Transcript Presentation title - CFP

THE NEED FOR MARITIME SPATIAL
PLANNING IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Experience from the Dogger Bank
David Goldsborough
Presented at: How should fish be caught?
Brussels April 12 2012
presented by
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Dogger Bank
Management of the Dogger Bank
Four stakeholder processes
Observations
What do we learn from this?
Conclusions
The Dogger Bank
• Largest sandbank North Sea
divided among EEZs of UK, NL, GER
and DK
• Shallow dynamic flat top,
surrounding slopes more stable
• Over 300km ENE / WSW, max
120km wide
• Overall 17,600km2
• Nearest land UK 100km
Management of the Dogger Bank
• Fisheries Management in Relation to Nature
Conservation
• Natura2000 legal framework
– Habitats directive
• But also wind farm development
Natura 2000
• UK, NL and GER have, at different times,
proposed SACs in their respective Dogger
Bank EEZs
• For EU Habitat H1110 ‘sandbanks slightly
covered by seawater all the time’
• General objective is restoration and
conservation of habitat H1110
Borders Natura2000 areas
Overlap of Forewind development zone
with UK cSAC on Dogger Bank
FIMPAS: Fisheries Measures in
Protected Areas (NL)
In January 2011 FIMPAS recognises
cross boundary nature of the Dogger
Bank SACs and their fisheries, and an
inter-governmental Dogger Bank
Steering Group (DBSG) is set up
DBSG invites a stakeholder-led North
Sea RAC proposal for a fisheries
management plan for the combined
Dogger Bank SAC area
NSRAC objective
To develop a position paper on fisheries
management in relation to nature conservation,
including a zoning proposal, for the combined
area covered by the 3 national Natura 2000 sites
(SACs) of the Dogger Bank.
NSRAC Spatial Planning Working
Group
• NSRAC Focus Group (FG):
– 3 fishing sector (UK, NL and DK)
– 3 NGOs
– 1 liaison FOREWIND
– 1 MASPNOSE Dogger Bank case study
• Centre for Marine Policy (MASPNOSE project)
ask to facilitate NSRAC FG
MASPNOSE
• MASPNOSE aims to facilitate concrete, crossborder cooperation among European
countries on ecosystem-based maritime
spatial planning
• Dogger Bank 1 of 2 case studies
• DG MARE funded
MASPNOSE Dogger Bank
Objectives
• Encourage cross-border cooperation area of
three national SACs on the Dogger Bank
• Test 10 key-principles EU Roadmap
• Identify gaps and barriers to implement MSP
• Identify opportunities
develop visions – good practices
Four DBSG stakeholder processes
1.
2.
3.
4.
May 2011 – October 2011
October 2011- November 2011
December 2011 – February 2012
March 2012 – April 2012
DBSG members: NL (chair), UK, GER, DK,
ICES and the EC
1. May - October 2011
Participant:
TOR:
Objective:
Facilitation:
Budget:
Meetings:
Result:
NSRAC Focus Group
NSRAC Focus Group
Position paper fisheries
management including a zoning
proposal
MASPNOSE including GIS support
MASPNOSE
Five meetings in 2011, including two
2-day workshops.
NSRAC Position Paper submitted to
DBSG (October 2011)
August 2-day workshop with two
Maptables
31 participants
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
NSRAC FG members
Fishermen
NGOs
Forewind
Invited expert
ICES observer (DBSG)
EC observer (DBSG)
MASPNOSE team
GIS support and extra facilitation
Sharing data, knowledge, opinions
and information
Van Moorsel, GWNM (2011) Species and habitats of the international Dogger
Bank. ecosub, Doorn.
Sand eel fishing grounds North Sea
By DTU aqua
Fisheries data 2007-2009 (ICES)
Prepared and
explained by
Doug Beare,
IMARES
Position Paper with 3 scenarios
e.g. scenario 2 (30-10-60)
2.October - November 2011
Participants:
Objective:
TOR:
Facilitation:
Budget:
Meeting:
Result:
DBSG, NSRAC FG and other invited
stakeholders
To reflect on ICES prepared proposal
including 3 scenarios
Not applicable
ICES
DBSG
DBSG Dublin Stakeholder meeting,
November 7th & 8th 2011
NSRAC to continue to develop a zoning
proposal within strict terms of reference
set by the DBSG. NSRAC FG to include
DBSG observers (= NSRAC FG+)
Indicative scenario based on applying restrictive measures to
40% of area, equitably across all habitats (courtesy ICES)
Key DBSG Terms of Reference for the NSRAC’s proposal
• Apply a concept with two zones:
– Free Zone: all legal gears within the CFP are allowed
– Management Zone: fishing limited to gears that do not
cause deterioration of habitats for which site has been
designated
• Develop a fisheries management zone covering 25%-55% of
total SAC and ensure representation of all (five) benthic
communities
• Perspective to be the entire Dogger Bank, not individual EEZs
but take account of Germany’s management aim
• Avoid a patchy pattern of zones in light of enforceability
• Develop a method for weighing socio-economic considerations.
3. December 2011 – February 2012
Participants:
TOR:
Objective:
Facilitation:
Budget:
Meetings:
Result:
NSRAC FG+ (NSRAC FG + DBSG members
as active observers)
DBSG
Fisheries management plan including
joint zoning proposal
David Goldsborough including GIS support
DBSG Member States and fishing sector
(50:50)
Scoping Meeting NSRAC FG+ and 2
workshops
NSRAC could not agree on joint zoning
proposal (elaborated in February, 2012
NSRAC SPWG report)
Focus only on percentages and
locations e.g. blue working map
4. March 2012 – April 2012
Participants: NSRAC FG+ and chair NSRAC
TOR:
DBSG plus additional requirements
Objective:
Fisheries management plan including joint
zoning proposal
Facilitation: MASPNOSE
Budget:
MASPNOSE
Meetings:
Scoping Meeting NSRAC FG with chair and vicechair NSRAC and 1 workshop
Result:
Final position paper on fisheries management in
relation to nature conservation for the combined
area of 3 national Natura 2000 sites (SACs) on the
Dogger Bank
Main ingredients
1. Description of the process
2. Results of the process
1. Reflections on TOR
2. Consensus areas
3. Outstanding differences
1. NGO zoning proposal
2. Industry zoning proposal
3. Conclusions on stakeholder process and
recommendations for the future
Example Map with proposed areas
Observations (1)
•
•
•
•
Without MASPNOSE this process would have never
happened
Those who decide can not leave resolving disputed
issues to stakeholders
Uncharted waters i.e. no one knows how this works
and what the exact rules are
This should have been a joint process DBSG +
NSRAC process from the start
Observations (2)
• These processes can only work if sufficient
means are available i.e. manpower, money
and support and if stake holders are willing
to share responsibility
• The NSRAC does currently not have the
means and is not equipped to operate in
such complex regional stake holder processes
What do we learn from this? (1)
• Full transparency and trust crucial
• Clear roles, responsibilities and timelines are
essential, rules of the game
– Terms of Reference (TOR)
– Script
• Conditions must be clear and met at the start
– Budget, Time, Access to data, etc.
– Who decides and when is a decision taken?
What do we learn from this (2)
• Dialogue should mainly be based on contents
and not politics
• Clear ownership of process is critical
• All stakeholders need to take responsibility
What do we learn from this? (3)
• Principle 7: cross-border cooperation
– Establish mandate for cooperation
• Principle 4: stakeholder participation
– Needs a well-designed process/strategy
• Principle 3: transparency
– Differentiate internal-external transparency
The Dogger Bank process and Maritime
Spatial Planning (MSP)?
• First ever attempt at fisheries management measures
on a large cross-border scale
• RAC stakeholders and Member States can work
cooperatively, given adequate data and resources
• Co-management under CFP regionalization is realistic
• For fisheries and nature conservation MSP Directive
not necessarily best approach to Member State
cooperation
Final conclusion
The Dogger Bank stakeholder process is a
very valuable experiment that holds a lot
of promise for regional management and
conservation with MSP of marine areas in
the EU