AN ADVERT IN A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER TO LET ANGLERS KNOW WHATS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENCES

[Steve Coppolo]

O.K, I think we're getting somewhere.

 

So that draft strategy wasn't written by RSA then? It was actually written by DEFRA? Or maybe the whole of the Inshore Working Group? If that is the case then I'm relieved that such a pile of sh1t wasn't produced by RSA itself. Phew!

 

However, I would have hoped that RSA could have thrown it back and stated that without more and bigger fish, the whole thing is a pointless excercise. I suppose it isn't too late to do that if RSA's response isn't due until February?

 

Just an aside, can we now start refering to the document as the DAFT strategy for sea angling?

Edited December 29, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi leon

 

Sorry for being a bit pessimistic but the rsa are out numbered by 6/1 by the commercials on the INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP there for we are not likely to get the golden mile are we? and as for the rsa sub group why are anglers out numbered again? what the hell as sea fisheries officers got to do with putting proposals forward for the benefit of rsa's it cant be to see if proposals are enforcable as they hardly enforce present ones............

 

 

Until quite recently MAFF/DEFRA denied that they had any responsibility towards RSA.

 

After much effort to get the government to accept that management of the UK fish stocks was integral to the development of RSA, we were told that the newly formed Coastal Waters Policy branch now has responsibility for issues that would affect the development of RSA

 

We were very disappointed when they declined to accept the original draft strategy document (as put together by a number of RSA organisations that were able to get representatives along to a meeting to put such a document together).

 

They emphasised that they were needed to take regard of all stakeholder interests and therefore suggested that the only course of action was for RSA to first take the document to the Inshore Working Group of the Marine Stakeholders Forum and once there was general acceptance of the proposals by all stakeholders, then DEFRA could take ownership and begin to deliver on the proposals put forward by the RSA organisations.

 

It could have been killed off by the various other stakeholders there and then, we were fortunate that the RSA representatives were able to present the proposals in a way that secured stakeholder agreement to move forward.

 

We did fight hard to try and get greater RSA representation on the working group, but it was felt that over-representation of RSA on the group, would sink the idea, and RSA would again be left out in the cold, so we were left with just two reps on the sub-group (although appeals to bring in some others with experience and technical knowledge of the issues were considered reasonable and enabled us to increase the RSA presence at subsequent meetings).

 

It would be very nice if RSA could sit down with DEFRA, discuss what we want, then leave DEFRA to implement things, but that really isn't going to happen.

 

The same as RSA need to be consulted on developments that might affect us, other stakeholders want to be consulted on RSA issues that will affect their interests.

 

SFCs, Fishery Scientists, DEFRA managers will also be involved as they are the people who are responsible for management of the inshore environment, and the activities that take place there, so most would agree that it is sensible to get their input and buy in too.

 

We are never going to get everything we want, not always will things go our way, sometimes we will be knocked back further than we have come. The important thing is that step, by step, we keep making progress, working together with other stakeholders that also have an interest in the management of our inshore fisheries and moving forward, however slowly that might appear at times.

 

Or we could all go carp fishing instead!

[seaside]

I'm not putting anything forward!

 

The revised and uncompleted draft, now incorporating the notes that DEFRA have taken at previous meetings of the input from all stakeholders within the sub-committee, is being 'put forward' by DEFRA, to the stakeholder group.

 

If the stakeholder group as a whole, agree, it will then go out for public consultation, which is what we are all looking forward to, so that a wider audience can make their views known.

 

Phase 2 of the Bass Management Plan, the Golden Mile, the proposals put forward by the National Mullet Club, these and many other issues will not be looked at further by DEFRA until they can be delivered as part of this overall strategy, so I personally hope that the process of getting the strategy in place is done sooner rather than later, so that real work can begin on many of the issues that we would like to see implemented.

 

As it is, the fact that the strategy framework is still being developed, is the reason that is given for not delivering to RSA on anything else.

 

That is very frustrating!

 

Leon - I may be wrong, and no doubt will get told so, but I believe the key issue here is a lack of understanding within the general RSA world exactly what is happening and that is what has led to a great deal of mistrust.

 

Perhaps it would be worth starting a new topic gathering together pretty much the main points from your last few postings so that everyone can understand the basics.

