Rob Carter: How powerful could the European angling trade be?

Here’s a question. Just how powerful is the European angling trade?

Not how big is it. Not how much tackle does it sell. But when its representatives at EFTTA walk into a room in Brussels and ask policymakers to listen, how much weight do they really carry?

I found myself thinking about that after reading the latest position paper on sea bass from EFTTA’s strategic partner, the European Anglers Alliance. One point in particular jumped out at me. Alongside the arguments about stocks, management and sustainability was that increasingly important phrase: socio-economic value. I’ve seen for myself why that matters.

Some years ago, I sat in on a meeting between representatives of the European fishing tackle trade and the EU Fisheries Minister. I expected the conversation to be dominated by fish, conservation and sustainability. Instead, the questions that really seemed to interest the Minister were about jobs. How many people does this industry employ? How much economic activity does angling generate? What does it contribute to communities?

It has stayed with me ever since. Because politicians and policymakers don’t just see recreational fishing as an activity. What they want to see is the economy that exists around it. And that raises an interesting question. Who actually represents that economy?

At European level, we have two organisations working closely together. The EAA represents anglers through its member organisations. EFTTA represents the industry and has its roots in the fishing tackle trade. Between them, that sounds pretty comprehensive. But is it? Because there is an enormous constituency of people across Europe who may not naturally think of themselves as part of either camp. They aren’t necessarily represented as anglers. And they don’t necessarily regard themselves as members of the traditional tackle trade. But they make their living because people go fishing.

Guides. Charter skippers. Fishery owners and managers. Fishing lodges and resorts. Angling-tourism businesses. Holiday operators. Boat businesses. Specialist accommodation providers. Event organisers. Instructors. Publishers. Content creators. Technology companies. And many more. They are all part of the recreational-angling economy.

Some may already sit within existing organisations. EFTTA itself has broadened its reach beyond the traditional definition of the tackle trade. So this isn’t an argument for another association, nor is it a criticism of the organisations already doing the hard work of representing angling in Brussels. It is a question of scale.

Imagine, for a moment, that the European angling trade decided to march through the streets of Brussels. There’s a huge banner at the front carrying its message to the EU institutions. Who is walking behind it? If we define the trade narrowly, perhaps the procession consists of the owners, directors and employees of the companies that manufacture bait and distribute and sell fishing tackle. Important businesses. Important employers. But how long is the procession?

Now imagine that banner represented something bigger. Behind the tackle companies come the retailers. Then the guides. The charter skippers. The fishery owners. The people running fishing lodges and resorts. Behind them are the businesses bringing anglers across borders to fish. The hotels and campsites that accommodate them. The boat businesses that serve them. The people creating angling media, running events, developing technology and providing services. And behind them come thousands upon thousands of small businesses and self-employed people across Europe whose income depends, wholly or partly, on recreational fishing.

Now how long is the procession? More importantly, what happens when that procession arrives at the doors of the European institutions and somebody asks: “Who do you represent?” The answer is no longer simply a collection of fishing tackle companies. It is potentially hundreds of thousands of European livelihoods. And that is a very different conversation.

The interesting thing is that the EAA and EFTTA already understand the importance of speaking together. Their relationship brings together the interests of anglers and industry at European level. Perhaps the next opportunity is to think even bigger about what we mean by ‘industry’. Because maybe the most useful definition of the European angling trade isn’t simply the businesses that sell things to anglers. Maybe it is everybody who makes a living because people go fishing. That distinction matters.

When access to fishing is threatened, when regulations are being written or when decisions about fisheries are being made, there is an economic consequence attached to those decisions. Businesses. Jobs. Families. Communities. Livelihoods. And if socio-economic value is one of the arguments that resonates most strongly in Brussels, surely there is value in giving a collective voice to all the people who create it.

Perhaps some of them currently fall between the cracks. Perhaps some could already belong to one organisation or another but simply don’t see those organisations as representing them. Either way, the opportunity is the same. The EAA’s sea bass paper asks Europe to recognise the socio-economic importance of recreational angling. Maybe the European angling trade should take that thought and run with it. Bring that fragmented constituency together. And then, the next time somebody in Brussels asks, “Who exactly do you represent?”, we might have one hell of an answer.