Minutes of meeting 8 April 2014

MINUTES Security Classification Unclassified
Minutes of Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group Minutes of the meeting of the FLOWW Group held at The Crown Estate Office, 16 New Burlington Place, London, W1X 2HX at 1.30pm on Tuesday 8th April 2014 PRESENT: Colin Warwick (Chair) (CW) The Crown Estate (TCE)
Bruce Buchanan (BB) Marine Scotland (MS)
Andronikos Kafas (AK) Marine Scotland (MS)
Dave Fenner (DF) MCA
Malcolm Morrison (MM)
Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF)
John Watt (JWa) Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SSF)
Dale Rodmell (DR) National Fishermen’s Federation Organisation (NFFO) Jim Evans (JE) Welsh Fishermen’s Association
Gillian Mills (GM) Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB) Judith Farrell (JF) Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation (NIFPO) Wayne Sloan (WS) Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation Merlin Jackson (MJ) Thanet Fishermen’s Association
John Nichols (JN) Thanet Fishermen’s Association
George White (GW) Inshore Fisheries Group Scottish Liaison Officer Matthew Frow (MF) Kingfisher
Stephanie Merry (SM) Renewable Energy Assocation
Filippo Locatelli (FL) Renewable‐UK
Kit Hawkins (KH) TÜV SÜD PMSS
Hywel Roberts (HYR) Dong
Richard Evans (RE) Warwick Energy Chris Jenner (CJ) Mainstream Julie Drew‐Murphy (JD‐M) RWE NRL Steve Bennett (SB) Subsea Cables Jessica Orr (JO) The Crown Estate
Dot Davies (DD) TCE, FLOWW Secretariat Page 1 of 7 Attendees by Conference‐call: Ruth Barber (RB) MMO Frances Burrows MMO Lindsay Leask Apologies received: Scottish Renewables Tracy McCollin, Marine Scotland; Andy Roper, Great Wash Fishing Ind; Wendy Barton, Kingfisher; Sue Barr, Open Hydro; Martin Goff, Forewind; Colin Rayman, Subsea Cables & Kirsty Godwin, Vattenfall Page 2 of 7 Item 1. 2. Welcome The Chair welcomed everyone and expressed his delight at the excellent attendance. Round‐table introductions were given. The Chair explained the format for today’s meeting, with a series of presentations dealing with lessons learned from those members who had had experience of dealing with disruption, mitigation measures and compensation packages. The Chair also explained about The Crown Estate’s vision for 2020, the revised targets for output capacity for both offshore wind and wave & tidal (11GW offshore wind & 150MW W&T), in line with current Government thinking, making current projects much more manageable. The Crown Estate (TCE) currently have no plans for further leasing rounds in the immediate future. Jessica Orr spoke about the recent negative press coverage of some offshore wind developers’ decisions not to proceed with their respective projects. This, in part, was a natural consequence of the streamlining of the industry influenced by financing, supply chain and zonal appraisal. SM expressed her surprise at the revised output targets given DECC’s considerably lower target of 100MWs for W&T. The Chair stated that TCE remained committed to their targets. Compensation & Displacement of fishing Activities
John Watt, SFF, gave a presentation on “Co‐existence – Lessons Learned from Oil & Gas”. John highlighted the many challenges and changes the fishing industry had encountered since O&G production began back in the 1970s. A fund had been established to deal with compensation payments for fishermen displaced by rig construction & pipeline safety zones. The fishing industry had adapted to the highly challenging and congested central North Sea through changes in vessel size, gear and technology. Snagging of equipment & issues with debris, including problems with rock‐dumps and back‐filling with clay, remained a serious problem but the invaluable facility of the Kingfisher Information Service greatly supported the industry with free 6 monthly updates of plotter information on subsea hazards. Creation of ‘safe gates’ across pipelines – deployment of a chain net to break up clay deposits etc to create sections that fishermen can pass through safely while trawling , which can last for up to 4 years or more. Timeous, clear communication between the developers and fishermen remained crucial to safe co‐
existence. Merlin Jackson, Thanet Fishermen’s Association, gave a presentation on “Thanet Fishermen’s Association – Wind Farms & Lessons Learned”. The Association represented 40 vessels within their area where 3 large windfarms have been established – Kentish Flats, Thanet and, the largest within UK waters ‐ London Array. The main issues and concerns TFA had encountered were having no input into the choice of sites, Page 3 of 7 Action
loss of fishing ground, effect on fish species, export cable route, harbour traffic congestion and vessel insurance within a wind farm. Other problems included poor information issued too late, no lighting of anchors & floating obstructions, charts issued in the wrong format, no gear claims procedure in place and fishermen’s lack of detailed record keeping. TFA have formed small reliable committees to meet regularly with developers which has gone a long way in helping to establish trust. Crucial to that process was the appointment of a good local FIR /FLO relationship, who needed to be pro‐active and act in the best interest of both parties. TFA had worked with developers in establishing site specific mitigations measures including direct impacts, direct & indirect employment opportunities, improvement to shore/harbour facilities, using fishing boats to undertake survey and monitoring, disruption payments and the funding of the Thanet Fishermen’s Association Fuel Service (all of the TFA were shareholders). Amongst the lessons learnt were more meeting attendance from and funding for fishermen; awareness of the consent process; early engagement of a FIR; agreed mitigation measures to filter down (problems in the past with sub‐contractors); established agreed structure for claims; agreements & contracts; & traffic control. Living with windfarms – coexistence would greatly benefit from an agreed Code of Practice between the fishermen and developers; significant monitoring of the development; and FIR’s role continuing post‐construction. Andy Revil, gave a presentation on Negotiating mitigation packages with the Fishing Industry From personal experience a number of developers had encountered unprofessional and dishonest behaviour from fishermen in trying to establish disruption/compensation packages. It was often difficult to obtain accurate information of where they fished to allow adequate compensation to be calculated and, once a settlement had been reached, the current system was open to abuse. Problems also arose from nomadic fleets entering development sites, as it was impossible for developers to have agreements with every fishing crew, and sites could not be policed in the same way as oil & gas installations were. Whilst not a replacement for disturbance payments, community initiatives worked well at delivering wider economic benefits and also helped establish trust and improved relationships. A number of successful community initiatives had been established with the West Morecambe Fisheries1 (a non‐
profit making company) which had negotiated funding from developers to establish an ice‐making plant & chiller unit; finance for the upkeep of a research vessel & the finance for a secure compound for local fishermen. The revenue from these projects was then reinvested into other schemes. Fishermen’s issues and concerns with each development needs to be recognised and understood prior to each individual compensation/disruption package being explored and agreed. Safety zones and exclusions zones were discussed and DF explained that the MCA’s main concern was about safety. The Chair agreed to contact DECC to be represented at FLOWW and offer guidance on how safety zones are implemented. It was also felt that FLOWW would benefit from some input from NOREL. 1
http://www.westofmorecambe.com/24/what‐we‐do. NB website currently under construction, anticipated to be available in full in May. Page 4 of 7 CW 3. It was agreed that a non‐prescriptive framework of Best Working Practice should be developed by FLOWW, providing previous examples of the types of issues and concerns experienced and the measures taken to mitigate/compensate. The two main issues to be address were: (i)
Compensation/Mitigation/Displacement (ii)
Safety Zones The Chair asked for volunteers to form 2 sub‐group to take this forward and the following members agreed: Sub‐Group 1: Compensation/Mitigation/Displacement Merlin Jackson Dale Rodmell Judith Farrell Andy Revil Julie Drew‐Murphy John watt Richard Evans Andronikos Kafas Ruth Barber Sub‐Group 2: Safety Zones Hywel Roberts Chris Jenner John Nichols Dale Rodmell Judith Farrell Wayne Sloan The Groups agreed to discuss the relevant issues, past experience and best practice etc, outwith the FLOWW meeting, and to prepare working drafts and report back at the next FLOWW meeting on 8 July. Fisheries Displacement Study – Presentation by Andronikos Kafas, Marine Scotland AK explained the aims and objectives of the study were to develop a fisheries assessment framework to study the effect of fisheries displacement due to limitation on closed/regulated areas. The project objective is to provide evidence of whether offshore developments result in increased steaming distances; whether mobile & static gear still be used within development sites post‐
construction; which areas are likely to have the greatest level of displacement and will this increase competition between fishermen; does the size of vessel or fishing method determine the vulnerability to change. It is intended that the framework will be transferrable for use in other projects; the first outputs are expected in Q2 2015. Page 5 of 7 4. 5. Fisheries Displacement Measurements Study – Presentation by Dale Rodmell, NFFO This project involved reviewing policy, potential methodologies and their application, and interface between technical approaches and stakeholder engagement. The three main policy statements which were reviewed were UK Marine Policy Statement, East Inshore & East Offshore Marine Plans, and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure. Stakeholder engagement is crucial to ensure displacement is properly considered, planned, minimised or mitigated and to foster greater understanding on both sides. “Stand alone” engagements were of limited use ‐ not objective, scientific, systematic or authoritative. Issues need to be dealt with quickly. Technical approaches – use of MCZ selection ‐ visual interpretation within a stakeholder process; zonal appraisal & stakeholder engagement. Risk of significant displacement is greater in areas of core/important fishing grounds. Developers should aim to avoid prime fishing grounds. Technical challenges included lack of data coverage and availability (non‐UK VMS cannot be linked to log‐book data). Conclusion – spatial risk assessment likely to deliver more towards minimising the likelihood of significant displacement occurring; prediction is hampered by both data limitations and understanding diversity of displacement responses. Monitoring outcomes will give definite answers on compatibility and coexistence. Discussion followed on how best to assess compensation payments, and how to mitigate the knock‐
on effect of displaced fishermen then moving onto other grounds which in turn displaced others. Compensation payments should all be evidence‐based relating to loss of earnings and time spent not working. East Marine Plan Pilot study looking at post‐constructed sites – effects on fishermen; potential risks; Spacing of offshore wind farms taking up larger areas but with fewer turbines – problems with nomadic fishing fleet – how to agree compensation/displacement packages? Any Other Business (i)
The Chair raised the question of whether a representative from the Wild Salmon Fisheries, Scotland should be invited to join FLOWW to give input into discussions on displacement/mitigation experience with migratory fish in the Pentland Firth. The Chair agreed to e‐mail members with further background to this. (ii)
FLOWW to consider forming a Working Group to work with Developers pre‐
construction to assist with early engagement on both sides. The Forth & Tay Offshore Wind Developers Group and the Moray Firth Offshore Wind Developers Group were good examples of this type of engagement. DR mentioned the work of The North Sea Advisory Spatial Planning Group. (iii)
DR talked about a presentation he had seen by Forewind using a 3D simulator showing how a project will operate and the opportunity to discuss fishing within an OREI site Page 6 of 7 CW with fishermen before a project is built‐out. JD‐M stated that Forewind would be happy to give a similar demo at the next FLOWW meeting in July. (iv)
6. The Chair invited comments from members on the new format of the FLOWW meetings asking for any suggestions or ideas going forward. The meeting finished at 16.30 Page 7 of 7

Download Report