Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 3 Management proposals for ... Reports/Expert... · ICES. 2011. Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 3 Management proposals for Dogger Bank, Cleaver Bank and

ICES FIMPAS3 REPORT 2011 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ICES CM 2011: ACOM: 32

Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 3 - Manage-ment proposals for Dogger Bank, Cleaver

Bank and Frisian Front

24 - 26 January 2011

Den Helder, The Netherlands

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer

H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected]

Recommended format for purposes of citation:

ICES. 2011. Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 3 Management proposals for Dogger Bank, Cleaver Bank and Frisian Front, 24 - 26 January 2011, Den Helder, The Nether-lands. ICES Advisory Committee. 36 pp.

For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen-eral Secretary.

The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.

© 2011 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICES FIMPAS3 REPORT 2011 i

Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Management plans of the Voordelta .................................................................. 2

1.2 Harbour porpoises in the Netherlands .............................................................. 3 1.3 Economic importance of fishing grounds in the Dutch EEZ .......................... 3

1.4 Principles for the formulation a proposal on fisheries measures ................... 4

1.5 Management measures as proposed by FIMPAS steering group .................. 5

2 The breakout groups ..................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Harbour porpoise ................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Two tier approach .................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Breakout group main outcomes ............................................................. 7

2.2 Dogger Bank .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Breakout group main outcomes ............................................................. 8

2.3 Cleaver Bank ......................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Breakout group main outcomes ........................................................... 10

2.4 Frisian Front ........................................................................................................ 11 2.4.1 Breakout group main outcomes ........................................................... 11

3 Reports from the breakout groups ........................................................................... 12

3.1 Harbour porpoise ............................................................................................... 12 3.2 Dogger Bank ........................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Frisian Front ........................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Cleaver Bank ....................................................................................................... 13

4 Afternoon 25th January ................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Drafting group .................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Excursion ............................................................................................................. 15

5 Conclusions on the workshop 3 and future steps .................................................. 16

5.1 Outcome of the drafting group meeting and plenum discussion ................ 16 5.1.1 Harbour porpoise................................................................................... 16 5.1.2 Cleaver Bank ........................................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Frisian Front ........................................................................................... 17 5.1.4 Dogger Bank ........................................................................................... 17

5.2 International cooperation on the Dogger Bank .............................................. 18

5.3 FIMPAS and ICES Advisory process ............................................................... 18

5.4 Funding of Monitoring and access to data ...................................................... 19 5.5 Final comments on the workshop .................................................................... 19

6 Closure ........................................................................................................................... 20

7 References ..................................................................................................................... 20

ii ICES FIMPAS3 REPORT 2011

Annex I: Gear Impact Matrix (revised) ............................................................................. 21

Annex II FIMPAS WK3 participants ................................................................................ 22

Annex III Agenda ................................................................................................................. 30

ICES FIMPAS3 REPORT 2011 1

1 Introduction

The chair Paul Connolly welcomed everyone and opened the meeting by referring to a poem by Charles Baudelaire that decorated the walls in the meeting room:

“Je suis belle, ô mortels ! comme un rêve de pierre, et mon sein, où chacun s'est meurtri tour à tour, est fait pour inspirer au poète un amour, Éternel et muet ainsi que la matière”

Instead of being inspired to write love poems, we should be inspired to come up with a good proposal on the management measures in the three Dutch Natura 2000 sites.

Paul Connolly outlined the agenda for the following three days in the perspective of the lifecycle of FIMPAS (Fig. 1) and the Workshop 3 Roadmap (Fig. 2)

He updated the audience what had happened after FIMPAS WK2 and in particular

drew the audience attention to the LEI report presenting maps of the economic im-portance of the different fishing grounds in the Dutch EEZ and the discussions at the economists’ workshop in December 2010 that followed. He also noted that a small study on gill net by-catch of harbour porpoise based on UK data had been presented. Furthermore, ICES has in October released advice on the use of ‘pinger’ for harbour porpoise avoidance of gillnets.

Paul Connolly drew attention to the paper with proposal for fisheries measures that would be presented later and that will form the basis for the discussions at the work-shop. He stressed that the status quo is not an option if one wants to reach the conser-vation objectives. He introduced the measure options:

• Total/seasonal ban or spatial approach/zoning

• Bycatch regulation

• Gear restrictions

• Mitigating devices (pingers, seabird scares, ...) made mandatory

• Freeze of effort

Figure 1. Timeline for the FIMPAS project.

2 ICES FIMPAS3 REPORT 2011

He informed the participants that the timeline of FIMPAS has been modified since a multinational cooperation (Germany, Netherlands, UK) for a joint proposal on the Dogger Bank is considered. The process will still be the same, to make sure that the conservation objectives will be met, but the FIMPAS project will be slightly length-ened (Fig. 1).

The results of the previous workshops was discussed, particularly the gear impact matrix of WK2 and the guidelines from the European Commission (DG Mare).

The agenda of WK3 was approved. The floor was opened for questions.

Attendance of the FIMPAS workshops

WK1: 41 participants



Figure 2. The road map for the FIMPAS workshop 3.

1.1 Management plans of the Voordelta

Ton IJlstra presented the Voordelta management plan; the first Natura 2000 area with an established management plan. The process started in spring 2006 and was finished by June 2008. The process included public consultation, designation decrees, draft management plan, notification of the fisheries measures with the European Commis-sion, and resulted in 5 documents. The Voordelta protects 5 habitats, 4 fish species, 2 seal species and 28 bird species. The proposed solution in the Voordelta management plan is a zoning approach, both spatial and temporal. There are “no go” areas, bottom protection areas with prohibition of beam trawl and tickler chains (but low-impact fishing), and protection areas for scoters and seals, where no fishing is allowed in specific periods.


The Natura 2000 management plan is implemented, and no judicial hurdles remain for the management plan.

An important lesson from the Voordelta management plan is the attention that should be given to cooperation and creativity of thinking in the process.

Ton IJlstra added that the Netherlands have submitted 5 more Natura 2000 areas!

The management plan has not been notified to the EC and this in a legal context makes it different from the FIMPAS process. The Voordelta is largely located within the 3 Nm zone and therefore, notification has not been necessary and Belgian fisher-men can be treated as Dutch citizens through the Benelux-treaty.

