OpenLegislation

Commission Implementing Decision of 11 December 2013 confirming measures proposed by the United Kingdom for the protection of marine ecosystems in the areas of conservation Haisborough Hammond & Winterton; Start Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone, and Land's End & Cape Bank (notified under document C(2013) 9003) (Only the Dutch, English and French texts are authentic) (2014/13/EU)

EU Decision 2014/13 · Adopted 11 December 2013 · Extends to United Kingdom

Original text. legislation.gov.uk does not revise this item, so later amendments are not shown here. Changes made to it are listed under each provision when known.

Commission Implementing Decision

of 11 December 2013

confirming measures proposed by the United Kingdom for the protection of marine ecosystems in the areas of conservation Haisborough Hammond & Winterton; Start Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone, and Land's End & Cape Bank

(notified under document C(2013) 9003)

(Only the Dutch, English and French texts are authentic)

(2014/13/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policyf1, and in particular Article 9 in conjunction with Article 8(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and floraf2 provides for the possibility to designate at EU level specific conservation sites. Under Articles 3 and 4, that Directive requires Member States to establish special areas of conservation and, under Article 6 thereof, to take the necessary measures to protect these sites from disturbance and deterioration.

(2)

By Commission Implementing Decision 2012/13/EUf3 the areas called Haisborough, Hammond & Winterton (UK0030369), Start Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone (UK0030373) and Land's End & Cape Bank (UK0030375) were included in the list of Sites of Community Importance under Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

(3)

Measures concerning the conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources are subject to the rules of the common fisheries policy.

(4)

Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 enables Member States to take non-discriminatory measures to minimise the effect of fishing on the conservation of marine ecosystems within 12 nautical miles, provided that the Union has not adopted measures addressing conservation or management specifically for that area. Directive 92/43/EEC requires the establishment of conservation measures as necessary for these sites. The Member States’ measures must be compatible with the objectives of the common fisheries policy as set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and no less stringent than existing Union legislation. If the measures apply to fishing vessels from other Member States, they must be notified to the Commission, to the Member States and to the Regional Advisory Councils concerned and be subsequently confirmed by the Commission.

(5)

On 18 November 2013 the United Kingdom notified the measures it intends to take in the above three areas of conservation to Belgium and France, which are the Member States concerned by the measures, as well as to the North Sea Regional Advisory Council, the North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council and to the European Commission.

(6)

The measures put forward on the basis of Directive 92/43/EEC by the United Kingdom establish a zoning of the three areas of conservation, and the prohibition to use any bottom towed fishing gear within specified areas in each of the three designated areas of conservation. For the purposes of the measures addressed by this Decision, the United Kingdom defines bottom towed gear as any fishing gear pushed or pulled through the water which touches the seabed. This includes demersal otter trawls, demersal beam trawls and towed and suction dredges.

(7)

The measures proposed by the United Kingdom aim to contribute to the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC and are compatible with the objectives set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, in particular with the precautionary approach to be followed in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Annotations to the whole text

Footnotes

f1

OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

f2

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

f3

OJ L 11, 13.1.2012, p. 1.