 

Something along the lines of why the strategy got developed, who's involved and what the process is - I'm pretty sure most people thought strategy gets developed -- gets cast in stone -- end of story RATHER THAN strategy gets developed -- goes out for broadest consultation -- then the government makes a decision.

 

My personal belief is that it's no good burying our heads in the sand as some would have us do, the government WILL go ahead and 'manage' RSA to some extent or another (directly or indirectly), so all RSA bodies should be aligned in common purpose to minimising the degree of management.

 

There will not be that level of alignment until there is a higher level of transparency of any dealings with the government who no-one seems ready to believe or trust anymore. This is especially true for us in Scotland, as the results down there could be cascaded directly by Finnie onto Scottish RSA, yet all the talk is only about England and Wales.

[Steve Coppolo]

It could have been killed off by the various other stakeholders there and then, we were fortunate that the RSA representatives were able to present the proposals in a way that secured stakeholder agreement to move forward.

 

Somehow I don't feel very "lucky". Bent over clutching my ankles wondering how much it's going to hurt is more like it!

[stavey]

Or we could all go carp fishing instead!

 

And thats exactly what the commercial boys and their lacky's want leon is'nt it?

 

I think 2007 will be remembered as the final break through for the rsa or it could be the start of the finish of rsa in this country (well in my part) if licenses and bag limits are put through without meaures like the golden mile before or atleast along with it? you have given me and others just a month to help out best we can, i will try but cant promis much there aint as many rsa's as you think left down here nowadays leon, cheers and good luck................

[Sharkbyte]

Leon,

 

who wrote it?

[frankthebass]

do the NFSA suport it?

[Leon Roskilly]

Leon,

 

who wrote it?

 

 

Following the creation of the Coastal Waters team within DEFRA which was given the responsibility for RSA issues (something that in the past MAFF/DEFRA had declined believing that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport were the department to deal with angling issues, even though DEFRA manages the fish stocks!), RSA was pushing for the Coastal Waters Policy Team to come up with a strategy for developing Recreational Sea Angling.

 

The Coastal Waters Policy team asked what kind of things we had in mind and suggested a meeting.

 

Prior to that meeting a wide number of angling organisations, federations species clubs, boating organisations etc were invited to discuss what was needed to guide the future of RSA. Perhaps because of the usual problems of travel, getting days off work, not all invited attended.

 

At the meeting an original paper was prepared, drawn from the input of the attendees.

 

The aim was to produce proposals that were achievable, rather than nice to have but impossible.

 

The draft was circulated to the SACN membership for feedback.

 

At the subsequent meeting with DEFRA, some of their recommendations were incorporated into the draft.

 

We had hoped, perhaps presumed, that DEFRA would simply take ownership of the strategy, roll up it's sleeves and start to deliver.

 

But DEFRA pointed out that they were not there to service the needs of any particular stakeholder over the views of any other, and before they could take ownership of the strategy it would need to be broadly accepted by other stakeholders.

 

So, it was taken to the Inshore Working Group of the DEFRA Marine Stakeholders Forum who formed a sub-committee to deal with the document.

 

At three subsequent meetings, the sub-committee comprising of:

 

(Those that have attended at least one meeting)

 

RSA SUBGROUP MEMBERSHIP

 

Member - Organisation

 

Chris Venmore - Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)/Devon SFC

Doug Beveridge - National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Graham Catt - Department of Culture Media & Sports (DCMS)

John Leballeur - Bass Anglers Sport fishing Society (BASS)

Leon Roskilly - Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)

Mat Mander - Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee

Nigel Proctor - National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Richard Ferre - National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Rob Blyth-Skyrme - Natural England (NE)

Tim Dapling - Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee

Steve Colclough - Environment Agency

Mike Pawson - Cefas

Alistair McDonnell - Marine Fisheries Agency

 

Defra

 

Anthony Hynes - Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)

Nicola Clarke - Coastal Waters Policy

Erin Priddle - Coastal Waters Policy

Simon Mundy - Defra Legal

 

 

(Note: I've only attended one meeting (not the last one) as a stand in for someone else - SACN were initially denied a place)

 

The original document was dissected paragraph by paragraph, wording challenged, changed, deleted, other issues raised and included, with DEFRA taking copious notes of everyone's input and broad consensuses reached.

