RSA: A Survey of the District. A Strategy for 2013-14
- Thread starter Northumberland IFCA
- Start date
Minutes are on their site now as is the new byelaw
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Number2.pdf
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Number2.pdf
moocher
Well-known member
AS APPROVED BY MEMBERS AT THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF NIFCA HELD ON 22 OCTOBER 2013
EMS REVISED APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MEMBERS HELD AT UNIT 60B, CRAMLINGTON ON THURSDAY 8TH AUGUST 2013 AT 11.00 AM
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr GR Arckless ( who was confirmed as Chairman), Messrs L Weller, M Bould, I Thomas, N Polunin, J Stephenson and Dr C Scott. Also in attendance was the Authority Chief Executive MH Hardy, Chief IFCO (Operations) AB Browne and Environmental IFCO S Aftergood. Deputy Chief IFCO (Operations) M Southerton joined the meeting after it had begun.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Apologies were received from Messrs D Ledger, D Herriott, GW O’Connell, J Walton, J Woodman and Mrs C Hedley.
1. The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest and Mr Weller said he came from a recreational sea angling (RSA) background. The Chairman felt however that as Mr Weller has no direct commercial interest then, like other members, Mr Weller should be able to play a full part in the meeting.
The Chairman continued by way of introduction that he understood how difficult this process was and emphasised that the Authority was not prejudging anything at this stage but must be prepared to consider any response to the ongoing informal consultation.
2. The Chief Executive outlined the current situation and how difficult and challenging the process had been for the officers, both in terms of timescale and the range of opinions which needed to be taken into account. However he felt that full consultation had taken place and echoed the comments of the Chairman that this would continue with the stakeholder meeting due that evening. There would be further opportunity for comments by stakeholders and members up until when the draft byelaws and impact assessments were forwarded to members and the MMO, as required by DEFRA Guidance towards making of the byelaws which it was still hoped would be at the meeting arranged for 1.00 pm on 28 August at County Hall.
3. Mr Bould expressed concerns about whether there had been sufficient consultation and that the Authority website did not match other IFCAs in terms of accessibility to information regarding the EMS Revised Approach. He also said he felt this information was needed “in headlines”. In response, the Chief Executive said the website is still a work in progress but Mr Bould’s concerns were noted. Mr Weller said he had also expressed concerns and the Chief Executive thanked him for his assistance at a meeting with Urban River and generally to improve the website. The Chief Executive also said other comments about the website had been favourable. Mr Bould said he also felt the proposed mobile gear byelaw is excessive and there was then general discussion regarding this byelaw. The Chief Executive stressed that both he and the officers had understood the effect of the byelaw would be minimal regarding the fishing industry who been given every opportunity to comment. The Chairman also remarked that the wording of the byelaw had to meet legal criteria and that at his request notification of the current situation regarding the EMS Revised Approach overall had been sent to local MPs and MEPs who needed to be kept in the picture.
Chief IFCO Browne commented that NIFCA had to do what was best for the district and the proposed mobile gear byelaw prohibiting activity in the SAC is just the beginning of the process and there had already been consultation and this will continue. The Authority had to follow the safest and most precautionary approach and did not yet have enough information to open zones, although information from Mr Bould and Seahouses fisherman Jonathon Dawson did help the process, plus officers are now also doing survey work on a virtually daily basis and recent fine weather had greatly assisted this, but further data was needed and the data gathered still needed to be examined and it would not be possible to bring in zones for activity in the SAC before the end of this year. With regard seagrass byelaw, he also said that the Authority is proceeding on the best available evidence and that there had been a lot of discussion with Dr Catherine Scott and Mike Quigley from Natural England.
Mr Bould remarked on the two byelaws saying that that the seagrass one basically says “keep off the grass” and the mobile gear one says “don’t come in to hundreds of hectares” and could NIFCA not bring in a byelaw like Devon and Severn? The Chief Executive said the situation in Northumberland is different from Devon and Severn and particularly remarked upon their much larger mobile gear fleet.
Mr Browne confirmed that as part of the process towards hoped-for zones being brought in after 2013, he had attended the IVMS Conference in London earlier in the week.
Dr Polunin asked about the scientific exemption provision in the byelaw and the Chief Executive confirmed this was similar to what was in the Authority Legacy byelaws and should be in all the other IFCA byelaws too.
Mr Stephenson asked how long it could be before zones are open to mobile gear activity on soft ground? This led to debate with Mr Bould saying that although he accepted there are only a few men in each port who will be affected, this is a right which he feels is being taken away and which has no benefit and that a clear statement of intent amounting to an unequivocal undertaking by the Authority to seek to bring in a zoned byelaw as soon as possible is required. The Chairman also said the Authority did not want to go forward in the teeth of opposition. Mr Bould also expressed concern about there eventually being a Marine Conservation Zone from the River Coquet to St Mary’s Island which could produce a separate level of management from the EMS. The Chief Executive said it was not a question of if, but when the Authority will seek to bring in a zoned approach in the SAC but it would be far too risky in Northumberland to do that now. Professor Polunin said he felt account should be taken of what the people of Northumberland think, with which the Chairman agreed, including the concerns of the industry. Mr Thomas said he was very troubled by some things he was hearing and whether the Authority was bringing in the fairest approach and he agreed with everything Mr Bould had said and felt zones should be introduced as soon as possible in byelaw provision.
In response to the above IFCO Aftergood confirmed she phones in to the weekly implementation group, tele-conferences and particularly regarding sub delegation i.e. IFCAs being able to create the power in byelaws to amend the byelaws as Devon and Severn are proposing in their recently publicised byelaw. She would check the up to date position with the MMO but understood they had not yet confirmed definitive legal advice on this and once again the Authority felt the risk in Northumberland would be too great and the appropriate precautionary approach was being taken, which the Chief Executive again confirmed. Chief IFCO Browne also confirmed the intention to put a monthly update regarding this whole process onto the website and the Chief Executive said he would seek a clearer tab on the website to access EMS Revised Approach information as soon as possible.
