Official Report 303KB pdf
Lamlash Bay (No-take Zone and<br />Marine Protected Area) (PE799)
Under agenda item 4, we will consider petition PE799 from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust, or COAST, requesting that the Parliament supports its proposals to close an area of Lamlash bay to all forms of marine life extraction and the rest of the bay to mobile fishing gear. Before we hear from the witnesses, I ask members to delegate authority to me to consider any claims for witness expenses that arise from the petition. Is that agreed?
Thank you.
I ask Professor Roberts to outline for the committee the benefits of having marine protected areas and no-take zones in general, and specifically in Lamlash bay.
No-take zones are a simple tool. Although much can be said about all sorts of scientific aspects that relate to the potential effects of marine reserves or no-take zones on the fauna, flora and species that occur in those areas, it is worth keeping in mind that such zones are a very simple, straightforward, commonsense approach to protecting the environment. No-take zones simply stop animals being killed by fishing gears, allowing them to live longer, become more numerous and produce more eggs so that more offspring will survive to populate the area that is being protected.
Are you saying that the effects are beneficial for migratory as well as territorial species?
That is right. Some of the sedentary species will benefit more readily from protection in a particular area, but migratory species can benefit from marine reserves in a couple of ways. First, it makes sense not to catch animals prematurely and, if their nursery grounds are protected, there will be greater survival to larger, commercially valuable sizes. In fact, protecting nursery grounds is a standard fishery management tool that has been employed since the 19th century, with great success in many cases. Secondly, migratory species benefit from increased feeding opportunities in marine reserves. The greater quantity of marine life attracts them in, provides them with sustenance and allows them to reach their full reproductive capacity, so reserves are important places for migratory species.
But it is in the right place.
Precisely.
I have been told that all that happens in a no-take zone is that the number of predators increases and that, if man is not taking the fish, predators such as starfish take them instead, so that we end up with the status quo. Have you any evidence of that?
In fact, in marine areas around the world in which there is protection from fishing, there is an increase in pretty much everything. I am talking about an increase in aggregate. There are species whose numbers go up dramatically and other species that do not benefit quite so dramatically, but the mix, in aggregate, results in much more across a wide range of species. It is not just the predators that increase in number; the predators have to feed on something. Recent evidence from the Bahamas showed increases in the number of predators and increases in the numbers of their prey species. That has certainly been my experience in the marine reserves that I have dived in and studied in detail around the world.
As the convener said, we visited Lamlash bay. The area that you are talking about is not the whole of Lamlash bay but quite a small part of it. Are you telling us that designating such a small area—I suppose that we could call it a boutique no-take zone—would have important effects for the whole of the Clyde estuary?
No, I am not saying that at all. We would use that area to get a proof of concept and to demonstrate some of the changes that would be likely to occur if we established marine reserves more widely in the Clyde estuary.
I do not think that anyone doubts the overall wisdom of what you say, but do you not accept the argument of the Executive and of Scottish Natural Heritage that the sample area that you have proposed is too small and that, instead of designating what I have described as a boutique no-take zone, the issue should be part of a wider and more scientific study?
Portraying the area that we propose to designate as a boutique no-take zone would be wrong, in the sense that the designation of that area has wide community support. Experience from round the world shows that, in the long run, areas that have community support produce much more successful marine reserves than places that do not. I accept that working towards the establishment of a large-scale network of marine reserves around Scotland is an important goal in the long run. Indeed, I presume that Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, has committed to creating such a network under the world summit on sustainable development commitment to establish national networks of marine protected areas by 2012.
I am conscious that nobody else on the panel has said anything so far. Do you want to add anything on the Lamlash issue?
On areas of destruction in fishing, I see the sea bed as a field. In England, when all the hedges were taken out and huge fields were formed, biodiversity completely disappeared; people are starting to put back all the hedgerows to bring back biodiversity. Biodiversity in the Clyde has been completely taken away.
COAST would like to move this project forward. The community has come together to try to offer some form of protection for the area around it. In engaging in that process, we have found that we end up with poles—fishermen on one side and conservationists on the other. COAST comprises both people who fish privately and conservationists. We are on the middle ground, which we think is the basis on which to move forward. We are quite happy to meet the fishermen and try to construct a formal way forward. We want statutory protection of Lamlash bay. We need the integrity of a no-take zone and a marine protected area within Lamlash bay to be protected in law so that fishermen and the general public are protected and so that we can move the issue forward.
Tony Wass spoke about the cod returning. If I heard him correctly, he said that the fish are not growing and will be caught as a bycatch. Who is catching them as a bycatch and how is that happening?
They are mostly caught by the prawn fishermen. They cannot avoid the cod, even though the nets that they use are better than they used to be. There has been a big improvement, but the bycatch is still enormous. I do not have any figures, but the amount is considerable.
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, says that the bycatch is minimal and negligible these days.
I disagree and we can prove it.
Are you talking about Lamlash bay?
There is no protection in Lamlash bay at all. The boats can trawl virtually anywhere that they want. The technology exists to enable them to go anywhere.
So the bycatch is being caught in Lamlash bay.
Oh yes.
By prawn boats.
Probably.
The fishermen do not prawn trawl within Lamlash bay. They prawn trawl outside it, but the juvenile stock that we are talking about are highly mobile and, if they are in Lamlash bay at the moment, that is probably why they are alive.
That was my point. I was trying to clarify that, because I did not think that there were prawn boats in Lamlash bay.
The trawling that is done in Lamlash bay is mostly for scallops. I apologise, because I made a mistake. The scallop fishing is intensive and the scallop boats are the ones that go into Lamlash bay.
I have a question for Don Macneish and Professor Roberts on the process for establishing marine protected areas. I can increasingly appreciate the case for them—other countries clearly have them—but I cannot get my head round the complexity in the government of Scotland's waters, including the inshore waters. Do you agree that we need a clear framework with set criteria to which communities and users of our waters can adhere and which will provide a clear process for establishing marine protected areas? What do you think of the current system and what practice in other countries offers the best model for us to follow?
The most successful models are those that allow national Governments to make recommendations about where marine protected areas might be implemented and allow local communities to nominate places where they could be created. From the amount of time and effort that has been invested in trying to establish one small protected area in Lamlash bay, it is clear that what we might call the present system in Scotland does not work. It could be said that you do not yet have a system for creating a national network of marine protected areas and it is incumbent on you now to work out how to do that, but that is not to say that you should put on hold sound proposals that have broad support. A model that would work well for the nation would allow for bottom-up and top-down protected area creation.
At the weekend, I spoke to Bill Ballantine, the founder of the no-take zone concept, who was over from New Zealand at a conference. When I asked him about the process that would move the idea forward, he said that the idea usually came from the people who took it to their political representatives and that it moved forward from there into law. He also said that it was normally the civil servants and protection agencies that would stop it moving forward.
