Select a region
Politicians are today due to debate wide-ranging plans to protect the marine life in Jersey’s territorial waters – but some are warning that they could accelerate the decline of the fishing industry, and put the island on collision course for another explosive clash with the French.
One fisherman, who joined the French in a peaceful joint demonstration to raise awareness of the “erosion” of the industry at the Minquiers, went so far as to suggest the strength of feeling was so great that Jersey could find its harbours “blockaded” like in 2021.
But what is the source of the ire? And how are Ministers seeking to balance those concerns with the need to protect the island’s waters?
Ahead of today’s crucial debate in the States Assembly, Express examined the contrasting – and conflicting – points of view…
Should Jersey build an offshore windfarm to be self-sufficient in electricity? How does Jersey protect sensitive areas like Les Ecréhous when people flock there in the summer? What is the best way to ensure islanders and tourists can enjoy Jersey’s seafood while preventing over-fishing? How will Jersey protect those species most under threat?
Ministers’ proposed ‘Marine Spatial Plan’ – which sets out how the island’s ‘marine estate’ should be managed in future – aims to answer all of these questions, and many more.
More than 150 comments from all kinds of local businesses, charities, organisations and individuals, were taken into account when putting together the latest draft.
If approved by States Members, it will define how the island looks after its 800 square miles of territorial waters, which stretch out 14 miles from the coastline or, to the east, the mid-point between Jersey and France.
The push for marine spatial planning began in 2022 when an attempt to create a marine park covering more than a third of Jersey’s waters was rejected.
Later 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.
The MSP proposes a three-tier framework with different levels of protection in each tier: Regulated Fishing Zone, Seabed Protection Zone, and highly-protected No Take Zones.
Pictured: The proposed new plans.
A visitor centre has also been proposed as part of the new plans, and it also includes the potential to create wildlife “wardens”.
The plans were first developed under a previous Government in which Deputy Jonathan Renouf was Environment Minister.
Under Deputy Renouf’s vision, an existing network of Marine Protected Areas would have been expanded to 27%, but his successor, Deputy Steve Luce, has instead said it should be 23%.
In a report published last week, the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel, which is chaired by former Assistant Environment Minister Hilary Jeune, argued the Minister’s decision to reduce the level of protection against destructive fishing practises by 5% was “not the right one” and a “political choice”.
They are therefore calling on Deputy Luce to reaffirm commitment to protecting 30% of Jersey’s marine environment by 2030, and proposed two amendments.
The first calls on the Minister to reinstate several Marine Protected Areas that were originally proposed by ex-Minister Deputy Renouf in the first iteration of the plans.
If approved, the amendment would mean offshore reefs at Les Écréhous, Les Anquettes, and Les Minquiers would receive wide-ranging protection from fishing.
The second amendment calls for a “robust” monitoring framework to be established to ensure the Marine Spatial Plan is implemented effectively and transparently by current and future governments.
Environmental groups have been broadly supportive, but some have argued that the reduction compromises Jersey’s ability to meet its international obligations and adequately protect critical habitats.
Alan Le Maistre, chief executive of the National Trust for Jersey, raised concerns about the reduction in protection for maerl beds – a type of habitat found at Jersey’s offshore reefs formed by red algae that provides shelter for various marine species while also playing a role in carbon sequestration.
He noted that under the revised plan, only 33% of known maerl habitats would be protected, down from 88% in the original proposal.
While Jersey Marine Conservation broadly supported the plan, chair Kevin McIlwee stressed the need for “robust” science-based decision-making and effective enforcement of marine protected areas.
In a written submission to the Scrutiny panel, Mr McIlwee said it was important that “the seriousness of biodiversity decline and the impacts of climate change” were drawn into “imminent and all subsequent planning decisions”.
Highlighting the difficulties in predicting the impact of rising emissions and changing weather patterns, he also stressed that the Island “correctly” declared a climate crisis in 2019 – adding that the situation “has not changed”.
“In reality, the lack of effective action has placed us in a position of mitigation, not eradication. The MSP is exactly what the title states, a plan. The government needs to act as quickly and as effectively as is economically possible,” Mr McIlwee wrote.
Pictured: The draft Marine Spatial Plan is set to be debated in the States Assembly next month.
Similarly, the Blue Marine Foundation welcomed the plan as a “significant first step” but said it was “disappointed” that the percentage of area set to be protected is smaller than the figure included in Deputy Renouf’s version of the proposals.
In a submission to the panel, Channel Islands Project Manager Freddie Watson called for a clear roadmap to achieve the Island’s target of protecting 30% of its waters by 2030 in line with international commitments agreed in 2022 through the Global Biodiversity Framework.
Echoing comments made by the National Trust, the foundation also questioned the justification for removing large areas of maerl habitat from the protected network.
Mr Watson wrote: “We do not feel that a detailed or viable explanation has been given for the amount of maerl habitat which has been removed from the initial MPAs proposed within the 27 per cent network of the draft JMSP.”