Regarding a timescale, the Chief IFCO emphasised that whilst good progress was being made in the south of the SAC, it would take considerably longer to gather and process data in the north. This led to a recognition by the meeting that it may be better to bring in a zoned approach in two tranches i.e. concentrating on the southern part of the SAC first and the northern part later. Hopefully, sufficient data can be gathered and analysed to give the necessary confidence for this approach by the spring of 2014 which at this stage could not be guaranteed but the officers would continue to work on gathering and then analysing the data whenever possible. It was also confirmed that provided this is in accordance with legal advice the Authority will give further publicity of the intention to seek to implement a zoned approach for mobile gear fishing in the SAC as soon as possible after this year.
The meeting therefore approved the mobile gear byelaw as drawn being put forward with a view to being made at the meeting on 28th August 2013.
Finally regarding the mobile gear byelaw there was mention of Scallop Grounds on the northern border of the SAC and Mr Stephenson suggested asking Seahouses fisherman Jonathon Dawson for more details.
The meeting adjourned at 1pm for lunch.
4 The meeting resumed at 1.40 pm to discuss the proposed sea grass byelaw. The Chief Executive outlined the current situation and IFCO Aftergood explained the reason for a SAC wide approach i.e. seagrass can spread from where it presently is and there is insufficient evidence to know all seagrass locations and the proposed byelaw was felt to be the best one for the DEFRA revised approach. She also confirmed there will still be a bait digging area in the Lindisfarne NNR and of its some 86 hectares some 11 are now covered by sea grass.
Mr Thomas asked if anyone from NIFCA had looked at the seagrass and that it comprises more than clumps. Chief IFCO Browne said the matrix says it is seagrass rather than beds which should be protected and the Authority is proposing a precautionary approach in its byelaw. He also confirmed the Authority would continue to look in depth at the possibility of an area being allocated in return for what will become prohibited under the byelaw. That was confirmed by the Chief Executive.
Mr Browne said he understood that the bait digging zone which is either side of the causeway to Lindisfarne is established by a gentleman’s agreement although Mr Weller said he understood it was by order of public enquiry and he awaited papers regarding this from the Attorney General’s office. Mr Weller also said he did not think a public right could be extinguished and that this is an important point of principle for anglers and he understood the Authority could receive something regarding this from “Fish Legal”. IFCO Aftergood also said that a zoned approach as suggested by Natural England would prohibit a larger area than under the draft IFCA byelaw.
There was discussion regarding the distinction between recreational and commercial activity. IFCO Aftergood referred to Anderson –v- Alnwick and particularly Adair –v- National Trust establishing the principle that not being able to extinguish a public right should not prevent a byelaw being made and that both of the above cases give the IFCA legal standing to make this byelaw.
Dr Scott said Natural England had recommended a zoned approach but understood there were reports of seagrass possibly being in other areas and she stressed the importance of the zostera (seagrass) beds to the eco system and for provision of habitat. She also confirmed seagrass had been mapped most recently in the Lindisfarne NNR in 2012.
The Chairman said the Authority had to recognise the danger of legal proceedings but he had listened to IFCO Aftergood and, whilst he was concerned like with the mobile gear byelaw of people saying their rights had been infringed, the Authority has no choice in this matter and it must carefully consider how to implement the byelaw. He also felt having heard the discussion that the draft byelaw is a better approach than a zoned one. Mr Weller said he was not challenging the byelaw but he repeated that the principle of the right to gather sea fisheries resources is an important one and it is also important that something be returned to anglers and bait collectors.
In response to a query it was confirmed that majority of the foreshore is owned by the Crown Estate but there are also individual land owners.
The Chairman said to Mr Weller that if a legal challenge was made on this byelaw to the Authority then Mr Weller would (in the event of any involvement in such) have to declare a prejudicial interest and his degree of involvement, if any, in such a challenge. The Chairman went on that he felt what the officers had said is as fair as possible and he noted that a zoned approach would take away more.
At this point Dr Polunin left the meeting.
The Chairman then confirmed that the meeting approve the seagrass provision byelaw as drawn being put to a meeting of members on 28th August with a view to the byelaw being made.
5 Regarding preparation for the Stakeholder meeting, at the request of the officers the members agreed that as the byelaws which had been given to them earlier were still in draft form then copies would not be handed out to the meeting but the position can be seen from Iinformation Sheet No 3 and the Chief Executive should outline further details to Stakeholders. (The Chief Executive after the meeting duly prepared an outline of what he would say and gave copies to members for their confidential information).
The Chief Executive particularly confirmed and the members agreed that he should ask the Stakeholder meeting for any responses to the informal consultation now taking place to be lodged in writing with the Authority by noon on the following Monday and to also tell the Stakeholders that following the making of the byelaws there would be a six-week formal (statutory) consultation period.
6 The meeting agreed that the whole process remains extremely challenging and with a timescale that is too onerous but the Authority would try to stick to its present timetable and particularly seek to make the byelaws at the previously proposed meeting on 28th August. All members present except Mr Weller said they could attend on 28th August and
EMS REVISED APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MEMBERS HELD AT UNIT 60B, CRAMLINGTON ON THURSDAY 8TH AUGUST 2013 AT 11.00 AM
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr GR Arckless ( who was confirmed as Chairman), Messrs L Weller, M Bould, I Thomas, N Polunin, J Stephenson and Dr C Scott. Also in attendance was the Authority Chief Executive MH Hardy, Chief IFCO (Operations) AB Browne and Environmental IFCO S Aftergood. Deputy Chief IFCO (Operations) M Southerton joined the meeting after it had begun.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Apologies were received from Messrs D Ledger, D Herriott, GW O’Connell, J Walton, J Woodman and Mrs C Hedley.
1. The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest and Mr Weller said he came from a recreational sea angling (RSA) background. The Chairman felt however that as Mr Weller has no direct commercial interest then, like other members, Mr Weller should be able to play a full part in the meeting.
The Chairman continued by way of introduction that he understood how difficult this process was and emphasised that the Authority was not prejudging anything at this stage but must be prepared to consider any response to the ongoing informal consultation.
