MINUTES OF THE 3RD MEETING OF THE SEALS
FORUM
WEDNESDAY 7
TH MAY 2003
Attendees
Scottish Executive's Environment & Rural Affairs
Department (SEERAD)
Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU)
Scottish Natural
Heritage
Fisheries Research Services Freshwater
Laboratory
Fisheries Research Services Marine
Laboratory
Joint Nature Conservation
Committee
Highlands & Islands Fishermen's
Association
The Atlantic Salmon
Trust
Association of Salmon Fishery
Boards
Salmon and Trout Association ( Scotland )
Salmon Net Fishing
Association
Scottish Angler's National
Association
Tourism and Environment
Forum
Scottish SPCA
Introductions The Chair welcomed everybody to the third meeting of
the Working Group and indicated that the main purpose of
this meeting was to discuss the circulated papers and to
agree next steps.
Minutes of the previous meeting and matters
arising
All participants agreed the minutes of the
previous meeting with no amendments.
All matters arising from the previous meeting would
be discussed throughout the course of the meeting in the
context of the circulated papers. No new matters
were raised.
Report and Recommendations from the Steering
Group
Paper SSWG11 was based on discussions from the
Steering Group held in April 2003. Specific points
addressed were:
Research and Management Proposals. It was considered that the Steering Group would
function more effectively by delivering its research and
management work programme through four activity areas where
known interactions between seals and humans exist: capture
fisheries, salmonid fisheries, fish farming and
tourism. It was agreed that discussion of all four
areas would be underpinned by nature conservation policy
drivers/obligations.
Establish an expanded steering group. It was thought that the Steering Group would function
more effectively by delivering its work through a slightly
expanded steering group rather than through the current
proposed two sub-groups. This new group would
include representatives with an interest in any of the four
areas of interaction, allowing work to be tackled in a more
focused and productive way.
All interested members are encouraged to put
themselves forward for nomination.
ACTION: Participants interested in joining this
group should register their interest with the marine
Protection Team as soon as possible.
Funding sources. Following on from the recommendations of SSWG 11, it
was thought that there would be benefit in developing a
series of models for each of the four activity areas. SMRU
and FRS to work together to review how they can move this
forward.
ACTION: SMRU and FRS to arrange a meeting to review
funding resources for future research / modelling (ERGIS,
JNCC and SNH to be involved to ensure co-ordination and
avoid research overlaps)
All members agreed to the proposals in paper
SSWG11, pending further discussions on the Status of
the Working Group and the proposed SCOS questions in
SSWG 12 and SSWG 13.
Status of the Working Group and the Steering
Group (SSWG12) Paper SSWG 12 focussed on the mechanism of the two
Groups and how they could effectively take their work
programmes forward in the future. In particular, it
was felt that the members should recall that the Working
Group was primarily intended as a communication forum, in
which information pertaining to the management of seal
populations could be exchanged.
Specific points addressed were:
Nomenclature of the Seals Group. In light of proposed changes to the role of the
Steering Group, it was suggested that it would be more
sensible for the current Working Group to be known as the
Seals Forum and the current Steering Group to be known as
the Working Group. All present members present agreed to
the changes.
NB. All reference from here on will follow
these agreed changes .
Frequency of meetings. All members present agreed that there would be
benefit holding the Seals Forum on an annual basis in late
February/early March. This would allow the Forum to
feed into the questions posed to SCOS, and to analyse
feedback from the previous year's response.
At this time the Forum was unsure as to how
forthcoming meetings would operate, but would be open to
any suggestions.
Remit of the Working Group. It was proposed that the Working Group would function
more effectively by adopting a flexible approach in its
operation. This would involve maintaining a small,
but balanced group of key representatives who would take
forward the main work programme, and feed into the larger
Forum as necessary.
All interested parties (within the Forum)
would be invited to actively take part in the Working
Group, as and when specific issues of concern were
addressed.
How the work programme would be taken
forward would be discussed by the Working Group at its next
meeting.
ACTION: Working Group to consider their Terms of
Reference and future operations by the next meeting of the
Seals Forum.
In order to facilitate communication between the
Forum and Working Group, it was suggested that a contact
list for all members of the Forum should be created
(preferably an e-mail distribution list). This
would ensure that any specific issues under discussion by
the Working Group (including working papers) could be
circulated to all interested parties within the Forum.
ACTION: SEERAD to produce an email list of all
Forum participants.
Venue of the next meeting. The Forum felt that to engage more effectively with
stakeholders and other interested parties, there would be
benefit in holding future meetings of the Seal Forum away
from Edinburgh . Inverness was chosen for the next meeting in 2004.
ACTION: SEERAD to make arrangements for the next
Seals Forum meeting in Inverness .
Draft Questions for the Special Committee on
Seals (SSWG 13)
Paper SSWG 13 provided a set of specific questions to
be addressed to SCOS against a brief preambular text
summarising our current state of knowledge.
Following on from the recommendations of the Working Group,
the Forum was invited to both endorse the draft questions,
and suggest additional questions that may be appropriate
for consideration by the Working Group.
It should be noted that the final decision
on questions to be addressed to SCOS ultimately lies with
SEERAD.
Specific points of discussion were:
Co-ordination of SCOS questions. The Forum agreed that a more integrated approach to
future SCOS questions should be sought by all
administrations throughout the UK . This would reduce possible repetitiveness
of questions, and encourage a more co-ordinated approach in
contributing to seal management and research.
ACTION: SEERAD to contact Defra to discuss
proposals to establish a common approach to framing future
SCOS questions.
Approach to the annual SCOS questions. After extensive discussions, the Forum agreed that
there would be benefit in adopting a structured and more
focused approach when addressing forthcoming SCOS
questions. This would involve implementing a two
tier system incorporating:
- Standard long-term questions updated by SCOS on an annual basis, as part
of a rolling programme.
- Specific short -
term questionsrelating to current areas of conflict or
research.
Such an approach would reduce the repetitiveness of
previous year's questions, (which has often been the case
with long-term monitoring projects); therefore allowing
SCOS to focus on more specific issues within the context of
the four activity areas. Each question should be
framed in the 'best possible way' to obtain the most
effective answer for the Forum to work with.
The Forum thought that further consideration should
be given to the benefit of adopting a systems approach when
addressing specific questions on seal / fisheries
interactions (i.e. capture, salmonid, fish farms).
At the most basic level this would involve asking three
questions in relation to each interaction.
- Is the interaction significant? (requires
quantification of effects and assessment of 'significance')
- Is it possible to affect this interaction? (i.e.,
through the use of lethal or non-lethal management methods)
- Is this intervention acceptable? (in relation to
e.g. conservation status, legislative framework)
Adopting this type of approach, would increase
general understanding about the current state of play in
relation to particular interactions, allowing the Forum to
identify gaps in knowledge and focus forthcoming research
(and SCOS questions) in a more specific manner if and when
necessary. If such questions were considered at the
outset, it would also promote better time and resource
management - particularly when drafting SCOS questions.
ACTION: The Working Group to consider the merits of
adopting this approach.
The following questions were put to the Forum for
consideration by the Working Group at their next
meeting:
1. How may observations of fisheries/seal interactions
be collated and evaluated?
2. How may these interactions be managed without
adopting lethal methods?
3. What is the bycatch of seals in fishing
trawls?
The Forum also felt that more questions on seal
damage and methods of managing such damage (through the
development of acoustic deterrents) should be raised
through questions to SCOS.
ACTION: Working Group to redraft SCOS
questions, thinking about short and long term targets
in the context of the four activity areas (Para 17),
and the additional questions raised by the Forum (Para
19).
Alternative sources of advice. The Forum acknowledged that the advice received from
SCOS was very specific, focusing predominantly on science
and research. There was no provision of information
on the social or economic impacts of seal populations,
which was the main point of interest from some
organisations.
With this is mind, the group questioned the
feasibility of seeking other sources of advice on
management, social and economic issues, or approaching NERC
with a view to change the direction of current advice.
By adopting such a system, this would allow
SCOS to focus on more specific areas of research /
interaction.
The current membership of SCOS can be found at Annex
A.ACTION: The Working Group to look at other sources
of research and how this could fit in with the remit of
SCOS.
Consideration was given to how funds could be
released for future research. Where funding for SMRU was
concerned, this would be at the discretion of NERC.
However, suggestions of a reassessment of the annual grey
seal surveys (in favour of a three-year rolling programme)
was put forward.
While this would allow SMRU to address more
specific research questions, it was emphasised that the
final decision would rest with NERC.
ACTION: SMRU to approach NERC to discuss the
possibility of reallocating the survey budget to address
other questions.
Legislative Matrix for the Management of Seal
Populations (SSWG 14)
All participants agreed that the matrix was a useful
document summarising information on the management of seal
populations in the UK , and that there would be benefit in giving it wider
circulation. All circulation would be in draft
form, pending participant feedback and solicitor approval.
ACTION: All comments on the matrix to be sent to
SEERAD by 22 May
Seal Licensing. The group thought that there a general lack of
knowledge regarding the possession of a firearms licence
for the purpose of shooting seals, and whether the licence
had to have a specific endorsement to shoot seals.
Members of the group thought there might be regional
variation.
ACTION: SSPCA to investigate the firearms licensing
procedure.
Some members of the group acknowledged that a degree
of confusion existed in determining when it was acceptable
to kill seals to protect fisheries. On this basis,
it was felt that there would be benefit in producing a
'checklist' or guidance note, based on the matrix in SSWG
14 to which individuals or organisations could refer.
ACTION: SEERAD to look into the possibility of
producing 'Guidelines on seal management'
AOB
Phocine Distemper Virus (PDV).The number of dead seals reported for the UK have been at a low level consistent with background
mortality since the beginning of 2003, suggesting that the
PDV epidemic appears to be over. However, there
still remains a possibility of PDV recurring in late spring
or summer when the seals begin to haul out in groups for
the breeding seasons.
Consequently, close monitoring of dead seal
reports continues in the
UK .
Recent sampling work conducted by SMRU within grey
seal populations has shown that young grey seals had been
exposed to the virus. However, additional surveys
will need to be undertaken to determine if the outbreak had
any longer term effects.
Date of next meeting
The next meeting of the Forum will take place in
March 2004 at Inverness. Venue to be confirmed.
top