20th Marine Natura Project Group Meeting - Final ... - JNCC - Defra

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES TWENTEETH MEETING 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 JNCC, MONKSTONE HOUSE FINAL MINUTES Present (around table): Lynda Warren (LW) (Chair)

Jen Ashworth (JA) – NE (item 8)

John Goold (JG) - JNCC

Joanna Redgwell (JR) – NE (item 3-11)

Charlotte Johnston (CJ) - JNCC (items 1-8)

Peter Clement (PC) - NE

Amy Ridgeway (AR) - JNCC (Secretary)

Nigel Buxton (NB) - SNH

Andy Webb (AW) - JNCC (items 1-3; 8-9)

Howard Platt (HP) - NIEA

Annabelle Aish (AA) - JNCC (items 1-8)

Evanthia Karpouzli (EK) - SG

Beth Stoker (BS) – JNCC (items 6.4-8) Caroline Turnbull (CT) – JNCC (items 1-7)

By video-conference:

Emma Verling (EV) – JNCC (item 7)

Natasha Lough (NL) - CCW (items 1-8)

Jamie Davies (JD) - JNCC (item 8)

Kirsty Lindenbaum (KL) – CCW (items 3; 8)

Linda Wilson (LJW) - JNCC

Matthew Murphy (MM) - CCW (item 9)

Neil Golding (NG) - JNCC (items 1-8)

Carol Hume (CH) - SNH (items 1-8)

Paolo Pizzolla (PP) - JNCC (items 5-7)

Katie Gillham (KG) - SNH (item 8)

Sonia Mendes (SM) - JNCC Sophie Elliott (SE) - JNCC (items 6-8)

By telephone:

Wyn Jones (WJ) - JNCC (items 1-7)

Chris Pirie (CP) - NE (item 6)

Apologies: David Connor (DC) - JNCC

Ian Enlander (IE) - NIEA

Joe Breen (JB) - NIEA

Therese Cope (TC) - JNCC

1. Welcome and apologies for absence LW welcomed the attendees. Apologies were noted as above. Changes to JNCC Marine Protected Sites team were outlined. An introduction to JR in her new appointment, as the Marine Natura Project Manager at NE.

2. Minutes of the 19th Marine Natura Project Group Meetings and matters arising Minutes from the 19th meeting were approved. The final minutes will be placed on the MN2KPG webpage. A summary of action points from the previous meetings and outcomes is provided below.

Action point number 19.1

Action

Action by

Action on

SACRep paper to be finalised by JNCC

19.2

Charlotte Johnston to raise with Defra that minutes should be circulated from meetings such as the UKMBPSG

December 2008 31st October 2008

Charlotte Johnston Charlotte Johnston

20th Marine Natura Project Group Meeting - 20th_12_2-09_draftMinutes - CH e.doc

03/07/2009 Page 1 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES Action point number 19.3

Action

Action by

Action on

Comments on MN2KPG19_1_MarineAreasRTD to be provided to Ben Dean by 26th October. In particular comments are sought on how robust the validation is and the confidence in placing predictions. Comments on MN2KPG19_2_OffshoreSPAs to be provided to Kerstin Kober by 26th October

26th October 2008

All, followed up by Ben Dean

26th October 2008

19.5

MN2KPG19_4_MN2KPlan to be updated for both SACs and SPAs and circulated to the group inter-sessionally

31st October 2008

19.6

JNCC and the CAs to have discussions and mutually agree a timescale that is workable on which a paper on the SPA network can be produced and to inform the group of the decision Comments on MN2KPG19_7_Sandbanks to be provided to Amy Ridgeway by 10th October

15 November 2008

Carol Daniels to provide details of SNH Sandbanks sites not included in MN2KPG19_7_Sandbanks Comments to be incorporated into Bassurelle SAC SAD Annabelle Aish to add a sentence into SACCrit paper on the potential for restoration. Paolo Pizzolla to circulate note from the Typical Species Workshop once finalised Paolo Pizzolla to circulate programme for the forthcoming MPA workshop to be held from 27th-29th October

10th October

All, followed up by Kerstin Kober All, followed up by Amy Ridgeway Andy Webb with input from Country Agencies All, followed up by Amy Ridgeway Carol Daniels