2. The Chief Executive outlined the current situation and how difficult and challenging the process had been for the officers, both in terms of timescale and the range of opinions which needed to be taken into account. However he felt that full consultation had taken place and echoed the comments of the Chairman that this would continue with the stakeholder meeting due that evening. There would be further opportunity for comments by stakeholders and members up until when the draft byelaws and impact assessments were forwarded to members and the MMO, as required by DEFRA Guidance towards making of the byelaws which it was still hoped would be at the meeting arranged for 1.00 pm on 28 August at County Hall.
3. Mr Bould expressed concerns about whether there had been sufficient consultation and that the Authority website did not match other IFCAs in terms of accessibility to information regarding the EMS Revised Approach. He also said he felt this information was needed “in headlines”. In response, the Chief Executive said the website is still a work in progress but Mr Bould’s concerns were noted. Mr Weller said he had also expressed concerns and the Chief Executive thanked him for his assistance at a meeting with Urban River and generally to improve the website. The Chief Executive also said other comments about the website had been favourable. Mr Bould said he also felt the proposed mobile gear byelaw is excessive and there was then general discussion regarding this byelaw. The Chief Executive stressed that both he and the officers had understood the effect of the byelaw would be minimal regarding the fishing industry who been given every opportunity to comment. The Chairman also remarked that the wording of the byelaw had to meet legal criteria and that at his request notification of the current situation regarding the EMS Revised Approach overall had been sent to local MPs and MEPs who needed to be kept in the picture.
Chief IFCO Browne commented that NIFCA had to do what was best for the district and the proposed mobile gear byelaw prohibiting activity in the SAC is just the beginning of the process and there had already been consultation and this will continue. The Authority had to follow the safest and most precautionary approach and did not yet have enough information to open zones, although information from Mr Bould and Seahouses fisherman Jonathon Dawson did help the process, plus officers are now also doing survey work on a virtually daily basis and recent fine weather had greatly assisted this, but further data was needed and the data gathered still needed to be examined and it would not be possible to bring in zones for activity in the SAC before the end of this year. With regard seagrass byelaw, he also said that the Authority is proceeding on the best available evidence and that there had been a lot of discussion with Dr Catherine Scott and Mike Quigley from Natural England.
Mr Bould remarked on the two byelaws saying that that the seagrass one basically says “keep off the grass” and the mobile gear one says “don’t come in to hundreds of hectares” and could NIFCA not bring in a byelaw like Devon and Severn? The Chief Executive said the situation in Northumberland is different from Devon and Severn and particularly remarked upon their much larger mobile gear fleet.
Mr Browne confirmed that as part of the process towards hoped-for zones being brought in after 2013, he had attended the IVMS Conference in London earlier in the week.
Dr Polunin asked about the scientific exemption provision in the byelaw and the Chief Executive confirmed this was similar to what was in the Authority Legacy byelaws and should be in all the other IFCA byelaws too.
Mr Stephenson asked how long it could be before zones are open to mobile gear activity on soft ground? This led to debate with Mr Bould saying that although he accepted there are only a few men in each port who will be affected, this is a right which he feels is being taken away and which has no benefit and that a clear statement of intent amounting to an unequivocal undertaking by the Authority to seek to bring in a zoned byelaw as soon as possible is required. The Chairman also said the Authority did not want to go forward in the teeth of opposition. Mr Bould also expressed concern about there eventually being a Marine Conservation Zone from the River Coquet to St Mary’s Island which could produce a separate level of management from the EMS. The Chief Executive said it was not a question of if, but when the Authority will seek to bring in a zoned approach in the SAC but it would be far too risky in Northumberland to do that now. Professor Polunin said he felt account should be taken of what the people of Northumberland think, with which the Chairman agreed, including the concerns of the industry. Mr Thomas said he was very troubled by some things he was hearing and whether the Authority was bringing in the fairest approach and he agreed with everything Mr Bould had said and felt zones should be introduced as soon as possible in byelaw provision.
In response to the above IFCO Aftergood confirmed she phones in to the weekly implementation group, tele-conferences and particularly regarding sub delegation i.e. IFCAs being able to create the power in byelaws to amend the byelaws as Devon and Severn are proposing in their recently publicised byelaw. She would check the up to date position with the MMO but understood they had not yet confirmed definitive legal advice on this and once again the Authority felt the risk in Northumberland would be too great and the appropriate precautionary approach was being taken, which the Chief Executive again confirmed. Chief IFCO Browne also confirmed the intention to put a monthly update regarding this whole process onto the website and the Chief Executive said he would seek a clearer tab on the website to access EMS Revised Approach information as soon as possible.
Regarding a timescale, the Chief IFCO emphasised that whilst good progress was being made in the south of the SAC, it would take considerably longer to gather and process data in the north. This led to a recognition by the meeting that it may be better to bring in a zoned approach in two tranches i.e. concentrating on the southern part of the SAC first and the northern part later. Hopefully, sufficient data can be gathered and analysed to give the necessary confidence for this approach by the spring of 2014 which at this stage could not be guaranteed but the officers would continue to work on gathering and then analysing the data whenever possible. It was also confirmed that provided this is in accordance with legal advice the Authority will give further publicity of the intention to seek to implement a zoned approach for mobile gear fishing in the SAC as soon as possible after this year.
The meeting therefore approved the mobile gear byelaw as drawn being put forward with a view to being made at the meeting on 28th August 2013.
Finally regarding the mobile gear byelaw there was mention of Scallop Grounds on the northern border of the SAC and Mr Stephenson suggested asking Seahouses fisherman Jonathon Dawson for more details.
The meeting adjourned at 1pm for lunch.
4 The meeting resumed at 1.40 pm to discuss the proposed sea grass byelaw. The Chief Executive outlined the current situation and IFCO Aftergood explained the reason for a SAC wide approach i.e. seagrass can spread from where it presently is and there is insufficient evidence to know all seagrass locations and the proposed byelaw was felt to be the best one for the DEFRA revised approach. She also confirmed there will still be a bait digging area in the Lindisfarne NNR and of its some 86 hectares some 11 are now covered by sea grass.