1.2 Harbour porpoises in the Netherlands

Kees Camphysen informed the meeting on progress with the development of the Dutch Harbour porpoise protection plan. He reviewed briefly our knowledge of abundance and distribution of harbour porpoise in the southern North Sea. The plan shall take into account that harbour porpoises are more or less permanently present around the year, with lower numbers in June-July. Furthermore, the species is a highly mobile which is not contained to individual sites. Arial surveys in 2010, cover-ing 80% of the Dutch EEZ revealed an estimate of 65.000 animals. With an abundance of up to 268.000 animals in the total North Sea, the Dutch animals represent max 24% of the entire population.

Bycatch in fishing gear is considered to be the most significant threat to harbour por-poise populations worldwide. Within the North Sea, this problem is thought to be particularly related to bottom-set gillnets, but the relationship has not yet been proven. Fishing with gillnets should use ‘pingers’ making harbour porpoise avoid gillnets () however compliance with the regulation is not good.

Kees Camphuysen suggested that the Harbour porpoise protection plan should in-clude four steps:

1 ) A complete statistical analysis of fisheries data, stranding and sighting data and “classified” data

2 ) An inspection of zones, areas and seasons where potential conflict occurs 3 ) Suggestions for fishing restrictions 4 ) Monitoring of strandings and abundance of Harbour porpoises by using

independent observer schemes and internationals protocols.

Christian Pusch introduces the German viewpoint on the harbour porpoise bycatch. Germany considers that the Natura 2000 areas are of special ecological value and might need more protection then on the rest of the North Sea. Therefore Germany is considering fisheries measures in Natura 2000 with the aim of reducing by-catch of harbour porpoise. Pingers may be a solution if they are used all over the North Sea. Economic analysis

1.3 Economic importance of fishing grounds in the Dutch EEZ

Heleen Bartelings (LEI) presents the economic analysis of the performance of Dutch and non-Dutch fleets (Oostenbrugge et al 2010). Both VMS and logbook data are used in order to calculate both effort and catch in specified areas. The database includes VMS data for all vessels (> 15 m oal) operating in Dutch EEZ. However, logbook data are available for Dutch fleets operating in the Dutch EEZ while logbooks for vessels flying other flags are only available if the vessel has landed its catch in Dutch har-


bours. The data coverage for Belgium, Germany and the UK is relatively good, while data for Denmark and France is poor. This means that the Danish industrial fishery is not represented at all and Heleen noted that the paper presented by the steering had included additional data. For other fisheries, countries with lower coverage of log-book data did not catch in tonnes as much as the countries with high coverage, which lessens the problem.

Prices were taken from Dutch auctions data aggregated by month.

Most effort for the Dutch vessels is located in the coastal zone, while the effort of for-eign vessels is located mostly in the EEZ. Dogger Bank is the most important Natura 2000 area for the fishing industry.

However, these results say little about the potential of areas and about differences in cost of fishing.

Hans Lassen supplemented with a short commentary on the economists meeting on December 6th-7th. Some problems still remain on the economic analysis, but there are now two sets of maps which supply valuable information on the catch, effort and gross value of the catches covering the Dutch EEZ. The LEI maps can be used for catch value, and the IMARES maps for effort. There are small differences in the calcu-lations of the data used by IMARES and by LEI, but no substance differences. The economists were asked based on the maps of gross value, catch and effort by fleet to draw potential scenarios for how the fleet might react to specific fisheries measures, e.g. if there were specific areas that might be preferred for displacement of the effort from the Natura 2000 areas? However, no definitive calculation method could be de-signed to calculate the effects.

The floor asked on local as opposed to national impact from fisheries measures. The study provides no information on such regional effects.

Paul Connolly concluded that it is disappointing that not all data are available and therefore no complete economic analysis can be made. He noted that more data (par-ticularly on costs) need to be collected if we are to conduct an economic analysis of any proposed measures.

1.4 Principles for the formulation a proposal on fisheries measures

Eugene Nixon introduces the steering group’s management proposal going over the EC guidelines one by one. Eugene Nixon continued by presenting a diagram on how to develop the measures proposals and he presented the gear impact matrix. He fi-nally reviewed the proposed set of principles that is presented in the steering group paper. During the presentation there were questions and comments. Eugene Nixon concluded that there is agreement on some principles, while issues remain on others. Paul Connolly concluded that the industry does agree with the gear impact matrix including a number of additional remarks. He stressed that the proposal paper is a “living document” and will be changed according to the outcome of this discussion.

The main issue that was discussed during Eugene Nixon’s presentation concerned the impact by trawls on habitats on Dogger Bank. FIMPAS WK2 ended in disagree-ment between the fishing industry and the other stakeholders on this issue and this is clearly reflected in the FIMPAS WK2 report 2010 and the FIMPAS proposal report 2011. The disagreement was with the Dogger Bank not much with the Cleaver Bank. Measures should be triggered already at “medium” to obtain the conservation goal of maintain. The colour code should be dismissed and the specific cells should include “not agreed”. The updated Gear Impact Matrix is presented in Annex I (Table A-1).


This disagreement and possible solutions were deferred to further discussed in the various breakout groups.

1.5 Management measures as proposed by FIMPAS steering group

Ton IJlstra presented the steering group’s proposal for management measures. The knowledge of the marine ecosystems of the specific sites is relatively scarce, but to reach the conservation objectives measures will be needed nonetheless: not taking a decision is not an option because the objective is to improve the state of the habitats, but banning all fishing activities is also not an option.

On the Dogger Bank the conservation status is inadequate, and the objective is the improvement of abiotic conditions, structure and function and the quality in terms of typical species. Scientific research shows that intensive bottom trawling has ecologi-cal effects in sandy habitats such as the Dogger Bank, although no agreement on the magnitude of impact was reached at FIMPAS WK2.

Ton IJlstra quickly browsed over the Dogger Bank measures (Fig. 3), but immediately noted that a better protection of the Dogger Bank may be reached by international cooperation and he suggested that a Dogger Bank workshop will be organized in September 2011.The current state of affairs in the United Kingdom was explained by John Clorley: UK will notify areas on the Dogger Bank as sandbank habitats, and welcomed the multinational approach for measurements. The Danes will join the dis-cussion; although they have no intention to notify areas on the Dogger Bank as a Natura 2000 site. The German position was explained by Christian Pusch and Anne Sell. German working groups will come up with proposals by spring 2011. In general, Germany is open for cooperation, but no clear timeframe can be presented right now.

