1.1 The annual Shellfish Managers’ Meeting for 2006 was hosted by Southern Sea Fisheries Committee at the RNLI College in Poole. As usual, the meeting was well attended, with delegates from most Sea Fisheries Committee’s including the Channel Islands, together with representatives from CEFAS, the Conservation Agencies, Seafish and SAGB. Martyn Boyce and Bill Cook represented NWNWSFC.

1.2 A full and interesting programme was presented, with many topics of relevance to fisheries and issues within our own District. First up was a run through the main fisheries of the Southern SFC District. Of particular interest was the Poole Harbour clam fishery using pump-scoop dredges. This was a clear source of dispute between the SFC and English Nature, with the Committee maintaining that English Nature’s interpretation of the likely harm to the site through this method of fishing was unreasonable and did not reflect scientific evidence on the impact of the fishery.

1.3 Jersey SFC reported on a pot limitation scheme that they had introduced in response to falling catch per unit effort in their lobster fishery. They already operated a ban on parlour pots in certain areas, but had recently introduced a limit on the number of pots that could be fished per boat. The French lobster fishery already employed this as a method of controlling effort. The Jersey scheme was based upon vessel length, with a maximum of 1500 pots for vessels of 12·5m or over, reducing to 200 for the smallest boats. These numbers served to cap effort rather than reduce it, but the industry were now discussing possibilities for reducing the pot quota so that the total number of pots could be reduced.

1.4 North Eastern SFC presented results of attempts to get Marine Stewardship Council accreditation for some of their fisheries. They had been unsuccessful for their lobster fishery, mainly because of the present inability to control effort and the lack of a management plan. However, the accreditation for bass fishing had been successful so far, and it was felt that the ability to control the effort in this fishery under byelaw was crucial. A maximum of five permits for bass fishing were issued per year. Experiences here and elsewhere in the country suggested that industry support for the accreditation scheme was equivocal, and equally good marketing advantages could be obtained by other methods, such as gill tagging bass to create tractability from the fisherman to the consumer.

1.5 Sussex SFC reported on progress with the recording, displaying and analysis of fishing effort data using a Geographical Information System (GIS). This dovetailed with the Royal Navy’s surveillance database. A comprehensive picture of fishing methods and relative effort throughout their District had been built up using semi-automated recording and processing of fishing vessel sightings by their patrol vessel.

1.6 Devon Wildlife Trust gave an interesting presentation on efforts to protect vulnerable reef features in Lyme Bay from scallop dredging. Voluntary closed areas had demonstrated a significant increase in vulnerable species such as sea fans in the protected areas. An attempt had been made to compensate fishermen for staying out of the closed areas by reseeding scallops using spat collectors to harvest young scallops. This had failed as the scallop spat were heavily outnumbered by queens which were not of interest to the industry. There had been recent problems with the voluntary closed areas due to larger vessels from other areas coming to Lyme Bay and ignoring the closures. Jersey reported that they were encouraging the harvesting of scallops by diving. This both protected seabed features and was financially beneficial to the industry, since diver-caught scallops sold for twice the price of dredged stock.

1.7 Presentations were given by Bill Cook and Martyn Boyce on recent cockle fishing experiences in Morecambe Bay, and the call was made for national measures to control cockle fishing, especially a national minimum size which would greatly improve enforceability.

1.8 Environmental matters dominated the second day. There was much discussion of the appropriate assessment procedure, and a joint presentation by SAGB, Seafish and English Nature described progress towards a Memorandum of Understanding which should help to relieve some of the burden of the assessment process and to achieve greater consistency of conservation advice and response. The possible benefits of marine reserves, particularly no take zones, was presented.

1.9 As usual, this meeting was both interesting and informative, offering an opportunity to compare issues and management possibilities with other Committees and bodies, both through the formal presentations and discussions, and informal conversations over the period.