1. THE NEED FOR MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT presented by Experience from the Dogger Bank David Goldsborough Presented at: How should fish be caught? Brussels April 12 2012

2. Outline The Dogger Bank Management of the Dogger Bank Four stakeholder processes Observations What do we learn from this? Conclusions

3. The Dogger Bank Largest sandbank North Sea divided among EEZs of UK, NL, GER and DK Shallow dynamic flat top, surrounding slopes more stable Over 300km ENE / WSW, max 120km wide Overall 17,600km2 Nearest land UK 100km

4. Management of the Dogger Bank Fisheries Management in Relation to Nature Conservation Natura2000 legal framework – Habitats directive But also wind farm development

5. Natura 2000 UK, NL and GER have, at different times, proposed SACs in their respective Dogger Bank EEZs For EU Habitat H1110 sandbanks slightly covered by seawater all the time General objective is restoration and conservation of habitat H1110

6. Borders Natura2000 areas

7. Overlap of Forewind development zone with UK cSAC on Dogger Bank

8. FIMPAS: Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (NL) In January 2011 FIMPAS recognises cross boundary nature of the Dogger Bank SACs and their fisheries, and an inter-governmental Dogger Bank Steering Group (DBSG) is set up DBSG invites a stakeholder-led North Sea RAC proposal for a fisheries management plan for the combined Dogger Bank SAC area

9. NSRAC objective To develop a position paper on fisheries management in relation to nature conservation, including a zoning proposal, for the combined area covered by the 3 national Natura 2000 sites (SACs) of the Dogger Bank.

10. NSRAC Spatial Planning Working Group NSRAC Focus Group (FG): – 3 fishing sector (UK, NL and DK) – 3 NGOs – 1 liaison FOREWIND – 1 MASPNOSE Dogger Bank case study Centre for Marine Policy (MASPNOSE project) ask to facilitate NSRAC FG

11. MASPNOSE MASPNOSE aims to facilitate concrete, cross- border cooperation among European countries on ecosystem-based maritime spatial planning Dogger Bank 1 of 2 case studies DG MARE funded

12. MASPNOSE Dogger Bank Objectives Encourage cross-border cooperation area of three national SACs on the Dogger Bank Test 10 key-principles EU Roadmap Identify gaps and barriers to implement MSP Identify opportunities develop visions – good practices

13. Four DBSG stakeholder processes 1.May 2011 – October 2011 2.October 2011- November 2011 3.December 2011 – February 2012 4.March 2012 – April 2012 DBSG members: NL (chair), UK, GER, DK, ICES and the EC

14. 1. May - October 2011 Participant:NSRAC Focus Group TOR:NSRAC Focus Group Objective:Position paper fisheries management including a zoning proposal Facilitation: MASPNOSE including GIS support Budget:MASPNOSE Meetings:Five meetings in 2011, including two 2-day workshops. Result:NSRAC Position Paper submitted to DBSG (October 2011)

15. August 2-day workshop with two Maptables

16. 31 participants – NSRAC FG members – Fishermen – NGOs – Forewind – Invited expert – ICES observer (DBSG) – EC observer (DBSG) – MASPNOSE team – GIS support and extra facilitation

17. Sharing data, knowledge, opinions and information Van Moorsel, GWNM (2011) Species and habitats of the international Dogger Bank. ecosub, Doorn.

18. Sand eel fishing grounds North Sea By DTU aqua

19. Fisheries data 2007-2009 (ICES) Prepared and explained by Doug Beare, IMARES

20. Position Paper with 3 scenarios e.g. scenario 2 (30-10-60)

21. 2.October - November 2011 Participants: DBSG, NSRAC FG and other invited stakeholders Objective: To reflect on ICES prepared proposal including 3 scenarios TOR:Not applicable Facilitation: ICES Budget:DBSG Meeting:DBSG Dublin Stakeholder meeting, November 7th & 8th 2011 Result:NSRAC to continue to develop a zoning proposal within strict terms of reference set by the DBSG. NSRAC FG to include DBSG observers (= NSRAC FG+)

22. Indicative scenario based on applying restrictive measures to 40% of area, equitably across all habitats (courtesy ICES)

23. Key DBSG Terms of Reference for the NSRACs proposal Apply a concept with two zones: –Free Zone: all legal gears within the CFP are allowed –Management Zone: fishing limited to gears that do not cause deterioration of habitats for which site has been designated Develop a fisheries management zone covering 25%-55% of total SAC and ensure representation of all (five) benthic communities Perspective to be the entire Dogger Bank, not individual EEZs but take account of Germanys management aim Avoid a patchy pattern of zones in light of enforceability Develop a method for weighing socio-economic considerations.

24. 3. December 2011 – February 2012 Participants:NSRAC FG+ (NSRAC FG + DBSG members as active observers) TOR:DBSG Objective:Fisheries management plan including joint zoning proposal Facilitation: David Goldsborough including GIS support Budget:DBSG Member States and fishing sector (50:50) Meetings:Scoping Meeting NSRAC FG+ and 2 workshops Result:NSRAC could not agree on joint zoning proposal (elaborated in February, 2012 NSRAC SPWG report)

25. Focus only on percentages and locations e.g. blue working map

26. 4. March 2012 – April 2012 Participants:NSRAC FG+ and chair NSRAC TOR:DBSG plus additional requirements Objective:Fisheries management plan including joint zoning proposal Facilitation: MASPNOSE Budget:MASPNOSE Meetings:Scoping Meeting NSRAC FG with chair and vice- chair NSRAC and 1 workshop Result:Final position paper on fisheries management in relation to nature conservation for the combined area of 3 national Natura 2000 sites (SACs) on the Dogger Bank

28. Main ingredients 1.Description of the process 2.Results of the process 1.Reflections on TOR 2.Consensus areas 3.Outstanding differences 1.NGO zoning proposal 2.Industry zoning proposal 3.Conclusions on stakeholder process and recommendations for the future

29. Example Map with proposed areas

30. Observations (1) Without MASPNOSE this process would have never happened Those who decide can not leave resolving disputed issues to stakeholders Uncharted waters i.e. no one knows how this works and what the exact rules are This should have been a joint process DBSG + NSRAC process from the start

31. Observations (2) These processes can only work if sufficient means are available i.e. manpower, money and support and if stake holders are willing to share responsibility The NSRAC does currently not have the means and is not equipped to operate in such complex regional stake holder processes

32. What do we learn from this? (1) Full transparency and trust crucial Clear roles, responsibilities and timelines are essential, rules of the game – Terms of Reference (TOR) – Script Conditions must be clear and met at the start – Budget, Time, Access to data, etc. – Who decides and when is a decision taken?

33. What do we learn from this (2) Dialogue should mainly be based on contents and not politics Clear ownership of process is critical All stakeholders need to take responsibility

34. What do we learn from this? (3) Principle 7: cross-border cooperation – Establish mandate for cooperation Principle 4: stakeholder participation – Needs a well-designed process/strategy Principle 3: transparency – Differentiate internal-external transparency

35. The Dogger Bank process and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)? First ever attempt at fisheries management measures on a large cross-border scale RAC stakeholders and Member States can work cooperatively, given adequate data and resources Co-management under CFP regionalization is realistic For fisheries and nature conservation MSP Directive not necessarily best approach to Member State cooperation

36. Final conclusion The Dogger Bank stakeholder process is a very valuable experiment that holds a lot of promise for regional management and conservation with MSP of marine areas in the EU