managed fishery stocks, with others feeling that these stocks could provide a range of benefits to coastal communities (that are not just from fishing). A small number of respondents felt that improved fish stocks should lead to a strong fishery for the future.

Economically viable fishing businesses

Several respondents raised viability of fishing businesses as an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management. Several respondents raised the view that fishing businesses should be economically viable, healthy, sustainable, secure, profitable and able to thrive and grow. A small number of respondents felt that fishers should be able to make a good living without harming the environment, or equally without fishers feeling the need to put themselves in danger to fish available grounds (e.g. during periods of inclement weather). A small number of respondents felt that fishers should be able to make a good living from working hard.

Access to markets

It was the view of some respondents that access to markets is an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt that new, secure, and strong markets need to be established locally, nationally and internationally. One respondent felt that:

“Market development is critical to building consumer confidence in eating beyond farmed salmon, cod, haddock and tinned tuna”

It was the view of a small number of respondents that prices, especially for shellfish, are very low and lagging behind rising costs. One respondent felt that producer organisations are driving low prices, whilst another thought that markets seem to be controlled by the low prices in French and Spanish markets. A small number of respondents felt that access to markets needed to be improved, with one respondent highlighting the importance of there being enough catch to support the infrastructure that enables for fishers to access markets (especially from islands). One respondent outlined that they felt there is a need for diverse employment so that coastal communities are resilient to market changes.

Equitable benefits

It was the view of some respondents that a more equitable share of benefits of the marine environment is an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt that quotas should be distributed more equitably, which would help benefit the small-scale sector and lead to a fairer distribution of benefits for local businesses and families. A small number of respondents felt that a fairer distribution of access and benefits of the sea across coastal communities is needed, with benefits of marine spaces not just available for fishers.

Funding and incentives

A small number of respondents felt that funding and incentives to fish sustainably would be an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management. It was the view of a small number of respondents that incentives could reward businesses that act sustainably, with one respondent highlighting:

“Learning from agriculture we contend that rewarding those businesses which act most sustainably will create a ratcheting of improvements in inshore fisheries, leading to a positive economic return for the entire industry.”

A small number of respondents felt that greater investment is needed to encourage new entrants to the fishing sector (e.g. through grant funding) whilst one respondent felt that funding should be available to help fishers move towards more sustainable fishing gear. Another suggested funding could help improve local fishing infrastructure.

Creel limits

It was the view of a small number of respondents that there is a need for creel limits, feeling that increased control on creel fishing effort would lead to greater economic sustainability.

Broader outcomes

Local economy and communities

A common theme raised by respondents was that an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management would be a boost to the local economy and local communities. A common theme respondents identified was the outcome of having thriving local communities, who benefit economically and socially from inshore fisheries management, as such communities are often fragile. Some respondents felt that fishing can add value to local economies. One respondent felt that:

“Well managed fisheries and fish stocks are intimately linked to the viability of our coastal communities”

Whilst another felt:

“Much of this income percolates through some of the smallest, most remote... communities in Scotland, helping keep them sustainable and vibrant.”

It was the view of some respondents that inshore fisheries management can boost local infrastructure and benefit local industries. Some respondents also felt that non-fishing industries such as tourism and recreational sea angling could benefit the local economy and this could be an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management. One respondent felt that coexistence of different economic interests is good for the economy. A small number of respondents felt that an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management would be to build community wealth, in line with the Scottish Government’s Community Wealth Building agenda.

Employment

A common theme raised by respondents an economic outcome of inshore fisheries management was provision of employment opportunities. Some respondents felt that fishing should be able to support local jobs, which locals want to fulfil. Some respondents felt that fishing jobs should be of good quality and secure. Some respondents also mentioned that jobs specifically should be available for local new entrants and young people. Some respondents also suggested that fishing should support downstream jobs, e.g. in restaurants, processing, or boat service providers in local communities. A small number of respondents felt that there are not many other jobs available in island and coastal communities, and that fishing should be able to provide employment in such areas. It was the view of a small number of respondents that non-fishing related employment should also be available in coastal communities and that this should be considered an important economic outcome.