Contents

  1. 1Article 1
  2. 2Article 2
  3. Signature
  4. Annex EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON THE NOTIFICATION OF THREE BYELAWS TO PROHIBIT BOTTOM TOWED FISHING GEAR IN SPECIFIED AREAS IN UK TERRITORIAL WATERS
  5. 1INTRODUCTION
  6. EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK
  7. 2.1Article 9 of Reg. 2371/2002 (Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation)
  8. 2.2Access to UK territorial waters
  9. ENGLISH LEGAL FRAMEWORK
  10. 3.1Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MaCCA)
  11. 3.2Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations)
  12. 4THE REVISED APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN EUROPEAN MARINE SITES (NATURA 2000 SITES)
  13. 5PROPOSED MEASURES
  14. 6ENFORCEMENT OF MEASURES
  15. 7CONSULTATION OF RELEVANT MEMBER STATES, REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS, AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
  16. 7.1Consultation dates
  17. 7.2Responses to public consultation and MMO replies
  18. 7.3Correspondence between the UK and the European Commission
  19. ANNEX I
  20. THE LANDS END AND CAPE BANK EUROPEAN MARINE SITE (SPECIFIED AREA) BOTTOM TOWED FISHING GEAR BYELAW
  21. Interpretation
  22. 1Division 1
  23. Prohibition
  24. 2Division 2
  25. Exemption for Scientific, Stocking or Breeding Purposes
  26. 3Division 3
  27. Citation
  28. 4Division 4
  29. Ls
  30. EDULEDefinition of Cape Bank
  31. Explanatory Note
  32. Division
  33. Division
  34. Division
  35. Division
  36. ANNEX II
  37. THE START POINT TO PLYMOUTH SOUND AND EDDYSTONE EUROPEAN MARINE SITE (SPECIFIED AREAS) BOTTOM TOWED FISHING GEAR BYELAW
  38. Interpretation
  39. 1In this byelaw:
  40. Prohibition
  41. 2Division 2
  42. Exemption for Scientific, Stocking or Breeding Purposes
  43. 3Division 3
  44. Citation
  45. 4Division 4
  46. Ls
  47. EDULEDefinitions of Hatt Rock and Brentons
  48. Explanatory Note
  49. Division
  50. Division
  51. Division
  52. Division
  53. ANNEX III
  54. THE HAISBOROUGH HAMMOND AND WINTERTON EUROPEAN MARINE SITE (SPECIFIED AREAS) BOTTOM TOWED FISHING GEAR BYELAW
  55. Interpretation
  56. 1Division 1
  57. Prohibition
  58. 2Division 2
  59. Exemption for Scientific, Stocking or Breeding Purposes
  60. 3Division 3
  61. Citation
  62. 4Division 4
  63. Ls
  64. EDULEDefinitions of Area 1 and Area 2
  65. Explanatory Note
  66. Division
  67. Division
  68. Division
  69. Division
  70. ANNEX IV
  71. EVIDENCE BASE
  72. Introduction
  73. 1.1Division 1.1
  74. 1.2Division 1.2
  75. 1.3Division 1.3
  76. 1.4Division 1.4
  77. 1.5Division 1.5
  78. 1.6Division 1.6
  79. 1.7Division 1.7
  80. 1.8Division 1.8
  81. Rationale for intervention
  82. 2.1Division 2.1
  83. 2.2Division 2.2
  84. 2.3Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive require that, within special areas of conservation (SACs) and special protection areas (SPAs), member states shall:
  85. 2.4Division 2.4
  86. 2.5Division 2.5
  87. 2.6Division 2.6
  88. 2.7Division 2.7
  89. 2.8Division 2.8
  90. 2.9Market failures occur when market does not deliver an efficient outcome. In the context of the marine environment these failures can be described as:
  91. 2.10Division 2.10
  92. Policy objectives and intended effects
  93. 3.1Division 3.1
  94. 3.2Division 3.2
  95. 3.3The conservation objectives of this site are:
  96. 3.4Division 3.4
  97. The options
  98. 4.1Division 4.1
  99. 4.1.1Option 1: Do nothing
  100. 4.1.2Option 2: Voluntary agreement
