Lyme Bay - a Case Study: Measuring Recovery of Benthic Species, Assessing Potential Spill-Over Effects and Socio-Economic Changes 2 Years After the Closure

Home , Folke, Lyme Bay

Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic species, assessing potential spill-over effects and socio-economic changes 2 years after the closure

Assessing the socio-economic impacts resulting from the closure restrictions in Lyme Bay

Final Report 2

June 2011

Project Title: Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic species, assessing potential spill-over effects and socio-economic changes; 2 years after the closure

Response of the benthos to the zoned exclusion of bottom towed fishing gear and the associated socio-economic effects in Lyme bay.

Project Code: MB0101 Marine Biodiversity R&D Programme

Defra Contract Manager: Carole Kelly

Funded by:

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Marine and Fisheries Science Unit Marine Directorate Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR

Natural England 3rd Floor Touthill Close, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 1XN

Authorship: Mangi, SC, Gall SC, Hattam C, Rees S, Rodwell L.D. 2011. Lyme Bay – a case-study: measuring recovery of benthic species; assessing potential “spillover” effects and socio-economic changes; 2 years after the closure. Assessing the socio- economic impacts resulting from the closure restrictions in Lyme Bay. Final Report 2. June 2011. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the University of Plymouth-led consortium. Plymouth: University of Plymouth Enterprise Ltd. 119 pages.

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of the information provided, nor is Defra responsible for any use of the reports content. The report is a non-technical document for a non-specialist audience. Due to the scientific nature of this report, some aspects are technical and necessary to report. However, most statistical results and descriptions are presented in the Annex

Executive summary

As conservation theory and practice moves away from excluding resource users to creating partnerships with them, it is becoming increasingly clear that conservation of marine ecosystems is as much about understanding people as it is about understanding ecological processes. Social and economic factors can influence whether and how individuals and communities exploit resources or cooperate to conserve them. We conducted an impact assessment within Lyme Bay, UK shortly after the implementation of a closed area inside which the use of bottom towed fishing gear was banned in July 2008.

The work presented in this report is part of a larger project funded by Defra and Natural England which focuses on assessing the various changes that have ensued as a result of protection of a 60 nm2 area of Lyme Bay from mobile fishing gear, both in ecological and socio-economic terms. This component of the impact assessment examines the changes resulting from the closure for commercial fishermen, recreational users, fish processors and merchants, and enforcement agencies in order to understand who has been impacted and how they have been impacted.

This report draws on the findings from extensive stakeholder consultation achieved through a combination of primary quantitative and qualitative research, and secondary data collection and analysis. Secondary data on wet weight and value of landings, sightings of vessels using the Lyme Bay area, and enforcement costs were collated from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (DSFC). Primary data collection employed questionnaires, individual and small group interviews, and a stakeholder workshop to examine changes felt by stakeholders as a result of the closure. A mixture of interview methods was used to collect data, including online surveys, face-to-face, postal and telephone interviews.

The results indicate that the impacts of the closure differ according to the gear type and the fishing location used by the fishermen. Static gear fishermen who fish inside the closed area have seen changes in terms of increased fishing effort; mostly because they have been able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots they deploy. The effects of the closure on static gear fishermen who fish outside the closed area have been reported in terms of increased conflicts with towed gear fishermen who now fish regularly in their traditional grounds. Fishermen using towed gear, on the other hand, have been impacted through displacement effects as they have been forced to look for other fishing grounds outside the closed area. Landings data of all gear types indicate an increase two years after the closure compared to two years before the closure implying that the loss of access to fishing grounds in the closed area has been compensated for by the remaining fishing grounds.

There have been changes in spatial activity across the recreation sector. Dive businesses have not been affected but there has been a general increase in activity between 2008 and 2010 at several sites from members of the diving, angling and charter boat operators. This additional activity can, in part, be attributed to the implementation of the closed area policy as several respondents have indicated. The opinions of anglers and charter boat operators varied between no obvious impact on their activities to those indicating that the angling experience had improved within the area. Divers also suggested that there was a distinct improvement in the biodiversity 3 at their chosen dive sites (primarily wrecks). All agreed that it is probably too early to tell the full impact of the closure, especially in terms of impacts on the communities surrounding the closed area.

The impacts of the closure have led to mixed effects for fish processors with smaller processors seeing no change in their businesses. Other impacts, such as a decrease in the quality of scallops, increase in haulage costs and employment difficulties have affected only a minority of fish processors and merchants.

Data on enforcement costs from the Marine Management Organisation and the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee indicate that annual total costs of surveillance and enforcement of the closure restrictions have doubled in the last three years. This is the result of more frequent patrols most of them focusing on the closed area and a consequent increase in fuel demand.

In conclusion, the impact of the closure has been minimal for the majority of stakeholders considered. This conclusion, however, reflects a short-term view as the impacts of the closure of Lyme Bay are likely to be felt for a long time to come. Further, a low response rate to the questionnaires among some stakeholder groups, lack of disaggregated data and an absence of quantitative data for some of the costs and benefits of the closure present some difficulties in drawing definitive conclusions about the impacts. Nevertheless, the general conclusion that impacts have been minimal so far represents the view shared by most stakeholders who informed us that the impacts of the closure are yet to be fully realized.

Table of Contents

Executive summary ...... 3

List of Figures ...... 7 List of Tables ...... 8 List of acronyms ...... 9

1. Introduction ...... 10 1.1 Overview ...... 10 1.2 Lyme Bay ...... 11 1.3 Aims and Objectives ...... 12 1.4 Scope ...... 13 1.5 Approach and Reporting methods ...... 13 1.6 Key Stakeholders ...... 14 1.7 Framework used in assessment ...... 15

2. Methods ...... 17 2.1 Approach ...... 17 2.2 Commercial fishermen ...... 18 2.2.2 Primary data: Questionnaires...... 18 2.2.3 Secondary data: landings data...... 19 2.2.4 Secondary data: sightings data ...... 22 2.3 Recreational users...... 25 2.3.1 Primary data collection: questionnaires ...... 25 2.3.2 Data analysis: changes in recreational activity...... 27 2.4 Fish processors ...... 28 2.4.1 Data collection ...... 28 2.4.2 Data analysis ...... 29 2.4.3 Limitations with data ...... 29 2.5 Enforcement agencies ...... 29 2.6 Ecosystem services ...... 29

3. Results ...... 31 3.1 Commercial fishermen ...... 31 3.2.2 Perceptions to closure ...... 31 3.2.3 Diversification and gear changes ...... 33 3.2.4 Landings and fishing effort changes ...... 33 3.2.5 Changes in areas fished ...... 38 3.2 Recreational users...... 43 3.2.1 Divers ...... 43 3.2.2 Dive businesses ...... 46 3.2.3 Sea anglers ...... 47 3.2.4 Charter boat operators ...... 48 3.2.5 Local hotel owners ...... 48 3.3 Fish processors ...... 48 3.4 Perceptions towards the closure ...... 51 3.5 Enforcement costs ...... 54 3.6 Ecosystem good and services ...... 55

3.7 Summary of findings ...... 57

4. Discussion ...... 58 4.1 Impacts of closure on stakeholder groups ...... 58 4.2 Displacement ...... 61 4.3 Substitution ...... 61 4.4 Leakage ...... 62 4.5 Management ...... 62 4.6 Stakeholder engagement ...... 63 4.7 Future of MCZs ...... 63

5. Conclusion ...... 65

Acknowledgements ...... 66

References ...... 67

Annexes...... 72 2A. In-depth interviews ...... 72 Summary ...... 72 Interview schedule ...... 77 2B. Stakeholder workshop report ...... 80 Overview ...... 80 2C. Questionnaires ...... 88 Fishermen survey ...... 88 Sea angling Survey ...... 93 Charter Boat Operator Survey ...... 97 Dive Business Survey ...... 101 Divers Survey ...... 105 Local Hotels Survey ...... 109 Fish processors and merchants ...... 112 2D. Extended results of recreational users ...... 114 Sea anglers ...... 114 Charter Boat Operators ...... 116 Divers ...... 117 Hotel owners ...... 118

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Location of Lyme Bay, the area closed to mobile gear and previous voluntary 11 closed areas.

Figure 2.1: Map of Lyme Bay closed area showing the ICES rectangles which the area 18 falls into

Figure 3.1: Number of years the fishermen who responded to the survey had fished in 29 the Lyme Bay area at the time of interview

Figure 3.2: Number of vessels from 2005 to 2010 that have been registering catches 32 with the MMO. Vessels are grouped based on their lengths as registering in the landings data base. Error bars are standard error of the mean

Figure 3.3: Catch per vessel per month for fishermen using static and towed gear, and 33 diving for scallops showing the annual changes based on a July to June year. Error bars are standard errors of the mean

Figure 3.4: Average monthly catch per vessel for fishing vessels that use a) static gear 34 and b) towed gear comparing the wet weight of catches when fishing had been conducted inside or outside of the closed area. Error bars are standard errors of the mean

Figure 3.5: Changes in the number of trips made by commercial fishermen using a) 35 static gear and b) towed gear fishing either inside or outside of the closed area. Error bars are standard errors of the mean

Figure 3.6: Annual static and towed gear fishing effort distribution in Lyme Bay from July 38 2005 to June 2010

Figure 3.7: Aggregated increase and decrease in a) dive business, b) divers, c) sea 43 anglers and d) charter boat operators‟ activity between 2008 and 2010.

Figure 3.8: Map of Lyme Bay closed area showing the reef areas of Beer Home Ground, 44 Lanes Ground, East Tennents and Saw Tooth ledges

Figure 3.9: Costs for enforcing the closure that have been incurred by the MMO and 52 DSFC through air and patrol boat operations from Jul 2007 to June 2010 (one year before and two years after closure).

Figure 4.1: Expenditure and turnover generated from the recreation industry in the Lyme 58 Bay closed area 2008. Source: Rees et al. (2010).

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Potential costs and benefits of the Lyme Bay closure to key stakeholder 13 groups

Table 2.1 Number of people interviewed for their social impacts due to the closure 15 showing their occupation and where the interviews took place

Table 2.2 Number of fishermen who took part in the surveys showing the proportion of 17 returning respondents in the second and third surveys

Table 2.3 Number of entries grouped by home port of the vessels sighted inside ICES 21 rectangle 30E6 and 30E7 by the DSFC

Table 2.4 Number of respondents in each of the three surveys who had engaged in 24 recreational activities in Lyme Bay showing the number of returning respondents (Ret. resp.)

Table 2.5 Fish processors who took part in each of the surveys 27

Table 3.1 Fishermen‟s perceived changes to total costs, travel time to fishing sites, 30 fishing duration, fishing sites and gear used

Table 3.2 Average monthly income from fishing stated by fishermen during the three 31 surveys showing the total costs per day (£). SD = standard deviation, n = number of fishermen who responded

Table 3.3 Gross value added and total operating profits for fleets using static gear and 36 those using towed gear for two years before and after the closure came to effect

Table 3.4 Total number of sightings inside and outside of the closed area from 2005 to 36 2010, grouped by gear type and the enforcement agency that recorded the data

Table 3.5 Total number of distinct vessels inside and outside of the closed area from 37 2005 to 2010, grouped by gear type and enforcement agency that recorded the data

Table 3.6 Number of respondents grouped by stakeholder category and their scores to 42 the question „on a scale of 1- 5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a strong effect, how much has the closure affected your decision to conduct your recreational activity in Lyme Bay?‟ SD = standard deviation, n = number of respondents in each year

Table 3.7 Respondents total number of UK diving and angling trips and the 42 percentage of those trips taken in Lyme Bay in each year

Table 3.8 Number of respondents for each stakeholder category and their scores of 44 the question „on a scale of 1- 5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision as to where you conduct you activity in Lyme Bay?‟ SD is standard deviation, n = number of respondents in each year

Table 3.9 Number of staff employed by each fish processor who took part in the 47 interviews. The names of the fish processors have been removed and are numbered A – G due to data confidentiality

Table 3.10 Summary of impacts on processors attributable to the closure of Lyme Bay. 48  = change, = means no change,  = increase,  = decrease, NS = not stated, NA = not applicable 8

Table 3.11 Stakeholders perceptions of changes that have occurred in Lyme Bay since 49 the closure in 2008. The perceptions are based on respondents‟ qualitative replies to three repeated surveys in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Y = yes, N = no

Table 3.12 Stakeholders recommendations for management based on respondents 51 qualitative replies to the Lyme Bay questionnaires 2008 -2010. Y = yes, N = no

Table 3.13 Key messages from each of the stakeholder category presented on a cost- 55 benefit analysis framework

List of acronyms

BSAC British Sub Aqua Club DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DSFC Devon Sea Fisheries Committee ICES International Council for the Exploration of Seas MCZ Marine Conservation Zone MMO Marine Management Organisation MPA Marine Protected Area NE Natural England NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PML Plymouth Marine Laboratory SSFC Southern Sea Fisheries Committee VMS Vessel Monitoring System

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.1 It is well documented that bottom towed fishing gear can negatively and substantially influence benthic communities through changes in species composition, trophic structure and habitat complexity (de Groot & Lindeboom, 1994; Dayton et al., 1995; Kaiser & Spencer, 1996; Blyth et al., 2004; Hiddink et al., 2006). Such effects caused by fishing gear can be long lasting, especially when disturbance is repeated and frequent (Kaiser & Spencer, 1996).

1.2 Management of the marine environment in the past was targeted towards fisheries, with conservation coming second to economic imperatives (Roberts et al., 2005). Increasingly, however, the focus of scientific studies has been to understand the wider effects of fishing and other human activities on the marine environment, which has resulted in a shift from fisheries-centric management to an ecosystem management approach (Christensen et al., 1996; Larkin, 1996; Botsford et al., 1997; Sissenwine & Mace, 2003; Roberts et al., 2005).

1.3 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are defined as „any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment‟ (Kelleher, 1999). MPAs can encompass areas that are designed for the protection of living, non-living, cultural, and/or historic resources (Defra, 2010) and depending on their location and aims, restrict human activity to varying degrees. If designed with habitat integrity in mind, MPAs are examples of management using the ecosystem approach, and are now widely recognised for their effectiveness (Babcock et al. 1999, Agardy, 1994; Auster & Shackell, 2000; Murawski et al., 2000; Gell & Roberts, 2002; Roberts et al., 2005; Halpern, 2003). By protecting important and/or fragile habitat, MPAs can meet both fisheries management and conservation goals (Roberts et al., 2005, Murawski et al., 2000) by facilitating the recovery of previously fished areas, preventing overfishing which can eventually enhance fisheries (Allison et al., 1998).

1.4 Aside from the ecological benefits of MPAs they are also known to have an important socio-economic value due to the increase in tourism and recreational activities associated with their implementation (SAC and University of Liverpool, 2008). It has been estimated that the direct and indirect benefits of establishing a network of MPAs in UK seas would be between £8.6 bn and £19.5 bn over 20 years (SAC and University of Liverpool, 2008). The success of an MPA, however, depends on effective management and also on public acceptance, as without the support of the local stakeholder community the successful implementation of the restrictions imposed by an MPA is difficult (Agardy et al., 2003).

1.5 The implementation of MPAs through the closure of reef areas to bottom towed fishing gear has immediate and long term social and economic impacts for a wide range of user groups that need to be understood and quantified.

Understanding these impacts is important because it provides the context necessary to analyse the level of support that a closure will receive from the local communities (Sanchirico et al. 2002, Carter 2003, Pomeroy et al. 2004).

1.6 The UK is committed to implementing a „well managed and ecologically coherent‟ network of MPAs by 2012 (Defra, 2010). This will be achieved through the creation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and other initiatives around the coastline, which will require monitoring to assess their effectiveness and to ensure that they are meeting their aims. To enable this to be economically viable, it is essential that cost-effective ecological and socio-economic monitoring programmes are developed. The Lyme Bay monitoring programme has provided the opportunity for such programmes to be designed, tested, and evaluated.

1.2 Lyme Bay

1.7 Lyme Bay is an open stretch of southerly facing coastline straddling the East Devon and West Dorset border (Figure 1.1). The bay is approximately 2460 km2 and encompasses the area from Portland Bill in the east (2°27'12W, 0°30'49N) to Start Point in the west (3°38'21W, 50°13'16N).

Figure 1.1: Location of Lyme Bay, the area closed to mobile gear and previous voluntary closed areas.

1.8 Following a regulatory impact assessment and public consultation to address concerns about the damage caused by mobile fishing gear on the structure and complexity of ecosystems, and the increase in scientific evidence of such damage (e.g. Currie and Parry 1996, Walting and Norse 1998, McConnaughey et al. 2000, Kaiser et al. 2000, 2002, 2006, Tillin et al. 2006), the UK Government (Defra), closed part of the Lyme Bay reefs to bottom towed fishing gear to protect benthic biodiversity, namely to ensure the structure of the reef system was maintained and to aid the recovery of the benthos. This was achieved through the implementation of a Statutory Instrument (SI), (the Lyme Bay Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions) Order 2008) and represents a major attempt on the south coast of the UK to implement an MPA as a tool to protect marine life.

1.9 Closing the Lyme Bay reefs to bottom towed fishing gear has led to considerable attention because of the significant, and sometimes conflicting, interests of conservation bodies, fisheries and recreation sectors in the area. The reefs in Lyme Bay contain a highly diverse community of erect sponges, soft corals and bryozoans, many of which are highly sensitive to physical disturbance such as that caused by bottom towed fishing gear (Jackson 2007, Hiscock and Breckles 2007). Lyme Bay is also an important fishing area, particularly for towed gears, such as scallop dredges, and for static gear, such as pots for crab, lobster and whelks.

1.10 Local vessels that fished in the area prior to the closure include approximately 25 > 10 m trawlers and scallopers, 25 < 10 m trawlers and scallopers, and 90 vessels involved in netting, potting or whelking activities (Andrews 2008). The fisheries within the Lyme Bay area are highly mixed and seasonal, with annual variations in activities being driven by a number of factors, including weather conditions, the varying availability of stocks and the financial returns available on different species (Stevens et al. 2007). The Lyme Bay reefs are also popular for sea angling and diving among other recreational uses. Stevens et al. (2007) identified nine active dive businesses that used the Lyme Bay reef area generating a total turnover of ~ £980 000 per annum. Similarly, Rees et al. (2010) estimated the annual value of recreational activities in Lyme Bay to be over £3.9 million.

1.3 Aims and Objectives

1.11 Following the introduction of the SI in 2008, the University of Plymouth Marine Institute (UoP MI) and project partners, the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (MBA), Plymouth Marine Laboratory Limited (PML) and Marine Bio-images, were commissioned to undertake a comprehensive study (MB0101) with the aim of assessing both the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the closure.

1.12 With this aim in mind, the project was designed around eight objectives:

1. To identify and select a number of representative species within the study area that could signify changes within the ecosystem. Selection of such

indicator species should include representatives from the full range of life strategies used by epibenthic species in the study area (but selection of species should consider their wider application for monitoring of MPAs);

2. To develop a cost-effective sampling design for the monitoring of epibenthic recovery within the closed area of Lyme Bay;

3. To quantify the recovery of the indicator species within the closure compared to areas which continue to be fished using bottom towed gear;

3a. To quantify the effects of the closures on reef-associated nekton, compared to areas which continue to be fished using bottom towed gear (added at the suggestion of UoP MI);

4. To assess the long-term effects of fishery area closures on long lived and sessile epibenthic species;

5. To collect and store samples of selected benthic species for future DNA analysis;

6. To quantify and assess any effects on adult scallop populations resulting from the closure;

7. To assess any socio-economic impacts (e.g. diversification, gear changes, changes to areas fished, effort changes) which result from the closure restrictions.

1.4 Scope

1.13 Primarily, this study was initiated to understand the costs and benefits to various stakeholder groups (including fishermen, fish merchants, recreational users and enforcement agencies) of establishing the closure. It is hoped that the findings will provide valuable information on MPA effectiveness both in terms of delivering conservation gains, and in assessing their socio-economic implications.

1.5 Approach and Reporting methods

1.14 This report marks the end of the initial three year survey period for the MB0101 project and aims to present results from each objective, draw conclusions to inform monitoring of the Lyme Bay closed area in the coming year and enable future recommendations to be made. Due to the nature of the project, there are two main components and two separate reports:

i. Biodiversity (objectives 1-6) – Final Report 1 ii. Socioeconomics (objective 7) – Final Report 2 (this report)

1.15 This report presents work from objective 7, the main aim of which was to work with local stakeholders to assess the socio-economic impacts of closing 60 nm2

of Lyme Bay to bottom towed fishing gear, to examine who is being impacted and how, and to quantify the impacts.

1.16 Specifically, the objectives were to assess the socio-economic changes for:

i Commercial fishermen identifying any diversification and gear changes, changes in areas fished, landings and fishing effort; ii Tourism businesses and recreational users, including dive businesses, divers, charter boat operators, sea anglers, and local hotel owners; iii Supporting industries, e.g. fish processors and merchants; and iv Enforcement agencies, resulting from the closure of Lyme Bay

1.17 Information gathered through the assessments is expected to provide insights from a socio-economic perspective into the process of establishing a network of MCZs in the UK.

1.6 Key Stakeholders

1.18 Marine protected areas typically affect heterogeneous communities that include stakeholders with diverse perspectives and outlooks on the marine environment. In general, stakeholder groups are affected by protected area management strategies through the specific types of restrictions on the use of resources, the failure of management to deliver on promises (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995; Mehta and Kellert, 1998) and a lack of enforcement of rules and regulations (Hough, 1988). Stakeholders in the Lyme Bay closure include individuals and communities whose activities will be directly affected by the restrictions on gear types and those that will be indirectly affected e.g. through the resultant or follow on effects of the closure.

