JNCC MCZ T3 New Site Options Webinar Questions Transcript
This document is a transcript of the questions and answers from the Tranche Three Offshore MCZ New Site Options Webinar which took place on the 6th February 2017. For information about the webinar and for additionalsupporting documents please visit the JNCC Tranche Three MCZ Workshop webpage at
West of Copeland
Q: Will this site contribute to the targets for deep sea mud habitat?
A: There is no deep sea mud within the site as it is too shallow. There is subtidal mud included in the site however the extent will be looked into further when the sites are progressed as this is currently supported by only limited data.
South West Approaches to Bristol Channel
Q:What is the rationale behind the selection of this New Site Option over the alternative proposal of an extension of South West Deeps East?
A: JNCC have provided a report on this and therefore will not go into too much detail. We went away and looked at the available data and ecological contribution by each Area of Search and alternative area, as well as factoring in the activities present. It was concluded that the site off the coast of Cornwall (developed into South West Approaches to Bristol Channel) could contribute more to the network than the extension of South West Deeps East.
Q:Is the 12nm boundary showing on the map of SWATBC?
A:Yes, there is a slight overlap with the 12nm limit so this site slightly goes into inshore waters.
Q: The French fishing activity is predominantly in the south of the site, please provide more information as to how these have been taken into consideration when refining the site?
A: The southern boundary of the site was moved further north to try to remove some of the overlap with high levels of non-UK demersal trawling activity (mainly French fisheries) and the northern boundary was also reduced to take into account non-UK beam trawling. We couldn’t reduce the site a huge amount due to the need to address the area contribution target but it was reduced from both sides to take into account both the demersal and beam trawling activities.
East of Start Point
Q:Will this site meet the requirement for Subtidal sand in the region?
A: Yes, the shortfall is approx. 100km2 taking into account other Tranche Three rMCZs and MCZs. This site boundary includes 114km2 so should meet the requirement.
Q:Have JNCC now excluded dredge areas as this isn’t clear from the map?
A:When refining the boundaries, the site was reduced to remove the areas showing highest VMS dredge activity, but this does not mean that there is not any dredge activity occurring within the site. We refined the site to exclude highest activity areas but there are still low-moderate levels of activities occurring within the site boundary.
Q: Is there a case to include some of the areas of higher dredging activity within East of Start Point to allow recovery?
A:I can understand this train of thought, howeveras the original AoS was over twice the size of the shortfall required it seemed sensible whenrefining the size for the main consideration to be the data availability. Therefore, the site was clipped to try and include all of the ground truth sample data that we had, However, we did also look to minimise the overlap with highest level of activities as this was a big concern raised at the workshops.
West of Wight Barfleur
Q:Is this sitewithin the 12nm zone or not?
A:No, (Going back to the regional map) the southern boundary of the site is clipped to the UK Waters extent so the site is located fully offshore.
Q:Was the area to the east with less fishing activity looked at following the workshop?
A:This is the area to the east that was looked at, although there are still some activities present. This was the alternative proposal from the workshop that was looked at and was the furthest east that we could use to still meet the shortfall for Subtidal mixed sediments in the region.
General Q and A session
Q: Has the displacement of activities been considered?
A:We are aware from the comments we received during the workshop that some of the Areas of Search overlap with high levels of fishing activity, which we have taken into consideration when refining these into sites as best as we can. We captured the comments from the workshop in the workshop reports and will be passing any of this information to Defra alongside the New Site Options.
Q:Are JNCC looking at other marine activities other than fisheries when choosing the boundaries?
A: Yes, we had a lot of discussion during the November workshop when we were informed about different activities occurring within the AoS. After the workshop, we went away and looked at these and at our own updated activities datasets to see what was occurring and used all of this to inform our decision making. The reason for the focus on fisheries activities is due to the fact that these activities are occurring within all of the Areas of Search.
Q: Regarding the overall advice by JNCC and NE, are there any contingencies in case not all the New Site Options and rMCZs go ahead and how this relates to the km2 gaps in the network?
A:The request from Defra is to provide a suite of site options that provides some redundancy in the network across all options.Where possible there is some contingency in there but it is up to Defra to decide what to do with all of the information available to them and JNCC and NE are not involved in that decision process. This cannot be specific as it varies across the different habitats.Overall the request was that there were sufficient options between both NSOs and rMCZs for Defra to complete the network. We can answer specific questions once the advice has been provided, but Defra will be making decisions across the board.
Q:Did we take into account the non VMS fleet data that was suggested at the workshop?