Mr Thomas asked if anyone from NIFCA had looked at the seagrass and that it comprises more than clumps. Chief IFCO Browne said the matrix says it is seagrass rather than beds which should be protected and the Authority is proposing a precautionary approach in its byelaw. He also confirmed the Authority would continue to look in depth at the possibility of an area being allocated in return for what will become prohibited under the byelaw. That was confirmed by the Chief Executive.
Mr Browne said he understood that the bait digging zone which is either side of the causeway to Lindisfarne is established by a gentleman’s agreement although Mr Weller said he understood it was by order of public enquiry and he awaited papers regarding this from the Attorney General’s office. Mr Weller also said he did not think a public right could be extinguished and that this is an important point of principle for anglers and he understood the Authority could receive something regarding this from “Fish Legal”. IFCO Aftergood also said that a zoned approach as suggested by Natural England would prohibit a larger area than under the draft IFCA byelaw.
There was discussion regarding the distinction between recreational and commercial activity. IFCO Aftergood referred to Anderson –v- Alnwick and particularly Adair –v- National Trust establishing the principle that not being able to extinguish a public right should not prevent a byelaw being made and that both of the above cases give the IFCA legal standing to make this byelaw.
Dr Scott said Natural England had recommended a zoned approach but understood there were reports of seagrass possibly being in other areas and she stressed the importance of the zostera (seagrass) beds to the eco system and for provision of habitat. She also confirmed seagrass had been mapped most recently in the Lindisfarne NNR in 2012.
The Chairman said the Authority had to recognise the danger of legal proceedings but he had listened to IFCO Aftergood and, whilst he was concerned like with the mobile gear byelaw of people saying their rights had been infringed, the Authority has no choice in this matter and it must carefully consider how to implement the byelaw. He also felt having heard the discussion that the draft byelaw is a better approach than a zoned one. Mr Weller said he was not challenging the byelaw but he repeated that the principle of the right to gather sea fisheries resources is an important one and it is also important that something be returned to anglers and bait collectors.
In response to a query it was confirmed that majority of the foreshore is owned by the Crown Estate but there are also individual land owners.
The Chairman said to Mr Weller that if a legal challenge was made on this byelaw to the Authority then Mr Weller would (in the event of any involvement in such) have to declare a prejudicial interest and his degree of involvement, if any, in such a challenge. The Chairman went on that he felt what the officers had said is as fair as possible and he noted that a zoned approach would take away more.
At this point Dr Polunin left the meeting.
The Chairman then confirmed that the meeting approve the seagrass provision byelaw as drawn being put to a meeting of members on 28th August with a view to the byelaw being made.
5 Regarding preparation for the Stakeholder meeting, at the request of the officers the members agreed that as the byelaws which had been given to them earlier were still in draft form then copies would not be handed out to the meeting but the position can be seen from Iinformation Sheet No 3 and the Chief Executive should outline further details to Stakeholders. (The Chief Executive after the meeting duly prepared an outline of what he would say and gave copies to members for their confidential information).
The Chief Executive particularly confirmed and the members agreed that he should ask the Stakeholder meeting for any responses to the informal consultation now taking place to be lodged in writing with the Authority by noon on the following Monday and to also tell the Stakeholders that following the making of the byelaws there would be a six-week formal (statutory) consultation period.
6 The meeting agreed that the whole process remains extremely challenging and with a timescale that is too onerous but the Authority would try to stick to its present timetable and particularly seek to make the byelaws at the previously proposed meeting on 28th August. All members present except Mr Weller said they could attend on 28th August and
moocher
Well-known member
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING OF MEMBERS REGARDING BYELAWS IN RESPECT OF THE EUROPEAN MARINE SITE REVISED APPROACH
HELD AT COUNTY HALL, MORPETH ON WEDNESDAY 28 AUGUST 2013 AT 1.00 PM
PRESENT: Mr GR Arckless (Chairman), Mrs E Simpson, Mrs C Hedley, Mrs J Lee and Dr C Scott plus Messrs M. Bould, B Burdis, D Herriott, GW O’Connell, Professor N Polunin, AB Ritchie, I Thomas and RJD Watkin. Also in attendance were the Authority Chief Executive MH Hardy, Chief IFCO AB Browne, Deputy Chief IFCO (Operations) M Southerton, Deputy Chief IFCO (Environmental) J Green and Environmental IFCO Ms Sarah Aftergood.
Also in attendance was Ms H. Quayle from the RSPB.
1. APOLOGIES:
Apologies were received from Mrs J Fearon and Messrs S Douglas, L Weller, D Ledger, J Stephenson, J Walton and J Woodman.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr O’Connell referred to seagrass being in a neighbouring parish to his and Mr Thomas referred to his interest as a recreational sea angler. The Chairman said he felt neither of these could be construed as prejudicial and that, as he said at the meeting on 8th August, the most likely scenario in this case is that anybody involved in a legal challenge to these byelaws would have to declare that as a prejudicial interest.
3. The Chairman opened the meeting by saying that the process up to now had been very challenging for everyone and many members feel concerned. The Chairman said he shared a number of the concerns expressed regarding the process and timescale. He went on however that NIFCA are not free agents in this matter but part of a response to external pressure and the proposals put forward for consideration at this meeting must be considered carefully. He went on that the proposals have been drafted by the professionals in the organisation and the Chairman has respect for their point of view. The members will look at these carefully and hopefully the meeting will reach a conclusion and a consensus. The Chairman also expressed his respect for the views given to the meetings on 8th August by a range of people and he expects a similar situation today and everybody and their views should be treated with respect by everyone. The Chairman then asked the Chief Executive to address the meeting. The Chief Executive referred to the statement he had made on the Authority website regarding the intention to open up zones as soon as possible on soft ground to mobile gear and regarding seagrass to discuss with Natural England the possible opening up of areas which are presently closed. He then handed out up-to-date drafts of the two byelaws (Mobile Gear and Seagrass Protection). He proposed and the Chairman agreed that each byelaw should be considered in turn, starting with the Mobile Gear byelaw. The Chief Executive confirmed that the detail of both byelaws had been considered at length at the meeting on 8th August and he had sent drafts of the minutes of that meeting to members yesterday, not for approval (which would be sought at the next quarterly meeting) but for everybody’s information to assist at this meeting. The Chief Executive went on that no further comments, objections or queries had been sent to the Authority regarding the proposed mobile gear byelaw since 8th August except for a letter from the Wildlife Trust confirming approval of both proposed byelaws. Regarding the Mobile Gear byelaw the Chief Executive went on that the drafts handed out contained only very slight “typographical” type of amendments which he went through. The Chairman then asked if there were any comments regarding the Mobile Gear byelaw:
• In response to a question from David Herriott the Chief Executive confirmed the Authority’s intention to bring in zones of permitted Mobile Gear activity in the SAC as soon as possible and as referred to in the minutes of the meeting on 8th August. Mr O’Connell confirmed that was absolutely correct and had been flagged up by the Authority so there are no surprises and he said he felt that the Authority continues to move in the right direction. Michael Bould said he was pleased that the Authority had undertaken to seek to bring in zones but he was still concerned about erosion of rights which he felt had not been fully covered in the draft minute of the meeting on 8th August and also that there will be a different type of management if (when) the Marine Conservation zone from Coquet Island to St Mary’s is brought in. He also felt that to have separate management regimes would present a great difficulty.