19.4

19.7

19.8 19.9 19.10 19.11 19.12

10th October

10th October 26th September 30th September 24th September

Amy Ridgeway Annabelle Aish Paolo Pizzolla Paolo Pizzolla

AP 19.6 – JNCC and the CAs to have discussions and mutually agree a timescale that is workable on which a paper on the SPA network can be produced and to inform the group of the decision A provisional list of inshore SPAs was circulated about 2 years ago. A current draft list is to be sent to country ornithologists by 15th March. Most work is required on Scottish sites. There is a need for some clarity from Defra and devolved administrations. Scottish Government requires information on the likely extent. Aim for a reporting paper for next project group meeting, May 13. Some suggestions were made regarding wording of text.

3. EU and UK Marine working groups 3.1 Update on European marine Natura Last meeting was in September 2008. Site submissions by 1st September 2008 were considered, along with discussion on the interaction between N2K site management and CFP. There is an Atlantic biogeographic region meeting (23th-25th March, Ireland) to consider sufficiency of all submitted marine sites by Member States. Core discussions will include the Commission’s guidelines for review of the marine site series, including proportion of habitat/species (20-60%) of Member States resource and the clarification of a list of habitats and species for consideration. The four UK places will probably be taken by John Clorley, David Mallon, CJ and one other. UK sufficiency/lack of sufficiency will be an important feature of this meeting. To note is that the sufficiency of the UK site series for shallow inlets and bays, as well as reefs, sandbanks, seacaves and submarine structures are on the list of habitats, and sites for the two shad and two lamprey species, as well as the two seals, bottlnose dolphin and harbour porpoise are also under review. The relationship between the Marine Expert Group and the Atlantic Biogeographic Regions Group is unclear. Agenda for the Marine Expert group is 3 or 4 years out of date.


03/07/2009 Page 2 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES UK is currently responding to infraction for not having transposed article 11 and 12.4 clearly and for not having a structured surveillance action plan. Most focus is concerned with sites and features, rather than species conservation. Current work involves Lawrence Way, Jane Hawkridge (JNCC, working on UK strategy for surveillance) and the Joint Cetacean Protocol*. Possibly need involvement by the UK Marine Biodiversity Steering Group. Defra’s response has been limited. Monitoring schemes must be able to detect levels of change with regard to the Habitats Directive. Early indications are not encouraging but this is the same problem for every European country. Need co-ordination on species data, rather than have various species working groups. *The Joint Cetacean Protocol is part of a wider UK cetacean surveillance strategy involving the JNCC Marine Advice team and the CAs. Have secured initial funding, from Defra for several pilot projects and work is currently focussed on England. 3.2 Update on activity of UK Marine Biodiversity Policy Steering Group and UK MPA Policy Group

JG attended last meeting, 19th December. The UKMBPSG meeting was an update meeting and no policy decisions were made with regard to offshore SACs. This group is not functioning as a steering group on offshore SAC consultation at the moment. John Clorely is replacing Ian Barrett as chair. UK MPA Policy group – has focussed on the Marine Bill since summer, with limited update on marine Natura 2000. Next meeting due soon (Beth Stoker is Secretariat).

4. Selection of SACs for Annex I habitats 4.1 UK SAC work programme for forthcoming sites (MN2KPG20_1_MN2KPlan; MN2KPG20_2_Papers) NG is taking over from CJ on coordinating site selection up to point of recommending sites to Defra. These Plan and Papers documents are for information and it is recommended that the agencies update them when requested. There are additional sites in NI that don’t appear in paper. AP 20.1 HP to send details of additional NI sites to NG and TC.

