New Petitions
Lamlash Bay (No-take Zone and Marine Protected Area) (PE799)
Good morning and welcome to the last meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2004. We have apologies from Rosie Kane.
Our first new petition is PE799 by Tom Vella-Boyle, who calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to support the Community of Arran Seabed Trust's proposal to close an area of Lamlash bay to all forms of marine life extraction—a so-called no-take zone—and the rest of the bay to mobile fishing gear as a marine protected area.
Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petitioner site, where it attracted 704 signatures between 1 November 2004 and 10 December 2004. Tom Vella-Boyle is here to make a brief statement to the committee in support of his petition. He is accompanied by Don Macneish and Howard Wood. I welcome the petitioners to the committee. We will hear your comments, then we will ask questions and discuss your petition.
Tom Vella-Boyle (Community of Arran Seabed Trust):
Good morning and thank you for giving us the chance to come along today—we very much appreciate it. We are just three ordinary chaps, really; we have no great expertise in marine science. However, we are here to represent the community of Arran and we do not speak for that community on any other matter. We have been working on this project for 10 years or so.
I have four relevant points to make in my presentation. I presume that everybody is aware of why we are here and that they are aware of what the petition says. My first point is about community involvement. We called our organisation COAST because we are the Community of Arran Seabed Trust. We have a membership of 1,240 people. We have always tried to represent the grass-roots views on the matter so we have from the outset been determined to go through a democratic process. We regard the presentation of our petition to Parliament as being the end of the democratic process—we can go no higher than this, so here we are. Members will recall that the First Minister and certainly our local member of the Scottish Parliament have said that communities must have a voice, especially in matters that affect them. We feel that the community has not until now had a voice in the matter with which our petition deals.
My second point is about the process that we have been through. We have consulted everybody from the chap who runs the little ferry from Lamlash bay to Holy Isle right through to the directorate-general for fisheries in Brussels, which has been kind enough to sponsor some of our work. We have, of course, spoken to the commercial fishermen, to the Scottish Executive, to all our local councillors and to many MSPs. We have spoken to our member of Parliament in Westminster and even to members of the European Parliament.
My third point concerns the scientific evidence that backs up what we say. A great deal of it—not just in this country, but all over the world—says that what we propose will lead to a sustainable fishery.
My fourth point is about the people of Arran and what the proposal means to them. We recall that during the 1970s and 1980s, there were successful fishing festivals in Arran, some of which were international. At least 300 people used to turn up, bringing much-needed revenue to the island. We feel that our having the chance to introduce the measures that we propose would bring some of those people back to the island. There is a great deal of interest in the environment these days; green and eco-tourism would bring people back. Divers would return to the island to see what we are doing. There would be great educational advantages and schoolchildren, to whom we already speak, would come back to see what we are doing.
We believe that the summing up that we attached to the petition encapsulates all that we are saying:
"It must be remembered that fish and marine life are the property of all Scottish people. With inshore measures it is up to the Scottish Parliament to manage those stocks for future generations to enjoy and for future jobs and livelihoods. Unfortunately not all management can take place by consensus. Unless decisions are taken to investigate modern fisheries management techniques this generation of Scottish Politicians will be remembered as the ones who presided over the final destruction of Scottish marine life. Past generations can be partly forgiven because scientific information available today was not available then. Today's politicians have no such excuse."
I thank you for listening to me.
I should declare an interest in that I am a long-term supporter of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust, the people behind it and the end result that it seeks to achieve. I have known Don Macneish, Tom Vella-Boyle and Howard Wood and their work for some time. It has been a long process and I hope that they eventually get the result that they seek.
It is probably important that committee members are aware that the Community of Arran Seabed Trust has about 800 members on Arran, which might not sound like a huge number in global terms, but represents almost 20 per cent of Arran's population. The project has huge support among the local community.
