This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
MARINE SPATIAL PLAN
Lodged au Greffe on 19th July 2024
by the Minister for the Environment Earliest date for debate: 10th September 2024
STATES GREFFE
2024 P.44
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
to agree the proposed Jersey Marine Spatial Plan as the roadmap to managing Jersey's marine environment, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report accompanying this proposition.
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
REPORT
Open sea and offshore reefs cover 95% of Jersey's territory, and are fundamental to the island's identity, economy, and connectivity. The coast and sea are used for both work and leisure, forming an ever-changing backdrop to islanders' lives. Below the surface is a hidden world of underwater habitats supporting a wealth of marine life, and a rich archaeological legacy. Examples of the benefits provided by Jersey's marine environment include fish to eat, storage of carbon in plants and sediments, absorption of wave energy, cycling of water and pollution capture. The vitality of Jersey is therefore intrinsically linked to the health of its seas. However, despite its importance, Jersey's marine environment is under pressure, from climate change and human activities.
Marine spatial planning provides a means of managing Jersey's coasts and seas in a coordinated manner which enables them to thrive, and takes account of the many different ways in which they are used. It covers all parts of the marine environment: the sea bed, the water column, the sea surface and the air above. Many coastal nations have already prepared marine spatial plans, or are in the process of doing so, so the JMSP brings Jersey into line with international best practice.
The vision of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) is for a thriving marine environment providing environmental, economic, cultural and social benefits. It was proposed in the 2022 Bridging Island Plan (BIP), and has four key purposes:
- To provide a framework for organising human and marine resources and activities in Jersey's territorial waters.
- To develop a network of Marine Protected Areas.
- To inform the policies of the next iteration of the Island Plan.
- To support co-ordinated development and decision-making on all aspects affecting the marine environment.
The JMSP forms an overarching strategic framework setting the approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing regulation. The JMSP is not a statutory document but, if adopted, will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the actions set out in the JMSP. Implementing the JMSP will involve different government departments and organisations working together.
The JMSP will help Jersey to fulfil its international obligations, such as the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which requires 30% of the marine environment to be protected by 2030. It will also contribute to efforts to address the climate and biodiversity crises; help to promote sustainable fishing practices; reduce conflicts between different users of the marine environment, and increase the resilience of services and infrastructure.
The Government of Jersey Marine Resources team has worked in partnership with external specialists and many local stakeholders to produce the JMSP. The result is a document which reflects the wide-ranging concerns and aspirations of Jersey's residents with regard to the marine environment. Everyone involved shares a desire to see Jersey's seas thriving, and delivering benefits to people and to nature.
From sweeping sands to jagged rocks, and from busy harbours to empty wildernesses, Jersey's spectacular and diverse seascapes encompass many natural and human-made features. The JMSP contains priorities to maintain this diversity of seascapes, and the offshore landmarks which form focal points in views from the coast and sea.
Jersey's waters contain an extra-ordinary range of habitats within a relatively small area. Each habitat plays a different role within the overall ecosystem of Jersey's marine environment. There are some existing nature conservation designations, including Ramsar sites, Marine Protected Areas, Sites of Special Interest, Areas of Special Protection and a No-Take-Zone. Some of the most valuable habitats (kelp forests, maerl beds and seagrass meadows) are listed for protection under international convention. The JMSP contains priorities for the protection of the natural environment through existing and new designations, including the expansion of the Marine Protected Area network.
People have been fishing in Jersey's waters since prehistoric times, and it continues to contribute to the island's economy and identity. Today, potting for lobster and crab dominates, with other metiers including dredging, diving, trawling, netting and angling for species such as scallops and various finfish. Intertidal aquaculture of oysters and mussels also contributes to the island's economy. The JMSP proposes a three-tier framework with different levels of protection in each tier: Regulated Fishing Zone, Seabed Protection Zone, and highly-protected No Take Zones.
Centuries of habitation and use have left their mark on Jersey's coastal and marine environment, from early prehistoric sites through to 20th Century fortifications. On the seabed are wreck sites, some of which are known to divers, but many of which are not yet recorded. The JMSP contains priorities to increase understanding and protection of maritime cultural heritage sites, particularly within intertidal and marine environments.
Recreation and tourism are a vital part of Jersey's economy, and also very important for the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of local people. Activities involve powered and non-powered craft, as well as those without craft. Coastal and marine recreation supports many coastal businesses, and is concentrated in the most popular beaches and bays. The JMSP contains priorities to promote coastal and marine recreation in ways which are safe, accessible, enjoyable, and minimise impacts on wildlife.
The sea forms an integral part of Jersey's transport network. Around Jersey's coast, beaches, harbours, slipways and piers allow connectivity between land and sea, and coastal defences help to manage the risks of coastal flooding. Larger vessels access the port at St Helier and travel through Jersey's waters using shipping lanes. On the seabed, cables provide power and communication to the island, and it is likely that in the future the marine environment will become a source of renewable energy. The JMSP contains priorities to increase the resilience of infrastructure and promote sustainable use of marine resources.
Supporting documentation for the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan can be found on gov.je/marinespatialplan.
Financial and staffing implications
The development of the Marine Spatial plan had a budget of £150,000 allocated to it under the Carbon Neutral Roadmap. Project spend is close to £140,000. Developing the MSP has required 25% of the time of two Marine Resources officers over the last 18 months.
Children's Rights Impact Assessment
A Children's Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) has been prepared in relation to this proposition and is available to read on the States Assembly website.
PFUINBALLI CD RC AO FNTSULTATION DRAFT
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan
Priorities and Actions Plan
Government of Jersey
Boat at Les Écrehous. Paul Chambers
Acknowledgements
The production of the JMSP would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. Sincere thanks are expressed to all the Jersey residents who attended workshops and shared their concerns and ideas for Jersey s marine environment, and who took part in the public consultation process. A number of individuals and organisations have kindly provided photographs, and we are particularly grateful to Jersey Marine Conservation for their underwater images. We are also grateful to the Government of Jersey staff, the Jersey fishing community, and members of other organisations, who participated in the review process. The input and support of the Government of Jersey Marine Resources team has been appreciated throughout the project.
Prepared by Fiona Fyfe Associates, Countryscape and Karin Taylor
for Government of Jersey Marine Resources
Contents
JMSP Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06
PART A: INTRODUCING THE JERSEY
MARINE SPATIAL PLAN
Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Purposes of the JMSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Vision and aims of the JMSP . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Why the JMSP is needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5 Structure of the JMSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.6 Guiding principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.7 Legislative background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
PART B: BACKGROUND
Marine Spatial Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 What a Marine Spatial Plan covers . . . . 23
3.2 Stages of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
planning context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 International legislative and policy
context of Jersey s marine waters . . . . 34
4.3 Jersey legislative and policy context . . 39
seas and coasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.3 Bathymetry and sediments . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4 Tides, currents and wave patterns . . . . 53
5.5 Wind strength and direction . . . . . . . . . . 54
marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Services) and Blue Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.2 Types of benefits from nature . . . . . . . . 59
PART C: Priority Topics
character of Jersey s seascapes . . . . . . 68
7.3 Views and marine landmarks . . . . . . . . . 77
- Natural Environment 11.0 Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 and Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
8.2 No Take Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 offshore recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.3 Ramsar sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 11.3 Safety of recreational water users . . . . 190
8.4 Sites of Scientific Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 11.4 Enhancing access to the
marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
8.5 Marine mammals and birds, and
Areas of Special Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 93 11.5 Respecting wildlife and habitats . . . . . . 196
8.6 Marine habitats and 11.6 Recreation at the offshore reefs . . . . . . 198
Marine Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.7 Seagrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
8.8 Marine environment visitor centre . . . . 128 and Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
and Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 associated development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 12.3 Submarine cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 9.2 A short history of fishing in Jersey . . . . 133 12.4 Seawater quality monitoring sites . . . . 211 9.3 Current fishing trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 12.5 Renewable energy: wind power . . . . . . . 215 9.4 Proposed fishing zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 12.6 Renewable energy: tidal power . . . . . . . 218 9.5 Potting and netting equipment . . . . . . . 146 12.7 FEPA offshore deposition site . . . . . . . . 219 9.6 Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 12.8 Harbours and moorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9.7 Encouragement and promotion 12.9 Boat passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 of sustainable fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
12.10 Anchorages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
12.11 Research and logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Appendix A: Implementation table . . . . . . . . . . 228
10.2 Coastal structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Appendix B: List of evidence base
10.3 Coastal military heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.4 Coastal prehistoric occupation sites . . 163 Appendix C: Legislative and policy
background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.5 Intertidal areas and offshore reefs . . . . 164
Appendix D: Map showing changes to
10.6 Submerged landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Marine Protected Area
10.7 Navigation markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 boundaries following
public consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
10.8 Wreck sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Appendix E: Further information on
10.9 Intangible cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . 176 seawater quality monitoring . . . . 265 Appendix F: List of acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
JMSP Executive Summary
Open sea and offshore reefs cover 95% of Jersey's territory, and are fundamental to the island's identity, economy and connectivity. The coast and sea are used for both work and leisure, forming
an ever-changing backdrop to islanders' lives. Below the surface is a hidden world of underwater habitats supporting a wealth of marine life, and a rich archaeological legacy. Examples of the benefits provided by Jersey's marine environment include fish to eat, storage of carbon in plants and sediments, absorption of wave energy, cycling of water and pollution capture. The vitality of Jersey is therefore intrinsically link ed to th e h ealth of its s eas. However, despite its importance, Jersey's marine environment is under pressure, from climate
change and human activities.
Marine spatial planning provides a means of managing Jersey's coasts and seas in a coordinated manner which enables them to thrive, and takes account of the many different ways in which they are used. It covers all parts of the marine environment: the sea bed, the water column, the sea surface and the air above. Many coastal nations have already prepared marine spatial plans, or are in the process of doing so, so the JMSP brings Jersey into line with international best practice.
The vision of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan
(JMSP) is for a thriving marine environment providing environmental, economic, cultural
and social benefits. It was proposed in the 2022 Bridging Island Plan (BIP), and has four key purposes:
- To provide a framework for organising human and marine resources and activities in Jersey's territorial waters.
- To develop a network of Marine Protected Areas.
- To inform the policies of the next iteration of the Island Plan.
- To support co-ordinated development and decision-making on all aspects affecting the marine environment.
The JMSP forms an overarching strategic framework setting the approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management
and fishing r egulation. Th e JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the actions set out in the JMSP. Implementing the JMSP will involve different government departments and organisations working tog eth er.
The JMSP will help Jersey to fulfil its international obligations, such as th e 2022 Kunming-Montr eal Global Biodiversity Framework, which requires 30% of the marine environment to be protected by 2030. It will also contribute to efforts to address the climate and biodiversity crises; help to promote sustainable fishing practices; reduce conflicts between different users of the marine environment, and increase the resilience of services and infrastructure.
The Government of Jersey Marine Resources team has worked in partnership with external specialist consultants and many local stakeholders to produce the JMSP. The result is a document which reflects the wide-ranging concerns and aspirations of Jersey's residents with regard to the marine environment. Everyone involved shares a desire to see Jersey's seas thriving, and delivering benefits to people and to nature.
From sweeping sands to jagged rocks, and from busy harbours to empty wildernesses, Jersey's spectacular and diverse seascapes encompass many natural
and human-made features. The JMSP contains priorities to maintain this diversity of seascapes, and the offshore landmarks which form focal
points in vi ews from th e coast and s ea.
Jersey's waters contain an extra-ordinary range of habitats within a relatively small area. Each habitat plays a different role within the overall ecosystem of Jersey's marine environment. There are some existing nature conservation designations, including Ramsar sites, Marine Protected Areas, Sites of Special Interest, Areas of Special Protection and a No-Take-Zone. Some of the most valuable habitats (kelp forests, maerl beds and seagrass meadows) are listed for protection under international convention. The JMSP contains priorities for the protection of the natural environment through existing and new designations, including the expansion of the Marine Protected Area network.
People have been fishing in Jersey's waters since prehistoric times, and it continues to contribute to the island's economy and identity. Today, potting for lobster and crab dominates, with other metiers including dr edging, diving, trawling, n etting and angling for species such as scallops and various finfish. Intertidal aquaculture of oysters and mussels also contributes to the island's economy. The JMSP proposes a three-tier framework with different levels of protection in each tier: Regulated Fishing Zone, Seabed Protection Zone, and highly-protected
No Take Zones.
Centuries of habitation and use have left their mark on Jersey's coastal and marine environment, from early prehistoric sites through to 20th Century fortifications. On the seabed are wreck sites, some of which are known to divers, but many of which are not yet recorded. The JMSP contains priorities to increase understanding and protection of maritime cultural heritage sites, particularly within intertidal and marine environments.
Recreation and tourism are a vital part of
Jersey's economy, and also very important for the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of local people. Activities involve powered and non-powered craft, as well as those without craft. Coastal and marine recreation supports many coastal businesses, and is concentrated in the most popular beaches and bays. The JMSP contains priorities to promote coastal and marine recreation in ways which are safe, accessible, enjoyable, and minimise impacts on wildlife.
The sea forms an integral part of Jersey's transport network. Around Jersey's coast, beaches, harbours, slipways and piers allow connectivity between land and sea, and coastal defences help to manage the risks of coastal flooding. Larger vessels access the port at St Helier and travel through Jersey's waters using shipping lanes. On the seabed, cables provide power and communication to the island, and it is likely that in the future the marine environment will become a source of renewable energy. The JMSP contains priorities to increase the resilience of infrastructure and promote sustainable use of marine resources.
A PART A: IMntarroindeu cSipnagttiahle P Jlae nrsey
1 AMbaoruintet hSep aJteirasl ePyla n
- Introduction
The coast and surrounding seas are fundamental to the identity, economy and connectivity of Jersey. They are
used for both work and leisure, and form an ever-changing backdrop to islanders lives. Below the surface is a hidden world of underwater habitats supporting a wealth of marine life, and the vitality of Jersey is intrinsically linked to the health of its marine environment. However, Jersey s marine environment is under pressure, including from climate change and human activities. There is a need to manage Jersey s coasts and seas in a coordinated manner which enables them to thrive, and takes account of the many different ways in which they are used.
- Purposes of the JMSP
The Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) was proposed in the 2022 Bridging Island Plan, and has four key purposes:
- To provide a framework for organising human and marine resources and activities in Jersey's territorial waters.
- To develop a network of Marine Protected Areas.
- To inform the policies of the next iteration of the Island Plan.
- To support co-ordinated development and decision-making on all aspects affecting the marine environment.
Jewel Anemones.
The JMSP forms an overarching strategic framework setting the approach for a range
of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing regulation. The JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set out in the JMSP. In this way the JMSP will contribute to the strategic direction of future iterations of the Island Plan and other related documents, and will inform decision- making across all topics relating to the marine environment. Government of Jersey Ministers, their departments and agencies that hold relevant powers will, therefore, be expected to make decisions in line with the priorities and actions set out in the JMSP,
in order to help achieve its purposes. The breadth and the integrated nature of the
JMSP enables complex issues to be addressed efficiently and effectively. The priorities and actions set out within it will require direct resourcing from the responsible bodies (rfrnc Appendix A).
- Vision and aims of the JMSP
The vision of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) is for a thriving marine environment providing environmental, economic, cultural and social benefits. This vision is supported through six aims, as shown in Fig. 1a.
Fig. 1a: Vision and aims of the JMSP
Vision: |
| A thriving marine environment providing environmental, economic, cultural and social benefits |
Aims: |
| Seascapes are valued and their character is retained and enhanced |
| The natural environment is restored and biodiversity is thriving | |
| Commercial fishing and aquaculture are sustainable and profitable | |
| Cultural heritage is understood and protected | |
| Recreation and tourism is flourishing, diverse and safe | |
| Infrastructure, energy and transport are resilient and efficient |
Each of these aims is the subject of a topic-based chapter in Part C. These chapters provide more detail on each topic, and present priorities and actions to achieve the relevant aim.
Because the JMSP is a strategy without a formal statutory basis, its implementation will rely on other legislation, regulatory processes and mechanisms. Therefore, whilst the JMSP sets the direction of travel', the process of delivering change will be made through established mechanisms and procedures for implementing legislation and policy. These will bring all the established protocols and procedures for engagement and consultation
on the detail of the proposed change.
Implementing the JMSP will involve a number
of different Government Ministers and their departments, as well as other organisations. Appendix A contains an implementation table which sets out who will be responsible for delivering each action. In many cases, different departments/ organisations will need to work together to deliver actions. Appendix A also sets out the current status of each action, for example whether it is something which is already happening and should be continued, or whether it is an entirely new idea.
The JMSP covers the entire Bailiwick of Jersey, as shown in Fig. 1b.
The hidden underwater world of Jersey's seas. Samantha Blampied
- Why the JMSP is needed
Addressing the climate and biodiversity crises
The climate and biodiversity crises are already beginning to have consequences on the marine environment, including sea level rise, increased storm intensity, warming of sea water temperature, and a decline in abundance and diversity of marine species. These consequences are likely to become more severe in the future. It is therefore important that the most valuable and vulnerable habitats (and the species which depend on them) are protected from damaging actions. The JMSP will also help to address global warming (for example through supporting measures to enhance carbon storage
in the marine environment) and make habitats more resilient. Sustainable use of marine resources is essential when addressing such profound environmental challenges.
Enabling Jersey to fulfil its international obligations
Jersey is a signatory to a number of international conventions which oblige it to protect its marine environment. Examples include the '30 by 30' target (i.e. 30% of the marine environment protected by 2030) agreed at the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and the OSPAR Convention, which identifies a series of threatened habitats and species which should be protected.
Promoting sustainable fishing practices
Jersey's fishing industry has a long history, constantly adapting in response to changing markets and availability of fish. Recent years have seen declines in the sizes, numbers and diversity of some commercial species, particularly lobster and brown crab. The JMSP aims to promote sustainable fishing practices, where habitats which provide nursery and spawning grounds
are protected, and stocks are able to recover.
Minimizing conflicts between different users of the marine environment
The JMSP provides an opportunity to help to resolve existing and potential conflicts between different uses of the marine environment which are not compatible. Examples include recreational activities which disturb wildlife, and potentially dangerous combinations of water uses such as swimming and net fishing.
Applying international best practice within Jersey s waters
Marine spatial planning is a fairly recent approach, but it is widely seen internationally as a positive tool to create and establish co-ordinated use of marine space. MSPs have been/are being prepared by coastal nations around the world, including in Europe, where Directive 2014/89/EU requires coastal member states to participate in a European framework for maritime spatial planning. Although Jersey is not within the EU, French and UK waters are covered by marine spatial plans, and it is, therefore, in Jersey's interest to have its own.
- Structure of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan
Fig. 1c shows the elements which constitute the JMSP, and how th ey fit tog eth er.
Fig. 1c: Elements of the JMSP
JMSP Map JMSP Priorities and Actions Plan
JMSP Digital Atlas
Workshops and Evidence Base
Consultation
The base layer comprises the Evidence Base and the findings of stakeholder workshops and public consultation. Together, these provide a wide- ranging resource to support the JMSP. The full
list of items within the Evidence Base is included in Appendix B. They are available on the JMSP website. The Evidence Base includes technical reports, academic papers, examples of good practice from elsewhere, workshop outputs, consultation submissions, and digital datasets. Wherever possible (i.e. where there is no infringement of copyright or commercial sensitivity) items within the Evidence Base will be hyperlinked, or be available through the JMSP Digital Atlas.
Some knowledge gaps were already identified prior to commencement of the JMSP process,
and specific research was commissioned for the Evidence Base to fill these gaps and inform the JMSP. Where a further review of the Evidence Base at the start of the JMSP process showed baseline information to be lacking, information was
sought through the public consultation process. There remain a small number of topics where additional information is required to confirm future priorities and actions (for example on recreational fishing, and on the extent of some seabed habitats). In these cases, obtaining this information has been added to the actions
The JMSP Digital Atlas is an online mapping tool containing numerous datasets which provide information on a wide range of marine environment topics. It will be accessed through the JMSP website, although datasets which directly support priorities are also included as maps within this Priorities and Actions Plan.
This Priorities and Actions Plan is in three parts as described below,
and can be downloaded as an accessible pdf from the JMSP website. Alongside the Priorities and Actions Plan is the JMSP Map. This shows the areas covered by the recommendations within the Priorities and Actions Plan, as well as the key features within Jersey's marine environment.
The JMSP Map can be downloaded as a pdf from the Jersey MSP website, but is also available as a printed sheet for display.
This JMSP Priorities and Actions Plan has three parts:
PART A introduces the JMSP: its purposes, vision and aims, why it is
needed, what it covers, the guiding principles which it follows, and its relationship to statutory documents.
PART B provides background information on marine spatial planning,
the JMSP's methodology and consultation process, its marine and terrestrial planning context, Jersey's seas and coasts, and the benefits from nature which the marine environment can provide.
PART C contains a series of topic-based chapters one for each of the
aims shown above. Each provides background information, highlights issues, and presents priorities and actions to help achieve the relevant aim.
- Guiding principles
The following principles have guided development of the JMSP. They have been informed by international best practice in preparing MSPs, and also by local consultation.
The JMSP will provide a spatial framework for the sustainable use of marine resources.
The JMSP will take a holistic ecosystem-based approach, identifying environmental,
cultural, social and economic benefits from the marine environment.
The JMSP will consider benefits for people, and for marine life in its own right.
The JMSP will have a clear link from evidence to policy, and a robust methodology for
drawing boundaries of designation zones. Some designations may be temporal.
The JMSP will ensure that there is no loss of protection from existing protected areas,
and that habitats, species and cultural heritage covered by international conventions are appropriately protected.
The JMSP will allow for the fact that some parts of the marine environment are currently
in a degraded state, and that the current damaged condition of some habitats should not be assumed to be their future condition if they are allowed to recover.
The JMSP will consider the full lifecycle of commercially valuable wild species to support
their sustainable use.
The JMSP will contain actions for accompanying regulatory and management frameworks
and a linked education programme. This will enable key issues which are beyond the scope of marine spatial planning to be addressed.
The JMSP will be subject to review and monitoring, and will be updated as required.
It is important to note that this is the first iteration of the JMSP, and through its purpos es as s et out in section 2.2 has a particular emphasis on the conservation of the marine environment and its resources.
Future iterations of the JMSP may have different emphases. Some matters (such as defence and border control) are outside the remit of the JMSP.
The JMSP is in accordance with current Governmental policy objectives, and directly contributes to the long-term vision for Jersey in 2037, produced by the Future Jersey consultation and captured by the following vision statement in the Proposed Common Strategic Policy 2024–2026.
"An Island loved for its beautiful coast and countryside, rich heritage, diverse wildlife and clean air, land and water. An island where a sense of community really matters a safe place to grow up and enjoy life. An island that offers everyone the opportunity to contribute to, and share in, the success of a strong, sustainable economy."1
The Proposed Common Strategic Policy 2024–2026 contains three Sustainable Wellbeing Themes and ten Island Outcomes arising from them. The following table shows how the JMSP contributes to these themes and outcomes. NOTE: the Common Strategic Policy 2024–2026 is currently a draft which is still subject to amendment and approval
by the States Assembly
1 Proposed Common Strategic Policy 2024–2026 p.11
Sustainable wellbeing theme | Examples of how the JMSP contributes to Island Outcomes |
Community Wellbeing | Children: Promoting diverse opportunities for high-quality recreation and education at the coast and in the marine environment enables children to enjoy the best start in life. Health and wellbeing: Appreciating and engaging with the coast and sea brings mental and physical benefits and enables Islanders to enjoy long, healthy and active lives. |
Economic Wellbeing | Affordable living: Encouraging people to make the most of the coast for free or low cost recreation contributes to Islanders standard of living. Jobs and productivity growth: Supporting the fishing and aquaculture industries, supporting resilient infrastructure, and looking ahead to future opportunities for energy, technology, research and logistics, contributes to a strong economy and rewarding job opportunities. |
Environmental Wellbeing | Built environment: Protecting cultural heritage at the coast, in the intertidal area and under water enables Jersey s built and historic environment to be valued and enjoyed. Natural environment: Raising awareness of the importance and diversity of Jersey s coasts and seas, and protecting seascapes and island identity help to ensure that Jersey s unique natural environment is protected for future generations. Sustainable resources: Recommending areas for additional protection to encourage thriving marine habitats and wildlife enables Jersey s natural resources to be managed and used responsibly. |
- Legislative background
The need for a Jersey Marine Spatial Plan has been recognised for a number of years. In March 2022
the States of Jersey approved the Bridging Island Plan (BIP), in which Strat egic Proposal 3 propos es the creation of a Marine Spatial Plan for Jersey,
to be delivered by 2025. The JMSP would be the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and should organise human and marine resources in Jersey's territorial waters, and, in particular,
to develop a network of marine protected areas
which will be consistent with overall environmental, economic and social objectives. The work will inform the policies of the next iteration of the
Island Plan and support co-ordinated development and decision making on all aspects affecting
the marine environment'2.
Ministerial Delivery Plans are a key part of the Government programme, and set out Ministers' key priorities on an annual basis. The Minister for the Environment's Plan (2023) states that protecting and enhancing Jersey's natural environment and heritage by:... Developing a Marine Spatial Plan to ensure the sustainable management of the Island's marine environment'3 is a priority.
Preparing a Marine Spatial Plan for Jersey is also a policy within Jersey's Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (2022) and the
Carbon Neutral Roadmap (2022).
- Authorship and consultation
In Autumn 2022 the Government of Jersey commissioned a consultant team (led by Fiona Fyfe Associates, with Countryscape and Karin Taylor )
to prepare the JMSP, working in partnership with members of the Jersey Marine Resources team (Paul Chambers, Francis Binney, Samantha Blampied and Katie Bacquet). Through the extensive engagement process, the consultants have worked collaboratively with a very wide range of Jersey-based stakeholders who have in-depth local knowledge of many different aspects of the marine environment and the services which it supports. These stakeholders have included Governmental officials (Place and Spatial Planning and Natural Environment Teams), Ports of Jersey, fishers, owners of marine-dependent recreation businesses, Channel Islands utility companies, conservation organisations and heritage bodies.
The result is a document which reflects the wide-ranging concerns and aspirations of many people with regard to the marine environment. Everyone involved shares the collective desire to see Jersey's seas thriving, and delivering benefits to people and to nature.
2 Jersey Bridging Island Plan (March 2022) Strategic Proposal 3, p.31
3 Government of Jersey Delivery Plan: Minister for Energy and Environment, January 2023 p.6
B PART B: Background
2 IMntarroindeu cStpioanti atol P lanning
- What is a Marine Spatial Plan?
Put simply, a Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) sets out
what goes where in the marine environment. It is a spatial framework which aims to ensure sustainable use of marine resources and to achieve an appropriate balance between environmental, commercial, economic, cultural and social needs.
A public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that have been specified through a political process.
Marine spatial planning is not an end in itself, but a practical way to create and establish a more co-ordinated use of marine space. It considers the interactions between different users, balances demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and supports social and economic outcomes in an open and planned way.
Cover image, Samantha Blampied
1 International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning MSP Global/UNESCO p.11
- What a Marine 2.3 History of Marine Spatial Plan covers Spatial Planning
All parts of the marine environment are covered by marine spatial planning: the seabed (the benthic environment), the water column (the pelagic environment), the water surface, and the air above.
It is important to note that a MSP does not have a regulatory, management or educational function, although it can s et out th e ar eas in which specific regulations or management regimes could occur. It can also provide an opportunity for public engagement, and through this, raise awareness and appreciation of the marine environment. Therefore, within this Priorities and Actions Document, actions include both spatial recommendations, and regulatory, management and educational measures.
Fig. 2a: The marine environment
Marine spatial planning is a relatively recent concept, but has quickly caught on at local, r egional and national levels. Most coastal countries have now gone through (or are going through) the process.
The first UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) marine spatial planning workshop was held in 2006. Since then, the IOC has promoted the concept and published a number of documents
to aid the process, including Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach Towards Ecosystem-Based Management (2009) and the International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning (2021). Jersey's marine spatial planning process began in 2017, and so has been shaped
by both of these documents.
BACK TO PART B | 2 Introduction to Marine Spatial Planning 23
Fig. 2b: JMSP timeline in context of wider Marine Spatial Planning
Key dates: Jersey Actions
2006 UNESCO workshops designed and formalised principles and methodologies
which administrations can use to design a marine spatial plan.
2009 Marine Spatial Planning: a Step-by-Step Approach Towards Ecosystem-Based Management published by UNESCO IOC.
2011 Public participation process for English Marine Plans begins.
2014 EU adopted Directive 2014/89/EU which required coastal member states to participate
in a European framework for maritime spatial planning. Coastal member states were tasked with designing and creating their own MSPs with administrative and technical support from the EU.
20142023 UK develops Marine Plans for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, North-east England,
North-west England, South-east England and South-west England.
2016 UK and France started work on their MSPs.
2017 Jersey begins its MSP project, with a joint meeting between Jersey, UK and France.
Gathering of information for Evidence Base begins.
2020 France notified the adoption of four sea-basin strategies (East Channel
North Sea, North Atlantic West Channel, South Atlantic, Mediterranean) to the European Commission. Sea-basin strategy documents are the legal solution chosen by France to address the requirements of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and MSP Directive, and specify the conditions for implementing the National Strategy for the Seas and Coast according to local specificities.2
2020 Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment published
2021 International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning published by UNESCO IOC.
2022 (March) Jersey Bridging Island Plan (BIP) adopted, requiring the MSP process to
develop a network of marine protected areas which will be consistent
with overall environmental, economic and social objectives'.
2022 (Autumn) Consultants appointed to work with the Marine Resources section of the
Government of Jersey to prepare the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP).
2023 JMSP consultation and writing (see Methodology section 3.0). 2024 Adopting of the JMSP by the States Assembly.
2024 Implementation of the JMSP begins.
2 https://www.mspglobal2030.org/msp-roadmap/msp-around-the-world/europe/france/
3 Methodology and Consultation
- General approach
MSP core principles require that any MSP is transparent, inclusive, and considers the views and needs of stakeholders. It must also integrate with
all applicable laws, regulations, policies and agreements.
The JMSP seeks to find an appropriate balance
between ecological, economic, social and cultural requirements, and to deliver outputs which are practical, sustainable, and can be implemented. To do this, it follows accepted best practice for MSPs, and is informed by extensive stakeholder and public consultation (see MSP Global International Guide on Marine Spatial Planning, UNESCO 2021 Evidence Base document EB/G/8).
Local consultation has been a vital part of the evidence-gathering process which underpins the JMSP. It is particularly important in helping to understand
how the marine environment is valued by local people. This qualitative information often supplements quantitative surveys and data. The outputs from the consultation workshops and submissions through the public consultation portal have contributed to the vision, principles, aims, priorities and actions of the JMSP.
As explained in Chapter 1.0, the JMSP is supported
by an evidence base, and demonstrates a logical and transparent process between evidence and the priorities being recommended. It will be accompanied by an Economic Impact Assessment which is being prepared to quantify the economic impact of the proposed Marine Protected Areas.
BACK TO PART B | 3 Methodology and Consultation 25
- Stages of work
The timescale for producing the JMSP runs from December 2022 to spring 2024, although early r es earch and compilation of th e Evidence Base began several years before this. Fig. 3a shows
the stages of work involved in the production of the JMSP.
JMSP Workshop, St Helier Town Hall , February 2023.
JMSP Workshop with the Jersey Youth Parliament, February 2023.
Fig. 3a: JMSP stages of work
Preliminary data gathering
Commissioning specialist reports Reading MSPs from elsewhere Compiling GIS data
for Evidence Base to identify best practice
Desk Study ( December 2022 February 2023 )
Compiling and reviewing evidence base Project planning
Consultation Phase I ( March April 2023 )
Specialist stakeholder consultation workshops
Public consltation through JMSP online portal (in person and online)
Consultation review ( April May 2023 )
R evi ew of consultation findings Writing Direction of Travel Report
Main writing phase ( May August 2023 ) | ||
Writing and editing chapters | Creating maps and illustrations | Meetings and communication with relevant bodies and departments |
Internal review ( September 2023 )
Review and comment from relevant
Edits to reflect comments and create public consultation draft GoJ departments and other bodies
Consultation Phase 2 ( October 2023 January 2024 )
Public consultation on draft JMSP JMSP Digital Atlas prepared
Preparation of final JMSP ( February June 2024 ) |
Edits to cr eat e final JMSP JMSP Digital Atlas updated and finalised |
Adoption of the JMSP by the States Assembly ( 2024 ) |
JMSP lodged, debated and approved by the States Assembly |
Publication of final JMSP ( 2024 )
JMSP Digital Atlas and Evidence Base Final JMSP available online JMSP poster maps printed
available online
Implementation of JMSP ( 2024 onwards ) | |||
Continue dialogue with marine users and stakeholders | Actions implemented | Additional resources secured | Monitoring of progress and review of JMSP |
BACK TO PART B | 3 Methodology and Consultation 27
- Consultation
3.3.1 Consultation Phase 1: Stakeholder workshops and public consultation portal
A series of themed in-person and online workshops took place in February/March 2023, near the start of the JMSP process. These workshops enabled a wide range of stakeholders and experts in
Jersey's marine environment to find out more about the JMSP, and to contribute to its direction. Following the workshops, an online public consultation portal was open for several weeks where workshop attendees and members of the public could submit th eir thoughts and id eas.
It was also possible to submit longer documents through the online portal, and several organisations and individuals did this.
The following organisations attended the workshops and/or submitted material through the online public consultation portal. Private individuals who contributed are not listed.
Absolute Adventures
Aquamar
Blue Marine Foundation
Bouley Bay Dive Centre
Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Commerce tourism
Channel Island Group Professional Engineers Condor Ferries
Earth Project Jersey
Écréhous Residents Association
Flotation Energy
Genuine Jersey
Geomarine
GoJ Engineering
GoJ Marine Resources
GoJ Natural Environment
GoJ Place and spatial planning
GoJ Retail and visitor lead
GoJ Revenue Office audit team
GoJ Rural Economy Staff
Gorey Boat Owners Association
Guernsey Electricity Company
Hart igan
IE Technical Team
Island Rib Voyages
Jersey Biodiversity Centre
Jersey Canoe Club
Jersey Dive Team
Jersey Electricity Plc
Jersey Fishermen's Association
Jersey Heritage
Jersey Hospitality Association
Jersey Inshore Fishermen's Association Jersey Kayak Adventures
Jersey Lifeboat Association
Jersey Marine Conservation
Jersey Met Office Jersey National Park Jersey Oil
Jersey Seafaris
Jersey Specimen Hunters Group
Jersey Telecoms
Jersey Walk Adventures
Jersey Youth Parliament
MIRA
Kayak Nomad
Jenna Dee Scallops
La Rocque Boat Owners Association
Le Mourier
National Trust for Jersey Independent recreational fisher Local artist
Ocean Culture Life
Jersey Aquaculture Association
PJ News and Publishing
Ports of Guernsey
Ports of Jersey
PwC
Rozel Shipping company
Sangan Conservation
Save Our Shoreline Jersey Commercial seaweed harvesters Seymour Hotels
Sinkers Sea Fishing Club
Société Marine Biology
SOS Jersey
Splash Surf Centre
St Aubin's Boat Owners Association St Helier RNLI
St Helier Yacht Club
Terra Mare
Jersey Tour Guides Association UPL Ltd
Each workshop b egan with an introduction to the JMSP. Attendees then formed groups around tables and were asked to complete feedback cards answering the following questions:
- What do you value about Jersey's marine environment?
- What are your concerns regarding Jersey's marine environment?
The process was made as spatial as possible,
with attendees marking up locations on maps and using numbered stickers to cross-reference them
to their feedback forms. This enabled the values
and issues to be tied to places and features in the marine environment. Maps showing background information (for example locations of existing marine designations, coastal facilities and habitats) were provided to each table.
- What should be the future priorities in the The following table shows the number of attendees management of Jersey's marine environment? and responses at each of the workshops. The number
- What ideas do you have to improve of attendees and responses reflect the high level of Jersey's marine environment? importance which local people attach to Jersey's marine environment, and the strength of local feeling
Are you aware of any sources of information/
r egarding th e JMSP.
evidence which should feed in to the JMSP?
Workshop | No. of attendees | No. of response cards |
Youth Parliament | 12 | 11 |
Natural Environment and Biodiversity | 37 | 130 |
Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture | 35 | 67 |
Recreation and tourism | 28 | 107 |
Energy and Infrastructure | 34 | 82 |
General workshop (online) | 12 | N/A (submitted through online portal) |
TOTAL | 158 | 397 |
BACK TO PART B | 3 Methodology and Consultation 29
Some organisations and individuals requested in-person meetings, so whilst the consultants were in Jersey for the workshops, fact-finding meetings were also held.
Summaries of the workshops and the key themes which emerged from each are provided below. As would be expected given the wide range of opinions amongst those consulted, there is not always a cl ear cons ensus.
Youth Parliament
It is important to protect and maintain marine resources for future generations, and so it is necessary to understand and take account of the opinions of younger members of Jersey's population. While this session had a relatively small number of attendees, the values and issues raised were helpful. Key themes to emerge included:
- Enjoying beaches and watersports is relatively difficult for many younger islanders, with most watersports requiring hire or purchase of equipment, and transport being expensive or complicated.
- Beaches are highly valued for swimming and watersports such as surfing and scuba diving.
- Pollution (such as plastic waste) and the disturbance of marine life is a concern.
Natural environment and biodiversity
This was a particularly well-attended workshop, with comments relating to concerns for sustainable use of marine resources and appropriate protection for seabed habitats to maintain biodiversity.
Key themes from this workshop included:
- The importance of reaching the '30 by 30' target, whereby 30% of Jersey's waters are protected by 2030.
- Concerns over disturbance of marine wildlife such as s eals and birds.
- Water quality in relation to the impact on marine life.
- A need for more protection for key habitats such as seagrass, maerl and kelp, primarily in relation to reducing dredging or anchoring pressure on these habitats.
- Concerns over increasing footfall at the offshore reefs having a negative impact on wildlife.
- A need to improve fisheries sustainability and to reduce pollution from lost fishing gear.
- Conflict between dogs and coastal wildlife, in particular birds.
Cultural heritage
For logistical r easons this workshop was combin ed with the Natural Environment and Biodiversity workshop, but a clear set of themes emerged relating to cultural heritage, including:
- Concerns over lack of protection for shipwreck sites.
- The diversity of cultural heritage within the intertidal reef areas.
- A need to identify and appropriately manage marine archaeology sites, given that there has been very little underwater survey to date.
- A need to capture the voices of different generations.
- The importance of the connection to the sea as part of islanders' identity.
Commercial fishing and aquaculture
This workshop was well attended and served to highlight the needs of the fishing community. Originally this workshop included recreational fishers but it was later decided that this sector was better included in the recreational chapter.
Key themes from this workshop included:
- Importance of maintaining access to fishing grounds or access to financial support if fishing grounds are reduced in size.
- Concerns over the impact of renewable energy development such as wind farms.
- A need to better regulate inshore netting to reduce conflict with other marine users and to reduce bycatch.
- The importance of including the voice of young fishers.
- A need to improve the sustainability of fishing, and recognition for fishing sustainably.
- Some attendees suggested that more seabed needs to be protected, particularly around nursery areas. However, the overall consensus was that fishers do not want additional protected areas.
- A need for better infrastructure, in particular a way of disposing of old fishing g ear appropriat ely.
Recreation and tourism
As this sector is relatively unmonitored, this session was vital in order to document the areas most used by recreational users, and to understand their concerns and ideas. Some of the key themes from this workshop included:
- Inshore water safety between watercraft and swimmers.
- Inshore water safety with regard to entanglement of swimmers and divers in fishing nets.
- Concerns over water quality in St. Aubin's Bay.
- A need for more infrastructure to help improve accessibility of watersports.
- The importance of maintaining ports and associated facilities; impacts of anchoring and fishing on sensitive habitats.
- Conflicts with dogs in terms of fouling and bird disturbance.
- Increasing use of the offshore reefs leading to d egradation of th eir natural b eauty and disturbance of wildlife.
- A need for better access to beaches and the sea, with more parking, more bike racks and better bus routes.
- Concerns over the impacts that some recreational activities have on wildlife, in particular wading and over-wintering birds.
- Concerns over conflict between recreational fishers and commercial fishers, particularly in r elation to n ets.
Energy and infrastructure
The island relies on its connections to other jurisdictions for energy and communications, and routes to and from the island require appropriate infrastructure. This was therefore a critical workshop to engage local organisations that deal with
Jersey's energy and communications needs
and shipping logistics. Some of the key themes from this workshop included:
- The importance of maintaining ports infrastructure and navigation markers.
- A need to develop renewable energy infrastructure, both offshore and inshore.
- The importance of maintaining and protecting subsea cables that supply Jersey's electricity and telecommunications.
- A need to consider flood mitigation in low lying ar eas.
- Maintaining coastal ar eas in a good condition by managing the activities that occur there.
- Development of eco-moorings in areas with sensitive seabed (particularly seagrass).
3.3.2 Review of Consultation Phase 1, and writing Direction of Travel report
Following a review of the consultation responses and the Evidence Base, a Direction of Travel Report for the JMSP was published in May 2023. This work in progress' document set out the guiding principles
for the JMSP and summarised its likely content. Feedback on the Direction of Travel Report informed the preparation of the Consultation Draft version of the JMSP.
3.3.3 Consultation Phase 2: Review of Consultation Draft
The Consultation Draft was open for public consultation between October 2023 and January 2024. During the public consultation phase there was a campaign to raise awareness of the JMSP and to explain how the public could comment on its content. The campaign involved a series of social media posts, posters and banners put up in areas of high footfall and flyers distributed amongst stakeholder groups
to give to their associated communities. There were also opportunities to drop into sessions at parish
halls where members of the Marine Resources team were present to answer any questions. Those wishing to comment were directed to a dedicated webpage where comments could be submitted in relation to specific chapters or as general comments on the JMSP.
Over 300 responses were received through the public consultation process, the vast majority of which were supportive of the MSP and the actions being proposed. The greatest number of concerns raised related to the Marine Protected Area proposals, although these were supported by a large number of other respondents. The feedback received through the public consultation process informed the final version of the JMSP, lodged and debated by the States Assembly in Spring/summer 2024.
More detailed analysis of the comments received can be found in the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan Public Consultation Response Summary [Evidence Base document EB/G/25].
Following incorporation of comments from the public consultation process, the JMSP was given further editorial review by internal governmental officers and related organisations. This resulted in a small number of additional changes to ensure compatibility with current government policy.
- 3.4 Future Consultation
Following publication of the final version of the JMSP, dialogue will continue - particularly with the fishing community (including the French fishing community) and other commercial users of the marine
environment - in order to inform how the priorities and actions are implemented.
4 PMlaanrinnien gan CdoTnetrerxetstrial
- Introduction
The JMSP sits within a framework of international and Jersey- based legislation and policy, which forms its planning context and is summarised in this chapter. The legislative and policy framework is likely to evolve during the lifespan of the JMSP.
Section 4.2.1 introduces the relevant international obligations to which Jersey is a signatory, and which the JMSP helps to fulfil. These include a number of treaties relating to nature conservation, such as the 2023 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which committed governments to protect 30% of their coastal areas and ocean by 2030. Section 4.2.2 describes the marine spatial planning context of Jersey s waters, including the ecological units identified within the French waters which surround Jersey.
Jersey has unique arrangements relating to its territorial waters
and the cross-boundary agreements which are in place within them, which are described in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.
The second half of this chapter covers the existing Jersey legislative and policy framework in which the JMSP sits.
The JMSP is not a statutory document, so these legislative and policy tools will be used to deliver the actions set out in the JMSP. There are summaries of relevant policies within key statutory planning documents including the Bridging Island Plan (2022) and the Shoreline Management Plan (2020).
- International legislative and policy context of Jersey s marine waters
- 2.1 Treaties and conventions
Jersey's marine waters are covered by international treaties and conventions, relating to various aspects of the marine environment and its uses. These are
s et out in full in th e Legislation and Policy Review for JMSP [Evidence Base document EB/G/21]. Those which are particularly relevant to the JMSP are listed below, and summarised in Appendix C.
Oceans:
- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Biodiversity:
- Kunming-Montr eal Global Biodiv ersity Fram ework (COP 15)
- Paris Agreement on Climate Change
- Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR)
- Agreement on the Conservation of Africa-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds
- Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of th e Baltic and North S eas
- (ASCOBANS)
- Bern Convention on the Conservation of Europ ean Wildlif e and Natural Habitats
- International Convention on Biological Diversity
- Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
- Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention)
Cultural heritage
- Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe
- European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (The Valletta Convention') (Revised)
Trade:
4.2.2 Marine Spatial Plans Surrounding Jersey s Waters
The waters adjacent to Jersey's territorial seas are within the jurisdictions of Guernsey and France. Guernsey is in the process of developing a Marine Spatial Plan. However, French waters surrounding Jersey's territorial waters are already covered by Marine Spatial Plans1 which were adopted in April/ May 2022. The sectors within the French Marine Spatial Plans correspond to the ecological units identified along the French coast and within the channel waters (shown on Fig. 4a).
As explained in the Sea Basin Strategy Document for East Channel North Sea2, the territorial waters of France have been divided into vocational zones. These zones were established as ecological units' in 2017 by the French Agency for Biodiversity (AFB) predecessor to the current French Office for Biodiversity (OFB). They were marginally modified following public consultation and are used in the French Marine Spatial Plans (Document Strategique de la Façade). The aim of these zones is to create an agreed, unified approach to dividing the geographical space which works from both an ecological and environmental perspective.
In February 2017, France published a National
Strat egy for th e S ea and Coast (Stratégie Nationale pour la Mer et le Littoral, (SNML)), s etting out
its long-term goals in this area. This document forms the baseline for environmental protection, optimisation of marine resources and the integrated, consensus-based management of activities relating to the sea and coast. The SNML sets out four long- term objectives: achieving the essential ecological transition; developing a sustainable blue economy; restoring good environmental status, and upholding France's influence as a maritime nation.
France has developed its maritime and coastal strategy to meet the obligation to implement
two European framework directives: EU Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008, known as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which aims to achieve or maintain good marine environmental status by 2020. EU Directive 2014/89/EU of 23 July 2014 established a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning, which calls upon Member States to coordinate their activities at sea.
Both Guernsey and France are in the process
of developing or updating their MSPs, and the next iteration of the JMSP will, therefore, need to take into account cumulative marine management measures across the Normano-Breton Gulf.
1 Marine Spatial Plans covering North Atlantic West Channel and East Channel North Sea
2 https://www.dirm.memn.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/en_dsfsynthetique_memnor_v1-4_vu_dirm.pdf
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 36 CONTENTS
The principal characteristics of the adjacent French territorial waters are described in the following ecological units:
Secteur 6 Golfe Normand-Breton
(Ouest Cotentin)
This sector experiences an exceptional tidal regime with strong currents swirling around the islands, archipelagos and rocky shoals and accelerating near headlands. There is a great variety of landscapes including cliffs, hydraulic dunes, and subtidal and intertidal reefs. Heterogenous subtidal sediment dominates two thirds of the seabed and bivalves, such as oysters, clams, scallops as well as gastropods (whelks) are found here. Crustaceans such as lobster and spider crabs can be found on the rocky seabed and reef areas. Honeycomb worm reefs and seagrass beds can be found in the sedimentary foreshore. There are also estuaries in this sector which are an essential interface zone for fish which live in fresh and salt water, such as salmon. Coastal nurseries
for seabass, plaice and sole exist here, as well
as spawning grounds for sole along the coast. Spawning ar eas for cuttl efish attract a population
of resident bottlenose dolphins. These foreshores
are home to particularly rich and diversified birdlife, particularly during wintering. The Bay of Mont Saint Michel has a colony of harbour seals at the edge of it.
Secteur 7 Mer Celtique et Manche
Ouest
There is a dominant thermal front in this sector which forms in the spring until the end of the summer. This front (Ushant) forms between the cold turbulent waters on the coast and the warmer sea waters offshore. This sector is a site of primary and secondary production which can be at very high levels north of the front in late summer.
The seabed is characterised by coarse sediments forming large hydraulic dunes. In the northeast is the central plateau of Roches Douvres'. A rich trophic network exists due to the front and the sector is an important summer feeding area for megafauna:
birds (gann et, fulmar and s ea gull), small c etac eans (porpoise and common dolphin) and elasmobranch fish including sharks (Blue and basking) and skates. This sector is an important spawning area for several species of fish and concentrations of leatherback turtles are seen in the west in the summer.
Secteur 8 Nord Cotentin
This is the location in the Channel of the strongest tidal currents. The result of this mixing and swirling of water is threefold: significant microbial activity, the availability of nutrients and the strong oxygenation
of the water. This allows an intense regeneration
of phytoplankton which is distributed fairly evenly from the surface to the bottom, despite relatively
low chlorophyll-a production. Near the coast the coarse sediment alternates with rocky sea floors, which, at shallow depths provide rich environments and spawning nurseries for many species of fish and crustaceans. The kelp in the north of this sector is
the only location where they have been assessed as being in a very good' state. The Pointe du Contentin forms a bottleneck for migrating or hunting marine mammals. The passage area between the Eastern Channel and the Western Channel is also regularly frequented by bottlenose dolphins.
Secteur 9 Golfe Normand-Breton
(c te d Emeraude et baie de St-Brieuc)
This sector is subject to a macrotidal regime, the waters of the bay are mixed by powerful currents which accelerate near the headlands. The coast alternates wide sandy bays and coast with cliffs, hydraulic dunes of shell sands and subtidal reefs. The underwater landscape is equally varied.
Species living on the seabed are organised according to the size of the sediment and their ability to adapt to the mobility of the seabed. Two thirds of this zone is covered by coarse sediment which is a favourable environment for bivalves such as scallops. A few localised sites of maerl have been found in nearshore areas. Seagrass can be found in the bottom of some sandy bays. This sector has a very high production potential and the generation of a significant biomass of invertebrates feeds aquatic fauna (crabs and fish) at high tide and birds at low tide. There are nurseries here too and a large population of sedentary bottlenose dolphins. This is an important feeding ground for birds, notably th e Bal earic Sh earwat er, common guillemot, and the razorbill.
Secteur 10 Sept Iles TrØgor Goelo
This coastal area is dotted with more than 280 islands and islets. The seabed is made up of a mixture of coarse sediment, reefs and boulders and is home to
a large population of crustaceans. Maerl beds exist in nearshore areas but have been reduced due to both industrial exploitation (until 2013) and the invasive slipper limpet species. Seagrass exists in certain bays.
The islets and rocky coastline are favourite locations for many bird species: northern gannets, torda penguins, English shearwaters, Atlantic puffins, common guillemot and roseate terns. This sector
is home to one of the main grey seal colonies
in Brittany. The Trieux and Jaudy estuaries are important for migratory fish (Atlantic salmon). Between 10–15% of the French population of common ringed plover nest in the Sillon de Talbert and Bréhat archipelago.
4.2.3 Jersey s territorial waters
The Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997 established Jersey's territorial waters to the internationally-agreed 12 nautical mile limit or
the median point between Jersey and France.
Its boundary with Guernsey is also defined using the equidistance methodology to define the midpoint between the islands. Jersey's rights and responsibilities in its territorial waters are those set out in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These include the right of innocent passage, and responsibilities regarding the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
Jersey's territorial waters cover 2,455km2, which
is over 95% of the Bailiwick's total area. They are bordered by France to the east, south and south-west, and by Guernsey to the north-west. The maritime borders with France were not fixed until 1997.
Prior to this Jersey possessed an exclusive fishing area that stretched from low water to three nautical miles offshore, and the sovereignty of three offshore reefs (internationally recognised in 1953), but not the seas around them which were designated as
mer commune between Jersey and France.
The Crown gifted the foreshore and seabed to the public of Jersey in 2015. These areas (which include all of Jersey's beaches and the seabed beneath
its territorial waters) are now managed by the Government of Jersey on behalf of the public of Jersey. The only exception is the reefs of Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers above the highest spring tides which remain in Crown ownership.
4.2.4 Cross-boundary agreements 4.3 Jersey legislative and rJeelrasteinyg s tmo atrhine emeannvaigroenmmeennt tof policy context
The Government of Jersey's management of
its marine area is overseen by the States of Jersey using legislation relating to fisheries, planning and development, extraction, pollution and other activities.
From 2001 a portion of Jersey's seas were managed through the Bay of Granville Agreement (GBA) which provisioned cross-border access for a list
of Jersey and French vessels. From 2004 the GBA oversaw a joint management framework which included a committee-based decision-making process that, whilst primarily concerned with fisheries management, impacted on wider
aspects of marine governance.
In 2021 the UK exited the European Union (EU) following a 2016 referendum to which the Channel Islands were not party. Under Protocol 3 of the UK's 1972 Accession Treaty, Jersey had been part of the EU for the purposes of free trade in goods. The UK's departure terminated Protocol 3, and on 1st February 2021 the relationship between Jersey and the EU was managed via a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) negotiated during 2020.
The TCA terminated the GBA, and in its place ceded vessel licencing and fisheries management to the States of Jersey. The TCA management framework includes processes, objectives and principles that did not exist under the GBA, but are taken into account in the JMSP.
Under the TCA, Jersey has full control over its marine management within the three nautical mile limit from the island's coast. Outside of this limit, any measure that may impinge on commercial fishing is subject to the terms of the TCA.
4.3.1 Existing legislation and policy framework
The JMSP sits within an existing framework of Jersey legislation and policy. These legislative and policy tools can be used to give effect to the strategic direction set by the JMSP.
Relevant legislative and policy tools are listed in Appendix C, and cover a range of topics including administration, infrastructure, harbours and transport, climate change, biodiversity and natural environment, environmental management, history and culture, tourism and leisure, fisheries and aquaculture. Many of these laws and documents have a much wider scope than marine spatial planning. They are described in more detail in
the Legislation and Policy Review [Evidence Base document EB/G/21].
4.4 Key related planning documents
4.4.1 Jersey Bridging Island Plan (BIP) 2022
This document is the primary consideration in
any planning-related decision-making during the
plan p eriod (2022–2025). It s ets out a planning framework to create homes, strengthen the economy, protect and improve the environment, provide for
a good quality of life, and enhance what is special about Jersey. It aims to achieve the sustainable development of Jersey, with a balance between social, environmental and economic considerations. As mentioned above, Strategic Proposal 3 of the
BIP requires the creation of a JMSP. The JMSP shares the same aspiration for a holistic approach
to sustainable development.
The coverage of the BIP extends out to Jersey's territorial limits, but contains relatively little detail within the offshore parts of the Bailiwick compared to Jersey itself.
With regard to development in the marine environment, the BIP states (pp 78–79):
The long-term, prudent use of marine resources is essential in the management of Jersey's unique, fragile and environmentally and economically important shores and waters.
Development proposals located in the marine environment will not generally by supported except where a marine location is demonstrated to be essential and generally accords with other policies of the plan. This Island Plan provides a more focused policy regime for activities in the marine environment by providing some spatial definition of areas or sites where different marine-related land uses may be supported such as offshore utility scale renewable energy development, aquaculture and shoreline management. Other essential uses here could provide for navigation; access to water; and power and communications supplies. There is a need to ensure that the impact of development on areas of high marine biodiversity and seascape value is given sufficient weight in the decision-making process.
The Protected Coastal Area embraces parts of the marine environment below the high-water mark including the unique intertidal zones and offshore reefs, together with their surrounding shallow waters, where development opportunity will be limited. Development proposals will need to protect or improve the essential and sensitive landscape and seascape character and rich biodiversity of these places.
The following BIP Policies and Planning Zones (shown on Figs. 4b and 4c) relate to the intertidal and marine parts of the Bailiwick and, therefore, also have direct relevance to the JMSP:
Policy | Planning Zone | Where located (intertidal and offshore only) |
ER4 Daytime and evening economy uses | Tourist destination area | St Brelade s Bay; St Aubin s Harbour; Havre des Pas; Gorey Harbour |
WER8 Safety zones for hazardous installations | Safety zone for hazardous installations | La Collette |
C15 Sports, leisure and cultural facilities | Sports and leisure enhancement area | St Helier Harbour and eastern side of St Aubin s Bay |
WER11 Airport public safety zones | Airport public safety Zone 2 | St Ouen s Bay |
Proposal 37 Aircraft noise and public safety zone review | Airport noise zone 3 | St Ouen s Bay |
ERE8 Fishing and Aquaculture | Intertidal aquaculture box | Royal Bay of Grouville |
PL5 Countryside, Coast and Marine Environment | Coastal national park | Corbire; L le au Guerdain (Portelet Bay); Minquiers; crØhous |
Protected coastal area | Intertidal areas; Ramsar sites; coastal settings | |
ME5 Offshore utility-scale renewable energy proposals | Potential area for utility scale offshore wind | Western edge of Bailiwick |
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 42 CONTENTS
Figs. 4b and 4c: BIP Policies and Planning Zones in the
intertidal and marine environment
In addition, the shoreline zone (as detailed within policy GD9 Skyline, views and vistas) represents the area where the built environment meets the sea. It covers that part of the built-up area which
lies seaward of the coast road in St Brelade's Bay; St Aubin's Bay; La Collette to Le Hurel and
Longb each to Gor ey Harbour.
Other policies such as NE3 (Landscape and Seascape Character) and HE1 (Protecting listed buildings
and places, and their settings) are not limited to a particular spatial location, but are still relevant
to the marine and coastal environment.
Policy NE1 (Protection and improvement of biodiversity and geodiversity) gives particular emphasis to the protection of marine biodiversity, and presents a spatial dimension related to marine defined areas such as Ramsar sites
and Marine Protected Areas.
Looking ahead, there is an aspiration to have more detailed and refined marine policy elements in forthcoming iterations of the Island Plan.
The JMSP will help in this process through informing future policies.
4.4.2 Shoreline Management Plan (2020)
In order to remain resilient to the impacts of climate change (especially the risk of coastal flooding as a result of rising sea levels and increasing frequency and severity of storm events) the Island Plan and the JMSP need to enable the implementation of
the Shoreline Management Plan. The Shoreline Management Plan sets out policy options for Jersey's entire coastline, over three epochs covering a 100–year period, and essentially seeks to protect the existing developed parts of
the island's coastline at risk of coastal flooding.
Along some parts of the coastline it is proposed that new coastal defences are developed in front of the existing coastal structures (known as the advance-the- line option). More information on coastal defences is provided in the Energy and Infrastructure' chapter (chapter 12) below. Where this option is pursued along the St Helier coastline, land reclamation may also present development opportunities.
4.4.3 Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (2022)
This document sets out a strategy for Jersey's marine economy. It has been prepared by Jersey's Marine Economy Advisory Group (MEAG) which brings together Jersey's commercial fishers, aquaculture producers and merchants. The vision articulated
by the MEAG is for Jersey to have a vibrant and sustainable marine sector, providing employment and economic opportunity, and maintaining fisheries and aquaculture as an integral part of
the island's cultural identity.
Policy 9 relates directly to marine spatial planning, and states: GoJ will develop a Marine Spatial Planning Strategy, using standardised methodologies and principles, to enable a co- ordinated plan to manage the marine environment.
Other policies which are relevant to the JMSP include:
- Policy 8: Blue Ecosystem Services
- Policy 15: Marine Built Infrastructure
- Policy 16: Marine Leisure
- Policy 17: Carbon Neutral Agenda
4.4.4 Carbon Neutral Roadmap (2022)
The Carbon Neutral Roadmap was approved by the States Assembly on 29 April 2022. It builds on the progress made through the Pathway 2050: An Energy Plan for Jersey and supersedes the Carbon Neutral Strategy 2019. It describes Jersey's carbon neutral pathway to n et-z ero by 2050.
The Carbon Neutral Roadmap includes both the mandate to establish Jersey's Citizen's Assembly on Climate Change and set out a plan for delivery of both short term and long-term goals, broken down into five strategic policies:
- N et z ero transition pathway
- Island energy market
- Financing strat egy
- Policy programme and development
- Becoming carbon neutral
Policy EN5: Blue Carbon, Biodiversity
and sequestration
Promote Jersey as a centre of excellence for blue carbon sequestration, with an ambition to double the extent of seagrass beds and recognise that tackling the climate emergency by using nature-based solutions that also address the biodiversity crises provides multiple benefits for our land, air and s ea.
SMART objectives include:
Develop a Carbon Sequestration Framework
and Marine Spatial Plan by the end of 2023. Protect Jersey's carbon sinks to prevent stored greenhouse gasses from being emitted back into the atmosphere and safeguard the estimated 6,000 tonnes of CO2 being sequestered annually. Maximise co-benefits for biodiversity where possible.
NOTE: Th e ar ea of s eagrass around J ers ey's coast The Roadmap sets out the first delivery plan for the has roughly doubled over the past 10 years.
period 2022–2025 and milestones for future key Monitoring has shown that during this time, the decisions and future policies that will need to be extent of intertidal seagrass has fluctuated, whilst updated at the start of each new term of Government. sub-tidal seagrass has consistently expanded.
Looking ahead, the most effective way of increasing Two policies within the Carbon Neutral Roadmap are the extent of seagrass beds is through management particularly relevant to the marine environment: allowing natural regeneration to occur, rather than
through direct seeding/planting. Such management
includes preventing mobile fishing gear from
Policy TR11: Emissions from aviation
damaging the seabed, and installing seagrass-friendly and maritime transport boat moorings. It is not possible to put a precise
Work with Ports of Jersey to reduce emissions from figur e on how quickly, or how far, s eagrass will spr ead. aviation and marine transport, in line with... It is important that seagrass extent continues to obligations under the MARPOL treaty. be monitored. This monitoring also provides a
useful picture of the health of the marine
environment in terms of wider environmental
factors such as water quality.
BACK TO PART B | 4 Marine and Terrestrial Planning Context
5 Isnetarso dauncdtcioona stots Jersey s
- Geographical context
5.1.1 The Normano-Breton Gulf
The Bailiwick of Jersey is an enclave of the English Channel formed by the coastlines of western Normandy and northern Brittany
(See Fig. 5a). This L-shaped area is known as the Normano-Breton Gulf, and, as well as Jersey, hosts the other British Channel Islands (Guernsey, Alderney, Sark and Herm), the French archipelago of Chausey, and several large uninhabited offshore reefs. Four of these offshore reefs (Les Minquiers, Les crØhous, Les Dirouilles and Paternosters) are within the Bailiwick of Jersey.
- Geology
5.2.1 Introduction to Jersey s marine geology
Jersey's offshore and intertidal areas contain outstandingly varied and complex geology. This ranges from some of the oldest rocks visible in
the British Isles (approx. 640 million years old) through to deposits laid down since the end of the last ice age, approx. 10,000 years ago. There are examples of all the three rock types: igneous (rocks which have formed from volcanic magma); sedimentary (rocks formed by deposition or as a chemical precipitate), and metamorphic (rocks formed by changes in the earth's crust due to heat and/or pressure). Each rock type has different qualities in terms of its resistance to erosion, and the seabed, sediments and habitats associated with it. Geology is therefore closely linked to bathymetry, sediments and habitats. A simplified geology map of Jersey's intertidal and offshore areas is shown in Fig. 5b.
BACK TO PART B | 5 Introduction to Jersey s seas and coasts
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 48 CONTENTS
The reefs (both those offshore and surrounding Jersey) are generally associated with harder
igneous rocks. The oldest rocks within the Bailiwick are found on the offshore reefs and date from the Neoproterozoic period (over 540 million years ago). At Les Maisons on Les Minquiers, some of the oldest rocks in the British Isles can be seen, in layers which have been bent and twisted by extreme pressure. The rocks of the offshore reefs create excellent building stone, and Les Minquiers was quarried
to construct Fort R eg ent.
The basins between the reefs generally contain
softer sedimentary rocks. The youngest of these is limestone, which is located under the sea on the western side of the Bailiwick and extends around to the north-east, between Jersey and Les Écréhous. The limestone was laid down in the Eocene period (approx. 55 million y ears ago) wh en th e ar ea was a warm, tropical, shallow s ea.
Neoproterozoic rocks (layers of granodiorite and pegmatite) at Les Maisons on Les Minquiers.
Fiona Fyfe
A large rock pool at Grève d'Azette. It is in landscape hollows such as this that the Pleistocene clays and gravels are preserved. Often they are only visible after storms have shifted the modern beach sediments
Paul Chambers
BACK TO PART B | 5 Introduction to Jersey s seas and coasts
5.2.2 Buried land surfaces
The Pleistocene period (approx. 2 million 10,000 y ears ago) saw many climatic fluctuations which affected sea levels. During times of low sea level,
the Channel Islands would have been elevated land within a broad open plain which connected them with what is now France. The Ruau channel (between Jersey and Les Écréhous) would have been a river valley. Sediments from the Pleistocene period are found across Jersey, and also occur on the seashore, where they take the form of clays and gravels buried below more recent beach sediments. The middle- shore intertidal deposits are likely to have been
laid down in what would have been hollows in the landscape, and are now rock pools. Other buried
land surfaces include sub-surface peat deposits in
St Ouen's Bay, which contain evidence of the plants growing in Jersey when the peat beds were formed.
The latter part of the Pleistocene period overlaps with the Palaeolithic archaeological period. The caves on today's coastline at La Cotte de St Brelade and
La Cotte à La Chèvre are two of Europe's most important Palaeolithic sites. At the start of their occupation, the caves would have been on a hillside, looking out over a broad plain of land crossed by sediment-rich rivers, and occupied by roaming herds of animals such as rhinoceros and woolly mammoth. The former land surface now forms the bed of the shallow seas around Jersey, and it is therefore highly likely that the seabed contains palaeo-environmental and prehistoric anthropological evidence.
Sea levels gradually rose and fell during the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, with the land corridor to France being most recently flooded approx. 8000 years ago. Early Neolithic material has been found on both Les Minquiers and Les Écréhous reefs, and more is presumed to exist below today's sea level. More information on marine and intertidal prehistoric archaeology is provided in Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage.
Prehistoric hand-axe found at Les Écréhous Photo Paul Chambers
50 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
- Bathymetry and sediments
Vertical scale exaggerated
5.3.1 Shallow sea areas
As explained above, the regional undersea topography of the Normano-Breton Gulf reflects
an ancient drainage network which was drowned
by the rising sea at the end of the last Ice Age.
This episode of marine flooding created three distinct basins lying wholly or partially within Jersey's territorial borders (Les Écréhous Basin, between Jersey and Les Écréhous reef; Canger Basin, between Les Anquettes Reef and Les Minquiers reef; and Sauvages Basin, east of Les Minquiers reef).
These basins are accumulating sediment, with geotechnical surveys reporting seabed thicknesses of 40+ metres between the east coast of Jersey and Normandy (see Fig. 5d). The basins (and the reefs which separate them) are shallow, productive and fragile, but their importance to regional biodiversity and ecology, and their contribution to the storage of carbon, has only recently been recognised.
5.3.2 Deeper sea areas
The seabed area to the west of Jersey (dominated by limestone geology)
is flatter and less complex, with a greater exposure to high energy weather, waves and currents. Water depths are greater but remain relatively shallow (<50m) with a westward-sloping seabed that is flatter and dominated by bedrock and cobble which, in places, is covered by patches of mobile sand and gravel. In these areas a predominance of rocky seabed and mobile course sediments creates a different ecology to Jersey's sedimentary basins, with a different role in the regional ecological framework.
The sediment types found across the Bailiwick are shown in Fig. 5e.
Fig. 5d: Sediment thickness. CREDIT: UK Renewables Atlas
Fig 5e: Sediment type. CREDIT: UK Renewables Atlas
- Tides, currents and wave patterns
- 4.1 Water circulation patterns
Additional to Jersey's subsea topography is an unusual oceanographic regime controlled by the island's location in relation to the Normandy and Brittany coastlines. The L-shape formed by the Normandy and Brittany coasts creates a dead end for tidal waters entering from the English Channel. This causes the incoming tidal wave to push up against the French coastline, producing some of the largest tidal ranges in the world (12.2m in St Helier, but up to 13m at Les Minquiers and St Malo on the French coast). The squeeze of sea water towards the Bay of Mont St Michel and the presence of so many islands and reefs create strong tidal currents (>5knots) and a complicated circulation pattern around the reefs and islands.
Fig. 5f: Gyre currents as seen on satellite images (NASA Worldview).
For sea water to navigate its way into, across and then out of th e Normano-Br eton Gulf it must pass through a network of gyres and eddies generated around topographic features such as the offshore reefs and islands. Computer modelling and water surveys suggest that sea water entering the Jersey area from the English Channel may circulate around the island for several weeks to a year before being pushed
back out into the Channel. This long residency time has practical impacts on the ecology. For example, scallops (including their larvae) stay within the Normano-Breton Gulf for their entire life-cycle.
The same may be true for other invertebrates
such as lobsters and whelks.
5.4.2 Water characteristics
The combination of long residency times, complex currents, high tidal range and lack of fresh water from rivers all serve to homogenise the salinity and temperature of the marine waters around Jersey. They form a distinct and largely separate body of water which is demarcated by a sharp tidal divide (sometimes called the Guernsey Front) which almost exactly follows the sea border between Jersey and Guernsey. This division of sea waters is well defined by differences in temperature, productivity and turbidity, and the two water bodies are clearly visible on satellite images (Fig. 5f).
The northern water body around Guernsey is deeper, clearer, colder and more stratified, whilst the southern water body around Jersey and the Bay of Granville is warmer, more turbid and without stratification. This division and its associat ed oc eanographic properties influence regional sedimentary, productivity and biodiversity patterns.
5.4.3 Wave patterns
As shown on Figs. 5g and 5h, the highest and most powerful waves are found in the north-west of the Bailiwick. The sheltered waters to the east of Jersey have notably lower wave heights and wave power than elsewhere. The variation in wave height and power is reflected in Jersey's coastal exposure index (Fig. 5i), which shows the highest levels of coastal exposure in the north-west (from the middle of St Ouen's bay round to Ronez Point), followed by the south coast, then the north-east from Ronez round to Fauvic. The lowest levels of coastal exposure
are found around La Rocque, due to the relatively sheltered water, and the absorption of wave energy by the extensive intertidal reefs.
- Wind strength and direction
5.5.5 Wind data
Meteorological data shows that the greatest wind speeds and wind power densities are found in the west and south-west of the Bailiwick, reflecting the prevailing south-westerly winds. (see Fig. 5j). As would be expected, the area to the north-east of Jersey, which is sheltered by the landmass from the prevailing winds, has the lowest wind speeds and wind power densities.
Fig. 5g wave height (annual average). CREDIT: UK Renewables Atlas
Fig. 5h wave power (annual average). CREDIT: UK Renewables Atlas
Fig. 5i Coastal exposure index.
Fig. 5j Wind speed (annual average). CREDIT: Global Wind Atlas
- The diversity of Jersey s marine environment
5.6.1 Seascapes and views
From sweeping sands to jagged rocks, and from busy harbours to empty wildernesses, Jersey's spectacular and diverse seascapes encompass
many natural and human-made features. They are constantly changing in response to tides, weather, season and the movements of a wide variety of craft. The diversity of coastal and offshore areas is expressed through the various seascape character areas found across the Bailiwick. These together with the offshore landmarks which form focal points in views from the coast and sea are described
in Chapter 7: Seascapes.
5.6.2 Marine and intertidal habitats and species
The diversity of geology, bathymetry, sediments, tidal conditions, wind energy and exposure across Jersey's waters results in an extra-ordinary range of habitats within a relatively small area. Each habitat plays a different role within the overall ecosystem of Jersey's marine environment. As well as supporting different marine species, they also contribute
to marine functions such as carbon storage and pollution entrapment. More detail on the habitats found in Jersey's waters, and the functions which they perform, is found in Chapter 8: The Natural Environment and Biodiversity. There are some existing nature conservation designations, including Ramsar sites, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Sites of Special Interest, Areas of Special Protection and a No-Take-Zone. Some of the most valuable habitats (kelp forests, maerl beds and seagrass meadows) are covered by the OSPAR convention.
A number of OSPAR protected species also live in Jersey's waters, including dog whelk, flat oyster, Balearic shearwater, Roseate tern, European eel, spotted ray, long and short-snouted seahorses, porbeagle shark, bluefin tuna and harbour porpoise.
- Human influences on Jersey s marine environment
5.7.1 Making a living from the coast and sea
People have been fishing in Jersey's waters since prehistoric times, and fishing continues to contribute to the island's economy and identity. The last few centuries have seen various phases of fishing, including for mackerel, conger eels and oysters.
The 19th Century oyster fishery in particular contributed to development of harbours and
piers which are still in use. Today, there are several fishing metiers (types) covering shellfish and wetfish. Today, potting for lobster and crab dominates, with other metiers including dredging, diving, trawling, netting, and angling for species such as scallops and various finfish. Often boats will contain different types of fishing gear. Intertidal aquaculture of oysters and mussels also contributes to the island's economy. Further information about fishing is provided in Chapter 9: Commercial fishing and aquaculture.
5.7.2 Cultural Heritage 5.7.4 Practical uses of the sea
Centuries of coastal habitation and use have left their mark on Jersey's coastal and marine environment. The earliest traces are found on the prehistoric
land surfaces now flooded by the sea or buried by sand. The intertidal reefs contain a rich collection of fish traps, vraicing (seaweed gathering) tracks and other features. There is a legacy of coastal defence sites ranging from prehistoric coastal forts, through medieval castles and Napoleonic fortifications, to structures built by the occupying German forces
in the Second World War. Marine navigation features such as lighthouses and beacons are an important cultural layer of Jersey's maritime heritage.
On the seabed are wreck sites, some of which
are known to divers, but many of which are not
yet recorded. Some of these cultural heritage sites are protected through designation as Listed Buildings or Listed Places. More detail is provided in Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage.
Because Jersey is an island, the sea forms an
int egral part of its transport n etwork. All around th e coast are harbours, slipways and piers which allow connectivity between land and sea. Commercial shipping lanes allow larger vessels to access the port at St Helier and to travel through Jersey's waters. On the seabed, a network of cables provides power and communication to the island, and it is likely
that in the future, the marine environment will
also become a source of renewable energy.
See Chapter 12: Infrastructure, Energy
and Transport for more information.
5.7.3 Enjoying the coast and sea
Recreation and tourism are a vital part of Jersey's economy, and very important for the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of local people. Coastal
and marine recreation takes many forms. It includes activities without craft such as swimming, snorkelling, diving, dog walking, coasteering and low-water fishing. It may include non-powered craft such as surf boards, stand-up paddleboards and sailing dinghies, or powered craft such as rigid inflatable boats (RIBs), j et-skis and yachts. Coastal and marin e recreation supports many coastal businesses, and
is concentrated in the most popular beaches of
St Ouen's Bay, St Brelade's Bay, St Aubin's Bay,
the Royal Bay of Grouville , St Catherine's Bay and Bouley Bay. Recreation also takes place offshore, with Les Écréhous reef a particularly popular destination for sailors, kayakers and RIB trips. Various races and events also take place within Jersey's waters. More information is provided
in Chapter 11: Recreation and Tourism.
6 Bseernveicfietss)faronmd Bnlauteu Crea r(ebcoonsystem
- Introduction
This section introduces the concept of benefits from nature (also known as ecosystem services ) delivered by the marine environment.
Benefits from nature can be described as the goods and services provided by ecosystems .
Protecting and enhancing benefits from nature is a principle of the JMSP, and is a fundamental consideration with regard to the identification of areas to be designated
as Marine Protected Areas.
This chapter provides a short general introduction to benefits from nature. The specific benefits from nature provided by different habitats within Jersey s waters are described in Chapter 8. The benefits are environmental, cultural, social and economic, and considering them all enables a holistic approach to marine spatial planning. The JMSP takes into account the benefits from nature felt by people, and by marine life in its own right.
- Types of benefits from nature
Benefits from nature may be divided into four categories, as shown in Fig. 6a below. Provisioning benefits are products obtained from ecosystems, such as food. Regulating benefits are processes such as pollution capture which keep the environment stable. Cultural benefits are non-material things such as education
and well-being. These three categories are underpinned by supporting benefits
(such as photosynthesis) which enable the other benefits to happen.
Fig. 6a: Types of benefits from nature provided by the marine environment
PROVISIONING BENEFITS Products obtained from ecosystems (e.g. food from fish; fertilizer from seaweed) | REGULATING BENEFITS Benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes (e.g. pollution capture; beach replenishment) | CULTURAL BENEFITS Non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems (e.g. appreciating nature; education & research) |
SUPPORTING BENEFITS Services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services (e.g. water cycling; photosynthesis) |
BACK TO PART B | 6 Benefits from nature (ecosystem services) and Blue Carbon 59
- Blue Carbon
Blue carbon is a recent term which collectively describes the processes associated with the
capture and storage of carbon within the marine environment. Blue carbon is of particular relevance
to small coastal states and island nations such as
Jersey that may have a small land area in relation
to that of their territorial seas. Jersey's marine
area includes habitats of potential blue carbon significanc e such as s eagrass m eadows (Zost era spp.), maerl beds, kelp forests and species-rich accreting sedimentary habitats. The island therefore has
potential for carbon offsetting using Blue Carbon
held in its surrounding territorial seas.
Carbon may be organic (stored within living plants and animals) or inorganic (held in the carbonate which forms shells, tests and other organically- derived debris).
The Blue Carbon potential of different habitats
is a consideration in the designation of Marine Protected Areas within the JMSP, and is described in mor e d etail in Section 8.6.6.
Fig. 6b: A simplifi ed diagram showing th e principal sourc es, sinks and int eractions associated with the natural carbon cycle. The green arrows represent uptake of carbon through photosynthesis (plants) and growth. The blue arrows represent release of carbon dioxide and oxygen through respiration and decomposition. Brown arrows show the burial (sequestration) of carbon. Yellow labels show where carbon is stored in living organisms. The orange arrows show the transport of carbon in the form of particulate or dissolved debris/detritus. Taken from "Blue Carbon Resources:
7 Seascapes
Aim: Seascapes are valued and their character
is retained and enhanced
7 Seascapes
Aim: Seascapes are valued and their character
is retained and enhanced
- Introduction
7.1.1 Background
This section covers the character and special qualities associated with Jersey s coasts and marine environment, as well as coastal landmarks and viewpoints.
As a relatively small island, the sea is integral to Jersey s identity. It is never far away, appearing on the horizon in many views from all around the island. It is literally the backdrop to life in Jersey, in terms of views, but also in terms of everyday life, with people, goods and services needing
to cross the sea to get to and from the island. Coastal landmarks such as Corbire lighthouse, Mont Orgueil and round towers frequently appear in illustrative and marketing materials and form part of Jersey s visual identity.
The sense of proximity to the sea, the spectacular and varied seascapes, and the opportunities to enjoy and experience coastal and marine environments are key reasons why people choose to live in or visit Jersey. The seas and coast are extremely important to people s wellbeing, and to the Island s economy. Therefore, there are close ties between seascapes and recreation and tourism (enjoyment of the coast), and with cultural heritage (particularly historic coastal landmarks). Coastal views can
be appreciated from the sea, and from numerous viewpoints around
the island which can be accessed from the coastal footpath.
Many viewpoints also have road access and carparks.
Figure 7a shows the visibility of sea in views from land. The darker the shading, the more sea can be seen. The darkest shading, from where the largest amount of sea is visible, is on the highest land in the north of Jersey, followed by the headlands and escarpment. It is interesting to note that visibility of the sea is not at its greatest by the coast. This is because the lower ground level at the seashore limits the amount of sea which can be seen. In reality, the presence of trees and buildings means that views of the
sea are considerably more restricted than shown on this theoretical map.
7.1.2 Key Evidence Base documents for this topic:
- Bridging Island Plan (BIP)
- Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment (ILSCA) (Fiona Fyfe Associates for Government of Jersey, 2020)
7.1.3 Legislative and policy context
In recognition of their value to local people and visitors, the BIP introduces specific zones of Protected Coastal Area and Coastal National Park and seeks to protect seascapes and their settings primarily through the provisions of policies PL5 (Countryside, coast and marine environment) and NE3 (Landscape and seascape character).
The Protected Coastal Area covers the parts of the Bailiwick which are of outstanding landscape/ seascape quality. It covers 35km2 of the coast, its inland setting, the intertidal zone, and the shallow waters around the offshore reefs (the latter defined using the boundaries of the Ramsar designation). The inclusion of the Protected Coastal Area in the BIP recognises the importance of Jersey's coastline and seascapes, and the critical need to protect their special character and setting.
