news/editorial

2 November 2014 News/Editorial

Once upon a time, in a beautiful land blessed with abundant rivers and streams, there was an MFG (Man From Government) who was appointed by BCG (Big Central Government) to review the management of its freshwater fisheries; and he was minded to come down and consult with the best salmon river of them all, the Tweed, as part of his overall BCG review of all such rivers in this most beautiful of all lands.

And so he did, and met with the people who were running the Tweed, albeit briefly, and while so doing, he displayed no more than a passing interest in what the Tweed actually did, or why it was so successful. He was on a mission from BCG to cover as many rivers as possible in that most beautiful land, and had a paltry 6 months in which to complete his review.

By way of background, because the Tweed is located 80% in this most beautiful of lands and 20% in a neighbouring, not quite so beautiful (but still very beautiful), land, it had been governed by the people, in both lands, who live around it, since 1807, under its very own law.

At no time in over 200 years had it called on the public purse run by BCG (or its predecessor, an even bigger BCG), being wholly self sustaining, and in the latter part of the 20th century it had become, by its own volition, the most democratic of all rivers, being governed by 81 elected people who meet, by law, every calendar quarter, and who are drawn, again by law, from every part of the river catchment.

Most remarkably, those who owned the salmon fishing rights on the river, had agreed, as long ago as the middle of the 20th century, that they should form a minority, being only 38 of the 81 who govern the Tweed.

Unlike the other rivers in this most beautiful of lands, the Tweed is responsible for all freshwater fish, not just salmon and sea trout.

The review (now published) by MFG (and his Panel of three) for BCG will result, if implemented, in the following for the Tweed, despite there being not one word of adverse comment or criticism on how it is constituted or how it operates:

1. The RTC (River Tweed Commission) comprising the 81 elected Commissioners will be abolished after over 200 years.

2. It will be replaced by a local Fisheries Management Organisation (FMO) whose standard constitution and legal status is as yet unknown, but could well be less democratic and less well represented than the current RTC has been for over 50 years.

3. The RTC raises from Tweed owners of fishing rights, by annual assessment, approved every year by all 81 commissioners, based on fish catches, approximately £750,000 pa to fund the RTC and its sister charity, the Tweed Foundation. This will cease, and BCG will raise a central standard levy on all Tweed fishery owners including those in the neighbouring, not quite so beautiful land (who own no property in, and have no vote in electing, BCG), at a level which will be decided by BCG without any reference to the Tweed. The proceeds of this central levy will be “deployed across the most beautiful of all lands in a fully transparent manner” but funds may not come back to Tweed where “the need is greater in other areas.” In other words, the Tweed will have some of the funds raised from it by BCG confiscated and removed to other areas, without any right of appeal. The Tweed will be able to seek a local enhanced levy, but only if BCG approve and raise it centrally by further levy on Tweed owners. Tweed will no longer raise any funds of its own directly by assessment on owners.

4. Despite there being no comment or criticism of how Tweed has implemented necessary restrictions on killing salmon up to now, including full 100% catch and release to the end of June every year, and the RTC spending over £2 million in reducing commercial netting so that now no significant river or coastal netting exists, BCG (via a suitable “public authority”) is going to decide in advance every year, on application by fishery owners, how many salmon the Tweed and its rod salmon fishery owners (because there are almost no nets) can kill, and charge a fee for telling Tweed owners what they can, or most probably cannot, do, without any indication as to how this will work in practice eg where (most) beats have multiple tenants.

In this most beautiful of all lands, the outlook is pretty bleak for Tweed.

BCG does not like rivers with wholly autonomous powers over their own affairs; BCG seeks control, as BCG always does, regardless of whether it is good for the rivers and its fish, or not.

MFG in his report pays lip service to the importance of localism, but is both blind to and misunderstanding of the devastating and demotivating impact of removing final decision making, especially control of the money, on local voluntary support and justified pride in “our” river.

And if BCG takes (“redeploys”) funds away from the Tweed to other areas where “the need may be greater” (who decides that?... BCG of course), will the Tweed FMO seek to make up that lost money by increasing the local enhanced levy (to be raised centrally and distributed back to the Tweed by BCG, of course) on fishery owners? It might try, but most probably Tweed owners will refuse, so Tweed will have that much less money to run itself every year.

Brilliant.

And what of the owners of 20% of the Tweed who live in that not quite so beautiful land, next door, on the other side of the river?

Is it legally possible for BCG to levy a “tax” (for such it is) on owners of Tweed fishing who have no vote in electing BCG and who own no property in BCG’s territory? And is BCG going to take money from owners of property in altogether another (not quite so beautiful) land, and “redeploy” some of it to fund areas in that most beautiful of all lands where “the need may be greater”?

Now that would be something.

If it is, genuinely, more democratic accountability that lies behind this unwarranted attack on the Tweed’s status quo (rather than, as suspected, that BCG just does not like the current system of river boards, which it does not control), then what a good way it is to demonstrate that democratic principle by taxing those who have no possibility of representation, and whose property, which will be the subject of the tax, is in a foreign land.

If, as seems more than possible, the Tweed decides to oppose these core conclusions of MFG’s review, what will other river boards in this most beautiful of all lands do?

They, by contrast, might like the review, because the poorer small west coast rivers stand to get some of the “redeployed” funds (a curious twist to be given money by BCG (from the Tweed), when it is BCG that has ruined their rivers in the first place by allowing and encouraging a proliferation of fish farms), they will like the licensing of what nets can kill, even if at the expense (literally as there will be a fee) of giving away all control of what rods can kill……...and there is a general feeling abroad that it would be dangerous to go against what BCG wants to do, because the review could have been a lot worse (and so it could).

So what will the Tweed do?

Borderers are independent folk, fiercely proud and protective of where they live and its heritage…...and they are fighters….on both sides of the Border. The Tweed is at the very heart of it, the thread that holds it together, the unifying and the overpowering symbol of the eastern Borders; and the salmon, who come in from Berwick every year and run up over 60 miles into the Peeblesshire hills and beyond to spawn, is Tweed’s iconic species.

Since 1807 when Sir Walter Scott and others set up the Tweed Commission, we Borderers, in both lands, have looked after our fish well.

Are we going to give that up, and the essential local control and concomitant pride which that brings, without a fight?

BCG would do well to listen to the will of the 81 elected Commissioners when they next meet in early December. What right does BCG have to override or ignore that collective will?

The majority vote will prevail, as it always has, in a forum where the views of those who live in “the not quite so beautiful land” are well represented.

Invariably, the views of all 81 are if not unanimous, then almost so. We like to operate, down here on the Tweed, by consensus.

It is to be hoped, in relation to BCG’s Wild Fisheries Review and the impact on Tweed, that this will be no exception.

Control, and who should best exercise it for the good of Tweed, for the people who live around it, in both lands, and for all its fish, is at stake……

….and the stakes could not be much higher.