Figure 4. Measurement proposal for the Frisian Front.

Figure 3. Proposed measures for the Dogger Bank.


Proposed measures for the Frisian Front include: allow gillnetting Nov-April, VMS-obligation for all vessels, freeze of gillnetting, trawling and seining effort at the 2006-2008 level (Fig. 4).

The proposed Cleaver Bank measures include: ban beam- and otter trawl in H1170 areas, allow low impact fishing within Botney Cut, freeze seining and gillnetting to 2006-2008 levels (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Measurement proposal for the Cleaver Bank.


2 The breakout groups

2.1 Harbour porpoise

Hans Nieuwenhuis chaired this group. He welcomed the group members and sug-gested that the group focused its discussions on the ‘Two tier approach’ as well as the measures suggested in the presentation of Kees Camphuysen earlier that day. The discussion should concentrate on the harbour porpoise issue this seems to be the more important and also there are more data available; so far, too little is known about the effects of gillnetting on Grey seals.

2.1.1 Two tier approach

The two tier approach includes: 1) a Harbour porpoise species conservation plan (HPSCP) for the entire North Sea population and 2) a freeze (2006-2008 level) on gill-net effort within the MPAs.

The reasons for proposing a species conservation plan, instead of protecting the Har-bour porpoise within MPAs were reviewed: 1) threats exist in the entire North Sea, 2) Harbour porpoise is a migrating species, 3) no exact location(s) used for calving have been identified and 4) restricting gillnets in MPAs is expected to have no (or even a negative) effect on the Harbour porpoise population as this will basically move the nets to other locations posing a similar threat for the Harbour porpoise.

There are proposals for so-called Harbour porpoise ‘hot-spots’ that may be starting point for the conservation of the species by MPAs but there is no agreement if these hot spots are stable over time. Although reaching agreement on an international spe-cies conservation plan is an ambitious project overall the Dutch ministry has pre-ferred this approach to other possibilities.

There was agreement that gillnets present the major fisheries threat to harbour por-poise. The group discussed the effect of gillnets, possibilities for re-rigging from trawl to gill nets (thereby having a side effect of the habitat restoration negatively impact-ing on the harbour porpoise, effects of displacement of effort from MPAs, and the effectiveness of ‘pingers’ to reduce by-catch. There was agreement that more research is required to establish which nets cause the most bycatch. Danish experience sug-gests that ‘pingers’ are effective in reducing bycatch while other studies are inconclu-sive. ICES- advice (2010) reviewed the status and advised that additional research is required.

The authors of the Dutch HPSCP have questioned the ‘unfavourable’ conservation status assigned to of the North Sea Harbour porpoise. Worldwide, the status of the Harbour porpoise is described as ‘least concern’. The authors felt that there are other species that are worse off than the Harbour porpoise in the North Sea.

2.1.2 Breakout group main outcomes

• Appeal for additional research. It is important to be more specific about the location and effects of certain nets on Harbour porpoise.

• From an ecological perspective, it is advised to learn more about the be-haviour of the Harbour porpoise population and food source availability.

• Demonstrate that bycatch is an issue (above the agreed 1.7% bycatch). • Differentiate between off shore and near shore bycatch, in terms of policy

and legislation.


• Two tier approach: ensure that the measures suggested are based on scien-tific evidence.

• Cooperation. Work together (ASCOBANS) to create an international ap-proach to the conservation of the Harbour porpoise.

• Use this meeting to steer policy makers towards an effective ecosystem based approach

• Legislation.

2.2 Dogger Bank

Mark Tasker chaired the session and introduced the outcome of the FIMPAS WK2. The effect of various fishing techniques on the conservation objective H 1110_C (sandbank slight covered with water at all times) was discussed focusing on the im-pact of beam and otter trawling. A key point as was the case in the discussion at FIMPAS WK2 the effects on the bottom of beam trawling on the Dogger Bank com-pared to the effects of storms. Key points include the differences between the short, heavy impact of beam trawling and the continued effect of storms, that natural ele-ments of the sandbanks are expected to be adapted to the effect of storms, while the effects of beam trawling are not natural, the extent of the area impacted by beam trawling and which areas on the Dogger Bank are more vulnerable..

Mark Tasker concluded that there is fisheries impact on the Dogger Bank, and that measures would be needed to improve the state of the habitat. Beam trawling has been going on for at least 150 years, and therefore how the non-impacted habitat would look like is uncertain although there are some ancient atlases, which give some ideas of the biodiversity of the Dogger Bank in the 19th century. While measures are required, it is unclear how widespread and the range of gears affected those meas-ures would need to be, as the current amount of impact and the baseline are un-known. The slopes of the Dogger Bank are expected to be more vulnerable than the top of the bank, mostly because that area here is harder.

Finally, the importance of monitoring was noted.

The importance of a collaborative approach with the participation of all Member States, who share the Dogger Bank, emphasised. The difference between protective sites and experimental closures needs to be clear, and the importance of a scientific baseline is highlighted.


Mark Tasker concluded that there is still some disagreement on the impact of fishe-ries, as the Dogger Bank is a highly variable area. Science will have to play a role in determining the correct starting points for the measures.

The discussion concluded by considering a whole package for the Dogger Bank, with both experimental closures and protective measures and an accompanying research package. Experimental closures would be needed for research, while protective measures would be needed for the most important benthic communities. How and where protective measures and experimental closures would be implemented would depend on the best available science. It was suggested to conduct experiment on the impact of various fishing techniques in the Dogger Bank, depending on the habitat and the current fisheries. The spatial footprint of fisheries will have to be taken into account as well.


2.3 Cleaver Bank

Steven Degraer chaired the breakout group and gave a short introduction by present-ing the gear impact matrix and the steering group proposal on fisheries measures (trawling ban with the exception of the Botney Cut) for the Cleaver Bank. He sug-gested several discussion points for the session:

1 ) Definition of the geography of the Botney cut and the area south west of the Botney Cut

2 ) Definition of low impact fishing in the Cleaver Bank: concentration on fish-ing with reduced bottom contact, and not on bycatch

3 ) Monitoring – adaptive management 4 ) Principles – are they complete or should something been added?

The fishermen requested better justification that bottom trawling prevents the growth of important species and considered that the steering group proposal was unneces-sary restrictive to achieve the conservation objectives. On this background the fish-ermen presented a zoning proposal including 4 areas which they would assess for closures (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Fishermen’s zoning proposal for the Cleaver Bank. The south west area is mostly in the UK EEZ


The entire Cleaver Bank area is 30x30 km large (900 km2). The fishermen area pro-posal includes about 300 km2 (partly in the UK EEZ).