You said that the proportion of people in Arran who support COAST is about 20 per cent. How will they be consulted and become engaged with the process if the MPA and NTZ are be set up?
Initially, we realised that the fishermen were fundamental to our moving forward. At that stage, we were very green and naive, so we engaged with the fishermen who operated around the island. We got them all into a pub one evening, laid a map out on the table and told them what we wanted to do. We then asked them which areas would hurt them least and they identified Lamlash bay. From that, we started intensive diving on Lamlash bay and found maerl beds, sea grass areas and other areas of scientific interest, such as nursery areas. The fishermen chose the area in the beginning, but once we found out what was there we became very keen.
How would they be engaged in the process if the NTZ were set up?
I do not understand the question.
Let us assume that an order sets up the NTZ in the way that the community group that has proposed it says that the community wants it. How would the community be involved?
The community would be involved. You cannot sail a boat into Lamlash bay without seeing the glint of a telescope through a set of curtains. That will be our first line of defence. People monitor the area. I get phone calls all the time from people who ask, "Do you realise that somebody is scallop dredging in Lamlash bay?" I say, "That is very interesting, but actually they are performing their lawful duty. Thank you very much." Each time somebody comes in we log the name of the boat, but that is to enable us to establish the fishing effort in the area. People would be directly engaged and we would continue to hold public meetings. We do promotional work, including showing people underwater footage and films that are of interest to them. A core group of people are interested.
The Executive has suggested that if COAST's proposals were agreed to, it would set a precedent that might lead to a more general squeezing out of the fishing industry through multiple demands for fishing-free areas. Given that Government, SNH and commercial fishermen are not the only stakeholders, can the panel comment on who all the stakeholders are? Does the panel have a view on the balance that ought to be struck in respect of other stakeholders in managing the situation?
My personal view is that everybody in Scotland is a stakeholder. Everybody has the common-law right to fish, therefore they are stakeholders. Obviously, fishermen derive their income from fishing so they are stakeholders. However, my family has lived on Lamlash bay for seven generations, has fished in Lamlash bay for seven generations and has watched the decline of fishing for seven generations. I hope that we are the first generation that sees an attempt to turn that round.
I will give the example of the experience from the Florida keys. In the run-up to the establishment of Florida keys national marine sanctuary in 1995, a series of hearings were held throughout the keys for people to express their views on the nature of the proposed zoning plans, of which there were a number of alternatives. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ran those hearings, which I suppose is the equivalent of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and Scottish Natural Heritage, since conservation and fisheries management roles are embodied within it.
The biggest losers in the fishing industry have been the fishermen themselves. Thirty years ago, 90 per cent of the catch in the Clyde was white fish; today, 90 per cent of it is prawns. There has been a complete turnaround. The fishermen are reliant on only one product—prawns. If anything happens to them, the fishing industry in the Clyde is finished. We must make a change and we must have MPAs. We cannot continue with the status quo—it must change.
So the sea angling that you talked about relies on the whitefish species as well.
That is correct, sir.
Some of what I wanted to ask about community involvement was asked by Rob Gibson and was addressed. It is important that we heard that COAST does not have the full support of everyone on Arran—20 per cent of Arran people are members.
Absolutely. On my motivation, there is no financial gain for me in being a member of COAST; in fact, it is the reverse. Several organisations fund us, including SNH, but nobody gets any wages and our time is given freely to COAST to try to promote the MPA plan. If—or when, as I like to think—that plan is implemented, a great financial burden will be lifted from me.
Is a voluntary approach possible? Can a compromise be reached, or does the measure have to be carried out in the way that you propose?
I do not think that compromise is a dirty word, especially when many people with different points of view face a problem that must be solved.
I am asking whether that would work practically.
Practically, we can have a compromise. However, we cannot have a voluntary agreement, because not everybody would agree. The one or two people who did not agree would wreck everything. In an ideal world, if we could have a voluntary agreement we would not need one. That is the problem.
I can give a couple of examples of voluntary agreements that have failed. At St Agnes bay, off the north Cornish coast, lobster fishermen agreed to create a no-take zone to benefit their lobster fishery, as has happened successfully in other countries, but one lobster fisherman refused and basically ruined the scheme for everybody. At Lyme bay, off the Dorset coast, a voluntary agreement was set up for several years to protect the area from scallop dredging. The agreement resulted in the recovery of corals, sea fans and other life, but one or two fishermen started fishing and then others said, "If they are going to do it, so are we," and all the recovery was ruined in a matter of months. If people suddenly decide that they no longer agree with a voluntary agreement, it is gone with disastrous effect and everybody suffers.
For the benefit of those who were not at the committee's visit to Lamlash bay, I ask the representatives of COAST to describe the bay. It strikes me that it is not a pristine site that you are trying to keep free from the hand of man; it is full of evidence of the hand of man.
Absolutely. The concept of marine spatial planning applies to areas of water with multiple uses. Lamlash bay fits that criterion in spades. We have a large mooring area with many yachts, people who fish, a fish farm and a mussel farm. A large Outward Bound school costing £5 million is being built in collaboration with North Ayrshire Council, so a lot of children will come from the mainland for recreation in the area. North Ayrshire Council has designated Lamlash bay as a recreational area. The Waverley ferry sails through the bay and the Admiralty's ships are in and out all the time. The area has multiple uses. If we want to show that protecting such areas can bring benefits, the bay would be a good area to choose, because it is not a pristine area that we would leave alone and then draw conclusions from.
Do all the stakeholders who use Lamlash bay in various ways support COAST?
Absolutely. They have all been consulted, apart from the commercial fishermen, who are unconvinced at present. However, I hope that we can move to some sort of compromise while maintaining a no-take zone.
How many fishermen come from the island of Arran and what sort of fishing do they do?
One independent creel fisherman travels round the island from Machrie to fish for prawns and lobsters and two other boats fish for prawns and lobsters. They are crofters more than full-time commercial fishermen. One boat fishes razor fish all the time.
Where do the commercial fishermen who would be affected by the no-take zone—those who currently fish in Lamlash bay—come from?
They come principally from Carradale. I spoke recently to several men from Tarbert, and they do not use the bay that much.
I want to follow up the line of questioning on commercial fishermen. It strikes me that it is the scallop dredgers or divers who will lose out. The problem is that they will not be able to get their scallops from Lamlash bay, and they will not be interested in the cod, because that is not their kind of fishing.
We have been in negotiations with the CFA, which are at a fundamental stage at the moment. If it is possible, we would like to move with the CFA so that we can run our project in Lamlash bay while possibly finding an area outside or adjacent to the bay for a reseeding project. As I said, negotiations are at a fundamental stage. We want to move the project forward, but if there has to be a bolt-on situation we will consider that as well.
