WELSH SFC REVIEW

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, HELD AT ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORT OFFICES, SWANSEA DOCKS, ON FRIDAY 20 JUNE 2008, COMMENCING AT 10.00 hrs-

9.WELSH FISHERY REVIEW

REVIEW OF SEA FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & MARINE BILL

Items 9(a) and 10 were taken together.
The Director explained the content of the draft Marine Bill (at 650 pages long) and Parliamentary timetable.  Strategic planning, licensing, Nature Conservation, fishery management, fishery laws, enforcement powers and Marine Management Organisation (in England) are the main subject areas.

Marine fishery and Nature Conservation were already devolved functions.  The Bill was enabling legislation, thus allowing flexibility in introduction to devolved countries.  He explained part 6 – Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) which would replace SFCs in England with modernised form.  IFCAs would have the modern enforcement powers so long requested by SFCs along with wider duties and greater accountability. SFC Officers were spending much time with ASFC liaising with MFA, Defra (their lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel) in ensuring the bill was ‘fit for purpose’.  WAG Fish did not seem to be involved to the same extent.  Indeed there appeared to be a frustration between London and Cardiff as to how fishery clauses in particular might be constructed in line with developing policy.

Defra had appointed a consultant to review potential IFCA boundaries.  Emerging was perhaps a NW England IFCA, ending at the Welsh boundary (R Dee).

Officers then responded to questions as to history, process and timing.

The Director referred members to the WAG consultation (dated 9 June) of a proposal for WAG to assume full responsibility for the management and enforcement of sea fisheries around the Welsh coast, abolishing Welsh SFCs in the process.  He gave an overview of the history of the awaited consultation as circulated.

A general discussion took place in which the majority of members participated.

Concern was raised at the ‘tone’ of the document, which appeared to have a ‘mindset’.  Some suggested that the Minister, Elin Jones, be asked to explain her views to the Committee.  Officers indicated that she had received a general presentation from SFCs on 17 January was generally aware of their work. 

Various members referred to the assertions on paras. 4, 5 and 6, regarding Habitats Directive compliance and funding.  The Director said that neither SFC knew to what was referred. Both refuted the allegations.  Information would be obtained, but Ensis deep dredging in Carmarthen Bay was one candidate.  Mr Wisby pointed out that the Committee had not only met the requirements there, but exceeded them when trial shallow water dredging (which CCW were party to at the time) was stopped when it became evident that the area was to become a SPA for scoter duck.

The Director suggested that, far from the SWSFC being liable, it was actually WAG that was at risk of infraction proceedings on the grounds of its lack of appropriate action. Paradoxically it was still SWSFC byelaws that restricted dredging activity and protected the SACs that WAG now sought to remove! This was one of many “matters of detail” that WAG had been informed of in 2004 that it would be necessary to engage the SFC on and put in place adequate solutions.

Mr Bray asserted that it was WAG / Defra vessel licences and conditions which allowed commercial  fishing in the first place, and which was probably unlawful in the absence of the assessment and that SWSFC had undertaken such assessment!
The financial aspects (para. 6) held similar irony.  It was WAG’s failure to support SFCs in 1999 when Local Authorities boundaries changed that gave rise to the ‘not properly funded’ allegation.  The paper did not reflect the Revenue Support Grant mechanism now in place that “passported” funding from NAW to Welsh SFCs which meant that Habitats Directive or any other duties which had to be met, would be met by SFC levy upon Local Authorities. 

Members asked if (para 6) there was an ‘absence of clarity’ in SFC duties, as from the reports they had received they considered matters were clear?  The Director said that SWSFC officers and lawyers had, to their understanding, great clarity.  Ironically, where there was any uncertainty, this lay e.g. on fishing as a ‘plan or project’ and an absence of clear advice from Government.  This had been reported on numerous times to Committee, and was the subject of recent high level correspondence between ASFC and Defra.

Lawyers had also raised concerns on the above and the approach taken by WAG, and advice was awaited.
Cllr Hughes questioned how the loss of expertise within WAG, associated with a move to Aberystwyth, might impact upon services?  She also questioned the security of funding in any WAG model, and what role local authorities would have in decision making on locally implemented management?

In discussion it was agreed that LAs ought to respond and that it would be preferable if this was a co-coordinated response through Welsh LGA. Cllr James offered to draft some text for consideration amongst elected members and then circulation to WLGA.

Mr Wisby said that it was not clear how fishermen would engage on Policy and enforcement matters, and whether this would only be “arms length” advisory.  He said SAC management plans were like that, and fishermen’s involvement was via the SWSFC, which would now be lost.

He questioned where the scientific basis for decision making would come from and how (if) this might give rise to any questioning of CCW advice.  He referred to the CCW Fisheries Policy development and feared for the future of fishermen if WAG took CCW advice without question.

The Director circulated a further explanation sheet including Pros and Cons which was discussed and RECEIVED for wider circulation.

After due debate IT WAS RESOLVED:

1. Upon the basis of information currently available in the consultation to support, in principle, the IFCA model and a single IFCA for Wales.
2. To discuss and derive a consultation response at an Extraordinary meeting of the full Committee in July.
3. To invite WAG officials to the meeting in order to ‘flesh the bones’ and assist produce an informed response.
4. Cllr James to draft a response to send to WLGA after prior circulation.

9 (b)WELSH FISHERIES STRATEGY
The Director said that the last Quarterly meeting had responded to what was now a ‘High level’ Strategy.  The Strategy Steering Group had considered all responses in Aberystwyth on 12 May.  EA and CCW were to provide alternative text regarding ‘Strategy protocol’, establishing time frames and targets for outputs and advice on the need for SEA (Strategic Environment Assessment).  Meanwhile the formation of Species Action Plans would develop via sectoral interests (Aquaculture, Angling, Freshwater and Commercial).  Scallop management had been suggested by SWSFC for consideration at its next meeting on 10 July.

9 (c) WELSH FISHERIES ZONE
The Director introduced the proposal by saying it was not clear what the proposal intended to achieve by extending Welsh jurisdiction into offshore waters.  In this area WAG had no control over foreign (EU) vessels which were subject to CFP rules) . Beyond 12nm EU vessel numbers far exceeded Welsh vessels, which was not the case inshore.  Other WAG departments had indicated that this was a fishery only initiative and, for example, claims for aggregate, oil, gas, energy rights, etc were not intended to follow.

When asked Mr T Allen offered his own views, suggesting it was merely a logical extension of the Welsh 12m boundary for which WAG already had fishery management responsibility.
IT WAS RESOLVED:

1. To write to WAG asking for an explanation as to reasoning behind the application, including costs and benefits, as were more usually included in government consultations.
2. o raise a principled objection if the measure gave rise to additional costs, the effect of which might lead to a reduction in management or policing of inshore grounds (ie < 6 miles) in which most Welsh fishermen fished.

10. Item taken in conjunction with Item 9(a).