The argumenta-tion for the pro-posal relates to bycatch, biodi-versity and fre-quency of damaged nets. However, areas have to be de-fined in relation to the habitat see the sediment map Fig. 7. The Group agreed that there are H1110 habitats (pebbles and stones) in this area, but also that H1110 is not the only habitat type in the area.

It is claimed that there are fisher-men who have 60% of their ac-

tivity in the Cleaver Bank, outside the Botney Cut. The WK2 as well as the IMARES maps show that this is a minority of fishermen .however on an individual level there are fishermen who have specialized in this area and would be forced to give up their knowledge. In the discussion it was recalled that normally fishing effort does not change with a closure of an area; rather effort will be displaced and as a second point the mosaic approach may not be controllable.


• Restriction on beam trawling on the H1170 habitat coupled with a zoning concept was considered acceptable.

• Two proposals were made, both a fisheries proposal (300km2, 4 areas) and a FIMPAS-proposal (1200km2, 1 area, excl. Botney Cut). There was agreement on the area south west of the Botney cut and the Botney Cut. Disagreement remained about the Northeast area and the criteria and the location of the habitat type.

Figure 7. Sediment map of the Cleaver Bank (Moorsel 2003).


The Group recognised the need for further work on the proposal. It was argued by some participants that the steering group proposal was too extreme in relation to the objectives because the proposal includes areas that ah not of the H1170 habitat type.

2.4 Frisian Front

Euan Dunn chaired the group. He recalled the conservation objectives for the bird species in the Frisian front and the consensus on the fisheries issues that impact the Frisian Front conservation objectives. A “do nothing” option is not consistent with the conservation objectives as it would not necessarily prevent expansion of effort. Management measures shall be considered where gear matrix identifies high and medium impacts and where measures are considered necessary to maintain conser-vation status.

It was questioned if a freeze on gill netting effort at 2006-08 levels could be effective and in the case it is, if is it practical. The steering group proposal includes a ban on gillnetting in the areas between June and November and the Group concurred that the ban is a reasonable response however a freezing of effort will not be recom-mended. The proposal for extension of mandatory VMS and Log book for all fishing vessels (independent of size) that operate in the area was found to be useful.

Euan Dunn concluded that no practical measures to compensate for the loss of dis-cards are available.


• A total ban on gillnet fishing in the site from June-November is proposed • No freeze in any type of fishing is proposed; • VMS will be needed for all fisheries, including the <15m vessels; • A monitoring programme for seabird numbers and seabird bycatch will be

needed in a 6 years assessment; • Effort displacement is likely, but no mitigation measures are proposed. • The medium impacts for Common guillemot should not be considered fur-

ther.


3 Reports from the breakout groups

Paul Connolly opened the meeting with a short recap of the various meetings and presentations of day one. He presented the schedule for day 2, and invited the chairs to report the main findings of their breakout group.

3.1 Harbour porpoise

Hans Nieuwenhuis presented the Harbour porpoise group, focused on the Harbour porpoise species conservation plan. The generic approach was agreed on, although remarks were made on the importance of German MPAs to the Harbour porpoise life cycle. Discussion focused most on the importance of gillnet freezing in MPAs.

The follow-up on the Harbour porpoise species protection plan includes research ori-ented measures in which additional data is necessary and would be gathered through independent observer schemes or fully documented fisheries. He pointed to Den-mark, who uses 5% of their fleet for observations.

Concerning acoustic deterrents, no additional information than the ICES 2010 advice is available so far.

A few other issues on food source availability (not deemed an issue), freezing effort in the CFP, legislation, cooperation (deemed very important) and innovative funding were discussed: Food source availability issue is not answerable, since there is no data for the Netherlands. Freezing can be done, but it should be done on a wider scale than on a Natura 2000 area with legislation appropriate assessment. Results are only possible in cooperation with fishing sector. Funding for monitoring could come from the CFP.

3.2 Dogger Bank

Mark Tasker presented the results of the Dogger Bank breakout group. The discus-sion focused mostly on the disagreement of fisheries impact on the Dogger Bank. He suggests adding “with disagreement” to the cells indicating “high” impact in the Dogger Bank gear impact matrix.

Existing science says there are effects of bottom contact gear, but not all stakeholders are convinced as to the scale of those affects, so additional studies are needed. Be-sides, cooperation with other member states is very important on the Dogger Bank.

Mark Tasker next presented the Dogger Bank management proposal. Two related scientific studies are proposed by closing some areas on an experimental basis and by a detailed examination of currently available knowledge, which may link to benthos related surveys in the past. More knowledge on how much fishing is happening and where precisely in each of the Dogger Bank habitats, disaggregated by gear, is neces-sary.

Low impact fishing, esp. environmentally friendly trawling, will arrive, and any de-sign would need to be allowed for that. The proposed closed area should contain rep-resentatives of all habitat communities. Therefore an agreement on how many communities are present on the Dogger Bank is needed.

A large scale closure is required immediately for protection purposes. Fishers have very desirable features in relation to other environmental objectives, e.g. lower dis-


cards, higher value flesh per fish. Long term monitoring could learn from the ex-perimental approach.

Paul Connolly concluded the presentation: More data on the habitat type and their distribution are needed but is not forthcoming before the Dutch government has to decide on fisheries measure on the Dogger Bank. Therefore, it is proposed to intro-duce an experiment of closure with experimental closures that do not include the en-tire area but with a rather long time frame for ensure that long lived species can be observed. The experiment closures may be required to meet almost the entire habitat to assure the legal obligations.

3.3 Frisian Front

Euan Dunn introduced the relevant bird species for the Natura 2000-area Frisian Front and the relevant part of the gear-impact matrix. Generally, there was consensus on the impact of fisheries on bird species: Guillemots can dive 100m! So set gillnets have an impact.

The working group concluded that the ‘do nothing’ option was not consistent with the conservation objectives to maintain.

