UK SAC's/MPA's/MCZ's - Page 14
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 159

Thread: UK SAC's/MPA's/MCZ's

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    Fishermen welcome Fair approach to MPA

    http://www.fishupdate.com/fishermen-...proach-to-mpa/

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    Government confirms fresh consultation on Small Isles MPA

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-36660685

    Further consultation on how the Small Isles Marine Protected Area (MPA) should be managed will start in August, the Scottish government has said.

    In February, the government agreed to delay an order introducing the area following representations from Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association.

    MPAs involve restrictions on some fishing.

    The Small Isles MPA covers an area of more than 308 sq miles (800 sq km), including the Sound of Canna.

    Fragile habitats in the area include the UK's only colony of rare fan mussels.

    The government agreed to hold off introducing the Small Isles MPA to allow for more dialogue on how it should be managed.

    Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham confirmed to Kate Forbes, MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, that eight weeks of fresh consultation will begin in August.

    Ms Forbes said: "I want Scotland's fishing industry to flourish, because this will create more jobs and in turn boost the local economy.

    "I can assure fishermen in my constituency that I will work hard to represent all views and ensure they are listened to - the last thing I want is for the MPAs to have a detrimental impact upon livelihoods."
    Boost species

    The MSP added: "I am particularly pleased that the Scottish government is prepared to listen to the concerns of fishermen, and I hope all parties will work towards a resolution that will protect one of Scotland's most diverse seabed habitats as well as livelihoods in our fishing communities."

    The introduction of MPAs off Scotland's coast has been controversial. Different sectors of Scotland's fishing industry oppose or support the protected areas.

    Some in the industry say the restrictions will harm the livelihoods of fishermen and their communities, while others believe protected areas would boost the species they catch.

    One covering the Firth of Clyde to the south of the Isle of Arran has been the focus of a row which saw fishermen hold a protest outside the Scottish Parliament in January.

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    you think this is better........... thank god the UK just voted to leave the EU to stop idiots in suits making decisions about things they know nothing about

    A better future for the EU deep sea

    http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/mare/it...?item_id=32668

    (30/06/2016) The European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission today reached an agreement on how to better protect deep-sea fish, sponges and corals while maintaining the viability of the European fishing industry. The agreement brings the EU rules on deep-sea fisheries, which date back to 2003, in line with the sustainability targets enshrined in the EU's reformed Common Fisheries Policy.

    EU Commissioner Karmenu Vella stated: "I am glad that an agreement was reached today. As Commissioner in charge of both fisheries and the protection of the environment, I believe that we have achieved a balanced compromise that will protect our deep-sea environment and deep-sea fish stocks while finally putting an end to the uncertainty faced by European fishermen looking to run a successful and sustainable business."

    The text agreed contains a number of provisions that will help better protect the European deep seas. From now on, fishermen may only target deep-sea fish in areas where they have fished in the past (their so-called 'fishing footprint'), thereby ensuring that pristine environments remain untouched. Trawls below 800m will be banned completely in EU waters, and areas with vulnerable marine environments (VMEs) will be closed to bottom fishing below 400m. To further protect VMEs, fishermen will have to report how many deep-sea sponges or corals they catch and move on to other fishing grounds in case a certain maximum amount has been reached.

    These measures are complemented by a reinforced observers' scheme that will improve the scientific understanding of the deep sea. Finally, specific measures, for example landings in designated ports, will be taken to improve enforcement and control. Fishing authorisations may ultimately be withdrawn in case of failure to comply with the new rules.

    In 2012, the Commission had proposed a package which included the full phasing out over two years of deep-sea gears in contact with the sea bottom. This proposal was rejected by the Council and the Parliament. Today's agreement offers alternative protection measures.

    Background

    Deep-sea species are caught in deep waters in the Atlantic beyond the main fishing grounds on the continental shelves, in depths up to 1500 metres. This is a fragile environment which, once damaged, is unlikely to recover. Highly vulnerable to fishing, deep-sea fish stocks are quick to collapse and slow to recover because they reproduce at low rates.

    Deep-sea fisheries in the North-East Atlantic are pursued in EU waters, including the outermost regions of Portugal and Spain, and in international waters governed by conservation measures adopted within the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), in which the EU participates along with the other countries fishing in the area.