4.2 Update on JNCC survey plans

NG updated the group on survey plans. A survey was conducted on the Solan Bank (bedrock & stony reef) and the mid-Irish Sea (submarine structures made by leaking gases) in May, 2008. The cruise report is available. Analyses currently underway by CEFAS and is due by end of financial year. In July, 2009, there will be a survey to Anton Dohrn. The JNCC has commissioned BGS, who have subcontracted to MMT, a Sweden outfit. Key stages include data mining and survey planning (underway), survey (July); data interpretation and analysis (Q2/Q3) and final report (March, 2010). It is likely that sites will be proposed from the 2008 surveys. Possibilities for collaborative work with CCW for Modiolus modiolus, (2009/2010) are being discussed. There was a comment that according to the guidance notes for the Atlantic Biogeographic Region meeting all occurrences of submarine structures should be protected within the network. As a lot is being found there was a suggestion of protection of perhaps 60%. The Solan Bank analysis is suggesting that reef features carry on into territorial waters. JNCC recommends that CEFAS delineates Annex I reef as it continues inshore. JNCC and SNH discussed progressing a site which potentially crosses the territorial boundary. Although SNH don’t want to feel coerced into a site inshore because of an offshore basis, they also don’t want 20th Marine Natura Project Group Meeting - 20th_12_2-09_draftMinutes - CH e.doc

03/07/2009 Page 3 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES UK exposed to infraction because of stopping at an arbitrary boundary. There is a similar situation between the UK and the Dutch as the Dutch alone are interested in KlaverBank. AP 20.2 NG to give AR PDF of presentation to place on secure webpage, and to send out to CCW and SNH.

4.3 Consideration of Wight-Barfleur SAC proposal (MN2KPG20_3_WightBarfleur) NG gave a presentation on the Wight-Barfleur SAC proposal. The site consists of bedrock and stony reef and is being proposed to proceed for formal recommendation to Defra as a dSAC. It contributes to the Natura 2000 Network as it is located within Eastern English Channel regional sea. There is only one other SAC in this regional sea with reef as a qualifying feature, the South Wight Maritime SAC. A second proposed SAC, Lyme Bay and Poole is an Area of Search until it gets recommended to Defra and is endorsed by the Joint Committee. Wight-Barfleur differs from other two in depth, in coastal influence and energy level.

5. Selection of SACs for Annex II species 5.1 Update on seals at sea contract Have not let contract yet mainly due to time constraints but also need to consider outcome of September Committee paper on Harbour Porpoise and possibly incorporate into the contract work. It is important work to address potential risk of problems with the Commission for not providing offshore sites for these species. Begin work by end of this financial year /start of next one.

6. Consultation on SACs, Advice and Management of European marine sites 6.1 Update on offshore SAC consultation plans NW Rockall Bank and Dogger Bank were formally advised to Defra in April and November 08 and almost all pre-consultation meetings have taken place. Have Defra clearance to begin impact assessments. Waiting for Cabinet clearance to begin consultation. No objection to NW Rockall but awaiting resolution on Dogger Bank. This delay poses problem as to whether to combine them in a single consultation or not. Working with NE on two inshore/offshore sites in the Wash and co-ordinating consultation on those two and on the other NE sites. Hatton and Bassurelle are about to be formally advised to Defra and JNCC are aiming to develop impact assessments and begin consultation for those sites (staff resources permitting). As stakeholders tend to not differentiate between inshore and offshore, it would make sense to coordinate Bassurelle with the NE sites and the joint sites in one consultation. It might also be worth doing the same for Hatton Bank with Mingulay and Sound of Barra consultations, but will depend on timing of advice to Government and discussion with SNH, Defra and Scottish Government. All agreed that there is good co-ordination at this level and a strong wish was expressed to have improved communication between the agencies, perhaps at a higher level. There was a discussion on the timetable for JNCC Committee endorsement of the two joint NE/JNCC sites in the outer Wash, and the other NE sites intersessionally or at the March Committee (JC) meeting. JG and James Marsden have discussed achieving coordination, which is likely to result in NE delaying their announcement of the sites. SACs to go to Chief Scientist’s Group (CSG) tomorrow (Feb 13) and if no problems will go intersessionally, or if there are further delays, to Committee meeting, March 25th. There was a discussion on the delineation of CSG’s role and the role of the JC, with reference to inshore and joint sites. 20th Marine Natura Project Group Meeting - 20th_12_2-09_draftMinutes - CH e.doc

03/07/2009 Page 4 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES LW noted that the Committee is reviewing its governance procedures. Committee need to receive decision-making papers at session as a general rule (rather than intersessional papers) and would probably welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. LW is happy to raise issues at Committee and as the Chief Executive will be there timetables can perhaps be set. This is a governance issue and Committee is best placed to address it. CH is likely to be the main contact for accommodating the consultation process within SNH. It was raised that there is a need for good lines of communication to be established with Northern Ireland. AP 20.3 Raise issue of inter-agency communication regarding coordination of consultations, especially for cross border sites, at Committee and get a high level steer. LW will discuss with the Chairman and JG about inter-agency SAC progression and consultation.

