|
Closed consultation - May 2005 –
Record of decision
1. Advertisement
The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
(SWSFC) proposes to make the following byelaw :
- prohibiting
the taking of sea fish from within the greater part of
the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve.
Provision is made for historical commercial fishermen (having fished regularly
in 4 of the last 5 years) to continue fishing using pots
for a period of 10 years so long as the vessel remains
in the same ownership and subject to conditions. All sea
angling will also be banned except in that part in the
north-east which has historically been the most heavily
used area.
Any person wishing to object to the confirmation of the byelaw must send
a statement of their objection in writing to the NAW Minister
for the Environment, Planning and Countryside with a copy to
the Director of the Committee not more than 28 days after the
date of this advertisement. (8th April 2005)
SWSFC, Queens Buildings, Cambrian Place, Swansea. SA1 1TW
Tel: 01792 654466 Fax: 01792 645987 Email: SWSFC@aol.com Website: www.swsfc.org.uk
No person shall, fish for, take or remove any sea fish from any part of
the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve; being that area of the sea
lying within the northern point of Gateholm Island due North
to the mainland; from the southern point of Gateholm Island
a straight line in a direction of 278o(T) to a position 2.75
cables due south (T) of the western extremity of the Mew Stone
thence 2.75 cables off the mainland shore of Skomer around
the west coast of the Island to a position 2 cables due north
(T) of the Garland Stone, thence a straight line in a direction
of 098o (T) to a position 51o44.5'N,05o13'W, thence due south
(T) to the mainland coast, except that:
In that area lying to the east of a line drawn from the Reserve boundary
at 510 44.42N, 050 15.175'W thence in a southerly direction
to Tusker rock at 510 44.175N, 50 15.175W and thence
in an easterly direction to the mainland at 510 44.176N,
50 15.99W fishing using only hook and line shall be allowed.
The use of pots or creels shall
be allowed throughout the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve
(save Sec 2.1(d) experimental zones) from or in conjunction
with a vessel the owner of which is a 'historical user'
being a person who has met the qualification conditions
set out in Section 3.2 and whose name and circumstances
have been entered onto a register, to whom an annual permit
will be issued subject to the conditions below. Such persons
shall continue to have an authority to fish pots or creels
throughout the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve (save experimental
zones) for as long as the most recent vessel upon which
their record is based continues within the same ownership
and any replacement vessel remains in the same ownership
and has an overall length and capacity no greater than
that of the vessel replaced.
In the event
that a prior enforceable commitment existed to change a vessel
during the final year on which their record is based, this
vessel shall be used to determine overall length and capacity
and ownership.
Annual permits
will be issued to a historical user upon demand subject
to the following conditions:-
The holder shall submit catch and effort returns for all sea fish caught
within the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve Area.
The holder shall be entitled to
fish up to, but not exceeding, the average annual maximum
number of pots or creels fished during the five years of
the qualifying period by their vessel. This shall be recorded
in the register and permit referred to in Section 1(b),
and shall be subject to an annual reduction of 5% per annum
of that initial limit to a minimum of 50% of that initial
limit or 50 pots, whichever is the highest.
The holder shall also be required,
at the sole discretion of the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee,
to use a specified tag on each pot or creel at all times that
it is deployed within the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve Area.
No other pot or creel shall be carried in a readily deployable
state within the area prescribed in Section 1.
The holder shall not be authorized
to fish certain areas of which he/she shall be given 3 months
prior notice as may from time to time be marked by the Countryside
Council for Wales as experimental zones, the extent of which
shall not exceed 10% of the area of the Skomer Marine Nature
Reserve as a whole.
Annual permits
will not be issued to a historic user if they fail to meet
the permit qualifications set out in Section 1, or if they
cease to fish in the Marine Nature Reserve Area for a period
of 2 or more calendar years.
No permits will
be issued after 10 years following the date of confirmation
of this byelaw.
In Section 1(b) above relating to any historical user, the term 'fish
for' shall include the carriage within the prescribed
area of any fishing instruments not otherwise authorised
under the provisions of this byelaw and which are
in a readily deployable state. In the case of pots
or traps this shall include the containment of bait
of any description.
A 'historical
user' shall be the owner of any vessel who, based on activity
information collected by the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
and/or Countryside Council for Wales, has a record of having
regularly fished pots or creels within the Skomer Marine Nature
Reserve area in four of the last five calendar years (2000-2004
inclusive).
'Vessel capacity'
shall be defined by the formula - Overall length (in metres)
x breadth (in metres) + (total engine power in kilowatts x
0.45).
'ownership' shall
mean the person or persons named in the ownership and share
holding schedule entered upon the Register of British Fishing
Vessels for the purpose of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 for
the vessel concerned or any successor Act.
Existing South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee byelaws 'Prohibited Area
for use of dredges and beam trawls - Skomer' and 'Prohibited
area for scallop fishing - Skomer' confirmed by the Secretary
of State for Wales on the 4th December 1997 are hereby
revoked.
Yours faithfully
|
2. Supporting
statement by CCW
Afonwch eich ateb at/Please reply to: Skomer Marine Nature Reserve,
Martins Haven, Marloes, Haverfordwest, Pembs. SA62 3BJ
e-mail: skomer.mnr@ccw.gov.uk
Tel: (01646) 636736
By its very nature, all sea-fishing activity has some degree
of impact on the marine environment. Although this varies considerably
according to type of gear and level of effort, fishing affects
habitats and non-commercial species directly. This direct effect
and decreasing population sizes of commercial species, also contribute
to indirect effects on the marine ecosystem.
Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) byelaws were introduced
to protect the Reserve's marine wildlife from damage or destruction
when the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) was declared in 1990.
However, these byelaws exclude the taking of "seafish" as
defined under sea fishery legislation, and impacts arising as a
result of legitimate fishing operations, as these matters fall
under the statutory remit of the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
(SWSFC) and Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
CCW's byelaws are complemented by SWSFC byelaws that
prohibit dredging and beam trawling and the taking of scallops
by any method. Other than the protection afforded by these measures
and by voluntary codes of conduct, marine wildlife in the Reserve
is unprotected from the impacts of fishing activity.
The conservation deficiency arising from this gap in
legal protection has become increasingly recognised and criticised.
Also, the absence of any areas free from fishing activity has proved
an obstacle to wildlife monitoring and surveillance research.
At its meeting in 2002 the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve
Advisory Committee asked MNR staff to investigate the possibility
of no fishing areas for the MNR. This started with initial discussions
between SWSFC, CCW and the chair of the MNR Advisory Committee.
Following the 2003 MNR Advisory Committee meeting, which came just
after the news that English Nature had declared part of the Lundy
MNR a "No Take Zone", MNR staff were asked to continue
to develop ideas for the Skomer MNR with the primary goals, subsequently
endorsed by CCW, of:
Improved
and comprehensive protection for the marine wildlife and habitats
in the MNR;
Providing
an effective 'control' area for scientific (including fisheries) research,
monitoring and surveillance.
In addition, both the Advisory Committee and CCW recognise
and welcome the potential fisheries benefits, and would endorse
the additional goal of seeking to make a contribution to fisheries
improvement in the vicinity of the Reserve by safeguarding stock
and breeding reservoirs of shellfish and other species.