    Fishing for deep-sea species has been regulated by the European Union since 2003. Deep-sea fisheries account for about 1% of fish landed from the North-East Atlantic. The catches – and related jobs – have been declining for years, due to depleted stocks. The poor state of key deep-sea stocks and the lack of scientific data clearly demonstrated that a better management framework for deep-sea fisheries was necessary.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    Limits on deep sea fishing

    http://fiskerforum.dk/en/news/b/limi...ep-sea-fishing

    An agreement has been struck between MEPs and EU Member States’ ministries to put into place a formal ban on fishing deeper than 800 metres, while fishing deeper than 400 metres is to be subject to restrictions.

    This is the result of a long and hard-fought battle between industry and the opponents of deep water fisheries. In 2012, the EU Commission proposed measures that included the full phasing out over two years of deep-sea gears in contact with the sea bed. This proposal was rejected by the Council and the Parliament. Today's agreement offers alternative protection measures, but it is difficult to be sure how much protection this offers to fishermen and fishing companies, although the effects in France will be limited as Scapêche, the main company involved in these activities, has already limited its deep sea fisheries.

    The implications are that for fisheries deeper that 400 metres, the 2009-2011 fishing footprint will be frozen and limitations apply to vessels that land a catch of more than 8% of deep sea species during at least one year.

    There are also stricter requirements included in the new package of measures, with Member States required to provide additional data for the EU Commission to adjust authorised areas accordingly, and there will be an increased requirement for vessels to carry observers.

    The agreement now has to be approved by committee and a vote on it will take place in November.

    ‘I am pleased to have been able to complete negotiations on the basis of the compromise adopted by the European Parliament in December 2013 and in accordance with the mandate given to me unanimously by the Committee on Fisheries for represent Parliament,’commented MEP Isabelle Thomas, who has been active in fighting the industry´s corner since before the deep sea closure was first proposed and is a longstanding member of the EU fisheries committee.

    ‘For the record, the European Commission originally proposed an outright ban on fishing in deep waters. I for my part satisfied that we could find, in the name of sustainable development, a solution that takes as much account of environmental imperatives of socio-economic issues,’ she said, adding that this has been achieved, despite pressure from certain Cassandras.

    ‘The agreement reached is a sustainable compromise, balanced between the preservation of vulnerable seabed protection of deep-sea species and safeguarding thousands of jobs dependent on this economic activity. Deep fishing is now completely prohibited under 800 meters deep and limited to areas already exploited in the past,’ she stated.

    ‘I welcome the general atmosphere under which negotiations were conducted in November 2015, during the five trialogue meetings. Thanks to everyone's efforts, we managed to resolve positions that sometimes appeared irreconcilable. I have always been convinced that it was necessary to focus the discussion on reason and science to achieve a consensus. This is therefore a welcome outcome.’

    Source: Various

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    Europêche: 800m ban lacks scientific basis

    http://www.fiskerforum.dk/en/news/b/...ientific-basis

    According to Europeche, the ban agreed yesterday by the EU Parliament, the Council and the European Commission is arbitrary, responding only to political interests and not to real environmental threats. The ban is included in the regulation of deep-sea fisheries agreed upon yesterday.

    ‘It is a pity that the EU has included an 800 metre ban since it undermines the legitimacy of the measures of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), namely NEAFC, and repeats the mistake to demonise, without any scientific evidence, a highly regulated and effectively managed fishing gear by RFMOs and Member States,’ said Europêche President Javier Garat.

    ‘The fishing grounds where the trawl fleets operate represent a relatively small portion of the ocean and are selected areas, which have been highly productive for decades and will remain so, if properly controlled and monitored, as it has been the case up until now,’ he continued, commenting that the rest of the regulation is acceptable to the sector, whose main aim is to carry out responsible and sustainable fishing activities.’

    Europêche welcomes measures agreed for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) and for better management of deep-sea species. Many of these respond to demands promoted by the sector itself or are in fact already existing measures regulated by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). These include total or temporary closure of areas where there are VMEs; freezing the footprint of fishing activities in deep waters and exploratory fishing in new areas (based on impact assessments).

    Europeche also supports the protocol to be followed by fishing vessels operating in depths greater than 400 metres when they encounter VMEs, which halts fishing activity until the vessel is at least five miles away from those fishing grounds.