6.2 Update from each of the agencies on consultation plans NE: NE currently intending to go out to pre-consultation on 6/8 sites. Have authorisation from Defra. Draft letters ready. Intend to go to formal consultation in November. SNH: Barra and Mingulay are being signed off internally and will then inform Scottish Government. Aim for February/ March to have final sign off. Sound of Barra was a pSAC as site was put forward for consultation in 2001. There is now a different boundary (additional to original pSAC area) so is now considered an Area of Search until formally advised to Scottish Government, at which point it will become a dSAC. 6.3 Agreement of final wording for Conservation Objectives for offshore SACs and

inclusion of typical species (MN2KPG20_4_ConsOb) The only additions since last meeting are explanatory notes and typical species. Conservation Objectives text for offshore sites was discussed and agreed at last meeting. SNH have concerns with the paper. These COs are quite different to COs that Scotland currently use, e.g. Scotland’s use of typical species and the importance placed on targets, monitoring and casework. It is understood that there are no obligation to have agreed COs but it has been agreed by Defra that draft COs will be produced when sites are submitted to EC and that formal agreement will be reached within 6 to 12 months of this submission. Scotland has standard, agreed COs for habitats and species and therefore has finalised COs in place as soon as sites are submitted to the EC. People generally agree that the paper can be used in draft, as a guide until further discussions have taken place. Main comments included: •

Scottish Government is setting up a meeting with Defra to discuss some of these issues; COs in particular.

•

Possible agreement at a coarse level and agree to differ in the detail.

•

Detailed information has been gathered and should be used now.

•

Thinking on COs is evolving at the EU level. The UK must evolve with it, in unison.

•

Although there is no obligation to have an agreed standard for COs, e.g. there are none at a terrestrial level, we should aim for a common standard at a marine level.

AP 20.4 CCW and SNH to provide concerns in writing. Following a replacement for Paolo a meeting is to be arranged between key people within the next 6 months (by August 2009) with LW as chair, with a resulting paper to be considered by the Project Group.

6.4 Site integrity for Natura 2000


03/07/2009 Page 5 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES JNCC is working to interpret terminology in offshore habitat regulations to provide greater clarity to Competent Authorities on how sites might be managed. Key term is Site Integrity. Appropriate Assessment has to confirm that there will be no adverse affect on site integrity before a plan or project can go ahead. Propose working closely with the agencies to come up with site integrity terms that we can all work on, to ensure consistency. AA will produce succinct paper for circulation to group. Site integrity is defined in ODPM circular but is inconclusive as to whether solely on interest features of site or whether also talking about ecological linkages between qualifying/non-qualifying features. From talking to the agencies it is clear that it is assessed in relation to COs of interest features. Noted that most of this has been done before. AA is collating all that information. 7. Regional Seas 7.1 Update on progress in defining Regional Sea boundaries (MN2KPG20_5_RegionalSeas) Information paper on JNCC work on updating draft Regional Seas that have been draft since 2004. Need robust set of regional seas for MCZ process. Data received since regional seas first created has helped align boundaries in a more appropriate way. Bad timing with Charting Progress II (CPII) report so have used different boundaries there. Intend to potentially go to HBDSEG with this update (unlikely to go before the summer). There is still opportunity to influence these boundaries with comment (by end of month). Intention is that they are ecologically meaningful boundaries, not political. Some comments were made with regard to text and record of changes. There was a discussion on data for the delineation of the boundary between Shetland and Orkney. Previous discussions involving John Baxter at SNH established that there are recognised differences in flora and fauna between Shetland and Orkney, i.e. that there is a north/south divide. During consultations there has always been a debate on that boundary. SG is happy to talk with SNH about their concerns. Regional Seas are pivotal in terms of MPA network planning. Unified boundaries that are universally agreed to are necessary. Regional Seas are only used in UK context, not in Irish or French seas. There have been discussions within OSPAR for Regional Seas at an OSPAR level. Also within MSFD, ICES, CEFAS and EEA. There are a myriad of different versions with no agreement. There is an aim to agree at European level. Scotland is happy to use the regional seas for reporting but have advised JNCC that they would not use it for planning and management purposes. AP 20.5 If anyone has comments then email EV ([email protected]) by end of February. AP 20.6 EV to discuss with CH and KG in further detail what the Scottish concerns are.

