Solway Cockle Fishery Management Study

7. Discussion and Observations for Developing the Fishery

7.1 Specific Research Questions

As outlined in the introduction this management trial set out to test four key questions; the first was how successful was the trial for;

• creating fair and transparent involvement of fishers?
• incentivising fishers to harvest sustainably?
• enforcement agencies to track and police activity?
• improving local community's understanding and perceptions of the fishery?

Due to the low cockle yields in November 2013, the trial did not deliver sufficient data to answer all of these questions. In early meetings, fishers expressed their views on the fair and transparent involvement of fishers with many declaring their discontent with the way the cockle fishery had been managed in the past and the lack of input and control that pickers had in the management. The questionnaire also provided a platform for fishers to express their views onthe way the fishery should be managed and most agreed with the principles surrounding a restricted fishery.

The mechanism behind a restricted fishery will disadvantage those who are not included and therefore access criteria are important. Health and safety training should be a minimum requirement and all fishers involved stated the value of this training and ethos for improving the image of cockle fishing. Other access criteria were explored during the literature review stage of this project and are detailed in section 2 and in the annex, but because of the duration of this study, little evidence was collected which would promote one approach over another. This will need to be explored further as the management of this fishery develops.

The incentives for fishers to harvest sustainably were, we believe, apparent in this management approach and supported by the literature i.e. secure and exclusive access, as awarded through acontract incentivises fishers to harvest in a sustainable manner as the competitive race to fish is removed and fishers are able to prioritise profits by selling a better quality product (Wilen et al, 2012). However, in the short period that the study ran, pickers behaviour did not reflect that. The minor infractions though detected and dealt with demonstrated an internal breakdown. Exacerbating factors to this breakdown were likely due: 1) the inconsistent quality of the cockles so cocklers did not feel confident in high prices; 2) the time limitation on the study so pickers did not feel as if they had a secure tender and behaved in the short rather than long term; 3) the start and stop nature of the study creating an immediate sense of insecurity that the fishing could finish at any time, which; 4) at the later stages of the study, had by the end, eroded pickers' belief in the system. Unfortunately the length of this study did not allow these issues to be resolved.

Much progress has made been in terms of the enforcement agencies ability to track and police activity and all agencies support the approach to governing this fishery and the attention to suitable controls and restrictions were well received. Compliance officers have had the opportunity to work with the fishers and to see first-hand the progress of those engaged in the fishery at a local level. Taking this fresh approach has also allowed responsible agencies to consider how they can develop and modernise the fishery and work with other agencies in other UK cockle fisheries.

Much work has taken place to improve the image of the cockle fisheries in the local community which involved many organisations but especially the efforts of the Solway Firth Partnership. The multi-media approach of direct leafleting coastal communities, direct approaches to key coastal contacts (including emails and meetings), press work and online information informed a wide audience. This work has resulted in the majority of communities understanding the key objectives of a safe and controlled fishery and whilst there is still concern around how this will be achieved, most communities and local organisations have welcomed this direct approach. It is worth noting the particularly helpful response from the National Trust for Scotland which helped distribute information leaflets door to door as well as putting laminated copies on noticeboards in the area to keep local residents informed.

While it was observed that there is still some negativity towards the cockle fishery amongst some coastal communities, there appears to be the potential to build confidence and encourage a broader sense of ownership of the fishery. For example, the common interest in the natural environment shared by cockle pickers and countryside rangers was clearly evident in site meetings and there was a willingness on both sides to share information of interest and listen to each other needs and concerns. This shared approach needs to continue.

7.1.1 What are the social and economic benefits to the local area?

Due to the suspension and early termination of the project, the study was unable to generate the data required to quantitatively explore the economic benefits to the local area. It did however demonstrate that the model would be profitable had it continued for a longer period of time which would have allowed the start-up costs to be off-set by higher tonnage. It was unfortunate that pickers were not able to benefit more from the study and it is understood that expectations were not met by those who invested their time in the study.

What was demonstrated by the work was that by working with a defined group of fishermen within an organisational structure it was possible to engage and develop solutions regarding specific issues e.g. access and avoidance of sensitive habitats which would have been much more difficult had the fishing group been larger or without a unified structure. The need for increased dialogue between those interested in developing this fishery and local organisations and community representatives is apparent and needs to continue to improve the negative image cockling still has in the area and to build a sense of pride and purpose to harvesting this local resource. Depending on how this fishery is governed in the future, a closely defined group of pickers as supported under the TURF model offers many benefits, yet as discussed below, whether this is the ideal model for this fishery is questionable. This will now be explored.