Healthy marine environment

Several respondents felt that economic outcomes are inextricably linked to the health of the marine environment. It was the view of some respondents that the economic success of inshore fisheries and wealth of coastal communities depends on the health of fish populations, which are dependent on the health and wellbeing of the marine environment. It was therefore felt that the economy and environment need to be considered together. A small number of respondents felt that ecosystem services and natural capital in themselves provide economic benefits outside of fisheries. A small number of respondents felt that greater biodiversity arising from a healthier marine environment could benefit non-fishing businesses such as tourism operators.

Tourism and recreation

Several respondents raised the view that they think an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management is the availability of recreational and tourism activities. The increased availability of recreational sea angling opportunities was raised by a small number of respondents, with a small number highlighting how these opportunities have declined as fish populations have reduced. It was their view that these used to provide considerable income to Scotland and local coastal economies. One respondent wished to see a recreational sea angling strategy to be created.

Some respondents felt that an important economic outcome of inshore fisheries management could be the provision of tourism opportunities, which could bring money into local economies. One respondent felt that some island communities are reliant on tourist income. One respondent felt that MPAs can attract tourists, with another highlighting that access to the marine environment for leisure needs to be ensured. One respondent felt that the coexistence of fishing and tourism would be an important economic outcome.

Seafood

Some respondents outlined economic outcomes relating to the provision of food. Some respondents felt that there should be local supply chains for seafood, with local sales and consumption locally leading to shorter routes to market and lower food miles. A small number of respondents felt that this would lead to increased food production and greater local food security. A small number of participants mentioned there should be campaigning to promote Scottish fish and encourage Scottish people to eat a greater range of fish. A small number of respondents felt that the production of good quality and sustainable seafood was an important economic outcome.

Spatial management

Some respondents felt a need for spatial management methods, such as marine protected areas or zonal management, to be put in place in order to limit types or extents of fishing in some areas.

Local decision-making

It was the view of some respondents that local decision-making and management of inshore fisheries was an important economic outcome. One respondent thought that decision-making should be devolved to local RIFGs, with another highlighting that local communities should get to make decisions.

Data

A small number of respondents outlined that they would like decision making to be informed by a greater volume of up-to-date and high quality data.

Other

A variety of other economic outcomes were identified by a small number of respondents. These include: improved fishing facilities and infrastructure; spatial management of fishing; all costs (including environmental and opportunity costs) being accounted for economically; ecosystem services; diversification options; all stakeholders having a say; labelling or accreditation of fish for consumers; fisher prominence in decision-making; seal control and confidence to invest.

Question 6: What are the most important environmental outcomes for inshore fisheries management, to you?

98 respondents identified what they consider to be the most important environmental outcomes of inshore fisheries management. For ease of understanding, these environmental outcomes identified are summarised under the following headings: wider environmental benefits; sustainable fisheries; decision-making, and wider pressures.

Wider ecosystem/environmental benefits

A healthy and recovered marine environment

A common theme raised by respondents as an important environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management was protection and recovery of the health of the marine environment. Having a marine environment and/or ecosystem that is healthy, restored, protected, resilient and thriving, with degradation reversed, was a common theme mentioned by respondents. An additional common theme raised was the environmental outcome of having a marine environment with greater biodiversity, including healthier fish populations, more diverse fish and shellfish, more seabirds and more marine mammals. Additionally, several respondents raised the view that they wanted habitats to be restored, regenerated and recovered, to support biodiversity. Recovery and protection of the seabed, benthic habitats, was also raised by several respondents. It was the view of a small number of respondents that ensuring marine waters are clean and healthy is an important environmental outcome. One respondent felt that respect for the marine environment should be ensured, whilst another felt that “protecting the marine environment is fundamental for survival of humanity.”

