|
PEMBROKESHIRE MARINE CANDIDATE SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION
MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF LIAISON FORUM
MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2000, MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY
Present
Steve Taylor (SAT) Pembrokeshire County Council (Chair)
Steve Thompson (ST) Estee Aqua (on behalf of the Milford Haven Waterway Users Association)
Julian Orchard (JO) Twr-y-Felin Centre (Recreation rep.)
Trevor Theobald (TT) Pembrokeshire County Council
Jane Hodges (JH) Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority
Mike Camplin (MC) Countryside Council for Wales
Blaise Bullimore (BB) Countryside Council for Wales
Sue Burton (SB) SAC Project Officer
Mark Andrews (MA) Milford Haven Port Authority
John Archer-Thompson (JAT) Dale Fort Field Studies Centre (on behalf of Julian Cremona, Education rep.)
Maureen Taylor (MT) Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water
David Harries (DH) Texaco Ltd (Industry rep.)
Paul Varallo (PV) Environment Agency
Yvonne Evans (YE) Marloes & St Bride’s Community Council (Community rep.)
Anne Hughes (AH) Milford Haven Town Council (Community rep.)
Robin Crump (RC) Orielton Field Centre (on behalf of the Skomer MNR Advisory Committee)
Phil Coates (PC) South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
Jim Price (JP) Pembrokeshire Chamber of Commerce (Business & Commerce rep.)
(Titles and honours omitted. Relevant authorities / members of the Relevant Authorities (RA) Group shown in italics).
1. Welcomes & apologies
The chairman welcomed members to the meeting. Apologies were recorded from Bill Keppel-Compton (Pembrokeshire Tourism Federation - Tourism rep.), John Deason (Pembrokeshire Sports Council - Recreation rep.), Steve Lucas (Wildlife Trust West Wales - Nature Conservation/Environment rep.), Ian Wisby (The Joint Fishing Communities of South and West Wales - Fisheries rep.), and Phil Morgan (Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water).
2. Minutes of Liaison Forum 7 June 2000 and matters arising
The minutes were accepted without correction, with no matters arising.
3. SAC Moderation
SB checked that all members had received their moderation information.
BB gave a brief description of the moderation process and timetable. The response date for consultation on the proposed changes is 4th December. BB explained that CCW would then coordinate the comments and forward to the NAW who would subsequently forward the proposed amendments and additions to the DETR in order for the final site list to then be posted to the European Commission by the deadline at the end of December. The press release by the National Assembly for Wales had been useful, as it had highlighted that the timetable had been governed by the EC’s deadline.
Due to the tight timetable, the consultation itself was initiated by a public notice. However, BB explained that the Countryside Council for Wales and members of the Relevant Authorities Group felt that Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC Interest Group representatives should be directly informed of the changes proposed. SAT highlighted the fact that the tight timetable precluded full consultation within the County Council as sufficient time was not available to pass documents through committees etc. (a view which JH endorsed from the National Parks point of view).
The southern extension to the site was proposed in order to include the limestone reefs off the coast. Additional notable habitat and species ‘features’ include subtidal sand banks and lamprey and shad fish.
YE asked for confirmation that the Gann Estuary was now included within the site. BB replied that it was – to the boundaries of the SSSI. Due to some of the land adjacent to the Gann being owned by YE’s father, YE declared an interest and asked if this would create a problem. The chairman thanked YE for her declaration and gave assurance that many other local representatives would doubtless have some degree of personal interest and that it was not likely to cause any difficulties.
BB invited questions about the changes but no further clarification was requested.
4. Edinburgh SAC Conference
Attendees at the conference from the group were SB, BB, MC and JH. The aim of the conference was to examine the experiences over the last 4 years of 12 other UK marine SACs and their management progress.
BB tabled a summary/briefing note of the ‘Marine SACs: Partnerships in Action’ Conference in Edinburgh 15-16th November. A document ‘Indications of Good Practice for Establishing Management Schemes on European Marine Sites – Learning from the UK Marine SACs Project 1996-2001’ should be available for distribution in the next couple of months. This will also be available from the UK Marine SAC Project website once it is updated at www.english-nature.org.uk/uk-marine
BB talked through the briefing note emphasising those messages which the attendees had felt were most significant. The dominant message was that the European Commission is taking the implementation of Natura 2000 very seriously. Improved understanding was needed by statutory authorities of the obligations placed on them by the Habitats Directive. The provision of adequate core funding was seen to be the responsibility of the individual member states – European grant aid being useful but not a long-term solution. The 12 LIFE-funded SAC sites discussed at the conference had only made such progress because of the grant aid. However this itself had imposed a tight timetable for production of draft management schemes. SAT indicated that the Relevant Authorities Group would be writing to the National Assembly for Wales to remind them of their responsibilities with regard to European sites, and highlight the funding issue.
Stakeholder involvement in the management process was seen as vital, as was the clear understanding of the value and objectives of the site. The provision of a site based Project Officer, particularly where sites were large and complicated, was seen to be essential to the success of the site. Management action rather than the production of a plan was viewed as the end target. The experiences of the 12 demonstration SAC sites have showed that there is no single ‘correct’ approach to implementation; local circumstances must drive the process. The value of building on existing local initiatives was stressed.
SB described the progress of the Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC to date as being ‘in parallel’ with work demonstrated at the conference by other UK marine SACs. The Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC seemed to have all the right ‘ingredients’ that had been recommended by other sites. Without being too complacent, it is hoped that the Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC can progress successfully having learnt the lessons from other marine SACs.
The large number (twice that initially expected) and mix of attendees were a reflection on the measure of importance now afforded to European Marine Sites. JAT noted with interest that only one member had been present from the National Assembly for Wales.
MA asked if there would be another similar conference in the future. It is hoped that another conference will be organised in 2 years, which will allow a more thorough investigation into management implementation.
5. Project Officer report
The Project Officer reported that since the last meeting she too had been through the moderation process and was now Mrs Burton!
SB attended the Edinburgh conference last week and had found the opportunity to meet Project Officers from other marine SACs very useful. An amount of follow-up will certainly result from the conference.
A press release was sent out prior to the conference, and an article from the Western Telegraph tabled. Another post-conference release is currently being drafted for inclusion in next week’s paper.
The moderation process had resulted in amending E-mail and website addresses in line with the new name of ‘Pembrokeshire Marine’ SAC. SB’s E-mail is now sue@pembrokeshiremarinesac.org.uk with sacofficer@pembrokeshiremarinesac.org.uk being used for general enquiries. The website has been moved to www.pembrokeshiremarinesac.org.uk and now includes information on moderation. The old website will continue to run for the foreseeable future and directs users to the new site. The old E-mail will continue to be monitored for some time.
The task of information collection and collation was still ongoing, with monitoring information from the Environment Agency being the latest data to be made available. It is SB’s intention to package as much relevant information as possible within a GIS database. This will allow summary data to be held in map layers without the need for all raw data to be held and duplicated.
BB pointed out that the value of GIS had been demonstrated at the Edinburgh conference, although issues such as copyright needed to be addressed.
SB informed members that the information collated to date was just reaching the stage where data gaps could be identified. Therefore the time had come to start to target specific individuals/organisations for specific data to help build a complete picture. SB warned members that she could well be contacting some of them soon. Community aspirations for the site were also invited – that is how local individuals and organisations would like to see the SAC develop, how they foresee the site in years to come, and what they would like for themselves from the site.
6. Management Scheme
Explanatory documents were sent out prior to the meeting. These included ‘Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC Management Scheme Development – Process for the identification, planning and agreement of management action’ and ‘Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC Management Scheme Development – Identification of the factors which may influence the features of the site’.
SB explained that the first document showed the steps that the Pembrokeshire Marine cSAC Relevant Authorities Group (RAG) had agreed were necessary for the development of a successful management plan. The second document and A3 matrix were to be discussed in the form of a ‘management exercise’. This exercise had been given to the RAG and broad agreements on relationships reached. Any input from the Liaison Forum would be incorporated into the final results.
BB explained that the identification of factors that may influence the features of the site was one of the first steps in the management process. It was necessary to assess the potential ‘hazards’ before then moving to a ‘risk assessment’ and then attributing particular activities to the factors. Such a broad stepwise approach was needed in order to leave a thorough ‘audit trail’ for future management decisions.
The step now being considered should be viewed as just one dimension of a very complex web of interactions.
YE immediately voiced the concern that she felt ‘blinded by science’. SAT requested that members not be daunted by the exercise. It was a necessary step that needed to be taken before highlighting the potential problems caused by specific activities (at which point interest groups would likely be able to input most). ST usefully described the exercise as part of the ‘basic scaffolding’ of the management scheme.
SB explained that the identification of management issues was a long and complex one. The point of the exercise was to make the management process steps transparent to the Liaison Forum. RC commented that the approach taken at least showed the process by which scientists broke down relationships and made decisions.
Representatives would be provided with the RAG’s exercise results. MC asked how members would prefer that the management process be presented. YE replied that it be made more simplified, and combine a reminder of the project timetable. CCW agreed that a 2-tier approach – one technical and one simplified – would best meet members’ requirements for explanation of the management process.
Members were left to look over the exercise if they wished in their own time, and feed back to the Project Officer. SB also asked if the summary draft management plans from Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau cSAC and Cardigan Bay cSAC had proved to be of interest in illustrating how other marine SACs had presented their management schemes. Feedback was invited. ACTION: all representatives
7. Other business
Oysters: ST had received concerns from harbour users that the oyster was included as a listed species within the SAC, and what effect this may have on traditional oyster fishing. BB confirmed that it was not a Habitats Directive Annex species, however it could be viewed as a component of a habitats feature within the SAC. This was an example of a complex issue where oyster promotion and habitat conservation could be seen to possibly conflict.
Carmarthen Bay: JP asked if the Burry Inlet cSAC had changed considerably. BB replied that it too had added features, and now covered Carmarthen Bay with its western boundary at Tenby (i.e. now including part of Pembrokeshire). Maps of the site were available to view.
8. Date and venue of next meeting
The next meeting of the Liaison Forum will be decided at a later date.
|