• Mr Watkin asked if the Mobile Gear byelaw would affect the salmon net fishery and the Chief Officer confirmed it will not because the fishery does not use mobile gear.
• Mr Watkin also said he felt the headings of the byelaw should confirm that it just relates to the English part of the SAC and that was agreed by the meeting so that the heading reads ‘’PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF MOBILE FISHING GEAR WITHIN THE ENGLISH SECTION OF THE BERWICKSHIRE AND NORTH NORTHUMBERLAND COAST SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION (SAC).
• Mr Bould also said the draft byelaw as presented seemed to ban small gear towed mid water to target pelagic fish and after discussion the meeting agreed to add the words “on the seabed” to end end of paragraph 1(d) in the interpretation/definition of “mobile fishing gear”.
The meeting then went on to consider the Seagrass Protection byelaw and the Chief Executive handed out the up-to-date draft. He confirmed the only substantive amendment was the addition of an explanatory note regarding rights of common and he read this out to the meeting together with other changes of a typographical nature. He also confirmed there had been responses to this byelaw – from the Wildlife Trust giving approval; from Natural England regarding the Impact Assessment which had just been received that morning; from the MMO received yesterday afternoon. Comments had also been received before the meeting from members Ian Thomas (see below) and Les Weller who had expressed concerns regarding a distinction being appropriate between commercial and recreational activity - the Chief Executive passed Mr Weller’s concerns to the meeting.
Members’ comments were sought and Mr O’Connell referred to the Ross Oyster bed fishery which he said is a major employer and exporter and therefore he had deep concerns as to whether they could be closed down by the encroachment of seagrass? In response Mr Browne said the Authority had to protect seagrass wherever it may be in the SAC and the Chairman said this is not a socio-economic decision. Dr Scott advised however how oysters are grown on raised trestles and it is unlikely that seagrass would grow in a way to require cessation of the oyster farm. Also because of the layout of the oyster farm and tracks to access the trestles Catherine Scott advised the unlikelihood of seagrass growing there. Mr O’Connell also said that the oyster farm is a private fishery but it was confirmed this would still be subject to byelaw regulation. Environment Agency member Mrs Lee (nee McCormick) referred to paragraph 5 in the draft byelaw and it was confirmed that the oyster trestles are accessed by flat bottomed vessels.
The Chief Executive said that if the situation changed in the district including for example seagrass growing near the oyster beds then the Authority could look at the possibility of an emergency byelaw if an issue was raised or if the Authority could not make such a byelaw because of the provision in the Marine Act for IFCAs making emergency byelaws then an appropriate request could be made to the MMO.
It was confirmed that oysters are a sea fisheries resource for which Natural England have taken management responsibility. Mrs Hedley asked who will be the regulator in the future? and she reminded the meeting that the reason the Authority is now having to make these byelaws is because commercial fishing has never been subject to an Appropriate Assessment in the past, but aquaculture has been and the oyster farm has previously undergone checks.
Mr Thomas then spoke and referred to the favourable article by Alan Charlton in the Sunday Sun after the members and stakeholder meetings on 8th August. He also stressed the need for the Authority to engage with Natural England regarding the possibility of them opening up some areas presently closed to bait digging. He also said regarding the Seagrass byelaw Impact Assessment that he thought it is comprehensive and well thought out but regarding paragraph 4.3 option 2 (recommended option) he said that the Vice Chairman Les Weller and himself totally disagree that it is not possible to distinguish between commercial and recreational activities. He also felt there is a contradiction in Annex 2. He also wished to stress that large scale activities should be prevented but not the ordinary man digging for bait for his fishing. He also expressed concerns about the enforceability of the byelaw. In response Chief IFCO Browne said he recognised Mr Thomas’s concerns but felt it is difficult to distinguish between commercial and recreational activities. Sending an officer to the bait digging conference in September should be of assistance however. He also hoped there would be discussion soon with Natural England and that officers will act proportionately towards bait diggers. Chief IFCO Browne also said he recognised the boat byelaws will put extra strain on officers but will be part of their duties and he felt it will be as enforceable as other byelaws. The Chief Executive also confirmed the email which had been received from the Authority’s legal advisor in this matter Andrew Oliver, regarding the legal difficulty of a distinction between commercial and recreational activity.
Mr Thomas also felt paragraph 6 of the byelaw regarding rights of common and the explanatory note would be difficult for the Authority to explain but the Chief Executive said he felt this could and would be done satisfactorily.
The Chairman said everybody had to recognise that this is something different and new for Officers to manage and when necessary enforce and that it will not be easy but with the Officers track record he was confident and that they will interpret the byelaw fairly. Mr Browne endorsed that and referred to pictures of seagrass on the website. In conclusion Ian Thomas said he had no criticism of the Authority or its officers and shared the confidence in their ability to do the necessary work.
