THE NEED FOR MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

presented by

Experience from the Dogger Bank

David GoldsboroughPresented at: How should fish be caught?

Brussels April 12 2012

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, cross-border 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. May 2011 – October 20112. October 2011- November 20113. December 2011 – February 20124. March 2012 – April 2012

DBSG members: NL (chair), UK, GER, DK, ICES and the EC

1. May - October 2011Participant: NSRAC Focus GroupTOR: NSRAC Focus GroupObjective: Position paper fisheries

management including a zoning proposal

Facilitation: MASPNOSE including GIS support Budget: MASPNOSEMeetings: Five meetings in 2011, including two

2-day workshops. Result: 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 SeaBy 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 2011Participants: DBSG, NSRAC FG and other invited

stakeholdersObjective: To reflect on ICES prepared proposal

including 3 scenarios TOR: Not applicableFacilitation: ICESBudget: DBSGMeeting: DBSG Dublin Stakeholder meeting,

November 7th & 8th 2011 Result: 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 2012Participants: NSRAC FG+ (NSRAC FG + DBSG members

as active observers)TOR: DBSGObjective: Fisheries management plan including

joint zoning proposalFacilitation: David Goldsborough including GIS support Budget: DBSG Member States and fishing sector

(50:50)Meetings: Scoping Meeting NSRAC FG+ and 2

workshopsResult: 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 2012Participants: NSRAC FG+ and chair NSRACTOR: DBSG plus additional requirements Objective: Fisheries management plan including joint

zoning proposalFacilitation: MASPNOSEBudget: MASPNOSEMeetings: Scoping Meeting NSRAC FG with chair and vice-

chair NSRAC and 1 workshopResult: 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 process2. Results of the process

1. Reflections on TOR2. Consensus areas3. Outstanding differences

1. NGO zoning proposal2. 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