Flamborough Head No Take Zone – Update And Minutes

Posted by admin Uncategorized Monday, April 7th, 2008

Flamborough Head No Take Zone – Update, Minutes And Response From Natural England

Dear All

The Flamborough Fisheries Liaison Group

I am currently writing to all those on the liaison group mailing list to
invite you to the forthcoming meeting to be held at 19:30 on the 24th April
2008, at the Bridlington Union Football Club, Dukes Park, Queensgate,
Bridlington.

Please find attached the minutes of the last Fisheries Liaison Group
meeting on the 23 February 2008 and Natural England’s response to the
proposed No Take Zone at Flamborough Head.

The purpose of the meeting is as follows:

To explain Natural England’s comments to you;

To discuss the proposed options identified by Natural England;

Answer any queries you may have.

I hope you are able to attend.

Yours sincerely

(Embedded image moved to file: pic17421.jpg)

Leanne Stockdale
Flamborough Head Project Officer
Town Hall
Bridlington
YO16 4LP
Tel: (01482) 393694
Mob: 07917550878
E-mail: leanne.stockdale@eastriding .
target=”_blank”>gov.uk

Minutes Of Last Flamborough Head No Take Zone Meeting

Flamborough Head Fisheries Liaison Group Meeting

23 February 2008 – Bridlington Rugby Union Football Club

Minutes

Present

Phil Arnott, J Burke, C Burke, Callum Cappleman, Steven Cowen, S Daniels, Mike Emmerson, K Espin, P Espin, Mark Ferriby, Robbie Fisher, John Huntley, Gary Hodgson, Glenn Kilpatrick, Paul Lane, Danny Major, David McCandless, Stuart McPherson (Minute taker), Ken Oliver, G. C Pilling, Nigel Proctor, Steve Scaife, Mike Sigsworth, Angie Skelton, Mally Skelton, Leanne Stockdale (Chair), Trisha Tate, George Traves.

1. Apologies

Gwyn Davies – Secretary NFSA Yorkshire Division

2. Minutes of last meeting (10/11/07)

Leanne Stockdale (LS) (Chair) informed the meeting that two versions of the minutes had been circulated and due to the confusion that these indicated she did not propose to take a vote to endorse them, but would leave them on the file.

LS suggested that someone should take the minutes of the meeting other than the organisers and asked Stuart McPherson (SMcP) NFSA Yorkshire Divisional Representative if he would oblige. SMcP agreed. It was also agreed that the minutes would be prove read and amended as necessary by LS and Gary Hodgson (GH), from the commercial sector.

No formal agenda was circulated but the meeting had been called to remedy the apparent confusion and to try and make progress. LS said that it was unfortunate that she had been ill on the date of the last meeting and had been made aware of the divergence of opinion contained in the two sets of minutes. She hoped that this could be resolved and called upon Robbie Fisher (RF) Natural England to open the meeting.

RF – Natural England are interested in establishing a No Take Zone (NTZ) in the Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which would be used as a study site to collect baseline data. RF highlighted that this was to be the main area of discussion but asked if there where any other issues/concerns as a result of the last meeting, and that these would also be dealt with in the meeting.

John Huntley (JH) interjected and pointed out that the biggest issue concerning the attendees is what we are actually being asked to discuss?

George Traves, MBE (GT), Chair NESFC said that the attendees needed some direction and information on the definition of an NTZ.

Several other attendees raised points and RF proceeded to “brainstorm” their comments these are outlined as follows (Appendix A details the flipchart notes):

• 1. Glen Kilpatrick (GKp) What is the BACKGROUND History of values?
  2. G. Bailey (GB) What do you hope to ACHIEVE?
  3. Ken Oliver (KO) How are you going to ENFORCE the restrictions?
  4. JH Where is there evidence scientific or otherwise to JUSTIFY? And why are ANGLERS being selected as an evil that must be prevented?
  5. Steve Cowan (SC) Why prevent FISHING in General
  6. JH Where is evidence to suggest that the Lobsters and crabs had been impoverished? When we all know that this is not the case.
  7. Gary Hodgson (GH) We all know that static gear prevent trawling and JH added the pots etc add to the food chain. So why alter the eco system?
  8. GH What baseline data have you that says it is worth doing?
  9. Phil Arnott (PA) How will you MONITOR and how will it be FUNDED?

RF consolidated his list and said he would address the following during the meeting:

• 1. Where is proposed
  2. Definition of NTZ what they are trying to achieve.
  3. Enforcement
  4. Scientific Justification
  5. Why Anglers
  6. Monitoring/funding

David McCandless, (DMc) Chief Fishery Officer, NESFC informed the meeting that he was prepared to respond to any questions on NESFC policy.

RF went on to define the Flamborough Head SAC and produced a map showing the boundaries of the area. He also informed the delegates that the area is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) for the protection of sea birds during the nesting season and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) because of the sea caves, flora and geology.

The UK Government have a legal duty to ensure that this status is maintained or improved subject to the vagaries of nature. It is accepted that other activities including fishing, walking and earning a living take place within the SAC and providing that does not interfere with the wildlife/habitat, this is OK This legislation is not going to turn the area into an NTZ.

John Burns (JB) – What are you saying, is this only going to be a catch and release area? RF I am just giving you the background at the moment. JH are you saying that the area mapped out there is going to be a NTZ in the future? RF we would like to increase the area of protection but only to an area that is acceptable to the people in this room.

RF then rationalized on the intentions of the November meeting where he had been instructed by his superiors to try and establish the viability of the creation of an NTZ within the SAC. RF had gone away from the last meeting with the impression that the attendees required him to produce something more tangible before progress could be made. He hoped that he could achieve this today where he could take the attendees proposal back for consideration by NE.

RF made the point that if we could not reach a consensus then NE may ‘can’ the project. GKp asked what canning meant, did that mean the end off? RF the future is uncertain, the Marine Bill is on the way and the legislation that this will produce was at present unknown. We have no control over the future but we can take control of local issues. This meeting is doing that and if you agree and we run a project correctly there may be risks, but at least we have control of the risks. There was no conception of NE putting a total ban on Flamborough Head.

DMcC The future is uncertain and it is better to participate in a voluntary scheme and get it established rather than have an area imposed upon us.

JH pointed out that conservation causes displacement and that people’s livelihoods were dependent on the area and the displacement could seriously affect these livelihoods. RF that is why we are sitting here today, to protect these livelihoods. JB there are two boat clubs from Nottingham who have bought caravans and chalets over here and travel 100 miles to get here. If you ban fishing on this coast they will say “Sod Bridlington” and take their money somewhere else. So your proposals are going to damage the local economy.

Steve Cowan (SC) as far as commercial fisherman are concerned half of the North Sea is a NTZ we have two proposed wind farms along this coast which in effect will be NTZs you are just squeezing us out of business. RF there is a cumulative effect that will have to be considered. GH there are so many restrictions which are present but cannot be seen i.e. gas pipelines etc all of which carry restrictions to fishing activity. JH raised the issue that some of the commercial boats are of such a size that if they were displaced offshore they are incapable of carrying out fishing safely so they would be beached.

Mike Emmerson (ME) experience indicates that once a body has power it does not always stop there. Whilst NE generally may be supportive, personnel change is when areas get extended. RF I have already said that I cannot envisage NE going for a total ban on fishing at Flamborough Head especially when fishing is seen as one of the cultural heritages of the area. What we are trying to do is to put in place a number of measures with your agreement and then we can inform DEFRA that Flamborough Head is OK, so that they can advise Brussels. ME you may well be right that if you don’t put one on then you may have one imposed upon you, personally I can’t see how we can win with this one. JH the big threat is that someone new, who does not know what goes on in the area, will bring the changes that my colleague suggests. Perhaps it should be downgraded from an NTZ to a Marine Protected Area (MPA). RF this is a MPA and certain activities are allowed.

Enforcement within a NTZ

JB how can you enforce a NTZ? I go through the area and fish off Scarborough and come back through the area. How can you tell where the fish where caught? DMc the enforcement would have to be localised i.e. stopped and inspected within the box after fishing has been established. The main enforcement would be removing nets from within the area or actual fishing-taking place. GH realistically the enforcement would be of the commercials because we are slow moving. There were several other points raised about enforcement but the bottom line is as stated by DMc i.e. actual evidence of fishing within the NTZ.

Nigel Proctor (NP) what is the driver of this proposal is it resource or habitat protection. If it is resource how do you protect what is a highly migratory and is going to move to another area. If it is habitat how do you quantify what damage is taking place on the site and what is the cause of the damage? RF added this to his “brainstorm” list. PA asked, which activities are damaging?

Draft outline – Flamborough Head No Take Zone Project and discussions

RF produced a two page draft progression chart (Appendix B) to address his six point schedule (above page 2) RF addressed some of the points under the various headings of the schedule in general terms.

SC raised the issue of monitoring and asked what damage all the people, trampling on the shore side are doing to the area. What monitoring has been done over the two years of discussion? RF accepted that no contract work had been commissioned during that period. SC how long do you intend to carry on before something is done. You are suggesting that protection is needed but you have done nothing to protect it over the past two years. GH suggested that there should have been a control site identified in order to establish the baseline for monitoring. DMc you don’t need to do a lot of pre monitoring because you can start at day one with what is existing and monitor it into the future.

RF agreed and said that if we can agree an area NE would want a year or two of data to analyse.

SC if you cut to the chase you can cut this meeting down by half, tell us what you want. GH you will recall at the last meeting that we did have an agreement from the attendees for a trial area and for what ever reason the offer was rejected. RF responded that the area had not been rejected and he had it mapped out for discussion and perhaps we should address that now. We should start with the small area agreed at the last meeting. GH If you want a small area to start with you will not get the seven bullet points on your draft (Appendix B) in such an area. The previous requirement had stipulated an area that had been trawled and this area was not going to provide any such information. RF that was a misunderstanding and is not a requirement for this project. DMc stated that NESFC had been doing work over the last three years that would assist this aspect and the report would be published in early March. JH suggested that there were large areas of the SAC, which were only accessible from the sea, and this could be studied without affecting anyone. There are areas, which are capable of supplying what you want if you look for them hard enough, without affecting anyone. A length discussion followed considering alternative sites without any definitive objective being reached. RF stated he would like a site on the Northern shore as the prevailing weather would have a variable effect compared with the more sheltered southern aspect.

Original proposed NTZ area

LS Suggested that we should address specifics rather than go through areas that had already been discussed.

RF then proceeded to draw in the original proposed area from Danes Dyke to Sewerby Steps and asked how far seaward was acceptable. GT suggested 500yards from the Mean Low Water offshore. DMc said that from an enforcement point he would prefer the site to be offshore rather than intertidal. He envisaged great difficulty in enforcing the intertidal area and considered it verged on the impossible due to the activity that occurs in that area. RF suggested that we move the site out and that would then allow shore angling to take place. GH said that the existing proposal caters for the junior shore anglers, the shellfisheries and the salmon nets and again referring back to the last meeting we were given to believe that your requirements included an intertidal area. He then referred to the fact that it had been said earlier in the meeting that enforcement would not be a problem. DMc said with respect to the intertidal zone there was phenomenal activity with people walking dogs etc that would make it impossible to police. SC suggested that RF had his own conception of what was required. We the attendees have offered a site, why don’t you see if that meets the criteria? If you need to amend then we can look at from either from a commercial or RSA perspective and give you an agreed yes or no. RF then considered the area proposed and compared the special construction with advice from the floor. RF suggested that he would hope to get some funding to provide a warden to advise the dog walkers and also to provide signing.

LS suggested that the agreed area if acceptable to all should be the Initial Proposal as contained in RF’s Draft document flow chart. Some discussion then ensued as to whether it would be a Voluntary NTZ or an NESFC Byelaw regulated site. It was agreed that this should be held over for the time being.

Clarity of the proposed NTZ

The meeting with advice from GT then agreed that to clarify the situation the area would be from the Bridlington Edge of Danes Dyke to a point at Sewerby, close to the outflow but clear of the existing salmon nets, for a distance of 700metres seaward from the cliff base. This was endorsed on RF’s map and is shown in Appendix C and D.

Angie Skelton (AS) said that as we were all in agreement that RF should take the proposal to his Management. If it is not acceptable to them then we should be advised as soon as possible. RF agreed to present a decision within two months. If the decision were in the affirmative, RF and LS would then go to the second step i.e. the broad consultation phase.

SMc requested that RF should address his notes and be in a position to answer the questions in a concise manner when we next met. RF agreed and said that we would have another meeting of the group. RF/LS asked who should be involved in the Broad Consultation it was suggested that a wider circulation was necessary and that the existing group could be expanded. GH said that it was all right expanding it but that the group in the room were representative of the people who would be affected in the area and as the meeting had shown possessed the local knowledge to formulate a concise decision.

GH suggested that there would be major difficulties implementing the project due to lack of funding.

LS said that she would be contacting some individuals to check their contact details and to ascertain if any other person should be included and not to read any ulterior motives into this contact. Also if anyone had any concerns they should contact her and she would try and resolve the issue either her self or through RF.

Views on the best time to hold the meeting were canvassed and it was suggested that an evening meeting would be preferred but not Wednesdays. Both LS and RF thanked the attendees for their time and deliberation.

Meeting closed at 13:10

Appendix A: Flipchart Notes

Addition questions

• Where is proposed
• What have we got already

The SAC – Special Area of Conservation

• SFC ?questions (general)
• Definition of No Take Zone
• Background
• What to achieve from NTZ?
• Enforcement? – people with catch from elsewhere steaming through the site
• Scientific Justification and Evidence
• Why Anglers (+ commercial fishermen)
• Why ? Baseline dates, Habitats, species, monitoring, Funding

Issues

• • Displacement of effort
  • Effects (negative) of Tourism and local economy
  • Time scale
  • Monitoring
  • What about cumulative imparts on the fishing Industry
  • Fleet range (small and large boats
  • Range of species (shellfish and fish)
  • MPA or NTZ
  • Recreation
  • Compensation?
  • Enforcement
  • What is the Driver
    • Feature resource
    • Habitat
    • Quantify damage
    • Is there damage
    • Why protect
    • What practices are damaging

• What about
  • Trampling
  • Rock pooling
  • Bird scaring
  • Before – monitoring
  • Baseline Data

- Alternative – using existing site

- Identify other areas that are less effected/fished to compare

Who else?

• All involved

Clarification of proposed site: Bridlington side of Danes Dyke to Sewerby steps 700 meters from cliff bottoms

Management

Marine Bill terminology PMR

No extractive activities

Or destructive/detrimental
Tackle shops – use to publicise
—— – NE reclamation
Funding? – Academic institutions

Appendix B: Draft Outline

Flamborough Head No Take Zone Project

What?

Natural England would like to establish a small experimental No Take Zone within the Flamborough Head SAC. We would like to work with local groups and individuals to identify if there is an area that is acceptable to current users that can achieve the projects stated aims (see below).

Because of the importance of Flamborough Head to commercial and recreational fishermen Natural England knows that there are social and economic risks that need to be identified and resolved before any proposal can proceed.

Why?

No take zones (NTZs – also known as Highly Protected Marine Reserves) are a type of Marine Protected Area that provide the highest levels of protection for and non-commercial and commercially valuable marine animals. All extractive and damaging activities are excluded (includes fishing, development, aggregate extraction). No Take Zones have been established in many parts of the world and have been shown that they can have benefits in the following areas:

• Help marine wildlife recover from human activities;
• Improve scientific monitoring;
• Tourism and educational;
• May improve fish and shellfish populations outside the NTZ.

However the degree to which this type of Marine Protected Area will provide these benefits is still are area of debate. We urgently need additional experimental sites to test these theories.

Natural England would like to work with commercial and recreational interests to investigate the possibility of establishing an experimental NTZ within the SAC. However, given the popularity and economic importance of Flamborough we realise that this is a difficult task and a challenging request. We know that some individuals may object out of principle.

Design Criteria – What are we looking for?

• What will it protect? – reef habitat and attached animals and plants, shellfish or fish species? – Open to discussion
• How big? – As a rule of thumb bigger is better. The site could be 0.5km2 upwards depending on what the NTZ objectives are – Open to discussion;
• How many sites? – 1 or more – ideally a site on the North and South because of the ecological differences between the two areas –Open to discussion;
• Habitats – Covering a broad range of habitats (e.g. rocky shore, kelp forest, sub tidal reef, sand and gravel) – Required;
• Depth – Covering a wide range of water depths – Required;
• Where – within the proposed Flamborough Head Prohibited Trawling Zone – Required;
• Shape – Square or rectangular easily identified – preferably with associated landmarks – Required;

Key questions?
Is this an initiative to ban fishing at Flamborough Head through the back door?

NO – The Flamborough Head SAC designation, Management Plan and Heritage Coast all recognise the importance and value of the Flamborough area as an outstanding place for fishing and recreation. This is why Natural England are involving all interested parties from the earliest possible opportunity.

Will this affect my rights to trawl within the site?

NO – The site will be located within the proposed Flamborough Head Prohibited Trawling Zone.

Why is Natural England doing this now?

We want the project to inform the following on going areas of work:

• Help to recover part of the Flamborough Head SAC to a more natural state;
• Improve our understanding of marine ecology on the Yorkshire coast.
• Inform the implementation of the forthcoming Marine Act;
• Improve our understanding of what ‘favourable condition’ means within European Marine Sites;
• Support delivery of the Water Framework Directive;
• Establish reference sites to monitor the effects of climate change.

Proposed Project Flow Chart

END

Appendix C: Boundary of the SAC and the proposed site

Appendix D: A detailed view of the proposed site

Flamborough Head No Take Zone Response From Natural

England

Dear Liaison Group member,

Proposal to Establish an Experimental No Take Zone within The Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

During a meeting of the Flamborough Head Fishing Liaison Group on the 23rd of February, Natural England tabled a proposal to try to identify and establish a No Take Zone (NTZ) within the Flamborough Head SAC. An area was identified by those present at the meeting (see attached Chart 1).

Natural England is undertaking this work to improve our understanding of the Flamborough Head SAC, to enhance the sites education and scientific value and to help inform the delivery of the forth coming Marine Bill which (amongst other things) will introduce improved powers to designate new Marine Protected Areas with a range of protection measures from multiple use sites to No Take Zones.

Natural England agreed to assess the proposed site and provide the liaison group with a recommendation within two months. I have now discussed the proposed NTZ with specialists and senior managers within Natural England. These staff were very supportive of the proposal and by the way we are approaching this issue. I have also discussed the proposal with a number of experts in the establishment and monitoring of NTZ’s. We are seen to be setting an excellent example of cooperative working on the management of a European marine site – this is one of the objectives that the Management Group had hoped to achieve and I would like to continue this work. I also received the following feedback on both the proposed objectives for the NTZ, and the location and size of the site.

Proposed Objectives for the Site:

Objective 1 – Monitor changes in the distribution, abundance and biomass of mobile

and non-mobile marine organisms within and outside the No Take Zone to help inform

site management of the Flamborough SAC;

Objective 2 – To allow a small section of the SAC to return to a more natural state;

Objective 3 –To use the site as a tool for education and scientific study;

Objective 4 – To monitor and assess the potential benefits of establishing a No Take Zone at Flamborough Head for commercial shellfisheries; sea angling and local tourism.

Location and Size for the Proposed NTZ:

Natural England specialists looked closely at the location of habitats within and near to the proposed NTZ site. After this examination, and for two main reasons (detailed below), Natural England has asked me to consult on a possible extension to the agreed NTZ area. I have produced two options for this possible extension, which are coloured yellow and green on the attached chart (Option 1, Red – Chart 1).

Why has Natural England recommended an extension?

1. Natural England’s side-scan survey in 2001 identified two types of hard ground habitat in the area of the identified as the proposed location for the NTZ (see dark areas on the attached chart); these habitats have long scientific names1, however for arguments sake we can refer to them ‘hard’ and ‘harder’ ground. It is important that we try to bring area of harder ground into the NTZ as these are likely to be essential for a number of species that inhabit these areas.

2. The Lundy Island NTZ is 3.3 km2 and has shown significant levels of change in the five years since its designation. The currently proposed site at Flamborough Head is 1km2 and, as such, changes are less likely to occur in the populations of marine species found in this area (i.e. there is little opportunity for the animals to move around inside the NTZ before they come to the boundary, where they may be caught).

Options for a Possible Extension to the Proposed NTZ

a) Option 2 (yellow): Total size of site increased to 1.4 sq km, to encompass two significant areas of harder ground contained within NTZ, nearest point of hard ground to boundary is 200m which will increase chances of populations of moderately mobile marine species live within the site without being caught.

b) Option 2 and option 3 (yellow and green) – total size of area increased to 2.25 sq km, this proposal takes in a much larger area of harder ground approximately 1.1 km offshore. This proposal also provides more buffering for areas within the NTZ from the effects of fishing in nearby areas, this means that marine species are more likely to change in this area.

Moving Forward

I would like to have another meeting to discuss these two new proposals, and would like to suggest the 24th April as a possible date.

Please do not hesitate to contact Leanne or me should you require any further information or want to discuss these proposals in the meantime.

Regards,

Robbie Fisher

Marine Advisor

Natural England

Yorkshire and Humber Region