Research and analysis
Summary of case studies using spatial approaches to manage fisheries
Updated 16 May 2016
Download CSV 21.2 KB
| Case Study | Use of spatial policies for fisheries | Definition of core fishing grounds | Data used (inc. resolution) | Involvement of fishing industry | Future-proofing | Key considerations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Draft East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plans | Whole plan area defined as fishing area. Policy FISH1 specifies that proposals (for other licensable activities) should demonstrate (in order of preference): - They will not prevent fishing; - If there are impacts how these will be minimised or mitigated; - Why the proposal should proceed if impacts cannot be minimised or mitigated. | Core Fishing Grounds (CFGs) not defined. | Maps provided that show an indication of fishing grounds/ fishing intensity for: · VMS (>15m vessels) (time spent in hours, demersal mobile gears, 2007–2010, 1/200th ICES rectangle); · Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) Fishermap combined gear fishing intensity (low-high, 1/200th ICES rectangle) (but does not cover entire <15m fleet); · Total fishing effort 2011 (from fisheries activity database, based on reported landings, ICES rectangle). | Involvement of stakeholders through workshops, meetings, drop-in sessions. Opportunity to comment on draft. | The Plan must adopt an ‘adaptive management’ approach, so that it can be modified in future in response to information (e.g. on impacts on ecosystems, effectiveness of management or policies) collected from monitoring. Plans are formally reviewed every 6 years. There is scope for revision if new evidence comes to light through deviation to the plan. | · CFG not defined; · Fisheries addressed in general terms due to difficulties of identifying CFG; - Fisheries sector treated differently from some other marine sectors, which have greater protection in defined areas; - Spatial resolution of data not adequate to define CFG; - Spatial information on <15m vessels not complete (does not cover all vessels); - Stakeholder input indicated interest in defining CFG. |
| Scotland Draft National Marine Plan | Fishing takes place in all Scottish sea areas. No spatial policies for fishing grounds. Developments must take account of fishing and consult local interests where appropriate. Developments that may impact on fisheries should take into account various factors (see detailed text below). With regard to the inshore sector, spatial management in future years will become part of regional marine planning, for which Inshore Fisheries Groups will provide fisheries management input. | CFGs are not defined, but general policies to prevent and minimise/ mitigate impacts on fisheries are well described. | Average effort (kW days) in Scotland’s seas by all UK vessels (all lengths; 2005-2011) (ICES rectangles); Average value of landings from Scotland’s seas, 2005-2011) (ICES rectangles). Scotmap data (for <15m vessels) not presented in plan. | Not described in consultation document. Inshore Fisheries Groups will provide input for spatial management for the inshore sector. | Not stated how frequently the Plan will be reviewed or how long valid for. Not clear if or when Scotmap data will be revised. | · CFG not defined; · Fisheries sector protected through well-described but non-spatially-explicit policies; · Data presented in plan not of sufficient resolution to determine CFGs; · Fishing industry concerned about potential impacts of other developments on their activities. |
| Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan | The whole plan area is indicated as a fishing area, and fisheries provided greater protection in ‘important fishing grounds’. Developments will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: a) there will be no significant damage[1] or permanent obstruction to an important[2] fishing area; b) there will be no damage to a known/designated spawning or nursery area for commercially exploited species of fish; c) it will not cause an unsafe navigational hazard for commercial fishermen; or d) there is no reasonable alternative and any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. | Important fishing grounds are described as fishing areas that may be important in relation to the species caught, gear(s) used, the size or type of fishing vessels that operate in the area, and/or the communities where those vessels are based. Important fishing grounds are not statutorily spatially defined. Maps of important fishing grounds are indicative, and developers must consult with the industry regarding important grounds, particularly as important grounds may change over time. | Maps provided (2006–2011) showing: · Indicative demersal fishing effort based on VMS data (low-high) – noted that fishing ground mapping being updated through consultation with industry (high resolution, 500m). Importance calculated on log scale, benchmarking in consultation with industry; · Indicative important shellfish dredging grounds (based on interviews with local fishermen); · Indicative important shellfish creeling grounds (based on interviews with local fishermen and modelled habitat distributions); | Commercial fisheries stakeholders were invited members of the Shetland Marine Spatial Plan Advisory Group, the Policy Development Industry sub-group and the Spatial Analysis Working Group. | This is the fourth edition of the SMSP which will be updated (through monitoring and review) to reflect