The Scottish Government

MINUTES OF MEETING : SCOTTISH COASTAL FORUM PLENARY GROUP:

15 December 2004, Scottish Enterprise, Atlantic Quay, Glasgow

In attendance:

Stephen Midgely SCF Project Officer

Fiona Watt Scottish Executive (WED)

Alayna Imlah Scottish Executive (WED)

Neil Ferguson Scottish Enterprise

Kara Brydson RSPB Scotland

Steve Dowell Scottish Executive (Planning)

Cathy Tilbrook Scottish Natural Heritage

Bill Ritchie University of Aberdeen (acting Chairman)

Colin Wishart COSLA

Bill Turrell Fisheries Research Services

Frank Parrish Crown Estate

Julia MacPherson Firth of Clyde Forum

Isabel Glasgow Firth of Clyde Forum

Mark Williams Scottish Water

Richard Luxmoore Scottish Environment Link

Heather Stewart British Geological Survey

Doug McLeod Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers

Derek McGlashan CoastNet

1. Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson, Bill Ritchie (standing in for Captain Tony Wilks), welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the hosts, Scottish Enterprise, for providing the accommodation and catering.

2. Apologies for absence

Apologies were received from the following:

Captain Tony Wilks

Stephen Cummings

Scot Mathieson

Bill Taylor

Alistair Prior

Neil Black

Brian Simpson

John Hermse

M Hunniford

Capt Jim Simpson

3. Minutes of 23rd meeting held on 15th September 2004 (Paper SCF 24/1)

The minutes of the previous meeting were formally approved with the following four matters arising:

• The meeting between FRS and SAMS, as proposed in the minutes, was already planned. Feedback from the meeting will be given by Bill Turrell later during today's meeting.

• The proposed meeting between Scottish Coastal Forum and the Local Coastal Partnerships is to be held immediately after today's meeting.

• Proposed updates on work programme progress and individual submissions - CPO gave his thanks to the SCF for the material already received. There are now clearer and more specific goals for the short term, which will guide the CPO work programme. Feedback will be provided later in this meeting.

• The Biodiversity Implementation Plan- it is anticipated that all members of the Forum should now have seen this.

• The SCWRI proposal has now been sent to SCF members. CPO has agreed to be on the advisory body. A copy of the proposal will be sent round with the minutes of this meeting.

4. Presentation by Neil Ferguson of Scottish Enterprise: Coastal and Marine Development

Neil Ferguson of Scottish Enterprise (SE) Knowledge Management and Rural Group (KMRG) gave a presentation of the work of SE with relation to rural and coastal economies. This section of SE has primarily a facilitation role, aiming to stimulate and support groups, with a view to develop lowland Scotland. The area holds 95% of the Scottish population and related industry. Scottish Enterprise consists of 12 Local Enterprise Companies (LECs), a Business Gateway, Careers Scotland and other related overseas offices. The key themes for SE are developing business, global connections, and skills and learning. The organisation has 2,300 staff and an annual expenditure of £500m.

To put rural development in context in relation to coastal development, 95% of the SE area is rural. One million people live in SE rural areas - 75% of the Scottish total. The Senior Director of the SE Rural policy group provides a cohesive response to all new initiatives, and 16% of the annual budget for SE is spent on rural locations. There are several main issues which currently concern Scotland, in both rural and urban locations: EU enlargement, demographic pressures, attracting and retaining talent, and the importance of location. In addition, rural locations have many of the same challenges as urban locations: outward migration, a faster ageing population, limited jobs, traditional industries under stress, the availability of sites for development, and business and individual access problems through lack of infrastructure.

The main objectives of SE are:

• Stimulation of the diversification of the rural economy
• Enhancement of the operation of the rural labour market,
• Improved connections
• Development of opportunity
• Encourage innovation
• Development of competitive, sustainable business in rural industries
• Development of economic sustainability of small communities
• Enhancement of the availability and attractiveness of sites and properties

The work of the SE is closely related to coastal issues:

• SE Energy Team - development of tidal and offshore wind power, the recommissioning of oil and gas, the founding of the Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.
• SE Dumfries and Galloway - examples of coastal involvement with regard to the Solway Shellfish Management Association, Galloway Static Line Association and Solway Firth Fisheries.
• SE Grampian has been involved in the development of Banff coastal tourism.
• SE Forth Valley is currently involved in work with the Forth Estuary Economic corridor, Edinburgh and Lothian Waterfront, Rosyth Bridgehead, and Grangemouth Investment Zone.
• SE Fife has developed the Energy Park at Methil, and is also actively involved in the development of the Fife coast, exploring high quality living environments, the advantages of cross forth ferries, deep water ports , and the development of a Forth ports relocation strategy.
• SE Ayrshire has shown similar involvement in the Ayrshire Coastal Development Framework.

