Feedback from other meetings.

Report on MNP Glasgow seminar

Timescale---  SNH to give decision of area to Ross Finnie by March 06

Finnie can overrule SNH recommendation but unlikely

Area or areas decided on then goes to public consultation

Park in place no later than 2008

Submissions from organisations asap but no later than early Jan.

Criteria for deciding areas---  Data is used in assessing an areas suitability

Biodiversity----Maerl beds example

Landscape

Enjoyment and recreation

Each area is awarded on a points system and out of an original 16 areas it has been narrowed down to 4

1. Argyll and the Islands
2. Skye and Lochaber
3. Western Isles
4. N.W.coast of Solway

Essential Concerns for Aquac. And Fishing----Much  emphasis from SNH on the“value added” aspects of Marine P.  However fishing and aquac. Reps struggled to find any positive examples.  Mention was made of the L.Etive status and the Loch Fyne initiative but it was decided that added value would have no real effect.---  Read out key concerns from previous cosultations

Management Board—SNH saw advantages in the “one stop shop” of m. board having all stat. powers.  However a more likely scenario would appear to be another set of bureaucratic stat. powers on top of existing ones

80% of m. b. made up by Scot. Ministers and local Authorities the remaining 20% directly elected by   people for the area .  There is a guarantee  of at least 20% of the members will be people living in the area

If there is conflict between the 1st aim of the NP---(The conservation aim) and any of the others the Authority must give greater weight to this aim

Specific aims---The 2 that relate directly to ourselves ---“Could impose restrictions on trawling/netting or no take zones and control/management of fish farms.  This can extend up to 12 nm from coast.  Landwards no specific distance has been specified---  Read out  Main Sectoral  messages ---Fishing

“Increase the profile of marine issues (educ./raising awareness) and encourage sustainable resource use and the precautionary principle  Read out all aims? Read out powers

Conclusion  There are a number of lobbying groups who are very pro MNP in order to limit both fishing and fish farming and in particular I mention sea angling orgs. and bodies such as Heb. Marine nat. park partnership.  They are well organised.  There is a question mark over the original 25 stakeholders and their motives.  It is possible that SNH may be struggling with trying to produce an acceptable park area in the time given to them.

      They have to cope with an area up to 12 nm from ? and the coastal land back to?

      They have to take into account all the competing individuals groups and orgs.both on land and sea.  This is possibily a rushed experiment with a potential for causing conflict within vulnerable communities.

   It is not likely to be in the interests of fisherman/fishfarmers and probably not in the interests of most Mull residents (Planning probs. Increase house prices)   Finally a Park by its nature and name is about protection and conservation over any other considerations

With the introduction of the new inshore fisheries groups taking place at the same time many of the issues facing the fishing industry are likely to be addressed by these bodies.