The Coastal National Park sits within the Protected Coastal Area, as a sub-set. It does not include intertidal waters around Jersey's coast, but it does include them at the offshore reefs and, therefore, has some overlap with the JMSP. The Coastal National Park enjoys the same high level of protection for landscape and seascape character as the Protected Coastal Area, but development within the Coastal National Park is also required to be compatible with the purposes of the park, without undermining its special qualities. The purposes of the park include:
- the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the park, and
- the public understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities.
BIP Policy PL5 Countryside, coast and marine environment states:
Development proposals in the countryside, around the coast and in the marine environment should protect or improve its character and distinctiveness. They should also protect or improve the special landscape and seascape character of the
Prot ect ed Coastal Ar ea.
In the Coastal National Park, they should similarly protect or improve its special landscape and seascape character and special qualities of the Coastal National Park and its setting, and be compatible with the purposes of the park...
The development of sites and infrastructure that
help meet the island's strategic needs for minerals, waste management, energy and water will be supported... around the coast and in the marine environment, where it is demonstrated to be in the island's strategic interest, and where its impact can
b e avoid ed, minimis ed, mitigat ed or comp ensat ed.
Development proposals located in the marine environment will not be supported except where a marine location is demonstrated to be essential.
Further information on the Protected Coastal Area and Coastal National Park can be found in pages 74–79 of the BIP. They are shown in Fig. 7b.
As explained in Section 1.2, the JMSP forms an
ov erarching strat egic fram ework s etting th e approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing regulation. The JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set
out in the JMSP.
7.1.4 Pen portraits
Young people resident in Jersey
1st Jersey (St Ouen) Sea Scout Group:
Mark: "The sea around Jersey is beautiful, the coastline is very well taken care of and pretty. The sea makes me happy because it's usually a nice environment, sometimes you find litter, but people are working on that. Being near the sea makes me feel calmer, I love St Ouens; it's really close to home and there are loads of water activities.
It's always different down there so it's really interesting."
Renzo: "The sea is really linked to our identity because we're surround ed by it. My favourit e b each is probably St Br elad e's, it's just down the hill from home. I love it when it's really quiet there, it's just such a nice place. Last week we anchored in the bay and there were so many boats there. I went out on my paddleboard, and I felt uncomfortabl e, it was too crowd ed, it m eant it wasn't much fun. We sometimes go surfing at St Ouens and that's a completely different mood to St Brelade. We've all got different sides to us,
and the Island has too."
Poppy: "I love Le Braye beach because loads of people surf and bodyboard there and it's a good place to meet friends and have fun.
I am so lucky having this beach so close to home, but in Jersey you can't not be near a beach. The only thing that bothers me is the littering
and the bins when they aren't secured properly. I've done kayaking
with the sea scouts and it's brilliant, you can explore new places,
like at Noirmont we found a beach you can only get to by the sea. That's really cool. It makes me feel special and I really love my Island."
Emily, Eco Captain, Jersey College for Girls:
"Since my earliest days, the ocean has been my constant companion: riding the waves on a surfboard, paddle boarding and scuba diving. To me, the ocean isn't just water. It's a home to countless forms of life, a source of inspiration, and a reminder of nature's intense power.
In its depths, there are mysteries waiting to be discovered, and in its waves, there are stories of life's natural ebb and flow. Looking out
for it isn't just something we all need to do, it is more than that.
It is about ensuring that we leave this incredible legacy intact for generations to come."
Like the vast majority of people in Jersey, I believe our marine and coastal environment has an immensely positive effect, not only on myself, but on a growing proportion of the wider population. This boost in health and wellbeing comes not only from the recreational opportunities available, but simply from exposure
to all that is on offer.
Jim Hopley,
Honorary Chair Despite its relatively small size, the Island's coastline can offer views of the Jersey to match any emotion. On a big scale the dramatic north coast cliffs National Park
or, contrastingly, the romantic long sandy vistas with the ocean as
a backdrop. Then, if you take the time to stop and take in the detail, to smell the heady fragrance of coconut from the gorse, or to sit and examine each grain of sand, you cannot help but reconnect with yourself. Jersey's coast can ground you and inspire you and help you to see where you are in your journey, locals, and visitors alike.
It must be evident to all however, that the health' of our seas is
under mounting strain through growing population, and climate
and environmental changes. Working with the team to establish Jersey's National Park means it has become obvious to me that we need to connect with the public. By engaging people and partners, it increases the willingness of so many to preserve not only our terrestrial coastline, but the wider marine environment where, if we act in time, we can literally turn the tide'. The potential benefits this will bring
are immeasurable, not only in terms of environmental impact but
on the personal wellbeing of so many Islanders. We need to care.
- The diversity and special character of Jersey s seascapes
7.2.1 Seascape Character Assessment
Seascape Character Assessment is a means of analysing and describing seascapes to understand their diversity, and what it is which makes them unique and special. This then enables their special qualities to be protected and enhanced through future actions and decision-making.
The process involves careful consideration of natural, cultural and perceptual qualities of the seascapes being studied, as shown in Figs 7c
and 7d. Natural features include bedrock geology, sediment depth, bathymetry, tidal forces, habitats, etc. Cultural features are those added by people, and include buildings, harbours, navigation markers, archaeological sites, shipwrecks, etc.
Perceptual qualities are the intangible, sometimes invisible, things which are so fundamental to how seascapes are experienced. It may be the joy of watching a spectacular sunset from St Ouen's Bay, or the sense of wildness and tranquillity felt amongst the intertidal reefs, or it may be the stimulation of other senses the smell of seaweed or coastal gorse; the sound of s eabirds or tapping halyards; th e soaking from a crashing wave during a storm, or the pleasant coolness of a swim or paddle on a summer's day.
Seascape Character Assessments then identify and map the distinctive patterns of seascape found within th e study ar ea.
Fig. 7c: The Seascape Wheel' summarising what constitutes seascape 1
1 An Approach to Seascape Character Assessment (Natural England, 2012) p.9
Fig. 7d: Components of seascape
7.2.2 The Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment (ILSCA)
The Jersey ILSCA [Evidence Base doc. EB/SC/1] formed part of the Evidence Base for the BIP, and has now been adopted by the Ministers as supplementary planning guidance 2 used in the assessment of planning applications. It describes in detail the character of Jersey's landscapes
and seascapes. It identifies five distinctive coastal and marine character types, shown in Fig. 7e. Summary information for each character type is provided on the following pages, with information on forces for change, strategies and guidelines provided in Appendix B. Readers of the JMSP are encouraged to consult the ILSCA directly if they require information on a specific topic or place.
2 Landscape and seascape character guidance (gov.je)
Character Type F: Rocky Shores and Bays
Description
This Character Type comprises the intertidal area along the north coast of Jersey, and around the south-west headlands at St Brelade and Noirmont.
It occurs at the base of steep cliffs, and therefore the intertidal zone is often very narrow where the steepest cliffs plunge into the sea. Elsewhere, narrow rocky platforms, rocks, islets, sea caves and small bays are exposed at low tide. A key feature of this Character Type is the relatively steep marine-land interface. It is therefore closely associated with the adjacent Cliffs and H eadlands, and Shallow S ea Charact er Typ es.
This is a dramatic interface between land and sea, particularly in stormy weather, when waves crash against the base of the cliffs. At other times, the small bays which are revealed at low tide (including Plémont beach, Bonne Nuit, Bouley, Rozel, Fliquet and B eauport) ar e idyllic, and gr eatly valu ed for th eir b eauty and tranquillity.
Although it is relatively small in area, the Rocky Shores and Bays Character Type is important for biodiversity, and contains a number of intertidal habitats, including rock platforms and small patches of seagrass which support a range of seaweeds, crustaceans and other intertidal species.
Its outstanding and complex geology is reflected in the number of geological SSI sites.
Sensitive Special Qualities
- Remote stretches of dramatic coastline which retain their natural form and are free from man-made structures or interference.
- Attractive small bays with an intimate feel, popular for r ecr eation with tourists and locals, and where adjacent tourist infrastructure (where it exists at all) is relatively low key.
- A relatively narrow, high energy intertidal zone with a high tidal range, containing a range of intertidal habitats including seagrass beds
and diverse rock platforms.
Character Type G: Bays with Intertidal Flats and Reefs
Description
This Character Type comprises the extensive and spectacular intertidal seascapes which are revealed at low tide around Jersey's western, southern
and eastern coasts. It includes sweeping sandy beaches and rocky reefs, covering an area of approximately 30km2.
The Bays with Intertidal Flats and Reefs are one
of Jersey's most distinctive and unique features, resulting from the combination of geology, topography, currents and large tidal range.
They are teeming with life and provide habitats
for an exceptional range of birds, fish, seaweeds, saltwater plants, sand-dwellers and shellfish, including ormers. Humans have exploited these intertidal environments for millennia through activities such as low-water fishing, and gathering seaweed for fuel and fertilizer. These actions have left subtle traces within the intertidal seascape,
along with the more prominent cultural heritage
sites of defensive towers. The Bays with Intertidal Flats and Reefs have been described as Jersey's
last wilderness.' They are dramatic, remote and
wild areas where visitors are always acutely aware of changing elements tides, waves, wind and weather. They are elemental and potentially dangerous places, but their raw beauty is scenically stunning.
There are five distinctive Character Areas within the Bays with Intertidal Flats and Reefs, each with a unique sense of place' resulting from its particular combination of seascape elements.
Sensitive Special Qualities
- Reefs form rare, sensitive and important intertidal and shallow water marine habitats.
- An elemental landscape/seascape with a very strong sense of wildness and remoteness.
- Expansive sandy beaches which are popular for r ecr eation.
- Strong visual inter-relationships with the surrounding coast.
- Towers, lighthouses and beacons are prominent structures and form focal points in views.
Character Type H: Offshore Reefs and Islands
Description
The Offshore Reefs and Islands are often described as the Jewel in Jersey's crown'. They comprise a vast, extraordinary and dramatic world of rocks, reefs, islets and sandbanks which emerge from the sea
at low tide. They are unique to Jersey, and include Europe's largest reef system. There are three main reef systems located around Jersey: Les Minquiers
to the south; Les Anquettes to the south-east; and
Les Écréhous (including Les Dirouilles and the Paternosters) to the north.
Les Minquiers is the most southerly extent of UK territory within Europe, and although the Offshore Reefs and Islands have strong cultural connections with Jersey, they are also isolated from it, creating
a sense of a place apart'. People visit the reefs to experience remoteness, tranquillity, and closeness
to nature, as well as to enjoy their raw and ever- changing beauty. There is relatively little human interference, although there is a long history of human engagement with the reefs, resulting in rich archaeology and distinctive built heritage in the form of fishermen's huts. These structures, clinging to the islets which remain uncovered at high tide, are now used for recreation. There are also many beacons, warning shipping of the dangers of submerged rocks.
The submerged rock plateaux contain many different marine habitats, including rocks, sandbanks, maerl beds, rock platforms, flooded gully complexes, kelp forests and seagrass beds. Together, these habitats support a vast range of marine life, with outstanding biodiversity and geodiversity.
Sensitive Special Qualities
- Dramatic, unique and vast-scale seascapes of reefs, islets, shingle and sandbanks which emerge at low tide. They include the largest reef systems in Europe.
- A compl et ely natural, wild and tranquil environment, much of which is entirely devoid of human interference and enables a deep connection with marine surroundings.
- Elemental and isolated seascapes which offer physical and psychological detachment from the Jersey mainland, and an opportunity to escape into what feels like another world. They are therefore highly valued for the recreation opportunities they offer and their contribution to well-being.
- An array of diverse and valuable marine habitats of international importance for their bird and marine life.
- Important cultural heritage, including prehistoric archaeology, distinctive beacons, and some of the last surviving traditional Jersey vernacular buildings.
Character Type I: Shallow Sea
Description
This offshore Character Type comprises the marine areas on the eastern side of the Bailiwick. It borders the intertidal Character Types around the coast of Jersey (Character Types F and G), and also the reefs of Les Écréhous, Les Minquiers, and Les Anquettes. The western boundary follows the 30m depth contour (where it meets the Deep Sea Character Type), and the eastern boundary follows the Bailiwick boundary, which adjoins French territorial waters.
This Character Type has a strong physical and visual association with the Offshore Reefs and Islands Character Type. Even at high tide, some of the reefs remain visible, along with the numerous associated navigation f eatur es b eacons, lighthous es and buoys. As would be expected in such shallow and hazardous seas, there are a number of shipwrecks. The proximity of the area to both Jersey and France, and the popular destinations of the Offshore Reefs and Islands, mean that Character Type I is used for recreational sailing (for both Jersey-based and French boats), as well as fishing. Most fishing within the Shallow Sea Character Type is potting, netting or line fishing, rather than trawling. Diving for scallops also takes place within this Character Type.
The seafloor is complex in terms of its geology, and contains a wide range of habitats and energy levels. It also contains a palaeochannel from times of lower sea levels, when much of the area was dry land.
Sensitive Special Qualities
- Contributes to the setting of Jersey through its role in views from the coast, and when approaching by ferry.
- Close visual and physical relationship with the Offshore Reefs and Islands Character Type.
- Coastal waters contributing to wider ocean circulatory system and associated climatic and marine functions.
- Valuable and varied benthic and pelagic
habitats for fish and marine organisms, including dolphins and many different fish and shellfish species. Key habitats include maerl beds and subtidal s eagrass b eds.
Character Type J: Deep Sea
Description Sensitive Special Qualities
This Character Type is located offshore, and comprises the deeper seas (below the 30m depth contour) on the western side of the Bailiwick of Jersey. The depth of the water means that there is relatively little light penetration, and therefore less growth of seaweed on the sea floor. In addition, this is a relatively high energy environment, so there is less sediment deposition and a rockier seabed.
Fishing boats and ferries are regularly seen within this Character Type, and there are also larger freight vessels as well as occasional sailing boats in these open waters. Sense of place and orientation is enhanced by distant views of land in some directions. However, views south-west are open, with the sea
str etching to th e horizon. NOTE: Since publication of the ILSCA, the construction of the St Brieuc Windfarm to the south of Jersey's waters has
added a new feature to this part of the seascape.
The Character Type is used for fishing (primarily trawling and dredging, but also some netting),
and recreational craft. Ferries connecting Jersey to Guernsey and the UK also regularly pass through this Character Type, and so form part of the seascape.
- Exposed open water. Views of land are generally distant, particularly in the south.
- Deep sea water contributing to a wider circulatory system and associated climatic and marine functions.
- Exposed, high energy circalittoral seabed substrates (including rock, coarse sediment and mixed sediment). These, together with the pelagic environment, provide habitats for a range of fish species.
7.2.3 Issues
The ILSCA raises numerous ways in which seascape character can potentially be undermined through poorly located and/or designed development, and by unsympathetic management or uses. These include (for example) renewable energy development, cable landings, sea defences, recreation and aquaculture.
7.2.4 Proposed Actions
The impact of development on seascape character
is a material consideration in the application of BIP policy and supplementary planning guidance (SPG). The substance of the ILSCA has been adopted as SPG (available through the Government website).
It should therefore continue to inform planning
and management decisions going forward, and landowners should be encouraged to adopt
relevant management guidelines.
Priority SC1: Seascape Character
To maintain the diversity and special character of coastal and marine areas.
Action SC1a: The special qualities of coastal and marine character types should
be maintained through application of the strategy and relevant management guidelines for each character type as set out in the Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment.
- Views and marine landmarks
7.3.1 Background
Coastal landmarks and s eamarks form f eatur es within broad er s eascap es. The largest and most prominent coastal landmarks are visible over a wide area and can be seen from land and sea. The ILSCA identified Corbière lighthouse, Elizabeth Castle and Mont Orgueil as key landmarks which form part of Jersey's identity, combining an impressive sense of history with spectacular coastal scenery. Views of these landmarks are protected through policy in the BIP (Policy GD9 Skyline, views and vistas).
Corbière Lighthouse. Fiona Fyfe
Whilst acknowledging the importance of these key landmarks (and other coastal features) the JMSP also considers offshore features which form focal points in views from the coast and sea. These are shown in Fig. 7f and include the offshore towers (Seymour Tower, Icho Tower, St Aubin's Fort, La Rocco Tower, Portelet Tower and Demie de Pas); Green Island;
St Catherine's Breakwater; the offshore reefs which are visible from the north coast (Les Écréhous,
Les Dirouilles and the Paternosters), and Maîtresse Ile on Les Minquiers, which is visible from ferries to St Malo. All these offshore features make important contributions to th e s eascap e and add gr eatly to Jersey's sense of place.
Les Écréhous from the coast near Rozel. Fiona Fyfe
Seymour Tower from the coast at La Rocque. Fiona Fyfe
Les Minquiers at high tide. Fiona Fyfe
St Aubin's fort, from St Aubin's harbour. Fiona Fyfe
7.3.2 Issues
Marine landmarks (and their settings) are not explicitly identified as landmarks (although they are designated as heritage assets, and would be identified in visual assessment associated with a planning application). There is therefore a risk that new offshore developments or structures may compete with these marine landmarks in views from the coast, drawing the viewer's eye away from the marine landmark and diminishing the quality of the seascape.
- 3.3 Proposed Actions
The planning system should offer particular protection to marine landmarks. Proposals for new offshore developments/structures should consider their potential impact in views, particularly when the proposal will affect (or be seen in the context of) offshore marine landmarks. It will also be necessary to consider the levels of effect at different stages of the tide.
Key landmarks (including Corbière Lighthouse, Mont Orgueil and Elizabeth Castle) and their settings, where they are visible from the intertidal bays, must also be considered under the provisions of BIP Policy GD9.
Priority SC2: Marine landmarks
To protect marine landmarks in views from land and sea.
Action SC2a: Key marine landmarks that form focal points or features in
views from the coastline or within the marine area should be identified, designated and safeguarded and potential impacts on these should be taken into account when proposals for
new developments or activities are considered. Key landmarks should be safeguarded through the application of BIP policies and supplementary planning guidance.
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 80 CONTENTS
8 Tahned NBiaotduirvael rEsnitvyironment
Aim: The natural environment is restored
and biodiversity is thriving
8 Tahned NBiaotduirvael rEsnitvyironment
Aim: The natural environment is restored
and biodiversity is thriving
- Introduction
- 1.1 Background
Jersey s waters contain an extraordinarily rich and diverse range
of habitats, which provide many different benefits. As well as their benefits to people, the habitats also support a wide range of plants, birds, fish, invertebrates and mammals at various stages of their lifecycles, and these creatures are therefore also users of Jersey s marine environment.
The JMSP takes account of the symbiotic relationship between different marine habitats and species, and the fact that it is a dynamic environment, constantly changing in response to the prevailing environmental conditions. Further important considerations include the need to balance environmental, economic and social needs (explained further in Chapter 1), and the potential of damaged habitats to recover once threats are removed. The connectivity between marine and terrestrial areas is key; many species (notably birds and seals) rely on both marine and terrestrial environments,
and there are numerous examples of habitats within the intertidal areas which support both terrestrial and marine species.
Cover image, Samantha Blampied
82 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
Several of Jersey s marine habitats
are internationally recognised for their importance to global ecosystems. These habitats are recognised as threatened under international agreements such as OSPAR, Ramsar, and Convention on Biological Diversity. They include kelp forests, maerl beds and seagrass meadows. The habitat data for Jersey s waters does not currently distinguish between kelp forest (which is recognised under the OSPAR convention) and other kelp habitats. However, all kelp habitats are of importance for the marine ecosystem and are therefore considered to be a priority for protection.
Jersey s waters also provide habitats for
a range of species that are regarded as internationally significant, including flat oyster, Balearic shearwater, roseate tern, European eel, spotted ray, long and short- snouted seahorses, porbeagle shark, bluefin tuna and several species of marine mammal such as dolphins, porpoises
and seals. These species are covered by
a range of Jersey laws and international environmental agreements including OSPAR, ASCOBANS, and the Bern and Bonn Conventions (See section 4.2).
Existing environmental designations
within Jersey s waters, plus the habitats listed under the OSPAR convention, are shown in Fig. 8a. Existing designations include a No Take Zone (NTZ) (where no fishing or removal of aquatic resources is permitted); Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (where mobile gear is excluded to protect seabed habitats); Ramsar sites (wetland
sites designated for their international importance); Areas of Special Protection (ASPs) (temporary designations under wildlife law), and Sites of Special Interest (SSIs) (designated for their special ecological or geological interest). The designations are described in more detail later in this chapter. A principle of the JMSP is that there will
be no loss of marine protection, so the existing designations will be retained,
with no diminution. Additionally, the JMSP was established to develop a network of MPAs in Jersey s waters consistent with
the island s environmental, economic and social objectives. Expansion of MPAs is, therefore, proposed where there is strong evidence to support this.
8 | The Natural Environment and Biodiversity 83
8.1.2 Key Evidence Base documents
Key Evidence Base documents for this chapter:
- Ecosystems Service Assessment of Jersey's Marine Habitats (2023)
- Blue Carbon Resources: An Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas (2022)
- Information provided to public consultation by Jersey SeaSearch, Société Jersiaise and Blue Marine
- Ramsar Sites Management Plans
- East Coast No Take Zone Report by Société Jersiaise (2022)
- A valuation of Jersey's Marine Habitats in Providing Ecosystem Services (Blue Marine and N ew Economics Foundation, 2023)
- A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef, Jersey Blue Marine Foundation (2023)
- Marine Protected Areas Assessment Methodology (2023)
- An Outline of the Ecology and Sensitivity of Marine Habitats in Jersey (2023)
- Jersey Geodiversity Audit British Geological Survey (2020)
- Invasive Non-Native Species: Challenges for the water environment Environment Agency, (2021)
8.1.3 Legislation and Policy Context
One of the primary purposes of the JMSP, as set out in the Ministerial Delivery Plan is protecting and enhancing Jersey's natural environment and heritage by: ...Developing a Marine Spatial Plan to ensure the sustainable management of the Island's marine environment. Strat egic Proposal 3 of the Bridging Island Plan states that the JMSP should organise human and marine resources in Jersey's territorial waters, and, in particular,
to develop a network of marine protected areas. This desire for improved environmental protection results from both Jersey's acknowledgement of the climate and biodiversity crises, and from international commitments to provide '30 by 30' protection of marine waters, when 30% of
waters will be protected by 2030.
As explained in Section 1.2, the JMSP forms
an ov erarching strat egic fram ework s etting th e approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and
fishing r egulation. Th e JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set out in the JMSP.
8.1.4 Pen Portraits
I have been happiest; sparked alive even, by the sudden breaching of
a sea mammal beside the boat and their fluid intelligence as they ride
the bow wave. I am in love with their silver grey as it spins out of the water as they play. I have watched in awe as a group of garfish form
a glimmering bait ball as a dolphin glides by. I have bubbled in bliss through my snorkel whilst rocking in the clear shallows with sparkling
Marion sm elt and r etr eat ed t errifi ed and joyous at th e app earanc e of a curious Walton MA
seal. I have tried to be invisible as a huge green and orange wrasse has Anthrozoology,
Société Jersiaise f ed b elow m e.
I have cried as a child trying to untangle crabs from a huge net that
had ghost fished its way into the bay. I remember my first snorkel as a nine year old and the thrill as a cat shark wound through the water.
I remember beautiful fat lipped and enormous goby in our sandpools when we were tiny; they have gone. I have felt huge anger trying to free an eel attached to a weight and broken line under the pier at Grève de Lecq. I bit the line holding it to the weight but there was a huge hook in its mouth and it washed up dead the next day. I have felt anger at the rare ray thrown into the water with its wings cut away. I felt fury when I watch ed a man throw a small living fish into a plastic bag to di e and another who did not know what he had caught.
I feel an increasing sense of loss as the rocks green and the animals disappear. We are losing our life support system and the stunning biodiversity that we and the other animals on this planet need to live. I do not have hope anymore.
In Jersey we are always close to the sea, and we gain so much from it
the sound of the waves, the smell of the ocean, sunsets, dog walks, surfing, diving, snorkelling, beers with friends, BBQs with friends, making new friends, remembering old ones, a place to reflect, to mourn, to celebrate or to just sit in peace. The sea shapes where we live, how we work and is a critical component in our everyday lives here
Andy and and around the globe. It's imperative that our duty to preserve and Courtney
enhance such a valuable resource is maintained and supported.
Farmer, Littlefeet
Environmental
With Littlefeet Environmental we have over a decade of beach cleaning under our belts. In that time, we've seen a decrease in domestic waste indicating that the Jersey public, and those visiting our island, are generally proud and responsible individuals who appreciate the diversity of our coastal areas. However, we have seen an increase in mismanag ed fishing g ear and oth er aquacultur e r elat ed wast e.
Education is key for us. It is essential that everyone understands the purpose of the work that is being undertaken in Jersey, and on a global scale, to ensure coastal and open water preservation and protection. We need to make certain that data being collected is transmitted through local communities and adapted so that it is understandable and easily implemented into our day-to-day activities, to encourage stewardship and accountability.
Exploring Jersey's sub-tidal world is a privilege. Few people, even divers, visit our extraordinary sub-tidal reef systems full of unique
and colourful wonders such as Pink Sea Fan coral. Our cameras take only images of artefacts from wreck skeletons, symbolizing our rich
maritime history or capturing what a pristine seabed actually looks like. More isolated places reveal ancient riverbeds, glacial deposits,
Kevin McIlwee, even molluscs that have changed little in physical appearance since Chair of
early life formed. I peer through the window of my lens at relics of Jersey Marine
Conservation our past times. Fortunately, these snapshots visualize anthropogenic and Seasearch impacts on our marine species and habitats, supporting the
Co-ordinator protection of seabed areas that could have been destroyed.
Since starting the Jersey Seasearch project, our data has mounted in testimony to the effects of climate change, the impacts of overfishing, pollution and the diminishing biodiversity. Jersey's waters are shallow and subject to tidal flows, contributing to spikes in temperature, oxygen diminishment, microplastics and toxicity. The surveys provide evidence of bleaching, disease and invasive species domination.
There is a growing volume of plastic accumulating in coves and bays and the intensity of potting that targets specific areas is leading to incr easing ghost fishing d ebris. Dumping of scallop sh ells and chain mooring systems are changing the benthic communities of harbours too. Lastly, the growing boat community and influx of visitors to reef and coast areas, is disturbing mammal and seabird breeding sites and our project now includes the monitoring of
isolat ed outlying communiti es.
- No Take Zones
8.2.1 Background
A No Take Zone (NTZ) has the highest possible level of protection, where all fishing and the removal of any aquatic resources (defined as any living creature, plant or seaweed) are forbidden. Designation of a NTZ is an extreme measure which must be supported by substantive evidence,
and only happens in exceptional circumstances where there is a compelling reason.
At present, the only NTZ in Jersey's waters is at Portelet Bay. It was established in 2022, following a campaign by the Marine Biology Section of the Société Jersiaise, which states:
The objective of having a NTZ in Portelet is to create a natural laboratory that can be used by universities, schools, community groups, visiting researchers and local organisations. It is hoped that the NTZ will facilitate a measurable change in the environmental and ecological health of the bay.
8.2.1 Issues
Biodiversity information was provided for three areas, with recommendations for additional protection.
These areas were: Les Sauvages (information
provided by Blue Marine, Bouley Bay Dive Centre and Jersey Marine Conservation); Archirondel and Anne Port Bays on the east coast of Jersey (information provided by the Société Jersiaise), and Rigdon Bank, to the west of Jersey (information provided by Jersey Marine Conservation and Bouley Bay Dive Centre). All are rich and diverse environments containing habitats and species protected under Jersey and/or international law. However, they have varying levels of available evidence, and reasons for designation. Proposals for each of these areas - given these variations are set out in the Proposed Actions' section below.
8.2.2 Proposed Actions
There is to date limited evidence from Rigdon Bank The Portelet NTZ is intended to be a natural in terms of the species found there, although dives laboratory' for local and visiting scientists (amateur by Jersey Seasearch and Jersey Marine Conservation and professional) but also has a recreation function have identified diverse algal communities on the
such as its well-publicised and popular snorkel trail. plateau, and unique habitats created by the geology Recreational craft are still permitted to anchor in of the steep north side. It has similarities with Les the bay. Sauvages in that there are crusts of sponges and
jewel anemones, some pink sea fans, and it provides It is presently too early to tell how the designation habitat for spiny lobster. Rigdon Bank it is not
of a NTZ at Portelet has affected marine life in the considered to be vulnerable to most types of fishing vicinity. However, evidence from longer-established activity but, as a reef feature with sensitive habitats NTZs outside Jersey's waters indicates increased size and species, it is proposed for inclusion within the
and abundance of species biodiversity within NTZs, expanded MPA network (see section 8.6).
which spills over into the adjoining seas, helping
to replenish stocks of fish and crustaceans, and Similarly, it is suggested that while Archirondel and potentially enhancing the ecosystem's resilience Anne Port bays have sensitive species and habitats,
to climate change. these are not materially threatened by the fishing
activities permitted to occur within these bays.
Th e ar ea is alr eady within (and will stay within) th e MPA n etwork, and th e JMSP is proposing a n ew
S eagrass Habitat Manag em ent Ar ea (see section 8.7) which should result in improved management and protection of the bays' most vulnerable habitat.
Les Sauvages Reef has 10 years' worth of survey evidence collected by divers from Jersey Marine Conservation/Jersey Seasearch. It has an outstanding range of species (described in Evidence
Base document EB/NB/11) including rare and slow-growing species such as sea fans and corals, as well as potential for submerged prehistoric archaeological sites. The steep walls, canyons and overhangs provide habitats for mature pink sea fans, sunset cup corals and suitable breeding
sites for crawfish (European spiny lobsters). The reef is visited by larger shark and ray species. The abundance of marine life on the reef is threatened by potting activity in the vicinity, as the pots and lines snag seabed flora and fauna. This forms a compelling reason for its designation
as a NTZ under this JMSP, without waiting for further analysis of the Portelet NTZ. The location of the proposed NTZ at Les Sauvages is shown on Fig. 8o, at the end of this chapter.
Kelp habitat at the western side of Les Sauvages Reef. Paul Chambers
Pink sea fan, Les Sauvages Reef. Samantha Blampied
Detailed bathymetric model of Les Sauvages Reef.
Priority NB1: No Take Zones
To support current and future No Take Zones for the most important and valuable marine resources.
Action NB1a: The existing No Take Zone at Portelet Bay will be retained,
and will continue to be monitored. Monitoring will include assessment of damage to the seabed from current anchoring practices, and recommendations to minimise damage will be made accordingly.
Action NB1b: | A new No Take Zone will be designated at Les Sauvages, with the boundary determined following a review of the evidence against agreed criteria. |
Action NB1c: | Subject to the impacts and effects of the Portelet Bay and Les Sauvages No Take Zones being found to be positive, further No Take Zones will be considered within Jersey's waters. These should be targeted to achieve social and biodiversity goals. |
- Ramsar Sites
8.3.1 Background
Ramsar Sites are wetlands designated for their international importance under the Ramsar Convention. Within Jersey's territorial limits there are Ramsar sites in the south-east reefs, Les Écréhous, Les Pierres de Lecq (Paternosters) and Les Minquiers (shown in Fig. 8a). Each has a Management Plan which is intended to promote conservation and wise use' of the wetlands and their resources.
8.3.2 Issues
Although Ramsar sites are internationally recognised for their importance, and are also identified in the Bridging Island Plan (BIP), they do not have statutory protection. In addition,
the Ramsar Site boundaries were based on the evidence available at the time (the late 1990s) and so do not include all areas since identified as being valuable habitats listed under the OSPAR convention. There is currently a discontinuity of management between the Ramsar sites and
the MPA, and the Ramsar sites are particularly vulnerable to recreational disturbance and
r emoval of v eg etation and soil. Th e south- east reefs may also be affected by shoreline management, specifically coastal defence measures in and around Havre des Pas.
8.3.3 Proposed Actions
The existing Ramsar Sites should be retained, and given legal protection through the encompassing MPA designation. They should also be integrated into the surrounding MPAs in terms of their management.
Priority NB2: Ramsar Sites
To retain Ramsar Sites and promote their effective management.
Action NB2a: Existing Ramsar Site designations will be retained and will be
managed in accordance with international obligations. Their management will be integrated with that of the surrounding Marine Protected Areas. Comprehensive management plans will cover habitat management, access and recreation, and shoreline management. Management Plans will be prepared in association with residents' associations where appropriate.
- Sites of Special Interest (SSIs)
8.4.1 Background
Ecological and geological Sites of Special Interest (SSIs) are legally protected as the best examples of Jersey's natural heritage. As shown in Fig. 8a, some coastal Sites of Special Interest (SSIs) extend into the intertidal zone, as follows.
Le Petit Étacquerel (geology)
Les Landes de l'Est (ecology)
La Cotte à la Chèvre (geology)
Île Agois (geology)
Sorel Point (geology)
Giffard Bay (geology)
Belle Hougue Caves (geology and ecology) Les Rouaux (geology)
Bouley Bay and Les Hurets (geology) L'Isl et (g eology)
La Tête des Hougues (geology)
Anne Port Bay (geology)
Mont Orgueil (ecology)
La Motte (Green Island)
Le Croc and Le Nez (geology) Portelet Bay (geology)
A recent Geodiversity
Audit for Jersey (2020) undertaken by the British Geological Survey identified additional sites that qualify for listing as geological SSIs. Intertidal/Coastal
sites proposed for listing
in 2025 include:
The main concern at present is the lack of consistent monitoring of SSI condition, particularly for ecological and archaeological SSIs, including those which
extend into the intertidal area. This is an especial concern in SSIs which are in private ownership. Without this monitoring it is not possible to know whether additional management is required. Nor
is there currently any co-ordination of ecological, geological or archaeological expertise within the management of the SSIs.
8.4.3 Proposed Actions
A programme of co-ordinated monitoring should be put in place for SSIs within the intertidal area, with input from geologists, ecologists and archaeologists. Management should reflect
the findings of this monitoring.
Note Priority CH3 (Coastline adjacent to prehistoric coastal sites) also relates to coastal SSIs.
Priority NB3: Intertidal Sites of Special Interest
To promote sound and sustainable management of intertidal Sites of Special Interest (SSIs), and consider expansion of the SSI network.
Action NB3a: Existing SSI designations will be retained and protected through
the appropriate management and regulation of potentially damaging activities.
Action NB3b: | The SSI network should be reviewed by Government against agreed criteria, and expanded to include further suitable sites and/or extensions of existing sites. |
Action NB3c: | Condition monitoring should be put in place for all SSIs not currently monitored, including those in private ownership. |
- Marine mammals and birds, and Areas of Special Protection (ASPs)
8.5.1 Marine Mammals
Cetaceans (whales, porpoises and dolphins) including harbour porpoises, and seals, are found within Jersey's waters. All are protected species under the Jersey Wildlife Law and covered by several international agreements including the ASCOBANS and OSPAR Conventions. Recorded dolphin and porpoise activity, and seal haul sites,
are shown on Fig. 8b.
Jersey has the largest pod of bottlenose dolphins in Europe which lives permanently in the region and this is a selling point for tourist companies offering Rigid Inflatable Boat (RIB) trips. Recent hydrophone research suggests that the Paternosters and Les Minquiers are areas where dolphins seasonally aggregate, probably to breed.
Porpois e activity is highly s easonal with an annual winter influx occurring along the north and west coasts. High recorded frequencies of porpoises
were noted in locations close to the coast in
St Br elad e's Bay, Bonn e Nuit Bay and Fliqu et Bay.
Coastal seal haul sites (where seals haul out of the water to rest) are primarily associated with remote or isolated rocks located in St Ouen's Bay, south-east reefs, and below Mont Orgueil.
Dolphin.
Paul Chambers
There are also numerous seal haul sites at Les Écréhous, Les Minquiers and the Paternosters.
Seal haul sites within the offshore and south-east reefs are largely within the Ramsar designation areas. The main threat to marine mammals within Jersey's waters is disturbance from recreation (for example noise, physical disturbance and drones), particularly in ar eas which ar e popular with visitors such as Les Écréhous. These activities are, therefore, controlled in some locations through ASPs.
Seals, Les Écréhous. Paul Chambers
Fig. 8b Marine mammal activity (based on hydrophones and sightings) Note These maps are based on the current available data
8.5.2 Marine Birds
Jersey's waters provide a home to migratory and non-migratory seabirds, including protected species such as brent geese, Balearic shearwater and roseate tern.
Breeding bird species include oystercatcher, common tern, herring gull, great black-backed gull and rock pipit. Fig. 8c shows the recorded locations of bird resting sites and roosting sites, and areas visited by wading birds, within the intertidal and sub-tidal areas. Bird roosting sites include around Elizabeth Castle, parts of the south-east reefs,
Les Écréhous, Les Minquiers, and isolated cliffs. Breeding birds are generally found in locations where they are not disturbed by human activity
or by avian or mammalian predators. Bird resting sites are more common, and occur throughout
the offshore reefs and around Jersey's coast.
Although bird nesting sites on cliffs are above the high tide mark (and, therefore, technically outside the scope of the JMSP), these birds spend much of their time within the adjacent marine environment, and rely on it for food. There is, therefore, a very strong association between the marine and terrestrial environments in this regard. The Birds on the Edge' project focuses on the creation of a Seabird Protection Zone covering the nesting sites of puffin and other key species on the cliffs between Grève de Lecq and Grosnez, involving the proposed construction of a rat-proof fence running along the cliff and down to the sea through the intertidal area.
Wading birds are particularly associated with the shallow sandy bays of St Aubin's Bay, the Royal Bay of Grouville , St Catherine's Bay, Anne Port, Archirondel, Havre des Pas, and sandy patches within the south-
east reefs. Birds found here include oystercatcher, sanderling, turnstone, grey plover and curlew.
Puffins.
Mick Dryden
Many of these wading birds are migratory, with brent geese, sanderling, turnstone and grey plover all examples of species which over-winter in Jersey, but return to the arctic in the summer to breed. Other migratory species pass through in the autumn, including sooty sh earwat er, Manx sh earwat er, Balearic shearwater, storm petrel, sandwich tern, common tern, kittiwake and little gull. Migratory passerine (perching) birds including goldcrest, firecrest, chiffchaff and willow warbler use patches of tree mallow vegetation on the offshore reefs for cover whilst they rest. They also feed on the many insects found in and around the flowers and leaves of the tree mallow.
8.5.3 Areas of Special Protection
Areas of Special Protection (ASPs) are designated by Order under the Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2021 in order to provide protection within a given area for named species of wild bird, animal or plant. The effect of designation may be to restrict access to the area and/or to prohibit certain activities likely to cause disturbance. ASPs can be seasonal, rather than permanent, and may be used, for example, as a means to protect the breeding activities and young of protected species.
At present, ASPs are designated to protect wild birds such as common tern, roseate tern, oystercatcher, Europ ean shag and gr eat cormorant. ASPs on
Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers currently apply for the nesting season (from February/April until
the end of August). During this time only authorised people are permitted to enter a designated breeding area. Each breeding area is clearly marked on the ground with signage and information advising of the restrictions on access. A range of recreational
or commercial activities that risk causing disturbance to the nesting birds are restricted within the ASPs. These activities include:
- operating a vessel at a speed of 5 knots or more (except in the case of an emergency)
- bringing a dog onto land (unless authorised in writing by the Minister)
- using or operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (unless authorised in writing by the Minister)
- using or operating a laser
- discharging a firearm or ceremonial gun
- lighting fir eworks
- lighting fires (except barbecues)
- playing any recordings of bird songs and calls or other sounds which may attract, alarm or otherwise disturb a protected wild bird
- playing music at a volume which may alarm or otherwise disturb a protected wild bird
8.5.4 Issues
Localised disturbance of both seabirds and mammals is an ongoing issue, with concerns including disturbance of wading birds by dogs, disturbance of nesting birds by coastal recreation, and disturbance of birds and seals by drones. Nesting birds are also threatened by rats, which increase predation pressures on eggs hence the Birds on the Edge' project.
A furth er ar ea of conc ern is d eath or injury to marine birds following entanglement in nets, particularly when the nets are not used correctly. This issue was raised frequently throughout the public consultation on the MSP, and there have been recent high-profile incidents in which birds have become entangled in nets. There have also been reported issues of seabirds becoming entangled in lost/abandoned fishing gear such as monofilament line.
Marine mammals and birds are likely to be particularly affected by climate change. Warming seas support different species of fish, and this in turn affects the availability of food for cetaceans and seabirds. The changing climate may also impact
on migratory patterns. This is a particular concern given that many of Jersey's marine species are at the northern or southern edge of their ranges. It is likely that some species may leave Jersey's waters, but also that new species may come in. There are, for example, around twenty fish species that have either arrived in Jersey waters in the past 50 years or have gone from seasonally to permanently resident. Whilst addressing these wider issues is beyond the scope of the JMSP, it is important to acknowledge the background stress on many marine populations. This stress makes them more vulnerable, and, therefore, more in need of protection through measures that are in our control. It is also important that birds and mammals which use both land and sea do not fall between the gaps' of terrestrial
and marine planning and understanding.
8.5.5 Proposed Actions
ASPs have only been introduced recently (at
Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers), and so there is no data yet on their effectiveness. There are currently three further areas which are experiencing very localised disturbance of wildlife, and which have been identified as priority areas for ASP designation. These are shown on Fig. 8o
(at the end of the chapter) and comprise:
- Puffin and auk nesting sites on the cliffs west of Grève de Lecq (associated with the Birds on the Edge project) which are being disturbed
by people using the area for recreation.
- Petit Port, where roosting birds and shelduck are being disturbed by inshore fishing.
- Seal haul sites on Les Écréhous, where seals are being disturbed by people using the area for r ecr eation.
Enforcement of ASPs largely relies on public co-operation, so a comprehensive programme
of public education is also required regarding appropriate behaviours around wildlife.
Relevant user groups (for example reefs residents' associations and boat trip operators) should be consulted when ASPs are being considered.
Priority NB4: Priority Areas for designation as Areas of Special
Protection (ASPs)
To identify priority areas for the further protection of wildlife through the designation of additional Areas of Special Protection.
Action NB4a: Sites at Petit Port, Les Écréhous and at the proposed
Seabird Protection Zone should be considered as priorities for designation as Areas of Special Protection in order to counter the threats to wildlife. Relevant user groups (for example reefs residents' associations and boat trip operators) should be consulted when ASPs are being considered
Action NB4b: The effectiveness of ASP designation should be
monitored and reviewed.
See also Priority RT5 in Chapter 11 r egarding r egulations gov erning dogs on b each es, Priority RT6 in Chapter 11 r egarding education of coastal users, and Priority FA2 in Chapter 9 r egarding potting and netting equipment.
- Marine habitats and Marine Protected Areas
8.6.1 Background
The variety of conditions (geology, sediment, water depth, tides and currents) means that Jersey's waters contain an extraordinarily rich diversity of habitats. Fig. 8d is a simplified habitats map of Jersey's waters, showing the habitats grouped into 14 categories.
These habitats are described in the following pages. These habitats are described in the following pages. Seagrass beds, maerl beds and kelp forests (found within some parts of the rock-kelp habitats shown on Fig. 8d) are priority habitats under OSPAR and should be protected according to the requirements of Annex V of the Convention. Ross worm habitats are also listed under OSPAR. Historically, ross worm habitats have been
present within Jersey's waters, but their current extent and state is unknown.
Predominantly Predominantly Intertidal habitats
shallow sea habitats deep sea habitats
Rock barnacle communities Sediment seaweed Sediment robust fauna Rock seaweed communities Sandmason worms Hard ground unstable Rock pool communities Seagrass beds Hard ground stable
Sediment sparse fauna
Sediment rich fauna
Rock kelp
Maerl beds
Slipper limpet beds
As can be seen in Fig. 8d, the habitats form an intricate pattern.
In many cases, their precise boundaries and location fluctuate over time, in response to changing environmental conditions. The habitats are closely interrelated and all play a different role in the overall functioning of the marine ecosystem. Each habitat provides a
8.6.2 Intertidal habitats Rock barnacle communities
This habitat is primarily intertidal and consists
of exposed rock surfaces that are dominated by barnacle communities, typically Semibalanus balanoides. Limpets, dog whelks and sparse seaweed communities are also associated with this habitat.
Rock seaweed communities Rock pool communities
This habitat covers large areas of the reefs around This habitat is found within the reefs around Jersey's coast, as well as the offshore reefs. It is Jersey's coastline, and the offshore reefs. Rockpools primarily intertidal and occurs where dense seaweed are seawater filled depressions in the intertidal communities cover rock surfaces. Typically, this zone and consist of pools in a variety of shapes, habitat is characterised by fucoid seaweeds (wracks) depths and sizes. These pools support a range of
but there is also a high diversity of red and green intertidal species and are typically characterised seaweeds. Other species associated with this by seaweeds such as Corallina officinalis,
habitat are limpets, barnacles, winkles and encrusting algae, Furcellaria lumbricalis, and beadlet anemones. wracks (Fucus spp.). Some rockpools may have a
layer of sediment at the bottom in which burrowing species, such as the daisy anemone, can be found.
8.6.3 Shallow sea habitats Sediment seaweed
The most extensive areas of this habitat are
found in Les Minquiers. Smaller areas are found at Les Écréhous and the coastal reefs. This habitat is composed of mixed sediments and is typically found in the shallow subtidal (from the sublittoral fringe to the 5m below chart datum). Sargassum muticum is strongly associated with this habitat where, in areas of shallow standing water over sediment,
it anchors to small rocks and pebbles in the sandy sediment. Species such as bootlace weed, sugar kelp and various red algaes are also associated
with this habitat.
Sand mason worms
This habitat is mainly found around Jersey's coast, particularly in (or just offshore from) sandy bays, with a small amount also found at the offshore reefs. It comprises coarse, medium and fine sands that
are characterised by the tube building sand mason worm (Lanice conchilega). This habitat can be found in both intertidal and subtidal sediments.
The ecosystem services of sand mason worms
are similar to that of basin sand and gravel (see above) as this is the substrate they are found on.
However, the presence of sandmason worms stabilises sediments and increases the flow of many services, such as primary production, nutrient cycling and biodiversity. Sand mason worms occur in both the lower intertidal and subtidal waters.
Seagrass beds
Seagrass is found in a small number of sheltered bays around Jersey's coast. The most extensive areas are found in St Catherine's Bay, Archirondel and Anne Port, and off the south-east reefs. There are also smaller patches in St Aubin's Bay and Portelet Bay, and at Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers Reefs. Seagrass is an angiosperm (flowering plant) that has adapted to live in the ocean, growing in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas that are relatively sheltered. Zostera noltii grows in the intertidal and Zostera marina grows in the shallow subtidal area. The
root structures of the seagrass help to stabilise the sediment and the canopy formed by the blades provides shelter for many species.
Sediment sparse fauna
This habitat occurs in relatively small extents over much of Jersey's waters (though less in the south- west and central parts). It is associated with high energy environments. It comprises clean mobile sands (coarse, medium and fine) supporting a limited range of species. This habitat group includes barren, highly mobile sands and shingle at one end of the spectrum and relatively stable, clean sands
at the other that support communities of isopods,
amphipods and some polychaetes.
Sediment rich fauna
This habitat is found in the shallower waters on the eastern side of the Bailiwick. It is primarily associated with sandy coastal bays and und ers ea basins.
It comprises moderately exposed and sheltered subtidal sediments (fine sands and muds with
gravel and pebbles) that are characterised by a diverse assemblage of burrowing polychaetes, bivalves, amphipods. Many of the burrowing
species are tube building filter or deposit feeders.
Section 8.7 provides more information on the
thr eats to s eagrass habitats, and s ets out prioriti es and actions to protect it through the establishment of S eagrass Habitat Manag em ent Ar eas.
Kelp habitats are found around Jersey's north
and west coasts, off the south-east reefs, and the shallow seas around Les Écréhous, Les Minquiers, Les Anquettes and the Paternosters. Rock substrate is dominated primarily by kelp (Laminaria spp.) but also associated seaweed species. Kelp is a fast- growing brown algae that creates habitat for other species. Kelp forest (dense kelp areas) and kelp park (patchy kelp areas) have been grouped
for this assessment as they provide similar ecosystem services. Further work is needed to groundtruth the habitat map and understand the variations within kelp habitats. Kelp forest is an OSPAR priority habitat due to its role in supporting biodiversity and its role in the carbon cycle.
Maerl beds
Maerl beds occur primarily in shallow waters off the south coast of Jersey, and along the edges of the offshore reefs. The largest known area is associated with Les Anquettes reef. Maerl is a free growing, coralline red alga that forms nodular and branched structures on the sea floor. These nodules create dense accumulations on the seafloor that provide structure and habitat for many other species. This habitat is characterised by diverse burrowing communities, in particular bivalves, including the commercially important king scallop (Pecten maximus). Maerl Beds are an OSPAR priority habitat due to their role in supporting biodiversity.
Slipper limpet beds
The largest area of slipper limpet beds is found in the south-eastern corner of the Bailiwick, east of Les Minquiers. Smaller beds are found to the south of St Aubin's Bay and to the east of Jersey. The American slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata) is an invasive non-native species which colonises medium and coarse sand or gravels on moderately exposed coasts. The slipper limpets grow in chains on the seabed and can rapidly colonise an area, altering the biotope. Ascidians and anemones may grow on the shells of dead slipper limpets.
8.6.4 Deep sea habitats Sediment robust fauna
This habitat is generally found in Jersey's deeper waters. It is associated with relatively high energy sedimentary environments, where it covers quite large areas of the seabed. It comprises moderately exposed or tide swept subtidal coarse sand and gravel that is characterised by robust burrowing species such as bivalves, polychaetes and mobile crustacea. Certain species of sea cucumber
may be prevalent in areas of this habitat.
Hard ground unstable
This habitat is generally found in relatively deep and high energy waters, where the seabed contains little sediment. The greatest extent of this habitat is found between Jersey and Les Minquiers. This habitat is very different in its faunal assemblages compared to stable hard ground (below) as the unstable nature of this habitat limits colonisation to fast growing and robust species. This biotope is typically characterised by a few robust, fas-growing species that are able
to colonise pebbles and cobbles that are regularly moved by tidal currents. The calcareous tube worm, Pomatoceros triqueter, is a dominant species on
this habitat.
Jersey Marine Conservation
Hard ground stable
This habitat is found in relatively deep, high-energy waters with a seabed formed of relatively stable bedrock and boulders. The greatest extents are in the south-west part of the Bailiwick. It comprises moderately exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders dominated by encrusting sponges, ascidians, hydroids and bryozoans. This habitat also supports a diverse number of anemones, echinoderms, crustaceans and soft corals such as pink s eafan (Eunicella verrucosa) and d ead man's fingers (Alcyonium digitatum).
8.6.5 Benefits from Nature
As explained in Chapter 6 above, benefits from nature (also known as ecosystem services') can be classified into three groups (provisioning benefits, regulating benefits and cultural benefits), underpinned by supporting benefits. The following table shows the many different benefits provided by Jersey's marine environment.
Table 8a Benefits from nature provided by Jersey's marine environment.
Type of benefit | Examples of benefits |
Supporting benefits | Formation of habitats Nutrient cycling Water cycling Photosynthesis (production of oxygen) Primary production. (supporting the complex food web through marine biomass) |
Regulating benefits | Formation of barriers to currents or wave actions (e.g. kelp habitats) Pollutant capture Regulation of water and sediment quality Carbon sequestration Healthy climate and climate regulation Beach replenishment and prevention of coastal erosion |
Provisioning benefits | Food (fish and shellfish, at all stages of their lifecycles) Fertilizer Medicines and blue biotechnology Renewable energy |
Cultural benefits | Tourism/recreation/nature watching Spiritual/cultural wellbeing Aesthetic benefits Education Archaeology and heritage |
Each of the habitats described in section 8.6.4 above provides different combinations of benefits to people, and to the marine ecosystem. These are summarised in the following table (ranked in order, with the highest overall score first) and in Figs. 8e–8i. The scoring basis is explained in full in the Ecosystem Services Assessment of Jersey's Marine Habitats [Evidence Base document EB/NB/8]
Table 8b: Benefits from nature scores for Jersey's marine habitats. OSPAR listed habitats are shaded in blue.
Habitat type |
|
|
|
|
| Notes |
Seagrass beds (OSPAR listed habitat) | 12 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 34 | The importance of this habitat means it is protected under the OSPAR convention. Of all Jersey s marine habitats, it scores the highest in terms of the benefits it provides, with maximum scores for supporting and cultural benefits, and also high scores for regulating benefits. The roots of the seagrass help it to trap and recycle nutrients (and carbon), and stabilise sediments. The canopy of blades provides food and shelter for many species (including juveniles of commercial species such as bream). These in turn attract foraging wading and migratory birds. Seagrass creates a unique and rich seascape on what would otherwise be bare sediment. Its blades also help to dissipate wave energy and trap sediment. Seagrass habitats attract recreational divers, snorkelers and spear fishers, as well as bird watchers. The jade green colour of seagrass is very distinctive. |
Rock seaweed | 12 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 31 | This habitat has the second highest score overall for benefits from nature. Its contributions are particularly high for supporting and cultural benefits. It is also important for its regulating and provisioning benefits. Historically it has played an important role providing seaweed to use as fertilizer, and it remains an environment for low water fishing. |
Sediment seaweed | 11 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 28 | This habitat is particularly important for supporting and cultural benefits. The seaweed floats in shallow water, creating a canopy under which many species of fish and invertebrates will shelter and forage. The number of species living in the seaweed attracts intertidal birds, with opportunities for birdwatching. Snorkelling offers further recreational (and educational) opportunities. |
Habitat type |
|
|
|
|
| Notes |
Rock kelp (OSPAR listed habitat) | 11 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 25 | This is a relatively high-scoring habitat in terms of the benefits it provides, particularly for supporting, provisioning and cultural benefits. It makes an important contribution to nutrient cycling and carbon storage, and provides structure on the sea floor which helps to support higher levels of biodiversity. Kelp fronds stand around a metre tall above their rocky bases, and support seaweeds and encrusting organisms, creating a unique assemblage, and enabling high levels of photosynthesis. Kelp habitats are important nurseries and foraging grounds for commercial fish and shellfish species, and kelp has historically been used as a fertilizer. It is a popular and attractive environment for snorkelling, and also for education, where it is used as an example of an ecosystem engineer . |
Maerl beds (OSPAR listed habitat) | 11 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 25 | Maerl beds provide many benefits, particularly supporting and cultural benefits. Maerl is an ecosystem engineer which forms a complex 3D structure on the seafloor, which creates habitat for many infaunal and epifaunal species, which in turn support greater overall biodiversity. Maerl creates a unique and attractive seascape, with a dominance of pink/ purple colour. It is associated with algal and burrowing species, some of which are visible from the surface. Maerl can build up into a dense layer, trapping sediments below. It can also absorb high levels of phosphorous, and supports filter feeding organisms which improve water quality. It supports the commercially important king scallop in all stages of its life-cycle as well as other bivalve species which may be consumed as food. Maerl beds are also popular with recreational divers, due to the colourful and attractive underwater seascapes created by the maerl and the species living on it. |
Rockpool communities | 11 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 23 | This habitat scores highly for supporting and cultural benefits. It provides a habitat for many different species, and some of these (such as lobsters, ormers and seaweeds) are suitable for human consumption. It is also important for tourism, recreation and education. |
Habitat type |
|
|
|
|
| Notes |
Hard ground stable | 10 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 23 | This habitat creates a complex and diverse seascape where substrates are colonised by a multitude of encrusting and filter-feeding species which create a 3D structure which supports many other species. Some of Jersey s rarer species are found here, such as sunset cup corals and pink sea fans, both of which are protected species. Adding to the rich colours of the underwater seascape are jewel anemones and sponges. Many species live in the crevices in the bedrock and in gaps between boulders, including the commercially-important lobster. Crab and lobster will both forage and seek shelter in this habitat and it is targeted by static gear fisheries. The filter-feeding organisms aid in the filtration of water, and its fauna are a food species for many other species, including black bream. Several of Jersey s most spectacular dive sites occur on this habitat, such as Les Sauvages and Rigdon Bank. In addition to supporting local fishery species, it provides an opportunity to educate the public about marine biodiversity, and its sponges could potentially contribute to future biotechnology and/or medicines. |
Sand mason worms | 9 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 21 | This habitat is particularly important for the supporting and cultural benefits which it provides. Epifaunal and mobile species live amongst the tubes created by the sand mason worms, including daisy anemones, spider crabs and gobies. |
Sediment rich fauna | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 20 | This habitat makes a notable contribution to supporting, regulating and cultural benefits. It harbours many infaunal species, including filter feeders and bioturbators (which contribute to water and sediment quality) and is an important component connecting other habitats. It is located in areas associated with carbon storage, and may also play a part in replenishing beaches. The habitat also contributes to provisioning services, as it supports scallops, whelks, spider crab, brown crab, flat fish and rays. It is targeted by scallop dredgers and divers, and whelk potters, to supply local markets. |
Habitat type |
|
|
|
|
| Notes |
Rock barnacle | 6 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 14 | This habitat is important for dissipating wave energy, and creates a distinctive and varied seascape. It contributes to Jersey s visual beauty, and also to education and research therefore scores most highly for supporting and cultural benefits. . It |
Sediment robust fauna | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 13 | This habitat scores relatively low for the benefits it provides. The wide areas of gravelly sand form a very basic underwater seascape with few features to provide complexity or shelter, and relatively low biodiversity. However, it connects other habitats, and may also contribute to beach replenishment. It also provides habitat for sand eels, which are food for many other species (including commercial species) and attract diving seabirds such as gannets and puffins. Some areas of this habitat may support dense aggregations of King scallop that are commercially important locally. It also contains a moderate amount of inorganic carbon and is of importance in the carbon cycle. The habitat has been the focus of several research projects, including one to increase understanding of how the habitat is supporting the local puffin population. |
Sediment sparse fauna | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 12 | This habitat has a relatively low score for its provision of benefits. Because this habitat is highly mobile there is little opportunity for species to colonise the sediments. However, it does provide habitat for species such as sand eel, which in turn are a prey source for other species, including commercial species such as bass. The habitat may also play a part in replenishing beaches, and has been the focus of several recent research projects. |
Habitat type |
|
|
|
|
| Notes |
Slipper limpets | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | This habitat has a low benefits score, and poses a threat to other habitats. Slipper limpets are filter feeders, so have a role in nutrient cycling, but they can compact sediments, preventing the transport of nutrients to and from the sediments. Slipper limpets can render the substrate uninhabitable for species previously living there, particularly when they colonise maerl beds. They can complete with other molluscs such as the commercially important King scallop, and also negatively impact on the density of juvenile common sole. They are a classic example of invasive species colonisation (useful as an educational example) and do not create an aesthetically-pleasing seabed environment. |
Hard ground unstable | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | This habitat has the lowest overall benefit score of any of the habitats in Jersey s waters. It has relatively low biodiversity, with most species being robust and fast-growing. In Jersey it is typically characterised by barnacles, encrusting coralline algae and bryozoans. It forms a very basic seabed environment, but is known to be used by black seabream to build nests in which eggs are laid. Scallops are also associated with this habitat, but are dived (in shallower areas) rather than dredged due to the rough terrain. |
* OSPAR listed habitat Note current available evidence for Jersey's waters does not distinguish between kelp forest (listed under the OSPAR Convention) and other kelp habitats, but all have high biodiversity value.
Fig. 8e: Distribution of Supporting benefits from nature. Fig. 8g: Distribution of Regulating benefits from nature.
Fig. 8f: Distribution of Provisioning benefits from nature. Fig. 8h: Distribution of Cultural benefits from nature.
All maps from the Ecosystem Services Assessment of Jersey's Marine Habitats [Evidence Base document EB/NB/8]
Fig. 8i: Combined benefits from nature.
8.6.6 Blue Carbon
Blue carbon refers to the capture and storage of carbon within the marine environment. Introductory information is provided in Chapter 6.
Jersey's Carbon Neutral Strategy recognises that Blue Carbon resources may have a role to play
in the island's long-term planning, and therefore commissioned the report titled Blue Carbon Resources: An Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas (2022) [Evidence Base document EB/NB/7]. The information presented in this section of the MSP is taken from the Blue Carbon Resources report. It is important to note that the report only relates
to the offshore marine area, and does not cover
int ertidal ar eas.
Carbon may be organic (stored within living plants and animals) or inorganic (held in the carbonate which forms shells, tests and other organically-
derived debris). In Jersey's territorial seas,
the estimated stock of inorganic carbon is over 100 times greater than the estimated stock of organic carbon. This reflects the high carbon content of local sediments which, in turn, reflects a high rate of biological productivity and strong tidal currents (which may transport shell material and debris considerable distances). Within Jersey waters it is only sedimentary habitats that can effectively accumulate carbon as areas of bedrock, boulders and cobble have little or no sediment cover to bury and preserve carbon.
The Blue Carbon Report identifies and maps four different classes of blue carbon resources, based on the habitats found in Jersey's waters. These are shown on Fig. 8k (taken from the Blue Carbon Report) and summarised below.
Fig 8j The geographic distribution of the four Blue Carbon classes. The dashed line represents the 15m depth contour. From Blue Carbon Resources An Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas (2022) p. 38
Table 8c: Blue Carbon classes within Jersey's marine environment.
Class | Summary | Associated habitats (subtidal only) |
BC1: High production; low accumulation | Habitats with high productivity/standing stock for organic carbon, but a low productivity/ standing stock for inorganic carbon, and a low accumulation potential. This class is dominated by biotopes that are rich in large, fast-growing seaweed species (e.g. kelps and wracks) which require sunlight and therefore shallow water. Notably important areas are Jersey s coastal rock fringe (especially the north and west of the island) and the offshore reefs. | Rock-kelp |
BC2: High organic carbon accumulation; moderate inorganic carbon accumulation | This class is dominated by stable sedimentary habitats with moderate to high carbonate content, Sediment Accumulation Rate (SAR) and productivity. They may be notably diverse and include important biogenic habitats. Most are within Jersey s sedimentary basins and the stable sedimentary areas to the north of Les crØhous and Dirouilles. All have a mix of high energy sand and gravels with may have a high carbon content due to shell debris. | Maerl Seagrass Sediment rich fauna Sediment robust fauna (within basins) |
BC3: Low production and stock of organic carbon, but high standing stock of inorganic carbon | Sedimentary habitats which contain the greatest standing stock of carbon (by weight) in Jersey waters, almost all of which is inorganic in nature and mostly derived from legacy and/or reworked carbonate material . Class B3 areas represent a major repository (temporary and permanent) of inorganic carbon. They need to be managed to maintain their standing stock of carbon and their functioning to ensure that historic inorganic carbon is not released back into the atmosphere. | Sediment robust fauna (outside basins); Sediment sparse fauna; Slipper limpet beds |
BC4: Low productivity; low accumulation | These areas cover the largest geographic area, and generally include areas of deeper water with fewer plants. The hard seafloor and lack of permanent sediment restricts the potential for blue carbon accumulation. | Hard ground (stable); Hard ground (unstable) |
The Blue Carbon Report concludes that the geographic distribution of the four Blue Carbon classes suggest that Jersey's territorial waters contain a coherent and integrated Blue Carbon pathway. Within this, the offshore reefs and sedimentary basins play a particularly important role in terms of carbon production and burial.
A list of potential threats and pressures to
Blue Carbon resources was identified, including hydrological changes, physical damage, pollution, biological threats, fisheries and other changes.
The threats from fisheries were assessed in more detail, with results suggesting that static fishing using pots is localised, with a probably minimal impact
on some sedimentary habitats. In contrast, mobile gear fishing activity is more widespread and offers
a higher possibility of seabed disruption, including in some potentially valuable Blue Carbon areas.
The destruction or disruption of habitats with a high carbon accumulation potential (e.g. maerl beds
and seagrass) will not only reduce the potential
for greenhouse gas reduction, but possibly re- suspend buried carbon, allowing it to return to
the atmosphere.
It may well be that in the future, Blue Carbon resources can become commercialised through carbon offsetting' schemes. This is acknowledged in Jersey's Carbon Neutral Roadmap (Approved by the States Assembly April 2022), specifically in Strategic Policy 5, and Enabling Policy EN5, as s et out b elow. In introduction to the Carbon Neutral Roadmap is provided in section 4.4.4.
Carbon Neutral Roadmap Strategic Carbon Neutral Roadmap
Policy 5: Becoming Carbon Neutral Enabling Policy EN5: Blue carbon, International markets in offsets are still biodiversity and sequestration
evolving, and the costs, potential benefits The Government of Jersey will promote and availability of offsets that would fulfil Jersey as a centre of excellence for blue local aspirations are currently uncertain. carbon sequestration, with an ambition Having committed to a science-led emissions to double the extent of sea grass beds trajectory (Carbon Neutral Roadmap and recognise that tackling the climate strategic policy 1), becoming carbon neutral emergency by using nature-based
in 2023 (or at a different date) remains a solutions that also address the
legitimate step on the pathway to net-zero. biodiversity crisis provides multiple
benefits for our land, air and sea.
The Carbon Neutral Roadmap will:
- set out the steps that government will take to ensure that Jersey can become carbon neutral.
- provide support for sequestration projects that use local carbon sinks in the terrestrial or marine environment (blue carbon), before the purchase of off-Island offsets; and require funded sequestration projects to contribute to improvements in biodiversity.
116 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
8.6.7 Issues Intertidal habitats
This section summarises the vulnerabilities of
the various habitats found within Jersey's marine environment. Full details can be found in An Outline of the Ecology and Sensitivity of Marine Habitats in Jersey (2023) [Evidence Base document EB/NB/10]. Future iterations of the JMSP may consider other factors such as fish disease, water acidification
and freshwater input.
The diversity of conditions and habitats within Jersey's marine environment, and the range and variable locations of human activities, mean that there are many different factors at work, and the distribution of these factors is not consistent.
It is also important to remember that the various habitats are interrelated, so loss or damage of
one can lead to negative effects on another.
The habitats support many different species of plants, fish, crustaceans, birds and mammals at different times in their lifecycles, and so the abundance
of these species is likely to be affected by loss or damage to the habitats which support them.
Intertidal habitats can be vulnerable to damage
by deliberate or careless behaviour by people.
If practised sensibly, low water fishing has a relatively low impact, although an issue raised several times during the consultations was people not returning turned stones. It can take five to ten years for a rock to recover its biodiversity after being left the wrong way up. Raking for praire and sandeels can also damage fragile intertidal habitats such as seagrass. Litter (for example monofilament fishing lines, plastic and lost fishing gear) can cause problems, particularly where they entangle or trap fish, crustaceans and birds. Inshore netting can also cause problems for birds and create conflicts with recreational users. Recreation-related threats are addressed more
fully in Chapter 11.
Pollution is an ongoing threat. Intertidal habitats are vulnerable to one-off incidents (such as oil slicks) and to ongoing activities, such as discharges into the sea. One of the most dramatic current consequences of
this is the profusion of sea lettuce in St Aubin's Bay during the summer months, which is associated with organic enrichment from nitrogen-enriched water flowing into St Aubin's Bay from outfalls and str eams (in combination with the shape of the bay and
patterns of sediment movement within it).
There are further potential threats to intertidal environments from aggregate extraction from sandbanks, and from non-native invasive species. Intertidal aquaculture could potentially threaten intertidal habitats if it is undertaken in areas particularly sensitive to physical disruption.
Shallow water habitats
Many subtidal habitats are threatened by activities which disturb the seabed. The rich shallow water sedimentary habitats containing fragile structures and species (for example seagrass, maerl and kelp forest, all of which are listed under the OSPAR Convention) are particularly vulnerable to damage from mobile fishing gear (trawling and dredging) which scrapes the seabed and disturbs its surface and its subsurface. This destabilises sediment and overturns rocks, burying animals and plants, and killing organisms such as s eaw e eds, molluscs, crustac eans and sponges. If done repeatedly or in sensitive locations, it can take years for the seabed to recover.
If disruption is regular over a prolonged period
then some habitats will be unable to recover fully.
Some habitats are also vulnerable to disturbance
of the seabed surface, for example through the use of static fishing g ear or mooring rop es which can l ead to abrasion or damage to surface fauna such as sponges and sea fans. Generally, this impact is localised, but swing moorings can damage
seagrass over relatively large areas.
Chemical pollution and mineral extraction are potential threats, but are currently thought to be minimal within Jersey's waters.
There are further threats to subtidal habitats from climate change (including rising sea temperatures, changes in salinity and oxygenation, and rising sea levels). The potential effects of these within Jersey are currently being quantified through a series of research projects.
Natural processes, such as the movement of
sediment by storms or currents can create major changes to the seabed, which in turn may impact on habitats. A further threat comes from the spread of non-native invasive species such as slipper limpets, which can form 100% coverage of the sea floor and crowd out other species. Other non-native species such as Sargassum s eaw e ed and l eath ery s ea squirt can impact some shallow sub-tidal habitats, but
to a lesser extent than slipper-limpets. Invasive Non-Native Species are beyond the scope of the JMSP, but are an important issue to be addressed through marine and terrestrial management.
More information on Invasive Non-Native Species
is provided in Evidence Base document EB/NB/6.
Deep water habitats
The deeper water habitats are generally less vulnerable, although they are still threatened by seabed changes. Two of them sediment with robust fauna, and unstable hard ground, contain relatively few seabed species, are less diverse, and contribute fewer benefits. The third stable hard ground, contains a much greater diversity of species (including rare and protected species such as sponges and pink sea fans) but it is usually avoided by mobile gear fishers because equipment can snag and be damaged on the rough and rocky seabed.
The following table sets out the sensitivity of the main habitats to the principal threats which have been identified.
H = High sensitivity
M = Medium sensitivity
L = Low sensitivity
X = Not sensitive
= insufficient data available
* OSPAR protected habitat
Table 8d: Habitat sensitivity. Blue shaded columns are actions which can be addressed through marine spatial planning.
Habitat | Human actions | Natural/climate related processes | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Intertidal habitats | ||||||||||
Rock barnacle | X |
|
| H | H |
| X |
| X | |
Rock seaweed | M | H | H | H | H | M | M | M | X | |
Rockpool communities | X | M | L | H | H |
| X | M | M | |
Shallow water habitats | ||||||||||
Sediment seaweed | L | M | M | H | H |
| H | M | M | |
Sand mason worms | X | H | H | H | H |
| M | M | L | |
Seagrass * | M | H | H | H | H | M | M | M | X | |
Sediment sparse fauna | X | L | L | H | H | X | L | L | L | |
Sediment rich fauna | X | M | M | H | H |
| L | M | L | |
Rock kelp * | M | M |
| H | H | X | H | M | M | |
Maerl beds * | H | H | H | H | H |
| M |
| H | |
Slipper limpet beds | X | L | L |
| H |
| L |
| X | |
Deep water habitats | ||||||||||
Sediment robust fauna | X | L | M | H | H |
| L | M | M | |
Hard ground unstable | X | L | L | X | H |
| L | L |
| |
Hard ground stable | X | L |
|
| H |
| L |
| X | |
The JMSP focusses on responding to the threats from human actions rather than from natural/climate- related processes. However, it is recognised that habitats (and the populations which they support) are likely to be stressed by environmental factors, and therefore be more vulnerable to damage
from human activities.
Of the human actions identified, the JMSP can only address those which can be reduced through marine spatial planning or management measures (i.e. disturbance to the seabed surface and sub-surface). Organic enrichment is primarily a result of nutrient- enriched water flowing into the sea from streams and outfalls, and should therefore be dealt with through land-based planning and management, as set out in the Bridging Liquid Waste Strategy 2023–26.
Fig. 8k: sensitivity to disturbance of the seabed surface.
Figures 8k and 8l below show the sensitivity of the seabed surface and seabed subsurface respectively according to the Marine Evidence based Sensitivity Assessment (MarESA) index. This does not show the current pressures on a particular habitat; rather,
it shows the habitats' sensitivity to pressures were they to occur. Although all areas are sensitive to disturbance of the seabed surface to some degree, the most sensitive areas are found in the four shallow water habitats of rock seaweed, sand mason worms, seagrass and maerl. These four habitats are also the most sensitive to disturbance of the seabed subsurface. Seagrass and maerl are habitats which should be protected under the OSPAR convention. The areas of lowest sensitivity to seabed disturbance are the areas of hard ground, slipper limpets, and sediment with sparse fauna.
Maps from An outline of the ecology and sensitivity of marine habitats in Jersey, Channel Islands,
figs. 5.10 and 5.11.
Fig. 8l: sensitivity to disturbance of the seabed subsurface.
8.6.8 Marine Protected Areas
Marine Protected Areas currently cover Jersey's north and east coasts, the south-east reefs, St Aubin's Bay, St Brelade's Bay, Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers. The purpose of the MPAs is to protect valuable
and vulnerable habitats by preventing damage
from mobile fishing gear. This allows the seabed to function naturally, and protects fish populations by allowing spawning grounds and nurseries to thrive.
The existing MPAs do not cover all the relevant priority habitats and species protected under the OSPAR convention, nor do they consider the full range of benefits from nature, or the potential of Jersey's waters for carbon storage, as described in sections 8.6.5 and 8.6.6 above.
The process of MPA designation under the OSPAR conv ention is s et out in Fig. 8m below.
Fig. 8m: Process of MPA designation under
the OSPAR Convention.
Understanding seabed properties, benefits and functions
As a contracting party to the OSPAR convention, the Government of Jersey is prioritising the aims of the OSPAR network of MPAs, which are:
- To protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have been adversely affected by human activities;
- To prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle; and
- To protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area.
8.6.9 Proposed Actions
A key action arising from the JMSP is the creation of a network of MPAs in Jersey's waters consistent with the island's environmental, economic and social objectives. These should also be consistent with the aims of the OSPAR network of MPAs, and in accordance with the recognised process for their designation. The process is supported by robust data, including the analysis of habitats, benefits from nature, blue carbon potential, habitat sensitivity,
thr eats, and economic implications.
The full methodology for assessing the proposed MPA
boundaries up to the Public Consultation Draft (stage Identifying potential harmful activities 8 below) is set out in the Jersey MPA Assessment
Methodology (2023) [Evidence Base document EB/
NB/12]. The series of maps below show how the
proposed MPA network has been built up. Stage 9
is explained in more detail in the JMSP Public Management for long term Consultation Response Summary [Evidence Base
conservation of valued habitats document EB/G/25].
Fig. 8n: How the proposed Jersey MPA network has been identified.
Stage 1:
Existing MPAs and NTZ (shown in blue)
JMSP principle that there will be no loss of protection from existing levels.
Stage 2:
Ramsar Sites (shown in blue)
Designated and managed as wetlands of international importance, but currently without statutory protection.
Stage 3:
Potential OSPAR habitats (shown in blue)
Areas of seagrass, maerl and kelp (containing areas of kelp forest) which are internationally recognised for their importance to biodiversity
Stage 4:
Intertidal and nearshore zone (shown in blue)
Areas of diverse habitat which require close management due to the range of activities being undertaken.
Stage 5:
Drying rocks and islets (shown in blue)
Rich habitats associated
with reefs, shoals and channel complexes, and supporting nursery habitats for fish as well as diverse fauna.
Stage 6:
Blue Carbon
Areas of greatest potential to produce and store blue carbon. (The darker the colour, the greater the blue carbon potential).
Stage 7:
Scores for secondary features
Combined results of scoring process for benefits from nature, marine biodiversity and seabed depth (The darker the colour, the higher the score).
Stage 8:
Proposed MPA network from Public Consultation Draft (shown in blue)
The map in Appendix D shows how these MPA boundaries were subsequently changed
to reflect comments and submissions received through the public consultation process.
Lower ecological priority for inclusion within the MPAs was given to:
Stage 9: Areas which score highly in just one or two fields Post consultation Areas with a low coverage of threatened habitats
Proposed MPA taking into Areas whose principal scoring was only for blue asuccbomuisnsti oconmsmmaednets o ann tdh e carbon, as r es earch in this ar ea r emains ongoing
Public Consultation Draft, and
including the Jersey-France An assessment of marine activities occurring
submarine cable mandatory within the proposed MPAs identified high usage for exclusion corridor. The MPA
map is shown at a larger size in watersports and tourism (especially around Jersey's Fig. 8o, along with the areas for coastline and during the summer months), leisure
for seasonally-restricted mobile fishing areas. Chapter 9 boating and recreational fishing (boat and shore
further survey for future MPA designation. Please see
based). These activities have a generally low impact
on intertidal and subtidal habitats with the exception
of permanent moorings which can degrade seagrass The ecology-based part of the classification process ar eas (see section 8.7).
shows a concentration of higher-scoring areas around
Jersey's coast and in the eastern part of Jersey's Subtidally, the dominant marine activity within territorial seas, with a particular concentration around MPAs is commercial fishing. The association of
the offshore reefs, and the sedimentary basin areas sensitive habitats with rocky reef areas means that between them. The inshore area and the offshore the dominant fishing activity in the MPAs is potting, reefs generally score higher in relation to threatened especially for crab and lobster. Additionally, some habitats, complexity, depth and benefits from nature, n etting/angling for fish occurs as do es diving for whereas the basin areas often score highly in relation scallops. These static gear activities have a low
to blue carbon resources and benefits from nature. impact on the seabed except at Les Sauvages
In reality of course, the areas are closely linked where ropes, lines and nets have damaged delicate, physically and in terms of their functions. slow-growing species such as sea fans, sponges,
hydroids, cup corals and bryozoans (see section 8.2).
Issues around ghost fishing and netting are covered Higher ecological priority for inclusion within
in section 9.5.
the MPAs was given to:
Areas which scored well in multiple fields
- Seabed areas with a high coverage (>30% of threatened habitats)
- Connectivity to existing MPA sites, Ramsar areas or proximity to drying rocks
- Proximity/connectivity to other high value grid squares
- Proximity/connectivity to shallow water reef areas.
Some parts of the proposed MPAs that are sediment dominated are associated with dredging either for scallops or clams such as praire. These activities are most often concentrated on the reef fringes where maerl, sand mason worms and other sensitive habitats accumulate against rocky outcrops and shoals. These seabed areas have a high benefits from nature (ecosystem services) value but a low resilience and resistance to the surface and subsurface disturbance caused by dredging and other mobile gear. In common with Jersey's existing MPAs, the use of mobile gear presents the biggest threat to the int egrity and viability of k ey habitats such as ma erl, seagrass and other sedimentary habitats.
It is recognised that the exclusion of mobile gear from the proposed MPAs will require a change in fishing patterns by some vessels. However, it should be
not ed that in comparison to static g ear, mobil e g ear is the minority fishing activity within the proposed MPAs and that it will remain permitted in 76.7% of Jersey's waters for all or part of the year, including those offshore areas where the majority of dredging and trawling activities occur. It should also be noted that the establishment of MPAs demonstrably builds resilience into stocks leading to wider benefits inside and outside the protected areas.
Detailed economic analysis is provided in an evaluation of Jersey's marine habitats in providing ecosystem services Blue Marine and NEF (2023) [Evidence Base document EB/NB/9]. This document needs to be used with care because its calculations don't cover the exact MPA scenario which is being proposed in the final version of the JMSP, but it concludes that over time, there is increased
economic benefit from enhanced ecosystem
services, even when factoring in a decline in
income from mobile gear fishing. An Economic Impact Assessment will be used as a basis to consider economic support for diversification. If diversification is not possible, compensatory measures will be considered for affected fishers within the mobile fishing sector impacted by the expansion of MPAs.
The proposed MPAs are shown in Fig. 8o at the end of this chapter. They cover 55,265ha, or 23.3% of Jersey's marine area. The MPA network includes the intertidal and nearshore zone, the offshore reefs, and outlying areas at Les Sauvages (also a NTZ), Rigdon Bank and Banc Desormes. In two specific areas within the MPA (on the south-eastern edges of
Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers), protection should be phased in to give the fishing community time to diversify their fishing methods and/or
find alternative fishing grounds.
The offshore boundaries of the MPAs are based on navigable points, so that the boundaries are relatively straightforward to id entify at s ea.
Two specific inshore areas (off the North Coast and the Corbière banks) will have seasonal restrictions on mobile gear. In these areas, use of mobile gear will only will be permitted in the winter. Due to their non- continuous closure to mobile gear, these areas are excluded from the MPA. Areas of seasonal restriction are described in Chapter 9.
Recognising both Jersey's commitment to 30% MPA coverage by 2030 ('30 by 30'), and the importance of further research (into migratory fish species, seabed habitats, and into the effectiveness of the new MPAs), a number of additional areas are put forward for
future consideration for MPA designation prior to 2030. These are also shown on Fig. 8o, and include the area east of Les Écréhous; part of the basin between Les Écréhous and Les Anquettes, and areas
to the east and west of Les Minquiers. Together the areas for further survey total 8,539ha (3.7% of Jersey's waters). More research of these areas particularly related to migratory fish species, and the location of sensitive habitats such as ross worm habitats, kelp habitats and maerl is needed to inform decisions
on which areas become MPAs in the future. There is also potential to explore the use of biodiversity aids such as artificial reefs to enhance biodiversity within the MPA.
Monitoring of MPAs will be essential to determining their effectiveness and in identifying future areas for MPA designation.
Priority NB5: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
To protect the most ecologically-valuable marine habitats through the expansion of the network of Marine Protected Areas, to support the international obligation to protect at least
30% of Jersey s territorial area by 2030.
Action NB5a: The existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) will be extended and linked to cover
the inshore area; the offshore reefs (Les Écréhous, Les Minquiers, the Paternosters and Les Anquettes), and parts of the sedimentary basins which contain a high coverage of OSPAR listed habitats. No mobile fishing gear will be permitted to be used within the MPAs.
Action NB5b: | Legislation will be revised to give the MPAs a statutory basis. |
Action NB5c: | Further research will be undertaken in order to inform the future expansion of the Marine Protected Area network. This will include gaining greater understanding of the distribution of migratory fish species and sensitive habitats and species, as well as the potential consequences of the changed MPA boundaries on habitats and species. |
Action NB5d: | Compensa tory measures and/or alternatives will be considered for fishers within the mobile fishing sector affected by the MPAs, where considered appropriate, having regard to economic impact assessments. |
Action NB5e: | The potential will be explored for using biodiversity aids such as artificial reefs in order to enhance biodiversity within the MPA. |
Action NB5f: | Ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the MPA will be undertaken, including collaborative working between relevant organisations. |
- Seagrass
- 7.1 Background
As mentioned above, seagrass is an extremely important habitat, scoring highest in terms of the benefits from nature which it provides, and also contributing to carbon storage. It supports a wide range of different marine species of fish, crustaceans and in turn the birds and mammals which feed on them.
8.7.2 Issues
Seagrass grows in shallow waters, and where it grows close to shore, it is vulnerable to damage by human influences. A particular problem is damage to seagrass from individual boat moorings, where chains can remove seagrass plants over a diameter
of 10 to 19m as they swing across the seabed as the tide changes. In St Catherine's Bay, analysis of aerial photography suggests boat moorings have resulted
in a cumulative loss of around 6000m2 of s eagrass 1. S eagrass is also damag ed by boat anchors.
Various alternative designs of boat moorings are now available which keep the chain off the seabed as it swings with the tide, either through use of additional floats, or a pole which stands taller than the seagrass and prevents the mooring
chain dragging across th e s eagrass.
Ports of Jersey are currently involved in research
to identify the optimum types of seagrass-friendly moorings to use given Jersey's extreme tidal range. It is int end ed that moorings within s eagrass ar eas will be replaced with seagrass-friendly moorings, and that new visitor moorings of this type will be provided, thereby removing the need to use anchors.
8.7.3 Proposed Actions
Extensive areas of inshore seagrass should be designated as seagrass habitat management areas. There are four locations around Jersey's coast where extensive areas of inshore seagrass occur: St Catherine's Bay, Anne Port and Archirondel; Royal Bay of Grouville ; the South-east reefs, and St Aubin's Bay. In these areas (shown on Fig. 8o), anchoring should be avoided, and (once research is complete) moorings should be replaced with seagrass friendly moorings. Other management could include restrictions on driving vehicles at low tide, digging, horse riding, and dumping of seaweed. The establishment and enforcement of seagrass habitat management areas would require co-operation between PoJ, Government and
other bodies, and may require the updating of
existing or n ew l egislation.
1 Blue Carbon Resources, an Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas p.50.
Priority NB6: Seagrass Habitat Management Areas
To designate Seagrass Habitat Management Areas to promote the protection and regeneration of seagrass.
Action NB6a: Seagrass Habitat Management Areas should be established in
St Catherine's Bay, Archirondel and Anne Port, the Royal Bay of Grouville , South-East Reefs and St Aubin's Bay, where damaging activities will be restricted. It will be necessary to explore options to achieve this objective through change or enhancement of the existing legal framework.
Action NB6b: Subject to the positive findings of research into seagrass-friendly
moorings, their use should be promoted within Seagrass Habitat Management Areas.
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 126 CONTENTS
8.8.1 Background
As explained elsewhere in the JMSP, Jersey's marine environment is fundamental to the identity and wellbeing of Jersey's residents, and to the Island's economy and infrastructure. The passion of local people (of all ages) for their marine environment, and their desire to know and understand more
about it, shone through in the JMSP public consultation process.
8.8.2 Issues
At present there is no dedicated and public place which people can visit to find out more about Jersey's marine environment. This means that it
is not understood or appreciated as much as it could be. In the longer term this could lead to a lack of awareness which affects Jersey's ability to look after its seas, and their associated habitats and marine life.
- 8.3 Proposed Actions
It is suggested that a suitable site is sought for
a Marine Environment Visitor Centre'. This could function as a focal point for education on all
aspects of Jersey's marine environment (for example fishing, seabed and intertidal habitats, cultural heritage and maritime infrastructure).
It would cater for visitors to Jersey, and also local residents including school children and local interest groups. The centre should ideally be in a coastal location with parking, and accessible by public transport. Potential partners could include Ports
of Jersey, Jersey Heritage, the Jersey Fishermen's Association and the National Trust for Jersey.
Priority NB7: Marine Environment Visitor Centre
To promote a marine environment visitor centre to act as a focus for education for residents and visitors.
Action NB7a: A partnership of interested organisations should be established
and funding identified.
Action NB7b: A suitable site should be sought for a marine environment
visitor centre.
128 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
9 CanodmAmqeuracciaull Ftuisrhe ing
Aim: Commercial fishing and aquaculture
are sustainable and profitable
9 CanodmAmqeuracciaull Ftuisrhe ing
Aim: Commercial fishing and aquaculture
are sustainable and profitable
- Introduction
- 1.1 Background
Jersey has a long and proud fishing tradition, and fishing is a core part of the island s culture and identity. Different types of fishing take place across Jersey s waters, with fishing metiers include potting, netting, line fishing, scallop dredging, scallop diving and static oyster farming (aquaculture). Most fishing uses nets or lines within the water column or static pots on the seabed, but there are also boats using mobile fishing gear (trawls or dredges) which are towed across the seabed. Recreational fishing (including angling, low-water fishing and spear fishing) also takes place around
Jersey s coastline, and is covered in
the Recreation and Tourism chapter (Chapter 11). The priorities and actions in this chapter are primarily concerned with commercial fishing and aquaculture, but where they are also relevant to recreational fishing this has been highlighted. Local seafood (particularly shellfish) is enjoyed in homes and restaurants across Jersey, and is also exported as a high-end product.
However, now is not an easy time for Jersey s commercial fishing community, due to a combination of declining stocks, increased costs and post-Brexit export regulations. There is concern amongst
the fishing community that the JMSP will add to their challenges and it is, therefore, particularly helpful that the fishing community has engaged with the process and shared their concerns and their hopes for the future. The JMSP aims to strike a balance between protecting the marine environment and the fish stocks it supports, to ensure there is still a viable living to
be gained as a Jersey-based fisher.
The recommendations in this chapter
aim to facilitate the shared aim of sustainable and profitable fisheries.
Cover image, Matt Sharp
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 130 CONTENTS
9.1.2 Key Evidence Base Documents Policy 9 of the Economic Framework for the Marine Environment states:
Key Evidence Base documents for this chapter:
- Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (2023)
- Blue Carbon Resources: An Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas (2022)
- Marine Resources Annual Report (2021)
- Datasets provided by Jersey Fishermen's Association
- Marine Protected Areas Assessment Methodology (2023)
- An Outline of the Ecology and Sensitivity of Marine Habitats in Jersey (2023)
- A People of the Sea: The Maritime History of the Channel Islands Alan G. Jamieson (1986)
- A valuation of Jersey's marine habitats in providing ecosystem services Blue Marine and NEF (2023)
- The Fishing Industry of Jersey Portsmouth College of Technology (1967)
- Blampied et al. (2023) The socio-economic impact of Marine Protected Areas in Jersey: A fishers' perspective Fisheries research 259 (2023) 106555
- Blampied et al. (2022) Value of coastal habitats to commercial fisheries in Jersey, English Channel, and the role of marine protected areas Fisheries Management and Ecology (2022) 00:1–11
9.1.3 Legislation and Policy Context
Jersey's Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (2022) was prepared by the Marine Economy Advisory Group (MEAG) comprising representatives from Jersey's commercial fishers, aquaculture producers and merchants. MEAG's vision is to have a vibrant and sustainable marine sector, providing employment and economic opportunity, and maintaining fisheries and aquaculture as an integral part of the island's cultural identity.
Government of Jersey will develop a Marine Spatial Planning Strategy, using standardised methodologies and principles, to enable a co- ordinated plan to manage the marine environment.
The Island Marine Spatial Plan will capture
evidence relating to key physical, environmental and socioeconomic aspects of Jersey's coastal and marine area. This will include sectors such as biodiversity, food/energy security, fishing/aquaculture, public utility, climate change, tourism and recreation.
Data will be analysed and assessed to determine how individual areas are used (and by whom), their value (economic, environmental and otherwise) and how they might best be utilised going forwards.
The objective of the plan will be to develop zonal systems (integrated with other GoJ strategies and plans) which are defined by their usage and which identify potentially compatible and incompatible activities.
This will produce an evidence-based spatial model which can be interrogated to assist with decision making in relation to development and management.
As explained in Section 1.2, the JMSP forms an
ov erarching strat egic fram ework s etting th e approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing r egulation. Th e JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set out in the JMSP.
9.1.4 Pen Portraits
Members of the Jersey fishing fleet have built up a respected wealth of knowledge of the sea. This comes from their own experience, and from information
handed down from generation to generation.
Yannick Pingeon I've been fishing for 17 years. My Dad was a fisherman, so I spent most Inshore fisher of my weekends, holidays out with him, I have seen a lot of changes (lobster and bass)
during this time, and a lot more rules and legislation. Some good years and some bad. The sea matters to me as it's part of Jersey's heritage and part of mine. It should be protected, and, with good management,
I believe it can be. However, closing off areas and stopping us from targeting certain species only adds more pressure on the other areas
and species. There are plenty of areas that are non-fishable during certain times of the year, due to the weather, the swell, the conditions, which therefore naturally protects these zones. In my opinion our fleet needs diversification and as much room as possible for it to thrive. Closing more areas is only going to bury the small industry we have.
Steve: "You've got 60 years of experience here with me and Kevin
and I never thought I'd stop fishing but with all these constraints
I question whether I will see my career out. It's been a roller coaster
last few years, with Brexit and Covid. Following Brexit we have been put in an impossible position as we aren't allowed to land our catch in
France anymore and, simply put, we can't compete with the French. Steve Viney and On the positive side the reaction of the locals has been incredible, Kevin Singleton
there has been so much support and people have really got behind Scallop fishers
the point of buying local. It's strange to say but thanks to Covid the numb er and fr equ ency of fish stalls all across th e Island has incr eas ed significantly, meaning people are now seeing the fish we catch and
that naturally makes it easier for them to then buy local fish.
The Jersey Seafood Alliance has been fundamental in this happening it just shows what you can achieve when you work together.
132 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
- A short history of fishing in Jersey
9.2.1 Early history
Jersey's fishing industry has a long and varied history, and has constantly adapted in response to changing markets and availability of fish. Over the centuries, dominant catches have included mackerel, conger
eel, cod (in Newfoundland), oysters and crustaceans.
People have been fishing in Jersey's waters since prehistoric times, as evidenced by archaeological
finds of flint tools us ed for hunting s eals and fish, and oyster shells found in caves. Fish traps used to catch wetfish on the falling tide within the intertidal area have been used since at least medieval times although some could be prehistoric in date.
There are records from the 12th Century relating to the export of fish from Jersey (primarily conger eels and mackerel). In 1332 a quarter of customs revenue was taken from fisheries. Salted or dried fish was sold to various Catholic countries where a fish-based di et was obligatory on c ertain days or s easons.
Jersey Harbour, Newfoundland.
Philip John Ouless (1817–1885)
Reproduced with permission from Jersey Heritage
A 17th Century account states that most Jersey farmers had a boat and fished occasionally, and there were also full-time fishermen. Conger eels were a key export of the island at the time.
From the 16th to the 19th Centuries, fishing
was dominated by Atlantic cod. In 1581, 18 ships left St Helier for Canada. The cod trade fluctuated, but in 1732, 27 large vessels, carrying over
2000 people sailed to Newfoundland founding large companies that were in Jersey ownership. The industry gradually declined, but dried cod from Newfoundland remained a feature of
Jersey trade until the early 20th Century.
Extract from 1694 map of Jersey, showing oyster bed off the Royal Bay of Grouville
9.2.2 The 19th Century
The 19th Century oyster fishery involved exploitation of the natural oyster beds between Jersey and
France, but no cultivation. In 1810 an oyster fishery was established at Gorey to supply Kent and Sussex- based oyster companies serving the London market. By 1830 250 oyster vessels worked the bed, plus
70 vessels from other English ports. At its height,
it involved around 400 boats, each with up to five crew, for six months over the autumn and winter seasons. Thousands more were employed on shore
as basket fillers, carriers, lifters and oyster washers. Port facilities were improved to accommodate the needs of the industry, with new piers built at Gorey, Bouley Bay, Rozel and La Rocque. Rows of cottages were built for immigrant workers, and a new English- sp eaking church was construct ed at Gor ey, which also served the British garrison at Mont Orgueil. Disputes with the French over rights to the oyster beds led to the Jersey industry being concentrated into a smaller area. The stock collapsed under fishing pressure in 1862 so that by 1871 only six oyster vessels were left. Today the Jersey oyster industry is completely supplied by aquaculture
of the Pacific oyster.
The late 19th Century saw a rapid change in the island's economy from being primarily sea-based, to primarily land-based, as steamships made possible the export of perishable crops such as tomatoes
and potatoes. The traditional wooden boat-building industry declined, but tourism started to grow.
9.2.3 The 20th Century
The 1911 census recorded 194 full-time Jersey fishermen. In the early 20th Century fishing gradually became inshore and short-range, largely limited to
Les Minquiers and Les Écréhous reefs. Boats would sail out to the reefs and stay there for a week potting for lobster and crab. The industry was hit hard by the First World War th e w etfish industry (which was primarily flatfish) collapsed, and by around 1930 there were only a handful of full-time fishermen.
The Chiders' and another vessel tied to a buoy off Gorey Harbour.
Philip John Ouless (1817–1885)
Reproduced with permission from Jersey Heritage
Restored 19th Century fishermen's huts, Les Minquiers Fiona Fyfe
During the Second World War, some fishing licences were issued by the occupying German forces, but minefields severely restricted the fishing areas. Much of the landed fish found its way onto the black market, where it provided much-needed protein for the malnourished population.
In the 1950s, crab and lobster fishing began to pick up but by 1967 there were still only 15 full-time fishing boats. The fleet expanded in the 1970s and 80s as markets improved and vessels fished offshore in the English Channel. Some 227 licenced Jersey fishing boats were recorded in 2000, most of which were smaller inshore vessels fishing with static gear.
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 134 CONTENTS
- Current fishing trends
9.3.1 Fish landings and stocks
Today there are around 130 Jersey-registered boats licensed to fish in Jersey's waters, plus 137 French vessels. Roughly 50% of the Jersey fishers work full-time (i.e. fishing 50 days-at-sea or more per year). Jersey's fleet employs a mixture of metiers (types of fishing), with many vessels equipped to operate several different fishing gears. Jersey's waters are also fished by French fishers under the terms of a post-Brexit fishing agreement with the EU. Fig. 9a shows the route density of 30 fishing vessels over four weeks in 2022 within Jersey's waters.
Fig. 9a: Route density of 30 fishing vessels over a four-week period within Jersey's waters (no. of vessels per km2)
Jersey's Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (2022) provides the following overview of the island's commercial fisheries.
Commercial landings shellfish
- Whelks, brown crab, scallops, lobsters, spider crab, cuttlefish.
- Economically dominated by shellfish especially lobster and crab around 70% (by financial value) of landings, and whelks and scallops account for around 22% of landed value.
- The annual landed weight for lobster and brown crab is declining which, given their economic dominance, is a concern. Spider crab landings have increased steeply due to their abundance and because they are becoming a substitute for pick ed brown crab m eat.
- Cuttlefish landings have also increased, perhaps in response to increased prices and declines in other stocks.
Comm ercial landings w etfish
- Blond e ray, wrass e, dogfish, black s ea br eam, mackerel and bass.
- Jersey's commercial wetfish industry is relatively small and has recently suffered from problems related to stock health, logistics, facilities and mark ets.
- The local fishery is mostly low impact (hook and line, nets, etc.) and several species are targeted but often in quite low numbers.
- Annual landings are variable often because of individual vessels entering or leaving the fishery or because of regional factors (such as overfishing) that occur outside of Jersey waters.
Aquaculture production
- Production remains focused on the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and mussels.
- Production has remained steady over recent y ears as has th e ar ea of s eashor e occupi ed by aquaculture concessions.
- The Island's main aquaculture area is in Grouville Bay (224 hectares) and is covered by a single planning consent held by the Government of Jersey.
- In 2020 an emergency holding bed was established on the upper shore of Grouville Bay to allow oysters that were nearing market size to be held for longer at slower growing speeds while markets were depressed due to Covid restrictions.
The following graphs (from the Marine Resources Annual Report 2021) shows the landings of different types of fish recorded for Jersey-licenced vessels since 2007.
BACK TO 9 | Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture
CONTENTS 137
Commercial fish landings 2007–2021
For shellfish, the graphs show a sharp decrease in landed weight of crab and lobster, and a gradual decrease in scallops. This reflects several factors including Brexit and Covid. There is a sharp increase in spider crab and a gradual increase in cuttlefish. Whelks show a gradual increase then decrease
back to the starting level, reflecting changes in
boat numbers.
For wetfish, wrasse, ray and dogfish have a general upward trend in landed weight but with big variations. Bream, mackerel and bass have a general downward trend in landed weight but with
big variations.
For aquaculture, production of pacific oysters has a gradual upward trend.
Fishing effort has increased for diving and dredging, with an overall slight reduction for potting. Landings per unit effort (LPUE) have declined slightly for whelk and lobster, declined steeply for brown crab, and risen slightly for spider crab, as shown in the graphs below. LPUE is an important consideration
as it is independent of variables such as weather,
fl e et capacity, and r egulations, and so giv es a b ett er indication of stock h ealth.
Fishing Effort 2007–2021
Overall, there is currently considerable concern about the decline in catches and stocks, particularly lobster, brown crab and whelk. For further information see the annual reports published by Marine Resources (available on the Government website).
Fishing boat returning to St Helier Harbour. Fiona Fyfe
9.3.2 Current spatial fishing patterns
Different fish and shellfish require different conditions in terms of water depth, sediment type
and seabed habitats, and so different metiers are
often concentrated in different parts of Jersey's waters. Figs 9b–9i show the different locational patterns of fishing activity using data from AIS tracking, fisheries inspections, data provided by Jersey fishers, and French VMS (Vessel Monitoring Systems) data. These maps are taken from the
Marine Activities Assessment [Evidence Base document EB/G/22]. While these maps show predominant fishing activity, without VMS for
Jersey vessels, it is not possible to accurately map
all fishing activity and the maps shown will therefore not show 100% of fishing activity. The maps also only show a snapshot of fishing activity in recent years.
Lobster pot. Fiona Fyfe
In general, potting for crustaceans takes place in shallower, rocky seabed areas, Jersey's inshore
zone, and around the reefs. Whelk potting occurs on sediment dominated seabed along the eastern edge
of Jersey's territorial seas, to the west of Les Minquiers and to the north of the northern reefs. Dredging for clams mostly takes place on the south-eastern edge
of the Bailiwick, and with a small amount in the
north. Scallop dredging is focused on some inshore areas, such as the bays of St Aubin and Grouville , but is mainly offshore, including an extensive area to the west of Jersey. Similarly, bottom trawling is generally an offshore activity that occurs along the western
edge of Jersey's seas with very little occurring inshore. Netting for spider crab occurs in the south-west while small-scale fish related metiers (netting; hook and line) is predominantly inshore. Scallop diving also takes place inshore, as well as at the offshore reefs.
Fig. 9b: Crustacean potting area Fig. 9d: Clam dredging area
Fig. 9c: Whelk potting area Fig. 9e: Scallop dredging area
Fig. 9f: Bottom-trawling area Fig. 9h: Fish netting area
Fig. 9g: Crustacean netting area Fig. 9i: Hook and lin e fishing ar ea
- Proposed fishing zones
9.4.1 Background
There are a number of different environmental, socioeconomic, legal and practical considerations governing the spatial management of fishing activity. These include conflict reduction (other fisheries, habitats and species, infrastructure and maritime activity), stock conservation, international agreements and economic management. Finding a workable balance between these parameters is rarely easy and it is often not possible to please
all interests simultaneously.
Particularly controversial has been the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs) in order to reduce or remove specific activities (usually related to fishing or mineral extraction) from areas of higher biodiversity, productivity or sensitivity. Although usually created for conservation purposes, an invariable side effect
of well-managed MPAs is the enhancement of stocks within and, via spillover, adjacent to their borders. This provides economic and stock resilience to local fisheries but selling such benefits during the planning phase of MPAs can be difficult as the discussion
will often focus on any short-term loss rather than
the long-term gain. MPAs are discussed further in Sections 8.2 and 8.6.
9.4.2 Issues
There is a need to be able to distinguish easily between areas where fishing of all types is permitted and those areas where fishing metiers are spatially managed. A requirement of the system must be
that it is easy to understand, use and enforce.
There is concern amongst the fishing community that the expansion of the MPA network will result in some metiers (especially mobile gear related) being concentrated in the same areas, resulting
in over-exploitation and stock damage.
Any potential impacts and benefits derived from spatial planning must therefore be quantified and balanced against management objectives so that a balance can be struck between environmental and socioeconomic sustainability.
The fishing industry is of great importance to Jersey's cultural identity, as well as contributing to the Island's economy. There is concern amongst the mobile gear fishing community that both of these benefits may be negatively affected by proposals to limit the physical extent of mobile fishing.
9.4.3 Proposed Actions
Jersey's fishing industry will continue to be supported through the Marine Economy Framework, with a particular emphasis on sustainable fishing practices, and the provision of facilities to improve the quality of products, such as cold stores. An Economic Impact Assessment will be used as a basis to consider economic support for diversification. If diversification is not possible, compensatory measures will be considered for affected fishers within the mobile fishing sector impacted by the expansion of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
The JMSP proposes the introduction of a three-tier framework, with different levels of protection in each tier. This will allow different fishing regimes to be introduced, with all of Jersey's waters falling within one of the three tiers. These fishing zones are shown in Fig. 9j.
Fishing Zone A (Regulated Fishing Zone) covers the largest extent of Jersey's waters (76.7%). All types of fishing are permitted here, in line with contemporary fisheries and other regulations (some restrictions/ regulations may be temporal). It includes offshore areas where most trawling, dredging, benthic netting and whelk potting activity occurs.
Within Fishing Zone A there are already multiple seasonal access fishing zones under current management. Three new seasonal access areas have been proposed through the JMSP public consultation process which are shown on Fig. 9j. These are:
- North coast inshore area (winter trawl fishery access that will have no conflict with summer recreational use of the area);
- Corbière Banks (winter trawl fishery access that will have no conflict with summer recreational use of the area); and
- North edge of Les Minquiers (seasonal mobile g ear closur e during th e br eam n esting s eason)
Fishing Zone B (Seabed Protection Zone) covers approx. 23.2% of Jersey's waters. It includes MPAs and existing mandatory exclusion corridors around undersea power cables. The MPAs cover those
habitats which are internationally recognised as threatened, provide the greatest benefits from nature (including acting as fish nurseries and spawning grounds), and/or have a high Blue Carbon potential. Fishing Zone B therefore creates an MPA network
in accordance with Jersey's local and international commitments which will assist with the long-term sustainability of Jersey's fisheries. The exclusion corridors/zones around undersea cables protect essential infrastructure. For both the proposed
MPA areas and undersea cables the fishing activity most in conflict is mobil e fishing g ear. For this r eason, the use of mobile fishing gear (trawling and dredging) is not permitted within Fishing Zone B. In two specific areas within the MPA (on the south-eastern edges
of Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers), protection will
be phased in to give the fishing community time to diversify their fishing methods and/or find alternative fishing grounds.
Fishing Zone C (No Take Zones) covers approx. 0.1% of Jersey's waters. It includes small sites at Portelet and Les Sauvages which are of exceptional importance for the variety of the habitats and species which they support. No removal of fish, seaweed or other aquatic resources is permitted
in Fishing Zone C at any time. Divers will still be permitted to access Fishing Zone C, but are not allowed to remove anything.
Priority FA1: Fishing zones
To introduce an area-based, three-zone system comprising:
Fishing Zone A (Regulated Fishing Zone)
Fishing Zone B | (Seabed Protection Zone) |
Fishing Zone C | (No Take Zones) |
Action FA1a: | Fisheries regulations will be updated to reflect the new zonal system, in line with government procedures and in consultation with local and neighbouring fishing fleets. |
Action FA1b: A programme of public engagement will be undertaken with the
Jersey and French fishing fleets and the recreational fishing sector to make sure that all are aware of the new system following its introduction.
- Potting and netting equipment
9.5.1 Background
A wide range of fishing gear is used by commercial and recreational fishers in Jersey's waters, including various types of pots and nets. Within Jersey's waters there are currently about 45,000 1 crustac ean pots from Jersey boats. Use of commercial nets inshore
is currently regulated on a seasonal basis, but these regulations have not been updated for 15 years.
9.5.2 Issues
The public consultation for the JMSP raised a number of concerns relating to fishing gear, particularly inshore.
Lost/abandoned gear is a particular concern,
as lost gear and ghost nets' which become detached from buoys and/or anchors pose a risk
to wildlife and recreational users of the water (particularly swimmers, divers and spear fishers), who can become entangled. Lost fishing gear is one of the main contributors to beach litter on Jersey, and adds to the problem of marine plastic waste.
1 Figure provided by Marine Resources
Some types of pots continue to fish, even once they have been lost, with trapped crustaceans unable
to escape, and becoming bait which attract more crustaceans, which become trapped in their turn.
As explained in Section 8.5.4, there is widespread concern over the death/injury of marine birds following entanglement in inshore nets, especially when nets are not used correctly (for example leaving a net inshore during daytime hours). There is particular concern over the improper use of gillnets, and the relationship between rising use of gillnets and declining seabird numbers.
Incorrect marking of netting equipment was raised as a concern, particularly by swimmers and divers.
It is fundamental to these people's safety that nets are correctly marked, so that the nets can be avoided.
Potting and netting are not permitted within harbour areas, but there is currently a lack of awareness of
the extent of harbour limits, due in part to a lack of signage. This in turn means that members of the public do not feel able to report illegal fishing activity in harbours.
9.5.3 Proposed Actions
There are opportunities to reduce adverse effects on swimmers, divers and marine life through changes to the way in which potting and netting equipment is manufactured and used within Jersey's waters. R ecr eational fishing is cov er ed by priority RT6a (Chapter 11).
Priority FA2: Potting and netting equipment
To promote safe and responsible use of potting and netting equipment,
in order to avoid entrapment or injury to people, or to marine fauna and birds.
Action FA2a: Netting regulations within the proposed MPA areas will be reviewed in order
to minimise entrapment or injury to people or to marine fauna and birds. This review will include consultation with fishers. Commercial and recreational fishers will be made aware of any resultant changes.
Action FA2b: | The visible marking of all commercial fishing equipment to indicate the type of gear being used will be trialled. |
Action FA2c: | Workable solutions to minimise ghost fishing will be promoted. Onshore fishing gear disposal facilities (as established in 2023) should be enhanced. |
Action FA2d: | Initiatives to minimise marine littering and to promote beach cleans will be encouraged. |
Action FA2e: | A review of commercial potting and netting in proximity of angling spots will be undertaken. |
Action FA2f: | Signage in harbours will be improved to show harbour extents where potting and netting are prohibited. |
- Aquaculture
9.6.1 Background
Jersey's aquaculture industry is focussed on Pacific oyster and mussels. Oysters are grown on trestles within the intertidal area, and mussels are grown on poles. They are a premium product in demand from local restaurants and are also exported, primarily to England and France.
Prior to 2017, applications for aquaculture concessions were made on an ad-hoc
basis, with each application (or extensions/ adjustments to existing beds) requiring a separate planning permission. Often the sites were not appropriate for ecological or aesthetic reasons, and the planning permission was refused, costing the applicants in both time and money.
In 2017 Marine Resources applied for and received planning permission for a single large intertidal aquaculture site (224ha) in the Royal Bay of Grouville , for which they issue licences. Since then, all new concessions have been within this area. The area
is included in the BIP is Policy ERE8: Intertidal aquaculture box. Within the aquaculture box there
is presumption in favour of further aquaculture.
The principle of aquaculture in other areas is
not supported.
Oyster trestles in the Royal Bay of Grouville . Fiona Fyfe
9.6.2 Issues
The present location and licencing system is generally working well, although the public consultation for the JMSP raised some concerns about increased beach litter (for example rubber bands from the oyster trestles) and localised beach compaction by vehicles. Marine Resources have found little evidence that aquaculture is modifying the local ecology, and have found that intertidal habitats (such as seagrass) are generally in good condition within the aquaculture area.
In future, there is likely to be a demand for seaweed farming (phytoculture) which will require regulation, and research into best practice. Commercial seaweed extraction is currently limited to a hand harvesting system with licenses for commercial gatherers and tailored bag limits for both commercial and recreational practitioners.
9.6.3 Proposed Actions
The location of aquaculture is covered by the Bridging Island Plan (BIP). For convenience, the current BIP policy is set out below.
BIP Policy ERE8: Intertidal aquaculture The aquaculture box in the Royal Bay of Grouville
will be safeguarded from other forms of development Proposals for new or extended aquaculture which might harm the integrity of this area for the
facilities outside the built-up area must be purposes of aquaculture. The development of new, accompanied by a business plan which justifies or the extension of existing, aquaculture infrastructure the location of the development, and demonstrates in the Royal Bay of Grouville aquaculture box will its contribution to the rural economy. This will be supported.
need to demonstrate why existing premises or
buildings in the locality are unsuited to the The development of new, or the extension of existing, proposed use(s). Where the supporting information aquaculture infrastructure in other parts of the inter
is insufficient proposals will not be supported. or sub-tidal zone will only be supported where:
it is required to meet a proven need, which cannot
be met elsewhere; and
it would not harm marine biodiversity value.
Priority FA3: Aquaculture
To promote sustainable methods of aquaculture.
Action FA3a: Sustainable methods of aquaculture will be promoted and
the industry will be encouraged to reach for recognised professional standards in environmental sustainability 2, and to monitor and mitigate local impacts of farming practices.
Priority FA4: Phytoculture
To ensure that any future seaweed farming (phytoculture) is undertaken in a responsible and sustainable manner.
Action FA4a: A review should be undertaken into the potential for
phytoculture in Jersey including its suitability and
effect on the marine environment.
Action FA4b: Based on the out come of FA4a, a licencing and regulatory
framework will be considered for phytoculture activity
in Jersey's waters.
2 Sustainability in the aquaculture industry would most easily be benchmarked under the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) scheme
BACK TO 9 | Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture
CONTENTS 149
- Encouragement and promotion of sustainable fishing
9.7.1 Background
J ers ey's fishing strat egy is s et out in th e Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (MEAG, 2023) [Evidence Base document EB/G/14].
Making Jersey's fishing industry as sustainable as possible will bring environmental and economic benefits, and help to ensure its long-term survival through replenishment of fish stocks.All fishers should, therefore, be encouraged to take up sustainable fishing practices, ideally through market (and therefore economic) recognition
for sustainably-caught products.
9.7.2 Issues
At present, sustainable techniques are not always the most cost-effective. Ideally this situation would be reversed, so fishers are rewarded for sustainable fishing practis es through a buoyant mark et and good financial r eturns.
The Bridging Island Plan (BIP) provides support for the principle of further fishing development. Fishing for wet fish, shellfish and fish farming are important economic activities which need to be safeguarded and supported. As such, it is important that the industry is assisted in terms of its land- based needs such as access, servicing, processing, packing facilities, and cold storage. The majority of the commercial fishery fleet is based at St Helier harbour, where there is a presumption in favour
of development which is related to port activities, including fishing and ancillary activity. However, at present, the current lack of facilities for safe processing and freezing of fish is an impediment to marketing and to efficient utilization of catch.
- 7.3 Proposed Actions
There should be support to encourage the adoption of demonstrably sustainable practices. Some suggestions for promoting sustainable fishing were received through the consultation process, which are included in the actions below, even though some fall outside the remit of the JMSP.
Priority FA5: Sustainable fishing
To support and promote facilities and actions which support sustainable fishing.
Action FA5a: The marketing of sustainably-caught fish should be promoted
by the creation of a sustainability mark or similar mechanism
to indicate high quality and sustainability in Jersey's fisheries. Action FA5b: The provision of appropriate marine and onshore facilities
10 Cultural Heritage
Aim: Cultural heritage is understood
and protected
10 Cultural Heritage
Aim: Cultural heritage is understood
and protected
- Introduction
- 1.1 Background
Jersey s coastline and marine environment contain evidence of diverse cultural heritage spanning thousands of years from pre-history to the present day. Heritage sites range from inaccessible seabed and wrecks, through to prominent coastal castles visited by tens of thousands of
people every year. Some of the sites are designated as Listed Buildings
or Listed Places, but others (including wrecks) are unprotected. Area of Archaeological Potential (AAP) is another form of designation which is often used to highlight where heritage interest may exist, and where additional research or information may be required to inform development decisions. There are currently no AAPs within the intertidal or marine areas.
Historically, the coast has been a natural place for people to settle and take advantage of the sea for transport and resources. Many of Jersey s settlements developed adjacent to harbours or beaches, associated with fishing, trade, boat-building and tourism.
Although these settlements are above the high-water mark (and therefore technically outside the scope of the JMSP) there remains a close relationship between coastal cultural heritage, seascapes, tourism and recreation, and the island s economy. These inter-relationships are demonstrated by the visitor numbers to ticketed coastal heritage sites: In 2022, 50,466 people visited Mont Orgueil, and 49,592 people visited Elizabeth Castle.
Gorey developed as a fishing village below Mont Orgueil castle, with the beach used for boat building. The harbour was expanded to accommodate oyster cutters in the 19th C entury and is now primarily us ed for r ecr eational craft.
Fiona Fyfe
Another connection between cultural heritage and tourism is the use of historic coastal defensive structures for holiday accommodation. Structures now used in this way include the 6-storey Radio Tower at Corbire (constructed by occupying German forces), and earlier buildings such as Seymour Tower, La Rocco Tower and
L tacquerel Fort. Some of these sites are on the coast, whilst others are intertidal, only accessible on foot at low tide.
La Rocco Tower, St Ouen's Bay, constructed for defence in the late 18th Century, and now used as holiday accommodation.
Fiona Fyfe
10.1.2 Key Evidence Base documents
Key Evidence Base documents for this chapter:
- Wrecked on the Channel Islands (David Couling, 1982)
- A Heritage Strategy for Jersey (2022)
- Archaeological Seabed Mapping around Jersey (Fjordr 2022)
- Conservation Management Plan for German Military Sites on Jersey (2023)
- Jersey Historic Environment Record
- J ers ey LiDAR Surv ey 2020
- GIS Datas ets (in JMSP Atlas) showing archaeology points, Historic Buildings, Listed Buildings, Listed Places
10.1.3 Legislative and Policy Context
Several international treaties are relevant to this chapter, including the Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention (the Valletta Convention') 2001, and the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) 2000. More information is provided in Chapter 4.
The Bridging Island Plan (BIP) affords protection to historic assets within the marine environment through policy HE1 (Protecting Listed Buildings and Places, and their settings). Government of Jersey is currently considering appropriate policy instruments and legal designations to protect all (including subtidal) cultural heritage assets in line with international conventions. AAPs do not restrict activities in the same way as Listed Buildings or Listed Places, but do ensure that known or likely archaeological interest is considered in any planning application. SSIs, including Listed Buildings and Places can be designated on
the basis of evident values.
The Heritage Strategy for Jersey 2022 [Evidence Base document EB/CH/5] has a number of programmes and actions which are relevant to the marine environment. These include surveying underwater heritage assets as a precursor to protection; creating
a network of Marine Protected Areas; conservation management of ice-age sites (through the Ice Age Island project); conservation management of coastal and offshore heritage buildings (through the Forts and Towers project), and realising the value of intangible cultural heritage in island identity.
All these Heritage Strategy for Jersey projects are supported by the priorities and recommendations proposed below.
As explained in Section 1.2, the JMSP forms an
ov erarching strat egic fram ework s etting th e approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and
fishing r egulation. Th e JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set out in the JMSP.
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 154 CONTENTS
10.1.4 Pen Portraits
Jersey's marine environment offers a true sense of islandness' and holds so much heritage for people to explore. Since the pandemic, there has been increased engagement with heritage and the outdoors, including more people enjoying the marine environment. There are still lots of stories to be uncovered about the drowned landscape that
surrounds our Island, and knowledge to gain from researching Jersey's Millie Butel, marine environment, because it contains so many layers of history. Landscape
Engagement Recent positive changes have been conservation (and rehabilitation) and Geopark
Development of marine historical sites such as Seymour Tower and La Rocco Tower, Curator at and a growing awareness of intertidal and submerged archaeology Jersey Heritage such as the Violet Bank drowned landscape. Alongside this is concern
about the vulnerability of some sites such as La Cotte de St Brelade and the other coastal sites of special interest, to climate change.
My work role involves developing Aspiring Jersey Island Geopark which includes all of Jersey's territorial waters and marine environments.
Our Island's seascapes are an important part of our heritage
(geological, natural, cultural and intangible) and therefore a vital
part of our UNESCO Global Geopark application. Achieving this internationally acclaimed, non-statutory designation will highlight
to a wider audience just how special Jersey's marine environment is within our Island's story.
BACK TO 10 | Cultural Heritage
CONTENTS 155
My name is Bob Tompkins and from the age of 8 I have had the pleasure of exploring Jersey's incomparable marine habitats; be
it while making a living or just indulging in the pure pleasure of exploring its intertidal zones as an amateur marine biologist and archaeologist. Warm, shallow nutrient rich waters, large tidal range, wide sandy bays, and maze-like reef systems create and harbour
Bob Tompkins, such a diverse abundance of marine organisms and archaeological Société Jersiaise
mysteries that if I had my time twice over it would never be enough to discover and understand all its hidden secrets. Long rock sided gullies create unique marine mini worlds filled with a microcosm of sea life. Trackways cut across reef systems by quarrymen to extract granite
and then utilised by farmers and fishermen over hundreds of years cross-cross the intertidal area, adding to the surreal experience of exploring what to some may appear as a Lunar landscape, but in
fact is cramm ed with lif e. Rock pools fill ed with hundr eds of sp eci es of s eaw e eds, abundant h ealthy e elgrass and oyst er b eds, fish nurseries, shellfish, sponges and anemones all watched over by
offshore fortifications that encapsulate Jersey's rich marine heritage.
W elcom e to my world.
- Coastal structures
10.2.1 Background
Around Jersey's coastline are many structures relating to trade, fishing, navigation and recreation. Some are right on the coast, whilst others are within the intertidal area.
There are a great many slipways, harbours and piers around Jersey, enabling access to the sea for a variety of craft. It is likely that many of the slipways and shallow anchorages such as Le Hocq are of considerable
age, but have been constantly repaired and rebuilt to facilitate their use, probably over centuries. All the historic slipways are Listed Buildings (Grade 2 or 3). The historic harbours at St Brelade, St Aubin, St Helier,
La Rocque, Gorey, Rozel, Bouley Bay and Bonne Nuit are also designated as Listed Buildings (Grade 1 or 2) and are shown on Fig. 10a.
Many of Jersey's harbours are of considerable
age, but have been much modified over the years. For example, Rozel and Bouley harbours were recorded as ports in the 13th Century, but their present piers date from the 19th Century, when they were rebuilt to accommodate oyster fishing vessels. Construction of the present St Aubin's Harbour began 1680, and Gorey Harbour was described as the most ancient port on the island' in 1685. St Helier harbour was started in the 18th Century and continues to evolve. All tell parts of the story of Jersey's maritime heritage, and continue to contribute to the island's maritime facilities.
Recreational structures in the intertidal area include the 19th Century recreational lidos at Havre des Pas (Listed Building Grade 2) and Victoria Marine Lake in St Aubin's Bay.
Historic slipway at St Ouen's Bay. Fiona Fyfe
19th Century lido at Havre des Pas. Fiona Fyfe
The offshore reefs also contain historic structures. The islets which are permanently uncovered by the tide (Maître Île and Marmotier on Les Écréhous and Maîtresse Île on Les Minquiers) contain clusters of small stone fishermen's huts huddled above the surrounding waters. These huts were built during
the 19th Century and are of a simple vernacular form which would once have been common in Jersey, but is now very rare. Remains of a small medieval priory lie at the southern end of Maître Île. It doubled as
a navigation aid, as the priory's charter required a light to be kept burning on the reef. Today most of the huts are privately owned, with a small number in Government hands, and one leased from the Crown. Huts are highly prized by the boating community, and both Les Minquiers and Les Écréhous have residents' associations. Many buildings and/or islets are designated as Listed Buildings or Listed Places. The reefs are still owned by the Crown, and were not transferred to Jersey with the rest of the marine estate.
Remains of priory on Les Écréhous. Fiona Fyfe
Vernacular huts on Les Minquiers. Fiona Fyfe
Where historic structures (such as slipways) are in use on a daily basis, there is a risk that repairs may be made in an ad hoc way, without due regard
for historic fabric. However, the fact that most of these structures are Listed Buildings reduces this risk, as materials and construction techniques should be approved prior to commencement of work. Nevertheless, there is particular concern over monitoring and reporting of inappropriate changes; on the reefs this is exacerbated by remoteness.
It can result in repairs to the huts on the reefs using unsympathetic modern materials such as plastic window frames. These erode the vernacular character and can quickly have a cumulative impact.
There are also challenges where structures are in multiple uses (for transport, recreation, etc.), or where there are tensions between operational efficiency
and historic character. These tensions are managed through the planning process.
10.2.3 Proposed Actions
These civilian working structures' are an important part of Jersey's maritime heritage and should be protected accordingly. Sometimes, this may require variations to the current management arrangements. As with the military sites described below, most should be protected through their status as Listed Buildings or Listed Places.
Priority CH1: Coastal structures
To protect working coastal infrastructure and landscapes of historic or cultural interest, and their settings.
Action CH1a: Working coastal infrastructure, including harbour and
berthing facilities, slipways, recreational structures and offshore huts should continue to be surveyed and assessed in terms of its contribution to coastal cultural landscapes.
Action CH1b: Consideration will be given to extending or introducing
measures to protect coastal cultural landscapes, their infrastructure, specific features and settings, using existing or by introducing new protective measures.
- Coastal military heritage
10.3.1 Background
J ers ey contains a rich l egacy of coastal fortifications dating from prehistory until the end of the Second World War. The vast majority of these are Listed Buildings or Listed Places and are shown on
Fig. 10a. Prehistoric coastal defensive structures include the Iron Age coastal promontory forts along the north coast (for example Le Câtel and La Tête
de Plémont, both of which are Listed Places).
The medieval coastal castle of Mont Orgueil was started in 1204 and embellished over the following 300 years. However, its defences were poor against the evolving threat of cannon fire, and in the mid- 16th Century Elizabeth Castle (named after Queen Elizab eth I) was construct ed as a stat e-of-th e-
art fortress to protect St Helier. Elizabeth Castle complemented St Aubin's Fort on the opposite
side of St Aubin's Bay. Later, Elizabeth Castle was further expanded by King Charles II who stayed in Jersey as an exile following the English Civil War. Mont Orgueil, Elizabeth Castle and St Aubin's Fort are all Listed Buildings (Grade 1) with parts of their designations extending into the intertidal area.
The next generation of defensive structures date from the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, and
are associated with the threat from Napoleonic France. These structures include the offshore towers (Seymour Tower, La Rocco Tower, Icho Tower) and the network of distinctive coastal Conway Towers' and Martello Towers which defended bays.
Today some of these distinctive round towers have broad red and/or white stripes painted on their seaward side so they can be seen from the sea and used as daymarks. St Catherine's Breakwater was constructed as the northern pier of a new deep water anchorage intended to shelter the entire British Navy in the event of war with France. The threat receded and the project was abandoned before the southern pier at Archirondel was completed. The offshore towers and breakwaters are Listed Buildings (Grade 1).
Jersey was under German occupation during the Second World War, and this period has left a coastal landscape legacy of concrete structures which formed part of the German Atlantic Wall'. These include gun batteries, bunker networks and anti-tank structures (which were often modifications of existing sea walls, and still contribute to coastal defence). Existing defensive structures were utilised and modified, for example through adding concrete gun emplacements onto existing castle towers. The most prominent German structures are the coastal range-finding towers, with their slit windows looking out to sea. The German structures are generally located above the high-tide line and so are outside the scope of
the JMSP. However, they do contribute to coastal views and seascapes, and to sea defence. They are the subject of the Conservation Management Plan: German Military Sites in Jersey (Jersey Heritage 2024) [EB/CH/8]
Jersey's historic defensive structures are designated as Listed Buildings or Listed Places as appropriate. As such they have statutory protection. New development or infrastructure projects can have impacts on them which may be positive or negative, and the planning process requires that potential impacts are assessed, that potential harm is minimised, and that appropriate mitigation measures are included in proposals. Bridging Island Plan Policy HE1 supports appropriate re-use of Listed Buildings. It also extends protection to the settings of Listed Buildings and Places, defining setting as the way in which a building or place relates to its surroundings and in which it is understood, appreciated and experienced by people within its context. This can apply both on land and within the marine area, and
in the coastal and intertidal zones setting frequently extends into both environments. The extent of setting is not fixed as it changes over time and in extent as buildings, places and their surroundings evolve over time, or in relation to different potential impacts.
Elizabeth Castle from St Aubin's Fort. Fiona Fyfe
Seymour Tower on the south-east reefs. Paul Chambers
10.3.2 Issues
In general, historic structures which have an appropriate use are generally less vulnerable to falling into disrepair and being lost than those
which don't. The Forts and Towers' project within the Jersey Heritage Strategy (2022) is addressing this issue by utilising historic military structures as holiday accommodation, enabling their conservation management and generating income. There are a number of bunkers in Jersey maintained by charities, sports groups and clubs which have proven to
be a good use of these coastal spaces. There are
also organisations such as the Channel Islands Occupation Soci ety who maintain bunk ers and r e- present them to the public.
It can be challenging to retain structures in good repair which do not have an obvious alternative use. Some may occupy a complex ethical space and be considered memorials, and therefore need to be treated with particular sensitivity. There is a need to be very sensitive around the commemoration of war d ead, and around human r emains.
Unexploded ordnance may pose potential hazards at former military sites. These remnants of the occupation can be unstable and dangerous if disturbed, making it crucial to address unexploded ordnance as part of any site restoration or redevelopment efforts.
10.3.3 Proposed Actions
Military heritage sites are a key part of Jersey's heritage and should be protected appropriately. Suitable alternative uses for sites should be sought which enable them to be kept in good repair.
Priority CH2: Military heritage sites
To protect military heritage sites in the coastal and marine environment, and their settings.
Action CH2a: Assessment of heritage value of military sites should be
kept under review and new sites added as appropriate.
Action CH2b: Sympathetic alternative uses for military sites and redundant
buildings should be explored, including use by the community to optimise conservation and public value.
- Coastal prehistoric occupation sites
10.4.1 Background
Jersey contains a rich resource of palaeo- environmental and archaeological sites which tell
the story of environmental change and human occupation over millennia. The oldest known occupation sites on the Jersey mainland are today within caves in coastal cliffs, but would originally have been on hillsides looking out over a wide plain. The caves at La Cotte de St Brelade and La Cotte
à La Chèvre are two of Europe's most important Palaeolithic sites, and contain deposits from over 250,000 y ears of occupation. Finds includ e flint tools, bones of rhinoceros and woolly mammoth and Neanderthal remains. These sites are of international significance because of the quality and quantity
of material found there, and repeated periods of occupation over hundreds of thousands of years.
Other coastal prehistoric sites include Green Island,
Le Pinacle, and the caves at Belle Hougue. These prehistoric sites are designated as Listed Buildings, Listed Places, and/or Sites of Scientific Interest (the latter for their geological interest). The Heritage Strategy for Jersey includes the Ice Age Island' project focussing on conservation management
of the island's major Quaternary sites.
La Cotte de St Brelade, St Brelade's Bay. Fiona Fyfe
Green Island. Fiona Fyfe
10.4.2 Issues
Although the coastal prehistoric sites are largely above the high-water mark, they extend into the intertidal and marine environments. Cliff edge sites are vulnerable to coastal processes, particularly as sea levels rise in the future. Sea incursion into
La Cotte de St Brelade has been a major issue, requiring the construction of a gabion wall to
protect the deposits of material which may otherwise be lost to coastal erosion. In addition to their vulnerability to coastal erosion, the more accessible sites such as Green Island can be damaged by people clambering on them. Recreational activities such
as coasteering may also damage vulnerable sites. The less accessible sites have their own issues, as
it is more difficult to access them for maintenance. Although the sites themselves are protected by existing designations, the designations do not extend into the marine environment and there is a risk that coastal works or activities could cause inadvertent or indirect damage to the prehistoric sites.
10.4.3 Actions
Vulnerable prehistoric coastal sites are shown on Fig. 10c. They include La Cotte de St. Brelade , La Cotte à la Chèvre, Green Island, Le Pinacle, and the caves at Belle Hougue. Through designation as Listed Places, these sites, and their settings, should be protected from physical damage, inappropriate development and damaging activities.
Priority CH3: Coastline adjacent to prehistoric coastal sites
To protect prehistoric coastal sites, acknowledging the heritage value of the sites and their settings, and affording them appropriate protection.
Action CH3a: The condition of the coastal margins of important prehistoric
sites (La Cotte de St. Brelade , La Cotte à la Chèvre, Green Island, Le Pinacle, and Belle Hougue caves) should be surveyed and any current or potential activities which may be harmful identified; and any harm mitigated through the appropriate regulation of proposals for development or other activities which might harm their special interest and settings.
- Intertidal areas and offshore reefs
10.5.1 Background
Jersey's extensive intertidal areas include the beaches and reefs around the coast, and offshore rocks and reefs (Les Minquiers, Les Écréhous, Les Dirouilles and Les Pierres de Lecq (Paternosters). There is a growing awareness and understanding of historical/ archaeological features within the intertidal areas, although many are inaccessible and further features therefore remain to be discovered. Some features can be broadly dated, but others are more ambiguous
in terms of their age and purpose. Fig. 10b shows known non-designated archaeological sites and finds locations within the intertidal area.
Palaeo-environmental features
The oldest intertidal features are the peat deposits from the Holocene era (from approx. 10,000 years ago) containing palaeo-environmental material
such as pollen and plant fragments which can
be analysed to understand past environments.
These deposits have been buried by later sediments. The most extensive known deposits are the peat beds under the sand at St Ouen's Bay, but there
are also ancient clay and peat deposits within the intertidal reefs. The peat deposits would have formed initially in marshy freshwater environments, before becoming inundated by the sea.
The extensive peat beds under St Ouen's Bay beach are designated as a Listed Place (Grade 2), but the other intertidal palaeo-environmental sites do not currently have any designation or protection.
An exposure of ancient peat on Les Écréhous containing fossilised plant material, including root structures. At the end of the last Ice Age it would have been a freshwater marshy area, protected from waves and rising sea levels by a shingle bank. The shingle would have isolated the marsh, but rising sea levels overtopped the bank, creating saltmarsh. Eventually the rising seas pushed the shingle banks together, burying the peat underneath.
Paul Chambers
Prehistoric features
Today's intertidal areas (around the coast and the offshore reefs) would have been dry land until roughly 9000 y ears ago and th ey contain pr ehistoric artefacts including flint flakes, flint tools and standing stones. A spear dating to the bronze-age (approx. 5300–3200 y ears ago) was found in th e Royal Bay of Grouville . Prehistoric burial sites have been found at Green Island and by Icho Tower. These burial sites, together with the menhir in the bay at Grève d'Azette, are Listed Places (Grade 1 or 2), but otherwise the prehistoric features and findspots below the high water mark have no designation or protection.
Extensive and substantial wall-like structures
exist across gullies within the south-east reefs
(in the intertidal area and within the area now permanently submerged). The date and purpose
of these structures have not yet been established.
It has been suggested that they may be fish traps
or perhaps prehistoric sea defences that were constructed in response to rising sea levels, which would have been catastrophic for local communities.
Medieval and post-medieval features
Numerous features within the intertidal area can
be roughly dated to the medieval and post-medieval periods, although their use may well have continued for longer. Such features include the stone bases of V-shaped fish traps, which used stakes and wattle panels to trap fish on the outgoing tide. These are found around the south-east coast of Jersey between Noirmont and St Catherine's Bay.
None are currently designated.
Vraicing, (gathering seaweed to use as fertilizer) has been practiced in Jersey for centuries. Many of the reefs, including those at the north and south ends of St Ouen's Bay, the south-east reefs and St Catherine's Bay, contain relict vraicing tracks, used to get carts as close to the sea as possible when gathering seaweed at low tide. Some remained in use until relatively recently. None are currently designated.
The granite rock of Jersey's reefs makes excellent building stone, and therefore the reefs contain numerous historic quarry sites. These include substantial quarries on Les Minquiers, where building stone for Fort Regent was extracted.
Other non-designated features on the reefs around Jersey's coast include netting stones (used to hold nets in place when low-water fishing), orthostats (upright stone slabs) and nourrices (sites of containers used for the storage of shellfish).
Vraicing (seaweed gathering) track near La Rocque harbour. Fiona Fyfe
Oregon Fishtrap. Paul Chambers
10.5.2 Issues
Some prehistoric and later features on the reefs are at risk from coastal processes, and/or from deliberate or inadvertent damage by people. They currently have no legal protection, and there is relatively little public understanding of their cultural value or the historic/ archaeological features found within them.
There is still a lot to be researched and understood about the intertidal archaeology, particularly in
the most inaccessible areas. LiDAR surveys are particularly helpful in identifying features of interest, but much detailed analysis remains to be done.
10.5.3 Proposed Actions
In light of its archaeological interest, the entire intertidal area on the west, south and east of Jersey (shown on Fig. 10c), along with the offshore reefs, should be designated as an Area of Archaeological Potential. Within this there may be areas where further designation (such as Listed Place) would be appropriate.
Priority CH4: Intertidal archaeology
To protect the cultural heritage of intertidal areas and offshore reefs.
Action CH4a: The intertidal areas of the west, south and east of Jersey,
along with the offshore reefs, should be considered for designation as Areas of Archaeological Potential.
Action CH4b: | Arrangements for the management of the cultural heritage of intertidal areas and offshore reefs should be reviewed and strengthened where necessary. |
Action CHcb: | Further studies and survey work will be undertaken to investigate the potential for parts of the intertidal areas and offshore reefs to be given additional statutory designations, such as Listing. |
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 168 CONTENTS
- Submerged landscapes
10.6.1 Background
There have been few underwater surveys around Jersey so information on subtidal sites is limited. However, the surveys undertaken so far indicate that the seabed around Jersey contains evidence from times of lower sea levels, when the area would have been dry land and river systems. These include buried sediments (such as peat), former land surfaces, and evidence of early human occupation. Underwater surveys have the potential to identify subtidal sites of potential importance such as:
- Palaeochannels indicating former watercourses that may have been a focus for human activity and where fine-grained deposits may have preserved artefacts, palaeo-environmental evidence and datable material.
- Topographic highs and steep slopes which might have been a focus for human activity, with good views across the landscape.
- Hard-rock f eatur es analogous to f eatur es on land where prehistoric material is present.
- Modern seabed features such as sand waves which may preserve prehistoric landscape features beneath them.
- Areas where current processes are causing the erosion of prehistoric deposits, exposing them for study.
10.6.2 Issues
The lack of understanding of submerged landscapes around Jersey means that locations of many ancient features remain unknown. Indeed, in some areas of the Bailiwick, the only seabed surveys to date were done in the 19th Century using lead soundings. The resulting lack of detailed information about the seafloor means that features are vulnerable to loss or damage by underwater processes (such as the accretion of sediments) and from human activities on the seabed such as use of mobile fishing gear and laying undersea cables.
10.6.3 Proposed Actions
Underwater seabed survey would increase understanding of the sub-tidal environment, and complement the LiDAR data gathered for inter-tidal areas. The results of the seabed mapping survey would provide a baseline dataset to inform the understanding, appreciation and management of historic wrecks, submerged prehistoric landscapes and other related marine heritage assets. It would therefore highlight places for future research/ protection. Multi Beam Echo Sounder (MBES) survey has internationally recognised standards
and specifications which makes it suitable for
a wide range of archaeological purposes, and previous specialist reports recommend this form of survey for Jersey's underwater seabed survey (See Archaeological Seabed Mapping around Jersey (Fjordr 2022 [Evidence Base document EB/CH/7]).
Priority CH5: Submerged landscapes survey To undertake a seabed survey of the subtidal area.
Action CH5a: In accordance with Jersey Heritage's existing research framework,
further studies and Multi Beam Echo Sounder survey work of the subtidal seabed should be undertaken. This will inform priorities for further detailed investigation and facilitate the protection of important and sensitive features from inappropriate or harmful activities.
- Navigation markers
10.7.1 Background
The treacherous nature of Jersey's waters means that many navigation markers are needed to warn ships of dangers, and to mark safe passages.
The most famous of these is Corbière lighthouse, just off Jersey's south-west corner. Corbière is one of the iconic landmarks/seamarks described in Chapter 7
Seascapes, f eaturing in vi ews which ar e particularly spectacular at sunset (as shown in the cover image for this chapter). The lighthouse (and the islet on which
it sits) is a Listed Building (Grade 1). It is accessible to the public via a causeway at low tide.
Within the last ten years, many of the older and
more distinctive navigation markers within Jersey's waters have been removed and replaced with more standard features. The new markers are in line with current international navigation protocols, but the
loss of the older markers (which were well known
by local sailors) removed a layer of Jersey's cultural history. Similarly, the ceasing of the Corbière foghorn, and removal of clanging bell buoys has changed the soundscape of Jersey's seas and coasts.
Etats de Jersey' beacon on Les Maisons, Les Minquiers. Fiona Fyfe
Many distinctive navigation markers remain, and are important for their function and also for their design, which is often unique and in response to the local environmental conditions or history. They contribute to Jersey's distinctive sense of place, and reflect its history (for example through association with the sovereignty battles of the 1950s). At present, with the exception of Corbière, there is no statutory legal recognition of the cultural heritage value of Jersey's offshore navigation markers.
In addition to the offshore markers, there are also oth er s eamarks, such as: rocks or s eawalls that ar e painted (usually white) to assist with navigation
(for example Jument, La Conière and White Rock); flagpoles on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers; transit markers that are used by fishers but which are on land (pierheads, slipways, various houses, chimneys, flagpoles, trees, etc.).
10.7.2 Issues
The move towards modern, standardised structures for navigation markers is likely to continue in the future, particularly as navigation practice changes towards more GPS-based systems. There is therefore a risk that some navigation markers will become redundant and be removed, particularly given the lack of recognition of their cultural heritage value.
Transit markers on land may also be lost as part of redevelopment of sites.
10.7.3 Proposed Actions
Navigation markers within Jersey's waters should be surveyed to identify the location and condition of markers of cultural or historic importance. These should then be retained, although it would still be necessary to allow for modification in the interests of safety at sea. It is likely to involve some form
of management agreement with Ports of Jersey;
a precedent for this would be the work done
with Jersey Post to retain redundant post boxes.
The following are particularly good examples of navigation markers which remain in situ and should be priorities for survey.
East Coast:
- L'Équerrière (Visible from shore. Distinctive design which has given the nick-name Fishtail Rock)
- Karamé (Visible from Seymour Tower. Minor tourist attraction with the rock being part of guided walks)
- Grande Anquette (A distinctive beacon off the south- east coast)
Les Minquiers:
- Jété des Fontaines de Bas (Distinctive isolated beacon that guides people to the Minquiers sandbank.
- Puffin B eacon (Iconic b eacon dir ectly opposit e the main island.)
- Les Maisons (The États de Jersey beacon is symbolic of the sovereignty claims pre-1950s. Cormorants use the rock for nesting and it is also visit ed by s eals).
Priority CH6: Culturally-significant navigation markers
To identify and conserve culturally-significant navigational markers.
Action CH6a: A survey should be carried out to identify the locations
and condition of navigational markers of cultural or historic importance.
Action CH6b: | Subject to the outcomes of survey work, conservation plans should set out measures for the most important markers recommending retention in situ, relocation or recording. They should allow for appropriate adaptation in the interests of safety. |
Action CH6c: | Consideration will be given to the recording of onshore transit marks so they can be designated appropriately, and where appropriate, become a material consideration in planning decisions and development design. |
- Wreck Sites
10.8.1 Background
The locations of known wreck sites are shown
on Fig. 10d. They occur throughout the Bailiwick aligned with strong tidal flows, lying amongst jagged reefs and in the shallow water harbour approaches. Over the centuries large numbers of wooden vessels foundered and then quickly broke up or were rapidly buried in sediment. However, the iron and steel-clad steam driven ships of the 19th and 20th Centuries have lasted better as wrecks, and substantial remains can be visited by divers. Such wrecks include a unique paddle steamer tug which sank in 1850,
First and Second World War ships, and combat and transport aircraft. Even structures deliberately sunk more recently (such as the barge used in the construction of the Waterfront development) are interesting and have heritage value. Sadly a small number of wrecks are war grave sites.
Those within recreational limits are regularly visited by divers, including Schokland, Armed Trawler,
La Cap, and La Mauve, which was deliberately sunk off Boul ey Bay as a diving attraction.
Schokland' a Dutch steamer which had been requisitioned by the Germans as a supply ship to the Channel Islands. She hit a rock south of St Helier in 1943.
The Hirondelle', a 43m long iron cargo ship, which sank in 1917, probably after being hit by a German U-boat.
She lies on her starboard side and is broken up, but key features remain, including her engine, boiler and forward guns.
Illustration used with kind permission of Kevin McIlwee
Map data supplied by Kevin McIlwee of Jersey Marine Conservation
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 174 CONTENTS
As well as cultural and recreational value, and the designation of some as war graves, many of the wrecks are also important for nature conservation. Although reef establishment has been slow, vessels such as Hron and Hirond ell e house pink seafan corals, sponges, and numerous varieties of anemones. Reefs provide shelter and protection from predators for fish and shellfish, with muddled spars forming habitat for conger eel and crawfish (Europ ean spiny lobst ers).
10.8.2 Issues
At present, with a few exceptions (in the form of frequently-dived wrecks), little is known about the wrecks within Jersey's waters. Most are very poorly understood in terms of their location and their state
of preservation. This is largely due to the lack of a recent comprehensive survey of the seabed using modern equipment (see section 10.6.2). Those
which have been dived (for example by Jersey Marine Conservation) have been found to be functioning as artificial reefs, supporting rare and unique species, as well as forming marine time capsules' which provide a window on Jersey's maritime heritage and culture.
Wrecks in Jersey's waters currently have no protection. Although they are inherently vulnerable due to physical and chemical erosion on the sea floor, the lack of protection puts them at additional risk from looting and deliberate damage.
Potting and mobile gear damages structures and divers have noted that souvenir hunters have removed frameworks in search of artefacts. Diving and recreational fishing boats may use spars to moor on whilst visiting the sites, and the subsequent retrieval of anchors may weaken or remove parts of the vessels. A further challenge is the inconsistency of ownership, with some wrecks privately owned.
10.8.3 Proposed Actions
The first stage in developing appropriate protection for wrecks is to fully understand what is there.
Once the seabed has been surveyed, and wrecks' locations and states of preservation are known,
their significance can be established, and the wreck sites and their contexts be protected appropriately.
It should also be noted that protecting the significance of wreck sites and their contexts will require the development of bespoke designation criteria, as well as a monitoring framework. A further challenge will be maintaining access for responsible divers whilst preventing removal of artefacts, or activities which cause structural damage or accelerate decomposition. Such activities may include mobile fishing gear and pot lines. Buoying the wreck sites would make them less vulnerable to accidental damage, and would also enable diving and recreational fishing boats to moor without damaging the wrecks.
Priority CH7: Wreck sites
To protect the significance of wreck sites and their contexts.
Action CH7a: Survey work should be undertaken to identify and record wreck sites.
Action CH7b: | Criteria will be established in order to introduce measures to protect significant wreck sites, for example by designation (listing) as SSIs. |
Action CH7c: | The conservation of significant wreck sites should be promoted through a review of management and monitoring arrangements, introducing new regulations where appropriate to limit or prohibit damaging activities. |
BACK TO 10 | Cultural Heritage 175 CONTENTS
- Intangible cultural heritage
10.9.1 Background
An understanding of the relationship between land and sea is essential for safe navigation through Jersey's shallow, rock-strewn waters. The names
of rocks, and the navigational tricks to avoid them using landmarks and seamarks, were passed down between generations of local fishermen and sailors. They formed an extra layer of local placenames and vocabulary. Like all languages, rock names evolve over time.
Other elements of intangible cultural maritime heritage include folklore and legends related to the s ea, rituals and customs, and traditional crafts such as boatbuilding.
10.9.2 Issues
Changing local culture, and a move away from traditional navigation practices towards GPS-based systems, means that many of the traditional rock names are passing out of use and therefore being forgotten. In the process, part of Jersey's intangible cultural maritime heritage and rich vernacular vocabulary is being lost.
Sources of information about maritime folklore
and legends are often not easily available. Most are historic documents (books or notebooks) such as those by Philip Ahier and ET Nicholle, which are held as hard copies in the Société Jersiaise archive.
- 9.3 Proposed Actions
There is an ongoing project using a combination
of oral history and historic map analysis to record historic rock names while it is still possible to do so. It is proposed under the forthcoming Heritage Law that rock names are incorporated into the Historic Environment Record (HER), which would make them available digitally. A place-names commission to agree how coastal, intertidal and marine place names are recorded on charts would also help to safeguard this aspect of intangible cultural maritime heritage for the future.
Digitisation of historic documents relating to Jersey's maritime folklore and legends would enable it to be more widely known and to continue in the public consciousness. It would also open up a future project appraising published and unpublished literature relating to Jersey's maritime history and tradition.
Priority CH8: Intangible cultural heritage
To protect and promote intangible maritime cultural heritage.
Action CH8a: Consideration will be given to establishment of a dedicated website and a
place names commission relating to coastal, intertidal and marine place names, in accordance with the programme to realise the value of intangible heritage within the Heritage Strategy for Jersey (2022).
Action CH8b: | A research framework should be developed to increase knowledge and understanding of intangible maritime heritage. |
Action CH8c: | A strategy should be developed to protect and promote intangible maritime heritage. |
176 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
11 Recreation and Tourism
Aim: Recreation and tourism is flourishing,
diverse and safe
11 Recreation and Tourism
Aim: Recreation and tourism is flourishing,
diverse and safe
- Introduction
- 1.1 Background
Jersey s coast and marine environment are used for a very wide (and ever-increasing) range of recreational uses, by tourists and local people. They support a large number of local businesses which are an important part of the local economy. In addition, coastal recreation is important to the health and wellbeing of many local people and visitors, as described in Chapter 7.
Coastal recreation includes informal and organised activities including walking, swimming, fishing and the use of powered and non-powered craft. It has a long history, with some of the coastal swimming sites dating back to the 19th Century.
Recreation tends to concentrate close to onshore facilities such as beach cafes, car parks and public toilets (shown on Fig. 11a). There is therefore some overlap here between the Bridging Island Plan (BIP) which controls onshore planning and the JMSP.
There is a particular concentration of recreational use in the
bays at St Ouen, St Brelade, St Aubin, St Catherine, Bouley and the Royal Bay of Grouville . There is also a concentration of boating activity at Les crØhous.
Les crØhous is also a popular recreation destination, with boats (including those from France), rigid inflatable boat (RIB) trips and kayakers visiting. Les Minquiers is less frequently visited as it is further away and more difficult to access.
Cover image, Eleanor Lister
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 178 CONTENTS
11.1.2 Key Evidence Base documents
Key Evidence Base documents for this chapter:
- Enjoying our Coast Safely' Code of Practice
for Safety in the Water on Jersey's Beaches Ports of Jersey
- Marine Activities Assessment (Marine Resources, 2023)
- Jersey Sport Strategic Plan 2023–2026 (2023)
- Marine Spatial Planning: an atlas and study of ecology and human activities in Jersey waters, unpublished MSc thesis, University of York, De Gruchy (2015)
- Contributions to consultation from coastal businesses, watersports providers and recreation organisations
11.1.3 Legislation and Policy Context
The Harbours (Inshore Safety) (Jersey) Regulations 2012 allow Ports of Jersey to control activities
in territorial waters, control ships plying for hire, issue permits, and ensure boats are correctly registered and insured. Underpinning this legislation are Harbourmasters Directions which are more prescriptive in what can/cannot be done in relation to certain activities. These are made primarily
with the safety of water users in mind.
Jersey does not currently have a dedicated marine, coastal sport or leisure policy, although a Tourism Strategy has recently been published (which is not adopted Government policy). However, the Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (2022) [Evidence Base document EB/G/14] s ets out s ev eral policy goals in this area. Policy MD2 will deliver
a sector economic development plan for marine leisure and blue tourism. Policy MD4 also commits to look at leisure opportunities from an infrastructure perspective. The Jersey Sport Strategic Plan 2023– 2026 [Evidence Base document EB/RT/3] does not directly reference coastal or marine recreation, but coastal and marine recreation have the potential to contribute to its four strategic purposes, particularly through activities which are free and require
no specialist equipment (such as walking and swimming). The four strategic purposes are:
- To incr eas e participation in sport and physical activity.
- To reduce inequalities namely for women and girls, lower socio-economic communities, and those with one or more disabilities.
- Focus on inactive islanders, increasing physical activity...
- Build a safe, sustainable and inclusive sporting community.
As explained in Section 1.2, the JMSP forms an
ov erarching strat egic fram ework s etting th e approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing regulation. The JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set
out in the JMSP.
11.1.4 Pen Portraits
The joy I get working within the marine environment is so diverse,
I get to teach people snorkelling or diving, and I watch them achieve their goals and dreams. Being at Bouley Bay I get to showcase Jersey in a way that isn't done anywhere else on the island, and this gives
me and the team a real sense of pride. When people come out from the water amazed by what the underwater world of Jersey offers, we share
Toya Tomkins, in their joy and answer questions about the species and the conditions Bouley Bay
they have seen. It's amazing watching the seasons change underwater Dive Centre
where different marine life comes and goes, and this is something many people have never even thought about.
At Bouley Bay I watch people simply enjoying the sea and getting a sense of joy, wellbeing, and peace. It's good to see people using it in such a range of ways, such as boating, paddle boarding, snorkelling and this brings friends and families together. With the way everything is so expensive, being in the sea is free, and this lets everybody come together. We have to find a way though for everyone to use the sea and marine areas in a way that reduces the negative impact, to really make it clear to the public of the effect negative actions have on the environment. I feel in Jersey this isn't always shown or known and we sometimes live in an ignorance is bliss' way.
If there's no sea, there's no me. I swim in the sea year-long and love all our amazing bays and ocean. I'm often asked where my favourite place is and the answer is in it'!
As a swimming teacher I have passed on my passion to hundreds of people and this transmission is important. In Jersey we all have an
Sally Minty- intimate relationship with the sea and respect the variety of weather Gravett MBE and sea states that greet us as we step outside. The information on
Dream, Achieve where to swim when is passed on both from one generation to the and Inspire',
Local swimmer next and from one group of friends to another. It is wonderful to
share the sea with so many more people since Covid, as it brings such health benefits and improved well being.
I am very aware of the amazing cleanliness of local water and the healthy respect all of us sea swimmers, and users, have for our ocean. I want to do all I can to maintain and retain the bays as they are,
and I would like to see more sustainable and responsible local fishing. I see the wonderful local seafood as further evidence of how special our marine environment is, and it deserves our ongoing respect.
- Types of coastal and offshore recreation
11.2.1 Coastal recreation without craft
These activities take place close to shore and include walking, swimming, snorkelling and playing on the beach. They are enjoyed by locals and tourists of all ages and all walks of life, and require no (or minimal) specialist equipment.
Coastal walking is a very popular pastime in Jersey,
by both local people and visitors. There is a network
of coastal footpaths above the high tide line (often on cliff tops or along s eawalls) which provid e easy acc ess to the coast and opportunities to enjoy the seascapes
(see Chapter 7). The intertidal areas around Jersey's coast are also used for a wide range of recreational pursuits including walking, dog walking, nature watching and foraging. There are some guided
walks (particularly on the south-east reefs), but
most walking is informal. Horse riding also takes
place on firm and flat sands such as St Aubin's Bay.
Swimming infrastructure includes the 19th Century Lido in the intertidal zone at Havre des Pas and Marine Lake in St Aubin's Bay. Informal summer swimming by casual swimmers is concentrated on
the sandy beaches such as St Brelade, St Aubin's Bay, Havre de Pas, Royal Bay of Grouville , Plémont, Grève de Lecq, and St Ouen's Bay. It is often associated with paddling, and playing on th e b each. Lif eguard patrols operate over the summer months at St Brelade's Bay, St Ouen's Bay, Plémont and Grève de Lecq. The areas of beach with lifeguard patrols are marked with red and yellow flags. The precise locations of the flags vary depending on tides and currents.
Local people have always swum in the sea, but
open water swimming has increased in popularity in recent years (particularly during the Covid pandemic). As well as individual swimmers, there are several
s ea-swimming clubs and ev en holidays focussing on sea swimming. Open water swimming takes place around Jersey's coast throughout the year, with
less well-known places particularly appreciated for their quieter surroundings, away from the crowds associated with the most popular beaches. It is enjoyed by a wide range of people of all ages.
Some of the oldest locations known for sea swimming are the natural pools known as the Fairy Pools' at La Mathe à Madame (Octopus Pool), La Mathe à Dame, and Lavoir des Dames (Le Pits de la Tchutte), on the north coast. These are shown on Fig. 11a,
and are still used for informal swimming. They have links with local folklore, with the name dame
m eaning a wraith or fairy.
The clear shallow waters around the coast, particularly above the reefs, offer exceptional snorkelling for beginners and more experienced divers. The Snorkel Portelet trail was launched within the Portelet No-Take-Zone in 2022, and is intended to be the first of a new network of snorkel trails around Jersey's waters. It exhibits several different marine habitats including rocky reefs, seagrass
beds, gullies and caves which support different types of anemones and many other fish and crustaceans. The subsequent Snorkel Bouley' trail at Bouley Bay was launched in summer 2023.
Enjoying the beach at St Brelade's Bay in summer. Fiona Fyfe
Playing on the beach, building sandcastles, rockpooling and generally having fun is a hugely popular activity with families, particularly in the summer tourist season. It is concentrated on the
sandy beaches with easy access, good facilities and
(in some locations) emergency cover: St Brelade's Bay, Havre des Pas, St Ouen's, Plémont, Grève de Lecq, and the Royal Bay of Grouville .
Coasteering is another popular activity which enables people to physically engage with the coastline through swimming, rock climbing, scrambling and cliff jumping. Several Jersey-based activity companies offer coasteering expeditions, with particularly popular routes at Grève de Lecq, Gor ey and St Br elad e's Bay.
11.2.2 Coastal and offshore recreation with non-powered craft
These activities require varying amounts of specialist equipment, and can extend further out from the shore than activities without craft.
St Ouen's Bay is well-known for its outstanding surfing, and is home to one of the oldest surfing clubs in Europe, founded in the 1920s. The bay has a long fetch and shallow gradient, enabling the formation of peeling waves which create a beach break that is good for both beginners and advanced surfers. There are several places in St Ouen's Bay and St Brelade's Bay where surfing equipment can be hired. St Ouen's Bay is also the base for the Healing Waves charity, which enables people with disabilities to enjoy therapeutic ocan rcration, particularly surfing.
Paddleboards are inflatable rafts, which the user stands on and paddles with a single long oar.
They are designed for use in calm water, and so are most used in the sheltered bays such as
St Brelade's Bay, St Aubin's Bay and the Royal Bay of Grouville . However, they can be used all around the coast when conditions are right. Several local businesses hire out paddleboards and equipment.
Sea-kayaking is popular around Jersey, with individuals, clubs and adventure centres taking part. Experienced sea kayakers paddle out to the offshore reefs, with the Paternosters, Les Dirouilles and Les Écréhous particularly popular destinations on spring tides. Fewer kayakers visit Les Minquiers because it is much further and requires greater technical ability.
There are rowing boats held at moorings around the coast for informal inshore use. Competitive rowing also takes place, with local competitions and long- distance races to France and other Channel Islands. The Jersey Rowing Club is based in St Aubin's Bay, and does much of its training and shorter races within the bay.
St Ouen's Bay, the Royal Bay of Grouville and
St Brelade's Bay are particularly popular locations for windsurfing and kite surfing, and various local business hire equipment. Competitions are held locally. There are generally few conflicts with other recreational users because the conditions required for kite-surfing are generally not suitable for other forms of recreation, and so there is a natural s egr egation of us ers.
Sailing boats are moored in many harbours around Jersey's coast, and used for informal inshore sailing, or in the case of larger vessels trips to the offshore reefs or France. There are two yacht clubs based in Jersey the St Helier Yacht Club, based
in St Helier Harbour, and the Royal Channel Islands Yacht Club, based in St Aubin. The St Catherine's Sailing Club is based in St Catherine's Bay. These organisations cater for the owners of a wide range of sailing craft, and provide training courses and events.
Races may be within Jersey waters (particularly within St Aubin's Bay as two clubs ar e n earby) or further afield.
The wide sandy beaches such as St Ouen also offer opportunities for land sailing at low tide.
Kayak in St Cath erin e's Bay. Samantha Blampied
Sailing race, St Aubin's Bay. Fiona Fyfe
11.2.3 Coastal and offshore recreation with powered craft
Various types of powered recreational craft are used around Jersey's coast and further offshore. Figs. 11b and 11c (from the Maritime Activity Report, [Evidence Base document EB/G/22]) show the concentrations of recreational craft within Jersey's waters. Under Regulation 7 of the Harbours (Inshore Safety) (Jersey) Regulations 2012, all craft capable of going more than
12 knots must be registered.
Fig. 11b: Densities of leisure vessels
within Jersey's waters.
Jet skis are available to hire in St Aubin's Bay. Private jet skis can be launched and used anywhere, but must comply with the five knot speed limit where it applies. Different water conditions are required
for different jet-ski activities (for example lessons, riding at speed, and stunts) and so as long as the rider complies with the speed limit there are no restrictions on where jet skis can be ridden.
Rigid Inflatable Boat (RIB) trips depart from St Brelade, St Helier and St Catherine's Bay.
Fig. 11c: Densities of tourism/charter vessels
within Jersey's waters.
They provide tours around Jersey's coasts, and also go out to offshore reefs. RIBs are often used to access other coastal recreation locations such as dive and coasteering sites. Fig. 11c shows the most popular routes the darker the colour, the more popular it is.
