In early 2006 COAST and Arran Councillor, Margie Currie was in correspondence with SNH’s East Area Director, Andrew Batchell.
COAST also met with SNH Board Member, Isabelle Glasgow and Senior Fisheries Advisor, David Donnan.
The messages from both contacts with SNH were the same. i.e. [quote]
“There are practical ,political and scientific reasons [although they did not give the reasons] for believing that Marine Protected Areas are most likely to be successfully established and effective when they are set within a wider marine resource management strategy with the support and input of all the relevant stakeholders. For similar reasons, it is also important that sites are identified and agreed through some form of systematic selection process, not in response to ad hoc proposals”.
SNH have constantly said this over the last 4 years yet, of course, the national initiatives they speak of just do not seem to come to anything.
If only SNH would ‘get behind’ these ad hoc proposal COAST would perhaps get somewhere with the politicians. Lessons learnt in other parts of the world [including England and New Zealand] prove that ad hoc initiatives similar to the COAST proposal have been the catalyst for further sustainable marine initiative projects being implemented.
COAST feel that it is a pity that SNH, through its officers, concentrate much too much on the ‘political’ reasons and not enough on the Scottish natural heritage reasons, for fully supporting proposals such as COAST’s. This is despite their assertions in their ‘vision statement’, which says:
“SNH’s vision is for local communities in Scotland to exercise greater influence over shaping the decisions affecting the management, understanding and enjoyment of their local heritage and if they wish, to play a more active role in its practical management”.
Murray Tosh MSP and Campbell Martin MSP both asked written question on behalf of the COAST project in the last session of Parliament. Both MSPs support COAST.
Murray Tosh MSP also wrote to John Tait, Marine Management Division, ERAD, asking if the COAST project could be put into practice as part of the Clyde SSMEI project [this is one of the national initiatives that are often given by ERAD as a reason for not supporting the ad hoc COAST proposal].
John Tait replied:
“As you are aware from the SSMEI Firth of Clyde report, the Firth of Clyde pilot was selected through an evaluation system that measured potential pilot schemes objectively through a multi criteria process, followed by approval from the national steering group. Throughout this process it was never the intention of this pilot [or indeed any of the pilots] to preclude the progress of more localised projects”
COAST presumes this to be ERAD’s true position. This being the case COAST cannot understand why the reasons that both ERAD and SNH have regularly given for not promoting the COAST Trial is ‘that it does not fit in with national policy and national initiatives. COAST is currently asking for an explanation.