  101. 4.1.3Option 3: MMO byelaw prohibiting bottom towed gear throughout the SCI (‘full site closure’)
  102. 4.1.4Option 4: MMO byelaw to prohibit bottom towed gears over Sabellaria spinulosa reef features with appropriate buffering (‘zoned management’).
  103. 4.1.5Management of activity through a statutory instrument, regulating order or fishing licence condition
  104. Recommended Option:
  105. 4.2.1Division 4.2.1
  106. 4.2.2Division 4.2.2
  107. Evidence base
  108. 5.1Division 5.1
  109. 5.2Bedrock reef feature distribution
  110. Sectors affected
  111. 6.1Division 6.1
  112. 6.2Division 6.2
  113. 6.3Division 6.3
  114. Analysis of costs and benefits
  115. Costs for recommended option
  116. 7.1.1Division 7.1.1
  117. 7.1.2Division 7.1.2
  118. Analysis of fisheries costs
  119. 7.2.1Division 7.2.1
  120. 7.3Uncertainty and data assumptions
  121. 7.3.1Division 7.3.1
  122. 7.3.2Division 7.3.2
  123. 7.3.3Division 7.3.3
  124. 7.3.4Division 7.3.4
  125. 7.4Fishing activities within Land’s End and Cape Bank SCI
  126. 7.4.1Division 7.4.1
  127. 7.4.2Division 7.4.2
  128. 7.4.3Division 7.4.3
  129. 7.4.4Division 7.4.4
  130. 7.4.5Division 7.4.5
  131. 7.4.6Division 7.4.6
  132. Valuation of affected landings
  133. United Kingdom
  134. 7.5.1Division 7.5.1
  135. 7.5.2Division 7.5.2
  136. 7.5.3Division 7.5.3
  137. 7.5.4Division 7.5.4
  138. 7.5.5Division 7.5.5
  139. France and Belgium
  140. 7.5.6Division 7.5.6
  141. 7.5.7Division 7.5.7
  142. 7.5.8Division 7.5.8
  143. Likely effects on fishing fleet from closure
  144. 7.6.1Division 7.6.1
  145. Adaptability
  146. 7.7.1Division 7.7.1
  147. 7.7.2Division 7.7.2
  148. 7.7.3Division 7.7.3
  149. 7.7.4Division 7.7.4
  150. Indirect costs
  151. 7.8.1Environmental costs
  152. Administrative and enforcement costs
  153. 7.9.1Division 7.9.1
  154. 7.9.2Division 7.9.2
  155. Benefits of recommended option
  156. 7.10.1Division 7.10.1
  157. Environmental benefits
  158. 7.11.1Division 7.11.1
  159. 7.11.2Division 7.11.2
  160. 7.11.3Division 7.11.3
  161. 7.11.4Division 7.11.4
  162. 7.11.5Division 7.11.5
  163. 7.11.6Division 7.11.6
  164. Socio-economic benefits
  165. 7.12.1Division 7.12.1
  166. 7.12.2Division 7.12.2
  167. Distribution of costs and benefits
  168. 7.13.1Division 7.13.1
  169. Annex A: Notes of UK fishery statistics data extraction and tables
  170. Annex B: Notes of Non-UK fishery statistics data
  171. ANALYSIS OF NON-UK VESSEL VMS ACTIVITY IN ICES RECTANGLES COVERING THE SCI RELATING TO THIS IMPACT ASSESMENT
  172. Methodology used:
  173. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY BY BELGIAN AND FRENCH VESSELS IN ICES RECTANGLE 29E4 COVERING THE LANDS END AND CAPE BANK SITE
  174. ANNEX V
  175. EVIDENCE BASE
  176. Introduction
  177. 1.1Division 1.1
  178. 1.2Division 1.2
  179. 1.3Division 1.3
  180. 1.4Division 1.4
  181. 1.5Division 1.5
  182. 1.6Division 1.6
  183. 1.7Division 1.7
  184. 1.8Division 1.8
  185. Rationale for intervention
  186. 2.1Division 2.1
  187. 2.2Division 2.2
  188. 2.3Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive require that, within special areas of conservation (SACs) and special protection areas (SPAs), member states shall:
  189. 2.4Division 2.4
  190. 2.5Division 2.5
  191. 2.6Division 2.6
  192. 2.7Division 2.7
  193. 2.8Division 2.8
  194. 2.9Market failures occur when the market does not deliver an efficient outcome. In the context of the marine environment these failures can be described as:
  195. 2.10Division 2.10
  196. Policy objectives and intended effects
  197. 3.1Division 3.1
  198. 3.2Division 3.2
  199. 3.3The conservation objectives of this site are:
  200. 3.4Division 3.4
  201. The options
  202. 4.1Division 4.1
  203. 4.1.1Option 1: Do nothing
  204. 4.1.2Option 2: Voluntary agreement
  205. 4.1.3Option 3: MMO byelaw prohibiting bottom towed gear throughout the SCI (‘full site closure’)
  206. 4.1.4Option 4: MMO byelaw to prohibit bottom towed gears over Sabellaria spinulosa reef features with appropriate buffering (‘zoned management’).
  207. 4.1.5Option 5: Management of activity through a statutory instrument, regulating order or fishing licence condition
  208. Recommended Option:
  209. 4.2.1Division 4.2.1
  210. 4.2.2Division 4.2.2
  211. Evidence Base
  212. Impacts of bottom towed gear activity on bedrock reef
  213. 5.1.1Division 5.1.1
  214. 5.2Bedrock reef feature distribution
  215. Sectors affected
  216. 6.1Division 6.1
  217. 6.2Division 6.2
  218. 6.3Division 6.3
  219. Analysis of costs and benefits
  220. Costs for recommended option
  221. 7.1.1Division 7.1.1
  222. 7.1.2Division 7.1.2
  223. Analysis of fisheries costs
  224. 7.2.1Division 7.2.1
  225. Uncertainty and data assumptions
  226. 7.3.1Division 7.3.1
  227. 7.3.2Division 7.3.2
  228. 7.3.3Division 7.3.3
  229. 7.3.4Division 7.3.4
  230. 7.4Fishing activities within Start Point to Plymouth Sound and Eddystone SCI
  231. 7.4.1Division 7.4.1
  232. 7.4.2Division 7.4.2
  233. 7.4.3Division 7.4.3
  234. 7.4.4Division 7.4.4
  235. 7.4.5Division 7.4.5
  236. 7.4.6Division 7.4.6
  237. 7.4.7Division 7.4.7
  238. Valuation of affected landings
  239. United Kingdom
  240. 7.5.1Division 7.5.1
  241. 7.5.2Division 7.5.2
  242. 7.5.3Division 7.5.3
  243. 7.5.4Division 7.5.4
  244. 7.5.5Division 7.5.5
  245. France and Belgium
  246. 7.5.6Division 7.5.6
  247. 7.5.7Division 7.5.7
  248. Likely effects on fishing fleet from closure
  249. 7.6.1Division 7.6.1
  250. Adaptability
  251. 7.7.1Division 7.7.1
  252. 7.7.2Division 7.7.2
  253. 7.7.3Division 7.7.3
  254. 7.7.4Division 7.7.4
  255. Indirect costs
  256. Environmental costs
  257. 7.8.2Division 7.8.2
  258. 7.8.3Division 7.8.3
  259. Administrative and enforcement costs
  260. 7.9.1Division 7.9.1
  261. 7.9.2Division 7.9.2
  262. Benefits of recommended option
  263. 7.10.1Division 7.10.1
  264. Environmental benefits
  265. 7.11.1Division 7.11.1
  266. 7.11.2Division 7.11.2
  267. 7.11.3Division 7.11.3
  268. 7.11.4Division 7.11.4
  269. 7.11.5Division 7.11.5
  270. 7.11.6Division 7.11.6
  271. Socio-economic benefits
  272. 7.12.1Division 7.12.1
  273. 7.12.2Division 7.12.2
  274. Distribution of costs and benefits
  275. 7.13.1Division 7.13.1
  276. Annex A: Notes of UK fishery statistics data extraction and tables
  277. Annex B: Notes of Non-UK fishery statistics data
  278. ANALYSIS OF NON-UK VESSEL VMS ACTIVITY IN ICES RECTANGLES COVERING THE SCI RELATING TO THIS IMPACT ASSESMENT
  279. Methodology used:
  280. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY BY BELGIAN AND FRENCH VESSELS IN ICES RECTANGLES 29E5 & 29E6 COVERING PLYMOUTH SOUND, START POINT AND EDDYSTONE SITE
  281. ANNEX VI
  282. EVIDENCE BASE
  283. Introduction
  284. 1.1Division 1.1
  285. 1.2Division 1.2
  286. 1.3Division 1.3
  287. 1.4Division 1.4
  288. 1.5Division 1.5
  289. 1.6Division 1.6
  290. 1.7Division 1.7
  291. Rationale for intervention
  292. 2.1Division 2.1
  293. 2.2Division 2.2