Diving from boats can be close offshore, or further afield. Popular diving sites include reefs, wrecks and rich marine environments. The Paternosters reef is particularly popular for diving as it is relatively quiet, and is close to the main dive centre at Bouley Bay.
Popular diving wrecks include the WW1 Hirondelle on the Paternosters, and La Mauve which was deliberately sunk off Bouley Bay as a diving attraction. Offshore areas which are dived regularly include Les Sauvages and Rigdon Bank. Both these areas have exceptionally rich underwater seascapes and provide opportunities to see rare species such as sea fans and jewel anemones.
Rib trip at Les Écréhous. Fiona Fyfe
Motor boats and other powered recreational craft operate around Jersey's coast. Some are privately owned and launched from slipways or moored in harbours/moorings. Water skiing is focused in
St Aubin's Bay and the Royal Bay of Grouville where there are large expanses of sheltered water. Motor boats are used to tow inflatables such as banana boats' or inflatable sofas' in the popular sandy bays of St Aubin's Bay, St Brelade's Bay and the Royal Bay of Grouville . Companies also offer speed boat trips.
Ormer under a rock, South-East reefs. Fiona Fyfe
11.2.4 Recreational Fishing
Recreational low water fishing is a long-established pastime in Jersey, due to the size and abundance
of the intertidal area. Many of the skills and sites are passed down through generations, enabling its safe practice by local people in this potentially dangerous environment. Recreational fishers are only allowed to take sufficient catch for their own consumption, which may include fish, shellfish and crustaceans. They may be taken by hand (often through turning over rocks), or through setting of lines, traps or pots.
Ormers (the local name for the abalone a type f large edible sea snail) are found around the coast and are regarded as a delicacy. Ormering is an Island pastime, and ormers are part of Jersey's cultural and natural heritage.
In order to protect stocks, ormering is only permitted on certain days between October and April, and
is subject to minimum size rules and a bag limit. Regulations also cover the minimum sizes and quantities of shellfish which can be gathered, in order to protect stocks of juveniles. Recreational fishers
are also expected to adhere to a code of conduct
to protect the environment and future stocks, such
as replacing turned rocks, not leaving litter, and returning any unwanted catch alive into the sea.
Recreational low water fishing is concentrated in the bays and around the intertidal reef areas,
as shown in Fig. 11d.
Fig. 11d: Shore fishing density in Jersey's waters.
from De Gruchy (2015, unpublished)
R ecr eational angling, potting and netting are popular pastimes all around Jersey's coasts, either from shore or by boat. Recreational fishing is a key part of Jersey's fishing heritage. It is subject to r egulation r egarding catch siz es, and som e recreational activities (such as diving for scallops) require a permit.
Angling is an important component of Jersey's recreational fishing scene. A diverse range of fish are caught, including bass, pollack, bream, mackerel and other species, depending on the season.
Total numbers of participants are unknown, and more information is needed on angling activity in Jersey as the last study on this sector was in 2015. As shown in Fig. 11e, the 2015 study identified the greatest density of rod fishing in St Catherine's Bay, with Boul ey Bay, Noirmont, St Br elad e's bay and Corbière also popular locations.
Jersey has formal angling clubs and associations, some with over 100 members. These clubs have annual comp etitions around th e Island, targ eting different species. There is also an annual open' competition which often attracts over 70 anglers, including some from overseas. Angling techniques are evolving, with catch and release fishing becoming more common in recent years; now most angling comp etitions us e this m ethod.
Recreational boat fishing includes netting, potting, scallop diving and line fishing. Again, up-to-date information on locations and numbers of participants is lacking. Fig. 11f uses data from 2015, and shows that recreational boat fishing takes place along the north, east and south coasts, and at L es Écréhous. There is a notable concentration of recreational
boat fishing at Boul ey Bay.
Fig. 11e: Rod fishing density in Jersey's waters.
from De Gruchy (2015, unpublished)
Fig. 11f: Recreational boat fishing density in Jersey's waters.
from De Gruchy(2015, unpublished) Boat fishing methods include netting, potting, scallop diving
and line fishing.
Sp ear fishing involves free-diving to catch specific Most dives take place from the shore, but occasionally species of fish using a hand spear or rubber band/ boats, kayaks or paddleboards are used to access compressed air-powered speargun. Spear fishers fishing sites. The locations of dives are chosen
may also catch some species of crustaceans or based on prevalent weather and sea conditions. molluscs by hand. It is a physically challenging sport Spear fishing generally takes place between April which enables a strong interaction with the marine and October, but some spear fishers will dive all environment. Spear fishing takes place all around year round when conditions permit. There are three the coast and on the offshore reefs. It is mostly done spear fishing clubs in Jersey, the largest of which
in shallow inshore waters of less than 10m although has 33 members and which organises events and some free divers are able to dive to 30m or more. competitions. Spear fishers also operate individually
or in small groups.
- Safety of recreational water users
11.3.1 Background
As explained above, the Harbours (Inshore Safety) (Jersey) Regulations 2012 allow Ports of Jersey to control activities in territorial waters. These include recreational uses. Harbourmasters Directions set out what can/cannot be done in relation to certain activities, and are made primarily with the safety of water users in mind.
Ports of Jersey aim to take a pro-active and flexible approach, and try to keep spatial restrictions to
a minimum. The last serious recreational accident in Jersey's waters was in 2017, and involved a collision between a jet ski and a speed boat.
As a result, Ports of Jersey introduced a speed
limit, segregated some users in the busiest part of
St Aubin's Bay, and produced a code of good practice. The segregations reflect the locations and activities of the beach concessions and are updated as necessary to reflect any changes. For example,
there may be a launch area for jet skis, or waterski lanes. In other areas, owners of beach concessions which involve (for example) launching RIBs, have agreed routes which they can use.
The five knot speed limit is intended to protect swimmers and other shallow water users and applies up to 200m from the water's edge. This means its precise line varies with the state of the tide.
The speed limit is extended further in St Brelade's Bay, St Aubin's Bay and St Cath erin e's Bay.
Extract from Ports of J ers ey chart showing sp e ed limit ar ea in St Br elad e's Bay. © Crown Copyright
11.3.2 Issues
As shown in Fig. 11g, watersports are concentrated
in a number of locations around Jersey's coast. There
is an ongoing risk of accidents when a variety of users are within the same area of water. Swimmers are particularly vulnerable to collisions with powered
craft. Although such accidents are rare, they can be very serious and therefore a precautionary approach should be taken. Recent years have seen an increased number of sea swimmers, who may well be venturing further away from the traditional swimming beaches. The public consultation for the JMSP revealed particularly high l ev els of conc ern r egarding saf ety of swimmers in the vicinity of powered craft, although
so far that concern has not been borne out in the accident statistics.
Fig. 11g: Heat map showing locations
of water sports activities.
from De Gruchy (2015,unpublished). Water sports include swimming, scuba diving, sp earfishing, kayaking/cano eing,
jet skiing, surfing, wind surfing,
kit esurfing, stand-up-paddl eboarding and leisure boating (not for fishing).
Particular challenges occur when occasional events are taking place, for example competitive rowers or sailors having to avoid swimm ers or j et skis within the course. Feedback from the JMSP consultation indicated that it can currently be difficult to organise one-off events on beaches due to the number of different users in the space and the lack of a simple mechanism which would enable one user group to have priority for a limited time.
There is also a risk to swimmers, paddleboarders, kayakers etc. from shipping lanes, as they are not easily seen from a large vessel. Again, the Enjoying our Coast Safely publication provides guidance to minimise dangers.
The JMSP consultation revealed a high level of concern from recreational swimmers and divers over the risk of becoming entangled in fishing nets, either because the nets were incorrectly marked (for example pot buoys had been used to mark fishing nets) or because the nets were lost/abandoned (known as ghost nets) and therefore not marked.
11.3.3 Proposed Actions
There are a number of measures which can be
taken to reduce the risk of accidents resulting
from concentrations of recreational users. These include retaining and reviewing the speed limit, and identifying multi-use recreation areas, where there are many different types of recreational activity occurring within a relatively small area, and where additional management measures may therefore
be required. These areas are shown on Fig. 11h. Monitoring levels of recreation (for example through surveys on consistent days within the year) would provide baseline information on recreation patterns and whether they are changing. This information could be used to inform future policy.
Priority RT1: Inshore speed limits
To set and manage inshore speed limits in the interests of safety.
Action RT1a: The existing inshore five knot speed limit will be retained,
and extensions to the speed limit will be kept under review.
Priority RT2: Multi-use recreation areas
To manage conflict and improve safety within Multi-use Recreation Areas.
Action RT2a: A pro-active and flexible approach to the management of
Multi-use Recreation Areas should be maintained which
will be responsive to local conditions and the types and locations of activities taking place in any particular season.
Multi-use Recreation Areas are located in St Ouen's Bay,
St Brelade's Bay, St Aubin's Bay, the Royal Bay of Grouville , St Cath erin e's Bay and Boul ey Bay.
Action RT2b: | Consideration will be given to the segregation of swimmers and powered craft within popular bathing areas by prohibiting powered craft between the red and yellow flags marking the lifeguarded areas of beaches, for a distance of 200m out to sea, regardless of the speed at which the craft are travelling. |
Action RT2c: | Consideration should be given to improvements to relevant regulatory processes in order to facilitate the organisation and management of one-off events without conflict with other beach/sea users. |
Action RT2d: | Further studies will be undertaken to determine the quantities and types of recreational uses in specific coastal locations, including recreational fishing, swimming, and powered and non-powered craft. |
Priorities regarding use of inshore fishing equipment are made in Chapter 9: Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture, Priority FA2, and these should apply equally to recreational fishers.
- Enhancing access to the marine environment
11.4.1 Background
J ers ey's coast and s eas alr eady play a hug ely important role in people's health and wellbeing, and have the potential to do even more. Activities such as walking and swimming are cost-free and require no specialist equipment. They are ideal ways for people of all ages and from all walks of life to relax, exercise, and spend time in nature. Most beaches can be accessed by public transport, and provide
a wonderful resource to be used by individuals, famili es, schools, h ealth and social organisations.
There are also exciting opportunities to improve
the accessibility of coastal and marine recreation and encourage people to try different watersports. This accessibility is not just physical; it also relates to improving the availability of equipment and making watersports more affordable and socially diverse.
There are also opportunities to make beaches safer and more pleasant by reducing the number of parked vehicles.
11.4.2 Issues
An issue raised through the initial JMSP consultation process is the lack of accessibility of watersports for young people, either due to difficulties in physically accessing the coast, or because of the cost of specialist equipment.
Th e incr easing popularity of coastal r ecr eation in recent years has led to an increase in parking on beaches, and also increased traffic and usage of coastal car parks by people transporting gear
(for example surf boards and paddleboards). Increased provision of gear storage would reduce the need for car travel, as users would be able
to access the coast using public transport.
Whilst the carparks are above the high water mark (and, therefore, technically outside the scope of the JMSP), users' activities are within the marine environment and therefore there is an element of cross-over between the JMSP and the Island Plan.
A lack of g ear storag e at coastal locations m eans that users are required to travel to beaches/slipways by car, which is a less sustainable transport option than using public transport. It also makes it harder for people who do not own a car to take part in some forms of coastal recreation. Currently some beach concessions store gear under tarpaulins on the beach, which is not a secure or aesthetically-
pl easing solution.
Parking on beaches is currently controlled by permits (issued by Department for the Economy). The JMSP consultation raised concerns regarding anti-social behaviour in the form of vehicles parking on beaches illegally or unnecessarily, with consequent risks
of pollution, danger to users of the beaches, and changing the character of the beaches. At present
it can be cheaper to park on the beach (permits are free) rather than pay to use the car park. In some locations vehicles with roof racks (used for carrying watersports equipment) cannot access carparks
due to height barriers, leading drivers to park on
b each es inst ead.
The consultation also raised the issue of slipways being blocked so legitimate users could not access them safely, either through vehicles being incorrectly parked on the slipways, or items/equipment being left on the slipways. This is likely to be often due
to ignorance rather than malicious behaviour, and could be addressed through a public education programme. Concerns were raised through the public consultation about the poor condition of some slipways, particularly at St Catherine's Bay. This is a problem as slipways are used by people participating in a vari ety of wat ersports.
11.4.3 Proposed Actions
All of Jersey's residents (regardless of age, ability and socio-economic status) should be able to access the coast and take part in a range of recreational pursuits. There are opportunities to build on the existing provision and to make it more accessible, more affordable, more diverse, and safer. This will benefit local people and visitors to the island, with positive consequences for the local economy as well as people's health and wellbeing. At the same time, it enhances people's connectedness to the coast and sea and reinforces Jersey's cultural identity.
Priority RT3: Access to the marine environment
To promote and manage access to the marine environment for the benefit of all.
Action RT3a: All existing public access to the coast and foreshore should be maintained.
Opportunities should be sought to improve access for those with diverse needs.
Action RT3b: | Community/health/sports/education organisations will be encouraged to use the coast for physical activity, education and for the enhancement of well-being. |
Action RT3c: | The safe storage of recreational equipment at the coast should be promoted in order to minimise transportation needs and reduce the need to store equipment on beaches. Guidance should be produced on suitable locations and designs for such facilities. |
Action RT3d: | In order to support recreational users and to reduce the need for car travel, coastal facilities such as showers and toilets will be retained and enhanced. |
Action RT3e: The condition of slipways should be assessed and repairs/improvements
undertaken if required to maximise recreational access. The slipway at St Catherine's Bay should be prioritised.
Priority RT4: Parking on beaches and slipways
To review and control parking of vehicles on beaches and slipways.
Action RT4a: The current regulatory system regarding parking on beaches should be
reviewed, with the objective of reducing the amount of parking on beaches except in exceptional circumstances such as due to disability or commercial requirements. This may also require a review of coastal carpark provision.
Action RT4b: Current rules for parking on slipways should be reviewed where necessary
to enable all legitimate user groups to access slipways safely.
- Respecting wildlife and habitats
11.5.1 Background
This section overlaps with some matters raised in Chapter 8: The Natural Environment and Biodiversity.
There are several areas around Jersey's coast where recreation takes place in close proximity to fragile habitats or to wildlife, and this can result in damage or disturbance of them. There are already some measures in place, including Areas of Special Protection (ASPs) (see Section 8.5) and some restrictions on exercising dogs.
The Winter Countryside Respect Campaign is a joint media campaign by the Government of Jersey and organisations with an interest in public land and access. It encourages islanders to enjoy the countryside during the winter months, but to avoid damaging the environment or disturbing wildlife by staying on marked paths, keeping distance
from wildlife, and staying out of ponds and freshwater habitats.
11.5.2 Issues
Dogs can pose a nuisance to wading birds on beaches at certain times of year. This is a particular concern within the beaches of importance to wading and overwintering birds at St Aubin's Bay, St Catherine's Bay, Archirondel and Anne Port. Current regulations are aimed at separating dogs and beach users rather than dogs and wading birds. Between 1st October and 30th April, dogs can be exercised on beaches at any time. Between 1st May and 30th September, dogs must be kept on a lead between 10.30am and 6pm.
Anti-social behaviour which impacts wildlife is a concern in coastal areas, and includes littering, abandoning fishing or r ecr eational g ear, and disturbance of wildlife (physically, or through noise). Disturbance of wildlife in specific locations can
be addressed through the designation of ASPs,
as explained in Section 8.5.
Damage to intertidal habitats (probably through ignorance rather than malicious intent) includes not replacing turned stones and not adhering to
fisheries regulations such as minimum shellfish sizes and bag limits. This is not a spatial issue as it applies everywhere, but it could be addressed through a public education programme to accompany the JMSP.
Some recreational activities (for example boat moorings, boat anchoring, horse riding and digging) can damage fragile seagrass habitats. This is d ealt with mor e fully in Section 8.7.
11.5.3 Proposed Actions
In some circumstances, spatial planning can help to mitigate or avoid damage or disturbance of wildlife by limiting the area or time in which a particular recreational activity can take place. In other circumstances, where it is a more general problem, public education and/or m easur es such as a b each warden scheme may be more appropriate.
A review should be undertaken of the existing regulations relating to the exercising of dogs
on beaches. The result of this review should
be recommendations which reach a workable compromise between the interests of wildlife, beach users, dog walkers and other recreational users.
A Seaside Code should be produced to encourage understanding of and respect for the coastal and marine environments though behaviours and actions including:
- not touching protected species;
- not disturbing sensitive wildlife;
- replacing turned stones;
- not dropping litter;
- making sure fishing gear is correctly labelled to indicate the type of gear being used;
- not using potting or netting equipment in harbours;
- not l eaving b elongings on slipways.
Supplements to the Seaside Code are likely to be required for specific activities such as recreational and low water fishing.
Priority RT5: Regulations regarding dogs on beaches To review current regulations regarding dogs on beaches.
Action RT5a: The current regulations to manage/control dogs on beaches
should be reviewed. The review should aim to find an acceptable balance between the needs of beach users, dog walkers, wildlife and other recreational users.
Priority RT6: Increasing public education and awareness
To promote responsible use and enjoyment of the coastal and marine environment though increasing public education and awareness.
Action RT6a: Understanding of and respect for the coastal and marine
environments will be encouraged and developed through the introduction of a Seaside Code. Supplements to the Seaside Code will be produced for specific activities such as recreational and low water fishing. Consider support of measures within the Seaside Code through the introduction of a beach warden scheme.
Action RT6b: The "Enjoying the Coast Safely" booklet should be revised and
updated to include more references to good practice with regard to avoiding disturbance of wildlife, habitats and cultural heritage. A subsection on recreational fishing will be considered.
See also Priorities NB4 Priority Areas for designation as Areas of Special Protection and NB6 S eagrass habitat management areas. Also Priority FA2 r egarding fishing r egulation.
BACK TO 11 | Recreation and Tourism
CONTENTS 197
- Recreation at the offshore reefs
11.6.1 Background
Many of the coastal issues mentioned above also apply to the offshore reefs when they are visited for recreational purposes. Often, problems are exacerbated because of the sensitivity of the reefs' habitats and wildlife, the number of protected species, the lack of facilities and the tiny amount of land which remains uncovered at high tide. Numbers of visitors to the reefs have increased in recent years as public awareness of the reefs grows and it becomes easier to visit on commercial tours.
11.6.2 Issues
Both Les Minquiers and Les Écréhous suffer
from recreational pressures, but the location of
Les Écréhous, accessible in a range of craft from both Jersey and France, means that its levels
of recreational pressure are particularly high, especially in the summer months. Fragile habitats can be damaged by trampling, and by inappropriate activities such as barbeques, dropping litter and picking vegetation. In addition, the presence of large
numbers of people and boats can affect the reefs' sense of remoteness and tranquillity. Drones can disturb wildlife as well as introducing fast-moving and audible objects into the skies above the reefs. The lack of infrastructure and toilet facilities, combined with the relatively large numbers of visitors, can also cause problems. However, it is important that the wild, elemental character of
the reefs is retained, and they do not become more manicured or cluttered' by signs, artificial paths or facilities.
- 6.3 Proposed Actions
Seals and birds are vulnerable to disturbance by boats, drones and general levels of noise and activity. The existing designated Areas of Special Protection on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers are intended to reduce bird disturbance during the breeding season, and are described in Section 8.5. It is recommended that an additional ASP is implemented at Les Écréhous to protect seals from disturbance by
r ecr eational visitors (see Priority NB4).
Priority RT7: Management Plans for offshore reefs
To produce Management Plans for the offshore reefs which integrate the management of recreation, Marine Protected Areas and Ramsar Sites.
Action RT7a: Holistic Management Plans for the reefs should be produced through
collaboration with users and Residents' Associations. These will address local issues including recreation management, cultural heritage and the natural environment. Issues for consideration include the feasibility of limiting visitor numbers, introducing a permit system, employing reef wardens and identifying particularly sensitive wildlife areas where additional restrictions may be required.
See also Priority NB2 Ramsar Sites.
12 IannfdraTsrtarnuscptuorret, Energy
Aim: Infrastructure, energy and transport
are resilient and efficient
12 IannfdraTsrtarnuscptuorret, Energy
Aim: Infrastructure, energy and transport
are resilient and efficient
- Introduction
- 1.1 Background
The marine environment is vital to the functioning of many of
Jersey s services, including the import and export of goods and the movement of people through the port, and the flow of electricity and data through submarine cables. All around the coast are smaller harbours, slipways and moorings used by local people and visitors. Streams and waste water from Jersey outfall into the sea, and the sea is also used
as a water source (through desalinisation) when freshwater supplies
are low. A designated area of the seabed (FEPA deposition area) is currently used for offshore deposition of material.
Looking ahead, work will be undertaken to improve sea defences around the vulnerable and developed parts of Jersey s coastline. In some places, this will be combined with coastal reclamation and development. The marine environment has the potential to contribute to Jersey s electricity needs through production of renewable energy. The BIP contains an area for an offshore windfarm, and as technology develops there may be more opportunities for harnessing tidal and/or wave power, and to use excess energy for the generation of hydrogen
and desalinisation of seawater.
12.1.2 Key Evidence Base Documents
Key Evidence Base documents for this chapter:
- Jersey Shoreline Management Plan (AECOM for Government of Jersey, 2020)
- Bridging Liquid Waste Strategy 2023–2026 (States of Jersey Dept. of Infrastructure and Environment, 2023)
- Report on Pollutants and their impact on coastal flora and fauna 2009–2023 (Save Our Seas Jersey, 2023)
- Offshore Wind Pre-Feasibility Study (IPT Energised for States of Jersey, 2018)
- Economic Framework for the Marine Environment (Government of Jersey, 2022)
- St Helier Harbour Master Plan https://www.ports.je/about-us/projects/
- GIS Datas ets: Boat passag es, harbour limits, submarine cables, FEPA area
12.1.3 Legislation and Policy Context
Jersey's harbours are operated by Ports of Jersey Limited (PoJ), which acts as the Harbour Authority and the Harbour Master. The Authority and separately the Harbour Master can exercise Government's legal powers, including provision of pollution response and control, provision of Coast Guard services,
and monitoring of Jersey's territorial waters. It also maintains all aids to navigation within and outside port limits and enforces shipping legislation in territorial waters.
The Harbours (Protection of Cables in Territorial Wat ers) (J ers ey) R egulations 2010 s et out what is prohibited in the vicinity of submarine cables, and currently covers electricity cables between Jersey and France.
The Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) 1985 (Jersey) order 1987 (and Amendment Order) governs the requirements for licences to deposit any substance or article in the sea. The issuing of these licences is the responsibility of Marine Resources.
More detail on PoJ's remit, and the legislation and policy context of transport, energy and infrastructure within Jersey's waters is provided in the Legislation and Policy R evi ew [Evidence Base document EB/G/21].
As explained in Section 1.2, the JMSP forms an
ov erarching strat egic fram ework s etting th e approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and
fishing r egulation. Th e JMSP is not a statutory document, but will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the priorities and actions set out in the JMSP.
12.1.4 Pen Portaits
The role of Jersey's harbour master is varied. It is the harbour master's responsibility to ensure the island's critical maritime infrastructure
is open, safe and secure, so we can import the lifeline freight that's needed to sustain the island and its residents. The role also includes
management of the coastguard, who ensure the safety of people in our territorial waters, and of VTS, who manage marine traffic
Captain entering and leaving St Helier harbour.
Bill Sadler
Jersey Harbour The role incorporates management of the marinas, maintenance of Master, Chief
Operating Officer Jersey's historic harbours and the care of associated maritime heritage. Marine, Ports of I also work with government and the maritime industry to develop Jersey strategies for the growth of the blue economy.
Our territorial waters are an extension of the island, and we need
to make them work for our population while also looking after them constructiv ely, in collaboration with all our maritim e stak ehold ers.
At Ports of Jersey we are increasingly aware of the need to take care of the delicate balance of our marine environment:
here are just a few of our initiatives:
Jersey Marinas have been accredited as an international Cl ean Marina' by Th e Yacht Harbour Association
We have initiated a trial of new sea grass-friendly moorings at St Catherine's Bay to protect Jersey's largest area of seagrass and
We are working with local schools to design tiles to fix to smooth harbour walls to replicate the nooks and crannies that occur naturally on rocky s eashor es.
We understand our responsibility to the environment and to our community, and we are working to develop a sustainable future for the Island's maritime sector.
I am an engineer with Jersey Electricity plc and our team is fundamental to the running of the Island's electricity network.
My job is to help ensure our electrical submarine connections to
the French mainland are maintained and monitored. We are also preparing our network for future renewable solutions which may
involve the use of the marine environment and our territorial Ashley Marner, waters. The use of the marine environment is essential to Jersey Jersey Electricity
Electricity plc in providing a zero-carbon energy source to the island.
We would like the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan to set out a clear
set of rules for all of Jersey's territorial sea users. This would ensure there is a good understanding of what equipment is allowed to be installed, and what activities undertaken in which areas, whilst maintaining a positive and caring approach to the environment.
BACK TO 12 | Infrastructure, Energy and Transport
CONTENTS 203
- Sea defences and associated development
The Jersey Shoreline Management Plan (AECOM for Government of Jersey, 2020) sets out an island-wide assessment of the risks associated with coastal flooding and erosion, and a policy framework to manage these risks over the next 100 years.
As would be expected, the risk of coastal flooding (from both wave overtopping and tidal inundation)
is gr eat est in low-lying coastal ar eas.
Although tidal inundation will affect beaches around th e island, th e gr eat est thr eats occur in ar eas which are currently settled, including St Aubin's Harbour,
St Aubin's Bay, parts of St Helier, and the south-
east. These areas also have fewest opportunities for natural flood management due to their developed state. Coastal defence schemes for the south coast would also seek to exploit secondary benefits to Jersey, such as improvements in coastal access, active transport and wellbeing corridors, in addition to the primary aim of coastal protection.
The risk of coastal erosion is greatest in areas
of undefended soft cliffs, including Noirmont, Fliquet and Corbière. These areas are generally not associated with extensive development.
Fig. 12a is taken from the Jersey Shoreline Management Plan and shows the 36 Coastal Management Units (CMUs) around the coast,
and the recommended policy options for each CMU. The line closest to the coast refers to the present day (0–20 years), the middle line refers
o the medium term (20–50 years) and the outer line refers to the long term (50–100 years). There are four recommended policy options:
No active intervention (purple line) a policy decision not to invest in coastal defences or maintenance work. The shoreline is left to naturally evolve without intervention. This policy will generally be applied to natural areas of the coastline which are currently undefended. It includes most of the north coast, and the headlands of Noirmont and Corbière.
Maintain the defence line (pink line) existing coastal defences are maintained. The level of flood protection may decrease in some locations due to climate change. This policy will generally be applied where the existing defences provide a reasonable standard of flood protection or prevent erosion of the shoreline. It includes St Ouen's Bay, the north coast harbours, the east coast between La Coupe and Gorey, La Colette, Belcroute and Ouaisné Bay.
Adaptive management (yellow line) a policy to proactively manage and mitigate coastal flood or erosion risk. The policy will be delivered through various management schemes/initiatives depending on the level of risk and the circumstances. This could include improving the standard of flood protection for an existing sea defence, constructing new defences, raising awareness of local flood risk or recommending property-level flood protection.
It includes St Brelade's Bay, St Aubin's harbour, St Aubin's Bay, The south-east coast from Grève d'Azette to Gorey, and Archirondel.
Advance the line (green dash line) new sea defences are built seaward of existing defences. This policy will only be implemented in areas where there is a significant risk of flooding and erosion,
or where it will deliver additional benefits for the community, environment or economy, such as creating a new amenity space. It includes St Aubin's harbour, St Aubin's Bay, and Havre des Pas.
At the time of writing the JMSP, the engineering feasibility, baseline environmental and concept design studies for the adaptive management and advance the line policies for the first epoch are underway. These projects are located in the areas considered to be the three highest priority areas based on current coastal flood risk:
- Havre des Pas Scheme La Collette to Charrier Corner Slipway
- St Aubin's Harbour Harbour plus coast east to La Haule Promenade
- St Aubin's Bay First Tower to West Park
In addition to these projects an additional six SMP delivery projects will be initiated through the epoch, with completion of these by 2040.
The Havre des Pas Coastal Flood Alleviation scheme will be constructed within the SE Coast Ramsar Site. The design and development of any scheme in this site will pay cognisance to the status of the Ramsar site to manage any impacts that may result, with mitigations developed to compensate or enhance the areas impacted.
Fig. 12a: Policy Summary Map from Shoreline Management Plan (2020)
BACK TO 12 | Infrastructure, Energy and Transport 205 CONTENTS
Priority IT1: Coastal defences
To support the principle of new or replacement coastal defences as set out in the Shoreline Management Plan (2020), in order to protect coastal communities from flooding, whilst minimising environmental harm from their construction.
Action IT1a: Subject to environmental safeguards, provision will be
made for advance the line' defences as set out in the Shoreline Management Plan (2020).
Action IT1b: | Where coastal defence schemes potentially impact on designated areas, the implications on cultural and natural heritage will be thoroughly investigated and considered through the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Appropriate research, mitigation and compensatory habitats (offsite and/or onsite through Nature Inclusive Design) should be integrated into the preliminary, design and construction processes. |
Action IT1c: | Following construction, designation boundaries should be reviewed and if necessary amended to reflect changes to the shoreline. |
206 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
- Submarine cables
12.3.1 Background
There are currently several active submarine cables connecting Jersey with France, Guernsey and the UK mainland, as shown on Fig 12b. This submarine cable network is considered critical national infrastructure by Jersey, as it provides power and communications services for Jersey and other Channel Islands.
These include high-voltage power cables, and fibre optic telecommunications cables, as follows:
- Normandie 1 and 2 power cables link Jersey France and come ashore at Archirondel.
- Normandie 2 Fibre Optic Outrigger telecommunications cable links Jersey France and comes ashore at Archirondel.
- Normandie 3 power cable links Jersey France and comes ashore at Gorey.
- Guernsey Jersey 1 overlay power cable links Jersey Guernsey, and comes ashore at Grève de Lecq.
- Ingrid Fibre Optic Outrigger telecommunications cable links Jersey Guernsey and comes ashore at Grève de Lecq.
- UK-CI 8 Fibre Optic telecommunications cable links Jersey UK and comes ashore at Le Braye.
- GuernseyJersey No4 Fibre Optic telecommunications cable links Jersey and Guernsey, and comes ashore at Grève de Lecq.
The fibre optic cables are smaller and lighter than the power cables. Multiple cables are required in order to provide resilience and diversity of supply, and whilst most cables are laid individually, occasionally the fibre optic cables and power cables share a route, with the fibre optic cables being referred to as outriggers.
Cross-section through a submarine power cable. Jersey Electricity plc
Because the submarine cables lie on the seabed,
they can be vulnerable to damage by external aggression, such as mobile fishing gear and anchors, particularly in areas where sea-floor sediment deposits are relatively shallow and therefore provide less protection by burial to the cables. Damage and brakags can occur for a varity of rasons, which
result in loss of service and these cables are also extremely expensive and can take some time to repair.
Internationally, submarine power cables usually
gain their external protection from burial within the sea-floor sediments, but in some areas, particularly where shallow or no sediments exists, they are protected by an exclusion zone which prevents 3rd parties anchoring or using mobile fishing gear in their vicinity. Within Jersey waters an exclusion zone of 1000m width was established for the original EDF1 route between Archirondel and Surville, France. This exclusion zone was set up to protect both marine traffic, fishermen and the cable, providing
cl ear indication of saf e ar eas to fish and anchor, and fishing vessels time and notice to lift their gear in order to pass safely over the cable.
Jersey Electricity and Guernsey Electricity closely monitor all marine traffic in Jersey, Guernsey and French waters, and have the ability to contact vessels deemed to be a threat to any of the submarine
cables using an automated monitoring and warning system. This advanced warning system also gives the monitoring services time to anticipate any potential threats and contact relevant vessels to warn them if they are not aware of the exclusion zone or cables being protected. This alerting system relies on vessels having an automatic identification system installed and operational. In a typical month,
around 250 high severity alerts are received in the vicinity of these cable assets. These include scallop dredgers, demersal trawlers, slow moving vessels and anchor risks1.
1 Figures provided by Jersey Electricity plc
At present, The Normandie 1 and 2 power cables are laid on the seabed and are protected by a mandatory exclusion corridor which covers +/-500m either side of the cable. The Normandie 2 fibre-optic outrigger cable is also included in this exclusion corridor.
The Normandie 3 power cable does not have an exclusion corridor as it was well buried at installation by up to 2m of sediment providing a good level of protection for both marine traffic and the cable.
The Guernsey Jersey 1 Overlay power cable does not currently have a mandatory exclusion corridor and is only partially buried by sediment due to the nature of the seabed along the route. It is shown
on charts, but currently without an exclusion zone, introducing some risk to marine traffic and the power cable in some areas.
Submarine telecommunications cables are generally not protected by mandatory exclusion corridors,
as other legal mechanisms such as the Submarine Telegraph Act and UNCLOS protocols provide the authorities with protection powers. Within Jersey waters, some telecommunication cables are laid within exclusion corridors set up to protect a nearby power cable. Where telecommunications cables lie outside the mandatory exclusion corridors associated with nearby power cables, an advisory approach is taken. The telecommunications cables are marked on charts, and Jersey Telecom works with Jersey and French fishing organisations to ensure that the fishermen are aware of the cables and know to avoid them by 500m when using mobile gear. If incidents do occur, they are covered by legal protocols and Industry Recommendations and Guidelines. The current system is considered by Jersey Telecom to be adequate and proportionate within Jersey's waters. Nevertheless, it would be preferable for
any future cables to be laid where they are least vulnerable to damage.
All the cables come ashore through the intertidal area, where they are generally buried beneath sandy beaches. Occasionally they can become exposed due to sediment movement during storms, and it is important that they are not damaged by machinery or touched by members of the public.
It is likely that additional submarine power and telecommunications cables will be required in Jersey's waters in the future, potentially including power cables serving renewable offshore energy generation facilities, and as the existing cables require enhancement, repair or replacement.
12.3.3 Proposed Actions
Due to its status as critical power infrastructure
to Jersey and Guernsey, it is recommended that mandatory protection zones should be created
around vulnerable (i.e. unburied) sections of the Guernsey Jersey 1 overlay power cable, prohibiting the use of mobile fishing gear or anchors within
500m either side of the cable. These zones would
also provide protection to vulnerable sections
of the adjacent Ingrid Fibre Optic Outrigger telecommunications cable, and parts of the Guernsey-Jersey No4 telecommunications cable.
It will be necessary to undertake seabed surveys to identify the vulnerable sections of the Guernsey Jersey 1 overlay power cable. The area of search for surv ey is shown on Fig. 12b.
Optimum routes for future cables should be considered at an early stage.
Priority IT2: Protection of submarine cables
To protect submarine cables which form critical national infrastructure from damage by anchors and mobile fishing gear.
Action IT2a: The existing mandatory protection corridors covering the Normandie 1 and 2 cables
will be retained.
Action IT2b: | New mandatory protection zones covering vulnerable sections of the Guernsey Jersey 1 overlay power cable, and the adjacent Ingrid Fibre Optic Outrigger telecommunications cable, should be created. The necessary surveys should be undertaken and the relevant legislation should be updated accordingly. |
Action IT2c: | Advisory protection corridors along other telecommunications cables will be retained. |
Action IT2d: | Access to cable landfalls through intertidal areas for maintenance, repair and overlay will be retained. |
Action IT2e: | Provision will be made for cable maintenance, repair and overlay along all existing cable routes, in accordance with best environmental practice to mitigate ecological damage. |
Action IT2f: | Subject to environmental safeguards, provision will be made for new cable routes connecting offshore renewable energy installations to the mainland or to interconnector sites. |
210 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
- Seawater quality monitoring sites
12.4.1 Background
Issues related to water pollution (particularly the prevalence of sea lettuce in St Aubin's Bay) were frequently raised during the public consultation for the JMSP. These concerns are of great importance to the Jersey residents who participated in the consultation process and should be recognised within the JMSP.
The quality of sea water has consequences for human health and the effective functioning of coastal and marine ecosystems. However, the quality of water entering Jersey's seas from streams and outfalls is a result of processes taking place on land (particularly agricultural management and sewage treatment)
and is therefore beyond the scope of the JMSP.
The spatial framework for monitoring seawater quality is within the scope of the JMSP, as it takes place within the marine environment.
Land-based activities that have the potential to
cause pollution (including of Jersey's coastal and territorial waters) are regulated and governed by international directives/conventions, local legislation, local strategies (specifically the Bridging Liquid Waste Strategy 2023–2026) and best environmental practice. The Jersey Water Action for Cleaner Water Group' is a collaboration between Jersey Water, Government, and representatives from arable farming and dairy sectors, and aims to improve water quality.
Monitoring is undertaken to provide robust scientific evidence of the impacts of human activities. It aims to provide evidence to protect and enhance the marine environment and
to safeguard the population of Jersey.
Under OSPAR water pollution laws, monitoring should take place in areas of greatest human
impact. Responsibility for monitoring and protecting the marine environment lies between various government departments and external organisations. The Government uses a risk-based approach to its regulatory and environmental monitoring, focussing on human activities and processes that have
the potential to cause environmental/human
harm and measuring them against internationally- recognised standards. Areas of monitoring include (but are not limited to) monitoring of treated effluent discharges; designated bathing waters; environmental monitoring for nutrients in
St Aubin's Bay and h eavy m etal monitoring of marine species. All of these were areas of concern highlighted during the consultation process.
Table 12a shows the types of routine monitoring currently taking place, their legislative bases and the Government department or organisation responsible. The general locations of monitoring points are shown in Fig. 12c. Further details of the monitoring regimes in place around Jersey's coast are provided
in Appendix E.
Monitoring |
| International directives/ agreements/ Conventions/ local legislation |
| GoJ department/ organisation responsible |
Environmental status assessment |
| EU Water Framework Directive |
| Land Resource Management |
of St Aubin s Bay |
| (WFD) |
| Natural Environment Department |
Additional nutrient monitoring |
| n/a |
| Land Resource Management |
of St Aubin s Bay surf zone |
|
|
| Natural Environment Department |
(Sewage Treatment Works |
|
|
|
|
compliance) |
|
|
|
|
St Aubin s Bay outfall monitoring |
| n/a |
| Land Resource Management |
|
|
|
| Natural Environment Department |
Isotope analysis of macroalgae |
| n/a |
| Land Resource Management |
Jersey s south coast |
|
|
| Natural Environment Department |
Bathing water monitoring |
| EU Bathing water Directive |
| Environmental Health |
(sea water monitoring) |
|
|
| Regulation and Land Resource |
|
|
|
| Management Natural |
|
|
|
| Environment Department |
Environmental monitoring of |
| Measured against Cefas |
| Land Resource Management |
Jersey Harbours and marinas |
| environmental standards |
| Natural Environment Department |
|
|
|
| and Ports of Jersey |
Heavy metal accumulation |
| n/a |
| Marine Resources |
in shellfish and seaweeds |
|
|
| Natural Environment Department |
Mariculture monitoring |
| EU Legislation (Wild Aquatic |
| States Vet |
|
| Animals-Food and Feed) |
| Natural Environment Department |
|
| (Jersey) Regulations 2019 and |
|
|
|
| EU Legislation (Monitoring of |
|
|
|
| Residues in Animals) (Jersey) |
|
|
|
| Regulations 2019 as described |
|
|
|
| in retained European Union (EU) |
|
|
|
| Regulations 2017/625 |
|
|
|
| and 2074/2005 |
|
|
Shellfish water monitoring |
| EU Shellfish Directive (now |
| Land Resource Management |
|
| forming part of the WFD) |
| Natural Environment Department |
Harmful algal bloom |
| n/a |
| Natural Environment Department |
Radioactive substance |
| UK RIFE Programme |
| Land Resource Management |
|
|
|
| Natural Environment Department |
Regulatory compliance |
| Water Pollution (Jersey) Law, |
| Pollution Control Regulation |
monitoring of the discharge from |
| 2000 and OSPAR |
|
|
the sewage treatment works |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory compliance |
| Waste Management (Jersey) |
| Pollution Control Regulation |
monitoring of the La Collette |
| Law 2005, Water Pollution |
|
|
waste disposal facility |
| (Jersey) Law, 2000 and the |
|
|
|
| Basal Convention |
|
|
Fig. 12c: Indicative seawater quality monitoring sites.
12.4.2 Issues
Water quality is generally consistent, with nutrient enrichment in St Aubin's Bay the main current concern. The nutrient enrichment, combined with the horseshoe-shape of the bay (which traps sediment within it), is associated with growth of sea lettuce
on the beach. More generally, organic nutrient enrichment is recognised as a threat to marine habitats (see section 8.6.8).
Jersey's bathing water is generally of good or excellent quality. More details of the results of the various monitoring programmes are provided in Appendix E.
S ea l ettuc e in St Aubin's Bay (photograph ed in 2019). Fiona Fyfe
12.4.3 Proposed Actions
Monitoring of sea water and marine biota (plants and animals) should be continued, within a spatial framework covering the areas of greatest potential human impact (St Aubin's Bay); locations popular for swimming; locations with the greatest potential for pollution; locations used for growing food for human consumption, locations that are regulated under Jersey legislation, and locations of particular importance for nature conservation.
Priority IT3: Seawater quality monitoring sites
To continue to monitor seawater quality, triggering appropriate actions if water quality falls.
Action IT3a: Monitoring of water quality using suitable indicators should
continue within a spatial framework covering areas of greatest potential human impact (St Aubin's Bay); locations popular for swimming; locations with the greatest potential for pollution; locations used for growing food for human consumption; locations that are regulated under Jersey legislation, and locations of particular importance for nature conservation.
- Renewable energy: wind power
In April 2024, there was a States Debate on whether there was support for the principle of developing a wind farm in the south-west of Jersey's waters.
The proposition submitted to the States Assembly
was accepted in April 2024. By accepting this proposal the States have agreed:
- To pursue the opportunities arising from the development of an offshore wind farm in the south west of its territorial waters;
- that development of up to around 1000MW in provision should be encouraged in order to meet the needs of Islanders, to power the Island's future economy and to create energy for export; and
- to request the Council of Ministers to bring forward appropriate policy and legislation before the end of 2024 to set in place a process to lease, provide consent for, regulate and safely decommission a wind farm.
Fig. 12d shows the general location of the proposed windfarm area in the south-west of the Bailiwick.
It should be noted that this area has the fewest environmental and cultural heritage constraints,
but it is an ar ea of hard, rocky s eab ed dominat ed by strong currents and tidal movement. This will limit foundation options for turbines, and will require suitably strong foundations and fixtures to withstand these challenging conditions. It is likely that fixed foundation turbines will be required, rather than floating turbines.
The St Brieuc windfarm under construction in French waters (as seen from Jersey waters, south-west of Les Minquiers). Fiona Fyfe
International research is ongoing to understand the additional environmental and economic benefits
of wind turbines, and how they can be designed to maximis e habitat cr eation and support fish stocks in surrounding waters, to minimise bird strikes, and/or to integrate other commercial uses such as seaweed farming. It is important that the findings of such research are fed into the design development of Jersey's offshore windfarm, along with other considerations such environmental and socio- economic impacts, safe movement of vessels, and any implications on search and rescue.
Any windfarm application will be accompanied by a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The JMSP should be taken into account when designing the scope and detail of the EIA, which will be set out as part of the planned development of a new legal consenting route for offshore renewables, consistent with Island Plan policy.
The following requirements should be considered in the consenting framework, covering the windfarm itself, associated submarine cables
and onshore facilities:
- Best practice in marine conservation (including Nature Inclusive Design (NID), respecting wildlife and habitats, and underwater noise minimisation and monitoring);
- additional economic benefit s, for example commercial seaweed production;
- implications for search and rescue operations; and
- minimisation of adverse impacts on views and cultural heritage.
Submarine cables connecting the windfarm are likely to be subject to the same restrictions on mobile fishing gear and anchoring as the existing high voltage cables. The impacts on ecology, archaeology and seascapes from cable landfalls will also need to be considered.
Priority IT4: Utility scale offshore wind generation
To support the principle of utility scale offshore wind generation in the south-western part of the Bailiwick.
Action IT4a: An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process
for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced.
- Renewable energy: tidal power
12.6.1 Background
Jersey has one of the largest tidal ranges in the world, and the potential to use this resource for the creation of renewable energy has been discussed for a number of years. The BIP references the potential for tidal lagoon and tidal stream technology but does not
map any potential sites.
12.6.2 Issues
In recent years feasibility work has been undertaken for a tidal barrage in St Aubin's Bay but at present there is no interested developer and so it is not currently being promoted. However, the work which has been done to date suggests that the project
has potential to both supply electricity and to act
as a sea defence, and it may therefore be desirable to investigate it further to better understand the potential benefits, implications and costs. It will also be necessary to investigate any potential adverse ecological impacts.
Surplus electricity generated could be stored, exported, and/or used for high energy processes such as hydrogen generation and desalinisation, both of which are likely to be increasingly in-demand due to climate change and the pressing need to move away from fossil fuels.
12.6.3 Proposed Actions
Tidal power should continue to be researched as a potential source of renewable energy.
Priority IT5: Tidal Power
To investigate the potential of using tidal power to generate electricity within Jersey s waters
Action IT5a: Work should continue into investigating the potential for
renewable energy generation using tidal power, especially where this can be combined with sea defence, subject to appropriate Environmental Impact Assessments.
218 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
- FEPA offshore deposition site
12.7.1 Background
The current FEPA deposition area is located to the south of St Aubin's Bay, approx. two nautical miles offshore. It is shown on Fig. 12e. FEPA stands for
the Food and Environmental Protection Act (1985) which applies in Jersey's waters, and sets out the requirement for a licence to deposit any substance
or article in the sea. The deposits include inert construction materials, dredged materials (including sea lettuce removed from St Aubin's Bay), fish waste, and burials at sea. Licenses granted are reported annually to OSPAR. The area is labelled foul ground' on Admiralty Charts for the historic deposit of dredged material from harbours.
12.7.2 Issues
The JMSP enables the FEPA offshore deposition area to be formalised as a spatial use within the marine environment so it can be included in future iterations of the Island Plan. It also provides an opportunity to review the FEPA offshore deposition area, to make sure it is of a suitable size and location to meet future needs. There are currently no restrictions on fishing in the area, but as the seabed is rocky here it is generally not used for trawling as fishing gear is likely to be damaged.
The FEPA regulations are outdated and in need of review to ensure that they are capable of handling large-scale projects such as coastal redevelopment, reclamation and windfarms.
12.7.3 Proposed Actions
The existing FEPA offshore deposition area should be retained, and its size and location reviewed to make sure it meets future needs.
Priority IT6: FEPA offshore deposition area To retain the existing FEPA offshore deposition site.
Action IT6a: The size and location of the existing FEPA offshore deposition
area will be reviewed in relation to potential future needs
and environmental requirements, and steps will be taken
to formalise its use.
Action IT6b: A review of current legislation should be undertaken to ensure
it is fit for purpose for large-scale projects.
BACK TO 12 | Infrastructure, Energy and Transport 219 CONTENTS
- Harbours and moorings
12.8.1 Background
Harbours are located around Jersey's coast and at the offshore reefs. Harbour limits are shown on Fig. 12e.
St Helier Harbour is Jersey's main commercial port, and a lifeline in the supply of goods and services to and from Jersey. A redevelopment programme for St Helier Harbour is currently at the consultation stage, and will see substantial upgrading of commercial and leisure facilities. The first phase will be the redevelopment of Elizabeth harbour for commercial and passenger traffic, with roll on roll
off (RoRo) and lift on lift off (LoLo) facilities all in one place, and new passenger infrastructure.
Fig. 12f from the St Helier Harbour Master Plan shows the different areas within the harbour, and the proposed redevelopments. The overall footprint of the port is not expected to change. Note that this is part of an active planning application, and is therefore subject to change.
Fig. 12f: Proposed new layout of
Elizabeth Harbour, from Ports of Jersey website
BACK TO 12 | Infrastructure, Energy and Transport
CONTENTS 221
St Helier Harbour Limit extends over a large area, from the western side of St Brelade's Bay to Samarès. It includes all of St Aubin's Bay, and extends approx. two nautical miles out to sea from the most southerly points on land (Noirmont and Samarès).
There are several smaller harbours around Jersey's coast, including
two (St Brelade and St Aubin) which are within St Helier Harbour Limits. Other harbours are Bonne Nuit, Bouley Bay, Gorey, Grève de Lecq,
La Rocque, Rozel and St Catherine. Two harbours (Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers) are on the offshore reefs. All these harbours are the responsibility of PoJ as the Harbour Authority. Their limits are not expected to change within the next ten years.
Informal boat moorings also occur outside of harbour limits.
St Helier Harbour. Fiona Fyfe
Small harbour with 19th Century quay at Rozel. Fiona Fyfe
There is a risk of harbour infrastructure being lost through redevelopment or abandonment, particularly if it is not well-used.
Rising s ea l ev els may impact on harbour infrastructure such as piers and pontoons, which would need modification as appropriate.
Moorings outside harbour limits are a current concern in Jersey as they fall between the remits
of PoJ and Marine Resources. Existing moorings outside harbours are not currently regulated. Therefore, vessels could be on inadequate moorings, increasing the risk of damage or pollution. There are also questions and concerns over insurance, FEPA licences and planning permission.
12.8.3 Proposed Actions
Existing harbour limits should be retained. Harbour infrastructure should be safeguarded through the planning system to ensure it is retained unless there is certainty that it is no longer needed. Where necessary it should be adapted to take account of rising sea levels. There is a possibility that large scale projects such as the potential wind farm may require an expansion of industrial areas associated with harbour facilities.
The issue of moorings outside harbours should be resolved through discussions between PoJ and Marine Resources.
Priority IT7: Harbours, moorings and associated infrastructure To retain existing harbour limits and infrastructure.
Action IT7a: Existing harbour limits will be retained.
Action IT7b: | Harbour infrastructure such as piers should be safeguarded |
Action IT7c: | Where necessary, the appropriate and sensitive adaptation of harbour infrastructure to allow for rising sea levels should be supported. |
Action IT7d: | Issues relating to moorings outside current harbour limits should be investigated, and collaborative action taken. |
- Boat passages
12.9.1 Background
Jersey's waters are criss-crossed by boat passages. The boat passages for large vessels are shown on Fig. 12e. The main passages for commercial vessels are the north-west, western, southern
and eastern passages.
Smaller vessels are less restricted in their movements, and can access smaller harbours, moorings and slipways around the coast.
Precautionary Areas are defined by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) as an area within defined limits where ships must navigate with particular caution and within which the direction
of flow of traffic may be recommended. There is a Precautionary Area outside St Helier Harbour (shown in Fig. 12e) due to the density of marine traffic in this area and the importance of retaining safe movement of vessels into and out of the harbour. The waters directly south of Noirmont Point are also spatially constrained due to shallow bathymetry which requires deeper draught vessels to pass between Noirmont Point and Les Fours Buoy. This gateway' for vessels into St Helier is critical for the efficient passage of vessels.
12.9.2 Issues
Boat passages should remain open to enable safe passage of vessels, as well as safe access into St Helier Harbour.
12.9.3 Proposed Actions
Boat passages should remain open so boats
can travel within and through Jersey's waters,
with alternative routes available if required. It is particularly important that access to St Helier harbour is unimpeded. Vessels should continue to exercise particular caution to the south of Noirmont, and in the Precautionary Area outside St Helier Harbour.
Jersey Guernsey Portsmouth ferry berthed in St Helier Harbour.
Fiona Fyfe
Priority IT8: Boat Passages
To retain safe boat passages, including those to and from neighbouring jurisdictions.
Action IT8a: Boat passages and the Precautionary Area should be safeguarded
and appropriate alternative routes identified where possible.
It will be necessary to consider boat passages when identifying sites and developing designs for offshore renewables.
224 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
- Anchorages
12.10.1 Background
The largest commercial vessels (including cruise ships) cannot enter the relatively shallow waters which surround Jersey, so they anchor offshore where there is enough depth of sediment for anchors to hold fast on the seabed. Designated commercial anchorages are shown on Fig. 12e and include St Aubin's North; St Aubin's South; West of Ruaudière; Demie de Pas and the Pilotage Waiting Anchorage. It is prohibited to lay static fishing gear in commercial anchorages.
12.10.2 Issues
It is important that anchorages remain open and free of other development or hazards, so vessels can anchor safely.
12.10.3 Proposed Actions
Existing anchorages should be retained.
Priority IT9: Anchorages To retain existing anchorages.
Action IT9a: Existing anchorages will be safeguarded and will be
kept free of development or hazards.
- Research and logistics
12.11.1 Background
Its geographical location, the diversity of its
marine environment, and its existing infrastructure, mean that Jersey is uniquely positioned to become
a hub for marine research and development (R&D), logistics and education. There are opportunities to promote Jersey as a maritime hub which could (for example): Provide a construction and operations base for maritime engineering (potentially initially linked to the construction of the offshore windfarm); provide infrastructure used by a range of industries, such as a decompression chamber; include a
R&D campus servicing Government, universities, private sector firms and start-ups; utilise emerging technologies (for example in transport, data storage or energy). Such a hub would bring socio-economic benefits to Jersey. It would not necessarily need
to be located at a single site.
12.11.2 Issues
The current lack of R&D facilities in Jersey means existing collaborations (for example with universities) cannot always reach their full potential. There is also a concern about brain drain' from the island, with Islanders leaving to pursue jobs in sectors which do not present opportunities locally.
The logistics of constructing the offshore wind farm may be a catalyst for this hub. Due to changes in the way fuel is imported into Jersey, the tanker berths at St Helier harbour are now used less frequently than previously, and they now have the capacity to act as a maritime hub during construction. They are currently accommodating support vessels for the
St Brieuc windfarm.
12.11.3 Proposed Actions
The potential for a maritime hub in Jersey, covering R&D and logistics, should be explored.
Priority IT10: Maritime hub
To explore the potential for a Jersey-based maritime hub supporting research and development and logistics.
Action IT10a: Initial conversations with potential partners
should be undertaken.
Action IT10b: | Integrating development of the hub with the design and logistics of the offshore wind farm should be considered. |
Action IT10c: | Potential sites (within St Helier and potentially elsewhere) should be explored. |
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 226 CONTENTS
Appendices
Appendix A: Implementation Table
Seascapes
| Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status | |
SC1 Seascape Character | To maintain the diversity and special character of coastal and marine areas. | ||
SC1a | The special qualities of coastal and marine character types should be maintained through application of the strategy and relevant management guidelines for each character type as set out in the Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment. | GoJ Marine Resources GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng GoJ Land Resource Management Ports of Jersey Jersey Heritage JE plc and GEL Telecoms | In progress |
SC2 Marne Landmarks | To protect marine landmarks n vews from land and sea . | ||
SC2a | Key marine landmarks that form focal points or features in views from the coastline or within the marine area should be identified, designated and safeguarded and potential impacts on these should be taken into account when proposals for new developments or activities are considered. Key landmarks should be safeguarded through the application of BIP policies and supplementary planning guidance. | GoJ Marine Resources GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng Ports of Jersey Jersey Heritage | Resources required |
Natural Environment and Biodiversity
| Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
NB1 No Take Zones | To support current and future No Take Zones for the most mportant and valuable marne resources. | ||
NB1a | The existing No Take Zone at Portelet Bay will be retained and will continue to be monitored. Monitoring will include assessment of damage to the seabed from current anchoring practices, and recommendations to minimise damage will be made accordingly. | GoJ Marne Resources Société Jersiaise | In progress |
NB1b | A new No Take Zone will be designated at Les Sauvages, with the boundary determined following a review of the evidence against agreed criteria. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Legal Team | Resources secured |
NB1c | Subject to the impacts and effects of the Portelet and Les Sauvages No Take Zones being found to be positive, further No Take Zones will be considered within Jersey's waters. These should be targeted to achieve social and biodiversity goals | GoJ Marne Resources Société Jersiaise | Resources required |
NB2 Ramsar Sites | To retain Ramsar Sites and promote their effective management. | ||
NB2a | Existing Ramsar Site designations will be retained and will be managed in accordance with international obligations. Their management will be integrated with that of the surrounding Marine Protected Areas. Comprehensive management plans will cover habitat management, access and recreation, and shoreline management. Management Plans will be prepared in association with residents' associations where appropriate. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Land Resource Management Ports of Jersey Société Jersiaise Reefs Residents' Assocs. Jersey Ramsar Management Authority | In progress |
(lead in bold)
NB3
Intertidal
Sites of
Specal To promote sound and sustanable management of ntertdal Stes of Specal
Interest Interest (SSIs), and consder expanson of the SSI network.
NB3a Existing SSI designations will be GoJ Land Resource In progress
retained and protected through the Management
appropriate management and
regulation of potentially damaging
activities.
NB3b The SSI network should be reviewed GoJ Land Resource Resources required
by Government against agreed Management
criteria, and expanded to include
further suitable sites and/or
extensions of existing sites.
NB3c Condition monitoring should be put GoJ Land Resource Resources required
in place for all SSIs not currently Management
monitored, including those in private GoJ Legal Team
ownership.
NB4 Priority
areas for
desgnaton
as Areas of
Specal To identify priority areas for the further protection of wildlife through the Protecton desgnaton of addtonal Areas of Specal Protecton.
NB4a Sites at Petit Port, Les Écréhous and GoJ Land Resource In progress
at the proposed Seabird Protection Management
Zone, should be considered for Écréhous Residents
designation as Areas of Special Association
Protection in order to counter the
threats to wildlife. Relevant user
groups (for example reefs residents'
associations and boat trip operators)
should be consulted when ASPs are
being considered.
NB4b The effectiveness of Area of Special GoJ Land Resource In progress
Protection designation should be Management
monitored and reviewed
(lead in bold)
NB5 Marne
Protected To protect the most ecologically-valuable marne habtats through the expanson of Areas the network of Marne Protected Areas, to support the nternatonal oblgaton to (MPAs) protect at least 30% of Jersey's territorial area by 2030.
NB5a The existing Marine Protected Areas GoJ Marne Resources Resources secured
(MPAs) will be extended and linked GoJ Land Resource
to cover the inshore area; the Management
offshore reefs (Les Écréhous, Les Ports of Jersey
Minquiers, the Paternosters and Les
Anquettes), and parts of the
sedimentary basins which contain a
high coverage of OSPAR listed
habitats. No mobile fishing gear will
be permitted to be used within the
MPAs.
NB5b Legislation will be revised to give the GoJ Marne Resources Resources secured
MPAs a statutory basis. GoJ Legal Team
NB5c Further research will be undertaken GoJ Marne Resources Resources secured
in order to inform the future GoJ Land Resource
expansion of the Marine Protected Management
Area network. This will include Société Jersiaise
gaining greater understanding of the
distribution of migratory fish species
and sensitive habitats and species, as
well as the potential consequences
of the changed MPA boundaries on
habitats and species.
NB5d Compensatory measures and/or GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
alternatives will be considered for GoJ Economic
fishers within the mobile fishing Development
sector affected by the MPAs, where
considered appropriate, having
regard to economic impact
assessments.
NB5e The potential will be explored for GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
using biodiversity aids such as
artificial reefs in order to enhance
biodiversity within the MPA.
NB5f Ongoing monitoring of the GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
effectiveness of the MPA will be Société Jersiaise
undertaken, including collaborative Jersey Fishermen's
working between relevant Association,
organisations. Other conservation
organisations
(lead in bold)
NB6 Seagrass
Habtat
Management To desgnate Seagrass Habtat Management Areas to promote the protecton and Areas regeneration of seagrass.
NB6a Seagrass Habitat Management GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
Areas should be established in St GoJ Land Resource
Catherine's Bay, Archirondel and Management
Anne Port, the Royal Bay of Ports of Jersey
Grouville , South-East Reefs and St Société Jersiaise
Aubin's Bay, where damaging Parishes
activities will be restricted. It will be
necessary to explore options to
achieve this objective through
change or enhancement of the
existing legal framework.
NB6b Subject to the findings of research Ports of Jersey In progress
into seagrass-friendly moorings
proving to be positive, such
moorings should be promoted
within Seagrass Habitat
Management Areas.
NB7 Marne
Envronment
Vstor To promote a marine environment visitor centre to act as a focus for education for Centre residents and visitors.
NB7a A partnership of interested There is potential for a Resources required
organisations should be established combination of
and funding identified. government
departments and
external organisations
to be involved.
Precise details are yet
to be agreed
NB7b A suitable site should be sought for GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
a marine environment visitor Plannng
centre. GoJ Marine Resources
Ports of Jersey
National Trust for
Jersey
(Others as
appropriate)
Commercial fishing and aquaculture
| Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
FA1 Fshng zones | To ntroduce an area -based, three-zone system comprsng: Fshng Zone A (Regulated Fshng Zone); Fshng Zone B (Seabed Protecton Zone); Fshng Zone C (No Take Zones) | ||
FA1a | Fisheries regulations will be updated to reflect the new zonal system, in line with government procedures and in consultation with local and neighbouring fishing fleets. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Legal Team | Resources secured |
FA1b | A programme of public engagement will be undertaken with the Jersey and French fishing fleets, and the recreational fishing sector to make sure that all are aware of the new system following its introduction. | GoJ Marne Resources | Resources secured |
FA2 Pottng and nettng equpment | To promote safe and responsble use of pottng and nettng equpment, n order to avod entrapment or njury to people, or to marne fauna and brds. | ||
FA2a | Netting regulations within the proposed MPA areas will be reviewed in order to minimise entrapment or injury to people or to marine fauna and birds. This review will include consultation with fishers. Commercial and recreational fishers will be made aware of any resultant changes. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Land Resource Management | Resources secured |
FA2b | The visible marking of all commercial fishing equipment to indicate the type of gear being used will be trialled. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Legal Team | Resources required |
FA2c | Workable solutions to minimise ghost fishing will be promoted. Onshore fishing gear disposal facilities (as established in 2023) should be enhanced. | GoJ Marne Resources | In progress |
FA2d | Initiatives to minimise marine littering and to promote beach cleans will be encouraged. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Land Resource Management Ports of Jersey Société Jersiaise Parishes | In progress |
FA2e | A review of commercial potting and netting in proximity of angling spots will be undertaken. | GoJ Marne Resources | Resources secured |
FA2f | Signage in harbours will be improved to show harbour extents where potting and netting are prohibited. | Ports of Jersey | Resources required |
(lead in bold)
FA3
Aquaculture To promote sustanable methods of aquaculture.
FA3a Sustainable methods of aquaculture GoJ Marne Resources In progress
will be promoted and the industry GoJ Economic
will be encouraged to reach for Development
recognised professional standards in
environmental sustainability, and to
monitor and mitigate local impacts
of farming practices.
FA4 To ensure that any future seaweed farming (phytoculture) is undertaken in a Phytoculture responsible and sustainable manner.
FA4a A review should be undertaken into GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
the potential for phytoculture in
Jersey including its suitability and
effect on the marine environment.
FA4b Based on the outcome of FA4a, a GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
licencing and regulatory framework GoJ Place and Spatial
will be established for phytoculture Planning
activity in Jersey's waters. GoJ Economic
Development
GoJ Legal Team
FA5
Sustanable
fshng To support and promote facltes and actons whch support sustanable fshng.
FA5a The marketing of sustainably-caught GoJ Marine Resources In progress
fish should be promoted by the GoJ Economc
creation of a sustainability mark or Development
similar mechanism to indicate high
quality and sustainability in Jersey's
fisheries.
FA5b The provision of appropriate marine GoJ Marine Resources Resources required
and onshore facilities for sustainable GoJ Place and Spatal
fishing will be encouraged. Plannng
GoJ Economic
Development
Ports of Jersey
Cultural heritage
| Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
CH1 Coastal Structures | To protect working coastal infrastructure and landscapes of historic or cultural nterest, and ther settings. | ||
CH1a | Working coastal infrastructure, including harbour and berthing facilities, slipways, recreational structures and offshore huts should continue to be surveyed and assessed in terms of their contribution to coastal cultural landscapes. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng Ports of Jersey Jersey Heritage Société Jersiaise | In progress |
CH1b | Consideration will be given to extending or introducing measures to protect coastal cultural landscapes, their infrastructure, specific features and settings, using existing or by introducing new protective measures. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng Jersey Heritage | Resources required |
CH2 Military hertage sites | To protect military heritage sites in the coastal and marine environment, and their settings. | ||
CH2a | Assessment of heritage value of military sites should be kept under review and new sites added as appropriate. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng Jersey Heritage Société Jersiaise | In progress |
CH2b | Sympathetic alternative uses for military sites and redundant buildings should be explored, including use by the community to optimise conservation and public value. | GoJ Place and Spatial Planning Jersey Hertage | In progress |
(lead in bold)
CH3
Coastlne
adjacent to
prehstorc To protect prehstorc coastal stes, acknowledgng the hertage value of the stes coastal stes and their settings, and affordng them approprate protecton.
CH3a The condition of the coastal margins GoJ Place and Spatial Resources required
of important prehistoric sites (La Planning
Cotte de St. Brelade , La Cotte à la GoJ Land Resource
Chèvre, Green Island, Le Pinacle, and Management
Belle Hougue caves) should be Jersey Hertage
surveyed and any current or Société Jersiaise
potential activities which may be
harmful identified; and any harm
mitigated through the appropriate
regulation of proposals for
development or other activities
which might harm their special
interest and settings.
CH4
Intertidal
archaeology To protect the cultural heritage of intertidal areas and offshore reefs.
CH4a The intertidal areas of the west, GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
south and east of Jersey, along with Plannng
the offshore reefs, should be Jersey Heritage
considered for designation as Areas
of Archaeological Potential.
CH4b Arrangements for the management GoJ Place and Spatial Resources required
of the cultural heritage of intertidal Planning
areas and offshore reefs should be Jersey Hertage
reviewed and strengthened where
necessary.
CH4c Further studies and survey work GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
should be undertaken to investigate Plannng
the potential for parts of the Jersey Heritage
intertidal areas and offshore reefs to Société Jersiaise
be given additional statutory
designations, such as Listing.
(lead in bold)
CH5
Submerged
landscapes
survey To undertake a seabed survey of the subtdal area.
CH5a In accordance with Jersey Heritage's GoJ Marine Resources Resources required
existing research framework, further GoJ Place and Spatial
studies and Multi Beam Echo Planning
Sounder survey work of the subtidal Ports of Jersey
seabed should be undertaken in Jersey Hertage
order to inform priorities for further
detailed investigation and facilitate
the protection of important and
sensitive features from
inappropriate or harmful activities.
CH6
Culturally-
sgnfcant
navgaton
markers To identify and conserve culturally-sgnfcant navgatonal markers.
CH6a A survey should be carried out to GoJ Marine Resources Resources required
identify the locations and condition GoJ Place and Spatial
of navigational markers of cultural or Planning
historic importance. Ports of Jersey
Jersey Hertage
CH6b Subject to the outcomes of survey Ports of Jersey Resources required
work, conservation plans should set Jersey Hertage
out measures for the most
important markers recommending
retention in situ, relocation or
recording. They should allow for
appropriate adaptation in the
interests of safety.
CH6c Consideration will be given to the GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
recording of onshore transit marks Plannng
so they can be designated Jersey Heritage
appropriately, and where Société Jersiaise
appropriate, become a material
consideration in planning decisions
and development design.
(lead in bold)
CH7 Wreck
sites To protect the significance of wreck sites and their contexts.
CH7a Survey work should be undertaken GoJ Place and Spatial Resources required
to identify and record wreck sites. Planning
Ports of Jersey
Jersey Hertage
Société Jersiaise
CH7b Criteria will be established in order GoJ Marine Resources Resources required
to introduce measures to protect GoJ Place and Spatal
significant wreck sites, for example Plannng
by designation (listing) as SSIs or by Jersey Heritage
being afforded Listed status.
CH7c The conservation of significant wreck GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
sites should be promoted through a Plannng
review of management and GoJ Legal Team
monitoring arrangements, Jersey Heritage
introducing new regulations where
appropriate to limit or prohibit
damaging activities.
CH8
Intangble
cultural
hertage To protect and promote intangible maritime cultural heritage.
CH8a Consideration will be given to Jersey Hertage Resources required
establishment of a dedicated Société Jersiaise
website and a place names
commission relating to coastal,
intertidal and marine place names, in
accordance with the programme to
realise the value of intangible
heritage within the Heritage Strategy
for Jersey (2022).
CH8b A research framework should be Jersey Hertage Resources required
developed to increase knowledge Société Jersiaise
and understanding of intangible
maritime heritage.
CH8c A strategy should be developed to Jersey Hertage Resources required
protect and promote intangible Société Jersiaise
maritime heritage.
Recreation and tourism
| Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
RT1 Inshore speed lmts | To set and manage nshore speed lmts n the nterests of safety. | ||
RT1a | The existing inshore five knot speed limit will be retained, and extensions to the speed limit will be kept under review. | Ports of Jersey | In progress |
RT2 Mult- use recreation Areas | To manage conflict and improve safety within Multi-use Recreaton Areas. | ||
RT2a | A pro-active and flexible approach to the management of Multi-use Recreation Areas will be maintained which will be responsive to local conditions and the types and locations of activities taking place in any particular season. Multi-use Recreation Areas are located in St Ouen's Bay, St Brelade's Bay, St Aubin's Bay, the Royal Bay of Grouville , St Catherine's Bay and Bouley Bay. | Ports of Jersey | In progress |
RT2b | Consideration will be given to the segregation of swimmers and powered craft within popular bathing areas by prohibiting powered craft between the red and yellow flags marking the lifeguarded areas of beaches, for a distance of 200m out to sea, regardless of the speed at which the craft are travelling. | Ports of Jersey | Resources required |
RT2c | Consideration should be given to improvements to relevant regulatory processes in order to facilitate the organisation and management of one-off events without conflict with other beach/sea users. | GoJ Legal Team Ports of Jersey | Resources required |
RT2d | Further studies will be undertaken to determine the quantities and types of recreational uses in specific coastal locations, including recreational fishing, swimming, and powered and non-powered craft. | Ports of Jersey Marine resources (for recreational fishing) | Resources required |
(lead in bold)
RT3 Access
to the
marne
envronment To promote and manage access to the marne envronment for the beneft of all RT3a All existing public access to the coast GoJ Place and Spatal In progress
and foreshore should be maintained. Plannng
Opportunities should be sought to
improve access for those with diverse
needs.
RT3b Community/health/sports/education GoJ Economic Resources required
organisations will be encouraged to Development
use the coast for physical activity, GoJ Education
education and for the enhancement GoJ Health and
of well-being. Communty
Société Jersiaise
RT3c The safe storage of recreational GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
equipment at the coast should be Plannng
promoted in order to minimise GoJ Economic
transportation needs and reduce the Development
need to store equipment on beaches.
Guidance should be produced on
suitable locations and designs for
such facilities.
RT3d In order to support recreational users GoJ Place and Spatial Resources required
and to reduce the need for car travel, Plannng
coastal facilities such as showers and GoJ Economic
toilets will be retained and enhanced. Development
Parishes
RT3e The condition of slipways should be Ports of Jersey Resources required
assessed and repairs/improvements
undertaken if required to maximise
recreational access. The slipway at
St Catherine's Bay should be
prioritised.
| Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
RT4 Parkng on beaches and slpways | To revew and control parkng of vehcles on beaches and slpways. | ||
RT4a | The current regulatory system regarding parking on beaches should be reviewed, with the objective of reducing the amount of parking on beaches except in exceptional circumstances such as due to disability or commercial requirements. This may also require a review of coastal car park provision | GoJ Legal Team GoJ Department for Infrastructure Parshes Jersey Property Holdngs | Resources required |
RT4b | Current rules for parking on slipways should be reviewed where necessary to enable all legitimate user groups to access slipways safely. | Ports of Jersey Parishes | Resources required |
RT5 Regulatons regarding dogs on beaches | To revew current regulatons regardng dogs on beaches. | ||
RT5a | The current regulations to manage/control dogs on beaches should be reviewed. The review should aim to find an acceptable balance between the needs of beach users, dog walkers, wildlife and other recreational users. | GoJ Land Resource Management GoJ Legal Team | Resources required |
(lead in bold)
RT6
Increasng
publc
educaton
and To promote responsble use and enjoyment of the coastal and marne
awareness envronment though ncreasng publc educaton and awareness.
RT6a Understanding of and respect for GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
the coastal and marine GoJ Land Resource
environments will be encouraged Management
and developed through the
introduction of a Seaside Code.
Supplements to the Seaside Code
will be produced for specific
activities such as recreational and
low water fishing. Consider support
of measures within the Seaside
Code through the introduction of a
beach warden scheme.
RT6b The "Enjoying the Coast Safely" GoJ Marine Resources Resources required
booklet should be revised and GoJ Land Resource
updated to include more references Management
to good practice with regard to Ports of Jersey
avoiding disturbance of wildlife,
habitats and cultural heritage. A
subsection on recreational fishing
will be considered.
RT7
Management
Plans for
offshore To produce Management Plans for the offshore reefs whch ntegrate the
reefs management of recreaton, Marne Protected Areas and Ramsar Stes.
RT7a Holistic Management Plans for the GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
reefs should be produced through GoJ Land Resource
collaboration with users and Management
Residents' Associations. These will GoJ Legal Team
address local issues including Jersey Heritage
recreation management, cultural Reefs Residents'
heritage and the natural Associations
environment. Issues for Parishes
consideration include the feasibility Jersey Ramsar
of limiting visitor numbers, Management
introducing a permit system, Authority
employing reef wardens, and
identifying particularly sensitive
wildlife areas where additional
restrictions may be required.
Infrastructure, Energy and Transport
| Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
IT1 Coastal Defences | To support the prncple of new or replacement coastal defences as set out n the Shorelne Management Plan (2020), n order to protect coastal communtes from floodng, whlst mnmsng envronmental harm from ther constructon. | ||
IT1a | Subject to environmental safeguards, provision will be made for advance the line' defences as set out in the Shoreline Management Plan (2020). | GoJ Operatons and Transport GoJ Land Resources Management GoJ Marine Resources GoJ Place and Spatial Planning | In progress |
IT1b | Where coastal defence schemes potentially impact on designated areas, the implications on cultural and natural heritage will be thoroughly investigated and considered through the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Appropriate research, mitigation and compensatory habitats (offsite and/or onsite through Nature Inclusive Design) should be integrated into the preliminary, design and construction processes. | GoJ Operatons and Transport GoJ Land Resources Management GoJ Marine Resources GoJ Place and Spatial Planning | In progress |
IT1c | Following construction, designation boundaries should be reviewed and if necessary amended to reflect changes to the shoreline. | GoJ Marne Resources GoJ Land Resources Management | Resources secured |
(lead in bold)
IT2
Protecton
of
submarne To protect submarine cables which form critical national infrastructure from cables damage by anchors and moble fshng gear.
IT2a The existing mandatory protection Ports of Jersey In progress
corridors covering the Normandie 1 JE plc and GEL
and 2 cables will be retained. Telecoms
IT2b New mandatory protection zones GoJ Legal Team Resources required
covering vulnerable sections of the Ports of Jersey
Guernsey – Jersey 1 overlay power JE plc and GEL
cable, and the adjacent Ingrid Fibre Telecoms
Optic Outrigger telecommunications
cable, should be created. The
necessary surveys should be
undertaken and the relevant
legislation should be updated
accordingly.
IT2c Advisory protection corridors along Ports of Jersey In progress
other telecommunication cables will JE plc and GEL
be retained. Telecoms
IT2d Access to cable landfalls through GoJ Marine Resources In progress intertidal areas will be retained. GoJ Place and Spatial
Planning
Ports of Jersey
Jersey Heritage
JE plc and
GELTelecoms
IT2e Provision will be made for existing Ports of Jersey In progress
cable maintenance, repair and JE plc and GEL
overlay along existing cable routes in Telecoms
accordance with best environmental
practice to mitigate ecological
damage.
IT2f Subject to environmental JE plc and GEL Resources required
safeguards, provision will be made Wnd energy
for new cable routes connecting developer
offshore renewable energy GoJ Place and Spatial
installations to the mainland or to Planning
interconnector sites. GoJ Marine Resources
Ports of Jersey
Jersey Heritage
Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status | ||
To continue to monitor seawater quality, triggering appropriate actions if water quality falls. | ||||
Monitoring of water quality using suitable indicators should continue within a spatial framework covering areas of greatest potential human impact (St Aubin's Bay); locations popular for swimming; locations with the greatest potential for pollution; locations used for growing food for human consumption; locations that are regulated under Jersey legislation, and locations of particular importance for nature conservation. | GoJ Marine Resources GoJ Land Resource Management Ports of Jersey | In progress | ||
To support the prncple of utlty scale offshore wnd generaton n the south - western part of the Balwck. | ||||
An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced. | GoJ Marine Resources GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng GoJ Economic Development Ports of Jersey JE plc and GEL Telecoms | Resources required | ||
To nvestgate the potental of usng tdal power to generate electrcty wthn Jersey's waters | ||||
Work should continue into investigating the potential for renewable energy generation using tidal power, especially where this can be combined with sea defence, subject to appropriate Environmental Impact Assessments. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng GoJ Economic Development Ports of Jersey | In progress | ||
Action Responsibility Status
(lead in bold)
IT6 FEPA
offshore
deposton
area To retan the exstng FEPA offshore deposton ste.
IT6a The size and location of the existing GoJ Marne Resources required
FEPA offshore deposition area will be Resources
reviewed in relation to potential GoJ Place and Spatial
future needs and environmental Planning
requirements, and steps will be taken Ports of Jersey
to formalise its use.
IT6b A review of current legislation should GoJ Marine Resources required
be undertaken to ensure it is fit for Resources
purpose for large-scale projects. GoJ Legal Team
Ports of Jersey
IT7 Harbours,
moorngs and
assocated
infrastructure To retain existing harbour limits and infrastructure.
IT7a Existing harbour limits will be Ports of Jersey In progress
retained.
IT7b Harbour infrastructure such as piers GoJ Place and Spatal Resources required
should be safeguarded. Plannng
Ports of Jersey
IT7c Where necessary, the appropriate GoJ Place and Spatial In progress
and sensitive adaptation of harbour Planning
infrastructure to allow for rising sea Ports of Jersey
levels should be supported. Jersey Heritage
IT7d Issues relating to moorings outside GoJ Marne Resources Resources required
current harbour limits should be Ports of Jersey
investigated, and collaborative Reefs Residents'
action taken. Associations
IT8 Boat To retan safe boat passages , including those to and from neighbouring passages jurisdictions.
IT8a Boat passages and the Ports of Jersey In progress
Precautionary Area should be
safeguarded and appropriate
alternative routes identified where
possible. It will be necessary to
consider boat passages when
identifying sites and developing
designs for offshore renewables.
IT9
Anchorages To retan exstng anchorages.
IT9a Existing anchorages will be Ports of Jersey In progress
safeguarded and will be kept free of
development or hazards.
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 246 CONTENTS
Action | Responsibility (lead in bold) | Status |
To explore the potential for a Jersey-based martme hub supportng research and development and logstcs. | ||
Initial conversations with potential partners should be undertaken. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng GoJ Economic Development Ports of Jersey | Resources required |
Integrating development of the hub with the design and logistics of the offshore wind farm should be considered. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng GoJ Economic Development Ports of Jersey | Resources required |
Potential sites (within St Helier and potentially elsewhere) should be explored. | GoJ Place and Spatal Plannng GoJ Economic Development Ports of Jersey | Resources required |
BACK TO Appendix A 247 CONTENTS
APPENDIX B: Evidence Base
Note: In the final version of the JMSP, the Title' column will hyperlink to documents where possible. Ideally all items will be hyperlinked or available in the JMSP Digital Atlas.
Items which are commercially confidential or have been provided in confidence are marked*.
