Fisheries Group

Notes from the joint meeting between the North Sea Commission Fisheries and Environment Groups, Haarlem, Noord-Holland, NL, January 22nd, 2004.

Present:
Harry Jensen, Ringkjøbing Amt, DK, Chair of NSCFG
Sandy Cluness, Shetland Islands, Scotland, vice chair NSCFG
Susy Lauesen, Nordjyllands Amt, DK
Svend Braaten, Nordjyllands Amt, DK
Jörgen Jörgensen, Viborg Amt, DK
Karsten Bækgaard, Ringkjøbing Amt, DK
Tommy Mostrup, Ringkjøbing Amt, DK
Jerry Hindle, Suffolk County Council, England
Doug Beveridge, National Federation of Fishermens' Organisations, UK
Frits Zwijndregt, Provincie Noord-Holland, NL
Peter Bakker, Provincie Noord-Holland, NL
Lars Haukvik, Telemark Fylkeskommune, NO
Ann Bell, Aberdeenshire Council, Scotland, NSCFG Co-ordinator
Per Hörberg, Region of Västra Götaland, SE, NSCEG Co-ordinator

Three items were on the agenda:
1. Pollution of the North Sea
2. Offshore wind energy, with a focus on producing a draft NSC Position Paper
3. Marine Protected Areas, MPAs

1. Pollution of the North Sea
Tommy M gave a very interesting presentation of the situation and trends, based primarily on data from OSPAR and the European Environment Agency, EEA. He focused on the ongoing discharges to the North Sea and the present levels in the North Sea of nutrients (nitrogen, N, and phosphorus, P), hazardous substances like pesticides, trace/heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, POPs.

Basically the trends are that "there is no trend", i.e. objectives for the reduction of pollution are on the whole not being reached. There are positive exceptions, like the reduction of discharges of phosphorus and the use of pesticides in some countries.

Discussion:
The fear was expressed that pollution may harm the ecosystems and the fish stocks.

The NSCFG announced its intention of organising a conference in 2004 or 2005 on the topic of North Sea pollution, wanting the NSCEG to join forces with them. The purpose of such a conference was discussed. It was pointed out the need to raise the level of political interest in this issue. It was also pointed out the need to focus on a limited part of the problems and not try to cover "everything".

Tommy M proposed as potential conference themes:
- the new EU Framework Directive for Water, WFD
- the ecological status of the North Sea
- the political status of the North Sea
- an overview of the main sources of pollution
- changed ecosystems, fish stocks, including the "sub lethal effects" of substances like endochrine disrupters, etc.

A concern was expressed that the Thematic Groups may try initiatives where work is already going on in other fora, particularly at OSPAR and EEA and within the work to implement the new EU Framework Directive for Water, WFD.

Ringkjøbing Amt offered to provide an expert to attend meetings of the relevant OSPAR Committee. As it turns out, there are (at least) three such committees for these types of pollution: Eutrophication, EUC, Hazardous Substances, HSC, and Biodiversity, BDC. (The NSCEG had previously decided that its priorities must be the BDC, plus the committees for Assessment and Monitoring, ASMO, and for Radioactive Substances, RSC.)

Conclusion:
Further discussion is needed. Unfortunately this could not be taken any further during the two days in Haarlem.

2. Offshore wind energy
A number of documents had been distributed before the meeting and experts from these two Groups plus the NSC Economic Development Group had had a telephone meeting.

Per H gave a background, including the outcome of the NSCEG Conference 2002 and the current task for the Groups to provide a draft for a NSC "Position Paper" - a comment on the new OSPAR guidelines for offshore wind energy - in time for the NSC Executive Committee meeting at the end of March. The OSPAR guidelines are now adopted by Ministers and will not be changed. The NSC can choose those parts of the guidelines, which it finds most important, and promote them to the national governments for implementation.

Peter B presented the energy plan of Provincie Noord-Holland, giving examples of initiatives on renewable energy sources and co-operation with stakeholders, including Interreg project with Bremerhaven, Germany. Important aspects are the financial support of the province to the local municipalities as well as large scale energy projects, involving for instance waste incineration and solar panels. The province is also affected by large national initiatives for offshore wind energy. The consultation process concerning these large projects seems to have run reasonably well.

Doug B, being one of the above-mentioned experts, presented a paper outlining the concerns of the fishing industry. He described the UK consultation process concerning offshore wind energy as very unsatisfactory. The fishing industry does not consider offshore wind energy a threat to fish stocks as such, but rather a serious threat to the coastal fisheries; important fishing grounds will be blocked and the fishermen forced further away, which in turn will make fishing less profitable and more dangerous. This paper should be available from Doug B at: dbeveridge@nffo.org.uk

The specific discussion of the OSPAR guidelines identified the following aspects, which should be mentioned in a NSC Position Paper:
- The need for a satisfactory consultation process!
- An emphasis that wind/renewable energy as such is necessary in the future, a.o. to counter climate change, which may affect the North Sea area seriously (an important point for a.o. the NSC Economic Development Group),
- Look upon whether wind farms can be positive for fish stocks (function as protected areas for rejuvenation, etc?),
- Demand spatial planning for "all" sea areas, thereby reconciling competing interests in the use of marine resources. (Doug B: "Common resources are not properly regulated".)
- This was summarised by Ann B as "express the need for improved spatial planning with sustainable objectives through meaningful consultation!"

These points will be forwarded by the NSCEG co-ordinator to the experts of the three Thematic Groups, who will meet very soon to draft a NSC Position Paper.

Action: Per H, Doug B, Per Toppenberg, Michael Moll and Daniel Dobson-Mouawad

3. Marine Protected Areas, MPAs
The purpose of the OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas is to establish the OSPAR Network of MPAs and to ensure that by 2010 it is an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs which will: 

• protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have been adversely affected by human activities;
• prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle;
• protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area.

Potential MPAs to be included should be proposed by the national authorities by 2006.

Frits Z related the experiences of the Noord-Holland cockle fisheries, which have been severely restricted in the protected areas of the Wadden See through voluntary agreement over a seven-year period. The fishermen have been compensated, certain offshore activities are prohibited, too, and a certain rise in tourism has been noted. Three provinces have a management plan of their own with political steering with a wide representation: the Wadden Sea Area Interprovincial Policy Plan (IBW). The IBW is based on the national plan, the Wadden Sea Key Planning Decision (PKB). Frits Z distributed a paper describing a.o. these plans, which should be available from him at: ZWIJNDREGTF@Noord-Holland.nl

Discussion:
The role of the regions in the selection and management of MPAs was stressed. The cultural aspects were mentioned alongside the business and conservation aspects. Potential fora for introducing this aspect were proposed; the NSC Fisheries Partnership, the Issue Group for Sustainable Fishing (if formed) within the North Sea Conferences process.

Conclusion:
The co-ordinators of the NSC Thematic Groups (in particular, maybe, the EG, the FG and the Culture & Tourism Group) should discuss positive and negative impacts from MPAs and suggest how the NSC should proceed in this matter. Ann B pointed out that investigations of the roles of fisheries and conservation together could possibly be co-funded by the EU.

Action: Ann B, Per H

Notes:
Per Hörberg
2004-02-04