A: Yes, we looked into the under 15m sightings data and this was taken into account, although this has not been shown visually on these slides.
Q:NE have also considering options on the inshore side –have both the inshore and the offshore sites been considered within the round?
A:Yes, JNCC and NE have collaborated and looked together at the areas needed to complete the shortfalls in the network. Offshore sites have been considering only the broad-scale habitats but some of the inshore options that NE have been discussing have also been considering Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) so both have been looked at together.
Q: What has happened with one of the options in the Torbay area?
A:This is inshore and therefore under NE remit and not something we can present an update on. We can pass this question onto NE and any other questions on inshore sites.
Q: How will Queenie Corner (proposed by NI fishermen) be treated alongside the other recommended sites for mud habitat in the Irish sea?
A:Other rMCZs are not being addressed in this webinar however JNCC provided scientific advice on this site to Defra in November. We understand that this is one of the options that will be considered alongside everything else by Defra when they make their decisions.
Q:Did we consider the report that was send to us by the French fishing industry in relation to some recommendations for alternative site boundaries for the AoS and rMCZs?
A: Yes, we received this and looked at this in combination with comments received about the Areas of Searchand rMCZs at the workshop, and alongside other information and what we need to achieve with regards to meeting the criteria within the network. This has been taken on board.
Q:Why are we discussing the New Site Options without talking about the third tranche of MCZs?
A: The third tranche is a collective term used to cover all sites being considered to complete the network, so comprises of remaining rMCZs from regional projects, these additional New Site Options (both the ones being discussed by JNCC and the inshore options being advised on by NE), and mobile species sites being put forward to Defra by other organisations. There are therefore three separate threads. When Defra receive advice on all components by the end of February, they will consider which sites they want to take forward in the third tranche of MCZs. Once they have made their decision they will go out to public formal consultation on those sites and so there will be opportunity to provide comments. JNCC and NE are considering the scientific elements of these sites rather the socioeconomic elements. Defra will separately gather this socioeconomic information and will consider this alongside the scientific evidence when they decide which sites will go forward for consultation.
Q: Why has South West Deeps East site been reduced drastically in size?
A: There may be some confusion as South West Deeps East (SWDE) is one of the rMCZs not being discussed in this session and there are no discussions to reduce this. The New Site Option South West Approaches to Bristol Channel (SWATBC) may have caused confusion with the rMCZ.
Q:What is happening in Welsh offshore waters?
A:The responsibility will be devolved to the Welsh Government;therefore, Defra have not sought any advice on sites in that area. This is still under discussion between Defra and Welsh Government who will be considering their options later this year.
Q:Comment noting the regional MCZ project directly considered socioeconomic factors when selecting sites, but that the current process for New Site Options is different.
A:Yes, it is different, and we have taken into account some activities information but it is not within our remit to have anymore detailed consideration of socioeconomic information.We (JNCC and NE) have been asked to provide only scientific advice. It will be up to Defra to collect more detailed socioeconomic information on these new areas and take them into account in their decisions. It is our understanding that Defra are currently undergoing information collection on these areas and will continue over the next few months.
Q:What are the timescales for this process?
A:JNCC has to provide scientific advice to Defra by end of February. There is a deadline of February 17th for comments from stakeholders on the sites which we will then provide to Defra.
Q: Will JNCC be providing similar discussions to this for the regional project recommendations?
A:The stakeholder workshop in November did cover both the New Site Options (which were AoS at the time)and the regional project recommendations (rMCZs). There was time given after this for people to provide comments regarding both New Site Options and rMCZs therefore JNCC have been engaging on both since then.This webinar was an opportunity for us to provide more information on our process of refining the New Site Options. NE has been undertaking engagement on a regional level; any specific questions on the inshore process should be directed to Natural England.
Q: Do you have a timetable for Defra decisions?
A: We are unable to comment on this as it is up to Defra.
Q:Questions regarding the socioeconomic impacts.
A:JNCC understand that this is a subject of greatest interest to many, but emphasise that Defra have asked JNCC and NE for the scientific aspects of these areas. We have been trying to take some note of the distribution of different types of activities in relation to the sites in the offshore waters as this information has been made available to us, but we have not been looking into economic values in relation to potential costs/benefits of these areas. Taken into account as many different types of activities that may be relevant for the features that these sites are focused on. The main focus however is on the scientific factors. Any further questions about how and the extent of socioeconomic factors being taken into account in decisions, should really be addressed to Defra.