NF identified four SE rural objectives for the future:

• Stimulate a strategic discussion on the opportunities and challenges facing rural Scotland, within the SE Rural Group and also with partner organisations.

• Identify the types of critical issues that the SE and partners will have to address to make an effective contribution future rural economic development.

• Understand how SE intervention and their relationships with stakeholders need to change to meet new challenges.

• Create an agenda for ongoing strategic research and discussion.

It was asked if the Local Enterprise Companies (LECs) supported agricultural communities. NF explained that a framework for discussion has always existed, as farmers regard themselves as businesses. The displacement of indigenous workforces was also discussed and it was suggested that, as low paid work in rural areas was unlikely to attract people from the indigenous workforce, there would be no resulting displacement.

There was then discussion about the role SE (and others) may have to play in the future. SE intend their approach to rural futures, to be a relatively short, sharp, and fast moving process. The rural change drivers which will facilitate this were identified as social changes, political and public sector developments, globalisation and EU enlargement, agricultural and fishing reform, land and housing, environmental development, and technical developments. The most significant uncertainties which may hinder this process are the current political framework and the changing attitudes and outlook of rural people and businesses.

When asked where SE are at the moment, they hope that they are moving towards a rural renaissance. Although this initially may not appear to have much relevance to remit of the SCF, much of the rural development concerns areas with long coastlines, such as the Highlands and Islands, and the Outer Hebrides. At the moment the main operating bodies are Highlands and Islands Enterprise and SE, with Orkney having joint ventures from both. The SE also covers the Buchan area but not all of the boundaries.

There was then some discussion about the integration of the fishing industry in the work of the SCF. It was agreed that this is a crucial group that could make a significant contribution, but they are by far the most difficult group to engage on Coastal Zone Management. A method needs to be found to bring this group into stakeholder discussion in a practical way. One way to do this is to initiate discussions on food/drink/ food supply chain issues. Some discussions are already taking place, and the SE is actively encouraging participation. Tourism issues were also discussed, and it was asked if SE have any projects similar to the Welsh "String of Pearls". There is nothing similar currently planned, but the Ayrshire and Fife coasts have already developed their tourism quite strongly.

5. Feedback from SCF "Strategy for Scotland's Coast and Inshore Waters" consultation

Several responses have been received so far, from chartered boat operators, Local Authorities, coastal community associations, WIH and Moorage Associations, BP Association Ports, FRS Environment Protection Group, and DTI Licensing and Consent Unit. Most replies are well written and informed, although not all have not ticked the open confidentiality box.

The future of SCF's role in taking forward the Strategy was then discussed. Alayna Imlah informed the Forum that the SCF PO has now moved from CANH into the Marine Branch of the Water Environment Division (WED). The Marine Branch has now consulted on the development of a Strategic Framework for the Marine Environment, which closed in July, they are now looking at new development mechanisms, stakeholders, and marine planning issues. Alayna Imlah is currently analysing the responses, and intends to put a paper to Ministers in January 2005. It is also intended to integrate the SCF coastal strategy into these proposals over the next three to four months, depending on Ministerial decisions. It was asked whether the Forum would play an assisting role in this process, and Alayna agreed that Forum should be kept fully involved. There was some concern that the "environment" label of the Strategic Framework may lead to fears of a "green" plot, and Alayna agreed that this notion must be dispelled, as it is intended to cover the environment in the widest sense.

Geographical scope of the SCF Strategy - there should be clarification that the strategy is not just 'coastal' but also covers activities in the wider marine environment. There was a suggestion that it should be formalised so that it is for the coast and the marine environment, with a three mile limit. The suggestion was noted, however SE considered that artificial divisions are difficult to manage. It was agreed that if a terrestrial activity was found to impinge on the coast, then that would be the boundary for that particular discussion, to maintain flexibility in the process. This would make for a functional rather than formal agreement.

There followed some criticism of the Strategy - there appears to be a lack of focus on terrestrial communities and industries, which are also part of the coast. The terrestrial component should be fully included, as "coast" includes land and water. It was suggested that the outcomes of the SSMEI Pilot projects will be useful in informing the strategy. It was suggested that there was some overlapping in the document, and that some of the acronyms are being used interchangeable - this needs to be addressed. It was also noted that the strategy was written two years ago and times have moved on. How we see the coastal area now, in terms of regulation, may pose some entirely new questions. There was a strong view that SE needs to give a clear steer to the need for integration and overview rather than sectoral management.