1.19 The main stakeholder groups affected by the Lyme Bay closure include:

Commercial fishermen: Fishermen are most influenced by MPA designations because MPAs can potentially improve stocks in adjacent fishing grounds or eliminate large areas from fishing. Commercial fishing is well established in Lyme Bay, with Brixham being arguably the largest fishing port in England in terms of value of landings (N. Wright, MMO, pers. comm.). The exclusion of bottom towed fishing gear from the Lyme Bay closed area therefore has potential benefits to static gear fishermen for example, through reduced competition for space within the closed area but also imposes potential costs on towed gear fishermen such as reduced landings. Apart from these direct costs and benefits, the closure also imposes indirect costs on fishing activities such as those associated with displaced fishing effort (increased gear conflict and pressure on alternative fishing grounds), and costs associated with diversification and gear changes.

Fish processors and merchants: Fishermen extract resources while fish merchants and processors buy these resources and sell them at the market. Fish processors and merchants must also be considered as they are expected

to indirectly feel the impact of the restrictions on fishing gear types in Lyme Bay.

Recreational users: Lyme Bay is a popular location amongst tourists and locals for diving, angling, sightseeing trips, and short mackerel fishing trips. Most recreational activities depend in part on healthy reef systems; since the closure only restricts use of towed gear which is thought to damage the reefs, the closure has the potential to improve the recreational experience, and hence increase recreational activities. Recreational stakeholder groups that were considered include individual divers, dive businesses, charter boat operators, sea anglers, and local hotel owners.

Enforcement agencies: The benefits from closing the area depend intimately upon the efficacy of protection from prohibited fishing activities. Consequently, there is an inevitable cost in ensuring compliance through policing and the prosecution of offenders. Enforcement is carried by the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (DSFC) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) making them key stakeholders to assess for impacts from the closure.

Other stakeholders: Those with direct experience of the closure include environmental NGOs (e.g. Marine Conservation Society, Devon Wildlife Trust), Environment Agency, Finding Sanctuary and the local council. Although they are not impacted directly by the closure, their opinions were sought through the duration of the project.

1.7 Framework used in assessment

1.20 A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to assess how economic activities around Lyme Bay have responded to the closure restrictions. Our assessment considered the main costs and benefits for each stakeholder category including fishermen, recreational users, supporting industries, and enforcement agencies (Table 1.1). These were identified and described based on primary and secondary data gathered from each stakeholder category. Monetary estimates of the costs and benefits incurred two years after the closure are provided where possible together with a discussion of the key assumptions made in the data analyses. Where it was not possible to obtain monetised data a description is provided on both the positive and negative impacts felt by stakeholders due to the closure based on qualitative data from interviews and questionnaires.

1.21 The attitudes of resource users living adjacent to MPAs are a central issue for the management of protected areas. Many authors discussing the importance of the role played by stakeholders in achieving successful MPAs conclude that for management to be successful, stakeholders‟ attitudes towards MPAs and associated regulations need to be positive (Dahl 1997, White et al. 2000). Our assessment therefore involved analysing the perceptions and attitudes towards the closed area of the different stakeholder groups. These were examined through three annual surveys to assess any changes.

Table 1.1: Potential costs and benefits of the Lyme Bay closure to key stakeholder groups

Stakeholder Potential cost Potential benefit  Displacement effects  Increased landings for static Commercial  Reduced landings for towed gear fishermen fishermen gear fishermen  Increased catches for scallop  Gear changes divers  Sourcing fewer scallops from  Premium price for diver- Lyme Bay caught scallops Fish merchants  Increased haulage  Identifying new markets/sources  Displacement effects  Increased recreation  Reduced quality of experience activities Recreational users due to overuse/crowding?  Improved recreational experience due to quality of reef Enforcement  Increased enforcement costs  Contribution to UK network of agencies MPA Stakeholders and  Increased ecosystem Wider public services values

1.22 The primary purpose of establishing the closed area in Lyme Bay is for the protection of marine biodiversity. Assessing whether this has been achieved must therefore be included in the cost-benefit analysis. As biodiversity and its protection are not currently traded through markets, alternative approaches to valuation are needed if the costs and benefits to biodiversity are to be incorporated in the impact assessment process. One way to estimate the monetary value of biodiversity is to use the ecosystem goods and services approach (Beaumont et al. 2008) and calculate total economic value (TEV). An initial assessment of the values associated with biodiversity in the closed area was therefore conducted. Values ranged from the more tangible consumptive and non-consumptive use values (e.g. fish harvested and recreational activities), through to less tangible values such as option and existence value (i.e. the option to use a resource in the future and the value given to an ecosystem goods or service from simply knowing that it exists). Whilst monetary valuations are favoured, other expressions of value (e.g. non- monetary ranking valuations), can be applied in the absence of useable datasets.

2. Methods

2.1 Approach

2.1 The impact assessment was completed using a combination of secondary and primary data collection. Secondary data on wet weight and value of landings, sightings of vessels using the Lyme Bay area, and enforcement costs were collated from the MMO and DSFC. These data were collated annually for the duration of the project and used to assess change over time.

2.2 Primary data collection employed questionnaires, individual and small group interviews, and a stakeholder workshop to examine changes felt by stakeholders as a result of the closure. A questionnaire was developed for each stakeholder category to elicit the economic performance following the closure of Lyme Bay. To encourage high response rates, a combination of interview methods were used to collect data, including online surveys, face-to-face, postal and telephone interviews.

2.3 To explore the social impacts of the closure on the various stakeholder groups, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals and small groups (3 - 6 people). These interviews focused on obtaining a greater understanding of the impacts of the closure on stakeholder groups, and particularly any changes in stakeholder behaviour and conflicts that could be attributed to the closure. Respondents were asked about impacts they had experienced themselves, the impacts that they perceive others to have experienced, and what respondents considered to be the impacts on the communities surrounding the closed area (Annex 2A). A total of 28 people were interviewed (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1: Number of people interviewed for their social impacts due to the closure showing their occupation and where the interviews took place

Stakeholder category Number interviewed Location Commercial fishermen (static gear) 9 + 1 scallop diver Teignmouth, Beer, West Bay Commercial fishermen (mobile gear) 5 Exmouth, Exeter Sea anglers 6 Exmouth to West Bay Charter boat operators and dive businesses 5 Lyme Regis, West Bay Divers 2 Through Exeter BSAC

2.4 Stakeholders who had direct experience of the closure were also consulted through a stakeholder workshop, which provided a forum for open discussions on issues related to the closure. It brought together 27 representatives of towed and static gear fishermen, recreational users, environmental NGOs, fisheries managers and researchers as well as scallop divers and other interested stakeholder groups. Preliminary research findings from the ecological and socio-economic monitoring following the closure of the Bay were presented and discussed. The workshop was used as a further step to: identify the positive and negative impacts of the closure and how they can be managed; collect feedback on the Lyme Bay research project (MB0101), including future work and next steps; and discuss future objectives (environmental, social and

economic) of the Lyme Bay closed area and how these could be achieved (Annex 2B).

2.2 Commercial fishermen

2.2.2 Primary data: Questionnaires

2.5 To evaluate the perceived changes in income and fishing costs as a result of the closure, a questionnaire was developed for the fishermen. The questionnaire was designed to elicit the impacts that the closed area was having on the respondent‟s costs and incomes. The fishermen‟s questionnaire was pilot-tested, face-to-face with four fishermen and later revised based on the comments received from respondents. A postal survey was then conducted and follow-up telephone calls were used to encourage those who had not responded to complete the questionnaire and to clarify ambiguities in responses to completed questionnaires. In order to explore changes that the respondents perceived to be due to the closed area, three surveys were conducted: one immediately after the closure between September and December 2008, another one year after the closure, between December 2009 and March 2010, and then two years after the closure, between December 2010 and January 2011.

2.6 The questionnaire included closed ended questions to gather specific information about changes in fishing activities (Annex 2C). The questions were divided into four broad categories. The first section required basic information about the respondent including a) the gear type they currently used; b) how long they had been using that gear; c) whether it was the same gear they used before the closure; and d) whether it was their preferred gear type. The length of time they had been fishing in general and the specific number of years fishing in Lyme Bay was also recorded. The second section of the questionnaire focused on costs resulting from changes brought about by the closure. In the first year, respondents were asked to relate costs from the current year to those from the year before the closure, and thereafter to compare their costs from the previous year to the present year of the study. The third section focused on the incomes derived from fishing, including their perception of whether these had increased, decreased or stayed the same, and any additional income sources that the fishermen had. Fishermen were also asked to express their opinion about the reasons for any perceived changes to costs and incomes. The fourth section focused on the respondent‟s attitude towards the closure including whether it impacted, how, or where, they fish in Lyme Bay and their level of support for the closed area policy. Questions employing a Likert-type scale, were used to quantify responses on attitudes and perceptions of fishermen.

2.7 Names and addresses of 157 vessel owners who use Lyme Bay were acquired through the local MMO office. All vessels owners were contacted to take part in the survey. 16 declined to participate in the survey because they had not fished in the Lyme Bay area and they did not want to compromise the views of their colleagues. A total of 43 responses (30 %) were received in the first survey, 31

responses (21 %) in the second survey, and 20 (14 %) in the third survey (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Number of fishermen who took part in the surveys showing the proportion of returning respondents in the second and third surveys

2008 2009 2010

N N Returning N Returning Respondents respondents

Commercial fishermen 43 31 20 20 16

2.2.1.1 Data analysis

2.8 Given that it is only bottom towed fishing gears that are restricted in the closed area, analyses were completed with data pooled together into either towed or static gear types. Data on the perceptions of fishermen towards changes in income, costs, travel time to fishing sites, and fishing duration are reported, based on the proportion of fishermen who participated in the survey. The responses are presented for each of the three years of the survey. Data on changes in fishing gear types used and whether fishermen have diversified their incomes as a consequence of the closure were analysed based on questionnaire responses of the fishermen.

2.2.1.2 Limitations with data

2.9 Some of the responses given have been inconsistent and there are instances of missing data. The authors made repeated telephone calls to follow up these data gaps and inconsistencies, but in some cases the fishermen were not available to take the calls. Others who took the phone calls were unable to provide the needed data e.g. instead of providing a figure for their average daily cost of fishing operations, some fishermen could only say that costs were high.

2.10 The questionnaire data analysed in this report are also limited due to low response rates. Reasons given by fishermen for the low response rate included lack of trust and an inability to influence future designation of marine conservation zones. Some fishermen claimed that they have provided data through questionnaires before, that have been used in ways that they were unhappy with and so were not keen to provide more information. Others did not see the need to participate since marine conservation zones (MCZs) were definitely going to be established in the UK waters. Providing information on how they have been affected by the Lyme Bay closure would therefore not stop the establishment of more protected areas.

2.2.3 Secondary data: landings data

2.11 The closed area in Lyme Bay lies across ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7 and comprises approximately 11 % of their combined area (Figure 2.1). Catch data

from these rectangles obtained from the MMO were used to explore the volume of species landed by different gear types before and after the closure. The catch data include the wet weight of landings reported by fishermen and fish merchants to the MMO at various ports around the South West of England. Although boats of under 10 m are not required to report their catches, their catch is largely captured through sales notes from buyers and sellers which, since 2006, must be reported to Fisheries Administrations. These fishermen are also encouraged to voluntarily provide information on their catch. It is still possible that the ICES data could underestimate actual landings, but they are used here because they represent official landings data.

Figure 2.1: Map of Lyme Bay closed area showing the ICES rectangles which the area falls into

2.2.1.3 Data analysis

2.12 The number of vessels that had reported their catches from ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7 were plotted for five periods: July 2005 to June 2006; July 2006 to June 2007; July 2007 to June 2008; July 2008 to June 2009; and July 2009 to June 2010; catches were grouped by vessel length (i.e. under 10 m, 10 – 15 m and over 15 m). Annual comparisons were made from 2005 - 2010 using a July to June year to reflect annual variation before and after the closure. Catch data were analysed for all species landed by static gear, all species landed by towed gear and then for scallop landings alone. Given that there could be fishing vessels that still do not report their catches, the total catches from ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7 are difficult to know. Analyses of the volume of catch before and after the closure, therefore was undertaken using catch per 20

vessel per month. This indicated changes based on catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the vessels that report their catches and thereby enabled comparison of landings over time.

2.13 Based on information from enforcement agencies and data on sightings, daily catches for each vessel were matched to the corresponding location of the vessel on the date when fishing was undertaken. The assumption was that the catch of each vessel came from the location at which the vessel had been sighted. The fishing locations were categorised as either inside or outside of closed area. The value of landings from each of these two fishing locations were then plotted and compared based on the gear types used. To study changes in fishing effort following the closure, the number of trips made in each month was used. Data were tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance. Data were normally distributed and therefore one- way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the value of catches and number of trips taken was used to examine changes in landings for fishermen that had used static or towed gear.

2.14 The effect of the closure on profit and earnings for fishermen was studied by assessing changes in gross value added (GVA). GVA is the contribution to gross national product from fishing fleets in Lyme Bay and is calculated as the sum of remuneration of labour (crew share) and profit. The GVA for fishing fleets in Lyme Bay was computed for each year between 2006 and 2010 to reflect two years before and two years after the closure based on information published by Seafish Ltd through their Economic Survey of the UK fishing Fleets reports (Anderson et al., 2007, 2008, Curtis et al. 2009, 2010, Curtis and Brodie 2011). Annual total expenses (both fixed and variable) for different vessel segments and the corresponding crew share published in the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Economic Survey of the UK Fishing Fleet reports were matched to the vessel segments that had used the Lyme Bay area based on the landings database from the MMO. These total costs for each year were then deducted from the total annual value of landings for that year as recorded in the landings database to calculate the operating profit. The amount taken as crew share was then added to the operating profit to give the GVA for each year.

2.2.1.4 Key assumptions and limitations

2.15 The landing figures provided and the changes in value of landings derived are subject to certain limitations:

i. The landings dataset is, in most cases, under-representing the total catches from the ICES rectangles examined because it is likely that some buyers and fishermen do not still report their catches.

ii. We needed to make assumptions if we were to include catches from smaller boats in the analysis of where the catches came from (i.e. inside or outside of the closure). A combination of expert judgements (officers from DSFC), sightings data (air, navy patrol and DSFCs patrol boat) together with the landings data allowed us to broadly identify which

vessels were fishing inside or outside the closed area. The analysis was only based on vessels that were sighted, and on assumptions by DSFC officers that certain boats would only fish in certain areas (e.g. because they were less than 10m and would therefore only fish up to the 2 mile limit). This is likely to underestimate the value of catches coming from the various areas, however, it was a necessary step given the difficulties in obtaining disaggregated data, especially for the smaller < 10 m vessels.

iii. Some assumptions were also made in calculating the GVA for the fishing fleets using Lyme Bay. The length of vessels recorded in the landings data are grouped as either under 10 m, 10.01 - 15 m or over 15 m, while the vessel segmentation published in the Economic Survey of the UK Fishing Fleet reports uses vessel lengths such as 9 - 9.9 m, 10 to 12 m, 12 to 15 m and over 15 m to categorise the vessel segments. While attempts were made to ensure that the vessel costs and crew share obtained from the Seafish reports exactly matched the vessel length and gear type in the landings database, some did not match exactly. The actual costs and crew share for those vessels could therefore have been either overestimated or under-estimated.

2.2.4 Secondary data: sightings data

2.16 To explore changes in areas fished, data on sightings of fishing vessels were obtained from the DSFC and the MMO. These data were based on sightings of fishing vessels by surveillance aircraft and patrol boats, and from the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for boats over 15 m. Air and sea surveillance for the closed area follows an enforcement procedure, collecting evidence that is sufficient for prosecution if appropriate; it is carried out by the MMO, Royal Navy and DSFC. The sightings dataset provided includes the position of the vessel (latitude and longitude), the activity (fishing or steaming) and the ICES rectangle used for all vessels including both under 15 m and over 15 m vessels. All the sightings data focused on vessels that were active in ICES rectangle 30E6 and 30E7 from 2005 to 2010.

2.2.3.1 Data analysis

2.17 Both the VMS and sightings data from 2005 to 2010 for vessels that were sighted fishing were imported into ArcGIS and overlaid on a base map of the Lyme Bay area. Using the same annual comparisons as the landings data (from 2005 - 2010 using a July to June year), vessels sighted fishing were mapped according to the fishing gear used. Plots showing the distribution of sighted vessels were created for both static and towed gear fishermen.

2.18 The DSFC dataset contained 7168 records. 212 and 832 entries related to pre July 2005 and post June 2010 respectively and so were excluded. 21 entries were positioned over land and were also eliminated. 4176 records were outside the area of interest (ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7), leaving 1927 entries for analysis. The data set that was used in the final analysis had 742 static gear entries and 1185 towed gear entries. The points contained information on the

home port and gear type as well as other information relating to location and date when sighting took place. Table 2.3 presents the homeport of the vessels in the sightings data set from DSFC. To create the images, points were separated into five distinct time frames using July – June year. The following number of points associated with each time frame were used in the final analysis:

 2005/2006 480  2006/2007 417  2007/2008 391  2008/2009 395  2009/2010 244

Table 2.3: Number of entries grouped by home port of the vessels sighted inside ICES rectangle 30E6 and 30E7 by the DSFC

Home port Entries Home port Entries Home port Entries Beer 185 Lyme Regis 274 Brixham 486 Looe 37 Torquay 62 West Bay 33 Axmouth 11 Newlyn 5 Weymouth 19 Budleigh 7 Mevagissey 1 Padstow 4 Dawlish 62 Newquay 5 Falmouth 31 Teignmouth 115 Exmouth 619 Jersey 2 Plymouth 3 Branscombe 3 Poole 1 Sidmouth 1 Dartmouth 2 Not Given 6 Bideford 2 Shoreham 7 N. Wales 4 Portsmouth 1

2.19 The MMO dataset contained 5075 entries. Of those, 3 entries contained no information on latitude, longitude or date so they were removed. 474 and 457 entries related to pre July 2005 and post June 2010 respectively so they were also excluded. 35 entries were over land and were therefore eliminated. A further 3 entries had improbable latitude and longitude values so they were discounted, leaving 4103 entries for analysis. In total 2204 entries that were sighted from air, and 1899 entries sighted from boat were used. Plots were created with points separated into five distinct time frames (July - June) each having the following number of entries:

 2005/2006 649  2006/2007 677  2007/2008 768  2008/2009 1046  2009/2010 963

2.20 The VMS data contained 52,052 records. Of these, 3981 and 3232 were outside the time frame of interest as they were from pre July 2005 and post June 2010 respectively. A further 10,634 points had a reported location over land and were also eliminated from the analysis. This left 34,174 records available. There were a total of 168 vessels in the dataset, with the ratio of records to vessel ID varying quite significantly. Some vessels only appear once 23

in the dataset and 10 vessels appear more than 1,000 times (average number of appearances 205).

2.21 Overall there were 13,913 records where the gear type was not stated. For some of these records the gear type was populated using records with the same vessel ID which did have this information. 2,992 records pertaining to 44 vessels were populated in this way. There remained 10,921 records relating to 88 vessels IDs for which there was no information on the gear type.

2.22 Some vessels transmitted data with greater than two-hour frequency (one vessel in particular appears 6,688 in the dataset over 871 days), so in order to eliminate any duplicity in the data, any records of the same vessel less than 1 hour 45 minutes apart were eliminated. This removed a further 14,532 records, leaving 19,642 records for analysis.

2.23 The final stage was to populate the dataset to indicate whether the vessel was fishing, stationary or steaming, based on the speed in knots. The speed filter used was stationary for 0 knots, fishing between 1 and 6 knots, and steaming for greater than 6 knots. The data set that was used had 4321 static gear entries and 13892 towed gear entries. Of these towed gear entries, 11096 entries were of vessels that were fishing, 6947 were entries of vessels that were stationary, and 1599 were entries of vessels that were steaming. Only data from vessels that were sighted fishing were used to create plots on vessel sighted over time. These were separated into five distinct time frames (July - June), each with the following number of points:

 2005/2006 4218  2006/2007 5062  2007/2008 5968  2008/2009 2462  2009/2010 1932

2.2.3.2 Limitation with data

2.24 Some assumptions were made with the sightings data due to the following limitations:

i. Vessels sighted were assumed to be comprehensive in the years analysed in this report, rather than an underestimate, and the sightings data are assumed to have been collected consistently enabling comparisons over time to be made.

ii. While the patrol boat sightings provided by DSFC are normalised with patrol boat effort, the air and sea sightings conducted by the Royal Navy patrol vessels are not normalised.

iii. Due to data confidentiality, the sightings data provided by the MMO did not have vessel registration numbers; this made it difficult to obtain accurate estimates of the number of vessels using the different areas.

iv. The data used in this report include sightings data from local patrols of the Lyme Bay by DSFC and does not include sightings data recorded by the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee (SSFC). The sightings data used may therefore not cover in detail the area eastwards of the closure. The authors requested data from SSFC but were informed that SSFC do not make regular patrols to areas inside the closure, and that the data from DSFC should be sufficient to explore changes resulting from the closure.

v. The sightings data are collected through a risk-based monitoring approach and therefore may not be fully comprehensive. In most cases, the patrol boats do not follow the same route on each patrol. There are also cases where the patrol boat has had to abandon the monitoring activity to pursue other gear enforcement actions elsewhere; consequently data recording may be partial on some days.

2.3 Recreational users

2.3.1 Primary data collection: questionnaires

2.25 In order to assess how the recreational pursuits in Lyme Bay were being impacted by the closure, surveys were conducted with divers, dive businesses, charter boat operators, sea anglers and local hotel owners. The aim was to assess:

i. Changes in recreational activity resulting from the closed area;

ii. Costs and benefits of the closed area for each group;

iii. Perceptions of the closed area; and

iv. Support for the closed area policy in Lyme Bay.

2.26 A questionnaire was developed and used to obtain socio-economic details of each of the main recreational groups including sea anglers, dive businesses, divers, charter boat operators, and owners of local hotels. The questionnaires were pilot-tested on a small group of stakeholders and later revised based on the comments received from respondents. To ensure that they conform to ethical standards in surveys, the questionnaires were sent to the University of Plymouth Ethics Committee and Defra Survey Unit for approval. The questionnaires used are provided in Annex 2C. A combination of interview methods was used annually to collect data on costs, income and perceptions of the various recreational users including online surveys, face-to-face, postal, and telephone interviews. The questionnaires developed for use in this project were made available online at the Plymouth Marine Laboratory website at http://web.pml.ac.uk/lymebay/ .

