|
PEMBROKESHIRE ISLANDS CANDIDATE SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION
MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF LIAISON FORUM
TUESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 1999, MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY
Present
Steve TAYLOR (SAT) Pembrokeshire County Council (Chair)
Mark ANDREWS (MA) Milford Haven Port Authority
Blaise BULLIMORE (BB) Countryside Council for Wales
Mike CAMPLIN (MC) Countryside Council for Wales
Phil COATES (PC) South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
Robin CRUMP (RC) Orielton Field Centre (Skomer MNR rep)
Yvonne EVANS (YE) Marloes & St Bride’s Community Council (Pembrokeshire Association of Local Councils)
Jane HODGES (JH) Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority
Phil NICOLLE (PN) Wildlife Trust West Wales (Nature Conservation rep)
Julian ORCHARD (JO) Twr-y-Felin Centre (Recreation rep)
Jim PRICE (JP) Pembrokeshire Chamber of Commerce (Business & commerce rep)
Trevor THEOBALD (TT) Pembrokeshire County Council
Paul VARALLO (PV) Environment Agency Wales
Ian WISBY (IW) Joint Fishing Communities South & West Wales (Fisheries rep)
(Titles and honours omitted. Relevant authorities / members of the Relevant Authorities (RA) Group shown in italics)
1. Welcome & apologies
The chairman welcomed members to the meeting. Apologies were recorded from David Harries (Texaco), Bill Keppell-Compton (Pembrokeshire Tourism Federation) and John Deason (Pembrokeshire Sports Council). The chairman noted with disappointment the small turnout of representatives from sectoral interests. (Apologies were also subsequently received from John Everett who had confused the date of the meeting)
YE reported that she not had not received the agenda and suggested that some other members may not have done either. The secretariat confirmed that papers had been sent to all members on 12 November. (YE subsequently telephoned the secretariat to report that she had received the papers but had overlooked them)
2. Minutes of meeting 27 July 1999 and matters arising
The minutes were agreed as a true record. No matters arising not on the agenda were raised.
3. Ratification of draft Purpose and Terms of Reference
SAT reported that no comments on the Purpose & Terms document had been received by the secretariat.
He reported that during the period since the last meeting it had appeared there remained some misunderstandings of the purpose of the SAC and of the Liaison Fora. He guided members through the terms of reference, emphasising particularly:
- the interest groups contribution to the Fora, notably the elements under point 5;
- the need for liaison interest representatives to effectively represent their interests by attending meetings of the Fora;
- that the Fora were one of the primary mechanisms to ensure two way communication between community and sectoral interests and the Relevant Authorities with statutory obligations towards SACs.
It was noted that Bill Keppell-Compton had only recently canvassed the views of tourism interests. Nevertheless, SAT proposed that:
- subject to the typographical and other corrections identified at the time of the first meeting;
- on the understanding that the document could and should be reviewed at regular intervals and should be presented to the next public meeting for endorsement;
- a further point be added that the document be kept under review;
the Purpose and Terms be ratified. Agreed unanimously.
4. Feedback and queries from sectoral interest groups
SAT invited contributions from interests representatives.
JP reported that commercial members remained nervous but, having accepted that the SAC would be designated in due course, were content that the liaison mechanism had been established.
PN reported that the Nature Conservation Interests Group had held one meeting. They had identified a wide range of both narrow and broad issues and queries. Rather than attempt to address them during this meeting it was agreed that the list be forwarded to the secretariat for circulation to all members with the minutes. This would both provide an example to other interest groups and potentially promote discussion. ACTION: PN & SECRETARIAT
Particular issues which had been raised were:
- a lack of clarity where statutory responsibilities lay, particularly within Milford Haven;
- the need for transparent decision making;
- the need for interest groups to make positive, proactive contribution to avoid ‘top-down’ liaison;
- the need for information exchange between interest groups.
These were agreed. In order to address the first of these issues it was agreed that the RAs would review, and revise if necessary, the briefing note on their statutory duties and responsibilities each had provided to the RA Group (RAG) in January 1998. These would then be circulated to interest groups.
ACTION: ALL RA MEMBERS
MA agreed that better communication with the local community was necessary. He reported that MHPA are actively attempting to explain their functions and operations through a series of briefings to local communities. He offered to make similar arrangements for interest groups.
With reference to the issue of inter-group communication, the RAG hoped that this Forum would provide a primary opportunity for cross fertilisation; hence the disappointment at the poor attendance.
JP recognised that the statutory responsibilities of the RAs would take precedence over the ‘democratic’ view of the Liaison Fora in influencing the development of the management scheme.
MA stressed that each RA would take socio-economic interests into account when determining its course of action. SAT reminded members that it is the members of the RAG which have statutory responsibilities rather than the Group itself; the RAG is not an executive body.
JO queried whether a time-table for the production of a management scheme had yet been agreed. It has not.
PN suggested that attendance of RA members at interest group meetings would be valuable on occasion.
