DSP Steering Group Meeting Minutes

March 11th, 2010, Nairn Sailing Club, Nairn

In Attendance: Deborah Benham (DB) DSP; Sarah Dolman (SD) WDCS; Ben Leyshon (BL) SNH; Kathryn Logan (KL) Moray Firth Partnership; Bill Ruck (BR) Moray Diving; Sarah Pern (SP) EcoVentures; Alasdair Thomson (AT) Inverness Harbour Trust; George Kirton (GT) Grampian Police, Jason Watts (JW) SNH funding advisor.

Apologies: John Orr (Highland Council), Martin Hind (Highland Council), Hamish Young (MCA), Calum Macrae (Northern Constabulary), Pat Thow (Visit Scotland), Caroline Warburton (Wild Scotland), Linda Hay (Highland Council), David Lusseau (Aberdeen University), Vanessa Williams-Grey (WDCS)

1. Funding

A discussion was held regarding the suitability of LEADER funding for supporting the work of the DSP post February 2011. KL explained that LEADER funding is area specific e.g. Highlands, Moray etc. However make 'Area two' applications allow multiple area funding. This might be appropriate for DSP funding. SD suggested there may be a conflict with WDCS as LEADER may not fund two dolphin orientated projects and WDCS Wildlife Centre have already made an application.

JW explained a bit more about LEADER Funding and DSP fundraising strategy:

Each Local Area Group (LAG) can allocate up to 100% in exceptional cases, but 40% more common.

LEADER = bottom up approach, ideas come from the local community.

Leader focus on small community projects. Three years maximum funding. Usually fund smaller projects.

If asking for up to 40k over 3 years = upper limit for Leader. Would need to show strong deliverables e.g. materials and resources.

EU money cannot be match funded by other EU money. Has to have public or private sector match funding.

DSP will developing a clear plan for the scheme, identifying which aspects are 'core' or 'project'.

Think about which funders are appropriate for which aspects. Useful to make some of the core costs part of project work e.g. some of the salary time (has to be a new post).

BL agreed that much of what the DSP will do after current grant ends will be new and we can run PO role in a different way as well. Emphasised need to project proposal to be developed as soon as possible. Should start with unique elements of DSP identified in last SG meeting. BL suggested we could also look at Land Fill Tax and other grant making trusts.

A discussion regarding LIFE funding followed. JW explained the following:

Biggest EU fund is LIFE. Like big projects.

Biggest project fund for the environment. Up to 1 million.

Nature and biodiversity strand is most interesting for us.

Interested in innovative stuff, dolphins would be included in this. SAC would help as it is a Natura site and these sites have first dibs at the money.

Still going strong and will be another fund after 2013.

Funds available have dropped as there are new eastern European countries that need a lot of work and are taking some of the money.

Any project ideas need to go to Jason as he is main contact at SNH and can say if projects would be suitable. Firstly a concept note by May.

Don't need partners but like a secure source of match funding e.g. public sector.

Application by September, wouldn’t get a decision until next Sept, decision Jan 2012. Won't fund ongoing work – has to be new, innovative, best practice

Will cover all staff time etc.

Will give up to 50% (would required a lot of match funding).

They withhold final payment until all spending done

No 'in kind' match funding is accepted.

Lots of reporting and recording etc.

Does not cover research- only concrete actions e.g. conservation work, staff costs

Smaller, easier pot of money available for outreach, networking, sharing good practice and communication

Can take 12-18 months to work up a good application

Might require a professional

KL – LIFE funding was granted for setting up SAC. Match funded by Councils, harbours etc. BL explained that money was used to set up the SAC management group and scheme, within which there were about 40 projects, including the DSP.

DB suggested that maybe LIFE was too big a hurdle for us currently.

JW suggested other options including structural funds – ERDF (Economic Regional Development Fund – purely for economic development) & ESF (European Social Fund – training and employment). SNH have got some good grants from them in the past for nature reserves etc. There is money out there, they have an under spend. If we can link things to economic development via tourism development – then there could be some money to be had (ERDF). If we want to do job creation, apprenticeships, skills training (ESF) . Jason has a list showing some of the projects which have been approved in the last few years. Quite a few made to Visit Scotland for tourism growth schemes. Inverness harbour, community woodlands, Nevis partnership for a mountain trek, NTS – mountains for people, etc etc. 50k over 3 years would be about smallest, biggest on there is 23 million. Normally 40% of total costs. Moray Firth would be split in two though they would consider a joint border application if it ticked right boxes. Best thing to do is to work up project then have an informal chat to Jamie Dunsmore at HIP. Next round is May. Might be 2 rounds a year.

BL highlighted the need for swift action and suggested that we pull together a project proposal and send it to Jason.

JW summarised Land Fill Tax options:

BIFFA is our best best. Do big money, up to 100K at 90%.

Two sites, Alness for Inverness area, Aberdeen for eastern area.

Most only do 10-20 miles from their site.

Wren will do 25 miles from their sites, so long as 10 miles from any site.

All central belt covered by Wren. Biffa will also do same deal. Covers a lot of the inner firth and the Aberdeenshire bit. Gap in the middle though. Will not fund outside those areas.

Wary of species which range over wider area.

Instead of putting together a package – pull it apart geographically. Apply for certain geographically specific projects.

To get 100% you have to give 10% equivalent to the operator to release the money (basically its 90%).

DB suggested that she could re-allocate some DSP budget to employ a funding consultant. BL agreed and also suggested using some volunteers to help match fund SNH grant and prevent under claiming. JW offered to help DSP work up project ideas and identify best grants to apply for.

Project ideas: KL suggested extending the DSP around the BND's range. DB suggested specific projects like watching wisely, educating recreational users about zoning etc.

Actions:

  1. Work up interesting projects under the 'unique' aspects of DSP which came out of AGM workshops. Work with other stakeholders to do this.
  2. Pass project plan to Jason and he will show help us 'package' it and identify funders appropriate to each project area.
  3. Look at DSP budget and re-allocate funds if possible
  4. Find out what consultancy costs might be.
  5. Jason will send list of funders through to Sarah D and others that might want it. Will be on SNH website soon.

2. Inner Firth Code Review

Deb circulated the first draft of the revised Inner Firth Code of Conduct which includes an open access approach rather than set routes and areas, but with zoning and increased guidance around sensitive areas e.g. Chanonry and Kessock Narrows.

AT suggested that the Kessock Narrows zones may not work due to water depth. The harbour make standard recommend that recreational craft should travel directly through the middle of the Kessock narrows (which is highlighted as a no go zone on the new code) as they have trouble with vessels going aground if they stay closer to the bank on either side. Basically need to look at a marine chart and see how this would actually work for marine safety. BL identified that in worst case scenario 4 boats could be transiting through both narrows and then turning round and travelling back through. Might not be appropriate. SD asked for an update on vessel traffic and impact research. BL said that this will start Easter through to October this year in partnership with the Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy Working Group. GPS loggers on boats to look at vessel movements. Coordinated watching from shore to monitor boat traffic. The study will better quantify how much boats leave marinas, where they go, what they do etc. Plus impact study re:how vessels interact with dolphins. DB & SD highlighted need for behavioural ecology study as well. BL - the work needs to be focused and specific. Not a lot of money is available so need to answer the really key questions. SD highlighted crucial need this research.

Actions:

  1. Send draft Inner Firth Code out for comment from rest of operators and steering group.
  2. Ben to meet with David Lusseau to discuss Behavioural Ecology aspects of research

3. New Operators in Inverness Marina Situation

DB summarised the current situation re: Inverness marina. Two new wildlife tour boats proposed (a new RIB and the existing DSP operator from Nairn). No impact assessment and there may be a significant impact on dolphins and existing businesses. Marina have expressed an interest in opinion of DSP and may not allow new boats if DSP advises against it and won't accredit them.

SD suggested we should have been consulted earlier as now we are in a very time sensitive situation. Need the research results before we can make those decisions. Certain amount of scientific certainty (re: potential impacts on dolphins/SAC) required by law, otherwise a precautionary approach based on the habitats directive should be taken. If the Marina (or DSP) allow new boats to start operating, and then research shows there is an impact, the marina could be in breach of the law. BL suggested one option would be to advise the marina that the DSP doesn’t think there is enough data to allow us to make this decision and that they should be precautionary. SD indicated that WDCS is willing to take this to European courts if necessary. BL suggested need to be reasonable and that it might be OK for existing DSP boat to change location but SD was concerned about potential increase in number of trips in a sensitive area if this happened. The group discussed the need for restrictions on number of trips and areas of operation. Also need for more info on proposed routes of new operators.

AT asked what there was to stop these boats operating? Harbour would prefer to let them go ahead subject to conditions and with review once research is done.

There was some concern from members of the group that the proposed research might not be able to answer all our questions regarding details such as safe numbers of tour boats. It was also highlighted that we not at capacity yet – only once Whiteness is built would this potentially be a problem. However, should be remembered that a commercial boat is probably equal to many leisure craft. This might mean we have the numbers wrong for Whiteness, particularly if they have plans to invite in commercial boats. What is needed is data on capacity for whole area and how many leisure and commercial craft this would be – then this can be divvied up between the marinas etc.

GK suggested that we should give Inverness marina some working with us now. We could grant these boats, apply conditions, then see what comes out of the study., SP suggested that the DSP can't continue accrediting operators forever. From a commercial point of view if new boats come in it will have a significant adverse impact on the existing businesses. BL suggested we do not accredit anyone further until we have results of research and more idea re: who will still be operating next year. SP said it would be very difficult to expect 3 operators or more to work out of the Inverness area and work in partnership, relationships will break down and this will have an impact in the long run. High turn over of businesses not good for the dolphins either. Also need to think about how people view the DSP – if we never take a stand we lose all credibility. SD - DSP is well connected now and recognised world wide. There is lots of scientific literature that supports the need for precaution. Important the DSP is well respected and precautionary, seen as example of best practice. DB- something to be said for not damaging the existing industry as we have invested time and training and relationship building etc. A high turn over of operators not good for industry, visitor experience or the dolphins. Although we recognise its not the role of DSP to deal with competitiveness of businesses, we do support a financially and environmentally sustainable industry, which is high quality and preserves the dolphins. AT pointed out that the marina and harbour will eventually have hotels, retail, visitor centres etc. and all dolphin cruises should go from the marina.

SP pointed out that Moray Firth Cruises is a high capacity carrier and this is better for the dolphins than lots of smaller boats. GK suggested that funding for a feasibility study to see if the industry in sustainable may be available from Highland council etc. Research must being independent and objective. BL pointed out need for economic carrying capacity study to see how much demand there is for dolphin watching trips. Is there enough of a market to go around? Results might deter new operators starting up. Who would fund this though?

The boat traffic and impact research will be put out to tender. SD suggested SNH discuss with David Lusseau and work out what needs to be done. If the SNH money wont cover it we need to look for more money. May not be possible to answer these questions in a year. BL: in which case we will have to do it for more than a year, but at least a year will help us start to answer these questions.

Regarding Phoenix Cruises from Nairn, there was concern that if this boat was allowed to move to Inverness it would be doing more trips and through a more sensitive area, so therefore have a potentially bigger impact. However, we could let him go to CP from his current base in Nairn, or let him go to Inverness but limit his number of trips per day and limit access to sensitive areas e.g. Beauly Firth. Care needed so that this is not seen as favouritism because this operator is an existing member. Must be clear that if we allow him to move to the marina its because we think his impact will not be markedly larger than operating from Nairn. Its just a relocation, not a new boat. Should also consider whether a new boat might take his place in Nairn though.

AT pointed out that the marina license doesn't specifically say that operators have to be DSP accredited, only that they follow the DSP Code of Conduct.

There followed a discussion around whether the marina might be breaking the law if they allowed these new boats in and the research later indicated that there was an impact on the dolphins from this. SD thought that the marina might be in breach of the law. BL pointed out the law is open to interpretation. We don’t know where between 'no boats' and 'lots of boats' the law might be broken. SD is assuming that 2 boats would breach the law. SP and SD suggested that if either new boat was allowed in on a 1 year trial, then had to leave due to the research results, this would be worse for the operators and marina than not letting them in at all. BL- if the Marina doesn’t follow the advice of this group, SNH may get involved. At the moment best way to influence the situation is through the DSP. SD: this could happen at other harbours and marinas too, we need a formal process. Official WDCS response would be to wait for the research and until then recommend no extra boats.

DB/BL: Eric has been talking to us about moving to the marina for over a year. Although we said it was not ideal we did imply that it would probably be OK for Phoenix Cruises to move previously. SP- Phoenix Cruises are already accredited so it is just a relocation, not personal. Any potential increase in impact could be mitigated by restrictions on movements in the Inner Firth.

12pm: Alistair left.

Actions:

  1. DSP to circulate the decision/recommendations so far for comment from rest of the group. Recommending two potential options: 1. No wildlife tour boats at the marina, 2. Nairn boat only but with restrictions. Reason being to get the research done and to comply with Habitats Directive. Precautionary approach. Also to retain integrity of DSP as example of best practice.
  2. Steering group to vote, only one vote allowed per interest/organisation.

4. Inner Firth Operator Feedback

Gwyn Tanner (GT), Tina Simpson (TS) and Eric Wardlaw (EW) joined the meeting at 12.20. Sarah Dolman and Jason Watts left.

Ben summarised the meeting so far re: funding, DB going part time over the summer, and new operators coming into Inverness marina. Inverness marina has to give permission as they are commercial operators – have given a provisional 'yes' subject to advice from the DSP. One train of thought is that there are already quite a lot of boats in the area. Initial thoughts are that from perspective of both impacts on dolphins and existing operators – these two new boats would have an adverse interest. Also, recognised that there will be a piece of work done this year by the Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy Working Group to look at boat traffic and dolphins. So one thought was that we should not recommend new operators to be accredited until research completed. SD thought marina might be in breach of habitats directive by allowing new commercial boats, no consultation or assessment has taken place. The other side is that Phoenix Cruises is not a new operator, already works in the area, so should not count as a new or extra boat, just the same boat relocating. However, he would want to conduct more trips, plus be spending more time in a sensitive area. Decision so far is that DB will send out a note with 2 options and each group/interest will have a vote. If Phoenix Cruises does move there will be caveats/restrictions to mitigate increased potential impact.