2.27 19 dive businesses were identified in Lyme Bay and were asked to take part in this study. Eight of them had gone out of business, and one declined to respond to the questionnaire. In total, ten dive businesses were contacted each year to take part in the repeat surveys.

2.28 587 dive clubs nationwide were identified from the British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC) website http://www.bsac.com and were contacted via email and invited to complete the online questionnaire. Approximately 200 of these emails were undeliverable due to out-of-date or incorrect email addresses. Notices were also placed on the Aquanauts web forum at (http://www.aquanauts.co.uk), the BSAC web forum (http://www.bsacforum.co.uk), and the UK diving forum (http://www.ukdiving.co.uk). These notice boards are usually viewed by around 409 members of the diving forums. All the diving questionnaires were completed online. Table 2.4 illustrates the response rate for this stakeholder category.

Table 2.4: Number of respondents in each of the three surveys who had engaged in recreational activities in Lyme Bay showing the number of returning respondents (Ret. resp.)

2008 2009 2010 Stakeholder Ret. resp. Ret. resp. N N N from 2008 from 2009 Charter boat operators 21 9 6 6 4 Dive businesses 8 10 8 7 7 Divers 42 37 10 15 8 Anglers 49 18 11 29 20 Local hotel owners 13 13 2 10 8

2.29 Fifty-seven charter boat operators were identified from http://www.deepsea.co.uk and http://www.charterboats-uk.co.uk, and were contacted to take part in the online survey. They were based in Beer, Brixham, Dartmouth, Exmouth, Lyme Regis, Paignton, Salcombe, Torquay, West Bay and Weymouth. As the initial response to the online questionnaire was poor, charter boat operators were subsequently interviewed by telephone. These were contacted each year in subsequent surveys, but the number willing to respond each declined (Table 2.4).

2.30 Sixty-two UK angling clubs were identified from an Internet search and their members were invited to take part in the study. A notice was also placed by the editor of Fishing Dartmouth requesting readers to take part in the study by filling in the online questionnaire. In addition, an email was sent out to the National Federation of Sea Anglers requesting its members to participate in the study. All sea angling questionnaires were completed online. The response rate for this group is shown in Table 2.4.

2.31 The contact details of 68 local hotels including Bed and Breakfasts were identified from websites and tourist information offices. The list included all hotels along the coast from Beer to West Bay. An invitation to participate in the research project was sent to all contacts on the list giving them the web link where respondents would access the questionnaire. The numbers of respondents who took part in the survey each year and the number of people within that group who retook the survey (returns) are shown in Table 2.4.

2.3.2 Data analysis: changes in recreational activity

2.32 Each year, respondents to the recreation surveys were provided with a map of Lyme Bay showing the areas of reefs and wrecks, and were asked to identify which sites they visited. Respondents were also asked to give an indication of the frequency of visits to each site on a scale of 1 - 5 where 1 = a site rarely visited that year, and 5 = a site which is frequently visited that year. Respondents could also add new sites to the map. Each year the results were summed to give a frequency count for each site.

2.33 To determine change in activity across years, each sites frequency count was divided by the number of respondents to provide a standardised value which could be compared across the years 2008 to 2010. As many respondents also operate outside Lyme Bay, the increase or decrease in activity at each site is not relative to each other. For example, an increase in diving at Beer Home Ground does not indicate a decrease in diving activity at East Tennents.

2.34 Respondents to the recreation questionnaires were asked whether the closed area policy had affected their decision to fish or dive in Lyme Bay; and whether the closed area had influenced where they fish, dive or take clients in the bay. Responses were sought on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = no effect, and 5 = a strong effect. The scaled data on the responses to each of these questions were used to calculate the mean score and standard deviation to assess how much each respondent differs from the overall mean. A small standard deviation implies that members of the sample generally hold similar opinions whereas widely spread responses (a larger standard deviation) imply that members of the sample hold diverse views (McCormack and Hill 1997).

2.35 Respondents to the questionnaires were also asked to score their level of support for the closed area policy through the question „to what extent do you support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? Respondents were asked to scale their responses on a five-point Likert-type scale where, 1 = strongly against, and 5 = strongly support. The scores from respondents were used to calculate the mean and standard deviation to show the average response and how much an individual respondent differed from the overall average. The spread of responses across the years indicates how attitudes have changed.

2.36 Each year divers and anglers were asked the number of dives or angling trips undertaken nationwide and the number of dives or angling trips undertaken in Lyme Bay. Dives and angling trips in Lyme Bay were expressed as a percentage of overall activity. A valuation of the increase in activity within the closed area was then calculated for each site based on the percentage increase in activity between 2008 and 2010. The percentage increase was applied to the 2008 baseline valuation (Rees et al. 2010) for each site within the closed area.

2.37 Responses provided to open ended questions in the questionnaire, for example, „Do you have any comments you would like to add?‟ were used to identify themes arising from the perceptions of each stakeholder group. The open-ended responses gathered were extracted and analysed using QSR

NVivo8 text analysis software which supports the coding of emergent themes within a hierarchical arrangement. The analyses involved coding responses into the following themes of interest.

i. Perception of changes that have occurred in Lyme Bay since the closure

ii. Enforcement

iii. Management

2.4 Fish processors

2.38 The aims of the interviews with fish processors were:

i. To identify the impacts of the closure in Lyme Bay on their businesses;

ii. To quantify the costs and benefits of any change (where possible); and

iii. To understand the opinions of fish processors towards the closed area.

2.4.1 Data collection

2.39 In 2008, fish processors and fish merchants from Devon and Dorset were identified through the Yellow Pages and were contacted by telephone to determine their level of involvement in the processing of scallops caught from Lyme Bay, or traded through Brixham market. They were also asked to identify other fish processors involved in the scallop trade who may have been affected by the closure of Lyme Bay. This initial search identified seven key processors who were subsequently contacted by telephone and with follow-up e-mails. All but one agreed to participate in the survey (Table 2.5).

2.40 Brixham Trawler Agents were also contacted as they are responsible for the auction of all scallops landed at Brixham. They are therefore in a position to monitor any changes in the scallop market at Brixham.

Table 2.5: Fish processors who took part in each of the surveys

When interviewed? Processor/Merchant interviewed 2009 2010 2011 AM Seafoods    Brixham Trawler Agents    Channel Fisheries Ltd    Coombe Fisheries    Falfish    Samways Ltd    Saunders and Wilson   

2.41 The first round of interviews was undertaken in January 2009 and was repeated again in January 2010 and 2011. The same basic open-ended

questions were asked to each processor (Annex 2C) including where they source their scallops, the volume and value of the scallops they source, what changes have occurred since the closure. Additional tailored questions were also included for individual processors to allow the project to follow up on specific issues raised in previous interviews.

2.4.2 Data analysis

2.42 The responses to the open ended questions were compiled to generate narratives for each processor. These narratives describe how the closure has impacted their businesses and what has changed as a consequence over the three years since the closure came into force.

2.4.3 Limitations with data

2.43 Fish merchants and processors that were interviewed were also asked to supply data to support their claims, but all declined to do so. It is not therefore possible to quantify the costs and benefits of the closure to scallop processors.

2.5 Enforcement agencies

2.44 Enforcement costs were gathered from the deployment of surveillance aircraft and Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels by the MMO, and a patrol vessel by DSFC. The data reported here were based on an air patrol taking approximately ten minutes to cover the closed area. Air surveillance for the closed area is quite quick, especially as the use of bottom towed fishing gear has been prohibited. The aircraft follows an enforcement procedure which confirms the exact position of the vessel and its observed activity to a level of evidence that is sufficient for prosecution if appropriate.

2.45 Sea surveillance is based on a maritime patrol by the Royal Navy Fisheries Protection Vessels (FPVs) taking approximately two hours to cover the area. The FPVs are tasked with patrolling in accordance with a risk-based assessment on fishing activity and the risk of non-compliance. They can be sent inshore to monitor prohibited fishing activity such as those in Lyme Bay, or in relation to the 12 and 6 miles limits, or to inspect vessels coming into land for control purposes. Their enforcement presence in an area covers a wide range of different fisheries regulations at the same time. FPVs also transit through inshore areas on their way to and from Portsmouth thereby providing an on- going deterrent effect. Changes in enforcement costs that could be attributed to the closed area were analysed based on monthly trends from July 2007 to December 2010 and plotted.

2.6 Ecosystem services

2.46 Ecosystem services are the products of physical and ecological processes operating over long temporal and broad spatial scales. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) classifies ecosystem services into four distinct groups: provisioning (e.g. food and fibre), regulating (e.g. gas and climate regulation and bioremediation), cultural (e.g. education and recreation) and 29

supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling and resilience). The benefits obtained from ecosystem services may be physical in nature, but also aesthetic, intrinsic and moral. Humankind is dependent upon them as a life support system as well as for enhancing its well-being (Turner et al. 2003). Based on the valuation framework developed by the MEA and extended by Beaumont et al. (2008), we have explored changes to ecosystems services following the closure.

2.47 The assessment of fish landings described above can be used as a proxy for provisioning services, while the assessment of recreational activities can be considered as an indication of cultural value (although cannot be assumed to constitute the entire cultural value). Our assessment also focused on changes in regulating services including the conservation value of Lyme Bay. The reefs in Lyme Bay support nationally important marine features including sponge (Axinella dissimilis), ross coral (Pentapora fascialis) and dead man's fingers (Alcyonium digitatum), and are considered to be both nationally and internationally important in conservation terms. By protecting these reefs from damage by towed gear, the closure has demonstrated a conservation value which can be assessed through ecosystem services valuation.

2.48 Studies that have aimed to quantify the role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning and services have revealed that temporal stability is directly linked to the reliability of service delivery (Balvanera et al. 2006). Ecosystems that are diverse have a greater temporal stability, as well as greater resistance to driving forces such as overfishing and climate change (Balvanera et al. 2006, Worm et al. 2006). The removal of damaging towed gear fishing practices has the potential of protecting the majority of high quality reefs leading to healthy reefs. Healthy ecosystems with high biodiversity can have greater resilience to natural or anthropogenic impacts (Hughes et al. 2005).

3. Results

3.1 Commercial fishermen

3.2.2 Perceptions to closure

3.1 The majority of fishermen who responded to the questionnaires have been fishing in Lyme Bay for 25 to 49 years (Figure 3.1) and can therefore be assumed knowledgeable of issues regarding the Bay.

6 Frequency, # 4

0 < 10 10_14 15_19 20_24 25_29 30_34 35_39 40_44 45_49 Years fishing

Figure 3.1: Number of years the fishermen who responded to the survey had fished in the Lyme Bay area at the time of interview

3.2 The majority of fishermen stated that total costs associated with fishing operations have increased since the closure (Table 3.1). 18 (69 %) static gear fishermen from first survey, 13 (76 %) from second survey and 9 (69 %) from third survey stated that total costs have increased. Similarly, 10 (71 %) towed gear fishermen from first survey, 11 (91 %) from second, and 5 (80 %) from third reported that total costs have increased. The reasons provided for this increase include: a reduction in scalloping (due to closure); an increase in fuel costs; and longer times of travel to reach fishing grounds (due to closure). Another reason given was that the quality of scallops harvested from outside the closed area is lower and hence they fetched lower prices. Static gear fishermen fishing outside the closed area stated that the fall in income is due to the displacement of towed gear fishermen into fishing grounds traditionally used by static gear fishermen. Over 80 % of towed gear fishermen have seen increases in the time they take to travel to fishing sites, while most of the static gear fishermen have seen no change, as their fishing grounds have remained the same. Static gear fishermen fishing inside the closure stated that they have

more space to deploy pots and nets. Towed gear fishermen stated that although their total landings may not have changed since the closure, they are incurring increased costs because they have to fish for longer periods, and travel further to fish. This raises concern among towed gear fishermen over their safety at sea as their boats are not equipped for long distance travel. These perceptions were consistently repeated across the three surveys.

Table 3.1: Fishermen’s perceived changes to total costs, travel time to fishing sites, fishing duration, fishing sites and gear used

Parameter Scallop diving Static gear Towed gear 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 N = 1 1 1 26 17 13 14 12 5 a) Total costs Increased 1 1 18 13 9 10 11 4 Decreased 1 1 Same 1 7 2 1 1 No response 1 2 2 3 1 b) Travel time to fishing site Increased 5 2 11 10 4 Decreased 1 1 1 Same 1 1 19 9 9 2 1 No response 1 5 3 2 1 1 c) Fishing duration Increased 8 4 3 9 7 3 Decreased 1 1 1 1 3 1 Same 1 1 16 8 6 3 1 No response 1 4 3 2 1 1 d) Fishing sites Increased 1 1 2 2 2 Decreased 1 11 9 2 Same 14 10 10 No response 12 4 3 3 1 1 e) Gear used Increased 1 1 1 21 15 10 11 10 4 Decreased 4 2 Same 1 2 3 1 2 1 No response 1 1 1 26 17 13 14 12 5

3.3 To determine their level of dependence on fishing, and in particular fishing in Lyme Bay, fishermen were asked if they had any other source of income. Most of the fishermen (74 %) stated that they had no other income source and attributed 78 to 100 % of their monthly income to fishing in Lyme Bay (Table 3.2b). The income and cost figures provided by fishermen (Table 3.2a,c) need to be treated with caution as they indicate that most fishing operations are not profitable, which is not the case. Most static gear fishermen have indicated that their incomes have gone up as a result of the closure. It could be that the fishermen who provided these data misunderstand this question; for example,

instead of providing data for their monthly income they gave daily income instead. It may be that fishermen could not remember exactly their monthly incomes since they do not keep records of daily earnings.

Table 3.2: Average monthly income from fishing stated by fishermen during the three surveys showing the total costs per day (£). SD = standard deviation, n = number of fishermen who responded

Diving Static gear Towed gear Mean n Mean SD n Mean SD n a) Monthly income from fishing (£/month) 2008 2000 1 2543 2938 14 18430 11825 12 2009 1500 1 2327 2769 11 22289 2178 9 2010 1700 1 2364 1051 7 17000 4243 4 b) Percentage of income from Lyme Bay 2008 100 1 83 31 23 86 27 12 2009 100 1 93 17 6 2010 100 1 95 18 11 78 26 4 c) Total cost of fishing per day (£/day) 2008 189 241 18 586 243 12 2009 120 1 219 90 11 668 284 10 2010 140 1 254 22 7 748 71 2

3.2.3 Diversification and gear changes

3.4 The majority of fishermen (94 %) are still using their preferred gear type. Four indicated that they have changed gear as a result of the closure. Another two fishermen have also changed gear type, but they did not attribute this to the closure. Gear changes impose considerable costs on the fishermen as it costs around £50,000 (for the gear alone) to change from using bottom towed fishing gear to pots. The cost is much higher if the fisherman has to meet boat costs as well. While it is relatively cheaper (~£7,000) to change from using scalloping gear to trawling gear, the total expenses for a fisherman who wants to change from scalloping to trawling are large as he may not have the correct licence or have any quota entitlement. Using these cost estimates, the gear changes as a result of the closure have imposed costs of around £114,000 to the fishermen using Lyme Bay.

3.2.4 Landings and fishing effort changes

3.5 The number of vessels of under 10 m that register their catches with the MMO has increased since the Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers Regulations 2005 that came into effect in July 2005 (Figure 3.2). Analysis of the vessel lengths in the landings database indicates that very few over 15 m vessels use the Lyme Bay area meaning that the closed area has affected a typical UK inshore fishery. The number of vessels of lengths between 10 and 15 m has remained similar, at between 4 and 5, in the last five years. If all the vessels that use the Lyme Bay area (ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7) have been

providing their catch data to the MMO, then these results indicate that fishing effort in Lyme Bay has significantly increased between 2005 and 2010.

a) Under 10m 18 6 b) 10 to 15m 16 5 14 12 4 10 3 8 6 2 4 1 2

0 vessels day per of Number 0 Number of vessels per day per Numberof vessels July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June 06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10

25 d) Total 2 c) Over 15m 20

1 10

5 Numberday per of vessels Number of vessels per day per Numberof vessels 0 0 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 July 05 to July 06 to July 07 to July 08 to July 09 to to June to June to June to June to June June 06 June 07 June 08 June 09 June 10 06 07 08 09 10

Figure 3.2: Number of vessels fishing in ICES 30E6 and 30E7 from 2005 to 2010 that have been registering catches with the MMO. Vessels were grouped based on their lengths as registering in the landings data base. Error bars are standard error of the mean

3.6 The catch per unit effort (CPUE) for static gear fishermen decreased, although not significantly, between 2005 and 2006 from four tonnes per vessel per month to two tonnes per vessel per month (Figure 3.3a). Between 2006 and 2010, CPUE for static gear fishermen has remained at similar levels (2 tonnes per vessel per month). The CPUE for fishermen using towed gear, and for landings of scallops alone, show significant declines from 2005 to 2010 (Figure 3.3b, c). In general, landings of all gear types indicate an increase two years after the closure compared to two years before the closure. This may be an indication that the loss of fishing grounds in the closed area has been compensated for by the remaining grounds. Most of the restricted fishermen (those who use bottom towed fishing gear) now use fishing grounds near Exmouth which still fall in the ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7. The increase in CPUE from these two ICES rectangles therefore indicates that the fishing grounds outside the closed area have managed to absorb the increased fishing effort. These preliminary findings therefore indicate that the effects of the

displacement of towed gear fishermen on landings have been positive in the first two years after the closure. The question is whether the reduced fishing area will be able to sustain the large number of vessels that will be dredging and trawling on full-time basis over the long-term.

b) Towed gear 5 a) Static gear 40 35 F = 6.2 p < 0.01 4 30 25 3 20

2 15 month, tonnes

month, tonnes 10

1 Catch per vessel per Catch per vessel per 5 0 0 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June 06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10

c) Scallops d) Scallop diving F = 10.5 9 3 p < 0.001 8 7 6 2 5 4

3 1 month,tonnes

2 month,tonnes Catch per vessel per per vessel per Catch 1 per vessel per Catch 0 0 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June to June 06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10

Figure 3.3: Catch per vessel per month for fishermen using static and towed gear, and diving for scallops showing the annual changes based on a July to June year. Landings data were collected for all fishing that takes place in ICES 30E6 and 30E7 and not just from within the closed area. Error bars are standard errors of the mean

3.7 Landings data reveal that the majority of catches (6 tonnes per vessel per month or 48 %) for towed gear fishermen have been coming from outside the closed area, while landings for static gear fishermen indicate that similar proportions come from inside and outside (2.5 and 2.2 tonnes per vessel per month respectively) of the closed area (Figure 3.4). The number of trips taken by static gear fishermen to areas inside and outside of the closed area rose significantly over time (Figure 3.5). Trips for towed gear fishermen to areas inside the closure had been decreasing even before the area was closed, while trips to outside the closed area have risen significantly.

a) Static gear Inside 5 Outside

2 month, tonnes

Catch per vessel per 1

0 July 05 to July 06 to July 07 to July 08 to July 09 to June 06 June 07 June 08 June 09 June 10

50 b) Towed gear

20 month,tonnes

10 Catch per vessel per per vessel Catchper

0 July 05 to July 06 to July 07 to July 08 to July 09 to June 06 June 07 June 08 June 09 June 10

Figure 3.4: Average monthly catch per vessel for fishing vessels that use a) static gear and b) towed gear comparing the wet weight of catches when fishing had been conducted inside or outside of the closed area. Error bars are standard errors of the mean

3.8 Analyses of the gross value added (GVA) of the fishing operations illustrate that the total GVA generated by the fishing fleets in Lyme Bay was highest in 2006 - 2007 at around £2.4 million (Table 3.3a) mainly due to particularly high catches in 2006. The GVA for the year immediately after the closure is higher than the year before the closure (~£1.9 million compared to ~£1.7 million respectively). Results also indicate that the GVA from fishing fleets using towed gear is much lower than that from static gear fleets. All fishing operations were profitable during this period, although profit margins for fishermen using towed gear were much lower immediately after the closure (Table 3.3b).

Inside a) Static gear 10 Outside Inside: F = 28.4, p < 0.001 Outside: F = 5.9, p < 0.02 8

4 per month per 2

Number of trips per vessel Numberof vessel per trips 0 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 July 09 to June to June to June to June to June 06 07 08 09 10

b) Towed gear 14 Inside: F = 5.2, p < 0.02 12 Outside: F = 15.6, p < 0.001

6 per month per 4

2 Number of trips per vessel vessel per of trips Number 0 July 05 to July 06 to July 07 to July 08 to July 09 to June 06 June 07 June 08 June 09 June 10

Figure 3.5: Changes in the number of trips made by commercial fishermen using a) static gear and b) towed gear fishing either inside or outside of the closed area. Error bars are standard errors of the mean

Table 3.3: Gross value added and total operating profits for fleets using static gear and those using towed gear for two years before and after the closure came to effect

Fleet using static gear (£) Fleet using towed gear (£) Total (£) a) Gross value added July 2006 to June 2007 1,313,168 1,102,625 2,415,793 July 2007 to June 2008 1,184,621 486,573 1,671,194 July 2008 to June 2009 1,414,770 435,248 1,850,018 July to December 2009* 547197 247,835 795,032 b) Total operating profits July 2006 to June 2007 1,023,057 757,952 1,781,008 July 2007 to June 2008 701,348 127,286 828,634 July 2008 to June 2009 740,265 63,823 804,088 July to December 2009* 209,774 117,509 327,283

*Only six months (July to December 2009) have been considered since costs data for 2010 are not yet published by Seafish Ltd in their Economic Survey of UK fishing Fleet reports.

3.2.5 Changes in areas fished

3.9 The number of vessels sighted fishing using static gear by the MMO in the now closed area were fairly similar between 2005 to 2008, but doubled after the closure was introduced (Table 3.4 and 3.5). These activities have spread to new areas inside the closure as most fishermen are deploying more pots. According to the DSFC the number of pots deployed per fisherman has also doubled inside the closure (B. Lawrence, Pers. Comm.).