He continued: “Maerl habitat plays an important role in supporting biodiversity, sequestering carbon, as well as contributing to the carbon cycle.
“The destruction or disruption of this habitat, which has a high carbon accumulation potential, will not only have an adverse impact on biodiversity in the short and long-term, but it will also reduce the potential for greenhouse gas reduction, and potentially resuspend buried carbon, allowing it to return to the atmosphere.
“Maerl provides structure and habitat for many other species’ and is characterised by diverse burrowing communities, in particular bivalves, including the commercially important king scallop.
“The health and integrity of maerl is therefore imperative in maintaining long term benefits for fish stock recovery, and therefore the Island’s local fishery.
“Given the fragility of this habitat and that only 33% of their extent is covered by the revised MPAs, in comparison to the 88% which the initial boundaries covered, we are concerned that allowing ongoing damage to maerl, from mobile fishing gear, will affect the integrity of the MPA network and undermine Jersey’s progress in tackling the biodiversity and climate crisis.”
Pictured: Environment Minister Steve Luce said the decision to reduce the size of the protected area was made after consultation with concerned fishers.
Campaigners Save Our Shoreline Jersey, meanwhile, argued that a regulator should be established to oversee the implementation of the plan and raised concerns about a lack of accountability for the project’s various actions.
SOS Jersey said an independent regulator would ensure that “every Islander can have faith that our surrounding waters will be properly protected, with independent oversight”.
Scallop divers were supportive of the push to protect Jersrey's marine life, having raised concerns about the impact of dredging on underwater habitats and argued current restrictions are inadequate.
Toby Woolley, a professional diver with 10 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.
But other representatives from the fishing industry were more fearful. They warned that restrictions on areas where they currently fish would pose a critical threat to their livelihoods.
One of the Jersey fishermen who protested at the Minquiers last Thursday, Steve Channing, told Express that Jersey and France had never been so "united in how they feel" when it came to the threat to their industry.
He went on to state that "Ministers need to wake up", adding: "If Jersey doesn't back down on these proposals, I can see the harbours being blockaded."
Pictured: A protest at the Minquiers reef comprising mostly French fishing vessels took place last Thursday.
One fisherman, writing anonymously about the proposals, warned that the plan could even “devastate” their industry.
“It would be very upsetting to see the fishing industry disappear or be restricted to the extent that it is no longer viable,” 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.”
French fishing organisations from Normandy and Brittany wrote submissions on the plans ahead of the debate, raising concerns about its impact on their activities and the broader implications for cross-border cooperation in marine management.
The Normandy Regional Fisheries Committee warned that the proposed Marine Protected Areas would cause “a drastic change in terms of possible fishing zones”.
The committee also criticised the lack of alignment between Jersey’s approach and France’s method for establishing Marine Protected Areas.
The committee pointed out that the data used to analyse French fishing vessels was limited and did not accurately reflect the potential economic impact.
The Brittany Regional Fisheries Committee echoed these concerns and called for more “in-depth discussions” with French authorities and stakeholders in the fishing sector before the Marine Spatial Plan was finalised.
While some fishers have criticised the plan for endangering their livelihoods and the industry’s future, the Jersey Recreational Fishing Association has instead criticised it 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.”
Speaking in the States Assembly this morning, External Relations Minister Ian Gorst shared sympathy with the fishers.
He warned that accepting Scrutiny's "well meaning" amendments to the Environment Minister's plan risks putting Jersey back in a "very difficult situation" with French fishermen.
He explained that "key stakeholders – including fishers from Normandy, Brittany and Jersey as well as UK and EU officials – met at a regional forum in Jersey on 2 October", which he said was a demonstration of "continued, constructive dialogue under post-Brexit arrangements".
Pictured: External Relations Minister Ian Gorst said the MSP had been discussed in conversations with senior French officials.
He noted that the Marine Spatial Plan had been the subject of "a number of conversations" with senior French officials, adding: "We remind ourselves that the French gave strong representations into the consultation about the Marine Spatial Plan.
"It is very clear to me that we must balance the interests of marine conservation with having a viable fishing fleet."
Deputy Gorst stressed that the Assembly must make decisions "very carefully" to ensure the Island can "actually have a fishing industry into the future".
"It is clear to me sir, that if we accept the amendments today, well meaning as they will be, we will be back in a very, very difficult situation with our relationships with – not only our local fishing fleet – but also the Norman and Breton fishing fleet and with our political contacts in Brussels as well."
He warned that "moving beyond what the [Environment] Minister has already presented" would cause "real difficulty".
WATCH: Protest perspectives... fishers reach 'entente cordiale' over new mutual threat
French and Jersey fishermen to unite in midday Minquiers 'protest'
EXPLAINED: What's the Government's latest plan for protecting the marine environment?
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.