8. Marine Protected Areas: non-Natura work 8.1 Update on MCZ process An introduction of the new name: The Marine Conservation Zone Project. There was a project board meeting for English inshore and offshore and Welsh offshore involving Defra, NE and JNCC. Detailed progress report is available. Defra is hoping to sign off in March. Nearing the finalisation of detailed project plan which will run until October 2011 when regional projects are required to submit their recommendations to Secretary of State. Currently finalising the development of guidance on ecological coherence, site selection, stakeholder engagement and decision making guidance. There will be an internal workshop on guidance at the beginning of March. Plan to finalise by May to go to public consultation. Still undecided whether it will be a 3 month public consultation or inviting comment from stakeholders in a less formal setting. Some of the work is underpinned by ecological coherence work (AA) and site selection work (JA). Communications and stakeholder engagement strategy. Workshop in March or April. More strategic approach, i.e., how to handle internal communications and externally, national and internationally. Developing a direct link with Regional Projects. Being progressed by SE (new stakeholder engagement officer) and AR. 20th Marine Natura Project Group Meeting - 20th_12_2-09_draftMinutes - CH e.doc

03/07/2009 Page 6 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES Regional Projects: Finding Sanctuary up and running. Revision of terms of reference of board and (stakeholder) steering group with regard to political situation changes. Eastern Channel Project now has a Project Manager – Sue Wells. Hoping to recruit Communications officer as soon as possible. Board involves NE, JNCC and Kent County Council at moment with a view to identifying further board members as necessary. North Sea – project manager and communications officer have been recruited. Board established there. Irish Sea least developed at moment although MOA being signed this week with Envirolink - arm of the NW regional development agency (project host, based in Warrington). Wales: Some discussion with Wales having fisheries and planning powers in Welsh offshore zone. Discussion within WAG and Defra about inclusion of Nature Conservation powers too. If this is the case WAG keen to explore options of joint inshore/offshore Welsh project which will have implications for current Irish Sea project. Decision for Defra and WAG on how we move forward. JNCC will be involved however they are set up. Scotland: there will be a joint Scottish inshore/offshore project. SNH leading on inshore and JNCC on offshore. Discussions about project plan and progression of project currently happening. Marine Bill being progressed and probably submitted in April, will help determine way forward on that front. Northern Ireland: not yet fully engaged. Different timescale exist but will make contact there.

8.2 Use of pressures data in MCZ selection and management advice (MN2KPG20_6_Pressures) JNCC currently have two data contracts let, MB106 (pressures on marine environment) and MB102 (collating sensitivity information on EUNIS level 3 habitats and species of particular conservation importance). Main objective is to combine sensitivity and exposure to pressures information to give indication of impacts on specific features for which we may identify MPAs. This impact data will also aid the development of advice on operations for selected MPAs. There may be difficulties in the level of sensitivity data that can be collected, particularly for EUNIS level 3 habitats and for particular chemical pressures. Aim to apply this methodology as far as is possible within the MCZ Project area so is of particularly relevance to NE. Might also be of interest to SNH, CCW or Northern Ireland. Comments and questions included; •

Combining scores can result in the same score for low sensitivity/high pressure and low pressure/high sensitivity. JNCC response- assessing driver of score can be achieved by overlaying detailed sensitivity/exposure data.

•

What is relation of this work with the MarLIN work on sensitivity? JNCC response - current ABPMer contract will do a review of the different approaches to assessing sensitivity and there will be a workshop in April/May, to hopefully achieve a common approach.

•

SNH comment - the principle for MPA identification is to first look at areas subject to least pressure. Sensitivity assessment based on data from one source such as from Nephrops fisheries surveys can be quite uniform. How useful is this? JNCC response - would need to assess other possible pressures in an area and pick a site that is exposed to the minimal number of pressures. Where there is a uniform impact stakeholder involvement will be important to reach a decision on a site.