In 2003 Skomer MNR staff wrote to all fishermen registered
with South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee with addresses between
Fishguard and Tenby/Saundersfoot. Enclosed was a discussion document
entitled "Skomer Marine Nature Reserve - a possible 'no take
zone'?" together with a letter asking for their views.
From the responses received it was evident that the greatest concern
to fishermen was the effect that displacement of those currently
fishing within the MNR and the presumed consequent increase in
competition for ground outside the MNR would have on other fishermen
if a ban on fishing were imposed. The fishermen who would be directly
affected by any closure of the MNR to commercial fishing were also
understandably concerned about the impact to their livelihoods.
To deliver the long-term goals whilst accommodating
the socio-economic concerns, a stepwise, pragmatic approach, building
upon existing MNR byelaws, has been developed. The approach would:
Increase
protection of the features of the MNR, over a period of time, by
reducing the ecological impacts of fishing activity (both commercial
and recreational) to nil in the majority of the MNR (see map),
and to a very low level in the remainder
Enable
the Marine Nature Reserve to eventually deliver a level of protection comparable
to terrestrial National Nature Reserves.
Create
scientific "control" areas of great benefit to both fisheries
and conservation research as a whole, particularly considering the MNR's
location within the Pembrokeshire Marine Special Area of Conservation.
Create
the conditions that may have benefits to commercial fisheries in waters
adjacent to the MNR (as demonstrated in many locations world wide and,
most recently, at Lundy MNR).
In 2004 informal
"pre-consultation" was carried out to help shape the
elements to be contained in the proposed byelaw. MNR staff spoke
to over 50 organisations and individuals, including local fishermen
and their organisations, anglers and their organisations, diving
and angling charter operators, other commercial interests, academics,
the local community council, government agencies and non-government
organisations.
Concern has grown since 2002, when the current proposals for no-fishing
areas were first looked into, that fishing activity in the MNR has
increased each year (see graph) in terms of numbers of pots being fished
and also the proportion of the MNR's seabed now being fished. These
levels are now at their highest since MNR records began and that is
despite the number of boats being at an all-time low.
Not only does this mean that commercial species are coming under more pressure,
but the chances are increased of fragile and long-lived species that live
attached to the seabed being hit directly by the pots, end sinkers or damaged
by the ropes linking the pots scraping over the rock either as the pots
are put out or as they are hauled in.
One example of these organisms is the pink seafan,
a protected species in its own right, which at Skomer is very slow-growing
with very few new fans growing - MNR staff have only recorded two "baby" seafans
in 13 years and out of just over 100 fans that are monitored annually
4 including one of the new ones have disappeared.
Another fragile species is the Ross coral, which can
eventually grow up to a metre or more in diameter and provide a
home for hundreds of other species including juvenile fish and
crustaceans. At one site that was once well populated with these
we've seen the complete disappearance of colonies. This site is
on the more sheltered north coast of Skomer and well below the
damaging effect of storm waves, but where fishing does take place.
These effects need not necessarily be as a result of
fishing, but fishing is one of the few things with the potential
to cause mechanical damage to the seabed, particularly as anchoring
other than in certain designated areas is prohibited by code of
conduct and the area where the Ross coral disappeared from is not
frequented by divers.
Fishing with pots might or might not be the cause,
but the case cannot be proven either way because there is
nowhere in the MNR that is not fished that can act as a scientific
control area for comparison.
The potential for damage and the recognition of potential
damage, whether through damage to non-target species or through
the removal of several tonnes per year of ecologically important
commercial species, have both increased. To secure appropriate
management of this protected site it is our duty to address these
concerns.
(Numbers refer to
the sections of the draft byelaw - see separate document):
This
prohibition would include all users of the MNR, whether commercial
or recreational.
The
creation of the permitted area for angling (see map) should not be taken
as an assumption that angling has no negative effect on the marine environment
or that the permitted area is of lower conservation value. It is partly
a concession to the local community, which not only benefits economically
from anglers who come to fish from the shore, but use it widely themselves.
It is also partly acknowledging that restricting angling from the shore
would be very difficult given the resources available to SWSFC and CCW.
The area is the only part of the MNR accessible to shore angling and is
also the part used most by anglers in boats, including local charter boats.
Greater effort would
have to be made to promote existing MNR and national codes of conduct for
angling to reduce impacts on the marine environment.
and 3.2 The aim
is to limit fishing to those who have been using the area consistently
over the last few years and therefore would have had the most
to lose if the area was closed. It would achieve a reduction
in fishing effort in the long-term by not allowing others to
replace fishermen who retire from the fishery, but largely
addresses the main concern of fishermen during early consultation
that livelihoods would be lost or fishermen "displaced" from
the MNR and placed in direct competition with those outside
the MNR.
This condition seeks
to halt the increasing levels of potting taking place in the
MNR, but to allow individual fishermen's maximum pot numbers
to be set based on what they have been using over the qualifying
period. It also prevents fishermen increasing the number of
pots they fish in the MNR as others retire, which would cancel
out the desired decrease in the total number of pots in the
MNR. The annual reduction is intended to gradually increase
seabed protection without unnecessary hardship to fishermen.
The 50-pot limit is a concession to one fisherman who is already
close to that level.
This condition would
allow small study areas to be set up from the outset to help
assess changes in seabed wildlife.
Many
of those consulted felt that a defined end date would be preferable
to just relying on fishermen to retire from the fishery, which
may not have the desired outcome of reducing ecological impacts
of fishing to nil until decades into the future. This would
allow all concerned to plan for a specific point in the future.
A number organisations and individuals have taken the time
to respond to the informal "pre-consultation" and below
are some of the specific issues that they brought up, together
with responses from CCW staff.
Some of the answers
are repetition of what has already appeared in this document, but it is
nevertheless valuable to see them in the context of the questions put to
us.
Why restrict potting
if conservation value of MNR is still high despite generations
of fishing activity? |
All fishing activities
have a "footprint" on the seabed. Potting is
regarded to be one of the less damaging methods from the
point of view of damage to animals and plants other than
those the fishery is aimed at. However, these
"non-target" species are at risk because they live
attached to the seabed and risk being knocked off or physically
damaged by pots or the ropes between them. The reason there
is concern at the MNR is because the number of pots being used
in the MNR is increasing year on year and therefore increasing
the chances of damage.
