23rd MEETING OF THE SCOTTISH COASTAL FORUM HELD AT FRS MARINE LABORATORY, ABERDEEN at 10.30AM ON THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2004 .
Present:
Mr Mike Comerford, MCA (In the Chair)
Dr Derek McGlashan, CoastNET
Miss Kara Bryden, LINK
Mr Colin Wishart, CoSLA
Mr Derek Duthie, Scottish Fishermen's Federation
Prof Bill Ritchie, Aberdeen University/Chair of SARF
Capt. George Dobie, BPA
Dr Robert Gatliffe, BGS
Capt. Jim Simpson, Chair, Coastal Strategy Sub-group
Mr Doug McLeod
In attendance:
Dr Bill Turrell, FRS Marine Lab
Mr Dominic Counsell, SNH
Mr Ian Hay, East Grampian Coastal Partnership
Mr Steve Dowell, SE Planning
Mr Paul Haddon, SEERAD Freshwater Fisheries and Aquaculture
Mr Stephen Midgley, SCF Coastal Project Officer
Mr Ian Melville, SEERAD Countryside and Natural Heritage
Mr Manson Wright, SEERAD Countryside and Natural Heritage
Mr Malcolm Duce, SEERAD Countryside and Natural Heritage
1. Chairman's opening remarks
Mike Comerford explained that Tony Wilks had asked him to chair the meeting in his absence. He welcomed Robert Gatliffe, Kara Bryden, Paul Haddon, Derek Duthie and Ian Hay.
2. Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from;
Capt. Tony Wilks, Chairman
Mr Neil Black, visitscotland
Dr Richard Luxmoore, SE Link
Mr Maf Smith, Scottish Renewables
Mr Neil Ferguson, Scottish Enterprise
Mr Stephen Cummings, sportscotland
Dr David Long, BGS
Dr Scot Mathieson, SEPA
Dr Sandy Downie, SNH
Miss Alayna Imlah, SEERAD, WED
3. Minutes of the 22nd Meeting held on 15 July 2004 (Paper SCF/23/1)
The date of the letter to Minister was confirmed as 4 June 2004 and the minutes were adopted as a true record of the meeting.
4. Fisheries Research Services Presentation
Dr Bill Turrell, Head of FRS marine ecosystems section gave a presentation about the ongoing work of the unit.
A copy of his presentation is attached as Annex 1.
Bill Ritchie stressed the need to relate this research work to the SCF remit and therefore tie up with the needs of policymakers. Bill Turrell commented that the status of the coastal zone is not assessed much by scientists, and how to integrate the work of management groups and the monitoring and gathering of information must be considered. He said that one option was for scientists to develop closer links to the SCF and a link could be established through attendance at future meetings.
Robert Gatliffe commented that detailed mapping of the coastal zone is necessary and could be achieved over the next five years, as decisions need to be based on sound science and a criticism was made of the Irish Sea Pilot project, which has not been able to obtain the required scientific data. Manson Wright said that data collection had an opportunity to piggyback with some of the mainstream activities for example ferries or under-utilised fishing boats thus making vast amounts of information available and helping hard-pressed industrial sectors. Bill Turrell said this would require money and manpower and that while £40 million was available for monitoring fish stocks only £0.8 million was available for monitoring ecosystems. Mike Comerford said that integration would make resources go further. Robert Gatliffe said that Canada is a good example of this approach. Bill Turrell suggested the development of a Coastal Observatory and cited Liverpool Bay Coastal Observatory as an example. It was stated that SCF could pull together monitors and users in a one-stop shop idea. Manson Wright said that any science sub-group involving FRS, SAMS and NAFC must feed back to policy makers if it is to be credible and have a chance of proper funding.
AP - SCF to arrange a meeting with SAMS and FRS to discuss potential future coordination of work and more formal links to be made between the various groups.
DM asked if that details such as abundance of species could be added to any maps produced? The specific example would be seed mussels that would be of value to the commercial shellfish industry.
5. Project Officers Update
a) Letter from local coastal partnerships (Paper SCF/23/4)
Stephen Midgley summarised a draft reply to the Local Coastal Partnerships letter. It was agreed that the letter should be revisited and circulated around members.
Mike Comerford speaking for the LCPs said that regarding research, all partnerships should be careful not to duplicate effort. He said that the LCPs would also like the SCF to represent them at national level. Jim Simpson agreed the letter was an opportunity to establish a link between LCPs and the SCF. Ian Hay said this link could provide the opportunity to develop joint bids for funding. GD commented that project funding is dominating the work of the local partnerships. Colin Wishart said that the letter addressed some useful issues, but local partnerships have an uneven geographical spread around Scotland and the requirements for partnerships varies in time.
KB said that the main body needs a clear structure with objectives and management plan that the partnerships could easily hook into, using environment LINK as a case study. Mike Comerford said that an umbrella group may help LCPs survive in a changing policy context. If SCF were to take on this role, Ian Melville said that Ministers would have to make the final decision, along with, if LCP's were to be represented on the SCF. DC observed that their remains difficulties in the short term as there are long term policy changes happening at the moment. Useful roles of LCP's need to be sold to stakeholders. SCF has been supporting LCPs since its inception and it is part of the agreed remit. CW commented that perhaps LCP's should have formal representation on the SCF. There was then discussion of how LCPs could be represented on the SCF, one option being for each to report to the SCF either regularly or on a rotational basis, with the project officer as the focal point and with SCF minutes being circulated to the LCPs. Another option was that they could report through the chair of a sub-group. DMc suggested that coherent views would not be required for this.
Mike Comerford informed the group that the LCPs believe that the SCF could help them reach higher level Scottish Executive organisations, but Jim Simpson warned that the SCF must not get bogged down in this. National policies need to be implemented and SCF should provide advice on the national policies and agencies associated. Bill Ritchie said that in the present stage of development that it was necessary to move from a strategic to a tactical level, and suggested that regional chairs of the local partnerships could be ex officio members of the Scottish Coastal Forum.
It was agreed that the response to the letter from the local coastal partnerships should be positive and supportive, but agreement on the exact role of the Forum would need more detailed discussion and the involvement of the Minister. KB commented that the letter needs to state the current roles of the two groups and why LCP's are not on the SCF. Doug McLeod said that LCPs should be kept at arms length as they are perceived as environmental groups.
AP - CPO to set up a meeting between the Chairs of LCP's and members of SCF to discuss possible solutions to linking SCF with LCP's.
b) New work programme based upon the Strategy for Scotland's Coast and Inshore Waters (Paper SCF/23/2)
Stephen Midgley gave a presentation on his new work programme.
Colin Wishart agreed that the SCF needs to decide what is priority and commented that the role of the CPO would be to work with statutory bodies and integrate the implementation of the strategy. SCF will have an opportunity to review the strategy following the consultation period.
It was commented that the LCP's have difficulty engaging with national bodies and can be in competition with local authorities.
AP - It was agreed that individual written submissions should be sent to the project officer by the 4th October, and that a revised draft work programme would be presented at the next meeting.
Stephen Midgley asked what should be his role in assisting LCPs with gaining project funding eg. Interreg and LIFE, within his remit of providing advice. It was agreed that this could be time-consuming. Mike Comerford said that it should be up to LCPs to implement and for the project officer to oversee and monitor. Jim Simpson said there was a role to facilitate co-operation, involving stakeholders and monitoring. Manson Wright said that next year they would have the results of the Scottish Executive consultation with more recommendations of how to take this forward. Mike Comerford said that LCPs stakeholder engagement was something to work on. Derek McGlashan said that the project officer should not be a project worker and Kara Bryden suggested that the CPO spend 50% of time on engaging with partners and 50% on the SCF agenda.
6. Scottish Biodiversity Forum, Marine Implementation Plan
Dominic Counsell, of SNH, gave a presentation on biodiversity, a copy of which is attached as Annex 2..
The SCF are a stakeholder in 4 actions and are included within the Marine Biodiversity Task Force, which is listed in 16 actions. Manson Wright asked which definition of marine the SBF had used. Dominic Counsell said it is maritime including within 12 miles. Derek Duthie said he had concerns over how all the different plans are fitting together and it was difficult to see how they are being coodrinated. The role of SCF in the MBIP presumes that the SCF wants to be involved. SCF cannot be involved in implementation. Mike Comerford said that the SCF had a role in the biodiversity strategy as facilitator and talking shop, bringing together the roles of the various organisations in SCF It could then advise Ministers, or present different points of view if no consensus was reached. There was then discussion of concerns that the biodiversity consultation, launched in May, had not reached many organisations. Dominic Counsell said that some reaction to the consultation would be useful and it was suggested that the consultation period could be extended.
Agreement was made on the fact that Clarity was required within the MBIP's and the SBF plans required a reality check. MC asked what was happening in England and Wales?
It is currently not clear what the duty will be on public bodies to implement the Biodiversity plans.
AP - CPO to send out copies of the SBF Implementation plan consultation to SCF members and LCP project officers
7. Member Update Forum and AOCB
CW - Atlantic Coast Project, Topic group meetings are in progress. It is a short and fast timescale and the plans are due for out for consultation early next year (2005)
MC asked why Highland Council opted for West Coast and not MFP. CW stated that the community were more closely linked to the marine environment and that the area was large but not too large. The Moray Firth would be too large.
Robert Gatliffe spoke of John Rees projects (RG focuses on the marine environment rather than coastal). The current Clyde Estuary survey using hovercraft is currently underway, along with an Interreg programme (MESH) to develop a seabed habitat map, and the proposed use of using fishing boats while they are not fishing.
SD - The transfer of consent regimes for Aquaculture is in progress with a policy paper due out in the second week of October. The secondary legislation should be due in spring next year.
MC - The IMO ballast water convention has been adopted and there is in progress a scoping study on the regional management of Ballast Water Risk Assessment.
SCF PO is currently developing a project under the INTERREG proposals to create a pilot map/spatial information for the coastline on the east coast of Scotland. It requires a partnership to become a lead partner, or could be a test of Scottish Coastal Partnerships to take the lead? It is a means of achieving a number of SCF actions in the Strategy.
SCF intend having a stand at the LITTORAL 2004 conference in Aberdeen. The aim is to promote SCF, the strategy and the LCPs. There will be potential to make links with potential European Partners and to disseminate the large volume of work done by SCF and LCPs.
8. Dates of next meetings
16th December 2004 and 17th March 2005 were agreed.