    The institutions have also adopted a number of measures for the improvement and greater transparency of information on VMEs. Therefore, EU vessels now must provide data on the species targeted in these areas and the Member States must provide the location of these ecosystems and carry out their impact assessments. In addition, from now on, 20% of vessels targeting deep sea species will have to carry a scientific observer to ensure data accuracy. Europeche believes that these measures will enable scientists to have better information on fishing activities and therefore make better assessments and management recommendations.

    The new deep sea fishing regulation will have to be formally approved by the Council, the Committee on Fisheries of the European Parliament and subsequently by the plenary of the European Parliament, expected in November.

    Source: Europêche

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    SFF welcomes decision to reject Regulating Order proposal for the Firth of Clyde

    http://www.sff.co.uk/sff-welcomes-de...l-firth-clyde/

    The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) has welcomed the decision today (28 July) by the Scottish Government to reject an application by the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust for a Regulating Order for the Firth of Clyde.

    The SFF, along with the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) had maintained that such a management regime was totally unnecessary, given that the Clyde fishery is already heavily regulated.

    Commenting on the decision, Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the SFF said: “We welcome this pragmatic decision made by Rural Economy Secretary Fergus Ewing. The imposition of a Regulating Order and the consequent restrictions on legitimate and sustainable fishing would have devastated Clyde fishing communities.

    “The Clyde fishery is already very carefully managed and local fishermen are working hard to ensure a sustainable future by being involved in a number of conservation initiatives.

    “We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has listened to the compelling case put forward by the fishing industry and has moved to protect our fishing communities and ensure a sustainable future for the Clyde fishery.”

    Elaine Whyte of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association said:“Fishermen on the Clyde look forward to working in the heart of planning for the Clyde Fisheries in the future.”

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    That’s the start of the ScotGov “payback” for the Fishing Industry backing Brexit , I fully expect dozens more MPA’z/MCZ’s/SPA’s to be set up in the next 2 years if they can get them past Holyrood ( but with the greens and idiots in the Labour party ) they will get them all through regardless of any real science

    East Mainland Coast, Shetland proposed SPA

    http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-sco...oast-shetland/

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    Fair Isle community celebrating after winning marine protected area status

    http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/13507...status-at-last

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    Tranche 3 MCZs Must Avoid “Gold Plating” at the Expense of Livelihoods

    http://nffo.org.uk/news/tranche-3-mc...velihoods.html

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    16,021

    Default

    MPAs - benefit or challenge?

    http://fiskerforum.dk/en/news/b/mpas...t-or-challenge

    If your work brings you into contact with Marine Protected Areas, do you see them as positive in providing benefits or negative in limiting what you can do? Do they support or restrict your business or other activities, and how do they contribute to the blue economy?

    Researchers are Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) want to understand your views.

    MPAs are recognised as a key tool for marine conservation and already cover significant parts of some sea basins around Europe. In parallel, the ‘blue economy’ – industries based upon the ocean and its products - and demand for marine space across Europe is growing. The ‘blue economy’ is expected to play a significant role within the central EU policy of promoting jobs and growth.

    A widespread concern is that MPAs may constrain economic activity, adding costs to businesses and restricting opportunities for growth and jobs, even for those industries that are expected to benefit from improved marine biodiversity and environmental conditions more generally.

    According to the team at PML, to ensure that the planning and management of MPAs can be taken forward to maximise benefits – for the marine environment, to the blue economy and society more generally - the linkages between maritime sectors and the potential benefits of MPAs need to be better understood.

    ‘There is a need to integrate these linkages into decisions surrounding the management of MPAs,’ the researchers say.

    Plymouth Marine Laboratory is carrying out a survey to find out how MPAs and other spatial protection measures provide benefits to the blue economy.

    ‘We want to examine what these economic benefits are and how they are gained. We are also interested in the role of MPA governance in conflict management, the creation of win-win situations between multiple users and the sustainable use of MPAs,’ PML’s team says.

    ‘Whether you are an MPA manager or work in ‘blue economy’ sectors we would like to hear your opinions. No matter which part of the ‘blue economy’ you are involved in (fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and recreation, energy, shipping transport, seaports and marinas, blue biotechnology, seabed aggregates and other mining, dredging and offshore construction) we would like to know what you think of MPAs and their economic impact.’

    The PML survey is here: http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/WWK6G/ and takes a few minutes to complete.

    Source: PML

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •