ISLANDERS interested in the future of Jersey’s marine environment have until Friday to make their voices heard as part of a Scrutiny review.
The Environment, Housing, and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel is currently reviewing the Marine Spatial Plan, which was recently published by the government in a revised form.
The new draft included reducing the size of areas protected under the plan from 27% to 23% of Jersey’s territorial waters following consultation with the fishing industry.
Environment Minister Steve Luce has argued that the new plan struck a “balance”.
A number of individuals and organisations have already shared their views with the Scrutiny panel ahead of the 30 August deadline for submissions.
Jersey Marine Conservation said it broadly supported the plan, but chair Kevin McIlwee stressed the need for “robust” science-based decision-making and effective enforcement of marine-protected areas
“The Island correctly declared a climate crisis and that situation has not changed. In reality, the lack of effective action has placed us in a position of mitigation, not eradication.
“The government needs to act as quickly and as effectively as is economically possible,” he said.
A fisherman, writing anonymously, warned that the plan could “devastate” their livelihoods.
“It would be very upsetting to see the fishing industry disappear or be restricted to the extent that it is no longer viable as an industry,” the fisherman said.
“My son has just invested in a small fishing boat… and it would be devastating to see the younger generation not able to continue this important traditional sector.”
The Jersey Recreational Fishing Association, however, took a different view, criticising the plan for favouring commercial interests over environmental protection.
It said: “There are now far more recreational fishers and far less commercial fishers and only a few dredgers.
“The marine leisure industry has also expanded significantly to a point where the value may exceed the recreational fishery.”
They argued that net-free zones were the “most obvious solution” to address conflicts with activities such as swimming and diving.
“The economic argument has always been used to elevate the commercial sector to the top of the stakeholder list, despite the evidence pointing in the opposite direction,” the association said.
“It’s clear which side of the scales has all the weight on it.”
Scallop divers have raised concerns about the impact of dredging on underwater habitats, arguing that the current restrictions are inadequate.
Toby Woolley, a professional diver with ten years of experience, said that reducing protected areas could leave vulnerable habitats “decimated”.
And 62-year-old Bob Titterington, who became a commercial diver aged 22, said that parts of Jersey’s seabed were “more damaged than ever before” due to dredging. He argued that the current restrictions were inadequate and called for action to be taken to protect marine habitats.
