PEMBROKESHIRE ISLANDS CANDIDATE SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION
MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF LIAISON FORUM
MONDAY, 27 MARCH 2000, WELSH WATER, HAVERFORDWEST
Present
Steve Taylor (SAT) Pembrokeshire County Council (Chair)
Sue Gilbert (SG) SAC Project Officer
Molly Pritchard (MP) Milford Haven Town Council (Community)
Maureen Taylor (MT) Hyder (Welsh Water)
Julian Orchard (JO) Twr-y-Felin Centre (Recreation rep)
Bill Keppel-Compton (BKC) Pembrokeshire Tourism Federation (Tourism rep)
Phil Nicolle (PN) Wildlife Trust West Wales (Nature Conservation rep)
Paul Varallo (PV) Environment Agency Wales
John Archer-Thompson (JAT) Dale Fort Field Studies Centre (on behalf of Julian Cremona, Education rep)
Jim Price (JP) Pembrokeshire Chamber of Commerce (Business & Commerce rep)
Ian Wisby (IW) Joint Fishing Communities South & West Wales (Fisheries rep)
Anne Hughes (AH) Milford Haven Town Council (Community rep)
Mark Andrews (MA) Milford Haven Port Authority
Blaise Bullimore (BB) Countryside Council for Wales
Mike Camplin (MC) Countryside Council for Wales
Robin Crump (RC) Orielton Field Centre (Skomer MNR rep)
David Heath (DH) Texaco Ltd (on behalf of David Harries, Industry rep)
Yvonne Evans (YE) Marloes & St Bride’s Community Council (Community rep)
Jane Hodges (JH) Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority
Tony Lewis (TL) Welsh Federation of Sea Anglers (South West Region)
(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 and introduced the recently appointed Project Officer for the Pembrokeshire Islands cSAC, Sue Gilbert. Members were invited to make their own introductions. Apologies were recorded from John Deason (Pembrokeshire Sports Council), John Everett (Elf Oil (UK) Ltd), Phil Coates (South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee), and later from Steve Thompson (Estee Aqua).
2. Minutes of Liaison Forum 23 November 1999 and matters arising.
The minutes were agreed and no matters were raised.
3. Minutes of Relevant Authority Group (RAG) meeting 23 November 1999 and matters arising.
No matters were raised.
4. Project Officer progress report.
a) Communication & information provision
SG summarised her progress as Project Officer since taking up post on 17th January. Contact by letter has already been made with all Liaison Group representatives but today’s Liaison Forum has offered the first formal opportunity to meet. The Project Officer will provide the initial focal point for all enquiries about the Pembrokeshire Islands cSAC and will ease the line of communication between all interested parties and the Relevant Authority Group. To date much of the Project Officer’s time has been spent improving information provision to the public. A mail shot has been carried out to all registered interested parties and information packs have been distributed to the main local libraries – Fishguard, Haverfordwest, Milford Haven, Neyland, Pembroke, Pembroke Dock and Tenby. This information pack is limited at present to a basic cSAC map and the Interim Guidance document (CCW). More information will be added as it becomes available. It was suggested that local secondary schools and Pembrokeshire College also be provided with information. This will take place as soon as additional suitable information is available.
SG is currently working with a local consultant to develop a web site for the SAC. It is hoped that this will be on line well before the next meeting. The address is www.pembrokeshireislandssac.org.uk. This site will be generally informative as well as providing details of the Relevant Authorities Group, the Liaison Forum, Interest Groups and notice of the public meeting.
PN asked if minutes of Liaison Forum meetings could be included. This will occur as a matter of course. JO asked what Interest Group details would appear on the web site. SG gave assurance that only the names of representatives, and not contact details, would be included. Such details can be requested directly from the Project Officer. SG stressed that links would be provided for each representative and that any minutes of Interest Group meetings, dates of future meetings, issues and concerns would be very welcome. Representatives should submit anything relevant for inclusion in the SAC web site to SG.
ACTION: all representatives
An information sheet is also being produced. This is especially for those who do not have access to the Internet and will basically be a hard copy of the web site. It has been agreed that SG will produce such a sheet as a ‘stop-gap’ until a professional leaflet can be produced hopefully in time for the public meeting. Ideas on how best to distribute such a leaflet were invited.
b) Site management
SG described the major part of her work programme as working towards the management of the site. Before any issues can be identified and management decisions can be made, it is vital to build a comprehensive information base on what activities are occurring within the SAC and where, existing management measures, and current concerns. This is a process that the Interest Groups could assist with. The production of a management plan document is going to be a long involved task that is very unlikely to be completed within the next 2 years.