It is interesting that the scallop fishermen are posing the most opposition, as they stand to gain the most from the MPA and receive immediate benefits. Experience from other parts of the world shows that scallops regenerate quickly in marine reserves. They bounce back within a few years. Their numbers and sizes increase dramatically, and their offspring can be transported to surrounding areas for reseeding. In fact, I think that reseeding in Lamlash bay will not be necessary, because it will happen as a result of the protection. The scallops will regenerate normally.
Would there be opposition to developing a more integrated project with a no-take zone and marine protected area in Lamlash bay while resources are invested in adjacent scallop beds? The no-take zone has been talked about as a five to 10-year process, so we would be excluding scallop dredging in the long term. That would lead to other species developing and growing to a larger size, but there is still the question of how we manage the economic activity needs of those who currently use Lamlash bay. Have there been discussions with people adjacent to Lamlash bay and further up the coast about the scallop issue? It has been suggested to us that the issue is insurmountable. We will ask the fishermen on the next panel about that, but I am interested to get COAST's perspective.
We have discussions from time to time. Recently, we had discussions with the Clyde Fishermen's Association and SNH to explore ways forward. Nothing concrete came out of that, but we are looking at the possibility of moving things forward. SNH tried to push us down the voluntary agreement route, but that would be a waste of effort on everyone's part, because we would be waiting to identify the one person who decided that he was not in the voluntary agreement.
We have explored the matter in some depth. Thank you for giving evidence. You are more than welcome to stay for the subsequent evidence sessions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel. Representing the fishing sector are Alistair Sinclair, who is the secretary of Scottish Creelers and Divers; Patrick Stewart, who is the secretary of the Clyde Fishermen's Association; and John Hermse, who is the secretary of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association.
On the face of it, COAST's suggestion seems reasonable. We are talking about only a small part of Lamlash bay and, according to the evidence that has been led, about species that will regenerate and benefit fishermen in five or 10 years' time. What is the basis of your objection? Why do you not believe that the suggestion is a good idea that will help the fishermen?
Having heard the previous panel's views on fishermen, I am glad that security took my horns away before I came in.
We heard that much of the ecological advice from elsewhere in the world suggests that, if the area were left fallow for five or 10 years, that would help it. Are you saying that the professor got it wrong?
The professor allows his enthusiasm for marine protected areas to run away with him. As far as I know, he has not studied Lamlash bay. In fact, Bill Ballantine, the great guru who was mentioned, was filmed standing at Lamlash bay for the "Landward" programme and saying, "You could spit across here. This does not matter." But it matters to the fishermen of the Firth of Clyde. It matters desperately to them if the possibility arises that, because communities do not like the sight of fishing boats at their front door, they can demand of the Scottish Parliament and the Executive that the area be closed to fishing.
To be fair, I do not think that anyone has done that today, in any sense. If you listened to the previous questions from committee members and the responses, you would know that that was not the tone of the discussion that we had.
I refer not to the discussion but to the submission that was made by COAST.
SCAD has supported the COAST proposal for some time. The fishermen have to realise that they do not have a God-given right to take what is in the sea. There are communities that rely on sea angling for custom at their bed and breakfasts and hotels. Part of their income comes from the sea, and whenever there are no fish in the sea there are no angling tourists. Angling tourism is a huge business in countries such as Norway where there are still fish to catch.
We supported the Clyde Fishermen's Association's call for a ban on mobile fishing and a seasonal closure in a marine protected area in the Clyde where it has been proved that cod spawning takes place. We have asked for that, but we have been refused it up until now. We will carry on trying to get that.
We have heard in previous evidence that the Clyde has been reduced, over the years, from a productive fishing area to a prawn and scallop fishery—an area with just two commercially significant fish stocks. Why has that happened?
Since the demise of the 3-mile limit in 1984, the mobile sector in the Clyde has been fishing more or less right up to our beaches. The mobile sector has fished every species to near exhaustion, and we are now working on the last worthwhile species, which is nephrops. If we do not keep our eye on the situation, the nephrops will go, too, and we will have the kind of stagnant bays that Mr Hermse has talked about.
It is a complex issue, which I will deal with species by species. The Clyde spawning herring stock collapsed when an algal bloom descended on the spawning grounds at Ballantrae banks in the late 1980s. Before that, our herring were fished by a passive method called ring netting, which was invented in Tarbert. That was overtaken by pair trawling, which the association did its best to prevent from happening in the Clyde. However, we were unsuccessful in persuading the Scottish Office to ban that. A combination of too intense fishing effort and adverse ecological conditions contributed to the demise of the herring. There are still herring, but they are not fished in any commercial quantities.
I would like to make it clear, following Alistair Sinclair's remarks about stagnant areas, that the stagnant sea near Lewis is attributable to there being no fishing effort rather than too much fishing effort.
Can you explain why there are no fish left if there is no fishing?
I am no scientist, but I know that, when a farmer harrows a field, the seagulls follow the tractor picking up worms and things. Similarly, a fisherman who fishes the sea bed will agitate the sea bed and cause organisms to—I do not know the proper word—travel distances, interact with one another and become more fecund, I imagine.
What was the state of Broad bay when the no-take zone was established? Was it comparable to Lamlash bay at present? Lamlash bay has quite a lot of fish in it. I know about Broad bay and I am told that there is nothing but starfish there now.
Luckily, I asked that question of two fishermen who worked in Broad bay in the three months preceding the closure. About 10 to 15 years ago, the two boats were averaging £5,000 per week in that area.
Was that for scallops?
Yes.
Were other fish caught in Broad bay, or were scallops the only catch that was available?
Broad bay also had a lot of plaice. It was known as a plaice nursery. To my knowledge, there are no plaice in Broad bay today. Up until the closure, it provided good plaice fishing.
Can Patrick Stewart clarify how many boats are involved in fishing in Lamlash bay?
For a start, the position is that no white-fish fishing takes place in Lamlash bay, so the sea anglers have no competition. As we heard in a correction, no prawn trawling takes place in Lamlash bay. The only fishing is scallop dredging, which is done mainly by vessels from Carradale, Ayrshire and—despite what Mr Macneish said—Tarbert. Depending on the season and the stocks, a minimum of four or five operations per annum might take place or, at a maximum, perhaps 10 times that number. However, it depends. At the moment, very little scallop dredging takes place in Lamlash bay because the stocks have been depleted as a result of the failure to introduce technical measures to protect them.
Many issues are thrown up by this complex matter, but I want to pick up on Patrick Stewart's suggestion about how marine protected areas should be created. Perhaps John Hermse can give his view as well.
You misunderstand me. The criteria should be agreed at state level on the basis of a scientific assessment. In other words, there should be an objective assessment of what the criteria should be for a marine protected area. The state and those who advise the state—in this case, Scottish Natural Heritage—should provide advice on which sites should be designated so that the sites eventually form a coherent network. The state, through Parliament, should then designate marine protected areas and enforce whatever regulations are applied to them. That is on one level.
