Conservation & Sustainable Management, Fisheries, Aquaculture, & Sustainable Seafood

How special is a ‘Special Area of Conservation?

 

This week it has been brought to my attention that there is a proposal to dredge for scallops inside a ‘Special Area of Conservation’ located in Cardigan Bay, Wales.  This proposal has divided opinions.  On Twitter this week Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist at the University of York (UK) lamented that there was ”No hope for UK marine conservation if this mad proposal to scallop dredge in a protected area goes ahead” .  Dr Magnus Johnson, a Crustacean Fisheries and Ecologist researcher at the University of Hull (UK) quickly countered “It is worth reading the science by first!”, following with a couple of hashtags “#eatmorefish #eatmoreshellfish”.  Two scientists, with two opposing views… what is going on?

 

What is a Special Area of Conservation anyway?

These are something unique to the European Union.  They arise from the Habitats Directive, first adopted in 1992 in response to a European convention called the Berne Convention.  Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are designed to protect a number of habitats and species (plants and animals) considered endangered, vulnerable, rare, or endemic.  Once a SAC has been formally designated, the establishment and implementation of management measures are largely left down to the individual Member State.  However, there are certain things that they must do.  Briefly, under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, these include:

  • Take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as significant disturbance of the species for which those areas have been designated.
  • Ensure that a legal consent procedure is in place for any plans or projects not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, to ensure that the integrity of the SAC is not adversely affected

 

What is so special about this particular SAC?

The Cardigan Bay (known as Bae Ceredigion in Welsh) SAC is 95,860.36 hectares (approximately 959 square kilometres) in size.  It’s designation primarily came about to protect one of the two semi-resident population of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) in UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) waters.  Apparently they are also the UK’s largest breeding population (but I cannot confirm that).  The bottlenose dolphin is one of the species listed for protection in Europe under Annex II of the Habitats Directive.  It’s not all about dolphins though.  When designating a SAC you can also add ‘qualifying features’ that are not a ‘primary reason for selection’ of a site.  In this particular area, qualifying features are permanently submerged sandbanks, rocky/cobble reefs, sea-caves, sea lamprey, river lamprey, and grey seals.  Of course these aren’t the only species and habitats that are now covered under the SAC.  Scallops are also found there.  In fact, out of the whole bay, only 20% of it is covered with scallop beds – a chunk of which now sits inside the SAC.

 

Current fishing status in the SAC

Currently, scallop dredging is allowed in part of the SAC.  The current proposal wants to open more.  These areas proposed for closure were done so after a significant increase in scalloping in the area.  This raised concerns that the fishery would be damaging to some of the very features that deemed SAC designation necessary – namely physical impact on cobble reefs, and impact on seafloor (benthic) organisms – the food sources for fish that dolphins eat.

 

It is worth noting that beam trawls area already allowed to operate in the whole SAC.  Dredgers and beam trawls are both towed fishing gear aimed at bottom-dwelling species.  Beam trawls are towed on the top of the seabed often with ‘ticklers’ – chains that run on the seafloor surface to ‘encourage’ fish into the net,  whilst dredgers have ‘teeth’ that dig into the seafloor to capture critters lurking under the surface.  There are environmental concerns with both methods, but that is for another post.

 

Why open the closed areas?

According to the Welsh government, the reason the SAC closures “need” to be opened is because the other areas have been significantly depleted.  In the current closed areas, scallops are abundant.  The government then goes on to say that there is a “concern that these scallops may not be reaching their potential growth rate due to overcrowding and competition for resources” .  Why is it a problem that these animals are essentially living and dying all by themselves?  The government have the answer – “The current situation, therefore, does not optimise the sustainable use of this natural resource”.  Remember fishing isn’t just about food – it is also about economy and people.  Giving economic opportunities for people is important.  In the consultation, the Welsh Government estimate the new proposals could result in another £6 – £10 million per year entering the Welsh economy.  Not something to be sniggered at.  But if I may interject with an opinion here, this reasoning is a perfect example of how we commodify the ocean and its inhabitants.  The idea that everything on this Earth is for our use is a subject of debate.

497340583_30f6583d18_o
Swimming scallop at the San Juan Islands. Credit Dan Hershman/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

The reports

Dr Magnus Johnson, in his Tweet linked to a press release from Bangor University on some research done by their Fisheries and Conservation Science Group.  “World’s largest ever fishing impact study brings hope for Cardigan Bay Scallop fishermen” the title reads.  The story is that the study “focused on understanding the amount of scallop fishing within the SAC that would be considered sustainable and that would not damage the conservation features of the area”  The press release links to three reports* (Reports 59 – 61) looking at the impact of dredging in the SACs infauna (things in the seafloor), epifauna (things living on the seafloor), and impact to the physical environment.  Lots of details in these three reports which would make this post even longer if I was to cover, but I have added a link to them at the bottom of this post for those who want to take a closer look.  Essentially the reports suggest that with careful management (e.g. rotational-open/closed areas to allow recovery, gear restrictions, control on how much fishing can occur (effort control), scallop dredging can occur with minimal impacts to the features of concern within the SAC.

 

Some additional points

  • Parts of the SAC were only finally closed to dredging in 2010. Is five years long enough to see full recovery?  Is full recovery even possible?  We don’t know for sure, because we don’t know what the state of this part of the ocean was prior to dredging, but it seems unlikely given the lifespan of organisms, repopulation rates, and alteration of the ecosystem.  In addition the SAC is open to beam trawling, meaning the physical nature of the SAC and epifauna diversity in particular is continuously being altered.  This is an issue when using such areas as comparisons for calculating damage and recover rates like this research has, because we are comparing recovery of already impacted areas, not to untouched ‘pristine’ areas (good luck finding some!).

 

  • Muddy bottom doesn’t appear to be given much value. Actually this is a wider issue – we undervalue the role of this sort of habitat because it does tend to have lower diversity than other areas in the ocean.  How we ascribe value to habitats is also a subject for another post

 

  • The work, it seems, was always about deciding how much dredging should be allowed. Would a better question have been to ask if dredging should be allowed in the first place, and if so how much?  Let take a look at the aim of the Welsh Government in opening the SAC to further dredging – “establish a viable and sustainable scallop fishing within the Cardigan Bay SAC”

 

  • The work does not in any way imply that degradation to the area and its inhabitant populations will not occur. Of course it will.  In situations like this, what we are dealing with are trade-offs.  We want to eat our scallops, we want lots, and we don’t want to pay the price for hand-diving.  Given these demands, how much damage are we willing to inflict?  Does the cost (to humans or other animals) outweigh the value we receive?

 

  • Thinking outside the SAC, it seems that the scallop fishery has been extremely poorly managed. If it was not, and the fishery was indeed sustainable, depletion in scallops outside the closed area should not have occurred.  This approach to fishery management should be utilized elsewhere and not just inside these proposed areas.  We can’t have sustainable fisheries by only managing our activities in a few pockets – this needs to have wide-scale implementation.
54247904_05af4acfe3_b
Deck of fishing boat “Sea Otter” in Oban Harbour. Credit Eglos/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

What about the dolphins?

The SAC was primarily designated for the dolphins, so can dredging impede them in any way?  According to an article by journalist George Monbiot in The Guardian Newspaper, a study by the Welsh Government (not available online) notes that bottlenose mothers with calves rely on small/sedentary animals living on the seafloor for feeding as they cannot travel far with their young.  We also know other dolphin populations hunt prey lurking beneath the sea floor (If you have made it this far through the post – well done!  Here is a video of a dolphin taking infauna prey…fish or crustacean most likely but not 100% sure).  The main concern in terms of dolphin food was that the loss of fish the dolphins hunt due to loss on benthic species from scallop dredging.  Given dredging occurs elsewhere in the bay, have the dolphins suffered at all?  Have the fish on which they depend suffered?   Do the dolphins particularly rely on this same area that fisheries want to use?  I’ve had a look and I can’t find anything specific to the area, so I’d say… we don’t know.

 

*These particular pieces of science has been presented in reports but not in a peer-reviewed journal.  This does not make the science flawed or inaccurate, but it has not gone through the same process for publication as would be needed for publication in a scientific journal.

 

Minor Edits – 26 November 2015:

  • I have clarified where the figure ‘£6-10 million per year entering the Welsh economy’ came from (the consultation document).
  • I have added that ticklers are often used on beam trawls

 

 

The Feature Image: Common Bottlenose Dolphins in Galapagos.  Credit Gregory “Slobirdr” Smith/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “How special is a ‘Special Area of Conservation?”

  1. You might be interested to hear the story of Strangford Lough horse mussel beds in connection with this issue. These beds were severely damaged by otter trawling for queen scallops in 1985-88. The lough is an SAC and these beds are an important feature. A series of projects by Queen’s University Belfast tried to come up with restoration measures to counter a potential fine from the EU because the beds had been damaged. This year the funding for the 10 year project was withdrawn by Dept of Environment and Dept of Agriculture because of budget cuts. The scientists were made redundant or moved onto different projects. As yet there has been no reaction to this by Ulster Wildlife Trust, whose own funding was also slashed by DOENI.
    See: https://www.change.org/p/department-of-environment-doe-northern-ireland-minister-for-the-environment-mark-h-durkan-permanent-secretary-for-the-environment-leo-o-reilly-director-of-finance-business-planning-ant-save-endangered-horse-mussel-reefs-in-strangford-loug?recruiter=77581625&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive

    Like

  2. If dredging or bottom trawling was taking place on land, where people could see it, it would quickly be banned. Scallops should become a premium, hand dived only, food.

    Like

    1. I think people would be more horrified but I am not sure it would necessarily result in it being banned completely. I’m thinking about the deforestation occurring on a wild-scale. The Amazon has been the subject of global campaigns for many years, but it is still happening. We tut and shake our heads but….

      I made a few casual inquiries on Twitter this week re alternatives to dredging for scallop fisheries… it seems that other than hand-diving there are no alternatives. New developments seem to be primarily in altering dredge design rather than coming up with something completely new.

      One of the problems for divers is that conditions are not always suitable. It was indicated to me that the area in Cardigan Bay under scrutiny is probably not suitable for diving. Does that mean dredging should be the automatic default? Personally, I’d say no.

      Like

    1. A surprising tricky question! The issue is ‘should dredging occur in the closed area of the SAC’… It is tricky because in terms of the SAC designation, the activity could be allowed. I am not convinced it is the right answer for the fishery, or taking better care of the bay. I’d reject the proposal – but make significant changes to the management of the areas already open (including implementation of similar work done by the guys at Bangor elsewhere).

      Here is the long answer….

      In terms of will the activity impact the dolphin greatly… I am not 100% convinced. We aren’t talking a vast area (dolphins aren’t exactly sedentary species…). Given fishing activity takes place in the SAC already, and there is dolphin watching boating activity, I don’t think activity in this closed area will present too much in terms of disturbance. If the dolphin population is at risk, I suspect that the bigger threats may come from overall depletion of food, climate change, and pollution.

      In terms of avoiding damaging the other things the SAC designation looks to protect (i.e. seabed features), I think this will largely depend on how fishery management is implemented. For example, extremely limited entry, strict movement corridors, heavy gear restrictions are all ways in which damage could be limited, but not guarantee avoidance (there is also an issue with illegal fishing – that already happens in the area). The reports focus more on the number of times the area can be dredged rather than how to make it ‘less damaging’, so these sorts of questions aren’t yet dealt with.

      I suspect that in terms of the SAC goals, actually some activity might be ok…. BUT

      I am not sure the right questions were asked in the first place…

      One question that was never asked was is dredging the most appropriate form of extraction. The advantage of dredging compared to hand-diving is that you get a lot of scallops, and the costs are cheaper = cheaper scallops to eat. The cost of course is greater seabed alteration and depletion of other species (note that even if you extract all the scallops by hand, you are altering the community composition, and that can have an impact on the area and its inhabitants). I’d want a scallop diver to confirm if the conditions in the area realistically allows for this activity to take place. Would this be a compromise? Probably not for the dredgers… it’s not their business. On a slight side note, I find it pretty lamentable that we cannot find less damaging, cost-efficient ways to extract scallops. We flew and plopped a lander on a comet last year, we have voyager 1 still travelling away from the Earth… we really have to extract scallops by scraping up the seafloor?

      One of the big issues I have with this proposal is that the fishery is already in trouble. Is opening this area really going to solve the problem? Do we really want risk the scallops in this area? This seems a short term, quick fix solution. The fishery management itself appears to need significant overhaul to bring the fishery back towards sustainable levels (economically and ecologically). The reports present one way in which the fishery managers could move in the right direction… personally I’d like to see it (and other management measures – including tackling the illegal fishing) applied outside the closed area.

      Finally I think we have an issue with ‘protection’ and ‘conservation’ and what that actually means. It is clear from the discussions that the people think the SAC protects more than it is mandated to. This is a huge topic in itself, but one I think will arise many times over the course of this situation.

      Like

Something to add? Something to ask? Join in the conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s