Lyme Bay - a Case Study: Measuring Recovery of Benthic Species, Assessing Potential Spill-Over Effects and Socio-Economic Changes 2 Years After the Closure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 2 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. 4 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 .....................................................................................