POLICY DEPARTMENT. Fisheries POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

Transcription

1 Directorate-General FOR Internal Policies POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES Directorate-General FOR Internal Policies POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES B B anddevelopment Rural Development AgricultureAgriculture and Rural and Education CultureCulture and Education Role The Policy Departments are research units that provide specialised advice to committees, inter-parliamentary delegations and other parliamentary bodies. Fisheries Fisheries Regional Development Regional Development Policy Areas Transport Tourism Transport and and Tourism Agriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education Fisheries Regional Development Transport and Tourism NATURA 2000 AND THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY Documents Visit the European Parliament website: PHOTO CREDIT: istock International Inc., Photodisk, Phovoir NOTE ISBN EN 2010

2

3 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES NATURA 2000 AND THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY Note

4 This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHOR Heino O. FOCK Institute of Sea Fisheries, Hamburg RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Irina POPESCU Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Virginija KELMELYTE LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: Manuscript completed in July Brussels, European Parliament, This document is available on the Internet at: DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

5 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES NATURA 2000 AND THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY Note Abstract This note identifies key issues in the relationship between Natura 2000 and fisheries, describes the Natura 2000 process and its implementation, and different solutions applied to solve management tasks. To date, no Member State has developed fully approved fisheries management plans. Defining principal areas for fisheries, and the development of a consistent management framework of fisheries to incorporate requirements not only from Natura 2000, but also from MSFD and OSPAR/HELCOM strategies, are identfied as issues of a future CFP. IP/B/PECH/IC/ July 2010 PE EN

6

7 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF MAPS 7 LIST OF FIGURES 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 GENERAL INFORMATION 9 1. Problem formulation from a broader perspective Introductory notes Fisheries as a long-term economical and cultural factor Ecosystem approach to fisheries management: 1992 to Reconciling strategies after Key issues Outline of the study The Habitats Directive and Natura The Habitats Directive The Natura 2000 process European fisheries management and Natura The Common Fisheries Policy Management in national EEZs in relation to CFP and Natura Fisheries and Marine Spatial Planning to date: Germany Setting Natura 2000 into practice Transposition into national legislation The present Natura 2000 network Natura 2000 sites proposed inside the territorial sea Germany The Netherlands UK ICES review of rationale to develop conservation objectives Coherence Step 1 in the Natura 2000 fisheries management process: Integrating scientific advice and stakeholder participation into management The EMPAS Project/Germany The FIMPAS Project/Netherlands UK consultation process The INDEMARES project/spain The AGWINS working group/ec request The Joint Regional Advisory Councils Meeting 44 3

8 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 6. Step 2: Mapping fisheries as part of the management process Applying VMS data Main fisheries in the German EEZ Economic and socio-economic aspects of fisheries: the German EEZ Step 3: Conflict and impact assessments Impacts of fisheries on nature conservation targets Conflict potential and Impact Assessments Step 4: Developing management strategies Germany Belgium The Netherlands UK Denmark Sweden Spain Portugal Trans-boundary issues Future research and policy needs for EU fisheries management within an ecosystem based framework of Natura 2000 and MSFD Research needs Developing management measures: Combining Natura 2000, MSFD and CFP measures by means of advanced risk assessment techniques Policy need: Giving fisheries a spatial property Policy need: Resolving different national policies 73 References 77 Annex I: Appendices 81 Annex II: Natura 2000 sites in territorial and offshore waters for Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and Spain 89 Annex III: Potential conflicts for bird, mammals and fish species 95 Annex IV: Impact assessments for birds in SPA Pomeranian Bay/Baltic Sea 97 Annex V: Mapping overlaps between HD habitats and fisheries - Beam trawling around sac sylt outer reef 99 4

9 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACOM ICES Advisory Committee AGWINS ICES Ad hoc Group for Western Irish Natura Sites BD Birds Directive BfN German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) BMELV German Federal Ministry of Food, Argiculture and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) BMU German Federal Ministry of the Environmernt, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (Bundesministerium für Umwelt und Reaktorsicherheit) CFP Common Fisheries Policy DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EMPAS Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organization FCS Favourable Conservation Status FIMPAS Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas HD Habitats Directive HELCOM Helsinki Commission ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee 5

10 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies MPA Marine Protected Area MS Member State MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention RAC Regional Advisory Council SCI Site of Community Importance SAC Special area of conservation SPA Special protected area STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries VMS Vessel monitoring system 6

11 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Transposition of HD provisions into national legislation 26 Table 2: EEZ area covered by marine Natura 2000 sites for selected countries 28 Table 3: MPA size class distribution, considering nominations by November Table 4: Number of conservation objectives by SAC, German EEZ, Table 5: German gill net fleet structure in the Baltic, Table 6: Bottom trawlers by country and size class for the North Sea, Table 7: Comparison by number of Dutch and German conservation objectives for the SAC Dogger Bank, LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Natura 2000 sites in Europe 27 Map 2: Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ 29 Map 3: Principal areas for gill net fishing (GN) in the German EEZ and the 12 nmzone 49 Map 4: Principal areas for otter board trawling (OTB/PTB) in the German EEZ and the 12 nm-zone 49 Map 5: Principal areas for large beam trawlers (TBBL) in the German EEZ 50 Map 6: Principal areas for small beam trawlers (TBB) in the German EEZ and the 12 nm-zone 51 7

12 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Schematic flow chart of interrelationships between different fields of activities (as columns) associated with the German Natura 2000 process 19 Figure 2: Interrelationships between EU directives, EU competences and Member State competences exemplified for fisheries 22 Figure 3: Excerpt from Figure 2 showing how the Natura 2000 fisheries management process fits into the Natura 2000 process. Only management section shown 40 Figure 4: Schematic representation of potential interrelationships between three different fisheries and Harbour porpoise in the German Bight 54 Figure 5: Organisation scheme of inter-ministerial coordination between German ministries BMU and BMELV 58 Figure 6: Distribution of cumulative relative downside risk scores exemplified for impacts of bottom trawling on benthic communites by SAC in the German EEZ, North Sea 68 Figure 7: Distribution of upside risk by benthic assemblage under three scenarios in the German EEZ of the North Sea 71 Figure 8: Schematic flow chart of interrelationships between the three different fields of activity associated with the Dutch Natura 2000 process 74 8

13 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The European Union has issued two Directives forcing EU Member States (MS) to develop a network of marine protected areas (MPAs), i.e. the Natura 2000 network under the EU Birds Directive (BD; 79/409/EEC) and the EU Habitats Directive (HD; 92/43/EEC). Implications arise from these Directives with regard to fisheries in Natura 2000 sites, which have to be solved under the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Aim The aim of this study is to identify specific needs of the process of designating and managing a Natura 2000 network of MPAs in terms of fishery management that could be included in the future reform of the CFP, to document compliance with Natura 2000 requirements for MPAs and to document state of the art for the Natura 2000 management process with regard to fisheries. Detailed examples are given from the German EMPAS project ( ), and the Dutch FIMPAS project (2009-present). Key issues with regard to the broader context of all European maritime policies are discussed as possible elements of a reform of the CFP and future research needs. GENERAL INFORMATION KEY FINDINGS Fisheries represent a major economic and cultural factor in European maritime areas. Fisheries measures in Natura 2000 sites in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) have to be coordinated within the framework of the CFP. CFP as being dedicated to the ecosystem approach to fisheries has developed a series of indicators to underpin its environmental goal. To date, no MS has proposed a fisheries management plan for Natura 2000 marine sites. The Natura 2000 network by 2009 comprises some 2000 marine sites. Numbers and habitat coverage will increase, since several MS have not fully accomplished their nomination process. Designation statistics are different between MS with regard to area coverage, average size and number of Natura 2000 sites nominated % of the German EEZ is covered by marine Natura 2000 sites, compared to 19 % for the Netherlands, 12.3 % for Denmark and 2 % for the UK. The Natura 2000 process comprises three main steps: After site designations, based on conservation status conservation objectives have to be defined as prerequisite for the final step, i.e. developing management measures. The European Commission (EC) published guidelines for establishing fisheries measures in Natura 2000 sites. Stakeholder participation is essential for this 9

14 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies process, and MS have followed different approaches to reach this goal. Germany and the Netherlands conducted research projects in collaboration with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), to develop management plans for Natura 2000 sites. Spain developed the national project INDEMARES, and in the UK, consultation steps of the management process are worked up subsequently without having a specific project. In developing management measures, major impacts for the conservation targets need to be identfied, and their effects determined. This is mainly achieved by means of conflict and spatially resolved impact assessments. To analyse impacts, spatial patterns of fisheries have to be analysed. Examples of mapping of principal areas for fisheries are presented. However, fisheries issues are only poorly implemented into Marine Spatial Planning. For the future development of the Natura 2000 fisheries management process, three remaining key issues are identified: The CFP remains pivotal for harmonizing different national approaches in setting management objectives and goals. Multilateral consultation is required for transboundary Natura 2000 sites. For the Dogger Bank area, first informal steps were taken by governments from UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Fisheries needs to be treated as a spatially defined and confined activity. This is essential for impact and risk assessments, for developing a safe and sustainable fisheries sector, and for granting coastal fleets access to fishing grounds on a longterm perspective, since many economic activities will be competing for space in the maritime area, e.g. offshore windfarming. In combination with the other European maritime policies aiming at improving the environmental state, the CFP Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) goal, the Natura 2000 goal of reaching favourable conservation status for selected species and habitats, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) goal of reaching good environmental conditions for the entire marine ecosystem, as well as OSPAR and HELCOM policies, need to be combined under one comprehensive framework of impact assessment and management. Examples applying objectives under HD and MSFD by means of advanced risk assessment techniques are presented. Natura 2000 is a complex process comprising steps of data collection, definition of conservation objectives, impact and risk assessments and the development of management strategies for MPAs. MPAs under the Natura 2000 network are subject to many human impacts, but only issues related to fisheries fall under the competence of the CFP. Germany was the first MS to nominate marine Natura 2000 sites and to develop a coordinated international participatory process to develop fisheries management measures in Natura 2000 sites, i.e. the EMPAS project (Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Protected Areas). EMPAS has shown how a process can be initiated to involve stakeholder participation, scientific advice and management under one framework. Several management options were proposed, and CFP technical measures such as area closures can further contribute to the overall goal of improving environmental quality. 10

15 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy In 2010, the Netherlands started a follow-up project to EMPAS called FIMPAS, 'Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas', for the Dutch EEZ in cooperation with ICES. FIMPAS is the second European project to deal with Natura 2000-fisheries issues in a comprehensive way, and naturally, differences to EMPAS appear as process knowledge and experience have evolved and due to different national interpretations of the HD and BD framework and respective EC guidelines. Comparing the Dutch approach with the German approach to fisheries management shows a number of differences. The number of Dutch conservation objectives for each Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is smaller as compared to the German case. Further, site importance for species and habitats as being defined during the designation process, is also considered in the definition of conservation objectives and proposed management measures. This is shown for the Dogger Bank. On the CFP level, these discrepancies need to be resolved in order to harmonize different management schemes and to avoid discriminatory measures. A measure considered under a reformed CFP, i.e. reducing fishing effort to the level of MSY, will also lead to positive environmental effects and can be easily combined with conservation objectives within an advanced risk assessment methodology to achieve the overall goal of good environmental status together with sustainable fisheries. This would satisfy requirements from CFP, HD/BD and MSFD as well as OSPAR/HELCOM policies in one step. It is recommendable to provide a framework for such comprehensive analyses and management approaches within the CFP. 11

16 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 12

17 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 1. PROBLEM FORMULATION FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE KEY FINDINGS Marine ecosystems have responded to changes in fisheries and fishing pressure ever since fisheries started to influence the marine landscape. Marine ecosystems have a significant potential to recover. Examples are given for recent years and historical time periods. In the late 1990's, fisheries management was confronted with a new paradigm, i.e. the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. From a 2010 perspective, Natura 2000 issues in relation to fisheries must be seen in the line of the development of ecosystem approach to fisheries management, although originally the EU HD (92/43/EC) was not being implemented for the purpose of fisheries management. In 2010, OSPAR undertook effort to reconcile HD and MSFD targets under its Biological Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy in order to contribute to European maritime policies, creating a framework for an all-embracing marine policy. Thus, fisheries environment interactions will remain a key issue in the entire OSPAR/HELCOM and the EU maritime area, not only with regard to Natura Introductory notes The aim of this study is to highlight problems with the process of designating and managing a Natura 2000 network of MPAs in European waters with regard to fishery management under the European CFP. State of the art in designation and developing management strategies in Natura 2000 sites as being undertaken by MS is documented. Potential solutions for resolving remaining problems in the broader context of all European maritime policies are discussed as possible elements of a reform of the CFP and future research needs. Since only few scientific publications on this subject are available, the study to a large extent exemplifies findings from two projects dealing with Natura 2000-fisheries issues, i.e. the German EMPAS project ( ), and the Dutch FIMPAS project, for which the first workshop took place in February Further scientific work on this topic is evaluated, in particular information from an ICES workshop on Natura 2000 issues is reported as relevant to the aim of this study (ICES, 2008). To date, no European MS has presented fisheries management plans for marine Natura 2000 sites under HD or BD. Only information available so far (March 2010, where mentioned May 2010) is utilized for the purpose of this note. 13

18 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 1.2. Fisheries as a long-term economical and cultural factor Fisheries have changed over centuries and influenced the marine environment accordingly. These changes are more recent than changes in terrestrial land use in Western Europe and thus receive wide recognition in conjunction with the worldwide debate over overfishing and the loss of marine diversity. There is a history of some 250 years of intensive fishing, of which ca 150 years belong to the era of motorised fishing (see Thurstan et al., 2010). In the coastal regions, changes in fisheries had direct effects on daily lives of residents indicating the cultural importance and dependence on marine resources for the people living there. The present state of the marine environment with its productivity and biodiversity is a consequence of 150 years of intensive fishing and the responding - dynamics of the ecosystem. Fleet overcapacity as one major cause for unsustainable fisheries in the last decades and consequently excessive impacts on the environment is being consequently reduced. Recent improvements in fish stocks (cod and plaice as examples for the North Sea) as well as historical changes in Germany (the closure of German coastal fisheries during WW I, see Fock (2009)) show that marine ecosystems still have significant capacities to restore themselves to improved environmental states Ecosystem approach to fisheries management: 1992 to 2005 The EU HD (92/43/EC) entered into force in 1992, but had no immediate effect on fisheries management. It was not before the late 1990's when for the first time in history, fisheries management was confronted with a new paradigm, i.e. the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. This concept was not well focused in the beginning, but some elements soon appeared to be essential, i.e. issues of ecosystem functioning and marine nature conservation, for which the main methodological frameworks were then transferred and adapted from the terrestrial to the marine environment, i.e. impact assessment tools and area protection for conservation as part of an area based management. In 1998 at the Ministerial Meeting in Sintra representing 15 European states and the EC, OSPAR Ministers agreed to promote the establishment of a network of MPAs and following a period of preparatory work, the 2003 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Bremen adopted recommendation 2003/3 with the purpose of establishing an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs in the North-East Atlantic by The aims of the OSPAR network of MPAs were: to protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have been adversely affected by human activities; to prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle; to protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area. OSPAR s Quality Status Report 2000, and later also in 2010, identified fisheries as one of the human activities with the highest impact on the marine environment. The impacts included inter alia exploitation of fish stocks beyond safe biological limits, disturbance to sea bed communities and habitats by fishing gears, and by-catch of non-target species including marine mammals and birds. 14