 

It should be realised that this was now a forum of sometimes conflicting interests, where no one stakeholder had a veto or majority, so everything that was contentious had to be thrashed out until the majority of those involved could agree, even though not everyone was fully aboard with the agreement.

 

Sometimes that meant RSA had its contentious views supported and included, other times it meant that RSA had to accept that a compromise was needed, standing firm on important issues like keeping the Golden Mile included.

 

As all of the things that RSA was looking forward to, Phase 2 of the bass management plan, progress on the mullet paper, and development of other species plans, the Golden Mile proposals etc, were put on the shelf pending an agreed overall strategy, SACN became impatient at the slowness of progress and wrote to Ben Bradshaw urging that more resources be applied to dealing with RSA issues.

 

Following completion of the sub-committees perusal and input to the draft, DEFRA then amended the document according to the notes taken at the meeting and, at the recent bi-annual meeting between DEFRA and RSA, when the subject of the strategy was also raised, DEFRA has requested RSA organisations and those attending that meeting (as well as the RSA organisations, there were also RSA representatives on SFCs present) to present feedback by 1st February. Again SACN has asked it's membership for it's views.

 

Once the feedback has been given to DEFRA, they will submit a new draft to the stakeholder sub-committee on 6th February.

 

If it is accepted by the sub-committee, the work of that committee on the draft will be finished, and DEFRA will take ownership of the document and put it out for wider consultation. (The RSA Working Group was formed to deal with the strategy document, but as it has proved a useful forum in bringing together stakeholders from the various sectors to work together collaboratively on RSA issues that affect other stakeholders, I suspect it may live on after ownership of the RSA strategy passes to DEFRA)

 

Following that wider consultation, DEFRA may amend the draft further before starting to deliver on the proposals, some of which will require creation of new legislation, and some of which will require further consultation.

 

(The strategy is a framework giving direction for particular subsequent proposals to be integrated and implemented. Those proposals will require a lot more detail, and the detail will need to be consulted upon)

 

So, Who Wrote It?

 

Many people, many organisations, and in the future many more will have input into the final document.

 

do the NFSA support it?

 

 

To answer Sam's question.

 

You'd need to ask the NFSA, but it is an incomplete document.

 

NFSA have been involved at all stages and discussions.

 

I imagine that it won't contain everything that the NFSA wants, it will contain some things that the NFSA would prefer not to have.

 

In the constraints of producing something achievable, that has the broad acceptance of most stakeholders, there will always be things that are not welcomed by some, and necessary omissions that others would prefer to have in.

 

But the reality is that until the strategy is in place, there will be no work on the many issues that will benefit RSA.

 

If we hold out for something that is perfect in every way, from RSAs perspective, we will be waiting forever (which doesn't mean that we don't push very hard for what we want to be included and what we don't want to be left out).

 

 

What must be borne in mind is all of the above is my own understanding of the process and timescales involved, others who have been more closely involved may want to differ on some of the detail.

 

Previous History:

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/i...1&year=2006

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=586

 

http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...gy_Delayed.html

 

http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...A_Strategy.html

Edited December 30, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

The aim was to produce proposals that were achievable, rather than nice to have but impossible.

 

Can you tell us what, and by whom, was considered to be impossible, and what is considered achievable?

 

Do fish fit in anywhere?

Edited December 30, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[Leon Roskilly]

Can you tell us what, and by whom, was considered to be impossible, and what is considered achievable?

 

Well banning all commercial fishing out to 200 miles would be very nice to have from an RSA perspective, but would most likely be unachievable, so as it was never put forward, I guess that all involved considered it unachievable.

 

 

The 'proposals that were achievable, rather than nice to have but impossible' was a guiding principle.

 

I can't remember that any ideas were floated but rejected on that basis (but I was only at one of the IWG meetings), most sensible people wouldn't put forward ideas that are obviously unachievable, though a few contentious ideas are contained within the document.

 

Do fish fit in anywhere?

 

Yes

 

Have a read through Steve, the importance of more and bigger fish is mentioned, and so is the need to develop species management plans for fish that anglers value etc.

 

Remember that this is a strategy framework, once the framework is established detailed work can begin on things like species management plans etc, to deliver benefits for RSA (and the species of value to RSA) within the overall strategy.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Leon Roskilly