The SCF contribution will be fully considered by Marine Strategy Framework Team in due course.

7. Project Officer's update:

Informal Review of SCF by CPO

Some of the negative aspects of the Forum include information overload, time pressures, talking shop which lacks focus, and the difficulty in obtaining a balanced viewpoint from so many groups. At present the meetings are quite formal and not particularly interactive, a matter which the group should perhaps address.

The perceived role of the SCF was discussed. It is seen as a network body, to inform national government, an information exchange, but also as an awareness raising body, to broaden perspectives. Some possible future roles of the SCF were presented, such as a think tank, and assisting the LCPs to implement ICZM in practice. Some felt that it was now important to turn rhetoric into something tangible, and to engage better with industry. The Forum also needs to provide a strategic view on LCPs, and should involve ports and shipping in future meetings.

Members of the plenary stated that the questions being raised by the informal review require serious consideration and a formal session at the next plenary would be required to allow appropriate time for thought and discussion.

Research into baseline monitoring - It is hoped that SCF's original aim - "the sustainable use of Scotland coastal resource" would be the 'vision' for SCF Secure healthy ecosystems, sustainable economies and thriving communities, is the clear objective and goal, taken from the strategy However, quantifying this may be challenging. There are several ways this could be done by using indicators, such as:estimating numbers of fish caught, how many houses are built within 1m or 5m of the coast, electrical power generated from the sea, an increase in leisure boats and marinas. The report will investigate the monitoring and evaluation of the coast in order to achieve the vision.

While it is generally agreed that ICZM is the primary process required to achieve integrated coastal management, it was suggested that local coastal partnerships don't always have broad enough representation to allow this. It was agreed by the Forum that it is the range of views which is important, and that industry should be engaged more.

Membership of the Forum was discussed, and the need for better representation from the fishing industry. It was agreed that all members should focus on raising the status of the forum so that other bodies will see the importance of attending.

Latest version of work programme (Paper SCF 24/3)

SM presented an update on the latest version of the work programme and the first tranche of projects to implement the Marine Strategy planning and monitoring. The timescale for delivery is open for discussion. Stephen suggested members may require annual conferences for specific themes, and this was agreed. LINK in particular are keen that the SCF should make it clear that coastal partnerships need strong support. Stephen agreed that there was not much evidence of this in the work plan, and this would be addressed.

Funding of the work programme was then discussed. It was agreed that the programme was ambitious and potentially costly so it needed to be further prioritised and more closely matched to the SCF aims.

ACTION: All members to return comments on Paper (SCF 24/3 and return them to CPO

Marine Spatial Planning Briefing paper (paper SCF 24/2)

The aim of this briefing paper is to provide an overview of current marine spatial planning activities in the UK and then apply this to the role of the SCF. There was discussion on whether an SCF sub-group on marine spatial planning should be formed. It was agreed that this could be deferred for a while, possibly to feed into the next revision of the National Planning Framework, which should address coastal, and possibly marine, spatial planning. In the meantime, SCF members should continue to provide practical input into the SSMEI pilots trialling marine spatial planning. The Crown Estate (CE) are concerned that they didn't recognise the CE from the description in the paper, and asked for it to be expanded.

Proposal for indicator research (Paper SCF 24/4)

Feedback on the indicator research paper and MSP briefing paper was invited. Work has previously done on international indicators - can this be done with the SCFs limited resources? Again, funding is a major issue. No date has been set for commencement of the research, but Stephen assured the group that it would be soon. It was suggested that DEFRA's State of the Seas report could be a starting point, and that this work will be taken forward as a desk-top exercise initially.

8. Presentation by Bill Turrell - Scottish Coastal Observatory turrell@marlab.ac.uk

The Marine Observatory (MO) is a new practical way forward for the collection and presentation of Scottish marine data. The main objective of the MO is to take data and turning into useful product for users, by putting all above data on one site www.scotmarobs.org.

