Report by the Chief Executive and Senior Scientist.

1. To inform Members of developments with Byelaw 1 authorisations for experimental seed mussel relaying in Morecambe Bay.

2. That the Committee should authorise a single trial over a maximum area of 20ha within the "Barrow 2" area, the precise location to be agreed between Officers, Kingfisher Seafoods and Natural England, with the harvesting of the mussels to be authorised under Byelaw 12.

1.1 At the Scientific and Byelaws meeting in October 2006, a policy was agreed for issuing Byelaw 1 authorisations in order to facilitate experimental mussel cultivation in Morecambe Bay. The purpose of these cultivation trials is to identify areas that might be suitable for mussel aquaculture in the Bay, which will be of great help in developing a "Hybrid Fishery Order" which includes Several Fishery areas.

1.2 The use of Byelaw 1 for these trials was considered desirable in order to carry out the experiments in a controlled manner, with proper monitoring that would yield reliable, scientifically sound results. Byelaw 1 has been used to grant an authorisation to a single person to dredge for the mussels either during or at the end of the trial, provided it is done for scientific purposes. Authorisations under other Byelaws would have to be issued to anyone who applied, resulting in a potential "free for all" which would make any experiment difficult to evaluate precisely.

1.3 The main concern considered by the October meeting was the appropriate scale of the experiments. It was accepted that the trials would have to be on a sufficiently large scale to generate the same result as with a normal commercial operation. On the other hand, the experiments should not be over a very large area, as this would confer an unfair commercial advantage to anyone given exclusive rights to harvest mussels from the area.

1.4 One application had been received for an area of over 140 hectares, an area in the north of Morecambe Bay previously identified as having potential for mussel cultivation, and known as "Barrow 2" and shown at Annex A. In 1997 this area had been proposed for trials under Byelaw 1. It had been divided into 6 equal plots, but only 1 of these was eventually used, and the outcome was inconclusive. The October meeting considered that "Barrow 2" was much too large for a single trial. It was resolved that a suitable size for an experiment should be an area of no more than 20 hectares, and that no more than 500 tonnes of mussels should be relaid. It was further resolved that a single applicant should only be allocated a single 20 hectare experimental plot in any one year.

2.1 At the time or writing this report there have been seven further applications for Byelaw 1 areas within Morecambe Bay. Six of these applications were for 20 ha experimental plots within "Barrow 2.

2.2 A seventh application has been received, which requested permission to carry out similar trials within the North Walney Channel area. The number of trial plots is not specified.

2.3 There are two earlier proposals for trial mussel cultivation in Morecambe Bay. The Committee resolved to issue Byelaw 1 authorisations for harvesting of mussels from an experimental plot in the Ring Hole at Morecambe. However, no relaying of mussels has taken place here, and none will now be possible in 2006. A further application for a plot at Bare has not yet been determined, as the original area was for 30ha, thereby exceeding the maximum 20ha limit.

3.1 Officers are concerned at the proliferation in the number of applications for Byelaw 1 areas. If all are granted then it will be impossible for the Committee’s staff to monitor the activities in a rigorous scientific manner. Officers therefore believe that it is not possible to justify the scale of trial mussel cultivation now proposed in Morecambe Bay under Byelaw 1.

3.2 Nevertheless, useful information could be obtained on the suitability for mussel cultivation of a variety of locations in Morecambe Bay if a series of less rigorous, commercial trials were carried out. Officers therefore suggest that the Committee should agree to the trial relaying of mussels in the proposed areas, but only permit harvesting of mussels by dredging under Byelaw 12. This would increase the financial risk to the operators, as they would lose the exclusive authorisation to recover the mussels afforded under Byelaw 1 when fishing for scientific purposes. This may make the operations unattractive to the applicants.

3.3 Members are reminded that these proposals will definitely represent a "plan or project" within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations. Therefore the conservation advice of Natural England must be sought and an appropriate assessment is likely to be required for the operations, both separately and in combination.

3.4 Preliminary discussions with Natural England suggest that a single 20ha area within the "Barrow 2" would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the Morecambe Bay SAC, but that more widespread trials would need a more rigorous assessment. Kingfisher Seafoods are keen to establish an experimental area quickly, to utilise any seed mussels that may be remaining in the Bay.

3.5 Officers therefore suggest that the Committee should authorise a single trial over a maximum area of 20ha within the "Barrow 2" area, the precise location to be agreed between Officers, Kingfisher Seafoods and Natural England, with the harvesting of the mussels to be authorised under Byelaw 12.

3.6 Officers further suggest that the other applications should be discussed in detail with the applicants and Natural England, and that precise areas for commercial trials should be determined and presented to the next meeting of the Joint Committee.

STEPHEN ATKINS

Chief Executive

BILL COOK

Senior Scientist

20 November 2006

1. Letter from Kamax International Ltd dated 13^th November 2006.

2. Letter from William Benson dated 13^th November 2006.

3. Letter from Benson Seafoods Ltd dated 13^th November 2006.

4. Letter from Eximar Ltd dated 13^th November 2006.

5. Letter from Kingfisher Seafoods Ltd dated 13^th November 2006.

6. Letter from Velella Ltd dated 13^th November 2006.

7. Letter from AWJ Marine Management Solutions dated 13^th November 2006.