Table 3.4: Total number of sightings inside and outside of the closed area from 2005 to 2010, grouped by gear type and the enforcement agency that recorded the data

a) Static gear 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 a) Inside closure DSFC 77 63 50 91 48 MMO 55 40 75 172 179 VMS 10 b) Outside closure DSFC 73 85 106 95 54 MMO 107 127 227 296 276 VMS 988 997 1088 447 791 b) Towed gear 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 a) Inside closure DSFC 113 51 40 MMO 162 84 89 VMS 429 294 269 b) Outside closure DSFC 217 218 195 202 140 MMO 298 411 363 518 473 VMS 2448 3494 4411 1742 790

Table 3.5: Total number of distinct vessels inside and outside of the closed area from 2005 to 2010, grouped by gear type and enforcement agency that recorded the data.

a) Static gear 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Inside closure DSFC 18 19 18 24 21 MMO 18 20 21 35 25 VMS 2 Outside closure DSFC 24 27 29 30 31 MMO 33 40 50 58 32 VMS 2 4 4 2 2 b) Towed gear 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Inside closure DSFC 27 20 19 MMO 27 20 20 VMS 2 4 4 Outside closure DSFC 56 51 48 52 48 MMO 58 64 62 71 54 VMS 29 35 35 27 42

3.10 Based on DSFC and MMO vessel sightings data for 2005 to 2008, fishing vessels using towed gear dominated the area which is now closed (Figure 3.6), but vessel numbers fluctuated throughout the year. Spatial distribution of fishing effort by towed gear fishermen indicates that the most intensively dredged areas after the introduction of the closure are the inshore waters around Exmouth. Results from the in-depth interviews indicate that within Lyme Bay, the mobile gear fishermen have moved east towards Weymouth and west towards Exmouth and Teignmouth. They have also moved further afield, heading as far as the Channel Islands and Wales. Within the bay, the areas they have moved to have traditionally been used by static gear fishermen and tensions are rising between these two groups.

Figure 3.6: Annual static and towed gear fishing effort distribution in Lyme Bay from July 2005 to June 2010

Figure 3.6 continued

3.11 Change in fishing activities is not only occurring outside the closed area. Within the closed area sea anglers and mobile gear fishermen have been reporting an increase in the use of static gear to the point that it is becoming over used. It is thought that some boats are coming up from Exmouth, substituting their

traditional fishing grounds for new ground within the closed area. The additional protection they gain for their fishing gear from the absence of mobile gear fishing activities, compensating for any additional costs they incur from travelling greater distances. It has also been suggested that boats that previously used mobile gear have changed to static gear, although this is not supported by the findings from the rest of this study. Furthermore, there was speculation over illegal use of nets. Interestingly, none of the static gear fishermen who were interviewed, and regularly use the closed area, reported that they had increased their use of gear within the closed area. They suggested that they benefited from the closed area because they could reduce the amount of gear that they use (as less was likely to be towed away) and that they could spread it out more widely.

3.12 The static gear fishermen differed in their opinions. Those who fished within the closed area considered the closure to be a success. They stated that their gear was no longer at risk as the competition with the mobile gear fishermen over fishing grounds was no longer an issue. There was also the impression amongst some that there were more fish around, but they were unclear whether this was a consequence of the closure or other factors. Those static gear fishermen who fished in areas adjoining the closed area, or further away, felt they had lost out to the closure. They had experienced an increase in the loss of their fishing gear to mobile gear fishermen, a loss of earnings and a loss of fishing grounds as a consequence of the displacement of mobile gear fishermen from the closed area. They considered that their interests had been totally overlooked.

3.13 The scallopers and mobile gear fishermen stated un-categorically that they had been negatively affected by the closure. They were travelling further to their fishing grounds and consequently their costs were higher; they were experiencing increasing conflicts with other fishermen; and they were spending longer away at sea which brought with it a number of social impacts. Furthermore, they felt that the impact on them was having repercussions for others up and down their supply chain: they were no longer giving the same level of business to local welders and electricians, and they would more often than not supply fishmongers in other parts of the country, rather than their local businesses.

3.2 Recreational users

3.14 The results presented in this section focus on the views of recreational users on whether the closure has affected their activities and impacted where they conduct their activities. Results of other aspects studied e.g. number of years respondents have been active in Lyme Bay, cost of shore and boat based angling trips, and changes in business turnover are presented in Annex 2D.

3.2.1 Divers

3.15 Reponses to the diver surveys were typified by a high response in 2008 which was reduced in following years but included a sustained response rate from a 43

core group of dive clubs located in the South West who took the survey on a yearly basis (Table 2.4). The three year survey indicates club divers travel to various dive locations throughout the year with little loyalty to specific sites.

3.16 The closed area has only had a minimal effect on divers‟ decisions to dive in Lyme Bay (Table 3.6) and the majority of responses each year indicated either no effect or a moderate effect. Overall, the proportion of diving activity remained approximately constant with dives within Lyme Bay representing 29 – 39 % of the respondents diving activity (Table 3.7).

Table 3.6: Number of respondents grouped by stakeholder category and their scores to the question ‘on a scale of 1- 5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a strong effect, how much has the closure affected your decision to conduct your recreational activity in Lyme Bay?’ SD = standard deviation, n = number of respondents in each year

Stakeholder category 2008 2009 2010 Total Mean 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.2 Divers SD 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 n 39 40 15 Mean 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 Dive business SD 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 n 8 9 7 Mean 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.8 Sea anglers SD 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.6 n 41 21 31 Mean 1.4 1.6 2.2 1.6 Charter boat SD 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 operators n 20 9 6 Mean 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.2 Hotel owners SD 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.7 n 13 13 8

Table 3.7: Respondents total number of UK diving and angling trips and the percentage of those trips taken in Lyme Bay in each year

Stakeholder category 2008 2009 2010 Diving Total per year 960 1446 469 Trips to Lyme Bay as % of total 39 29 33 Sea angling Total per year 2484 1472 1435 Trips to Lyme Bay as % of total 76 42 74

3.17 Each year however, there were respondents who have specifically visited Lyme Bay to dive the closed area as it is an area of interest. Ten divers also stated that it is a safer diving experience as the trawlers are not operating in the area. As a result, sites within the closed area are more frequently dived (Figure 3.7b).

a) Dive businesses b) Divers

c) Sea anglers d) Charter boat operators

Figure 3.7: Aggregated increase and decrease in a) dive business, b) divers, c) sea anglers and d) charter boat operators’ activity between 2008 and 2010.

3.18 Responses to the question of whether the closed area has affected where recreational divers dive in Lyme Bay varied over the three surveys with the respondents expressing an overall moderate effect (2.3 ± 1.4) (Table 3.8). The most frequently dived sites within the closed area include Home Ground, Landing Craft, Pinhay ledges, West Tennents, Heroine, Low Ledges, Pollack Rock and Saw Tooth (Figure 3.8).

3.19 The increase in diving activity between 2008 and 2010 at the sites inside the closed area has generated a monetary benefit of approximately £85,465 via additional expenditure by divers. This benefit can largely be attributed to the closed area policy. However, any increase or decrease in diving activity is also the result of external factors such as weather and tides, the general economic climate and people‟s holiday decisions.

Table 3.8: Number of respondents for each stakeholder category and their scores of the question ‘on a scale of 1- 5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision as to where you conduct you activity in Lyme Bay?’ SD is standard deviation, n = number of respondents in each year.

Stakeholder 2008 2009 2010 Total Mean 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 Divers SD 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 n 38 40 15 Mean 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 Dive business SD 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 n 8 9 7 Mean 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.7 Sea anglers SD 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 n 41 21 31 Mean 1.7 1.8 1.7 Charter boat SD 1.4 1.0 1.2 operators n 9 6

Figure 3.8: Map of Lyme Bay closed area showing the reef areas of Beer Home Ground, Lanes Ground, East Tennents and Saw Tooth ledges

3.2.2 Dive businesses

3.20 Participation in the survey over the three years has been good with a high number of returns each year (80 – 100 % participation) (Table 2.4). Dive businesses responses to whether the closed area has affected their businesses 46

each year indicate that the closure has had little effect (Likert score 1.1 ± 0.3, Table 3.6). One business did suggest they benefited from the closure through substitution effects. When the weather prevented divers accessing the closed area in Lyme Bay from northerly locations, divers would drive round to more sheltered spots and make use of the dive businesses there. Another dive business indicated that displacement of scallop boats had led to increased fishing pressure on dive sites in the west of the Bay.

3.21 All the dive businesses interviewed are located predominantly to the east and west of the Bay (either outside or on the edges of the closure) hence respondents were unanimous that the closed area has not affected where they take clients in Lyme Bay (Table 3.8). The dive sites within the closed area are simply too far away from most of these businesses and they prefer the use of dive sites close to their business premises. Dive business attributed the increase or decrease in diving activity (Figure 3.7a) to external factors such as weather conditions, the recession and a change in business practices, and not the closed area policy.

3.22 One business mentioned that there had been a cost resulting from the closed area as the displacement of fishing vessels was damaging dive sites in the west of the Bay. Scores provided by this business owner to the Likert-type questions however, did not show a decrease in use of any dive sites. Another respondent stated that the closed area was bringing in more divers to the area. However, this owner did not mention that an overall increase in diving activity had resulted from this. All dive businesses in the Bay have experienced fluctuations in turnover, the number of divers learning to dive and the number of divers taken on trips. These changes have been attributed to external factors such as weather and changes in business practices, and therefore, no costs or benefits of the closed area policy can be attributed to this stakeholder group.

3.2.3 Sea anglers

3.23 Like the diving community, the response from sea anglers is typified by an enthusiastic response in the first year of the survey followed by a drop in response rates but continued participation by a core group of people who answered the questionnaire on a yearly basis from local clubs (Table 2.4). Sea anglers show the widest dispersion of responses to the question of whether the closed area had affected their decision to fish in Lyme Bay (mean score 2.8 ± 1.6) (Table 3.6) suggesting that some sea anglers have purposefully visited the closed area to experience angling there.

3.24 Scores provided on whether the closed area affected where sea anglers chose to fish in Lyme Bay also show wide variation across the 3 years of the survey (Table 3.8). The number of sea anglers who indicated that the closure has had a strong effect on the decision of where they fish decreased over the three surveys. Annually, 42 – 76 % of recreational sea-angling trips were to Lyme Bay (Table 3.7). There has been a slight increase in angling at various locations inside the closure including Home Ground, Saw Tooth Ledges and Landing Craft but there have also been some larger increases outside of the closed area (Figure 3.7c). Some sea anglers who have fished in the closed

area have reported better visibility and an improvement in the fishing. Change in the volume of angling activity in Lyme Bay was attributed to factors such as work commitments, tides, poor health, weather, accommodation and retirement by the respondents to the questionnaires. As there has been an increase in angling activity at these closed area sites, a monetary benefit of £63,494 resulting from additional angler expenditure can be attributed to the closed area policy.

3.2.4 Charter boat operators

3.25 Charter boat operators were identified as being the group which make the most use of sites in the closed area (Rees et al. 2010). Approximately 51 charter boat operators were identified as operating in Lyme Bay in 2008. The response rate to the questionnaires in 2008 was good with 41 % of charter boat operators taking part while it was rather low in the following years (Table 2.4). Overall charter boat operators stated that the closure has not affected their business (mean score 1.6 ± 1.0), (Table 3.6).

3.26 The spatial results indicate that a few of the sites within the closed area including East Tennents and Saw Tooth Ledges have experienced an increase in the frequency of visits by charter boat operators (Figure 8d). Charter boat operators attribute this to external factors including weather and tides, and an increase in other activities (e.g. vessel used for research). All charter boat operators in the Bay have experienced fluctuations in turnover, number of clients taken on trips and have stated that some costs e.g. fuel have risen since 2008. The increase in frequency of visits to the sites inside the closed area is a benefit and can be valued at £12,630 based on the turnover of the charter boat operators.

3.2.5 Local hotel owners

3.27 Despite follow-up calls, the on-line questionnaire response rate from the 68 hotels identified in the Lyme Bay area adjoining the closure has been low (Table 2.4). Almost all businesses reported that the closure had no impact on their business. They also stated that the closure was rarely mentioned in the feedback forms left by the guests (Annex 2D). Any variation in business was attributed to the economic climate, leading more tourists to stay in the UK, and the weather. Only two hotels responded that they publicise the closed area in Lyme Bay for marketing purposes, one in 2008 and one in 2009. One of these then reported that the closure had affected his business.

3.3 Fish processors

3.28 The fish processors contacted varied in size from small businesses with fewer than 20 employees to large companies with over 100 staff (Table 3.9). The proportion of the business dedicated to scallops also varied from less than 30 % to over 75 %. Unfortunately none of the processors questioned was willing to provide data on the volume of scallops that they processes. Here we provide a synthesis of the findings across all the processors interviewed

Table 3.9: Number of staff employed by each fish processor who took part in the interviews. The names of the fish processors have been removed and are numbered A – G due to data confidentiality

Processor Number of employees A >100 B <20 C <20 D >100 E 20-100 F 20-100 G <20

3.29 Three processors, B, C and G stated that the closure in Lyme Bay had resulted in no changes to their business (Table 3.10). These are the three smallest processors interviewed (in terms of number of people employed) who were likely to be processing the smallest quantities of scallops.

3.30 Four processors mentioned that the source of their scallops had changed (Table 3.10: A, D, E and F); however, it was not always possible for the processors to identify where their scallops had been sourced if they bought their scallops through a market rather than directly from fishing vessels. The location of landing does not always reflect the location of fishing activity. In 2009 processors A, D, E and F were still buying scallops through Brixham market, but the proportion of the scallops that they are buying has subsequently decreased. In the case of processor A, they reported a 75 % drop in the volume of scallops that they were buying from Brixham in 2010. By 2011 they were only buying one per cent of the scallops they process from Brixham. To compensate, these processors have begun to rely more heavily on Welsh fishing grounds, especially in Cardigan Bay, east English Channel, other parts of the South West, and latterly the Irish Sea. This reflects in part that some of the fishing vessels they deal with directly have been displaced to these areas, indicating that there may now be greater fishing pressure on these areas. It also suggests that the processors themselves have been displaced; they have either had to find alternative markets elsewhere in the country or depend more greatly on other markets that they already used to meet their demands.

3.31 Despite the fact that four processors had changed the location of the scallops they source, only two (processor A and F) indicated that they were having difficulties finding sufficient volume to meet their demand. Consequently the total volume of scallops that they were processing had decreased. Five companies reported no change in the volume of scallops that they were processing as a consequence of the closure (B, C, D, F, and G). Processor C reported an increase, but stated that this is the result of a new contract rather than being an impact from the closure.

Table 3.10: Summary of impacts on processors attributable to the closure of Lyme Bay.  = change, = means no change,  = increase,  = decrease, NS = not stated, NA = not applicable

No Change Change Change Change Change Change Customer Change change in in total in price in in in relations in source volume quality employ- haulage difficulties turnover ment costs A         B  NA = = = = NA NS = C  =  ======D  = = = =  =  E  = =  =  = = F   = = = NS  = G  = = =  = = = =

3.32 Only one processor (A) reported a drop in the price they were paying for scallops from Brixham market, although they were unclear whether this had anything to do with the closure. The remainder experienced no change in the price they were paying for scallops from Lyme Bay or Brixham market. They stated that any variation seen was a consequence of supply and demand, or as a result of seasonality.

3.33 Three processors (A, E, and G) noted a decrease in the quality of the scallops they now source from Lyme Bay or Brixham market. They attributed this to the fishermen having to travel further to reach their fishing grounds and the scallops therefore spending longer at sea before they are landed. In some cases this may be five to seven days, by which time the quality of the scallops has decreased. Some processors have also mentioned that the quality of the scallops found in Lyme Bay has always been high compared to elsewhere, as a result they have attracted a premium.

3.34 Two processors (A and F) reported employment problems as a consequence of the closure. Processor A noted a reduction in employment as a consequence of the closure in Lyme Bay, as well as internal reorganisation. Processor F stated that while the volume of scallops that they have been processing has decreased, and hence the number of people involved in their processing, this has not led to a loss of jobs. They have moved people around internally to other parts of the business that are compensating for any loss.

3.35 Three processors (A, D and E) reported an increase in haulage costs as a result of the closure because they are now sourcing scallops from more distant locations. Given the number of regulations on driver hours, this has also led one processor to depend on external haulage companies that they consider to be less reliable. This was resulting in inefficiencies in their factories as their workforce would arrive at their factory before the scallops. These three businesses also mentioned that the increased distance their scallops were travelling was increasing the carbon foot print of their product (however, this needs to be placed in context: the main markets for their products are often overseas, including some in Asia).

3.36 Two processors (A and F) also mentioned that they were having trouble with customer relations as a consequence of the closure. One processor (F) lost a contract with a leading UK supermarket as they were unable to meet the demand, while the second (A) mentioned that they were no longer able to meet the quality and quantity demands of their customers following the loss of scallops from Lyme Bay. One of these processors (F) also mentioned that UK supermarkets were less willing to buy Lyme Bay scallops because of the negative press coverage Lyme Bay had been receiving.

3.37 All but two of the processors (A and D) mentioned that their costs and turnover had remained the same since the closure. The two that reported a decrease blamed the increased transport costs, factory inefficiencies and the reduction in quality of the scallops they are processing. To overcome these difficulties they were beginning to diversify into other products.

3.38 Three of the processors (D, F and G) could see the benefit of closures, especially seasonal closures, but none of the processors were in favour of a complete closure of the type found in Lyme Bay (although one (C) admitted being undecided on the issue). They consider that a better balance is needed between conservation objectives and the needs of fishermen, and that greater consideration should be taken over the location of the closures. Concerns were also raised about the future of the inshore fishing industry as more closures and restrictions come into force. In addition, the objectives of the closure were brought into question; closures for the recovery of fish stocks were considered acceptable, but not for specific species that the vast majority of the public would never see.

3.4 Perceptions towards the closure

3.39 Table 3.11 shows the changes that have occurred in Lyme Bay since the closure in 2008 as indicated by respondents to the questionnaires. These perceptions by no means represent the sentiment of the entire group but perceptions of individuals recorded under a common theme.

3.40 Some divers and commercial fishermen have indicated that they have witnessed the recovery of areas of seabed. Divers in particular have stated that this has meant a „more varied and interesting‟ dive. However, outside of the closed area divers have also stated that there has been damage to the seabed at sites that were previously good dive sites. Some divers also stated that there has been a greater abundance and diversity of marine life.

3.41 Sea anglers, charter boat operators and fishermen have all stated that there has been an improvement in fishing since the closure in Lyme Bay. Fishermen using static gear have indicated that catches are improving for those fishing inside the closure. Recreational users including sea anglers and charter boat operators have also stated that there are more fish since the closure. Most respondents however, indicate that the increases in fish may not necessarily be due to the closure but part of natural cycles.

Table 3.11: Stakeholders perceptions of changes that have occurred in Lyme Bay since the closure in 2008. The perceptions are based on respondents’ qualitative replies to three repeated surveys in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Y = yes, N = no

Charter Sea Dive boat Divers Fishermen anglers Business operators Recovery of seabed N N N Y Y More scallops N N N Y N More pots N Y N N N More nets Y Y Y Y Y More marine life N N N Y N More fish Y Y N N Y Increase in fishing effort in the N N N N Y closed area Improvement in fishing Y Y N N Y Displacement Y Y Y N Y Decline in fishing Y N N N N Damage to seabed N N N Y N

3.42 Both towed and static gear fishermen stated that there has been an increase in the number of pots and nets deployed inside the closure, a view that is shared by sea anglers as well. The increase in nets is a concern to divers who state that nets are a safety issue due to the risk of entanglement.

3.43 Displacement of fishing effort has been recorded as a change since the closure in 2008 by all stakeholder groups apart from divers. Dive businesses, located in the west of Lyme Bay, have witnessed scalloping boats increasingly deploying gear close to shore on the return to Brixham and the presence of larger boats. Fishermen have also noticed increased effort of displaced vessels in the east and west of the Bay causing gear conflict in these areas.

3.44 The theme of enforcement has raised two key issues. These are perceptions of on-going trawling in the closed area and a lack of faith in the process to deal with enforcement. Some sea anglers, dive businesses and charter boat operators have observed incidences of trawlers operating in the closed area, both night and day. This has led some to state that they have no faith in the enforcement process citing occasions were illegal activity has been reported but nothing has been done. A lack of political will, poor resourcing and underfunding are all perceived as reasons for inadequate enforcement of the Lyme Bay fishing restrictions.

3.45 Some of the recommended management measures for the Lyme Bay closed area suggested by respondents are summarised in Table 3.12. Stakeholders would like to see a system of licensing including setting of scallop bag limits to both scallop divers and scallop dredgers. Sea anglers would like to see the bass fishery licensed (size limit and quota) both within and outside the closed area.

Table 3.12: Stakeholders recommendations for management based on respondents qualitative replies to the Lyme Bay questionnaires 2008 - 2010. Y = yes, N = no

Anglers Charter Dive Divers Fishermen Boat Business Operators Licences Y N N N Y Scallop bag limit N N N N Y Bass licence Y N N N N Fishing restrictions Y Y Y Y Y Scallop divers N N Y N Y Regulate the use of nets Y Y Y Y Y No take zone Y N Y Y Y More closures Y Y Y Y Y Coastal exclusion zone Y Y N N Y Allow small scallop boats N N N N Y Allow otter trawling N Y N N Y

3.46 Some form of fishery restriction was recommended by members of each stakeholder group. Some towed gear fishermen would like to see scallop divers restricted from the closed area. This reflects the sentiments stated by towed gear fishermen: that the closed area should be a complete no-take zone for all. This is supported by members of most stakeholder groups apart from the charter boat operators and static gear fishermen. However, this no-take zone is mentioned with caveats. For example, some sea anglers and divers do not view their sport as an extractive activity and should therefore continue to be allowed in the closed area. Some fishermen do not view potting as conflicting with the conservation aims in the closed area.

3.47 A coastal exclusion zone for trawlers was recommended by members of both the angling, charter boat operators and fishing community. Ten sea anglers would like to see the implementation of the „Golden Mile‟ (a one mile coastal exclusion zone) throughout Lyme Bay.