But your point is that Lamlash bay does not meet any set criteria because there are no set criteria that it should meet.
There are no criteria and what is amazing is that the promoters have suggested none. One might be driven to the conclusion that the only criterion that the proposal meets is that it is in their back yard; in other words, they are not suggesting that Ayr bay, Loch Long or Loch Fyne be closed—funnily enough, it is Lamlash bay.
Mr Stewart, you said something about the community of Arran that I did not follow. You said that it wants Lamlash bay to be considered, but you talked about other areas in Ayrshire and so on. If other communities had worked on a proposal for 10 years, perhaps they would have put in a petition and we would be considering it. I am not clear what your point was about the Arran community. Twenty per cent of the community are members of COAST and the rest of the community supports the petition. Lamlash bay seems to be in quite a unique circumstance for taking forward this kind of no-take zone, so what point were you making?
Lamlash bay is not unique—do not delude yourself into thinking that it is. Its geomorphic make-up, biodiversity and so on are the same as those of the rest of the Firth of Clyde. The point that I was making was that this is the community of Arran wanting part of Arran closed off. I understand that, but we are not told that other areas in the Firth of Clyde are already closed. If you want a trial, therefore, you only have to go to Loch Ryan or the Gare loch, which have been closed since 1986, to see the effect of no-take or marine protected areas. There is nothing novel in what is being suggested here. To say that such an area is unique and groundbreaking is not true because it already exists.
I am still not entirely clear about this. However, I am sure that we will not be deluded into anything. We will take evidence and come to a conclusion.
Mr Stewart, what do you think about the evidence in Loch Ryan and the Gare loch?
An experiment was done in the Gare loch by the marine laboratory, or the Fisheries Research Service, as it now is. One of our skippers was involved in the work and was trawling an area and comparing it against a no-trawled area. I do not know what the outcome of that was.
It is proposed that research be carried out to find out the impact of a no-take zone.
Research has been done in the Gare loch by Government scientists.
So we can ask Scottish Natural Heritage, I suppose.
SNH might not know about it, because it was the Fisheries Research Service, or its predecessor, that did the work.
We would expect the information to be out there.
We are getting mixed messages. You are saying that there have been successful no-take zones in other parts of the Clyde that have, presumably, created biodiversity. However, we hear that Broad bay in the Western Isles is a desert. We are trying to get some kind of perception of what will happen. Both things cannot be right.
I have said nothing about the success of the zones. We are not allowed to fish in those areas, so I cannot tell you anything about them in that regard.
Can you give us any clues? Do you have any idea whether there has been an increase in biodiversity?
No.
Who would know that?
You would have to ask the Executive if it has any information. It might not have, because I am not aware of any trials apart from the one that was carried out in the Gare loch.
There does not appear to be systematic monitoring. We will have to take that up with the Executive and SNH.
On the possibility of having marine spatial planning and the like, have you suggested to SEERAD that the Clyde Fishermen's Association would be quite happy to have a complete network of marine protected areas in perhaps 20 years' time?
No. I do not know the connection between the two things. We understand that marine protected areas are coming and we expect to be involved in the planning for those. When they will happen, I cannot say; that is not in our hands. I do not know where the figure of 20 years comes from, but the fact that you used the phrase "marine spatial planning" gives me a clue. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation, of which the Clyde Fishermen's Association is part, suggested that the marine spatial plan that is proposed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to its draft marine bill should not be binding for 20 years, during which time the criteria would be worked out. Would that be the point that you are getting at?
No, it would not. The question is to do with whether it is in the interests of the Clyde Fishermen's Association to have an early agreement or a later agreement.
As I have told you, from day one, we have sought an agreement and we continue to do so. That is why I was heartened to hear what Mr Macneish said this morning.
I am interested to hear you say that. Mr Macneish is proposing a means whereby scientific evidence can be gathered. However, if you noted the remarks that I made in the committee last week in relation to the order closing the cod fishery in the Clyde, the exact name of which I cannot remember, you will know that the scientific basis for establishing any evidence is flimsy, to say the least, as SEERAD has said. Do you accept that it would be a good idea for communities such as those that are involved in COAST to create the opportunity for more detailed knowledge to be gathered? We have such a small amount of knowledge about the benefits of such a zone.
If you are asking whether I support the funding of research into marine biology matters, the answer is yes.
I am not asking that. Lamlash bay is in no way comparable to Loch Ryan, the Gare loch or Broad bay, because it has two entrances—it comprises an island and a bay and is not a V-notch in the land. I am asking whether research there would be of benefit.
I would be delighted by that. Research took place at Lamlash bay last week. The marine laboratory at Millport is conducting research there right now with our full support.
Does anyone else on the panel wish to comment?
We have no benchmark for the marine environment around Scotland's coast. We have no parameters that allow us to say, "This is how it is and this is how it should be." The COAST proposal would give us a plateau from which to work. On that basis, surely it must be the way forward. We will be able to examine the site before and after any decision has been made. The marine lab at Millport is just round the corner, so Rupert Ormond and co are handy. We could take the information that they gather and create a set of standards for other pieces of ground around the Scottish coast.
It is suggested that only 5 to 10 per cent of the maerl beds that used to exist in Lamlash bay are left. I presume that they have been degraded by overfishing. Would they provide a good base for evidence, given that we are talking about finding an exemplar of the forces that we must balance?
We must start somewhere.
You feel that Lamlash bay is a place where you might be able to do that.
Exactly.
Perhaps the member could share with us the evidence that 5 to 10 per cent of maerl beds are left and that what is left is degraded. I understand from the evidence that the bay provides the best example of maerl beds in the Firth of Clyde, although that may not say much about them.
Do you suggest that SEERAD should gather such information? If so, would it not be a good idea to implement COAST's proposal, as that would further our knowledge?
Of itself, COAST's proposal would do nothing to further our knowledge. What furthers our knowledge is scientists having the money to do research. If Professor Robin Cook of the FRS were sitting here, he would support such a proposal 100 per cent.
I would like ecologically coherent networks—that was the phrase that Patrick Stewart used—but only after the required research has been done. If the proper research is done, we can target areas properly before they are closed for 10 years on a whim or on the basis of inverted nimbyism or whatever—I do not know. We cannot take chances with people's livelihoods and have diversification from fishing, because a proposal such as that for Lamlash bay would cause hundreds of proposals to pop up all over the place and fishermen would fish in a square inch. The situation is extremely dangerous.
If we were discussing a community's proposal to stop overgrazing by sheep or deer on land, would you say that the community could not take control of the land but should wait for a national plan to be put in place?
May I answer?
The question was to John Hermse.
John Hermse would like me to talk about what the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 says. It makes provision for such proposals through management arrangements that SNH puts in place and monitors. The position is clear on land: if grazing must be reduced on a site of special scientific interest, a management agreement will be entered into and the owner of that land will receive payment for profit forgone. That arrangement is different. There is no difficulty with your example, except that such a situation does not happen at sea.
But the owner of the land is the Crown Estate.
No. The owner of the land is the farmer—
Under the sea in Lamlash bay?
The owner of the fishing, or the right to fish, was established by this Parliament—or the previous one—in 1705. The people of Scotland were given the right to fish, and anyone who wants to abridge that right has a heavy responsibility to discharge.
That is what we are debating.
Rob Gibson has covered one of the aspects that I wanted to ask about. I wanted some clarification on reseeding scallops. Would that happen in the marine protected area? Would people still respect the no-take zone if there was an agreement with COAST? Is that the proposal?
Not quite. The no-take zone would be the reseeding area. It would be protected by a several order preventing all fishing. However, the Scottish Parliament amended the legislation to allow creel fishing in a several order area. The several order comes under the 1967 act, as does the regulating order controlling access in the rest of Lamlash bay, the area designated as an MPA.
What would be the nature of the controlled access?
Controlled access would be under fishing licence, conditions of which are enforced by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and approved by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The Parliament recently passed an act saying that private orders made by regulating companies could be enforced by the state, provided the minister—not the Parliament, by the way—approved the terms of the order.
That clarifies that.
I think that you heard from Professor Roberts today that all the research on that has been done. We know what can happen. We know what happens in temperate waters. We know what happens with mobile and sessile stocks. We know what the effects are. There is no need to have an experiment.
How far are we from establishing that coherent network? How good is our knowledge in that regard?
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development will be giving evidence later. He chairs a group called AGMACS—the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy—that advises him on marine nature conservation. I am sure that the minister will be able to help you on that subject.
Is one of the reasons why you are so nervous about the proposal the fact that it will set a precedent? I think that John Hermse said that his association foresaw small measures of this sort having a cumulative effect, should they be taken to be a precedent.
We are worried about areas being designated without the proper scientific rationale.
Could you see Lamlash bay eventually being such an area?
I do not know. It could be, but let us get the research done.
What would be the objection to the suggestion that we heard earlier of having a reseeding area near Lamlash bay, so that there would be the no-take zone and then an area that would be seeded and accessible to the fishing industry?
I would be inclined to favour a reseeding area, but I would have to see the fine detail first, to see what interaction there would be with the adjoining no-take zone. I would not like to say at this stage that I am in favour of a specific proposal.
The reseeding area arose from the COAST proposal, which suggested that the area at Hamilton rock, at the north end of Lamlash bay, would be ideal for its NTZ. We discussed that with COAST and with the Carradale fishermen. Some refinements were made to the proposal, but everyone seemed happy that that was the appropriate area for the NTZ, and the MPA seemed ideal for the control area. Mr Gibson said that Lamlash bay is different because it has two entrances, and that is right. That is why scallop regeneration in that area could be extremely important, because the spat would have two ways out, north and south. One of the areas that is suggested for the network in the review of marine nature conservation is at the south end of Arran, at Brown Head, which is not that far from Lamlash bay, so spat going there could be a big benefit.
I would like to follow up what Mr Stewart and Mr Hermse have said in response to other questions. I am trying to recall what was said three years ago, when we were discussing reducing the number of dredges that boats could tow behind them. Can you remind me which side of the argument you gentlemen were on?
I was on the goodies' side.
I was on the goodies' side also.
We wanted a weekend ban on scallop dredging in the south-western waters of Scotland.
My powers of recall are not what they used to be. Were you in favour of reducing the number of dredges that boats could tow on each side?
Yes. We thought that the minimum that we could get away with was eight, but that if we could get it lower, that would be fine. As it happened, it was brought down to eight, thanks to your support.
It is worth noting that some committee members—the nationalists and the Greens—were opposed to that. I say that on the record for the sake of clarity.
I have a brief question for Alistair Sinclair. There were discussions about where the no-take effort would actually take place. Do you have a view on how feasible it would be to have scallop beds seeded?
I have no opinion on that. I understand the points of view of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association: those guys have got to fish. Fishermen's rights are being eroded every day, and we must try to stem that erosion. I say that with the caveat that the Lamlash bay proposal is probably our best chance of doing something for the marine environment for the future. We should think about the future rather than today.
I thank the three witnesses for their evidence. Like the previous panel, they are more than welcome to stay on.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our third panel. John Thomson is SNH's director of strategy and operations in west areas and David Donnan is a senior fisheries advisory officer for SNH. Quite a lot of information from SNH has been included in previous committee papers. We have many questions to ask you about your written evidence and as a result of our interplay with this morning's witnesses.
Can the panel give us a general overview of the state of the marine ecosystem in the Clyde? What initiatives are already in place to protect it?
It would be useful to get your perspective on the areas that have already been shut at Loch Ryan and Gare loch. Are those restrictions being monitored systematically? For the record, it would be helpful to know how those areas fit into your overall strategy.
I will pass that straight to my colleague David Donnan, who is the technical expert.
I will tackle the second question first. A few closures or restrictions that are in place in Scotland have been mentioned this morning. Most of them are a result of the implementation of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. A variety of measures are in place, ranging from gear restrictions and temporal closures—an area might be closed for six months and then open for six months—through to the exclusion of mobile gear. Broad bay, which has been mentioned, has such an exclusion, as does Gare loch in the Clyde and Loch Gairloch in Wester Ross. Unfortunately, since the restrictions have been implemented, no systematic assessment or research has been done on them. Therefore, we cannot say whether they have been beneficial and have fulfilled the objectives for which they were implemented.
What is your view of the health or otherwise of the marine ecosystem in the Clyde generally?
As with everywhere in Scotland and elsewhere, the fortunes of the Clyde have fluctuated. We have already heard that the situation with the commercial fish species has changed—the herring and white fish are not what they were. However, the water quality in the Clyde has changed. Recovery from the heavy industrial pollution in the upper Clyde is on-going and damaging activities, such as the dumping of sewage sludge, have been removed. The Clyde has had mixed fortunes.
For which areas of the Clyde do we have the best knowledge of the local ecosystems?
The Clyde has been studied for a long time—since the marine station at Millport was established in the 19th century—so we have an enormous legacy of knowledge about it. We have less knowledge about the specific distribution of habitats and species, particularly habitats on the sea bed. The Clyde is not peculiar in that. I am saying not that we do not know anything, but that our knowledge is not as full as we would like. The largest systematic study in which our agency was involved and which was relevant to the Clyde occurred as part of the marine nature conservation review, which involved a systematic survey of the Scottish sea lochs and was based at Millport marine station. That study gave us pretty good information about the sea lochs in the upper Clyde. However, we have less information about the wider Clyde sea area.