The MO collects real time data, measures temperatures, parameters, sends data to data networks (archive) and uses of off-line data (ships) for maps and other networks. Global data - collected by satellites etc - feeds data into models, where science turns data into advice, for use by marine labs and conservationists, oil producers, bathers, sea users, and science itself. The data will be obtained from a diversity of suppliers - NERC/FRS/SEPA/SNH/MET, amongst others.The MO uses several methods of data collection, including remote sensing, SSTC mosaics, Ocean colour (mosaics), currents, and the HAB index. Modelling tools are also used to measure SST, nutrients, Chlorophyll, currents, and tides. Some data is collected in situ, from SAMS and FRS. Temperature, ecosystem parameters (plankton/chlorophyll/fish) are also measured, and related data is obtained from the Meteorological Office , and tidal data from Proudman Oceanographic lab).

The MO intends to pull all this data together in one place - it is a good time to start because we now have sophisticated numerical ecosystem monitoring, and competent computer power and storage.The use of multiple satellites means that remote sensing science has improved radically. It is now possible to accurately measure temperatures, salinity, ocean colour, wave height, current strength, wind strength and direction, chlorophyll, and phytoplankton.

It is hoped that the MO will benefit and be of use to those carrying out research projects in the future, and will attract science investment. It will also encourage the development of new products, tools and uses for data. However, the project will require seed corn investment - at the very least , to employ SAMS and FRS - approximately £5k PA. A preliminary meeting is intended for spring 2005, and a project launch for the end of 2005, with Bill Turrell being the Project Officer.

The Forum gave an enthusiastic endorsement of this project. Copyright implications were then discussed. It was suggested that the project would be led by data supply and not led by users who want data. SCF would like to be represented in a spring meeting but expressed doubt about the "coastal" element - the data seems to be more related to marine and deep water. SCF agreed to be the umbrella group for such a meeting, but are cautious about leading on this. Bill expressed his wish for it not to be a SAMS/FRS project, but for it to be an inclusive national facility, and would welcome input from SEERAD. Scottish Enterprise agreed to put Bill in touch with contacts about regional tourism development and funding.

It was agreed that the Scottish Executive will have to take a strong lead if this project is going to happen - perhaps sharing the lead with HIE. CPO is happy to get involved in a preliminary meeting in 2005, and it is hoped that SEPA will also be interested in this.

ACTION: CPO to work directly with Bill to try and organise a meeting for early April 2005 (SCF to meet before the MO meeting to give the project the necessary impetus).

9. Members Update Forum

Scottish Executive: It was brought to the attention of the Forum that the Scottish Executive are extending planning controls to marine fish farms. Steve Dowell would welcome any comments by mid January.

The Crown Estate reported on a major programme of research into PCB and dioxin testing in aquaculture, and also mentioned that COWRIE reports (offshore wind) are available on their website.

SNH - Reported on the Defra marine spatial planning pilot project in the Irish Sea (to be carried out byBPMER) and will feedback to the SCF on this project.

Julia MacPherson (Firth of Clyde Forum) provided an update on their activities. They have suffered from a year with no project officer, but are currently picking-up momentum and re-engaging with the Steering Group. The first meeting of the Steering Group is in February, with the first seminar in June. Funding for the Forum is in place until 2006.

10. Any other business

Concern was expressed that the SCF is lacking continuity at the moment, and it was agreed that a deputy chair be appointed, after consultation with the Minister. The procedures will be checked to see whether members must vote on this.

ACTION: Fiona Watt to check procedures.

The possibility of writing to the new Minister to introduce the work of SCF was discussed. It was agreed that Ian Melville would be approached in early Januaryto initiate this approach. A draft letter could be circulated round members beforehand.

The Forum has been invited to get involved with SCWRA. This advisory body is a separate body from the institute, although the flyer suggests a closer connection. It was suggested that the body hopes to use the name of the SCF to gain approval

ACTION: Stephen Midgely will try an obtain more information for the next meeting.

11. Dates of next meetings

17 March 2005 (proposed), possibly at SAMS, Dunstaffnage.

9 June 2005 (proposed)

NOTE OF MEETING OF LOCAL COASTAL PARTNERSHIPS

15 DECEMBER 2004

Chair: Prof Bill Ritchie

In attendance:

Derek McGlashan Forth and Tay Estuary Forum

Kara Brydson RSPB Scotland

Helen Corbet Forth Estuary Forum

Heather Stewart British Geological Survey

Cathy Tilbrook Scottish Natural Heritage

Richard Luxmoore National Trust Scotland

Jeremy Roberts Solway Firth Partnership

Gordon Mann Solway Firth Partnership

Ian Hay East Grampian Coastal Partnership

Karen Wright SNH (Clyde Forum)