changes that occur and ensure it is kept up to date and remains relevant. Pending legislation for Regional Marine Plans is expected to provide guidelines on conducting regular reviews and reporting on progress of Regional Marine Plans. | · Most developed spatial policy for fisheries; · Fishing grounds not permanently defined due to data deficiencies (VMS misclassification, patches of underreporting) and potential for change; · Small number of whitefish boats (26) facilitated consultation and agreement; · Shellfish grounds harder to map, due to no VMS, more fishers involved (and part-time); · If grounds were specified in the plan, they would be difficult to update regularly; · Fishing effort used as metric, as it is correlated with value/profitability; · Need to use long time-series of data as current fishing patterns may be restricted by days at sea and quota regulations; · Building a good relationship and trust with fishing industry is important. |
| Draft Maritime Spatial Plan for the Belgian part of the North Sea (BNS) | Fisheries were not included in the original Master Plan for the Belgian Part of the North Sea (BPNS). The spatial policy options summarised in the draft (revised) Marine Spatial Plan are: · Preservation of current fishing grounds, except for the renewable energy zone (navigation prohibition) and for infrastructure development for coastal defence, energy storage and energy transport; · Preservation of access to the Belgian fishing ports; · Stimulate alternative, sustainable fishery in parts of the ‘Vlaamse Banken’ SAC. Federal State has competency for nature conservation; Flemish Region has competency for fisheries. | Core fishing grounds are not defined. In the ‘existing situation’ fisheries description the Plan states that “Based upon research (counts, control flights, qualitative research…), a picture can be formed of the important fishery areas in the BNS”. The plan states that “Rich, unpolluted fish areas are necessary for a good, large and healthy catch. However, there is little objective data available about the presence of fish in so-called fish-rich or fish-poor areas”. | Map of fishing activities of the Belgian fishing vessels on the BNS (EC trawl dragnets with capacity under and over 300hp) | Revisions to the Plan included formal and informal consultation with all stakeholders | The Plan will undergo a complete evaluation and possible amendment every six years. | · CFG not defined, and no specific policy to protect fishing grounds; · Maps of fishing activity are provided but are indicative; · Split competencies for fisheries between regional (Flemish) and federal level complicate policy development. |
| Marine Spatial Plan for the German Exclusive Economic Zone in the North and Baltic Seas — Draft | No spatial policies for fisheries are provided in the plan. However, fisheries is referred to in the exploitation of non-living resources and energy production facilities: · The needs of fisheries shall be taken into account when exploring for and exploiting non-living resources. · The interests of fisheries and military defence shall be taken into account during planning, operation and construction of energy production facilities. | Core fishing grounds are not defined. The Plan states that ‘area designations for fisheries are not possible because of the regulatory competence of the EU and because fishing grounds cannot be spatially delineated’. This is despite prior research carried out by the Institute for Sea Fisheries that indicated principal areas for fisheries could be defined through use of VMS data. | No description or maps of the spatial extent of fisheries are presented in the plan. | Stakeholder participation comprised mostly consultations with other federal Agencies (aside from the leading agency) and public review of Plan documents (information from UNESCO, 2013 not the Plan document). | No information regarding Plan revision (UNESCO, 2013). | · CFG not defined; the plan states that fisheries regulation is EU competence and it is not possible to spatially delineate fishing grounds. |
| The Netherlands National Water Plan (NWP) | Fishing is described as applicable for the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) if compatible with activities of national importance (sand extraction and replenishment, renewable (wind) energy, oil and gas recovery, CO2 storage, sea shipping and defence areas). In areas that have been designated for activities of national importance, other activities must not hinder this use. | Core fishing grounds not defined. | Outer limits of plaice box shown in current use spatialisation map (Map 24, NWP, 2009); | Consultation with the Dutch fishing sector is referred to with regards to working towards the sustainability of fishing in the North Sea. | The plan will be revised every 5 years (UNESCO, 2013). | · CFG not defined · Other sectors ‘of national importance’ given preference over fisheries |
| Norwegian Sea Integrated Management Plan | Spatial measures relate to restriction of fishing (protected areas, trawl-free zones, etc). Restriction of Oil &Gas (O&G) activities to protect important spawning areas/periods. O&G licensing requirements – must take ‘special account of fisheries activities and the presence of marine organisms at critical stages in their life cycles’ – there are restrictions on timing of seismic surveys. ‘The authorities can introduce spatial planning processes to ensure that energy production [renewables] takes place in areas where the potential for conflict with fisheries and maritime transport is low enough to be acceptable.’ | Core fishing grounds are not defined. | Maps showing number of fishing vessel movements (1–5knots) and number of position reports. | Stakeholder involvement throughout plan development. Consultations and open conferences held during the development stages of the plan. | Present plan will be updated at regular intervals up to 2025 with a view to an overall revision in 2025 for the subsequent period. Fishing grounds are not spatially defined, therefore provides flexibility in application over time. | · Protection to fisheries provided through non-spatial measures (restriction of O&G activities to minimise impact on spawning periods, larvae) · Spatial measures may be adopted to minimise conflict between fisheries and renewables. |
| C-SCOPE Dorset Coastal Plan | Does not contain specific spatial policies for the benefit of commercial fisheries. General (non-spatial) policy to benefit fisheries: SME2: Development in the marine and coastal environment should be tested for its contribution to, and impact on, the criteria presented in Box A of the Dorset Coastal Plan (which includes the activity commercial inshore fishing). SME3: Development which would have an adverse impact, directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the criteria laid out in Box A. | Core fishing grounds are not defined. | Commercial inshore fishing activity (number of boats). | Commercial fisheries stakeholders involved in the C-Scope marine planning process and some stakeholders were also on the Marine Spatial Planning Task and Finish Group which met eight times over three years. Interviews were also undertaken with additional fisheries stakeholders to complete an interactions matrix as part of the marine plan evidence base. | It is proposed that the C-Scope Plan will be reviewed on no more than a five year cycle and that the opportunity will be taken to synchronise reviews with Local Plans and national statutory Marine Plans where possible. | · CFG not defined. |
| US Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) | Fishing areas are distributed throughout the whole Plan area (e.g. see gear activity distribution maps in Chapter 5 of the Plan). As a general policy the Plan states that the Council will ensure that proposed activities shall be designed to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats (spawning and nursery areas) and where unavoidable impacts may occur those impacts shall be minimised and mitigated. In addition, the Council will give consideration to habitat used by species of concern as defined by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. | Core fishing grounds are not defined. ‘Areas of Particular Concern’ (APC) can be identified to protect areas of human use value (e.g. areas of high fishing activity), but had not yet been designated as APCs. The importance of ‘Essential Fish Habitat’ and spawning and nursery grounds are recognised. | Historic trawling areas, qualitative input on fishing grounds from fishers, fishing intensity based on Vessel Trip Reports, by gear (to produce ‘number of trips per cell’, (one minute grid spacing, 1/1800th ICES rectangle), 1998–2008. | Fisheries stakeholders (regulatory agencies and fishers) were involved/ consulted on the process. | The Plan can be continually amended through an administration process and will undergo a major review every five years. | · ‘Essential Fish Habitat’ (nursery areas, spawning grounds) are identified and protected (or impacts minimised/ mitigated) · Plan provides scope to protect CFG through APC. |
| Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (USA) | Fishing activity is an allowed use in the ‘multi-use’ area of the plan and is managed by the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). The DMF has sole authority for opening or closing areas for fishing of all or any fish species. Assessments of the compatibility of specific types of development with fishing activities informed by understanding of high value commercial fishing activity and recreational activity. | Core fishing grounds not defined although fishing effort is ranked low-high and areas of high resources and high fishing effort/value are identified (maps in Appendix of the plan). Important fish resource areas identified as a Special, Sensitive or Unique area (SSU). | DMF collected data regarding commercial fisheries activity, fisheries resources and qualitative information from fishermen. Fishing effort and landings value from catch reports. VMS data from 2007-2008 digitised. Ranked fishing activity by combined fishing effort and total landings value. ‘High commercial fishing’ areas shown on map. | Fisheries stakeholders (local fishers and fishing management bodies) were consulted | The Oceans Act requires that EEA review and update the plan at least once every five years, and in January 2013, EEA initiated this review. Performance indicators for plan e.g. economic value of fisheries; change in total fish/mollusc biomass or abundance. | · Important fish resource areas identified as SSU · High-value fishing areas identified · CFG not defined although DMF has authority to open/close areas to some or all fishing. |