People from Millport have been involved in COAST and have carried out research on the habitat at Lamlash bay. Would you say that we know as much about Lamlash bay as we know about anywhere else in the Clyde estuary, excluding the sea lochs?
When we first had contact with COAST about Lamlash bay, relatively little was known about the bay. One of the first interactions that we had was to encourage COAST to gather information about the habitats and species in the area. COAST used the seasearch project, which we fund, through which volunteer amateur divers collect information. That built a good base of knowledge. As you heard this morning, the marine station at Millport has also carried out some supplementary work. We have a reasonable understanding of Lamlash bay.
Can you develop the point about whether Lamlash bay has any particular characteristics that would make it valuable as a no-take zone or an experimental bay? Is it one of several different bays in that part of the Clyde?
On your visit to Arran, you will have seen the maerl beds there. That habitat is of significant conservation value because it is rich in flora and fauna. Reefs or aggregations of worms—in the case of Lamlash bay, the maerl is plants—create a three-dimensional heterogeneity and complexity to the sea bed that would not otherwise be there. Put simply, they provide living space for animals and plants. Therefore, such beds are an important part of our marine biodiversity.
On the face of it, those appear to be arguments for Scottish Natural Heritage to support COAST. Lamlash bay sounds like a very good place to carry out experimentation and have this trial for five to 10 years. However, as I understand it—having seen the vox-pop video that we were shown on Arran, which included comments from Mr Thomson—that is not your view. You do not want to designate the bay a marine protected area in isolation—is that correct?
Perhaps I can clarify our position. We have always been sympathetic to what COAST is trying to achieve and we are supportive of its interest in the local marine environment. As David Donnan said, we have previously provided COAST with both advice and a certain amount of funding to help it to improve the survey information on Lamlash bay. We also accept what Professor Roberts said about the evidence from around the world that no-take zones and marine protected areas of various kinds can be beneficial not just to conservation interests, but to fisheries interests. We are coming from a broadly sympathetic stance.
My questions have been answered. I was going to ask about the possibility of Lamlash bay being used for a pilot project, given that other areas have been closed and nobody has researched the effects. I was also going to ask whether you think there is room for compromise between the two sides. I am encouraged by what you have just said. Can SNH do anything to move things forward?
David Donnan may want to comment on the technical aspects. We are broadly happy to continue to play the role that we have tried to play until now in providing objective and—we hope—constructive advice and, within the limits of our resources, a certain amount of funding. As others have emphasised, it is important that the effects of any marine protected area designation be properly monitored. We would be keen both to advise on the nature of that monitoring and to help to fund it, although we would have difficulty funding it on our own, given our resource constraints.
As John Thomson said, part of the support that we have offered to COAST has been in trying to seek ways in which the proposal can be progressed constructively. The previous panel mentioned several things that are relevant beyond the context of COAST's proposal, such as the need to develop a robust management regime for the scallop fishery, the sea fisheries strategy and the action plans that are developing. As Mr Hermse said, there has been a long history of discussion over how to achieve those things.
Would that include a no-take zone where no scallop or line fishing would happen?
Yes. There are two problems with such a project. One is that it takes resources; so, in order to gather those resources we would need to make the project relevant in a wider context—that is where the grand scheme of things comes into play. The other aspect is that we need to bring many different parties together.
Thank you. That was encouraging; I hope that it was also encouraging to the other people who are listening. What kind of timescale might you be considering?
The proposal has emerged in the relatively recent past, as we heard today, so we are only in the early days of developing it. However, we hope to get things started by the next financial year. That is what we are considering.
The committee has heard evidence from COAST that in 1995 SNH was investigating how marine nature reserves should be pursued in Scotland and that it expected then to reach a conclusion in the near future. Has that work been concluded and, if not, what is the delay?
I will pass that over to David Donnan to answer in detail. I think that, back in 1995, we were investigating the identification of a network of Natura 2000 protected sites. One seeks to represent in such a network certain habitats that are specified in the habitats directive; a Natura 2000 network would not by any means cover all marine habitats or marine ecosystems that would be of interest. That was the primary activity in which we were engaged in 1995 but, at the same time, eventually abortive efforts were being made to establish a marine nature reserve at Loch Sween. That has also been mentioned.
John Thomson has answered the question. I think that COAST was referring to the process of nominating the special areas of conservation under the habitats directive, which was under way in 1995.
With more scientific knowledge, you might decide that Lamlash bay could be a special area of conservation. However, the report from the Prime Minister's strategy unit "Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing" said that MPAs should be tried and tested. Will MPAs be tried and tested in Scotland and, if so, where?
We are certainly moving towards some sort of MPA network. I hope that we do not do so on a trial basis because—as has been said—there is already a lot of experience of such an approach in other parts of the world. We are keen to see MPAs explored in the right sort of context.
As John Thomson said, the special areas of conservation are marine protected areas and work on them is continuing. We are also engaged in other relevant research; for example, we have collaborated with fishermen, the marine laboratory in Aberdeen and the University of Glasgow in considering an example of spatial management in an area in Wester Ross, where we are examining the creel fishery for prawns. As a result of the fisheries management measures that are in place there is an area where there is no fishing, an area where there is mobile-gear fishing and an area where there is static-gear fishing. We are concluding that research now and are working on the results.
I am well aware of the Wester Ross example—it is near where I live. In the debate about setting up marine national parks, a huge amount of flak has come from communities who feel that such a park might be imposed upon them. In this case, a community is looking for a means to take part in the furtherance of scientific knowledge and the restocking of particular areas. Is not the potential of a community that favours such an approach—in contrast with the large areas where people are expressing extreme concern about further regulations—something that you should take on board and support?
We can fairly claim to have taken that on board. Over the years we have done a good deal to help and support the COAST initiative, on the basis that we value and appreciate a coastal community taking an interest in its resource. However, a point about communities that comes up constantly in SNH's work on protected areas on land as well as at sea is that there are different communities—there are communities from the global level down to the household. As has been pointed out, a community beyond the local community on Arran has an interest in Lamlash bay; Carradale fishermen and fishermen from elsewhere on the Clyde use it. Their interests cannot be neglected, but must also be taken into account. In the jargon, they are stakeholders, too.
Although another community might have an interest in Lamlash bay, you would agree that the Executive would not necessarily take into account a veto because it can decide to make an order on the basis of what it thinks it wants to do, without necessarily getting consensus. The fact that the consensus building that you talk about takes a long time means that a decision might not be reached until long after Lamlash bay has lost even more of its potential for regeneration.
That is obviously the worry, which is why I used the word "impetus" earlier. We think that the process needs more impetus; we have heard evidence today that it is beginning to build up.