Ecosystem-based approach

Several respondents felt that an important environmental outcome is to ensure an ecosystem-based approach is used when managing the marine environment. Some respondents raised the importance of ensuring that ecosystems are healthier, recovered and resilient. Some outlined their views around the importance of considering the intertwining effects of human activity and the environment. In particular they outlined impacts on fishing and different marine species, benefits and impacts, and broadly felt that consideration of the whole ecosystem is necessary. Some respondents felt specifically that fishing is part of an ecosystem, and that fisheries management should be ecosystem based. One respondent outlined how they feel an ecosystem approach is already being achieved in some work:

“As an example of applying an ecosystem-based approach to management, we would note collaborative work NatureScot has undertaken with Marine Directorate SEDD in conjunction with Napier University in relation to herring spawning grounds. This work looks at the relationship of sustainable management of the species, the fishery and essential fish habitat within the context of the Marine Protected Area network and wider seas.”

A small number of respondents felt that the seabed is an important foundation of marine ecosystems and therefore needs protection. One respondent raised a need for there to be ecosystem-based marine planning.

Waste, litter and pollution

A variety of topics related to waste, litter and pollution were brought up by several respondents. Some respondents felt that bycatch (of non-target or undersized fish, shellfish, bird, mammal species) should be minimised or eliminated altogether. A small number of respondents detailed approaches which could help achieve this, including sinking lines for creels, rope free potting, stopping trawl and dredging, using more selective gear, removing set nets and capping creel numbers. One respondent detailed that:

“Ending ecosystem and food waste caused by bycatch and discarding. Demersal gears such as bottom trawls and dredges are considered to have a very high risk of bycatch and discarding. Bottom trawling has been found to have the highest level of bycatch of any form of fishing. The RAINE Committee heard that Nephrops trawlers catch approximately 100 tonnes of cod in bycatch in the Clyde. This equates to 2 million fish and a large proportion of the already depleted cod population in the Clyde. Scallop dredges also bycatch and fatally damage a range of non-target species and undersized. It has been estimated that for every scallop caught, four other species are killed or collected as bycatch”

A small number of respondents felt that marine pollution needs to be tackled, with litter from fishing and pollution from aquaculture both mentioned. One respondent referred to a need to reduce ghost fishing, with another highlighting a need to ensure better water quality. One respondent felt that the plastic used in fishing should be reduced, and if possible, a fishing plastic recycling scheme should be put in place.

Marine Protected Areas and spatial planning

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the use of other spatial planning measures were raised by some respondents as an important environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt that stronger fisheries management measures within MPAs are needed, with some stating that trawling and dredging should be stopped entirely within MPAs. The use of marine spatial planning or zonal measures to identify areas for protection or to dedicate to fishing was outlined by a small number of respondents. A small number also raised examples of where MPAs or bans on fishing particular species in particular areas have been useful, including Lyme Bay, the South Arran Marine Protected Area and the Sand Eel ban on Wee Bankie. One respondent felt that HPMAs should be put in place, with another highlighting that putting more measures in MPAs in place could help Scotland meet the 30x30 target. One respondent felt that any spatial measures need to be properly justified, administered and agreed with fishers. Another respondent felt that the impacts of spatial planning should be considered on neighbouring areas.

Meeting legal obligations

It was the view of some respondents that Scotland meeting its national and international legal obligations – including the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; OSPAR; Convention on Biological Diversity; UN Sustainability Goals; Good Environmental Status; UK Fisheries Act (2020); the Joint Fisheries Statement (2022) and the UK Marine Strategy – is an important environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management, with some not feeling that Scotland is currently meeting these obligations. A small number of respondents felt it was necessary for a clear pathway forward towards Good Environmental Status to be outlined.

Blue carbon

It was the view of some respondents that limiting release and destruction of blue carbon is an important environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt the need to ensure and encourage the storage of blue carbon by protecting important blue carbon habitats (e.g. the seabed/ seagrass) and enabling a healthy marine environment. A small number of respondents also outlined views that trawling releases blue carbon through damage to the seabed, and that this needs to be stopped.

Climate change

It was the view of some respondents that factors associated with climate change should be an important consideration of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents highlighted the need to adapt and be resilient to climate change, for instance due to changing fish stocks, and outlined that this may require flexibility. A small number of respondents felt that baselines have adjusted due to a changing climate, and that these should be considered when managing the environment. It was the view of one respondent that the oceans are fundamental when thinking about a changing climate.

