Minutes: Fisheries Local Action Group Meeting

Minutes: Fisheries Local Action Group Meeting.

Thursday 1 December 2016 (11:00) at St Magnus Suite, Pickaquoy Centre.

Present: FLAG Members (Public)–Francesca Couperwhite (Chair), Phyllis Harvey (Vice Chair), Michael Bell.

FLAG Members (Private) - Alan Coghill, Stewart Crichton, Fiona MacInnes, Fiona Matheson, Steve Ray.

LEADER Team: Amy Esslemont (LEADER Development Officer), Julie Murphy (Assistant Project Officer) – minutes.

The Chair checked that the meeting was quorate, per the LAG Constitution formally adopted at the LAG Meeting held on 3 December 2015. She noted that although expected to attend, Steve Ray and Alan Coghill had not arrived and this meant that the public/private minimum 49/51 split was not met. Therefore, Phyllis Harvey left the room, to ensure the minimum public/private split was met, so that the meeting could commence.

1. Welcome

The Chair welcomed the FLAG members to the meeting and introduced Michael Bell, as a new FLAG member.

2. Apologies

The Chair advised that apologies had been received from Barbara Foulkes and Edgar Balfour, Keith Dobney and Mark Shiner – a new member of the FLAG.

3. Draft Minutes of the FLAG Meeting – 28 September 2016

There were not enough members of the FLAG present at the meeting, who were in attendance at the meeting held on 28 September 2016, for the draft minutes to be presented for consideration.

The Chair informed the FLAG that these draft minutes would therefore be presented at the next FLAG meeting.

4. Connect Local

The Chair asked Amy to summarise the Connect Local initiative. Amy advised the FLAG that Connect Local was an advisory service, with Marine Scotland funding, which has a focus on fishery communities.

At this point Alan Coghill joined the meeting, and this enabled Phyllis Harvey to re-join the meeting.

Amy continued that the Marketing Manager of the group had advised that she would visit Orkney in February and would like to meet with FLAG members, within the fisheries sector, individually. Someof the FLAG members advised that they had already seen the Connect Local presentation.

At this point Steve Ray joined the meeting.

The Chair welcomed Alan Coghill, as a new member of the FLAG and asked him if he knew all the attendees. Alan confirmed he knew everyone but Steve Ray; therefore Steve introduced himself.

A discussion followed as to the advantage of the Connect Local service within Orkney.

One member suggested that perhaps the services would be of most benefit to community groups, or the smaller island fisheries communities.

The FLAG noted that the Marketing Manager would be visiting Orkney in February and prior to this she could make direct contact the fisheries representatives.

5. Update on Impact of BREXIT

The Chair asked Amy to give the FLAG an up-date on the impact of BREXIT.

Amy advised the FLAG that grant contracts signed up to the point of UK’s exit from theEuropean Union would behonoured; however the timeframes on how long a project could spend for had not yet been clearly defined.

The Chair advised that any future updates, regarding the impact of BREXIT, would be e-mailed to FLAG members, as and when they became available.

Phyllis explained that any change to the timeframes could cause issues with projects wishing to span 2 or 3 years.

A FLAG member asked if there was anything in the pipeline to replace LEADER/EMFF. Amy said she thought that the Scottish Government were starting to look at this, however, an argument for the continuation of this type of support would need to be established.

6. Enquiries Received

Amy reported that two expressions of interest had been received since the last meeting. Both were being progressed to the application stage;one was being considered at today’s meeting, and the other would be presented to the next FLAG meeting.

Amy advised two enquiries had been received, but they had not progressed to the expression of interest stage. She said that one had been more appropriate for an EMFF main scheme grant, and the other had not progressed any further as the applicant had not yet made further contact.

7. Targeting of Funds to Outputs

The Chair explained that Amy had prepared a paper about the targeting of funds to outputs, and asked her to highlight the main points.