You said that not everyone was involved in today's discussion. We tried to invite everyone who would be interested, so who have we missed out?
I have in mind people such as recreationalists other than those who represent recreational angling or fishing interests. I am not sure to what extent other forms of recreation are necessarily an issue in relation to management of Lamlash bay because I am not sufficiently familiar with the detail, but I make the general point that representatives of such interests can be involved in discussion of marine management issues. In some areas, there are people with aquaculture interests and it is increasingly the case that there are likely to be people with renewable energy interests, although I do not think that that is the case with Lamlash bay.
We assumed that some such people were members of COAST, so we took the view that they were involved in the process.
You may be aware that the community on Fair Isle has for some time had a similar objective to that of COAST. Its proposal has not been hung on the designation of a no-take zone, but it has involved the imposition of restrictions on fishing in the area and the adoption of some form of protection for the marine environment. There are a few other similar initiatives elsewhere in Scotland—those in Wester Ross and Mull spring to mind.
Do you think that scope exists for more impetus to be given to the project in 2007?
Yes.
What form will that impetus take? It is apparent that a dialogue is going on.
The impetus is threefold. We have already undertaken work on the role of certain habitats and, in particular, on their importance as nursery habitats for certain commercial species, such as scallops. The work that we have done will serve as a basis for further progress.
You think that instead of automatically cutting across that work the project will feed into and develop it.
The project will definitely not cut across any work. For example, the inshore fisheries groups will be required to develop a management plan and a set of management objectives. We would like to be able to provide inshore fisheries action groups with good advice and examples of good practice—in this case, with respect to the scallop fisheries—along the lines of the experience in the Isle of Man and the United States, to which Mr Hermse referred. As I said, we expect inshore fisheries action groups' management plans to include a spatial element and to deliver protection for habitats or areas that are important not only for their biodiversity value or their sensitivity to activities but for their fisheries. With maerl beds, we hit both objectives at once.
Mr Donnan said that there has been a long history of discussing the issue. Given that this work would have no detrimental effect on or cut across the wider strategy, there seems to be little reason not to go ahead with it. However, I wonder whether Mr Thomson will expand on the financial issues that he mentioned.
As David Donnan said, to get the maximum out of any pilot or trial scheme, you need to invest in proper monitoring. Other witnesses have pointed out that a number of closed areas have already been introduced around the Clyde but that we cannot, because no one has monitored their impact, draw any conclusions from them. If this project goes forward, it must be monitored to ensure that we can reach some conclusions that all parties can agree to.
You said that SNH alone would not be able to take that forward.
SNH would find it difficult to find the resources to carry out that monitoring.
Where would further resources come from?
I hope that we would be able to draw down money either from the Executive or from Fisheries Research Services. Certainly any money would be helpful and would supplement any investment by SNH.
Did anyone know that there were maerl beds in Lamlash bay before you carried out your investigations?
Off the top of my head, when we first spoke to COAST, we had no records of maerl beds in that area. They were discovered as a result of COAST's work and the sea-search surveys. We had records of other maerl beds around Arran.
How do the maerl beds in Lamlash bay compare with those in Loch Laxford and Loch Maddy for extent and quality? Are they as good? Are they better? Indeed, are they comparable?
They are good typical examples of such beds and have all the expected characteristics. As for size, they cover a relatively small area, compared with the beds in Loch Maddy, Orkney and, in particular, the Western Isles.
There is a range of types of bed.
Yes, that is probably the simplest way of putting it. However, the Lamlash bay beds are very good examples.
I just wanted to know how you would score them for desirability.
The simple answer is yes. If fisheries interests and COAST are interested in establishing a trial project in Lamlash bay, we should seize the opportunity to do so.
I thank the witnesses for giving evidence and for providing a written submission in advance. Your evidence has been very helpful.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We move on to our final panel. Minister, while you were in Cabinet this morning the committee had a most interesting series of questions and discussions. There have been some interesting exchanges both in the room and at the door, as people on previous panels have listened and talked to each other and had some side conversations. The mood of colleagues around the table, particularly given SNH's response this morning, is that there may be scope for agreements that would develop COAST's proposal and that could bring together all the key players to move forward.
I am extremely pleased that that has been the tone, tenor and substance of the discussion. This is without any shadow of a doubt a difficult issue, but in my view there must be a compromise. If pressed, I will explain why I believe that, despite the case that COAST makes for measures, proposals or plans that might give it additional comfort, its proposal does not meet the requirements for full statutory provision. However, it is important to get all the relevant parties around one table, even if—I am not sure whether the convener is suggesting it—one of us has to wear a blue Boutros Boutros-Gali hat.
Rather you than me.
Thank you, convener. To be serious, I do not deny—and have never denied—that there are issues here. For a variety of reasons, however, I am unable to accept the proposition from the two extremes of the argument. If the committee is advancing to me that what has emerged in the evidence backs that up, then I am much encouraged. The two extremes of the argument are not sustained. While I do not have the evidence, particularly on a scientific basis, that would allow me to recommend statutory provision, I am happy to seek some form of compromise on both sides. On the one hand, that would mean that there would not necessarily be a statutory underpinning, but on the other it would require acknowledgement of the need for measures, an agreed plan or a proposal that would encompass the majority of the points being made by both sides. I am happy to take questions on where I think that there are problems in simply moving straight to any designation, although that is not in any way to undermine some of the genuinely held views of COAST and those who represent it.
There has been quite a debate about the nature of Lamlash bay and of the extent to which the process that has brought the petition to us has been illustrative or useful. You raised the statutory issue. Nora Radcliffe wanted to ask about that.
It would be useful for us to know what is and is not possible under current legislation. Will you clarify whether COAST's proposals would be possible under current legislation? If not, where would something similar fit into legislative parameters?
There is a range of issues. For me or any minister to lay orders in Parliament, we have to consider a range of criteria and be satisfied that robust and objective criteria are being applied. If I start from the top down—I would rather do it the other way round but I do not think that I can—and take the current wish on the Executive's part to consider a network of marine protected areas, we have to be satisfied that each area being designated is proportionate and representative and has characteristics and so on that would meet those criteria. Taking those criteria on their own, it would not be proportionate for us to recommend a statutory underpinning for the area in COAST's petition. Clearly, the issues that are there would meet the criteria, but if you applied a statutory underpinning to that simple, small segment, you could not justify a pattern across the coast. That is not to deny that there are issues within the COAST proposal that should be taken forward, but we have to try to do that on a non-statutory basis.
When you say non-statutory, does that mean voluntary?
Yes.
Without any recourse or leverage against anyone who breaches the voluntary code?
I talked about the objective criteria. Although there are often arguments about who to consult, our statutory consultee on these matters is SNH. I did not hear SNH's evidence, but its proposition to my department is that the area does not merit a particular designation, unless it contradicted that proposition this morning.