Conclusion were: The medium impacts for Common guillemot should not be consid-ered further, since no a priori reason to believe that their foraging is adversely af-fected by the noise and light from trawling/ seining operations. No proposal has been made for maintaining the number of Great skua and gulls, as the numbers for these will likely decline with declining discards, for which no compensation could be imag-ined. A total ban on gillnet fishing in the site from June-November is proposed based on the precautionary principle, based on the possibility of sea warming, which may advance the risk period in future and that moulting Common guillemots additionally occupy the Frisian Front in August-November. However no freeze in any type of fishing is proposed. There is no hard scientific evidence for bycatch but they support the precautionary approach. No proposals are made with regards to ghost-fishing or other types of fisheries. Effort displacement is likely, but no mitigation measures are proposed. VMS will be needed for all fisheries, including the <15m vessels. A moni-toring programme for seabird numbers and seabird bycatch will be needed in a 6 years assessment.

3.4 Cleaver Bank

Steven Degraer presented a short review of the Cleaver Bank breakout group. The scientific basis for potential of recovery and the zoning concept were the main discus-sion points during the breakout group. There is a general agreement that there is a need for conservation of habitat type. The zoning concept was considered acceptable. Two proposals were made, both a fisheries proposal (300km2, 4 areas) and a FIMPAS-proposal (1200km2, 1 area, excl. Botney Cut). There was agreement on the area south west of the Botney cut and the Botney Cut. Disagreement remained about the North-east area and the criteria and the location of the habitat type.

Discussion focused on the location of the possible closed areas and the confrontation between scientific literature and fisheries experiences, as well as the role of low-impact fisheries. There is a need for compilation of literature on recovery experiment in this habitat.


Low impact trawling to decrease the bottom disturbance was discussed and the best available gear should be supported, however it is not available yet and as long as there is no economic benefit there will be none incentive for these innovations.

With regards to monitoring, no specific strategies were suggested, but monitoring could lead to possibilities for adaptive management.

Paul Connolly concluded the presentation. The proposal that was presented to the breakout group will be further developed and will be sent to the steering group for consideration by mid March. Paul Connolly noted the comments on the local effects of the closed areas, which are particularly important on this area, and on the impor-tance of the English fisheries on the Cleaver Bank.


4 Afternoon 25th January

4.1 Drafting group

During the afternoon of the 25th January the steering group expanded with Henrik Lund (industry), Monique van de Water (Stichting de Noordzee) and the four chairs of the breakout groups (Hans Niewenhuis, Mark Tasker, Steven Degrear and Euan Dunn) met to consider the fisheries measures proposal in the light of the discussions in the breakout group and the plenum discussion. The group reached agreement that was presented by Ton IJlstra the following morning 26th January, see section 5.

4.2 Excursion

With the exception of the drafting group the participants joined the excursion to “Fort Kijkduin”.

Bob van Marlen introduced the participants to innovative fishing gears from Europe. Willem Reesink (Delmeco Fishing Technology) spoke about sole fisheries with pulse trawls and Harm Klein Woolthuis (HFK Engineering) reported on the sum wing, see

http://www.sumwing.nl/

Pulse trawls and sum wing are being introduced in the Dutch beam trawl fishing fleet because of lower fuel costs and lower weight of the gear. Furthermore, also by-catches are sufficient lower with this gear. So far, the Netherlands has introduced the gear on 4 vessels, but expect that soon 20 vessels will use the gear. Belgium has now also announced areas which only will be fished with pulse trawls and sum wing. For shrimp fishing 5 pulses per second are used, while flatfish fisheries use intervals of 40-100pulses per second. ICES advice 2006, ICES WGFTFB 2006, ICES WKPulse 2010 and ICES SGELECTRA can be consulted for further information. After the presenta-tions the strength of the pulse trawl could be tested.

http://www.sumwing.nl/


5 Conclusions on the workshop 3 and future steps

5.1 Outcome of the drafting group meeting and plenum discussion

Ton IJlstra presented the drafting group proposal with a general message on the im-portance and quality of the monitoring and the possible funding of monitoring. Monitoring is currently underfunded for complete research into the Natura 2000 ar-eas, but additional funding may be available for monitoring, especially with regards to the collateral work on the Dogger Bank. The drafting group concluded:

Adaptive management will be applied, but so far no definitive way and no time lim-its are set. Some of them should be flexible in time and should be adapted according to the need.

The measures shall be accompanied by monitoring of the state of the habitats and sea birds (Frisian Front). Most monitoring will focus on ecology, but monitoring of hu-man use will also be monitored.

The introduction of new gears will change the North Sea fisheries. Ton IJlstra ex-pected the ban on the pulse fishing to be lifted.

The monitoring should be seen as part of a larger programme, including ecology and human use, other than fishing, within the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

A special concern is how to define ‘low impact fishing. The technology is constantly improved and the regulation will need to be adapted to reflect ‘best practise’.

5.1.1 Harbour porpoise

It is suggested to develop and implement the Harbour porpoise species protection plan and capping gillnetting effort at the current level (2006-2008), instead of achiev-ing something on the site level.

The Harbour porpoise protection plan will be built on the ASCOBANS approach in-corporating 7 nations, the North Sea neighbouring countries. Some considered that capping gillnetting will not help the protection plan as Germany will not consider such a cap.

5.1.2 Cleaver Bank

The current proposal for the Cleaver Bank: Beam and otter trawling ban in H1170, with the exception of the Botney Cut, remains.

The alternative proposal from the fishermen is very welcomed and appreciated how-ever, it was felt the measures are not sufficiently strong; too much of the H1170 habi-tat would be fished and a large part of the closed areas is located in the UK EEZ and is not part of the designated UK Natura 2000 sites.

The fishermen were asked to adapt their proposal as noted in the presentation by the breakout group chair and this further development will be focused on the protection of H1170. The UK part of the Cleaver Bank will not be an SAC or another type of pro-tected areas. The Cleaver Bank issues should be discussed in detail before a final de-cision is made. The steering group will make a decision after 1st April 2011. The UK


part could be included on voluntary basis however the FIMPAS WK3 is only consid-ering Dutch EEZ sites.

5.1.3 Frisian Front

The proposal for a ban of gillnetting from 1st June to 30th November in the Frisian Front remains.

There will no specific proposal within the Natura 2000framework on mandatory VMS also for small vessels since the Control regulation will request vessels > 12m to be included in the VMS scheme.

Freezing of effort is not enforceable and has been removed from the proposal.

There will be no differentiation between different gillnet types, as long as scientific data is lacking, however if in the future it could be adapted in case a certain type of gillnets can be documented to have no bycatch.