Isabel Glasgow Firth of Clyde Forum

Julia McPherson Firth of Clyde Forum

Frank Parrish The Crown Estate

Rob Duck Tay Estuary Forum

Katriona Finan Tay Estuary Forum

Colin Wishart COSLA

Vanessa Hallhead Moray Firth Partnership

Stephen Midgley SCF

Fiona Watt Scottish Executive (Water Environment Division)

Alayna Imlah Scottish Executive (Water Environment Division)

1. Letter from LCPs to Captain Wilks SCF

Clyde A letter signed by all the Chairs of the LCPs was sent to Captain Wilks of the Scottish Coastal forum in September 2004 setting out the LCPs' roles and their expectation of support and needs. The LCPs were pleased to get a reply, but felt it did not completely address their concerns. It was felt that it would be advantageous to all to discuss this letter as it did not extend to all points raised by the LCPs and gave no indication at all of the future. There appears to be a degree of uncertainty about the relationship between the national and local levels which needs clarification. There was also concern about funding, and the level of represention at the National level.

East Grampian noted that they were not involved in the sending of this letter as they are a relatively new partnership and suggested the partnerships should be forming links about funding, which would be a better use of time and resources. This could be co-ordinated nationally by the SCF.

Solway stated that their funding has never been secure for more than 1 year, even after 10 years, and for this reason it is difficult to keep a Project Officer motivated. The LCPs have not been able to get the buy-in from national organisations, and the current funding has come mainly from SNH, but this is clearly not sustainable. This gives the perception that LCPs have a narrow conservation focus, and makes it difficult to engage other national organisations.

Tay fully agreed that the key issue is sustainability of funding, and agreed that the local and national levels should be linked.

Forth feel strongly about affiliation and feel that a national organisation would be best, with skills and contacts shared. They feel that the SCF is not providing sufficient support, because all LCPs are struggling for funding. The LCPs could benefit from sharing more fundraising opportunities. We now have a national strategy and should have the funding to take that forward.

Moray felt that the letter lacked clarity, and that the roles in the strategy and plans for future funding are vague.

It was agreed overall, that the closer the working involvement between local and national organisations the better. Marine issues are now starting to move up the national agenda, and the coast is centre stage - the LCPs have to be ready.

2. Structural relationship

Solway LCP suggested that three or four representatives should look at the working relationship between the local and national coastal Fora and come back with a paper that everyone can sign up to. Small joint working group from main body of 6 LCPs to look at the constitution and functional relationships and come up with new constitution.

ACTION 3 LCP representatives with three representatives from SCF along with CPO as secretary to form joint working group on a short timescale, to form Terms of Reference and a strategic view from the Forum on key things that partnerships could do. Working group to advise on coastal groupings, and to look at entire Scottish coastline with reference to SEPA model.

3. SCF Membership

The SCF was set up in 1996 at the request of Scottish Ministers. The original members were invited to attend by Scottish Ministers. Observers can attend, but the SCF cannot dictate who should be Members, as new Members have to be recommended by Ministers.

ACTION: Fiona Watt to check this with Manson Wright.

4. Funding

Frank Parrish stated that the Crown Estate have been supportive of local coastal partnerships but that the SCF should decide what it represents and start selling itself. SNH is supportive, but current funding will only last until 2006. It was suggested that the SCF should coordinate approaches to other national bodies. It was pointed out that this has been tried but Scottish Executive is unwilling at this stage to put pressure on agencies (such as SEPA and Scottish Water) to increase their contributions due to other demands such as implementing the WFDHowever it was pointed out that the EU ICZM Recommendation will require the SE to identify secure funding for core costs of ICZM. Alayna Imlah agreed to take these comments on board, and said that funding will be addressed in analysis of the Strategy responses.

European funding was briefly discussed, but dismissed as being too complex and not applicable at national level. It was suggested that Scottish Enterprise may be a source of funding, as the work of the partnerships is much wider than just environmental. It was suggested that areas who don't have funding to set up and apply for money will be kept stretched, and an alternative will have to be sought. However, if the LCPs sign up nationally, the funds are at risk of being stretched even further.

5. WFD

There is a requirement for stakeholder groups to participate in the implementation of the WFD. SEPA have proposed boundaries for their Area Advisory Groups (AAG) in the River Basin Management Planning Strategy. In many cases, the coastal sections of these proposed areas fit well with existing coastal partnership projects, and there may be useful opportunities for the partnerships to coordinate coastal issues on behalf of the AAGs, which could assist with core funding.

7. Date of next meeting

17th March 2005 confirmed. Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory

9th June 2005, proposed.