I have been discussing quietly with the clerk how we might proceed. I would like all the committee members to ask questions.
Well, that would be true anywhere. I appreciate that there are specifics and that you are required to answer the question that COAST raised. However, my difficulty is that Arran is not the only area in which there are issues and an apparently polarised position; nor is it the only area in which we might consider using statutory powers—if we believe that they are justified by objective criteria—and developing inshore fisheries management. That is what we call it, but it is not exclusive to fisheries; it is about trying to get people with different interests round the table. If we can get people to buy into the process, it is more likely that the criteria will be met; that would be better than imposing something in which the criteria were a bit marginal. However, I do not deny that the issue is a tricky one.
Minister, what began to emerge from the evidence that we took earlier is that SNH is sympathetic to COAST's aspirations and can envisage an NTZ in a wider marine protection area being a valuable part of what is planned. Without putting words into the SNH witnesses' mouths, I think that SNH would be prepared to add impetus to COAST's plan and help to develop it. However, SNH might not be able to afford to do that on its own, particularly in the short term. I know that I cannot tie you down to specifics on this issue, minister, but would you be prepared to consider sympathetically the provision of Executive funding to help the COAST plan happen?
We have issues around the designation of areas as tourist sites and the related issue of trying to get a network of MPAs. We continue to work on that and Eamon Murphy may say something about it.
I can add something to address the particular question about funding. We have always said that if research proposals came through the inshore fisheries groups structure, we would be interested in supporting and facilitating those as well as we could. It would be partly incumbent on IFGs themselves to try to source some funding, but we would be willing to help and to contribute. We in the FRS would certainly be interested in a project such as that under discussion. We would also seek to use the new European fisheries fund measure that is about to come on stream.
One of the problems for COAST is that the process has been going on for a long time. From what we have heard so far, it is likely to go on for a long time yet, until we get the overall picture worked out.
We have tried to make it clear to COAST and other stakeholders that we would like wider discussions sooner rather than later as part of the IFG structure—it sounds as though what has been discussed this morning would fit in with that. We have talked about doing that later this year, so by next spring we should be much further down the road on the process. We are happy to have that dialogue as soon as possible.
Minister, you said in your introduction that you do not have the evidence to proceed on a statutory basis. What evidence would you need?
Getting back to Ted Brocklebank's point, one of the delicate issues relates to SNH. I am in some difficulties, as I do not want to miscall SNH. You will have to forgive me, as I am going on the basis of its last report to us. If it has reported further thoughts or reflections to you, I do not wish to create a division.
You talk about all parties. Through our discussions with COAST, the evidence that we have heard and read, and the visit to the area that the committee was privileged to make, we have been aware that salmon aquaculture, shellfish aquaculture, angling, creel fishermen, diving, sailing and water sports interests are all signed up to the idea. Stakeholder involvement does not get much better. How much more could you wish for?
I do not disagree with that, and the idea of a precedent is not an issue for me. It is more a question of being clear from an SNH or FRS view that, although people have strongly held views about a particular area and its features, it has to be objectively assessed by either SNH or the FRS that it would benefit from or could be part of a pilot and that it meets the criteria for stock assessment and nature conservation. In the previous examination by both those bodies, what was proposed did not meet the criteria.
To help you out, I should say that it would not be fair to say that SNH turned 360° in front of us this morning. We were more testing out the question whether, if the COAST proposal was supplemented and discussions were held with fishing interests, it would create a different scenario for conservation and allow more management issues to be brought into research and analysis and a wider area to be covered.
We ought to explore the wider issue of our designations and marine protected areas, rather than just the situation in Lamlash bay. Given our wider statutory responsibilities, I would not want you to think that we are considering just that area.
A number of other initiatives are going on in the Clyde. As you heard earlier, there is an annual Clyde closure for cod spawning. The Scottish sustainable marine environment initiative relates to broader marine spatial planning.
We discussed the restrictions in the Clyde for cod spawning. The letter that the committee received from SEERAD referred to boundaries. The scientific basis for choosing the area of closure is flimsy, but you were prepared to introduce an SSI on the back of it. In what way would a regulatory order on Lamlash bay be different?
We are actively engaged with the FRS regarding the major issue of cod spawning in inshore areas, which relates to the cod recovery plan. We have varying evidence from around the coast. The issue, which applies not only to an area on the Clyde, relates to the material nature of sitings and how policy is made on the recovery plan. Although we are always interested in evidence from specific areas, I would not want to make any policy in relation to inshore fisheries unless I had substantial evidence. There is some evidence and we are concerned about the situation. However, we need much more detailed information to determine what we should do about it, given that the evidence is a bit varied. There is an issue about how we manage conflicting evidence, particularly with regard to the nephrops fisheries. I would need a clearer picture before I could make a closure order or create an MPA that would have wide ramifications for the cod recovery plan.
So, SEERAD's proactivity in this matter is fairly limited. It was not SEERAD who brought about the current moves to close the Firth of Lorne fishery; that happened as a result of local pressure and the European Union saying what we should be doing in that area under the law. Given that we have a willing community on Arran, surely it is worth trying to build upon that good will. I accept that agreements might be reached to broaden the COAST proposal, but if the proposal is not underpinned by statutory terms, is it not likely to fall by the wayside?
I am happy to accept at face value—I am not quibbling—the consensus that exists among all the parties. If that is what the committee has heard this morning, I am delighted. However, that is not entirely the position that we enjoyed before the committee's hearing this morning.
I did not say that. I am talking about the fact that the minister can make orders regardless of whether an agreement exists among all the parties. In this case, there may be a move towards finding some accommodation. That is a very welcome development on the part of fishing and conservation interests. However, if the agreement is only voluntary, surely the Executive cannot take forward a marine spatial policy on that basis.
Let us not move from the issue of inshore fisheries management, which is fraught with difficulties, to the issue of why I have not put marine spatial management on a statutory underpinning. If I introduce marine spatial planning, I will introduce it with statutory underpinning.
Will the process take five years then, or 10 years or 20 years?
No, it will not. Until fairly recently—when my officials who were across there found that a most unfortunate delay had been caused inadvertently by my department—we thought that we had set up a meeting with the various parties. That meeting might, or might not, have resulted in the outcome that the committee has achieved today. However, we were not hanging about waiting on a meeting; the meeting was scheduled to take place and we had hoped to make progress from that.
Okay, that is quite a good place to leave this discussion. We want to finish by 1 o'clock, so that gives us two minutes to finish our discussion and deal with the next item. I thank the minister and his officials for giving evidence this morning. I will allow a quick two minutes for the minister and his officials to leave before we conclude our committee business.
We will keep the petition open until we receive a response from the minister so that we can ensure that we have dealt with the petition properly.
Meeting continued in private until 13:08.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation