1 / 24

Managing Damaging fishing in N2K

This paper analyzes the management failures of damaging fishing practices in European marine sites and proposes a new approach using a gear damage matrix. It emphasizes the need for local and regional groups to implement regulations to protect sensitive habitats.

dpetty
Download Presentation

Managing Damaging fishing in N2K

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing Damaging fishing in N2K Jean-Luc Solandt, Marine Conservation Society, UK (Seas At Risk member) Sandy Luk, Sarah Gregerson, Catherine Weller ClientEarth Tom Appleby University of the West of England

  2. UK marine N2K sites: ‘paper parks’ (up to 2012)

  3. Waddenzee sea ruling (2003) Annually licensed cockle dredging fishing qualifies as a ‘plan or project’ StadtPapenburgruling (2010) • Regularly licensed projects starting before SAC designation are still subject to contemporary HRA assessment.

  4. All UK fishing vessels licensed every two years

  5. Evidence of encroaching fishing into sensitive MPA habitats (reefs and maerl) Results SECONDARY FONT Scallop dredging intensity (1990 – 2007) Pikeselyet al (2015) Marine Policy in press

  6. Solandt JL, Appleby T, and Hoskin M. 2013. Up Frenchmans creek: A case study on managing commercial fishing in an English Special Area of Conservation and its implications. Environmental Law and Management 25 (4): 133-139.

  7. Increased reports of scallop dredging between 2005-2009 • In individual sites (Falmouth, Lyme Bay, Berwickshire in England. Cardigan Bay, Pembrokeshire marine in Wales) • Regulators at the site level don’t issue license. • Regulator at national level do issue the license. • No single organisation takes the lead. • Reactive protection in Lyme Bay (2008), Falmouth (2008); Wales (2010) to avoid EU infractions (from NGO case work). • STILL SYSTEMIC MANAGEMENT FAILURE

  8. ‘New approach’ for England (2012-2016) • Instigated by national central government (Defra). • ‘Implementation Group’ set up (regulators, government, NGOs, fishermen, scientists, conservation agencies). • Group reviewed and uses a gear damage ‘matrix’. • Clear roles of regulators (0-6nm / 6-12nm / 12-200nm) • Priorities (reds) managed by May 2014 (reefs, maerl, biogenic reef, eelgrass). • Other (amber) features (sandbanks) by 2016. • Offshore measures being introduced to other MS fishers. In order to be legally compliant with the Directives, and meet international targets

  9. ‘the matrix’

  10. Detail on ‘reds’

  11. Reef, maerl and eelgrass beds sites protected from winter 2013 to Spring 2014 by local regulators (about 3000km2)

  12. Rich sedimentary habitats adjacent to reefs also protected

  13. Enforcement? Use mobile phones! Rees et al., (2013). A legal and ecological perspective of ‘site integrity’ to inform policy development and management of European MPAs. Mar Poll Bull.

  14. Summary • Damaging fishing is happening in EMS across EU. • Article 6 requires protection and assessment before damage can occur. • An EU gear – feature document exists (‘matrix’). • Similar regulations can now happen in offshore and other MS based on the matrix. • Where possible, local and regional groups should promote ‘new’ laws (e.g. Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities; RACs). Without implementation of management, how can MSFD measures (e.g. seafloor integrity) be met?

  15. Toolkit for ensuring management of fishing in EMS Key scientific references to show damage to reefs, maerl, and rich sandbank features. • Bradshaw et al (2001) Impacts of scallop dredges on soft and harder seabeds. • Sheehan et al (2013) Recovery of seabeds (soft and hard grounds) after cessation of trawling and dredging. • Rees et al (2013) Legal and ecological definitions of ‘site integrity’ (particularly for reef and rich cobble habitats). • Solandt et al (2013) protecting SACs with maerl/sandbank features from scallop dredging. Legal briefings and analysis of issues. • Site Integrity of marine EMS. • Application of article 6(2) and 6(3) with specific regard to licensed fishing activities. • A document setting out the main legal arguments that can be used in a campaign and/or correspondence with regulators. • Environmental NGO critique of legality of byelaws by local fisheries regulators in England. The ‘new policy’ approach to dealing with fishing in English N2K sites. • The development of a ‘new’ precautionary approach by UK government (policy documents from government). • The matrix of SAC ‘FEATURE’ Vs ‘FISHING GEAR’ vulnerability (linked excel spreadsheet) • Specific habitat papers (from sandbanks to reefs) detailing damage risk evidence from UK government. • A list of the specific location (site names) of sites where high risk (red) features are, and where they were protected from bottom towed fishing gears between December 2013 and May 2014. • This presentation of the history of the case also given at a recent EU N2K marine conference (St Malo, May 2015). EU documents • The Marine Expert Group has created a feature-gear interaction matrix. This identifies activities that could have a priori significant negative impacts on features for which Natura 2000 sites have been selected.

  16. Thanks Dr Jean-Luc Solandt, Marine Conservation Society, UK Jean-luc.solandt@mcsuk.org www.mcsuk.org Sandy Luk, Catherine Weller www.ClientEarth.org

More Related