In the discussion that followed Automatic Identification System (AIS) was mentioned as an alternative to VMS since it gives information every 2 seconds and is free. Changing these techniques would probably have to be arranged through the CFP in a co-decision procedure and this is not part of the Natura 2000 considerations.

5.1.4 Dogger Bank

It is suggested to exclude beam, otter trawls, and demersal seines in specific areas; in other areas allow controlled fishing. The areas will include various benthic communi-ties on the Dogger Bank. Designation of areas will be done with the purpose of con-servation, understanding recovery and human impact.

A detailed examination of the currently available knowledge on the Dogger Bank will have to be made, and a large scale experiment will be done.

There is general agreement on the need for closure of areas from the other nations and excluding of certain types of gears is discussed as well.


5.2 International cooperation on the Dogger Bank

Hans Nieuwenhuis presented a proposal with a flow diagram with the steps to be taken (Fig. 8) for achieving Interna-tional Coherence among fisheries measures on the Natura 2000 sites on the Dogger Ban

A joint proposal would have to be preceded by ICES advice and ICES will be asked to produce such an integrated advice on the fisher-ies measures for the entire area, building on the existing EM-PAS advice for the German section and the FIMPAS advice

for NL and UK sections.

Terms of reference for continued work has to be redefined. Preparatory steps have to include the inventory of natural values and benthic communities, integration of con-servation objectives at the operational level and analysis and evaluation of different proposals. In spring, i.e., March the Dogger Bank workshop will be announced and the flag states which are involved will be consulted. In September Dogger Bank WK including RAC stakeholders will take place.

The outline on Dogger Bank from this WK3 will be not changed at the Dogger Bank WK. The importance of the NSRAC in this process and the need for the NSRAC in cooperation with the scientists and pronounces that the NSRAC does not have any funding for engage the scientists.

The role of the MASPNOSE project in this framework is discussed shortly, it should be informed about the ideas and the guidelines of the FIMPAS approach, and various questions on the planning of the remainder of the project are discussed.

5.3 FIMPAS and ICES Advisory process

The proposal for fisheries measures will be peer-reviewed by scientists. ACOM will evaluate the proposal in the light of available science and other information and how the measures can be expected to deliver on the conservation objectives. The ACOM process invites stakeholder observers. ACOM advice is a response to the Member State request, in the FIMPAS case it will be to NL and UK, but it will be public. The Netherlands will incorporate the advice in its deliberations and use it in the further process with the European Commission. Within the Commission and before the

Figure 8 Dogger Bank Process (proposal)


Community reaches a conclusion the proposal and the ICES advice will probably go through the STECF.

5.4 Funding of Monitoring and access to data

The general framework for the regulation includes an adaptive scheme which must be linked to a monitoring/assessment scheme. Habitats and sea birds are only moni-tored on a limited basis and funds should be raised to define proper monitoring to allow the adaption of the regulations at appropriate time intervals.

The workshop commented on numerous occasions on problems with access to data. It is an essential part of the process that all data are available and it is noted in par-ticular that the CFP allows common access to fishing outside 12 Nm for all countries with a quota. It must be followed but open access to all data including logbook and VMS data. The Data Collection Framework regulation will greatly assist in the access to data after 1 January 2009. However, the FIMPAS process using the 2006-2008 base-line has suffered that this access for data from this period is less easy.

5.5 Final comments on the workshop

Paul Connolly finalized the meeting by going through the WK3 roadmap and con-cluding the meeting.

FIMPAS WK3 has reached agreement on measures for the Frisian Front. The industry will present proposals to the Steering group in relation to the Cleaver Bank. In the meantime the beam and otter trawling ban with the exception of the Botany Cut re-mains. Proposed measures for the Dogger Bank will move forward into an extended FIMPAS process with UK, Germany, Netherlands and Denmark. A Harbour porpoise protection plan will be developed for the North Sea.

Proper stakeholder participation is necessary for acceptance of the measures. The re-sults of the steering group should allow some time for all stakeholders to reflect on it.


6 Closure

The meeting was closed at 1 pm. The Chair thanked everybody for their contributions and wished a safe journey home.

7 References

FIMPAS WK2 report 2010. Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 2 Fishery Impact and Conflicts with Conservation Objectives.

FIMPAS MEASURES REPORT 2011. Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (FIM-PAS) within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Dutch part of the North Sea: areas out-side the 12 nautical miles zone: Proposals.

ICES SGELECTRA. The Study Group on Electrical Trawling.

ICES WGFTFB 2006. Working Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 3–7 April 2006, Izmir, Turkey. ICES CM 2006/FTC:06, Ref. ACFM. 180 pp.

ICES WKPulse 2010. Workshop to Assess the Ecosystem Effects of Electric Pulse Trawls. Re-port over SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem Surveys Science and Technology (SSGESST).

Moorsel, G.W.N.M., van, 2003. Ecologie van de Klaverbank. Biotasurvey 2002. Ecosub, Doorn.

Oostenbrugge, J.A.E. van, Bartelings, H., Buisman, F.C. 2010. Distribution maps for the North Sea fisheries; methods and application in Natura 2000 areas. LEI report 2010-067.

Smeenk, C., Garcia Hartmann, M., Addink, M.J., Fichtel, L.,2004. High number of bycatch among beach cast harbourporpoises, Phocoena phocoena, in The Netherlands (Abstract). Proceedings ECS Conference 2004, Kolmarden, Sweden


Annex I: Gear Impact Matrix (revised)

In particular the impact by beam trawls was discussed at FIMPAS WK2 and the key discussion point concerned the environmental disturbances caused by storms. This discussion was re-opened at FIMPAS WK 3 and the Gear-Impact Matrix was clarified as presented in Table A-1.

Table A-1. Gear impact matrix for the conservation objectives of FIMPAS (ICES FIMPAS WK2 report (revised at this meeting). Impact levels: High: direct distur-bance, the continuity of the habitat/species is in danger. Medium: the effect is visi-ble and the conservation status will not remain the same without any measures. Low: the habitat/species is affected, however the conservation status of the habi-tat/species is supposed to remain. The judgement is based on majority opinions. In most cells particularly for the Dogger Bank area there were a range of opinions; often industry stakeholders rated the impact lower than scientists and NGO’s.

CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES

Fishing gear

Beam trawl Otter trawl

Demersal seine nets

Gillnets Midwater trawl

Habitats

Dogger Bank H1110_C Sandbanks

High with disagreement

Medium Low Low Not Relevant

Cleaver Bank H1170 Open-sea reefs

High High Low Low Not Relevant

Marine mammals

Harbour porpoise Low Low Low Medium Low

Harbour seal Low Low Low Low Low

Grey seal Low Low Low Low Low

Seabirds

Great skua Low Low Low Low Low

Great black-backed gull Low Low Low Low Low

Common guillemot Medium Medium Medium High Low

Lesser black-backed gull Low Low Low Low Low


Annex II FIMPAS WK3 participants

Name Address Phone/Fax Email Paul Connolly (Chair)

Marine Institute Rinville Oranmore Co. Galway Ireland

Phone +353 876 470 979 / +353 91 387 200

[email protected]

Jakob Asjes Wageningen IMARES P.O. Box 68 NL-1970 AB Ijmuiden Netherlands

Phone +31 Fax +31

[email protected]

Chris van Assen WWF Netherlands Postbus 7 NL-3708AA Zeist Netherlands

Phone +31 30 6937319 Fax +31

[email protected]

Joost Backx

Rijkswaterstaat Centre for Water Management PO Box 17 NL-8200 AA Lelystad Netherlands

Phone +31 320 297 364/+31 622 243 415

[email protected]

Heleen Bartelings

Wageningen UR Centre for Marine Policy LEI BV Burgemeester Patijnlaan 19 NL-2585 BE Wageningen Netherlands

Phone +31 70 335 8320 Fax +31 70 361 5624

[email protected]

Willem de Boer Dutch Fisheries Organisation P.O. Box 72 NL-2280 AB Rijswijk Netherlands

Phone +31 6 10463501

[email protected]

Andries de Boer Dutch Fisheries Organisation P.O. Box 72 NL-2280 AB Rijswijk Netherlands

Stefan Bräger Deutsches Meeresmuseum Katharinenberg 14/20 D-18439 Stralsund Germany

Phone +49 3831 2650 303 Fax +49 3831 2650 209

[email protected] [email protected]

Waldo Broeksma

North Sea Directorate P.O. Box 5807 NL-2280 HV Rijswijk Netherlands

Phone +31 703366764

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]















Name Address Phone/Fax Email Kees Camphuysen

Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research P.O. Box 59 NL-1790 AB Den Burg, Texel Netherlands

[email protected]

John Clorley Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Zone 1/04 Temple Quay House 2 The Square, Temple Quay BS1 6EB Bristol United Kingdom

Phone +44 117 3728513 Fax +44

[email protected]

Joop Coolen The North Sea Foundation Drieharingstraat 25 NL-3511 Utrecht Netherlands

Phone +31 30 234 00 16 Fax +31 30 230 28 30

[email protected]

Pieter Cornelis

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality P.O. Box 20401 NL-2500 EK The Hague Netherlands

[email protected]

Aukje Coers Secretariat Pelagic RAC PO Box 72 NL-2280 AB Rijswijk Netherlands

Phone +31 70 336 9624 Fax +31 70 399 3004

[email protected]

Steven Degraer Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Gulledelle 100 B-1200 Brussels Belgium

[email protected]

Jochen Depestele

Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO) Ankerstraat 1 B-8400 Oostende Belgium

Phone +32 59569838

[email protected]
















Name Address Phone/Fax Email Euan Dunn Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds Potton Road SG19 2DL Sandy Bedfordshire United Kingdom

Phone +44 1767 693302 Fax +44

[email protected]

John Goold Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road PE1 1JY Peterborough United Kingdom

Phone +44 Fax +44

[email protected]

Elizabeth Guttenstein

European Commission Rue Joseph 11, 79 Office 5/95 B-1049 Brussels Belgium

Phone +32 2 295 30 77 Fax +32

[email protected]

Ton IJlstra


Cell. Phone: +31615419683

[email protected]

Odma Johannesen Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Fisheries Policy Division Slotsholmsgade 12 DK-1216 Copenhagen K Denmark

Phone: +45 33 923535 Fax: +45 33 145042

[email protected]

Gareth Johnson Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road PE1 1JY Peterborough United Kingdom

Phone +44 Fax +44

[email protected]

Charlotte Johnston

Monkstone House City Road PE1 1JY Peterborough Cambrigshire United Kingdom

Phone +44 44 1733 866 905

[email protected]

mailto:euan.dunn@rspb













Name Address Phone/Fax Email Anne Marie Kats Secretariat Pelagic

RAC PO Box 72 NL-2280 AB Rijswijk Netherlands

[email protected]

Hans Lassen

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea H.C.Andersens Boulevard 44-46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark

Phone +45 33 38 67 22 Fax +45 33 93 42 1

[email protected]

Han Lindeboom Han Lindeboom Wageningen IMARES P.O. Box 1 NL-1790 AD Den Burg Netherlands

Phone +31 317 487099 Fax +31

[email protected]

Diane Lindemann International Council for the Exploration of the Sea H C.Andersens Boulevard 44-46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark

Phone +45 33 38 67 06 Fax +45 33 93 42 15

[email protected]

Henrik Lund

Danish Fishermen s Association Nordensvej 3, Taulov DK-7000 Fredericia Denmark

Phone +45 7610 9652

[email protected]

Natasha Mahmoudian

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Zone 1/04 Temple Quay House 2 The Square, Temple Quay BS1 6EB Bristol United Kingdom

Phone +44 Fax +44

[email protected]

Tim Masselink Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality P.O. Box 20401 NL-2500 EK The Hague Netherlands

Phone +31 70 757 768 Fax +31

[email protected]














Godfried van Moorsel

Ecosub P.O. Box 126 NL-3940 AC Doorn Netherlands

Phone +31 343477472 Fax +31 343477476

[email protected]

Susanne Garnak Møller

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Fisheries Policy Division Slotsholmsgade 12 Copenhagen K Denmark

[email protected]

Hans Nieuwenhuis


Phone +31 Fax +31

[email protected]

Eugene Nixon

Marine Institute Marine Spatial Planning 80 Harcourt Street Dublin 2 Ireland

Phone +353 1 4766538 Fax: +353 876 299 677

[email protected]

Jessica Hjerpe Olausson

Swedish Board of Fisheries P.O. Box 423 S-401 26 Gothenburg Sweden

[email protected]

Nadia Oumnad

Postbus 21 NL-2002 CD Haarlem Netherlands

Phone +31 646 353490

[email protected]