Amy explained that in Round 1 the FLAG had recommended two projects, which had subsequently been approved by Marine Scotland. These projects had utilised 37.23% of the Orkney FLAG’s funding allocation. These projects had substantiallycontributed to four Local Development Strategy (LDS) targets:

Fisheries Communities Enhanced

Fisheries Assets Developed

Diversification Measures Developed

No of Jobs Created/Safeguarded

Amy also advised that the project that was due to be considered at this meeting, if approved by Marine Scotland at the level of funding requested, would also contribute to the same targets, and increase the total of funding committed to 58.22%.

Amy added that the cumulative effect of the followingwould result in a remaining FLAG budget of approximately £20,000.

• Projects approved to date
• Project application to be assessed today (if approved at intervention rate requested)
• Project application being currently worked up for the next FLAG meeting (if approved at intervention rate requested)

Amy explained that the LDS targets which required further attention were:

• New Market Opportunities Identified; and
• Job Created/Safeguarded

Amy suggested that the FLAG might wish toconsider how best to utilise the remaining funds from the Orkney EMFF allocation; whilst considering the LDS targets.

The Chair asked the FLAG to discuss the paper.

A FLAG member advised that a project already approved had targeted new market opportunities, and that this may have been missed on the applicationform.

Amy advised that, going forward, the targets would be monitored as the project progressed and therefore achievement of further targets would be documented at this point.

A FLAG member suggested that having talks with Community Councils and Development Trusts might bring forward new project ideas which may assist meeting the LDS targets.

Amy explained that although EMFF FLAG funding was new to Orkney, there did seem to be an awareness of its existence, however she added that there may be a lack of understandingabout how the funding could be utilised. She explained that given the possible amount of FLAG funding remaining;an increase in publicity could result in expectationswithin Orkney’s fisheries communities being raised unfairly.

Stewart Crichton offered to visit interested island communities, with a scientist from Orkney Sustainable Fisheries, to raise awareness of the work of Sustainable Fisheries and FLAG funding.

The Chair suggested it would be best to write to community groups first to gauge the interest, and perhaps follow up with visits, where appropriate. The FLAG agreed this was the best way forward due to the limited funding available

Steve Ray suggested that some basic information, to help raise awareness, could be published in the “Sanday Sound”. He said that there was currently a lack of fishing on Sanday, but historically there had been cockle harvesting, and that any basic information given now, may help regenerate interest. He explained that this could ultimately lead to anincrease in employment opportunities, and help to sustain the population, on the island.

Michael Bell suggested that there may be an opportunity for him to involve university students in project work, over the summer months, to carry out a cockle survey, and perhaps investigate the sustainability of a fishery on the island. He said he would add a Sanday cockle project to a list of possible research projects for students.

There followed a discussion on how other islands may benefit from similar projects, and how opportunities involving other species, such as winkles, could be investigated.Stewart Crichton suggested that any group with a fisheries interest could carry out a baseline study in order to ascertain opportunities within their community.The FLAG agreed that these ideas were worth progressing.

Stewart Crichton suggested that perhaps the remaining EMFF funding allocation of approximately £20,000 should be ring-fenced for small communities until the next FLAG meeting as this would allow time to assess the level of interest. The Chair put this proposal to the meeting and, after further discussion,it was agreed the £20,000 would be ring-fenced until the date of the next meeting,at which time the situation would be reviewed.

8. Dates of next meetings

The Chair asked the FLAG to note the date for the next meeting – 10 May 2017.

9. AOCB

The Chair asked members if they had any other business which they wished to discuss. There were no other items put forward for discussion.

8. Assessment of Round 2 Projects

For the benefit of the new members, and members who had not yet been through the scoring process, the Vice Chair explained the FLAG scoring system.

She advised that members could only score projects as they were presented to them at the meeting, and that the onus was on the applicant to provide full details of the proposed project.