The Chief Executive then read through the email received yesterday from the MMO regarding the Seagrass byelaw and the meeting agreed with the points from it which have been accepted and those with which the Authority does not agree regarding the Seagrass byelaw. Ian Thomas, Michael Bould and Geoff O’Connell all specifically expressed support for the position recommended by the Authority Officers based on common sense and local knowledge. And regarding the Natural England letter raising points in respect of the Seagrass Impact Assessment, the meeting agreed with the Chief Executive there was insufficient time to consider this for (or at) today’s meeting and that officers would meet with Dr Scott of Natural England to agree upon the final form of Impact Assessment to accompany the byelaw being made for consultation purposes. Dr Scott also confirmed there are no Natural England objections to the byelaw as now proposed. Mr Bould also asked if what was said would apply to comments by Natural England on the Mobile Gear byelaw and that was confirmed.
For the avoidance of doubt the Chief Executive also confirmed that of course comments can be made which may be taken into account during the consultation period on both Impact Assessments as well as the byelaws.
5. The Chairman then moved acceptance of the Mobile Gear byelaw as presented to the meeting today and as amended by the meeting. His proposal was seconded by Mr Watkin and passed by the meeting.
Regarding the Seagrass byelaw, the Chairman moved acceptance of the byelaw as presented to the meeting and that was seconded by Mr Watkin and passed by the meeting.
6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There was none and the Chairman closed the meeting at 3:15.
HELD AT COUNTY HALL, MORPETH ON WEDNESDAY 28 AUGUST 2013 AT 1.00 PM
PRESENT: Mr GR Arckless (Chairman), Mrs E Simpson, Mrs C Hedley, Mrs J Lee and Dr C Scott plus Messrs M. Bould, B Burdis, D Herriott, GW O’Connell, Professor N Polunin, AB Ritchie, I Thomas and RJD Watkin. Also in attendance were the Authority Chief Executive MH Hardy, Chief IFCO AB Browne, Deputy Chief IFCO (Operations) M Southerton, Deputy Chief IFCO (Environmental) J Green and Environmental IFCO Ms Sarah Aftergood.
Also in attendance was Ms H. Quayle from the RSPB.
1. APOLOGIES:
Apologies were received from Mrs J Fearon and Messrs S Douglas, L Weller, D Ledger, J Stephenson, J Walton and J Woodman.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr O’Connell referred to seagrass being in a neighbouring parish to his and Mr Thomas referred to his interest as a recreational sea angler. The Chairman said he felt neither of these could be construed as prejudicial and that, as he said at the meeting on 8th August, the most likely scenario in this case is that anybody involved in a legal challenge to these byelaws would have to declare that as a prejudicial interest.
3. The Chairman opened the meeting by saying that the process up to now had been very challenging for everyone and many members feel concerned. The Chairman said he shared a number of the concerns expressed regarding the process and timescale. He went on however that NIFCA are not free agents in this matter but part of a response to external pressure and the proposals put forward for consideration at this meeting must be considered carefully. He went on that the proposals have been drafted by the professionals in the organisation and the Chairman has respect for their point of view. The members will look at these carefully and hopefully the meeting will reach a conclusion and a consensus. The Chairman also expressed his respect for the views given to the meetings on 8th August by a range of people and he expects a similar situation today and everybody and their views should be treated with respect by everyone. The Chairman then asked the Chief Executive to address the meeting. The Chief Executive referred to the statement he had made on the Authority website regarding the intention to open up zones as soon as possible on soft ground to mobile gear and regarding seagrass to discuss with Natural England the possible opening up of areas which are presently closed. He then handed out up-to-date drafts of the two byelaws (Mobile Gear and Seagrass Protection). He proposed and the Chairman agreed that each byelaw should be considered in turn, starting with the Mobile Gear byelaw. The Chief Executive confirmed that the detail of both byelaws had been considered at length at the meeting on 8th August and he had sent drafts of the minutes of that meeting to members yesterday, not for approval (which would be sought at the next quarterly meeting) but for everybody’s information to assist at this meeting. The Chief Executive went on that no further comments, objections or queries had been sent to the Authority regarding the proposed mobile gear byelaw since 8th August except for a letter from the Wildlife Trust confirming approval of both proposed byelaws. Regarding the Mobile Gear byelaw the Chief Executive went on that the drafts handed out contained only very slight “typographical” type of amendments which he went through. The Chairman then asked if there were any comments regarding the Mobile Gear byelaw:
• In response to a question from David Herriott the Chief Executive confirmed the Authority’s intention to bring in zones of permitted Mobile Gear activity in the SAC as soon as possible and as referred to in the minutes of the meeting on 8th August. Mr O’Connell confirmed that was absolutely correct and had been flagged up by the Authority so there are no surprises and he said he felt that the Authority continues to move in the right direction. Michael Bould said he was pleased that the Authority had undertaken to seek to bring in zones but he was still concerned about erosion of rights which he felt had not been fully covered in the draft minute of the meeting on 8th August and also that there will be a different type of management if (when) the Marine Conservation zone from Coquet Island to St Mary’s is brought in. He also felt that to have separate management regimes would present a great difficulty.
• Mr Watkin asked if the Mobile Gear byelaw would affect the salmon net fishery and the Chief Officer confirmed it will not because the fishery does not use mobile gear.
• Mr Watkin also said he felt the headings of the byelaw should confirm that it just relates to the English part of the SAC and that was agreed by the meeting so that the heading reads ‘’PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF MOBILE FISHING GEAR WITHIN THE ENGLISH SECTION OF THE BERWICKSHIRE AND NORTH NORTHUMBERLAND COAST SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION (SAC).
• Mr Bould also said the draft byelaw as presented seemed to ban small gear towed mid water to target pelagic fish and after discussion the meeting agreed to add the words “on the seabed” to end end of paragraph 1(d) in the interpretation/definition of “mobile fishing gear”.
The meeting then went on to consider the Seagrass Protection byelaw and the Chief Executive handed out the up-to-date draft. He confirmed the only substantive amendment was the addition of an explanatory note regarding rights of common and he read this out to the meeting together with other changes of a typographical nature. He also confirmed there had been responses to this byelaw – from the Wildlife Trust giving approval; from Natural England regarding the Impact Assessment which had just been received that morning; from the MMO received yesterday afternoon. Comments had also been received before the meeting from members Ian Thomas (see below) and Les Weller who had expressed concerns regarding a distinction being appropriate between commercial and recreational activity - the Chief Executive passed Mr Weller’s concerns to the meeting.
