No Marine Park In Next Island Plan

A Marine Park will not be created in Jersey as part of the next Island Plan.

Senator Lyndon Farnham argued that designating marine protected areas covering at least 30% of Jersey’s waters by 2025 would stop damaging fishing methods and help the island to achieve its carbon-neutrality goals.

But it was rejected by 27 votes to 14.

That's despite a survey of around 2,500 people showing strong support for such protection.

85% of respondents wanted a Marine Park to be set up in Jersey within the next decade.

Assistant Environment Minister Deputy Gregory Guida said the States would have been making the same mistake as it made ten years ago by putting something in the plan 'that doesn't belong there.'

"Ten years ago, we said we'll have this special development zone that is going to be less protected than the green areas, but more protected than the urban areas, and we're going to call it 'The Coastal National Park.'

The problem is that we used the wrong name. We called a development zone a park and for ten years, we've been persuaded that we had a national park in Jersey when actually it doesn't exist. We do not have a Coastal National Park.

We have a special development zone where development is more protected than elsewhere and we used a completely random name which doesn't describe it and it's such a shame because there's a team of really good people who've been trying to work on something that doesn't exist.

The Island Plan is not the place where you define a park. We did it ten years ago, we can see now that we're still struggling with the National Park because it doesn't exist and today we want to do the same with the Marine National Park.

Sorry, it's just greenwashing. It's just calling something by a name to make it look like we're working on a problem. There's nothing in the Island Plan that can manage fishing. The Island Plan is about bricks and mortar.

"If anything, somebody should have brought a proposition to say 'develop parks in Jersey'. Make a National Park, make a Marine National Park and develop them, and put in there what you need to do for parks. But not in the Island Plan, the Island Plan is about development."

Constable Mike Jackson said the fishing industry was opposed to the plan 'for good reasons' and that creating a park would 'ride roughshod' over the process to designate Marine Protected Areas.

Les Minquiers, Les Écréhous, and inshore waters clockwise between St Brelade’s Bay and Gronez are currently defined as Marine Protected Areas.

The Blue Marine Foundation has previously said that signs of recovery and expansion of seagrass in the Minquiers shows just how quickly the marine environment can recover when left alone and protected from harmful fishing practice.

International Development Minister Deputy Carolyn Labey also supported the Environment Minister and argued that far more consultation was needed with the fishing industry.

Jersey signed up to the post-Brexit trade deal, which has led to a long-running dispute with the French over issuing licences to fish in island waters.

That included a protest in the harbour and threats to cut the island's electricity.

Picture Credit: Macio Agostino

External Relations Minister Senator Ian Gorst claimed the French could've used the creation of a Marine Park to argue that Jersey isn't using the powers it signed up to under the post-Brexit agreement.

"I know that both the (Environment) Minister and Assistant Minister are absolutely committed to taking conservation measures in the Bay of Granville waters to create a sustainable fish stock level.

But we've also said quite publically that the French administration are not yet 100% satisfied that we have appropriately licenced every vessel that they have asked to be licenced. We believe we have, we believe very strongly in the methodology that we've used, but those conversations are still ongoing.

I don't think we should do anything that would give succour to that French view of the world.

It would happen by accident, it would have happened with the best will in the world so that we could create a Marine National Park, but it could very easily - by accident - be detrimental to the Jersey Environment Minister's ability to ultimately continue to manage Jersey's fisheries in the best interest of a sustainable fishery."

Deputy Kirsten Morel, an Assistant Minister to Senator Farnham, questioned what exactly the proposition asked the Environment Minister to do - given parks can't be created in the Island Plan.

He asked the Attorney General whether the States were being asked to do something that just can't be done.

"The amendment to the amendment (to create a Marine National Park) to my mind does risk going beyond, or potentially infringing, the provisions of the TCA (Trade and Cooperation Agreement) as regards the Nature and Extent clause.

Fishing in itself is not development. Whilst the Island Planning law extends out to Jersey's territorial waters up to the full 12-mile limit, there is a potential for some confusion if a planning policy is being used to impose some practical restrictions, on say, a commercial fishermen's ability to fish."

Senator Farnham, in summing up, said the States could 'kick the can down the road' or set a target - and said the Island Plan 'doesn't just cover buildings'.

"Jersey's marine environments with their kelp forests, seagrass habitats, huge potential to grow the seagrass and maerl beds in this designated area showcase some of the best shallow waters in the British Isles and many new species call these waters home.

Our Marine Park would include all shallow marine habitats extending approximately to the 20-metre depth contour and would incorporate the existing MPAs (Marine Protected Areas).

Such an area would be several times the size of our own island, an important area. It is a good start and these areas provide extensive ecosystems and services and their protection would allow for substantial growth of our natural environment at sea.

If we don't do this now, then when will we do it? The propensity is that we continue to talk about the Marine Spatial Plan and adding other Marine Protected Areas as we have now around the Minquiers and the Écréhous and one or two other areas.

I fear that the same will happen to this as it does with many other ideas and ambitions and aspirations that come to this Assembly. They get pushed out for a number of reasons, but all because we need to compile more information.

This amendment didn't come to the Assembly but it did specifically set a target date which is ample time to continue the very good work of Blue Marine and the Marine Resources department in providing that detail, fishing legislation, how we work with the industry to perhaps reshape and reequip our fishing fleet to take advantage of all the benefits this will bring."

The easy solution is to vote against this amendment and carry on with our plan, which is well-meaning and I do support the (Environment) Minister with the (Marine) Spatial Plan, but my fear is that we just won't encompass enough area."

Despite his pleas, the idea was turned down.

The States has agreed to create a 'Marine Spatial Plan' before 2025 that would develop a network of Marine Protected Areas.

The Bridging Island Plan debate continues.