•

How would this methodology fit with CCW’s existing methodology? JNCC response - this shouldn’t override the work of CCW which will be reflected in ABPMer work.


03/07/2009 Page 7 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES •

NE comment – keen to be involved and feel that it could be helpful to put pressures into high, moderate and low categories. JNCC response - difficult as high pressure for different sources are not necessarily the same.

•

Noted that mitigation measures already associated with pressures must be considered. There will be an indication of pressures associated with current activities as currently regulated.

•

JNCC proposes the terms ‘pressure’ and ‘impact’/‘vulnerability’ be used in this context, whereas ‘Threat’ tends to be used in the context of specific features’ rate of decline (OSPAR/IUCN terminology). The terms ‘pressure’ and ‘impact’ are being used in Charting Progress II (CPII) following inter-agency agreement. It should be noted here that there are some reservations about their use beyond CPII.

8.3 Proposed methodology for assessing the ecological coherence of the UK MPA Network (MN2KPG20_7_EcolCoherence) A paper on the methodology was put to the group for discussion. Recommended for use initially within the MCZ Project area and so hope to get agreement with NE. Not expecting agreement on success criteria at this stage. Devised to be applicable on a biogeographic level, and scaled up as appropriate. It is based on a matrix of identifying features. A spatial analysis would likely run in parallel. Uses 6 elements of ecological coherence identified at an OSPAR level. These are which features; how they should be represented; number of replications; connectivity; resilience to the network (factor of replication); adequacy and sufficiency. JNCC have let a number of contracts on this and feel that it would be a useful methodology to apply to whole of UK MPA network to fulfil OSPAR obligations. There was a general agreement with the approach of using a matrix. •

NE feels other ecological criteria such as IUCN should be considered in the paper.

•

Scotland raised the issue of the limitations of the matrix, i.e. having just one approach to UK targets would not be able to reflect all of the various policies in existence or more precisely, the multiple success criteria that result from the various policy preferences. JNCC stated that the UK MPA Network is designed to fulfil OSPAR MPA commitments and its ecological coherence should be assessed scientifically in line with OSPAR guidelines, as it cannot be policy influenced. Comment: SNH appreciate JNCC’s opinion that this approach should only be based on scientific assessment. However, unfortunately this is not likely to be a realistic approach given the differing policies of devolved administrations.

•

The Habitats Directive definition of Natura 2000 network coherence is assessed using different principles, as the network has different (EU-level) objectives.

•

Scotland questioned the proposed targets which have not been agreed at a UK level. There is a JNCC contract to look at scientific methodologies that can generate targets, due March 2009.

•

Northern Ireland reserves its position on this methodology

•

The draft Marine Bill includes socio-economic factors but all MPAs within the MCZ network will need to meet ecological criteria before socio-economic criteria are considered.


03/07/2009 Page 8 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES •

Both CCW and SNH agree with the principle of a matrix approach to assessing ecological coherence, but would like further discussion on the detail of the success criteria. Comment: SNH note that it may not be possible to agree on a single set of criteria given the different policies of the devolved administrations.

9. Timetable of work for marine SPAs 9.1 General update on marine SPA work and forward timetable (MN2KPG20_8_SPAUpdate; MN2KPG20_1_MN2KPlan) Scotland - Scottish inshore SPA work - good progress with Stage 1 assessment. Section 2.21 in paper 8. Reporting nearly complete for 6 areas in Scotland (4 in the east coast; 1 in the northern isles and 1 in the western isles). Commencing analysis for another 4 sites on the west coast. Survey plans for winter include obtaining data for gaps in areas. Last November met with SNH and SG to progress Scottish work. There is enough data to go forward with a spatial analysis in a regional context for sites on the east coast , including Firth of Forth, Moray and Dornoch (based on multi species assemblages). Also planning to do spatial analysis for 3 potential sites off the west coast and 3 in the northern isles. Hoping to meet with SG in spring. Haven’t yet commenced the east coast spatial analysis due to a lot of changeover in staff. England – Constantly changing. Now looking at 3 options for Liverpool Bay. Original 2005 one, 2000 sq km; one off Shell Flats and Dee Estuary. And intermediate one in between the two. No clear indication of likely final decision. Thames Estuary depends largely on option that is finally decided for Liverpool Bay. If go for Option 1, i.e. 2005 boundary, that would be very different from methodology that currently supports Thames estuary. Wales – CCW will be considering Liverpool Bay options for early this year. Waiting on NE final decision. 90% sure that there is money to fund some work this year. Northern Ireland – surveying 3 areas this winter. Reporting has not yet commenced. Offshore – still on target to produce final report in March this year with final advice to be delivered in June. This will be initial recommendations for final sites. There will be another process before the final recommendation. Like to stress that there are a lot of changes in the team, so some short term reduction in output. AP 20.7 JNCC to speak to CCW about additional funds and forward plans. Any updates to MN2KPG20_1_MN2KPlan to be provided to Therese Cope.