Also some of the important "non-target" species have
declined in numbers (see below). |
There is no evidence
of damage from fishing activity. |
The MNR diving team
has seen (and occasionally videotaped) pots and ropes that
have damaged seabed wildlife, but our monitoring sites
are only at a few scattered sites and it is only if fishing
gear has been set across monitoring sites that observations
have been made. It is also very difficult to prove that
the decline of fragile animals like Ross Coral in some
areas is due to fishing activity because we have no areas
in the MNR that are not fished and therefore no way to
compare what the natural state of these populations should
be. |
No compensation has
been offered to fishermen. |
MNR staff are not aware
of any mechanism of compensation for loss of access to
areas normally open to all. How to agree a formula to calculate
compensation for fishermen who derive different proportions
of their income from the MNR is also an issue. The draft
byelaw tries to achieve a gradual phasing out of fishing
either waiting for fishermen to retire or by setting an
end date beyond which certificates would no longer be valid,
but which would give fishermen 10 or more years to ease
out of the area. |
An area of historic
importance for fishing will be removed from the grounds
available to fishermen in the future. |
True, but this proposal
would make it the only area of seabed not being fished
on the whole Wales coast. Also, fishing effort is now far
greater than it has been historically. |
This is just the
"thin end of the wedge" with regard to the Pembrokeshire
Marine Special Area of Conservation (in which the MNR lies)
and further
"no-take" areas. |
The area would be an
invaluable resource to the SAC if eventually all exploitation
in the MNR stopped, at which point we will have an area
of unexploited ecosystem to compare with other parts of
the SAC. This proposal is independent of any possible future
management of fisheries in the SAC. |
By pushing fishermen
out of the MNR pressure will increase on stocks outside
the MNR. |
One of the main principles
behind the way that the byelaw has been drafted is to reduce
the extent to which fishermen are "pushed" out
into other areas and thereby increasing pressure on stocks
outside the MNR or competition with other fishermen. |
The proposal discriminates
against fishermen. |
The byelaw will apply
to all users of the MNR who might want to remove any commercial
species. In fact the ban on taking living resources would
apply immediately to anyone other than the permit-holding
fishermen, and anglers in the permitted area. |
Is the track record
the appropriate way to decide qualification for the fishing
permit? |
Fishermen who have
fished regularly over the last five years would, on the
face of it, have the best claim to continue. If widen the
qualifying period to the last ten years then some of the
fishermen are the same and others have retired from the
fishery. |
It would make more
sense to prevent all uncontrolled human activity in the
MNR. |
There are limits to
what the law allows by way of restricting access to areas
of sea and, in any case, not all human activity need have
a detrimental effect on the marine wildlife of the MNR.
CCW also has to consider its remit to encourage enjoyment
of the countryside, coasts and inshore waters provided
it is done in an environmentally sustainable manner. |
The impact of divers
on the seabed through so-called "trampling" (physical
contact when landing on or moving over the seabed) would
not be controlled. |
Most divers of the
level of experience needed to dive the more sensitive areas
of the MNR, because of the depth of water and dangerous
currents, should have mastered buoyancy control and be
able to avoid damaging fragile seabed organisms. Intentional
or reckless damage to non-commercial species is already
prohibited by CCW byelaws. |
Diving activity would
remain completely unregulated under this proposal. |
Recreational or commercial
divers would be subject to the byelaw in exactly the same
way as anyone else in the MNR. The MNR currently has codes
of conduct to prevent divers taking commercial species
from the MNR; the byelaw would make it mandatory. As an
example scallops are already protected by SWSFC byelaw
and surveys have shown that since the byelaw was created
the scallop population has increased well, despite the
temptation they offer to divers! |
The proposal just keeps
things the same with regard to fishing effort. |
If only certain parts
of the proposed byelaw were implemented this would be true.
The current situation in the MNR is that the number of
pots being used in the MNR has increased over the last
few years, as has the area of the MNR being fished, despite
a decreasing number of boats operating. The proposed byelaw
if implemented in its entirety would halt that trend and
gradually reverse it. |
Potting is already
at saturation in the MNR, so it is unlikely to increase. |
We have learned from
more than one source that there are possibly three new
boats looking to target the MNR in 2005 and that they have
around 1800 pots between them. Even if they only try to
deploy these for a short time, until they realise it is
not economically viable or competition for space forces
them out, it would represent a huge increase in the number
of pots landing on the seabed. This increases the chance
of damage to the long-lived fragile species of concern,
which may take decades to recover if they do at all. |
Any phased reduction
of gear would be impossible to enforce. |
MNR staff carry out
regular surveys of potting effort in the MNR. These give
an estimate of the number of pots in the MNR at any one
time. There are also other mechanisms such as individual
pot tags that have been used in other pot fisheries and
can be used to double check if the surveys show a discrepancy.
CCW have agreed that MNR staff would be available to help
SWSFC "police" the byelaw. |
The proposal risks
alienating local commercial fishermen. |
The hope is that fishermen
will see the opportunities that the proposal presents:
The small annual reduction in the number of pots fished may
not affect total catches. Some fishermen have said that they
would expect to maintain their catch because they would be
able to fish fewer pots without fear of any
"spaces" being taken up by other fishermen. This
would cut their running costs and benefit the seabed.
Permit holders would be able to exert more control over the
way they manage their resource between them in that any methods
they develop to make the fishery more productive within the
limitations of the permit will not be exploited by others.
A pool of unexploited (eventually) shellfish producing large
amounts of larvae that disperse out from the MNR may benefit
the wider fishery.
Having an unexploited area for research would help in any bid
for Marine Stewardship Council recognition of the Pembrokeshire
fishery. This sort of labelling has the potential to increase
market value of catches from that fishery, particularly given
increasing environmental awareness among consumers. |
Suggest immediate prohibition of taking "sea fish"
in part of the MNR, alternatives put forward:
1.West of Garland Stone
and Mew Stone.
2.Island half of MNR
3.North or southern half of MNR |
Different subdivisions
of the MNR (1,2 & 3) were considered, but the main
area for fishing is around Skomer island, so there would
be strong objections from fishermen to a closure of what
they consider their prime grounds if that part of the MNR
were chosen.
When bad weather interrupts fishing either on the north side
or south side then fishermen can still operate in sheltered
conditions on the other side, so a north/south split (3) would
not be acceptable to fishermen either.
To permit taking of sea fish in the half of the MNR (1) that
has the main
"gateway" to the Reserve, Martins Haven, would also
create the impression in the recreational diving community
that the area is
"open" to them as well and would weaken the existing
codes of conduct. Besides other species being taken, a specific
concern then would be maintaining the current improvements
in the scallop population. Scallops would become a prime target
for misguided or malicious individuals.
Any of these three options would also risk "displacement" of
pots from the closed areas to whichever part of the MNR stayed
open to exploitation and so increase the chance of damage in
that part.
The current proposal seeks to minimise the confusion by keeping
it simple: no taking of anything by anybody anywhere, except
for permit holders, and angling in the permitted area. This
then marries with existing CCW byelaws and sea fishery byelaws
that are for the whole MNR. |
What about the effects
of angling on the MNR's wildlife? |
The creation of the
permitted area for angling should not be taken as
an assumption that angling has no negative effect on the
marine environment or that the permitted area is of lower
conservation value. It is partly a concession to the local
community, which not only benefits economically from anglers
who come to fish from the shore, but use it widely themselves.
It is also partly acknowledging that restricting angling
from the shore would be very difficult given the resources
available to SWSFC and CCW. The area is the only part of
the MNR accessible to shore angling and is also the part
used most by anglers in boats, including local charter
boats.
Greater effort would have to be made to promote existing MNR
and national codes of conduct for angling to reduce impacts
on the marine environment. Surveys of territorial fish populations
will continue as part of the MNR monitoring programme. |
What is the fuss about
if the area is still in good enough condition to provide
good landings of shellfish? |
This does not necessarily
mean that the rest of the environment is in good condition.
Also, speaking to individual fishermen and from our own experience
of experimental potting, numbers of lobsters appear high, but
many are not much above legal size. This does not bode well
for the long-term future of the lobster fishery if, as it would
appear, demand is outstripping supply. |
We can see that the
commercial fishery, which uses hundreds of pots, will damage
marine life, but local people have always caught small
numbers of shellfish "for the pot". Why not apply
restrictions to just the commercial operators? |
This would be seen
as discrimination against commercial fishermen, who earn
their living through fishing, in favour of those who have
no economic pressure to fish. How would limits be set on
the numbers of recreational potters? It could be argued
that removing commercial fishing from the MNR would make
it easier for recreational potters to operate.
This would also open the MNR up to removal of shellfish by
the 3000+ recreational divers who visit the MNR each year.
Discriminating between commercial and recreational potting
would also make any legislation very complicated and confusing. |
The proposal would
eventually result in the end of a traditional fishery practiced
by members of the local community for generations. |
One could ask what
constitutes a traditional fishery? Arguably not powerful
vessels with mechanical pot haulers capable of fishing
hundreds of heavy parlour pots as opposed to the small
open boats powered by sails/oars/small outboards with the
crew hauling wicker inkwell pots by hand that operated
years ago.
Only one family living in Marloes, the village closest to the
MNR, have fished the MNR in the 17 years since MNR records
began, whereas it is interesting to note that there are now
two families living in the village where the main income comes
from working for CCW's MNR team! |
It is hoped that the establishment of an area free
from the removal of any living resource will give valuable opportunities
for research, including fisheries research, as well as giving visitors
to the MNR the chance to see an area of Wales' coastal waters free
from exploitation. This is not a fishery management measure, but
an environmental one, but one that seeks to create the conditions
that may have benefits to commercial fisheries in waters adjacent
to the MNR.
Byelaws are firstly 'made' by a SFC i.e. constructed as a draft for advertisement
for public comment.
Objections
are frequently minimised where it is possible to do so and such action
does not compromise the intent of the byelaw with respect to the available
evidence .
Following
which the SFC seeks confirmation from the relevant Minister of the (now
possibly modified) byelaw into law.
The
Minister himself may request that the SFC assents to changes at his request
before he is prepared to confirm it. (i.e. put it into law).
The current draft has been prepared
jointly by CCW and SWSFC officers taking account of comments that have
already been made by some community and fishing interests and following
a meeting the Skomer MNR Advisory Committee on the 23rd November.
The attached byelaw draft has
additionally been circulated to other interests for comment 14 days before
the SWSFC meeting on the 4th February. The Committee may choose to take
into consideration such additional representation at this time.
An adequate summary of the byelaw
will then be widely advertised for two consecutive weeks in a form and
newspapers as the Minister considers fit. The full text will be available
from SWSFC eg on its website. The public will again be invited to comment
within a 28 day period following the second advertisement.
The Committee will consider
all such comments in deciding whether to seek confirmation of the byelaw
in whatever form.
.
An attached paper by
CCW promotes the need for such a byelaw and outlines the considerations
giving rise to the draft byelaw. This will also form part of
the consultation pack.
Members of the SWSFC
have received several reports over the years on the concept of
No Take Zones / Marine Protected Areas generally and of studies
e.g. in Lundy MNR, and St Agnes. However, the circular to the meeting
on the 4th February will be the first time that any person other
than an Officer of the SWSFC or CCW has seen an actual draft of
any proposal.
The concept of zones
of no or restricted fishing is currently very topical. They have
been promoted as part of the Marine Nature Conservation Review
(Irish Sea Pilot), by academics, are in CCW's Fishery Policy and
proposed for fishery management purposes (e.g. See Cabinet Strategy
Unit 'Net Benefits Report', and Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution at Item 9).
The views of Officers
of SWSFC are mixed.
As a fishery management measure NTZs/Protected areas are only
one of many tools in the box, the majority of whose contents
have neither been fully nor effectively used.
It has not yet been proven in the UK that zones of restricted
fishing or no take will have widespread benefits in all circumstances.
Naturally, (shell)fish left to their own devices will be larger
and more numerous, but what is the extent of this benefit?
Carefully selected areas where the use of certain gears is restricted,
or that the fishing for certain vulnerable or over-exploited
species is prohibited DO seem to have validity as a fisheries
conservation measure. But to what extent might this be said to
apply to Skomer ?
Areas of seabed left in an undisturbed condition would be as
'natural' as could be. But are current fishing disturbances in
Skomer (where dredging and trawling are already banned) that
significant in any event?
What is absolutely clear is that there will be a socio-economic
cost of preventing any commercial or recreational fisherman from
fishing in any area. If they are displaced this could have a
detrimental effect on other areas.
The question arises as to who will get any benefit and how long
this will take to become apparent ?
Of course, there are arguments that such impacts/benefits ought
to be properly evaluated. In this respect - where better than
Skomer MNR to undertake such research?
In the eyes of SWSFC
officers, No Take Zones are 'in vogue'! However, the people who
promote them generally appear to have given little consideration
to balancing the socio-economic costs in the short term with possible
economic, and ecological benefits in the medium to long term; who
bears the cost and who is to benefit; and how this gap might be
bridged. The idea of, for example, throwing farmers off the land
that supports their main livelihood and without compensation would
be anathema. Is it reasonable to expect commercial fishermen to
welcome such proposals when the (probable) benefits will fall to
some other fisherman at some other time in the future ?
The discussions surrounding the possible introduction of a restrictive
byelaw in Skomer represents one means of broadening this debate
and evaluating to what extent No Take/Restricted Fish Zones have
a future in the UK.
Considerations within
the Draft Byelaw
Commercial
fishing effort (pots) and track record.
Shore
and boat sea angling by location.
Diving
restrictions (voluntary and statutory).
Enforcement
by area within the MNR.
Study
zones of no fishing.
Reduction
in fishing effort with time.
Social
cost versus environmental benefit.
The
draft byelaw text is intended to offer a pragmatic solution to current
activities. It suggests that all fishing in the MNR should terminate except
:
a) Commercial potting effort as determined by track record
- which would itself stop upon cessation of fishing or death
and after 10 years, and in any event reduce year on year.
b)
Angling to the east from both vessel and shore.
All fishing would be restricted
in certain zones earmarked for study.
Consultations
Stakeholders
are invited to comment:
In advance of and to
the meeting of the 4th February.
In response to the Statutory
advertisement in papers and on the SWSFC website.
i) Following the Quarterly Meeting of the 4th February, the
attached byelaw (Appendix 1a) was advertised in March
according to statutory procedures eliciting the comments at Appendix
2 (marked Item 5(a) of 27/5/05).
ii) The supporting documentation prepared by CCW for the 4/2/05 meeting
is given at Appendix 3. CCW have further considered the
public comments and provide the attached Appendix 4.
iii) The principle objections
have come from three anglers (see bundle) and commercial fishermen
including their Association – S&WWFC
Ltd. The latter will be submitting further written comment
and will address the meeting.
CCW will also be on hand to respond to questions. CCW
intend to submit short expert evidence on the benefits of No
Take Zones from Professor Callum Roberts.
iv) The Director’s task
has been to ensure that proper procedures are followed; that
all the issues are identified and that people wishing to comment
are able to do so, on an informed basis.
The Committee, as advised, must take a
decision on the byelaw.
v) Having received
much information over successive years, members are asked to
consider the comments and whether to seek confirmation of the
byelaw from the Minister, with or without change.
i) Consultation Responses are at Appendix 2. At the advice
of WAG the identity of individuals has generally been protected. They
fall into the following broad categories :
a) Letters
of objections (Green). From individual fishermen. Three
potential qualifying historical users, one or two near miss historical
users, and fishermen from both North and South Pembrokeshire,(one
letter comes from 13 people, another from two); The S&WWFC
Ltd Association and ongoing correspondence is attached.
Three sea angling interests - individuals
and allegedly clubs also, (but their capacity to speak for others
is unclear).
b) Letters
of comment (Purple) from Marloes Community Council, a SWSFC member
and DEFRA SFI (to the prior informal consultation) add context. SFI
will also comment independently to WAG.
c) Comments/letter
of Support (Blue). Principally from the diving
community and conservation interests. CCW/Skomer staff have encouraged
people to comment.
One letter is in response to an article in DIVE magazine and contains a petition
of 251 names and addresses mainly from the Bridgend/Cardiff area.
Forty eight email comments/letters
of support (White) were received. Some of these represent
more than one interest; others attached a letter which is referred
to below. The number should be taken as approximate. The
depth of comment varies considerably.
Ten letters of support mainly from
Dive organisations, conservation organisations or informed scientists
and marine consultants.
ii) Usual byelaw procedure
is to discuss objections with interested parties - to remove
any ambiguity and seek to agree upon any differences. The
Committee would then consider whether to seek the approval of
the Minister for a (revised) byelaw. In considering any
revision the Minister customarily has only been keen to over-rule
objections where the evidence is such that ‘the means justifies
the ends’ or the objections are irrelevant or frivolous. The
above paraphrases a process but ultimately the issues and judgement
are always different for every byelaw situation, and indeed Minister. The
Minister may request that the SFC assent to changes before he
is prepared to confirm it (i.e. put it into law).
iii) On this byelaw, the
issues are complex and varied. There are
many ambiguities and misunderstandings within the responses,
and many ‘pre-conceived’ ideas or points being made
out of principal – both in support and against. There
are several ‘camps’. Commercial fishermen – sea
anglers – divers
– conservationists – public/community, although several
respondents no doubt fit into more than one ‘camp’.
i) CCW comments at Appendix 4 and
S&WWFC Ltd views will be
instructive.
ii) SWSFC officers offer the following views:-
a. WAG Legal Department and SWSFC legal advisers
have questioned the ability of SFC byelaws made under Sec 5.1
(a) –
‘restricting or prohibiting the fishing for or taking of
sea fish’ to act on a permanent basis.
This has not been questioned for over 100
years of SFC history and has wider ramifications. However,
lawyers are agreed that as long as a period is specified in
the byelaw the byelaw as drafted is lawful. There
is some debate:
i) Whether a permanent closure but with periodic review is legal.
ii) What maximum period may be specified under Sec 5.1(a)?
iii) Whether the byelaw can be slightly redrafted to prohibit specified
methods of fishing (under Sec 5.1(b)) the effect of which is
to avoid any such time limitation.
Conclusion: Lawyers clearly have difficulty interpreting this Act. Some
legal advice has taken six months to obtain. Nevertheless,
the powers are there subject to minor drafting change. The
Committee can therefore seek confirmation of the byelaw, let
the Minister decide on the exact approach and the Committee may
assent to any changes he may suggest in due course.
b. Anglers have questioned:
i) The need.
ii) The evidence.
iii) Future implications.
iv) The logic of closing an area where shore angling results in lost gear,
takes residential fish and yet the proposal is to stop mainly
boat fishing which takes pelagic fish that move in/out of the
area and where fishing tackle losses are minimal.
The answer lies mainly in the practicalities
of enforcement, economic considerations and minimization of the
number of objections (because fewer anglers will be affected
by keeping this open area). CCW do not say that shore angling
is not damaging.
If the byelaw gains effect then more rigorous
Codes of Practice are intended to be implemented to address tackle
loss, fish conservation and litter issues.
c. The draft byelaw contains a small printing error in the co-ordinates,
but the map is correct. The effect of the error
is to make the ‘open’ area very small. The
correction relaxes the byelaw and is therefore compliant with
procedures.
The byelaw draft would require amendment:
To aid consistency with other byelaws all
the co-ordinates would be best in decimals. i.e.
510 44’
42”N 50 15’ 17.5”W becomes 510 44.71’N,
050 15.29’W
510 44’
17.5”N 50 15’17.5”W becomes 510 44.29’N,
050 15.29’W
510 44’
17.6”N 50 15’ 9.9”W becomes 510 44.29’N,
050 15.17’W
d. Commercial fishermen have not generally
raised objection to various figures in the byelaw.
However, members should be aware of the
key ones and the effect of amendment. e.g.
2.3 No permits will be
issued after 10 years following the date of Confirmation
of the byelaw. (i.e. The date historical users finish
fishing)
3.2 ‘Historical’ users
are based on fishing four of the last five years, CCW say this
represents three fishermen.
One ‘near miss’
fisherman has objected generally. A move to three of last
five years would allow him in, albeit at the potential expense
of historical users.
e. Commercial fishermen have expressed concern
that the experimental area (2.1 d) was moved by the SWSFC from
5 to 10%, not so much as the area but the fact that if the 10%
was selected close to the coast then it would cause more impact. A
further objection on this matter was received from an individual
on 25/5/05.
CCW are agreeable to discussion on the percentage
and to include a clause “.. .. .. .. .. .. reserve as a
whole, the locations of which shall be by way of consultation
with the relevant historical users.”
f. Commercial
fishermen make the point that the southern side of the Reserve represents potential
fishing area, the loss of which will have significant effect.
CCW figures show it is already fished fairly
heavily, mainly by qualifying historical users.
g. The S&WWFC Ltd ask whether the making
of a byelaw is a plan or project. If so it requires assessment
of its impact on the remainder to the SAC.
Even if it were, the consensus is that a
screening assessment of significance would determine it to have
a beneficial effect especially since the byelaw mitigates against
the effects of displaced fishing effort for ten years.
h. Historical users have questioned as to
what would happen if they died, forcing a change of vessel ownership
and loss of entitlement.
Several options exist (in combination with
term of byelaw and time limit of permit issue (2.3).
i) To apply the same interpretation as has been applied to Byelaw 38
Maximum Vessel Size,
i.e. Where a vessel is left in a Will
as a result of a bereavement then no change in ownership is deemed
to have taken place, provided the vessel does not increase in
capacity. In order to avoid perpetuity the vessel would ‘time
out’ under 2.3 clause or,
ii) To allow transfer of ownership, but time out or,
iii) As currently drafted, to terminate entitlement upon any change of
ownership details in any circumstances.
i. Diving The
CCW paper touches upon this issue. It would appear that
no powers exist to prevent ‘swimming’ in the reserve. Divers
would be prohibited from taking (shell) fish in any case.