Sustainable fisheries

Fish stocks

Maintaining and improving fish stocks was a common theme highlighted by respondents as an important environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management. Several respondents outlined the need to manage inshore fisheries sustainably to ensure that there are fish stocks available and a suitably managed marine environment for the long-term, for future generations. Some respondents outlined the importance of fish stocks recovering and being restored to historic healthy levels (beyond 10 years ago), with one respondent highlighting that they felt there is a need for policy to encourage recovery. A small number of respondents felt that fish stocks are declining and, in some instances, have been overfished. A small number of respondents outlined that they felt spawning and nursery habitats should be protected to support future fish stocks. One respondent felt that fish stocks should be managed appropriately. A selection of specific outcomes related to healthy fish stocks were outlined by one or two respondents, including: no areas being bare of stocks; stocks providing an economically sustainable harvest; more fish being caught with less effort; there being variety of stocks as well as numbers; and that fish stocks could support sea angling. One respondent felt the need to have clear definitions of sustainability.

Bottom trawling and dredging

Although this theme mirrors some of the comments raised in the previous section, it was common for respondents to specifically outline views about the need to minimise the negative impacts that trawling and dredging have on the marine environment. Several respondents felt that trawling and dredging are damaging and degrading to the marine environment, fish stocks (including impacts on spawning and fish nursery grounds and through bycatch), the seabed, and blue carbon. Some respondents felt that there should be spatial management of trawl and dredging activities, with reefs or nurseries/ spawning sites, sensitive or biodiverse areas, or MPAs protected from these activities.

Some respondents felt that there should be an overall ban of trawling and dredging, or all mobile gear, with some highlighting that trawling and dredging should be banned in inshore areas. One respondent felt that trawling and dredging should be banned within 3 miles of the coast. A small number of respondents specifically felt that not enough marine space is protected from trawling and dredging. A small number of respondents felt that trawling stops the recovery of fish stocks, with one respondent highlighting that:

“…even during the short time in 2020-2021 that the Nephrops trawl fleets was tied up in the Firth of Clyde that there was an increase in the typical size of Clyde cod.”

A small number of respondents thought there should be better management measures and enforcement of trawl and dredging, with one respondent feeling that trawling stops Scotland from meeting Good Environmental Status.

Balance in fisheries management

The need for balance in fisheries management was felt to be an important environmental outcome by some respondents. Some felt that there needs to be a balance between protecting the environment and maximising socio-economic benefits/ fisheries opportunities. One respondent felt:

“Environmental outcomes must be balanced with economic and social outcomes. They must complement each other [rather] than one have more strength than the other. A balanced approach ensures that inshore fisheries can continue over the longer term without depleting fish stocks or harming the marine environment. When a balance is achieved it will produce livelihoods for generations.”

A small number of respondents felt the need to have a balance of gear used in areas, with a small number of respondents also highlighting the need for a balanced approach to area closures:

“Blanket closures on areas for the sake of the environment are simply not the answer, with areas suffering and becoming starfish deserts - Broad bay in Lewis being the prime example.”

Low impact gear

Some respondents felt the need for more low impact fishing gear (such as diving/ creeling) to be used to enable sustainable fishing as an environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt that prioritising low impact fishing approaches (such as creeling) could lead to environmental and economic outcomes for local communities. One respondent felt that bycatch can be returned to the sea from creels, with another highlighting that we need to manage the impact of fishing gear to enable nature to recover. One other respondent felt that the Scottish Government should be doing more to support fishers to use low impact gear.

Lower carbon footprint of fishing boats

It was the view of a small number of respondents that a reduction in the carbon footprint of fishing was an important environmental outcome, with them feeling that more work is needed to explore low impact boats and gear, and different fuels used.

Pot limits

A small number of respondents felt that the introduction of a pot/ creel limits could help to aid the sustainability of fish stocks for the future, where currently high effort is perceived to be damaging stocks. One respondent felt that more research is needed to understand how to make a pot limiting system feasible.

Decision-making

Use of science and evidence

It was the view of some respondents that the use of science and evidence in decision-making as an important environmental outcome of inshore fisheries management. Some respondents felt that there is generally a need for more science in order to benefit fishing and the environment e.g. investigations into other commercial species; impacts of environmental changes; clearer plans; better monitoring/ data collection; faster publication; more habitat and biodiversity data; technology to map economic value; regular surveys. Some respondents also felt that it is important that decision-making is grounded in evidence, with a small number of respondents also highlighting that data needs to be robust, rigorous and up-to-date. A small number of respondents thought that science that uses fishers’ knowledge should be collected, or that fishers should be involved in data collection. One respondent felt that Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) were a good example of how multiple different data sources can be used to evidence their decisions. IFCAs are the main mechanism of inshore co-management in England.

People as part of the environment

Some respondents felt an important environmental outcome would be the involvement and careful engagement of coastal communities and impacted stakeholders (including fishers) in management. A small number of respondents felt that people are part of the ecosystem, and any management of the environment would have an impact on coastal communities and they should therefore considered. One respondent felt that coastal communities can act as guardians to protect the marine environment.

Influence of environmental lobby

A small number of respondents raised concerns about the influence of environmental lobbying groups on decision-making. One respondent felt concern about the Scottish Government prioritising environmental concerns over socio-economic impacts.

Local approach

A small number of respondents felt there is a need to manage inshore fisheries with a local approach, including local voices, which can help to reflect the local marine context, and that this would itself be an important environmental outcome.

Wider pressures

Impacts of Offshore Renewable Developments

A small number of respondents felt that offshore wind farm developments can negatively impact fish habitats and species, and cause environmental changes that impact fishing, with a small number of respondents highlighting uncertainty and contradictory opinions on the long-term environmental impacts of renewables developments on marine spaces.

Other

A variety of other environmental outcomes were brought up by a small number of respondents. These include impacts of aquaculture, salmon/ trout management, an inshore limit, positive impacts of trawling, enforcement, extreme weather, seal management, working together and displacement.

Question 7: What are the most important social outcomes for inshore fisheries management, to you?

93 respondents provided answers to this question. For ease of understanding, these are divided into social outcomes on fishing and broader social outcomes.

Social outcomes on fishing

Sustainable fishing practices

A common theme mentioned by respondents was that they felt that fishing sustainably and using low impact methods was an important social outcome. Several respondents felt that it is socially important that fishing is sustainable for the future of the environment and of fish stocks long term. Several respondents also raised the need for fishing to be sustainable in order to support people, jobs and wider coastal communities. Several respondents felt that fishing needs to be low impact, using more static gear, smaller boats, encouraging individual harvesting and more sustainable fishing methods generally with less bycatch. One respondent felt that there should be more money spent by the Scottish Government to encourage sustainable fishing practices. One other respondent felt that the use of more sustainable practices may help to improve consumer confidence in fishing, feeling this was an important social outcome.

The fishing sector surviving and thriving

An important social outcome of managing inshore fisheries felt by several respondents was the importance of the fishing industry being able to survive and thrive. Some respondents felt that it is important that fishing can provide secure and stable jobs, which are of high quality. Some respondents felt that an important social outcome would be for fishers to be able to make a good living, with easier, safer and fairer working conditions, which could lead to improved fisher mental health and wellbeing of coastal communities. A small number of respondents wished for positive perceptions of the industry, wanting to be proud, confident in the industry and have increased morale in the sector. A small number of respondents felt that they want businesses to be growing with the industry flourishing. It was felt by a small number that the fishing industry is suffering at the moment, with one respondent feeling that this is due to fluctuations in policy.

Local management

Local management of inshore fisheries was outlined as an important social outcome by some respondents. Some felt that local management should provide local opportunities, where local people, including coastal communities and local fishers can feel heard, leading to greater inclusion and representation, and outlined this as an important social outcome. A small number of respondents raised the importance of using local people with local knowledge of the local environment and industry to make decisions related to local areas. A small number of felt that inshore fisheries should not be managed from cities, where individuals are distanced from fisheries.