The first parliamentary question that I lodged in May 2003 was on that subject. The then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development answered it by saying:
"We are working, with the UK Government where appropriate, to identify marine Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directives; and we support the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management under the revised Common Fisheries Policy." —[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 June 2003; S2W-233.]
In June 2003, that seemed to be good news, but there has not been a huge amount of progress since then, which is why the guys are here today to make their case to the committee.
COAST organised a day in which it presented its case to schoolchildren in Arran, which was extremely informative. The RV Aora came across from the marine biology station in Millport and showed the children and everybody else who was present the effect of dredging in Lamlash bay, which was quite incredible to see. It was like a comb along the sea bed; everything had been lifted and broken up. That effect is the reason why the petitioners are asking for a no-take zone and a marine protected area, which would allow the sea bed and marine life to regenerate.
I support what the petitioners are here to ask for and what COAST seeks to achieve, but I have a question for Tom Vella-Boyle. He mentioned in his presentation that COAST had spoken to fishermen. With what fishermen's organisations has COAST spoken and what fishermen or fishing organisations would be affected by the proposals for a no-take zone?
I ask Don Macneish to answer that question.
Don Macneish (Community of Arran Seabed Trust):
We talk about fishermen, but they clearly divide into inshore and offshore fishermen. The fishing in the Clyde area about which we are talking is inshore fishing and there is a subdivision within that inshore fishing between fishermen who trawl the sea bed with mobile gear and those who use pots and creels, which are static gear. Two associations represent fishermen in our area—the Clyde Fishermen's Association, which represents those who use mobile gear, and the Clyde and south-west static gear association, which represents those in potting—but there is also a large number of independent fishermen who are not represented by either organisation.
We went to Carradale and gave a presentation to the Clyde Fishermen's Association and have been in negotiation with Patrick Stewart, its secretary. We have also had several meetings with the Clyde and south-west static gear association and we continue to go to fishermen's associations and to negotiate independently with the rest of the fishermen.
Four commercial fishermen live on Arran: they are all independent and none is represented by either association that I mentioned. From our consultation of fishermen and the Scottish Executive, we gather that many fishermen are not represented. We continue to negotiate with the Clyde Fishermen's Association, but the static gear association supports our case with one reservation: it feels that our proposal is not big enough and that the area should be much more extensive.
We are asking for a trial. Everybody is talking and nothing is being done, but we want to find a small chink in the armour of the problem and find out whether the no-take zone and marine protected area will work. If they do not work that is not a problem, but if they do the approach could provide a template. We have set up an off-the-shelf solution for the community to pick up and run with. While everybody else is talking and negotiating, we could have the scientific trial and provide some useful data.
You have spoken extensively with different Government departments. What sort of reaction have you had from the Government?
We have never had no as an answer, which is part of our problem. We have always heard, "Well—yes, we think this is possible, but I don't think you're speaking to the right people. Why don't you go and speak to those people, or those other people?"
We have ended up with the inshore fisheries branch, which is part of what we are looking for. We are looking to increase the biodiversity of the area, but we are also looking to increase the fisheries. Those are the people with whom we have been negotiating. Initially, when we went to the fisheries people, we asked whether what we ask for is possible, because the last thing we want to do is raise within the community the expectation that it is possible, only to have people's expectations dashed. They said that what we are suggesting is possible. We went through the process of consulting everybody and cutting everybody into the frame, and we went back to the inshore fisheries department which said that although that was very good, we had to get complete consensus from all users of the bay. Unfortunately, there is conflict between the mobile gear people and the static gear people; getting them into the same room at the same time is hard enough without trying to get them to agree about anything at all.
We went back to the Scottish Executive and said, "We've got a problem here. There's a massive conflict between static gear and mobile gear and we don't think we're going to get consensus. Have you got consensus?" The Executive people said, "Well, we can't afford the luxury of consensus." It seems that although the people who make the policy cannot afford the luxury of consensus, the people of the community that is trying to get the process started must afford it.
We have been given an impossible job. Each task that we have been given we have met, until we were given the Herculean task of getting consensus among the fishermen, which just does not work. No-take zones have been set up in many places in the world. They have worked, but they have never been done with the consensus of fishermen. Fishermen have always been dragged to the table in the end, but have supported no-take zones only once they have seen the benefits of them.
I want to pick up on the trial period that you mentioned. How long would that period last?
We see the trial taking shape over a 10-year period. Of course, the zone must be strictly monitored throughout that 10-year period, and we have people who are already doing that. The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation trust has given quite a large amount of money to ensure that we have a base audit of what is there already. That has been undertaken by the Millport marine biology station. Callum Roberts, the world expert on no-take zones, who holds the cash for the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, has been very much involved in that monitoring. The money that has been allocated will certainly stretch for three years, but we will be looking for more money after that. Of course, it is important that the zone is monitored right from the beginning.
Do you envisage that monitoring would be done by you, or would it eventually be done by the Scottish Executive under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984? Would you start off by monitoring the zone yourselves?
Howard Wood (Community of Arran Seabed Trust):
We started doing the monitoring. We were trained by the Marine Conservation Society to do amateur surveying, which continues. This year, the marine biology station in Millport has also started monitoring, even before anything is in place, so that we know what is in the bay. We are also involved with the marine laboratory in Port Erin in the Isle of Man and with the universities of Liverpool, York and Strathclyde in considering possible ways of monitoring the bay. We are also speaking to people in Cornwall from English Nature, who have set up Lundy as a no-take zone. We shall be looking at how they do their scientific monitoring so that scientists can set it up themselves. I am sure that, within a year or two, the inshore fisheries and Government scientists will also be interested in how the no-take zone is progressing.
It seems to me that the structure is already in place and that you have the proper procedures. You need merely to get permission for the trial period to continue.
Yes. We have received a huge amount of support. The proposals are not going ahead because of a very small, vocal minority of fishermen.
I would like you to help me to understand exactly what you are after. Is there a difference between a closed area of inshore waters and a no-take zone? I understand that the Executive is able, and has the power, to establish closed areas to protect fish stocks and marine habitats and—interestingly, given your previous comment—to resolve conflicts between fishermen who are fishing with different types of gear. Mike Watson reminds me that the Executive has established closed areas. It sounds to me as if you are seeking such a solution. I would welcome clarification of that point.
In August 2003 and August 2004, consultations were undertaken on the strategy for inshore fisheries. Were you involved in those? Were you consulted? Do you know when an outcome is likely to emerge?
I will deal with the last question first. We have been involved in the consultations, but only slowly in the past year to 18 months have we begun to be consulted. Because we are a community organisation and are not registered fishermen—although our members include four registered fishermen—it was not considered necessary to consult us on anything. In the past two years, we have had to make a lot of noise so that we can be involved in the consultations, to which we have submitted our views.
On closed areas in fisheries, we believe that although such things are possible, they are not possible—if you know what I mean. The Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 allows for closed areas, but it is not up to speed with what is happening around the world. Closed areas and no-take zones are very similar, but the language is different. A closed area could be established, and we would be happy with that, but we believe that Scotland needs to move with the rest of the world and to establish no-take zones and marine protected areas. The European Community is already using those phrases and pushing for the establishment of such zones.
You are right about the need to modernise the language, but I am trying to establish whether fundamentally, in terms of outcome and effect on the local community, there is a difference between closed areas and no-take zones.
I do not think that there is. The problems we have with closed areas are that they tend to be established for very short periods—six or 12 months—and that certain types of activities can be allowed there. A no-take zone is a no-take zone for everyone, including sea anglers; there is no extraction whatever from it. We have split up the bay so that one third would be a no-take zone and two thirds would be a marine protected area.
The proposals were drawn up in consultation with all the local people. There is one local person who survives from sea angling and who would still be allowed to take people out angling for mackerel in the summer in the marine protected area. The proposals have been thought through and discussed by the community for 10 years, so they reflect the community's wishes. That is why we have proposed the establishment of a no-take zone and a marine protected area.
The proposals are also interesting from a scientific perspective. There would be three experimental areas: a no-take zone with no extraction; an area with a small amount of extraction through sea angling and potting; and an outside area in which the status quo would be maintained. Over 10 years, we would be able to see exactly what happened in those areas.
Am I right in saying that closed areas can be permanent?
I am not sure.
I think that they can.
You say that there is some opposition to the proposals from local fishermen. How much opposition is there? Are 20 per cent, 40 per cent or 100 per cent of the fishermen opposed?
That is very difficult to determine, as no information about the fishing organisation has been made available to us.
We attended a conference on fishing in the Clyde at the University of Glasgow's marine biological station at Millport, at which a series of six or seven questions was asked on various aspects of fishing in the Clyde. Gear conflict came up in about five out of seven questions. There were about 80 or 90 fishermen at the meeting and the head of the inshore fisheries branch of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department said that there had been a lot of talk about no-take zones and marine protected areas and asked the fishermen whether they would be prepared to accept the implementation of such measures in the Clyde. About four or five people said, "We have nothing to lose, so we could give it a go." However, a tremendous amount of peer pressure operates in such situations. We are unable to say whether 20 or 30 per cent of local fishermen oppose the proposal. We cannot answer your question.
When we talk about local fishermen, we are talking about the isle of Arran. No local fishermen oppose the proposal, because they are all members of COAST. If you are talking about local fishermen on the Clyde, I would guess that the Clyde and south-west static gear association is in favour of our proposal, with the proviso that the association does not think that the area that we would designate is sufficiently large. We have spoken to many independent fishermen, who have mixed views, but in general think that something needs to be done. The Clyde Fishermen's Association's general policy is not to support the proposal at present, but we have talked to many individual members of the association and we think that there is about 50 per cent support for change. Some fishermen are concerned that the proposal would represent the thin end of the wedge, which is a problem.
As I understand it from examples elsewhere in the world, if such proposals are to work, a huge amount of community buy-in is needed. Everyone must gain something from the loss of fishing opportunities, perhaps through benefits to tourism and diving. Could your proposal bring benefits other than conservation?
Absolutely. Arran's environment is its crown jewels; it is the reason why people come to the island. If we could extend that beyond the mountains and the coast to include the environment below the water, the socioeconomic implications would be massive and there would be a spin-off, even if it just meant that people would come to learn about the experiment and see how it worked or to participate in a project such as seasearch, in which amateurs investigate the species in the sea and feed back data to the scientists. People could participate in the experiment.
We have all sorts of ideas and we even have funding for some of them. There are basic ideas such as the production of calendars to inform people about what is going on. We even thought about using closed-circuit television cameras placed under water to enable people to watch what is happening. We could put interpretive boards around the coastline. Many ideas are being fed in about how we might inform people about the potential benefits of the proposal.
I invite comments from Rob Gibson MSP, who has come to the meeting.
I am a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and am interested in the issue. We will soon receive the results of the Executive's consultation on Scotland's marine environment. It is clear from what Jack McConnell said last April in Mallaig in the region that I represent that we must strike a balance between protection of the precious environment and promotion of tourism and other industries on which many communities depend. Is the configuration of the sea bed around Scotland well known, or do we know only a small amount about it?
When we started this process in 1984 or 1985, we got in touch with Brian Wilson, who was our MP at the time. We asked for an area of protection, but our request was denied by Jamie Lindsay—Lord Lindsay—who was the then Scottish Office's minister for environment. He was told by Scottish Natural Heritage's predecessor that the sea bed around Arran was not of any particular interest. In response to that argument, we said, "Okay—it might not be of interest to you, but it is our back garden and we think it is interesting." We simply wanted to protect the area around our island.
That was why we engaged in the seasearch project, which started to find a number of important species. The bay in question was studied by the Millport marine biology station, which produced a report that showed how important the area was to the Clyde. In fact, the area is probably unique because it supports maerl, which is a European protected species. When we went back to the inshore fisheries department, it eventually admitted that SNH did not know what was around Arran. Basically, we realised that many decisions in the process that we had gone through had been made with incomplete data about what was on the sea bed. There is a need for empirical data.
In answer to the question, we feel that there is not much specific data. That is really what our proposed trial is about. We need data on a specific small geographical area of 7 square kilometres. If we can get some hard facts out of that, people may or may not be able to apply those data to the rest of Scotland, depending on how they come out. If we were to impose a restriction on the enclosed area that we propose, it would not be a matter of winding the video tape backwards until we get to lots of fish. The dynamics of the ecosystem have changed, but we hope that we could get back to fish at some point. However, it is impossible to predict exactly how that might happen.
Are there any recommendations on how we should handle the petition?
We should ask the Scottish Executive for an update on its inshore fisheries strategy and for its opinion on the petition. Obviously, we should also consult the Scottish Association for Marine Science, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Clyde Fishermen's Association. Given what the petitioners have said today, I suggest that we also approach the Clyde and south-west static gear association and the commercial fishermen on Arran, including the local sea angling association, for their views.
That sounds as if it would cover all the bases. Has anyone anything to add to that? I support Campbell Martin's proposal, which is a comprehensive list of who should be consulted.
We should perhaps also consult North Ayrshire Council.
Are members happy that we write to all the organisations that have been mentioned?
Members indicated agreement.
We will collate the responses and keep everyone updated on progress. I thank the petitioners, with whom we shall keep in touch, for their evidence this morning. Unusually, theirs is the only oral evidence that we are taking on new petitions this morning.
A78 (Fairlie) (PE796)
The next new petition is PE796 from Mr C Vassie. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to introduce a pedestrian crossing and speed cameras on the A78 trunk road at Fairlie. The petitioner argues that there is a need for pedestrian crossings to be placed on the A78 at both the north and the south ends of the village of Fairlie, due to heavy traffic and commonplace speeding.
In a letter to the petitioner dated 20 January 2004, the Scottish Executive confirms that the surveyed traffic flows on the A78 through Fairlie are well below vehicular capacity. However, it would be prepared to re-examine the situation if the traffic flow increases substantially in the future. The Executive also stated:
"Whilst I note your comments about pedestrian fatalities in the past, an investigation of accident data supplied by the police has identified only one pedestrian fatality in 1988 … The police have not indicated that there is a specific problem with traffic speeds within Fairlie, however the introduction of ‘Rippleprint' in the next few weeks should assist in reducing traffic speeds."
In a letter to the committee dated 11 December 2004, the petitioner highlights the fact that the Executive has
"put down a monitor on the A78 Trunk Road on 2 December 2004"
and that a police camera has also been installed on the road. What do members suggest we do with the petition?
I understand that this would be an issue locally, but the police say that a very small minority of motorists in the area merit police attention. The Executive is already monitoring what is happening, so I am not sure that there is any other action that we can take on the petition.
I agree. The Executive has put down a monitor on the A78. We need to give that measure and the introduction of rippleprint surfacing time to bed down and to take effect. Like Mike Watson, I suggest that we take no further action on the petition.
I come from Ardrossan, and Fairlie is just up the road from there. Although the A78 is a trunk road, the petition relates to a very narrow stretch through the village. Because the road is narrow, speeding on it is particularly dangerous. This may sound like a silly question, but is the camera that has been installed on the stretch an active camera? Will it be used to prosecute people, or is it there to scare them and to slow them down?
I am not sure that there is any way in which we could know that. However, I am sure that the police have installed the camera with the intention of slowing down traffic. If it does not do that, it will not have proved its worth. Whether or not the camera is active, its impact must be monitored. I do not know the answer to Campbell Martin's question.
That is fair enough. The actions that have been described show that the Executive and the police are taking this issue seriously. It is right that we close the petition, as the action that the petitioner has requested is being taken.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.