There seems to be a vigorous debate as to
the assessment of significance of diver disturbance to benthic
features. Carefully selected study areas could address
this point.
SWSFC officers are ambivalent on:
i) The
principles of cap on pot numbers and pot reduction with time
for historical users. (2.1(b) 5% reduction etc. per year).
Whilst it is acknowledged that CCW would
like to see a decrease per year, and certainly no increase by
one historical user if another vacates, however such clauses
require to be enforced.
This requires pot tags or similar (e.g.
identi-chips) and gear checks either by diver, upon fishermen’s’ deck
or via FPV vessel hauling.
Sec 3.1 is also required to prevent historical
users carrying unmarked pots into the area.
Pot limitation and tagging schemes have
been topical for many years as a means of National effort control
schemes. Officers consider that such widespread restrictions
would be unenforceable. The Skomer byelaw would represent
an additional enforcement burden. However, it would also
be a
‘test ground’ to evaluate the restrictions.
ii) The size of any restricted fish zone from an economic hardship/benefit
point of view and scientific study point of view. Options
exist to extend the eastern multi access area further to the
west.
As has been stated at the outset, the economic
and environmental cost benefits of restricted fish zones/No Take
Zones are extremely difficult to determine, made worse by the
fact that there are few areas in the UK and no studies. Studies
abroad are helpful but often not directly comparable.
The provision of a zone at Skomer presents
a golden opportunity to undertake such work and inform Government
Policy.
We can see no biological disbenefit of stopping
fishing. Both
‘the environment’ and the (shell) fish species will
revert to a more ‘natural’
situation. But is ‘natural’ ‘better’? And
what will the overspill situation be like – which species,
where? Will any have an economic value?
There will be economic costs in due
course of historical users moving out. But will the wider
biological benefits of overspill (fully) counteract, and if so,
after how many years?
Will there be other economic benefits e.g.
of eco-tourism, increased diving etc. Will these be bigger
than the economic losses to fishermen? Is one persons gain
at the expense of another (fisherman’s) loss?
It is useful to point out that the historical
users should gain until any displacement date. Already
they are having to fish more gear and are competing with more
fishermen – especially since the start of 2005.
Historical users may be in a difficult position.
One might suspect they would support an exclusive fishery. Other
fishermen would envy them. However, historical users would
fear the eventual termination day (Clause 2.3), and currently
they are under pressure not to concede to the byelaw and be blamed
by the wider fishing community that ‘they sold the industry
short’.
This is a most difficult decision involving
many, many wider considerations. Accordingly officers have
not made any recommendations.
The situation may be summarised:-
1. Individual members will have their own values on moral, economic,
social and environmental grounds, having considered all the issues
put before them.
2. There
seems to be an acceptance by all of the need to have a study
area. Where better than Skomer MNR? It should be
possible to move to this from the advertised draft byelaw either
by broadly accepting it as it is, or by modifying the area.
An alternative exists through the temporary
closure of an area under Byelaw 24 (although this only applies
to ‘shellfish’ fisheries – not finfish).
3. If
the decision is taken to proceed with the byelaw then the effect
can be ameliorated by moving the East-West split. One of
the historical users would fall out. Sea anglers would
feel better catered for.
But what would the implications be? For
example on historical users? Would the remaining
(Island area) be sufficiently large to demonstrate/monitor ecological
change? After all, the proposal for no fishing already
represents a compromise - part of an already small area (Skomer
MNR) in any case.
4. It is considered that the nature of the objections demonstrate the
amount of thought that has been put into the current draft of
the byelaw. The current text (Annex 1a) deals with all the issues
required of such a byelaw. However, Members might usefully consider
matters in a progression; the key areas for consideration are:
w Area
w Period of track record
w Point 2.3 – Expiry date of historical users
w Legal requirement to either change the content of the byelaw from
‘fish for or take’ with a time limit, or prevent methods
of fishing including potting, creeling, fishing with sub aqua apparatus,
netting, spear fishing, fishing with hook etc.
If the former, then Officers suggest a time
limit for review of the byelaw in keeping with the expiry period
for historical users (e.g. 10 years). It will take many
years for the biological effects to be seen, at least five years.
w CCW ought to commit to undertaking the necessary studies.
w That the co-ordinates (Point 3(c) above) and study area (Point 3(e)
above) be amended as appropriate.
w That depending on the area selected, it may be necessary to keep the
existing SWSFC byelaws prohibiting scallop fishing and beam trawling
(and not revoke them as suggested by “Sec 4 Revocation” in
the byelaw).
w That the NAW have unambiguous powers under Sec 5 to prevent Boat Fishing. These
can be permanent.
These and associated issues will be contained
within the Decision Tree Annex 1(b) to follow.
The Committee is asked, by majority vote,
to take a decision:-
1. Whether to keep the byelaw or not.
2. It if is decided to proceed, on what basis?
Any changes must be clearly identified and
drafted to support an unambiguous application of an agreed
text of a byelaw for the Minister to confirm.
Changes can be less restrictive than the
advertised draft, not more so.
If ambiguities arise then the safe situation
for the Committee is to receive another draft for ratification
at its next meeting on 30th September. NOTE: Noting some
of the membership will have by then changed.
P J COATES, Director
20th June 2005
Enclosures:
1. Advertised
byelaw – Appendix 1(a) (Made 14th February – re
sent to Members 16th June)
2. Consultation
Response – marked Item 5(c) – 4 colours (from meeting
27th May)
3. CCW
supporting document 4th February 2005 – Appendix
3 ( sent to Members 16th June)
4. CCW
supporting document June 2005 –
Appendix 4 (ENCLOSED)
To be circulated to members either before or
at the meeting:
Annex 1(b) – A decision tree and associated
byelaw text versions.
S&WWFC Ltd Association submission.
CCW docs : Professor Callum Roberts on ‘No
Take Zones’.
: Diver
activity map
5. MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY
MEETING OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, HELD AT PEMBROKESHIRE
COAST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY OFFICES, LLANION PARK, PEMBROKE
DOCK, ON TUESDAY 28TH JUNE 2005, COMMENCING AT 14.00 HOURS
Present |
Representing |
Cllr Mrs R Hayes
(Chair) |
Pembrokeshire County Council |
Cllr D Davies |
Carmarthenshire County
Council |
Cllr J Newbury |
City & County
of Swansea |
Mr N O'Sullivan (Vice
Chair) |
Fishery Member |
Mr A C Whitehead |
Fishery Member |
Mr I Wisby |
Fishery Member |
Mr B Williams |
Fishery Member |
Mr D Chant |
Fishery Member |
Mr R Parsons |
Fishery Member |
Mr D Bray |
Fishery Member |
Ms L Berryman |
Fishery Member |
Mr R Phillips |
Environment Agency |
1.
WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
The Chair welcomed everybody to the meeting and introductions
were made. In addition to SWSFC Officers P Coates and M Stafford,
also present were: CCW - A McConnell, B Bullimore; P Newman
(Skomer MNR) and M Burton (Skomer MNR); S&WWFC Ltd -
D Gardner, G Philpott.
2.
APOLOGIES were received from Councillors
S Penry and H James (Neath Port Talbot CBC), N Howells
(Cardiff), T Jarvie (Vale), P Hacking (Vale), K Marsh
(Swansea) and WG Thomas (Carmarthen).
3.
NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS.
I Wisby and L Berryman said that they were members of the
S&WWFC Ltd and D Bray & N O'Sullivan said they had
vessel fished lobsters etc in Pembrokeshire and the latter
ran a charter angling / diving vessel.
4.
PROPOSED BYELAW - ZONE OF RESTRICTED FISHING AT SKOMER
MNR
The Director gave an introduction to the history of the advertised
byelaw and current text in the context of SFC powers and
developing government policy.
Mr D Gardner (S&WWFC Ltd) went through the
key points of the Associations submission, namely:-
- Removal of public
fishery right through unlawful means, and disproportionate
action contrary to undertakings given at the inception
of the Reserve.
- No evidence of ecological
or socio-economic outcomes.
- Skomer Annual report
and wider studies were at best contradictory and that
the Net Benefits report suggested the need for studies
first.
- That fishing was
already disrupted by offshore development and, as far
as the forthcoming extensive SAC (Special Area of Conservation)
management plans were concerned, could be restricted
further.
The Association pledged to work with CCW etc.
and recognised the need for studies but over a smaller area
and from a voluntary basis. In their view, studies should
come first with informed decisions to follow.
The Director said that various legal advice indicated
that there was no legal impediment to making progress in
putting in place a no fishing zones on a statutory basis
provided care was taken in the wording of the text relevant
to the presiding legislation.
CCW staff responded and SWSFC members asked questions
of both CCW and S&WWFC Ltd representatives.
CCW said that the S&WWFC Ltd had selectively
quoted from one study and omitted information that did not
support their position. However, much more work was required
to be done on both environmental impact and potential fishery
benefits and CCW strongly advocated the need for long-term
dedicated studies. Problems arose from a lack of non-fished
'control', lack of dedicated studies and inadequate length
of study time. They stressed that enabling research was an
integral part of the reason for seeking the byelaw. Pot fishing
effort had dramatically increased since earlier discussions
of the MNR Committee and earlier studies. CCW were unable
to say if damage levels had increased as a consequence, because
of the lack of targeted monitoring work and lack of control
areas. Large areas of the MNR were un-potted but they were
of unsuitable seabed eg muddy substrates and potting was
concentrated on 'reef' zones mainly inshore. Accordingly,
consideration of experimental areas by means of percentage
cover of reserve could be misleading.
P Newman said that Skomer MNR area covers less
than 0.28% of the SWSFC District. Others indicated that the
effect on shellfish landings overall and individuals income
might be a better comparator. When pressed, P Coates said
that his guess was that less than 10 % of the annual SWSFC
district landing of 100 tonnes of lobsters came from the
area and probably less than 5 %.
Questions arose as to what size of study zone
might be appropriate ? B Bullimore said that this depended
upon what the investigations were intended to address. e.g.
Direct physical impact of potting on seabed features (small),
imput of the removal of predators on ecosystems - (much larger),
fishery impacts - (larger again). At least 5 years would
have to elapsed post termination of fishing to identify some
of these impacts, especially in a naturally changing environment
with chance random events.
Mr O'Sullivan asked of the significance of damage
to sea fans/Ross Corals previously shown to Committee. P
Newman said that CCW just did not know - hence the need for
studies and controls.
Mr Wisby raised the possible disturbance of the
sea-bed by novice divers as an issue. CCW showed a map of
Skomer island with diving concentrated in certain areas.
Damage rates were debated, however the risk of divers taking
shellfish/benthos was agreed and recognised as an enforcement
need. No powers to prohibit diver swimming had been identified.
CCW said that they aspired to see the MNR with
the equivalent degree of protection as a National Nature
Reserve on land. The proposal for limited take with phasing
out of fishing was, in their view, a measured, practical
compromise sympathetic to the issues raised by existing users.
Messrs Chant and Parsons made the point that
if livelihoods were to be curtailed then compensation ought
to be paid. This would normally be the case on land. The
termination of the Dutch cockle dredge fishery resulted in
some compensation payments. It was re-iterated that no compensation
was on offer and that there was no effective mechanism under
which to provide compensation that could rule out the negative
effects arising from displacement. ie re-investment by displaced
vessels giving rise to wider fishing pressure which the current
proposal sought to avoid. M Stafford suggested that the NAW
might like to consider making payments.
A McConnell (CCW) confirmed that CCW would need
to make a bid to the NAW for specific funding to conduct
dedicated long term studies, but could not commit to such
immediately.
G Philpott (S&WWFC Ltd) confirmed that the
fishing industry was very concerned at the possible implications
for similar fishing operations in extensive surrounding SAC
areas if studies showed damage. He also asked what would
happen within the MNR if fishing sought to re-commence? He
felt that once the fishing was removed, it would be forever
removed - regardless of the results of any experimentation.
SWSFC officer's comments were reserved to confirmation
that the legal means did exist to make the byelaw through
various alternatives, and confirmation of the continuation
of public fishery and the circumstances of return to fishing
if the byelaw were reviewed or abandoned after a 'time out'
clause all of which would be included in the options for
discussion.
Mr Williams commented briefly on the sea angling
element of the proposals and asked whether it might be possible
to consider allowing angling throughout, but on a 'catch
and return basis'. That was confirmed as a possibility but
with enforcement and equality consequences.
The Chair allowed Dr R Crump (Chair of Skomer
MNR Advisory Committee) to comment from the audience on his
personal experience of the benefits arising from the Leigh
(New Zealand) Reserve especially regarding crawfish. He said
that the ecological consequences could be quite profound
but that the scientific studies needed interpretation. M
Burton confirmed this from his time at Leigh and explained
that the views of the fisheries effects from Mr Fleur Antoni
quoted by S&WWFC did not reflect scientific evidence
and were not consistent with scientific opinion . Dr Crump
said that areas selected had to be sizable and for time periods
in excess of 10 years to yield benefits. At Leigh the reserve
was regarded as a successful fishery management tool and
after initial resistance now had the strong support of the
local industry. He agreed with the need to compensate displaced
fishermen.
Also from the audience Mr B Oxenham (diver /
resident) commented that the lack of Councillor members present
was in his view a disappointment. As a consequence he suggested
that the debate would be dominated by fishery members who
had a self-interest and might pay less attention to wider
socio-economic matters. He said that the proposals would
have a relatively small overall impact compared with other
wider eg tourism benefits, and that fishermen could expect
to occasionally face redundancy as a cost like any other
employment situation.
D Gardner suggested that any area should be voluntary
like the current netting 'exclusion' already being honoured.
B Bullimore reported that there had been no netting in the
area since the time of establishment in any case except in
the NE corner of the Reserve. The Director said that no netting
had taken place in recent years but in 1993 the then fishermen
refused to agree a voluntary netting ban except within 50m
of the island and in certain bays.
Mr Parsons asked about the viability of using
existing SWSFC byelaw 24 to establish a temporary closure
for shellfish fishing. Officers confirmed this was possible,
but in the context of limited available powers.
