Wave Hub Development Fisheries Evaluation Report to SWRDA · 2015-03-25 · Wave Hub Development Fisheries Evaluation Report Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 5 5 Executive summary This report,

Wave Hub Development

Fisheries Evaluation Report to SWRDA

5 6 H I G H S T R E ET L Y MI NG TO N

HAMPSHIRE SO41 9AH ENGLAND

T E L E P H O N E ( 0 ) 1 5 9 0 6 7 9 0 1 6

F A C S I M I L E ( 0 ) 1 5 9 0 6 7 1 5 7 3

E-MAIL mep@ mac al is t er - e l l i o t t .c om

WEBSITE www. mac al is t er - e l l i o t t .c om

Report title:

Wave Hub Development: Fisheries Evaluation Report

Report no: 05

Report ref: 1960/R/05/C Client: Halcrow Group Ltd.

Author: Edward Willsteed Date: 01-02-08

Released by: Stephen Akester Date: 28-02-08

Wave Hub Development Fisheries Evaluation Report

Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 2

2

Acronyms Bpa Precautionary level of fish biomass CFP Common Fisheries Policy CFPO Cornish Fish Producers Organisation CFS Commercial Fisheries Survey (section of ES) CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort CSFC Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ES Environmental Statement EU European Union FPO Fish Producers Organisation Flim The level of fishing mortality at which there is an unacceptably high risk

that stocks will collapse Fpa A lower level of fishing mortality which offers a high probability that (Flim)

will never be reached GRP Glass Reinforced Plastic ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas MEP MacAlister Elliott & Partners Ltd. MFA Marine Fisheries Agency PO Producer Organisation SSB Spawning Stock Biomass SWRDA Southwest Regional Development Authority TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom VMS Vessel Monitoring System


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 3

3

Contents 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................8

1.1 Context............................................................................................................................................8 1.2 Study objectives .............................................................................................................................8 1.3 Assumptions and comments on scope.......................................................................................9

2 Approach and methodology .............................................................................................................11 2.1 Background meetings..................................................................................................................11 2.2 Geographical scope and sources of information....................................................................11 2.3 Field survey methods..................................................................................................................11 2.4 Estimation of gross annual income ..........................................................................................12 2.5 Analysis of official statistics .......................................................................................................13 2.6 Report structure...........................................................................................................................13

3 Overview of the fisheries of the North Cornish Coast.................................................................14 3.1 Fishing grounds ...........................................................................................................................14 3.2 Commercial finfish and shellfish fisheries ...............................................................................15

3.2.1 Sole (Solea solea) .....................................................................................................................15 3.2.2 Shellfish .................................................................................................................................16 3.2.3 Brown/Edible crab (Cancer pagarus)...................................................................................16 3.2.4 Spider crab (Maia squinado)..................................................................................................17 3.2.5 Lobster (Homarus gammarus) ................................................................................................17

4 Consultation with official bodies......................................................................................................20 4.1 Fish Producer Organisations .....................................................................................................20 4.2 Sea Fisheries Committees...........................................................................................................20 4.3 DEFRA.........................................................................................................................................20

5 Field assessment of the local fisheries .............................................................................................22 5.1 Hayle..............................................................................................................................................22 5.2 St. Ives...........................................................................................................................................23 5.3 Beam trawlers...............................................................................................................................24

5.3.1 Newlyn...................................................................................................................................24 5.3.2 Plymouth ...............................................................................................................................24 5.3.3 Brixham .................................................................................................................................25

5.4 Other potters and netters...........................................................................................................25 5.5 Other UK vessels ........................................................................................................................25 5.6 French and Belgian fleets ...........................................................................................................25

6 Analysis of fisheries statistics............................................................................................................26 6.1 Data sources and treatment .......................................................................................................26 6.2 Data limitations............................................................................................................................26 6.3 Buyers & Sellers...........................................................................................................................27

7 Potential impacts to the fishing industry.........................................................................................29 7.1 Summary of potential impacts...................................................................................................29 7.2 Potentially affected vessels.........................................................................................................29


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 4

4

7.3 Estimated loss of earnings .........................................................................................................30 7.3.1 Attributing an estimate to the area of impact ..................................................................31

7.4 Potential for stock enhancement...............................................................................................33 8 Options for mitigation.......................................................................................................................34

8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................34 8.2 Potential Impacts.........................................................................................................................34 8.3 Options for Mitigation................................................................................................................34 8.4 Strategic Mitigation Considerations..........................................................................................36 8.5 Individual Mitigation Considerations .......................................................................................39

References 34 Annex 1: Vessel types operating in the vicinity of the Wave Hub area……………………………………………..35 List of Tables Table 1: Field survey interviews ..............................................................................................................11 Table 2: Number of vessels harboured at Hayle from CSFC Dec ‘06 port survey.........................22 Table 3: Number of vessels harboured at St. Ives from CSFC Dec ‘06 port survey ......................23 Table 4: Summary of landings data caught within rectangle 29E4 from buyers & sellers data for

vessels identified by CSFC as potentially fishing within the area of impact ............................27 Table 5: Summary of potential impacts to commercial fisheries if Wave Hub project is

implemented ......................................................................................................................................29 Table 6: Estimate of direct financial losses to local and regional commercial fisheries resulting

from potential impacts summarised in Table 5 in year 1 following exclusion from area.......31 List of Figures Figure 1: Map showing location of ICES rectangle 29E4...................................................................14 Figure 2: Dover sole (Solea solea)..............................................................................................................15 Figure 3: Brown crab (Cancer pagarus) .....................................................................................................17 Figure 4: Spider crab (Maia squinado) ......................................................................................................17 Figure 5: Lobster (Homarus gammarus).....................................................................................................18 Figure 6: Volume and value of landings into Hayle from rectangle 29E4 in 2004..........................22 Figure 7: Volume and value of landings into St. Ives from rectangle 29E4 in 2004.......................24


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 5

5

Executive summary This report, undertaken by MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP) and commissioned by Halcrow Group Ltd. during the period April to May 2007, presents the findings of an assessment of the fisheries in and around the proposed location of the Wave Hub project. The primary objective of the study is to improve the knowledge base on the nature and valuation of fishing operations in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub Deployment area and associated cable route. The study does not extend to the processing and distribution sub sectors, or to the recreational fishing sector (including the charter angling trade). This assessment is designed to forward the client’s knowledge base on vessels identified as likely to be impacted from background information provided by the client. Assessment planning focussed on the principle ports understood to harbour vessels regularly fishing in the “area of impact”, from Hayle and St. Ives, and also considered UK beam trawling activity operating from Newlyn. Assessment approach and methodology The study was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of field surveys of the fishing ports of St. Ives and Hayle, and site visits to Newlyn, Penzance, Newquay, Plymouth and Brixham. Information was obtained from interviews, meetings and telephone conversations with representatives of the fishing industry and regulatory bodies. The second part of the assessment is an analysis of recent or new fisheries landing statistics collected by the MFA (an executive body of defra) including Buyers & Sellers data, Defra landings and aerial surveillance data, and a review of target species stock assessments published by the International Centre for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES). To allay concerns expressed by fishermen on data confidentiality (including fishing grounds, catch levels and gross income), information has been reported in a manner that prevents individual vessels being identified. Fishermen were forthcoming with information for the study and generally agreed to allow access to auditable individual records on the value and volume of landings. Local and regional fisheries The assessment presents a description of the fisheries operating in the area, and should be viewed as supplementary to the CFS and ES. The bottom topography and substrate in the area of impact varies between soft sediments, coarse sediments and hard substrate interspersed with rocky pinnacles. The variation in substrate determines where specific types of fishing can be conducted. This is pertinent to the Wave Hub project because it demonstrates the site specificity of each fishing business (and thus the importance of each fisherman’s accrued knowledge), and the unequal distribution of wealth that can be derived from the resources in a specific area. Fishing grounds close to shore are targeted by static and mobile gear including pots, gillnets, tangle nets, traps, handlines and set nets. The “outer grounds” roughly follow the 50m contour from approximately 9nm NNW of Pendeen Head, through the Bann shoal and the proposed deployment area and continuing approximately parallel to the shore beyond Trevose head. This stretch of outer ground is intensively fished year round. In the early months of the year, the dominant activity is trawling for sole. Potting for crabs, lobster and crayfish begins once trawling activity moves to alternative grounds (approximately April). The “middle grounds” are targeted by inshore vessels that including twin-rig trawlers, netters and potters. Wreck netting takes place throughout the area and forms an important winter fishery for handline vessels targeting reef-associated species. The majority of trawling effort in the area is conducted by French and Belgian vessels that actively fish the area through the spring season. Many of these vessels are legally entitled to fish up to the 6 nautical mile boundary offshore of the UK coastline. UK beam trawlers known to


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 6

6

target fisheries in north Cornwall are based at Newlyn, Plymouth, Brixham and possibly Milford Haven. The principle target species is sole from the fishery off Trevose Head. This fishery forms a key component of the southwest beam trawl fleet annual income over the months of January to March and is estimated to contribute 40% of each vessels yearly earnings. This figure is supported by auditable records of levy payments made by vessels to the Cornish FPO.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 7