  294. 2.3Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive require that, within special areas of conservation (SACs) and special protection areas (SPAs), member states:
  295. 2.4Division 2.4
  296. 2.5Division 2.5
  297. 2.6Division 2.6
  298. 2.7Division 2.7
  299. 2.8Division 2.8
  300. 2.9Market failures occur when the market does not deliver an efficient outcome. In the context of the marine environment these failures can be described as:
  301. 2.10Division 2.10
  302. Policy objectives and intended effects
  303. 3.1Division 3.1
  304. 3.2Division 3.2
  305. 3.3The conservation objectives of this site are:
  306. 3.4Division 3.4
  307. The options
  308. 4.1Division 4.1
  309. 4.1.1Option 1: Do nothing
  310. 4.1.2Option 2: Voluntary agreement
  311. 4.1.3Option 3: MMO byelaw prohibiting bottom towed gear throughout the SCI (‘full site closure’)
  312. 4.1.4Option 4: MMO byelaw to prohibit bottom towed gears over Sabellaria spinulosa reef features with appropriate buffering (‘zoned management’).
  313. 4.1.5Management of activity through a statutory instrument, regulating order or fishing licence condition
  314. Recommended option:
  315. 4.2.1Division 4.2.1
  316. 4.2.2Division 4.2.2
  317. Evidence Base
  318. 5.1Impacts of bottom towed gear activity on Sabellaria spinulosa reef:
  319. 5.2Reef distribution
  320. Sectors affected
  321. 6.1Division 6.1
  322. 6.2Division 6.2
  323. 6.3Division 6.3
  324. Analysis of costs and benefits
  325. Costs for recommended option
  326. 7.1.1Division 7.1.1
  327. 7.1.2Division 7.1.2
  328. Analysis of fisheries costs
  329. 7.2.1Division 7.2.1
  330. Uncertainty and data assumptions
  331. 7.3.1Division 7.3.1
  332. 7.3.2Division 7.3.2
  333. 7.3.3Division 7.3.3
  334. 7.3.4Division 7.3.4
  335. 7.4Fishing activities within Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton SCI
  336. 7.4.1Division 7.4.1
  337. 7.4.2Division 7.4.2
  338. 7.4.3Division 7.4.3
  339. 7.4.4Division 7.4.4
  340. 7.4.5Division 7.4.5
  341. 7.4.6Division 7.4.6
  342. 7.4.7Division 7.4.7
  343. Valuation of affected landings
  344. United Kingdom
  345. 7.5.1Division 7.5.1
  346. 7.5.2Division 7.5.2
  347. 7.5.3Division 7.5.3
  348. 7.5.4Division 7.5.4
  349. 7.5.5Division 7.5.5
  350. Belgium
  351. 7.5.6Division 7.5.6
  352. 7.5.7Division 7.5.7
  353. 7.5.8Division 7.5.8
  354. Likely effects on fishing fleet from closure
  355. 7.6.1Division 7.6.1
  356. 7.6.2Division 7.6.2
  357. Adaptability
  358. 7.7.1Division 7.7.1
  359. 7.7.2Division 7.7.2
  360. 7.7.3Division 7.7.3
  361. 7.7.4Division 7.7.4
  362. Indirect costs
  363. Environmental costs
  364. 7.8.2Division 7.8.2
  365. 7.8.3Division 7.8.3
  366. Administrative and enforcement costs
  367. 7.9.1Division 7.9.1
  368. 7.9.2Division 7.9.2
  369. Benefits of recommended option
  370. 7.10.1Division 7.10.1
  371. Environmental benefits
  372. 7.11.1Division 7.11.1
  373. 7.11.2Division 7.11.2
  374. 7.11.3Division 7.11.3
  375. 7.11.4Division 7.11.4
  376. 7.11.5Division 7.11.5
  377. Socio-economic benefits
  378. 7.12.1Division 7.12.1
  379. 7.12.2Division 7.12.2
  380. Distribution of costs and benefits
  381. 7.13.1Division 7.13.1
  382. Annex A: Notes of fishery statistics data extraction and tables
  383. Annex B: Notes of Non-UK fishery statistics data
  384. ANALYSIS OF NON-UK VESSEL VMS ACTIVITY IN ICES RECTANGLES COVERING THE SCI RELATING TO THIS IMPACT ASSESMENT
  385. Methodology used:
  386. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY BY BELGIAN VESSELS IN ICES RECTANGLES COVERING HAISBOROUGH HAMMOND AND WINTERTON SITE