Doc 9
MCZ PROJECT WALES
STEERING GROUP
17 OCTOBER 2011
NOTES
Attendance
Chris Lea - Head of SEED and NAMU WG, acting Chair
Andrew Hobden – Economic Briefing and Analysis WG
Michel Regelous – Conservation Policy Officer - Welsh Local Government Association
Polly Groom – CADW, WG
Nicola Edwards – Head of Flood and Coastal Risk Management, WG
Stephen Hawkins – Chair Technical Advisory Group
Kirsten Ramsa – Marine Ecosystems Subtidal Team Leader, CCW
Lynda Warren – Chair Stakeholder and Citizen Engagement Group
Mike Cummings – Clean Energy Production, WG
Becky Favager – Marine Policy, Environment Agency, Wales
Graham Rees – Head of Fisheries, WG
Rosemary Thomas – Head of Planning, WG
David Parker – Director of Evidence and Advice, CCW
John Goold - Marine Director, JNCC (video link)
Louise George – Marine Branch, WG
Viv Collins – Marine Branch, WG
Apologies
Matthew Quinn, Julia Williams, Stephanie Woodward, Rhodri Asby, Ceri Davies.
Update on the work of the Technical Advisory Group
1. Stephen Hawkins introduced this item and handed to Kirsten Ramsey to present the process to date in identifying the Focus Sites, the data sources and data confidence.
2. There was some concern about confidence in the evidence in particular the use of volunteer data and that reliance on Marine Recorder data neglected other, equally valid data points. Conversely, concerns were also raised about some datasets which were not used in setting boundaries. There was a general acceptance that Welsh data is better than much of UK and Europe in terms of intertidal habitats- and Wales had adopted a more conservative approach by discounting areas with modelled data and areas without data. The possibility of an external peer review was raised as was the possibility of further survey work to improve data confidence if considered necessary at a later stage.
3. Kirsten Ramsey explained the process undertaken by the TAG to select the Potential Sites where sites were removed for one of two reasons – relative low heterogeneity or being similar in character but ecologically inferior to another site nearby. The outcome was a list of Potential Sites which included a merged site. The next stage involved looking at strategic policy or legal/physical constraints associated with the Potential Sites which resulted in the removal of one site due to conflicts with renewable energy interest.
4. There was general support for the work of the TAG to date including the method for identifying the Focus Sites, the data used plus how the Focus Sites had been prioritised and then refined in light of legal and physical constraints. The Steering Group was content that the TAG had adopted a robust process with a clear evidence trail, although it was recognised that not all data sources had been taken into account.
5. The Steering Group was asked to provide a view as to whether the sites with lesser ecological weighting should be included as Potential Site options for the first consultation. Louise George provided background to this request and the view of the TAG. Graham Rees had a preference for including all sites, with exception of those where legal and physical constraints, as options at the consultation stage. There was some concern that this would risk re-starting the whole process and impact on the balance between ecological and socio-economic, with the later becoming all important. Each case will be looked at on its own merits. However, in general, where an area is considered to offer a unique contribution to ecosystem functioning, a greater weight is likely to be attached to ecological considerations. Where there is a choice of alternative areas which are equally suitable on ecological grounds, social and economic factors could be more significant in deciding which areas may be designated as an HPMCZ.
6. The Steering Group took the view that it was important to follow the agreed process – any deviation from this may call into question the transparency of the process (discussion about the consistent application of the guidance). With the exception of Fisheries there was no appetite for deviating from the agreed process by reinstating some or all of the Focus Sites for inclusion as options at the first consultation. It was agreed to proceed on the basis of the Potential Sites, the Focus Sites to act as reserve sites if needed later in the process. It was agreed to consider the way in which all sites are presented at consultation with a suggestion for including the weighting/ranking of sites so that the full detail of possible options and reserve sites are understood by all – and can be commented on by all.
Principles for determining Potential Site Boundaries
7. Kirsten Ramsey presented the principles that had been developed by the TAG for determining the boundaries for Potential Sites. There are 4 ecological principles - viable area, site shape, whole habitat patch (rather than bits) and site size. There are 3 practical principles – a risk management area, a simple boundary and alignment with other boundaries.
8. Clarification was provided in relation to the use of the risk management area and the climate change proofing. Of the examples provided, there was some agreement that as drawn the boundaries are not ideal. The Group discussed the use of expert judgement but agreed that this would need to be defined. Stephen Hawkins raised the possibility of having different weightings for habitats specifically for the boundary-drawing exercise. For some sites it was recognised there is an element of flexibility as to how a boundary is determined – recognising that social and economic issues will also have a role in shaping site boundaries, the consultation can be used to explain that boundaries are indicative and further evidence/information may result in change. CCW to consider and if necessary provide revised guidance to the TAG on the use of expert judgement to provide more sensible boundaries – providing it is accountable and defendable – and whether weightings could be applied.
Action: CCW to consider and provide advice to the TAG on the use of expert judgement and applying weighting in determining boundaries.
9. The Group discussed boundaries in relation to the practical needs for enforcement, with a view from a fisheries enforcement perspective that as small as possible is best - most vessels have good GSI so a buffer not necessarily important for enforcement but recognise that it might be for ecology. There was some concern about the enforceability of other activities and the ability of recreational users to position themselves accurately.
Conservation Objectives and Management Measures
10. Kirsten Ramsey presented CCW’s emerging advice on conservation objectives and management measures for HPMCZs. There was some concern from the Steering Group as to whether the aspirations within the paper are achievable – adequate resources for management and enforcement an issue. The Steering Group questioned whether it is possible to prevent certain activities within a site – preventing a vessel anchoring in/on certain area of sea was given as an example. The WG agreed to obtain clarity on what it is able to do in relation to site management.
Action: WG to consider the feasibility of the management proposals and aspirations.
11. The Steering Group discussed the issue of equal treatment for sectors and whether it is easier and/or fairer to stop/exclude everything from a site - but is this practicable and can we justify such an approach (blanket approach v case by case approach). No decision on either issue and noted as needing further consideration.
12. The general view was that the work is a good starting point but more work is needed in order for the Steering Group to be clear and understand more about the social and economic impacts (positive and negative) within and outwith of sites, inform how decisions are made, plus management, monitoring and enforcement requirements. It was agreed that displacement pressures needed to be captured and associated with this options for compensation – whether it be financial (are there any implications for State Aid rules) or otherwise e.g. employing those displaced in monitoring, benefits to some from access to the RMA. It was agreed that more work is needed here.
Action: WG to look at options for obtaining further information on social and economic impacts and for taking this work forward and to provide information back to the SG and TAG.
Action: CCW to provide further advice on the management of activities outside of sites.
13. Communication was noted as a key issue and a major challenge in taking this work forward. There is a perception that these sites are adding to the complexity of working in the marine environment. To get buy-in and take stakeholders (and others) with us we need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve, how MCZs relate to and are different from other MPAs, why they are necessary, how we intend to make the decisions and how we intend to manage and enforce the sites.
Action: WG to incorporate into the first consultation package making the links with the wider marine programme - marine spatial planning.
Impact Assessment
14. Louise George introduced this item outlining the commitment in the Site Selection Guidance to provide an impact assessment for each Potential Site put forward as an option. The Marine Team has already started to gather information on human activity associated with the sites but the intention is to gather more detailed information as part of the consultation exercises. As a result the proposed approach is for impact assessments to evolve throughout the process. The Steering Group was content with this approach.
Update from the Stakeholder and Citizen Engagement Group
15. Lynda Warren reported on a recent meeting where there were 3 main messages from members - for the consultation to be clear with a clear evidence base, an offer to proof read the consultation paper from a lay perspective and frustrations over further delay in knowing where the sites are.
Next Steps
16. The Chair closed the meeting noting a role for the WG to consider the options for taking forward the actions identified today, plus implications on the project timetable – and to feedback to the Steering Group and TAG.