3.48 A call for regulating the number of nets deployed and fixed in the closed area (particularly on wrecks) was suggest by some respondents. Some towed gear fishermen would like to see restrictions lifted on small scalloping vessels, allowing them to fish inside the closed area. The use of VMS technology on these boats is supported as a means of re-accessing the closed area but remaining off the reefs. The lifting of fisheries restriction on boats deploying otter trawls was also mentioned by members of the charter boat operators and fishermen. More closures and support for the regulation of damaging fishing activity was supported by members of all stakeholder groups but not fishermen using towed gear.

3.5 Enforcement costs

3.49 Risk based enforcement activity has been undertaken by the MMO and other enforcement agencies including Devon and Southern SFCs based on air and sea patrols. Air surveillance for the closed area is rapid, taking around ten minutes to cover the closed area, while sea patrols take around two hours. Data on the annual total costs of surveillance and enforcing the closure restrictions show that costs have doubled in the last three years from £56,577 between July 2007 and June 2008 (one year before closure), to £89,913 between July 2008 and June 2009 (one year after closure), to £117,762 between July 2009 and June 2010 (Figure 3.9). This increase in costs is a result of more frequent patrols most of them focusing on the closed area and a consequent increase in fuel demand. An increased number of patrols have also been conducted to investigate infringements that have been reported.

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000 Cost, Cost, £

6000

4000

2000

0 Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 3.9: Costs for enforcing the closure that have been incurred by the MMO and DSFC through air and patrol boat operations from Jul 2007 to June 2010 (one year before and two years after closure).

3.50 Some infringements have been reported and investigated. One aerial surveillance sighting of a vessel suspected of fishing illegally in the area in April 2010 was investigated and the case was closed due to insufficient evidence of illegal activity. A further aerial surveillance case of a sighting in December 2010 is still under investigation. Despite the surveillance, some respondents to the questionnaires stated that there was on-going trawling in the closed area. Some members of the angling, dive businesses and charter boat operators have also reported observed incidences of trawlers operating in the closed area. These stakeholder groups, including some from the fishing community, have stated that they have no faith in the enforcement process, citing occasions where illegal activity has been reported but nothing has been done. The reasons given for the perceived inadequate enforcement of Lyme Bay restrictions include: a lack of political will; poor resourcing and underfunding.

3.6 Ecosystem good and services

3.51 Despite their importance, ecosystem services are often unrecognised or under- recognised in the decision-making process. By calculating a monetary value for them, it is argued that the motivation to conserve and protect them is increased, that the economic benefits of their protection can be more clearly stated, and that the environment is placed on a level playing field during the decision-making process, together with social and economic factors. Ecosystem services therefore provide another element of socio-economic value obtained from Lyme Bay, and might be affected by the closure.

3.52 The benefits we receive from the marine environment are entirely dependent on the state of the whole ecosystem, the sum of the parts of the system will be less than the value of the whole system, and the goods and services provided are intrinsically connected. Closing part of Lyme Bay to damaging towed gear fishing practises has protected the goods and services provided by the marine biodiversity in these reefs. Results of the ecological monitoring indicate that the closure has led to the recovery of species with high recoverability e.g. the scallop Pecten maximus (a slow-growing but fecund species with a long larval stage) and hydroids such as Halecium halecium (a delicate species with short maturity). The majority of species with moderate recoverability e.g. the sea squirt Phallusia mammillata (a fast-growing active suspension feeder with limited dispersal potential); and the hydroid Hydrallmania falcata (a fecund species with limited dispersal) also show signs of recovery three years after the closure. The ecological monitoring work also identified complex trends in many of the low recoverability indicators. There were greater densities of the indicator species inside the closed area compared to outside the closure, but no significant changes over time (e.g. Pentapora fascialis and Eunicella verrucosa). At the assemblage level, evidence from ecological monitoring suggests a recovery scenario, but with significant geographic and temporal variation. These results indicate that protecting the reef habitats from damaging fishing practices has helped maintain the reef system and the richness of biodiversity, as well as allowing for their regeneration. What this species recovery means in terms of their functional role and hence, their delivery of ecosystem services, still remains unclear.

3.53 The impact of the closure on of the ecosystem services provided by marine biodiversity in the closed area was not extensively studied in this project. It is therefore difficult to judge the impact of the closure on the value of these ecosystem services. Their value, however, is likely to be considerable due to the exceptionally high species abundance and diversity in the Bay (Hiscock and Breckles 2007). Biologically diverse environments are acknowledged to be more resilient and tend to better sustain the provision of ecosystem services. The results of the ecological monitoring indicate that both habitats and species are recovering as a result of the establishment of the closure. By increasing the level of resilience and resistance of the rock reefs in Lyme Bay, the closure is likely to have directly contributed to an increase in the value of all the ecosystem services needed for human well-being.

3.54 Some services that have been assessed in the study include:

i. Food provisioning: the closed area has enhanced fishing opportunities for static gear fishermen within the closed area. Landings data shows that food provision has increased since the closure, but it is unclear whether this is simply a result of increased effort or whether there has been a genuine increase in the populations of the species caught within the closed area.

ii. Cultural services: a) leisure and recreation – these activities are particularly important to the local economy with substantial business turnover and expenditure generated by recreational users in Lyme Bay. The closure is beginning to generate increased opportunities for leisure and recreation, and the value of this ecosystem service is therefore likely to have increased since the closure and hopefully will continue to increase in the long-term. b) non-use values - evidence indicates that the public has preferences for rare or unusual habitats and species (Beaumont et al 2007). This suggests that the closed area may have increased the bequest and existence value obtained from the area as it has offered some protection to the rare and unusual species that are found in Lyme Bay.

iii. Regulating services (gas and climate regulation, and bioremediation of waste): The processes which can contribute to the delivery of the services of gas and climate regulation and the bioremediation of waste are facilitated by the ecosystem processing of benthic and pelagic flora and fauna across Lyme Bay. Due to reduced physical disturbance from towed gear and associated mortality at the seabed it is likely that the values of these services have increased as a result of the closure, although displacement of fishing effort means that the balance of this impact on this service provision may be neutral across the whole of Lyme Bay.

3.7 Summary of findings

3.55 Table 3.13 below summarises the impacts of the closure to the various stakeholder groups.

Table 3.13: Key messages from each of the stakeholder category presented on a cost-benefit analysis framework

Stakeholder Cost Benefit category Four fishermen indicated that they have changed gear as a result of the closure with a total estimated cost of gear changes as £114,000. Perceptions of sea anglers and towed Most static gear fishermen who fish gear fishermen have reported an inside the closed area have increased increase in the use of static gear to the their fishing activities because they point that the area is becoming over have been able to increase the number used. of crab and whelk pots they deploy. Fishermen Outside the closed area conflicts have Landings of all gear types from ICES increased between static gear and rectangles 30E6 and 30E7 indicate an towed gear fishermen as the latter now increase two years after the closure fish regularly in the formers traditional grounds. Fishermen using towed gear have experienced increased costs associated with fishing time and location such as an increase in fuel consumption. Some divers have indicated that they have increased their diving activity or Divers deliberately chosen to visit the Lyme Bay closed area as a result of the closed area policy. Some anglers are now deliberately Sea anglers visiting the closed area of undertake their recreation activity Dive businesses in Lyme Bay rarely Two businesses state that the use sites in the closed area to take displacement of trawling effort is clients to due to the distance to travel Dive business affecting dive sites elsewhere in the to dive sites. As such the closed area Bay. policy has had little or no effect on business. Charter Boat operators do not feel that the closed area policy has affected Charter boat their business. However, some operators operators are registering an effect on where they take clients in Lyme Bay. Local hotels Almost all hotel owners reported that the closure had no impact on their business The greatest impact has been the need for the medium and large businesses to The impacts of the closure have led to identify alternative sources of scallops mixed effects for fish processors with Other impacts, such as a decrease in smaller processors seeing no change Fish processors the quality of scallops, increase in in their businesses. haulage costs and employment difficulties have affected only a minority of businesses. Enforcement Costs for enforcement have doubled agencies after the closure

4. Discussion

4.1 Impacts of closure on stakeholder groups

4.1 The aim of this study was to assess the socio-economic impacts of the Lyme Bay closure on the various stakeholder groups. The stakeholders considered were commercial fishermen, sea anglers, dive businesses, charter boat operators, divers, local hotel owners, fish processors and enforcement agencies. The combination of questionnaires, social impacts interviews, stakeholder workshop and quantitative secondary data, produces a reasonable understanding of the impacts of the closure on the stakeholder groups. Yet, low response rate to the questionnaires among some stakeholder groups, lack of disaggregated data and an absence of quantitative data for some of the costs and benefits of the closure present some difficulties in drawing definitive conclusions about the impacts. The results suggest that the impact of the closure has been minimal for the majority of stakeholders considered. This conclusion, however, reflects a short-term view as the impacts of the closure of Lyme Bay are likely to be felt for a long time to come and further monitoring would be advisable.

4.2 The impacts on commercial fishermen differed according to the gear type and the fishing location used by the fishermen. Most static gear fishermen who fish inside the closed area have increased their fishing activities because they have been able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots they deploy. These fishermen have benefited from the closure by having more space to spread their pots and nets. As their fishing territories have expanded, most of them appear to have used the extra fishing space to double the number of pots they deploy. The consequence is that there is more static gear inside the closure now than there has ever been.

4.3 Outside the closed area conflicts have increased between static gear and towed gear fishermen as the latter now fish regularly in the formers traditional grounds. The increased intensity of use of the grounds outside the closure by towed gear fishermen mean that it is very likely that static gear loss and damage is occurring. These fishermen have been negatively impacted by the closure.

4.4 Fishermen using towed gear have been impacted through displacement effects as they have been forced to use fishing grounds outside the closed area which are often more distant and some are less productive. They have therefore experienced increased costs associated with fishing time and location such as an increase in fuel consumption. Out of the four most productive inshore areas for scallops that have been identified in South Devon coast, only one is outside the closed area (DSFC 2008). Vessels totally dependent on scallops therefore have to compete for space within this remaining area, which has seen increased congestion. Evidence from the in-depth interviews indicates that this has also led to increased conflict between towed and static gear fishermen. Anecdotally it has been suggested that conflict between towed gear fishermen is also increasing. The findings from this project indicate that fishermen using

towed gear are working longer hours to compensate for the loss of the fishing grounds. This strategy seems to enable the fishermen to maintain similar income levels as before the closure.

4.5 Despite the impacts felt by the fishermen, catches from Lyme Bay have risen two years after the closure implying that the loss of access to fishing grounds in the closed area has been compensated for by the remaining fishing grounds. Output from the stakeholder workshop shows that only two vessels (scallop dredgers) from Lyme Regis have to travel past the closed area to fish. The majority of scallop dredging vessels came from Brixham and therefore ideally they would have less travel time to reach fishing grounds in Exmouth, for example. This prompted some participants at the workshop to conclude that the majority of fishing vessels based within the Lyme Bay area have been impacted positively by the closure. Most vessels are doing as well now as they did before the closure if not better (output from stakeholder workshop). However, this may only be true for some of the towed gear fishermen. The majority of towed gear fishermen indicated through the questionnaires that they are now travelling to fishing grounds in Cardigan Bay to fish and therefore these fishermen have been impacted negatively by the closure.

4.6 Since the closure in Lyme Bay there have also been changes in spatial activity across the recreation sector. Dive businesses have not been affected but there has been a general increase in activity between 2008 and 2010 at several sites from members of the diving, angling and charter boat operators. This additional activity can, in part, be attributed to the implementation of the closed area policy as several respondents have indicated. Yet, there are also sites outside the closed area where there has also been an increase or decrease in use. This highlights that, for example, there are numerous dive sites within Lyme Bay to suit all experience levels from deep water wrecks to shallow reef sites as well as numerous external factors (e.g. weather, tides) that affect an individual‟s choice on where to conduct their recreational activity. Lack of impact on the recreational sector confirms that the recreation industry in Lyme Bay is dependent on the diversity of dive and angling sites within the Bay, the majority of which are unmanaged.

4.7 Recreation activities are economically important in the region. A baseline study in 2008 valued these elements of the recreation industry as generating approximately £17 million of expenditure / turnover per year (Rees et al. 2010). This study identified areas which are more attractive to different recreational activities. When the monetary values of these activities are combined, hotspot areas of relatively greater monetary value can be identified within the closed area (Figure 4.1) as well as the broader area of Lyme Bay (Rees et al. 2010). This study again confirmed the increased value arising from a variety of popular sites for recreational activity.

Figure 4.1: Expenditure and turnover generated from the recreation industry in the Lyme Bay closed area 2008. Source: Rees et al. (2010).

4.8 Qualitative studies of the stakeholder perceptions of the Lyme Bay closure provided an additional perspective to the monetary and other income effects explored within this project. Perceptions held by all groups are generally positive although the increase in the use of nets was of concern to all groups. There was an expectation that the closed area will deliver the popularised benefits associated with the establishment of an MPA (more fish, recovery of the seabed). The consistently strong overall support for the closed area, which has even increased within some stakeholder groups over the last three years, bodes well for the future of the Lyme Bay closed area policy. However, comments from all sectors did indicate a demand for robust enforcement and management objectives set within an adaptive framework. These perceptions imply that the closed area does have value and provides benefits to stakeholders that they wish to protect.

4.9 The perceptions of stakeholder groups to change within the Lyme Bay area as a consequence of the closure are variable both within and between stakeholder groups. The opinions of anglers and charter boat operators varied between no obvious impact on their activities to those indicating that the angling experience had improved within the area. Divers also suggested that there was a distinct improvement in the biodiversity at their chosen dive sites (primarily wrecks), but dive businesses reported no change to their business that they could attribute to the closure. All agreed that it is probably too early to tell the full impact of the closure, especially in terms of impacts on the communities surrounding the closed area. These stakeholder groups were unified, however, in their opinion

that while the mobile gear fishermen had undoubtedly been impacted by the closure, they had managed to adapt and were coping well by finding alternative fishing grounds outside the closed area. There was also the assumption that some mobile gear fishermen will have converted to static gear fishing methods. This they suggested was linked to the increase in static gear being used in the closed area and indicated that this was a potential area of tension between the anglers and static gear fishermen.

4.2 Displacement

4.10 Within Lyme Bay, the mobile gear fishermen have moved east towards Weymouth and west towards Exmouth and Teignmouth. They have also moved further afield, heading as far as the Channel Islands and Wales. Within the bay they have moved to areas that have traditionally been used by static gear fishermen, and tensions are rising between these two groups. Both types of fisherman are all aware that the influx of mobile gear is putting extra pressure on these fishing grounds. Static gear fishermen are limited in their fishing range by the small size of their vessels. Avoiding contact and any consequent conflict with the incoming mobile gear fishermen is particularly difficult for them.

4.11 The increasing number of mobile gear fishermen in these areas is also leading to concerns over the safety of static fishing gear, and incidents of net and pot damage by towed gear are rising. This growing contact between these two fishing types is recognised by both groups as a problem. These incidents are usually resolved amicably, but there are accusations of unscrupulousness on both sides. The outcome is loss of earnings for both parties, a loss of time, but also a loss of trust between them. Animosity is particularly noticeable between local boats and those visiting the area. As mobile gear fishermen are increasingly moving to more distant waters they are interacting with people they are unfamiliar with. The necessary trust relationships do not exist, making it more difficult to resolve problems.

4.12 Displacement to more distant fishing grounds has also raised concerns over fisherman safety among the mobile gear fishermen. They consider their boats are not sufficiently equipped for the conditions in which they are working (i.e. prolonged periods at sea and further distances from ports). This has implications for the fishermen‟s family lives as they spend more time away from home, but also because of the increased worry this generates for their family members.

4.3 Substitution

4.13 Change in fishing activities is not only occurring outside the closed area. Within the closed area, sea anglers and mobile gear fishermen have been reporting an increase in the use of static gear to the point that it is becoming over used. It is thought that some boats are coming up from Exmouth and that some boats that previously used mobile gear have changed to static gear. Furthermore, there was speculation over illegal use of nets.

4.14 The angling community complained that the “swamping” of the closed area with nets is interfering with their angling activities. They proposed that these nets are also a danger to divers, that they stopped fishing activities and that any abandoned nets were causing ghost fishing. There was concern from the interviewees that any benefits accruing to the area from the closure were being countered by the increase in nets.

4.4 Leakage

4.15 Due to the closure, fishermen using towed gear have moved east towards Weymouth and west towards Exmouth and Teignmouth. They have also moved further afield, heading as far as the Channel Islands and Wales to fish. The towed gear boats are therefore most likely landing their catches at ports and harbours elsewhere. They are also using the facilities provided by these other ports and are making use of local businesses, such as welders and electricians, when repairs are needed. These other ports and harbours have therefore benefited as a result of the closure. Where fishermen are still operating locally, and within the wider Lyme Bay area, this leakage of benefits may be minimal because the majority of the people who buy the catch usually send it to the main port in Brixham (N. Wright, MMO, personal communication). Further this benefit to other ports may have happened even without the area being closed. The fisheries within Lyme Bay are highly mixed and seasonal, with significant annual variations in activities being driven by weather conditions, varying availability of stocks and financial returns available on different species. Towed gear fishermen used different fishing grounds in different seasons during the voluntary closures and also as a way to rest the scalloping grounds. They would therefore have landed their catches in these ports before.

4.5 Management

4.16 The perceived increase in the use of static gear, and in particular nets, within the closed area has led to calls from across the stakeholder groups for greater management of the closed area. These have included regulation of the amount of gear that could be used within the closed area; restrictions on the number of scallops taken per dive by commercial scallop divers; restrictions on anglers‟ catch, and perhaps closed seasons for certain species or catch limits. They all recognised, however, that this regulation would have to be carried out in consultation with those who fish in the area. Towed gear fishermen suggested the use of VMS on all boats, including those under 10 metres, so that all fishing activities inside the box could be more closely monitored. Sea anglers also made calls for the use of signage on harbours and slipways to raise awareness and notify people that they are entering a marine protected area.

4.17 Management of the closed area was considered important by all stakeholder groups, but it was understood that unless there is a way of policing and enforcing the management regulations there would be little point to them. There is the perception that currently there is not the will power, interest or means to enforce the closure.

4.6 Stakeholder engagement

4.18 Discussions with stakeholder groups indicate that there is still a need for a greater stakeholder involvement in the establishment and management of closed areas. In the case of Lyme Bay, the multiplicity of direct and indirect interests means that there is a need to include more people in the decision- making process, such as recreational users and local businesses. Ravetz (1999) refers to this as an „extended peer community‟. The inclusion of a wider stakeholder community is considered a key element in the adoption of the ecosystem approach (Jones 2001). However, stakeholder processes frequently result in conflict over what are commonly referred to as collective action problems (Jones 2006). Such problems are very common in areas of multiple use, where resource use interests are highly heterogeneous and perspectives among stakeholders commonly conflicting (Jones and Burgess 2005). It has been argued that in situations such as Lyme Bay there is a need for advanced frameworks that include a clear weighting of the diverse values held by different stakeholders (Jones 2009). This is to ensure that the process of establishing closed areas is not hijacked by a minority group, or a group with a disproportionately large voice, and that the distribution of costs and benefits are assessed, including related equity and justice issues. The consultation that is underway for a network of MCZs through the Marine and Coastal Access Act is a first step in this stakeholder engagement. Information from stakeholders on the ecological, economic and social value of various areas of the sea and seabed is being used to inform the network design, objectives and management strategies. Such a partnership approach in establishing closed areas is welcomed by many stakeholders, and is considered an improvement to the many criticisms that were prevalent during the establishment of the Lyme Bay closure.

4.7 Future of MCZs

4.19 All stakeholders recognised that they could benefit from the conservation of marine life, but there are divergent opinions over how this should be achieved. The mobile gear fishermen believe that any closures should be no-take for all, and that there should be many small no-take zones, rather than one big closure from which only one user is excluded. Others were quite fearful of no-take zones, preferring the status quo or seasonal and temporary closures. They suggested that no-take zones would be the end of small fishing communities through loss of revenue from fishing and recreational activities; they would also encourage poachers. The issue of compensation for losses incurred, or a period of grace to allow fishermen to change their activities, was raised by mobile gear fishermen.

4.20 The whole process of designating marine conservation zones, however, is making the different stakeholder groups increasingly wary of each other. Those in favour of the conservation measures have found themselves conflicting with the commercial fishermen and can be reluctant to speak out. Considerable distrust has also been generated between the fishermen, the conservation lobby and Natural England. Although many interviewees considered that as

63 time passed, relations were beginning to improve, they thought that there was still a lot of underlying resentment among the mobile gear fishermen. There were concerns that more closures would lead to more tension generating greater need to police these areas.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The establishment of the closed area has affected various fishing activities in Lyme Bay and imposed a number of costs and benefits on the stakeholders. In this study, we examined the initial impacts of the closure on various stakeholder groups, in order to evaluate the changes that have occurred three years after its establishment. The results indicate that the impacts differ according to gear type and the fishing location used by the fishermen. Most static gear fishermen who fish inside the closed area have seen changes in terms of increased fishing effort, mostly because they have been able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots they deploy. The effects of the closure on static gear fishermen fishing outside the closed area has been reported in terms of increased conflicts with towed gear fishermen who now fish regularly in their traditional grounds. Fishermen using towed gear on the other hand have been impacted through displacement effects as they have been forced to look for fishing grounds outside the closure. Despite the impacts felt by the fishermen, fishing in Lyme Bay has remained profitable after the closure implying that the loss of access to fishing grounds in the closed area has been compensated for by the remaining fishing grounds. This conclusion, however, reflects a short-term view as the impacts of the closure of Lyme Bay are likely to be felt for a long time to come. This is the view shared by most stakeholders who informed us that the impacts of the closure are yet to be fully realized.

5.2 The perceptions of stakeholder groups to change within the Lyme Bay area as a consequence of the closure are variable both within and between stakeholder groups. The opinions of anglers and charter boat operators varied between no obvious impact on their activities to those indicating that the angling experience had improved within the area. Divers also suggested that there was a distinct improvement in the biodiversity at their chosen dive sites (primarily wrecks), but dive businesses reported no change to their business that they could attribute to the closure. All agreed that it is probably too early to tell the full impact of the closure, especially in terms of impacts on the communities surrounding the closed area. These stakeholder groups were unified, however, in their opinion that while the mobile gear fishermen had undoubtedly been impacted by the closure, they had managed to adapt and were coping well by finding alternative fishing grounds outside the closed area.

5.3 Due to a lack of monetised costs and benefits, the overall impact of the closure could not be estimated in this study. Further, although results of ecological monitoring show signs of recovery of the reefs in Lyme Bay, the actual value of the ecosystem services provided by the recovering reefs was difficult to quantify. Recovery of biodiversity or the re-colonisation of an area by previously disturbed species, and hence change in ecosystem services, is a long-term process. Changes in the delivery of ecosystem services are therefore unlikely to be identifiable within the three years of this project. This study has however, helped us understand the initial perceptions, costs and benefits to various stakeholder groups of the Lyme Bay closure. The findings will aid the facilitation and organization of the appropriate scientific and economic analyses for a long term monitoring of the impacts of the Lyme Bay closure as well as future marine conservation zones under the Marine and Coastal Access Act. 65

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all those who assisted in the preparation, research and collation of this piece of work or in supporting the research. In particular we would like to thank the following:

 Defra for funding the project and for their support

 Natural England for additional funding and support

 All the students and volunteers who helped with the data collection

 Jim Portus and Nick Prust for their support in reaching commercial fishermen

 Neil Wellum, MMO for providing us with enforcement costs

 Bill Lawrence, DSFC for providing us with sightings data and enforcement costs

 James Williscroft, MMO for providing us with catch data

 Darren Sanders, MMO for providing us with sightings and VMS data

 Mike Gormley and Kelly-Marie Davidson, PML for setting up online surveys

 Emma Carolan, PML for GIS analysis

 All the commercial fishermen, sea anglers, divers, dive businesses, charter boat operators, hotel owners, fish processors and merchants who took part in the surveys.

 NERC who enabled part of the socio-economic work through funding to PML as part of the Oceans 2025 Research Programme.

References

Agardy, T.M. (1994). Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas. TREE, 9, 267-270

Allison, G.W., Lubchenco, J. & Carr, M.H. (1998). Marine reserved are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications, 8 (1): S79-S92

Anderson, J., H. Curtis, R. Boyle, and K. Graham. (2007) 2005 economic survey of the UK fishing fleet short report. Sea Fish Industry Authority: 25pp.

Anderson, J., Curtis, H., Stewart, A., & McShane, H. (2008). 2006 Economic Survey of UK Fishing Fleet, Seafish Ltd 136pp.

Andrews, T. 2008. Impact assessment of measures to protect marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay. Report to Defra: 57pp.

Auster, P.J. & Shackell, N.L. (2000). Marine protected areas for the temperate and boreal Northwest Atlantic: the potential for sustainable fisheries and conservation of biodiversity. Northeastern Naturalist, 7, 4, 419-434

Babcock, R.C., Kelly, S., Shears, N.T., Walker, J.W. & Willis, T.J. (1999). Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 189: 125-134

Balvanera, P., Pfisterer, A.B., Buchmann, N., He, J., Nakashizuka, T., Raffaelli, D. & Schmid, B. (2006). Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9: 1146-1156.

Beaumont N.J., Austen, M.C., Atkins, J., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T.P., Derous, S., Holm, P., Horton, T., van Ierland, E., Marboe, A.H., Starkey, D.J., Townsend, M., Zarzycki, T. (2007) Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 253:265.

Beaumont, N,J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, S.C. & Townsend, M. (2008). Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(3): 386-396.

Blyth, R.E., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Hart, P.J.B. (2004). Implications of a zoned fishery management system for marine benthic communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 951-961

Botsford, L.W., Castilla, J.C., & Peterson, C.H. (1997). The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science, 277, 509-515

Carter, D.W. (2003). Protected areas in marine resource management: another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean & Coastal Management 46: 439-456.

Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D‟Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G., & Woodmansee, R.G. (1996). The report of the ecological society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6, 665-691

Currie, D.R. & Parry, G.D. (1996). Effects of scallop dredging on a soft sediment community: a large-scale experimental study. Marine Ecology Progress Series 134: 131-150.

Curtis, H., Brodie, C., & Longoni, C. (2010). 2008 Economic Survey of UK Fishing Fleet, Seafish Ltd 116pp.

Curtis, H., Metz, S. & Brodie, C. (2009). 2007 Economic Survey of UK Fishing Fleet. Seafish Ltd 76pp.

Curtis, H. & Brodie, C. (2011). 2009 Economic Survey of UK Fishing Fleet, Seafish Ltd 112pp.

Dahl, C. (1997). Integrated coastal resources management and community participation in a small island setting. Ocean and Coastal Management, 36, 23-45.

Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T., & Hofman, R.J. (1995). Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5: 205–232.

Defra, (2010). The Government‟s strategy for contributing to the delivery of a UK network of marine protected areas. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 32 p. de Groot, S.J., & Lindeboom, H.J. (eds.). (1994). Environmental impact of bottom gears on benthic fauna in relation to natural resources management and protection of the North Sea. Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands.

DSFC (2008). Devon Sea Fisheries Committee response to consultation on marine special areas of conservation (SACs) and special protection areas (SPAs) in English, Welsh and offshore waters around the UK: Social and economic impacts: 13pp.

Fiallo, E.A., & Jacobson, S.K. (1995). Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conservation in Machalilla National Parks, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation, 22, 241-249.

Garcia-Charton, J.A., Willians, I.D., Perez Ruzafa, A., Milazzo, M., Chemello, R., Marcos, C., (2000). Evaluating the ecological effects of Southern European marine-protected areas: habitat, scale and the natural variability of ecosystems. Environmental Conservation 27: 159–178.

Gell, F.R. & Roberts, C.M. (2002). The Fishery Effects of Marine Reserves and Fishery Closures. WWF-US. Washington DC, USA. (http://www.worldwildlife.org/oceans/fishery_effects.pdf)

Gell, F.R. & Roberts, C.M. (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 448-455.

Goni, R., Polunin, N.V.C., & Planes, S. (2000). The Mediterranean: marine-protected areas and the recovery of a large marine ecosystem. Environmental Conservation, 27: 95–97.

Halpern, B. S. (2003). The Impact of Marine Reserves: Do Reserves Work and Does Reserve Size Matter? Ecological Applications 13(1): S117 – S137

Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M.J. (2006). Indicators of the ecological impact of bottom-trawl disturbance on seabed communities. Ecosystems, 9: 1190- 1199

Hiscock, K., & Breckles, M. (2007). Marine biodiversity hotspots in the UK: their identification and protection. Godalming: WWF-UK.

Hough, J. L. (1988). Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries. Environmental Conservation 15: 129–136.

Hughes, T.P., Bellwood, D.R., Folke, C., Steneck, R.S., & Wilson, J. (2005). New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20 (7): 380-386 JUL 2005

Jackson, A. (2007). Lithothamnion corallioides Maerl. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

Jones P.J.S. (2009). Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals. Marine Policy 33, 759-765.

Jones, P.J.S. (2001). Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11, 197– 216.

Jones, P.J.S. (2006). Collective action problems posed by no-take zones. Marine Policy, 30, 143-156.

Jones, P.J.S. & Burgess, J. (2005) Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 227–243.

Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., & Karakassis, I. (2006). Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311: 1-14.

Kaiser, M.J., Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Jennings, S., & Poiner, I.R. (2002). Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries 3: 114-136.

Kaiser, M.J., Ramsay, K., Richardson, C.A., Spence, F.E., and Brand, A.R. (2000). Chronic fishing disturbance has changed shelf sea benthic community structure. The Journal of Animal Ecology 69: 494-503.

Kaiser, M.J. & Spencer, B.E. (1996). The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities in different habitats. Journal of Animal Ecology, 65: 348- 358

Kelleher, G. (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas‟ IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xxiv = 107pp

Larkin, P.A. (1996). Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6, 139-164

Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. UK Government Public Acts 2009.

McConnaughey, R.A., Mier, K.L. & Dew, C.B. (2000). An examination of chronic trawling effects on soft-bottom benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 1377–1388.

McCormack, B. & Hill, E. (1997). Conducting a Survey: The SPSS Workbook., International Thompson Business Publishers.

Mehta, J.N., & Kellert, S.R. (1998). Local attitudes towards community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Mekalu- Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation, 25, 320-333.

Murawski, S.A., Brown, R., Lai, H.-L., Rago, P.J. & Hendrickson, L. (2000). Large scale closed areas as a fishery-management tool in the temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66 (3): 775-798

Pomeroy R.S., Parks, J.E. & Watson, L.M. (2004). How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness. IUCN, Gland Switzerland.

Ravetz, J.R. (1999). What is post-normal science? Futures, 31, 647–653.

Rees, SE., Rodwell, L.D., Atrill, M.J., Austen, M.C. and Mangi, S.C. (2010). The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34: 868-875.

Roberts, C.M., Hawkins, J.P., & Gell, F.R. (2005). The role of marine reserves in achieving sustainable fisheries. Philosophic Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360: 123-132.

SAC and University of Liverpool (2008): The Marine Bill – Marine Nature Conservation Proposals – Valuing the Benefits. Defra Project Code: CRO380. Download: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0603_7653_FRP.pdf

Sanchirico, J.N., Cochran, K.A. & Emerson, P.M. (2002). Marine protected areas: economic and social implications. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper, 02-26.

Sissenwine, M.P., & Mace, P.M. (2003). Governance for responsible fisheries: an ecosystem approach. In: Sinclair, M., Valdimarsson, G. (eds). Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome, & CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, p363-390

Stevens, T., Rodwell, L., Beaumont, K., Lewis, T., Smith C., & Stehfest, K. (2007). Surveys for marine spatial planning in Lyme Bay. Report to Devon Wildlife Trust by the Marine Institute, University of Plymouth.

Tillin, H.M., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. (2006). Chronic bottom trawling alters the functional composition of benthic invertebrate communities on a sea-basin scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318: 31-45.

Turner, R.K., Paavola J., Cooper P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003) Valuing Nature: Lessons Learned and Future Research Directions, Ecological Economics, 465, 3, 493-510. Watling, L. & Norse, E.A. (1998). Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: a comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology, 12: 1180-1197.

White, A.T., Vogt, H.P., & Arin, T. (2000). Philippine coral reefs under threat: the economic losses caused by reef destruction. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 598-605.

Worm, B., E. B., Barbier, N., Beaumont, J. E., Duffy, C., Folke, B. S., Halpern, J. B. C., Jackson, H. K., Lotze, F., Micheli, S. R., Palumbi, E., Sala, K. A., Selkoe, J. J., Stachowicz and R. Watzon. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314:787-790.

Annexes

2A. In-depth interviews

Summary

Aim: To obtain a more in-depth understanding of the impacts of the closure on stakeholder groups, paying particular attention to areas of conflict between stakeholder groups

The perceptions of stakeholder groups to change within the Lyme Bay area as a consequence of the closure are variable both within and between stakeholder groups. The opinions of anglers and charter boat operators varied between no obvious impact on their activities to those indicating that the angling experience had improved within the area. Divers also suggested that there was a distinct improvement in the biodiversity at their chosen dive sites (primarily wrecks), but dive businesses reported no change to their business that they could attribute to the closure. All agreed that it is probably too early to tell the full impact of the closure, especially in terms of impacts on the communities surrounding the closed area. These stakeholder groups were unified, however, in their opinion that while the mobile gear fishermen had undoubtedly been impacted by the closure, they had managed to adapt and were coping well by finding alternative fishing grounds outside the closed area. There was also the assumption that some mobile gear fishermen will have converted to static gear fishing methods. This they suggested was linked to the increase in static gear being used in the closed area and indicated that this was a potential area of tension between the anglers and static gear fishermen.

The static gear fishermen differed in their opinions. Those who fished within the closed area considered the closure to be a success. They stated that their gear was no longer at risk as the competition with the mobile gear fishermen over fishing grounds was no longer an issue. There was also the impression amongst some that there were more fish around, but they were unclear whether this was a consequence of the closure or other factors. Those static gear fishermen who fished in areas adjoining the box, or further away, felt they had lost out to the closure. They had experienced an increase in the loss of their fishing gear to mobile gear fishermen, a loss of earnings and a loss of fishing grounds as a consequence of the displacement of mobile gear fishermen from the closed area. They considered that their interests had been totally overlooked.

The scallopers and mobile gear fishermen stated uncategorically that they had been negatively affected by the closure. They were travelling further to their fishing grounds and consequently their costs were higher; they were experiencing increasing conflicts with other fishermen; and they were spending longer away at sea which brought with it a number of social impacts. Furthermore, they felt that the impact on them was having repercussions for others up and down their supply chain: they were no longer giving the same level of business to local welders and electricians, and they were more often than not supply fishmongers in other parts of the country, rather than their local businesses.

In what follows the issues of displacement and conflict are explored in more detail, together with the changing use of static gear within the closed area. Opinions on the management and enforcement of the closed area and the engagement of stakeholders in future marine conservation zones are also examined.

Displacement

“... we have started moving around a bit because of the closure. Mainly because the area that is left to us isn‟t really viable to stay in, you know, for too long a time. You end up fishing it out.” Mobile gear fisherman

Within Lyme Bay, the mobile gear fishermen have moved east towards Weymouth and west towards Exmouth and Teignmouth. They have also moved further afield, heading as far as the Channel Islands and Wales. Within the bay, the areas they have moved to have traditionally been used by static gear fishermen and tensions are rising between these two groups. Both types of fisherman are all aware that the influx of mobile gear is putting extra pressure on these fishing grounds. Static gear fishermen are concerned that the mobile gear fishing activities are damaging their fishing grounds, ground that they have worked all their lives. They state that good ground is being turned into ploughed fields and mobile gear is being used in areas too close to the reefs:

“...you‟ve got little marks where you‟ve shot gear one year and [you] go back and shoot it the following year and it‟s flat because it‟s been towed over and it‟s literally level again.” static gear fisherman

These static gear fishermen have small boats of less than 10 metres and often less than seven metres. The range of these boats is typically six or seven miles at most, meaning they are limited in the area in which they can fish. Avoiding contact and any consequent conflict with the incoming mobile gear fishermen is particularly difficult for them.

The increasing number of mobile gear fishermen in these areas is also leading to growing concerns over the safety of static fishing gear. Problems between fishermen when nets and pots are damaged by trawling or dredging activities are also on the rise. This growing contact between these two fishing types is recognised by both groups as a problem.

“...ideally we wouldn‟t have static gear where we want to go fishing because it‟s restrictive and there‟s a chance of hitting it and having costs involved and conflict” mobile gear fisherman

“There was conflicts [before the closure] but it was certainly a lot less because before we had a lot more ground to roam around in...” mobile gear fisherman

Typically the individuals involved in these conflicts try to sort it out between themselves, but there are accusations of unscrupulousness on both sides (for example, fishermen not owning up to damaging the static gear and false accusations being made against mobile gear fishermen). The outcome is loss of earnings for both parties, a loss of time, but also a loss of trust between them.

Animosity is particularly noticeable between local boats and those visiting the area. Before the closure, the mobile gear fishermen tended to work closer to home and knew the static gear fishermen that they came into contact with. If a problem occurred, they found it easier to deal with. As they increasingly move into more distant waters they are interacting with people they are unfamiliar with. The mobile gear fishermen consider this lack of previous connection makes it more difficult to resolve problems. The necessary trust relationships are not there.

Displacement to more distant fishing grounds has also raised concerns over fisherman safety among the mobile gear fishermen. Before the closure, if the weather turned bad, the fishermen knew that they were only a short distance from home, and that they could easily return to port. Now they feel they have been forced to work in dangerous conditions. As they travel further afield, they can no longer return so quickly to port. They also remain at sea for much longer periods of time.

“I can‟t sleep when my boy‟s out there because he‟s got to stay on the boats for seven days... The first thing I do when I wake up in the morning... is text him to see if he‟s okay... That‟s how much it means to me. That‟s why I get so upset.” (visibly upset) mobile gear fisherman

The mobile gear fishermen state that their boats were not designed for long trips. They are often day boats which are small and ill-equipped for long journeys (for example, they do not have proper toilets or shower facilities). Nevertheless their need to make a living is forcing them to more distant locations and to live on them for extended periods. This has implications for the fishermen‟s family lives as they spend more time away from home, but also because of the increased worry this generates for their family members.

Substitution

Change in fishing activities is not only occurring outside the closed area. Within the closed area anglers and mobile gear fishermen have been reporting an increase in the use of static gear to the point that it is becoming over used.

“So now you‟ve got a displacement... from towed gear to static gear which is taking up more ground. The ground is finite. You don‟t just make more ground and whelks overnight.” mobile gear fisherman

It is thought that some boats are coming up from Exmouth, substituting their traditional fishing grounds for new ground within the closed area. The additional protection they gain for their fishing gear from the absence of mobile gear fishing activities, compensating for any additional costs they incur from travelling greater distances. It has also been suggested that boats that previously used mobile gear have changed to static gear, although this is not supported by the findings from the rest of this study. Furthermore, there was speculation over illegal use of nets. Interestingly, none of the static gear fishermen who were interviewed, and regularly use the closed area, reported that they had increased their use of gear within the closed area. They suggested that they benefited from the closed area because they could reduce the amount of gear that they use (as less was likely to be towed away) and that they could spread it out more widely.

Nevertheless, the angling community complained that the “swamping” of the closed area with nets is interfering with their angling activities.

“.. the first year [scallop dredging] got stopped, you couldn‟t move there for nets all in one area.” angler

Angling boats were having to go further out to avoid the nets and the confusion cause by all the marker buoys. One angler reported seeing nets up to a mile long, while others stated that most of the wrecks in Lyme Bay have nets snagged on them. They regarded these nets as a danger to divers, that they stopped fishing activities and that these abandoned nets were causing ghost fishing. There was concern from the interviewees that any benefits accruing to the area from the closure were being wiped out by the increase in nets.

One fisherman who owned both a mobile and static gear fishing boat complained that his catches from within the closed area are actually worse now than they were before the ban. He suggested that the only way any improvements would be seen inside the closed area would be to remove all types of commercial fishing. But as one charter boat operator pointed out, the areas suitable for potting and netting within the closed area are small compared to the size of the closed area as a whole; there is therefore a lot of pressure within small areas within the box.

Management and enforcement

The perceived increase in the use of static gear, and in particular nets, within the closed area has led to calls from across the stakeholder groups for greater management of the closed area. One static gear fisherman suggested that there should be some level of regulation of the amount of gear that could be used within the closed area. He stated that static gear fishermen want to be able to avoid the situation whereby someone from outside the area suddenly arrives with 1,000 pots because they have heard that the fishing is good.

“... if we are going to have a marine protected area we have to have some sort of management programme and that has to be done with consultation with the local fishermen...” static gear fisherman

Other static gear fishermen echoed this call, saying that they could not think that anyone who fishes in the closed area would have a problem with gear restrictions, or in the case of scallop diving, restrictions on the number of scallops taken per dive. The anglers interviewed also suggested that they would be happy to have restrictions on their catch, and perhaps closed seasons for certain species or catch limits. They all recognised, however, that this regulation would have to be carried out in consultation with those who fish in the area.

Another management suggestion was the use of tags on nets, and tags only being awarded to registered fishermen. This way, if nets were abandoned or lost, it would be easy to identify their owner and deal with any problems arising. If policed efficiently, it would also prevent illegal netting. Calls were also made across the stakeholder groups for the use of VMS on all boats, including those under 10 metres, so that all fishing activities inside the box could be more closely monitored. Anglers

75 also made calls for the use of signage on harbours and slipways to raise awareness and notify people that they are entering a marine protected area.

Management of the closed area was considered important by all stakeholder groups, but it was understood that unless there is a way of policing and enforcing the management regulations there would be little point to them.

“There‟s no use creating these things if you don‟t put in place a system to administer them.” Charter boat operator

“... we totally agree with it, but we fear that it might be a pointless exercise like everything else unless there‟s enforcement.” angler

There are concerns within the angling and charter boat community that currently there is not the will power, interest or means to enforce the closure. They would like to see it better policed and controlled and if there are infringements, that prosecutions are brought against the offending party. Complaints have been made about possible infractions by mobile gear fishermen, but they were not aware of any response to these from the authorities. Some interviewees suggested that this was leading to an air of suspicion between them and the mobile gear fishermen.

The future of marine conservation zones

All stakeholders recognised that they could benefit from the conservation of marine life, but there are divergent opinions over how this should be achieved. The mobile gear fishermen believe that any closures should be no-take for all, and that there should be many small no-take zones, rather than one big closure from which only one user is excluded.

“... if there were small areas that spread out and more variation, I think everyone would benefit.” mobile gear fisherman

Others were quite fearful of no-take zones, preferring the status quo or seasonal and temporary closures. Static gear fishermen suggested that a no-take zone would be the end of the fishing community in Beer; the absence of a harbour means that Beer fishermen are restricted to small, inshore boats that they can pull on to the beach. Recreational users thought that a no-take zone would encourage poachers. They also believe that it would cause major losses to local communities through loss of revenue generated from recreational activities (such as use of local hotels, restaurants, car parking, tackle shops and other facilities).

One mobile gear fisherman recommended that if future closures restrict certain fishing activities, then there should be a compensation package in place for those affected, supporting them in the purchase of a different type of vessel. This could also take the form of a period of grace in which the fishermen are given a licence to continue what they are doing in the short-term, but allowing them the opportunity to change their fishing activities and business plan during this time. Uncertainty over the future appears to be a considerable barrier for mobile gear fishermen and any ways of reducing this uncertainty would probably increase their support for future change.

The whole process of designating marine conservation zones, however, is making the different stakeholder groups increasingly wary of each other. Those in favour of the conservation measures have found themselves at odds with the commercial fishermen and reluctant to speak out.

