Download cd02_ex20070614_NSRAC_MPA_engagement

Proposals for the NSRAC’s
engagement with offshore MPAs
for protection of biodiversity
Perceptions/response of the industry
The sector:
• Has only recently begun to consider the
fisheries management implications of Natura
2000 and other MPAs (German EMPAS study
a big step forward in addressing this)
• Often presumes that fishing will be excluded
rather than managed
• Is also concerned about effort displacement
• Is uncertain about where socio-economic
considerations apply in the process
In 2005, the North
East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission (NEAFC)
requested ICES to:
“provide information on the
distribution of cold-water
corals on the Western slopes of the Rockall Bank to
indicate appropriate boundaries of any closure of
areas where cold-water corals are affected by
fishing activities”
[Slides courtesy of Mark Tasker, ICES WGDEC]
Source 1.
Scientific and
other records
Source 2:
Fishers’
knowledge
58°
Dense Coral
Light
Coral
Light Coral
tr
o 57°
N
Light
Coral
Light Coral
Dense
Coral
Bumpy Bottom
56°
Bumpy
17°
16°
15°
14°
West
13°
12°
Source 3:
Satellite
tracking
information
Two criteria applied to inform closure boundaries:
• Areas containing recorded coral
concentrations where there was no
or low fishing activity
• Areas containing recorded coral
concentrations where fishing activity
was high
Areas of low fishing effort containing cold-water corals and the "Haddock" box.
¯
Northwest
Rockall
58°0'0"N
Rockall
0
10 0
m
West Rockall Mounds
57°0'0"N
m
Haddock
Box
20
0
Legend
Proposed closed areas to
protect cold-water corals
Rockall Bank
56°0'0"N
Records of coldwater corals
0
50
Area in which VMS
(Vessel Monitoring System)
data on fishing boat
locations were collected
Logachev Mounds
m
European Fishing
Zone
55°0'0"N
20
m
m
1000
20°0'0"W
18°0'0"W
00
High
Seas
EU Fishing Zone
16°0'0"W
Disclaimer: International boundaries
are illustrative only
14°0'0"W
12°0'0"W
Records of cold-water corals in areas that are heavily fished
20°0'0"W
¯
Northwest
Rockall
58°0'0"N
Rockall
0
10 0
m
West Rockall Mounds
m
57°0'0"N
0
20
Legend
Records of cold-water
corals in heavily-fished
areas
Rockall Bank
56°0'0"N
Records of coldwater corals
0
50
Area in which VMS
(Vessel Monitoring System)
data on fishing boat
locations has been collected
Logachev Mounds
m
European Fishing
Zone
55°0'0"N
20
m
m
1000
20°0'0"W
18°0'0"W
00
High
Seas
EU Fishing Zone
16°0'0"W
Disclaimer: International boundaries
are illustrative only
14°0'0"W
12°0'0"W
What happened next?
ICES gave NEAFC advice in Sept 2005
NEAFC met in November 2005 but took no
decision
NEAFC met again in November 2006 and
decided to close part of Rockall Bank
(implemented in both EU and NEAFC), but
SW Rockall not yet closed awaiting
consideration of further evidence
Lessons for fishing sector
• Rockall shows that providing VMS and
fishers’ knowledge can assist coexistence of
fishing and nature conservation goals
• E.g. VMS may reveal an unfished area and
this will probably have more intact habitat
than a heavily fished one
• Have to start with science: NB socioeconomic factors are not allowed to influence
boundary-setting and conservation objectives
of Natura 2000 sites, only their management
How else does this relate to Natura 2000?
• North Sea Member States are in the
process of proposing offshore sites
(SACs under the Habitats Directive) to
the Commission
• The initial responsibility for consulting
stakeholders falls on the MS; e.g in the
UK, Defra has requested the JNCC to
develop a consultation plan for
engaging with the RACs etc this year
The RACs
Source: Defra
15 March 2007
Natura 2000 consultation process (cont…)
• Having received the proposed sites, the Commission
is required to take action, without delay, within the
CFP to protect the relevant areas
• Note the ‘without delay’; e.g. in response to the Irish
request for closures, the Commission intend
proposing an amendment to the TAC & Quota Reg
for 2007 to enable temporary protection measures
until the future Reg on tech measures can make such
measures permanent
• All this means that the Commission needs to consult
the RACs for their advice as early as possible
Non-Paper on Technical Measures for the NE Atlantic & North
Sea: Preparing a new proposal to replace Council Reg 850/98
“The discussion and implementation of these protected areas
should be subject to consultation with the RACs.
Given that these areas will be proposed individually by MSs,
probably over a long period, with potential risk of very
different criteria and objectives, it seems desirable that a
debate on the protection of marine habitats be held in the
context of the future technical measures regulation.
Such a debate could define general criteria on the type of
marine habitat necessary to protect, and on the the type of
fishing activities that would need to be banned or restricted
in these areas. This would allow a more consistent
approach to the implementation of the Habitats Directive.”
Tasks for the RACs (joint NSRAC/NWWRAC workshop?)
• Be proactive: inform DG Fish, DG Env, OSPAR and Member
States how RACs want to be consulted on offshore MPAs
(contacts, timing, etc). [As a result of the Irish site
proposals, the NWWRAC has already done this.]
• Knowing the sites proposed, explore how fishers’
knowledge might assist coexistence of fishing
opportuntities & site protection
• Identify common management measures for different
habitat types of MPA (e.g. trawling might be stopped over
coral but not longlining) [also, without common standards,
one MS might discriminate against another]
Thank You!