19 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy In 2002, the Bergen Declaration 1 (2002) recognised that potential conflicts exist between human activities and nature restoration objectives, and in 2003 the OSPAR Strategy for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Summary Record 03/17/1-E, Annex 31) identified conservation issues with regard to commercial fish species and benthic habitats, although it did not explicitly focus on the role of fisheries. So far, Natura 2000 issues were not addressed in particular by the OSPAR strategies, but the underlying principle of the ecosystem approach has become the key principle in the understanding and management of fisheries in the North-East Atlantic. Still no approved guidance for the establishment for marine offshore Natura 2000 sites in the EU was available, since the initial position of a number of MS was to see their obligations restricted to territorial waters, i.e. up to 12 nautical miles from the baselines. The Commission has consistently challenged this, arguing for a more extensive scope since, clearly, the protection of marine habitats and species, which are included in the annexes of the Directives, cannot be adequately achieved in such a limited area. This opinion was confirmed by the position of the European Court of Justice delivered in the judgement of case C-6/04 of 20 October Reconciling strategies after 2005 Until 2005, little progress was seen for implementing HD into the marine realm. In May 2007, the EC published guidelines for establishing Natura 2000 sites in the marine environment 2, followed in 2008 by guidelines for fisheries measures in Natura 2000 sites 8, establishing a first link between fisheries policy and Natura Also in the 2007 guidelines, a clear reference was made to the OSPAR goal of establishing a network of MPAs. In 2008, with new environmental elements in the CFP (e.g. SEC(2008) 449, and 2008/949/EC) and the MSFD (2008/56/EC) as overarching principle of European maritime policies, a definite link was established between Natura 2000 and fisheries policies. In this context, the ecosystem approach to fisheries management is embedded in the concept of sustainable development, which requires that the needs of future generations are not compromised by the actions of people today 2. In 2010, OSPAR undertook effort to reconcile HD and MSFD targets under its Biological Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy (OSPAR /3/2-E) in order to contribute to European maritime policies and thus creating an all-embracing framework for environmentally based marine policies, applicable also to areas beyond European legislation. This means that the OSPAR network of MPAs is integrated into the EU HD Natura 2000 network and vice versa, and that with respect to fisheries, OSPAR will collaborate with competent fishing authorities to further develop and adapt management measures taking into account the principle of best environmental practice to achieve good environmental status. HELCOM addresses similar aims with regards to MPA networks (von Nordheim, 2007). 1 Ministerial Declaration of the Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (2002) Bergen Declaration, March

20 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 1.5. Key issues From a 2010 perspective, Natura 2000 issues in relation to fisheries must be seen in the line of the development of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management, although originally the HD was not implemented for the purpose of fisheries management when it was set into force in This means that environmental fisheries measures will not only have to be developed for the purpose of Natura 2000 and the HD, but also within the CFP and the MSFD and with regard to OSPAR/HELCOM requirements. It is much likely that in near future fisheries will be managed under commonly defined environmental standards. As mentioned before, the major tools for environmentally based fisheries policy will amongst others be environmental impact assessments and the establishment of MPAs, to define the environmental status and to preserve species and habitats. This poses four main questions in relation to marine fisheries, i.e. How can the impact of fisheries on environmental targets be described in a comparable way, so that a distinction between different types of fisheries can be made and appropriate measures can be developed, and how can these measures be developed in an integrative way to meet more than only Natura 2000 requirements? How can the spatial dimensions of fisheries be described, so that we can understand the effects of potential fisheries closures with respect to MPAs both for fisheries and the environment? This means, fisheries has to become part of marine spatial planning. How can decision finding procedures and processes be developed in order to initiate a management process capable of fulfilling the specific Natura 2000 needs with regard to stakeholder participation, scientific advice and regional requirements? With regard to nature conservation, it is important to solve problems associated with habitats and species with trans-boundary distributions to apply the same level of measures throughout the entire EU maritime area. Points 1, 2 and 4 are currently not resolved but solutions are in progress, whereas for question 3 several models have been developed by different European MS Outline of the study The HD/Natura 2000 issues and fisheries management are documented separately, before stepwise the process of developing fisheries management in Natura 2000 areas as undertaken by MS is analysed. Finally, it is addressed how remaining gaps with regard to the key issues outlined above and the CFP could be resolved. 16

21 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 2. THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE AND NATURA 2000 KEY FINDINGS Protected areas under BD are included in the HD Natura 2000 network. The Natura 2000 process consists of the nomination and designation of MPAs, the definition of conservation status and conservation objectives and the development of management strategies after the conservation status of target species/habitats has been monitored The Habitats Directive The HD (92/43/EC) shall contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (HD Art. 2(1)). HD comprises two main chapters, i.e. the conservation of habitats (HD Articles 3-11) and the protection of species (HD Articles 12-16). Articles include provisions on research and information and other issues. The principle of conservation of habitats introduces the area based approach to management of marine species and habitats, with the Natura 2000 network of MPAs as a means to reach favourable conservation status for the conservation targets. In turn, for fisheries management to date the regional abundance or stock based approach is prevalent. The Natura 2000 network shall be coherent and applied to habitats and species defined in HD Annexes I and II (HD Art 3). This network shall also include protected areas under the BD (79/409/EEC). Within three years after the notification of the HD, MS shall nominate candidate protected areas to EC and within six years after EC has accepted site nominations, MS shall establish national legislation to implement these areas as Special Areas of Conservation and prepare management plans. As the applicability of the HD to offshore marine waters was first questioned (see 1.3.), after 2005 the EC set a new deadline for MS to report site nominations until September Accordingly, management plans will be due by The Natura 2000 process Natura 2000 comprises a complex process of designation of sites, developing conservation objectives and finally, developing management measures. Whereas the nomination process is regularly reviewed in terms of international biogeographic seminars, the setting of objectives is yet not regularly reviewed (except in cases where ICES was involved, e.g. EMPAS and the ICES Ad hoc Group for Western Irish Natura Sites AGWINS), and each MS has developed its own rationale in setting objectives. 17

22 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Designation Natura 2000 sites are selected and designated based upon the HD and BD relevant criteria for site selection (HD Annex III). First, inventories of HD Annex species and habitats are provided. Second, each feature is evaluated in order to derive an index of importance. Criteria for HD Annex I habitats include: Representativity of habitat on selected site; Area size of habitat in selected site; Conservation of structure and function in selected habitat; Additional selection criteria. For HD Annex II species criteria include: Size and density of the population of the species present on the site in relation to the population present within the national territory; Degree of conservation of significant habitat structures for the species considered; Degree of isolation of the species considered. Each assessment is concluded with a global assessment summing up the single evaluations. Based on the global assessments, nominations are submitted to EC to seek approval for site selections. Each MS has to designate nominated sites as MPAs under national laws and has to submit management plans within six years after adopting nominations by the EC. At the end of the designation process, each site is characterized by a set of habitats and species ranked by their relative importance indicating the significance of the site for the respective conservation target (Fig. 1). HD Annex III explicitly aims at the " identification [of] sites of Community importance according to their relative value for the conservation of each natural habitat type in Annex I or each species in Annex II." Developing conservation objectives This step comprises the output from two independent preparatory steps. First, general conservation objectives are defined through HD and BD. Second, based on status assessments, these goals are refined to meet specific needs of the conservation targets. HD Article 3 states that species under Annex II and habitats under Annex I have to be maintained or restored at favourable conservation status level. This includes the avoidance of disturbance and of deterioration of habitats in so far as this could be significant to the objectives of the Directive. Further, HD Article 12 states that for protected species, deliberate actions of killing and disturbance and habitat deterioration in accordance to HD Annex IV species shall be prohibited. Incidental capture and killing shall be lowered to a level not objecting the aim of the Directive. Implementing a Natura 2000 network is only one of the means to reach favourable conservation status (FCS). This is laid down in the Commission's Note from 15 March , the so-called DocHab-04-03/03 rev. 3, which specifies that " the concept of FCS is not limited to the Natura 2000 network. FCS for habitats and species in Article 1 indicates clearly that the overall situation of species and habitats needs to be assessed and monitored However for Annex I habitats and for species only listed on Annex II the Natura 3 DG Env B2/AR D(2004) 18

23 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 2000 network is the only mechanism required by the directive." The assessment of conservation status has to be carried out on the relevant biogeographic scale for the conservation target. In the German Natura 2000 process, the conservation status is assessed for all habitats and species listed in the Natura 2000 site inventories 4. Based on DocHab-04-03/03 rev. 3 it says that " HD as a whole with all the instruments it provides for has the objective to reach FCS for all habitats and species listed in the annexes of the directive.." (underlining by author). To date this is interpreted as an obligation to define conservation objectives for all habitats and species listed in the inventories of the Natura 2000 sites regardless of their site importance. In the further process, this will have implications for management of these sites due to an elevated number of objectives. In turn, the 'relative importance' criterion for conservation targets could be an easy way to prioritize conservation objectives while developing management measures Management Management measures need to be developed in order to achieve the conservation objectives. This will be analysed in the chapters 5-8. Figure 1: Schematic flow chart of interrelationships between different fields of activities (as columns) associated with the German Natura 2000 process Source: Author 4 UK pursues a key species concept, for which objectives will be set only for a reduced number of indicator species (ICES, 2008). 19

24 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 20

25 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 3. EUROPEAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND NATURA 2000 KEY FINDINGS Fisheries measures in Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ have to be coordinated within the framework of the CFP. The CFP as being dedicated to the ecosystem approach to fisheries has developed a series of indicators to underpin its environmental goal. Fisheries are poorly implemented in Marine Spatial Planning The Common Fisheries Policy Fisheries management is an exclusive competence of the European Union referring to the conservation of marine biological resources (Treaty of Lisbon, Art. 2B, Art. 32). Current CFP was set into force January 1, 2003 as a new common fisheries policy. The major text is Council Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. The 2003 reform of the CFP offers better prospects of securing the future of the European fisheries sector for the benefit of all, including the fishing sector and also the marine environment. As such, the CFP establishes the protection of the marine environment as one of its major targets. In relation to the environment, the CFP shall provide for coherent measures concerning conservation, management, and exploitation of living aquatic resources and limitation of the environmental impact of fishing. The main objective of the CFP is to ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. For this purposes, the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimize the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. It shall aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem based approach to fisheries management. A further reform of the CFP is under way 5 with a main focus of integrating the CFP into the European Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) framework 6, so that " future CFP must be set up to provide the right instruments to support the ecosystem approach" Management in national EEZs in relation to CFP and Natura 2000 Pursuant to the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the marine environment, the CFP includes several measures to limit environmental impacts of fishing 7. Accordingly, the EC has published a communication to ensure the development of indicators to support the CFP in line with the implementation and the requirements of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (SEC(2008) 449, and 2008/949/EC). The reduction of environmental impacts is further linked to measures such as the Natura 2000 network of MPAs under the EU HD. 5 COM(2009)163 6 COM(2007)

26 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies However, HD in turn includes no direct reference to CFP. The environmental aspects of CFP also refer to the objectives of the MSFD aiming at good environmental status for the marine environment in general (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, nature conservation by means of the BD and the HD, and socioeconomic issues mainly apply to competences of MS, creating an overlap between EU and MS competences in a practical way in that national Natura 2000 sites need to be issued as ordinances under national legislations, after EC has accepted nominations and has listed the sites. Further overlap appears in the assessment of the degree of completeness of nominations to EC for potential areas under HD and BD. These evaluations are carried out in terms of biogeographical seminars, and national contributions are evaluated based on criteria from HD and BD. MS with small numbers of nominated sites may have to improve nominations until coverage is considered complete (Appendix 1). For in-site nature conservation management, overlap between MS and EC competences appears with respect to fisheries management. With particular reference to Natura 2000 sites, the EC published guidelines on a consistent approach to fisheries management 8. MS can take non-discriminatory measures within 12 nautical miles of their coast, if the EC has not adopted measures specifically for this area. MS can further take discriminatory measures, but for their national fleet only. For EEZ MPAs, MS shall make proposals for request for fisheries management to the EC applying to the international fleet, so that the measures can be implemented within the framework of CFP. Figure 2: Interrelationships between EU directives, EU competences and Member State competences exemplified for fisheries. Relationships to OSPAR/HELCOM strategies not included. EU: circles, national/ms: boxes; directives: dotted line, executive competence: full line Quota, techn. measures, Closures, MSY Marine Strategy FD CFP Fisheries Other marine uses National competence, e.g.msp, Environmental & Socio-economic issues Natura 2000 Source: Author

27 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Since often access is granted to the 12 nm-zone for vessels from neighbouring MS by means of measures established by the EC within this zone (e.g for the German EEZ 9 ), in such cases issues with regard to coastal fisheries also have to be treated within CFP Improving the planning and consultation process First steps towards the management process were developed by the ICES working group AGWINS in 2007, dealing with a request from DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs on the evaluation of marine Natura 2000 sites in Ireland (ICES, 2007a). In view of the interest by the Commission in developing general criteria and principles for this advice, the response included a checklist of items that could be considered when evaluating future requests. The working group stated that " although it is the responsibility of each Member State to interpret the HD in the most appropriate way, it will improve the consultation process if a consistent approach is adopted. The following ten steps will help with the assessment of proposals for fisheries management measures at Natura 2000 sites. 1. Are specific conservation objectives for all habitats and species at the site available and clearly justified? 2. How well are the presence and distribution of the conservation features at the site known, based on reliable evidence and scientific records/observation? 3. Is the basis for the spatial extent of the site boundary clearly explained and justified in terms of the conservation objectives? 4. Are the threats to habitats and species from different types of fishing gears understood and documented, and have they been explained to all stakeholders including relevant RACs? 5. Is the fine-scale and broad-scale distribution of fleets (by nation, gear and species) described for the site and the region, and is there associated information on target and by-catch species? 6. Is there any information on seasonal trends in fisheries? 7. Are there any cumulative or in-combination effects to be considered? 8. Which fisheries management measures, if any, are necessary and sufficient to maintain the habitat features in favourable condition; and are they proportionate, and enforceable? 9. Are any proposed buffer zones proportionate to ensure full site protection and/or effective monitoring? 10. What measures would be necessary to monitor and assess the maintenance and/or recovery of the interest features within the site? Are they in place? Further work may be necessary to refine this checklist, and ICES would welcome further discussion with the Commission and other experts to ensure that future requests of this sort can be undertaken quickly and effectively." The EU guidelines on fisheries management in Natura 2000 sites 4 take account of the ICES advice. The effect of displacement of fisheries after area closures is addressed as further issue. 9 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December

28 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Duplicate in-site Natura 2000 management regimes possible Because areas may be assigned under both HD and BD, different management regimes might apply to them with regard to national and CFP competences. By 2009, two German areas have been formally assigned MPA status under national law, i.e. the bird protection areas 'Pomeranian Bay' in the Baltic and the 'Eastern German Bight' in the North Sea (Appendix 2, Map 1). The respective national ordinances indicate that commercial fisheries is permitted without restrictions. Since the bird protection areas have also been nominated as SACs under HD although with slightly different boundaries, a further management regime will be developed for the same area to be implemented under CFP. Further double nominations under HD and BD can be found for some areas in the Baltic Sea (Map 2) Fisheries and Marine Spatial Planning to date: Germany With MPAs as basic spatial unit for Natura 2000, fisheries management becomes an issue of marine spatial planning to meet the requirements of HD and BD. So far, spatial regimes for fisheries management have been developed as exclusive technical measures under CFP, leading to area closures. Examples are the so-called 'Plaice-Box' in the North Sea (850/1998/EC) and the 'Odra Bank Closure' in the Baltic (2187/2005/EC). In 2002, the Bergen Declaration 10 (2002) recognised that potential conflicts exist between human activities and nature restoration objectives, and OSPAR was mandated to evaluate the current state of uses in the North Sea and to further develop tools for marine spatial planning under its Biodiversity strategy. Thus, as for many other areas worldwide, marine spatial planning in Europe has received a more sectoral perspective inspired by nature conservation issues (Douvere et al., 2007; Symes, 2005). For the German EEZ, marine spatial planning has mainly been adopted for the purpose of designating Natura 2000 sites under BD and HD and for defining preferential areas for offshore wind energy facilities, but not for fisheries despite its high economic importance and long cultural tradition. The MSFD (2008/56/EC) through its Annex VI implicitly warrants coordination of maritime human activities in time and space. However, for example the new Plan on Marine Spatial Management for the German EEZ (Raumordnung in der deutschen AWZ), published in two parts (North Sea: September 21, 2009 (BGBl. I p.3107), Baltic Sea: December 19, 2009 (BGBl. I p.3861)), does not account for spatial requirements of fisheries. 10 Ministerial Declaration of the Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (2002) Bergen Declaration, March