7

Estimate of year 1 effects of exclusion of fishing from Wave Hub area The construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Wave Hub will impact the commercial fisheries of north Cornwall to reduce their profitability, either due to direct loss of fishing grounds, increased competition for space in adjacent areas by displaced fishermen, increasing the costs of fishing, or by hampering the efficiency of fishing operations. One objective of this assessment is to inform SWRDA of the quantum of direct financial loss that may be sustained by the fishing industry should the Wave Hub be constructed. Calculating the estimate of direct financial losses was possible following the identification of vessels likely to be impacted, and the identification and interpretation of verifiable data on the value of landings by identified vessels in the area of the Wave Hub. The most pertinent data used was obtained through the Buyers & Sellers scheme. In June 2005 the government introduced new measures that sought to improve the monitoring of fish landings through the introduction of a scheme of registration for buyers and sellers of first sale fish and designation of fish auction sites. This “Buyers & Sellers” information is retained by the MFA and provides a verified record of vessel’s volume and value of catch for a given period. Buyers & Sellers data was obtained for a representative group of vessels identified as likely to be impacted should the Wave Hub project proceed. This data was extrapolated to the 23 vessels, identified as a result of this assessment, as having some credible reliance on the grounds in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub project. Should a mitigation scheme be considered in the future, Buyers & Sellers data for individual vessels could be obtained, providing the vessel owner gives consent. The list of potentially affected vessels includes:

9 Beam trawlers1 1 Demersal trawler 2 Twin-rig trawlers 4 or 5 “Nomadic” crabbers 4 Inshore crabbers 3 Inshore netters

It is probable that a greater number of vessels may incur financial loss as a result of “ripple effects” from the shifting of additional fishing effort to already congested adjacent fishing grounds or through a reduction in available target stocks due to increased localised effort. A calculation has been applied to the Buyers & Sellers data to derive an estimate of the direct financial loss that could be experienced in year one by vessels identified as having some reliance on the grounds in the vicinity of the planned Wave Hub project. The estimate is based on verifiable data obtained from MFA and is independent of the estimates of gross earnings declared by fishermen interviewed. The year 1 financial loss from the ‘area of impact’ is calculated at £116,000. The calculation takes into account the seasonality of earnings from the area, ICES sub-squares, and the nature of fishing operations conducted by each vessel type. The figure is a judged mean between the different forms of assessment and is open to interpretation. To offset the financial loss that might arise from Wave Hub related impacts, SWRDA could establish a system for the provision of direct individual or collective financial compensation as described in section 8. Both individual and collective compensation strategies have been 1 A total of 16 beam trawlers may be affected, however the 9 confirmed were used within the calculation of estimate of loss


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 8

8

considered to offset financial loss resulting, as in comparable situations in other parts of the UK2. Should compensation be considered, it should equal any calculated financial loss in a like-for-like manner, i.e. based on this estimate, compensation in year one could be £116,000. For collective support to the fishing industry of the region a package of measures to allow for improved fisheries management for the long term sustainability of the fishery, including possible infrastructure developments for improving quality of landed product could be considered. The estimated financial loss may be expected to decrease with time as the fishing fleet adjusts to the loss of fishing ground resulting in decreased financial impacts. In the event of a negative effect being experienced it is incumbent on an effected business to effect mitigation, e.g. to take documented steps to minimise any loss.3.

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

This report presents the findings of an assessment of the fisheries in and around the proposed location of the Wave Hub project undertaken by MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP), commissioned by Halcrow Group Ltd. during the period April to May 2007. The location of the Wave Hub would be approximately 9nm NNW from St. Ives Head in Cornwall, and could involve the exclusion of fishing over an area of approximately 15 km2 It should be noted that the actual exclusion area will be determined following a decision by the Secretary of State to declare a safety zone around the deployment area. The development would also involve a cable being laid between the Hayle substation and the deployment area offshore, which may have implications for fishing activity around the cable route. An Environmental Statement (ES) for the Wave Hub proposal has been prepared under the overall coordination of Halcrow Group Ltd. (herein referred to as Halcrow), with specific sections completed by specialist sector consulting firms. Sections of the ES completed by EMU ltd. contain an analysis of likely environmental impacts of the Wave Hub proposal on marine fish resources and on the fishing industry in the region. Direct economic impacts on the fishing industry may be expected to arise from the physical interruption of fishing activities, and/or from increased costs associated with necessary alterations to fishing patterns, and could extend to fish processors as well as catchers.

1.2 Study objectives

Work completed for the ES included a summary description of the fishing industry. The ES did not include a commercial analysis to enable predicted environmental impacts to be translated into direct financial impacts that may be experienced by vessels fishing the Wave Hub deployment area, should they be excluded. Halcrow has acknowledged that the description of the baseline conditions of the local fisheries included in the ES would benefit from review and revision to address perceived shortcomings identified by the regulatory bodies and the fishing industry.

2 London Gateway Port, Sea Empress Milford Haven (ITOPF), 3 Key case: British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v Underground Electric Rlys Co. of London Ltd. [1912[ AC 673


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 9

9

The primary objective of this study is to improve the knowledge base on the nature and valuation of fishing operations in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub Deployment area. The study does not extend to the processing and distribution sub sectors, the recreational fishing sector (including the charter angling trade) or the cable route to shore not yet defined. A secondary objective of the assessment is to develop a contact list of fishermen and their representative organisations to facilitate future communications between SWRDA and the fishing industry. The third and final objective is to provide Halcrow’s client, SWRDA, with guidance on an approach, tailored to the local fishing industry, on managing potential fisheries mitigation or strategic management actions in the future. Information from ICES, DEFRA and CSFC on the finfish and shellfish fisheries was used to estimate the status of these stocks. This information is pertinent to the third objective as it provides an indication of data to be monitored to ensure any impact mitigation plan takes into account changes in fisheries management regulations.

1.3 Assumptions and comments on scope

The MEP proposal and subsequent clarification of scope was agreed based on information obtained from Halcrow. MEP proceeded on the understanding that this fisheries evaluation report would be produced using information obtained from Mr. Peter Ghey4, the Wave Hub Development EIA Commercial Fisheries Study (CFS), and data from the monitoring phase detailed in the MEP proposal. The outcome of the MEP assessment is understood to be that Halcrow’s client (SWRDA) will be informed on the quantum of financial loss that may be sustained by affected fishermen should the Wave Hub be implemented. The number of directly affected vessels was understood (from the CFS and communications with Halcrow) to be seven under-10m fishing vessels operating from Hayle and St. Ives. The report completed by Peter Ghey to inform this assessment identified 31 vessels that could be directly affected by the construction and operation of the Wave Hub. This report was received following the response to request for clarification (MEP 1960/P/02/A, March 26th 2007). The preliminary meetings with the CSFC, CFPO and DEFRA suggested that the assessment should consult a significantly higher number of vessels than anticipated, including the southwest UK 4m beam trawlers fleet targeting sole in spring. Subsequent discussions with vessel owners at Hayle and St. Ives identified additional vessels with plausible claims to fish the area of ground being discussed. MEP were also informed by the CSFC and CFPO that the CFS did not adequately describe the baseline conditions of local and regional fisheries and that in the consultation process it had been agreed this would be done. The report is therefore an assessment that provides clarification on the vessels operating from the ‘local’ harbours of Hayle and St. Ives, likely to be directly affected together with an estimate of lost earnings should the Wave Hub development proceed. It also provides an indication of regional vessels and fisheries likely to be impacted by the development together with an indicative value of these fisheries. 4 Inshore fishing industry representative recruited by Halcrow


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 10

10


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 11

11

2 Approach and methodology

2.1 Background meetings

A meeting was held with Harry Sealy of Halcrow Group Ltd. in March 2007 to present to MEP the work completed during the production of the ES. Information provided to MEP included the relevant sections of the ES (including the CFS), details of consultation with the fishing industry, an outline of the proposed fisheries liaison management plan and details of the key contacts involved in fisheries in the region.

2.2 Geographical scope and sources of information

This assessment was designed to forward the client’s knowledge base on the vessels identified as being impacted from background information provided by the client. Assessment planning therefore focussed on the principle ports understood to harbour vessels fishing on a regular basis in the “area of impact” from Hayle and St. Ives, and to consider UK beam trawling activity originating from Newlyn. Following consultation with the fishing industry it was found that vessels with a credible claim to fish on a regular basis in the ‘area of impact’, even if only for part of the year, originate from ports in Cornwall, Devon, France and Belgium, and possibly from Milford Haven in Wales. A full assessment of the fisheries targeting the Bann shoal and adjacent fishing grounds should include all ports that harbour vessels regularly fishing in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub deployment area. The study was broadly divided into two parts. The first was a field survey of the fishing ports of St. Ives and Hayle, and included site visits to Newlyn, Penzance, Newquay, Plymouth and Brixham. During the field survey, information was obtained from interviews, meetings and telephone conversations with fishermen, fishing business owners, fishermen’s representatives, the local regulatory bodies (Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and DEFRA Fisheries Inspectors at Newlyn), harbour masters and direct observations made at ports and landings along the coast. Table 1 below is a summary of interviews conducted.