Albert Pasterkamp

Lacon 11 NL-8321 SV Urk Netherlands

Phone +31 527 687 630 Fax +31 527 687 631

[email protected]

Sarah Verroen

Wageningen UR Center for Marine Policy P.O. Box 1528 NL-8901 BV Leeuwarden Netherlands

[email protected]


















Name Address Phone/Fax Email Christian Pusch

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Insel Vilm Isle of Vilm D-18581 Putbus Germany

Phone +49 38301 86126 Fax +49 38301 86125

[email protected]

Geert Raeymaekers

FOD Public Health, Food Safety and Environment Victor Hortaplein 40 bus 10 B-1060 Brussels Belgium

Phone +32 2 524 96 75 Fax +32 2 524 96 43

[email protected]

Thomas Rammelt

The North Sea Foundation Drieharingstraat 25 NL-3511 Utrecht Netherlands

Phone +31(0)30 2340016 Fax +31

[email protected]

Dale Rodmell National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations 30 Monkgate YO31 7PF York United Kingdom

Phone +44 Fax +44

[email protected]

Cora Seip Dutch Fish Product Board P.O. Box 72 NL-2280 AB Rijswijk Netherlands

Phone +31 Fax +31

[email protected]

Anne Sell Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries Institute for Sea Fisheries Palmaille 9 D-22767 Hamburg

Phone +49 40 38905 246 Fax +49 40 38905 263

[email protected]

Henrike Semmler Le

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea H.C.Andersens Boulevard 44-46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark

Phone +45 33 38 67 51 Fax +45 33 93 42 15

[email protected]















Name Address Phone/Fax Email Marije Siemensma

Marine Science & Communication Bosstraat 123 NL-3971 Driebergen Netherlands

Phone +31 6 16 830 430 Fax +31

[email protected]

Mark Tasker Joint Nature Conservation Committee Inverdee House Baxter Street AB11 9QA Aberdeen United Kingdom

Phone + 44 1 224 266 551 Fax + 44 1 224 986 170

[email protected]

Stefan Tijsen Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality P.O. Box 20401 NL-2500 EK The Hague Netherlands

[email protected].

Monique Van de Water

Stichting de Noordzee Drieharingstraat 25 NL-3511 BH Utrecht Netherlands

[email protected]

Morten Vinther DTU Aqua - National Institute of Aquatic Resources Section for Fisheries Advice Charlottenlund Slot Jægersborg Alle 1 DK-2920 Charlottenlund Denmark

Phone +45 33 96 33 50 Fax +45 33 96 33 33

[email protected]










Name Address Phone/Fax Email Coen Verboom Ministry of

Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality P.O. Box 20401 NL-2500 EK The Hague

Phone +31 Fax +31

[email protected].

Pim Visser

598320 AB Urk Netherlands

Phone +31 527 684141 Fax +31 527 684166

[email protected]

Jan Willem Wijnstroom

Leyenseweg 115 NL-3721 BC Bilthoven

Phone +31 306058477 Fax +31

[email protected]

Rick Wortelboer NL-3720 AH Bilthoven

Phone +31 30 2743128 Fax +31

[email protected]

Wanda Zevenboom

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management North Sea Directorate PO Box 5807 NL-2280 HV Rijswijk

[email protected]













Annex III Agenda

FIMPAS workshop 3 – January 24-26, 2011

Content

This is the third workshop in the series aimed at developing measures for the fishery in the North Sea in the Dutch Natura 2000 areas: Frisian Front, Dogger Bank and Cleaver Bank.

Day 1 (January 24)

10:00-10:30

Welcome

Information on workshop organisation (Nadia Oumnad) Opening: Objectives of the workshop - review of where we are and what have been provided since workshop 2 (Paul Connolly)

10:30-11:00

Management plans for Natura 2000 sites exemplified by the Fore-Delta and the North Sea Coastal Zone. What is a management plan and lessons to be learnt from developing such plans (Ton IJlstra)

11:00-11:30

Coffee

11:30-12:30

Marine mammals (North Sea) protection plan- presentation and discussion (Kees Camphuysen)

12:30-14:00

Lunch

14:00-15:00

Economic analysis of performance of Dutch and non-Dutch fleets (Heleen Bartelings)

15:00-16:00

Principles for formulating management proposal for the three sites – presentation and discussion (Eugene Nixon)

16:00-16:30

Coffee

16:30–17:00

Proposal for area specific measures for each site; monitor-ing, control and enforcement considerations (Ton IJlstra)

17:00–17:30

Plenum discussion of proposal

17:30- Tasks of subgroups, Formation of area-based subgroups,


18:00 appointment of chairs and their tasks (Paul Connolly)

18:00-19:30

Breakout group Harbour porpoise (Chair: Hans Nieuwen-huis)

20:00 Dinner

Day 2 (January 25)

9:00-11:00

Breakout groups (area based analysis)

Dogger Bank (Chair: Mark Tasker)

Cleaver Bank (Chair: Steven Degraer)

Frisian Front (Chair: Euan Dunn)

11:00-11:30

Coffee

11:30-13:00

Reports from break out groups (by chairs: Mark Tasker, Steven Degraer, Euan Dunn) + plenum discussion (Paul Connolly)

13:00-14:30

Lunch

14:30-18:00

Excursion to “Fort Kijkduin”: talk and demonstration of sum wing and pulse trawl, tour through aquarium and museum

14:30-18:00

Drafting group on workshop conclusions ((Restricted)

18:30- .20:00

Drinks offered by the City Council in the aquarium

20:00 Dinner at the Dok51, Den Helder

Day 3 (January 26)

9:00-11:00 Presenting draft conclusions on management pro-posals (Ton IJlstra)

Final discussion (Chair: Paul Connolly)

11:00-11:30 Coffee

11:30-13:00 Conclusion of the workshop (Chair: Paul Connolly)

13:00-14:00 Lunch

14:00-16:00 Steering group meeting (Ton IJlstra, Joost Backx,


Eugene Nixon, Paul Connolly, Hans Lassen, Hans Nieuwenhuis, Pieter Cornelius, Henrike Semmler Le, Diane Lindemann)

16:30–18:00 Train to Schiphol

Documents

Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 3 Management proposals for ... Reports/Expert... · ICES. 2011. Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 3 Management proposals for Dogger Bank, Cleaver Bank and