IW reported that commercial fishermen continue to be worried that their activities will be curtailed in the SAC despite assurances that there would be no change to fisheries management. He further reported that one local fisherman had written to the European Commission and passed a copy of the EC’s response to the Secretariat. (attached to minutes)
PC reminded members that any introduction of new management would be the responsibility of the SWSFC or MAFF and that they must take account of the conservation requirements for the site, though the site had been proposed for designation ‘in spite of’ current levels of fishing. It was also strongly stressed that although there were no proposals for changes to fisheries management at present, the need for new management had not yet been examined and it would be unjust for the SWSFC to make an undertaking that there would be no change if it later found itself in a position of not being able to honour that undertaking.
IW reiterated his concern to protect local commercial fishing interests.
JO reported that:
- the recreational interests group were due to hold another meeting;
- the SAC had been considered at the Pembrokeshire Outdoor Charter Group’s meetings (the group is an association of commercial providers of outdoor recreation working with the PCNP, CCW and others to ensure high environmental standards);
- the establishment of Pembrokeshire Afloat - an association of providers of ‘eco-tourism’ and associated services which intend to develop a ‘charter’ for commercial marine tourism operators.
RC reported that the Skomer MNR Advisory Committee had not met since the last meeting. However, the Committee had an ongoing concern about the resource implications of SAC and MNR requirements.
PN raised the issue of access to information. He pointed out that whilst there is a significant volume of relevant and detailed information relating to the features exists, most is difficult to find out about and to access. This was recognised by CCW who consider the issue of information dissemination to be a major and important challenge. Although potentially suitable electronic information delivery systems are being developed and improving, it was recognised that they are only available to those individuals with access to the Internet. A local records centre, the EU funded Marine Information System for the Southern Irish Sea (MISSIS) project under development and the loss of the OPRU library from the area were discussed.
It was agreed that information should be better available and accessible within Pembrokeshire, and that relevant documents should be copied to public libraries.
5. Possible development of separate Community (Councils) Interests Forum
SAT reminded members that the view of the public meeting in May had been that separate fora for sectoral interests and community (council) interests were necessary. He asked whether this remained the view of the community representatives.
YE was unable to provide a response in the absence of Councillor Hughes (Milford Haven Town Council / Milford Haven Waterway Assembly).
In the absence of a clear need for two fora separate at present, the chair proposed and it was agreed that community and sectoral interests remained merged until such time as community interests consider the establishment of a community liaison forum necessary. It was further agreed that, for the sake of brevity, this joint forum be known simply as the PI cSAC Liaison Forum.
YE mentioned that Community Councils had been consulted by PCC on the development of the Shoreline Management Plan for west and north Pembrokeshire. The relationship with the SAC had been unclear and some confusion had been caused. SAT confirmed that the two were unrelated, though likely to have some issues in common, and concurred that the purposes of consultations originating with PCC and their relationships with other initiatives could be clearer.
6. Interim guidance of Pembrokeshire Islands cSAC Features and Conservation Aims
The chairman introduced the document circulated in fulfilment of the undertaking made at the first meeting of the Forum.
BB briefly led members through the document which is intended to amplify the sparse information provided in the original consultation and recommendation for designation. He stressed that even though it contains more detailed information, it remains very broad brush and it is anticipated that whilst it will undoubtedly be far from sufficient for some needs, it will be too detailed for others.
He invited comments on whether the document meets expectations and requirements, and whether members find it useful.
7. Mechanisms for making detailed information available to SIG members
The chairman acknowledged that the dissemination of large volumes of information by interest group representatives was a difficult an onerous practical task. BB reported a query from Bill Keppel-Compton whether documents could be made available at the CCW office for reference. This was agreed to and had been implemented.
However, it was agreed that a more appropriate location would be Pembrokeshire’s public libraries. SAT agreed to provide a contact name to the Secretariat so that the appropriate arrangements could be made. PC also offered to make available SAC documents for reference in the SWSFC office in Swansea.
ACTION: SAT & SECRETARIAT
8. Other business
a) Project Officer
The chairman reported that recruitment of a project officer was in hand. A 12 month post had been advertised with a closing date of 3 December and interviews on 16 December. The post will be hosted by the Milford Haven Port Authority. It is hoped that resources will be obtained to extend the post but the grant-aiding process is complex. SAT highlighted the officer’s outline initial work programme and suggested that it be circulated with the minutes. (see attached)
b) Next actions for interest groups
PN asked what was required of the interest groups next. BB indicated that information on each group’s use and activities within the site was vital (Terms of Reference 4 iii). Although PN considered that conservation objectives were necessary first, BB stressed that collection and collation of activity information would be a long process and should happen in parallel with conservation objective development rather than sequentially afterwards.
YE requested a questionnaire to help guide interest groups as to the information required. This was agreed and it will be added to the Project officer’s work programme as a priority task.
9. Next meeting
The next meeting will be 17:15 Monday 27 March 2000; venue to be advised.
|