Table 1: Field survey interviews

Respondents Interviews Commercial fishermen 16 Fishing business owners 2 Official bodies 6 Total 24

The second part of the assessment is an analysis of recent or new fisheries landing statistics collected by DEFRA. The CFS included comprehensive analysis of DEFRA fisheries statistics and this has not been revisited within this assessment. Published sources available to the assessment included DEFRA landings and aerial surveillance data, fish stock assessments published by the International Centre for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), CSFC reports, Environmental Assessments and relevant technical reports.

2.3 Field survey methods

The method used during interviews with fishermen and fishing business owners was a semi-


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 12

12

structured interview. This employed a less formal approach than a questionnaire and was guided by a checklist of required information. The nature of the inquiry required sensitivity as the interviews touched upon the delicate issues of fishermen’s catches and earnings. To allay concerns expressed by fishermen on data confidentiality (including fishing grounds, catch levels and gross income), information has been reported in a manner that prevents individual vessels being identified. In addition, data obtained from DEFRA through the Buyers & Sellers scheme is subject to the data protection act and is therefore anonymous. Fishermen interviewed were forthcoming with information for the study and generally agreed to allow access to auditable individual records on the value and volume of landings should the need arise. Care was taken during interviews not to raise the expectations of vessel owners and relevant organisations on further assessment work or compensation. Participants in interviews were made aware that MEP’s objective in conducting this assessment was to provide an improved description of the local and regional fisheries operating in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub development. Interviewees were asked if they would be prepared to submit verifiable records to support the analysis of their catches and gross earnings if any future work needed to be completed. The checklist of information proposed to be collected from fishermen is as follows: Name, address and contact details; Name and port registration of vessel; Description of vessel and gear, as seen; Principal areas fished, fisheries and seasons Levels of catch, obvious trends or changes in fishing pattern, and (if possible) an indication of annual grossing; Means of marketing the catch; Information on other boats, and general activity in the port; Awareness of the Wave Hub project, and views on whether and how fishing operations might be affected; Maintenance of records – what records are kept (if any); and, Membership of a representative association.

2.4 Estimation of gross annual income

As this report does not identify individual earnings, the grouped estimates provided herein may appear to be generalised. The methods employed to arrive at the gross annual incomes are therefore described. Firstly, fishermen’s own estimates of yearly grossings, taking into account good and bad years, were collected. Secondly, for the various basic fishing methods, the average vessel earnings for UK fleet segments (Anderson et al. 2007) were referred to for means of comparison. The estimate of the total value of the fisheries landed into St. Ives and Hayle is an amalgamated figure derived from:

Income estimates for each fishing business researched through interviews; and, Extrapolation to other vessels in the port where interviews were not carried out.

The gross annual income for vessels originating from other ports that fish regularly in the vicinity of the proposed development has also been estimated. Interviews were conducted with vessel owners operating vessels from Newlyn, Plymouth and Brixham. Interviews with these


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 13

13

respondents identified vessels of similar capacity known to operate in the area of impact. The same method as described for the Hayle and St. Ives fleets was used to derive the gross annual income for these vessels. Many of the fishermen interviewed indicated their willingness to provide records to substantiate stated incomes if requested. One fishing business authorised the CFPO to collate levy fees to substantiate stated income. This information was passed to MEP and provides a useful indication of typical earnings for vessels from the UK beam trawl fleet operating in ICES area 29E4.

2.5 Analysis of official statistics

The analysis of 2004 fish landings data for Hayle and St. Ives is simplified and is designed to make a large volume of data accessible to the reader. Total volumes and values of landings into these harbours are presented and provide an indication of any changes subsequent to the findings reported in the CFS. Limitations arising from using sets of fisheries statistics are discussed. In view of the financial importance of the sole and shellfish landings in the region, these fisheries are presented including discussion of current stock status and implications of recent or anticipated management changes. The Marine Bill, due for release in 2007, will fundamentally change the management of the UK marine environment including the way in which inshore and offshore fisheries are managed. The revamped Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), when released, will also change fisheries management measures.

2.6 Report structure

This report consists of two sections in response to the objectives set by Halcrow. The first section provides information to improve the knowledge base for local and regional vessels with potential interaction with the proposed development. The second section provides information and guidance on mitigation and strategic actions towards longer term sustainable fisheries.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 14

14

3 Overview of the fisheries of the North Cornish Coast

The Commercial Fisheries Study (CFS) completed for the ES provided information on the fisheries and species targeted off north Cornwall. The information presented here is supplementary to the ES and provides details of the fishing operations and species targeted in the area of impact.

3.1 Fishing grounds

The bottom topography substrate in the area of impact varies between soft sediments, coarse sediments and hard substrate interspersed with rocky pinnacles. The variation in substrate determines where specific types of fishing can be conducted. For example, trawling activity tends to be focussed on the soft and coarse sediments and requires fishermen to employ considerable local knowledge when trawling to avoid damage to gear from hard ground and rock pinnacles. Interviews with fishermen confirmed that vessels are reliant on specific areas of ground depending on the type of fishing employed, time of year, target species and accrued knowledge. This is relevant to this assessment because it demonstrates that productive fishing grounds and therefore extracted value are not uniformly distributed over rectangle 29E4.

Figure 1: Map showing location of ICES rectangle 29E4. The red dots correlate to sightings of non-UK fishing vessels recorded in 29E4 in 2000

Fishing grounds close to shore are targeted by static and mobile gear including pots, gillnets, tangle nets, traps, handlines and set nets. The “outer grounds” roughly follow the 50m contour from approximately 9nm NNW of Pendeen Head, through the Bann shoal, through the proposed deployment area and continuing approximately parallel to the shore beyond Trevose head. This stretch of ground is intensively fished year round. In the early months of the year, the dominant activity is trawling for sole. Potting for crabs, lobster and crayfish begins in earnest once the trawlers move to alternative grounds (approximately April). The “middle grounds”, consist of hard ground with numerous pinnacles targeted by inshore vessels including: twin-rig trawlers, netters and potters employing a variety of fishing gear. Wreck netting takes place throughout the area and forms an important winter fishery for handline vessels targeting reef-associated species such as Pollack (Pollachius pollachius).

ICES Rectangle 29E4


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 15

15

3.2 Commercial finfish and shellfish fisheries

The north Cornwall fisheries are part of the Celtic Sea shelf ecosystem that supports important commercial fisheries, especially demersal, flatfish and shellfish fisheries. The Celtic Sea groundfish community consists of over 100 species. The most abundant 25 species make up 99% of the total estimated biomass and around 93% of the total estimated numbers (Trenkel and Rochet, 2003). Temporal analyses of the effects of fishing and climate variation suggest that fishing has had a generally stronger effect on size-structure than temperature change (ICES, 2006). A general decline in mean trophic level of the fish community over time has been documented (Pinnegar et al., 2003), which is reported to result from a reduction in large piscivorous fishes and an increase in smaller pelagic species feeding at lower trophic levels.

3.2.1 Sole (Solea so lea) The fisheries for sole in the Celtic Sea and Bristol Channel involve vessels from Belgium (that take two thirds), the UK (one quarter), and France and Ireland taking minimal amounts of the total landings. The sole fishery is concentrated on the north Cornish coast off Trevose Head and around Lands End. Sole are taken mainly by the beam trawl fishery that started in the 1960s and also by the longer established otter trawl fishery. Beam trawl effort, targeting sole and plaice, replaced the majority of Belgian otter trawling effort in the 1970s. Beam trawl activity by UK vessels peaked in 1990 and has been decreasing thereafter. Beam and otter trawl fleets also take plaice, rays, brill, turbot and anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius, also known as monkfish). The main spawning areas for sole in ICES divisions VIIf,g are in waters 40m-75m deep, off Trevose Head. Spawning usually takes place between February and April. Juvenile sole are found in relatively high abundance in depths up to 40m, and adult sole (3 years plus) are generally found in deeper water. Spawning and nursery grounds are well defined (ICES, 2006).

Figure 2: Dover sole (Solea so lea)

State of the stock Total landings of sole from divisions VIIf,g (from official nominal landings) have decreased over time. Sole landings in 1986 totalled 1,989 tonnes, decreasing to 1,160 – 886 tonnes between 1992 and 2005. The TAC agreed for 2006 was 960 tonnes, the same as 2005. The most recent ICES advice classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) is currently above the long-term average, bolstered by an exceptional year class of 1998. As the influence of this year class decreases, the SSB is expected


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 16

16

to decline. The stock is classified as being at risk of being harvested unsustainably based on the recent estimates of fishing mortality. Fishing mortality for the sole stock in division VIIf,g has fluctuated around a high level that exceeds the precautionary approach limit. Fishing mortality in relation to high long-term yields is overexploited. To achieve high long-term yields, ICES have recommended a reduction in fishing mortality of 24%. In 2007, this corresponds to a TAC of less than 840 tonnes. Reductions or increases in TACs should be monitored as the TAC may have implications for the implementation of a compensation scheme. Consideration of recent regulations Recovery plans for cod (Gadus morhua) in the area were first implemented in 2004. Council regulation (EC) No 51/2006, Annex III, part A 4.2 prohibited fishing in ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4 and 32E3 (except within 6 miles from the baseline) during February and March 2006 for all vessels and gear. There is evidence that the closure of these rectangles has redistributed fishing effort to other areas (ICES, 2006). In the context of the Wave Hub, the closure has pushed beam trawl effort south, closer to the proposed deployment area. Otter trawling effort appears less affected by the closed areas due to the lower concentration of effort in the first 3 months of the year. Beam trawlers account for the vast majority of sole landed by UK vessels in ICES divisions VIIf,g. The proportion of sole taken from the closed area was significantly reduced in March 2006, but increased to previous levels either side of the closure period. Overall effort levels were reduced in February and March 2006 but CPUE levels did not decline.

3.2.2 Shellfish The local shellfish stocks fished for by Cornish fishing sector support a large number of small businesses and have significant importance for the coastal communities in which the businesses are based (Davis, 2006). The local shellfish stocks are a vital component in maintaining the overall viability of inshore vessels. Crab fisheries are managed primarily by regional minimum landing sizes through both European Union (EU) and UK national legislation. Although crab biology is well understood, the structure of stocks is not, which has prompted recent scrutiny of the management approach.

3.2.3 Brown/Edible crab (Cancer pagarus) Edible crab fisheries occur around all the coasts of the British Isles and are one of the most valuable fisheries in the UK (Lee, 2003). The edible crab is found on a wide range of substrates from rocky reef to open sandy/gravel grounds. Concentrations of edible crab larvae are found around the Scilly Isles and off the north Cornish and north Devon coasts. C. Pagarus is thought to spend up to three years in intertidal areas, following first settlement from the zoeae stage, then growing to approximately 60mm carapace width before migrating offshore to deeper water. Migration of the specie varies between the sexes with males being assessed to move greater distances, particularly with larger (older) individuals. The movement of females is linked to reproduction with the movement offshore to spawning grounds then moving back to shallower coastal waters to mate.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 17

17

Figure 3: Brown crab (Cancer pagarus)

3.2.4 Spider crab (Maia squinado) The spider crab is found on various substrates throughout its lifecycle, from inshore substrates during the juvenile phase to open sandy areas during breeding migrations in the adult phase. Spider crabs are generally found in the southern and western coasts of the UK. The juvenile phase is thought to last 3 years, during which juveniles remain in shallow inshore waters. Spider crab moults result in size increases of up to 33%, until the terminal moult whereupon the crab enters the adult phase of its lifecycle. Mating typically occurs during the summer months following a migration into shallower waters in inshore areas. Spawning commences in May and larvae hatch in September to October. Migration to deeper water takes place during autumn with a reverse migration to shallow waters coinciding with spring.

Figure 4: Spider crab (Maia squinado)

3.2.5 Lobster (Homarus gammarus) Lobsters are solitary animals that seek refuges in rocky reef, boulder or cobble habitat (such as that found around the 50m contour off the north Cornwall coast). Juvenile lobsters live in


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 18

18

cobble, boulder or soft mud substrates into which they can burrow. Juveniles are thought to remain in their burrows until reaching approximately 40mm carapace length to forage for food. Lobsters moult two or three times per year until reaching carapace length of approximately 85mm (6 years) when moulting typically occurs annually. Larger lobsters are thought to have larger egg clutches and therefore could be expected to have a greater influence on stock maintenance. Incubation of eggs lasts for approximately nine months. Lobster larvae remain in the water column for a four-week period, passing through four stages of the lifecycle before settling out of the water column onto suitable habitat.

Figure 5: Lobster (Homarus gammarus)


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 19

19

State of the stocks Most English crab stocks are currently assessed as being fished sustainably (DEFRA, 2006). However, a review of the scale of shellfish fishing activity carried out as part of the development of a shellfish strategy for England concluded that the landings of some species, including lobster, edible crab and velvet crabs, could be 50% more than DEFRA official statistics. The report suggests that stocks are fully exploited. Interviews with fishermen operating from Hayle and St. Ives confirmed that catch per unit effort (CPUE) has been decreasing for many years, with the majority of boats now fishing 500 plus pots. The same vessels were deploying 100-200 pots two decades ago. A number of ‘super-crabbers’ operate in the area, fishing up to 3,000 pots per vessel and throughout the year causing concern among some respondents that the stock is not being allowed to recover. The recent CSFC shellfish stock survey reports that catches of all three species have remained fairly constant between 2003 and 2006. Based on the CSFC permit register, potting effort from 2002-2005 is reported to have decreased, with a corresponding decrease in brown crab landings of 14%, but an increased in lobster landings of 31%. The survey applies to shellfish stocks within Cornwall’s inshore waters inside the CSFC district. The potential for growth in shellfish fisheries is limited because available space for additional static gear is limited. Any increase in potting gear would lead to displacement and possible gear conflicts with the static, towed or mobile sectors (Davis, 2006). This finding has implications for indirect impacts attributable to the Wave Hub (if constructed). Consideration of recent regulations The shellfish licensing scheme currently restricts entry of vessels without entitlement to the fishery. It does not control increases in effort by vessels that are licensed but fishing below their current capacity, i.e. the scheme does not restrict the number of days fished or the number of pots fished. In response to the review of shellfish fishing activity referenced above, there are growing concerns that edible crab stocks are at risk of being exploited beyond sustainable limits if fishing effort continues to increase (DEFRA, 2006). A meeting among UK shellfish industry participants in June 2005 reached consensus that the issue of increasing effort should be addressed while stocks are believed to be healthy. DEFRA has issued discussion documents and is currently inviting comment from industry representatives to contribute to the process of formulating proposals for management actions. Management options that may be considered include limiting the number of pots to be fished by any vessel, the introduction of a “sunset clause” to restrict the future transfer of existing licenses, increases in minimum landing sizes, establishing quotas as part of an annual process of setting TACs, and banning the use of certain types of fishing devices that prevent escape. The implementation of any measure introduced for stock conservation may impact future potting activity in 29E4.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 20

20

4 Consultation with official bodies

4.1 Fish Producer Organisations

Fish Producer Organisations (FPOs) were established under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to enable groups of fishermen to market the fish they catch. FPOs have a management responsibility for quota allocation of white fish stocks in certain ICES divisions including VII. This responsibility enables FPOs to plan their uptake of particular allocations to optimise the benefit to their members. In 2006, the Cornish FPO had a membership of 113 vessels representing approximately 40% of the Cornish fishing fleet. The Cornish FPO assisted this assessment by provided figures of monthly levy fees paid to the CFPO by selling agents. These figures are attributable to individual vessels and provide an indication of vessel grossings. The levy is at 0.75% of the vessels’ grossings therefore applying a simple multiplication calculates the monthly and yearly grossings for the specified vessels. One fishing business (beam trawl) authorised the CFPO to collate levy fees for their two vessels that are claimed to regularly fish in the area of impact. The figures provided were cross-referenced with the Seafish Authority 2005 Economic Survey of the UK Fishing Fleet and with Buyers and Sellers data, and appear realistic.

4.2 Sea Fisheries Committees

Twelve Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) regulate local sea fisheries around the vast majority of the England and Wales coastline out to 6 miles. SFCs were established in the 19th century and are empowered to make by-laws for the management and conservation of their district’s fisheries. In 1995, their powers were widened to include the control of fisheries in their districts for environmental reasons. SFCs do not represent the fishermen operating within their districts and are chiefly concerned with the management and conservation of the stocks that make up the district’s fisheries. The Senior Fisheries Officer, Mr Simon Cadman, provided clarification on the role of the CSFC in relation to the district’s fisheries, and on fishing vessels thought to operate in the vicinity of the Wave Hub site. Mr Cadman stressed the CSFC are concerned that displacement resulting from the Wave Hub may negatively impact fisheries stocks due to increased effort on remaining fishing grounds. The implementation of a robust baseline survey and ongoing monitoring programme was suggested by Mr Cadman to provide information on possible stock structure changes and to measure the impacts of vessel displacement.

4.3 DEFRA

Defra is responsible for achieving sustainable development within its five priority sectors, which includes the sustainable use of marine fisheries. The Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) was established as an Executive Agency of Defra on 1 October 2005. The Agency was created to take direct responsibility for a number of executive delivery activities previously the responsibility of policy teams within the Fisheries Directorate and the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate. It brings together for the first time in one organisation the service delivery, inspection and enforcement activities provided by the Government to the fishing industry and other marine stakeholders in England and Wales. The MFA are the source of official landings volume and value statistics used in this report, including the Buyers & Sellers data used to derive an estimate of year 1 financial loss (section 7.3). An interview was conducted with the senior fisheries officer of Defra, Mr. David Munday, based in Newlyn. Mr. Munday provided useful background information on the efficacy of Buyers & Sellers data, VMS and over flight data, and on the nature of fisheries in the vicinity of the Wave


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 21

21

Hub development.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 22

22

5 Field assessment of the local fisheries5

5.1 Hayle

In December 2006, the CSFC conducted a port survey of the Cornish fishing fleet. Table 2 shows the number of vessels recorded at Hayle based on the survey results and the number of directly employed persons. As stated in the CFS, it is accepted that each job at sea supports 4-5 additional jobs on land.

Table 2: Number of vessels harboured at Hayle from CSFC Dec ‘06 port survey

Fishing gear employed

Number of vessels

Number directly employed

Trawl 1 2 Trawl/Handline 1 1 Static 10 17 Static/handline 4 4 Total 16 24

The total volume and value landed at Hayle, derived from official monthly landings data (DEFRA) in 2004 from rectangle 29E4, was 56.98 tonnes and £75,939.07. From official data, the key months for the Hayle fisheries are from April to September. Landings peaked in May/June with a monthly value

2004 landings into Hayle from ICES rectangle 29E4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Vo

lum

e o

f la

nd

ings

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000V

alue

of

lan

din

gs

Quantity (tonnes) Value (£)

Figure 6: Volume and value of landings into Hayle from rectangle 29E4 in 2004

Of £19,300.45. 92.14% of this consisted of shellfish, of which 54.38% were spider crabs, 28.21% lobsters, and 9.55% edible crabs.

5 A pictorial description of vessel types is contained in Annex 1


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 23

23

Interviews with vessel owners operating from Hayle suggest that the official figure derived from official landing records is a significant underestimate of the value of landings into Hayle. This may be explained by the majority of vessels in Hayle being comprised of <10m vessels, which were not required to report landings in 2004. The landings data does however show the importance of catches made in the late spring and summer months coinciding with the movement of potting vessels offshore to target shellfish when the towed gear fleets move to other grounds following the end of the Trevose sole fishery in March/April. Dedicated potting vessels expect to gross an average of £80,000 per year per vessel to maintain profitability. Vessels known to fish in the vicinity of the Wave Hub area state 30-40% of their gross earnings are obtained from the area to the sides of and including the planned exclusion area.

5.2 St. Ives

Table 3 shows the number of vessels recorded at St. Ives based on the CSFC survey results and the number of directly employed persons.

Table 3: Number of vessels harboured at St. Ives from CSFC Dec ‘06 port survey

Fishing gear employed Number of vessels

Number directly employed

Seine/Handline 2 4 Static 1 2 Static/handline 15 21 Handline 30 32 Total 48 59

The total volume and value landed at St. Ives, derived from official monthly landings data (DEFRA) in 2004 from rectangle 29E4, was 101.46 tonnes and £52,760.81. From official data, the key months for the St. Ives fisheries are from June to September. Landings peaked in August with a monthly value of


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 24

24

2004 landings into St. Ives caught in ICES rectangle 29E4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Month

Vo

lum

e o

f la

nd

ings

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Val

ue

of

lan

din

gs

Quantity (tonnes) Value (£)

Figure 7: Volume and value of landings into St. Ives from rectangle 29E4 in 2004

Of £17,159. 99.29% of this consisted of mackerel with the remainder monkfish. The landings from late September include Pollack and cod coinciding with fishing effort around wrecks.

5.3 Beam trawlers

Beam trawlers known to target fisheries in north Cornwall are harboured at Newlyn, Plymouth, Brixham and possibly Milford Haven. The principle target species is sole from the fishery off Trevose Head. This fishery forms a key component of the southwest beam trawl fleet vessel grossings. The fishery lasts for approximately three months but is reported to be worth around 40% of each vessels yearly earnings, largely due to good catch rates and the high first sale price attached to sole. Levy figures provided to MEP from CFPO suggest an average southwest beam trawler operating 4m beams averages approximately £320,000 per year. This figure is less than the average calculated by the Seafish 2005 economic survey of the UK fishing fleet (£379,600 for vessels <221kW - £407,400 for vessels >221kW) provided a degree of confidence in the figures provided. Vessel owners in Newlyn, Brixham and Plymouth have invested heavily in vessels that are able to fish inside the 12nm boundary, and in quota to maximise returns from the Trevose sole fishery. The cod recovery closed area in rectangle 30E4 impacts these vessels pushing fishing effort south closer to the proposed deployment area. All beam trawl skippers interviewed would provide VMS data if requested.

5.3.1 Newlyn Two 4m beam trawl vessels based in Newlyn are known to target the lucrative sole fishery in ICES rectangle 29E4. Approximately 40% of gross value by landing is attributed to this fishery.

5.3.2 Plymouth Four 24m beam trawlers based in Plymouth target the sole fishery off the north Cornish coast


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 25

25

each year. These vessels have access rights with the CSFC to fish up to 3 miles from the coast. Approximately 25% of the gross value by landings is taken off the north Cornwall coast.

5.3.3 Brixham Eight beam trawlers are reported to fish regularly, even if only for part of the year, off the north Cornish coast targeting the Trevose sole fishery. Two vessels alone were reported to have landed 21 tonnes of sole between January and April 2007.

5.4 Other potters and netters

During interviews in Hayle and St. Ives, fishermen identified a number of vessels operating pots and nets, based in other ports that should be included in the scope of the consultation. Two vessel owners with vessels operating from Newquay harbour were interviewed by telephone. Both owners felt it unlikely that their earnings would be directly affected by the Wave Hub development. Neither of the interviewees was aware of the Wave Hub development prior to this assessment. Two other vessels are thought to operate from Newquay that should also be consulted although their direct fishing operations are unlikely to suffer should the exclusion area be implemented. One key stakeholder based in Newlyn could not be contacted during the assessment and has therefore not been consulted. The business is considered important because two of the three vessels belonging to the company regularly fish for crab and lobster in the vicinity of the proposed exclusion area. The company is also in the process of converted a large beam trawler into a large crabber. This vessel is anticipated to target the area in the vicinity of the Wave Hub, and is expected to carry 2,000 to 3,000 pots alone. Average vessel earnings for a large crabber (based on buyers and sellers data) would realistically exceed £200,000 per year. All those involved in, or previously involved in, the shellfish fishery off north Cornwall coast commented on the increase in effort required to achieve similar returns. Vessels fishing 200 pots twenty years ago are now deploying 600 pots to achieve the same returns.

5.5 Other UK vessels

A small number of <10m fast GRP vessels are operational in the area (e.g. Cheetah Marine GRP catamarans, see annex 1) and are able to reach the offshore grounds along the 50m contour. These vessels operate a mixed fishery targeting species including tope, porbeagle, spider crabs, sole, pollack, bass, mackerel and cod. These vessels are not considered to be at risk of financial impact from the proposed wave hub site restrictions.

5.6 French and Belgian fleets

Contact was made with Jacques Pichon, chief executive of FROM Bretagne, a Fish Producers Organisation based in Brittany. Among the 275 boats of the organisation 38 of the 275 vessels registered fished in rectangle 29E4 in 2006 accounting for approximately 1,000 tons of fish (mainly Haddock and Whiting). There are 3 other POs in Brittany (OPOB, Cobrenord, and Proma). Mr. Pichon estimates approximately 50 trawlers (20m – 35m) fish in rectangle 29E4 each year. All vessels can fish up to 6 miles from the coast and therefore would be potentially impacted by the Wave Hub. The average vessel grossing from 29E4 is £79,950 per year (€113,200), suggesting a total value from 29E4 of £3,997,500 per annum. Assuming an equal distribution of grossings from each of the 4 sub-squares (SS) that comprise 29E4, the value of landings caught by the French trawl fleet from 29E4, SS1 is £999,375 per annum. The Belgian Fisheries authorities were contacted and have not yet responded to a request for information


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 26

26

on Belgian vessels operating in rectangle 29E4.

6 Analysis of fisheries statistics

6.1 Data sources and treatment

DEFRA port landings data, aerial surveillance data and landings data from statistical rectangle 29E4 were comprehensively analysed for the Commercial Fisheries Survey contained within the ES. The DEFRA data provide a valuable record of the distribution and trends in landings, and form an important part of the ES. This assessment does not revisit port landings and landings data. New data (buyers & sellers) is analysed and presented in this section. The use of any set of fisheries statistics has its limitations for calculating the value of fish caught in a specified area. While the limitations were described in the Commercial Fisheries Survey, they are reiterated below to explain why the value of the fisheries calculated using official data is now of limited value.

6.2 Data limitations

Information on the landings of over-10m vessels is compiled from obligatory logbook returns submitted by each skipper at the end of a trip. More precise weights and landed values are provided in some cases by means of sales returns completed by the fish merchant or vessel agent handling the catch. Prior to January 2000 skippers were obliged to complete a logbook return only in respect of trips exceeding 24 hours duration, and logbooks were required only to show details of pressure stock species6 retained. The reporting of non-pressure stock species was voluntary. However, the current regime now requires skippers to submit returns in respect of all trips from which 50 kgs or more of fish was landed, and the logbook must now report details of all species retained, regardless of whether or not they are pressure stocks. Under-10m vessels, which constitute a significant proportion of vessels fishing in the area of impact, are not required to complete logbooks, and their catches are estimated from a variety of information sources: Some skippers submit voluntary catch returns direct to DEFRA District Inspectors of Fisheries; DEFRA Fisheries Inspectors make estimates of landings as a result of visual inspections at landing sites, and in some cases they may also collect information on a systematic basis from fish merchants. Fisheries Officers of the Sea Fisheries Committees also make their own estimates of landings from visual inspections, and many SFCs have catch reporting schemes, especially for shellfish. This information is normally made available to DEFRA. There are potentially two principal sources of error in the DEFRA estimates of catches and values. The first is the error that may arise from the estimation of catches for which logbook reporting is not required. In this context it should pointed out that there are a limited number of Fisheries Inspectors covering 54 landing sites in Cornwall. Under most circumstances however there is no reason to expect estimation errors to alter systematically over time, and the DEFRA estimates are therefore expected to be useful in illustrating seasonal and longer-term trends in fishery production. The second source of error is the under-reporting of catches of pressure stock species by vessels that have exceeded their quotas or run the risk of doing so. Wherever the availability of fish on

6 Species managed by means of quotas


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 27

27

the grounds exceeds the quota allocation, catches are likely to be under-reported or mis-reported (e.g. reported as another species, or having been taken from a different management area). Similarly, it is in the interests of under-10m vessels (that do not fish against individual quota limits) to hide their landings of pressure stock species to reduce the probability of fishery closure. The net result is that the data set might represent landings of some species better than others, with high-value, low-quota species being underestimated.

