Posted under flamborough head by News Admin
Flamborough Head Fisheries Liaison Group Meeting
24 April 2008 - Bridlington Rugby Union Football Club
Minutes
Present
Tom Cliff, Gwyn Davies, John Edmond, Peter Firth, Robbie Fisher, John Huntley, Victor Leppington, Arnold Locker, Danny Major, Maureen May, David McCandless, Stuart McPherson (Minute taker), G. C Pilling, Nigel Proctor, Pete Sedman, Val Sedman, Angie Skelton, Mally Skelton, Leanne Stockdale (Chair), George Traves, D Tye, Steven Veart, Mal Ward.
- Apologies
Robin Neale
- Minutes of last meeting (23/02/08)
Leanne Stockdale (LS) (Chair) opened the meeting and informed those present that the minutes of the meeting on 23 February had been circulated. She asked if everyone was satisfied that these minutes reflected a true record of the meeting.
The minutes were agreed.
LS summarised the proceedings of the two preceding meetings and in particular defined the area that had been agreed at the meeting on 23 February. LS informed the meeting that Natural England (NE) had been asked to consider the agreed site and as a result had been advised by NE that they wished to discuss some additional proposals, which were the subject of this meeting. LS called on Robbie Fisher (RF) NE to outline their proposals.
- Natural England’s Proposal
RF summarised the decision of the previous meeting and outlined the agreed area on the map, marked in red and described as Option 1(see Appendix A). NE’s senior fisheries management had considered this and considered the data they had on the area, which is not very extensive.
Whilst NE was of the opinion that the site was viable they were of the opinion that an extension offshore would improve the scientific data sample. In particular there were areas of “hard ground” that were the habitat of different species to the area covered by Option 1. RF then outlined Option 2 (yellow area) and an alternative Option 3 (green area) (see Appendix A).
RF accepted that there was considerable fishing activity in these additional areas. RF invited the meeting to consider the alternative proposals. There was considerable opposition from several shell fishermen in attendance on the grounds that it was restricting their fishery.
The consensus was that they were prepared to honour the agreement to Option 1 but could not agree to the alternatives.
John Huntley introduced a paper outlining a Project carried out by Newcastle University on behalf of DEFRA entitled Marine Protected Areas for Management of Temperate North Atlantic Fisheries (the executive summary of this paper can be found in Appendix B – The full paper is on the Defra website).
This study indicated that the spill over of shellfish in MPAs worldwide was negligible consequently there were little benefits in the form of compensation catch for fishermen excluded from the area. JH went at some lengths to argue the point that the study was indicating a ‘No Win’ situation for the fishing community. JH agreed that there was some benefit in studying the area to establish if the area could be improved but considered that this could be achieved without the imposition of restrictions.
RF said that NE were trying to establish an experimental area that would provide data from which other areas that are proposed in the Marine Bill could benefit.
Arnold Locker (AL) pointed out that an area (Option 1) had been agreed and that the consensus of those present was that they had relinquished that and there was no point considering further extensions.
A general discussion then ensued, with the main point being, that it was better to go forward with an area that had been agreed across the board on a voluntary basis, which could establish some baseline data.
LS asked if there was likelihood that with the passage of time and in particular the advent of the Marine Bill if NE would return to the table seeking an extension. RF could not answer that and there were so many adjuncts attached to the draft Bill it was impossible to predict the RF personal view was that it was probably unlikely.
There were then some discussions led by those from the trawling industry, regarding the implications of the agreed site and the current No Trawl Zone half a mile offshore around the Headland. One valid point that was made was that there had not been a large storm from the southeast for some time and in the event of such a storm the site could be decimated overnight. RF accepted that this was in fact the case but this was one of the hazards of any site.
4. Agreeing the proposed No Take Zone area
LS then asked if the meeting agreed that Option 1, was the agreed No Take Zone? This was affirmed. LS then asked if NE would sign up this option. RF stated he had authority to go ahead on Option 1. It was agreed that there would be a review after five years and RF stated that once there was an established data flow there would be annual updates to the Liaison Group.
AL asked if there was a provision to scrap the site if it was not providing worthwhile data. David McCandless (Chief Fishery Officer) informed the meeting that this would be catered for by a time line in the byelaw. AL asked if the site was scraped would it be returned to the surrounding fishery? This was agreed.
RF suggested that he would carry out a wider consultation but the meeting agreed that this was not necessary and that the site should be progressed as soon as possible. There would be an opportunity for wider consultation when the byelaw was progressing through its various stages.
5. Any other business
LS informed the meeting that there was some confusion on the Code of Conduct for the Bempton RSPB Reserve and a meeting had been arranged for Thursday 1 May at 20:00 at the Bridlington RUFC Social Club to discuss and clarify the situation.
Meeting closed at 20:15
Marine Protected Areas for Management of Temperate North Atlantic Fisheries
Lessons learned in MPA use for sustainable fisheries exploitation and stock recovery
C.J. Sweeting & N.V.C. Polunin
School of Marine Science and Technology
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
A Report to the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
September 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With most fish stocks in the NE Atlantic at historically low levels there is pressure for more effective fishery management practices. One approach involves marine protected areas (MPAs), spatially defined areas of sea or estuary, where populations are protected from human extractive impacts (particularly fishing and contingent habitat damage).
Exhaustive lists of potential benefits of MPAs are largely derived from small conservation-oriented MPAs in tropical coastal waters. Use of MPAs for sustainable exploitation of temperate fisheries however, requires knowledge of how MPAs function in a radically different setting. This report reviews scientific information on existing well-studied MPAs in the North Atlantic and draws the following conclusions.
A CRITICAL INFORMATION SHORTAGE EXISTS.
(1) The design of MPAs (e.g. size, shape, management and objectives) varies greatly, however the science is biased towards small inshore MPAs. Very few MPAs in the temperate North Atlantic are well-studied and for fewer still have fishery effects been considered, severely limiting detailed lessons that may be drawn, especially regarding effects of strong protection at the large scales (100s-10,000s km2) required for temperate fisheries management.
THERE ARE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF MPAS BUT NONE ARE GUARANTEED.
(2) Establishment of even small MPAs (<10km2) can lead to increased habitat quality in most habitat types, (particularly greater structural complexity) where fishing methods that interact with the seabed are excluded. There are positive links between such quality and growth and survival of some juvenile fishes, however such fisheries benefits are unquantified. Many critical fish habitats (e.g. maerl, sea grass beds, salt marsh and rocky and Sabellaria reefs) have inherent conservation value, thus an opportunity exists for conservation-oriented MPAs, some of which may benefit local fisheries.
(3) Enhancement of shellfish populations (e.g. scallop and lobster) inside MPAs often occurs because adult mobility is limited and the MPA effectively protects a component of the stock. There is some evidence that such increases benefit surrounding fisheries through net export of juveniles and adults [‘spillover’] and of eggs/ larvae. MPAs can contribute to management of shellfish stocks.
(4) Evidence for benefits to temperate finfish inside MPAs is inconsistent. Strongly protected MPAs can benefit site-attached species (e.g. wrasse, rockfish on rocky reefs) and mobile finfish stocks (e.g. cod, mackerel, plaice) will benefit where hydrodynamic or topographic isolation effectively increase larval return and reduced adult emigration, or where strong management significantly reduces fishing mortality. But these conditions look to be rare, and light protection in very large MPAs (10,000s km2) is inadequate to accumulate biomass within.
(5) Spillover and larval export depend especially on biomass build-up inside MPAs which is not guaranteed. Spillover relies also on animal mobility, which in turn influences biomass build-up in MPAs. In virtually all cases where spillover occurred, effects were localised (invertebrates – scale of 10-100s m, finfish – 100s m to km). In no case examined has spillover compensated for loss of fishing area. Larval export depends also on current dispersal and data on it are rare, even for the well-studied tropical reef MPAs. The magnitude of the larval export role of MPAs can therefore scarcely be predicted, and finfish (e.g. cod, haddock) represent a stumbling block to uncritical MPA application.
MANY FACTORS MITIGATE MPA BENEFITS.
(6) The argument that MPAs are more politically robust than other forms of fisheries management is rejected. The notion that MPAs reduce conflicts among users is valid in some cases but not others. Many supposed MPA benefits (e.g. maintenance of diversity of fishing opportunities, reduced variation in fisheries yield) remain inadequately tested even for reefs, thus there is no sound basis for planning MPAs for them.
(7) With few exceptions, highly mobile species benefit only from MPAs of very large size. Yet protecting such areas is manifestly extremely difficult for economic and social reasons and extension of existing fisheries management measures may prove the most effective approach.
(8) MPAs are not isolated from wider conditions. As spatially defined static entities, MPAs are vulnerable to environmental changes, including altered spatial and temporal distributions of fish and habitat, pollutants and eutrophication. MPAs are not the hedge against fisheries management failures that advocates suggest.
(9) Effects of fishing are assumed to be reversible, yet marine ecosystems can be fundamentally altered in structure by fishing such that return to pre-closure conditions is impossible. Recovery of stocks inside MPAs or enhancement outside MPAs can be influenced by the complex population structure (‘metapopulation’) of the species involved. Thus interruption of larval dispersal by hydrographical isolation or reduction of supply will mean some MPA objectives become unachievable. Additionally, where stocks have fallen below critical densities required for successful reproduction (ie. ‘depensation’), recovery may be negligible.
(10) MPA success should be based on benefit/cost assessments of whole areas, both inside and out of the MPA. For strongly-protected MPAs, other additional fisheries management measures are essential (e.g. large fleet or quota reductions) to mitigate effects of displaced effort which unless reduced decrease MPA benefit and in extreme cases the MPA becomes detrimental overall. Other socio-economic considerations including the extent of compliance with MPA regulations and direct economic costs (e.g. fuel) compared to benefits (i.e. catch) must also be considered.
(11) No-take MPAs are not the only way forward for MPA-based management and strict adherence to rules of thumb (e.g. percentage of habitat to be protected) may be misguided. MPAs require tailoring to specific objectives and local biological, social and physical conditions. MPAs need to be designed on a case by case basis.
(12) Fishery science has been blamed for failures of fisheries management, but gaps in MPA science mean that for MPA management to avoid the perceived pitfalls of fisheries science, more research of a new kind is needed.
CONCLUSIONS
This report suggests that MPAs are not a cure-all of fisheries management, but, under the right conditions, MPAs are valuable tools for the preservation and enhancement of certain critical habitats and management of site-attached shellfish and finfish populations. In very specific situations, MPAs may benefit the mobile species which are socio-economically the most important, however all MPAs should be assessed for their merit on a case by case basis that accounts for both internal and external effects of MPA establishment. The strict closure of large open sea areas is unlikely to be a good management measure, and the fundamental shift in policy which this would require should encourage renewed consideration of other management measures which may provide a more optimal cost/benefit distribution, although this might be in combination with light or small MPAs. However, many of the costs and benefits of MPAs remain speculative due to a lack of research on what is a comparatively new tool for fisheries management. There is a critical need to remedy this information deficit if MPAs are to fulfil their full potential in the areas indicated with confidence.
