IRISH SEA STAKEHOLDER MEETING 6 MAY 2010

[dave joyce]

On 6 May 2010, at 15:23, "SAMF" <john-samf@ry-isp.co.uk> wrote:


Gentlemen,

I attended the Irish Sea stakeholder meeting yesterday and was about to write a report for you when I got the others and I have to say that I would be repeating much of what has already been said.
We discussed broadscale habitats, 10 were identified, and we were told that we had to select between 11.2% and 16.5% ( averaging about 15%) of these habitats for designation as CZs.
For example the largest area in the Irish Sea is subtidal coarse sediment, which has a total area of 7102 square Km.We have to allocate 16.5% ( 1171 square Km) as a CZ
The smallest area is low energy infralittoral rock, which only has an area of 1.9km2.We would have to select 0.3km2, but the only place it is found is at the mouth of Mersey Docks so the general concensus was that it would probably be ignored.

We started the day having 10 charts on the wall representing the broadscale habitats then a listing of activity for each one and comment column of " no impact" "marginal impact" "detrimental impact"

The worst comment under sea angling was whether anchoring could have a marginal impact in the coarse sediment area.In all other areas the "no impact" box was the only one ticked.

Commercial fishing - bottom trawling - got a lot of detrimental impact revues.

One issue we are waiting an answer on concerns windfarms. We know that generation 3 sites are to be developed in the Irish Sea. Our query is would a CZ in an area prevent the farms being built, or could we allow them to be built then create a CZ around them.

As Leon says, until something different crops up I have no reason at the moment for major concern.

Regards, John Amery

[dave joyce]

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Finding Sanctuary - IWG report


With regard to the number of reference sites, I queried this at the BS local group meeting yesterday.

Previously when reference sites have been discussed it was pointed out that some MCZs would need to be No Take Zones (NTZ) simply to understand what happens when an area is left alone, and no human disturbance at all occurs. The impression I was given being that there would be few such sites created.

At yesterday's meeting it was explained that for each type of broad scale habitat occurring in the district, there would need to be at least two MCZs established (so that if one is damaged etc, the other will provide some insurance towards the protection of such habitat).

(Such MCZs would need to be 10-20km in diameter and spaced 40-80km apart)

And at least one of these would be a reference site, which (apart from essential transit eg existing shipping lane or need to transit for safety etc) would be protected from all human disturbance, with nothing being taken out, put in, or disturbed.

So, assuming two sites representing each habitat, that would mean 50% of MCZs would be NTZs (of course if more than 2 examples of a broad scale habitat is protected, and only one is a reference site, the percentage drops. And if the feature type being protected needs a high degree of protection anyway, the percentage increases).

In any case, apparently a higher proportion of MCZs will be NTZs than I was expecting.

However, these might be sited where no activity takes place anyway, and certainly if there are two or more examples of a habitat aquiring MCZ status, the reference site should be the one where the minimum existing use occurs.

So, again until those lines begin to be drawn, it will be difficult to assess whether there is a need to get overly excited.

Regards, Leon