6.3 Buyers & Sellers

In June 2005 the government introduced new measures to improve the monitoring of fish landings through the introduction of a scheme of registration for buyers and sellers of first sale fish and designation of fish auction sites. The sales notes submitted by buyers and sellers are intended to provide an independent record of catches, which can be used to crosscheck data received from fishing vessel records. Any unregistered person who buys or sells fish through any form of competitive bidding at a designated auction site is guilty of an offence. The regulations apply to fish landed into by any UK vessel. A registered fish seller is obliged to maintain records of each sale of first sale fish that is made. The following information, in relation to each sale, is required to be recorded: Date and location of the sale; Quantities of each species sold; Price paid for each species sold; Name and PLN of the vessel which landed the fish; Name, address and, where available, registration number of the buyer; Reference number of the contract of sale or invoice. 19 vessels from the list of potentially affected vessels provided by Mr. Ghey were identified by the CSFC as potentially fishing within the area of impact. A request for buyers and sellers data for these vessels was provided to DEFRA. Landings volume and value data, from ICES area 29E4, for grouped vessels (by vessel category, e.g. beam trawl) were obtained. Individual vessel data could be obtained in the future provided consent is obtained from the vessel owners.

Table 4: Summary of landings data caught within rectangle 29E4 from buyers & sellers data for vessels identified by CSFC as potentially fishing within the area of impact


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 28

28

Vessel

category

No. vessels

in category

No. months

(06)

No. months

(07)

Total Sum of

Landing

Weight (t)

Total Sum of

Landing Value

(£)

Average total

landing value per

vessel

Beam trawl 3 4 44.65 £214,441.75

sub-tot £214,441.75 £71,480.58

7 369.14 £756,332.67

3 43.30 £80,328.65

sub-tot 412.44 £836,661.32 £278,887.11

5 4.04 £5,061.50

3 0.35 £601.55

sub-tot 4.39 £5,663.05 £2,831.53

7 96.34 £246,943.08

4 10.95 £17,045.80

sub-tot 107.29 £263,988.88 £43,998.15

6 17.41 £32,271.35

4 6.36 £12,480.20

sub-tot 23.77 £44,751.55 £14,917.18

5 5.76 £8,848.74

1 12.72 £2,874.45

sub-tot 18.48 £11,723.19 £5,861.59

Total 19 611.02 £1,377,229.74

Twin-rig trawl 2

Distant

crabbers3

Handline 2

Inshore

crabbers6

Inshore

netters3

Table 4 incorporates assumptions that limit accuracy when averaging earnings between vessels or extrapolating the data to other vessels. The data does not differentiate between vessels therefore it is possible that fewer vessels within the category are responsible for the majority of landed value. Table 4 would suggests the annual value of landings from 29E4 for potting vessels would be approximately £44,000 per vessel, however interviews with owners of potting vessels which operate close to and within the proposed deployment area stated vessel earnings average approximately £80,000 per annum. The vessels for which data was requested include some that fish in other rectangles. Another factor to consider is that fishing effort in the latter half of 2006 and the start of 2007 was reduced due to exceptionally poor weather (CSFC report, period Jan-Mar 2007). Nonetheless, the Buyers & Sellers data provides a verifiable and detailed account of the volume and value of landings by vessel category, gear type and month. Individual vessel data can be obtained if required in the future providing the vessel owner gives consent.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 29

29

7 Potential impacts to the fishing industry

7.1 Summary of potential impacts

The CFS reported direct impacts that may affect commercial fisheries operating in rectangle 29E4. Table 5 summarises the impacts noted in the CFS and includes a number of indirect impacts identified following meetings with the fishing industry and official organisations in Cornwall.

Table 5: Summary of potential impacts to commercial fisheries if Wave Hub project is implemented

Activity Nature of Impact Wave Hub construction Increased vessel movements restricting

fishing activity Loss of fishing grounds

Cable laying operations Increased vessel movements restricting fishing activity Temporary disruption to ability to access some fishing grounds

Exclusion from the Wave Hub deployment area

Displacement of vessels from the Wave Hub deployment area to other nearby areas Cumulative impact of cod recovery box and Wave Hub deployment area Increased pressure on fish stocks on surrounding grounds Gear conflicts arising from overlap of towed, static and mobile gears

Site to shore cable (operational phase)

Loss of fishing grounds1

Risk of snagging (pots, possibly trawls) 1 Loss of fishing grounds – with significant lengths of cable unburied, fishermen have expressed concern over gear losses due to snagging on the cable. Heavy ground swell often moves strings of pots up to 1 mile. Some vessels are experimenting with alternative potting methods, which involve lighter strings of pots that are likely to move in moderate swells. A string of pots that catches on the cable is unlikely to be recovered without some loss or damage to gear. Fishermen feel the risk of losing gear is high; in their opinion the area either side of the cable route will effectively be excluded from fishing.

7.2 Potentially affected vessels

Based on field surveys conducted during this assessment, vessels that claim to have a track record of fishing in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub project include:


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 30

30

Beam trawlers – 9 vessels7 Demersal trawlers – 1 vessel Twin-rig trawlers – 2 vessels “Nomadic” crabbers – 4 or 5 vessels Inshore crabbers – 4 vessels Inshore netters – 3 vessels

The 22 – 23 vessels include some that would be impacted indirectly e.g. from decreased landings due to increased competition. It is feasible that a greater number of vessels may incur some financial loss as a result of “ripple effects” from the shifting of additional fishing effort to already congested fishing grounds or through a reduction in available target stocks due to increased localised effort. French and Belgian fishing activity accounts for a large proportion of total fishing effort in 29E4. These vessels could experience some measure of financial loss, at least in the short-term, should the Wave Hub project proceed.

7.3 Estimated loss of earnings

The information gathered for this assessment enables a calculation to be applied to the buyers & seller’s data to estimate the direct financial loss that could be experienced by vessels identified as previously active, in the vicinity of the planned Wave Hub project. The estimate is based on verified data obtained from MFA and is therefore independent of the estimates of gross earnings declared by fishermen interviewed. The information provided by fishermen is useful as a cross reference and as a means of gauging the likely acceptance of estimated losses should this be presented to the fishing community as a baseline figure for extracted value from the Wave Hub site. Indirect losses such as increased competition and increased fishing effort for a limited stock have not been taken into account. Competition and displacement are “real” impacts that, while difficult to enumerate, could justifiably be argued to result in decreased vessel earnings, therefore constituting a genuine financial loss. Secondary industries such as fish processors may also experience financial losses. The buyers & sellers data has been used to derive the estimate of the loss of direct income (i.e. first sale value only) presented in Table 6. Given the legal requirement for all vessels to submit sales information to DEFRA, the data is assumed to provide a reasonable estimate of landings made by the vessels identified as potentially impacted following consultation with official bodies and with commercial fishermen. Any landings not declared under the buyers & sellers scheme would be non compliant with legislation and therefore could not be included in any mitigation scheme, nor should they form part of the calculation of estimated loss. The estimate should be read in conjunction with the assumptions discussed in section 6.3 (buyers & sellers, page 20-21).

7 Interviews with fishermen suggested a total of 16 beam trawlers fish regularly in the area of impact. This includes 8 vessels from Brixham, 4 from Plymouth, 2 from Newlyn, 2 from Milford Haven. Confirmation of the reliance on the Wave Hub area by the 7 beam trawlers in addition to the 9 included in the calculation of estimated loss would require further investigation.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 31

31

Table 6: Estimate of direct financial losses to local and regional commercial fisheries resulting from potential impacts summarised in Table 5 in year 1 following exclusion from area.

Category of vessel Number of vessels identified

Average annual gross earnings per vessel

Annual gross earnings per vessel category

Beam trawlers1 9 £71,480.58 £643,325.22 Nomadic crabbers2 4 £69,721.75 £278,887.00 Inshore crabbers3 4 £43,998.00 £175,992.00 Inshore netters 3 £14,917.00 £44,751.00 Trawlers 3 £5,861.00 £17,583.00 Total 23 £1,160,538.22 Yr 1 Financial loss from “area of impact” (10%)

£116,053.82

Explanatory notes: 1 The average total landing value per vessel calculated from the buyers & seller’s data

(section 6.3,) is £71,480.58. This figure consists of the landings from the first four months of 2007 (Jan – Mar), which coincides with the Trevose sole fishery. Therefore the annual gross earning per vessel has been applied without adjustment.

2 The average total landing value per vessel calculated from the buyers & seller’s data is £278,887.11 for landings from rectangle 29E4. As the area of impact is within sub-square 1 of 29E4, the average total landing value per vessel was adjusted by dividing £278,887 by four. This assumes that the fishing effort by these vessels is distributed evenly across rectangle 29E4.