9.2 Agency updates on SPA work programme CCW – Implementing marine extensions in 2010. This is a WAG priority. And implementing 2001 review on some SPAs.

9.3 Papers re: SPAs to Project Group and JNCC Committee/Agency councils (MN2KPG20_2_Papers) 10

Breeding colony SPAs 10.1 Summary of tern SPA workshop


03/07/2009 Page 9 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES Difficult to identify terns to species level using aerial survey. There was a workshop between JNCC and CA ornithologists and tern experts. 25 attendees – 7 from CAs, 8 others from outwith e.g. Birdlife, RSPB, CEH. Discussed different approaches to collecting new data on terns and strategic approaches to hotspot identification. An outline was proposed for taking tern work forward. This went to the Country Agencies a couple of weeks ago. There was a question regarding costs and timescales which will need further discussion. For work organisation would need comments within next few weeks. Costings are general at this stage. 11

Any other business •

The inshore designation process was highlighted by a paper by CT . Available on the secure webpage.

•

SG – would like reporting lines finalised. Confirmed that it came up at Committee level and that revision of the Terms of Reference it still in process.

•

SNH will have some comments on N2K Process.

AP 20.8 Committee is 25th March. Would like comments on MN2KPG20_X_N2KProc paper before then so that LW inform the Chairman. AP 20.9 AA to clarify whether ecological coherence paper has been distributed more widely than just N2K groups. Date and time of next meeting: Wednesday 13th May, 10 am, JNCC, Monkstone House.

Summary of action points Action point number 20.1

Action

20.2

NG to give AR PDF of presentation to place on secure webpage, and to send out to CCW and SNH.

20.3

Raise issue of inter-agency communication at Committee and get a high level steer. LW will discuss with the Chairman and JG about inter-agency SAC progression and consultation.

20.4

CCW and SNH to provide concerns in writing. Following a replacement for Paolo a meeting is to be arranged between key people within the next 6 months (by August, 2009) with LW as chair, with a resulting paper to be considered by the Project Group.

20.5

If anyone has comments then email EV: ([email protected]) by end of February.

20.6

EV to discuss with CH and KG in further detail what the Scottish concerns are.

HP to send details of additional NI sites to NG and TC.

Action by

Action on

30th April, 2009 28th February, 2009 25th March, 2009

Howard Platt

31st August, 2009

All, followed up by Charlotte Johnson

28 th February, 2009 31st March, 2009

All, followed up by Emma Verling Carol Hume, Katie Gill & Emma Verling


Neil Golding

Lynda Warren, John Goold

03/07/2009 Page 10 of 11

JNCC MARINE NATURA 2000 PROJECT GROUP FINAL MINUTES Action point number 20.7

20.8

20.9

Action

Action by

Action on

JNCC to speak to CCW about additional funds for SPA work and forward plans. Any updates to MN2KPG20_1_MN2KPlan to be provided to Therese Cope. Committee is 25th March. Would like comments on MN2KPG20_X_N2KProc paper before then so LW can inform the Chairman.

30th April, 2009

Linda Wilson, followed up by Therese Cope

20th March, 2009

All, followed up by Lynda Warren

AA to clarify whether ecological coherence paper has been distributed more widely than just N2K groups.

31st March, 2009

Annabelle Aish


03/07/2009 Page 11 of 11