New entrants

Ensuring new entrants can and want to enter the fishing industry was raised by some respondents as an important social outcome of inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt it was important that fishing is seen as an attractive job to new entrants with good fish stocks. Similarly, a small number of respondents felt that an important social outcome is that young people are encouraged to consider fishing as a career (e.g. through careers guidance) and provided with sufficient training and skills to join the industry. One respondent felt it is important that newer boats are made accessible to younger generations by moving vessel licenses from old to new boats. One felt that an important social outcome is that a range of jobs related to fishing are available for young people e.g. in restaurants and in fishmongers. One outlined that ensuring young people are attracted to the industry can help to ensure the future viability of coastal communities.

Generational fishing

Some respondents felt that an important social outcome is ensuring fishing can continue to be passed through generations, with a small number outlining the need to be proud of the fishing opportunities left for future generations. One respondent outlined this more broadly, feeling that it was an important social outcome that coastal communities are vibrant for future generations.

Resilience

A small number of respondents felt that fishing can create economic, social and food resilience in rural and coastal communities, and outlined this as an important social outcome. A small number outlined the importance of resilience in fishing employment, providing diversity of jobs and fair work. Additionally, one respondent raised the importance of resilience of ecosystem services and one other respondent raised the importance of resilience in light of a changing climate and marine environment, each as important social outcomes for inshore fisheries management.

Diversification

A small number of respondents felt that it was socially important for fishers to be able to diversify into more sustainable fishing methods. One respondent specified the need for diversification in the face of changes to fish stocks and the climate.

Broader social outcomes

Coastal community wellbeing and resilience

A majority of respondents outlined coastal community wellbeing and resilience as an important social outcome of inshore fisheries management. A common view held was the need to ensure that a secure and stable future is provided for coastal communities, which can help local people to thrive and provide long term economic stability and a better future. Several respondents raised the importance of stopping rural depopulation and loss of jobs, and instead growing and/or protecting coastal communities and increasing their resilience. Several respondents felt that supporting remote and rural areas, which often have minimal employment options, is an important social outcome of inshore fisheries management. Some respondents outlined a link between fishing and coastal community wellbeing, with fishing perceived to support local communities and also providing an important part of the local identity. One respondent felt that if this does not currently occur:

“On the west coast in particular once the fishing jobs are gone there are no new jobs coming in people in turn then leave. It leads to a loss of identity and small communities.”

And one other respondent felt that:

“In many cases the overall health of communities depend on the existence of fishing i.e. keeping local shops open and adding to the school roll.”

Some respondents felt that local employment in often low-impact small-scale fisheries can benefit local communities, as resources directly re-enter the local economy. The importance of maintaining social cohesion and a sense of community in coastal communities was noted by some respondents, along with the impact this can have on community wellbeing. Some respondents also felt an important social outcome was that local communities are involved in decisions that affect them. One respondent outlined the need to ensure that coastal communities are resilient to a changing climate.

Employment and boosting the local economy

A common theme outlined by respondents as an important social outcome was increased employment and jobs as a result of inshore fisheries management, with several respondents outlining the value in boosting the local economy. Several respondents felt a successful social outcome would be the provision of a diverse range of jobs (including tourism, fishing, seafood processing, marine services) in local coastal areas, as a result of improvements to the local environment and better managed fisheries. Some respondents outlined the importance of jobs for fishers, on and offshore, with some outlining how fishing can support a variety of jobs indirectly but still related to the industry. One respondent stated:

“Smaller boats with local crews put their money back directly in local economies. They buy their paint at local shops, rather than having the boat slipped at a major port, often overseas. The handling of their catch creates a base level of transport which can sustain other businesses. Local hotels and restaurants can supply locally caught fish which is an attraction to visitors, as well as being healthier for locals than brought-in processed food.”

Some respondents mentioned the importance of jobs being of high quality and stable. A small number of respondents explicitly referred to the need for local employment for local people, with a small number of respondents outlining how local fishing and local fish processing could support the local economy. A small number of respondents also felt the Scottish Government should try to boost local economies and support local businesses.

Tourism and recreation

Several respondents felt that improved recreational and leisure activities was an important social outcome of inshore fisheries management. The most frequently mentioned recreational activity referred to was sea angling, with some respondents feeling that improved fish stocks should help to improve recreational sea angling, hobby fishing for sustenance, and diving opportunities. Additionally, some respondents felt improved marine biodiversity would in turn enable wildlife and environmental tourism, with snorkelling and photography mentioned in particular. A small number of respondents felt that it was an important social outcome to ensure that tourism and recreational opportunities are not negatively impacted by commercial interests, with one respondent feeling that the Marine Directorate should do more to support tourism and recreational activities. A small number of respondents outlined the impact that they felt tourism and recreation can have on the local economy, due to tourists spending money in the area and using local facilities.

Participation

Some respondents felt it was an important social outcome to ensure that a diverse range of stakeholders are involved in inshore fisheries management, including the Scottish Government, NGOs, scientists, coastal communities, other stakeholders and diverse fishing interests. A small number of respondents outlined the importance of cooperation, working together and communicating, whilst one felt it important that stakeholders compromise in order to reach agreement. A small number of respondents felt that fairness in participation was an important social outcome, with one respondent highlighting that there should be “local management with representation from all users of the coastal environment with equal access, influence and voice at the discussion table”. A small number outlined the need to engage fishers in decision-making at an early stage, with one respondent highlighting that this may be achieved more easily with regional management.

Culture

Several respondents felt that it is socially important to protect the cultural heritage of coastal communities. Some respondents specifically outlined views regarding the importance of protecting historical fishing villages and communities, where fishing traditions are often embedded and integral to local identity. One respondent felt that “for a lot of areas their whole history and identity is built on the back of the fishing industry”, and suggesting the preservation of this is an important social outcome of fisheries management. A small number of respondents echoed similar feelings, outlining deep cultural ties to fishing. The importance of protecting West Coast fishing heritage was felt by two respondents: “Small fishing communities are at risk of being wiped out on [the] West coast of Scotland and deserve particular attention and investment as they underpin Scottish maritime heritage and culture.”

A small number of respondents outlined views regarding the importance of protecting traditional ways of life, local customs and festivals. A small number of respondents also raised the need to consider the role of small-scale fishing in local culture, and the importance of respecting local cultural needs in decision-making.

Provision of local food

Some respondents felt the provision of local seafood is an important social outcome of inshore fisheries management. Some respondents raised the importance of making sure fish and seafood supply chains are local (e.g. direct to consumers/to hospitality), leading to the sale of local fish and local consumption of this food source and consequently fewer imports and more sustainable food systems. A small number of respondents raised the social importance of consumer confidence in buying local seafood, trusting that it is sustainably sourced, of high quality, and the marine environment is healthy. A small number of respondents also felt that increased provision of local fish could result in healthier diets for local people, feeling this is an important social outcome of fisheries management.

One respondent summarised the above findings:

“When fisheries are sustainably managed, they provide fresh, locally sourced seafood that supports healthier diets and strengthens the link between consumers and coastal communities. By improving local supply chains and encouraging direct sales, Scotland can enhance the availability of locally caught fish and shellfish, reducing reliance on imports while boosting local economies. Greater consumer confidence in sustainable seafood is an important aspect of this. When consumers trust that the seafood they purchase is sourced responsibly, they are more likely to support local fishers who use sustainable practices.”

Sustainable jobs

Some respondents felt that an important social outcome is the creation/preservation of diverse and sustainable jobs. A small number of respondents felt that these should not be limited to fishing and also includes tourism, restoration and research. A small number of respondents felt that sustainable jobs should not have adverse impacts on the environment or on other people. Similarly, a small number of respondents felt a healthy marine environment can help to support coastal communities, including helping to provide jobs.

Public wellbeing

Some respondents outlined a view that a healthy marine environment is important social outcome for inshore fisheries management. A small number of respondents felt that knowing the marine environment is being looked after and is healthy can result in public wellbeing. A small number felt the enjoyment the public can get from the marine environment is a socially important outcome. A small number of respondents also felt that all people should have access to the marine environment.

Education

A small number of respondents outlined the social importance of education about fishing and its benefits, or more broadly about the marine environment and potential impacts on it.

Other

Other topics mentioned by a small number of respondents include: shared ownership of Scotland’s seas; quota allocations; enforcement; compensation; investment; diverse jobs; reputation; and well managed fisheries.