7.1.2 What local capacity is there to develop, monitor and manage a TURF system?

One of the main challenges with the TURF system is the internal management of the fishing teams. Within this study, on-beach supervisors were appointed and in this case they rotated their management so each supervisor had the opportunity to harvest cockles. This was a demanding role as the supervisors were not only earning through harvesting, but were also in charge of the workers, and the supervision of daily landings limits and equipment which at times was highly pressurised. Given the time frame and the divergence of this system from the management regimes in other cockle fisheries, the significant challenges of getting a team to work appropriately and together are recognised and the supervisors efforts appreciated. However, it is widely acknowledged that this fishery has been dominated by fragmented and fractious groups with low levels of social capital for many years (Nautilus Consultants Ltd, 2013) and this study produced little evidence to counter this. We acknowledge that the study was short lived and any new management approach will have a bedding-in period, however the strains and mistrust between the picking and operations team was apparent very soon after the selling of the cockles become challenging. This tension undermined the ethos of the TURF model and demonstrated a shortfall in the social capital required to implement this type of model. This is not to suggest that this model could not be implemented in the future once those involved in the cockling have adapted to a more communal approach to harvesting, but under the current conditions, internal management is insufficient to implement a successful TURF approach to fisheries management.

Whilst a number of the key elements which are promoted through a TURF system are useful in shaping how eligibility criteria can be set and defining privileges, this study has not sufficiently proven that a TURF system would be the best approach for assigning exclusive access to a particular group for internal management (bottom-up approach), as opposed to a general licensing system where pickers apply with a predefined set of rules (top-down approach). What was clear was that industry stakeholders who were not directly involved in the trial worked hard to undermine this system. Due to the fractious nature of social networks and the well-establishedpractises of individual fishers working for individual gain, the fishery requires a governing structure that can accommodate this situation whilst working to improve social cohesion.

7.2 Observations Based on Results from this Period

7.2.1 Management Observations

Observation 1 - It should be a prerequisite that all hand licences associated with a cockle fishery require completion of the basic four safety courses and an area-based training course e.g. the new Solway Shore Awareness course.

Observation 2 - The fishery should have a fully documented process which can track bags of cockles back to the picker and the beach area, all the way through the chain to the final customer. The paperwork produced during the study is fit of this purpose and should be used as a template and refined as and when required. What is key is that the process should be as streamlined and straightforward as possible to facilitate compliance.

Observation 3 - Access to the beds via the foreshore is a critical factor to success and requires significant investment of time and effort. Improving access needs to be explored further which could include working with commercial farms near commercial beds. These businesses have the capacity to support this type of activity and by paying a levy per ton other businesses are able to benefit from the cockling activity whilst reducing local disturbance to communities.

Observation 4 - Building in capacity to improve and develop food safety should continue with the advancement of this fishery. Given that the demand for better food traceability is only likely to increase, the Solway cockle fishery is in a good position to lead on this with the collaboration of the FSAS and the Local Authority (Dumfries and Galloway Council).

Observation 5 - Future management of the Solway cockle fishery should offer the opportunities for young inexperienced fishers to enter and benefit from the local resource. This could be achieved through apprenticeship schemes, however fishing opportunity needs to be monitored to ensure that new entrants have the chance to work in the fishery once apprenticeships are completed.

Observation 6 - Due to the seasonal nature of this fishery, specific opportunity could be made available to fishers who work in other fisheries but who may wish to diversify and supplement their main fishing activity with cockling. This could be offered through a limited number of part time licences that become available once the TAC for that year fishery is known and allocation for long-term licence holders is assessed and met. This should not affect the rights of qualified fishers who may wish to apply for a long-term licence.

Observation 7 - A central distribution centre offers many benefits for improved compliance and food traceability and should be given serious consideration for future management. The two most promising elements from the study - the administration of landings and cockle monitoring for toxins in one location should be maintained, but whether this facility should act more like a traditional fish market, where the sales are operated by a number of individuals/agencies and a fee is charged by the centre to cover costs is an open question.

Observation 8 - Knowing the rate of pay prior to picking commencing is desirable and should be an aspiration for this fishery however other fair payment systems should also be explored. What is important is that transparent transactions take place so that pickers know they are being suitably rewarded for their efforts.

Observation 9 - The funding of the fishery should be explored further as whilst a flat-rate levy upon each individual's harvest is a viable option, how this fund is used and re-distributed requires further investigation.

Observation 10 - As the management plan for the fishery develops, markets need to be kept in mind, but efforts should focus on harvesting cockle in their peak condition and at a volume and consistency appealing to a range of different markets. This requires attention to be given to the number of permanent and temporary licences on offer and whether vessels should be involved if the annual TACs support their inclusion.

Observation 11 - A conservation working group should be established to address some of the information gaps identified and support the development of a low impact fishery.

7.2.2. Number of fishing licences

Using the harvest data presented in section 5.5, preliminary estimates can be made to establish the number of hand collection licences which could be awarded on the Solway given an available TAC. Using the high harvest rates (305 kg) and given the desire to harvest over 10 tonnes per day to improve economic margins by working at volumes that lower shipment cost etc., Table 6 presents the number of licences that could be made available given the TAC and expected length of season. For example should it be expected that the season will last for 50 tides (around 2.5 months) and the agreed TAC is 800,000 kg (800 tonnes), 52 licences would be awarded. Should the season expect to be shorter e.g. 30 tides (1.5 months) because of bad weather then 87 licences would be made available to collect the 800,000 kg. Assigning the licences in this way would indicate that a daily TAC would be assigned to stop the overall TAC from being removed too soon. However, given the variability in picking rates, this form of management may only be required towards the end of the season as the TAC becomes exhausted.

Table 6: Number of licences awarded under the high picking rate depending on TAC and length of season. Dark red indicate number of licences which would generate less than 10 tonnes per tide which should be avoided and the broken red indicates the number of licences which may result in social problems from a high volume of pickers and therefore may require the inclusion of vessels.

As stated in section 4.1.1 when developing a sustainable management model, different harvesting methods can add flexibility in a system which is desirable as different fishing methods offer different benefits as well as different impacts. Whilst there is a clear preference at a local level for hand collection only, at this time there is no reason to state that vessels should be excluded should a suitable TAC be available. Vessels can operate in areas inaccessible to hand collectors and can harvest a significant volume which can improve profit margins, which if managed correctly can benefit the local region through fees and levies to contribute to the financial stability of the fishery (Southall & Tully, 2013). As stated in section 1 the problems of having a large number of pickers operating from the shore are well understood and therefore a limit of around 100 pickers may be desirable to mitigate these social issues and the remaining TAC allocated to vessel on an annual basis once the TAC is known.

As described in section 2.2.3 it is important to offer security of tenure to facilitate long term investment in the fishery which given the social objectives of this fishery, one option would be to 'ring fence' for example, the first 1,400,000 kg (1,400 tonnes) for hand collection and the remainder to be offered on an annual basis to other fishing groups (e.g. vessels). To build in a buffer for short seasons, 40-50 long term (e.g. 3 - 5 years) licences could be permitted and then annual hand licences to collect any additional TAC could be permitted e.g. 42 if there is a 1,400,000 kg TAC and an expected season of 50 tides. This would offer a core group of pickers secure tenure ^[7] , as well as offering opportunities to other pickers on an annual basis and potential opportunity to vessels in the year when there is a large TAC. How these thresholds would be decided upon is a managerial decision but table 6 is a useful guide to aid these discussions.

7.3 Recommendations for Future Work

Much work has been undertaken to improve understanding of the Solway cockle fisheries and the challenges with long term management. This is one of a recent suite of work along with the Southall and Tully (2014) report and the Nautilus consultant Ltd (2013) report. There are however still gaps which should be investigated whilst real efforts are made to open the fishery under the ecological, social, economic and development criteria outlined in table 1.

The first gap is the fair and transparent allocation of permits and licences and the eligibility criteria under which to award permits. This was one of the study's aims, but data was insufficient to inform on this criteria. The criteria outline for TURFs in Poon & Bonzan's (2013) handbook supplied a solid foundation and should be used to inform on this process once the management framework is put in place.

A second area identified by some of the conservation groups was that high quality maps need to be available to harvesters which illustrate habitat types and providing clear information about sensitivity and the activities that should and should not take place. In conjunction, there is a clear opportunity to provide training to improve identification of habitats on the ground and better understanding of their ecological value. Offers for partnerships to provide training in the future have been received.

7.4 Role of Government in the Future Solway Cockle Fishery

Currently the responsibility for the opening and closing of the Solway cockle fishery is with Marine Scotland. Assurances given at the stakeholder meetings that the fishery would only be open if a management regime is in place still hold, but there are a range of approaches which could be used, each adopting increased layers of regulation. As stated in the Nautilus report (2013) it is easy to over-simplify the issues associated with the management of this fishery. This fishery has been surrounded by conflicting views for many years, with groups arguing for the fishery to be open and with equal ferocity, those arguing for it to remain closed. Therefore developing this fishery needs to take into account not only the economic performance of the fishery, but also the impacts of this fishery on other key stakeholders in the region.

Table 7 presents these options and reviews how each option meets the objectives outline in table 1. The role of government decreases as each layer is implemented whilst the involvement of local organisations and stakeholders increases.

Table 7: Management Options of the Solway Cockle Fishery with grades on level of benefits - High benefit/results to low benefit/results.

Management Options	Implementation Period	Sustainability (environmental and economic)	Safety (pickers and food)	Controlled (compliance and policing)	Local benefits (economic and social)	Resources required
Closed - No cockle fishing permitted	Immediate	High - no fishing mortality so stocks remain at natural biomass - this is assuminglimited poaching. No need for stocks assessments so data deficient for understanding and monitoring stock dynamics. No economic dependence.	Medium - no legal fishing related risks - less people exposed. High risk linked to poaching activity e.g. fishing at night, fishing in small groups for illegal cocklers. Risk to food safety from unclassified cockles in the market.	Medium - facing similar past challenges with compliance e.g. large area with many access points. New powersand multi-agency approach may reduce these challenges significantly.	Low toMedium - no direct economic benefits from resource. Potential social benefits from limited to no disturbance from fishing activity and to wild life conservation areas.	Compliance only Low burdento other agencies
Under scientific advice with an allocated Total Allowable Catch ( TAC) and Appropriate Assessment ( AA)
Open - Time limited fishery (Olympic fishery model)	After TAC, AA and water classification (Sept 2015)	Low to Medium - fishing mortality as guided by TAC but significant control issues - see controlled section.	Low - being time limited resources could be made available for short periods but unrestricted access would carry safety risks due to the size of the Solway. Medium food safety risk due to localised threats from blanket classification.	Low - control on opening and closing only with estimates on catch rates per day tomanage TAC. High risk of overshooting TAC. Due to the volume of access points low control on fishers activity throughout the area.	Low - Economic benefits to some local fishers but value unknown - high potential for value to leave the area. High risk of disturbance to local community, businesses and other Solway user, but time limited and could be managed.	Compliance and site management during opening Mediumburden - long term
Under scientific advice with an allocated TAC and AA, with new legislation e.g. fishery bill or a Regulating Order ( RO)
Open - Time and licence limited fishery (Olympic fishery model - with restrictions)	After TAC, AA, water classification and licences (earliest Sept 2016)	Medium - fishing mortality as guided by TAC and number of licences. Reporting of illegal active should improve if access is restricted.	Medium - being time and licence limited, resources could be made available for short periods. Restricted access should improve safety - but risks still associated due to the size of the Solway. Medium food safety risk due to localised threats from blank classification.	Medium - control on opening and closing and number of fishers. Reduced risk of overshooting TAC. Due to the volume of access points low control on fishers activity.	Medium - Economic benefits to some local fishers but dependent on licence conditions. Less risk of disturbance to local community, businesses and other Solway user, but risk is time limited and could be managed.	Compliance and site management during opening. Licence administration Mediumburden - long term
Open - Time, licence and area restricted (beds open in stages) fishery	After TAC, AA, and licences. Waterclassifications in stages (earliest Sept 2016)	Medium tohigh - as above but beds fished individually so more accountability to localstock levels. Economic sustainability low risk as spread through the fishery.	High - being time and licence limited, resources could be made available for short periods. Restricted access through licences and location should improve safety. Low food safety risk due to beds surveyed during collection.	Medium to High - control on opening and closing and number of fishers. Reduced risk of overshooting TAC. Due to the volume of access points low control on fishers activity.	Medium to High - economic benefits to local area but dependent on licence and access conditions. Low risk of disturbance to locals as access managed and numbers restricted.	Compliance and site management. Licence administration. Also guidance of opening of bed Medium to high burden - long term
Open - Licences with Distribution Centre ( DC)	After TAC, AA, licences and DC. Water classifications in stages (earliest Sept 2016)	Medium - assurances that TAC is met due to no time limit ( AA restrictions only). Economic sustainability medium risk due to tight controls on the market which may effect demand.	High - internal management through one/two centres which prioritises pickers and product safety - full traceability is a viable aspiration.	High - fully documented fishery with multi-agency approach. Methods to control high, but dependent on internal capacity.	High - economic benefits to local area no matter the licencing composition - onshore business can benefit. Social benefits as above.	Complianceand process managed. Licence administration. Also guidance of opening of bed. Highburden - long term