She explained that the first phase was to score the application to assess if it met the FLAG criteria.Applications needed to score at least 26 before they could progress to the second phase. She explained the second phase was to determine the intervention rate that should be recommended to Marine Scotland (MS).

The Vice Chair confirmed that the FLAG’s recommendations would be forwarded to MSwhowould decide whether or not to approve the project, and decide what intervention rate to award. She advised that it was very important that FLAG members did not relay the group’s recommendations to any applicants, as MS may not agree with the FLAG’s recommendation. She pointed out that MS would advise the applicant of their decision. She added that MS would then be responsible for processing the claims from the projects.

The Vice Chair also explained that the FLAG had previously decided that members who had provided letters of support for projects, were able to stay for project assessments, if they wished,and felt comfortable doing so.

She highlighted that any FLAG member who had an interest in a project, which may have the potential to undermine their impartiality in the assessment process, must declare an interest prior to discussion of the project, and they would then be required to leave the meeting. She explained that this was why it had been decided to make project assessments the last item on the agenda.

The Chair asked members if they had any questions. There were no questions raised about the assessment and approval process.

At this point Fiona Matheson declared an interest in the next item, and left the meeting.

The Chair checked and confirmed that the meeting was still quorate, and that the public/private split was correct.

As requested by a FLAG member, Amy explained what constituted public and private, and the required 49/51 split.

The following project application was then assessed using the scoring criteria previously agreed by the FLAG at their meeting held on 24 March 2016. (Stage 1 – Assessment for Award -13 criteria with a total of 39 marks available, and a pass rate of 26 and Stage 2 – Intervention Rate – 4 Criteria - to determine percentage of grant to be recommended).

1. Orkney Green Fishery Development Strategist - SCO1558

The Chair asked Amy to give a summary of the project.

Amy advised that the project involved creation of a 3-year post dedicated to collaborative working with fishermen. The project would evaluate current practises in the industry and develop consensual strategies to enable these practises to be improved, whilst being underpinned by sustainable objectives. She added that the project also included the creation of a bespokeselective escape panel to decrease unwanted catch.

Amy explained that the intellectual property rights would be kept by Marine Scotland, and that the applicant had been made aware of this.

The Chair advised that the project costs had been reviewed by an independent third party and were considered to be reasonable.

The Chair asked the FLAG to discuss, and ask any questions.

The FLAG felt the project in general was difficult to comprehend as one application. Amy explained that there were many aspects to the project and the applicant was aware that the post may need to be split up as the skills required may prove to be too diverse.

The group acknowledged that there were strong arguments for industry engage in conservation measures, and that funding this type of project could be advantageous in the Orkney context.

Members agreed that the project was both ambitious and holistic; in trying to draw the two diverse strands together.

Members had some slight reservations as to how achievable all of the objectives would be, but felt these were outweighed by the benefits such a project could bring to Orkney’s fishing communities.

Members acknowledged that the applicant had demonstrated how the information gathered by the project would be shared within the industry, and with the public.

Members felt the project was innovative in its focus, and would contribute to the protection of the environment. The FLAG agreed that it would have an impact beyond the funding period, with the socio-economic work being done likely to influence public sector policy for years to come.

The FLAG supported the project and felt it was worthwhile. They agreed that it met all the elements of the LDS, and had a significant fit with several of the EMFF high level objectives.

The FLAG expressed a strong interest in the outcomes of the project and therefore expressed a desireto follow its progression, with a view to adding value by sharing knowledge and experience in order to assist the project to meet these outcomes. Therefore, they decided that as a condition of the award, they would request that updates on progress are made available for each FLAG meeting, and requested that the interim reports submitted toMarine Scotland, by the applicant, are also shared with the FLAG. The total score was 32, with stage 2 criteria -100% exceeded. The FLAG agreed to recommend a grant of up to £101,190.15(100% of the approved eligible costs exclusive of VAT).

The meeting closed at 12:25.

Approved by: …………………………………………… Date: ………………………

(Chair)