29 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 4. SETTING NATURA 2000 INTO PRACTICE KEY FINDINGS HD and BD provisions need to be transposed into national legislation, and national responsibilities to lead the Natura 2000 process are to be assigned. In 2009, the Natura 2000 marine network comprises some 2000 sites with increasing tendency, since several MS have to submit further nominations due to incomplete habitat coverage achieved to date % of the German EEZ is covered by marine Natura 2000 sites, compared to 19 % for the Netherlands, 12.3 % for Denmark and 2 % for the UK. Conservation objectives are exemplified for the habitat type sandbanks in the German EEZ, where generic objectives with direct reference to HD were applied and the conservation status of sandbanks in the German EEZ is assessed as unknown. Conservation objectives aim at reaching a favourable conservation status. ICES reviewed the rationale of setting conservation objectives when the favourable conservation status is unknown, and recommended in such cases clear definitions of goals to be reached. Based on knowledge from several ecosystem studies it is concluded that with the present setting of Natura 2000 sites coherence of habitats and species in the marine environment is maintained Transposition into national legislation National constitutional provisions determine the terms of policy under which the Natura 2000 offshore network and management can be established after the HD and BD provisions have been implemented into national legislation. In federal states or states with autonomous regions, further transposition is required with respect to intra-governmental consultation processes and responsibilities. As for Germany, new procedural steps had to be developed for this consultation process on the national level (see ). Nature conservation issues are in the responsibilities of the Federal (for the EEZ) as well as of the state Ministries of the Environment (for territorial seas), or ministries that take respective duties and responsibilities. As such, these institutions were identified on the standard data forms for site nominations during the designation process. These legal authorities are also responsible for the elaboration of Natura 2000 site management plans ensuring the favourable conservation status. At state level, respective state authorities are in charge of the Natura 2000 process. In Germany, to provide legal competence, in 2009 the new Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG, BGBL I 51, 2542, Table 6) entered into force, including an explicit reference to Natura 2000 networks and marine nature conservation. For the first time, the German Federal Government has received full responsibilities for protected areas in the EEZ, since before responsibilities were only assigned to German states with regard to coastal waters, i.e. the territorial sea. 25

30 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 1: Transposition of HD provisions into national legislation Belgium Country Denmark France Transposition into national legislation Protection of the Marine Environment (MMM law) Order No. 782 on the Demarcation and Administration of International Conservation Areas 1998 Decree no ; Environment Code Article L Germany Federal Conservation Act 2009 Greece Ireland Land-use planning and sustainable development Law 2742/ European Community (Natural Habitats) Regulations SI No. 94/ Date issued MB 12/03/1999 from January 20, 1999 May 5, 1995; and February 26, 1999 Italy Presidential Decree No 357 September 8, 1997 The Netherlands Portugal Amendment to the Nature Conservation Act Law Decree No. 140/99; and Law Decree for the Sectoral Plan for the N2000 (DLR Nº 20/2006/A). No date Spain Royal Decree 1997/ Sweden Nature Protection Act SFS 1998: UK Packages for each Natura 2000 site under Regulation 33 of the Conservation Regulation (Natural Habitats & c.) 1994 April 24, 1999; and 2006 Source: Bord Iascaigh Mhara and University of St Andrews (2010) 4.2. The present Natura 2000 network The Natura 2000 network comprises Sites of Community Importance (SCI) according to the HD requirements, which after designation become Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), as well as Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the BD. 21 MS have submitted some marine 2000 site nominations by November With regard to SPAs under the BD, nominations from 8 MS are considered complete, whereas 13 MS have to improve coverage of areas (Appendix 1). For SCI, 5 MS have reached complete coverage, whereas 16 MS have to improve nominations. Proportions of area in the EEZ covered by Natura 2000 sites are different between MS, ranging from 31.5 % in Germany, to approximately 2 % as indicated for UK (Table 2). The distribution of MPAs is presented in Map 1, based on nominations until July Some countries have achieved considerable improvements in site coverage since then. Thus, updated figures for the Netherlands, UK and Spain are available (Annex II C, D, F). 26

31 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Map 1: Natura 2000 sites in Europe. Date published December Considers sites nominated until July Updated figures for Spain, the Netherlands and UK shown in Annex II B and C. Colour code: Green SPAs according to BD, brown SACs according to HD. Brownish-green double nominations under both HD and BD Source: DG ENV Natura 2000 website 27

32 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies The average size of Natura 2000 sites is different between MS. The main size class are sites with less than 100 km² area (Table 3). Few relatively large sized areas (ca 1000 km²) are designated in the German, Danish, Polish and Dutch EEZ. However, area size is not a stand-alone value for MPAs, since well managed small areas may contribute in equal terms to favourable conservation status of ecosystem targets as compared to large sites with only little effective management regulation. Table 2: EEZ area covered by marine Natura 2000 sites for selected countries. COUNTRY % of EEZ covered Germany 31.5 The Netherlands 19 Denmark 12.3 UK 2 Source: National websites Table 3: MPA size class distribution, considering nominations by November 2009 MPA size class by MS SPA/BD SCI/HD No data km² > km² 5 5 > km² 4 2 Source: Author Data provided in Appendix 1. 28

33 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Map 2: Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ Source: Pedersen et al. (2009a) Box : Germany's offshore Natura 2000 sites Germany's offshore Natura 2000 sites In Germany, 31.5 % of the EEZ are covered by the Natura 2000 network, which is the highest value found among MS (Table 2). In some areas, sites under HD and BD overlap spatially. In the Baltic, overlap exists for the Pomeranian Bay with a complex of 3 SACs ('Western Rönne Bank', 'Adlergrund' and 'Pomeranian Bay and Odra Bank', Map 2 ; No.s 3-5) and the SPA 'Pomeranian Bay'. In the North Sea, the SAC Sylt outer reef and the SPA Eastern German Bight overlap considerably. Only the German SPAs under BD have so far achieved national legal status as MPA, i.e. bird protection area (see Appendix 2). Respective nominations for other EEZ sites pending. The full list of Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ is North Sea 1 - Dogger Bank (SAC) 2 - Sylt outer reef (SAC) 3 Borkum reef ground (SAC) 4 Eastern German Bight (SPA) Baltic Sea 1 - Fehmarn Belt (SAC) 2 Kadet trench (SAC) 3 - Western Rönne Bank (SAC) 4 - Adlerground (SAC) 5 - Pomeranian Bay and Odra Bank (SAC) 6 - Pomeranian Bay (SPA) 29

34 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 4.3. Natura 2000 sites proposed inside the territorial sea The EC guidelines on establishing marine Natura 2000 sites 2 distinguish between nominations in the 12 nm-zone, referred to as 'territorial sea', and nominations in the EEZ, i.e. beyond the 12 nm-zone and within a 200 nm limit. The landward limit of the coastal 'territorial sea' is determined by the 'internal waters', which are regulated under the Water Framework Directive. MS have proposed mainly sites in their territorial seas, due to the inventory of habitats covered by HD Annex I Germany In federal states, nominations in territorial waters are to be submitted by the respective regional authoritative bodies. In Germany, the German states (Länder) have submitted respective lists to the EC, covering habitats within the 12 nm-zone. Areas are mapped in Annex II A, B. Submissions took place in 2005 and 2006, after the initial submission of the site proposals for the EEZ (Appendix 2). Whereas Schleswig-Holstein as one of the German states has submitted proposals with site locations connected to the offshore sites as submitted by the German federal government, the states of Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have not. Here, areas were proposed in close distance to the coast, not connected to the EEZ designated sites (Annex II A, B). Most of the marine sites in the 12 nm-zone have achieved legal protection under states' nature protection laws. The Wadden Sea has further achieved status of UNESCO World Heritage site in Natura 2000 sites are more diverse in coastal areas. As such, the Wadden Sea for instance comprises 6 aquatic habitat types without considering vegetated salt marshes: Sandbanks, slightly covered by sea water (code 1110) Estuaries (code 1130) Tidal flats without vegetation (code 1140) Coastal lagoons (code 1150) Shallow marine bights, seagrass meadows (code 1160) Reefs (code 1170) The Netherlands With centralised responsibilities in the Dutch government, the Netherlands proposed one site in their territorial sea (12 nm) in conjunction with the German Natura 2000 designations in the Wadden Sea area (Annex II C), indicating a likely tacit cooperation between German Länder (here: Niedersachsen) and the Dutch government. Two further sites have been proposed in the Voordelta-area. The designated borders of the sites fall into territorial waters and are not connected to the offshore sites in the EEZ UK In UK, many proposed Natura 2000 sites cover both areas inside territorial waters and the EEZ, dependent on the limitations of the habitat considered (Annex II E)

35 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy France France was on target to finish adopting Natura 2000 to the sea by June 2008, to create ten marine nature parks covering large areas by 2012, and had already developed a coastal zone strategy that takes seabirds into account. Draft management plans will be available in France considers various types of MPAs such as marine parks to take into account the different activities that occur around the Atlantic and English Channel coasts. The first marine park was set up in Brittany in 2007 and covers more than 2000 sq miles. Its boundaries are currently considered temporary and flexible for a trial period. It is expected that marine parks will cover some 30-40% of French territorial waters and in Western France some are expected to extend beyond the 12 mile limit, although with the start of the designation process, emphasis was put on territorial waters (North Sea Regional Advisory Council, 2008) Germany HD sites in the EEZ (SACs) In May 2004, Germany was the first MS to nominate a comprehensive set of 10 SACs as Natura 2000 marine sites to the EC, covering 31.5% of its offshore EEZs in the Baltic and North seas. The rationale behind the selection of the individual sites is described by Krause et al. (2006). After the revision of the German Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) in 2002, a survey programme was launched to locate habitats and species from HD Annex I and Annex II (Appendices 3 and 4). Site selection was accomplished by means of HD Annex III Stage I criteria. For SACs, results of the finding process are summarized in Appendices 3 and 4. Only two HD habitat types were discovered in the German EEZ: Marine reefs (code 1170) and Sandbanks, slightly covered by seawater (code 1110) This category has been modified to include offshore banks to 20 m water depth (Dogger Bank). The 'relative importance' of each site for certain conservation targets is presented on Standard data forms for the Natura 2000 sites BD sites in the EEZ (SPAs) Two areas were designated as SPAs and nominated to the EC. They have obtained legal status on national level as bird protection areas under the Federal Nature Conservation Law (Appendix 2)

36 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Box: Inventory of species in the SAC Sylter outer reef The SAC Sylt outer reef Natura 2000 species and habitats inventory and evaluation for site importance To exemplify the process for the SAC Sylt outer reef/north Sea, the following ranking according to their 'relative importance' according to HD Annex III is obtained (A highest value, to D not assessed; H habitat, S - species): Harbour porpoise S Reefs H Sandbanks H Grey seal S Harbour seal S Twaite shad S River lamprey S A B B B B C C Source: BfN, Preliminary conservation objectives Within the EMPAS project, preliminary conservation objectives were provided for the Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ (Appendix 5). As example, preliminary objectives are described for sandbanks. The aim is defined as the conservation and/or recovery of the current ecological quality, habitat structure and surface area of the habitat type the characteristic morphological and hydrological dynamics and the typical species and communities in their largely natural population dynamics the characteristic benthic communities of habitat 1110 and its characteristic species. It is clear that these objectives are generic and directly follow the text from HD Article 1 (e) and (i) with respect to the definition of the favourable conservation status. Thus, the definition of preliminary conservation objectives and the aim of reaching favourable conservation status are mutually dependent on each other. For habitats, according to HD favourable conservation status is obtained " when: its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i); " For species favourable conservation status is obtained " when: population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis; " For Harbour porpoise, additionally 'natural genetic diversity' is defined as conservation target. Together with aspects of migration, this is direct reference to HD Article 10 (see Appendix 5). 32

37 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Assessment of favourable conservation status Essential to the final definition of conservation objectives is the assessment of the conservation status of Natura 2000 habitats and species. The favourable status of both species and habitats have to be evaluated for the total area within each biogeographic region of the MS. In 2007, Germany prepared its national report for the years on the conservation status of the species and habitats following the specific guidance of the Commission (Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation status Preparing the report under the HD Article 17 (DocHab 04 03/03 rev.3)). For the German North Sea and Baltic Sea the results of the national report are summarised in Appendix 6. For North Sea habitats, only intertidal mudflats reach a favourable state. For the following features not being in favourable state measures should be developed to improve their status: North Sea 12 nm-zone Estuaries, lagoons 12 nm-zone and EEZ Reefs River lamprey, Sea lamprey, Allis shad, Twaite shad, Grey seal, Harbour porpoise Baltic Sea 12 nm-zone Estuaries, lagoons, shallow Bights 12 nm-zone and EEZ mudflats River lamprey, Allis shad, Twaite shad, Grey seal, Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal Specific HD conservation objectives For each of the 10 Natura 2000 offshore sites, specific conservation objectives have been defined 13. These objectives cover the complete inventory of HD Annex I habitats and Annex II species found inside the SACs (Table 4). Restoration objectives have not been adopted in cases when existing knowledge did not support the definition of such aims. As an example, these are described for the habitat type 'sandbanks' in the SAC Sylt outer reef/north Sea. Nine objectives and three specifications of objectives are defined. Terms are mainly generic and refer more or less directly to the definiton of the favourable conservation status in the HD Directive. It is noteworthy that for restoration objectives and the maintenance of ecological functions, natural conditions are referred to as background or baseline conditions (see Text Box). The species list refers to broadly defined (genera or family level) and/or ubiquituous species (shellfish genera Spisula, Mactra; or polychaete genera Goniadella, Protodorviella), in contrast to the specific requirements formulated by HD, referring to typically or characteristic species (see Text Box). This low degree of precision could be due to the lack of knowledge for the habitat type 1110, which correspondingly has reached the conservation status 'unknown' both in the North Sea and the Baltic (see Appendix 6)

38 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies HD conservation objectives in the 12 nm-zone In Germany, the German states, e.g. Schleswig-Holstein, have developed conservation objectives in line with the procedure developed by the Federal government BD objectives Since the two German SPAs according to BD have achieved national legal status by September 23, 2005, objectives are documented in the respective ordinances (September 15, 2005; BGBL I p. 2782). Table 4: Number of conservation objectives by SAC, German EEZ, Area SAC No. of HD annex species/habitats No. of conservation and restoration objectives No. of further specifications North Sea Sylt outer reef Borkum reef ground Doggerbank Baltic Sea Fehmarn Belt Kadet trench Adler ground Western Rönne bank Pomeranian Bay and Odra bank Source: Author, according to information from BfN website 14 DL/Amtsblatt FFH PDF,templateId= raw,property=publicationfile.pdf 34

39 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Box: Conservation objective for the Sylt outer reef Specific conservation objectives for the SAC Sylt outer reef / Germany General objective - To achieve maintenance and restoration of favourable conservation status for habitat type 'sandbank' (Code 1110), characteristic and endangered communities and species; Specific objectives -Maintenance of the current ecological quality, habitat structure and range for habitat type 1110; - Maintenance of the characteristic morphodynamics and hydrodynamics, determined by tidal currents and discharge from river Elbe, and the corresponding characteristic species and communities with near natural population dynamics; - Maintenance of typical benthic communities for habitat type 1110 and their charcteristic species within the range of their natural distribution and population dynamics, e.g. Spisula sp. Thracia sp. Goniadella bobretzkii, Protodorviella kefersteini, Branchiostoma lanceolatum, Mactra sp., Donax vittatus and typical fish species such as Callionymus sp., Rajidae and Soleidae. - Maintenance of the natural morphodynamics and ecological functions of the Amrumbank, in particular - As stepping stone for the distribution of benthos in the German Bight - As recovery area and refuge for benthic fauna with regard to disturbances, e.g. extremely cold winters - As starting point and distribution corridor for recolonizing surrounding areas with benthic species. Restoration objectives - To achieve restoration of structures in favourable status in the entire area for habitat type code Abiotic and biotic features in the area shall obtain a status that gives benthic communities the possibility to reach favourable conservation status and maintain it - Benthic communities shall comprise characteristic species, in particular long-lived species. From these species, a typical natural size and age structure shall be present - Characteristic fish species shall be present in the characteristic population structure and in all abundance, size and age categories typical for local natural conditions " Source: BfN The Netherlands The marine ecosystem is regarded as a very complex system, whereby a subtle interplay between climate, currents, nutrients, sediment and substrate characteristics, fisheries and the intrinsic properties of organisms determines the shape and composition of the system. It is assumed that over space and time, this system manifests itself in different forms, which are sometimes constant for a while but may also suddenly change, the so called regime shifts. This variability and these shifts pose a major problem in establishing ecological objectives and management measures. To overcome this problem it has been suggested not to use objectives such as numbers and presence of specific organisms or groups of organisms, but to determine the desired types of habitat. Then the effects and intensities of the different human uses can be 35

40 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies adapted to the desired level of protection leading to more natural types of habitat with their coupled (shifting) ecosystem. So to reach the desired habitat development it has been suggested to focus more on presence/absence of human activities such as fisheries than on the state of the ecosystem expressed in numbers of organisms (ICES 2008) UK Owing to the diversity of the UK sites detailed lists of species are not regarded as appropriate tool to prepare specific conservation objectives. Instead, with regard to defining objectives, the UK aims at a key species concept. In practice, a two step approach is undertaken: Species that have been found on sites will be listed in the Site Assessment Documents For each site, a list of typical species is defined for which conservation objectives are being defined. This was completed in The conservation status of the site has been assessed in the Site Assessment Documents. This is very coarse as the information available for the sites is limited e.g. accurate figures for feature extent are not possible. If there is evidence of damage to the feature then the Site Assessment Documents have stated this and the conservation objectives will state that the feature is to be restored. Absolute values are not required for this, and thresholds as such will not be used, rather it is expected that activities should not have a detrimental impact on sites. The aim will be to maintain or restore the features based on the assumption that removal or prevention of damaging activities will result in a more favourable or maintained favourable condition (ICES 2008). An example for the key species concept is given for the Braemar Pockmarks Submarine Structure SAC ICES review of rationale to develop conservation objectives In 2008, the ICES Workshop on Natura 2000 and Related Requests reviewed the rationale behind setting conservation objectives (ICES, 2008). It was stated that "an important principle behind the establishment of Natura 2000 sites in European Seas (and MPA globally) is a clear understanding of what is being achieved i.e. what is the target state of the marine environment that managers must aim for? If it is assumed that the objective is not to return the seas a pristine state (which would of course mean no human activities) then some level of sustainable development must be agreeable to all parts of society." However, it is unclear whether reaching of favourable conservation status is per se achieved under sustainable development. This requires further discussion and advice, and will be reiterated in chapter 9.2. Target levels of status for many habitats and species will not be easily defined with regard to pristine levels or to sustainability, so that conservation objectives need to be defined very clearly on the basis of data being available. State trends could be used in order to indicate the improved state in such context. 36

41 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Box : The key species concept for the Braemar Pockmarks Submarine structures The Conservation Objectives for the Braemar Pockmarks Submarine structures made by leaking gases subject to natural change, maintain the submarine structures made by leaking gases in favourable condition, such that: (a) The natural environmental and ecological processes of Submarine structures made by leaking gases are maintained. (b) The extent, distribution, diversity and characteristic species composition of biological communities representative of Submarine structures made by leaking gases in the northern North Sea are maintained. To fulfil the conservation objectives for the Annex I Submarine structures made by leaking gases, the competent authorities for this area are advised to manage human activities within their remit such that they do not result in deterioration or disturbance of this feature through any of the following: i) Physical damage by Changes in suspended sediment (demersal fishing), or Physical disturbance or abrasion (demersal fishing); ii) Toxic contamination by Introduction of Synthetic and/or Non-synthetic compounds (pollution from oil and gas industry); iii) Non-toxic contamination by Changes in turbidity (demersal fishing); iv) Biological disturbance by Selective extraction of species (demersal fishing). Within the Braemar Pockmarks SAC, the following offshore activity is likely to result in damage to the interest features, and is not subject to prior authorisation or licensing. It is, therefore, currently considered to pose a high risk of damage to the interest features of the SAC: Demersal fishing The sensitivity assessments for the features of the Braemar Pockmarks SAC are drawn principally from an evaluation of the sensitivity of the following biotope type/key species, (which is comparable to that present within the SAC): Faunal and algal crusts, Echinus esculentus, sparse Alcyonium digitatum and grazing-tolerant fauna on moderately exposed circalittoral rock (type code MCR.FaAlC). Source: JNCC, 2007 Comparing statements by Germany, the Netherlands and UK in the above section highlights two different approaches in setting conservation objectives. The German approach refers to the full text of the respective HD articles, with reference levels of abundance or state of protected species and habitats that are not known yet, and which are often referred to as natural level. In the Dutch and UK approach, the definition of conservation targets is expressed mainly as absence of stress and negative impact. The rationale stated by the ICES workshop is pragmatic and differs from the approach of referring to unknown natural background conditions as done by Germany. 37

42 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies The absence of negative impact as management goal is a straightforward concept. It is an essential element in the upside risk assessment procedure outlined in chapter 9.2 to define and achieve management goals Coherence The Natura 2000 network has to be coherent. Many studies on the dynamics of fish and invertebrate populations support the view that with respect to the SACs in the German EEZ and the proposed sites in neighbouring MS coherence is achieved with a very high likelihood of sufficient exchange process. One of the most recent studies in that respect is the Study for the Revision of the Plaice Box (Beare et al., 2010). 38

43 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 5. STEP 1 IN THE NATURA 2000 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROCESS: INTEGRATING SCIENTIFIC ADVICE AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION INTO MANAGEMENT KEY FINDINGS The key task for management is to implement conservation measures with regard to all impacts affecting the conservation status. The EC guidelines to develop fisheries measures require the integration of stakeholder participation and scientific advice into the management process, and MS pursued this goal in different ways. The EC requested scientific advice from ICES on Irish MPAs, which was provided through the working group AGWINS. Germany conducted the research project EMPAS in collaboration with ICES to develop management plans for Natura 2000 sites. It was an open process. The Netherlands developed the FIMPAS project, also in collaboration with ICES, as a project based on strictly defined settings outlined by agreements signed with Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO) and stakeholders prior to the start of FIMPAS. In UK, no integrative project was established so far. Process steps are worked up subsequently within normal participation procedures. In Spain, the INDEMARES project was launched, in order to define Natura 2000 areas and collect scientific information needed for the management process. Stakeholder participation is less strongly implemented. The key task for management is to implement conservation measures to eliminate effects produced by fisheries and by other human activities so that the desired conservation status can be reached (Fig. 3). One of the key issues in chapter 1 was to define and facilitate a process that leads to consensual management schemes, integrating stakeholder participation, scientific advice and regional requirements. The EC guidelines to develop fisheries measures require the integration of stakeholder participation and scientific advice into the management process 8. Five different approaches are presented below. In many MS the development of fisheries management options requires more scientific input than presently available. However, only Spain undertakes direct research to gain knowledge needed to solve the Natura 2000 tasks. In turn, Germany and the Netherlands set a focus on process development to integrate all societal groups. Further, Germany, the Netherlands have requested scientific advice and evaluation from ICES, as did the EC with respect to sites nominated by Ireland. 39

44 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 3: Excerpt from Figure 2 showing how the Natura 2000 fisheries management process fits into the Natura 2000 process. Only management section is shown. " " indicate any impact relevant for the conservation target. Management Conservation measures Conservation objectives... Fisheries... Source: Author Participation provides the opportunity to take part in discussions, to have access to documentation and to express and explain views. In doing so, participants share their knowledge and expertise for the benefit of a balanced end result. The first approach described below is an open workshop process without any presettings between management, science and stakeholders, and where parties participated voluntarily and upon invitation under the auspices of ICES (EMPAS - Germany). The second approach is to start on pre-defined terms, where stakeholders, science and management have agreed on a common procedure before the integration process began (FIMPAS the Netherlands). Thirdly, the different steps are not integrated into one project but are worked up subsequently and are conducted by governmental authorities and normal participation processes. An example is given from the UK. As a fourth example, the Spanish and AGWINS approaches are described. In both cases, a strong focus in the project outline is set on integrating scientific advice. Stakeholder participation is not established to the same degree as for the EMPAS and FIMPAS projects. In Spain, a research project has been initiated to provide knowledge needed for the impact assessments. For marine sites in Ireland, ICES was asked to provide evaluation on the marine management schemes and therefore established the working group AGWINS. Finally, opposite to the projects with mainly scientific contents, a platform with mainly stakeholder participation is described, i.e. the joint Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) meeting on offshore MPAs in

45 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 5.1. The EMPAS Project/Germany In February 2006, ICES in collaboration with the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) as department of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (BMU) started the project Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Protected Areas (EMPAS). EMPAS was the first project on European level to aim at developing fishery management plans for the Natura 2000 sites within an EEZ, i.e the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. In Germany, fisheries administration and nature conservation are represented by two different federal ministries, i.e. the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), and BMU. Managed by ICES, EMPAS was an open workshop with stakeholders, science and management representatives from the German federal ministries and neighbouring states being invited. At the start of the project, methodology, compilation of relevant data (fisheries, HD Annex habitats and species) and definiton of conservation objectives had to be carried out in order to meet Natura 2000 requirements. The project undertook pioneering steps to analyse fisheries and nature conservation objectives, to analyse interactions and potential conflicts between them and to provide the first steps towards developing management solutions. The project ended in 2008 with a series of relevant reports (e.g. ICES, 2009) and a scientific evaluation of the project results through the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) 15. ACOM is the sole competent body for ICES for scientific advice in support of the management of coastal and ocean resources and ecosystems. It designs strategies and processes for preparation of advice, manage advisory processes, and create and deliver advice, subject to direction from ICES. The content of scientific advice is solely ACOM s responsibility not subject to modification by any other ICES entity. Furthermore, ACOM shall provide input to the science strategic discussions on advisory research needs. The Committee worked on the basis of scientific analysis prepared in the ICES expert groups and the EMPAS project and the advisory process included peer review of the analysis before it was used as basis for the advice. Two shortcomings must be mentioned with regard to the EMPAS project. First, German fisheries representatives did not take part at any time of the process, although Danish and Dutch fishermen organizations did. Thus, stakeholder participation was insufficient. Secondly, despite the independent and dedicated scientific consultation process, the ICES advice was heavily criticized by the client, i.e. BfN, requesting more advice in fields, which did not pass the peer review and where scientific evidence was lacking. This critique was rejected by ICES the%20EMPAS%20project.pdf 16 e-letter of ACOM president M. Sissenwine to BfN, October 23,

46 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 5.2. The FIMPAS Project/Netherlands The fisheries and the environmental administration are combined under one ministry, i.e. the Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. The project Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (FIMPAS) started early in It aims at the introduction of fisheries measures in MPAs in the EEZ of the Dutch North Sea by the end of These MPAs as well as the possible measures will implement the European Birds and Habitat Directives and will be established by the Dutch government. To enhance mutual cooperation the Dutch minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality signed a private agreement with Dutch ENGOs and the Dutch fishing industry in Together they decided to work towards the goal of achieving a sustainable and socially acceptable North Sea fishery industry. In their agreement parties expressed the wish to start a joint project for achieving common conservation objectives. ENGOs and the fishing industry cooperate within project FIMPAS to develop the necessary fisheries measures and thus achieve the conservation objectives in the Dutch MPAs of the North Sea. Given the international dimension of fisheries and environmental protection in the North Sea project FIMPAS has a strong emphasis on international cooperation. That is why in November 2009 the Dutch Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality concluded an agreement with the ICES, requesting ICES to organize the necessary scientific processes and give advice on the desired fisheries measures involving the relevant stakeholders in this process UK consultation process The UK consultation process is characterised by a step-by-step approach with subsequently delivered work packages, all under the authority of one ministry: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The UK Government has committed itself to implementing both EU Directives beyond territorial waters where it exercises sovereign rights. To achieve this following steps are expected: UK legislation introduced to extend the implementation of EU HD and BD to UK offshore waters (achieved in 2002); The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) advised the UK Government of proposed lists of Natura 2000 sites (Johnston et al., 2003); DEFRA will consult on proposed sites; Submission through DEFRA of proposed sites to the EC; DEFRA will develop management measures (see chapter 4.6) Results from the 2009 consultation process are presented in Annex II C

47 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 5.4. The INDEMARES project/spain Within the project INDEMARES ("Inventory and designation of the marine Natura 2000 network in Spain"), 12 SACs haved been proposed for the Spanish maritime area. For habitats to be protected, a full ban of fishing with bottom contacting gears was considered an effective measure to reach the conservation objectives for benthic habitats (ICES, 2008). As a first step, a case study was established to gain scientific evidence on fisheries impacts. The trial phase includes compliance control measures by means of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) in connection with manned inspections and aerial controls. The evaluation of the case study is not completed yet (May 2010) The AGWINS working group/ec request In response to a proposal for four Natura 2000 sites off the west and southwest coast of Ireland, the EC (DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) asked ICES to evaluate the fisheries undertaken at these sites to assess the impact of fisheries management measures, including site closure, on those fisheries. The ICES AGWINS met in Dublin, Ireland on 21 June Specifically, ICES was asked to: Review and evaluate all relevant information on fishing activities in the proposed areas to assess possible impact to these fisheries of closure and other potential management measures; Evaluate whether the boundary of the proposed area is appropriate for delimiting the fisheries management measures needed to protect the habitats for which the area has been proposed; On the basis of known impacts of fishing gears active in the vicinity, evaluate whether it will be necessary to close all fisheries to achieve the conservation objectives of the proposed protected areas, and if not, what management measures would be suitable Effect of closures on fishing fleets The working group used incomplete data sources to infer the distribution of fisheries, since full VMS analysis was not state-of-the-art by The working group concluded that data are necessary to describe the gears and fleets currently active within and near the boundaries of each site, and to understand the regional extent of the fishery to assess the potential implications for fleets of their exclusion from the Natura 2000 sites (see chapter 6). Based on the incomplete data, the working group stated that none of the fisheries are restricted exclusively to the seabed within the boundaries of the four sites. Each fishery also takes place outside the site boundaries, which suggests that, if excluded from the site by management measures, fishing effort would be displaced to other fishing grounds. There was no available data to indicate what proportion of fishing grounds of any individual vessel or fleet would be affected. 43

48 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Appropriateness of boundaries The site boundaries proposed by the Irish government contain mound and reef features and include some of the surrounding seabed as an appropriate protective buffer. ICES advised that the boundaries are appropriate to help meet the broad conservation objectives of the sites. ICES noted that the sites proposed by the Irish government are intended to maintain at, or restore to favourable conservation status the Habitats Directive Annex I habitat Reef. The reef ecosystem is interpreted as the physical and biological structure, function and extent of the reef-associated ecosystem, including the fish and shellfish species that occur there. Specific conservation objectives for ecosystem components were not available, other than to prevent physical deterioration of the reef structure and further mortality to reefassociated fish species. The site boundaries not only include the reef features themselves, but also encompass the supporting carbonate mound ecosystem as part of the conservation feature and act as an appropriate protective buffer. It may be that different boundaries would be chosen if specific conservation objectives were available Closure of fisheries or other management measures Without appropriate spatial data and impact assessments, the ICES advice on closures was based on generic criteria. This is exemplified for the Porcupine Bank area. ICES stated that: " At the NW Porcupine site the southeastern boundary is up to 3.5 km from the conservation feature of the site. Spanish longline vessels currently fish for hake within this zone as well as outside it. Although longlines are not considered the most damaging fishing gear used in the region, the effect on reef ecosystems of exploitation of the target species is not fully understood, but it is likely to affect achievement of the conservation objectives. ICES advises restricting access to the site to the longline fleet until the implications to the habitat of exploitation of the hake stock are better understood. When such understanding becomes available a further evaluation might occur. For the SW Porcupine Bank area, the main fishing activity appears to be from pelagic trawlers targeting blue whiting. The VMS data available do not allow distinction between pelagic and demersal fleets. ICES considers that the pelagic trawl fishery will not adversely affect the conservation objectives of the site, thus it should not be necessary to restrict access to the site by this fishery. However because of a current inability to distinguish the type of fishing ICES advises that the site be closed to all fisheries. Blue whiting is widely distributed in deepwater to the west of UK, and is not considered to be exclusively associated with reefs." 5.6. The Joint Regional Advisory Councils Meeting A meeting took place at the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, on 5-6 March 2008, on the subject of Offshore MPAs. The meeting was organised by the North Sea RAC, the North Western Waters RAC, the South Western Waters RAC and the Pelagic RAC. It was attended by representatives of the other RACs, participants from the EC, representatives of several MS governments and their agencies, and a number of invited experts on MPAs. Euan Dunn, Chair of the Spatial Planning Working Group of the North Sea RAC, emphasised that the focus of the meeting was the requirement for MS to submit initial lists of offshore marine sites for designation to the Commission by 1 September This requirement 44

49 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy was to meet the EU s commitment to create a marine Natura 2000 network for protecting marine habitats, birds and other species listed in the Annexes of the BD and the HD. Some countries, like Germany, were well advanced in designating sites, while others still had much to do. There was an urgent need for the RACs to square up to this new challenge. The RACs had a special role to play in establishing offshore MPAs as they provided a regional and international forum where stakeholders could be consulted. The knowledge of the fisheries sector would also be vitally important in determining how best to manage fishing in and around designated sites. In discussion, concerns emerged over the process for designating sites. Under the Directives the designation of sites was the responsibility of MS. The legal text of the Directives sought to protect special sites based on scientific information; other factors must not be allowed to prevail over this objective. Consultation was left to MS. Some countries had closely involved all those affected, others had not. Fishers said that consultation over the designation of sites had been inadequate. They believed that social and economic aspects were important and should be taken into account. They also thought that the designation of sites needed buy-in from those likely to be affected. There was concern that there was a lack of equity in the way different MS were interpreting the Directives, designating sites and proposing to manage sites. The EC had sole competence to bring forward fisheries management measures through the CFP regulations. There was now a need for these separate legislative processes to converge (North Sea Regional Advisory Council, 2008). 45

50 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 46

51 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 6. STEP 2: MAPPING FISHERIES AS PART OF THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS KEY FINDINGS Fisheries is a major economic factor in European maritime areas. Availability of fisheries data was essential for the EMPAS project. To analyse the spatial distribution of fishing effort as prerequisite of fisheries enviromental footprints, VMS data is essential. The analysis of fleet structure is important to indicate whether management options might have socio-economic effects. This is exemplified for fleets operating in the German EEZ. Principal areas can be developed for fisheries. This is exemplified for the German EEZ. Fisheries represent a major economic factor in European maritime areas. Good data describing the distribution and catch composition of international fishing fleets in the waters of MS are essential if conservation measures in Natura 2000 sites are to take full account of the effects of fishing. Further efforts must be made to include fishing gear type and vessel speed with all VMS records, and to make them available to all MS for scientific analysis. Logbook data describing the catch by fleet and country will also be necessary to assess the implications of these fleets on protected habitats and species. The value of high resolution fisheries data was evidenced for the EMPAS and the FIMPAS project. Examples are provided for the German EEZ Applying VMS data Only VMS data cover the needs for high spatial resolution analysis of fishing effort required for Natura 2000 planning purposes. The benefit of using independent data such as VMS data is that it offers detailed objective information on where fishing vessels operate in addition to the catch data reported in ICES statistical rectangles. Fisheries footprints by means of distributions of VMS fishing effort are common tools in the assessment of fisheries for example in the NAFO regulatory area with regard to vulnerable marine habitats. Within European seas, fishing vessels are obliged to operate a satellite-based VMS. Until 2003, this regulation was restricted to vessels larger than 24 m. In 2004, minimum overall size was reduced to 18 m and in 2005 to 15 m (2244/2003/EC). In 2006, complete data including vessel code, position, time, speed and direction were distributed to MS for their national fleets for all waters, and for foreign vessels operating within the bounds of their national EEZ. Prior to 2006, only position and time data were available for foreign vessels within the EEZ. VMS recordings followed different national protocols with regard to time intervals of recording. The use of VMS is further acknowledged in a Commission Staff Working Document and Council Regulation (SEC (2008) 449, and 2008/949/EC), proposing a set of ten indicators to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries. This again shows that CFP has a pivotal role focusing EU environmental activities with regard to fisheries (see Fig. 1). 47

52 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 6.2. Main fisheries in the German EEZ Fisheries in the North Sea and the Baltic are completely different, depending on the substantial differences in the marine ecosystems and in species inventories for fisheries. North Sea coasts are subject to strong tidal forces, creating the landscape of the Wadden Sea along the entire German coast and partially also in the Dutch and Danish coastline. Except for estuaries, salinity is high and provides marine living conditions to the ecosystem. In turn, in the Baltic tidal forces are reduced as is salinity, providing transitional environmental conditions in a brackish environment. The Baltic fishing fleet comprises the range from small inshore (under 10 m length) to larger offshore vessels, whereas in the North Sea fleets small vessels (under 15 m length) are mainly missing. Since 2005, sufficient VMS is available to describe the main metiers in the North Sea, whereas for the Baltic spatial distribution of fishing effort of small non-vms vessels remains poorly documented. The following description indicates the principal areas by metier in the German EEZ, for which a comprehensive analysis of the international fleet has been developed during the EMPAS project. Principal areas indicate the main fishing grounds for either metier where 75% of total effort is carried out (after Fock 2008). Gill netters (code GN/GNS) For gill netters (set-net fishing, static gear), VMS-based estimates of fishing effort are clear underestimates of gill net fishing effort since the real soaking time and the length of the nets is not considered. Information on soaking time and net length is not mandatory for logbooks and thus cannot be retrieved on standard terms from fishermen. The analysis of gill netting/set-net fisheries is important for species easily by-caught in static gears, i.e. marine mammals and seabirds. Gill netters concentrate mainly in the Baltic Sea. Main areas are at Kadet Trench, Kriegers Flak and Adler-Ground, with Adler-Ground as main ground (Map 3). These principal areas are closely related to Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ (see Map 2). Fisheries by small boats not operating VMS is not included. Thus, the designation of principal areas does not take into account small gill netters that operate mainly inshore. In the North Sea, GN principal areas are not linked to Natura 2000 sites. Gill netting has 5 distinct principal areas in the North Sea: north of the East-Frisian islands, Helgoland Grounds, north of White Bank, Horns Reef Ground, and east of Nordschill-Ground. Demersal otter board trawling (OTB/PTB) Otter boards are an important class of bottom contacting gear. Demersal otter board trawlers operate differently in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. The highest otter board trawling effort is encountered in the German EEZ in the Baltic with no particular spatial preference and almost complete coverage. It is the main type of bottom contacting fisheries in the Baltic. Fishing is carried out either bei single vessels (OTB) or by pair trawling (PTB). The Odra Bank closure 18 for bottom contacting gear is clearly recognised (Map 4). In the North Sea, total effort is smaller and distributed offshore. Here, the Horns Reef Ground is of main importance to fisheries, a traditional Nephrops fishing ground. Demersal otter boards are less effective in catching flatfish, the prime target species in the German Bight next to brown shrimp. With the recent increase in fuel prices however, otter 18 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005 of 31 Dec

53 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy board trawling has become more attractive to fishermen since the fuel consumption is lower than for beam trawling. Map 3: Principal areas for gill net fishing (GN) in the German EEZ and the 12 nm-zone Source: Fock (2008) Map 4: Principal areas for otter board trawling (OTB/PTB) in the German EEZ and the 12 nm-zone Source: Fock (2008) 49

54 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Large beam trawlers > 300 hp (TBBL) Due to high by-catch rates of benthos and juvenile fishes, beam trawlers are of major concern both with regard to environmental aspects and flatfish stock development. Due to restrictions imposed by the EC regulation on the establishment of the 'Plaice Box' 19, trawlers > 300 HP are not permitted fishing inside the delimitations of the coastal nursery area. Thus, large beam trawlers (TBBL) are distributed mainly offshore and appear in the in the North Sea only (Map 5). The principal areas indicate the delimitations of main fishing grounds for sole and plaice in the inner German Bight. A part of the Dogger Bank, i.e. the Dogger Tail End, is also covered indicating fishing grounds for plaice only in that area. Beam trawlers <300 hp (TBB) Applying small beam trawls has a long tradition in North Sea coastal fisheries. First designed to be deployed by sailing ships, beam trawls guaranteed a sufficient opening and thus catchability of the net even under low trawling speed when trawl doors cannot develop sufficient drag to spread net wings. Currently, beam trawls are mainly deployed in flatfish and shrimp fisheries. Fisheries are concentrated in a narrow zone along the North Sea coast and secondly in a strip north of White Bank. Here, vessels likely take part also in the sole and plaice fisheries. Principal areas occur only in the coastal area (Map 6). Map 5: Principal areas for large beam trawlers (TBBL) in the German EEZ Source: Fock (2008) 19 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms 50

55 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Map 6: Principal areas for small beam trawlers (TBB) in the German EEZ and the 12 nm-zone Source: Fock (2008) 6.3. Economic and socio-economic aspects of fisheries: the German EEZ Logbook data and economic parameters are subject to data protection. During the EMPAS project, such data were provided by MS in aggregated and anonymous form to ensure privacy rights. Presently, a second analysis is carried out within the FIMPAS project, but not accomplished to date (May 2010) Catches To analyse the potential conflict between fishing activities and nature conservation targets of marine Natura 2000 sites and its economic implications, data and information about the catches and landings of the international commercial fishing fleets need to be available at appropriate temporal and spatial resolution. The EMPAS project has revealed that VMS data in combination with logbook data are the most appropriate data to assess fishing activities in the offshore areas of the North and Baltic Seas. For the year 2006, MS catch data were collated for the German EEZ in order to achieve a perspective on the economic importance of the area for different types of fisheries (Pedersen et al., 2009b). In the North Sea, demersal fisheries are predominant with emphasis on shrimp fisheries and flatfish fisheries. However, in terms of total catch, industrial fisheries is by far the largest sector. Industrial fisheries is carried out for sandeel and sprat (Appendix 7). In the Baltic, pelagic fisheries is predominant. Sprat and herring are the main species, either caught with pelagic or demersal otter boards. Flatfish (flounder, plaice, dab) and roundfish (cod) constitute only a minor part (Appendix 8). 51

56 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies It is evident that fisheries activities are international in the German EEZ. In particular, neighbouring MS contribute much to fisheries in the German EEZ, and vice versa Fleets operating in the area Resembling the very different utilization patterns with regard to gillnet fisheries and beam trawling, fleet structure is completely different in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (Tables 5 and 6). In the Baltic Sea, about 1450 German vessels are operating in the gill net fisheries, mainly as small boats in the 12 nm-zone, as compared to 50 vessels in this metier in the North Sea. In the North Sea, mainly beam trawling for shrimp is carried out in the segment of beam trawlers 221kW ( 300 hp). Otter trawlers and beam trawlers > 221kW target flatfish or operate in mixed fisheries. This different distribution of fleets implies that future fisheries management measures will also have different socio-economic impacts in the Baltic and the North Sea both with regard to the national fleet as well as to fleets from other MS. Table 5: German gill net fleet structure in the Baltic, 2008 German States MVP Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (eastern section of the investigation area), SH - Schleswig-Holstein (western section of the investigation area). North Sea data for comparison. VMS = obligation to operate VMS. Area Number of German vessels by size class <7.5 m m >15 m (VMS) Baltic-MVP Baltic-SH North Sea Source: Author Table 6: Bottom trawlers by country and size class for the North Sea, Size categories according to Plaice Box regulation (850/98/EC) based on engine power BEAM = beam trawler, OTTER = otter board trawler; 221 kw = 300 HP. Germany Denmark The Netherlands BEAM 221kW BEAM >221kW OTTER 221kW OTTER >221kW Source: Beare et al. (2010) 52

57 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 7. STEP 3: CONFLICT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS KEY FINDINGS At the ecosystem level, complex interactions between fisheries and conservation targets are likely. This is discussed for industrial fisheries. To analyse fisheries impacts within the EMPAS project, first the conflict potential was analysed, and in a second step spatially resolved analyses of impact were undertaken. Conflict analysis within EMPAS revealed three areas of concern, i.e. the destructive effects of bottom trawling on benthic habitats, the by-catch of seabirds in static gear, and the by-catch of harbour porpoise in static gear. These conflicts likely apply throughout the EU maritime area. According to HD, actions to be undertaken by MS to reach favourable conservation status have to be based on sound and reliable assessments of the impact of human activities on the marine environment 2. Every effort to ensure that proper systems of monitoring and assessment are set should be undertaken Impacts of fisheries on nature conservation targets The objectives of HD aim at 3 different types of effects of human activities, all of them being relevant to fisheries: disturbance, incidental killing (i.e. by-catch) and habitat deterioration. Fisheries impacts on the environment may be complex, and may release effects on the whole ecosystem, which is difficult to analyse. Industrial fisheries may serve as example, in that food depletion is a type of habitat deterioration relevant to HD issues. Sandeel fisheries has been debated as cause for deteriorating environmental conditions for birds (Daunt et al., 2008; Tasker et al., 2000). Importance of sandeel for harbour porpoise diet was also shown (MacLeod et al., 2007) and harbour porpoise association to sandeel fisheries was discussed in terms of resource competition with fisheries (Herr et al., 2009). In their analysis, Herr et al. (2009) discussed how shifts of prey abundance could modify impacts of fisheries on harbour porpoise (Fig. 4). Sandeel, though a preferred and high energy resource for harbour porpoise, is a seasonal prey only, so that during times of low sandeel abundance, harbour porpoise must select other fishes as prey. During times of low sandeel availability stronger impacts from flatfish fisheries (large beam trawlers) or gill netters may be expected, whereas in sandeel-rich years, interactions with the sandeel fisheries is more likely. For interactions from flatfish and sandeel fisheries, food depletion must be considered. For gill net fisheries, both resource competition and by-catch determine the relationship to harbour porpoise. These complex relationships pose a challenge to the development of management options. 53

58 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 4: Schematic representation of potential interrelationships between three different fisheries and Harbour porpoise in the German Bight The strength of the arrows indicates the strength of interrelationship. Source: (Herr et al., 2009) 7.2. Conflict potential and Impact Assessments A consistent framework for assessing ecological risks for European waters except for chemical hazards is lacking (European Commission, 2003). Impact assessments are a core issue for Natura 2000 and MSFD. During the EMPAS project first steps towards a comprehensive analysis of fisheries impacts on conservation targets were developed and carried out (see next section). Methodologies in this field are still being developed and will benefit the analysis carried out in follow-up projects such as FIMPAS (Fock, 2010, HELCOM, 2010; Stelzenmüller et al., 2010). In the context of the European Natura 2000 requirements, ICES developed an analysis procedure involving stakeholder participation and expert consultations as well as a impact assessment methodology to analyse fisheries impacts by metier on ecosystem components (ICES, 2009; Pedersen et al., 2009a). Information on benthic impact through different fisheries was available at the time when the EMPAS project started (e.g. Kaiser et al., 2002). The analysis was carried out in two steps : (1) identification of major threats through conflict analysis, and (2) assessing the impact with spatially explicit tools, i.e. impact assessment. Stage I - Conflict potential In the EMPAS project the focus was on potential conflicts between nature conservation objectives and fishing activities in and around the German Natura 2000 sites. Conflicts were identified in qualitative terms given the normal conditions under which a fishing gear is operated and a potential fulll encounter with the ecosystem component considered. Each effect was evaluated in terms of ranked scores and the results were prepared in form of 'traffic-light' matrices (Annex III). 54

59 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Three main conflicting areas between fisheries and conservation targets of the Natura 2000 sites were identified : Destructive impacts on HD features, i.e. the reef and sandbank benthic habitats and on typical species by bottom contacting fishing gear in the North Sea. By-catch of protected seabirds in static gears, especially bottom set gill-nets in the Baltic Sea. By-catch of the protected harbour porpoise in static gears, mainly bottom set gillnets in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. These conflict areas are likely not specific for the German EEZ, but apply generally to the habitats and species considered and thus apply the entire EU maritime area. Stage II - Impact assessments Combining spatial overlap analysis with conflict analysis leads to impact assessment. At high spatial resolution, 'hot spots' of impact and conservation targets can be identified. This was carried out for birds and marine mammals (see Annexes III, IV). These 'hot spots' are primary targets to develop management measures. For habitats, a simple mapping procedure to analyse overlaps was shown in Pedersen et al. (2009a) (Annex V). 55

60 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 56

61 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 8. STEP 4: DEVELOPING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES KEY FINDING Up-to-date, final management plans have not been developed by MS. However, for marine mammals and seabirds considerable progress has been achieved in Portugal and Spain with regard to defining conservation objectives and fisheries management plans. After the EMPAS project, Germany installed an intra-governmental steering group to further development of fisheries management plans for Natura 2000 sites to be submitted to the EC. The EC guidelines on Fisheries measures in Natura 2000 sites are applied. Belgium has developed a policy plan, but management plans are not yet developed. The federal consultation process is ongoing. The Netherlands aim at developing management options within the FIMPAS project. In UK, fisheries measures are not proposed to date. Effects of measures under the Natura 2000 network are seen in conjunction with other space-consuming marine activities, i.e. wind farming. In Denmark, management plans are not fully worked out. For species and habitats, Denmark has developed own definitions taking into account regional characteristics. Multilateral consultation is required for management in trans-boundary Natura 2000 sites. For the Dogger Bank area, first informal steps were taken by government officials from UK, the Netherlands and Germany Germany In the EMPAS final report (ICES, 2009) and in the ICES advice to BfN 20, management options were presented, ranging from the no-change option to partial and full closures for fisheries. The German government decided to take the EMPAS options as starting point to develop a management strategy for Natura 2000 sites German intra-governmental consultation process Activities have to be coordinated between state ministries as well as between federal government and German states ('Länder'). As a first step in the intra-governmental consultation process for MPAs in the EEZ, the steering group "Developing management measures for Natura2000 sites in relation to fisheries" was established, which started its work in June The steering group comprises representatives from the Federal Ministry of the Environment and Nuclear Saftey (BMU) and from the Federal Ministry of Food, the%20EMPAS%20project.pdf 57

62 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) together with governmental experts, and the German states, and is linked to ENGOs and the fishing industry (Fig. 5). Figure 5: Organisation scheme of inter-ministerial coordination between German ministries BMU and BMELV Source: BMU The guidelines on a consistent approach to fisheries management published by the EC 21 are taken as backbone to prepare relevant data and information. As one of the first activities, the joint steering group started a series of queries to MS in 2009 requesting fisheries relevant information for the German EEZ, and information has already been returned from many MS. Compliance control measures are not defined at the present stage (May 2010) Time schedule Appendix 2 shows the progress achieved up-to-date in Germany. A series of working group meetings is planned to work out management plans, before the joint steering group will inform COM, European Parliament and MS and RACs before final proposals will be submitted to EC. Since site nominations were issued in 2006 and 2007, management plans are due 2012 and To date, no specific management options have been drafted by the German government Management within the 12 nm-zone For the SAC Wadden Sea of Schleswig-Holstein an informal statement is available that shrimp fisheries is not considered obstructive to the HD conservation objectives. Gereman and Dutch shrimp fishing industry is preparing an application to be certified under MSC. The state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by its State Law for Nature Conservation does not consider commercial fisheries a plan or project, for which environmental impact assessments have to carried out with respect to Natura

63 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 8.2. Belgium As for Germany, the implementation process in Belgium depends on federal provisions with regard to the decision finding participatory processes. On the conservation of the SPAs/SACs the Act on the marine environment (as amended in 2005), provides that, by Royal Decree, activities can be forbidden within the sites, except for certain activities mentioned in the Act (such as fishing, dredging etc.). The reasoning behind this legal provision is that some of these activities belong to Flemish competences and thus cannot be regulated by the federal government, who is responsible for marine nature conservation. This complicates the establishment of conservation objectives and management measures and might impede the favourable conservation status of the habitats and species for which the sites have been designated (Cliquet et al., 2008). Belgium has developed conservation objectives in a general way, and objectives are not operational (ICES, 2008). As part of the proposed policy plan, the definition of operational conservation objectives and the corresponding monitoring plan are being developed. It appeared that habitats comprised more than one habitat type, so that a mixed approach was chosen. It is therefore suggested to classify the allocated SACs as a sandbank habitat type (1110), associated with the reef habitat type (1170) and to ban bottom fisheries in this area (Cliquet et al., 2008). Scientific evidence is regarded sufficient, since there is general scientific evidence that beam trawl fisheries have a far reaching impact on sandbank systems and more specifically, there is evidence of decreasing biodiversity of the polychaete reefs after fishing disturbance (Cliquet et al., 2008) The Netherlands The Netherlands has started an intensive consultation and management development process for which scientific guidance is provided by ICES: the FIMPAS project. Stakeholder participation was enabled through contracts signed between government and stakeholder organizations prior to the start of the project. Details will be given in the next chapter UK Fisheries measures are not proposed to date (May 2010), but a lively debate is carried out in the UK public on Natura 2000 conservation issues. Here, effects of measures under the Natura 2000 network are seen in conjunction with other space-consuming marine activities, i.e. wind farming 22. In turn, from the nature conservation perspective, 'Natural England' ran a successful workshop in October 2009 with the offshore wind industry to ensure that it understands the interactions which might arise between offshore windfarms, the possible SACs and potential SPAs and the existing designated sites within the Natura 2000 network. 'Natural England' will continue to work closely with the industry on all future proposals for MPAs 23. In some cases, i.e. for vulnerable reef habitats, management measures will include cessation of fisheries, in other cases, management measures will depend on the evidence provided for detrimental effects of a human activity (ICES, 2008). 22 UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, A Prevailing Wind, June 24, Fishnewseu.com, 12 January

64 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 8.5. Denmark By 2008, management plans in the offshore area were not worked out, and in inshore areas, management plans were under preparation (ICES, 2008). Denmark has not adopted the "Interpretation manual of European Union Habitats" for the characteristic animal and plant species belonging to the marine habitats, and thus type-specific reference conditions for marine habitats corresponding to 'favourable conservation status' are not defined. However, is being defined the Danish definitions are likely to meet regional characteristics. It is unclear whether the Danish definitions will be different from the definitions based on the inventories and guidance provided through the interpretation manual Sweden By 2008, Sweden had nominated three Natura 2000 areas partly located in EEZ and the government was considering four more. These areas only cover shallow offshore areas while no areas in deeper waters have been proposed as Natura Management and conservation plans for the three areas were finalised in 2005 and they all suffer from lack of data. However, much more data have been collected from the areas since 2005 and this work is continuing. It is intended to revise the management plans based on the improved data base. The plans include conservation objectives but on a general level due to lack of data. The objectives are therefore often not specific enough to allow an evaluation. The management plans do not include all species listed in the BD and HD. However, the BD is somewhat better covered Spain Spain undertook effort with respect to certain target species. In the LIFE02NAT/E/8610 project (Conservation of cetaceans and sea turtles in Murcia and Andalusia), establishment of conservation goals (from the global HD goal down to specific objectives for species and habitats) was debated in depth with the assistance of an international external advisory committee in the context of the development of SAC Management Plans and Species Conservation Plans. Conservation goals were divided in those focusing on maintaining the favourable conservation status for target populations of cetacean and sea turtle (ensuring the genetic diversity), and those dealing with habitats (e.g. ensuring adequate physical and chemical characteristics of water). Likewise a similar process was used for the development and design of the Monitoring Plans to analyse trends in conservation status. The conservation objective is the one addressed by the HD, to maintain the ecological status of such species and habitats for which SCIs and SPAs have been designated. Close coordination with Regional Seas Conventions and Global Environmental Agreements is required. The following approach was used to accomplish the Directives and setting conservation objectives: Identification and inventory of areas that are important for the conservation of the habitats and species of the Annex I and II of the EU Directives. Importance of EU Life and Projects on this process is acknowledged and the process is almost accomplished. 60

65 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Biogeographic evaluation of list of proposed SCIs by the EC. Completion of list of Natura 2000 network by Spain must protect each designated area and maintain the conservation status of each habitats and species of the habitats and species of the EU Directives. Important considerations for areas located within the EEZ waters (management: i.e. CFP and IMO regulations). The INDEMARES project for habitats was introduced in chapter Portugal The Azores is an important area for marine nature conservation with regard to marine mammals and birds (ICES, 2008). The Azores has 17 marine SCIs and 13 SPAs under the HD and BD. All 13 SPAs correspond to breeding grounds of seabirds, thus being terrestrial. These areas were designated under the Council Regulation 11/2002/EC. With regard to SCIs the species and habitats behind the designation of the sites were: 1) Species Caretta caretta Tursiops truncatus 2) Habitats Coastal lagoons Large shallow inlets and bays Reefs Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Sand banks slightly covered by water The Species of the Bird Habitat behind the designation of the SPAs were: Calonectris diomedea borealis Bulweria bulwerii Puffinus puffinus P. assimilis baroli Oceanodroma castro Sterna hirundo Sterna dougalii Pterodroma fae The habitats and the species only represent a small fraction of the priority species for the Azores. The research, including mapping, in view of the production of the management plans for the Azores marine Natura 2000 were formally initiated in 1999 with project LIFE98 NAT P 5275: MARÉ: Integrated management of coastal and marine areas in the Azores ( This project concluded, in 2004, the scientific evaluation and management proposals for five SCIs and seven SPAs. Given the fact that some of the designated SCIs were small and interconnected with important habitats, this project concluded for new proposals where the SCIs were included in larger areas designated either 61

66 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies as Marine Reserve (the case of the Formigas/Dollabarat bank) and Marine Parks (the cases of Pico/Faial channel and Corvo island). The works and management plans proposals for the remaining SCIs and SPAs were concluded in 2005 under the project INTERREG IIIb/MAC/4.2/A2 2001: OGAMP Management of marine protected areas in Macaronesia (Azores, Canaries and Madeira). Outreach, education, dissemination and evaluation were continued under the project INTERREG IIIb 03/MAC/4.2/A2 2004: MARMAC Knowledge, promotion and valorization for a sustainable use of marine protected areas in Macaronesia from 2006 to The Law Decree for the Sectoral Plan for the N2000 was published in 2006 (DLR Nº 20/2006/A). In 2006 a new project (LIFE04NAT/PT/000213: Important Areas for the Marine Birds in Portugal) was initiated in view to evaluate offshore important bird areas (IBAs). Meanwhile several studies on the distribution of fish, sea turtles (Caretta caretta), pelagic seabirds (e.g. Cory s shearwater and Pufinnus pufinnus) and cetacean were initiated using acoustic and satellite telemetry and submerged recording acoustic arrays based on a set of several research projects (e.g. POCTI/BSE/41207/2001: MAREFISH: Benefits of marine protected areas: testing the theory with field experiments; POCTI/BSE/38991/2001 CETAMARH Ecology and population structure of bottlenose dolphins and sperm whales in the Azores: assessing the relationship with habitat features). Also molecular studies have been developed in view to establish population structure and genetic differentiation. The distribution of seamounts in the Azores region has been reevaluated as well their relevance for visitor/pelagic species. During the OASIS project (EVK3 CT : Oceanic Seamounts: An Integrated Study) was dedicated to the scientific study of two seamounts off the Azores (Sedlo) and off Madeira (Seine). A proposal to designate the Sedlo seamount as a MPA was finalized. Proposals for the classification of the hydrothermal vent sites Menez Gwen and Lucky Strike were concluded in 2002, and Rainbow in These three offshore hydrothermal vent sites and the Sedlo seamount were submitted, in 2006 and 2007, for the OSPAR network of MPAs. Lucky Strike and Menez Gwen were proposed by Portugal, in 2005, as new SCIs under the classification as reefs. The species and habitats that were used to select the Azorean Natura 2000 sites are far from the ideal situation for the region and other species should be included as priority species. A synoptic description of main conservation issues, zonation covered by policy instruments and distribution of main offshore priority habitats was recently actualised Trans-boundary issues The Dogger Bank SAC in the North Sea For trans-boundary areas, an international consultation process is essential. In accordance with the guidelines the EC issued to MS to outline the preparation process of fisheries management proposals 24, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK took first informal steps starting a consultation process to harmonize and co-ordinate the development of management plans for the wider Dogger Bank area, despite MS being in very different phases of the Natura 2000 process (February 2010). Dogger Bank SACs have been designated by the Netherlands and Germany, whereas UK is still in the designation process. Meanwhile, the consultation process turned from informal to formal stage with a clear

67 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy commitment from all three governments (DEFRA letter to BMELV, 1 March 2010). However, by March 2010 no UK nomination has been published for this area. As for national consultation processes, for the international consultation process on trans-boundary issues procedural steps need to be developed Multinational projects: The Atlantic Region Transnational MPA Project France initiated a MPA Cooperation Programme in the North East Atlantic with the aim to develop a coherent, integrated management approach to the area that meets the international commitment of Natura 2000 and OSPAR, and to make better connections between scientific, stakeholder and national authority interests. The scientific knowledge of the area is not as developed as it could be, and that input from and tie-in with several scientific projects was under consideration. France is in discussion with the UK, Spain and Portugal over the funding of such a major project, and it was hoped that it might result in a network of Atlantic MPAs that would facilitate discussion on common issues to find common solutions (2009). 63

68 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 64

69 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy 9. FUTURE RESEARCH AND POLICY NEEDS FOR EU FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WITHIN AN ECOSYSTEM BASED FRAMEWORK OF NATURA 2000 AND MSFD KEY FINDINGS The CFP remains pivotal to harmonize different national approaches to management proposals, since hardly any standards are available for procedures preparing management proposals for Natura 2000 sites. Thus naturally, differences appear between MS in terms of individual approaches. First findings from the Dutch FIMPAS project are compared to the German EMPAS project. Fisheries need to be treated as a spatially defined and confined activity. This is essential for developing a safe and sustainable fisheries sector, for granting coastal fleets access to fisheries on a long-term perspective, and in combination with the CFP MSY goal, for achieving comprehensive environmental objectives under HD and MSFD applying advanced risk assessment techniques. The separate assessment of fisheries effects for the purpose of either Natura 2000, or MSFD or OSPAR requirements is not efficient in terms of scientific and economic resources involved, and will likely lead to very complex results in terms of regulations aiming at the different policy goals but the same target, i.e. fisheries. An integrative management framework is needed to combine assessments and measures under all relevant regulations into one common procedure. A reform of the CFP is underway 25, and besides measures mainly dealing with fisheries issues directly, a commitment is expressed with regard to integrating the CFP into the European Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) framework 26, so that " future CFP must be set up to provide the right instruments to support the ecosystem approach". This is a clear statement that the CFP shall apply to all maritime policies dedicated to the ecosystem approach including the CFP, i.e. BD/HD, MSFD, OSPAR/HELCOM policies. Some essential inputs for this approach with regard to Natura 2000 are outlined below, referring to the remaining key issues outlined in chapter 1: How can the impact of fisheries on environmental targets be described in a comparable way, so that a distinction between types of fisheries can be made and how can these measures be developed in an integrative way to meet more than only Natura 2000 requirements? How can the spatial dimensions of fisheries be described, so that we can understand the effects of potential fisheries closures with respect to MPAs both for fisheries and the environment? Thus, fisheries have to become part of marine spatial planning and to be recognised as a feature with spatial properties. With regard to nature conservation, it is important to resolve different treatments of the same type of habitat and species in a trans-boundary context to apply the same level of measures throughout the entire EU maritime area. These issues in part reflect research needs, but also require implementation into fisheries policy. 25 COM(2009) COM(2007)575 65

70 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 9.1. Research needs In 2009, the author co-authored a study on the relationship between Natura 2000 sites and fisheries (Pedersen et al., 2009a). Research needs were identified with regard to assess the level of impact exerted by each of the identified fishing gears on species and habitats. All types of fishing techniques that have contact with the seabed might adversely affect benthic species and habitats. Bottom-affecting gear should be better assessed. Recent reviews, meta-analyses, and assessments of the potential for adverse effects of fishing in the North Sea suggest that dredges and beam trawls are the most damaging gears, but that the consequences of their use for benthic habitats depend on the intensity of trawling, the design of the trawls and mesh, and the habitat/bottom type and structure. Concerning the protected anadromous fish species and marine mammals, a future task is to design instruments to reduce by-catch. For cetaceans, the mitigation of by-catch is further addressed by Council Regulation (EC) 812/2004, laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries. For anadromous species, the analysis of essential habitats and of vulnerability during the life cycle in particular for recruitment should reveal major causes for decline. Using satellite track (VMS) data, it is now possible to conduct detailed analyses of the fine-scale distribution of fishing effort. However, additional information from the VMS or other data collection systems will be useful in scientific investigation of the environmental impacts of fishing. For example, in the Baltic Sea gillnet fishery, most vessels are <15 m and, therefore, are not equipped with VMS or are not even obliged to report logbook information. Here, one important source for more detailed information is the fishers themselves. Cooperation with the fishers can elicit valuable knowledge and shed light on the impact on species and habitats (e.g. by-catch of seabirds and mammals) Ecological Risk Assessment in Germany and UK With respect to the structure and function of the habitats under the HD, current ecological theory and knowledge gained from the use of benthic community indicators in assessing and monitoring environmental quality should guide the identification of community indicators for the assessment of habitat quality in the Natura 2000 sites. The HD addresses especially the conservation status of the typical species of the habitats and, therefore, the potential effects of fishing activities should be evaluated for these species at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. In continuation of the work conducted by ICES (ICES, 2007b, d, 2009), a relative ecological risk assessment model has been developed and applied to the German EEZ (Fock, 2010), however not as standard methodolgy. Risk assessment is different to the impact assessment carried out within EMPAS in that, first, instead of qualitative ranked scores for potential conflicts the respective processes of mortality and recovery are fully parameterised. Second, risk assessment is a probabilistic tool and thus takes uncertainty into account. As a result, managers are provided with measures of certainty/uncertainty associated with different management options. It links the state of the ecosystem to the strength of the impact, and thus does not rely on specific conservation targets. 66

71 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Characteristic features of risk assessment model are Spatial quantification of ecological risk by metier based on fully quantitative parameters instead of qualitative classifications. It operates across different scales, i.e. local and regional, by means of combining locally and regionally defined processes, and thus provides a means to compare different types of pressures at the same scale and to include impacts as disturbance and competition in conjunction with mortality, delivers analytically derived limit values for risks as reference values at which a sustainable state is reached, and analyses cumulative impacts, since all risks have the same scale. In particular, the derivation of limit reference values is helpful where target values are not available, and cumulative assessments to assess the overall status of conservation ecosystem targets. The problems associated with the lack of target values for setting conservation objectives was discussed in chapter 4.6. An example for relative ecological risk assessment for benthic habitats in the German EEZ of the North Sea is given below. The model is parameterised with recovery rates for abundance, based on community parameters for benthic species for different sediment types, including reef habitats and sand bank habitats as considered under HD. To parameterize trawl mortality and by-catch mortality, data from EU-funded research projects IMPACT I and IMPACT II (Lindeboom and Groot, 1998) were acquired. 'Relative' in the type of risk assessment indicates that a relative term is applied in the model to weight recovery and mortality processes. Three types of fisheries are analysed: Large beam trawl fisheries mainly for plaice and sole, small beam trawlers comprising fisheries for shrimp and flatfish, and otter board trawling, to some degree for flatfish, but also for roundfish as well as Nephrops fisheries. Results are presented in terms of negative impacts on benthic communities, i.e. downside risk (Fig. 6). Large beamers create the highest risk score for the German EEZ both for the total area and within the SACs. From the 3 SACs, Borkum reef ground bears the least risk with regard to trawling activities. As a result with relevance to developing management options, for example reducing the effort of large beam trawlers would lead to a significant decrease in ecological risk for the SACs considered. The error bars indicate the degree of certainty associated with each evaluation. This approach is being further developed for the purpose of finding management solutions for the German EEZ not only for Natura 2000, but for HD in general, MSFD and OSPAR requirements, in that a reference for favourable conservation status is included in the analysis (chapter 8.2). This will lead to capability of developing comprehensive management strategies for the future. In the UK, impact and risk assessment methodologies have been developed mainly with regard to requirements from the MSFD but not in relation to Natura 2000 sites (Eastwood et al., 2007; Stelzenmüller et al., 2010). As in the relative risk assessment model presented above, solutions are provided at high spatial resolution enabling management at the spatial level of habitats. 67

72 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 6: Distribution of cumulative relative downside risk scores exemplified for impacts of bottom trawling on benthic communites by SAC in the German EEZ, North Sea. Impacts capitalised: OTB = otter board trawls, TBB = small beam trawls and shrimpers, TBBL large beam trawls. Based on data from 2006, mean value ± 1 standard deviation indicated Doggerbank Sylt outer reef Borkum reef ground remaining area 0.6 Risk score by area Benth_OTB Benth_TBB Benth_TBBL Source: Fock (2010) 9.2. Developing management measures: Combining Natura 2000, MSFD and CFP measures by means of advanced risk assessment techniques The need for a consistent methodology in planning MPAs and evaluating impacts was already pointed out by ICES AGWINS (ICES 2007a). This is in particular essential for those habitats and species, which have a wider distribution and are present in more than one maritime region or EEZ. Consistent methodologies are further indispensable, if evaluations have to be regionally aggregated (Example: OSPAR status report 2010, and OSPAR MAQ(1) 09/2/11 Add.1-E). Comprehensive assessments with consistent methodologies are a prerequisite for highly integrated marine policies. This is certainly the case, when, as pointed about in chapter 1, HD at the level of the Natura 2000 network, MSFD for all European waters and OSPAR/HELCOM strategies with their network concepts establishing an overarching framework to the North Atlantic and adjacent regional seas, all aim at reaching good environmental status and a sustainable development. 68

73 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy However, the state of the marine environment that managers must aim for is often not well defined. Since a return to the pristine state without human inferences in the marine world is not likely, a new measure of sustainability must be developed. Currently, for MSFD a suite of ecosystem indicators and target values is under discussion (Cardoso et al., 2010), but not fully adopted yet Research needs In relative ecological risk assessment, limit reference values can be obtained analytically. The derivation of these limits is not subject of this chapter, but rather how these limits and risk assessment methodologies can be applied to meet requirements from more than one maritime policy. Here I assume that good environmental condition under MSFD and OSPAR strategies and favourable conservation status under HD are fully equivalent. For benthic species to be in favourable condition under these circumstances requires them to have access to the appropriate levels of habitat for all life-history stages. Ensuring the quality of these habitats will be the necessary task of management. Area closures are one of the measures proposed under the CFP to reach environmental goals (chapter 3). A further CFP measure, i.e. reducing fishing effort to the MSY level to achieve a good state of the fish stocks, will also lead to positive environmental effects. Thus, the overall goal of favourable conservation status can be combined with sustainable fisheries. All impact and risk assessments require detailed spatial information on fisheries and thus must treat fisheries as a variable with spatial properties. This was shown in chapter 6.2. For the purpose of analysing issues related to favourable conservation status or good environmental status, the complement of negative risk, i.e. positive risk is introduced as tool to evaluate both requirements from CFP and HD/MSFD and how these can be accomplished simultaneously. The concept of risk has two sides, in that on the one hand threats ('downside risk') and on the other hand opportunities as positive consequences ('upside risk') are resolved at the same level, both with their associated uncertainties (Chapman, 1997). It is possible to define limit reference values for upside and downside risk, which will lead to high likelihood of positive or negative effects for the ecosystem component of interest. For upside risk, the limit reference value is the level above which 'good environmental' or 'favourable conservation status' may be expected given that the impact is small enough or absent (risk values are always probabilistic) (Fock et al., in prep.). An example is given below. Four different scenarios are evaluated for the effect of demersal fisheries on benthic communities, based on the downside risk assessment presented in Fig. 6. The first scenario is the status quo scenario, in terms of the 2006 distribution of fishing effort (Fock, 2008); Scenario I is the closure of marine Natura 2000 sites for large and small beam trawlers except for shrimpers; Scenario II is an overall fishing effort reduction scenario to meet requirements from the MSY policy target for plaice for small and large beam trawlers; 69

74 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Scenario III is a combination of scenarios I and II, i.e. effort reduction plus area closures. Each scenario is tested against the limit reference value for upside risk by community, and effects for communities typical for Natura 2000 sites or in general as requested by MSFD can be evaluated. In the status quo scenario, only the central North Sea assemblage achieves a value significantly above the limit reference level (Fig. 7). All other assemblages do not reach the limit reference value. In scenario I, closing the Natura 2000 sites for large and small beam trawlers improves the situation significantly for 5 assemblages, i.e. the Helgoland Deep, and assemblages characteristic for the Natura 2000 sites, i.e. Bathyporeis-Amphiura filiformis community, reefs and the Tellina fabula-gonadiella assemblage. In turn, effort reduction enhances the state of a different suite of assemblages. In scenario III, 8 from 11 assemblages reach an upside risk sufficient to provide 'good environmental status', and thus a high likelihood of favourable conservation status covering both requirements from the HD and MSFD, with most of these assemblages having a large number of species in common Policy needs It is a task for European maritime policies to provide a framework, under which comprehensive assessments with consistent methodologies can be developed and carried out. ICES was requested to provide advice in several cases in relation to Natura 2000 (EMPAS, FIMPAS, AGWINS), and together with the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) could provide a platform to conduct these assessments at high scientific standards. Assessments with regard to fisheries will be or are conducted for HD and BD purposes, and as soon as methodolgies have been approved, fisheries assessments will be carried out under MSFD provisions. OSPAR and HELCOM working groups will also assess fisheries impacts within the scope of their environmental quality status reports and assessments, and the designation of MPAs in the high seas. The assessment methodology applied within OSPAR is currently under review by the ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fisheries. With respect to fisheries, HD/BD, MSFD and OSPAR/HELCOM assessments aim at the same stressor. However, this sectoral or piecewise approach to assessment of environmental impacts of fisheries and implementation of respective measures is likely not efficient in terms of scientific and economic resources involved, and will likely lead to heterogeneous and complex results in terms of measures aiming at the different policy goals but the same target. Coordinated procedures are likely more effective. Regionally, first steps towards management frameworks are undertaken to overcome shortcomings of only national approaches alone (see 8.9.1). These frameworks have a clear focus to combine requirements under Natura 2000, OSPAR and other regulations (see 8.9.2). CFP as the policy branch where EU has full competence should play a central role in establishing such international management frameworks. 70

75 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Figure 7: Distribution of upside risk by benthic assemblage under three scenarios in the German EEZ of the North Sea. Limit reference value indicated as hatched line. Means by assemblage and standard deviations from 2000 Monte Carlo simulations are indicated (Fock et al., in prep.) c North Sea Bath_Amph-fil Amph-fil Tell-fab-Gona Cumulative upside risk score Z + by community type Gona-Spisu 1 Nuc-nit Mac-balt Gona-Spisu.93 Helg. Deep Mixed Reef Combined I + II II: Flatfish MSY I: N2000 clos. y2006 Source: Author 9.3. Policy need: Giving fisheries a spatial property As pointed out in chapter 5, fisheries are an overlooked issue in marine spatial planning. However, the analysis in chapter 6 shows that spatial requirements and dimensions of fisheries can be well defined and that in turn, for impact assessments spatial information on fisheries is indispensable. It is important to define spatial dimensions of fisheries for three reasons: To define the necessary size of fishing grounds in order to provide a basis for sustainable fisheries. To guarantee access to coastal fisheries. And, To combine conservation objectives and CFP and other measures by means of advanced risk assessment techniques (see section before). 71

76 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies At present, spatial characteristics of fisheries are applied to only indicate negative effects, but not to treat space as a prerequisite to operate fisheries as an economic activity 27. The current definition of environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem (2008/949/EC Appendix XIII) shows that CFP aims in this direction, i.e. to define only the effects of fisheries. Indicators selected are the areas free of activity to implement conservation objectives under the ecosystem approach to fisheries (code 7) or to investigate aggregation level of fisheries to indicate potential conflict areas 27. In turn, this could be easily adopted to define essential fishing grounds as well Defining fishing grounds For demersal fishes with specific habitat requirements places where fishing has taken place over the recent decades, fishing grounds to a large extent remained stable according to their spatial dimensions. This applies to habitat dependent target species (Nephrops fishing grounds), common shrimp (Crangon fisheries), flatfish and sandeel, and species preferring certain slope habitats and deeper water. Examples are given in Pedersen et al. (2009b). In turn, also pelagic fisheries have regularities with regard to spatial requirements, although these areas appear to be more variable. Shifts in nursery grounds as being observed for plaice (shift in area with high juvenile abundance (Beare et al., 2010)) or a north-south shift in fisheries (sandeel (ICES, 2007c)) show that despite this shift at larger scale, at smaller scale preferred areas and habitats remained the same, though with a different level of abundance. The fishing industry has also realised that spatial data on fishing activity and thus fishing grounds will help to improve fisheries management with regard to other spatial uses. 28 To avoid extreme concentration of fishing activity in free or unregulated areas, spatial dimensions of fishing grounds need to be defined. Where available space is reduced, safety risks increase and fisheries often is not economically sustainable for a fleet size, for which it could be sustainable if broader space were given, due to local depletion of stocks which are not instantaneously replenished from surrounding areas. As an example, in pelagic redfish fisheries a 'redfish line' was defined by Iceland leading to a high concentration of fishing activity in only a small area, and increased spatial fishing activity leads to lower than normal catch rates affecting the economic yield under such conditions (Rijnsdorp et al., 2000) Access to coastal fisheries Many competing economic and conservation activities will be established in coastal areas. Most existing marine designated or proposed Natura 2000 sites are located in territorial waters or in near offshore areas. All MS have designated areas in the coastal zone proper thus reducing the available space for fisheries, if management measures will include cessation of fisheries there. Economic activities such as offshore wind farming will pose further impediments to coastal fisheries, since wind farms are complex protected constructions. For security reasons of the plant as well as the fishing vessel and its crew, no shipping or fishing will be allowed within the wind farms or in the 500 m-wide marginal buffer zone in German waters. Taking into 27 SEC(2008) 449, 2008/949/EC 28 North Sea RAC Letter to the European Commission, DG MARE, 28 January

77 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy account the total planned space to be occupied by wind farms in the German EEZ by 2020, some 50% of the fishing opportunities for flatfish will be inaccessible to fisheries (Berkenhagen et al., 2010), not considering further restrictions in the additional 31.5% area covered by Natura 2000 sites. This could lead to a displacement of fishing effort into more offshore areas, where coastal fleets would have to compete with offshore fleets. In the reform of the European CFP, development of coastal fisheries is a major issue 29, so that policy goals could be confounded in this respect. An example of competitive exclusion is the so-called 'plaice box' in the southern North Sea in the coastal regions of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Here, large vessels are excluded from the coastal zone to protect nursery grounds for flatfish. In turn, in Germany the complete coastal area is designated as Natura 2000 area, and potential fisheries closures will force the coastal fishing fleet to operate outside their traditional fishing grounds leading to likely negative competitive effects on this fleet segment Policy need: Resolving different national policies MS have applied different treatments in nominating Natura 2000 sites with regard to area covered in the EEZ (Table 2), average MPA size (Table 3), and total area reserved for MPAs (Appendix 1), despite the objective reasons for these different settings. Further differences appear in the setting of conservation objectives EMPAS-FIMPAS comparison Germany was the first MS to nominate marine Natura 2000 sites and to develop a coordinated international participatory process to develop fisheries management in Natura 2000 sites, i.e. the EMPAS project. In 2010, the Netherlands started a follow-up project to EMPAS called FIMPAS, 'Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas', for the Dutch EEZ in cooperation with ICES. FIMPAS is the second project to deal with Natura 2000-fisheries issues, and naturally, differences to EMPAS appear as process knowledge and experience has evolved and due to different interpretations of the legal framework. As for Germany, EC guidelines 30 are considered essential to collect data and to approach fisheries management. One of the goals of the FIMPAS project is to achieve cooperation between states and organizations which is regarded vital for internationally managed waters. Nature conservation in the North Sea is regarded as a shared responsibility of all North Sea states, so the Netherlands will seek permanent cooperation between them 31. Close relationships will also be maintained with the North Sea RAC, the EC and other interested organisations. Support of these bodies is required to achieve the goals of the project. Comparing the Dutch approach with the German approach to fisheries management up to date shows one important difference: the number of Dutch conservation objectives for each SAC is smaller compared to the German approach. The high number of conservation objectives could make the German management development process more complicated. 29 COM(2009)

78 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies For the Dogger bank, an area for which both MS have nominated adjacent SACs, Germany indicated only 3 HD Annex I and II features present in the area, for which 26 conservation objectives were developed. In turn, the Netherlands attributed one conservation objective to each of the 4 HD Annex I and II features found in the Dutch sector of the Dogger bank (Table 7). Table 7: Comparison by number of Dutch and German conservation objectives for the SAC Dogger Bank, Germany The Netherlands SAC No. of HD annex species/habitats No. of Conservation Objectives No. of HD annex species/habitats No. ofconservation Objectives Dogger Bank Source: Author, based on Jak et al. (2009) This has two reasons. Whereas the German conservation objectives are very generic and mutually dependent on the overall definitions of favourable conservation status, the Dutch conservation objectives are annotated objectives and thus appear more focussed. The second reason is that in the Dutch process the site importance for species and habitats as being defined during the designation process is also considered in the definition of objectives and proposed management measures. This guarantees that important features are given more weight in the management development process (Fig. 8) which is different to the German protocol (Fig. 2). It is likely that the scheme shown in Figure 8 follows the intention of the EC guiding document 32 on the establishment of the Natura 2000 network (see p. 80 in the EC guiding document), which however is not legally binding. Figure 8: Schematic flow chart of interrelationships between the three different fields of activity associated with the Dutch Natura 2000 process (see Fig. 2) Source: Author (Table 5), and Jak et al. (2009)

79 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Harmonizing Natura 2000 measures within the CFP framework As a complex process, Natura 2000 comprises steps of data collection and monitoring, definition of conservation objectives, impact and risk assessments and the development of management strategies in MPAs. MPAs under the Natura 2000 network are subject to many human impacts, but only issues related to fisheries fall under the competence of the CFP. CFP technical measures such as closures (in the German EEZ: 'Plaice-Box', 'Odra Bank closure') have led to a reduction in fishing effort maintaining or enhancing the environmental status of the area considered (see Beare et al., 2010). Guidelines from the EC for fisheries measures in relation to Natura 2000 are widely appreciated. The EC together with all relevant European legislative bodies has the responsibility, to harmonize management schemes proposed to them by MS to avoid discriminatory measures or measures based on different definitions or interpretations of provisions. The example of Denmark not having adopted the 'Interpretation manual of European Union Habitats' shows that it is much likely that despite of negotiations between MS different national conservation rationales will lead to fisheries management proposals with different levels of management strictness. EC has recognised its responsibility in that respect 33 RACs have pointed out that in spite of different approaches to fisheries measures under HD and BD that for having a 'level playing field' for industry from different countries, detailed guidance from the EC to MS is needed (see 27 ). 33 See presentation by F. Papoulias, EC DG ENV, on Joint RAC meeting Edinburgh, May 5-6,

80 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 76

81 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy REFERENCES Beare D., Rijnsdorp A., Kooten T.V., Fock H.O., Schröder A., Kloppmann M., Witbaard R., Meesters E., Schulze T., Blaesbjerg M., Damm U., Quirijns F. (2010), Study for the Revision of the Plaice Box - Draft Final Report, Rep. No. C002/10. IMARES. Berkenhagen J., Döring R., Fock H.O., Kloppmann M.H.F., Pedersen S.A., Schulze T. (2010). Decision bias in marine spatial planning of offshore wind farms: Problems of singular versus cumulative assessments of economic impacts on fisheries. Marine Policy 34, Cardoso A.C., Cochrane S., Doerner H., Ferreira J.G., Galgani F., Hagebro C., Hanke G., Hoeppffner N., Keizer P.D., Law R., Olenin S., Piet G.J., Rice J., Rogers S.I., Swartenbroux F., Tasker M.L., van de Bund, W. (2010). Scientific Support to the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Management Group report, Rep. No. draft. JRC- ICES. Chapman C. (1997). Project risk analysis and management - PRAM the generic process. International Journal of Project Management 15, Cliquet A., Bogaert D., Rabaut M. (2008). Implementation of Natura 2000 in the marine environment: a Belgian case study. In LITTORAL A Changing Coast: Challenge for the Environmental Policies, Proceedings 9th International Conference Venice, Italy, 1-9. Daunt F., Wanless S., Greenstreet S.P.R., Jensen H., Hamer K.C., Harris, M.P. (2008). The impact of sandeel fishery closutre on seabird food consumption, distribution, and productivity in the northwestern North Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 65, Douvere F., Maes F., Vanhulle A., Schrijvers J. (2007). The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: The Belgian case. Marine Policy 31, Eastwood P.D., Mills C.M., Aldridge J.N., Houghton C.A., Rogers S.I. (2007). Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physical pressure on the seabed. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64, European Commission (2003). Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances Commission regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Rep. No. EUR EN/2. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra. Fock H., Kloppmann M., Stelzenmüller V. (in prep). Gain and loss in relative ecological risk assessment: A case study on seafloor integrity under European maritime policies. Fock H.O. (2008). Fisheries in the context of marine spatial planning: Defining principal areas for fisheries in the German EEZ. Marine Policy 32, Fock H.O. (2009). EcoQO's: Spatial variability of the Large Fish Indicator in historical German Data. ICES WGECO Working Document HF1/2009. Fock H.O. (2010). Integrating multiple pressures at different spatial and temporal scales: A concept for relative ecological risk assessment in the European marine environment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, in press. 77

82 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Herr H., Fock H.O., Siebert U. (2009). Spatio-temporal associations between Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and specific fisheries in the German Bight. Biological Conservation 142, HELCOM (2010). Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment, Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No ICES (2007a). Report of the Ad hoc Group for Western Irish Natura Sites (AGWINS). ICES CM, 2007/ACE:06. ICES (2007b). Report of the Study Group on Risk Assessment and Management Advice (SGRAMA), Rep. No. ICES CM 2007/RMC:02. ICES, Copenhagen. ICES (2007c). Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), Rep. No. ICES CM 200/ ACFM:18 and 30. ICES, Copenhagen. ICES (2007d). Report of the Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (WKFMMPA), Rep. No. ICES CM 2007/ MHC:06. ICES, Copenhagen. ICES (2008). Report of the Workshop on dealing with Natura 2000 and Related Requests (WKN2K), Rep. No. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:46. ICES, Copenhagen. ICES (2009). Report of the EMPAS project (Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Protected Areas) ICES, Copenhagen. Jak R.G., Bos O.G., Witbaard R., Lindeboom H.J. (2009). Conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) in the Dutch sector of the North Sea, Rep. No. C065/09. IMARES. Johnston C.M., Turnbull C.G., Tasker M.L. (2003). Natura 2000 in UK Offshore Waters: Advice to support the implementation of the EC Habitats and Birds Directive in UK offshore waters, Rep. No JNCC, Petersborough. Kaiser M.J., Collie J.S., Hall S.J., Jennings S., Poiner I.R. (2002). Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries 3, Krause J.C., Boedeker D., Backhausen I., Heinicke K., Groß A., Nordheim, H.v. (2006). Rationale behind site selection for the NATURA 2000 network in the German EEZ. In Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe (eds. Nordheim H.v., Boedeker D., Krause J.C.), Springer, Berlin, Lindeboom H.J., Groot S.J.d., eds. (1998) Impact II - The effects of different types of fisheries on the North Sea and Irish Sea benthic ecosystems, Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, 404 pp. MacLeod C.D., Begoña Santos M., Reid R.J., Scott B.E., Pierce G.J. (2007). Linking sandeel consumption andf the likelihood of starvation in harbour porpoises in the Scottish North Sea: could climate change mean more starving porpoises. Biology Letters 3, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, University of St. Andrews (2010). Mitigation of incidental catches of cetaceans in EU waters, Study IP/B/PECH/IC/2009_39, European Parliament, Brussels, 154 pp. North Sea Regional Advisory Council (2008). Offshore Marine Protected Areas. North Sea RAC, Edinburgh. 78

83 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Pedersen S.A., Fock H.O., Krause J., Pusch C., Sell A., Böttcher U., Rogers S., Sköld M., Skov H., Podolska M., Piet G., Rice J. (2009a). Natura 2000 sites and Fisheries in German Offshore Waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66, Pedersen S.A., Fock H.O., Sell, A. (2009b). Spatial mapping of fisheries and marine protected areas in German waters. Marine Policy 33, Rijnsdorp A.D., Dol W., Hoyer M., Pastoors M.A. (2000). Effects of fishing power and competitve interactions among vessels on the effort allocation on the trip level of the Dutch beam trawl fleet. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, Stelzenmüller V., Lee J., South A., Rogers S.I. (2010). Quantifying cumulative impacts of human pressures on the marine environment: a geostatistical framework. Marine Ecology Progress Series 398, Symes D. (2005). Marine Spatial Planning: A Fisheries Perspective, Rep. No. unpublished. Report to English Nature. Tasker M.L., Camphuysen C.J., Cooper J., Garthe S., Montevecchi W.A., Blaber S.J.M. (2000). The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, Thurstan R.H., Brockington S., Roberts C.M. (2010). The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries. Nature Communications, DOI: /ncomms1013: von Nordheim H. (2007). The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM of marine protected areas. In Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 (eds. Krause J.C., Nordheim H.v., Bräger S.), Vol. BfN-Skripten 193, BfN, Bonn,

84 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 80

85 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy ANNEX I: APPENDICES Appendix 1: Marine site nominations to EC by November Status assessment of nominations based based upon evaluation from regional biogeographical seminars. C nominations considered complete, I nominations considered incomplete, SCI Sites of Community Importance according to HD, SPA Special Protection Areas according to BD Country Number of marine SCI Marine SCI area (km2) Biogeographical status of SCI nominations Number of marine SPA Marine SPA area (km²) Biogeographical status of SPA nominations BELGIUM C C BULGARIA I I DENMARK ,145 C 59 12,180 C GERMANY 53 19,768 C 15 16,055 C ESTONIA 46 3,752 I 27 6,502 C IRELAND 97 6,014 I I GREECE 114 6,344 I 77 1,099 I SPAIN 97 7,926 I 33 1,034 I FRANCE ,709 I 73 33,041 C ITALY 162 2,254 C 45 2,724 C CYPRUS 5 50 I 1 21 I LATVIA I I LITHUANIA I I MALTA 1 8 I 0 0 I NETHERLANDS 14 10,857 C 6 4,895 C POLAND 6 3,600 I 4 6,490 C PORTUGAL I I ROMANIA 6 1,353 I 1 - I FINLAND 98 5,460 I 66 5,567 I SWEDEN 334 7,512 I 108 4,018 I UK 49 12,409 I I Source: DG ENV Natura 2000 barometer, accessed online June

86 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Appendix 2: Up-to-date schedule for the implementation of the Natura 2000 process in the German EEZ and 12 nm-zone, Activity of MS Federal Government (FG) or States (Länder) (ST) Date (FG) Nomination of 10 Natura 2000 in the EEZ to EC May 25, 2004 (FG) Declaration of 2 marine protected areas under national law, formerly designated as special protected areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive September 23, 2005 (ST) Nomination of Natura 2000 site for Mecklenburg- Vorpommern in the 12 nm-zone to FG October 10, 2005 (ST) Nomination of Natura 2000 sites for Niedersachsen to FG February, (ST) Nomination of Natura 2000 sites for Schleswig- Holstein to FG October 2, 2006 (FG) Submission of nominations of additionally 8 marine NATURA sites in the 12 nm-zone to EC November 12, (FG) Publication of conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ January (FG) Final publication of list of Natura 2000 sites January 15, (FG) R&D project "Ecologically sound fishery in marine protected areas" (EMPAS) by German Fed. Nature Conservation Agency (BfN) in cooperation with ICES January 2006-November (FG) First meeting of the steering group "Developing management measures for Natura2000 sites in relation to fisheries" June 26, 2009 (FG) New Federal Environmental Law Act enters into force August 9, 2009 (FG) Second meeting of the steering group "Developing management measures for Natura2000 sites in relation to fisheries" March 5, 2010 More meetings planned../.. Submission of management plans Due decision-rev1/_en_1.0_&a=d 3 te.php the%20EMPAS%20project.pdf Source: Author 82

87 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Appendix 3: Habitat size, relevant species and habitats protected by the HD in SACs in the German EEZ of the North Sea Habitats in area size (ha), species in population size (numbers n), p = present, unknown = No data Feature Borkum reef ground Dogger bank Sylter outer reef Habitats Reefs (HD code 1170) (ha) Sandbanks (HD code 1110)(ha) Species/Mammals Grey seal (n) P unknown Harbour seal (n) p Harbour porpoise(n) Species/Fish Twaite shad (n) P unknown P River lamprey (n) Unknown unknown P European sturgeon (n) Unknown unknown Unknown Source: Pedersen et al.(2009a) 83

88 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Appendix 4: Habitat size, relevant species and habitats protected by the HD in SACs in the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea Habitats in area size (ha), species in population size (numbers n), p = present, unknown = No data Feature Adlerground Fehmarn Belt Kadet trench Pomeranian Bight w. Odra Bank Western Rönne Bank Habitats Reefs (HD code 1170) (ha) Sandbanks (HD code 1110)(ha) Species/Mammals Grey seal (n) P unknown unknown unknown unknown Harbour seal (n) Unknown p unknown unknown Unknown Harbour porpoise (n) >10 >100 > Species/Fish Twaite shad (n) Unknown unknown unknown p unknown River lamprey (n) Unknown unknown unknown Unknown unknown European sturgeon (n) Unknown unknown unknown p reintroduced by restocking programme unknown Source: Pedersen et al.(2009a) 84

89 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Appendix 5: Preliminary conservation objectives for Natura 2000 habitats and species in the German EEZ Feature/Species Reefs Sandbanks Harbour porpoise Principle* Conservation objective are the conservation and/or recovery of the specific ecological functions, the characteristic habitat structure and its extent (area) the characteristic morpho-dynamic and general local currents together with its characteristic and endangered communities and species Conservation of the characteristic benthic communities and species within their natural occurrence and abundance, e.g. anemones, tunicates, bryozoans and fishes are the conservation and/or recovery of the current ecological quality, habitat structure and surface area of the habitat type the characteristic morphological and hydrological dynamics and the typical species and communities in their largely natural population dynamics the characteristic benthic communities of habitat 1110 and its characteristic species are the conservation and/or recovery of the existing stock recognising their natural population dynamic and fluctuations their feeding, migration and reproduction habitats with preservation of their functional integrity within the site and the possibility to migrate to other sites outside the natural genetic diversity the occurrence and abundance in space and time of their food chain *original wording, Source: Pedersen et al.(2009a) 85

90 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Appendix 6: Conservation status assessment for HD habitats and species, Germany (FV. Favourable; U1: Unfavourable Inadequate; U2:Unfavourable Bad; XX: Unknown): 86

91 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy Source: BfN 87

92 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Appendix 7: Catch figures (t) for the German EEZ by country: North Sea 2006 Catch Belgium Denmark Germany The Netherlands Sweden UK Total Selected figures by species Shrimp * 0 0 Dab Sole Plaice Sandeel Source: Pedersen et al. (2009b) Shrimp = Common shrimp (Crangon crangon) Dab, sole, plaice = flatfish species Sandeel = species caught by industrial fisheries * Likely underestimate Appendix 8: Catch figures (t) for the German EEZ by country: Baltic Sea 2006 Catch Denmark Germany Poland Sweden Latvia Total Selected figures by species Cod Dab Flounder Herring Sprat Source: Pedersen et al. (2009b) Dab, flounder = flatfish species 88

93 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy ANNEX II: NATURA 2000 SITES IN TERRITORIAL AND OFFSHORE WATERS FOR GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, THE UK AND SPAIN A) Germany, North Sea, date published November 23, 2007, SH - Schleswig-Holstein, LS - Niedersachsen SH LS Source: Website of BfN 89

94 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies B) Germany, Baltic Sea, date published November 23, 2007; MVP Mecklenburg- Vorpommern MVP Source: Website of BfN 90

95 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy C) The Netherlands; date published March 2010 Source: www. Nordzeenatura2000.nl 91

96 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies D) UK, including new Natura 2000 sites for which consultation process was undertaken in 2009, date published November 23, 2009 Source: JNCC 92

97 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy E) Site description for the proposed SAC Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton, covering both areas inside the 12 nm-zone (territorial waters) and the EEZ. Territorial waters indicated by Source: JNCC 93

98 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies F) Spanish marine Natura 2000 sites, year published Source: ICES (2008) 94

99 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy ANNEX III: POTENTIAL CONFLICTS FOR BIRD, MAMMALS AND FISH SPECIES Example of an assessment of the potential conflicts between fishing and Natura 2000 conservation objectives for seabirds, mammals and fish species to be protected in SPA Pomeranian Bay. The following scale has been used: A=very conflicting, B=conflicting, C=little conflicting, D=no conflict. Harbour porpoise, sturgeon and twaite shad are included. Source: ICES (2009) 95

100 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 96

101 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy ANNEX IV: IMPACT ASSESSMENTS FOR BIRDS IN SPA POMERANIAN BAY/BALTIC SEA Conflict intensity levels with regard to gillnet fishing: Green none; yellow low; amber moderate; red high. 97

102 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Source: ICES (2009) 98

103 Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy ANNEX V: MAPPING OVERLAPS BETWEEN HD HABITATS AND FISHERIES - BEAM TRAWLING AROUND SAC SYLT OUTER REEF Source: Pedersen et al. (2009a) 99

104

105

106 Directorate-General FOR Internal Policies POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES Directorate-General FOR Internal Policies POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES B B anddevelopment Rural Development AgricultureAgriculture and Rural and Education CultureCulture and Education Role The Policy Departments are research units that provide specialised advice to committees, inter-parliamentary delegations and other parliamentary bodies. Fisheries Fisheries Regional Development Regional Development Policy Areas Transport Tourism Transport and and Tourism Agriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education Fisheries Regional Development Transport and Tourism NATURA 2000 AND THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY Documents Visit the European Parliament website: PHOTO CREDIT: istock International Inc., Photodisk, Phovoir NOTE ISBN BA EN-C EN BG CS DA DE EL ES ET FI FR HU IT LT LV MT NL PL PT RO SK SL SV 2010