In summing up the Director said that he felt
that the voluntary approach was only as good as its 'weakest
link' and that statutory controls, although not infallible,
would add strength. P Newman said that the St Agnes voluntary
zone had indeed folded following a failure to observe the
voluntary reserve by a small minority. The Director said
that there appeared to be a consensus as to the need to set
up a research and monitoring area and suggested a vote to
establish that point.
In keeping with the decision tree (Appendix 1B)
he suggested that members take a simple decision i.e. Either
vote YES to discuss further some statutory protection or
NO (i.e. to reject the byelaw thus leaving open any voluntary
initiative).
D Gardner suggested that such a decision would
not fully reflect the Associations proposed voluntary approach.
The Chair decided to put 3 sequential votes forward:
Vote 1 : Are members in favour of the principle
of establishing some sort of no fish zone (regardless of
whether by Statutory or Voluntary means)?
If yes, Vote 2 : 'Statutory OR voluntary'? If "Statutory",
then to progress down the lines of the circulated decision
tree.
Several members had asked the Chair to conduct
a secret ballot and she agreed upon this.
Decision : Following the distribution of voting
papers for Vote 1 the outcome was against the establishment
of any sort of no fish zone (7 votes against establishment;
5 votes for).
As a consequence the Chair declared that, as
the byelaw was a statutory protection measure, there was
no longer an option on the table for further Committee discussion.
Mr Wisby emphasised that he, personally, still
supported the establishment of a voluntary no fish zone in
association with other user interests. Mr Gardner for the
S&WWFC Ltd said that the Association would be prepared
to canvass such voluntary options soon and in advance of
the next Skomer Advisory Committee meeting.
The Director and A McConnell thanked all contributors.
The Director said that he hoped that throughout the process
of considering the byelaw that all parties had felt that
they had received sufficient information to take an informed
decision through all the various issues involved and had
had a chance to fully contribute.
The Chair thanked all people for attending. Before
closing she ascertained that this would be the final meeting
for D Chant (23 years a member) and T Whitehead (12 years
a member) upon the restructuring of the Committee from 1st
July. She and the audience thanked these members for their
work and wished them well.
The meeting closed at 16.25 hours with a vote
of thanks to the Chair. |
PRESS RELEASE 02/05 DATE: 30TH JUNE 2005
At an extraordinary meeting of the full Committee on the 28th June 2005,
a decision was taken not to pro-ceed with the second and most
contentious Statutory No Take Zone in the UK. Industry representatives
have since pledged to discuss voluntary no fish initiatives
with the MNR Advisory Committee and CCW in the hope that other
user groups such as sea anglers and divers will join in.
The SWSFC has received
numerous documents over recent years on the development of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) and No Take Zones (NTZ) as conservation and fishery management
tools. Also evolving Government policy following recommendations of
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, OSPAR Convention and
'Net Benefits' Cabinet Strategy Report to Government - all of which
suggested that NTZ/MPAs ought to be designated (following or in conjunction
with research) over large areas of seabed.
On the 4th February
2005 and following informal consultation with a wide range of interests,
the Commit-tee agreed to advertise a joint Countryside Council for Wales
- CCW/SWSFC proposal for a SWSFC bye-law to establish a partial NTZ at
Skomer MNR. This proposed that all fishing (including commercial, an-glers
and diver take) be stopped subject to conditions which allowed sea angling
in the most popular north-east quarter and lobster potting throughout for
three designated 'historical users' who would be al-lowed to continue for
a minimum of 10 years. This would be in addition to the current no dredge/trawl
and no scallop fishing byelaws made in 1990. These concessions aimed to
address difficult social and en-forcement conditions without compromising
further study areas.
A range of comments
in support (from divers and conservation interests) and objections (from
sea anglers and fishermen) were considered at the last meeting of the full
Committee on the 27th May. However, a full decision was deferred to the
Extraordinary meeting on the 28th June where the Fishermen's Association
(S&WWFC Ltd) presented further information in support of their views.
CCW were present to answer questions on pre-circulated information papers
and generally advise..
After two hours of debate
the matter was put to the vote and the meeting decided by 7 votes to 5
not to progress the byelaws. The minutes reflect the nature of the debate
that took place and broad range of diffi-cult issues raised, and will help
to explain the Committee's decision.
Members balanced such
issues as the current inability to quantify possible long term fishery
and conserva-tion benefits, or assess and interpret disturbances by lobster
potting gear to benthic communities against the inevitable socio-economic
cost of (eventually) preventing fishermen from continuing fishing (particu-larly
in the absence of compensation payments) in line with DEFRA guidelines
on SFC decisions.
CCW said that they were
not at that stage able to commit finances to undertake specific (new) research
projects, but that corporate bids would be made to NAW in due course.
Furthermore, questions
arose regarding how such a zone would fit within the extensive network
of Euro-pean Marine Sites (eg Special Areas of Conservation, SACs) , the
management plans for which are still under consideration. It was argued
that if fishing was stopped then any future assessment that would need
to accompany a decision to restart would not meet strict environmental
burdens that apply in SACs, mak-ing a restart difficult, if not impossible.
Taken together, the
decision reflects the range of particularly difficult issues that government
themselves are likely to have to resolve before they meet their aspirations
of having an extensive network of No Fish Zones in coastal waters.
Speaking for the Committee,
the Director Phil Coates said : "There is undoubtedly an urgent need
to estab-lish areas in the UK to research the costs and benefits of NTZs
and Skomer MNR might have been an ideal site in this respect. However,
this decision is perhaps a warning to Government of the range of com-plex
socio-economic and environmental issues that must be first addressed before
NTZs (by consent) can become a reality".
Following the meeting
S&WWFC Ltd members offered to discuss with CCW and user groups the
pros-pect of establishing a voluntary no access zone for fishing, diving,
angling etc., having agreed in principle of the need to undertake research
and evaluate the results before establishing a no fish area.
NOTES:
1. Skomer MNR was designated in 1990 and is the only Marine
Nature Reserve in Wales and one of only two in Great Britain.
2. England's first official NTZ is at Lundy Island MNR and
was designated under a Devon SFC byelaw in 2003. This is an entirely
offshore site and the No Take Zone represents c 3.3 km2 of the
14 km2 Re-serve (ca. 24%).
3. The NTZ byelaw proposal under consideration at Skomer covered
an area of over 11 km2 of the 13.2 km2 Reserve (ca. 85%), but
was intended to be subject to conditions. Unlike Lundy, Skomer
lies close to and includes part of the mainland and is an easily
accessible and regularly fished region by both an-glers and commercial
fishermen.
4. The South & West Wales Fishing Communities Ltd. Association
(S&WWFC Ltd ) represents the in-terests of licensed commercial
inshore fishermen and charter angling boat skippers across South
Wales, with over 100 members from Newport in the East to Cardigan
in the west. Contact Mr D Gardner, Regional Office Corner House,
Milford docks, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire SA73 3AA Tel : 01646
- 699127.
5. CCW Regional Offices Llanion Park, Pembroke Dock, Pembrokeshire
SA72 6DY . Contact A. McConnell or B Bullimore on 01646-624000 |