3 Inshore crabbers, netters and the trawlers for which buyers & sellers data were requested are relatively small and operate from local ports. Given the limited geographical range of these vessels operating from local ports, the average annual gross earnings per vessel have been applied here without adjustment.

7.3.1 Attributing an estimate to the area of impact The figure of £116,054 is a judged mean between the different forms of assessment and is open to interpretation. A ten percent loss of annual gross earnings per vessel category has been applied across all the vessel categories. The percentage is a mean derived from an estimate of financial loss for each vessel category included due to the proposed Wave Hub deployment area. Different fisheries require different levels of assessment. For example, the value of landings from the beam trawl fleet from rectangle 29E4 covers sub-squares 1 and 2. A rough estimate of the fishable ground (bearing in mind the restrictions imposed by the closure of rectangle 30E4 during February and March, and the difficulties in “steering” around the exclusion area) between Pendeen and Trevose Head, following the 50m contour suggests that the deployment area could account for approximately 8.3% of the fished ground during this time. Certain inshore potters have a higher reliance on the grounds; therefore a higher percentage could be applied, whereas inshore netters have a lower reliance. The estimate consists of adjudications for certain fisheries until actual data is collected and provides a reference point. Any assistance approach should equal any calculated financial loss in a like-for-like manner, i.e. based on this estimate, compensation in year one could be up to £116,054 for the categories of


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 32

32

loss considered (see section 8.3). The estimated financial loss can be expected to decrease with time as the fishing fleet adjusts to the loss of fishing ground resulting in decreased financial impacts. The compensation scheme guidance provided in section 8 states that commercial fisheries should be expected to mitigate their losses, i.e. they should continue to fish and monitor their performance identifying losses. This will have “ripple effects” as gear conflicts are likely at least while fishermen learn new grounds. The risk of damage or loss of gear, particularly towed gear is increased during this learning period and should be considered as part of an impact mitigation scheme. The figure presented above is more than the figure provided in the CFS (£6,396 per year for UK vessels, £12,792 also including non-UK vessels). The methodology used in the CFS underestimates the true value of the fishery because:

The volume and value of catch is assumed to be uniform over the area of 29E4; Official data known to underestimate landings from the <10m fleet were relied upon to

calculate the value of landings into 29E4; and, The area of impact used in the methodology was limited to 8km2.

The CFS states that a substantial value of fish caught from the area is not included in the official statistics; this is supported by the findings of this study. The interview with DEFRA officials in Newlyn confirmed that DEFRA is surprised at the high value of landings by the <10m sector, and the magnitude of the underestimate of landed value previously applied to the <10m sector. The fishing grounds in the north of Cornwall including those in the vicinity of the proposed deployment area are accepted as being diverse, productive grounds that provide an important source of revenue for local, regional and possibly for vessels from other European countries.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 33

33

7.4 Potential for stock enhancement

No-take zones have been proposed as alternative management tools in several European fisheries. Practical experience and scientific studies are beginning to provide an indication of what can be achieved with no-take zones. No-take zones have many conservation benefits, such as protecting species that have been overfished and protecting vulnerable habitats such as cold-water coral communities. They may also benefit fisheries through the “spillover” of fish, eggs and larvae to fished areas and hence provide some protection against fishery depletion. Such benefits do not apply to all species in all locations all of the time. Whether they are realised depends on the biology of the stock, its movement in and out of the reserve at different times in its lifecycle, and on the response of the fishing industry to an area closure. For no-take zones to work as a fishery management tool, they have to reduce overall fishing mortality. Several fish boxes are already in use in Europe, such as Norway pout, mackerel and plaice boxes, and the Trevose Head area in rectangle 30E4. While not strictly no-take zones (they may be closed only seasonally), they do allow insight into the probable effects of no-take zones as management tools. CEFAS conducted a study of the benefits of fishing restrictions that concluded there would be no fisheries benefits. The reason being that quota once taken on the spawning ground would simply be caught elsewhere (Jennings, 1999). For a no-take zone to work, the extent to which the fishery outside the zone is managed is equally important.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 34

34

8 Options for mitigation

8.1 Introduction

The construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Wave Hub will affect the commercial fisheries operating in north Cornwall in ways that would reduce their profitability, either due to the direct loss of fishing grounds, or by increasing the costs of fishing, or by hampering the efficiency of fishing operations.

8.2 Potential Impacts

The priority commercial impacts are anticipated as listed below:

a) Impacts on the trawl fishery resulting from the construction and operation of the wave hub, including the exclusion of commercial trawling from the wave hub area and the possible need for precautions to avoid entanglement with the sub sea cable to shore.

b) Impacts on netting and potting resulting from the construction and operation of the wave hub, including the probable exclusion of commercial potting and netting from the wave hub area.

c) Impacts on netting and potting operations in the adjacent areas to the wave hub from additional effort by those displaced from the wave hub exclusion zone.

d) Cumulative impacts acting at the collective, rather than individual, level. The potential reduction in profitability by the catching sub-sector would fall into two categories: (i) reduction in income, and; (ii) increased costs.

i) Reduction in income will be demonstrated by relatively lower catches, these could arise from lower catches per unit of effort (CPUE) by fishermen or because they have been displaced to areas where they have to fish less effectively. The reductions in catch rate would be assessed at prevailing fish first sale prices to establish financial loss, and averaged over an agreed period (e.g. year or season).

ii) Increased costs resulting from having to travel further to new fishing grounds, such as increased fuel costs, or requiring diversification into new fisheries requiring investment in new fishing gear and learning new grounds imposed by the dislocation.

Fishermen working the grounds that displaced fishermen would move to could also be affected. This group could experience financial losses due a reduction in CPUE from competition and displacement.

8.3 Options for Mitigation

Mitigating financial loss could be achieved in three ways: 1. Compensating impacted individuals (Individual Mitigation) 2. Facilitating collective mitigation/compensation (Strategic Mitigation) 3. A combination of the above


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 35

35

Individual Mitigation Benefits

Assistance to affected businesses reflects scale of financial loss Tailored approach to suit individual circumstances Recipients of assistance are limited to those with demonstrable losses

Weaknesses

Potential administration costs Time required to convince fishing community of effectiveness of assistance scheme Difficult/impossible to compensate small scale losses (background variability) Questions about ‘ripple effect’ of displacement: who is eligible?

Strategic Mitigation Benefits

Potential for wider benefits to fisheries and communities impacted by wave hub Potential tie-in with other funding mechanisms to generate capital for projects seeking to

benefit the fishing industry Possibility of effecting long-lasting benefit to the regions fisheries – potential to assist the

move towards more sustainable fishing and a sustainable fishing industry Forum for fisheries management and fishing community to work together for sustainable

fisheries. Weaknesses

Potential for impacted businesses to suffer financial loss and not to receive direct assistance

Time required to identify suitable projects, gain consensus External funding sources may impose conditions on the distribution of mitigation,

potentially limiting what projects could be applied Combined Mitigation Benefits

Those most directly affected qualify for assistance Benefits of individual and strategic approach apply

Weaknesses

Higher administration costs Costs and weaknesses of individual and strategic approach apply

Do Nothing Benefits

No apparent costs to Wave Hub Project


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 36

36

Weaknesses Lack of social responsibility Missed opportunity to contribute to fisheries management No cooperation with fishermen of the Wave Hub area, future project neighbours.

8.4 Strategic Mitigation Considerations

The goal of strategic mitigation would be to enhance the livelihoods of those dependent on the fishing industry in the project affected area. The means by which this goal is achieved need to be designed bearing in mind the objectives of relevant fisheries management regulations and the objectives of relevant development authorities. Strategic mitigation would need to support the long-term visions set out by the relevant regulatory authorities. In broad terms, this means that any strategic mitigation promoted by SWRDA would need to support the drive towards a modern, sustainable fishing industry. A brief investigation of relevant considerations is presented below. Example actions in support of these measures for the benefit of those participants in the regional fisheries could include infrastructure development for quality improvement such as improvements to landing facilities, improved access to higher value markets and certification of sustainability of specific fisheries to enhance market values. Crab fishery management The brown crab (Cancer pagarus) and spider crab (Maia squinado) are key target species for the inshore fishing vessels operating in the vicinity of the Wave Hub site. Both species are non-quota species, fishing effort is regulated by minimum landing sizes (governed by location and sex of the crab), and not being permitted to land berried (egg-bearing) females. Increases in fishing effort are not regulated. CSFC statistics show an increase in the number of pots from 108,000 in 1991 to 487,000 in 2006. In January 2006, the Shellfish Licensing Scheme came into effect, requiring qualifying vessels targeting shellfish to declare their landing statistics. CSFC undertook a multi-year study on shellfish landings in the SFC’s district. The results suggest DEFRA underestimated brown crab landings by at least 30%, and spider crab landings by at least 64%. The landings being recorded by the Shellfish Licensing Scheme and as a result of the CSFC study have required fisheries managers to reconsider how to manage sustainable shellfish fisheries. DEFRA has commenced a process of consultation to discuss the status of the brown crab stock and the potential requirement for limiting brown crab exploitation. There is consensus that stocks are currently healthy, but that the increasing effort targeting the fishery will result in unsustainable harvesting. There appears to be concern among some sectors responsible for fisheries management that the stock estimates are based on unreliable data (i.e. affected by under-reporting). Given that the Food and Agricultural Organisation’s (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries defines the precautionary approach as follows: ‘The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures’, it seems reasonable to expect some form of effort limitation to come into effect. In addition, there is ongoing consultation on a National Development Strategy for shellfish caught in UK waters.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 37

37

Sole fishery management The fisheries for sole in the Celtic Sea and Bristol Channel involve vessels from Belgium, taking two thirds, the UK one quarter, and France and Ireland taking minimal amounts of the total landings. The sole fishery is concentrated on the north Cornish coast off Trevose Head and around Lands End. Based on ICES advice released in October 2007, the most recent estimates of spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. SSB in 2007 is estimated to be above Bpa. Fishing mortality in 2006 is estimated to be below Fpa. In recent years, fishing mortality has been high but has declined over the last 4 years to below Fpa in 2006. At current levels of fishing mortality, there is a high probability that SSB will remain within the observed range of stock dynamics in the short and medium term. Since 2005, ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4, and 32E3 have been closed during the first quarter (Council Regulations 27/2005, 51/2006, and 41/2007) with the intention of reducing fishing mortality on cod. There is evidence that this closure has redistributed effort to other areas. Monthly sightings and VMS data of beam trawlers and otter trawlers (vessels of all nationalities) in 2004 to 2006 show that, during the first months of the year, beam trawl effort is particularly concentrated in rectangle 30E4 except when the closure is in force. The VMS data also show that the otter trawl effort redirected out of the closed rectangles during the months of the closure is dispersed across adjacent rectangles and is not concentrated around the very edges of the closed area. DEFRA Fisheries 2027 Policy-makers now accept that fisheries cannot be managed in isolation and that marine spatial planning and ecosystem concepts need to be incorporated in the UK’s future fisheries management regulations. DEFRA Fisheries 2027 sets out the government’s vision of what the UK fisheries will become and is relevant as it makes recommendations about the means and methods of regulating the UK fisheries. For example: Fishing will be managed according to an ecosystem-based approach, including use of the precautionary approach. This means more environmental protection than before, especially in the context of climate change and the need to increase the resilience of the marine environment. Management is integrated and devolved to the most appropriate national, regional or local level. Access to fisheries continues to be available to small-scale fishing vessels, even if in some cases that is not the most economically efficient way of harvesting the resource. This is because the wider economic, social and environmental benefits of small-scale fishing can outweigh the comparative inefficiency in harvesting the resource and make a significant economic and social contribution to the lives of individuals and coastal communities, for example, by providing jobs, attracting tourists, providing high-quality fresh fish and maintaining the character and cultural identity of small ports throughout England. Marine Bill The Marine Bill seeks to implement an improved system for delivering sustainable development of the marine and coastal environment, addressing both the use and protection of our marine resources. Defra’s aim is to protect and enhance marine resources and to simplify the consents process whilst at the same time deriving sustainable economic and social benefit. The system would result in some changes to the functions and responsibilities of central and regional


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 38

38

administrations. Issues relevant to fisheries management that the Marine Bill addresses include: marine planning, marine consents, marine management organisation, marine nature conservation, coastal and estuary management, and fisheries management and marine enforcement. The White Paper is due for release in March 2008 and will need to pass through Parliament and into law before its implementation. Significant fisheries management changes, facilitated by the Marine Bill framework, could start to occur in less than two years. Changes include a strengthening of Sea Fisheries Committee’s powers and controls, however the Wave Hub site sits outside the CSFC district and therefore management of the fishery at the site remains the responsibility of DEFRA, though the cable corridor will come under CSFC jurisdiction. SFCs are keen to see their districts extended to 12nm, and it is feasible that this management change could occur within the lifetime of the Wave Hub. SAC and MCZ sites The government is keen to designate new Special Area’s of Conservation and are currently considering sites for selection around the coast of Great Britain (including Cornwall) as well as several far offshore. Marine Protected Areas (recently re-termed Marine Conservation Zones by Defra), are currently being looked at by a wide number of organisations with marine interests, including CSFC and DEFRA. The intention is to identify species (flora and fauna) and/or habitats that need protection from human interference and then to propose regulations that are tailored to the specific activity that impacts those features. In Cornwall there is a special group set up for this purpose called the Cornwall MPA Working Group. This process is in the very early stages of implementation. EFF/DEFRA funding The European Fisheries Fund replaced the previous Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), from 1 January 2007, and is designed to secure a sustainable European fishing and aquaculture industry. The fund supports the fishing industry as it adapts its fleet to make it more competitive and promotes measures to protect and enhance the environment. It also helps fisheries communities most affected by the resulting changes to diversify their economic base. Support is reinforced for measures that will ensure that the industry will continue to have access to the skilled labour force it requires. The EFF is due to run for seven years, with a total budget of around € 3.8 billion. Funding is available for all sectors of the industry – sea and inland fisheries, aquaculture businesses, producer organisations, and the processing and marketing sectors - as well as for fisheries areas. It is up to member states to decide how to allocate funds to the set priorities. Fishing and seafood industries will be able to bid for a share of almost £100 million worth of grants from next year under a new European scheme. Additional funding from government will boost this amount. The UK has been allocated approximately £97 million, more than £30 million of which has been earmarked to boost local economies such as Cornwall, to finance projects under the European Fisheries Fund. UK Fisheries Ministers have agreed to divide the finance as follows: England £26.42m Scotland £26.42m Northern Ireland £12.76m


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 39

39

Wales £1.07m A separate fund of £7.3 million will be available for Cornwall. All figures are approximate. The grant scheme is designed to help modernise and improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the fishing industry. What are the main priorities of intervention of the EFF? EFF will target five priority areas. These reflect EFF’s task of facilitating the implementation of measures adopted under the reform of the CFP to secure economic, environmental and social sustainability in fisheries. The five EFF priorities are as follows: Adaptation of the Community fishing fleet Aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products Measures of collective benefit Sustainable development of fisheries areas Technical assistance to facilitate the delivery of assistance Principles and mechanisms for delivering assistance The objectives of the EFF are performed according to the principle of partnership between Commission and Member State. The competent national, regional, local and other public authorities, including economic and social partners are involved in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the EFF programs. Member States are tasked with finding suitable arrangements for establishing this partnership principle, as long as they deliver a true consultation and involvement of the relevant stakeholders. The EFF provides a number of rules to ensure accountability; EFF programs will be regularly monitored and evaluated by all the partners and subject to annual implementation reports. Potential consultees SWRDA SW Food & Drink NFFO Fishing Communities Fishing Associations CSFC DEFRA MFA (fisheries management, enforcement, marine environment) Producer Organisations EFF DEFRA Challenge Fishing Fund Seafish

8.5 Individual Mitigation Considerations

To offset the potential financial loss that might arise SWRDA could establish a system for the provision of direct financial compensation based on previous practise. The principles and


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 40

40

mechanisms for practical application of a scheme would be specifically developed by an appointed independent agency who would also be responsible for discussing the compensation scheme with the fishing industry and individuals affected. The underlying principle of an individual mitigation scheme is the restitution of financial losses. This presupposes that the losses can be both quantified and linked causally to the disturbance. Furthermore fishermen (and other stakeholders) are expected to mitigate their losses by taking all reasonable precautions to maintain their livelihoods. Only those financial losses sustained due to reductions in legally caught and landed fish, in accordance with all relevant quotas and regulations, would be eligible for compensation Individual compensation mechanisms have been successfully employed in the UK by marine civil works developers.


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 41

41

References Anderson, J., Curtis, H., Boyle, E., Graham, K. 2007 2005 Economic Survey of the UK Fishing Fleet, Short Report. Seafish Economics, Sea Fish Industry Authority, Edinburgh. 26pp Davis, S. 2006. Cornish Inshore Waters Shellfish Stock Survey 2003-2006. Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee Research Report R200701. ICES. 2006. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2006. ICES Advice. Books 1-10. 5, 271pp. Jennings, S. 1999 The case for no-take zones. Fishing News, 12th March 1999. Re-published on the CEFAS website Lee, D. 2003 United Kingdom Sea Fisheries Statistics 2002. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Published by the Stationary Office Pinnegar J.K., Trenkel, V.M., Tidd, A.N., Dawson, W.A. and Du Buit, M.H. 2003. Does diet in Celtic Sea fishes reflect prey availability? Journal of Fish Biology, 63 (supplement A): 197-212 Trenkel, V.M. and Rochet, M.-J. 2003. Performance of indicators derived from abundance estimates for detecting the impact of fishing on a fish community. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 60: 67-85


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 42

42

Annex 1: Vessel types operating in the vicinity of the proposed Wave Hub Further information on vessel types and operating methods can be obtained from the FAO website: http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FISearch.do?dom=vesseltype

Beam Trawler

Demersal Stern Trawler


Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 43

43

Inshore Potting vessel

Handline vessel

High speed coastal potting/ netting vessel

Documents

Wave Hub Development Fisheries Evaluation Report to SWRDA · 2015-03-25 · Wave Hub Development Fisheries Evaluation Report Ref: 1960/R/05/C Page 5 5 Executive summary This report,