“...the trawlers are going to be the ones that make all the noise and the other people aren‟t going to say very much because they just daren‟t, because they are small fry in the overall matter of things, they are just small fry and they don‟t want to say anything to upset these skippers who have so much to lose.” charter boat operator Considerable distrust has also been generated between the fishermen, the conservation lobby and Natural England. The mobile gear fishermen in particular consider that they cooperated with the conservation groups and Natural England in the first instance when they were trying to understand the situation in Lyme Bay, but only to have “a knife stuck in their back”. While they were willing to share their charts before the closure came into force, they have declared that they will never share them again.

Although many interviewees considered that as time passed, relations were beginning to improve, they thought that there was still a lot of underlying resentment among the mobile gear fishermen. This was not helped by mobile gear fishermen being portrayed in the media as “pirates”. It was also suggested that if more closures are to come into force, that this will lead to more tension and that there would be even greater need to police these areas.

All stakeholders agreed that consultation with local people is essential in the designation of closed areas. Interviewees had the impression that minds were already made up when they were consulted about the closure in Lyme Bay, if they were consulted at all. It was highlighted that consultation needs to be meaningful, and that consultation alone was not considered to be sufficient; consultees needed to feel that they had been listened to. However, the loss of trust with bodies such as Natural England is resulting in scepticism in the consultation process, with some stakeholders suggesting that consultation equates a loss of fishing grounds.

Interview schedule

Questions to determine perceptions of the closure and of change and stakeholder interests

Three sections – about respondent, about other users and about coastal communities

You How do you use Lyme Bay?

How often do you use it?

Why is it important to you? If not clear from previous answer: How else do you use it? (work, leisure…)

What do you think about the closure of part of Lyme Bay to scallop dredging and trawling? If not clear from previous answer: Why do you think that?

How important to you is access to the closed area? (prompt) Why?

How has the closure affected the way that you use the bay?

How has this affected the other activities you do (for example, your social and family life, your work)?

How do you think the closure will affect you in the long-term (next 10 years)?

The closure has been in place now for 2 years, has your opinion about it changed in that time? If so how?

We know that more marine conservations zones are going to be created, how do you think this may affect you?

How do you think you [or your stakeholder group] can benefit from the conservation of marine life?

Other users

What is important about Lyme Bay to other users? (prompt for different types of fishermen, divers, recreational anglers etc)

Why do you think this?

How important do you think access to the closed area is to other users (prompt for different types of fishermen, divers, recreational anglers etc)?

How do you think the closure has affected the way that others use the bay? (prompt for different types of fishermen, divers, recreational anglers etc).

What do you think this means for them?

How do you think the closure will affect other users in the long-term? (prompt for different types of fishermen, divers, recreational anglers etc).

What do you think has happened to the fishermen who can no longer fish inside the closed area?

Where do you think they are fishing now?

How is this affecting other fishermen?

If issues of conflict are mentioned, ask what, if anything, is being done about it?

How do you think your relationship with these other users has changed since the closure was introduced?

Coastal Communities and Visitors

How do you think the closure has affected the coastal communities bordering the closure (e.g. Lyme Regis and Beer)?

Why do you think this?

How do you think has it affected visitors to the area?

How do you think the closure will affect the communities bordering the closure in the long-term (e.g. Lyme Regis and Beer)?

Visitors, in the long term?

And finally…

To what extent do you think the opinions of [your stakeholder group] were taken into consideration when the decision was made to close the area?

To what extent do you think the opinions of other user groups were taken into consideration when the decision was made to close the area? (prompt for different types of fishermen, divers, recreational anglers)

We know that more marine conservations zones are going to be created, how do you think the experiences of the different user groups here in Lyme Bay can be used in the process of identifying suitable locations for these conservation zones?

Thinking about future closures of marine areas, how do you think the opinions of the different user groups of the area should be taken into account when decisions are made about which areas to close?

Why do you think that?

2B. Stakeholder workshop report

Overview

Workshop aims and objectives

The principle aim of the workshop was to provide a forum for open discussion on issues related to the closure of Lyme Bay with local people who have practical involvement. It aimed to bring together representatives of towed and static gear fishermen, recreational users, environmental NGOs, fisheries managers and researchers as well as scallop divers and other interested stakeholder groups e.g. Finding Sanctuary, Environment Agency.

The specific objectives of this workshop were therefore to:

1. Present research findings of the ecological and socio-economic monitoring following the closure of the Bay 2. Discuss these findings and share viewpoints 3. Generate recommendations and guidelines for future management, by:  Identifying the positive and negative impacts of the closure and how they can be managed;  Collecting feedback on the Lyme Bay research project (MB0101), including future work and next steps;  Discussing future objectives (environmental, social and economic) of the Lyme Bay closed area and how these could be achieved;  Providing a feedback mechanism from local stakeholders to decision makers.

1. Organisation of the workshop

The workshop was chaired by Dr Lynda Rodwell. It was attended by a total of 27 participants including 2 fishermen‟s leaders, 2 towed gear fishermen, 3 static gear fishermen, 1 scallop diver, 3 charter boat operators, 1 representative from an environmental NGO, 1 representative from the Environment Agency, 1 representative from Finding Sanctuary, 2 representatives from local sea fisheries committees, 1 representative from the Marine Management Organisation, 3 sea anglers, 1 diver and 6 researchers (Annex 1).

The following made the key sections of the workshop (Annex 2):  Two PowerPoint presentations (ecological and socio-economic) of preliminary research findings  Viewpoint roundtable session  Carousel session comprised of three main sessions: o Impacts of the closed area o Feedback on the project, future work and next steps o The future of Lyme Bay closed area

 Feedback from facilitators

2. Presentations

Ecological/biodiversity research findings to date were presented by Professor Martin Attrill (Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, and Project leader). These indicated that the abundance of some species differs between treatment types and years. Differences are more apparent for the predetermined indicator species which has revealed statistically significant differences between treatments, areas and years. There is likely to be an emerging trend of recovery which will be further investigated using statistical tests such as post hoc tests.

The Socio-economic research findings to date were presented by Dr Stephen Mangi (Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Socio-economics leader). These indicated that impacts due to the closure have been minimal for all stakeholders except fishermen. Impacts to fishermen have varied depending on gear type and fishing location. Static gear fishermen have seen benefits inside the closure as they are able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots used, however, those outside the closure have noticed an increase in conflict between static and towed gear fishermen due to the displacement of boats using mobile fishing gear. However, landings data reveals that impacts on average income and profits have been minimal. All stakeholders were of the opinion that the full impact of the closure has yet to be realised.

3. Viewpoint session

Viewpoints and questions following the presentation of the ecological and socio- economic research findings gave a valuable grounding of the following issues:

Stakeholders need more information on the findings of the research such as the optimal population of species inside the closed area and sample sizes of respondents to questionnaires. Some findings are available online at http://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/lymebaymonitoringprogramme/pages/reports.ht m but detailed findings will be available in the final report that will be available in March 2011.

There has been a noticeable decrease in suspended sediment in the middle of Lyme Bay and an increase in the area around the wreck of the M2. Water quality studies are needed to assess whether this is due to the closure. Some sea anglers mentioned that there is a noticeable difference in angling due to these suspended sediments as the fish that feed by sight have decreased around the wreck. However, no water quality measurements will be conducted in the area since Lyme Bay is not an Environment Agency (EA) monitoring area. There was an agreement that fishing has always had good and bad years and therefore the changes in angling may not be due to suspended sediment.

Recent government proposals for potential wind farms off Lyme Bay were a source of much concern. It was suggested that other marine users provide threats to the environment e.g. cabling and wind power but these are not treated with the same restrictions as those imposed on the fishing industry. An example was given that Natural England (NE) wants to extend the closure to 90 nm2 but they are finding it hard to control renewable energies. It was agreed that adequate marine spatial planning is urgently required since the seas are becoming increasingly busy with

MCZs, SACs, closures and the mussel farm. The MMO is implementing a new marine planning system under the Marine and Coastal Act and this will have an impact on marine renewable energy and other activities in the marine and coastal environment.

There is a definite increase in fish species abundance within the closure and it is encouraging to see that the closed area is improving the reef habitat in some areas as well. However, areas of boulder fields have not improved and the focus of the discussion was on whether towed gear fishermen could be allowed to go back and fish these areas. Most of the participants agreed that there was a need for more time to be sure that there is no change in biodiversity in these areas. The workshop was informed that NE are looking into the different habitat types to see if there are isolated differences to help with this and to inform future closures. It will be good to have a robust dataset from the current project that could be used to support future closures and their justification.

There is need for more publicity of the closure to encourage divers and other recreational users to visit Lyme Bay. The Bay has some of the best diving sites in the Southwest coast and is not being promoted enough. Enquires from people wanting to come angling e.g. species hunts are however on the rise.

There are no signs yet for the spillover of scallops into the adjacent fishing grounds even though the only scallop diver fishing inside the closed are only takes 70-80 dozen per day. Many participants agreed that it takes time for exploitable stocks to build up enough to spillover to adjacent fished areas. For spillover to work there is need for suitable habitat outside the closure for spat to settle and allow the populations outside to increase. Given that there was never suitable habitat outside the closed area for spat to settle and grow, it is difficult to see whether there will be any spillover. There is talk of closing an extra 30 nm2 around the present closure. This combined with the mussel farm means that there will be no inshore ground left for fishing at all. Participants agreed that it is worrying that NE are trying to increase the size of the closure when so far the Lyme Bay monitoring project has been too short to provide conclusive evidence of success and everybody agrees that more time is needed.

Displacement of the fishing fleet has led to more boats going towards the east to Portland, some to Wales, while others to Shoreham so as to continue to make a living. The results showing that boats are grossing the same are questionable. The boats may be grossing the same but their costs are much more than they used to be. Carbon footprints have also gone up. 10 metre boats that were built as day boats now have to spend weeks at a time away at sea when they used to just go to Lyme Bay. The profitability results are probably correct but it is the extra work being put in that is the issue. If fishing effort were measured in terms of hours worked we could say that catch per unit effort has declined.

4. Impacts of the closed area (Facilitator: Dr Stephen Mangi)

Discussions on the impacts of the closed area focused on three main areas: positive impacts, negative impacts and ways on how the impacts could be managed. There was an agreement that seasonal and cyclic effects of scallop catches make it hard to

82 quantify impacts of the closure. There were suggestions that the voluntary closures before the statutory closure would have worked well if the technology such as inshore VMS that is present now was accessible at that time.

The positive impacts identified during the carousel section include:

 Closure of Lyme Bay has led to an increase in number of species, regeneration of the reefs and has generally improved biodiversity inside the closure.

 There is more static gear inside the closure now than there has ever been. The closure has also helped sea anglers in West Bay as they can anchor and carry out their activities freely inside the box. Many participants were of the opinion that the majority of fishing vessels based within the Lyme Bay area have been impacted positively by the closure. It is only two vessels (scallop dredgers) from the Lyme Bay area that have had to travel past the closed area to fish. Most vessels are doing as well now as they did before the closure if not better.

 The closure has led to a change in attitudes among the different stakeholders towards marine conservation goals. Lyme Bay has provided useful lessons for conservationists and the fishing lobby in terms of how to engage more successfully in the future.

The negative impacts of the closed area as discussed at the workshop include:

 Displacement of towed gear fishermen is causing havoc in other fishing grounds. Brixham is the centre of most of the scallop dredging and trawling and most of these fishermen (who are restricted from the Lyme Bay) are now moving westwards of Brixham. Most fishermen are spending more days away from their homes than they used to and fishing costs have considerably increased as a result of longer fishing duration and increase in fuel use.

 The closure has created disputes between some stakeholder groups.

How impacts could be managed:

 There were suggestions that the closure should only cover the sensitive areas of the reefs and using new technologies such as inshore VMS allow all fishermen to fish the areas in between. Improved habitat mapping technologies could be used to select the sensitive areas to close from all fishing activities.

 There is need to harmonise spatial planning for the different use activities including MCZs, SACs, renewable energy generation devices, and mussel farm. At the moment decisions on where these go are handled by different sectors hence confusing which areas of the sea will be actually used.

 A number of activities that take place inside the closed area need to be well managed. For example, recreational activities need to be managed as the closed area has a limit to the number of users it can take. The anchoring of big boats inside the closed area also needs to be managed as it will damage the reefs when the purpose of the closure is to protect them.

 Displacement effects following the closure could be managed using gentlemen‟s agreements. For instance, some displaced fishermen usually inform local fishermen when they move into their traditional fishing grounds. However, other

displaced fishermen do not, which causes conflicts with the fishermen who consider the grounds as their traditional grounds. It was agreed that gentlemen‟s agreements need to be led e.g. by IFCA otherwise they cannot work when fishermen are competing for the same resource.

 Displacement effects could also be minimised through buyout schemes to get fishermen to decommission their boats. To this end many argued that marine plans should include monetary support for fishermen during what is likely to be a difficult transitory phase, especially in the light of rising fuel prices and lack of quota.

 Some views received by the project group from fishermen who were not keen to speak openly at the meeting and did not want to be named suggest that static gear fishermen fishing outside the closure would like to see a ban on towed gear up to the 2 mile limit to protect their gear from being towed away. They suggest that a rule should be established that any boat over 10 metres should not be allowed in the 2-5 mile limit.

5. Feedback on project, future work and next Steps (Facilitator: Dr Caroline Hattam)

There was a general consensus among participants that this project (MB0101) needs to continue. Some participants were disappointed that the project has not been able to confirm all of its findings (although it should be noted that part of the reason for this is that data analysis is not yet complete), but they stated that it would be pointless to stop the project now as there is a real need to answer all the questions that they have. They also mentioned that there does not appear to be enough information from the current study to justify whether the existing closed area should be extended or not. This Lyme Bay project therefore needs to be a long-term study focusing on the ecological as well as the social and economic change. Importantly, a long-term study will be able to capture the impacts of natural cycles (e.g. scallop disease cycles) which the current study will not.

The discussion for this section fell into the following categories:

Future project objectives: Any future study should revisit the original project objectives and update them to fit the current situation facing Lyme Bay. It should include an examination of the impacts of future closures and expansion of the existing closed area; the potential impacts of renewable energy and a mussel farm in Lyme Bay; and the impact of no-take zones. Future work should also aim to identify whether the sacrifices being made by the different stakeholders are leading to a better product. For example, would it be possible to market Lyme Bay diver caught scallops with a premium? Can the benefits from changes in other ecosystem services be captured?

Monitoring and sampling: It was suggested that a future study should be expanded to increase the frequency of monitoring and sampling. It should also collect data more widely: have more study sites for the ecology and consult stakeholders from further afield. For example, the study should focus on areas outside the closed area and on the impacts of and interactions between static and towed gear fishing activities.

Stakeholder analysis and engagement: In terms of stakeholder analysis, participants thought that there was a greater need to understand the impact of recreational anglers and their catch levels and suggested that these data might be available through the harbours. There is also the need to understand the impact of divers and dive boats as they tend to go to the same areas again and again, and in increasing numbers in recent years. It was also suggested that the impacts of the closure on small-scale, inshore fishers needs to be better understood. In addition, the combined impact of further restrictions in the future of different activities and pursuits (fisheries and otherwise) need to be explored. Another suggestion was to encourage stakeholders to participate in the data gathering (although it was acknowledged that this needs to be achieved in a rigorous fashion).

Project management: A future project should have a local project management group instead of one that meets in distant locations. It was suggested that this would encourage more local interaction and ownership of the project, that it would make the project more transparent and help local people to know what is going on. Those interested in being more involved in the project suggested that this meeting (stakeholder workshop) should have occurred earlier in the project. Education: It was felt that the general public need to be better educated regarding fishing issues, but also about the closure in Lyme Bay and about the role of the reefs.

6. The Lyme Bay closed area - the future (Facilitator: Siân Rees)

Stakeholders felt that there has not been an open statement on precisely what the future view of Lyme Bay is. They therefore used this session to inform the workshop on their perspectives on future environmental, social and economic objectives of the closed area and how these could be achieved.

In terms of moving forward attendees proposed a review of the current restrictions on dredging and the use of bottom towed fishing gear in the closed area. Effort could be targeted away from the reef areas and the use of VMS would ensure effective enforcement. Any review of the current fishing restrictions within the closed area would need to be informed by the biological monitoring results. The biological monitoring and socio economic surveys need to be long term.

It was acknowledged that there needs to be controls on fishing effort within the closed area. Possible management restrictions suggested include bag limits, seasonal closures and effort restrictions on netting and pots.

Participants discussed the need for more marketing of the closed area to attract divers and anglers. Marketing activities could be taken on by local tourist boards or local councils. It was also noted that an increase in visitors to the closed area could raise future management issues. It was suggested that the IFCAs or a stakeholder group could provide the management for activities in the closed area.

From discussions centred on the wider MCZ process, attendees proposed the need to build upon the biological monitoring and socio-economic survey results from the Lyme Bay closed area. Any future management needs to be part of an adaptive management process where activities and effort can be periodically reassessed

85 according to scientific data. Attendees noted that the future planning process will cause displacement of activities and more „demand‟ on certain areas. Management restrictions should be in place from the start.

There was concern raised about the transparency of the wider MCZ and SAC process. Attendees stated that the current changes are causing uncertainty over their future. For example, whether wreck sites would be designated as no take zones or if planning for renewable energy sites would take precedent over other activities in the same area. In order to make plans for their future and be able to continue to make a living, it was suggested that a clear statement of intent of exactly where the MCZ planning process was leading would be helpful.

7. Feedback from facilitators

Facilitators presented summaries of the discussions from each carousel session. All participants agreed that there is a need to extend both the socio-economic and ecological monitoring to allow more data gathering and analysis to inform future closures. Stakeholders would also like to be involved in more project workshops such as this one.

All participants were thanked for taking the time to attend and it was a very cordial and pleasant atmosphere throughout.

Participants

Chris Wason Towed gear fisherman Nick Prust South West Inshore Fishermans Association Sally Sharrock Diver, Seasearch Stewart Leach Sea angler Tony Hoile Charter boat operator Paul Gompertz Devon Wildlife Trust Dave Sales Static gear fisherman John Worswick Scallop diver Ian Cornwell Charter boat operator Matt Toms Charter boat operator Kevan Connolly Environment Agency Keith Bower Devon Sea Fisheries Committee Rupert Haines Finding Sanctuary Charlie Ziemann Static gear fisherman Chris Hinton Sea angler Richard Fowler Towed gear fisherman Simon Pengelly Southern Sea Fisheries Committee Angus Walker Static gear fisherman Jim Read Sea angler Julian Roberts Marine Management Organisation

Jim Portus South West Fish Producers Organisation Martin Atrill Marine Institute, University of Plymouth Stephen Mangi Plymouth Marine Laboratory Lynda Rodwell Marine Institute, University of Plymouth Caroline Hattam Plymouth Marine Laboratory Sian Rees Marine Institute, University of Plymouth Marine Institute, University of Plymouth Sarah Gall

Workshop programme

Chair: Lynda Rodwell

Facilitators: Stephen Mangi, Caroline Hattam, Sian Rees, Sarah Gall

10:15 Arrival, tea and coffee. An opportunity to add to topics for discussion and Viewpoints 10:30 Introduction to the day, running programme 10:40 Presentation: Martin Attrill – Biodiversity (20min) 11:00 Presentation: Stephen Mangi – Socio-economics (20min) 11:20 Viewpoint roundtable session: An opportunity for each stakeholder to present their views and ask questions (2-3min max) 11:45 Tea and coffee 11:55 Lynda Rodwell: Introduction to afternoon session 12:00 Carousel Session. Themes: 1. Impacts of the Closed Area 2. The Lyme Bay Closed Area: The Future 3. Feedback on the Project, Future Work and Next Steps 13:00 Lunch. Facilitators summarise carousel session 13:30 Feedback from facilitators 14:00 Close and pack up equipment

2C. Questionnaires

Below are the questionnaires that were used to elicit changes in the economic performance of the various stakeholder groups after the closure. The questionnaires were adapted two times for the two repeat surveys and therefore some of the questions especially those that asked respondent to compare costs and benefits before and after closure were changed to cost and benefits of the previous versus present year.

Fishermen survey

(Please return completed questionnaire to Dr Stephen Mangi, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH)

Date……… ……… Your details

1. Name………………………….. Post code …………………….

2. How would you describe your usual fishing gear?………………………………. Is this the same gear you were using before the closed area was established? Yes / No How long have you been using this particular type of gear? ….……………..years Is this your preferred gear type? Yes / No

Description of your fishing activity

3. Do you own the vessel you use? Yes / No How long is your vessel, under 10m or over 10m? …………………..

4. Are there any other boats you own?...... What are the lengths of these boats (under 10m or over 10m)? ………………………..

5. How long have you been a fisherman?…………………… years

6. How many years have you been fishing in the Lyme Bay area?...... …..years

7. On average how many fishing trips did you make in one month before the closed area was established? ………………………trips

8. On average, how many fishing trips do you make in one month now (after the closure)?....…trips

9. How many crew do you have in your boat? ………………………… What % of the year do you employ your crew?…………………….. Do you share your earnings with your crew? Yes / No If yes, what % does each one get…………………… If no, how do you pay your crew?......

10. Using the map of Lyme Bay. Please could you indicate:

% of time spent in each area Areas visited before July 2008?

Areas visited after July 2008?

Income

11. What are your main target species? Please give names ……………….. ……… ………………….. ………………………………………………………………..………..…………………

12. Approximately, what is your average catch in tonnes per fishing trip? ………………tonnes 13. Is this more or less what you used to catch before the closed area was established? More / less / same (please circle one) 14. If it is either more or less, can you please briefly explain what has influenced this change? …………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..

15. In your view, has your income from fishing increased, remained stable or decreased in the last year? ………………………………….

What are the reasons behind this change? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………….

16. Do you have any other additional income? Yes / No

17. What % of your income comes from sources other than fishing…………%

18. On average, what is your total monthly income from fishing? £ ………..

19. Based on the total monthly income you have made from fishing, approximately what percentage has been due to you fishing in Lyme Bay?......

Costs

20. Approximately, what has been the average cost per day of your fishing trips to Lyme Bay this year (including fuel, labour, licences, and any other cost you may have incurred)? £ …………

How have the following changed for your fishing activity since 2007: Increased Decreased Same Is the change due to the establishment of the closed area or the result of other factors? 21. Total costs? 22. Travel time to fishing site? 23. Average fishing duration? 24. The fishing sites you use? 25. The gear you use? 26. Other changes (specify)

Your views

27. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Please circle one)

a) The closed area protects marine biodiversity within the 60 square 1 2 3 4 5 miles b) The closed area benefits wider marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay 1 2 3 4 5 c) The closed area should only exclude scallop dredgers and heavy 1 2 3 4 5 seabed trawling gear d) The closed area should exclude all extractive activities (including 1 2 3 4 5 scallop diving, angling, pots)

Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

28. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 = little or no benefit and 5 = a large benefit please indicate your opinion on how much each of these stakeholder groups currently benefit (financially and non-financially) from the 60 square mile closed area. (Please circle one)

a) Fishermen (mid-water (pelagic) trawling) 1 2 3 4 5 b) Fishermen (potting) 1 2 3 4 5 c) Fishermen (scalloping and seabed trawling) 1 2 3 4 5 d) Divers (clubs and businesses) 1 2 3 4 5 e) Sea anglers 1 2 3 4 5 f) Charter boat operators 1 2 3 4 5 g) The general public 1 2 3 4 5 h) Local service providers (hotels, shops etc) 1 2 3 4 5

29. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision to fish in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5 90

30. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision as to where you fish? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

31. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly against and 5 = strongly support, to what extent do you support or not support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

32. Have you noticed any changes in the number of: (please circle one)

Divers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Anglers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Fishermen using pots in the closed area? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Fishermen using mid water (pelagic) trawls in the closed Increased / decreased / stayed the area? same

Please feel free to comment on the statements above: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

33. Have any other circumstances influenced the way in which you have fished in the last year? Yes / No

If yes, please indicate these circumstances …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

34. Are there any other advantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

35. Are there any other disadvantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Socio-demographic questions

The following questions are required to validate the study. Your cooperation in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Please remember that the answers are anonymous and confidential, and only aggregated data will be used for the project. . 36. Size of your household: …………………. People

37. Age a) 18-24 d) 45-54 b) 25-34 e) 55-64 c) 35-44 f) Over 65 (circle as applicable)

38. Your nationality …………………………………………

39. What is the highest form of education that you have completed? (circle as applicable)

a) Primary d) Higher education (university) b) Secondary e) Postgraduate c) Further education (Vocational, Technical training, A level) f) Other (specify) ……….

Thank you for taking part in this survey. We will be following up this survey in 2009 and 2010 in an attempt to find out how the 60 square mile closure in Lyme Bay is affecting the fishing industry and to make recommendations for future marine protected area planning in the UK.

If you would be happy to participate in the next round of surveys, please could you supply a telephone number and e-mail address for future correspondence. Please be assured that your details will remain completely confidential.

Name: E-mail: Telephone:

Please could you recommend another fisher to contact? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you have any comments on the survey? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your cooperation

Sea angling Survey

(Please return completed questionnaire to Dr Stephen Mangi, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH) Date: ……………… Your name:…………………………. Do you belong to a fishing association / club? Yes / No Name of association / club:……………… Your post code: ……………………

Costs

1. On average, how many angling trips do you take each year ….…. trips

2. Of your total angling trips this year, how many have been to Lyme Bay? ...... trips

3. Is this more or less than last year? ………………more / less / same (please circle one) If it is either more or less, can you please briefly explain what has influenced this change?

……………………………………………….………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

4. Please indicate the percentage of your angling trips to Lyme Bay this year which were: Shore based…………… Boat based …………….

5. Of your boat based angling trips, did you: Hire a boat? …………. Use your own? ………………….

6. Of your angling trips how many were to the Lyme Bay closed area (see map)?………………..

7. Is this more or less than last year? more / less / same (please circle one) If it is either more or less, can you please briefly explain what has influenced this change ………………………………………………………….……………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. On average, how long have your angling trips to Lyme Bay been this year?……………….days

9. Approximately, what has been the average cost per day of your angling trips to Lyme Bay this year (including fuel, accommodation, transport, parking, tackle and bait, and any other cost you may have incurred)? Shore based angling …………………………. Boat based angling …………………………………

10. Do you buy bait and tackle locally? Yes / No If yes, please give the name of shop and average spend per visit Shop name:……………………… Average spend: £…………………

11. Do you collect bait yourself? Yes / No If yes, please can you give details ………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 93

Catch

12. What are your main target species? Please give names: ……………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Fishing sites

13. Using the enclosed map of Lyme Bay, could you identify the sites where you fished in 2008? Please could you give an indication of the frequency of visits to each site using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = a site you rarely visit and 5 = a site you visit frequently.

Your views

14. How many years have you been fishing in Lyme Bay?...... years

15. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Please circle one)

a) The closed area protects marine biodiversity within the 60 square miles 1 2 3 4 5 b) The closed area benefits wider marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay 1 2 3 4 5 c) The closed area should only exclude scallop dredgers and heavy seabed 1 2 3 4 5 trawling gear d) The closed area should exclude all extractive activities (including scallop 1 2 3 4 5 diving, angling, pots) e) Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 = little or no benefit and 5 = a large benefit please indicate your opinion on how much each of these stakeholder groups currently benefit (financially and non-financially) from the 60 square mile closed area. (Please circle one)

17. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision to fish in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

18. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision as to where you fish in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

19. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly against and 5 = strongly support, to what extent do you support or not support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Please answer the following questions if you have fished in the Lyme Bay closed area this year.

20. Have you noticed any changes in the number of: (please circle one)

Divers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same

Anglers operating in the closed area in the last Increased / decreased / stayed the same year? Fishermen using pots in the closed area? Increased / decreased / stayed the same

Fishermen using mid water (pelagic) trawls in the Increased / decreased / stayed the same closed area?

21. Are there any other advantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

22. Are there any other disadvantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Socio-demographic questions

23. Gender a) Male b) Female (circle as applicable)

24. Age a) 18-24 d) 45-54 b) 25-34 e) 55-64 c) 35-44 f) Over 65 (circle as applicable)

25. Your nationality …………………………………………

26. What is the highest form of education that you have completed? (circle as applicable)

a) Primary d) Higher education (university) b) Secondary e) Postgraduate c) Further education (Vocational, Technical training, A level) f) Other (specify) ……….

Thank you for taking part in this survey. We will be following up this survey in 2009 and 2010 in an attempt to find out how the 60 square mile closure in Lyme Bay is affecting the recreation industry and to make recommendations for future marine protected area planning in the UK.

Name: E-mail: Telephone:

Please could you recommend another angler to contact? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your cooperation

Charter Boat Operator Survey

(Please return completed questionnaire to Dr Stephen Mangi, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH) Date:…………..… Your details

1. Interviewee name:…………………………… Post code ……………………………….

2. Boat name and length:…………………………..

3. Home port:…………………………………….

Description of your business

4. How many years have you been running your business in Lyme Bay? ...... years

5. How many people are employed in your business………………….. …… staff

6. On average, how many trips do you do in one year? ………………….trips

7. How many of the following trips did you do this year?

Activity Total Number Number in Average charter Average number number of in Lyme closed area price of people per trip trips Bay Angling Diving Other

8. Please indicate your turnover in £. Less than 15,000 16,000 – 20,000 21,000 – 25,000 26,000 – 30,000 31,000 – 35,000 Over 35,000

9. What percentage of turnover is: Angling ………………. Diving ………………….. Other (specify) …………………….

10. Please could you indicate your operating costs as a percentage of your turnover? …......

11. Do you publicise the closed area in Lyme Bay for marketing purposes? (Please circle one) Yes / No

12. Do you usually ask your customers for feedback after their trip? Yes / No If yes, how has your customer‟s quality of experience changed since the closed area was established? Increased / decreased / stayed same

13. How have the following changed for your business since 2007? (Please circle one and provide an estimate of the percentage change)

a. Turnover? increased / decreased / stayed the same % b. The number of divers increased / decreased / stayed the same % c. The number of anglers increased / decreased / stayed the same %

14. What are the reasons for the changes? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Location of dive / fishing sites

15. Using the enclosed map of Lyme Bay, could you identify the sites where your clients visited this year? Please could you give an indication of the frequency of visits to each site using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = a site you rarely visit and 5 = a site you visit frequently.

Your views

16. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Please circle one)

a) The closed area protects marine biodiversity within the 60 square 1 2 3 4 5 miles b) The closed area benefits wider marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay 1 2 3 4 5

c) The closed area should only exclude scallop dredgers and heavy 1 2 3 4 5 seabed trawling gear d) The closed area should exclude all extractive activities (including 1 2 3 4 5 scallop diving, angling, pots)

17. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 = little or no benefit and 5 = a large benefit please indicate your opinion on how much each of these stakeholder groups currently benefit (financially and non-financially) from the 60 square mile closed area. (Please circle one)

Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

18. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your business this year? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

19. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly against and 5 = strongly support, to what extent do you support or not support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

20. Have you noticed any changes in the number of: (please circle one)

Divers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Anglers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased /decreased / stayed the same Fishermen using pots in the closed area? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Fishermen using mid water (pelagic) trawls in the closed Increased / decreased / stayed the area? same

Socio-demographic questions

23) Gender a) Male b) Female (circle as applicable)

24) Age a) 18-24 d) 45-54 b) 25-34 e) 55-64 c) 35-44 f) Over 65 (circle as applicable)

25) Your nationality …………………………………………

26) What is the highest form of education that you have completed? (circle as applicable)

a) Primary d) Higher education (university) b) Secondary e) Postgraduate c) Further education (Vocational, Technical training, A level) f) Other (specify) ……….

Name: E-mail: Telephone:

Please could you recommend another charter boat operator to contact? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your cooperation

100

Dive Business Survey

(Please return completed questionnaire to Dr Stephen Mangi, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH)

Date…………. Business name: ……………………. Interviewee name: …………………. Post code ……………………………

Description of your business

1. How many years have you been running your business in Lyme Bay? ...... years

2. What services does your business provide? Equipment sales (in store) …………….. Equipment sales (online)………. Equipment hire …………. Training courses ………………… Dive trips ……………………. Boat charter ……………………… Other (specify) ……………………

3. Could you please provide the following details? Number of staff employed by your business (full time)……………… (part time)….. …….. Average price per dive (all inclusive e.g. boat, kit etc) ……………………….. Average price of a dive course ……………………… Average number of divers per trip (shore) …………… (boat)……… ……….. Number of divers qualified in the last year………………...... Number of divers taken on dive trips each year………………………

4. Please indicate your annual turnover in £. < 50,000 51,000 - 100,000 101,000 -150,000 151-000 – 200-000 201,000-250,000 251,000 – 300,000 over 300, 000

5. Approximately, what is your percentage turnover from: Equipment sales (in store)…………….. Equipment sales (online)…….. Dive trips ………………. Equipment hire ………………… Boat charter …………………… School/training…………………. Servicing ………………………. Other (specify) …………………………

6. Please could you indicate your operating costs as a percentage of your turnover?......

7. How have the following changed for your business since 2007:

a) Turnover? Increased / Decreased? % b) The number of students learning to dive? Increased / Decreased? % c) The number of divers on dive trips Increased / Decreased? % d) Total staff number? Increased / Decreased? %

101

What are the reasons for the changes? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. Do you publicise the closed area in Lyme Bay for marketing purposes? (Please circle one) Yes / No

9. Do you usually ask your customers for feedback after their trip? Yes / No If yes, using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = rarely and 5 = very frequently indicate how frequently your customers mention the closed area as a reason for visiting Lyme Bay. (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5 Location of dive sites

10. Using the enclosed map of Lyme Bay, could you identify the sites where your clients dived this year? Please could you give an indication of the frequency of visits to each site using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = a site you rarely visit and 5 = a site you visit frequently.

Your views

11. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Please circle one)

a) The closed area protects marine biodiversity within the 60 square 1 2 3 4 5 miles b) The closed area benefits wider marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay 1 2 3 4 5

12. On a scale of 1-5 where 1= little or no benefit and 5= a large benefit please indicate your opinion on how much each of these stakeholder groups currently benefit (financially and non-financially) from the 60 square mile closed area. (Please circle one)

102

13. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your business this year? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

14. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision as to where you take divers in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5 15. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly against and 5 = strongly support, to what extent do you support or not support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

Please answer the following questions if you have taken clients to the Lyme Bay closed area this year.

16. Have you noticed any changes in the number of: (please circle one) a) Divers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same b) Anglers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same c) Fishermen using pots in the closed area? Increased / decreased / stayed the same d) Fishermen using mid water (pelagic) trawls in the closed Increased / decreased / stayed the area? same

Please feel free to comment on the statements above: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

17. Are there any other advantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

18. Are there any other disadvantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

103

Socio-demographic questions

19) Gender a) Male b) Female (circle as applicable)

20) Age a) 18-24 d) 45-54 b) 25-34 e) 55-64 c) 35-44 f) Over 65 (circle as applicable)

21) Your nationality …………………………………………

22) What is the highest form of education that you have completed? (circle as applicable)

a) Primary d) Higher education (university) b) Secondary e) Postgraduate c) Further education (Vocational, Technical training, A level) f) Other (specify) ……….

Name: E-mail: Telephone:

Do you have any comments on this survey? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your cooperation

104

Divers Survey

(Please return completed questionnaire to Dr Stephen Mangi, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH)

Date: …………… Your name:………………………… Post code ……………………….. Name of your club:……………………………..

Diving in Lyme Bay

1. On average, how many dive trips do you take each year ….……. . trips

2. How many dive trips have you made to Lyme Bay this year?......

3. Is this more or less than last year? more / less / same (please circle one) If it is either more or less, can you please briefly explain what has influenced this change ………………………………………….……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. On average how many other divers have been with you on your diving trip(s) to Lyme Bay this year?......

5. What, approximately, has been your average cost per dive in Lyme Bay this year (including fuel, equipment hire, and any other expenses you may have incurred)?......

6. On average, how long have your trips to Lyme Bay been this year?………………………days

7. What, approximately, has been the average cost of your diving trips to Lyme Bay this year (including transport, accommodation, food and drink)? £…………………………

8. During the visits you have made to Lyme Bay this year, how often have you / your club hired a boat through: a) A private charter …………………… (please record the number of times) b) A dive club boat …………………… (please record the number of times) c) Use your own club‟s boat …………… (please record the number of times) d) Others (e.g. shore dives only) …… (please record the number of times)

Location of dive sites

9. Using the enclosed map of Lyme Bay, could you identify the sites where you / your club dived this year? Please could you give an indication of the frequency of visits to each site using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = a site you rarely visit and 5 = a site you visit frequently.

Your views

10. How many years have you been diving in Lyme Bay?...... years

105

11. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Please circle one)

a) The closed area protects marine biodiversity within the 60 square 1 2 3 4 5 miles b) The closed area benefits wider marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay 1 2 3 4 5

12. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 = little or no benefit and 5 = a large benefit please indicate your opinion on how much each of these stakeholder groups currently benefit (financially and non-financially) from the 60 square mile closed area. (Please circle one)

Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above: ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

13. How did you become aware of the closed area in Lyme Bay? ……………………………

14. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision to dive in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

15. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your decision as to where you dive in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

16. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly against and 5 = strongly support, to what extent do you support or not support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

106

Please answer the following questions if you have dived in the Lyme Bay closed area this year.

17. Have you noticed any changes in the number of: (please circle one)

Divers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Anglers operating in the closed area in the last year? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Fishermen using pots in the closed area? Increased / decreased / stayed the same Fishermen using mid water (pelagic) trawls in the Increased / decreased / stayed the same closed area?

18. Are there any other advantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

19. Are there any other disadvantages of the closed area that have not been asked about elsewhere on this questionnaire? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

107

Socio-demographic questions

20. Gender a) Male b) Female (circle as applicable)

21. Age a) 18-24 d) 45-54 b) 25-34 e) 55-64 c) 35-44 f) Over 65 (circle as applicable)

22. Your nationality …………………………………………

23. What is the highest form of education that you have completed? (circle as applicable)

a) Primary d) Higher education (university) b) Secondary e) Postgraduate c) Further education (Vocational, Technical training, A level) f) Other (specify) ……….

Name: E-mail: Telephone:

Please could you recommend another diver to contact? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your cooperation

108

Local Hotels Survey

(Please return completed questionnaire to Dr Stephen Mangi, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH) Date…………. Business name: ……………………. Interviewee name: …………………. Post code ……………………………

Description of your business

1. How many years have you been running your business in Lyme Bay? ...... years

2. What services does your business provide? Bed and breakfast …………….. Camping …………………… Other (specify) …………………

3. Could you please provide the following details? Number of staff employed by your business (full time)……………… (part time)….. …….. Number of rooms in your hotel ………………………… Average price per person per day ………………………..

4. Please indicate your annual turnover in £. < 50,000 51,000 - 100,000 101,000 -150,000 151-000 – 200-000 201,000-250,000 251,000 – 300,000 over 300, 000

5. Please could you indicate your operating costs as a percentage of your turnover?......

6. How have the following changed for your business since Increased / % 2008: Decreased? a) Turnover? b) The number of guests who stay in your hotel?

What are the reasons for these changes? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. Do you publicise the closed area in Lyme Bay for marketing purposes? (Please circle one) Yes / No

8. Do you usually ask your customers for feedback after their trip? Yes / No If yes, using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = rarely and 5 = very frequently indicate how frequently your customers mention the closed area as a reason for visiting Lyme Bay. (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

109

Your views

9. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Please circle one)

a) The closed area protects marine biodiversity within the 60 square 1 2 3 4 5 miles b) The closed area benefits wider marine biodiversity in Lyme Bay 1 2 3 4 5

Please feel free to comment on any of the statements above: ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5 = a large effect, how much has the closure affected your business this year? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

12. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly against and 5 = strongly support, to what extent do you support or not support the closed area policy in Lyme Bay? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

110

Socio-demographic questions

16) Gender a) Male b) Female (circle as applicable)

17) Age a) 18-24 d) 45-54 b) 25-34 e) 55-64 c) 35-44 f) Over 65 (circle as applicable)

18) Your nationality …………………………………………

19) What is the highest form of education that you have completed? (circle as applicable)

a) Primary d) Higher education (university) b) Secondary e) Postgraduate c) Further education (Vocational, Technical training, A level) f) Other (specify) ……….

Name: E-mail: Telephone:

Thank you for your cooperation

111

Fish processors and merchants

1. Last year you mentioned that you had seen no difference in your business since the closure of part of Lyme Bay to scallop dredging and heavy trawling gear. Is the situation still the same?

If yes, go to question 8. If no, go to question 2.

2. Where are you getting scallops from now?

3. How much are you paying for these scallops and what volume are you purchasing?

4. How has this affected the turnover of your business?

5. How has it affected employment?

6. What other changes have occurred as a consequence of the closure of LB?

7. What is your business doing to overcome any difficulties arising?

8. When we spoke last year you said that about X% of your scallops came from LB, is this still the same?

9. How many Kg is this, approx? (You might get an answer in dozens)

Has this volume changed since the closure of LB?

10. How much are you paying for LB scallops now?

Has this changed at all since the closure? Why?

11. Can you get the quantity that you want from LB?

12. Last year you mentioned that you purchase your scallops directly from the fishermen.

Are you still using the same ones?

Do you still buy from other processors?

13. Have you noticed any difference in the quality of the scallops you now get from Lyme Bay?

If yes, what has changed and why do you think this is?

14. Has the overall volume of scallops that you are

112 processing changed since this time last year? Why?

15. If yes, has this had any impact on your business?

How has it affected turnover? And employment? What is your business doing to overcome any difficulties arising?

16. To summarise, have you noticed any changes to your business that can be specifically attributed to the closure of Lyme Bay (rather than other factors)? If yes, what?

17. What is the opinion of your business about the closure of marine areas to particular fishing activities?

18. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Once finished, thank the interviewee for their time. Also ask if they would be able to share any data that would support their statements.

113

2D. Extended results of recreational users

Sea anglers i) Number of years that each respondent had been fishing as a sea angler

2008 (n = 52) 16 2009 (n = 17) 14 2010 (n = 31) 12 10 8 6 4

Numberof respondents 2 0 < 5 6_10 11_15 16-20 21_25 26_30 31_35 36_40 41_45 46_50

ii) Proportion of trips by sea anglers that were boat-based and those that were shore- based.

90 Shore based Boat based 80

40 Trips, % Trips, 30

0 2008 2009 2010

114 iii) Changes in cost (£) of angling trips and bait incurred by sea anglers to Lyme Bay

70 Cost of shore

Cost of boat based 60

Cost of angling trips, £ 20

0 2008 2009 2010

10 Amount spent buying bait, £ 5

0 2008 2009 2010

115

Charter Boat Operators i) Number of years respondents that were charter boat operators had been conducting their business in Lyme Bay

5 2008 2009 2010 4

Numberof years 1

0 < 5 6_10 11_15 16_20 21_25 26_30 31_35 36_40

ii) Mean turnover of charter boat operators that took part in the three surveys

2008 6 2009 2010 5

1 Number of Charter Operators Charter of Number 0 Less than £16,000 - £21,000 - £26,000 - £31,000 - £36,000 - £41,000 - £51,000 - £15,000 £20,000 £25,000 £30,000 £35,000 £40,000 £50,000 £60,000

116

Divers i) Number of years respondents have been diving in Lyme Bay 2008 20 2009 18 2010 16 14 12 10 8

6 Numberof divers 4 2 0 < 5 6_10 11_15 16_20 21_25 26_30 31_35 36_40 41_45

ii) The cost per dive and the cost per trip in 2008, 2009 and 2010 that respondents indicated they paid.

Cost per dive 200 180 Cost per trip 160 140 120 100

Cost,£ 80 60 40 20 0 2008 2009 2010

117

Hotel owners i) Respondent education level

ii) Age category of repspondents

118 ii) Characteristics of the responding businesses

119