Members’ comments were sought and Mr O’Connell referred to the Ross Oyster bed fishery which he said is a major employer and exporter and therefore he had deep concerns as to whether they could be closed down by the encroachment of seagrass? In response Mr Browne said the Authority had to protect seagrass wherever it may be in the SAC and the Chairman said this is not a socio-economic decision. Dr Scott advised however how oysters are grown on raised trestles and it is unlikely that seagrass would grow in a way to require cessation of the oyster farm. Also because of the layout of the oyster farm and tracks to access the trestles Catherine Scott advised the unlikelihood of seagrass growing there. Mr O’Connell also said that the oyster farm is a private fishery but it was confirmed this would still be subject to byelaw regulation. Environment Agency member Mrs Lee (nee McCormick) referred to paragraph 5 in the draft byelaw and it was confirmed that the oyster trestles are accessed by flat bottomed vessels.
The Chief Executive said that if the situation changed in the district including for example seagrass growing near the oyster beds then the Authority could look at the possibility of an emergency byelaw if an issue was raised or if the Authority could not make such a byelaw because of the provision in the Marine Act for IFCAs making emergency byelaws then an appropriate request could be made to the MMO.
It was confirmed that oysters are a sea fisheries resource for which Natural England have taken management responsibility. Mrs Hedley asked who will be the regulator in the future? and she reminded the meeting that the reason the Authority is now having to make these byelaws is because commercial fishing has never been subject to an Appropriate Assessment in the past, but aquaculture has been and the oyster farm has previously undergone checks.
Mr Thomas then spoke and referred to the favourable article by Alan Charlton in the Sunday Sun after the members and stakeholder meetings on 8th August. He also stressed the need for the Authority to engage with Natural England regarding the possibility of them opening up some areas presently closed to bait digging. He also said regarding the Seagrass byelaw Impact Assessment that he thought it is comprehensive and well thought out but regarding paragraph 4.3 option 2 (recommended option) he said that the Vice Chairman Les Weller and himself totally disagree that it is not possible to distinguish between commercial and recreational activities. He also felt there is a contradiction in Annex 2. He also wished to stress that large scale activities should be prevented but not the ordinary man digging for bait for his fishing. He also expressed concerns about the enforceability of the byelaw. In response Chief IFCO Browne said he recognised Mr Thomas’s concerns but felt it is difficult to distinguish between commercial and recreational activities. Sending an officer to the bait digging conference in September should be of assistance however. He also hoped there would be discussion soon with Natural England and that officers will act proportionately towards bait diggers. Chief IFCO Browne also said he recognised the boat byelaws will put extra strain on officers but will be part of their duties and he felt it will be as enforceable as other byelaws. The Chief Executive also confirmed the email which had been received from the Authority’s legal advisor in this matter Andrew Oliver, regarding the legal difficulty of a distinction between commercial and recreational activity.
Mr Thomas also felt paragraph 6 of the byelaw regarding rights of common and the explanatory note would be difficult for the Authority to explain but the Chief Executive said he felt this could and would be done satisfactorily.
The Chairman said everybody had to recognise that this is something different and new for Officers to manage and when necessary enforce and that it will not be easy but with the Officers track record he was confident and that they will interpret the byelaw fairly. Mr Browne endorsed that and referred to pictures of seagrass on the website. In conclusion Ian Thomas said he had no criticism of the Authority or its officers and shared the confidence in their ability to do the necessary work.
The Chief Executive then read through the email received yesterday from the MMO regarding the Seagrass byelaw and the meeting agreed with the points from it which have been accepted and those with which the Authority does not agree regarding the Seagrass byelaw. Ian Thomas, Michael Bould and Geoff O’Connell all specifically expressed support for the position recommended by the Authority Officers based on common sense and local knowledge. And regarding the Natural England letter raising points in respect of the Seagrass Impact Assessment, the meeting agreed with the Chief Executive there was insufficient time to consider this for (or at) today’s meeting and that officers would meet with Dr Scott of Natural England to agree upon the final form of Impact Assessment to accompany the byelaw being made for consultation purposes. Dr Scott also confirmed there are no Natural England objections to the byelaw as now proposed. Mr Bould also asked if what was said would apply to comments by Natural England on the Mobile Gear byelaw and that was confirmed.
For the avoidance of doubt the Chief Executive also confirmed that of course comments can be made which may be taken into account during the consultation period on both Impact Assessments as well as the byelaws.
5. The Chairman then moved acceptance of the Mobile Gear byelaw as presented to the meeting today and as amended by the meeting. His proposal was seconded by Mr Watkin and passed by the meeting.
Regarding the Seagrass byelaw, the Chairman moved acceptance of the byelaw as presented to the meeting and that was seconded by Mr Watkin and passed by the meeting.
6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There was none and the Chairman closed the meeting at 3:15.
Stores
Well-known member
Had my individual reply from Mike Hardy yesterday. I think it's only right that it's contents aren't made public but I've got to say chaps that we've really made an impact on the NIFCA board and we are now, I believe, seen as stakeholders in future policy making. Thank you all very much. This is now on the NIFCA website and it's a chance for us to reinforce our views:
"STOP PRESS
The Authority will hold an Extraordinary General Meeting at County Hall in Morpeth on 15th November next at 11 o’clock for final consideration by members of the byelaws referred to above. This meeting also provides the latest opportunity for stakeholders to attend and discuss the position with us as we move towards in the fulfilment of this important task. No invitation is necessary BUT COULD YOU PLEASE INFORM THE AUTHORITY OFFICE IF YOU DO INTEND TO ATTEND.
Please also see the Authority website including our previous newsletter and Information Sheets 1 to 4 for further information or telephone the Authority Office".
I feel slightly embarrased asking anglers to attend a meeting I can't make myself and I know it's in the day and on a work day but it would be good if some of us could go. I'll leave it at that.
This also showed itself:
"AMBER and GREEN risks
The Authority has commenced its work in relation to the above which has to be completed by 2016. This is a major task with many risks and sites to be assessed. We will issue further information regarding this to Stakeholders in the next month".
This may be where the real battles are fought. Once again, thanks for your support.
"STOP PRESS
The Authority will hold an Extraordinary General Meeting at County Hall in Morpeth on 15th November next at 11 o’clock for final consideration by members of the byelaws referred to above. This meeting also provides the latest opportunity for stakeholders to attend and discuss the position with us as we move towards in the fulfilment of this important task. No invitation is necessary BUT COULD YOU PLEASE INFORM THE AUTHORITY OFFICE IF YOU DO INTEND TO ATTEND.
Please also see the Authority website including our previous newsletter and Information Sheets 1 to 4 for further information or telephone the Authority Office".
I feel slightly embarrased asking anglers to attend a meeting I can't make myself and I know it's in the day and on a work day but it would be good if some of us could go. I'll leave it at that.
This also showed itself:
"AMBER and GREEN risks
The Authority has commenced its work in relation to the above which has to be completed by 2016. This is a major task with many risks and sites to be assessed. We will issue further information regarding this to Stakeholders in the next month".
This may be where the real battles are fought. Once again, thanks for your support.
Northumberland IFCA
Member
NIFCA News Issue 4. October/November 2013.
NIFCA News Issue 4. October/November 2013.
Please follow the link below to view our latest newsletter, recently mentioned by Stores.
EMS Fisheries Revised Approach - NIFCA
NIFCA News Issue 4. October/November 2013.
Please follow the link below to view our latest newsletter, recently mentioned by Stores.
EMS Fisheries Revised Approach - NIFCA
Stores
Well-known member
Some Xmas reading
Some Xmas reading
You know when the wife says "get off the fishing board and take me to TK Max, M&S etc etc and you say "ah but look at the size of that whiting someone's caught, at great expense, from SS pier.....well follow these links and you can say you're a political activist, acting on behalf of a long line of NE anglers, treading in their thigh boots and forwarding their cause.
Or if you like here's an update of important things and, most importantly, your chance to stand up, say your piece and be counted.
The Aln Estuary is the first MCZ (Marine Conservation Zone) in our area. Here's the link to the map:
MCZ designation in Northumberland - NIFCA
I asked Mike Hardy to clarify what this means to us boys on the ground. This is his (and NIFCA's reply):
“There is no commercial fishing activity within the Aln Estuary and other fishing activity, particularly angling, is low and therefore at this time we believe little management of these activities will be required. It is only activities which have a detrimental impact on the features for which the site is designated which require management, which could include other non-commercial activities. Any management put in place will be reviewed over time to ensure the site is achieving its conservation objectives.”
My take on this is that if we look after the Aln estuary, in terms of litter, discarded dangerous equipment (hooks, line etc) and we take a positive approach in promoting this amongst other anglers (especially in the summer) then we'll maintain access to it. Pretty positive, I hope.
There is a meeting next month which is fairly unique in so far as it brings together all the parties involved in shaping the future of angling for us in the north east:
"Come to an open meeting from 19.00 – 21.00 at The Waterford Lodge Hotel, Castle Square, Morpeth, NE61 1YD on Tuesday January 28th 2014 to hear more about the project from the team that carried it out. This is the chance for sea anglers in Northumberland to find out more about the results of the biggest over survey of sea angling to have been carried out in England."
As a result of what we achieved with regard to the Seagrass issue we now have the opportunity to have DEFRA, CEFAS, IFCA and the Angling Trust all together in one place and have question thrown at them about the future, bait digging, access to piers, inshore netting, in fact all the moans and groans that habitually haunt NESA.
Please take this opportunity to have your say. The seagrass issue won't affect many anglers but bait digging and access issues certainly will.
Sorry this thread is so long but I hope you realise that we might be on the tipping point here and we shouldn't shirk the task ahead.
For those who would like to attend but can't (me being one) I'll speak to NIFCA and ask if questions can be tabled by proxy.
Some Xmas reading
You know when the wife says "get off the fishing board and take me to TK Max, M&S etc etc and you say "ah but look at the size of that whiting someone's caught, at great expense, from SS pier.....well follow these links and you can say you're a political activist, acting on behalf of a long line of NE anglers, treading in their thigh boots and forwarding their cause.
Or if you like here's an update of important things and, most importantly, your chance to stand up, say your piece and be counted.
The Aln Estuary is the first MCZ (Marine Conservation Zone) in our area. Here's the link to the map:
MCZ designation in Northumberland - NIFCA
I asked Mike Hardy to clarify what this means to us boys on the ground. This is his (and NIFCA's reply):
“There is no commercial fishing activity within the Aln Estuary and other fishing activity, particularly angling, is low and therefore at this time we believe little management of these activities will be required. It is only activities which have a detrimental impact on the features for which the site is designated which require management, which could include other non-commercial activities. Any management put in place will be reviewed over time to ensure the site is achieving its conservation objectives.”
My take on this is that if we look after the Aln estuary, in terms of litter, discarded dangerous equipment (hooks, line etc) and we take a positive approach in promoting this amongst other anglers (especially in the summer) then we'll maintain access to it. Pretty positive, I hope.
There is a meeting next month which is fairly unique in so far as it brings together all the parties involved in shaping the future of angling for us in the north east:
"Come to an open meeting from 19.00 – 21.00 at The Waterford Lodge Hotel, Castle Square, Morpeth, NE61 1YD on Tuesday January 28th 2014 to hear more about the project from the team that carried it out. This is the chance for sea anglers in Northumberland to find out more about the results of the biggest over survey of sea angling to have been carried out in England."
As a result of what we achieved with regard to the Seagrass issue we now have the opportunity to have DEFRA, CEFAS, IFCA and the Angling Trust all together in one place and have question thrown at them about the future, bait digging, access to piers, inshore netting, in fact all the moans and groans that habitually haunt NESA.
Please take this opportunity to have your say. The seagrass issue won't affect many anglers but bait digging and access issues certainly will.
Sorry this thread is so long but I hope you realise that we might be on the tipping point here and we shouldn't shirk the task ahead.
For those who would like to attend but can't (me being one) I'll speak to NIFCA and ask if questions can be tabled by proxy.