| South Devon Inshore Potting Agreement (IPA) | The Inshore Potting Agreement (IPA) is a fisheries-specific spatial management measure. It was established in 1978 as a voluntary agreement and has since undergone revision and adaptation, and is now enshrined in national legislation. Exclusive areas are established for fixed gears (pots). Mobile gears (trawls) are allowed access to certain areas either on a permanent or seasonal basis. | Core fishing grounds are not defined. However, potting effort within the static gear areas of the IPA is intensive, and the boundaries of the system effectively denote the core areas for potting. Scallop dredging, beam trawling and otter trawling can be intensive within seasonal areas of the IPA and outside the system’s boundaries. | The areas were initially established based on historical use patterns. Most of the static gear vessels fishing within the IPA are less than 12m Length Overall (LOA), and so are not required to carry VMS. Most mobile gear vessels operating within and around the edge of the IPA are equipped with VMS. | Fishers were solely responsible for developing the IPA originally. Fishers’ representatives from different sectors still meet annually to discuss amendments to the boundaries or seasonal elements of the system as needed. Two fishers’ associations represent all of the static-gear fishers and most of the towed-gear fishers operating in the IPA. | The IPA is protected by national legislation, but modifications to extent of the system and/or to the dates of opening and closing different areas can be made through discussions at annual meetings, with proposals for changes going to Defra for confirmation. | · IPA has been successful because all fisheries uses and users were involved in its creation. · It is easier to manage and maintain stable systems than temporally changing approaches. Reallocating seasonal territories has the potential to create conflict within and between sectors. · Conflict avoidance and regulatory compliance is more likely if management negotiations can be conducted by bodies that represent fishers en masse. |
| Mid-Channel Agreement (MCA) | The Mid-Channel Agreement (MCA) was established as a voluntary agreement in the late 1970s. It establishes areas for static gears (pots), and corridors in between where mobile gears (trawls) are allowed. These areas are seasonal. An annual meeting on the shape and operation of the MCA is held between fishers’ representatives, culminating in new MCA charts being drawn up and issued. | Core fishing grounds are not defined. However, potting effort within the static gear areas of the MCA is intensive, and the boundaries of the system effectively denote the priority areas for potting. Scallop dredging, beam trawling and otter trawling can be intensive within seasonal areas of the MCA and outside the system’s boundaries. | Most of the static gear vessels fishing within the MCA are over 12m LOA, and so are required to carry VMS. Most mobile gear vessels operating within and around the edge of the MCA are equipped with VMS. | Fishers were solely responsible for developing the MCA originally. Fishers’ representatives from different sectors still meet annually to discuss amendments to the boundaries or seasonal elements of the system as needed. | The MCA remains a voluntary, non-statutory agreement between fishers. Transgressions of the system are reportedly common, but there is no formal penalty system and censure can occur only through peers or representative organisations. The MCA has endured despite being voluntary. Modifications to extent of the system and/or to the dates of opening and closing different areas can be made through discussions at annual meetings. | · The absence of statutory protection for the MCA has led to a continuing level of transgression, with loss of gear and time for both static and mobile gear fishers. · Despite some problems, the MCA works in general because the alternative of having no arrangements for managing static and mobile gear conflict in the mid-Channel would be debilitating for both sectors. |
| Several and Regulating Orders (UK) | Allows certain rights to the Order’s grantee within a defined area. Several Orders allow grantees to deposit, propagate, dredge, fish or take named species within an area and time. May also restrict fishing practices within specified area to protect shellfish stock. Regulating Order allows grantee to harvest a named species within a specified area and time. Orders can cover any portion of the seabed, shore or estuary/tidal waters. | Several and Regulating Orders define the areas in which the Orders are applicable. | A range of spatial data sources collated by the Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre | Fisher’s must follow formal procedure when applying for an Order and follow conditions of authorisation. | Formal applications must include a 5-year management plan. | · No CFG although Orders are granted for a specific area in sea or tidal waters in Great Britain for shellfish cultivation/harvest. · May be granted for up to 60 years although 10 to 30 is more common. |
| [1] Damage may include the disturbance or removal of sediment, the deposition of sediment or other materials, changes to sea-bed topography (including the creation of trenches, mounds, pits, etc., or the exposure of boulders), or other changes to the characteristics of the sea-bed that may affect the distribution or abundance of commercially important species of fish and/or hinder commercial fishing operations. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| [2] Fishing areas may be ‘important’ in relation to the species caught, gear(s) used, the size or type of fishing vessels that operate in the area, and/or the communities where those vessels are based. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |