|
Dear All
It is timely to update the industry of recent developments.
In accordance with changes made last
year, find enclosed your vessel permit for 2003 and which is now
renewed automatically provided catch return forms have been received
for the full year.
i.e. For crustaceans (Class 1) or Molluscs (Class II) returns for
January - April (due May), May - August (due September), September
- December (due by the end of January).
For whitefish (Class III) an annual statement of catches from the
SWSFC District.
If your permit for 2003 is not enclosed it is most likely that our
records show that some returns are outstanding. Please contact Margaret
to ascertain the position, whereupon a permit for 2003 can be issued.
If there are any changes of ownership or to the vessel or fishing
takes place for other species, you must inform the SWSFC office
to enable the permit to be amended.
Please therefore check the details on the vessel permits as soon
as they are issued to ensure that they meet your fishing requirements.
This is your obligation, and inaccurate details may otherwise render
a permit invalid.
Find enclosed catch return graphs for
shellfish for 2000 and 2001 based upon the returns you have previously
supplied. We apologise for not providing these sooner due to a shortage
of staff as detailed in last years Newsletter. If there appears
to be any errors or omissions, please let us know.
Some progress has been made since last
years legal defence of the Committee's annual budget which protected
the position at £396,000 rather than the £354,000 cap
proposed by local authorities and adopted by NAW. A replacement
formula apportioning the SWSFC costs to local authorities has not
yet been agreed upon, and accordingly Rhondda Cynon Taff (which
has no coastline) remains a member some six years after giving intent
to depart. Notwithstanding, the moneys paid by local authorities
for SFCs in Wales are now included as part of the Revenue settlement
by government to local authorities and therefore, in effect, they
are largely reimbursed. Having a SFC contribution should therefore
no longer be a financial burden to a contributory Council regardless
of the amount or basis on which they pay.
In attempting to move forward, the SWSFC recruited at the start
of the year two Fishery Officers to replace two retired officers.
By June it had also recruited two of three vessel based staff. The
third had to be held over to 2003 due to the knock on effects arising
from cockle closures from possible shellfish biotoxins. It is intended
that another officer be taken on in 2003 to address the environmental/survey
requirements that SWSFC has inherited (see later).
The FPV "Cranogwen" is now 15 years old, and showing her
age. The new vessel crew therefore had their work cut out in getting
her active again. Having not been able to secure sufficient match
funding to make use of the £1 million 50% grant aid offered
by EU for a replacement, SWSFC has agreed a programme of partial
refurbishment from reserves. This is scheduled to take place in
the Spring of 2003 with cover effected by the use of inshore craft
and other means in her absence.
Hopefully 2003 will therefore be a year of progress as new staff
make their presence felt.
Following on from the report of Nautilus
Consultants on fisheries in Wales, NAW has also commissioned a review
on Fisheries & Aquaculture potential under the food section
of the WDA. That report was published in December.
NAW have also announced a forthcoming consultation on a review of
fisheries management in Welsh waters (12 nm) taking account of the
EU Common Policy mid term review. Originally expected before Xmas,
we understand that the consultation has been delayed into 2003.
Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum intend to host a workshop in 2003 on
fisheries and aquaculture, the timing of which will allow input
into the fisheries review.
In keeping with decisions taking in recent
years, the whelk fishery within the entire SWSFC district shall
be closed for the above period (all days inclusive). No person shall
fish for, remove, take or disturb whelks from any fishery or part.
This shall be taken as a valid notice under Byelaw No. 24 - Temporary
Closure of Shellfisheries.
Class II permit holders continue to receive authority (as part of
their application) to remove whelks and which will pass through
a riddle or like instrument having bars which are not less than
25mm (rather than the larger size of 35mm stated in byelaw 11).
a) Observations have shown that each
V-notch may be less distinct within one shell moult instead of the
anticipated two or even three. Notches clipped using the stainless
purpose built pliers give a better cut, and are available from GT
Products, Tel: 01243 555303 (gtproducts@mistral.co.uk) for around
£15 each.
b) On 12 March 2002 the NAW confirmed Statutory Instrument No. 676
(2002) "The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and
Landing) (Wales) Order" which makes it an offence to fish for
or land any V-notched or mutilated lobster or crawfish from Welsh
territorial waters.
c) The V-notch is defined as a cut of at least 5 mm into one or
more inner uropods of the tail fan.
d) The SWSFC byelaw (which came into effect in 1997) will be amended
in due course to reflect these dimensions, which in any event are
now being taken for all monitoring purposes.
e) We continue to recommend in order to gain maximum benefit for
lobsters which have already been released under a previous grant
aid scheme, that industry carefully re-notch any lobster when, through
moulting regeneration, the notch has become less clear.
f) We continue to keep under review opportunities for further V-notching
using Objective 1 funding and hope that staff appointed to the new
Fishing Association(s) in South Wales will be able to take this
forward working closely with the SWSFC.
The NAW confirmed a replacement vessel
size byelaw on 10th January 2002. Since that date, only vessels
below 150 VCUs have been permitted to fish in the SWSFC district.
The only exception being those with a qualifying track record and
who are allowed to change their vessels up to the size they originally
owned. The original restriction prohibiting vessels of 15.90 metres
overall length limit or larger from fishing within three miles of
the low water mark is also retained.
During the course of the year the SWSFC,
along with other SFCs, considered various legal advices concerning
the point in time within any fishing operation at which a fish or
shellfish may be considered as having been legally 'taken'.
The advice received was that, technically, once on board a vessel,
in any receptacle or in transit, it was taken. However, in all cases
the enforcing authority, fishermen and the courts would want to
see the adoption of fair and reasonable measures that would imply
there was intent to remove said fish etc. This has always been the
case and Fishery Officers will taken into consideration a whole
range of circumstances before deciding to report a person for an
alleged offence. Ultimately it is for the Courts to take a decision
upon whether they think that a person should be found guilty upon
the basis of the facts put before them. Certainly SFCs would not
be thanked for proceeding with cases which were frivolous or vexatious,
and no such criticism has ever been made of the SWSFC.
Wider discussions followed a particular case involving the alleged
taking of undersized lobsters and crab on an inshore vessel which
was moving along the coast and between pot hauls.
Industry representatives are considering whether to provide some
guidance to their members regarding 'good practice'.
SFCs felt it inappropriate to lay down any hard and fast rules which
could prejudice any further actions each may take. Each case must
take into account the extensive range of prevailing circumstances
encountered and SFCs considered that it was impossible (and indeed
may be contrary to the practical interests of fishermen) to be prescriptive.
Nevertheless the SWSFC believes that it would be in the interests
of fishermen who use pots to have, as a matter of course, returned
all undersized shellfish to the sea before hauling the next string
of pots. Any fish obviously below the minimum size should be returned
immediately.
At a meeting of the Association of SFCs
with Fisheries Minister Elliot Morely in October, it was stated
that it was still DEFRA's intention to introduce a Shellfish Licence.
Although Phase I would be a national licence, Phase 2 was expected
to provide the opportunity for regional restrictions and would follow
in years to come.
As progress had been delayed DEFRA would now have to apply themselves
to issues of track record and appeals.
The original consultation was in January 2001 when SWSFC endorsed
the need for a scheme but stressed that it needs to be regional
from the outset. It also disagreed with several other aspects including
entry levels, species covered, enforceability, public/non-licenced
shellfish entitlement and transferability issues.
At an opportune time, industry may like to explore those issues
with the SWSFC and in the context of fishery management within Welsh
waters.
In January 1999 the SWSFC authorised
water jet dredging for bivalves under controlled conditions, and
following consideration of reports of such activity elsewhere (especially
Eire and Scotland) and in relation to marine environmental and fisheries
sensitivities. The restrictions included depth limits (outside 10
metres LW depth), no night fishing, haul to surface (not continuous
recovery) variety, blade width and with catch returns monitoring
and other options.
Some of the fishing industry considered that SWSFC had been too
cautious. On the other hand some environmental interests considered
that too little regard had been accorded to the protection of the
marine environment. There followed a complaint against SWSFC/UK
Government to the European Commission. After a protracted period
of consideration the EU responded in July 2002 by way of a 'Reasoned
Opinion' the findings of which go against SWSFC actions.
We are not privy to the details of the decision itself which is
between the Government and the Commission. However, we are aware
that it contains essentially two elements (a) failure to designate
Carmarthen Bay as an SPA for Scoter duck (and which is now well
advanced), and (b) failure of the SFC to undertake an ecological
assessment before allowing the fishing to take place within such
marine protected sites.
The SWSFC has over many years sought guidance from government on
the extent to which fishing activities are allowed within protected
areas, and who will undertake any necessary assessments and ensure
any resulting actions are adequately managed so as to ensure balanced
fisheries exploitation/environmental protection. No answers have
been received. The 'stock' DEFRA answer is that fishermen (as akin
to developers) will undertake any assessments which, of course,
is easier said than done.
Government is still considering their position in relation to the
particular issue of hydraulic dredging and Carmarthen Bay. However,
the case potentially has wider implications for many fishing operations
in candidate SACs also - and which the Commission are set to adopt
in 2004 if not before.
European
Marine Sites
In practice this means SACs (Special Areas of Conservation) under
the Habitats Directive and SPAs (Special Protection Areas) under
the Birds Directive.
a) SPAs - Most local sites are in estuaries. The proposed site for
Scoter duck in Carmarthen Bay is the first UK fully marine site
and extends over three miles offshore in places. The Statutory Conservation
bodies have given notice that they are working on identifying SPAs
for inshore areas for non-breeding birds and for offshore, probably
feeding, aggregations. Species mentioned so far are guilemot, razorbill,
puffin, gannet, shag, kittiwake. The situation regarding migratory
species e.g. terns, gulls, shearwater, petrels, skuas and red-throated
diver awaits the collection and interpretation of data.
b) SACs - In 1995 the government published a list of candidate SACs
in Wales proposed by CCW of habitats and species which in their
view fell within the requirements of the Habitats Directive. By
definition the list is a mixture of species (e.g. Seal), habitats
(e.g. maerl) and features (e.g. shallow inlet or bay, estuary etc.).
The Commission subsequently found the UK list lacking and accordingly
in 2001 further proposals emerged to add new sites or extend existing
proposals (the 'moderation' exercise). The net result is that the
proposed Pembrokeshire Islands site has been extended around Linney
Head, and the Carmarthen Bay estuaries site extended out into Carmarthen
Bay to include the shallow bay feature.
Following a legal case brought about by Greenpeace, government also
have to consider the need for offshore, deep water SACs (to 200
nm). Furthermore, offshore SACs are under consideration for other
species e.g. harbour porpoises and other Annex II species.
In conclusion, South West Wales is already blessed with a number
of designations which will most likely increase in number.
Intertidal
SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)
These too have increased in number and size, because they have been
used as the 'building blocks' for SACs, and because CCW have extended
some sites to extreme low water (whereas all previous sites were
only taken to mean low water).
A new Act - The Countryside Rights of Way Act (CROW Act)- gained
assent in November 2000. This places new duties on developers and
bodies which give permissions (e.g. SWSFC) for operations or activities
which may damage or disturb SSSIs. Such operations will require
consultation.
New
Act? Another proposed Act to set up fully marine SSSIs (i.e. sites
of national but not European importance) failed to gain approval
as a result of objections from industry (especially port interests).
Any activities which have an impact can only go ahead in certain
circumstances following consultations with CCW, prior assessment
and a determination of likely impact. The general consensus is that
these powers will still come about in some years time, but under
a different Act and following other conservation/coastal zone management
reviews.
Biodivesity
Action Plan (BAPs)
The CROW Act also gave statutory effect to species and habitat BAPs.
The NAW and local authorities are under a duty to consider the need
for protecting certain species and habitats - some of which are
marine. These plans are under development. Of interest will be native
oysters, basking shark, turtles, Scoter duck, harbour porpoises
and commercial fish species (types not specified).
Marine
Nature Reserves (MNRs)
There are only two MNRs in England and Wales - Skomer and Lundy
islands. Lundy has been the subject of recent press notices regarding
the extension of its zonal management into a full 'No Take Zone'.
Fishermen in the south west appear keen to support selected 'No
Take Zones' and an area around Trevose Head is also under consideration
(Fishing News, December).
A recent report by CCW, as raised in the last annual meeting of
the Skomer MNR advisory Committee, indicates the intention to raise
the possibility of Skomer also becoming a 'No Take Zone'.
Officers of SWSFC believe that whilst there are undoubtedly likely
fisheries and wider benefits from such a move, there could also
be other problems, and practical difficulties created. Accordingly
the matter will require full and careful consideration by all relevant
parties.
The
SWSFC is having to adapt to the new demands being placed upon it.
The appointment of a member of staff dedicated to this is an important
move. However, it is inevitable that there will be a dilution of
historically 'core' fisheries responsibilities as has been seen
in all SFCs over recent years.
The coastal zone is a particular focus
at the moment. A wind farm proposal for Scarweather (Porthcawl),
possible tidal energy rock island (Swansea Bay), aggregate dredging
proposal for Nobel banks, possible offshore gas developments off
Pembrokeshire, and further ahead, possible sea bed tidal generators.
The whole issue of the need to integrate, co-ordinate and best manage
coastal developments and activities is again in the 'fore' following
a Commission discussion paper. Member States are currently preparing
an inventory of what activities take place and who is involved.
The above précis of activities/events
suggests to me a number of things and which you might like to consider
into the New year:-
i) That the local fishing industry needs, more than ever before,
a collective means of becoming fully involved with all marine activities
taking place. As we know to our cost, this is a lengthy, onerous
and expensive business. Whilst the SWSFC can inform and work with
the fishing industry it cannot represent them as it has its own
statutory duties and which involve managing the fish stocks for
the benefit of the fish, the catchers (whatever method or purpose
they put that catch to), and the protection of the marine environment.
ii) Secondly, we can only work with the 'tools' we are given. Historically
the fishing industry has frequently been the 'poor man's relation'.
Part of the reason for this is because its true value is frequently
under recorded and therefore goes unrecognised. We all know the
various reasons for this. However, when it comes to getting recognition
whether it be in relation to such diverse areas as aggregate dredging,
wind farms, quotas, No take zones, or shellfish licensing etc. etc.
as we have always said, unless catches and landings are properly
recorded then it is unlikely that the situation will change.
Wishing you all a prosperous and calm year for 2003.
From all at SWSFC
|