BKC asked how straightforward the whole SAC process and the Relevant Authorities Group’s (RAG’s) involvement was. SAT replied that information dissemination was improving but the problem remained that the relevant authorities still had no additional powers or resources, and that the RAG’s role was difficult to explain to people. JP offered to pass to SG a presentation that he had prepared to inform colleagues about the SAC and who was involved. He has found that there is in general a limited interest in detail and people just want to know ‘how will it affect me?’ PN agreed but commented that the public should know about the Interest Groups and should know what they want from the SAC before taking the step of asking how they will be affected.
BKC in recognising the overlap of concerns between Interest Groups suggested encouraging the exchange of information between representatives. SG can distribute any information that is copied to her. In this way information sharing can be easily accessible.
6. Role of Interest Groups.
The chairman described the role of Interest Groups as advising the relevant authorities on issues, their activities, and how their activities could impact on the SAC and vice versa.
SG suggested that an area where the Interest Groups could particularly assist at this stage was in the creation of an information base. What is happening, where, and how much – at present, in the past, and potentially in the future. This would allow the identification of areas of overlapping interest, and indicate where problems might exist or could arise. It would also conversely identify areas where no problems are forseen. YE asked if further guidance could be given to representatives on what exactly is required of them in the form of a questionnaire. SG agreed to give further details as appropriate.
ACTION: SG
JO commented that he had sent out a series of questions regarding issues within the SAC to the Recreation Interest Group but as yet had no replies. He made the observation that people will tend not to react until there is something to react to. JP suggested starting debate about the SAC by saying something may change. In this way more interest may be generated. Often a change is needed before any reaction. AH described the difficulties with attracting interest from the community and town councils. It was concluded that a raising of awareness was needed before people could be expected to add to the SAC discussions and future management. JAT suggested the use of an educational interactive CD Rom which was something which the Education Interest Group had been considering. SG welcomed any ideas that could be used to raise general awareness and indicated that possible funding for information awareness was being investigated and looked positive
JP asked when might there be a change which could be reported and so capture people’s attention. i.e. reporting on the management plan. This is some way off in the future, but it instigated discussion on what form the final document would take. It was agreed that the main document should be precise, point to detailed sources of information, and contain thorough appendices. A ‘friendlier’ version should be more widely available for the general public much like Tir a Mor (the management summary for Cardigan Bay). Distribution on CD Rom was also agreed as a good idea. RC asked why Cardigan Bay was so far ahead of the Pembrokeshire Islands site in terms of management? MC replied this was because it was a candidate site first, it had LIFE funding, and only a single species, the bottlenose dolphin to deal with.
PN asked whether any answers were forthcoming regarding the Nature Conservation Interest Group’s ‘Issue List’. Many were seen to be issues in their own right and should be addressed to the appropriate relevant authority for answers. Those of particular relevance to the SAC would be put aside to address once baseline information has been collated. Issues consultation will be a big task – but issues will not be forgotten, but put into the ‘pot’ until solutions can be posed. Care should be taken not to create expectations of immediate problem solving. Interest Groups are to be reassured that the identification of issues is of vital importance and all will be carefully considered during the management scheme process.
IW offered to pursue some local fishing statistics and report back to SG.
7. Public Meeting 2000.
This is proposed as 7:30pm on Friday 23 June at the Kaleidoscope Centre, but has yet to be confirmed.
ACTION: SG to book venue
This should be widely advertised which will certainly include notice in the local press. An information leaflet will also be available. RC suggested a televised article as the best means of ‘advertising’ the SAC.
The public meeting this year should be an opportunity for the RAG and the Liaison Forum to explain what they have been doing since the last public meeting. Presentations should be kept brief and Interest Groups should be introduced and invited to present their views. The public need feedback from the Interest Groups as well as the relevant authorities. Interest Group Representatives were invited to set up displays at the meeting.
Presentation of basic information on the SAC was still felt to be necessary as some people still remain ignorant of the SAC and others forget. Such a presentation should be brief however. Greater thought will be given to the public meeting at the next Liaison Forum.
8. Other business
Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum
The chairman raised the issue of the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum (PCF) to clear up any possible confusion between its function and the function of the SAC groups. The Forum does not yet exist but a set-up seminar is due to take place on 6 May. Many relevant authorities will be involved and there is potential for the SAC to become an issue within the PCF. Whereas the SAC has a specific objective with a limited geography, driven by legislation and constrained by terms of reference, the PCF offers a wider platform for many voluntary initiatives. It is obviously not beneficial for groups to be replicated or for the distinctness of the SAC to be lost.
It may be possible to publicise the SAC at the PCF set-up meeting. The idea that the PCF could be a separate SAC Interest Group was also posed. Obviously detailed discussion will have to wait until after 6 May.
9. Date and venue of next meeting
As the primary aim of the next meeting of the Liaison Forum will be to discuss the public meeting, it cannot be set until the date of the public meeting has been confirmed. Representatives will be given notice as soon as possible.
