THE size of marine-protected areas in Jersey’s waters is due to be reduced, according to the Environment Minister.
Deputy Steve Luce, in response to questions from his predecessor Jonathan Renouf, told States Members he had made changes to the Marine Spatial Plan after local fishermen said proposals to protect 27% of the Island’s territorial waters would decimate the industry.
Jersey Fishermen’s Association president Don Thompson welcomed the move, which he said gave the fishing community “hope that there is a future for them”.
Meanwhile, Freddie Watson, Jersey project manager for the Blue Marine Foundation – which champions ocean conservation around the world and has been working with the government – said the decision had not been communicated to them by the minister, but that they still had their sights on protecting 30% of the Island’s waters by 2030.
Currently 6.4% of Jersey’s waters are designated Marine Protected Areas, a title which comes with protection against potentially destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling.
An attempt to create a marine park in 2022 covering more than a third of the Island’s waters – brought forward by Deputy Lyndon Farnham – was rejected during the Bridging Island Plan debate.
That year, Jersey joined an international “30 by 30” pledge, part of a global initiative to conserve 30% of the globe’s terrestrial and marine habitat and protect it from destructive practices by 2030.
Deputy Jonathan Renouf put forward new proposals for a Marine Spatial Plan last October which made an “evidence-based” case to expand an existing network of Marine Protected Areas to 27%.
Speaking in the States yesterday, Deputy Luce said that the redrafting of the plan was in its final stage following a lengthy consultation period in which comments were submitted from Jersey and French fishing communities.
He said: “When it comes to fishing, there will be some changes to be announced. The areas identified in the original will change slightly, but not enormously. In some corners we will make some small reductions in restrictions on dredgers but that is not yet 100% confirmed.
“In other areas, I’ve agreed we will spend some more time on research so that we don’t restrict areas without complete data on what we’re doing.”
He added: “There will be some grandfathering, whereby areas will be announced but won’t be implemented immediately, but will be phased in over a relatively short number of years.”
The commercial fleet worked to submit a revised draft in response to the plan that puts forward around 24% of the waters protected, and some areas altered. Mr Thompson said the proposed areas would reduce a fisherman’s earnings by around 80% “which obviously means that we would end up with no fleet”.
He added: “We saw that there were a whole number of areas that were not so valuable to fishing where those species which need to be protected are present.
“Where there’s a small amount of protected species that exist on established fishing ground, the best usage of that area remains fishing. That established fishery has to take precedence.”
Mr Thompson continued: “It’s a delicate and difficult balance to achieve.
“We’re very confident that the Environment Minister will agree with our sentiment and our position and he won’t want to see the end of the fishing fleet. Fishermen feel that there is still hope for a future for them now.”
Mr Watson said there were no concerns from the conservation charity yet, adding that the drafting process had been “by the book”.
He said: “If there are reductions in the MPAs, that’s a decision made as a result of consultation, and until we see the final draft and the reasoning as to why those reductions have been made, it is difficult to comment.”
He added that he understood the impact on fishermen and that a “compromise” might be needed, but said: “We’d like to see Jersey being more ambitious, and if the MPAs in this draft are whittled down a small amount, that means Jersey is still in line with reaching its ‘30 by 30’ target, and we would like to hold the government accountable to that.”
Mr Watson went on to say that he was less concerned about the amount of area covered than with which habitats were exposed “to certain forms of damaging activities”.