General
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/G/1 | United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) | 1982 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/2 | Channel Islands Pilot | ?? |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/3 | Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy | 2008 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/4 | OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats 2008 | 2008 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/5 | UK Marine Policy Statement HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scott ish Government, Welsh Assembly Government | 2011 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/6 | Les Minquiers – A Natural History Paul Chambers, Francis Binney and Gareth Jeffreys | 2016 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/7 | Jersey Shoreline Management Plan AECOM for Government of Jersey | 2020 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/8 | MSP Global International Guide on Marine Spatial Planning UNESCO | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/9 | Identification et hiérarchisation des enjeux écologiques des façades maritimes métropolitaines (Office Français de la Bio diversité) | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/10 | Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation Frontiers in Marine Science, July 2021 Vol. 8 Article 711538 | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/11 | Compendium of existing and emerging cross-border and transboundary MSP practices. (UNESCO) | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/12 | Country-level factors in a failing relationship with nature: Connectedness as a key metric for a sustainable future Ambio 2022, 51: 2201-2213 | 2022 |
|
|
|
|
EB/G/13 | Jersey Bridging Island Plan | 2022 |
|
|
|
|
248 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
Ref. | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||||||
|
| Doc | GIS Layer | Consutl ation |
| |||
EB/G/14 | Economic Framework for the Marine Environment Marine Economy Advisory Group (MEAG) | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/15 | Jersey Carbon Neutral Roadmap | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/16 | Declaration environnementale du plan d'action du document stratégique de façade. Façade Manche Est – Mer du Nord | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/17 | Document stratégique de la façade Manche Est – Mer du Nord, Plan d'Action Ministère de la Mer | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/18 | Nord Atlantique – Manche Ouest Tome 1 Annex 1 | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/19 | Nord Atlantique – Manche Ouest Tome 1 Annex 1 | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/20 | Nord Atlantique – Manche Ouest Tome 1 Plan d'action | 2022 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/21 | Legislation and Policy Review for JMSP | 2023 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/22 | Maritime Activities Assessment Marine Resources | 2023 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/23 | Minister for Energy and the Environment Delivery Plan 2023 | 2023 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/24 | Proposed Common Strategic Policy 2024- 2026 | 2024 |
|
|
|
| ||
EB/G/25 | Jersey Marine Spatial Plan Public Consultation Response Summary | 2024 |
|
|
| |||
| Distance from HWMS |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Substrate intertidal |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Substrate subtidal |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Geology intertidal |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Geology subtidal |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Seafloor sediment thickness |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Sediment stability |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Depth contours |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Tidal energy |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Wave height |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Wave power |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Coastal Exposure index |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Wind speed |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Wind power density |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Land |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Jersey chart datum |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Jersey intertidal area |
|
|
|
| |||
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/SC/1 | Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment (ILSCA) | 2020 |
|
|
|
|
| Seascape Character Areas from ILSCA |
|
|
|
|
|
The Natural Environment and Biodiversity
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/NB/1 | Ramsar Site Management Plans | 2011 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/2 | MPAs and Ecosystem Services | 2014 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/3 | Non-native Marine Species in the Channel Islands: Review & Assessment | 2017 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/4 | Biodiversity A Strategy for Jersey | 2020 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/5 | Jersey Geodiversity Audit British Geological Survey | 2020 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/6 | Invasive Non-Native Species: Challenges for the water environment Environment Agency, 2021 | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/7 | Blue Carbon Report: An Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas Marine Resources | 2022 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/8 | Ecosystem service assessment of Jersey's marine habitats Marine Resources | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/9 | A valuation of Jersey's marine habitats in providing ecosystem services Blue Marine Foundation and New Economics Foundation | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/10 | An outline of the ecology and sensitivity of marine habitats in Jersey, Channel Islands Marine Resouces | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/11 | A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef, Jersey Blue Marine Foundation | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/12 | Jersey MPA Assessment Methodology Marine Resources | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/NB/13 | Seasearch Marine Surveys in Jersey (National Biodiversity Network website) https://doi.org/10.15468/0ppp4p |
|
|
|
|
|
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/NB/14 | National Biodiversity Network Atlas species records (website) https://records.nbnatlas.org/occurrences |
|
|
| ||
/search?q=data_resource_uid%3Adr659 | ||||||
&nbn_loading=true&fq=- | ||||||
occurrence_status%3A%22absent%22 | ||||||
| SSI boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ramsar Site boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| MARESA information |
|
|
|
|
|
| EUNIS Marine Biotopes |
|
|
|
|
|
| Combined habitats (intertidal and subtidal) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cetacean sightings |
|
|
|
|
|
| Dolphin activity |
|
|
|
|
|
| Porpoise activity |
|
|
|
|
|
| Seal haul sites |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bird resting and roosting sites |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wading birds |
|
|
|
|
|
| OSPAR Priority habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
| Information from Jersey Sea Search |
|
|
|
|
|
| Findings of specialist stakeholder workshop (combined with cultural heritage, 28th Feb 2023) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Submission from Marion relating to: ethics of care, shifting baseline, intergenerational equality, ecocide, parity for marine animal communities, consultation |
|
|
|
|
|
| Submission from Blue Marine relating to MPAs |
|
|
|
|
|
| Submission from Société Jersiaise relating to East Coast No Take Zone |
|
|
|
|
|
Fishing and aquaculture
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/FA/1 | A history of fishing in Jersey Government of Jersey | 1967 |
|
|
|
|
EB/FA/2 | A People of the Sea: The maritime history of the Channel Islands Alan G. Jamieson | 1986 |
|
|
|
|
EB/FA/3 | The Ecosystem Services of Marine Aquaculture: Valuing benefits to people and nature Bioscience 2019 Vol.69, 59- 68 | 2019 |
|
|
|
|
EB/FA/4 | Marine Resources Annual Report 2020 | 2020 |
|
|
|
|
EB/FA/5 | Value of Coastal Habitats to Commercial Fisheries in Jersey and the Role of MPAs Blampied et. al. Fisheries Management and Ecology 00:1-11) | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
EB/FA/6 | Optimal fishing effort benefits fisheries and conservation Rees, A., Sheehan, E.V., Attrill, M. J. Optimal fishing effort benefits fisheries and conservation. (Sci. Rep. 11, 1-15 2021). | 2022 |
|
|
|
|
EB/FA/7 | The socio-economic impact of MPAs in Jersey – a Fishers' perspective Blampied (Fisheries Research, 259) | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
| Existing MPA boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| No Take Zone boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| Regulated Areas (NMGZ, box, parlour) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Commercial fisheries* |
|
|
|
| NO |
| Recreational species inspections* |
|
|
|
| NO |
| Recreational activities inspections |
|
|
|
|
|
| Shore angling locations |
|
|
|
|
|
| Active aquaculture |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aquaculture monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jersey exclusive area |
|
|
|
|
|
| Findings of specialist stakeholder workshop 2nd March 2023 |
|
|
|
|
Cultural heritage
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/CH/1 | Wrecked on the Channel Islands David Couling | 1982 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/2 | Underwater cultural heritage and battlefields in Jersey Scoping Study Orbasil and Chowne | 2013 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/3 | The palaeo-environmental history of a peat bed near to Le Tas de Pois, Les Écréhous Paul Chambers, Nicolas Jouault and John Whittaker in SJ Bulletin | 2019 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/4 | The presence of historic wall-like features on Jersey's seashore Tompkins, Tompkins and Chambers in SJ Bulletin | 2019 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/5 | A Heritage Strategy for Jersey | 2022 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/6 | Palaeolithic Jersey Resource Assessment (Chapter 2, Draft) Matt Pope | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/7 | Archaeological Seabed Mapping around Jersey – Desk Appraisal Fjordr | 2022 |
|
|
|
|
EB/CH/8 | Conservation Management Plan for German Military Sites on Jersey | 2024 |
|
|
|
|
| Archaeologically Sensitive Places Designation boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| Historic Buildings |
|
|
|
|
|
| Shipwrecks |
|
|
|
|
|
| Archaeology Points |
|
|
|
|
|
| Archaeology Density |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jersey Historic Environment Record |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jersey Lidar Survey 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Findings of specialist stakeholder workshop (combined with biodiversity, 28th Feb 2023) |
|
|
|
|
|
Recreation and tourism
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consult ation | ||||
EB/RT/1 | Marine Spatial Planning: an atlas and study of ecology and human activities in Jersey waters, unpublished MSc thesis, University of York, 64pp. De Gruchy | 2015 |
|
|
|
|
EB/RT/2 | Enjoying our Coast Safely – Code of practice for safety in the water on Jersey's beaches Ports of Jersey | 2017 |
|
|
|
|
EB/RT/3 | Jersey Sport Strategic Plan 2023-2026 | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
| Coastal National Park boundary |
|
|
|
|
|
| Carparks |
|
|
|
|
|
| Footpaths |
|
|
|
|
|
| Panoramas (viewpoints) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Toilets |
|
|
|
|
|
| Coastal food outlets |
|
|
|
|
|
| Coastal accommodation |
|
|
|
|
|
| Watersports (onshore sites) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Watersports (offshore areas used) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Beach tourist index |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bathing beaches |
|
|
|
|
|
| Findings of specialist stakeholder workshop 3rd March 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Submission from Spearfishers* |
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure, energy and transport
Ref. | Title | Pub. date | Source | JMSP Atlas layer? | ||
Doc | GIS layer | Consutl ation | ||||
EB/IT/1 | Tidal Lagoon St Aubin's Bay, Jersey – a report on Feasibility | 2017 |
|
|
|
|
EB/IT/2 | Jersey Offshore Wind Pre-feasibility Draft v.1.1 (IPT Energised for States of Jersey)* | 2018 |
|
|
|
|
EB/IT/3 | Bridging Liquid Waste Strategy 2023- 2026 | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
EB/IT/4 | General Direction no. 8: Port and Harbour Limits | 2018 |
|
|
|
|
EB/IT/5 | Ministerial Plan for Offshore Wind | 2023 |
|
|
|
|
| Harbour Limits |
|
|
|
|
|
| Harbour infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
|
| Deposition Site under Food and Environment Protection Act |
|
|
|
|
|
| Coastal defences |
|
|
|
|
|
| Outfalls |
|
|
|
|
|
| Freshwater inflow |
|
|
|
|
|
| Coastal Buildings |
|
|
|
|
|
| Building Density |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cables (active and disused) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moorings outside harbours |
|
|
|
|
|
| Boat passages (commercial, large and small vessels) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Reclaimed areas |
|
|
|
|
|
| Slipways |
|
|
|
|
|
| Windfarm parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
| St Brieuc windfarm boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| Findings of specialist stakeholder workshop 1st March 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Report on Pollutants and their impact on coastal flora and fauna 2009-2023 (Save our Seas Jersey) |
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX C: Legislative and policy background
International treaties and conventions
Date ratified (UK) | Date came into force (Jersey) | Objective | |
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) | 25/07/1997 | 24/08/1997 | The Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources, including the protection and preservation of the marine environment in each territorial zone of the sea; whilst Article 194 requires them to take the necessary measures, using the best practicable means, to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source'. |
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (COP 15) | December 2022 | December 2022 | The framework supports the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals to reach the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050 and to bend the curve' on global biodiversity loss. The framework includes: • effective conservation and management of at least 30% of the world's lands, inland waters, coastal areas and the ocean; • have restoration completed or underway on at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland waters, coastal and marine ecosystems; • reduce to near zero the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity; • reduce by half both excess nutrients and the overall risk posed by pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals; • prevent the introduction of priority invasive alien species and reduce by at least half the introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species and eradicate or control invasive alien species on islands and other priority sites; and • cut global food waste in half and significantly reduce over consumption and waste generation. These commitments are underpinned by new finance for nature. |
Date ratified (UK) | Date came into force (Jersey) | Objective |
18/11/2016 | 29/04/2022 | The Paris Agreement sets out a global framework to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. It also aims to strengthen the abilities of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change and support them in their efforts. |
05/05/1976 | 05/05/1976 (Amended 1982 and 1987) | To achieve sustainable development throughout the world by the conservation and wise use of wetlands. There are currently 159 contracting parties with a total of 1,888 wetland sites. Jersey has four designated Ramsar sites: • South east coast of Jersey • Les Écréhous and Les Dirouilles • Les Minquiers • Les Pierres de Lecq (the Paternosters) Jersey has established the Ramsar Management Authority to implement the Ramsar Management plans produced for each of the four sites. Once a management plan is published the Authority must work to fulfil the objectives and implement what has been agreed. |
22/02/1999 | 01/11/1999 | The objective is for parties to take co-ordinated measures to maintain migratory waterbird species in a favourable conservation status or to restore them to such a status. |
13/07/1993 | 26/09/2002 | The Parties undertake to cooperate closely in order to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans in the Baltic and North Seas. |
28/05/1982 | 25/10/2002 | The aims of this Convention are to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, especially those species and habitats whose conservation requires the co-operation of several states, and to promote such co- operation, with particular emphasis to endangered and vulnerable species, including endangered and vulnerable migratory species. |
Title Date Date came Objective
ratified into force
(UK) (Jersey)
International 03/06/1994 01/09/1994 The Convention sets out the main goals required Convention on for conservation of biological diversity (or Biological Diversity biodiversity). Each contracting party is required
to establish a system of protected areas where special measures are required in order to conserve biological diversity.
Convention on the 23/07/1985 01/10/1985 The Convention (also known as CMS or the Bonn Conservation of Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine Migratory Species and avian migratory species throughout their
of Wild Animals range.
Convention for the 10/09/1974 11/03/1978 This convention aims to recognise the Conservation of vulnerability of Antarctic seals and protect them Antarctic Seals from commercial exploitation and ensure
effective conservation.
Convention for the 15/07/1997 29/01/2002 The OSPAR Convention merges the 1972 Oslo Protection of the and 1974 Paris Conventions. It aims to
Marine strengthen regional cooperation in addressing all Environment of sources of pollution of the marine environment the North-East and the adverse effects of human activities upon Atlantic (OSPAR it.
The main convention was extended to Jersey in Convention) 2002 and Jersey is listed on the FCDO website.
Annex V was also extended in 2019.
Convention on the 13/11/1987 01/03/1988 The main purpose of the Convention, commonly Protection of the known as the Granada Convention, is to Archaeological reinforce and promote policies for the
Heritage of Europe conservation and enhancement of Europe's
heritage. It also affirms the need for European solidarity with regard to heritage conservation and is designed to foster practical co-operation among the Parties. It establishes the principles of "European co-ordination of conservation policies" including consultations regarding the thrust of the policies to be implemented.
Title | Date ratified (UK) | Date came into force (Jersey) | Objective |
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (The Valletta Convention') (Revised) | 19/09/2000 | 20/03/2001 | The revised text makes the conservation and enhancement of the archaeological heritage one of the goals of urban and regional planning policies. It is concerned in particular with arrangements to be made for co-operation among archaeologists and town and regional planners in order to ensure optimum conservation of archaeological heritage. The Convention sets guidelines for the funding of excavation and research work and the publication of research findings. It also deals with public access, in particular to archaeological sites, and educational actions to be undertaken to develop public awareness of the value of the archaeological heritage. Finally, the Convention constitutes an institutional framework for pan- European co-operation on the archaeological heritage, entailing a systematic exchange of experience and experts among the various States. The Convention is commonly known as the Valetta Convention. |
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement | 30/12/2020 | 01/05/2021 | The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK sets out preferential arrangements in areas such as trade in goods and in services, digital trade, intellectual property, public procurement, aviation and road transport, energy, fisheries, social security coordination, law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, thematic cooperation and participation in Union programmes. It is underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field and respect for fundamental rights. |
Jersey legislative and policy context
Topic | Existing Legislation | Existing Policy |
Administration | Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997 | Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 Common Strategic Policy 2023- 2026 Proposed Common Strategic Policy 2024-2026 Economic Framework for the Marine Environment 2022 Government Plan 2023-2026 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy 2008 Ministerial Plans 2023 |
Infrastructure | Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005 Planning and Building (Environmental Impact) (Jersey) Order 2006 Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Sea Beaches (Removal of Sand and Stone) (Jersey) Law 1963 | Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 Infrastructure Capacity Report 2020 Jersey Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment (ILSCA) 2020 Minerals, Waste and Water Study 2020 Shoreline Management Plan 2020 Carbon Neutral Roadmap 2022 |
Harbours and Transport | Air and Sea Ports (Incorporation) (Jersey) Law 2015 Harbours (Administration) (Jersey) Law 1961 Harbours (Inshore Safety) (Jersey) Regulations 2012 Harbours (Jersey) Regulations 1962 Harbours (Protection of Cables in Territorial Waters) (Jersey) Regulations 2010 Maritime Security (Jersey) Order 2014 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Shipping (Jersey) Law 2002 Shipping (MARPOL) (Jersey) Regulations 2012 | Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 St Helier Harbour Masterplan 2023 |
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 260 CONTENTS
Topic | Existing Legislation | Existing Policy |
Climate Change | Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 | Blue Carbon Resources: An assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas 2022 Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 Carbon Neutral Roadmap 2022 Pathway 2050: An Energy Plan for Jersey 2014 The Carbon Neutral Strategy 2019 Shoreline Management Plan 2020 |
Biodiversity and Natural Environment | Endangered Species (CITES) (Jersey) Law 2012 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Wildlife (Areas of Special Protection) (Jersey) Order 2022 Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2021 | Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 States of Jersey Biodiversity Strategy 2000 |
Environmental Management | Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (Jersey) Order 1987 Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 (Deposits in Sea Exemptions) (Jersey) Order 2007 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005 Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 Water Pollution (Water Management) (Jersey) Order 2020 Water Pollution (Water Quality) (Jersey) Order 2020 Water Resources (Jersey) Law 2007 | Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 Challenges for the Water Environment of Jersey 2014 Liquid Waste Bridging Strategy 2023-2026 Waste Water Strategy 2013 Water Management Plan 2017- 2021 |
History and Culture | Heritage (Jersey) Law (in progress) Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Shipping (Jersey) Law 2002 | A Heritage Strategy for Jersey 2022 Historic Environment Review 2020 Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 |
Tourism and Leisure | Harbours (Inshore Safety) (Jersey) Regulations 2012 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 Policing of Beaches (Jersey) Regulations 1959 Recreational Diving Projects (ACoP 7) | Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 |
Topic Existing Legislation Existing Policy
Fisheries Aquatic Resources (Jersey) Law 2014 Economic Framework for the
Aquatic Resources (Seaweed Licences) Marine Environment 2022 (Jersey) Regulations 2019
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing (Jersey) Regulations 2021
Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey)
Order 2020
Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey)
Regulations 2016
Sea Fisheries (Inshore Trawling,
Netting and Dredging) (Jersey)
Regulations 2001
Sea Fisheries (Inshore Waters)
(Jersey) Regulations 1998
Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994
Sea Fisheries (Les Écréhous) (Jersey)
Regulations 2018
Sea Fisheries (Les Minquiers) (Jersey)
Regulations 2007
Sea Fisheries (Licensing of Fishing
Boats) (Jersey) Regulations 2003
Sea Fisheries (Log Books,
Transhipment and Landing
Declarations (Jersey) Regulations
2014
Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits)
(Jersey) refulations 2001
Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous
Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1998
Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and
Dredging) (Jersey) Regulations 2001
Sea Fisheries (Underwater Fishing)
(Jersey) Regulations 2003
Sea Fisheries (Vessel Monitoring
Systems) (Jersey) Regulations 2014
Sea Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(Portelet Bay) (Jersey) Regulations
2022
Sea Fishers (Spider Crabs –
Restrictions on Fishing) (Jersey) Order
2019
262 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO
Topic Existing Legislation Existing Policy
Aquaculture Aquatic Resources (Jersey) Law 2014 Economic Framework for the
EU Legislation (Aquatic Animal Health) Marine Environment 2022 (Jersey) Regulations 2016 Bridging Island Plan 2022-2025 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law
2002
Sea Fisheries (Fisheries) (Jersey)
Regulations 2010
Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994
Appendix D: Map showing changes to Marine Protected Area boundaries
following public consultation
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan | Priorities and Action Plan FINAL DRAFT May 2024 BACK TO 264 CONTENTS
Appendix E: Further information on seawater quality monitoring
Summary of seawater quality monitoring activities
Environmental status assessment of St Aubin's Bay
The Government of Jersey recognises that nutrient enrichment has the potential to threaten marine habitats, with signs of eutrophication occurring annually in St Aubin's Bay through the prolific growth of sea lettuce. As a result, Natural Environment began monitoring St Aubin's Bay in 2012 using the monitoring criteria set out in the EU Water framework Directive. In 2015, an environmental assessment of the bay resulted in an overall status of moderate' due to elevated physio-chemical parameters (dissolved inorganic nitrogen) and excess Ulva (sea lettuce) growth. As part of this assessment, the bay was found to be of good chemical status.
In 2015, a principal of no deterioration' of the effluent quality and of the water quality in the bay was adopted. The no deterioration' approach under the Water Framework Directive contains an aspiration to achieve good' status for all water bodies, including St Aubin's Bay.
The monitoring of St Aubin's Bay enabled an evidence-based approach to support the need for a replacement sewage treatment works. As part of the Water Management Plan 2017- 2021 (Water management plan for Jersey 2017 to 2021 (gov.je)) an integrated catchment management approach was adopted. This addresses nutrient (nitrate and phosphate) as well as pesticide pressures by reducing them at source. Nitrates are a key pressure to the marine environment of St Aubin's Bay. Joint working by the farming industry, Government and Jersey Water through the Action for Cleaner Water Group has reduced nitrate levels in streams flowing into the Bay Average by just over one-third during the past 20 years.
It is anticipated that the upgrade of the sewage treatment works, along with other measures in the Bridging Liquid Waste Strategy 2023-2026, will further reduce the problem over the coming years.
It is worth noting that sea lettuce will not go away completely even if nitrogen inputs are reduced to a minimum. This is because sea lettuce growth in St Aubin's Bay is a result of a combination of both environmental factors and anthropogenic influences. Including the beach topography (shallow and enclosed), available sunlight, warm temperatures, tidal flow/ direction; along with land reclamation and nutrient loading from land-based sources. St Aubin's Bay is also the receiving waters for the majority of the Island's catchment run-off, draining from urban, countryside and road run-off; along with the treated effluent from Bellozanne sewage treatment works.
Additional nutrient monitoring of St Aubin's Bay
To support the Water framework Directive (WFD) nutrient monitoring of St Aubin's Bay, sampling of the surf zone (mixing zone) began in 2014, with the assistance of CREH 1(UK environmental consultancy). The aim of the monitoring is to acquire baseline data to:
• understand the source and distribution of nutrient loading into St Aubin's Bay;
• enable policy decisions to be targeted appropriately; and to
• further knowledge and understanding of the conditions which cause the prolific growth of sea lettuce.
Over time the data collected will be used to assess the increase or decrease in nutrient loadings resulting from the replacement sewage treatment works (commissioned in 2023). Data will also be used as part of the assessment into the effectiveness of catchment control measures designed to reduce nutrient loading from agricultural runoff which discharge to St Aubin's Bay. It is important to make clear that the surf zone is a mixing zone and is not compared to standards set under the EU Urban wastewater treatment Directive for compliance purposes. This would only be applicable to the sampling locations utilised for the WFD monitoring. Results from the monitoring show elevated nutrient levels close to the sewage treatment works (First Tower outfall) discharge point. As would be expected, nutrient levels tend to be highest nearer this outfall, and become more diluted towards the middle of the bay and beyond.
Isotope analysis of macroalgae – Jersey's south coast
In 2019, Durham University undertook nitrogen isotope analysis on the seaweeds Fucus. vesiculosus and Ulva spp. independently of the Government of Jersey. The results showed that the seaweed in St Aubin's Bay were absorbing nutrients from human effluent source. This research was of interest to the Government of Jersey, who in 2021 decided to continue the research in association with Durham University as another indicator of nutrient enrichment, which can hopefully be used to assess any environmental change as a result of improvement measure that have/ will be implemented (e.g. upgrade of the sewage treatment works and alterations to catchment management).
St Aubin's Bay outfall monitoring
Outfall monitoring began Island wide in 2009 to obtain a base line data set of discharges into the sea. In 2013, the outfall monitoring programme was revised to focus on discharges into St Aubin's Bay because it is at higher risk of contamination (as mentioned before the majority of the Island land run off discharges into the bay, along with the STW discharge).
1 Centre for Research Environment and Health - CREH
The monitoring programme tests for nutrients, microbiology and heavy metals and provides important baseline data for these parameters.
Bathing water monitoring (sea water monitoring)
Jersey's coastal waters are monitored as part of the Bathing Water Directive, with the following beaches tested weekly (During May to September): Beauport; Bonne Nuit; Grève de Lecq; Le Braye; Plémont; Portelet; St Brelade's Bay; Watersplash; Archirondel; Bouley Bay; Green Island; Grouville Bay; Havre des Pas; Rozel Bay; La Haule and Victoria Pool (St Aubin's Bay). Monitoring is important for a number of reasons:
• The health of the public swimming in these bays and for those involved in water sports.
• Detection of pollution within the environment.
• Providing information to the aquaculture industry, for example shellfish farming
Jersey has proven to have some of the cleanest beaches in Europe. The results of the weekly sampling are available on the Government of Jersey website.
Environmental monitoring of Jersey's marinas and harbours
The Ports of Jersey (PoJ) and the Government of Jersey undertake environmental monitoring of Jersey's marina and harbour areas in a joint venture to gather baseline data on the quality of the sediment and water. The parameters being tested for are heavy metals, organotins and hydrocarbons. Monitoring of Jerseys harbour and coastal environment is important:
• To enable the collection of baseline data to assess the current environmental status of these areas.
• To track environmental changes and identify trends in water/sediment quality.
• Where necessary, develop and implement measures to improve the quality of the marine environment.
Results show elevated levels of some heavy metals within the marina/ harbour areas (which would be expected), but very low detection in the sediments tested outside of the port area (St Aubin's Bay).
As a result of this work a joint working group which includes Officers from the Pollution Control, Marine Resources and Water & Air monitoring Team meet quarterly with the PoJ Environment Officer to enable joint working and collaboration on marine monitoring.
Heavy metal accumulation in shellfish
In 1993, heavy metal monitoring of limpet species and Fucus seaweed commenced to assess whether any contamination of the marine biota was occurring from the waterfront reclamation site (east of St Aubin's Bay). The bio-monitors used were:
• Common limpet (Patella vulgata)
• Slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata),
• Brown seaweed – serrated wrack (Fucus serratus).
All three species are common around Jersey's coast. Common limpet and serrated wrack samples are taken from five locations around the coast and slipper limpets are sampled from the same coastal locations with additional sampling at two offshore sites.
In 2010, the data was reviewed to assess the possible contamination of the adjacent marine biota from the storage of incinerator ash at the Waterfront reclamation site. The results suggest that no localised pollution from the La Collette reclamation site has occurred.
Mariculture monitoring
Natural Environment monitor Jersey's farmed shellfish harvesting industry annually in accordance with the EU legislation to assess the health of the growing beds, resulting in a production classification areas grading. All shellfish beds in 2023 received a B grading and require purification before being sold direct for human consumption to protect human health.
Shellfish water quality monitoring
The aquaculture area in Royal Bay of Grouville is monitored quarterly by the Natural Environment – Land Resource Management. The sampling is carried out under the criteria set by the Shellfish Water Directive, (which now form part of the EU Water Framework Directive), measuring levels of faecal coliforms, suspended solids and heavy metals (bi- annual only). This information provides baseline data on the water quality surrounding the shellfish beds and provides an indication of background levels of contaminants. All heavy metal results are within WFD environmental quality standards, with low level detection of faecal coliforms have also been detected.
Harmful algal blooms
Shellfish and seawater samples are collected and analysed monthly from November to April and bimonthly from May to October. Samples are analysed for three algal biotoxins. Since 2019 all results for bivalve molluscs have been reported at less than the limit of detection. The seawater sampling usually picks up 3-4 elevated results of the Alexandrium species per annum, which results in further investigation and resampling and any necessary action that may be required to protect public health.
Radioactive substances
Radioactivity in the marine environment is monitored by an annual sampling programme and analysis as part of a UK wide programme. The programme monitors the effects of radioactive discharges from the French reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague and the power station at Flamanville. It also serves to monitor any effects of the historical disposals of radioactive waste in Hurd Deep. Analyses show that the concentration of artificial radionuclides in the marine environment continue to be of negligible radiological significance. No evidence for significant releases of activity from Hurd Deep was found2.
Regulatory compliance monitoring of the discharge from the sewage treatment works
The replacement sewage treatment works was operational in 2023 and required a new discharge permit issued under the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000.
The discharge permit authorises the discharge of treated sewage effluent into controlled waters. The permit contains specific conditions and limits to ensure the quality of the effluent being discharged into the sea via the St Aubin's outfall does not cause pollution of controlled waters.
There has been historic non-compliance with the total nitrogen limit exceeding the 10 mg/l limit set in the discharge permit, which has been the subject of ongoing compliance assessment and investigations between 2009 and 2023, the outcome of which will be overseen by the Attorney General.
The new discharge permit is currently being drafted by the regulator. The total Nitrogen limit will be greater than the current 10mg/l annual average, based on the operational design specification and the no deterioration' approach stipulated under the Water Framework Directive will be applied.
A regular monitoring programme is undertaken by the Operator to measure the effluent quality discharging from the sewage treatment works to ensure compliance with the limits set in the permit. This includes the sampling and analysis of the final sewage effluent for a variety of parameters every other (working) day, prior to discharging into St Aubin's Bay via
the outfall. The Regulator also carries out regular audit samples of the new sewage treatment works effluent quality, currently on a quarterly basis.
Regulatory compliance monitoring of the La Collette waste disposal facilities
Waste activities and waste management businesses, including Government Departments responsible for the management and disposal of waste are regulated by the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005. The law aims to protect people and the environment from the potentially polluting impacts of dealing with waste.
Jersey is a signatory to the Basel Convention. The convention is an international agreement committed to improving the management of all types of waste within Jersey and when wastes are exported from the Island.
The waste management licence for the La Collette waste disposal site requires extensive heavy metal sampling of the La Collette area. Results of this monitoring show that apart from Chromium2, all other sampling shows that averages (the key measure) are well within the required Marine EQS limits.
The potential impact on water quality moving through the La Collette waste and recycling facilities is also monitored on a bi-annual basis by I&E and the results are reported back to the Regulator. This monitoring forms part of the waste management licence under the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005 and discharge permit conditions under the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000.
2 The results for chromium are problematic due to the lab having an issue during duplicate analysis which is currently being addressed.
Appendix F: List of Acronyms
AAP ASCOBANS
ASP
BIP CMU GBA GoJ
HER ILSCA IMO JMSP LiDAR LPUE MarESA MARPOL MBES MPA NID OSPAR RIB
SPG
SSI
TCA UNCLOS
Area of Archaeological Potential
Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas
Area of Special Protection
Bridging Island Plan
Coastal Management Unit
Bay of Granville Agreement
Government of Jersey
Historic Environment Record
Integrated Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment International Maritime Organisation
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan
Light Detection and Ranging
Landings per Unit Effort
Marine Evidence-based Sensitivity Assessment
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Multi Beam Echo Sounder
Marine Protected Area
Nature Inclusive Design
Oslo and Paris Conventions
Rigid Inflatable Boat
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Site of Special Interest
Trade and Cooperation Agreement
United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea
Prepared by Fiona Fyfe Associates, Countryscape and Karin Taylor
for Government of Jersey Marine Resources
Jersey Marine Spatial Plan Public Consultation Response Summary
July 2024
Marine Resources Department
Ministerial Foreword
The first Marine Spatial Plan for Jersey will be a pivotal step in the management of our marine environment. Marine Spatial Planning is not a new concept, with many other jurisdictions already having a plan, or ambitions of creating a plan, to enable coherent and equitable management of their marine resources.
Following initial calls for a Marine Park, the previous government announced in 2022 that the Government of Jersey would produce a Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP). This JMSP was required to cover all topics concerning human use and biodiversity conservation of our marine space. In particular, the JMSP was required through the Bridging Island Plan, to recommend a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
The timing of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) is key to informing the next iteration of the Island Plan. Previously, the Island Plan has only made decisions concerning the high-water mark and up. Going forward, the marine space can now be included within the Island Plan.
Initial in-person stakeholder workshops were held in March 2023 before the draft JMSP had been written. This was to allow for the JMSP to be shaped by those most connected to the sea. Following the release of the draft JMSP in October 2023, public consultation was carried out for 14 weeks to allow both local residents and also neighbouring jurisdictions to comment on the plan and raise any concerns, either online or in person.
I would like to thank all of the Islanders and our neighbours who took part in the consultation process. As you will see in this document and the JMSP, your views have helped to shape this plan into something that will guide our future relationship with the sea and benefit the island as a whole.
Overall, there was a great deal of support for the priorities and actions laid out in the plan, but there were also many adjustments or additions to consider and concerns to address. Every comment has been responded to and, in the interests of transparency, the survey responses have been published at the end of this report. I look forward to the States debate and I hope that the JMSP will be a positive step towards securing a thriving marine environment that will benefit all islanders, be they feathered, finned of footed.
Deputy Steve Luce
Minister for the Environment
Contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Hearing the views of children and young people ........................................................................... 5 Vote of no confidence ..................................................................................................................... 5 Consultation process ........................................................................................................................... 6 Summary of responses........................................................................................................................ 8 Chapters 1 to 6 (introductory chapters).......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 7 (Seascapes) ..................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 8 (Natural Environment and Biodiversity) ......................................................................... 8 Chapter 8/9 (Marine Protected Area network, proposed fishing zones)........................................ 9 Chapter 9 (Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture) ........................................................................ 13 Chapter 10 (Cultural Heritage) ...................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 11 (Recreation and Tourism) ........................................................................................... 15 Chapter 12 (Energy, Infrastructure and Transport) ....................................................................... 16 Other comments ........................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A. Public consultation comments ..................................................................................... 19 Individual responses ..................................................................................................................... 19 Organisation responses ............................................................................................................... 113 Appendix B: Submitted reports ....................................................................................................... 209
Executive summary
A public consultation on the draft of the first Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) ran from 24th October 2023 to 28th January 2024. The aim of this consultation was to gather views on the JMSP in terms of content and the priorities listed.
154 people responded in total, with 120 responding via the online portal and 35 via email. Comments were received on all topic chapters from both individuals and organisations. These responses were collated and split into various topics to inform the re-draft of the JMSP. This document summarises the key concerns and issues raised during the consultation process and details what has changed in the re-draft. The edited JMSP will be lodged for States Debate in late 2024.
The key changes resulting from the consultation process are:
- The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. See sections 8.6.8 and 9.4.3 of the JMSP and priorities NB6 and FA1.
- In addition to the above, a mobile gear Business Impact Assessment has been carried out on these boundaries. The need for this is highlighted in sections 8.6.8 and 9.4.3 (referred to as an Economic Impact Assessment) of the JMSP and action point NB5d.
- There were numerous concerns expressed by the angling community that commercial gear placed close to angling hotspots is problematic for them and this has resulted in a new action to review commercial potting and netting in these areas. See section 9.5 of the JMSP and action FA2e.
- Multiple concerns over beach and offshore reef management has resulted in an action for a beach warden and for increased awareness schemes. See section 11.5.3 of the JMSP and priority RT6.
- Following on from the above, a visitor centre has also been proposed following multiple comments about a need to improve education regarding the marine environment. See the new section 8.8 of the JMSP and priority NB7.
This report summarises the main themes identified by the public as concerns or opportunities for the JMSP and where these comments have led to a change in the text or priorities.
Introduction
A public consultation on Jerseys first Marine Spatial Plan ran for 14 weeks from 24th October 2023 to 28th January 2024. The Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) concerns all uses of the marine environment and the ecological functions that support human activities, businesses and well-being.
The aim of the consultation was to gather views on the draft Marine Spatial Plan which was written following stakeholder workshops in March 2023 (please see the JMSP for more detail on these workshops). This report describes the consultation process and summarises the responses received including key themes and issues raised by respondents. It also identifies which priorities and actions within the plan have been amended or added in response to public comments.
The responses to the consultation have helped inform the redraft of the JMSP which is due to go to States Debate in late 2024. This report has been written to accompany the final draft of the JMSP to document what has been changed and why.
Hearing the views of children and young people
The opinions of children are valued by the Government of Jersey. Efforts were made to involve them in the consultation. Jersey, as a State Party, is accountable for upholding children's rights, as stated in Article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This involves creating systems and laws to safeguard these rights. The JMSP could affect rights outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Details of how the JMSP may affect children's rights can be found in a separate Child Rights Impact Assessment.
Vote of no confidence
Towards the end of the consultation period there was vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister which led to the selection of a new Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. During the transition period, the consultation continued but promotion of the consultation was halted. Following the appointment of a new Minister for Environment, the JMSP remained a delivery priority for the Marine Resources team. Only a short delay was incurred as a result of this change in government.
Consultation process
The Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) public consultation ran from the 24th October 2023 to 28th January 2024. Islanders were asked to participate by reading the draft JMSP and filling out an online survey or by emailing comments to the MSP team. A dedicated email address (msp@gov.je) was set up to receive these emails. There were a series of public drop-in sessions held at various Parish halls to make officers and information more accessible. These were held at:
• St Helier Parish Hall (16th November)
• St Brelade Parish hall (23rd November)
• St Helier Yacht Club (30th November)
• St Martin's Parish Hall (14th December)
The drop-in sessions were well attended and provided an opportunity for Islanders to ask questions or raise concerns about the plan following a short presentation by Marine Resources Officers. There were also two further workshops, one in St Malo, France (November 2023) and one in St Peter Port, Guernsey (January 2024), to inform them of the progress made on the JMSP and to invite their feedback.
The online survey and the parish hall drop-in sessions were promoted through social media channels (Facebook and Instagram) and on the government website on a dedicated Marine Spatial Plan page. There were a number of leaflets distributed and posters/banners erected around the island with the help of parish halls and local businesses to promote the consultation. There were also general media notifications, including a press release from the Minister of the Environment.
In addition to the online survey and the drop-in sessions, there were several smaller sessions with key groups or individuals where issues had been raised. These were primarily with the fishing industry who raised concerns about the business impact of the proposed Marine Protected Area network on their livelihoods. The Jersey Fishermen's Association were consulted specifically on this issue to identify ways of reducing this impact. There were also sessions within Government and with collaborative organisations such as Ports of Jersey and Jersey Heritage to help address the comments received by the public.
The online survey did not ask for identifying information from respondents but did include an option to provide an email. This was only to allow for officers to respond to a respondent if necessary. Email addresses or any identifying information shared in the comment section have not been included in this report and will not be shared outside of the core government officers that are working on the JMSP. Please see our privacy policy for more information (Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) privacy policy (gov.je)).
All comments submitted to the Marine Spatial Plan during the public consultation can be found at the end of this report. Comments that spanned multiple topics have been split into multiple rows with the same ID number. This was done in order for comments around similar topics to be considered together and to show which comments have resulted in a change to the text and/or priorities and actions with the JMSP. Some comments addressed multiple topics but could not be separated without losing the context of the comment, in this case the overarching topic has been selected. There is an action column and a justification column for each comment. A Yes' in the action column means something has been changed in the JMSP in response to the comment, whereas No' means there has not been a change. The justification column explains why there has or hasn't been a change. Where a comment identified an individual, the text has been redacted to remove the identifying information.
There were many comments that asked for the priorities and actions to go further and be further developed but it is not possible to provide this level of detail in the JMSP as each individual action will need further consideration as to how it will be implemented. For example, there were many comments relating to the management of the offshore reefs, with suggestions of how a permit system could work or how the role of a reef warden should be specified. While the JMSP team thanks everyone who gave this level of detail in their response, it is not possible to make these decisions in the JMSP. However, these comments will prove invaluable for future work on each priority and action point when it becomes its own stream of work with the relevant authorities and organisations.
Responses have been split into two main sections:
- Individual responses
- Organisation responses
The individual responses are anonymous and are listed in order of ID number, whereas the organisation responses are listed in alphabetical order. In some cases, a report was submitted alongside an organisational response to the MSP. In this instance, the report has been split into individual topic comments and included in the table. The full report has been included in the appendix where graphs and references were included as these could not be transcribed into the table.
Summary of responses
In total, 155 responses were submitted from both individuals and organisations and these were broken down into 376 separate comments relating to various elements of the plan. Each comment was assigned to both a broad and a specific theme, e.g. comments relating to dogs on beaches were assigned to a broad category of Disturbance' and then a specific category of Dogs'. This meant that many comments relating to the same topic could then be considered together before deciding on an action. The following section highlights the key themes, topics raised and decision's made. These are set out in the same chapter order as the JMSP, with a general comments section at the end. All responses to the JMSP can be read in full in the table at the end of this report.
Chapters 1 to 6 (introductory chapters)
There were only a handful of comments relating to the introductory chapters, one of which related to terminology used to define kelp habitat, and another highlighted the need to consider cross- border cooperation and collaboration. It is general practice with marine management matters to consult France and the other Channel Islands, all of which have participated in the public consultation. However, to include suggestions or priorities related to international cooperation on specific matters such as cross-boarder marine protection was considered outside of the scope of the JMSP but could be considered for future iterations. One other comment suggested the non-statutory nature of the JMSP should be made clearer in the introductory chapters; this has now been added to each introductory chapter for clarity. A section has also been added to explain how the JMSP priorities and actions will be put into practice despite the non-statutory basis of the document.
Chapter 7 (Seascapes)
There were only two specific comments received in relation to Jersey's seascapes and both were in favour of maintaining Jersey's natural identity and views both from land and sea. There have been no major changes to this chapter, only an addition to priority SC1 to maintain the special character of the coastal landscape as viewed from the sea as well as from land.
Chapter 8 (Natural Environment and Biodiversity)
There were 55 comments on this section (excluding the MPA network comments (n=90) which are detailed below). Multiple comments were in general support of increased marine protection that were unspecific to the MPA network (n=22), relating to various species and habitats, such as birds, marine mammals and seagrass, all of which are already covered under their own priorities. Other points raised that were already covered by a priority or action were:
- Disturbance to wildlife was raised multiple times, with calls for stricter regulations regarding jet ski use and dogs on beaches. Priorities RT5 and 6 already address this.
- There were some concerns about the environmental impact of nets and ghost-fishing; this is addressed by action FA2c.
- Increased protection for seagrass, this will be addressed by NB6.
- Improved management of Ramsar sites, many of these comments are addressed by priorities RT7 (offshore reef management plans) and NB5 (MPA network) which encompass all Ramsar areas, bar a small section of the paternosters Ramsar site. Priority FA2 to review netting regulations within the proposed MPA areas will address comments relating to netting within the Ramsar sites.
- There was strong agreement that more should be done to protect and enhance seagrass beds, this is covered under priority NB6. There was also agreement that eco-friendly mooring buoys should be incentivised where possible but not made a requirement due to a concern of associated costs.
Comments that were raised that resulted in changes or additions to priorities/actions/text:
- Several comments related to litter and pollution on beaches and in the water, this also came up in the recreation chapter. As a result of these comments, an action for a beach warden was added to RT6a.
- Offshore reef residents were concerned that ASPs (Areas of Special Protection) will impact on their ability to visit their properties. Priority NB4a has been expanded to recommend residents are consulted during ASP designations.
- Terminology was brought up a few times in this chapter. There was a question regarding the definition of kelp habitat, and whether it related to kelp forest or kelp park (which depends on the density of kelp). For the most part, the subtidal data is not detailed enough to accurately define this, so the definition of kelp has been clarified to include both types of kelp habitat classification and to highlight the need for more research to refine the habitat map where kelp is concerned. The text has been amended in section 8.6.3 and Action NB5c includes gaining a greater understanding of the distribution of migratory fish species and sensitive habitats' which will include kelp.
- A comment was made about ensuring collaborative work is encouraged where marine survey work is concerned, as currently marine research is carried out by Government, NGOs, universities and through citizen science, but this is not always communicated across the groups. The new action in NB5f highlights the need for collaborative working between relevant organisations.
Some topics that could not be addressed were:
- Climate change mitigation measures; those relating to mitigation through supporting biodiversity are addressed through other priorities but comments relating to polluter pays taxes and duty on marine fuel are outside of the scope of the JMSP.
- Issues relating to upturned stones in the intertidal zone are a fisheries management issue but is difficult to address without recreation permits with conditions relating to matters such as returning stones to their original position.
- Increased monitoring and management of blue carbon habitats. This is already being addressed by policy EN5 of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap which is referenced in the text of the JMSP in section 4.4.4.
- Transboundary protections and migratory corridors for certain species. International cooperation is required to address these matters, and it is not possible to have specific priorities for transboundary protections within the JMSP.
Chapter 8/9 (Marine Protected Area network, proposed fishing zones)
A large number of comments submitted to the JMSP related to the proposed Marine Protected Area (MPA) network and the related fishing restrictions. The MPA network and the fishing zones are strongly linked as the MPA boundary is the same as fishing Zone B (seabed protection zone) which excludes mobile gear (trawling and dredging). It is for this reason that these comments have been reported on in their own section.
In this instance it is more appropriate to report on the number of individuals/organisations that were for or against the MPA network, as the break-down of responses into their individual comments resulted in multiple for or against comments from the same individual. The number of individuals/organisations in favour of the MPA network as it was recommended in the public consultation draft of the JMSP was 47, with a further 19 in favour of increasing the area. Reasons given were due to interests in sustainability, improved biodiversity and fish stocks, a love for the marine environment, and reduced conflict with other marine users.
There were 24 individuals/organisations in disagreement with the MPA network, with the majority of comments received from the fishing communities in Jersey and France, highlighting the potential business impact on their livelihoods and a need for a business impact assessment to be carried out on affected boats. Several comments provided information on where the MPA network would have the greatest impact and requested to scale it back in some areas in return for expanding it in others. Other comments related to the predicted difficulty of navigating the MPA, with suggestions of straightening out the lines. Therefore, the new MPA boundary is much more angular than the original as many of the points are based from navigational marks or reference points.
Further consultation was carried out with the local fishing community to understand which areas were of greatest importance and a revised boundary has been included in the plan (Fig 1). This new boundary consists of multiple zones:
- MPA
- Phased protection areas,
- Further survey work areas and
- Seasonal access areas.
The MPA is the area where mobile gear would be excluded at the earliest possible opportunity, whereas the phased protection areas would be designated at a later date due to the high economic importance of these areas. This phased approach is suggested to follow a timeline of five years or to close the areas to mobile gear by 2030, whichever comes first. The survey areas require more work to refine the boundary, with further towed video surveys and benthic grab samples to determine hotspots and the overall distribution of sensitive habitat. The final areas of seasonal access do not count towards the MPA area as they do not have continuous protection from mobile gears and therefore cannot be considered protected. These areas were highlighted as being important winter fishery areas inshore around Jersey. Their original inclusion in the plan was for a) their shallow depth (identifying them as productive seabed) and b) for their proximity to the coast and therefore their increased conflict with other marine users (as the majority of coastal activities occur within 1 nautical mile of the coast). As coastal marine use is minimal in the winter (compared to summer), it was agreed that winter access would not conflict with the social use of these areas, and the benthic habitats were comparatively less sensitive to mobile gears than others as they are predominantly mobile sands which is thought to be tolerant to infrequent pressure from trawling. Further, trawling typically puts less pressure on the seabed than dredging (dredges consist of chain ring bags with metal teeth at the front, whereas trawls have rollers and a net/rope bag which drags over the surface of the seabed).
The No Take Zone (NTZs) recommendation at Les Sauvages (southeast of the Minquiers), while unpopular with some respondents, was on the whole supported (five against, four in support and six in favour of larger NTZs). No scientific evidence was submitted to the contrary of a No Take Zone at Les Sauvages and so the recommendation has remained the same. There were two comments suggesting that Catch and Release fisheries should be allowed in the NTZs but this is considered to be incompatible with the objectives of NTZs and also complicates the enforcement of NTZs.
Figure 1) Original and revised MPA boundary superimposed to show the changes resulting from public consultation. |
The original MPA network boundary resulted in 27% of Jersey territorial waters protected from mobile gear, which would bring Jersey close to the IUCN recommendation of 30% protection by 2030. The new revised MPA boundary equates to 21.27 % of Jersey waters, with the phased areas adding an extra 1.06 % and the cable exclusion area an extra 0.91%. The NTZ at les Sauvages is 0.06 %. Combined, these zones equate to 23.3 % proposed as MPA area that is protected from mobile gear. The survey areas, if protected in their entirety, would add another 3.66 % and bring the total to 26.96%. The seasonal access areas (3.81%) are not considered to contribute to the MPA area but are shown on this chart to show the progress made during the consultation with the fishing industry. The seasonal access zones are shown in the fishing chapter but not the biodiversity chapter as they no longer form part of the MPA network proposal. The proposed MPA area in Chapter 8 (Natural Environment and Biodiversity) corresponds to Fishing Zone B in Chapter 9 (Fishing and Aquaculture) but with one discrepancy.
There was concern that anchoring in the current Portelet No Take Zone is negatively impacting the seabed in the bay and that there should be more thought given to this. There is now a recommendation to review anchoring impacts in Portelet under Action NB1a.
Other comments relating to the proposed MPA network were:
- There were a number of concerns around data quality, particularly in relation to the habitat map and the fishing activity maps. There are many datasets, reports and spatial layers (over 170) that have fed into the JMSP, some of which have been collected for many years or decades, others are standalone studies or reports carried out in collaboration with universities or by Government, many of which have been through a peer review process. The datasets used for the JMSP are deemed to be of an appropriate standard for a marine spatial planning process. All spatial layers will be available at the end of the JMSP process and can be investigated on an online platform.
- There were a number of responses from divers about the perceived benefit of MPA areas on scallop stocks.
- There were questions over how the MPA will be financed, both in terms of monitoring and management but also in terms of helping the fishing fleet transition to more sustainable fishing methods. Financing of monitoring is not determined at this stage but NB5d highlights a need to support the fleet.
There were multiple comments relating to the business impact of the proposed MPA network from both the local and French mobile fishing fleets. The proposed MPA boundary has been adjusted to reduce the impact on both the Jersey and French fishing fleets where possible and a business impact study will be carried out on all affected boats before the final version of the MSP is lodged for States Debate. A new action (NB5d) has been added to highlight the need to investigate alternative income streams or compensatory measures to help the fleet diversify away from mobile fishing.
There were a number of comments suggesting that the proposed MPA network was in breach of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2021). This is not the case as the suggested MPA network excludes mobile gear activities of all vessels, irrespective of nationality and also is in line with Article 494 parts a) applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management; b) promoting the long- term sustainability (environmental, social and economic) and optimum utilisation of shared stocks; and e) taking due account of and minimising harmful impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem and taking due account of the need to preserve marine biological diversity. Part e of Article 494 in particular commits parties to ensuring fishing impacts are minimised on the marine environment and the wealth of evidence in relation to the negative impact of mobile fishing gears on seabed biodiversity cannot be discounted. However, the MPA boundary has been amended in some places to take economic concerns from both Jersey and French vessels into account (see section 8.7.3 in Chapter 8 and section 9.4.3 in Chapter 9).
Chapter 9 (Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture)
There were 52 comments on this section (excluding the MPA network comments which are detailed above). This chapter primarily received comments from the fishing industry, both from Jersey and France. The key concerns related to the MPA network which are detailed above. However, there were several other comments made separate to this concerning the future of the fishing fleet.
Points raised that were already covered by a priority were:
- Improved infrastructure and facilities to support sustainable fishing and to improve product value, such as ice machines and chiller units were suggested. Priority FA5b was deemed to address the need to support sustainable fishing through the provision of onshore facilities.
- Interest in promoting new aquaculture and phytoculture was highlighted a few times, which was already covered under FA3 and FA4.
- Ghost fishing (lost fishing gear that continues to fish) and pollution from lost fishing equipment was raised several times and is covered by FA2.
Comments that were raised that resulted in changes or additions to priorities/actions/text:
- Some comments related to concerns over the future of static fishing based on priority FA2 to promote safe and responsible use of potting and netting. The recommendation originally was created in response to workshop discussions about wildlife and human safety in relation to nets (concerns of entrapment for recreational swimmers and for diving birds), and therefore should not have had any measurable impact on static fishers other than potentially clearer marking of equipment for swimmers and, where birds are concerned, not setting nets in daylight hours (this is already practiced by most static net fishers). However, this topic received more attention during the public consultation with many respondents unhappy about the close proximity of nets and pots close to shore, particularly where they are in conflict with popular angling spots and so a new action has now been added which takes into account the concerns of the recreational angling community (FA2e).
- A need to support or compensate the fishing industry (both fishers and merchants) to mitigate any losses experienced as a result of an MPA network excluding mobile gear and to facilitate the move to more sustainable fishing methods. There was always a plan to carry out a business impact assessment on affected vessels following the decision on the final MPA boundary proposal, this has been made clearer in the text. And priority NB5d has been added in chapter 8 to highlight the need for industry support following any MPA designations to support this transition.
- A lack of understanding about where harbour limits are and therefore where illegal potting and netting may be occurring. This comment was made both in terms of an individual wanting to know where to fish and by several others in relation to knowing if someone is fishing illegally. A new action (FA2f) has been added to address this which highlights the need for increased signage in harbours.
- Several comments highlighted concerns with the terminology around the Fishing Zones which were previously, Fishing Zone A Lightly Regulated Fishing Area, Fishing Zone B Seabed Protection Area and Fishing Zone C No Take Zone. Lightly regulated was deemed to sound as though there was minimal regulation of fishing in this area, when it is actually just business
as usual which involves multiple layers of fisheries regulations and various fishing zones. Zone A has been changed to Regulated Fishing Zone to clear up any confusion.
Some topics that could not be addressed were:
- Addressing supply chains and food security; comments were raised about the quantity of imported fish and the amount that is also exported, making it hard to find locally caught fish in supermarkets.
- Fisheries specific initiatives, such as v-notching lobsters and extending the bass closed season, which will be addressed through fisheries management.
- Comments relating to the time frame of the JMSP being too short were initially addressed through extending the consultation period to 14 weeks (longer than the Island Plan public consultation). This allowed both Jersey and French fishing industries more time to submit responses and to highlight areas of the plan that concerned them the most. These comments have been taken on board and the JMSP amended where possible. In terms of the overall timeline for the JMSP, it is not considered too short a time frame for the work required and it is vital to have the JMSP ready in time to inform the next Island Plan.
- Multiple respondents were of the opinion that mobile fishing (dredging and trawling on the seabed) did not have a negative impact on the biodiversity or that it enhanced the health of the seabed. These claims are at odds with current accepted scientific knowledge, as represented in both local and international literature, that report on the damage caused by using mobile gears on sensitive habitats. While there are some habitats that can tolerate mobile fishing, such as mobile and coarse sands, the areas within the recommended MPA network are primarily recognised sensitive habitats such as maerl, seagrass, kelp, sandmason worm habitat and species rich sediments. Therefore, these comments have not been accepted in the adjustment of the MPA boundaries.
- An additional Fishing Zone D was suggested for sustainable and innovative aquaculture and phytoculture, but new aquaculture/phytoculture ventures will need to be considered on a case by case basis, with the location changing depending on the species and so cannot be defined on a map.
Chapter 10 (Cultural Heritage)
Cultural heritage received the small number of responses (n=7), with the majority coming from Jersey Heritage, who have been a key stakeholder throughout the writing of this chapter, the National Trust and the Societe Jersiaise. All comments were in support for maintaining Jersey's marine cultural heritage and a small number of amendments were made:
- There was a comment relating to a site of archaeological interest in the intertidal areas of the Dirouilles reef system (west of the Ecrehous). Photographic evidence was submitted so the suggested area has been included in figure 10c. The current priority CH4 already covers all intertidal areas of archaeological potential.
- Specific conventions relating to cultural heritage were mentioned in responses and these have been added to the text in section 10.1.3.
- There were also comments relating to military sites that were not covered in this chapter so these have now been added in section 10.3.1.
- A suggested amendment to priority CH5 to survey submerged landscapes has been updated to recommend that it should follow the MBES methods which are internationally recognised standards.
There were several indirect comments relating to cultural identity, primarily regarding Jersey historical fishing culture and the need to support the fishing industry to preserve this part of Jersey's identity. This is primarily covered by priority FA5 in the fishing chapter to support sustainable fishing. Additional text has been added to sections 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 to highlight the importance of fishing in Jersey's cultural history, and the need to provide support through the Marine Economic Development Framework to continue this into the future, with an emphasis on sustainable practices.
Chapter 11 (Recreation and Tourism)
Comments submitted relating to Recreation and Tourism were generally in favour of the priorities in this chapter but many felt they did not go far enough, which has resulted in some new priorities being added. Some suggestions were outside of the scope of the JMSP, these are detailed below.
One sector in particular, the recreational angling community, felt under-represented in the plan. While there was already mention of this sector and referenced maps of the distribution of angling around the coast, it did not highlight the importance of angling in Jersey's recreational and cultural identity. Extra text has now been added to highlight the importance and size of this community. There were also comments made about the lack of information available on recreational fishing, in terms of where anglers are fishing, when and what species are being caught. All forms of recreational fishing, except for scallop diving, are unpermitted and therefore numbers of recreational fishers are unknown, the same goes for general recreational users of the marine environment (swimmers, jet skis etc). A new action has been added in RT2d to recommend targeted studies are carried out to determine the frequency and location of recreational activities.
Points raised that were already covered by a priority were:
- Lockers/storage for watersports equipment was asked for by multiple respondents, this is already covered under actions CH2b and RT3c.
- Dog restrictions on beaches, either to reduce conflict with other users of the beaches or to reduce disturbance to wildlife, were raised multiple times but are already covered under RT5a.
- Comments relating to sea lettuce build up in St. Aubin's are already covered under current management.
- Concerns about over-use and increasing numbers of visitors to the offshore reefs are already covered under priority RT7 to create a management plan for the offshore reefs.
Comments that were raised that resulted in changes or additions to priorities/actions/text:
- Concerns were raised about access to slipways and this has been addressed with a new priority in RT4b to review parking on slipways to ensure access for all legitimate user groups. Further to this, there were comments about access in general and that the current priorities were insufficient and so extra priorities have been added in RT3d and RT3e to recommend improved coastal facilities and to increase slipway maintenance, especially in high recreational use areas such as St. Catherines.
- As mentioned earlier in Chapter 8, there were several comments related to litter and pollution on beaches and in the water. As a result of these comments, a priority for a beach warden was added to RT6a.
- There were further comments relating to the conduct of powered craft such as jetskis, and safety of other marine users, such as swimmers, in the same area. This was already partially covered under RT1 and RT2 but due to the strong concerns raised about safety, a further priority to permit jet skis and ribs has been suggested in RT1b.
- Management of recreational fishing came up several times and in particular there was a comment suggesting a code of conduct for best practice. There was already a priority to create a Seaside Code' for marine users to encourage respectful use of the marine space. This has been expanded to include recreational and low water fishing.
There were multiple comments suggesting that improved education around the marine environment would aid in better public stewardship/marine citizenship. While education is not a spatial matter, recommendations for a marine hub that would provide the space for a combination of marine research and education have been included in priority IT9.
Some topics that could not be addressed were:
- Multiple comments relating to funding for watersports could not be addressed within the scope of JMSP.
- Support for cafes and hotels on seafronts to encourage tourism is outside of the scope of the JMSP, but maintaining access to beaches and maintaining them in a good state (potentially through a beach warden scheme, but also through continued monitoring of water quality) will ultimately benefit tourism.
- There were some respondents that were concerned they would lose access to the marine environment, particularly for recreational low water fishing. There are no recommendations within the plan to restrict low water fishing. This is only prohibited in Portelet Bay No Take Zone which is already established. The Sauvages NTZ recommendation is offshore and will not affect low water fishing. However, with an increasing population and increasing interest in low water fishing, some conservation measures are needed to ensure future generations of local fishers can benefit from the same fishing spots as today. Currently this is managed through bag limits (the number of each species that can be retained) per day of recreational fishing.
- Comments on an increased closed season for seabass also came up in relation to recreational fishing, in addition to increased size limits for seabass. There was also a suggestion that wrasse should be a catch and release only fishery due to the slow growth and long-life spans of these species. There was one further comment asking for bluefin tuna be opened up to recreational catch and release fishing. These are all outside of the scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management.
Chapter 12 (Energy, Infrastructure and Transport)
This chapter received multiple comments relating to the windfarm that were outside of the scope of the JMSP. A separate windfarm scoping consultation ran at the same time as the Marine Spatial Plan consultation. The windfarm consultation was a very high level in principle consultation to determine if there was public appetite for a windfarm in Jersey (proposition P82-2023). It was not possible to share windfarm responses submitted to the JMSP with the windfarm consultation team as there was a risk of double counting responses from those that had responded to both consultations. The proposition P82-2023 has now been approved but there are still many steps to go through and at this stage no details about the windfarm have been decided. Following the debate on the JMSP, all of the responses will be shared with the windfarm team to inform their ongoing investigation.
The comments have still been considered as part of the JMSP consultation process. Several of the comments were detailed and related to a number of concerns and suggestions including, but not limited to, the size, position, connectivity to shore, impacts on wildlife and access for fishing. The Marine Spatial Plan only highlights the priority of investigating renewable energies and has identified an area of seabed that would be most suitable for offshore wind. The JMSP cannot address the
concerns and suggestions raised by the public but the priority relating to the windfarm (IT4) has been simplified to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced".
Outside of the windfarm, there were 10 comments on this chapter, with most providing support for various priorities. There was support for the maritime hub in priority IT9, continued water quality monitoring, protection of the cable routes in IT1b and the recommendations to investigate renewable energy (IT3 and IT4).
Some of the priorities have been changed in order to help with the flow of this chapter but their content remains the same (IT3 relating to FEPA has moved to IT5 and IT4 and 5 have been moved up to IT3 and 4. There were only a small number of actionable changes in this chapter:
- Amendment to priority IT1b regarding protection of the Jersey-Guernsey power and telecommunications cable from mobile fishing gear. This has had significant push back from the fishing community for various reasons, but a sticking point being that it is not protected in Guernsey waters. The new recommendation is that vulnerable sections of the cable should be protected rather than the full length of the cable, but dialogue is needed with Guernsey to discuss future management of this cable.
- Priority IT1e for cable maintenance has been amended slightly to ensure that best environmental practice is used.
- One new priority in IT1f is related to ensuring that provision will be made for new cables that connect renewable energy installations to the land and that these must be subject to environmental safeguards.
- Priority IT3 (previously IT4) has been simplified but carries the same meaning with regards to offshore renewable energy development.
- Priority IT4 (previously IT5) to investigate tidal power has been expanded to ensure this is carried out subject to appropriate Environmental Impact Assessments.
- Priority IT7 regarding the retention of safe boat passages has been expanded to make it clear that this includes boat passages to and from neighbouring jurisdictions.
Some topics that could not be addressed were:
- Public dissemination of information regarding water quality – this is outside of the scope of the JMSP but will be picked up within departmental workstreams as making data more visible is a current aim within Natural Environment.
- Concerns around the impact of FEPA deposition grounds, should more be designated, have not been given a priority as these would already be subject to planning permission and Environmental Impact Assessments.
Other comments
There were several comments relating to climate change, with the general consensus that the plan does not address climate change enough. Some comments related to a duty on marine fuel or incentives for greener marine travel (i.e. sail power), other related to a lack of future proofing for both biodiversity and fisheries in terms of changing species distributions. These were all deemed to be outside of the scope the JMSP but a recommendations have been made where appropriate to allow for adaptive change/management and to review the JMSP periodically in light of new evidence to mitigate against climate change.
Many comments were made about the need for cooperative and collaborative working with neighbouring jurisdictions to ensure management is coordinated across boundaries and to ensure good relations with the French fishing industry that have access rights to Jersey waters. There were also comments from French stakeholders that expressed their dissatisfaction with not being included in the initial workshops in March 2023. These workshops were an initial scoping exercise with the local Jersey community before the any of the draft plan was written. French stakeholders were invited to comment at a later stage during the public consultation phase, in addition to meetings with a number of French counterparts (government equivalents) at this stage which is deemed the appropriate way to engage with neighbouring jurisdictions. A similar approach was taken with Guernsey and also follows a similar process to Jersey's involvement in Frances most recent JMSP.
Other comments related to the need to have joined up MPAs and management across boundaries to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species. This isn't something that can be addressed by the JMSP as it can only set out spatial plans to be implemented in Jersey waters (it has no weighting in other jurisdictions). However, text has been added to ensure continued dialogue with neighbouring jurisdictions to work towards collaborative management of our shared fishing areas.
Some wording has been changed in the redraft to improve clarity. Comments relating to the priorities asking for the terminology to be changed from should to will could not be actioned as this document is not statutory and therefore advisory wording has to be used.
Appendix A. Public consultation comments
All comments submitted during the JMSP consultation are included in the following two tables.
Individual responses
Individual responses are listed in order of ID number.
Case ID | Topic | Comment | Action | Justification |
JMSP- 557875982 | Renewable energy | I do not want to see our sea scape environment ruined by wind turbines and an industrial landscape as has been accomplished in Eastern England | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 557933909 | Seabed protection | Protecting and enhancing the seabed ecosystems seems an important goal from the viewpoint to biodiversity, fishing, leisure, and blue carbon. Replacing damaging mooring chains seems an easy win. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 557933909 | Water quality | Let's please not forget to thoroughly clean the fresh water entering our sea from the island - land runoff free from fertiliser and pesticide residue, waste water free from residues of medicines and contraceptives , cleaning and toiletry products, and no plastic or microplastic pollution from homes and rainwater drains. | No | This will be addressed by priority IT2 |
JMSP- 558391804 | Disturbance | RT5;- As a person who is frightened of dogs, a regular swimmer and as a grandparent of small children I would like to see the exercise of dogs on the beaches better regulated. For instance having "family" beaches dog-free all year round (e.g. Green Island, Long Beach). Also people who are in the business of dog-walking more than one dog at a time should have those dogs on a lead at all times and muzzled. I have had my towels and clothes and my grandchildren's sand-castles urinated on by dogs that are clearly not under the direct control of the owner/walker. I feel threatened and am frightened by large dogs. This seems to have become much worse recently as dog- ownership has increased since Covid. There is also an increased risk in pollution from urination and faeces; across France, dogs are completely banned from tourist beaches in the summer. | No | This will be addressed by action RT5a. |
JMSP- 558452481 | Renewable energy | Page 208. Renewable energy: wind power. State ownership of wind power generation would allow greater security for the Island and enable the islanders to benefit from excess production in terms of further reduced bills or ongoing public funding. Private ownership of this key infrastructure is better than it not being completed but would still seem like a major missed opportunity. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 559078798 | Access | There is much made about improving access to the marine environment for islanders, I feel you have not really grasped the issue. Many people are in competition for the same resource, notably the slipways and car parks surrounding them, most activities require some equipment, and your plan says consideration must be given to building storage and reducing the equipment stored on beaches. This is all well and good, but we know that clubs and associations have scant funds to build new facilities, even if planning would give consideration. I feel realistic solutions to congestion should be sought. Improving facilities for swimmers at St Catherines, whilst simultaniously banning parking on the slipway would go a long way to easing tensions between swimmers, commercial operations, commerical fishermen, and the sailing club. Maybe a sesnible way forward would be to refurbish the Turbot farm into lockers for swimmers to use, rather than seeking a new tennant, who will undoubtedly add to the burden on the site, rather than reduce it? On the subject of access again, the car park in Greve de Lecq has been closed for some time. Seemingly a perfect opportunity for a visitor centre with parking to be built, with facilities to improve acsess, storage for the dive club, and the commerical coasteering operations could be fitted and the rest of the site made a multipurpose space for other recreational activities, and yet no such plans exist, other than a vauge notion that the government may buy the site. On another note, many of the acsess points are not maintained properly, at a low water < 3m the end of St Cats slipway is uncovered, and the small boat launching ladder is in a dangerous state for swimmers and boat users, thought was given to replacing it, but this did not happen. The gold standard would have been to add steps for swimmers at the same time. In short the actions are about encouraging and supporting, rather than buidling and maintaining. | Yes | The lockers idea is already addressed by actions CH2b and RT3c. A new action (RT4b) has been added regarding parking on slipways. A new section (8.8) has also been added with a priority (NB7) for a visitor and education centre. |
JMSP- 559449584 | MSP | This is all wrong,it's our heritage for us to use our coast as we like .This is all getting out of had | No | General comment of discontent with marine management. Everyone wishes to use the coast in a different way and it is therefore necessary to manage this to ensure there is a balance between different users. |
JMSP- 559582697 | MSP | This is a brilliant initiative - Rest of the UK should take your inspirational lead- congratulations Jersey for prosing this | No | General comments of support. |
JMSP- 559592332 | Imports | to my dismay it is a challenge to find local non farmed fish for retail. Farmed fish has been proven to have very unhealthy toxicity which leads to health issues. It is vital that Islanders have healthy food thereby reducing amount of health issues which drain our health service plus people want to be in good health. I would like to see the Government of Jersey prioritising Islanders by supporting our local fisher people in giving them priority above any other country to ethically fish whilst reducing the amount/& species that France is currently permitted. In additio n to this; provision for an Island fish processing centre whereby Jersey could profit from excess catch which isnt sold. Or in theory if EC laws dont permit, fishing for a calculated island supply whilst preserving future fish stocks. Jersey has the potential to be self reliant in term of healthy less toxic or non toxic food. It would make sense to benefit our Islanders first & foremost whilst reducing over reliance on overseas imports which thereby makes for better food security & reducing environment damage through transportant & extra packing. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - this falls under current fisheries mangement |
JMSP- 560643081 | MSP | The link doesn't work so all of it. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut driven by people who don't have the interests of the Island at heart, who are not prepared to answer questions in public, who will use Jersey and move on once their political points are scored. | No | Sincere apologies for issues experienced with accessing the JMSP. The JSMP has sought information and advice from many different sectors and has been shaped by people who live and work in Jersey. It is designed to balance the needs of the variety of users in the marine environment. |
JMSP- 560787609 | Fisheries Management | Ramsar site - a very popular angling area shore and boat. Is there plans for restrictions? Is catch and release considered for any restrictions? Fisheries - shallow water netting, dropping nets low water area and leaving for a tide to trap all fish out west, splashing and banging boats in less than 4ft water in the south east. Frustrating for an angler particularly on low water treks and wading out west, south and south east of the island where you have to walk a long way. How will this project impact Fisheries abilities to monitor this ? Is there more resource in place, technology can't resolve this one and it's the main area of concern in fishing. They were on a good path, improving bass stocks through size limits, net mesh changes but now seem nowhere to be seen. I am still waiting to see improved quotas and size limits on gilthead bream/white bream/ thin lipped mullet which have been taken in mass in nets and impacted future stocks over the last few yrs. if they can't manage these things now, with likely more desk time to come, how will these areas be improved? Fish swim after all and my guess is this MSP has impacted their time to manage the fishery properly as they were in agreement that measures need to come in. But it's already too late as these species have thinned out in numbers. Would like to see a good plan for fisheries to manage the fishery back to standards of a couple of yrs ago when they had good momentum. | No | These points will largely be addressed by priority FA2. Ramsar site catch and release has not been considered at this stage. |
JMSP- 560787609 | Harbours | Comments towards Ports of Jersey - not very nice comments in my opinion or deserved. The heritage at the harbour is being lost and rebuilt and the community is pulling together. No further restrictions please. It's managed well and they do act. Speed limits make a difference as do guidance signs in place. Users of the harbour understand and the community pulls together and respects other users. Leave it alone MSP, the island needs more solutions around storage, parking etcin my opinion. The balance of users and safety is very good and these type of comments do not reflect well on the MSP attitude towards islanders. | No | Chapters involving the Ports of Jersey were written in close consultation with Ports and there was no intentional ill meaning towards the Ports of Jersey. |
JMSP- 560787609 | Access | Coastal access - this isn't that great for proper coastal users that are heading down the rocks and cliffs yr round. The road tracks are poor, not maintained or improved, parishes don't look after them. Ronez and back of reclamation reefs (dogs nest) remain out of bounds to anglers. Ronez is some of the deepest waters on island which offers different species of fish. Dogsnest reef offers good bass, wrasse, mullet and conger fishing but has been out of bounds short term for about ten yrs! Will we get access to these venues soon? How will coastal access be improved to these venues, because I'm just seeing words without substance? What are the actions here? And over the yrs no one ever answers these questions or even cover them properly, so are all comments even read, considered, analysed? Does this project understand the coastal access shortfalls now? I'm not sure it does. | No | This will be addressed by under action RT3a that states the need to maintain and improve access where necessary. |
JMSP- 560787609 | Seabed protection | No take zones - portelet an area that offers shelter, with pre closure having many anglers on either side of the bay on rocks down the cliffs. Was a nice safe venue in conger competitions (where fish are now all released) Can a no take zone and any in future please keep catch and release fishing available. Anglers have been doing good things for a long time and you are penalising us. Understand that we care because it feels like you | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. Catch and release will not be considered in |
|
| don't get that. We are ahead of the game for many yrs and have been an example in uk parliament. It's a joke adding restrictions when we have been doing a great job for a long time and a poor reflection on your thoughts towards the island community. The waters are protected and unprotected by the weather conditions, swells, massive tidal range. Is this taken into account? Seaweed gets ripped off every autumn winter, sand banks shift, fish and wildlife impacted etc Feels like a text book job. 30% for 100% and anything else is a bonus that will make us look better on paper. The marine environment is likely already protected for more than 30% of the time, particularly taking into account many areas are not utilised. |
| No Take Zones as it is not possible to enforce. Catch and release is also a highly stressful event for the fish that are caught and is therefore not conducive to an area that is a sanctuary for marine life. |
JMSP- 560787609 | Fishing restrictions | Local knowledge - just adding this in. Fishing fleet is depleted, those left understand. Let them harvest scallops, it's like turning the soil in farming and it helps our economy and helps produce new scallops. it is sustainable. Just don't let it happen in new areas. I'm currently exploring bait sales for scallop frill to reduce waste too and in turn reduce use of imported baits. I'm also 7yrs into running catch and release bass fishing competitions and my format is utilised overseas. I'm also just one person and have had other islanders support. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 560787609 | MSP | The MSP document is very long. Can you produce better summarised documents and updates? the attitude and undermining towards knowledgable islanders/industries is not good. More dictators to impact on heritage is not what we need. MSP has some good intentions but I hope feedback is taken seriously as the island has been doing good things for many yrs and it feels like a telling off at times and an over the top forceful attitude from people not understanding islanders values, heritage and practices. | No | The JSMP has sought information and advice from many different sectors and has been shaped by people who live and work in Jersey. It is designed to balance the needs of the variety of users in the marine environment. |
JMSP- 561260201 | Renewable energy | Please build a windfarm. The majority of islanders do not care about the fact they might be an eye sore, 12 miles out they'll look like toothpicks anyway. We need to be a self sufficient island. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 561496290 | Seabed protection | I feel we need to protect the environment, particularly the marine environment. I do not agree with the talked of Wind Farm, why not look at tidal energy? I also think this is too complicated with action points etc etc. I'm a pensioner, I don't have documents to upload, just my opinion. | No | This will be addressed by priority IT5. |
JMSP- 561533274 | Brexit | I don't understand when we had the opportunity to protect our waters after Brexit and only allow local boats within 6 miles, we did not take this opportunity. We need to protect our seas and our fisherman equally. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
JMSP- 562567770 | Conservation | I support the marine spatial plan in its aim to protect and nurture the marine life in our surrounding seas to encourage a healthy diversity and try to redress the balance of damage done over the last few decades. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 562590364 | Seabed protection | I would agree to more coastal areas to be a non fishing ie At Portlet bay , Bouley bay & the hand dived scallops . A total ban on mobile fishing gear . | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 562629729 | MSP | How much will Blue Marine be paid by Government of Jersey as this is Blue Marines main objective? | No | The JMSP has had input from many different sectors, none of which have been paid to do so. |
JMSP- 562649831 | Conservation | Those who cry that we "must protect our fisherman" need a lesson in ecology. Fishermen aren't going to save the planet, nor can any method they use to kill marine life save the planet. I understand it might be a sad ending for those in the industry, but in changing times it's about time we changed. There is a long line of industries which have faced out and been replaced by novel ideas, and fishing (amongst others) is one of them. There is no such thing as sustainable fishing, like there's no such thing as sustainable deforestation. Every part of our water should become marine protected zones for wildlife and plantlife. Like the deteriorating business of dairy farming, fishermen should be supported to change the industry to adapt | No | This will primarily be addressed through Marine Economic Framework work and through a business Impact Assessment that will accompany the final JMSP. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| to newer interests, namely the plant-based revolution which (ignoring heavily processed foods, which are also accompanied in animal products) is better for human health and ecology. It's also morally better. And so with any public consultations in regard to betterment of the planet/ocean (in turn, the betterment of biodiversity and humans) the consultation is a moral one. Fishermen should be supported to slowly(ish) but surely transform their work where once they took things from the ocean and one day, instead, they give back to it. The government should continue to be courageous and ignore the cries of ignorant and furious Facebook scrolled, and they should put in place evidence-based change. It's already making progress with transport infrastructure, despite those who cry for speeds to he unrestricted, and for roads and paths in town to be vehicle-dominated. The government should multiply this ethos into other areas, such as agriculture and biodiversity. |
|
|
JMSP- 562663109 | Seabed protection | Your plan is to implement a protective zone around the island, but all are inshore coastal. Majority of the fish species that thrive in our waters are migratory species. What use is protecting the inshore waters if the species that would thrive there would never get there in the first place. There are little to no protective sea beds offshore to allow a safe route for migrating species to reach out shores. | Yes | The MPA boundaries that have been recommended are primarily to protect sensitive and/or biodiverse habitat that, if maintained in a good state, will be beneficial to many species, including migratory species. Migratory routes of marine species are not well understood and we currently are unable to suggest locations for protection corridors. An action has been added (NB5c) to highlight the need to better understand migratory patterns of fish. |
JMSP- 562681429 | Conservation | I opened this plan with some trepidation after watching the recent campaigns by Blue Marine and the Societe Jersiaise to push for the most extreme restrictions in some of the islands bays. Instead I am pleasantly surprised to find the report is balanced and supported by substantive evidence in all aspects. Thank you for presenting these factual recommendations with clear data backing the proposals. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 562969701 | Conservation | If this is really for true protection of our marine environment than I support it wholeheartedly I hope it goes far enough! Also that you have involved the people that need to be involved! | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 563019619 | Commercial fishing | you must stop focial point netting of the gutters. the marine gutters act as high way for fish to come into out of bays or areas.. Netting across these gutter is done by commercial fisherman until they catch drops to 0.... these gutters should not be used as focal point fishing which the commercials know that is where the fish travel through.. one year in st Ouens commercials netted focial point for 2 weeks straight. All the birds left and no one caught a fish from beach, SUP, Sit on Top or boat for 4 months..Please stop the commercials from focal point netting of the gutters | Yes | An additional sentence has been added in 9.5.2. and priority FA2 already covers this as the 'gutters' are in Marine Protected Areas. |
JMSP- 563142399 | Conservation | Stop large boats dredging up our sea bed and destroying the habitat. Had diving is better for scallops! Do not penalize small recreational fishing boats, people or our fishing fleet unless the are dredging as the dead bicatch will Be dumped! AIS engines and policing | No | This will be addressed by priorities NB4 and FA5 to promote more sustainable fishing methods. |
JMSP- 563594217 | Conservation | I think this is a great initiative and Jersey should be doing everything they can to promote sustainable practices, in particular, sustainable fishing. Being an island, with definitive boundaries for our waters, we should be doing as much as possible to protect it. I would also like to see greater protection on land which would directly effect our waters and marine life. For example, more secure bins in coastal areas (during summer there are some areas with overflowing bins which leads to rubbish making its way onto beaches and into the water) and greater measures taken in harbours and ports to collect rubbish (using devices like the "Seabin" in harbours around St Helier). Although it doesn't strictly fall into the Spatial Plan, I think Jersey needs to consider factors like banning sun creams that contain harmful chemicals to marine life. This has been done in many areas of the world already where marine life is profoundly suffering. Jersey could add themselves to this list of nations and along with the Marine Spatial Plan we could put ourselves on the map as a sustainable island making big environment changes. | No | General comment of support. The JMSP does not go into specific methods of reducing rubbish in marine areas but the Seaside code and beach warden recommended in action RT6a is designed to improve awareness and respect for the marine environment. Suncream pollution is outside of scope of the JMSP and is to be guided by the UK. |
JMSP- 563908323 | Conservation | Protection of the marine life is a great way to proceed , e.g. fences to protect the puffins. This and other schemes could put Jersey in a good position environmentally globally. Sustainable fishing. Educating the public. Sone sort of bin to collecting floating rubbish in, say, town harbours. | No | General comment of support and mostly addressed by various priorities and actions in the JMSP. The JMSP does not go into specific methods of reducing rubbish in marine areas but the Seaside code and beach warden recommended in action RT6a is designed to improve awareness and respect for the marine environment. |
JMSP- 563997417 | Seabed protection | Pleased to see that the consideration of new NTZs at Anne Port and Archirondel takes into account both the species present and the impact of existing fishing activities rather than succumbing to social media pressure. When future NTZs are proposed I think Catch and Release should also be considered as a potential alternative to a full NTZ | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. Catch and release will not be considered in No Take Zones as it is not possible to enforce. Catch and release is also a highly stressful event for the fish that are caught and is therefore not conducive to an area that is a sanctuary for marine life. |
JMSP- 564000982 | Fisheries Management | Its not mentioned as a policy in the plan but think it would be great to see the v-notch program for lobsters and berried hens extended to Jersey to help protect and increase the lobster population | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 564005111 | Seabed protection | Large pleasure cruisers dropping anchor at portelet must surely be causing damage to the seabed in the NTZ? Should anchoring here be restricted or seabed friendly moorings introduced to help the situation? | Yes | Action NB1a has been amended to include reference to monitoring the effects of anchors, and to make recommendations to reduce damage if necessary. Further, the priority RT2 to review multi-use bays and consider the segregation of water activities could be used as a vehicle to affect a change in the way boats visit this bay. |
JMSP- 564504373 | Seabed protection | I think it needs to be ambitious. Now is the time to hit the 30 by 2030 framework. An incredible amount of work has clearly gone into the MSP and I think it should cover a minimum of 30% of the waters. Also I think the NTZ proposal of 0.08% is embarrassing and should be far greater. Although the fishing community will be impacted this is only in the short term, as the long term benefits will be great to them, it will also provide huge benefits to tourism, biodiversity, well being etc. I think we should be aiming at 5% for NTZ (p.138-139). | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 564504373 | Beach management | I think there should be much more regulation on jet skis and they should not be permitted in many of our coastal areas especially ones that are popular for swimmers and children. They are enjoyed by a few but have a serious risk to many, plus the environmental damage. I am also in favour of more protection of measures that reduce the use of motorised vehicles in our waters, such as polluter pays taxes, with the taxes fed back to the CNR or the MSP. This is particularly for recreational ones that have increased in use recently and have a negative effect on biodiversity. | No | Jet skis fall under actions RT1a and RT2b which both aim to improve safety for water users. Investigating a polluter pays tax is outside of the scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 564504373 | Conservation | Finally, I think we should be doing more to protect and grow our seagrass meadows. Thank you for doing this and good luck. Tom. | No | Protection of seagrass meadows falls under priority NB6. |
JMSP- 564793605 | Seabed protection | I fully support the MPA proposal of 27% and target of 30%. Destructive fishing practices need to be prevented these areas | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 565083160 | Conservation | Keeping the natural environment safe and combatting climate change | No | There are multiple priorities relating to the protection of the marine environment, namely priorities NB1 to NB6. |
JMSP- 565287923 | Conservation | Very supportive of the initiative | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 566862189 | Conservation | With oceans warming and biodiversity shrinking we need to protect our waters | No | There are multiple priorities relating to the protection of the marine environment, namely priorities NB1 to NB6. |
JMSP- 567209427 | Seabed protection | Following the experience of the negotiations of the granville bay treaty I'm afraid the MSP becomes an option to stop the french fishermen fishing in those shared fishing waters. For example the NTZ (chapter 6, page 24, 26) is not identified in position. | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 567492977 | Seabed protection | 92% of mpa allow mobile fission jerseys, proposing to have it all banned | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 567507896 | Seabed protection | With reference to the extension of non mobile gear zones. I believe the concept is understandable but the time frame and extent are not fair to the commercial sector that have invested time and money into mobile gears. I understand that they can consider complying but only if the time frame or other devices were considered. What indeed is the rush. In many parts of the world similar issues arise and workable solutions which include a longer time frame and assistance to re | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| equip, a historic rights system allowing existing fishers to continue with no increase in effort until retirement but allow no others in , or simply the government buying out the mobile gear licences. All these devices are used elsewhere and if both parties are able to be flexible then aims of both maybe achieved but over a longer time frame. It is worth noting that I think scallop stocks may have increased substantially since the 1980s when very little local catches were made . Many stocks are cyclical often due to factors other than fishing pressure, scallops, cuttlefish, spidercrab and tuna are interesting examples where stocks have developed, Whelks , octopus,lobster are species where the reverse maybe true. |
|
|
JMSP- 567642497 | Disturbance | Tighter restrictions for walking your dog within the South-east coast ramsar site. Uncontrolled dogs being the main issue that chase birds. Perhaps designating certain beaches where dogs can be walked or dogs can be walked specifically off-lead. Also kite surfing/electric surfboarding in the south-east coast ramsar area close to the shoreline. This disturbes feeding shorebirds at low, rising and falling tides. | No | This will be addressed by action RT5a. |
JMSP- 568271464 | Seabed protection | Value and protect our marine environment much more carefully than you have previously- as our government it is your responsibility | No | This will be addressed by priorities NB1 to NB6 |
JMSP- 568735565 | Seabed protection | Chapter 8.6 and chapters 9.4 in huge support of the following chapters to support the marine life and ensure the waters around our islands are protected appropiatly. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 568852099 | International Relations | The most important thing is to keep a constructive consultation with France in order to keep an environmentally friendly activity for the entire artisanal flotilla of Granville Bay (including the Jerseys) | No | Jersey will continue to work with neighbouring jurisdictions. |
JMSP- 569102502 | Compensation | I have read the full consultation document. I think it is a very good document, well researched, well set out and well balanced. I fully support its aims and ambitions and wish to see it acted upon in its entirety. It is a very good starting point from which to further expand and develop in the future. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 569102502 | Seabed protection | In the longer term, I would wish to see a complete ban on trawling and dredging within Jersey's territorial waters, which would require a period of financial and other support for the fishers who would be impacted. However, as has been shown elsewhere, I believe this would ultimately be to their advantage in terms of catch quality and therefore value. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 569141192 | Seabed protection | I agree with that bottom trawling should be reduced for the purpose of seabed protection. I would urge you to go further and look at phasing bottom trawling out completely. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 569241625 | MSP | I have read the entire report cover to cover. On the whole I am in favour provided the report is kept to and the goalposts aren't moved. We all need to give a little to protect both the environment we lock and the nature that inhabits it. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 569328080 | Watersports | I am a boat owner and have been using boats on the sea all my life. My concern is that the existing speed limits are not enforced adequately. Speed boats and Jet skis in St Aubins harbour and close to shore are a problem but this has now spread to the outer reefs and i see it a lot at the minquiers sand bank main pool. as i understand there is no speed limit other than around the main island. i think the 5knt limit needs to be extended to the sand banks for the safety of people and protection of wildlife. | No | This will be addressed by priorities RT1 and RT2 |
JMSP- 569835547 | Seabed protection | Bottom trawling is one of the most damaging practices that humans inflict on our oceans, destroying seabed ecosystems, overfishing and indiscriminately killing everything to harvest one particular species. Bottom trawling has an enormous climate impact too. Dragging nets along the seabed uses more fuel and produces four times more emissions than other types of fishing. It disturbs carbon-absorbing sediment and eradicates the marine plants and animals that take in carbon from the atmosphere. Oceans absorb a quarter of all the carbon dioxide that we produce, yet the practice of bottom trawling threatens to destroy this precious resource. Bottom trawling is rife in the most vulnerable places. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), established to protect ocean diversity, are no longer refuges where fish can reproduce and thrive. Near coastlines, bottom trawling dramatically reduces available catch for small-scale fishers, using alternative, lower-impact gear. These smaller vessels make up the majority of Europe's fleet (almost 80%) and account for half the people employed in the fishing sector, but they just can't compete. Our leaders have committed to halting the climate and biodiversity crises by 2030 and set us on a path to net-zero and | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| nature recovery. As an islander I call upon our government to make good on these commitments by enforcing existing environmental laws, supporting those who will be impacted and protecting the ocean. |
|
|
JMSP- 569868057 | Seabed protection | Sounds highly valuable for marine protection and human action management | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 569915322 | Fishing restrictions | On top we need to have a method for avoid or remove ghost nets. | Yes | This will be addressed through action FA2c. |
JMSP- 569960826 | Conservation | The environment needs to be protected and blue marine are amazing for actually making change rather than just talking about it | No | There are multiple priorities relating to the protection of the marine environment, namely priorities NB1 to NB6. |
JMSP- 570613861 | Education | I also think that Jersey would benefit from higher levels of ocean literacy integrated into our education system, via comms campaigns & our tourism sector. It would be interesting to understand how ocean literate our community is - as it seems that although most islanders gain much enjoyment from our beaches & ocean activities, there is a general lack of understanding in terms of our influence on the ocean and the oceans influence on us. Our work with Plastic Free Jersey & Climate Conversations showed us a disconnect between ocean health & climate change. I've attached Pamela Buchan's report on Marine Citizenship. | Yes | A new priority (NB7) has been added regarding a Marine Environment Visitor Centre. Priority RT6 also addresses marine awareness. |
JMSP- 570765833 | Seabed protection | Please stop all dredging. It is way too destructive. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 570767494 | Watersports | Boats should not be allowed into Portlet bay. The supposed safe snorkling is unsafe due to ribs etc tearing in at pace. They should not be there at all. Paddleboards, Kayaks and canoes are OK as they can see a snorkel being near the water and slow. An accident is waiting to happen. Ribs are as bad as jetskies for noise, danger, and disruption. They are also very polluting. I would like to see an outright ban on them. If not keep them away from our hopefully peaceful beaches and coastline please. They are the show off motorbikes of the sea. | No | This will be addressed by priorities RT1 and RT2 |
JMSP- 570771888 | Water quality | I am very concerned that a toxic waste dump has been allowed pretty well within the supposedly protected Ramsar Site. Those who agreed to protect the site have not created much noise against the dump although they signed up to protect it from toxic waste! I would be grateful to know why they have allowed it to happen? | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
JMSP- 571438799 | Seabed protection | Fishing is my sport i want to see the maximim amount of protected areas i belive these sites should be high marine protected areas we must preserve our oceans | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 571620004 | Economic development | I attended two of the pubic meetings and it's clear that care needs to be taken to ensure that members of the commercial fishing fleet receive the same support and respect as members of the agricultural community. If Government fails to do this, negative press and public sentiment could derail what are otherwise very sensible and achievable goals. I believe there are three aspects to this. First, make it clear that the January 2024 end of the "consultation" period isn't the end of dialogue. It should be made clear to the wider public that the commercial fishing fleet continues to be engaged in discussions and data gathering in the Government's evidenced based strategy and planning. On that last point, the MSP in my view should be taken forward in conjunction with the Strategy for Sustainable Economic Development, also published by Government in October of 2023. Our "small island economy" has huge potential to be a pioneer in the development of sustainable fishing techniques and practices, invention and trialing of new technologies, and leadership in aquaculture and other | Yes | Support for the fishing industry will continue to be addressed through the marine economic framework and a Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final Marine Protected Area boundary. Promoting sustainable fishing will be addressed by actions FA5a and b. The need for continued dialogue with marine stakeholders has been added to 3.3.4 and to figure 3a. Engagement with the fishing fleet on fisheries management strategy will continue. |
|
| commercial uses of the sea in sustainable ways if Government is bold and seizes this opportunity now. A maritime technical park on the site of La Folie and possibly Commercial Buildings would be an ambitious statement of intent in this regard, with public-private partnerships a natural way to attract investment from many of the entrepreneurs to which the SSED refers, and would bring together two of the most important Government objectives in shaping Jersey's future. |
|
|
JMSP- 571620004 | Seabed protection | Second, the potential for a phased approach (with gradual designation of MPAs and NTZs year-on-year, rather than moving from a headline-grabbing 6% to 27% on a single date) - while achieving the ultimate goals of environmental protection more slowly than might otherwise have been hoped - is likely to be received sympathetically by the majority of islanders as a practical way to transition to more sustainable use of our waters in a way that enables the fishing fleet to adapt to change over a period of time. Third, clarity on financial support for the fishing fleet needs to be calculated, documented, and publicised. I have no vested interest here; it's simply the right thing to do; consistent with what Jersey's and other Governments do in relation to agriculture, for example, and therefore providing equal treatment and financial sustainability to those affected by change; and something which if costed and built into future public spending budgets can - with appropriate innovation and foresight - be self-funded in the longer term. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Support for the fishing industry will continue to be addressed through the marine economic framework and a Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final Marine Protected Area boundary. |
JMSP- 572405543 | Disturbance | I would like to highlight a few points that have effected Wading birds and Geese over the past 20 years . Dog walkers are by far the worst problem on many of our beaches i.e. Gorey Harbour to Green Island and West Park to St Aubins Harbour .These areas which are important to feeding waders .Also it seems to attract the most dog walkers .When off the leads many of the dog owners allow there dogs to chase the birds ,some even encouraging them by throwing a ball towards the feeding birds .There needs to be a law to stop this sort of behaviour and some one that can police the beaches .The number of dogs are on the increase and the birds are on the | No | This will be addressed by priorities RT7, RT5 and RT6. |
|
| decrease .The problem is not only during daylight hours as nowadays many dog walkers walk with bright torches during the night so there is far more disturbance than even 5 years ago . Another point of disturbance is the growing numbers on Kite surfers and powered surf boards that skim along the edge of the tide in all weathers ,again they have no idea the damage they are causing to the natural environment . The fact that they plough through flocks of geese shows the complete disregard for nature . Canoes are also becoming more of a problem as areas where Wading birds roost on high tides and breed in the summer are also being disturbed . Fisherman are also now fishing in new areas which have been traditional roosting rocks for waders at high tide i.e. Petite Port . If laws are brought in the protect the natural environment they will need to be some sort of policing . |
|
|
JMSP- 572410633 | Seabed protection | An increasing protected areas can only be of benefit. I regularly see damage from trawling on my dives close to Jersey's coast. This resembles a ploughed field. Totally barren. Everything gone The devastation is100% and is not far out at at all, eg just out from st Brelade's bay. Surely this is within a protected area? Can more be done to monitor trawlers? | No | Monitoring the activities of trawlers and dredgers is not within the scope of the JMSP but is being addressed through fisheries regulations and iVMS (inshore Vessel Monitoring System) that will be going live on all Jersey fishing vessels in 2024 to assist in the enforcement of fishing regulations. Currently fishing vessels over 12m in length are already monitored using VMS, including French vessels, many of which are over 12m in length. French boats have VMS also. |
JMSP- 573002172 | Conservation | Over the years I've seen a marked decline in the health of Jersey's waters. This is reversible with bold management and the JMSP is our best hope of doing so. As an ex-fisherman and a diver (who spent a large portion of his childhood poking around the rock-pools and beaches) I would like to see broader protection for the marine environment i.e. protection of whole ecosystems, rather than just certain individual species. 8.6 The use of MPA's, which allow less destructive methods of fishing, but are protected from mobile gear, seems to me to be the most practical way to protect large areas of sensitve ecosystems around such things as maerl, sandmason and seagrass. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 573006409 | Seabed protection | 9.7 Fishing with mobile gear destroys marine habitats and far more sea-life than is landed for consumption. Such methods would not be tolerated if they were visible, or on land. It is also extremely energy inefficient compared to static fishing methods. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 573007929 | Disturbance | 11.2.3 The constant visits of tourist RIB's are a persistant disturbance to wildlife, particularly the birds and seals on the outlying reefs. | No | This will be addressed by priority RT7. |
JMSP- 573356557 | Seabed protection | I believe that the JMSP's recommendations accurately reflect relevant domestic and international responsibilities, particularly with regard to the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its aim to see 30 per cent MPA coverage by 2030 (30x30). Noting that the JMSP proposes to designate 27 per cent of Jersey's waters as MPAs, while also identifying areas where further research should be targeted in order to achieve the full 30 per cent of protection. The delivery of this would result in a significant step in Jersey's journey to fulfilling its international obligation to the GBF, and it is therefore essential that priorities NB5 and FA1 should be a significant part of the final JMSP. It is apparent that the JMSP has applied an evidence-based, methodical approach to determining the location, extent and level of protection to be afforded by the proposed MPAs. Protection of the proposed areas should result in recovery and growth of nationally important habitats that also serve as important nursery, spawning and feeding grounds; leading to anticipated increases in biodiversity and resilience to storms and climate change. The increase in biodiversity that should result from MPA implementation should also benefit the local fishing industry, through increased abundance of commercially important fish populations. My belief is that the climate, biodiversity, fishery, economic and social benefits associated with the proposed MPAs will more than outweigh the economic cost of lost fishing from local dredging and trawling activities. I therefore strongly support the proposed network of MPAs and stress the fundamental importance of Priority NB5 and its associated actions. In addition, it is important that compensatory measures are put in place for fishers who may be | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| adversely affected by any MPA designations. I suggest that this is included as an additional action. If Jersey is to meet its 30x30 commitments, it is essential that NB5a and NB5b are implemented. I support the MPA proposals as outlined in Fishing zone B, as this will result in 27.22 per cent of territorial waters being closed to mobile fishing activities (trawling and dredging). However, because of the destructive nature of dredging and bottom trawling, I cannot support the continuation of these activities in the remainder of Jersey's waters in the long term and suggest that they are phased out as soon as practically possible, whilst avoiding adverse impacts on local fishers. |
|
|
JMSP- 573356557 | Conservation | I fully support Priority NB6 and believe the proposed actions are appropriate to aid the protection of seagrass habitats in Jersey waters. This should encourage the natural growth of seagrass and could potentially lead to the expansion of existing beds. Such actions could help to boost local biodiversity and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 573356557 | Economic development | In as much as Priority FA5 proposes the development of marketing strategies, creating sustainability stamps and providing relevant infrastructure to increase catch quality and efficiency in processing, I am fully supportive. However, I believe that further actions are needed to reduce the overall environmental impact of the commercial fishing. This could be in the form of: transitioning away from the use of damaging fishing gears such as trawling and dredging, perhaps through economic support; providing economic support to fishermen to undertake lower impact forms of fishing (such as scallop diving); and trialling methods to reduce carbon emissions. | No | This will be addressed by priority FA5. Further economic support will be addressed through the Marine Economy Framework. |
JMSP- 573356557 | Seabed protection | In as much as Priority FA5 proposes the development of marketing strategies, creating sustainability stamps and providing relevant infrastructure to increase catch quality and efficiency in processing, I am fully supportive. However, I believe that further actions are needed to reduce the overall environmental impact of the commercial fishing. This could be | No | Recommendation FA5 is aimed at supporting sustainable fishing methods which will help to incentivise more sustainable fishing practices. |
|
| in the form of: transitioning away from the use of damaging fishing gears such as trawling and dredging, perhaps through economic support; providing economic support to fishermen to undertake lower impact forms of fishing (such as scallop diving); and trialling methods to reduce carbon emissions. |
|
|
JMSP- 574950585 | Seabed protection | Je suis pêcheur à Granville. Je suis contre ce projet JMSP car vous nous avez déjà emputé certaines zones marines et vos îles sont un abris en cas de mauvais temps. Et si les seuls bateaux français qui peuvent y accéder ne peuvent plus y aller cela devient un vrai problème car nous n'avons pas assez de ressources dans les eaux françaises pour accueillir tout le monde. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 575652669 | SSIs | 8.4.1 - La Marmotiere and Maitre Ile at the Ecrehous are also SSIs, but for Historical and Architectural reasons (and Maitre Ile also for Archeological reasons), so I assume this isn't relevant here? | No | Not relevant in the context of the chapter. |
JMSP- 575652669 | Conservation | 8.5.1 - Page 90 - There are as yet no ASPs protecting Marine Mammals at the Ecrehous, but I believe there are plans for one. Which leads to Priority NB4 - any ASP for seal haul out areas needs to be discussed with residents as there is a navigation channel (which has been much used by Jersey and French sailors for many years, before the seals came) close to the main haul out site. | Yes | This will be addressed by priority NB4 but consideration to current users, residents and operators had been highlighted in section 8.5.5 and in action NB4a. |
JMSP- 575664528 | Management | Priority RT7 - management plans for offshore reefs. I have my doubts about the practicality and effectiveness of a warden as visitors arrive by the dozen, landing in different places and then scatter in all directions, but presumably these ideas will be consulted upon in due course. | No | This will be addressed by priority RT7, details of role are outside of scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 575664528 | Watersports | 11.1.1 - Para 3 - minor point, but it seems a bit of an exaggeration to say that there is a 'concentration of watersports' at the Ecrehous. Apart from people arriving on boats (and very occasionally by jetski), there is a limited amount of kayaking and paddleboarding. There are no motorised watersports such as jet skiing or water skiing etc. | Yes | Text amended to boating rather than watersports, as there have been multiple comments during the consultation about increasing use of the reefs. |
JMSP- 575674749 | Management | 12.8.3/Priority IT6d - Proposed actions re moorings outside harbours. I believe that the relevant boating associations should be included in discussions about these; moorings just outside some of the outlying harbours have been held for several generations. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 575676246 | Amendments | Appendix A: NB2 should include the Jersey Ramsar Management Authority as one of the responsible parties. NB4a should include Ecrehous Residents Association as one of the responsible parties (or at least noted that they should be consulted, given that residents have the best knowledge of the reef) CH4 - note that at the Ecrehous Maitre Ile and La Marmotiere were designated SSIs in early 2018 for architectural and historical reasons ie there is already some protection in place. RT7 should include the Jersey Ramsar Management Authority as one of the responsible parties. | Yes | Appendix A has been amended for priorities and actions NB2, NB4a and RT17 as suggested. Parts of the reefs are designated as Listed Places and/or Listed Buildings, rather than SSIs. |
JMSP- 575678093 | MSP | I've made some minor comments on various chapters separately, but, having read the whole JMSP, I just wanted to say that it is a hugely impressive piece of work (thorough and balanced), so well done to all involved! There is nothing to fundamentally disagree with, and presumably detailed proposals about the various priority actions will be consulted upon in more detail where appropriate in due course... | No | General comment of support. Many of the priorities and actions will require further consultation before they can be implemented through policy or legislation. |
JMSP- 576040518 | Seabed protection | I support the plan to support and increase biodiversity | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 576092520 | Seabed protection | I support extending the protected area around the island. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 576158055 | Seabed protection | We need to do much more to understand our marine environment and measure/monitor marine biodiversity. The tools exist to do this and the proposed protection under this plan should be supported. | Yes | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 576158055 | Compensation | At the same time we should support our fishing industry and offer grants to fishers who are disadvantaged, I believe in the agricultural sector the island is pretty good at this. We need very clear mechanisms of support for what is an extremely important industry for the island. The MSP does not set this out properly and I'd like to see that our fishers are well looked after and shown the respect they deserve. | No | This will primarily be addressed through Marine Economic Framework work and through a business Impact Assessment that will accompany the final JMSP. |
JMSP- 576464942 | Fishing restrictions | I started fishing as a young boy, because my father was a fisherman, and became completely passionate about it and when I left school at 15 I went straight into the industry, where I | No | The proposed MPA boundaries do not affect static fisheries, only the additional suggested NTZ at Les Sauvages would restrict static fishing. There is a |
|
| have remained until today (age ) and intend to stay until retirement. I started fishing with nets and lines for wet fish then progressed up to a bigger boat fishing for lobster and crab. After many years I then decided to go back to west fish, bass, bream and mackerel so everything now is invested into that type of fisheries. I have a nice little local market for the fresh fish that I catch and fish to order, with all my catch staying on the island. This means it has a very low carbon footprint compared to importing fish from other countries. I am concerned that the Marine Spatial Plan will push me out of the areas that I need to fish because my boat it too small to fish in deep waters and I do everything by hand without any hydraulic equipment. It is a very sustainable way of fishing and would be impossible to do in any other way e.g. I couldn't pull my nets in deeper water as it would become dangerous due to the strong tides in Jersey waters, It would be very upsetting to see the fishing industry disappear or be restricted to the extent that it was no longer viable as an industry. My son also shares my passion for fishing and it would be a shame to see the younger generation not to have the same chances. |
| recommendation to review netting within the MPA network but this is primarily for safety of other water users and for the protection of specific marine fauna, such as diving birds. And there is a further action (FA2e) to review commercial static fishing in proximity to angling spots. Any future restrictions on potting will require further consultation with the relevant stakeholders. |
JMSP- 576889245 | Beach management | I am concerned that beach goers are ignorant of the wildlife protection laws that are in place. There should be more protection of wading birds from being chased by dogs. | Yes | Beach warden scheme has been added to action RT6a. |
JMSP- 576889245 | Beach management | Botanical species should not be removed from the beach. Stones that are turned over should be replaced. | No | This will be addressed by current aquatic resources law and will not be addressed through the JMSP. |
JMSP- 577689274 | Fisheries Management | 9: in the uk it is illegal to fish for crabs and lobsters with eggs, which they carry for a year, so why do we allow it here. I have contacted the Environmental minister but had no response; I have had support and matched concerns from Marine Conservation. It is in our interest to stop this practice and allow the crabs and lobsters to reproduce and thrive, they are also part of island life. Some areas of the UK have hatching centres; we have no such thing and are selfishly taking the future species just for profit. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. This is a complex topic but it will be addressd through fisheries management measures where appropriate. |
JMSP- 578041530 | Fishing restrictions | I would like to see an extension of the bass ban from 1st January until 31st April. Bass are fully rowed up in January and often haven't spawned when the ban is lifted. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 578041530 | Fisheries Management | I would like to see more policing and a better reporting scheme for people who place nets and pots within the harbour areas. A more joined up approach between ports of jersey and fisheries and even a report email you can notify illegal fishing on. After reading the report I was shocked by the landing totals for wrasse, this is one of our slowest growing species which has very little commercial value. It seems terrible to see these being netting just for pot bait. This is one of the scenarios where because it's not a popular species like Bass everyone turns a blind eye. Surely we have a duty to look after stocks of all species, not just those with a commercial value. I would also like to see a study of how the apparent increase in | Yes | Partly addressed by under FA2. Consider a new recommendation to review commercial potting and netting within proximity of angling spots. Seal study is outside the scope of the JMSP. |
|
| seals,dolphins and tuna inshore could be effecting stocks of other species such as mackerel, garfish and mullet. |
|
|
JMSP- 578044314 | Fishing restrictions | 9.4.3, I'm a 15 year old student who does fishing as much as I can. If that's to relieve exam stress or just have a nice day out. It's a big part of my life and has also been a big part of many of my families life going back generations, After these initial proposed restrictions it will continue to get worse which would not only cause more young people lurking around town with nothing to do but also forget our history and culture. I love fishing on st Catherine's breakwater and as I'm sure you know people lives over here are sea angling and they wouldn't trade it for anything in the world, the restrictions will only create negative tensions and in regards to fishing zone B provide the greatest benefit from nature' when talking about the coast which is included in it, from the perspective of fish the places to restrict to provide the greatest benefit for them is where they migrate as huge populations travel through their in dense packs. This is also where the Jersey government have given permission to French trawlers to tear up the sea bed. Evidence of this which is a primary source I have witnessed is in spring when I free five for spider crabs when they migrate to shallow water to breed. depending on if they were intercepted by French net also depends if there's finite amounts of them or massive amounts, for example last year I went once and saw 100's, it was incredible. Year before nothing, this was the same for others. Yet still a recreational angler taking two if the 100 crabs in a small area leaves little to no affect. As for fish nurseries and fish populations in general recreational anglers also have little to no affect on. I like many others feel this whole proposal has been rushed and will target the wrong people. I love and care for the environment. I'm almost always catch and release unless it's crab or the fish is unable to swim back after being caught due to things like being gutted hooked. I go to popular fishing areas on big tides and clear up lost gear but this proposal I personally feel is the wrong way to go about it | No | The MSP does not suggest restrictions on angling inshore (apart from the already established NTZ at Portelet). The Sauvages NTZ recommendation is offshore and will not affect inshore anglers. With an increasing population and increasing interest in shore angling, conservation measures are needed to ensure the sustainability of this sector. |
JMSP- 578974490 | Fishing restrictions | recreational fishing should not be withdrawn for anyone.All these changes to the use of our beaches and coastal waters have only occurred since the crown gave up the rights and gave them to the PEOPLE OF JERSEY. | No | With an increasing population and increasing interest in shore angling, conservation measures are needed to ensure the sustainability of fishing in Jersey waters. |
JMSP- 579215402 | MSP | Please do all you can to protect our marine ecosystems which are so valuable to both locals and the tourist economy! | No | This is will be addressed primarily under priorities NB3 to NB6. |
JMSP- 579611228 | Seabed protection | Apologies but I haven't managed to read the MSP so I hope this is relevant. I fully support making most, if not all, of Jersey a marine protect ed area. Although I enjoy my hobbies of spearfishing I would not be against a significant increase in no take zones as I understand the benefit of them. I am strongly against any forms of mobile gear including dredging or trawling and believe these should be banned outright in Jersey waters. The fisheries department needs more funding to ensure an adequate level of enforcement for recreational and commercial fishing as I feel it is not as efficient as it could be. I have invested a lot of money into fishing nets, however I would not be against that being more heavily regulated and monitored. Basically, please ban all mobile gear in Jersey waters and please make more No Take Zones and of a greater area. I will support anything as such to support healthy oceans and improve the biodiversity and protection of Jersey waters. | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 579620445 | Fishing restrictions | I feel this has been sprung upon the fishing community without proper consultation or scientific data. To propose a ban on mobile gear prior to consultation only highlights the contempt shown. I sincerely hope this defeated! A lot more work is needed before you can justify impeding honest fisherman making a living that provides fresh seafood daily for the population. Amen | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 579867638 | Fisheries Management | This also includes chapters 8 & 11. We share the waters with the commercial fleet, but where we speedily adopt good practice that can help sustain our fish stocks the fleet drag there feet. It took many years to get agreement to put the Bass size up to allow most to breed once, but the size still needs to go up to allow them all to breed. The close season also needs to be extended till the end of April so Bass can finish their breeding cycle. Lobster is another example, its agreed that the size needs | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
|
| to go up to improve the stock level, but the JFA who are subsidised & mostly very well off fisherman say that it will be too costly to take the proper immediate action advised by Marine Resources. I think that the Jersey fleet is the only one in the UK & possibly Europe that still keeps lobsters with eggs, the proof is out there that is one of the best ways to improve stocks, but the JFA have constantly fought or found ways to delay bringing in regulations on this. Many recreational low water fishermen already put berried females back, sometimes knowing the chances are a professional fisherman will catch it within the next few days, this an area where sharing the same space hurts. |
|
|
JMSP- 579867638 | Fisheries Management | Fishing gear inside harbour areas has been highlighted as an issue, currently there is a lobster pot buoy within 30m of the steps at St Catherine's, this makes angling nearly impossible in this area, you either snag the buoy or the string of pots laid out on the bottom. Bouley bay & St Catherine's bay have both had gillnets shot out through the moorings in the past, not only is impossible to catch fish next to a gill net there is the added danger of killing inshore diving birds, or far worse tangling & drowning a swimmer or diver. | Yes | This will be addressed by priorities FA2 and RT6. Also, new actions (FA2b, FA2e and FA2f) have been added regarding potting and netting. |
JMSP- 579867638 | Watersports | Small water craft such as Kayak's & SUP's have room to navigate around anglers fishing from piers & rocks, but there are some who won't give anglers space, they are on the shore & unable to move far, where water craft can give them a wide berth without any difficulty. A code of practice would be nice to see. | No | This will be addressed by priorities RT1 and RT2. |
JMSP- 580249618 | Fishing restrictions | To increase the bass fishing closed season to include the month of April. This will allow spawning Bass an extra month to drop their eggs. These fish still need all the help they can | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 580259555 | Fishing restrictions | More controls should be in place to keep our fishermen in business and stop large foreign boats dredging the sea bed. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. Support for fishermen is being addressed through the Marine Economic Framework. |
JMSP- 580259555 | Education | Recreation and knowledge of the Coast should be encouraged especially in schools. | Yes | A new priority (NB7) has been added regarding a Marine Environment Visitor Centre Priority RT6 also addresses marine awareness. |
JMSP- 580259555 | Watersports | Controls are needed for jet skis ..a license....they should be only allowed in certain areas well away from beaches. Speed boats a Nono too. | No | This will be addressed by priorities RT1 and RT2 |
JMSP- 580259555 | Renewable energy | With the massive tidal range we have ,it makes sense to use the power for energy. With simple VERY careful construction in a sensible area, would be more in line than wind power. Subsidies for every homeowner to have solar panels would help too. New builds should have reservoirs built under the homes for water conservation, and less run off into the sea. | No | This will be addressed by priority IT5. |
JMSP- 580302924 | MSP | i was so disappointed an amendment removed the marine protection to the Bridging Island plan i fully support the MSP mental and physical health and well-being and direct and indirect international food chain in the face of a global ecology emergency | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 580344633 | Climate | By the end of this century according to global top predictions the climate will have got hotter by about 3 degrees Celsius on average causing much of the polar ice to melt causing much of Jersey and coastal Europe to be covered by rising sea levels so we need to stop building houses on coastal wetlands of high biodiversity and only build in Jersey away from the coastal floodplains. Also we need to promote Jersey to the 500,000 tourists who visit Jersey each year as one of the richest places ecologically in Europe with Europe`s biggest resident Bottle- nosed Dolphin population and big numbers or fairly rare seabirds breeding and visiting Jersey waters which can attract huge number of niche marketed ecology tourists who love Jersey for its abundance in ecology attracting already growing numbers of ecotourists. Jersey needs a diverse economy growing ecotourism with finance side by side as finance will soon fold due to a nearing global recession. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
JMSP- 580439736 | Seabed protection | I am a commercial fisherman with over 30 years of involvement in the industry. I have been involved heavily in bass fishing, lobster and crab potting. I have seen a huge decline in all these key species- in order to take the pressure off these species, and enable me to continue fishing- I have now diversified and heavily invested into a scallop boat. I have always fished using the most conservative methods where possible, opting for rod and line, lines, and my pots- all having escape gaps fitted. I fully support a MSP, I do NOT however support the HMPA we seem to have been dealt ! Our sea beds are not decimated and this high level park is simply un-necessary and the designated areas are 100 % uneconomical for our small fleet of day boats that use mobile gear to continue in the industry. I have borrowed money to buy the boat, I am extremely fearful that should the MSP get passed with the chart as it has been presented to me- I will not be able to continue fishing with my boat and it will drive me to bankruptcy as I still have a minimum of 5 years left of repayments ! Over 80% of the areas I worked in last year are inside the proposed MSP. If you move us from ground that has been historically fished for many generations into further away areas- this just increases carbon footprint and puts our small day boats and crews in danger, as we are simply not big enough to compete offshore alongside French ships ! | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 580498991 | Seabed protection | I have been a scallop diver for around 7/8 years and been in and around the sea all my life, I have witnessed the damage the bottom trawlers cause to sea bed and all marine animals they come across. It is definitely a positive any bans that come in as you can see the difference on areas like the ecrehose where bans have previously been put in. To get the dredgers banned in as many areas as possible as it is the most destructive form of fishing possible. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 580518987 | Fishing restrictions | I feel to the proposal to include more restrictions on the areas where recreational fishing is allowed (south coast etc) is misguided. Compared to the impact commercial fishing vessels have , recreational fisherman have a barely significant impact on the fish stocks around the island . This is the equivalent of banning wooden tooth pics world wide in order to stop the impact of deforestation. | No | The MSP does not suggest restrictions on angling inshore (apart from the already established NTZ at Portelet). The Sauvages NTZ recommendation is offshore and will not affect inshore anglers. With an increasing population and increasing interest in shore angling, conservation measures are needed to ensure the sustainability of this sector. |
JMSP- 580875611 | Seabed protection | Chapter 8.6 outlines suitable actions to meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework, where mobile fishing gear is not permitted to 27 percent of territorial waters. I want to see 30% of oceans protected by 2030. Thank you for your time, and for listening to my consultation response. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 580889210 | MSP | All of it - marine life needs to be protected | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 580924451 | Fishing restrictions | Pot & net free zone: An area is needed around the shore, around all the coast, to exclude nets and pots from obstructing recreational angling.. A distance of 200 metres from the low water mark would be adequate whilst not affecting the capture of such targets as are sought by the potter/netter. Such equipment placed too close to both sides of St catherines breakwater and are a major issue for anglers. Illegally placed gear is not removed after been reported within an acceptable time frame and even when removed is simply returned to the culprit with no sanctions This has been an ongoing issue for decades and is a major frustration when after walking all the way down to discover a pot marker-often more completely ruining a days fishing as often the only place left, is not occupied simply due the markers been in the way! . An Increase from the 100m limit currently in force to 200m would help stop the creeping in of gear set. To offset the costly inconvenience to the Coastal Patrol it would be suggested that both confiscation and £500 fines should be imposed after the 2nd or 3rd offence or further breaches of the rule | Yes | This will be addressed through a new action (FA2e) to review commercial potting and netting in proximity of angling spots. |
JMSP- 580924451 | Fishing restrictions | No Take Zones. Any relaxation of NTZ to allow C&R , would I submit allow recreational anglers the ability to Catch and Release. This would need to be strictly applied with no retention of damaged fish and stern financial fines for breaches of the rules or littering and it would become self policing as fishermen who intend to take any captures from a NTZ would run the risk of been reported by C&R anglers Ultimately, should it become necessary to expand the NTZs, less resistance would be encountered should C&R be permitted. | no | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. Catch and release will not be considered in No Take Zones as it is not possible to enforce. Catch and release is also a highly stressful event for the fish that are caught and is therefore not conducive to an area that is a sanctuary for marine life. |
JMSP- 580924451 | Research | Wider Benefits of Recreational Angling A further study as to the actual benefits of recreational Angling should be commissioned . The last study was nearly a decade ago and the mindset of the vast majority of recreational anglers has now changed toward C&R ,with almost all competitions been run under C&R and from memory did not include areas of angling activity | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to section 11.2.4 paragraph 3 stating that catch and release fishing has become more common in recent years, with most angling competitions using this method. There is also a new action to improve monitoring of recreational fishing (RT2d). |
JMSP- 580924451 | Access | There is a priority in the Marine Spatial Plan to review the current system and there are concerns that this may limit or completely close access to recreational anglers on certain parts of the coast a or beaches. | No | This will be addressed by under action RT3a that states the need to maintain and improve access where necessary. |
JMSP- 580924451 | Fishing | Wrasse/ Common Eels It has long been recognised by the recreational angling community that Wrasse and common eels are slow to grow, long-lived and highly residential. Wrasse are targeted by gill nets as a readily available source of bait for pot bait which is nothing short of criminal and common eels have been decimated by fishermen selling to the local Asian market which is already iilegal in the UK but due to the local fishery dept having little or no interest in this matter has been allowed to continue unabated. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. This will need to be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 581064646 | Conservation | 8. (pages 78 – 122) I support the whole plan but in particular it's benefit to the protecting the marine environment and maintaining and restoring its biodiversity. Not only for the benefit of the Island but it is important that Jersey fulfils its international obligations regarding conservation targets that have been set at a global level. 6. (page 56) This is vitally important given the contribution that the marine environment can make in helping to address the world's climate emergency. Something we should all be concerned about, that's me, you, and everyone. For future generations sake we must do our utmost to address this now and not kick the can down the road. | No | There are multiple priorities relating to the protection of the marine environment, namely priorities NB1 to NB6. |
JMSP- 581089255 | Seabed protection | Fully support that the existing Ramsar Sites are given legal protection through MPA designation. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581089255 | Beach management | Fig 8C - Seabird activity Page 90 - Wading birds are present in a much wider larger area than shown on the map, especially in the south east where all the coastal area from St Helier eastwards to Gorey is important. Dogs cause an enormous amount of disturbance to the many bird species using the intertidal area, often with the owners totally unaware what damage the dog is doing. Sometimes, one can only come to the conclusion that the owner just does not care at all about anything else on the beach and that they have the automatic right to do whatever they want. Basically, just being totally selfish. This needs to change and much stronger | Yes | This will be addressed by priority RT5 and an additional recommendation for a beach warden (RT6a) to help enforce any new regulations. A note has been added to the captions of maps 8b and 8c to highlight that they are based on the current available data. |
|
| action needs to be taken by the authorities in this regard. I consider that all dogs should be on a lead when on the beach. This means that they are under control and the owner knows where they are. 2) Disturbance has increased substantially during the last 15 years in regard to the use of kayaks, kite surfing to name a few of these water leisure activities. This is particularly important along the south and east coasts where wader high tide roosts have been deliberately disturbed in order to take supposedly interesting' photographs. Brent Geese can easily be disturbed by jet skis in St Aubins Bay, whilst they are roosting on the sea, at high tide, in settled conditions. These are also the perfect conditions for jet skis. |
|
|
JMSP- 581089255 | Fisheries Management | 3) Fish netting. Discarded, either deliberately or through lack of care, should be strongly dealt with. Legal action being implemented as promptly as possible, as should have been the case with the 13 European Shag that were found in a discarded net in St. Brelade s Bay in 2022. | Yes | This will be addressed through priority FA2. Also, new actions (FA2b, FA2e and FA2f) have been added regarding potting and netting. |
JMSP- 581089255 | Beach management | The inter tidal area in the south east corner of the island has been extensively changed over the last thirty years with an ever increasing area covered by aquaculture. This is to the detriment of the many migrant and wintering bird species that have had this area altered in such a way that it is now no longer available to them, together with the increased human and mechanical presence, due to the shellfish being actively farmed. | No | This will be addressed by action FA3a to monitor and mitigate the impacts of aquaculture |
|
|
|
|
|
JMSP- 581127523 | Seabed protection | Trawling should be restricted (if not banned) because it causes total devastation to wherever it is done and there is also bycatch. It should also be limited to local vessels | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581179017 | Seabed protection | Sustainability is key to the longterm survival of the fishing industry and the habitat, marine life and beauty of our coastline and waters. I understand that times are hard for the fishing industry but sustainability of our waters is paramount to its long term viability. Protecting marine life, species and healthy waters is important and by restricting trawling and disturbing the natural way the seabed can replenish is vital. | No | This will be addressed by priority NB5. |
JMSP- 581240231 | Seabed protection | MPA's & FISHING ZONES (8 / 9) Agree fully with the proposals, although the definitions made in 9.4, for Lightly Regulated Zones, is TOO light in my view. We know from extensive scientific studies that bottom trawling is a highly damaging means of fishing due destruction of the seabed, causing only negative and long-terms degrading effect | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| on biodiversity and carbon sequestration. I would ask the government to significantly consider banning bottom trawling, dredging and mining in ALL Jersey waters - to ensure rapid and continued biodiversity development, allowing sustainable fishing to thrive for the future. Therefore for all Jersey waters to be a Fishing Zone B, C, or to redefine Zone A to prohibiting bottom trawling, dredging and mining. At Lyme Bay, following 15 years of protection from Bottom Trawling, they now have a 4-fold increase in Lobster population and 3.5 increase in Scallop population despite being able to continue these two fishing practices. Shallow trawling can continue to take place or other non- destructive means of fishing, that would benefit from: - Higher number of fish from intact regenerated seabeds - Higher number of fish due to spillover effects from Zone C no take MPAs |
|
|
JMSP- 581240231 | Seabed protection | SEAGRASS PROTECTION: As a regular boater, I emphasise the importance of seagrass- friendly moorings and do not for one moment consider them as a limitation or impracticality over anchoring. Moorings also limit boat traffic in a particular bay and over-crowding For recreation, snorkelling off boats is much more rewarding if the seabed is undisturbed as well as line fishing Seagrass regeneration is also hugely important to helping Jersey reach carbon neutrality / net zero, in acting as an important carbon sink for Scope 1/2/3 carbon emissions from Jersey | No | This will be addressed by priority NB6. |
JMSP- 581240231 | Renewable energy | WIND POWER Agree fully with proposal with following comment: - Suggest investigating more closely the potential detrimental | No | General comment of support. The JMSP does not go into detail about offshore wind or future monitoring of impacts. |
|
| electro-magnetic effects on biodiversity and ensuring sufficient cable protection or burial in order to minimise this |
|
|
JMSP- 581242263 | Seabed protection | supporting the proposed extension to the Marine Protected Areas | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581243297 | Seabed protection | Jersey's marine environment is astonishing - we are incredibly lucky to have this natural playground on our doorstep. To match global targets of 30% protection by 2030, it's only right that we move into a modern approach to marine management. Scientific literature, as well as anecdotal reports (several divers have told me of the damage they're confronted with after a dredge or trawl has passed through an area) have shown society the impacts of dredging and trawling. Studies around the world, including in the matching temperate climate of the UK, have shown that such areas can have positive benefits for fisheries and biodiversity. Beyond these biodiversity impacts of closed areas, they are an important tool for mitigating the climate crisis - helping to improve species resilience to storm events (which we have already seen many times this winter) and helping to keep carbon within sediments by avoiding disturbance and re- suspension into the water column. We have the information we need, the only step remaining is action - to create areas safeguarded for nature recovery to protect our oceans for its inherent beauty and for our future generations. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581247389 | Fishing restrictions | 1) To maintain the freedom of recreational low-water fishermen to continue to fish on the occasional tide like many generations before | No | The MSP does not recommend restrictions on low water fishing inshore (apart from the already established NTZ at Portelet). The Sauvages NTZ recommendation is offshore and will not affect low water fishing. With an increasing population and increasing interest in low water fishing, conservation |
|
|
|
| measures are needed now to ensure future generations of locals fishers can benefit from the same fishing spots as today. |
JMSP- 581247389 | Seabed protection | 2) to forbid dredging fishing boats in our waters. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511836 | MSP | Whilst I recognise and favour the development of a MSP, the draft version presented has not addressed the needs of key stakeholders such as the fishing (and aquaculture) sectors. More time is needed to identify potential impacts to those sectors and determine what options and solutions could be available to mitigate any negative impacts. | No | Support for the fishing industry is being addressed through the Marine Economic Framework. |
JMSP- 581511836 | Industry | Moreover from what I witnessed having participated in nearly all of the available elements of the consultation process is that it has, at best, been biased and misleading which is likely to result in members of the general public, who dont have any depth to their understanding of the many facets surrounding this topic, believing this draft proposal is widely supported and without controversy. The reality is considerably different with a lack of a cohesive, balanced, independently verified and timely data and information being presented in general but especially in respect to requests from stakeholders which represent the local seafood supply chain. This has led to a situation wherein the potential impact that the current MSP would have on Jersey's fishing fleet neither being assessed nor given any importance. Lets hope the change in Minister brings about a more balanced approach that recognises and values both economic and environmental benefits that could be derived from our marine resources rather than just the environmental ones. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. |
JMSP- 581511837 | Watersports | Can you please confirm if as part of the MSP it is proposed to extend the 5knt speed limits to the sandbanks when uncovered i.e. within 200m of waters edge similar to Jersey beaches. The recent significant increase in rib and jetski ownership in conjunction with popularity of visiting the outer reefs, Minquiers and Ecrehous and sea swimming means there are a lot of people using the same space. In recent years the flat water inside the reefs is desirable for jetskis and small ribs / large boat tenders to use for use at speed. With people swimming and wildlife it is in my opinion only a matter of time before there is going to be an accident in a remote location. The impact on local wildlife noise / waves cannot be positive. | No | The recommendations under RT1 and RT2 are to review current speed limits and decrease conflict between motorised and non motorised watersports and swimmers, specific areas or management plans have not been detailed at this level and will be determined through separate lines of work with the relevant organisations and industry. |
|
| spring and summer, we work in zones A B and C following the Granville Bay treaty. In 2007 we developed the company with the purchase of a second boat, the and currently the , which arrived in . At that time we worked 80% of our time in Jersey waters. In we lost the following a fire, and in June 2021 we got our new boat . Originally I was one of the rare fishermen who could work in zone A. We have now lost this zone, there is also the Ecréhous protection zone which is now prohibited for dragging. 3 years ago, Brexit caused us to lose a lot of access and especially fishing rights. Now these are the habitat protection zones, how far will this go? I am currently of retirement age, my son and I would like to continue this business into the future. This is why he must take over the business behind me, as I did with my father, given the circumstances, it risks being very complicated, to the point that I wonder if we would not have an interest in stop everything, what is the future of fishing in Carteret if the doors of Jersey continue to close? The border is 5 nautical miles from our port, we are completely blocked by Jersey waters. We are small fishing units, we practice artisanal fishing with day trips. We have been working there forever and the resource is doing well, this shows that our impact on the environment is limited, so it must be possible to find solutions. Especially since there would be no problem for part of the sectors to be protected. However, certain areas are areas of concern for us, so it would be good to redefine the zoning. In your document, you talk about taking into account all the issues, including those related to fishing. In this case, I hope that you will identify the impact that the establishment of such sites will have on our activity and that you will take it into account when implementing your measures. |
|
|
|
| Hoping that you will take these elements into consideration, please accept my sincere greetings. Hoping that you will take these elements into consideration, please accept my sincere greetings. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511841 | Seabed protection | My name is , captain of the from Granville. My father, Mr started his fishing career on the in the 's, he fished in the Bay of Granville , both in French and English waters and at that time everything worked well. He went on to buy the trawler to carry on trawling for Praires, dog cockles but in better conditions. In it was him that bought the boat that I work now. This meant continuity for our family business. The majority of our fishing was the same but we also fished for olivette' I took over the boat in 1998 and I continued to fish. Now I trawl for praires, dog cockles and I also dredge for scallops. I have been a coastal fisherman forever. My work crosses over between Norman water and Jersey water and I regularly work east of the Arconies, an area that is well sheltered and rich (abundant). This is an important zone for me, and its closure would have a detrimental impact on me. This is why I want to take part in this consultation and let you know my opinion. I hope that it will be taken into consideration because as soon as a MPA added onto the effect of Brexit and these last 3 years of uncertainty. I would like to point out that we have lost some rights, where before everything worked well. I just want to carry on working as I always have, and my objective is that my son will one day start his career as a fisherman in the family business. For that to happen we need a future. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| We have always managed to communicate between our two regions up until now to find a compromise, I hope that this time again we will be able to find a middle ground which will enable us to carry on working whist respecting what you are asking for. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511843 | Conservation | I have looked at the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan consultation document. I can't immediately see where my comment would fit, so am emailing you as you kindly suggested rather than using the consultation portal. My comment is about the environment, and the painting of boat hulls with Anti-Fouling' products. Anti-Foul' is generally - by design - toxic to marine life. Yet it is applied, removed, and re-applied to the hulls of almost all of the boats in your marinas, annually. It is removed by scraping and hosing it off the hull, whereupon it runs-off into the environment. Boats which are not Anti-Fouled use significantly more fuel and emit considerably more CO2 and pollutants into the water through their exhausts. The only exception is a small category of vessels – those kept on platforms like.. tetradock and airberth. Those boats are generally not anti-fouled and run efficiently. The disadvantage in the use of such platforms (apart from the purchase cost) is that some of them add to the width of a boat in its marina berth, and so if every boat owner used one, the marinas could accommodate slightly fewer boats. But two points should be made in relation to that. Firstly, if Jersey is serious about the marine environment (as you evidently are) then slightly reduced marina capacity would be a price well worth paying for a fleet of boats that used no Anti-Foul. Secondly, in fact there are very few of these platform-owners anyway. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
|
| So, you would expect Ports of Jersey to encourage the use of these platforms, right? Wrong. In fact the perception of others to whom I have spoken is that Jersey Marinas dislike them and effectively have an unwritten policy of discouraging them. I should declare an interest. I am a motor-boat owner who is awaiting a marina space. I have also purchased an Air-Berth. I must say that I have not encountered the outright hostility to these platforms that others have anecdotally reported. In fact has been engaging and friendly in his correspondence. However he points out that he can only offer those spaces that become available, and many of those are rather narrow for an Air-Berth (not least in the opinion of certain of the neighbouring boat-owners). That is entirely understandable, but the effect is that Jersey Harbours is discouraging ownership of these platforms, and compelling the use of Anti-Foul, contrary to your environmental objectives and contrary to the published commitment to "prioritising key environmental aspects of all areas within the business". Please consider whether there should be a formal policy of encouraging the use of these platforms. That encouragement need not include monetary purchase subsidies but could for example include the fast-tracking of platform owners through the waiting list for marina berths. If berths needed to be widened slightly, that could perhaps take place incrementally over time. Please consider this proposal on its merits. It does not matter that I have an interest if it is a good proposal in itself. In any event I don't have an interest: I am told that I ought to reach the top of the waiting list next Spring, before your JMSP is published so I personally wouldn't benefit from any such measure. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511844 | Seabed protection | 1) While the UK and the EU are not agreeing on so many points. This is the prime time to ban French dredgers from the ecrehous and minquiers. In the past, Jersey always needed the French to agree. This never happened apart from a ban at the Minquiers where no scallops ever have been and one on the maerl beds at the south of the Ecrehous. 2) The French have a summer ban normally April-October on scallop dredging we have no such ban. 3) It has been said the damage on the sea bed is now at a serious point. I would agree and the Jersey dredging fleet continue to expand yearly. 4) Scallop stocks are high which is why the dredging effort is expanding, however it must be realised scallops are much tougher than many other species and can survive on dredged ground where crabs, lobsters, flatfish, sand eel etc cannot. 5) It is clear to see a ban on dredging is not to protect scallops it is to protect the seabed and its more sensitive species. 6) At the moment it is legal to dredge on many shallow areas in Jersey as shallow as 20ft from low spring tide this is ridiculous. 7) I am sure the potting fleet will disappear if scallop dredging is not restricted. The wetfish fishery of netters/liners has almost gone this must be inpart due to the large French trawlers that can be seen passing through Jersey waters and fishing close to Jersey waters. 8) The expansion of scallop stocks is nothing to do with a few regulations, it is purely driven by the warming of the sea. 9) The dredgers will claim stocks are high yet never they are earning a lot of money. This is contradictory, I estimate a good days catch can be up to £7,000 easy. These are not fishermen who are struggling. Going on sensitive areas is just pure greed as there are many prolific scallop beds in deep water. If dredgers go into the shallow waters to void the wind thats a poor excuse. 10) Having a marine park will help conservation to a larger degree than the fisheries dpt have done in many years. 11) I feel a lot of people would like to know what the ambitions of the marine park and blue ocean (edit: marine) are. I feel the way to win support is to be very clear about what a marine park is otherwise sceptics will appear | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511844 | Seabed protection | 12) Personally I am not for No Take Zones especially in the areas as we already have large tides and most fish and habitats will move about | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 581511844 | Economic development | 13) I can certainly see any expanse in the dredging fleet of Jersey and scallop diving will not be viable as we have to compete on the price but we simply cannot catch enough to be viable as a dredger generally catches smaller and ofter grit impregnated and not as fresh but 10 times as many. Many restaurants facing their own financial problems will sacrifice quality for price. | No | This will be addressed by priority FA5 - economic development will be addressed through Marine Economic Framework. |
|
| context where the embers of Brexit are not extinguished and where negotiations on the continuation are not completely finalized. As far as I am concerned more directly, your activity records of French potters, for crustaceans as for whelk, show little or no presence in the eastern and southeastern parts des Minquiers while we work there all year round, as well as in the NTZ des Sauvages where despite an activity regularly for decades, the species you say you want protect seem to prosper. Species which for the gorgon, coral of cold water, would be more sensitive to warming than to fishing and including protection by banning low-impact fishing in shallow waters is in vain in the face of the increase in temperatures. As for the brachiopods, they appear, by their size, insensitive to our activity. Creating an NTZ in such a busy place, the size of approximately 160 football fields, for reasons so unfounded seems more in the spirit of the times than to a real concern of conservation. Thanking you for involving us in this consultation, best regards. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511846 | Seabed protection | I am the owner of the and I am the owner of the , two bulotiers from . In both cases, my boats mainly fish for whelks but also for crustaceans, especially spiders. I work all year round between the Buf sector and the Arconie plateau. We have a border activity, both in Jersey and Normandy waters. There are many of us who work in this sector, whether it is the caseyeurs or the drags, it is a rich and very interesting area for fishing. The fact that there are many people and with different jobs raises issues of cohabitation. Following Brexit, between those who had access to Jersey's waters and those who did not, a balance had to be found in order to allow everyone to work. Now you want to set up marine protected areas, including a large one in eastern Arconia. This will bring about strong changes in the practices of the stragglers because, if I understand correctly, they will no longer be able to come. In practical terms, this means that they will have to go and work elsewhere. This will therefore have an impact on the entire fishery in the sector. And this will therefore have major consequences for other professions: problems of cohabitation, fewer opportunities for rotation between professions. This will therefore have an impact on all the fishing companies on the coast but also on the resource : we will no longer be able to change areas so easily, which risks exhausting certain sectors. I am involved in fisheries management. When it is necessary, I think it is normal to take measures, but I must admit that I do not understand the point of taking measures on areas in good condition at the risk of having negative impacts on the resource. According to the document, currently only the trailing arts are concerned except at the level of the Savages. What will happen to the dormant arts in the years to come? Is the ban on the | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. Catch and release will not be considered in No Take Zones as it is not possible to enforce. Catch and release is also a highly stressful event for the fish that are caught and is therefore not conducive to an area that is a sanctuary for marine life. |
|
| Indians a start? The process that has been launched with this document is very worrying for us, we have the feeling that it comes as a continuation of Brexit in order to kick the French out. I've always worked in this industry, so far ourrelations seemed good to me, now I feel like we've become the pet peeve. However, our practices have not changed, on the contrary, measures are regularly taken to reduce fishing effort. It is therefore difficult to conceive of the establishment of such sites and that they only constrain fishermen. Hoping for a return to more peaceful and fluid relations, please accept, Sir, my distinguished greetings. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511847 | Fishing restrictions | With regard to angling - 1. Netting across the gutters for long periods, particularly cross spring tides, is reducing the amount of fish in the area and negatively impacting on anglers. This is happening around L'etacq, La Pulente and in areas on the east coast. No fish were caught for 4 months by kayakers/shore anglers after a short period of heavy netting activity.
| No | A new action (FA2e) has been added to review commercial fishing in proximity to angling sites. |
JMSP- 581511852 | Fishing restrictions | To whom it may concern My name is and I'm years old and have been a full time fisherman for over 30 years. I have a small young family to support as well as a crew member. I started many years ago with a small boat and still currently fish on a catamaran that is under 7 meters. I enjoy being a small business as I am able to stay versatile & sustainable. I catch lots of different types of wet fish and change with the seasons, eg rod caught bass and bream in the summer, changing to use nets in the winter. I don't fish every day as I pot for lobster & crabs. Also, even if we wanted to fish more, it's just impossible, due to very high fuel prices, bait costs, prices of new engines and general maintenance costs, etc. Fishing regulations are also quite strict & we must follow them up with our paperwork & install trackers on our boats, tags on pots, etc. Between constant storms and the 2 month bass ban, that also reduces the amount of days that we are at sea. As the boat is small, it needs to stay close to land to tuck in for shelter. The fishermen have an understanding that they each fish in their own area so it won't be overfished just in a couple of places. Our carbon footprint is very low as all the wet fish stays local. We sell to the restaurants, markets and people on the beach who approach us. Our customers are proud of us for fishing all year round and would rather enjoy our fish than farmed fish imported into Jersey. As you are aware, more restaurants and hotels are closing down, so it not possible to actually catch a huge amount of fish as it is getting harder to sell. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| We would really appreciate you taking into consideration our comments. It feels at times, that it is all bad news, never good when it comes to fishing. We do our absolute best to be the best at what we do and we are proud of our beautiful produce and also want to protect the stocks for future generations. Kind regards Skipper of the |
|
|
JMSP- 581511853 | Seabed protection | I would like to give you feedback on the current public consultation. , years old, skipper and owner of the , since March . I have been registered as a seafarer since and have been fishing since I was 20. I am the third generation of fishermen in my family. My father and grandfather before me worked in the waters of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark. I fish for whelks and large crustaceans (spiders, lobsters) in the Dirouilles and Ecréhou area, all year round, except in January due to the closure of whelk fishing. Cohabitation with Jersey fishermen has always gone well for me. Relations were already good under the Granville Bay Treaty. Since Brexit, and despite the initial implementation difficulties, both for Jersey fishermen and French fishermen, these relations are still good between fishermen today. I would like to give you feedback on the current public consultation. , years old, skipper and owner of the since March . I have been registered as a seafarer since and have been fishing since I was 20. I am the third generation of fishermen in my family. My father and grandfather before me worked in the waters of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark. I fish for whelks and large crustaceans (spiders, lobsters) in the Dirouilles and Ecréhou area, all year round, except in January due to the closure of whelk fishing. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| Cohabitation with Jersey fishermen has always gone well for me. Relations were already good under the Granville Bay Treaty. Since Brexit, and despite the initial implementation difficulties, both for Jersey fishermen and French fishermen, these relations are still good between fishermen today. It would be a shame if small-scale artisanal fishing disappeared from Normandy and Jersey waters, because in my opinion, it is the most respectful fishing for the marine environment, with thoughtful and sustainable management of resources and seasonality. Once again, you present to us here measures which will reduce the fishing possibilities of professional vessels, French or Jersey. This therefore adds an additional constraint to fishing. We feel completely excluded, whether with the loss of fishing zones but also with the implementation of this type of approach. We have always worked in the waters of Jersey and it is difficult to imagine being excluded from it given our history but also given the distance that separates us: only a few miles between Carteret and Les Ecréhous... |
|
|
JMSP- 581511857 | Seabed protection | Dear Marine Spatial Plan Team, I am writing to you to confirm and reinforce my support for the proposed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) proposed in the Marine Spatial Plan (MSP. This is a critical opportunity to protect our marine environment for both current and future generations. I hope and pray that those with the power and responsibilities to implement and enforce these protections have the wisdom and commitment to deliver this now and and full. There should be no doubt by those in possession of the facts and scientifically proven evidence that the MSP effectively reflects Jersey's responsibilities to the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its targets to reach 30 per cent marine protection by the year 2030. Priority NB5 in chapter 8.6 outlines | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| suitable actions to meet the targets of the GBF by expanding Jersey's existing MPAs, where mobile fishing gear is not permitted, to 27 percent of territorial waters (with the addition of exclusion zones around underwater power cables). I believe this would benefit the lower-impact, static forms of commercial and recreational fishing (which will be able to continue unaffected within MPAs), by ensuring the long-term health of key stocks such as crab and lobster (which make up 70% of Jersey's annual fishery value). Additionally, protection of the proposed areas are also extremely likely to result in ongoing recovery and growth of nationally important habitats that also serve as important nursery, spawning and feeding grounds, leading to an increase in biodiversity and increased resilience to storms and climate change. The benefits to the vast majority of current and all future generations need to be acknowledged, and the local and wider community needs to be protected from the tiny minority of those practicing out of date and unnecessary fishing activities that should have no place in our future. As a whole, I urge for the proposed MPAs to be delivered through the actions of priority NB5, resulting in 27 per cent of our waters being protected from mobile fishing gear. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511858 | Seabed protection | I am Mr , -year-old fisherman, owner of the fishing vessel " " purchased in September . Coming from a family of fishermen, it was my father when he was boss of the trawler " who gave me the desire and passion to work as an artisan fisherman. Since I have been on board the . In , I became the boss and have been the owner since . So I have been on the same artisanal fishing vessel in the same waters for 23 years. As you can see, I am the vessel with the most days acquired in Jersey waters. This is explained because I practice my profession ONLY in Jersey waters and all year round. This is why I am committed to maintaining good relations with you. I provide you with my fishing declarations on time. Each time I am checked by your control services, and this for years, I am always courteous, polite and open to dialogue to maintain our good neighboring relations, even since the complications of Brexit. Thus, I scrupulously respect Jersey regulations. I have never been fined for overquotas or oversizes, for example. If I work entirely in Jersey waters, it's because I have no choice, no other places where I could fish for sea almonds (GKT). This very localized species represents 3/4 of my annual fishing. I am one of the only vessels in Granville and even in West Cotentin to practice this very specific fishing. Unlike other vessels which fish mainly around Chausey, with the possibility of sheltering around the archipelago in the event of bad weather, my activity causes me additional diesel costs to reach the waters of Jersey. In addition, I have no shelter areas, I am always in the wind. My activity requires me to work in specific sectors. I have no other choice than to work to the South and West of Minquiers, around the existing RAMSAR zone. I also work in the CAUX sectors, at ANQUETE, GRUNE LA HAUCHE, Les ARCONIES, de l'ECREVIERE and in the telephone cable sector. All of these areas mentioned are essential to the proper functioning of my business. I am also surprised that the fallout linked to BREXIT is not over and that our neighbors in Jersey | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| already want to impose new fishing bans on us via marine protected areas (MPAs) by systematically excluding dragging arts. In France, MPAs do not systematically exclude dragging arts, which thus remain authorized. So I'm at a loss. I would like to say that I work in sandy bottoms, contrary to what the habitat map may indicate in certain areas, and that I can assure you that I have never found eelgrass, Kelp or Maërl beds in the sectors where I carry out my activity. Proof that trolling fishing is compatible in certain sectors. Protecting does not mean prohibiting. Therefore, I ask you to study my personal case, to begin a dialogue in order to find "common ground". I hope that we can consult together, discuss areas to prioritize over others. I hope that we find solutions jointly that are suitable and accepted by everyone, as has been the case in the past for RAMSAR areas and which has proven itself. Finally, I would like to share with you that the survival of my artisanal fishing business and that of my family depends EXCLUSIVELY on my fishing activity in Jersey waters. My business supports 3 sailors and their families. It also supports my own family since my father and my wife are employed on land for the company. If unfortunately all the proposed MPAs were banned for life, I would be obliged to stop my job which I do with passion, to sell my boat which is my whole life, to lay off my 3 sailors, as well as my father and my wife. It would be terrible. Hoping that my participation and my example will be studied and considered by Jersey. I remain convinced that the friendship between our two countries will make it possible to find a common solution. I cling to this hope in order to be able to continue to make a living from my profession which has been passed down to me from father to son with passion. Indeed, since Brexit and all the consequences, morale is at its lowest and the fear of losing everything overnight has an even greater impact on morale on a daily basis. |
|
|
|
| While waiting for news which I hope will be positive in order to find common ground between the different parties, I send you my sincere greetings. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511859 | Seabed protection | I am writing to draw your attention to the negative effects of the displacement of the mobile gear boats from productive scallop grounds to less productive ones. Due to the proposed MPA with in the MSP , This issue has significant implications for both the environment and the livelihoods of countless individuals dependent on the Jersey fishing industry. One of the major challenges arising from such displacement is having to have to move to less productive areas offshore , where the catch rate is much lower increasing the time and effort required this in turn increases disturbance the complete opposite of the intended result of such a scheme. This results in overfishing in these areas, Overfishing not only disrupts the delicate balance of marine ecosystems but also jeopardizes the sustainability of the fishing industry in the long run , as the Jersey fleet are already in a very precarious position I feel the loss of the mobile gear fleet will take the fleet below critical mass and will mean the loss of merchants in turn will mean other metiers of fishing suffer as will to supply chain of local sustainable fish and shellfish. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| The economic toll on these individuals and their families cannot be understated, as their ability to carry on in the fishing industry, food security will also be severely affected. It is essential for policymakers, fisheries management and stakeholders to recognize the negative consequences of this displacement and take appropriate action. We all agree that measures should be taken to ensure sustainable fishing practices and establishing marine protected areas. These actions can help restore balance to the fishing industry and protect invaluable marine ecosystems for future generations but must not come at the cost of losing our long established fishing industry. In conclusion, the displacement of our mobile gear fleet from productive fishing grounds to less productive ones has grave consequences for both the environment and the livelihoods of Jerseys fishers . By considering the long-term implications and implementing sustainable practices, we can work towards a future where fishing grounds thrive, Jersey fishers prosper, and the delicate marine ecosystems are preserved. Thank you for your attention to this matter |
|
|
JMSP- 581511859 | Cultural Heritage | Additionally, the displacement of the mobile gear fleet can have adverse social and cultural effects. Fishing has historically played a crucial role in Jerseys identity , As Jersey witness the decline of its fishing industry due to displacement, there is a loss of cultural heritage and a sense of belonging. This could potentially lead to the loss of traditional knowledge and practices that have been passed down through generations. | Yes | Additional text has been added to sections 9.4.2 and 9.4.3. to highlight economic development for the fishing industry and to outline its importance in Jersey's cultural identity. |
JMSP- 581511860 | MSP | To whom it concerns, I am writing this letter as a response in the consultation process of the proposed Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) and accompanying proposed MPA. For background, my name is . I am one of the owners and Directors of , . At we act as both fishermen and merchants, and through we try to ensure the public and tourists alike have access to guaranteed local seafood. Therefore, my response can be taken as a response from both businesses. . The recent release of the first draft MSP framework, into the public domain, represents a significant step for Jersey. Although I have no opposition to the creation of a MSP itself, I recognize the significance of what is proposed and its potential negative impacts on those that it represents and wider industry. has and continues to be committed to working with Government and other associated bodies, to ensure that there is a sustainable and economically viable fishing industry into the future. It is my hope that through this consultation we can assure the MSP process is transparent, evidence based and underpinned by good independently reviewed data. I believe that by working truly together an MSP with an associated MPA can be created in which Jersey's marine economy is secure and has a future but also that the Island's waters can also be appropriately protected for future generations. It is crucial, that recent announcements to designate large areas of Jersey's waters as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and consequently closing them to some forms of fishing, does not result in a rushed and unworkable MSP document which jeopardizes the future of our fishing community. The draft MSP document in its current form would have direct substantial | No | The time frame is in line with island plan time lines. The time frame for development and consultation of the MSP is considered suitable for the size and scale of the plan. Based on best available evidence at the time of writing and will evolve and be updated in future as new data becomes available. |
|
| negative consequences for a number of members of Jersey's fishing industry and could as a result considerably affect the Island's food security, hospitality industry and the public's ability to access local seafood. Additionally, there are knock-on concerns for ancillary businesses within the industry (critical mass), adding to the economic and social impact of what is proposed. I fully understand the value of protecting our marine resources and myself actively promote this, I do wish to support Government in their work to create a meaningful and workable framework, however there are several concerns within what is proposed for Jersey's marine economy in particular the fishing community. I have listed this briefly below, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. I welcome and please do feel free to meet with me privately to discuss the below further. 1) The excessively short time-frame committed to the creation of the MSP framework, originally it was indicated this draft framework would be completed by 2025 however this timeline has been brought forward a year (evidently to coincide with the carbon strategy and Island Plan 2025 – which is understandable yet inappropriate given the scale of what is proposed). This raises concerns for the industry over the quality of work undertaken, the understanding of our waters and how they are used and the ability for a true and fair consultation to be conducted. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511860 | MSP | 2) The lack of true and long-term consultation with the fishing fleet – although some engagement has occurred with industry, this has not been good enough and very last minute. The MSP as it sits in its current form only affects fishermen and not the rest of the marine users so it only stands that larger engagement should occur with this group. This MSP and lack of engagement follows a precedent set over the last few years (approx. 5+years) of poor and limited engagement from the Fisheries Department with the fleet. Communication between the two has never been at such an all-time low. This is deeply concerning. It surely stands to good reason that fishermen should've been a critical part of developing the MSP and proposed MPA, aiding in identifying the best areas for protection in a far more hands-on approach. Additionally, it has been felt by many in the community their input was not wanted, and many have raised concerns that fisheries officers did not want them attending the public consultations at the Parish Hall s. These individuals know the waters and stocks better than anyone, they are the stewards of our waters and are the first individuals to want to see healthy marine environments. They should be the first port of call in any development or change to do with our marine environments and marine economy. | No | Significant consultation was carried out with all stakeholders from the earliest stages of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511860 | MSP |
| No | We are confident with the data provided and future iterations will build on current knowledge. |
JMSP- 581511860 | Seabed protection | 5) The seemingly lack of consideration given to the socio- economic impact the MSP may have on specific communities being directly affected. There appears to be no study analyzing the social, historical and economic impact the proposed MSP may have on the marine economy in particular Jersey's fishing community and the potential effects further down the line such as an increased reliance on imported seafood. It has been indicated to me that an assessment will be conducted on the 7 businesses/boats directly affected. However, this should have been conducted before the draft was publicly released. As previously raised in point 3 I have worked on international projects and no plan of such a scale would ever be voted upon until such a study was conducted. Additionally, by solely looking at the directly affected, this is thinking far too insular and small scale. The reduction of effort or in some cases the complete failure of these businesses (which they believe is the case) will affect the wider fishing community and the ancillary businesses associated (e.g. Mechanics etc), which will further lead to affects felt in hospitality and tourism. These boats support and are supported by the merchants who also support the other forms of fishing in the Island, the merchant community has raised considerable concerns over the removal of these boats on their ability to supply customers (both export and local) which will impede their ability to operate and support the remaining fishermen. The lack of produce will directly reduce the quantity of scallops available on the Island which almost forms a lifeblood across menus Island-wide , the hand diving community cannot absorb this business and it would be ignorant to think they could. Concerns would be that imported scallops would become a norm (increasing carbon footprint and creating a NIMBY situation). Further to this these boats are a large part of our cultural heritage, with the majority being generational fishermen who helped to build the industry and even with ties to the occupation and further. This loss of knowledge and history should be taken into consideration. | No | A Business Impact Assessment will be caried out before the final version of the plan is released. Issues relating to supply chains are outside of the scope of JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511860 | Renewable energy | 6) Although it has been communicated that the potential new wind farm in Jersey's waters would not be included in the MSP the industry does feel this is an oversight. It has caused additional anxiety and concern across the fishing community, the size and location of the proposed wind farm would be a concern, if the proposed MPA areas are also enforced in their entirety. Both locally and globally fishermen are feeling the spatial squeeze as areas of fishing are lost to non-indigenous fishermen, MPAs and carbon neutral objectives. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 581511860 | Climate | 7) It appears no consideration has been taken to the effects of climate change on changing stock levels (warmer waters affecting stock patterns, increasing winds meaning less days at sea etc). Further to this the MSP indicates well over 100 Jersey fishing boats are present in our waters. There are only (approx.) 33 active full-time fishermen in our fleet something confirmed by the Fisheries Department, so it feels somewhat misleading to present the higher value and for no conssideration to be taken to declining fishermen numbers on data presented. Additionally using data from 2020 (covid) is particularly unfair as this year activity was greatly reduced by all boats. | Yes | Climate change related pressures on the marine environment are not easily mitigated through spatial measures, but the JMSP takes blue carbon habitats into account in the MPA network. In terms of changes to fishery species distributions/abundance, it is difficult to predict which new species may arrive into Jersey waters and therefore not possible to predict future spatial management needs. However, the JMSP will be periodically updated to account for changes in the marine environment over time. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Boat activity levels vary from year to year and are reflected in the Marine Resources annual reports. |
JMSP- 581511860 | Seabed protection | 8) There appears to be no recognition within the MSP that questions have been raised globally over the success of MPAs with other evidence pointing toward more positive outcomes stemming from re-addressing fishery management. Something the community has been pushing for and wanting to develop in conjunction with the Department. | No | The benefit of MPAs for biodiversity is strongly supported in the literature and the primary aim of the MPA network is to improve biodiversity in Jersey waters. What is disputed in the literature is the benefit of MPAs for fisheries, with benefits often taking many years to be realised in terms of spill over - and with varying impacts on different fisheries. Improving fisheries through fisheries regulations is outside of the scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511860 | MSP | 9) There have been no measurable aims or KPIs provided within the draft MSP, and how and when these will be measured and what will be identified as successes and failures. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. It is not known if all of the recommendations will be accepted for final inclusion in the plan. Measurable outputs will be decided on when the recommendations are taken forward as their own streams of work. |
JMSP- 581511860 | Seabed protection |
| Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511860 | MSP | 12) The language and tone of the document comes across as fairly anti-fishing' which the industry feels is inappropriate and paints an incorrect picture of the ecosystem and the industry's activities. The pot, rod and net fishermen would like to ensure there are guarantees that they will not be targeted into the future as this is felt to be insinuated within the document. Furthermore, the additional suggestions of no take zones etc. are very concerning for those who actively use these areas, although they may be few this could have disastrous affects for their businesses and employees. I would like to clarify that I am not against the concept of an MSP or MPA. However, there are serious concerns about the proposals outlined in the draft MSP. I would like further clarification and information surrounding the proposed MSP. I would ask for the deadline to be further extended so more in- depth engagement can be conducted with the fishing community. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. The consultation was extended to allow additional input. Further engagement work will take place ahead of the implementation of new spatial management measures. |
JMSP- 581511861 | Renewable energy | The proposal suggests closing 27% of local waters to mobile gear-before a wind farm will take another 11% if it were to go ahead.-that equates to 38%. We currently have 7% of waters where mobile gear is forbidden. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511861 | Seabed protection | The msp proposal and the reckless MPA's within it have really affected me and my well being over the last few months, the constant worry and anxiety of possibly not being able to do my job in the future. I have been a fisherman since leaving school after my GCSE's at 16 years old, I'm proud of what I do and wish to continue feeding people the best food available. Why is this happening in this way, I cannot believe that our marine resources panel and government think it's ok to treat other human beings in this way. There has been no proper consultation or dialogue with the fisherman this will affect up until recent months once there was already a deadline in place. We are hard working business people that pay our taxes and contribute to the island, yet we have been treated like we don't matter. This whole plan has been rushed. There is simply not enough evidence in ways of data or recent research been carried out to warrant the proposed MPA's and their whereabouts. The sheer scale of the MPAs are ridiculous and would see jersey with the most protected waters in the world. I've read through the document, far too much heresy and not enough hard facts. The impact this would have on the island and it's ability in the future to harvest a natural resource would be to the detriment of everyone living in jersey not just the individuals who go fishing. Some clear facts: The proposal suggests closing 27% of local waters to mobile gear-before a wind farm will take another 11% if it were to go ahead.-that equates to 38%. We currently have 7% of waters where mobile gear is forbidden. The Uk currently has 8% of its waters that forbid mobile gear, they do have a higher percentage of MPAs in which mobile gear is allowed. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| In the whole world only 2.5% of the seas forbid mobile gear, who thinks it ok to suggest jersey could bring in catastrophic measures and see its local food security cut off? The same can be said with French waters(less than 5%) on the adjacent coast-one only has to look on AIS to see our Normandy counterparts working within the sound of chausey, under their coast etc(I did send some previous photo evidence of this) the baie de Seine scallop fishery is probably the most successful managed scallop fishery in the world right now and it operates within an MPA. Who can justify this outrageous disproportionate proposal within the MSP draft? It seems someone has forgot to do their homework, some of the fisherman are seeking legal advice on this matter, it seems this would be discriminatory against jersey fisherman. The MPAs within the proposal are more similar to HMPAs that are very few anywhere in the world, in fact the Scott ish government recently threw out a proposal for under 10% of HMPAs in its waters, stating it was unworkable and would kill off coastal communities. Europe have recently announced there must be more work done before creating any MPAs that see mobile gear stopped. There has to be more consideration given to the fishing industry, and food security before this goes any further. There hasnt been any mention to differentiate between scallop/prairie dredging and bottom trawling(which has far less impact on the seabed). If fish stocks change as they often do with nature, there will be no scope within this proposal to invest or expand to take advantage of species that require trawling to harvest them. There must be a balance struck between environmentalism and allowing natural food to be harvested. The best wild source of protein on our doorstep. What will happen to the great healthy scallops stocks we are seeing at the moment-they will simply die off. The local restaurants will gradually have to take them off their menus as |
|
|
|
| they become more expensive as diving would never keep up with the present demand, meaning more imported produce and the island increasing its carbon footprint, this proposal has been poorly thought out. If implemented this for sure would be the death knell of what's left of our local fishing industry, as it is, we are only just hanging in there, it will only take a few more boats to leave before the rest of the infrastructure collapses. It would for certain give me no option but to leave the job I love. I bought the present boat I have in as a multipurpose inshore trawler, all our boats are around the 10 meter mark, their impact on the Enviroment is minimal, and in my opinion is far offset with the good food they provide. They are suited to fish inshore sheltered waters, grounds offshore and to the west cannot be compared, the boats aren't big enough to work these areas successfully year round-this proposal would ultimately put life's at risk. I now find myself working alone as youngsters seem to have stopped wanting to enter the industry. I cannot diversify as I have done successfully in the past, with no crew around at the moment and the economics of returning to crab and lobster fishing, I am dependent on the inshore scallop fishery. I've invested heavily last year in the boat and ashore on my premises-I'm now worried this could have been a bad move. I would love to see the government of jersey really get behind the fishing industry moving forward. With the right input we could have a thriving managed fishery like our French neighbours, closed seasons and closed areas whilst seeding immature scallops. I'm sure the lobsters and crabs will come good again too soon, over the years you learn that you can't control nature and one has to adapt, if this opportunity is taken away the job wouldn't be possible. There is a place for MPAs in the marine environment if they are carefully considered alongside all stakeholders. I forward some pictures of my |
|
|
|
| navigation plotter(my max sea computer is currently being repaired-I'm happy to share at a later date if wanted)which show the grounds I am so dependent on. Please revisit this whole proposal of MPAs alongside the fishing industry. The island of jersey and its people deserve a fishing fleet to harvest the wonderful seafood on our doorstep. And fishing really is the best most rewarding way of life in the world. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511862 | Seabed protection | To the public of Jersey, I would like to highlight as a mobile gear fisherman the importance of my traditional fishing grounds. If the proposed areas set out by the fisheries department go ahead, I will loose up to 80 percent of the areas that I use to make my living from. I have been catching scallops for 22 years, and have a combination of local and export sales. My business has stabilised after the exit from the European Union and also managed to overcome the negative impact of Covid 19. As a consequence, of the unrealistic timeframe given to the fisheries department with relation to the MSP, It has caused a huge unsettling between the fisheries officers and the fleet they work alongside. The evidence presented in the MSP has flaws, which I believe to be as follows The areas inside of jerseys exclusive 3 mile limit were sampled with actual physical samples more often than other areas where the french scallop fleet is active. The department switched to using towed video cameras with an accuracy of only 70 percent for less enforceable areas of the islands territorial seas. The 30 percent of the MPA target that the environment minister has set is well above the commitments of any other coastal state on the planet and does not acknowledge important deep water habitats or HPMAs, and also where extremely volatile species exist. Also, not taking into account the scale of the environment ministers proposed wind farm project. This is some 11 percent of Jersey's total enforceable sea area excluding MPAs. The total would be closer to 40 percent of closed areas for fishing if this spatial plan is not scrutinised thoroughly. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| We have a fleet of 7 trawlers with a total power of 1300 kilowatts, which is roughly 15 percent of the issued KW to our french counterparts in the mobile gear sector, free of charge. No economic link has been established, not even for the administration costs of processing french licenses. This seems to be the responsibility of the Jersey tax payer. I must include, that given the exceptional quality of local scallop stocks the mobile fisherman of Jersey, are desperately seeking proper fisheries management to allow a brighter future for newcomers and a better product for consumers. I also want to highlight the outstanding support our sector has received from the wider public over the recent years. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511865 | Management | Hi , I am a professional fisherman with forty years experience fishing for crab and lobster, and would like to share my views on jerseys marine spatial plan. Firstly some of the charts used to show fishing activity in Jersey waters are not accurate. There are areas on the charts that show no fishing activity. When in fact these areas are fished regularly by a large number of boats. I know for a fact that fishermen gave information to show where we fish ,so why isn't it shown? Big decisions that could impact a person's livelihood shouldn't be considered on incomplete data and no impact assessment . Also it's claimed in the plan that 45000 pots are fished in our waters . I believe this is totally false, and would like to know how this number was calculated? On the subject of lost fishing gear on beaches -as a dog owner I spend a lot of time walking on beaches and the majority of gear washed up is from French boats. Finally the consultation process has been very poor. The minister has not been at any of the meetings with fishermen. Instead he sends fisheries officers, and fishermen have no way of knowing if their concerns ever get relayed to the minister in charge. I don't understand why / how Blue Marine ( founded in Monaco ) is so involved in telling the government how to manage fishing in our waters? I haven't met anybody from Blue Marine who has ever worked in the fishing industry . I haven't heard of any fishing communities that has benefited from the involvement of Blue Marine . | Yes | Spatial fisheries data was gathered from a variety of sources as laid out in the MSP evidence base documents. Datasets were checked and verified against each other. Further data is being gathered to support the Business Impact Assessment being run on the proposed MPA areas. 45k pots is based on the number of licensed fishing vessels and their pot allocation and pot tag orders. |
JMSP- 581511870 | Seabed protection | Generally think it is a good idea, there has already been a noticeable difference in the number/size of scallop inside the current MPAs and it is expected that the extended MPA zones would only improve on this. St aubins is too heavily dredged at the moment, not sure how there are any scallops left. Measures should be brought in now while the scallop stocks are good to ensure sustainability going forwards. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511870 | Seabed protection | Do not want anymore No Take Zones around the coast. | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 581511870 | Harbours | Do not want restrictions on moorings in St. Catherines harbour. | No | No restrictions on moorings in St. Catherines are suggested in the plan, only the transition to eco- friendly moorings in seagrass areas. |
JMSP- 581511870 | Economic development | Would like to be able to seed areas within the new MPA network with smaller scallops to have accessible areas with good scallop abundance in bad weather. Onshore facilities are needed to help the scallop diving community - in particular a unit to process and store scallops, and a recompression chamber to allow for treatment of the bends on island | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
JMSP- 581511871 | Seabed protection | I have been a Granville fisherman for 24 years. I have always navigated the waters of Jersey, as many generations of French fishermen before me did. This proximity, our common history and our shared values make me consider our two countries like two brothers who have forged a friendship for centuries. Since the 2000s I have been fishing in Jersey for shellfish with a dredge and fish with a trawl. After 20 years of common sea (la mer commune) and stability that suited everyone, Brexit was a hard blow . In addition to the lost fishing rights, it took me more than 2 years for my activity in your waters to be recognized and to finally obtain my fishing permits. These 2 years have been very hard for me, physically, financially and morally. For many years I have been fishing in Jersey in the same areas that I know by heart the reliefs and habitats present at the bottom. My sectors are: south-east and east of Minquiers, East Jersey and the Arconies. Contrary to what the maps indicate, there are no species of interest to protect in my fishing areas, there is only sand and live shells. I also observe that the practice of dredging on the bottom allows the sediments to be aerated, like a gardener who maintains his garden. This prevents the shellfish from dying, quite the contrary, this promotes the food supply and the regeneration of species. So I don't understand why there are these protection zones which systematically exclude mobile gear. As proposed, these zones would cause the end of many French fishermen and jersiais. I therefore hope that the environmental objectives will be adapted to the challenges and economics of traditional fishing. Jersey, my brothers across the way, receive my distinguished greetings | Yes | The suggestion that bottom towed fishing does not negatively impact the seabed at odds with the overwhelming scientific literature evidence and so is refuted. MPA boundaries have been revised where possible to take socio-economic impact into account. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511872 | Seabed protection | Contribution from Mr , ship Good morning, My name is , I am the owner of the shellfish trawler . We We have been fishing in Jersey waters for 37 years using trawls and scallop dredges. We trawl almost all year round in Jersey waters. We target sea bream in the spring and since Brexit we have lost ¾ of the fishing areas in Jersey for this species. The project as it is presented removes all fishing zones from me. I would like to remind you that the Sea bream fishing is done with a pelagic trawl, which has no impact on the bottom. We also trawl in the East and West Jersey, if marine protected areas are implemented, we will lose all our zones in the east. My family has been fishing in Jersey waters for at least 4 generations. We have seen fishing areas removed over the last 30 years. We are a traditional coastal boat, we cannot go offshore fishing. We lose fishing rights on a regular basis in your waters, initially under the pretext of protection of habitats with Ramsar sites, then it is a question of protection of sea bream with zones of nesting and now, the protection of 25% of your waters, and this whilst mentioning a future ban on mobile gear. I'm not even talking about the loss of rights caused by Brexit even though it was done within a Treaty supposed to guarantee us the ability to work "as before". The way these measures are presented, and the areas identified as future marine protected areas' it make me doubt the real merits of the approach: is it only a desire to protect habitats or is this an additional way to put pressure on the French mobile gear boats? Concerning the sites themselves, there are two areas which represent a strong economic challenge for me, they are shown in the maps below: | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511872.2 | Seabed protection | I am the shipowner of , a fisherman from Gouville sur Mer. I mainly fish for whelks in the Le Boeuf sector and I also fish for shellfish: lobster and spiders. My activity in the waters of Jersey is quite border-line, I work near the Arconie plateau. In your document, I understand that the desire is to protect habitats and that the potters would be less affected. However, in the Sauvage sector, you are talking about banning them because the sectors damage the seabed. Is this a long-term project on the other MPAs? Prohibiting mobile gear in large sectors as you propose in your document will have big consequences. Many of us work between Jersey and France, we seek to cohabit in good conditions, respecting each other and ensuring that the material is respected. This became much more complex in 2021 when several colleagues lost their access to Jersey waters. I work a lot on cohabitation between ships, particularly between mobile gear and static gear vessels. Removing more areas for the mobile gear fleet will unbalance everything and this will have consequences on all ships. That will therefore also have a strong impact on our fishing strategies and our possibilities of rotation between the different areas. The proximity between Jersey and the Normandy coast is obvious, we are close neighbors. We therefore have the same issues, whether ecological or economic. As fishermen, we have always sought to ensure sustainable, environmentally friendly fishing. We are accustomed to taking action but only when justified. In the case of areas presented here, I ask myself the question: do we know if the habitats you wish to protect are in a good condition? is there an interest in protecting ecosystems that are doing well to the detriment of activities economics that have been in place for years? I feel like this is yet another way to keep us out of Jersey waters. It is difficult to understand when we see that exchanges between fishermen or with fishmongers are rather good. We have a long-standing common history. We have always worked | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| together and shared the sea. We must not forget that we are close neighbors, so it is important to take into account in your document and ensure exchanges between our two regions in order to guarantee our common interests. Best regards |
|
|
JMSP- 581511873 | Seabed protection | I mainly fish for whelks in the Le Boeuf sector and I also fish for shellfish: lobster and spiders. My activity in the waters of Jersey is quite border-line, I work near the Arconie plateau. In your document, I understand that the desire is to protect habitats and that the potters would be less affected. However, in the Sauvage sector, you are talking about banning them because the sectors damage the seabed. Is this a long-term project on the other MPAs? Prohibiting mobile gear in large sectors as you propose in your document will have big consequences. Many of us work between Jersey and France, we seek to cohabit in good conditions, respecting each other and ensuring that the material is respected. This became much more complex in 2021 when several colleagues lost their access to Jersey waters. I work a lot on cohabitation between ships, particularly between mobile gear and static gear vessels. Removing more areas for the mobile gear fleet will unbalance everything and this will have consequences on all ships. That will therefore also have a strong impact on our fishing strategies and our possibilities of rotation between the different areas. The proximity between Jersey and the Normandy coast is obvious, we are close neighbors. We therefore have the same issues, whether ecological or economic. As fishermen, we have always sought to ensure sustainable, environmentally friendly fishing. We are accustomed to taking action but only when justified. In the case of areas presented here, I ask myself the question: do we know if the habitats you wish to protect are in a good condition? is there an interest in protecting ecosystems that are doing well to the detriment of activities economics that have been in place for years? I feel like this is yet another way to keep us out of Jersey waters. It is difficult to understand when we see that exchanges between fishermen or with fishmongers are rather good. We have a long-standing common history. We have always worked together and shared the sea. We must not forget that we are close neighbors, so it is important to take into account in your | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
| document and ensure exchanges between our two regions in order to guarantee our common interests. Best regards |
|
|
Organisation responses
Organisation responses are listed in alphabetical order of organisation name.
Case ID | Topic | Organisation Name | Comment | Action | Justification |
JMSP- 581511866 | MSP | Action for Wildlife | We are writing to you to highlight our support for the proposed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) outlined in the Marine Spatial Plan (MSP). If implemented, the proposed network of MPA's detailed in the plan would represent a significant achievement. Having read the methodologies, we can see that the most valuable habitats have been carefully selected for whole-site protection, based on their importance in supporting biodiversity, fisheries and carbon. We feel that the MSP effectively reflects Jersey's responsibilities to the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its targets to reach 30 percent marine protection by the year 2030. With signatories reporting back to the CBD on their 30x30 progress at COP16 this year, we believe Jersey will have the opportunity to showcase how Jersey will achieve the targets, on an international platform. Priority NB5 in chapter 8.6 outlines suitable actions to meet the targets of the GBF by expanding Jersey's existing MPAs, where mobile fishing gear is not permitted, to 27 percent of territorial waters (including exclusion zones surrounding underwater power cables). We believe this would benefit the lower-impact, static forms of commercial and recreational fishing (which will be able to continue operating within MPA's), by ensuring the long-term health of key stocks such as crab and lobster (which make up approximately 70% of Jersey's annual fishery value). | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
|
| Additionally protection of the proposed areas is likely to result in recovery and growth of nationally important habitats that serve as important nursery, spawning and feeding grounds. This should lead to a regeneration of habitats, an increase in biodiversity and greater resilience to storms and climate change. The numerous environmental, social and economic benefits are clear. We urge for the proposed MPAs to be delivered through the actions of priority NB5, resulting in 27 per cent of our waters being protected from mobile fishing gear. |
|
|
JMSP- 578877746 | Conservation | Alderney Wildlife Trust | We wish to primarily comment on Chapter 8, but our comments may also link to other chapters or other aspects of the JMSP, such as the Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture chapter (9). Fundamentally, we support the aim of chapter 8, that Jersey's natural environment is restored, and biodiversity is thriving. Please find our comments below i. No Take Zones (chapter 8, section 8.2.1, page 85) We support proactive actions which aim to protect valuable and vulnerable habitats and wildlife, such as the implementation and management of Marine Protected Areas (MPA). This includes the application of extreme measures based on sound evidence where necessary, such as No Take Zones' (NTZ). To ensure adequate protection from any adjacent/close by human activities, would a buffer zone' surrounding the proposed NTZ (e.g. Les Sauvages Reef) be considered? Adjacent high impact human pressures such as fishing, dredging, pollution and so forth may have the potential to damage habitats and wildlife indirectly through changes in water quality and turbidity. Therefore, could a small buffer zone surrounding any new' designation with the aim to further enhance the protection of valuable and vulnerable habitats and wildlife therein be an option? | No | Les Sauvages NTZ already has a small buffer included but it is not practical to have a buffer to Portelet NTZ. |
JMSP- 578877746 | Management | Alderney Wildlife Trust | ii. Ramsar Sites (chapter 8, section 8.3.1, page 87) Given that the objectives of the JMSP is to develop a network of MPAs, it may be useful to highlight the locations of other Ramsar Sites throughout the Channel Islands and France, through spatial mapping, for background context. | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to end of section 4.2.2. |
JMSP- 578877746 | Admin | Alderney Wildlife Trust | iii. Issues (chapter8 section 8.6.7, page 12) This section aims to summarise issues related to the vulnerabilities of Jersey's marine habitat and species and refers to the document: An Outline of the Ecology and Sensitivity of Marine Habitats in Jersey (2023) [Evidence Base document EB/NB/10]'. We feel that diseases/viruses (e.g. HPAI, diseases related to fisheries (e.g. necrotic shell disease)), aquaculture, coastal squeeze, freshwater input, coastal erosion and ocean acidification (derived from climate change impacts) are additional key issues and should be described or referenced further here, where appropriate. | Yes | This was beyond scope to include in this particular Evidence Base document but an extra sentence has been added to section 8.6.7 in paragraph 1 to say that future iterations of the JMSP may consider other factors such as fish disease, water acidification and freshwater input. |
JMSP- 578877746 | Admin | Alderney Wildlife Trust | iv. Marine protected areas (chapter 8, section 8.6, page 116) Again, given that the objectives of the JMSP is to develop a network of MPAs, it would be valuable to map the locations of other adjacent MPAs, throughout the Channel Islands and France. |
| Wider contextualisation of MPAs across the Normano-Breton Gulf is an objective of future iterations of the MSP. Jersey will continue to engage with neighbouring jurisdictions as future protected areas are developed. |
JMSP- 578877746 | Seagrass | Alderney Wildlife Trust | v. Priority NB6b: Seagrass habitat management areas (chapter 8, page 121) This priority describes the use of eco-friendly moorings as a conservation tool to help reduce the impact of physical damage from traditional moorings within seagrass habitat management areas. Other management conservation tools, in addition to the use of eco-moorings, within seagrass habitat management areas may be valuable. For example, the use of rope line (if eco- moorings are not available), the implementation of no anchoring zones or the deployment of seagrass marker buoys (to show where seagrass is present to marine users) could be considered. Engagement activities with boat/mooring owners and other marine users are also paramount. Therefore, will this priority also consider other options for seagrass restoration effort within seagrass habitat management areas, in addition to eco-moorings? In addition, as seagrass is vulnerable to human induced pressures such as physical disturbance from bait digging and reduced water quality (from freshwater run-off and nitrogen input etc.,), will the seagrass habitat management areas include other management options for these issues? | No | Restoration of seagrass has not been recommended due to seagrass expanding naturally in Jersey waters, but efforts are instead focussed on removing pressure from seagrass areas to protect the extent and health of seagrass beds, this will be addressed by action NB6a. |
JMSP- 578877746 | INNS | Alderney Wildlife Trust |
Chapter 8 references the document: Invasive Non-Native Species: Challenges for the Water Environment (Environment Agency, 2021)' and outlines issues related to specific marine invasive nonnative species (marine INNS), such as the American slipper limpet. Will the JMSP consider pro-active biosecurity management measures at an ecosystem-based level to help reduce new and established marine INNS, with the aim to help encourage a thriving marine environment? Are there other relevant biosecurity measures/relevant Jersey based marine INNS management plans that could be referenced within the chapter specifically? Marine INNS are a significant threat to thriving native species, communities and habitats. An ecosystem-based approach to manage marine INNS effectively may enable and be critical to the stated overarching aim of chapter 8.
We support the pro-active conservation works associated with developing seagrass habitat management areas. As described in chapter 8, Jersey's marine environment is home to a range of valuable and vulnerable habitats and wildlife. Therefore, will the JMSP (and subsequent works) consider similar priorities/management areas for other priority habitats and wildlife, such as developing rock-seaweed or maerl habitat management areas? Conversely, could this link to poor habitat types, such as marine INNS habitats, for example: the American slipper limpet habitat? Implementing direct management techniques/habitat management areas for a small number of priority habitats and wildlife may complement the wider scaled ecosystem-based approach to facilitate the main aim of chapter 8. | No | Spatial management is unlikely to have an impact on marine INNS due an inability to contain a marine invasive once it enters the system. Plans to manage marine INNS are being addressed by the Government of Jersey Biosecurity team. The proposed MPAs will contribute to an Ecosystem Based approach as it will protect large areas of seabed from mobile fishing that disturbs the seabed. |
JMSP- 578877746 | International relations | Alderney Wildlife Trust | viii. General JMSP points: transboundary plans/works, effects and impacts Does the JMSP refer to/or acknowledge other known transboundary plans/works and their impacts from, and on, adjacent territories? These may all have significant influences upon the JMSP and the island's marine environment. Examples include; marine spatial plans, specific marine species plans (e.g. conservation/ management plans for priority habitats and species) and fisheries management plans adopted in the other Channel Islands, France and the UK. In addition, will the JMSP take into consideration how Jersey based marine plans/works (including those works associated with the JMSP) will impact upon adjacent territories? It may be useful to consider/refer to, the potential transboundary effects of human activities (from those islands) upon Jersey's marine environment, such as adjacent fisheries, dredging, renewable/non-renewable energy works, other development plans and so forth. Will the JMSP also consider the potential transboundary effects of Jersey based marine activities and developments uponadjacent territories, including any effects upon their designated sites or valuable and vulnerable habitats and species? Due to the highly migratory nature (e.g. transboundary movements) of key species such as fish, marine mammals and seabirds (described in chapter 8), it may also be particularly valuable to refer to/or highlight such, within the JMSP. Considering transboundary effects may not only provide background spatial context to the document but also ensure the end use/purposes of the JMSP, rather than the plan being developed in isolation. | No | Neighbouring jurisdictions have and continue to be consulted during the MSP process but Jersey does not have authority to establish protected areas outside of our territorial waters. Integration of the JMSP with neighbouring jurisdictions will be considered for future iterations. |
JMSP- 578877746 | Admin | Alderney Wildlife Trust | ix. General JMSP points: JMSP; adaptive spatial planning techniques in response to the climate crisis? Chapter 8 encompasses the key aspects of Jersey's marine environment such as designated sites and priority habitats and wildlife. This chapter also outlines threats from climate change, such as sea-level rise (chapter 8, page 113). In addition, other sections of the JMSP refer to the climate crisis, where appropriate (e.g. section: addressing climate change, page 12). We are encouraged to see climate change mentioned throughout the JMSP, particularly as such impacts have the potential to heavily influence all four of the plans' objectives/purposes (e.g. purposes of the JMSP, page 8). Therefore, will the JMSP plan be developed as an iterative, adaptive, coordinated spatial plan, able to cope with the growing direct and indirect pressures from climate change impacts (e.g. land-based flooding and coastal erosion impacts upon the marine environment)? Are there any other current or future plans to directly link to, in addition to the current/future Island Plan, specifically related to the ecological | No | Future iterations of the JMSP will evolve in line with changing environmental conditions. |
|
|
| impacts associated climate change? Perhaps the section on climate change (page 12) should be expanded and refer directly to appropriate actions/works cited within the appendix? Enabling the JMSP to adapt quickly enough using a coordinated ecosystem-based approach to the climate crisis may be vital to ensure the long-term viability of the island's thriving marine environment. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511863 | Fishing restrictions | Anglers | 1. Protection of Long-lived fish species from netting A buffer around the shore, particularly around the north coast, is needed to exclude nets and pots from obstructing recreational angling. There is also concern relating to species such as slow-growing and residential long-lived sport fish that are currently being caught in nets as by-catch. Imposing a buffer zone on nets close to shore would also mean that more Wrasse, amongst other species, will be available to be caught in catch and release fishing activity. A distance of 150 metres from the low water mark is requested. | Yes | Action FA2e has been added to address issues of commercial potting and netting in close proximity to recreational angling spots. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Fishing restrictions | Anglers | 2. Illegal fishing by Potters and Netters Pots placed where they shouldn't be, such as pots too close to the north side of st catherines breakwater and in designated Harbour areas are an issue for anglers. Illegally placed pots are not removed fast enough. This has been an ongoing issue for years. A wider buffer zone and moving the zone from the high water to low water mark will help. In addition, and in order to avoid costly inconvenience to the Coastal Patrol it would be suggested that both confiscation and £500 fines should be imposed on breaches of the rule. | No | A new action (FA2e) has been added to review commercial fishing in proximity to angling sites. There is also another new action to improve signage in harbours (FA2f). |
JMSP- 581511863 | Fishing restrictions | Anglers | 3. Protection of Bass An extension of the bass closed season (currently February and March) would allow for more to breed and the population to recover further; the current closed season ends when there are still roed-up' females. Whilst it is more likely business for the Fisheries Panel, it is captured here to note direction of travel. What should also be highlighted is the willingness of recreational anglers to support protection of Bass and other species when they are most vulnerable. Jersey is an important breeding area for Bass. Currently, Bass are being netted in January (before the 2-month ban comes into effect) fully roed-up'. They are also full of roe well into April and some actually spawn as late as May. In April they are in tightly packed shoals. In areas such as the northern reefs of St Ouen, the | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
|
|
| shoals start breaking up towards the end of April and through May as they move back to feeding areas after spawning. This one month extra is where everyone will benefit most in the future. It is recommended that ;
|
|
|
JMSP- 581511863 | Seabed protection | Anglers | 4. Mobile Gear Activity From a recreational angling perspective we are satisfied with the No Mobile Gear areas' as no dredging and trawling close to shore will benefit the recreational sector and ultimately the commercial fishermen through increased populations of species. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Harbours | Anglers | 5. Clarity on Harbour Limits and sign-posting It is not widely known, by recreational anglers or the public, where the harbour limits are and it is also not well known who to contact if suspected illegal fishing is happening within the harbour limits. There is a general need to increase awareness and this could be achieved through signage with the relevant telephone numbers displayed and instructions as to what to do in the 3 main languages. | Yes | There is a new action (FA2f) regarding improved signage in harbours to show harbour extents and therefore where potting and netting are prohibited. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Seabed protection | Anglers | 6. No Take Zones expansion Whilst we agree with the principles behind them, we don't see the need for more No Take Zones' around the coast, but we do not oppose the offshore NTZ at Les Sauvages. | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Seabed protection | Anglers | 7. No Take Zones – C&R We propose that allowing recreational anglers the ability to Catch and Release would enhance the benefits to young anglers and visiting anglers alike. This would need to be strictly applied with no retention of damaged fish and stern financial fines for breaches of the rules or littering. Ultimately, should it become necessary to expand the NTZs, less resistance would be encountered should C&R be permitted. | No | Catch and release will not be considered in No Take Zones as it is not possible to enforce. Catch and release is also a stressful event for the fish that are caught and is therefore not condusive to an area that is a santuary for marine life. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Access | Anglers | 8. Information Gathering on the extent and impact of Recreational Fishing. We propose that a repeat of the recreational fishing survey, last carried out in 2015, be conducted. The 2015 study does not take into account winter fishing spots and is now outdated. We recommend a review and update to this survey so that there is more detailed spatial information regarding recreational fishing. The take by anglers is suspected to be considerably lower than previous assumptions, which may simply have extrapolated take numbers from a handful of anglers to the entire fishing population, most of whom catch little or take nothing apart from Mackerel. | Yes | A reference to recreational fishing has been added to action RT2d. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Access | Anglers | 9. Access to traditional and recreational fishing areas Concerns over access to beaches/parking permits. There is a priority in the Marine Spatial Plan to review the current system and there are concerns that this may limit access to recreational fishers and/or limit trailers on beaches. How would these permits be allocated? | No | The way in which permits would be allocated cannot be addressed by the JMSP and will be down to relevant authorities to action. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Disturbance | Anglers | 10. Bird life protection against harmful netting practices Currently netting is conducted at any time of the day and concentrated during daytime hours when seabirds are active, especially dawn and dusk. By-catch of seabirds is well known and the seizure of a net at St Brelade's Bay by the JSPCA with large numbers of by-catch birds was evidence of the damage wrought by current netting practices. JNCC Report No. 717 ( https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/dbed3ea2-1c2a-40cf-b0f8-437372f1a036/jncc- report-717.pdf) suggests methods to avoid bird by-catch. We propose that netters should limit setting of their gear after sunset and remove it before dawn. Overnight netting should also largely prevent Ballan Wrasse by-catch. | No | This will be addressed by priority FA2. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Fishing restrictions | Anglers | 11. Ballan Wrasse C&R It has long been recognised by the recreational angling community that Ballan Wrasse are slow to grow, long-lived and highly residential. Once one is removed it is not replaced quickly. Sadly, in recent years they are getting killed in gill nets, they have been exported for use in Scott ish Salmon farms to manage sea-lice populations and, more of a problem, they are a readily available source of bait for pots. Wrasse anglers have noticed the decline in numbers and size and it would be helpful to protect the species with a Catch and Release policy. Both of the main recreational fishing clubs have embraced the C&R idea and there is also a Wrasse C&R competition. In addition, the Jersey Open Angling Festival | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
|
|
| only allows Ballan Wrasse to be measured and released, not brought to the scales. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511863 | Fishing restrictions | Anglers | 12. Blue fin Tuna Numbers around the islands have expanded rapidly in the past few decades given climate change and perhaps better protection and management of the Herring, Sardine, Mackerel and other pelagic species. We see that the EU are permitted a quota and the UK are also progressing their own policy in this direction. Now would be an opportune time to allow Jersey Recreational anglers to share part of any UK quota. This would be of particular interest to visiting anglers who will pay very good money to fish for the species. For example, a sportsfishing boat in Madeira commands around £1,250 per day. Minimum size of retention will need to be observed but thought will need to be exercised on the release of fish after 45 minutes on the hook as survival rates are low after prolonged battles. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 581511863 | Fishing restrictions | Anglers | 13. Bass Protection by increasing size limit (minimum length) In addition to setting nets overnight we also recommend an increase in the size limit. At 42cm not all Bass will spawn, it's when they get to 45cm+ that nearly 100 percent of the species will spawn. The combination of extension of the out of season by a month and increase in minimum size will assist the species population. Obviously, some thought will also need to be given to changes in net mesh sizes if the minimum length is to be observed and research has already been undertaken by Fisheries into the impact of mesh sizes on both impact on Bass and also by-catch. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | Jersey is a signatory to a number of international conventions which oblige it to protect its marine environment. Examples include the '30 by 30' target (i.e. Target 3 which outlines 30% of terrestrial and marine environments by 2030) agreed at the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and the OSPAR Convention, which identifies a series of threatened habitats and species which should be protected. The GBFincludes 196 countries as signatories, it is a historic agreement and Jersey would show world leadership by protecting 30% of its waters by 2030. FA1 Fully support proposed 27%. However, to meet commitments this should be increased to 30%. Full text of target 3 of the GBF: Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories. Blue Marine proposes:
| Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Financing | Blue Marine Foundation | The draft JMSP lacks a detailed budget and financing plan for its potential delivery. Funding for the delivery of MSPs often come from the governing authority. However, the Government of Jersey has an opportunity to explore sustainable financing models such as credit structures including nature positive biodiversity credits, investment from private finance such as tourism and user fees, and loan/debt structures. These have proven to contribute to marine spatial planning and delivery of MPAs. | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to section 1.2 to highlight the need to secure resourcing for many of the priority and action points. See also Appendix A. |
|
|
| Blue Marine propose that a financing strategy for the delivery of the JMSP is developed. Blue Marine proposes the addition of the following commitment in the final JMSP: To deliver the JMSP, the Government of Jersey will explore avenues of sustainable financing mechanisms to secure the long-term funding for sustainable marine use and management, such as biodiversity monitoring, financial support for small scale, low impact fishing and compensatory measures for displaced fishing. |
|
|
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | NB1a-c One NTZ already exists in Jersey territorial waters allowing monitoring of changes to ecological health after removal of fishing, and how the local marine environment reacts to environmental change where other pressures are removed. NTZs are well documented to significantly improve fish biomass through the restoration of complex habitats and ecosystems. While this results in ecological benefits within local and surrounding areas, NTZs have also shown to have a positive impact on local economies through improved fisheries and ecotourism. It should also be noted in Chapter 8.2.1 of the draft MSP that Blue Marine have never recommended for Les Sauvages to be a NTZ. Evidence Base Document EB/NB/11 clearly recommends for the site to be considered for further protection and robust fisheries management approaches are proposed, consulted upon and delivered.'. This should be clarified in the relevant section of the JMSP. Blue Marine formally requests a change to the wording on p85 from Three additional areas have been proposed for NTZs in the consultation for this MSP: Les Sauvages Reef (south-east of Les Minquiers) (proposed by Blue Marine);' to, Les Sauvages Reef (south-east of Les Minquiers) has specifically been recommended for further protection (based on evidence which shows significantly high levels of biodiversity). Additionally, two areas have been proposed for NTZs: Archirondel and Anne Port Bays' | Yes | The text in section 8.2.1 has been updated. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | Based on evidence from research in Jersey and other locations in the UK, protection of the proposed areas from trawling and dredging are expected to result in recovery and expansion of nationally important habitats. These areas also serve as important nursery, spawning and feeding grounds, and protection in this form would lead to an increase in biodiversity, and increased resilience to storms and climate change. The increase in biodiversity as a result of MPA implementation is also expected to benefit the local fishing industry through increased abundance of commercially important stocks). 1) The final sentence of Action NB5a should be amended to: 'No mobile fishing gear or destructive/ damaging development will be permitted to be used/take place within MPAs. | Yes | The text has been amended accordingly. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Economic development | Blue Marine Foundation | NB5 The implementation of MPAs can also have significant economic benefits through the delivery of ecosystem services. As part of the consultation, Blue Marine submitted an Ecosystem Service Valuation (ESV) referred to as Evidence Base document EB/NB/9' in the draft JMSP. This model has now been updated (report attached with the submission of this response) with the JMSP MPA scenario, calculating revised net estimates for a net ecosystem service impact value of £1.6m, £9.6m and £27.8m over a 5-, 10- and 20-year period respectively after designation. These numbers reflect the net impact after considering the cost of lost fishing which was estimated to be £15.9m, £44.4m and £104.2m over a 5-, 10-and 20-year period respectively. While the net impact may be positive over the longer term, stakeholders affected (both economically and socially) by displacement from traditional fishing grounds due to the introduction of MPAs need support to make a just transition. To assess the impact and identify and fund appropriate and proportionate measures to support this transition, a socioeconomic impact assessment is needed. This should not delay statutory introduction of the MPAs, but must be initiated at the soonest possible time. Following the socio- economic impact assessment, dialogue with the fishing industry is needed to identify the most effective, equitable and proportionate support measures to enable a just transition. Blue Marine has commissioned a study to better understand the costs and benefits of a just transition for UK inshore fisheries. The study considers realistic options to replace existing destructive fishing practices with lower-impact marine activities. A framework is being developed that can be applied to demonstrate the social, economic and environmental impacts of transition | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to section 8.6.9 paragraph 8 and a new action (NB5d) regarding compensatory measures and/or alternatives for affected fishermen within the mobile fishing sector impacted by the designation of MPAs. |
|
|
| options. This will be published in March 2024 and could be very relevant for the Government of Jersey to consider. 2) Priority NB5 should include an additional Action as follows: Action NB5d: A comprehensive socio-economic impact assessment will be carried out immediately. Following outputs, fair compensatory measures and/or alternatives will be provided to affected fishermen within the mobile fishing sector impacted by the designation of MPAs.' |
|
|
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | NB5a A comprehensive MPA monitoring programme should be integral to the delivery of priority NB5 as this is necessary to provide accurate assessments of the performance and impact of implementing MPA management measures and inform adaptive management. The efficacy of MPAs is known to increase if well enforced. Therefore, an enforcement regime must be designed and delivered alongside any MPA designations. 3) Priority NB5 should include an additional Action as follows: Action NB5e: An enforcement and biodiversity monitoring programme will be established to ensure compliance within MPAs and understanding of their ecological impact.' | Yes | A new action has been added (NB5f) to cover monitoring of MPAs. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | NB5b Statutory legislation for marine management has historically proved to achieve better results when compared to voluntary MPAs. It is important to clearly state the timeframe for introduction of this legislation and Blue Marine believes that this should be by January 2025. Jersey's responsibilities under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) are clear. As the Government of Jersey chose to have the UK's signature to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity extended to itself in 1994, Jersey has a clear responsibility to reflect relevant frameworks in local policy. This therefore includes 30 per cent marine protection by 2030 (30x30), as outlined in target three of the GBF. Proposed amendment to Action NB5b: "Legislation will be revised to give the MPAs a statutory basis by January 2025". | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Immediate timelines cannot be decided within the JMSP. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Seagrass | Blue Marine Foundation | NB6a Seagrass is a highly important habitat, supporting high biodiversity, spawning and nursery grounds for commercial fish and drawing down and storing carbon. Nearly 97 percent of Jersey's existing seagrass beds already lie within the existing MPAs and are therefore protected from trawling and dredging. However, a significant number of boat moorings are known to cause damage, resulting in an estimated 6000m2 of seagrass being lost to date. The potential natural recovery and expansion of seagrass beds achieved by restricting damaging activities such as anchoring in the proposed areas would boost local marine biodiversity as well as mitigate the impacts of climate change. These actions would also further contribute to Jersey's Carbon Neutral Roadmap ambition to double the extent of seagrass habitats. Proposed revision to Action NB6a: Seagrass Habitat Management Areas will be established in'. Proposed revision to action NB6b: , such moorings will become required, with legislation introduced to ensure mandatory use within Seagrass' | No | Terminology within the JMSP is advisory not policy |
JMSP- 581162591 | Fishing restrictions | Blue Marine Foundation | FA1a It is likely that tiered systems like this will help to provide clarity and resolve conflicts between different fishing activities and other marine uses/values such as development, recreation, biodiversity and blue carbon. Proposed amendment to Fishing Zone A: Fishing zone A (Lightly (remove the word lightly) Regulated Fishing Area)' | Yes | The terminology of fishing areas have been changed. In addition, 'fishing areas' are now referred to as 'fishing zones' throughout. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Fishing restrictions | Blue Marine Foundation | FA1a The MSP lacks management for recreational fishing and should consider developing a recreational fishing code/guidance document to help promote best practice. | Yes | Action RT6a refers to a Seaside Code, now with a specialist supplement for recreational/low water fishing. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Aquaculture | Blue Marine Foundation | FA1a The JMSP does not outline suitable areas for potential sustainable aquaculture/phytoculture. Aquaculture farms (including bivalve and seaweed farming) can play a significant role in cycling nutrients, creating habitats and nursery grounds to promote recruitment of fish, and generate economic growth through production and employment. Areas for these activities should be | No | Outside of the scope of the JMSP - it is not possible to predict future aquaculture needs to be able to define a zone. |
|
|
| outlined in the JMSP and supported by updating existing regulations and frameworks. Additional proposed fishing zone: Fishing Zone D (Sustainable and Innovative Aquaculture)' |
|
|
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | FA1a It is vital for fisheries regulations to be updated in line with new management measures. This will help to ensure enforcementof new measures such as MPAs. Regulation measures should be updated and implemented before January 2025 and necessary discussions on mitigating impact on displaced fishermen should start as soon as possible. Proposed amendment to Action FA1a: "Fisheries regulations will be updated by January 2025 to reflect the new area- based system, following the standard process with regard to consultation." | Yes | The Fishing Zones will be implemented through the MPA and NTZ designations. It is not possible to determine the year ahead time table of the States Assembly. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Fishing restrictions | Blue Marine Foundation | FA1b As Jersey's waters experience fishing from the local commercial fleet, the French commercial fleet and a significant local recreational fishing sector, engagement with these three stakeholder groups is key to ensure compliance. In addition to engagement with the commercial fishing sector, the MSP should include engagement with the recreational fishing sector and the development of a recreational fishing code of conduct to mitigate environmental impact of this fishing sector. Proposed amendment to action FA1b: "...undertaken with the Jersey and French fishing fleets and recreational fishing sector to make sure that all are aware of the new system." | Yes | Action FA1b has been amended accordingly. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Economic development | Blue Marine Foundation | FA5a Existing barriers such as cost, infrastructure and marketing can hinder achieving a thriving economically and environmentally sustainable fishing industry. Jersey's Genuine Jersey', Genuine Jersey Line Caught Bass' and Jersey Hand Dived' are all good examples of a sustainability mark. Lyme Bay is a very good example of how measures such as installing ice machines and chiller units in ports can maintain freshness of catch and thus ensure competitive market prices. Proposed amendment to Action FA5a: sustainably-caught fish will be promoted by the creation, auditing and enforcement of a sustainability mark' | No | Outside of the scope of the JMSP. The recommendation FA5 to promote sustainable fishing is an appropriate level at this stage. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Economic development | Blue Marine Foundation | FA5b Grant schemes such as the UK Government's Fisheries and Seafood Scheme managed by the MMO in the UK has provided vital support for the fishing community to develop the necessary infrastructure and innovations to improve the quality of catch and marketing. Proposed amendment to Action FA5b: onshore facilities, such as ice machines, chiller units and processing hubs, for sustainable fishing will be encouraged and given financial support from the government.' | No | Outside of the scope of the JMSP. The recommendation FA5 to promote sustainable fishing is an appropriate level at this stage. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Economic development | Blue Marine Foundation | FA5c Promotion of sustainable fishing can also be achieved through exploring methods of transition away from damaging fishing methods, as well as diversification away from target species and efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Transition to sustainable fishing methods could also lead to an increase in GDP, employment and stocks. In the UK, this has previously been estimated to generate £319 million, 5,100 new jobs and 30% more fish. Proposed additional action: Action FA5c: The development of initiatives and incentives to support a just transition to fishing practices that have least impact on the seabed, non-target species and emissions.' | No | This will be addressed by priority FA5. Further economic support will be addressed through the Marine Economy Framework. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Access | Blue Marine Foundation | RT3a Accessibility for all user needs is crucial in maximising the Island's community connection with the sea. | No | Terminology within the JMSP is advisory not policy |
|
|
| Proposed amendment to Action RT3a: .Opportunities will be sought to improve access' |
|
|
JMSP- 581162591 | Access | Blue Marine Foundation | RT3b Organisations such as Blue Marine, Societe Jersiaise, Jersey Marine Conservation, National Trust for Jersey, Bouley Bay Dive Centre, Jersey Heritage, Healing Waves, Jersey Kayak Adventures, Seafaris and many others are all undertaking effective ways of connecting people to the sea, resulting in enhanced education, awareness and appreciation of the marine environment. However, monitoring of recreational activity within the marine environment is necessary to ensure sustainable use and to minimise human impact. Proposed additional action: Action RT3d: A monitoring programme will be developed and implemented to assess and manage any impacts of changes in accessibility and added infrastructure.' | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to section 11.3.3 to highlight the need to monitor levels of recreation to provide baseline information on recreation patterns and whether they are changing. An additional action has been added (RT2d). |
JMSP- 581162591 | Access | Blue Marine Foundation | RT3c The reduction of transportation needs will likely increase accessibility while reducing emissions of these activities. Suitable locations and designs can be regulated and managed by existing resource in the planning department. Proposed amendment to Action RT3c: at the coast will be promoted in order to Guidance will be produced' | No | Terminology within the JMSP is advisory not policy. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Beach management | Blue Marine Foundation | RT6a-b Recreation is a significant and popular activity that takes place across Jersey's coastlines, seas and offshore reefs. Inherently, these activities can also negatively impact sensitive marine habitats. Recreational fishing can generate significant littering issues if unmanaged and the Government of Jersey should commit to develop and promote a Code of Conduct for recreational shore and sea anglers to promote best practice. Seaside codes can work well in unison with safety guides. A combination of the two may streamline the process of both actions and simplify for user engagement. Recommendation that the "Enjoying the Coast Safely" is combined and expanded to include the Seaside Code to create a Seaside and Safety Code to promote enjoyment of the coast safely and sustainably. | Yes | This has been added to action RT6b to consider a subsection on recreational fishing in any revisions of the booklet. |
|
|
| Proposed additional action: A specific Code of Conduct will be produced for recreational shore and sea fishing.' |
|
|
JMSP- 581162591 | Beach management | Blue Marine Foundation | RT7a The Ramsar Management Authority already balance the opinions and needs from multiple users across the offshore reefs and should therefore be regarded as a key contributor to the Holistic Management Plans for the reefs. Proposed amendment to action RT7a: Holistic Management Plans for the reefs will be produced with users, the Ramsar Management Authority, and Residents' Associations' | No | Terminology within the JMSP is advisory not policy. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Seabed protection | Blue Marine Foundation | IT1a-e The recent classification of OECMs contributing to the global MPA network could allow any submarine cable protection zones to contribute toward Jersey's total MPA coverage. Although the reason for classification as an MPA is not for its environmental contribution, these protection zones will likely result in improvement of biodiversity, habitat regeneration and MPA connectivity to the surrounding marine ecosystem. Proposed additional action: Action IT1d: Any areas around submarine cables designated protection from mobile fishing gear and anchorage will be put forward to the UNEP-WCMC (UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre) to be officially recognised as OECMs (other effective area- based conservation measures)'. Proposed amendment to Action IT1b: telecommunications cable, will be created' Proposed amendment to Action IT1b: telecommunications cable, will be created' Proposed amendment to Action IT1e: existing cable routes in accordance to best environmental practice to mitigate ecological damage.' | Yes | First proposition is outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management if appropriate. Terminology within the JMSP is advisory not policy. Action IT1e has been amended accordingly. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Deposition | Blue Marine Foundation | IT3a-b The deposition of substances such as construction materials, dredged materials, fish waste and burials at sea can have a significant negative impact on the marine environment and surrounding wildlife. Suspended sediment from the deposition of large quantities of dredged spoil and sediment can affect kelp and seagrass growth and an assessment of the potential impacts of further deposition at existing or any new FEPA sites on the Seagrass Habitat Management Areas and MPAs should be undertaken as part of the licencing process to avoid impacts on protected features and habitats. Proposed additional action: Action IT3c: Any changes in the location and size of the FEPA offshore deposition site will be considered in light of an assessment of the potential impacts on any designated MPAs and Seagrass Management Areas.' Proposed amendment to Action IT3b: current legislation will be undertaken' | No | An expansion is unlikely and any expansion of a FEPA deposition ground requires a planning application from Marine Resources and would include an Environmental Impact Assessment. Terminology within the JMSP is advisory not policy. |
JMSP- 581162591 | Renewable energy | Blue Marine Foundation | IT4a There are several environmental impacts associated with offshore wind farm developments, including bird strikes and direct impacts on benthic habitats and pelagic species (e.g. disturbance to migration routes)37. There are also socioeconomic impacts such as displacement of fishing, which will likely reduce the area available for mobile gear fishermen (additional displacement as a result of MPA designation). While the JMSP is not the appropriate avenue for the consultation of offshore wind development, it is important to have consenting frameworks in place to ensure best practice. Blue Marine has been exploring the opportunities for nature restoration in Offshore Wind Farms across the UK and has developed a decision tool to allow feasibility recommendations for both passive and active (i.e., utilising nature inclusive design) restoration approaches to be made. The utilisation of this tool should be considered by the Government of Jersey and associated developers to promote nature recovery as a key part of any development, contributing to 30 x 30 targets set out in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The tool could also help facilitate passive approaches in terms of Offshore Wind Farm site identification potentially being placed in an area that promotes nature enhancement through defacto protection. Proposed amendment to Action IT4a: The following requirements will be considered in- best practice in marine conservation, with a focus on restoration opportunities including Nature Inclusive Designs (NIDs);- additional | Yes | Nature Inclusive Design (NID) has been added to action IT3a (formerly IT4a). NID has also been added to the glossary. |
|
|
| economic' Proposed additional action: Action IT4b: Two working groups will be established consisting of: (1)Conservation specialists to ensure best practice; and (2) Fishing sector representatives, to discuss appropriate measures to mitigate any impacts of displacement.' |
|
|
JMSP- 581162591 | Renewable energy | Blue Marine Foundation | IT5 With the proposed offshore wind development to the SW of Jersey's territorial water with the potential of an energy supply six times the amount of current island usage, further renewable energy may not be necessary. However, tidal power (in the form of barrages as being explored in St. Aubin's Bay) has proven to have adverse effects on the marine environment, and mitigation of this should remain at the forefront of any investigations. Proposed amendment to Action IT5a: with sea defence. Active engagement with environmental specialists will remain at the forefront of scoping work.' | Yes | The potential for adverse ecological impacts is already covered in the text (12.6.2 (formerly 12.7.2) paragraph 2). 'Subject to appropriate environmental impact assessments' has been added to IT4a (formerly IT5a). |
JMSP- 581162591 | Infrastructure | Blue Marine Foundation | IT9 A maritime hub in Jersey could provide logistical support for marine activities, undertake research to better inform management, accommodate suitable infrastructure such as a hyperbaric chamber, as well as catering for other activities. Blue Marine and the National Trust for Jersey have discussed similar proposals and on request, are happy to provide the Government of Jersey with information that may be helpful in exploring the development of a maritime hub. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 569676616 | Seabed protection | Bouley Bay Dive Centre | Having read the relevant chapters 8 and 9, I think the aims are good and build on what is already shown to be working. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581511874 | Engagement | CPRMEM Brittany | The CRPMEM appreciates the clarity of the documents submitted for consultation and on which this opinion is based. It considers that these documents provide an enlightening vision of the guidelines for the protection and enhancement of the environment, as well as for the development of activities envisaged in the marine area of the Bailiwick. It regrets, however, that the documents underpinning the arguments developed in the draft report submitted for public consultation are not available. This makes it impossible to assess the scientific basis for the proposed protection measures and restrictions on activities such as professional fishing. The CRPMEM appreciates the fact that the Jersey's planning process is taking place at a time when France is undertaking a major public debate on this issue. The CRPMEM points out, however, that the French waters adjacent to the Bailiwick are already covered by planning documents (Documents Stratégiques de Façade) adopted in particular under Directive 2014/89/EU. Taking them into account in the JMSP would have been an added value, particularly in terms of the coherence of public planning policies in the Golfe Normand Breton, and as an ecological entity in its own right. Similarly, the dossier submitted for consultation does not enable us to assess the stakes for French professional fishing in the context of the Jersey's planning process. In particular, the presence of French fishermen in Jersey waters appears too anecdotal through the rights put in place after the Brexit. | No | While the evidence base documents were not available online during the consultation they were available on request. The documents will also be published alongside the post- consultation version of the JMSP. Marine management measures will continue to be discussed with French representatives but it was outside of the scope of the JMSP to include French planning document information at this stage. An ambition for both France and Jersey should be to work at a wider scale and context as marine plans develop. |
JMSP- 581511874 | Seabed Protection | CPRMEM Brittany | About the management of fishing activities to protect the environment : The JMSP proposes the introduction of a three-tiered framework for the specific supervision of professional fishing activities aimed at protecting the marine environment and the resources dependent on it. This framework proposes to establish a supervisory regime that goes beyond the current regulatory framework. The CRPMEM regrets the failure to take into account the activity of French vessels in the description of current fishing trends in Jersey waters. No assessment of the socio-economic impacts of these three new regimes has been carried out within the framework of the JMSP. The CRPMEM demands that this aspect be considered before any decision is taken on regulatory changes, and asks that this assessment be coordinated with the French authorities and consulted with all stakeholders. It is at the disposal of the authorities to provide its expertise on the activity of the Brittany's fleets, but also on the state of fishery resources in the waters of the Normano-Breton Gulf. The CRPMEM questions the merits of the proposed ban on dragging in submarine cable sectors, and calls for it to be withdrawn from the JMSP. Over and above the socio-economic impact, which has not been assessed within the framework of the JMSP, but whose negative consequences for the activities of | Yes | The assessment of French fishing effort had been assessed through VMS data, this has now been made clear in the text of the fishing chapter (section 9.3.2) and the methods used to create the spatial effort maps can be read in the evidence base document. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted following the consultation to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in |
|
|
| French vessels are obvious given their location and geometry, the CRPMEM questions this measure on two counts. The first is linked to the history of submarine cable installation, which was completely buried precisely to enable the maintenance of dragnet activities. The second is linked to the objective of protecting the seabed. While the extension of the boundaries of the Marine Protected Areas appears to be well founded on scientific grounds, there is no scientific justification for banning dragging in these areas. The information presented on the habitats of interest and justifying their protection does not mention these sectors as being of particular ecological interest. The CRPMEM reiterates its willingness to take into consideration feedback from the Saint- Brieuc project, and to draw inspiration from the procedures implemented to minimize the impact on fishing activities. |
| this process will be sought. Action IT2b regarding protection of the Guernsey electricity cable has been updated. |
JMSP- 581511874 | Renewable energy | CPRMEM Brittany | About the offshore wind farm project in the southwest sector of Jersey waters : By the end of 2024, France has undertaken to draw up a spatial plan for the development of offshore wind power between 2035 and 2050. Given this planning context, the CRPMEM is asking for this process to be truly integrated at the scale of the Normano-Breton Gulf. The proximity of the Saint-Brieuc Bay wind farm and French waters likely to host new MRE projects calls for a fully integrated approach to this development. To this end, consideration should be given to setting up bilateral exchanges with the French authorities as part of a regional dialogue on the subject (in particular on the aspects of siting, connection and consideration of environmental, socio-economic and cumulative effects). As stated in the methodology, the JMSP principle requires that "the needs of stakeholders be taken into account". The deployment of MREs in Jersey waters carries the real risk of further undermining the fishing capacity of French vessels in the sector, capacity already largely undermined as a result of the Brexit agreement in Channel Island waters and the siting of the Saint-Brieuc wind farm in French waters. Professional fishermen and the scientific community have also repeatedly pointed to the lack of knowledge about the direct and indirect impacts of marine renewable energy deployment on fishery resources and the environment. Aspects such as habitat disturbance and loss, changes in current patterns, disruption of species' biological cycles, noise/electromagnetic fields/vibration, discharges into the environment due to infrastructure maintenance, etc., are still being questioned and/or need further investigation. The CRPMEM requests that the approach to deploying MREs in Jersey waters considers and integrates the feedback from the Saint-Brieuc Bay project on the one hand, and on the other, respects the commitments made in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (article 502 of the | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - while the information provided is very detailed, it cannot be included in the revised version of the JMSP as the plan does not go into the detail of a windfarm and Jersey is in the early stages of investigating offshore renewables. However, now that the proposal to investigate a windfarm (P82-2023) has been approved, the submitted report from CRPMEM Brittany will be passed onto the windfarm team to inform the subsequent stages. Neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
|
|
| TCA) concerning the commitment of each party to authorize the vessels of the other party to fish in its waters with constant effort in relation to the reference period 01 02 2017 and 31 01 2020. The CRPMEM would like to point out that the Avoid Reduce Compensate (ERC) approach has long been adopted in MRE projects in France and many other European countries. This approach ensures that the effects of projects (particularly cumulative effects) are taken into account, that their impact is assessed and that decisions are taken to minimize, reduce and, where necessary, compensate for them. The CRPMEM calls for a coherent approach, particularly in a sector where the marine environment, fisheries resources and socio-economic activities affected by different projects are shared. A number of points relating to the Jersi wind farm project need to be clarified, in particular with regard to the consideration given to professional fishing activities. While the JMSP states that additional economic benefits will be studied (particularly seaweed farming), the subject of other activities such as fishing is not mentioned. The CRPMEM points out that coactivity with fishing activities prevailed for the Saint-Brieuc windfarm park, resulting in numerous exchanges with government departments and project developers in order to integrate the maintenance of activities into the architecture of the project, right from the earliest phases of the administrative procedures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | International relations | CRPMEM Normandy | Jersey and Normandy are strongly linked by history. We were separated in 1204 when France regained possession of Normandy, forgetting the Channel Islands. However, our destinies have always been linked. Norman origins are also very marked in Jersey. In addition, there is the obvious geographical proximity between both regions. At its closest, Jersey is only 12.03 nautical miles (22.2 km) from the French coast. This proximity has meant exchanges between fishermen for almost two centuries. Several agreements have already been signed: a source of numerous discussions. The latest one was the Granville Bay Treaty which had the particular objective of establishing common management measures concerning fishing in this area. In the JMSP it is mentioned that this planning exercise will enable Jersey to fulfill its international obligations. In this paragraph, the obligations mentioned concern only the environment, including the 30x30 principle. We would like to remind you that Jersey is also committed to respecting the historic and pre- Brexit fishing rights of French vessels via a new post-Brexit agreement, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). In this context, Jersey is committed to ensuring that there are no discriminatory measures and to ensuring that activities are maintained as they existed before Brexit. It therefore seems essential to us that the definition of the network of marine protected areas is done in consultation with French fishermen to ensure they are appropriately taken into consideration. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted following the consultation to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. The current methods used are in line with the requirements of the TCA and the precautionary principle. Any changes to mobile gear access will follow the processes set out in the TCA. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in this process will be sought. |
JMSP- 581511869 | International relations | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* The CRPMEM of Normandy notes that Norman fishing activities are barely considered in the definition of the proposed network of marine areas. Likewise, the impact and socio-economic consequences of such a network of MPAs on Norman fishermen, in Normandy territory, are not raised. As cited in the MPA Assessment Methodology (Evidence Base document EB/NB/12), since spring 2023, 5 workshops were organized to consult stakeholders identified as essential to the deployment of the JMSP. We deplore that Norman and French fishing, historically present, have not been considered as an important stakeholder. We are all the more dumbfounded as during the consultation workshops, 100% (17/17) of the opinions on the question | Yes | While French stakeholders were not involved in the scoping stages of the consultation (which were to understand what the Jersey community wanted the MSP to deliver), French stakeholders were invited to take part in the main phase of the consultation. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept |
|
|
| "recognize traditional commercial fishing zones within MPAs" are favorable. We therefore believe that French fishing, as a traditional activity for centuries in the waters of Jersey, must be considered and that some time to exchange on the subject could have been organized in 2023. We would also like to know what the question "manage French fishing vessels better" actually means? of which 5/5 opinions are favorable, while French vessels, in Jersey waters, are those subject to the most restrictive regulations. |
| and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the Jersey and French fishing communities. Engagement with French fishers, Fishing organisations and government will continue as MSP plan elements develop. The question "manage French fishing vessels better" was recorded from workshops with Jersey stakeholders and is not the position of Jersey Government. A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. The assessment of French fishing effort had been assessed through VMS data, this has now been made clear in the text of the fishing chapter (section 9.3.2) and the methods used to create the spatial effort maps can be read in the evidence base document. |
JMSP- 581511869 | International relations | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* French fishing represents more than 50% of fishing activity in Jersey waters. The JMSP shows a desire to consider all the present activities, which is why it seems important to integrate representatives of French fishing into the entire process to find the "win-win" solutions, ultimately allowing the environmental protection objectives to be achieved, and to preserve Normandy's traditional fishing activities. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing communities. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Habitat Map | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* In chapter 8 (the natural environment and biodiversity) of the consultation document, the variety of existing habitats in Jersey waters is presented. We observe that the waters of Jersey are divided into two large parts: in the West, relatively deep waters with habitats presenting few issues and, in the East, shallow waters where environmental issues are very important. We firstly note that the proposed protection zones strongly overlap with the fishing zones of Normandy vessels whereas certain other sectors would have less impact on their activity, this is particularly the case for kelp. We are surprised by the distribution of habitats, and we question the studies which made it possible to produce this habitat map (p.95). Next, the reference documents used for the writing of this chapter lead to some questions. We | No | The habitat map was created on best available evidence at the time (with field data up to 2020 included), and a ground truthing exercise was carried out that determined that the map was, at worst, 75% accurate. As the habitat map is modelled, there will regrettably be some errors but it is the best habitat map currently available. This map will be refined and updated over time and further survey work will be prioritised |
|
|
| firstly note that many were written by the NGO Blue Marine Foundation which describes itself as aiming to restore the oceans following overfishing, one of the world's biggest environmental problems. Norman traditional fishing, with its very strict regulations in the sense of sustainable and responsible fishing, is in no way dictated by overfishing principles. In addition, we have questions about the accuracy of the data used to characterize the habitats. Indeed, the MPA Assessment Methodology reveals that the habitat maps of the years 1970 and 1980 were updated in 2019 but with data from 2014. Based on data that has more than 40 years, the updated state of knowledge of habitats is still 10 years behind schedule. These observations lead us to doubt the scientific rigor and neutrality of the studies used to construct this document. |
| for within the proposed MPA network prior to implementation. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Three habitats are presented as being of major concern: - Eelgrass beds - Kelp forests - The maërl banks These three habitats are listed in Annex V of the OSPAR Convention for the North-East Atlantic area. In the MPA Assessment Methodology it is mentioned that a minimum of 30% of each habitat to be protected must be represented in the entire MPA network and that it is flexible depending on the state of conservation and the surface area of habitats. We note that 100% of eelgrass beds, 89% of kelps and 86.7% maerl are within the proposed MPA network. Without calling into question the need to protect habitats, we believe that it is possible to fulfill environmental objectives by redesigning marine protected areas whilst taking into consideration the socio-economic challenges of French fishing. | No | There has been a misunderstanding of the MPA assessment criteria. Jersey's territorial waters were divided into 1 km2 grid squares (polygons) and any of these squares with more than 30% OSPAR habitat was included in the MPA network. Ideally 100% of OSPAR habitats would be protected as mobile gear use on these habitats is incompatible with biodiversity conservation. However, the economic issues have been taken into account and the MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511869 | MPA Methodology | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Jersey, like France, aims to achieve 30% of its waters in marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2030. In order to achieve this common objective, it would be interesting to have consistency between the methodologies used by Jersey and France. For information, the French authorities have a methodology called Fisheries Risk Analysis (ARP) which is not based on a precautionary principle but on a characterization of interactions gear/habitats. Thus, distribution maps of habitats of communal interest are crossed with those of fishing activities (for each gear/metier). | No | Jersey has taken an ecosystem based approach and has given the habitats and marine environment the greatest priority in the MPA assessment methodology. This approach is currently being opted for by other jurisdictions such as Ireland and is a UK endorsed methodology. However, the comments received from French stakeholders relating to the economic impact of the |
|
|
| Then from these elements, a risk of degradation is quantified, for this we need to acquire the necessary knowledge on the sensitivity of habitats to physical pressures. This makes it possible to achieve a risk of habitat degradation for each type of gear (1 type of gear /metier). The last step of this methodology is to estimate the risk of undermining the conservation objectives. This risk is established from the combination of the risk of habitat degradation, and by taking into account the level of concern of the habitat and local ecological / economic parameters (professional fishing activities ). From these elements, we can assess a level of degradation: zero, medium and strong. Depending on the level, proposals for regulatory measures are issued and presented to fishing professionals for consultation. A better understanding of the measures taken on habitats could have been obtained by providing more elements. Indeed, in the documents provided for this consultation, it is never specified the state of conservation of the habitats. The main argument seems to be the extraordinary nature that these habitats present in terms of diversity. It is obvious that special monitoring must be granted to such remarkable habitat. However, implementing preventive ban measures in economically important areas and having a strong spatial dependence for fishing professionals raises questions. Mainly that, when the fishing effort as well as the real impact of fishing gear in different marine habitats are never quantified. The existence of 10 years photographic evidence for the Savages area is mentioned on p.86, but there is no reference to the evolution of habitats. It is probable that in 10 years, changes in the environment would have been seen if the gear used in this area degraded the habitats. The elements available to us demonstrate habitats in a good state of conservation in historic fishing areas. The presumed impact of these activities therefore does not seem prohibitive for these habitats. Thus, it could be interesting to provide additional information on the state of conservation of the habitats to be protected as well as to qualify and quantify the real impact of fishing gear on the seabed in Jersey waters. |
| MPAs have been taken on board and the MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* In Jersey waters as in French waters, eelgrass beds are present. On the French side it is mainly present within the Chausey archipelago where the state of the surface of the herbarium has been known for a century, mainly through photographic monitoring which allows us to have a very detailed map of this habitat. In Chausey, regular monitoring has shown that this habitat is constantly growing. since 1980 (Fournier, 2002, 2008, 2014, 2020; Godet et al., 2009 ). Indeed, from 164 hectares in 1982 (Godet et al., 2009), the Chausey herbarium covers at least 360 hectares in 2019 (Fournier, 2020). In addition, several studies prove that the regression of the herbarium before the 1980s was linked to the wasting disease' and not because of anthropogenic activity. It must also be emphasized that the redevelopment of the Chausey herbarium for 40 years has been carried out in the presence of fishing activities. The evolution of the herbarium can be explained by different factors, notably the natural dynamics of the species which is favored by the establishment of shellfish concessions (Fournier, 2020) but also favorable climatic conditions. A rare phenomenon on the scale of the European coast where most of the eelgrass beds are declining or stable. The surface regression of certain seagrass beds can be attributed to several factors. This habitat is very sensitive to temperature variations and water quality (Arias-Ortiz et al., 2018 ; Ondiviela et al., 2014 ) Over the last 20 years, the Normandy Breton Gulf has not experienced a period of intense cold, which could explain the emergence and development of eelgrass beds. It is also necessary note that this is a habitat with high resilience due to the presence of rhizomes. In the Chausey archipelago, no regulatory measures to restrict human activities are in place. They are also not justified given that this habitat is not conducive to the use of mobile gear. The fishermen themselves have put in place good practices which make it possible to reconcile fishing activities and improving the state of conservation of seagrass meadows. These facts clearly show that this type of habitat is more sensitive to climatic hazards than to fishing activities. | No | Seagrass is a priority habitat for Jersey and its demonstrated benefits to biodiversity outweigh mobile gear fisheries access value. Potting and other static fishing will still be allowed on this habitat under the MSP priorities. While we do not deny that climate change will impact on seagrass habitat, this will cause a cumulative impact on seagrass along with other pressures. It is necessary to mitigate pressures that are within our control, including mechanical disturbance. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Kelp forests, a resilient habitat. This habitat (kelp) was added in 2021 to the list of OSPAR habitats. It is recognized for its role in carbon capture but is not identified as a threatened and/or declining habitat. According to the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats and the 2021 study, Laminaria species spp. (which make up the kelp forests of Jersey waters) are not identified as "threatened or in decline" for our OSPAR region. Thus, it is indeed a habitat of strong ecological interest. but in no sense a rare habitat or one whose conservation status is threatened. Granville Bay constitutes a sector of strong development of these species due to its low depth. Several species of kelp are considered in decline by the OSPAR convention. However, the main factor identified is global warming, in fact, kelp are very sensitive to water warming. But the last few winters have not allowed the water temperature to drop sufficiently. The impact of these warm winters is also being felt by other local species. From a biological point of view, this habitat has the particularity of exhibiting rapid growth, which allows it to regenerate easily if it is damaged. These algae grow on hard bottoms unsuitable for mobile gear practice (seabed: rocks). It is also thanks to this strategy that kelp have been able to develop in the Normandy-Breton Gulf. Indeed, the region is exposed to significant swell, particularly during storms. The storms have strong consequences on the kelp forests which are uprooted, as seen en mass on beaches post storms. Furthermore, their ability to regenerate easily allows them to redevelop quickly. It is important to take into account the different parameters having an impact on kelp before taking very restrictive measures on fishing. Fishing is not an adjustable variable. It would therefore be important to start by carrying out an inventory of the species present and reasons that lead to their decline if it exists in an observable and objective manner in order to take appropriate measures. | No | Current mobile fishing practices rarely interact with kelp habitat, but it's ecological value merits suitable management against future industrial developments in fishing or seaweed extraction. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* This habitat is present in all OSPAR regions. However, it is identified as being threatened and/or declining only in the OSPAR III region (Celtic Seas). The Norman-Breton Gulf, therefore Jersey, is located in the OSPAR II region (North Sea in the broad sense). The state of conservation of the banks of Jersey maërl is therefore not threatened. This habitat must therefore be considered differently from other OPSAR habitats. It would undoubtedly be interesting to carry out additional studies aimed at characterizing more precisely the state of conservation of the maërl. Furthermore, this habitat is already protected at a site level by it's Ecréhous RAMSAR staus. | No | There have been several local studies on maerl in this region that have found maerl to be in a reduced state in fished zones, and there is significant literature evidence for the negative impact of bottom towed gears on maerl. There is also literature evidence on the benefit of maerl for marine biodiversity, including commercial fishery species. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* The Sauvages reef is identified as being very rich. Several scientific monitoring studies have been carried out there, allowing the presence of cold-water corals such as gorgonians (Eunicella verrucosa) to be observed. Their growth is slow, which makes them more vulnerable to abrasion. It's a cold- water species present in Jersey at the lower limit of its geographical distribution area. The main factor of risk for this species is therefore global warming. The rest of the document leads us to believe that these species are also present in many other areas of Jersey waters. In addition, they are not subject to any international convention classification. | No | Pink seafan (Eunicella verrucosa) is classified under the Jersey Wildlife Law (2021). There is no evidence to suggest that global warming (climate change) is the greatest risk to this species. There is published research from studies in Lyme bay that show E. verrucosa to be found in greater abundance where potting levels are lowest. While E. verrucosa is found elsewhere, Les Sauvages is a hot spot. There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 581511869 | MPA Methodology | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* An inconsistency of protection issues We note that the document presents a type of habitat specific to the presence of gorgonians, it is stable hard seabed. The area where the presence of gorgonians is identified in this habitat is the south west of Jersey's waters. According to the map presented, this is clearly the site identified as ideal for the installation of a wind farm. This really raises questions about the real interest in protecting gorgonians in a site like Les Sauvages, which would have a proven impact on Normandy fishing whereas it would be possible to condemn a large area where this species is present. | No | There is currently no evidence of seafan presence in suggested windfarm area. Jersey is in the early stages of investigating a windfarm. However, now that the proposal to investigate a wind farm (P82-2023) has been approved, the submitted report from CRPMEM Normandy will be passed onto the windfarm team to inform the subsequent stages. Neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* In the source documents, we found a report published by the NGO Blue Marine Foundation of September 2023 entitled "A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef, Jersey" (Evidence Document EB/NB/11). First of all, the author, Blue Marine Foundation does not seem to us to be a scientific organization in the sense that it is not neutral but clearly oriented against fishing. Furthermore, in this document, the source data appears to come from observational outputs organized via the Jersey administration. Finally, the fact of having written this report in September 2023 makes us wonder: is this a source on which the JMSP was based, so late in the calendar or is it the other way around? The species identified are indeed interesting species but remain common in the bay of Granville. This site also seems identified as being of phylogenetic importance due to the presence of brachiopods (Argyrotheca cistella). What is known about this species? When informing, ourselves we realized that it has also been observed in the sector of Herm. Furthermore, given the characteristics of this species, can it really be impacted by fishing gear? The report also mentions the fishing activity present on the site. We don't understand how this data was obtained. Why is only scallop fishing identified and presented as the only activity in the area? There are also other significant fishing activities such as whelk and shellfish fishing which do not appear in this diagnosis. Fishing that respects habitats and has no impact This sector is an important fishing area, whether for potters or dredger trawlers. Concerning the mobile gear vessels, they have no interest in passing over the reef, they circumvent, currently navigation devices have now become sufficiently precise to avoid the reef while working nearby. This probably explains why these species are present and can develop. We therefore cannot support the establishment of this No Take Zone: - Just based on the elements provided. To justify such measures, it is imperative to base ourselves on scientific, neutral and bias-free studies. - With erroneous or incomplete fishing activity data. We oppose the establishment of an NTZ based on such weak elements in an area presenting such challenges for Normandy fishing | No | No under 12m vessel information for this area, only VMS which is primarily scallop dredging vessels. We understand that towed fishing gears are not used on the reef, the No Take Zone recommendation is primarily for the protection of slow growing sensitive species such as seafans. The Sauvages report referred to was not written for the purposes of being included in the JMSP and includes data from before the MSP instruction was given by the States assembly. There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* We would also like to emphasize the fact that the measures proposed for the network of marine protected areas identified are essentially based on the precautionary principle, and not on locally acquired scientific evidence. Indeed, a recent study published in 2022 by IFREMER consisted of studying the impact of mobile gear on the seabed in the English Channel. This is the IPREM study initiated and carried out by Normandy fishing professionals. This study demonstrated that the fishing intensity of French vessels in the waters of Jersey is weak. In addition, the IPREM report reveals that the potential impact of mobile gear on the seabed in Jersey waters is very little or even zero (figure 1). Although the impact of a gear depends on intrinsic factors to fishing activities (surface area exploited, penetration into the sediment, etc.), it must be remembered that this impact also depends on environmental factors such as the nature of the seabed or the sensitivity of benthic communities to different factors. However, the IPREM project demonstrated that the sensitivity of benthic habitats, and therefore the real impact of a device, remains unknown in the Channel. On the French side as well as the Jersey side, there is therefore a lack of knowledge on this subject. Finally, IPREM indicates that in the Channel, the communities of the seafloor are both resistant to fishing effort and difficult environmental conditions and that the Resistance to these two factors is linked. There is therefore a real need for additional studies to discern the effects that would be linked to the environment, or fishing, as well as to define the real impact on what the different gear could have on the different types of habitats. It is therefore necessary that the proposed protection zones are based on local scientific evidence, relating to the state of conservation of the habitats with identified sources and levels of pressures that are proven and quantified. | No | The assertion that bottom towed fishing gear does not impact the seabed is at odds with the bulk of scientific evidence. Finer scale local data is available and has been used in preference to broad scale reporting for both stock, effort and habitat assessments. Enhancement of local data sets through additional research is in process. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* An example of a successful consultation reconciling fishing and environmental issues: Method for establishing Ramsar sites within the framework of the Granville Bay agreements In 2014, Jersey proposed the establishment of habitat protection sites for maërl and eelgrass beds. This was the first environmental approach within the framework of Granville Bay. This was the source of numerous debates in order to respond to all of the issues: protecting habitats of proven ecological interest while allowing activities to be maintained. The different steps are presented in the table below: February 2014 1st contact Identification of the need for consultation June 2014 Consensus on the need to protect habitats Request for charts sent by Jersey in July 2014 | No | We believe this refers to the implementation of the No Mobile Gear Zones (now referred to as MPAs) at the Ecrehous and Minquiers, which were already Ramsar sites. The current methods used are in line with the requirements of the TCA and the precautionary principle. |
|
|
| October 2014 Request for details on the issues linked to these habitats by France February 2015 Report presenting the challenges for the activity of French ships Proposal of new limits June 2015 Société Jersiaise is mandated to carry out a study to identify the problem areas October 2015 Discussions on the scope of future sites February 2016 Agreement on the perimeter of the Minquiers site Normandy has reservations about that of Ecréhous Request for the return of the report from the Société Jerseyaise to be able to decide July 2016 Publication of the Société Jerseyaise report Jersey proposes to extend the perimeter in the Ecréhous sector to protect the maërl Proposal for setting up a fallow system August 2016 The JFA opposes the fallow system and calls for a definitive ban of mobile gear in this sector February 2017 Agreement on the perimeter of the zone Normandy calls for a ban on scallop fishing (dredging and diving) September 2017 Publication of the Jersey decree with a ban on trawling and dredging on the perimeter Through this example, we can see that the exchanges lasted 3 years, but this made it possible to achieve a compromise. Furthermore, this work promoted the acceptance of such a project by (fishing) professionals. This methodology should serve as an example for future projects. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | International relations | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* In this part, the CRPMEM of Normandy is sadened to see that only Jersey fishermen are considered, when the JMSP cites the objective of ensuring that one can continue to earn a viable living as a fisherman. As an example, with this current MPA project, the Norman ship LE STYX would lose 100% of its business, because it only works in Jersey waters and in areas that could become MPAs. In addition, we regret that there is no official reference document about French fishing. We strongly regret that only 2 lines in the JMSP are used to describe French fishing, and yet Jersey waters are so important to French fishermen who depend on these waters. • "Today there are [...] 137 French Vessels." (P.130) • "Jersey's waters are also fished by French fishermen under the terms of a post- | Yes | While the evidence base documents were not available online during the consultation they were available on request. The documents will also be published alongside the post- consultation version of the JMSP. The assessment of French fishing effort had been assessed through VMS data, this has now been made clear in the text of the fishing chapter (section 9.3.2) and the methods used to create the spatial |
|
|
| Brexit fishing agreement with the EU." (P.130) Then, we note that the JMSP presents a very confusing methodology which does not allow us to know how the activity of French ships was treated. The methodology used is barely described, the mapped fishing activities boil down to the presence/absence of vessels. Furthermore, it is only in the Maritime Activity Assessment (EB/G/22) that the use of VMS data for French ships is specified. Although the Maritime Activity Assessment presents an outline analysis of French fishing activities, a more in-depth analysis is necessary given the economic issues that exist. Furthermore, in the MPA Assessment Methodology, the Minister of the Environment indicates that the development of the network of marine protected areas will be consistent with environmental objectives, global, economic and social". The term "global" makes us think that French fishing is considered in the development of the JMSP. Therefore, and within the framework of the TCA, it is necessary to consider French fishing as an economic issue in its own right. The term "global" leaves us also think that the environmental objectives and the challenges for French fishing will be harmonized with French environmental policies which border the waters of Jersey. |
| effort maps can be read in the evidence base document. Assessment of and provision for French vessels with a high dependence on specific areas within Jersey's waters has been recognised in this process. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing communities. Further, a Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. The current methods used are in line with the requirements of the TCA and the precautionary principle. Any changes to mobile gear access will follow the processes set out in the TCA. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in this process will be sought. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Commercial fishing | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Chapter 9.3.1 (Current fishing trends) gives data through volumes landed of the main fish species. Firstly, no regret (no surprise) that this part dedicated to landings and stocks only refers to landing data and that no stock assessment is presented. Next, we note that the data presented does not correspond to those compiled by the CRPMEM of Normandy from scientific organizations (Ifremer, SMEL). Indeed, we observe different trends in some species. This is the case for lobster, where the results are estimated as good on the French side. This is also the case for scallops where the results of the various surveys show a stock and landings constantly progressing. Marine species know no borders, so we all work with the same stocks. As demonstrated by Nicolle et al. (2017), the stocks of the different scallop shell deposits in the Norman-Breton Gulf are interconnected and dependent on each | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - this will be addressed through fisheries management and improved working relationships with the French fisheries authorities and scientists. Until recently (2023) detailed reporting of landings from French vessels fishing in Jersey waters was not available and so the trends shown are only from that of Jersey vessels. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in this process will be sought. |
|
|
| other to form one and the same stock. In this study, it was demonstrated that the recruitment and therefore the local stock of scallops from southeast Jersey depend largely on local stocks from Saint-Malo and Chausey. Thus, the management measures formerly applicable in Jersey waters, but also the stocking carried out since 2009 strongly contributes to the quality of the stock in the waters of Jersey. It therefore seems all the stranger to us to have contradictory tendencies. We have a real common interest in ensuring sustainable management of fish stocks in the Bay of Granville, which implies the establishment of coherent work between Normandy, Jersey and Brittany and this in a concerted manner. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | Commercial fishing | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* In chapter 9.3.2 (Current spatial fishing patterns) on the current spatialization of fishing activities, the description of fishing activities is very succinct. From the way this short section is written, we understand that the mapped activities are those resulting from AIS data, control data and declarative data only for Jersey vessels. In the absence of a complete presentation of French fishing activities in the JMSP, we have consulted the source documents on which the JMSP is written; the MPA Assessment Methodology and the Maritime Activity Assessment. We note that French fishing activities are partially described. We would like to provide you with our comments. Why have you not presented the methodology used and the data more precisely in the JMSP? In particular on French fishing activities which are mixed in with the activities of Jersey vessels? Furthermore, why have you carried out an analysis of French fishing activities without consulting the French services concerned so that it is as representative as possible? Why was the MPA network impact study on fishing vessels not taken up and presented in the JMSP? An incomplete cartography – Analysis of the description of French fishing activities reference documents : In the Maritime Activity Assessment, there is an analysis of French fishing activities. We observe that the data used was the year old VMS data, from July 1, 2022 (entry in force of the quarter-hour VMS obligation in Jersey waters for all French vessels) until June 30, 2023. As cited in the document, one year of data is completely insufficient to carry out a fair and precise analysis of fishing activities knowing that the activity of French fishermen contain interannual variability, not taken into account here. Furthermore, at this period and within the framework of the post-Brexit discussions linked to the TCA, we were in the middle of period of negotiations on the definition of the Nature and Extent of the activity. Fishing conditions in Jersey waters were therefore extremely vague. The regulations | No | The MPA network is just one part of the much wider remit of the JMSP, it was not possible to include all assessment methodologies within the main document and is why supplementary documents have been provided. Further, the Marine Activity report provides a general indication of fishing activity. However, a Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries using multiple years of data. The assessment of French fishing effort had been assessed through VMS data, this has now been made clear in the text of the fishing chapter (section 9.3.2) and the methods used to create the spatial effort maps can be read in the evidence base document. While VALPENA adds a layer of knowledge to spatial fishing activities, VMS being more accurate is Jersey's preferential data source for spatial fishing assessments. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in this process will be sought. |
|
|
| were fluctuating since the French regulations had to be maintained during the negotiations. It's only February 1, 2023 that the Jersey fishing conditions were published and that from June 27, 2023 (publication of a ministerial decree) that they were fully applied. The professionals were therefore disoriented, in full adaptation phase and cautious in the face of all these rapid changes. As a reminder, the TCA is based on 3 full years, prior to Brexit, between 2017 and 2020. This makes it possible to take into account all activities as well as inter- annual variability. Therefore, this period (07/01/2022 – 06/30/2023) is absolutely not a year of reference regarding the activity of French ships in Jersey waters. In addition, it is cited that in 75% of cases, VMS data could be linked to declarative data from the logbook to identify the metier practiced. For the remaining 25% of cases, VMS data could have been connected either to a static gear (engin dormant) or to a mobile gear (engin trainant) but by which one? Next, in the source document, it seems that a fishing haul is identified from the moment when a vessel moves at a non-zero speed of less than 6 knots. This is actually the method that is generally used. However, the latter was put in place for mobile gear boats, ships initially equipped with VMS. The specificity of Granville Bay is the fact that a fleet of small fishing boats, mainly using static gear, finds itself working in the waters of a third country. Static gear boats do not work in the same way: they turn at zero speed and generally spin (shoot their pots) between 5 and 7 knots, the method used is therefore not representative for static gear. Additionally, it is true that France made VMS mandatory in July 2022, however, given the complex context of the moment, many ships took time to equip themselves. It is therefore likely that this data is not representative of the entire fleet. Then, the use of VMS as the sole source of data raises serious questions. To characterize the fishing activities of Jersey vessels, all available data was used by seeking to use VMS, iVMS, AIS data then the FISHMAP surveys carried out by Jersey. It is worth noting these FISHMAP surveys also use the French VALPENA survey methodology. In addition, as the FISHMAP 2017 data was too old, the Jersey fishermen were able to ask during a consultation in March 2023 for an update to this data. New investigations were then carried out to characterize fishing activities over 4 years, from 2018 to 2022. Thus, over 5 years of surveys between 2017 and 2022, the best year for Jersey ships, was selected. As CRPMEM of Normandy, partner of the VALPENA network, we are (totally baffled) in incomprehension. Why were other, more complete data sources not sought to characterize French fishing activities? Why did you not ask for |
| Static fishing is not affected except for at Les Sauvages which is not a heavily used area for potting. |
|
|
| information from the CRPMEM and use similar data from the VALPENA data for French ships, which have been collected the collaboratively over the last 20 years of the Granville Bay Treaty? Why not you not seek to identify fishing activities over several years and retain the best year? To be able to base itself on objective elements, it is necessary for the JMSP to adopt a similar methodology for the Jersey fleet as for the French fleet by mobilizing the best data available. Once again, we consider the data used for French ships to be unrepresentative and incomplete. The exploitation of certain sectors has therefore been considerably underestimated, such as for the Sauvage Reef. This is why, BEFORE the finalization of the JMSP, it seems essential to us that a study of the fishing activities of French vessels is carried out jointly with professional French fishing organisations. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Impertinent spatial data analysis method Concerning the impact analysis of the MPA network project on fishing activities, we do not understand why it was not presented in the JMSP especially since French fishing represents a large part, or even the entirety for certain professions, of mapped fishing activities. Furthermore, we do not understand the methodology used to identify the impact of the potential network of marine protected areas on French fishing in the MPA Assessment Methodology. In this last document, this analysis is based on days attributable to mobile gear and static gear to identify their activity within the various proposed marine protected areas. We do not understand the logic of allocatable days for static gear. Under the TCA, Fishing days were allocated only to mobile gear and not to static gear. Next, Jersey recognizes that MPAs lead to a transfer of existing fishing zones to others. Environmental issues are then shifted to other areas, which is counter productive. Jersey therefore recommends that the impact of MPAs on fishing vessels be documented to avoid this problem. We also identify a risk of postponement of activity which could significantly deteriorate adjacent areas, which is a shame given that the overall impact remains moderate and the habitats are in good condition. The MPA Assessment Methodology also indicates as an objective that the MPA network must minimize the impact on the fishing economy and it is recommended to carry out an assessment, vessel per vessel, of the consequences of marine protected areas once the JMSP is finalized and published. The analysis of the socio-economic consequences is essential but must take place during the process of consultation and establishment of marine protected areas. | Yes | Some comments relate to the MPA assessment methodology rather than JMSP itself. The only displacement of static fishing has been suggested at Les Sauvages reef. For consideration of mobile fishing gear, the MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Further engagement work will take place ahead of the implementation of new spatial management measures. A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. The current methods used are in line with the requirements of the TCA and the precautionary principle. Any changes to mobile gear access will follow the processes set out in the TCA. |
|
|
| What is the aim of this retrospective approach? Is it foreseing that based on the results of the impact of fishing activities there will be a questioning of the proposed areas of the JMSP? What is the benefit of an individual approach to fleets? How to minimize the impact on the economy when the areas proposed for the ban are modelled on the areas frequented by Norman fishing vessels? Why carry out this impact study only after finalization of the JMSP and not before? We ask that this study of the socio-economic consequences on fishing vessels French is carried out BEFORE the finalization of the JMSP and in collaboration with the professional French organisations. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | MPA Methodology | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Given the weakness of the diagnosis of Normandy fishing activities, it is essential that the elements that we provide below complete it and their integration is the subject of an exchange between us. A highly regulated Normandy fishery meeting the challenges of sustainable management Norman fishing vessels have worked in Jersey waters for centuries and continue to do so to this day. Today, the main activities are divided into two types of professions: - Static gear: shellfish pots, whelk pots, nets and line fishing - Mobile gear: scallop dredges, clam and sea almond dredgers, dredges bivalve trawl, bottom trawl, beam trawl, pelagic trawl, pair trawl Depending on the metiers practiced, the fishing strategies of each vessel differ more or less depending on regulations, seasonality, the species fished and its availability, the distance from the port. This variety of metiers and practices creates a balance compatible with the sustainability of stocks, which also implies that the preservation of habitats on which fish species depend no longer needs to be demonstrated (proven). In addition, Normandy fishing regulations are among the strictest and make it possible to support or even improve stock status. Taking the example of scallops, the self-imposed constraints by professional Fishermen mean shorter fishing times which fully contribute to reducing the impact of mobile gear on the seabed in a spirit of responsible and sustainable fishing. A spatialization of the VALPENA data from Norman fishermen in the area Valpena methodology: In their mission to defend the interests of professional fishermen, the fisheries committees need to have knowledge of the activities of their vessels on a scale consistent with that of projects for new activities at sea, the fisheries committees have set up a tool for spatializing these activities. VALPENA stands for the eVALuation of fishing activities (PEche) with regard to of New Activities (VAL-PE-N-A) thus originates from a common desire of the | Yes | The assessment of French fishing effort has been assessed through VMS data. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted following the consultation to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in this process will be sought. The assessment of French fishing effort had been assessed through VMS data, this has now been made clear in the text of the fishing chapter (section 9.3.2) and the methods used to create the spatial effort maps can be read in the evidence base document. While VALPENA adds a layer of knowledge to spatial fishing activities, VMS being more accurate is Jersey's preferential data source for spatial fishing assessments. A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. |
|
|
| fisheries committees to provide standardized geographic data and elements quantified according to a scientific method established to characterize the activity of professional fishing vessels on a fine spatio-temporal scale (grid of approximately 3 nautical miles per side). The scientific approach underlying the entire VALPENA methodology is based on the activity of the Scientific Interest Group (GIS) VALPENA and the Géolittomer' laboratory of the UMR-LETG in Nantes, guarantors of the integrity of the survey protocols and methods of using the data produced. VALPENA data is collected by direct individual surveys of fishermen to year n-1 (last full year). Each fisherman declares the activity of his vessel(s) per month, by gear and by target species on a grid scale of approximately 3 nautical miles per side. The data used in this report comes from VALPENA data from surveys for the year of activity 2020. The time allocated to carry out this return unfortunately did not allow us to carry out a multi-year evaluation which would nevertheless be necessary. Generally speaking, the waters of Jersey are frequented all year round by Norman ships (figure 4). Figure 5 presents the intensity index, i.e. the total number of months worked per grid. We can see that the Norman ships worked mainly in the eastern part of Jersey waters, close to our border. We can also see that a significant part of the future Jersey marine protected areas are located in areas often frequented by Normandy ships. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | Commercial fishing | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Shellfish pots The main targeted species are lobster, spider and crab (on a more timely basis). Recent reports indicate that lobster is doing well globally. It is a territorial species, which lives on rocky bottoms where it can hide and feed. We have identified two sectors where lobster is particularly targeted: Minquiers and Ecréhous. Fishing for this species is done using pots. Spider fishing is carried out mainly by pots for Normandy ships. We identify several fishing strategies for this species. There are moussettes, juvenile spiders which are highly valued, which are the subject of a specific fishery on the Cotentin coasts. They are seasonally present and are very mobile. Fishing therefore begins in the waters of Jersey during the month of March and moves towards the French coast, it generally ends during the month of June. Large males are also targeted for much of the year. In 2020, 50 Normandy vessels, now granted access to Jersey, held a Fishing license allowing Crustaceans. Among them, 39 participated in the Valpena surveys, which is 78% participation. The Valpena density indicator shows us the crustacean activity located mainly in the eastern part of Jersey waters (figure 6). We clearly find the rocky bottoms | No | Static fishing is not affected except for at Les Sauvages which is not a heavily used area for potting. |
|
|
| (Ecréhous, Arconies, Minquiers) but also the sandy bottoms located between these sectors and which correspond to areas for spider crab fishing. The Ecréhous sector is frequented throughout the year, the Minquiers are frequented mainly from February to September. The strip between the two archipelagos is mainly frequented by March to July, which corresponds to the period of high production for the spider crab. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | Commercial fishing | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Whelk box (Buccinum undatum) The whelk is an emblematic species of Granville Bay. It has been the subject of monitoring for many years, which allows us to have a lot of data on it. In 2020, 49 Normandy vessels holding the whelk Ouest-Cotentin license were active in the waters of Jersey. Among them, 34 participated in the Valpena survey, which is 69% participation. The Valpena density indicator shows us whelk activity located mainly in the Eastern part of Jersey waters (figure 7). Here we find an activity practiced on loose sediment and in proximity to rocky bottoms. The areas of highest attendance are located between the north of the Sauvages and the south of Ecréhous as well as in the northern part of Jersey waters. The activity is regular throughout the year (except in January when fishing is closed). We can also identify three major fishing sectors: Les Sauvages, Les Arconies and the north of Les Ecréhous. | No | Static fishing is not affected anywhere except for at Les Sauvages which is not a heavily used area for potting. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Commercial fishing | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* Mobile gear As part of the TCA, Jersey has chosen to allocate a number of days to mobile gear vessels in their waters, in order to take into account the versatility of these vessels. It is true that many of them can use several metiers on the same trip. Concerning the data from the Valpena surveys, 17 vessels responded in 2020 out of the 27 concerned, or 63%. This allowed us to identify the most frequented areas (figure 8). We can observe that a large part of the waters of Jersey are worked by mobile gear boats. The areas mainly worked are the West of the island and the entire eastern part of Jersey waters border with Normandy waters. In the West, trawl and scallop dredge activities are carried out. On the eastern strip of Jersey waters, we find trawling and scallop dredging and clam and sea almond dredges. These professions are mainly practiced in the southern and eastern sectors of Minquiers, Les Sauvages and east of the Arconie plateau. This | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. The assessment of French fishing effort had been assessed through VMS data, this has now been made clear in the text of the fishing chapter (section 9.3.2) and the methods used to create the spatial effort maps can be read in the evidence base document. The JMSP poster map has also been amended. There is now reference to working with the French fishing community in the implementation of |
|
|
| is explained in particular by the fact that these areas are sheltered from the prevailing winds, therefore more accessible areas. For economic reasons, fishermen seek to limit their travel time, working in Jersey waters is not an end in itself but the response to a fishing strategy in order to find the balance between production and costs. These sectors are therefore essential to the economic maintenance of businesses. The JMSP also specifies in its methodology that it seeks to find a balance between the ecological, economic, social and cultural issues. As such, the JMSP follows the marine space planning methodology indicated in the UNESCO Global International Guide on Marine Spatial Planning'. This guide indicates that the stakeholders to be considered in the consultation may be foreign stakeholders. As such and in view of the importance of French fishing in the waters of Jersey, it seems essential to us that French ships be considered and that their representatives be consulted unless they have been consulted during the year 2023. Furthermore, the TCA is rarely mentioned in the JMSP, only twice out of ten lines in the part 4.2.4. The TCA still commits Jersey to respecting the precedents and historical activity of French ships in its waters. During its only appearance, the JMSP recalls precisely this obligation to respect the TCA. The fact of prohibiting sectors widely used by French ships is therefore contradictory with the TCA since at no time were French fishing activities considered and at no time has Jersey sought to create a consultation dialogue to define marine areas protected areas excluding certain fishing activities. |
| priorities and actions added to section 3.3.4. The current methods used are in line with the requirements of the TCA and the precautionary principle. Any changes to mobile gear access will follow the processes set out in the TCA. |
JMSP- 581511869 | Seabed protection | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* The proposed zones correspond to the recommendations made in chapter 8. The data from frequentation of Norman ships in Jersey waters clearly shows that certain areas proposed represent sectors with high stakes for Normandy fishing. After reading the MPA Assessment Methodology, we discovered that by 2030 Jersey will offer new additional protection zones in order to achieve 30% marine protected areas (figure 9). In the figure below we can thus observe the priority areas to be extended as MPAs, when additional work will have to take place. Firstly, we strongly regret that the intention to extend the network of MPAs around the areas currently proposed is not transparently displayed in the JMSP. It seems to us important that the perimeters currently proposed be appreciated in the light of all the goals. Secondly, we note that despite the lack of recognized scientific knowledge, areas envisaged for the future are again found exclusively in the eastern part of the waters of Jersey. To the extent that MPAs appear to be associated with a | No | The areas referred to are areas for further research as they scored moderately in MPA assessment methodology. The JMSP itself does not seek to protect 30% of Jersey's waters, only those areas evidenced as being sensitive to mobile gear. While highlighted as needing further research in the evidence report, these areas did not make it into the JMSP public consultation draft. A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. |
|
|
| systematic ban on the practice of dredging and trawling or even any fishing, the consequences of the network currently proposed followed by an extension of this network only in the fishing zones of Normandy vessels is extremely worrying. In this context, it would be wise to review these perimeters in order to find solutions that allow you to fulfill the objectives of the JMSP, namely the protection of critical habitats, the achievement of the objective 30% protected areas by 2030 but also the sustainability of existing activities. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | International relations | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* First of all, this paragraph does not mention the measures and labels already in place, which is regrettable. We would like to remind you that fishing is already regulated, whether on the French or Jersey side. With an objective of sustainable management, numerous measures have been put in place. There are two levels of regulation: at a European level for species monitored by ICES (generally speaking these are fish and selachians) and at a regional level for other species (shellfish and crustaceans). For the latter, it is the fishermen, via the Fisheries Committees, who put in place measures based on fishery monitoring, to ensure sustainable and economically viable fishing. The West Coast of the Cotentin is also an example of long-term management with monitored species and management over a very long time, this is the case for whelks for which the first management measures were taken in the 70s! If we take the example of this species, it has been the subject of numerous management measures taken over the years (see diagram). These measures aim to perpetuate the fishery and adapt it as best as possible to resource conditions. In 2023, the reduction in the number of Normandy licenses made it possible to reach a total number of 65 licenses. Among them, 45 were associated with access to Jersey waters. It is also important to remember that Jersey's waters have benefited from all the Norman management measures, these management measures until 2021 within the context of the common sea (la mer commune). In this mer commune context, a good number of common measures could be taken through the Granville Bay Treaty. This made it possible to ensure consistency in water | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - this falls under current fisheries management. The JMSP also makes very few recommendations concerning the pot fishery, with the only restrictions suggested at Les Sauvages due to the high biodiversity and particular sensitivity to abrasion from pot lines. |
|
|
| management across the entire fishing fleets. Figures 10 and 11 present all the measures that have been taken jointly over the last thirty years. The establishment of this common management, even if it remains subject to improvement, has made it possible to achieve coherent measures at the scale of local stocks which are compatible with their life cycles and biology. In addition, the measures put in place on shellfish pots make it possible to respond to certain objectives of the JMSP concerning ghost fishing: these pots have the particularity of continuing to fish a significant quantity when they are lost, the fact they are banned in the Minquiers and the Ecréhous (figure 12) therefore makes it possible to significantly limit the impact linked to ghost fishing. Furthermore, the fact that escape hatches are now obligatory on all the parlour pots (and on all the shellfish pots on the Normandy side) allows sorting to be carried out on the seafloor and not on the deck. Undersized lobsters therefore no longer have to suffer from being thrown back into the water column where they are vulnerable. In addition, this allows small lobsters to come out more easily, therefore limiting the risk of cannibalism within the pots. These measures also made it possible to obtain the MSC label for lobster in 2011. This label has the particularity of being shared between Jersey and Normandy, which is unique. This represents more than 10 years of certification. This is a joint management model that has borne fruit. Obtaining and maintaining this label, renewed in December 2023, shows the common commitment to move towards sustainable fishing, this has also allowed a strong improvement in knowledge on the state of this stock. We have every interest in continuing to work in this direction and working together to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries. We would like to remind you that we work on common stocks, unaware the border, we therefore have the same issues. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511869 | International relations | CRPMEM Normandy | *Translated text* As a professional structure aiming to defend the interests of traditional Norman fishing, the CRPMEM of Normandy wants to contribution to this consultation document with the aim of pointing out the importance of Jersey waters for Normandy fishing, and the need for this to be taken into account. Over the years, Norman fishing vessels have continually lost rights in Jersey's waters (table 1). This is associated with a feeling of injustice among professionals who do not do not understand the loss of rights while their fishing practices constantly evolve in the direction of more sustainable management and a reduction in fishing effort. We would like to remind you that French fishing represents a significant part of fishing activity in Jersey waters and has been doing so for centuries. While their fishing rights have been significantly reduced by Brexit, and the post-Brexit negotiations are still not finalised, this new regulatory layer risks putting a terrible strain on already weakened fishing businesses. This therefore involves taking them into consideration as well as the economic issues associated with it. We are not opposed to the protection of habitats when it is necessary, this approach also exists on the French side, however we believe that it is possible to achieve the stated environmental objectives whilst preserving Normandy's traditional fishing activities. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing communities. Previous MPA areas have been created following full consultation through the Granville Bay agreement. |
JMSP- 581511875 | Renewable energy | CRPMEM Normandy | The report submitted by the Normandy Fishing Committee (Le Comité Régional des Pêches Maritimes et des Élevages Marins de Normandie) details their comments on the windfarm from issues relating to socio-economic impacts on French fishing vessels to environmental issues and maritime safety. The report is too long and detailed to include in this table and is instead available on the Government of Jersey Marine Spatial Plan webpage. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - while the information provided is very detailed, it cannot be included in the revised version of the JMSP as it does not go into the detail of a windfarm and Jersey is in the early stages of investigating a windfarm. However, now that the proposal to investigate a wind farm (P82-2023) has been approved, the submitted report from CRPMEM Normandy will be passed onto the windfarm team to inform the subsequent stages. Neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 580863360 | MSP | Durrell | Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (Durrell) is participating in this consultation to highlight our full support for the implementation of the draft Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP), particularly for the proposed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Seagrass Habitat Management Areas. The marine environment may not be an area of significant expertise for Durrell, however, we believe the proposed policies align with our mission of saving species from extinction and habitat restoration, therefore is something we wish to support. With over 95% of Jersey's territory being ocean, Jersey finds itself with a unique opportunity to have a considerable impact on its marine environment. Durrell recognises that the marine environment is integral to the island of Jersey's rich culture, local economy and islanders' livelihoods. Jersey has a symbiotic relationship with the marine environment, serving us with a range of ecosystem services, be it regulating, supporting, cultural or provisioning services, such as climate regulation, food provision, nutrient cycling, tourism and carbon sequestration. Therefore, the opportunity to protect and enhance Jersey's | No | General comment of support. |
|
|
| marine environment is essential to maintaining the long-term sustainability of our economy, livelihoods and most importantly, the health and species-richness of these areas. |
|
|
JMSP- 580863360 | Seabed protection | Durrell | We identify clear synergies between our conservation work and the proposed MPA network, as outlined in Priority NB5 Stage 8. Through our field programmes, we restore and expand habitats, connecting fragments of isolated forest to enable greater movement and safety for the species endemic to these areas. The MPAs play a similar role, be it for the marine environment, to restore and enhance marine biodiversity within this network. Durrell believes that expansion of MPAs in Jersey's waters (Priority NB5), plays a key role in achieving the '30 by 30' target, whereby 30% of Jersey's waters are protected by 2030. With only 6.5% of Jersey's territorial waters currently being covered by MPAs, nearly quadrupling the current area would have significant benefits for restoring and enhancing the biodiversity of Jersey's marine environment, along with the many climate, economic and social benefits that it serves, particularly ensuring the sustainability of Jersey's fishing industry. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 580863360 | Climate | Durrell | Globally, we are facing a climate and biodiversity crisis, both of which are inextricably linked. Jersey has committed to tackling the climate emergency, in which the Carbon Neutral Roadmap (CNR) outlines a series of carbon emission reduction policies. Durrell recognises the potential that Priority NB6 implementation of Seagrass Habitat Management Areas can play in carbon sequestration, in which greater protection and potential expansion will contribute to meeting Jersey's climate and biodiversity commitments. Durrell believes that the protection of the marine environment plays a key role in achieving the targets set out in the CNR and therefore, implementation of the MSP is an opportunity that cannot be missed. | No | General agreement comment |
JMSP- 581178701 | Renewable Energy | Dyna Energy |
| Yes | The final version will be more interactive, with document links. A note has been added to Character Type J Deep Sea in Chapter 7 regarding the St Breiuc windfarm. The data source has been amended in Fig. 5j (wind speed). The fishing value of the areas will be addressed through an MPA Business Impact Assessment but this will be for the impact of the Marine Protected Areas, not the windfarm as a spatial boundary for the windfarm is not yet determined. Other comments relating to the wind farm and tidal power are appreciated but are beyond the scope of this first iteration of the MSP, partly as its timeline is parallel to that of the Wind consultation. |
|
|
| Jersey does have a tidal range which is one of the largest in the world, the challenges of utilising this energy resource cannot be understated. Previous work found that St Aubin's Bay is the only practical location for the deployment of tidal range. An area off the north east of Rozel is likely the only practical location for tidal stream, and this would only allow for a small number of turbines. We recommend that further detail is provided in this section of the JMSP. |
|
|
JMSP- 570901492 | Renewable energy | Flotation Energy | Flotation Energy is an offshore wind developer with a keen interest in developing a utility scale offshore wind farm in Jersey's waters to help meet the environmental, economic and decarbonisation targets of the island. The development of a marine spatial plan is a critical step in the management of the island's marine environment and the sustainable use of its resources for the people of Jersey. We are very happy to see the publication of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan ("JMSP") and the comprehensive examination of the current state of the marine environment. We are also eager to see the publication of the supporting data and the launch of the MSP portal. In the interests of developing an offshore wind project, the JMSP is a critical step in facilitating that ambition and ensuring it is delivered within environmental limits and meets the government and community's social and economic ambitions. Delivering a large offshore wind project at the pace required to meet net zero commitments will require clear and consistent planning and consenting processes as well as a developer willing to deliver the necessary environmental and engineering assessments in tandem with developing legislation and government processes. Whilst the JMSP points to the government's offshore wind proposal, due to that information not being available at time of publication, it is important that the possibility of offshore wind development is captured in the JMSP so that the interaction with the environment and other sea users is considered and understood. We are, therefore, pleased to see section 12.6 included in the consultation draft and the reference to work already carried out in the Bridging Island Plan (2022). Following the Government of Jersey's consultation on the offshore wind proposal, we would encourage section 12.6 to be updated with a clear indication of spatial preference and limitations, alongside priorities for the offshore wind opportunity. Any required actions relating to the development or | Yes | An additional sentence has been added to acknowledge the challenging conditions in southwest of the Bailiwick in section 12.5 (formerly 12.6). Some elements of the comment are beyond the scope of this first iteration of the MSP as its timeline is parallel to that of the Wind consultation. |
|
|
| relating to co-existence within the marine space should also be included. The JMSP provides a very clear indication of the presence of sensitive features and areas of the marine environment that should be protected. Although the JMSP does not set out a specific area for offshore wind, it does provide a clear steer away from certain locations. Alongside the Bridging Island Plan, this information suggests the southwest is of most interest for offshore wind. Our own site identification process and early survey work confirms this suggestion. We absolutely support the use of best practice in environmental assessment and marine conservation. We would like to highlight two topics for potential inclusion in the updated JMSP Offshore wind spatial planning: The area indicated in the JMSP, Bridging Island Plan and our own assessment for possible offshore wind development is dominated by a hard rocky seabed with little sediment, due in part to fast tidal movement. This will limit foundation options for offshore wind and, as exemplified by recent storm activity, will require suitably strong foundations and fixtures. These features, alongside strong currents and a significant tidal range will combine to create a challenging environment for development, and this should be acknowledged in the JMSP and the offshore wind consultation response. That being said, the JMSP highlights that the area in question scored relatively low on the ecosystem services assessment and is not an area of high fishing or shipping activity (with the exception of southern component of the region). As such, despite the more difficult seabed conditions, we view this as an excellent opportunity for future development. Furthermore, development in this region can adequately avoid negative impact on marine mammals and seabirds that may be in the region during given seasons. Our own aerial surveys have confirmed the fixed gear fishing activity in the southern portion of the area and we are confident that fixed gear fishing effort and a fixed bottom offshore wind farm can co-exist, with little disruption post- construction. Following the outcome of the government's offshore wind consultation, we would encourage that the spatial extent of the offshore wind farm option is adopted into the JMSP and a plan-level environmental assessment is carried out to further confirm the level of expected positive and negative impacts on the |
|
|
|
|
| environment. The JMSP and the current offshore wind consultation are unclear on the intended mechanism to utilise the electricity generated by an offshore wind farm. If the power generated should be supplied directly to the island, there will be a need to consider cable corridors and landing sites. Closer to shore, the JMSP has identified a number of sensitivities that should be considered. The JMSP is an excellent opportunity to also consider and assess those sensitivities and suggest preferred cable routes to shore. In addition, any onshore components required should be assessed and considered in line with the Bridging Islands Plan and suitable regulatory processes should be set up to consider all aspects of an offshore wind project. These can be further examined through detailed survey and assessment as part of any project application. In addition to the points above, we would also highlight that existing vessel traffic in the region will influence any offshore wind project. However, the use of best practice designs and layouts would allow much of the negative impact to be mitigated, especially given the clear routes as shown in the JMSP. Whilst not strictly for the JMSP to resolve, the potential for interference with radar and aviation should also be considered. Any wind farm project will have to be sufficiently distant from the airport radar to minimise interference. This will directly shape the position and layout of a project. In order to maximise the potential opportunity, a sufficient buffer should be applied that would help minimise interference with radar. Marine Protected Areas and loss of fishing grounds: The JMSP has very clearly set out the case for the extension of Marine Protected Areas ("MPA") and developing the legislation required to deliver management measures within these areas. As the primary concern is the impact of certain fishing methods, the MPAs will exclude mobile fishing activity. For fishers, this may lead to loss of fishing grounds and potential displacement into other areas. It is a common view that offshore wind development will also lead to fisheries exclusions and further displacement. We would like to highlight that the area of interest for offshore wind is not an area of high fishing activity and mobile effort is only found to the north of the region where the sediment is more substantial. Furthermore, our development ambition would use fixed foundations that can |
|
|
|
|
| happily co-exist with fixed fishing gear, which is the activity currently practiced in the region. Beyond disturbance during necessary survey and construction phases, the impact would be minimal. As the JMSP highlights, the wind farm itself may act as a benefit to fishing effort in the region due to the structures providing areas where species may accumulate and Nature Positive designs could offer additional benefit opportunities. In Scotland we have seen fixed gear fishing move into a floating offshore wind farm location. The structures on the seabed may provide shelter for target species and the floating wind farm array protects gear from mobile fishing effort. The updated JMSP should clarify the expectations around co-existence of offshore wind and fisheries and set out a clear, evidence-based approach to any conflict management. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511854 | Engagement | Guernsey Environment and Infrastructure | The Committee would like to thank the officers who arranged the consultation workshop in Guernsey, and associated materials, which explained the work undertaken to produce a draft Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) for Jersey's waters. It was very helpful to gain a better understanding of the evidence used to inform the list of priority actions that the MSP presents. It is recognised that the marine environment is not limited by jurisdictional boundaries and therefore it is imperative that we continue to work together to get the best outcomes for both Jersey and Guernsey, both in terms of our people and nature. This balance is one which is clearly articulated within Jersey's MSP. The States of Guernsey welcomes the engagement on the MSP for Jersey waters and broadly support the priority actions that it contains. We look forward to continuing our joint working as we develop our own Marine Spatial Plan. At this stage we would like to make the following comments: The extension of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within Jersey's waters is noted and the ecosystem-based approach to their identification is recognised internationally as best practice. The evidence used to define their boundaries is clearly communicated within the plan. In time, we would welcome more information about how activities might be assessed against the objectives of the MPAs when they do have a statutory basis and what requirement, if any, that might place on activities within Guernsey waters. The plan identifies a potential area of search for utility scale offshore wind energy generation. Given the potential scale of the development and the location, there is the potential for its development to impact on the biodiversity and economic interests within Guernsey's jurisdiction. We would therefore wish to continue our close working relationship on this topic with the aims of further exploring areas of mutual benefit and identifying potential impacts early so they are mitigated as far as possible. The Committee looks forward to receiving the finalised MSP in due course but, | No | Jersey will continue to work with neighbouring jurisdictions. |
|
|
| in the meantime, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries about this response. |
|
|
JMSP- 581246680 | MSP | JASP | JASP is highly supportive of the objectives of the MSP to better zone and manage Jersey's marine environment on this spatial basis, taking an evidence- based approach. We urge the Government of Jersey to continue this work and to adopt the Marine Spatial Plan as soon as possible. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581246680 | Seabed protection | JASP | JASP is highly supportive of initiatives to support a blue carbon economy in the context of the net zero transition and also the Biodiversity Protocol. Is there more that could be done to protect and grow the seagrass meadows? Some members felt that the Plan could be more ambitious with regards to natural environment protection in this context. They questioned the no-take zone at 0.08% of Jersey waters (pages 138-139) and thought this was much too small – they suggest in the order of 5%. | No | Recommendation NB6 for seagrass management areas will aid in the protection of seagrass, further protection for seagrass is not being considered at this time as it is generally in good health and already expanding in areas. There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. |
JMSP- 581246680 | Watersports | JASP | Some of our members felt this needed to include much tougher rules and limitations on jet skis, which have become somewhat of a scourge on popular beaches for swimmers and children and should not be permitted in those areas given the safety risks, and in some cases the environmental damage. | No | This will be addressed by priorities RT1 and RT2 |
JMSP- 581246680 | Water quality | JASP | Some of our members want to see further measures to reduce the use of motorised vehicles in Jersey waters. One suggestion is a prohibitive polluter- pays type tax hypothecated back to the Climate Emergency Fund or a future nature-related equivalent. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
JMSP- 581511868 | Terminology | JEC | Replace the following "CIEG" references with "JE Plc and GEL" • 6 CIEG references in the responsibility column of IT1a, IT1b, IT1c, IT1d and SC1a • 1 CIEG reference in the status column of IT4a P.255: Appendix E, remove the CIEG acronym and definition Page.24: Replace "Jersey Electricity Company" with "Jersey Electricity Plc". Page.194: Cover image reference, replace "Channel Islands Electricity Grid" with "Jersey Electricity Plc" Page.200: Both image references, replace "Channel Islands Electricity Grid" with "Jersey Electricity Plc" Page.202: Note 1 at the bottom of the page, replace "Channel Islands Electricity Grid Ltd" with "Jersey Electricity Plc". Page.203: Additional action required – IT1f: Provision will be made for new cable installations along new routes to offshore renewable locations or interconnector sites. | Yes | Amendments made as requested. |
JMSP- 564521345 | Beach management | Jersey Adventures | Page 222 point FA2D and page 230 RT6A / RT6B. There are unacceptable amounts of litter in our waters and it NEEDS to be addressed for the benefit of ALL. I support a coastal warden scheme. Littering and environmental abuse should should be criminalised with hefty fines for offenders. | Yes | References to beach wardens have been added to section 11.5.3 in paragraph 1 and in action RT6a. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Seabed protection | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Marine Habitats and Marine Protected Areas: I support Priorities NB1-6 and associated actions. If implemented and adequately enforced, it is my view that the proposed network of Marine Protected Area's (MPA's) detailed in the plan would represent a significant step towards the sustainable management of Jersey's territorial waters. The Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) public consultation draft document has identified | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
|
| the most ecologically valuable sites for protection based on the available scientific evidence. The proposed network of MPA's would deliver a variety of long-term benefits for the environment, society, and the economy. By safeguarding the proposed areas, it is expected that priority habitats and marine species will recover, biodiversity will increase, and Jersey's territorial waters will become more resilient to the impacts of climate change. The establishment of the proposed MPA network is also likely to contribute to the conservation of commercially important species such as crab and lobster. As a result, the proposed MPA network will likely support low-impact, static forms of commercial and recreational fishing, which can continue to operate within the MPA boundaries. The establishment of the proposed MPA network is also expected to contribute to the long-term conservation of commercially important species like Crab and Lobster. This would support the long-term sustainability of low-impact, static forms of commercial and recreational fishing that would still be able to take place within MPA boundaries. Expanding Jersey's network of MPA's to cover 27% of territorial waters would represent a significant step towards fulfilling the Global Biodiversity Framework's target of safeguarding 30% of land and sea within protected areas by 2030. |
|
|
JMSP- 580771412 | Seabed protection | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture: I support Priority FA5 as an important positive step towards sustainable marine resource management. While the Proposed MPA network would outlaw the most destructive fishing practices (dredging and trawling) from taking place within the most important and biodiverse areas, destructive fishing activities will still be permitted to take place within 70% of Jersey's territorial waters. Ultimately, transitioning away from destructive fishing practices is the key to the future of healthy marine ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. The addition of a further action to facilitate and support this transition is therefore highly desirable. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Artificial reefs | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Future Expansion of the MPA Network: I fully support the MSP public consultation draft proposition to identify areas where further research should be targeted to guide the future expansion of the MPA network. Further research on tides and currents and their impact on populations and metapopulations of important marine species in Jersey's territorial waters would help in identifying the next most important areas to protect when expanding the MPA network in the future. The placement of artificial structures could aid the restoration of degraded areas as part of the future expansion of the MPA network. In areas of the sea affected by bottom trawling, marine life has been found to be significantly more abundant in and around shipwrecks (Hickman et al. 2023). Shipwrecks and other artificial structures provide areas of high habitat complexity and a refuge for many species (potentially including species of conservation priority) unable to survive in a heavily trawled environment. Fishing boats engaging in destructive fishing practices typically avoid areas containing such structures, as they can represent a danger to the boat and gear. | Yes | A sentence has been added at end of 8.6.9 regarding the consideration of biodiversity aids in the restoration of degraded habitats. A new action added (NB5e). |
JMSP- 580771412 | Climate | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Blue Carbon: It is essential to continue refining the accuracy of blue carbon sequestration calculations and monitor the condition and extent of habitats known to be important blue carbon sinks. Additionally, it is crucial to recognise that seabed trawling is a major source of CO2 emissions. Bottom trawling releases large amounts of carbon dioxide from the seabed and much of this gas gets into the atmosphere (Atwood et al. 2024). Establishing the CO2 emissions associated with trawling in Jersey's territorial waters would enable the government to determine whether those emissions should be regulated. | Yes | This will be addressed by the current Carbon Neutral Roadmap policies SP5 and EN5. This has been added to the text in section 8.6.6. in addition to reference to the potential effects of disruption of seabed on carbon release. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Access | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Recreation and Tourism: I am in support of Priority RT3 to promote and better manage access to the marine environment for the benefit of all. | No | General statement of support - no action necessary. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Management | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Survey, Surveillance and Monitoring: Ultimately, management decisions will only be as good as the evidence base underpinning them. As alluded to in the MSP public consultation drafts Guiding Principles, monitoring and review must be recognised as integral components of the MSP. For the MSP to work effectively as an operational plan, it is crucial to determine the plan's monitoring and surveillance requirements. This includes identifying the most suitable approaches and methodologies to gather the required information. To meet the monitoring and surveillance requirements of the MSP, it will be necessary for professional and citizen scientists from a variety of organisations to work together in partnership. Ensuring adequate resources are available to coordinate and support ongoing monitoring and surveillance work is essential. | Yes | An additional priority have been added (NB5f) regarding collaborative working. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Education | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Environmental Education: Regarding the actions outlined in priority RT6, which aim to increase public education and awareness, I propose an additional action. This would involve coordinating and supporting the existing education and awareness initiatives already being carried out by various environmental organisations. Such an action would encourage partnership working, facilitate knowledge and resource sharing, avoid duplication of efforts, and help to ensure that the Island's marine environmental education requirements are met. An example of a similar existing initiative, albeit with a slightly different focus, is the Environmental Educators Forum. The forum, which is facilitated by the GoJ Climate Change team, focuses on helping schools deliver quality environmental education. | Yes | A new priority (NB7) has been added regarding a Marine Environment Visitor Centre Priority RT6 also addresses marine awareness. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Access | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | Infrastructure, Energy and Transport: When planning essential coastal defence works, it's important to consider opportunities for improved access like footpaths and cycle paths. | No | This will be addressed by priority RT3 to promote and manage access to the marine environment for the benefit of all |
JMSP- 580771412 | Infrastructure | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | I support Priority IT9 to explore the potential for a Jersey-based maritime hub. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 580771412 | Renewable energy | Jersey Biodiversity Centre | I support Priorities IT4 and IT5 to support the principle of utility-scale offshore wind generation in the southwestern part of the Bailiwick and to investigate the potential of using tidal power to generate electricity within Jersey's waters. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581192837 | Economic development | Jersey Business | There is a danger that the decline of our Professional Fishing fleet (circa 58 boats pre-BREXIT and COVID, to under 30 at the end of December 2023) will continue as it is becoming increasingly difficult for our fishers to operate profitable businesses. Commercial fishing in Jersey is quite a small industry, however its importance is much more than catch and profitability. It is also about our heritage, our national identity and plays an important part in our social fabric. The MSP as it is currently set out could have an adverse effect on our Commercial Fishing Fleet (over 90% of their catch is exported, with the majority going to France, Italy, Spain and Portugal). Our neighbours in Normandy through Le Cotentin Terre Bleue (https://lecotentin.fr/terre-bleue-le-cotentin) are committed to invest, modernise and support their fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Some ideas and suggestions: • As part of this consultation's outcome, the Department for the Economy could undertake an Economic Impact Assessment to determine what impact the MSP will have on Jersey's Commercial Fishing fleet when implemented. They could do this by analysing the fleet/catch data at the end of 2023 and evaluating it against the MSP's key objectives. • The MSP would appear to have very limited impact on Registered Fisherman from both Normandy and Brittany who use our waters daily and take over 80% of total fish and shellfish caught within our territorial sea. On the basis that most catches are by French boats, it would be unfair to target only Jersey boats. If we are to make changes, they should be applied to all professional full-time | No | This will primarily be addressed through the Marine Economic Framework work and through a Business Impact Assessment that will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Aquaculture comments are outside the scope of the JMSP. |
|
|
| fisherman. It should be noted that currently there is no economic benefit to Jersey from Normandy or Brittany fisherman when they fish in our waters, and the Government of Jersey has a significant annual budget to monitor our seas with a marine patrol vessel. • It is important to note that a high volume of the proposed protected zones are within the 3-mile limit, when circa 80% of all catches are by French boats that cannot enter the 3-mile zone. • While the outcome of the MSP is still to be seen, there is the potential for Jersey commercial fishing boats to lose areas where they have traditionally fished. If this happens, consideration should be made for focused support and encouragement on new potential marine industries so that businesses are not forced to close. • Responsible and sustainable fishing is vital to help maintain healthy fish stock levels. Will the MSP include measures like seeding juvenile shellfish and prohibiting the capture of pregnant lobsters to support the recovery of Chancre Crab and Lobster populations, which are currently declining? If these measures can not be included, the potential for a Lobster Hatchery exists. (examples: https://whitbylobsterhatchery.co.uk/about , https://www.kinglobsters.com). Lobster is Jersey's most valuable commercial species, with landings accounting for around half of the fishing fleet's annual income. • Seaweed – Jersey has yet to develop seaweed farming. This is something that could be looked into further, as there is potential for growth and export of seaweed products. A report was carried out in 2019 (Seaweed Aquaculture and Wild Harvesting in Jersey 2019 https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=4713) however we haven't seen any commercial entrants to this yet. There is potential for creating high value products from low volume and sustainable seaweed catch. An example of a company doing this in Guernsey is https://guernseyseaweed.com/ • Oyster Farming – Jersey is the largest producer of oysters in the UK, with our huge tidal range and some of the cleanest seawater in Europe, Jersey is the perfect place to farm high quality oysters. Jersey Oysters are farmed in the Royal Bay of Grouville , which is the largest area of cultivated oysters in the British Isles. Over 85% of all farmed oysters are exported and they are a great example |
|
|
|
|
| of sustainable food production as they do not require any additional feed and they help to improve water quality. There is potential to grow this industry even further for export. |
|
|
JMSP- 581201241 | Tourism | Jersey Business | • The Marine Spatial Plan should consider its alignment with the recently published Visitor Economy Strategy. Misalignment between the MSP and VES could create barriers to each of meeting their goals. • The VES defines their goal "To be a globally recognised, sustainable and enriching destination that Islanders are proud to share". Of which the natural environment, including the marine environment, plays a considerable part. • The need for new hotel sites: There are concerns around declining tourism bed stock on the island and whilst this doesn't directly the effect the marine environment as hotels are (usually) on shore, there is a relationship with the marine environment when identifying potential new hotel sites. • Access to the coast and marine environment: The MSP lays out an aspiration for islanders and visitors to enjoy the coast and marine environment for recreational purposes. However, there are currently challenges with access to the some of the islands most popular beaches such as Greve de Lecq and Plemont, which need to be considered. Greve de Lecq lost a reasonable % of car parking spaces, as well as an experience' for coach tour groups when the Seaside Cafe closed. • Plemont Cafe was impacted in 2022 by a reduction in parking, as well as the closest bus stop being decommissioned, making it considerably harder for customers to visit. Margins within hospitality businesses are often low and these changes can be impactful to the sustainability of businesses. • Event Tourism: The coastal and marine environment can play an important role in hosting events. These need to be considered in relation to the benefits to the island and visitor economy, local residents health and wellbeing, and any environmental impacts – but the MSP should encourage the enabling of such activities. Examples include: the Super League Triathlon (https://superleaguetriathlon.com/event/jersey21/) The Breca Swim/Run (https://www.jersey.com/things-to- do/events/listings/jersey-swimrun/) The Jersey Triathlon | No | Hotels, cafes and events are outside of the scope of the JMSP but access and parking will be addressed by priorities RT3 and RT4 |
|
|
| Beach Polo (https://www.sandpolo.com/) Horse Racing (https://laytownstrandraces.ie/wp2/) Some of these also showcase Jersey in off-island media. Some of above points are referenced in the MSP (see below), it is important that the MSP not only aligns with other strategies such as VES, but also considers access / transport inc car parks, bikes and buses. • 3.3 Consultation – Identifies a need for better access to beaches and the sea, with more parking, more bike racks and better bus routes. • 7.0 Seascapes – importance of consideration of the views of landscape and seascape. • 12.6 / 12.7 - Renewable energies. |
|
|
JMSP- 581203578 | Renewable energy | Jersey Business | From an economic point of view, Jersey has an aging population and over the next 20 years we will have a very high proportion of over 80 year old's. Due to this it is highly likely that the current working population will have shrunk, and as Jersey is reliant on personal taxation for income, based on our current tax model we will most likely have less tax revenue to run our public services on. To mitigate the loss of tax revenue, the Windfarm opportunity has the potential to generate at today's prices circa £70m+ in new Government income. In addition, new jobs will be created to maintain and operate the Windfarm and other complimentary new commercial opportunities, such as seaweed farming, can add further value. The windfarm could also provide Jersey (people and businesses) with improved energy security at prices that are under our control. Pending a successful feasibility study, including seabed surveys and environmental assessments conducted by contractors with proven capability and licenses that work for both Jersey and business operators, this project can benefit our population for decades. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." |
JMSP- 581203578 | Renewable energy | Jersey Business | From an economic point of view, with our considerable tidal movements, tidal power can be seen as an obvious solution to help us produce more of our own energy and therefore improve our energy security. However, at this point, the capital expenditure for infrastructure is very high and the concept is yet to be a proven model, unlike Windfarm energy. | No | This will be addressed by priority IT5. |
JMSP- 579841253 | Infrastructure | Jersey Fishermen's association | Within the first draft of MSP is a proposed exclusion zone around GJ1and GJ2 cables. The JFA very strongly rejects the proposal or indeed any notion of restricted access to traditional fishing grounds, given that all the dialogue surrounding the route of the cables through productive fishing grounds and the need to ensure continued access for fishing, had already taken place prior to the laying of the cables. Much of the dialogue will be minuted in the Marine Resources Panel meetings of that era (1980s?) | Yes | Action IT2b regarding protection of the Guernsey electricity cable has been updated. |
JMSP- 579841253 | Seabed protection | Jersey Fishermen's association | Chart submitted for comment to Marine Resources, includes ammendments to MPA zones. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511855 | Fishing restrictions | Jersey Fishermen's association | The principle of comparative best usage of the areas to which the fleet requires continued access is fundamental to this submission. The JFA hold that, along with the notion of comparative best usage, our established marine economy, along with the potential for future growth, is an element which must feature with equal significance in the process of delivering a marine spatial plan, as any other criteria. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511855 | Renewable energy | Jersey Fishermen's association | By way of example, with reference to comparative best usage, we note that within the same timeframe as the production of a marine spatial plan, Jersey's environment minister has issued a public statement and a consultation exersize based on plans to develop a large wind-farm in Jersey's sea area to the SW of Corbiere. Hence the use of the comparative best usage principle, as the proposed windfarm is located in an area known to be important for a number of important fish and shellfish species including Bluefin Tuna. Clearly the minister considers that the impact and extreme disturbance of the seabed in that area for the purpose of a windfarm, to be acceptable and the concept of a wind-farm to be of greater importance than protection of habitat and the health of the many important fish species that rely on the area. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment |
|
|
|
|
| and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." A Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. |
JMSP- 581511855 | Seabed protection | Jersey Fishermen's association | See JFA MK2 chart in submitted documents. The chart; For clarity , we refer to specific areas or zones for continued access on the chart, by the numbers as illustrated on the chart. Straight Lines; It should be noted that in the interests of all concerned and for obvious reasons, the JFA proposed chart uses straight lines to define the perimeters of the Marine protected area and access zones, (as opposed to the series of arcs used on the chart proposed by the Environment/MSP team). Additionally, wherever possible these lines run parallel to lat long lines and in a number of instances the lines are set to correspond with round numbers of latitude or longtitude. e.g. ref point 11 sits at 49'08.50 x 02.15.50. Other lines use well known landmarks or seabed features as reference points. Seasonal Access; To be noted also that the the JFA chart specifies some areas under the principle of "temporal or seasonal access". It is the view of the JFA, that protection of breeding, spawning or nesting areas for important fish species is of equal validity as protection of any other sensitive habitat. The value of such seasonal access areas and the need for closure to mobile gear is best defined around the known seasonality of the species concerned . This represents a more pragmatic approach than total closure. Within the first draft of MSP is a proposed exclusion zone around GJ1and GJ2 cables. The JFA very strongly rejects the proposal or indeed any notion of restricted access to traditional fishing grounds, given that all the dialogue surrounding the route of the cables through productive fishing grounds and the need to ensure continued access for fishing, had already taken place prior to the laying of the cables. Much of the dialogue will be minuted in the Marine Resources Panel meetings of that era (1980s?) The Zones. In numerical order along with numbered reference points as follows; Zone 1; is the area extending from the existing limits within St Aubins bay extending out to Ref point No 10 due south of Noirmont point in the Southwest, to ref point 9 in the SE (to the SE of Demi des Pas pas light). This zone | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
|
|
| represents an important and productive area which has been fished, mainly for scallops for decades. It is the case that the area constitutes an important lifeline to those local boats, practically all of which are under ten meters, during periods of poor weather. No seasonality has been attached to the zone, however neither has it been ruled out. Zone 2; working around the island clockwise to the south and west the JFA chart proposes an enlarged area for protection from Noirmont to Corbiere using ref points ten and eleven encompassing the known kelp reefs/beds SW of Noirmont, along with the banc known as the Jumente banc. This then leads to Zone 2 which is effectively the Corbiere banc, otherwise known as the Great Banc. This is to be a seasonal access area closed during the summer months and open during the winter months on roughly 6 monthly cylces. It is an area which has been fished using mainly trawl gear for decades and is crucial to the existence of a local sector targeting finfish targeting skates, rays & finfish, the banc being a very productive area for those species.. The eastern limit line of zone 2 runs due North-South, while the Northern limit is set on a NW-SE line running from Rocco Tower to West Rock. Zone 3(a&b); heading North from zone 2 is an enlarged protected area for kelp focused around St Ouens Bay and the Rigdon banc. This then leads to access zones 3a and 3b set around the paternosters reef. 3A is a seasonal access area to the SW of the Paternosters reef and is an important area traditionally accessed by our local fleet using the demersal trawl metier. As with the Corbiere banc it is an essential zone for the finfish sector with skates rays and flatfish the target species. 3b is to the NE of Paternosters and is a productive and important area for the scallop sector. No particular case has been made for seasonality, however it has not been ruled out either. The timeframe for any seasonality on 3b would almost certainly align with the nearby zone 5, but not align with zone 4 Zone 4; is another seasonal access zone which focuses specifically on the banc known as the Plemont Deep banc where there is a long history of trawling for skates and rays. Western limit is defined by a N-S longtitude line running from ref points fourteen to fififteen. While it is a relatively small area it is nevertheless extremely important, particularly given that our local fleet currently only has exclusive access to a small number of areas for finfish within Jersey's 3nm. Traditional areas beyond the 3nm where the much more powerful french fleet have access, do not and cannot sustain a small scale fleet such as ours due to the almost constant effort and activity of powerful french trawlers . |
|
|
|
|
| As with the Corbiere banc seasonality is anticipated, based on a summer closure, with winter months opening. Zone 5; links to zone 4 geographically ,but represents an important area for our scallop fishery rather than the finfish sector. The location on the North coast provides for semi sheltered access during periods of poor weather from the south. It is important to note that while seasonality is proposed for this zone, being a scallop production area, it will differ from zone 4 where seasonality is centered around finfish . Zone 6; from zone 5 there is then another fully protected area of North coast with its western edge on a N-S longtitude line on ref points 16 & 17, to run north either from La Crete point or to use longtitude 02.06.50. This protected area continues eastward to St Catherines breakwater where a line is proposed running NE to Maitre isle. This leads to the larger access zone 6, where there is an extremely important scallop fishery. This is a zone which again enables fishing in relatively sheltered conditions during heavy weather from the prevailing westerly conditions. Fishing for scallops in this zone and in earlier times, for oysters has been going on for centuries. The area represents the most productive area for our mobile gear fleet to which access is absolutely critical. The JFA hold that the combined production of zones 1, 3b, 5 & 6 (all within our 3nm limit) represents around 80% of the entire scallop production of the Jersey fleet, with Zone 6 being by far the most important . Exclusion from this area would beyond doubt have catastrophic implications for the island's fishing and broader marine economy, including the merchant and export sector. It would likely also have negative implications for the hospitality sector. Zone 6 covers an area which to the South is defined mainly by existing lines surrounding the protected area of the Violette banc, Anquettes area. Zones 7. From zone 6 there is an exclusion zone, which is to a large extent, already defined and closed for protection of mearl. There is a small amendment proposed to the MPA Southern limit line after which there is a seasonal access area, zone 7, focused specifically on the well known Frouquier Box bream nesting grounds. Zone 8; is part of the area to the west of Les Minquiers where access is required for the scallop sector but where there is a small Bream nesting area on the Northern edge. Our scallop fishery in the broader NW Minquiers area has existed for decades. Seasonality for the bream nesting grounds which forms part of zone 8 will coincide with the known breeding season while seasonality to the wider area has neither been proposed nor ruled out. |
|
|
|
|
| Zone 9 is to the South east of Minquiers and is specifically proposed as an important area for scallop production. The JFA considers that the proposed chart, along with the qualifying points for each zone as above, represents a reasoned and measured response to the first draft MSP. The numerous other issues, most of which have been raised already by individuals concerned with the broader marine economy, such as the negative effects of displacement and increased carbon footprint resulting from having to import our seafood in the case of loss of our fishing fleet, all remain valid but need not be included as part of this submission. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511838 | Heritage | Jersey Heritage | Jersey Heritage has been an early consultee with the MSP discussions and many of the points raised and suggestions made are already incorporated into the public draft. These further comments re-emphasise key points in relation to the cultural and archaeological heritage, with a few observations on the content of the text. The prominence of cultural heritage considerations is very much welcomed throughout the document. This is perhaps less obvious in the Purposes of the JMSP' (p8 1.2), which could include informing the understanding and protection of the cultural / archaeological heritage. To re-emphasise this key point, Jersey's underwater cultural heritage is subject to international convention. Archaeological heritage is the focus of the Valletta Convention (Council of Europe, 1992), whereby each signatory undertook to create and maintain an inventory and to protect both specific sites and areas of archaeological importance – requiring a legal system for the protection of archaeological heritage including underwater remains. As recognised in the public draft, there are believed to be remains of very high archaeological importance that have been overwhelmed by rising sea levels since the last Ice Age, and there are records of some 400 wreck sites around the Island, only a small number of which have yet been located. In addition, the Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 2001) responded to the increased threat to seabed archaeology from excavation and salvage operations that had long been recognised. It extended the principle of preservation in-situ as the first choice from land to seabed heritage and proscribed commercial exploitation but not properly organised and funded | Yes | Cultural heritage has been added into section 1.6 - Guiding principles. Specific mention of conventions has been added to 10.1.3. |
|
|
| research. It was accompanied by an Annex of 36 rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage. Although the UK Government has not ratified the Convention it has endorsed, through the simple device of an announcement in the House of Commons (Appendix 2), the provisions of the Annex as representing best practice. This means that it has pledged to take into account the preference for preservation in-situ and strict regulation of excavation in its own decision-making. This was recently tested in relation to the wreck of HMS Victory (1744), when an original decision to allow salvage operations on this British vessel in international waters, not far from Jersey's territorial limit, was reversed. The Convention has been ratified or accepted by 64 countries around the world and the Annex is accepted as best practice across the underwater archaeology community. The main advantage of the Government of Jersey following suit would be to bring the States closer into line with the undertakings of the Valletta Convention. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511838 | Heritage | Jersey Heritage | Jersey Heritage is supportive of the new initiatives reflected in Priority SC2: Marine landmarks - to protect marine landmarks; and Priority CH1: Coastal structures - to protect working coastal infrastructure and landscapes of historic or cultural interest, and their settings. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581511838 | Heritage | Jersey Heritage | p154 10.3.1 – in relation to the section which states, unlike earlier defences against French invasion, the German structures are principally located on the west and south coasts, where they formed part of Hitler's Atlantic Wall', there are also significant German structures along the east coast of the Island, and many of the pre-existing earlier defences were utilised and modified by the German forces. References in the MSP should include the Jersey Heritage Conservation Management Plan: German Military Sites in Jersey', which is in final draft form and will be published in early 2024. | Yes | Text regarding German defences has been corrected in 10.3.1. and reference to Conservation Management Plan for German Military Sites in Jersey has been added to section 10.3.1 and in the Evidence Base. |
JMSP- 581511838 | Heritage | Jersey Heritage | p157 10.4.2 – a slight adjustment to the following text is required, although the coastal prehistoric sites are above the high water mark they extend into the intertidal and marine environments' as the sea incursion into La Cotte de St Brelade has been a major issue requiring construction of the gabion wall. | Yes | Section 10.4.2 paragraph 1 has been rephrased as requested. |
JMSP- 581511838 | Heritage | Jersey Heritage | To re-emphasise this key point - Priority CH5: Submerged landscapes survey - to undertake a seabed survey of the subtidal area, is a crucial piece of work to move forward in the understanding and protection of the underwater cultural heritage. A seabed mapping survey would complement the recent lidar survey of the island and provide a baseline dataset that can inform the understanding, appreciation, and management of historic wrecks, submerged prehistoric landscapes and other related coastal and marine heritage assets. The survey should use MBES as there are internationally recognised standards for MBES survey that encompass regional scale survey but also more detailed survey of specific features such as wrecks. In particular, the UK Civil Hydrography Programme operates standard specifications for MBES survey. Data acquired to these specifications is suitable for a wide range of archaeological purposes. It's worth noting that Priority CH7: Wreck sites - To protect the significance of wreck sites and their contexts, will require the development of bespoke designation criteria. | Yes | Specific reference to MBES survey has been added to section 10.6.3, and to action CH5a. MBES has been added to the glossary. An extra sentence has been added to section 10.8.3 and to action CH7a to say that these criteria will need to be determined. |
JMSP- 579439746 | MSP | Jersey Kayak Adventures | 1.4 It is in Jersey's interest to have an MSP to avoid the future danger of complying with any changes in the UK and International agreements. Increasingly, the management of marine areas is becoming more critical. In business, for example, early adopters often gain significant benefits.
4.21, 4.22. Good points. We must recognise that the general direction of travel is to have an MSP, as can be seen by the development of MSPs by our neighbours. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Seascapes | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Good point "Development proposals in the countryside, around the coast and in the marine environment should protect or improve its character and distinctiveness. They should also protect or improve the special landscape and seascape character of the Protected Coastal Area". There needs to be more consideration of the visual impact of development on the coast when viewed from the sea, not just how it looks on the land. | Yes | Section 7.1.1 paragraph 3 has been amended to specifically refer to views from the sea. Priority SC2 has also been amended. |
|
|
| Action SC2a: Highlights the above but also needs to consider the impact of development around the coastal areas both from the land and towards the land. |
|
|
JMSP- 579439746 | Seabed protection | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Priority FA1/NB1: No Take Zones This is a proportional approach and recognises the damage some fishing methods can have. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Conservation | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Priority NB2: Ramsar Sites: A good idea but needs funding. Priority NB3: Intertidal Sites of Special Interest. There is also the need to actively highlight and educate people on the significance of these areas. The proposed GeoPark may be a good vehicle for this to happen. Priority NB4: Priority Areas for designation as Areas of Special Protection (ASPs). The requirement for more discussion with users and not just residents and land owners also needs to be included. For example, the current framework does not require Les Écréhous ASP to consult with users/public other than land owners and residents. "No public consultation is required under the Law, only that owners and occupiers are notified and their comments considered". (Email from Environment Manager). This approach seems to run counter to elements of the MSP that write of the need to have a dialogue with stakeholders. | Yes | This will be addressed by priority NB4 but consideration to current users, residents and operators had been highlighted in section 8.5.5 and in action NB4a. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Seabed protection | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Priority NB5: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Good point. There is strong evidence of the benefits of stopping the use of mobile fishing gear in these important areas. 9J. Straight lines designating the areas are easier to navigate than the curves on the map. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Beach management | Jersey Kayak Adventures | FA1 and FA2. Good idea. Beach cleans may be very good, but the aim should be to develop methods to reduce lost fishing gear landing on beaches. Better identification and tracking of gear and involving government/fishers in retrieving lost gear should be included. FA5b. Is there scope to look at the opportunities to recycle and refurbish some of this gear. | No | This is already addressed by current priorities and actions and is also being addressed through a collaborative recycling scheme between Marine Resources, Ports of Jersey, Solid Waste, Jersey Fishermen's Association, and the Jersey Prison Service. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Archaeology | Jersey Kayak Adventures | 10.5. Include les Dirouilles, which some have identified as a possible archaeological site. Priority CH4: Intertidal archaeology. Action is needed to avoid further damage to potential sites due to the lack of awareness that these sites exist. | Yes | The dirouilles has been added to Figure 10c. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Cultural Heritage | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Priority CH6: Culturally-significant navigation markers. It's a very good priority. These are important cultural features that need to be protected. Some old Pilotage books include the features on houses that were used to make transits, so these should also be recognised. While modern electronic navigation aids may make these physical reference points less important, seeing that you are in the right (and hopefully not the wrong) place with your own eyes and not just on a TV screen when navigating is reassuring. Funding issues will need to be sorted out. Priority CH8: Intangible cultural heritage. To protect and promote intangible maritime cultural heritage. "A place-names commission to agree how coastal, intertidal and marine place names are recorded on charts would also help to safeguard this aspect of intangible cultural maritime heritage for the future". The Anglicisation of place names erodes what remains of the island language. | No | This will be addressed by priorities CH6 and CH8 |
JMSP- 579439746 | Access | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Action RT3: Include better (and cheaper) public transport to many of the beaches, especially if you are to encourage the aim of enabling the enhancement of well-being. Bays such as Bonne Nuit and Bouley Bay need a better bus service to allow people to travel by bus in summer and winter. The increase in the number of toilets and showers (even warm solar-heated showers on the roofs of some toilets) facilities at beaches is a factor in encouraging people to access the marine environment and not feel they need to travel by car. The cleanliness and our beach toilets being open all year are positive factors many visitors comment upon very favourably. Action RT4a: Most coastal car parks do not allow boat trailers attached to the towing vehicles to be parked, so the beach is the only option. Parking a trailer on a slipway is often difficult because the current parking law allows cars to park on slipways. The parking permit at St Brelade to park on the beach could reduce the number of "non-essential users" by having an administration charge and/or perhaps restricting the permits to those with trailers or larger watercraft that needing to be carried on a roof rack. The current permit is a free parking permit, whereas you have to pay to park in the car park. Car parks that are close to beaches should avoid having height restriction | Yes | Extra text added has now been added to section 11.4.2 and an extra action added to RT3 regarding coastal facilities. A further action has been added to RT4 regarding parking on slipways. |
|
|
| barriers. Many water sports users carry watercraft on the roof racks, and barriers can make entry into car parks impossible. |
|
|
JMSP- 579439746 | Disturbance | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Action RT5a: Good priority. More awareness by some dog walkers about the impact on wildlife and long term disturbance. Include more education when people renew their licences online each year e.g. watching a short video forms part of the renewal process. | No | This will be addressed by action RT5a. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Watersports | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Action RT6b: The foundations for this have already been done by the former Environment Division. Incorporating some of the contents of this GofJ document should make this an easier task to incorporate into the Enjoying the Coast Safely booklet: Jersey Marine and Coastal Wildlife Watching | No | Previous work will be used or consulted where appropriate to undertake the priorities and actions laid out in the JMSP. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Beach management | Jersey Kayak Adventures | 11.52 Low water fishing. Not replacing turned stones and chiselling away rocks to extract worms for bait seem to be bigger concerns than are suggested in the MSP. This issue was raised at Société Jersiaise Marine Biology meeting recently. However, perhaps this needs further research to identify if this is happening at a significant level to warrant action. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - this falls under recreational fishing management |
JMSP- 579439746 | Management | Jersey Kayak Adventures | RT7a: A permit system operates in many other countries with sensitive areas. Modern technology should permit purchasing via Apps. As in ski resorts and other places, residents should be able to buy lower-priced permits. Purchasing a permit to visit an area could include a brief outline/training of crucial environmental and disturbance issues. The report needs to mention the number of French visitors to the offshore reefs in summer and how the management plan/ASPs etc. is communicated to them. A permit system might also help to fund a warden at peak times. There are many good examples of how wardens can enhance the experience of visiting these unique places, e.g. Skomer and Skokholm islands in the Pembrokeshire National Park. The Commercial operators' crew and skippers should be required to complete Wild Life awareness training such as the WiSe scheme. | No | This falls under action RT7a which recommends increased management of the offshore reefs with the suggestion of a reef warden but the finer detail is outside of the scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Renewable energy | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Priority IT4. Good points made. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 579439746 | Water quality | Jersey Kayak Adventures | Priority IT2: Seawater quality monitoring sites. Jersey bathing water is generally of good or excellent quality. Water quality data should be more visible online and at the beaches. The island's good to excellent seawater quality is a significant asset that is overlooked when so many beaches in the UK suffer from sewage discharges. | No | This will be addressed by priority IT2 |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seagrass | Jersey Marine Conservation | 4.4.4 Develop a Carbon Sequestration Framework Although I accept that the smaller Seagrass meadows may have expanded, can we confirm this is true of the largest substantial meadow namely St Catherines harbour. In that area, substantial areas that should have seagrass cannot be productive due to seagrass mooring. The argument has been put forward that that area did not arise due to natural factors that should not reduce our regard for its importance since the potential for carbon sequestration is very high. New evidence supports the importance of avoiding in sediment disturbance. Suggested Action - Annually measure St catherine's Harbour Seagrass and scrape areas. | No | There is aerial image evidence of expansion of seagrass in St. Catherines over the last two decades. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Research | Jersey Marine Conservation | 5.4 Tides The current circulation shown is potentially an oversimplification being 2 dimensional that does not indicate whether there are differences in current speed, water temperature and direction at depths. The tidal range and topography modify dispersal. There are inshore currents that run in the opposite direction. In some places there are gyres and hydrological anomalies. These affect species breeding and distribution with impacts on the commercial crustacean and mollusc industry. Dispersion along the north coast as an example is affected by smaller gyrations e.g. Bouley Bay. The states of tide and speed variation caused by topography all play a part in dispersion, settlement and algae blooms. The creation of a network needs to consider this as a key factor in siting decisions. Action – Detailed tidal and topography study is needed. | No | Outside of scope of JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Terminology | Jersey Marine Conservation | 6.3 Reference is made to Zostra and Kelp forests. There are very few extensive Kelp Forests', Rigdon Bank is a Kelp Park' and due to the slope gradient most algae on a reef is located on top section in a fairly narrow belt. Suggested Action - A more accurate assessment of the Kelp communities – size and density. | Yes | Kelp terminology has been amended and an extra sentence has been added in section 8.6.3 to highlight the need for additional surveys. This has also been added to Action NB5c. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Terminology | Jersey Marine Conservation | P.70 Deep Sea- the description is misleading as we also have a deep channel running west to east between the north coast and Jersey. As a natural resource that area is important as it is not conducive to mobile gear. | No | Categories are classified on depth contours to give a broad character assessment and so no change has been made. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Admin | Jersey Marine Conservation | P.91. JMC are not given recognition here for our contribution JMC/ Jersey Seasearch undertook a number of surveys, provided data and published reports | Yes | Pg. 91 relates to marine birds but recognition of Jersey Marine |
|
|
| notably for the Société Jersiaise that identified key species and communities on submerged reef systems notably Sauvage and Rigdon. |
| Conservations surveys will be highlighted where appropriate. Please see Jersey Marine Conservation reference in Section 8.2.2 paragraph 3. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seabed Protection | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.2 No Take Zones – Portelet Sub-tidal surveys. I have raised my concern that sub-tidal benthic surveys are very important. They seem to be being played down with inter-tidal studies, BRUVs, grabs and towed cameras being utilised. These methods do not identify diversity and small-scale species. Diving even though it cannot be part of a government operation should be outsourced and integrated within the NB 1 priority. I once again have to ask for a more truthful statement as it is both unfair and inaccurate to attribute the proposal to protect the Sauvage to BMF and to suggest that Rigdon Bank was an anonymous suggestion. Since at least 2015, JMC have promoted Rigdon and published supportive data and reports. The concept of an NTZ has evolved as a mechanism for protection that fits with Jersey legislation but the call for some form of safeguard was initiated and has regularly been reiterated by JMC. The reef surveys were organised by us, following MB & Fisheries requests, principally promoted by Greg Morel . All the subsequent data was published and summary reports were also created. Publishing data that raises the profile of these key sites is an important part of a protection proposal. When asked to help with the BMF dive planning I proposed their 2021 visits as a continuation of our surveys. JMC published species reports for Rigdon in 2020 & 2021. | Yes | The text has been amended in section 8.2.1 to state that a NTZ at Rigdon was proposed by Jersey Marine Conservation. The methods used to monitor marine areas will vary between locations and will not be specified at this stage. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seabed Protection | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.5.1 Contrary to the implied statement, I would suggest that the Jersey Wildlife Law does not offer the necessary level of protection. Although threatened species are listed, there is no association in this text with necessary habitat protection. Reference to OSPAR and ASCOBANS identifies Jersey as a signatory but does not recognise the absence of applied mechanisms that identify infringements. Human demands take precedence over animal welfare. Our monitoring program identifies regular and repeated disturbance affecting mammal life cycles and family structure. Vulnerable species are listed but frameworks for practical management have not been developed. | No | This will be addressed through priority NB4 and also through action RT6 to promote public awareness of the marine environment. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seabed Protection | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.5.3 We are using thermal imaging drones to locate seal pups and breeding sites. Also, the equipment is helping us locate and map shallow water seabed areas. Could the licence be with the permission of the RMA Chairman and never during the breeding season. JMC uses the equipment to help us locate and extract fishing debris as that is the safest way to do so. Possible action NB4 A licence must be obtained for drone flying and will only be granted to organisations with a legitimate scientific need to deploy the equipment. | No | Outside of scope of JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Conservation | Jersey Marine Conservation | P. 90 relates sitings to population. Numerous submitted public reports identify activity but since much repetition is possible these cannot be used to estimate population size. I would suggest High numbers of porpoises on p.90 be changed to High numbers of porpoise sightings have been submitted ..'. | No | Porpoise activity has been recorded through acoustic receivers, not through sightings made by the public, the wording has been updated to make this clear. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Conservation | Jersey Marine Conservation | Sea haul-out sites used in the summer are full-filling a digestive and resting function. They are not necessarily breeding sites. None of our own surveys confirm the population sizes anywhere near the claims being made. The report Pinnipeds, people and photo identification: the implications of grey seal movements for effective management of the species' Sayer et al. 2019 provides useful suggestions for research and JMC are following this methodology in an attempt to accurately map distribution and behaviour. The OSPAR report on seal colony management suggests that we are not complying with that directive. The study Grey seal abundance patterns in the Channel Islands from 2010 to 2023' By G.Tully in which JMC had been participating, recommends revisions in methodology. More accurate recording also relates to my previous comment on drones. The MSP makes no reference to this ongoing study. NB4 and all regular seal out sites should be considered.. | No | The JMSP does not make reference to seal haul out sites as being breeding sites. There is no population size stated for seals in the text. This has been made clearer in the caption of Fig 8b. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Habitat Map | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.6 I find myself struggling to agree with the 8d map. The area in green indicating Kelp distribution is very misleading. Rather than indicating where Kelp can be found, the map suggests actual area coverage and has the potential to be used to calculate carbon storage. This implication then distorts the importance of other seabed types. From our survey data CAFOR scale, the actual coverage is about 10% of that implied by the map from my estimates. I have to accept some of the responsibility for this as the Seasearch reports don't clearly quantify habitat area within a survey site. I know of very few kelp forests' in Jersey water. Possibly more study needs to be done to estimate Kelp density. Also, the generalisation on Seagrass is misleading. Zostera m. and Zostera n. function very differently and overlap different littoral zones; Management considerations for subtidal Zostera marina beds in Ireland' Dale eta al., 2008. | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to section 8.6.3 regarding kelp habitats and the need for additional surveys. An extra action has also been added (NB5c) to help address this. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seagrass | Jersey Marine Conservation | The section on Seagrass beds is misleading. St Catherine's Harbour is substantially larger and functioning as a significant seagrass meadow. JMC funded and supervised the report on the extent of the area. Investigating the carbon sequestration potential of seagrass (Zostera spp.) in St. Catherine's Bay, Jersey' Kuo, 2022. | No | The section identified in the comment is unclear, but the St. Catherines seagrass bed is identified as being an extensive seagrass bed. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Terminology | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.6.3. Rock-Kelp Reference section to Seagrass Forests and the inference that we have numerous extensive dense areas is misleading Status and Trends for the World's Kelp Forests' Wernberg et al. 2019. A Kelp Forest should not to be confused with the presence of species Forest Kelp (Laminara hyperborea). | Yes | Kelp terminology has been amended and an extra sentence has been added in section 8.6.3 to highlight the need for additional surveys. This has also been added to Action NB5c. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seabed protection | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.6.6 The BC3 areas in fig 8j since they contain high inorganic carbon potentially should be considered as areas requiring some form of protection and there is a link to the Wind Farm proposals isn't there? | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seabed protection | Jersey Marine Conservation | Figs 8k and 8l Once again the vocabulary is misleading. Yes, Maerl and Seagrass should be protected under OSPAR but the text implies that Seagrass protection is in place. Actually evidence demonstrates that areas of gravel and sand (ie mobile) are depleted of biodiversity through mobile gear disturbance. | Yes | The paragraph in section 8.6.7 has been amended for clarification. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Terminology | Jersey Marine Conservation | 8.6.8 Suggestion for revised stronger wording As a contracting party to the OSPAR convention the government of Jersey is now prioritising the aims of the ..' | Yes | Change made to section 8.6.8 as requested. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Blue carbon | Jersey Marine Conservation | Fig 8z Stage 6 & 7 not sure whether we have conclusive evidence of that! | No | Maps were created on best available evidence, please see the evidence base reports on the Government of Jersey Marine Spatial Plan webpage. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seagrass | Jersey Marine Conservation | Priority NB6 Excellent!! Does JMC deserve a mention here with 3 published reports? | Yes | Jersey Marine Conservation reports have been referenced where appropriate. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Fishing | Jersey Marine Conservation | Fig 9j. Excellent proposals!! Section 9.5 Areas of low crustacean yield are over potted. In some particular areas, Ghost pots and ropes foul active strings. There appears to be no proposed control over potting density which could potentially restore depleted reef based crustacean populations. My impression was that the reduction in Edible Crab and Crawfish was a big concern. Key sites for juveniles are netted and heavily potted. For example, Noirmont, Bouley Harbour, Bonne Nuit Bay and the tidal fringes of the SW Ramsar area. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but will be addressed through fisheries management measures. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Wrecks | Jersey Marine Conservation | 10.7 & 10.8 The work by JMC and published information to recognise the significance of our wrecks is absent here. The Maritime Officer Roger Hills and Jon Carter from Jersey Heritage, met with us in December, to discuss the situation and our proposals for the future. The MSP information is massively out of date and the map irrelevant. I have already submitted a separate response to this through your feedback portal but include it again here. From our research and numerous visits to the remaining wrecks, there is strong evidence that they provide a window on our heritage, acting as time capsules that reveal the importance of the maritime environment in the shaping of our | Yes | Extra sentences added to sections 10.8.2 (paragraph 1) and 10.8.3 (paragraph 1). |
|
|
| culture. Also, data gathered by JMC demonstrates that the wreckages are functioning artificial reefs populated by high biodiversity including rare and unique species, providing protection for mobile juvenile communities, and acting as dispersal stepping stones. These factors align with the JMSP vision. If, as I would hope the intention of 10.8 is, to formally recognise what remains, then potentially the second question is; how do we intend to document and monitor these sites while they still exist? Potentially should we be compiling a record that highlights their function within the JMSP? I am not sure whether 10.8 clearly aligns with those objectives. As you astutely observed, preserving the wrecks for those wanting to visit without that turning into total exclusion is challenging and if not handled carefully, could result in legislation that prevents divers from exploring the sites. This is an important consideration. Important questions need to be addressed. Can we maintain access while preventing the further removal of artefacts or destruction cause by activities that are causing structural damage and accelerating decomposition? Could we include the sites as exclusion areas for mobile gear and pot lines? As an example, protective solution, mooring points could be placed secured to blocks a few metres away from the wrecks, maintained and clearly marked. The Schokland wreck diagram used in the JMSP could be clearer and more informative, has a key without explanation, is out of date and is copyrighted by the author. I would be happy to provide an updated free version of my diagram, see above. The known wrecks map (10d) perhaps is misleading, as most sites marked indicate where ships and aircraft sank but as most vessels were fragile structures, very little that corresponds with most symbols visibly remains. The key to the diagram could be enhanced and be revised to better convey sites where visible wreckage remains. (I enclose a suggested alternative). Potentially with some funding help from various sources, JMC could create short videos on each of sights that can be viewed by those interested in the wrecks and their history. (JMC has been surveying and fulfilling Action CH7a and holding discussions related to CH7b and CH7c since 2015). |
|
|
JMSP- 581511842 | Access | Jersey Marine Conservation | Action RT3b Examining this from a Ramsar and personal aspect, this should perhaps show positive and meaningful commitment that the public can identify with: the government will undertake a program that will improve and enhance beach and recreational opportunities within the St Helier area'. For example where is the recognition of the Ramsar area within the Town boundary or proposals to encourage activities along Greve D'Azette? To improve quality of life we need the development of marine linked educational facilities, that explore and utilise the harbours, inter-tidal pools and adjoining beach area, enhancing | No | This will be addressed by priority RT3 to promote and manage access to the marine environment for the benefit of all |
|
|
| awareness and the healthy mind and body benefits. Cycle routes should be set up to allow safer access and reduce demands for parking. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511842 | Access | Jersey Marine Conservation | 12.2 Action XX As this work is essential, improvements to coastal defences should where possible include improved footpaths, cycle lane and possibly parking'. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Seabed protection | Jersey Marine Conservation | 12.3.2 No ground proofing of proposed cable sites looking at the impact on OSPAR defined important habitats. | No | There are no new cables proposed, only a proposed corridor to protect one of the cables from mobile fishing gear. |
JMSP- 581511842 | Admin | Jersey Marine Conservation | End Ref EB/NB/12 data on the Sauvage reef and many other sensitive areas has been published by JMC | Yes | Jersey Marine Conservation now referenced in Section 8.2.2 paragraph 3. |
JMSP- 567438838 | Beach management | Jersey Sea Sports | The impact and remediation of green "Sea Lettuce" should also be taken into account for the Marine Spatial plan, to include possible land based measures to remedy the situation. These would fall into two sectors- 1. preventing the buildup, and 2 removal/clearing of the weed. We can see an immediate beneficial effect if the weed is collected quickly and removed, rather than being left to build up from tide to tide. | No | This will be addressed by current management/policy and will not be addressed through the JMSP. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Admin | Marine management organisation | General comments It is repeated in Chapters 1-4 that the JMSP is not a statutory document but that it will give direction to other legislative and policy tools, which will be used to deliver the actions set out in the JMSP, therefore those reading this should be clear that the JMSP is not a policy document. However, the JMSP can be downloaded by its three parts (A, B, C) and if someone were to download part C only, they would miss the context behind the plan not being statutory and not being a policy document. | Yes | Each chapter in part 3 now has an additional sentence in a 'Legislation and policy' section explaining that the JMSP is not a statutory document. The timeline has been corrected in Fig.2a, and a paragraph has been added to section 1.5 regarding the Evidence Base and requirements for new evidence. |
|
|
| Furthermore, implementing the actions may be difficult as the JMSP is reliant on other legislation, regulatory processes, and mechanisms, including contributing to the strategic direction of future iterations of the Island Plan (although no timescales are provided). Consider embedding links to legislation and other plans throughout. o 1.2 Purposes of the JMSP We welcome the inclusion of details on implementation including Appendix A. Noting that the JMSP is a non-statutory document intended to provide " an overarching strategic framework setting the approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing regulation...", we think it would be helpful to clarify how the JMSP will be taken into account when those tools' are themselves largely statutory. Will the relevant authorities responsible for the tools be bound by the JMSP? Experience in England, elsewhere in the UK, and internationally suggests that the JMSP will struggle to achieve the purposes, vision and aims unless it carries sufficient weight in decision-making. o 1.5 Structure Figure 1c It is noted that the evidence base is intrinsically linked to the process (base layer). It would be useful to see how evidence gaps were identified and if any remaining gaps exist in the JMSP, as this will determine future evidence requirements and influence the strength of policy response/reduce challenge. o 1.6 Guiding principles It is noted that the JMSP will have a clear link from evidence to policy, with English marine plans this has been a vital element. The JMSP is linked to the Bridging Island Plan (BIP), which provides a good integration of marine and terrestrial. For cumulative impacts, the BIP is laced throughout with references but no separate priority for cumulative/in combination effects. There is no cumulative effects priority/action in the draft JMSP. The aims/objectives of both are clear in that the cultural character and uniqueness of the island will be preserved; however, experience in English MSP is that a cumulative effects policy with an allied co-existence/displacement/co- operation policy suite is required to safeguard from inappropriate/non-sensitive development. o 2.3 History of MSP Fig 2b: The first English marine plan (East Marine Plan) was adopted in 2014, and therefore work had begun prior to 2016. The first draft Statement of Public Participation for consultation for the East Marine Plans was published in 2011, amended in 2012 and then revised in 2013. The figure refers to work commencing in 2016 (the remaining plans are referred to between 2016 and 2021). The Jersey Integrated Seascape and Landscape Character Assessment |
| Cumulative impacts are less likely to be an issue for Jersey due to the single jurisdiction and integrated planning between land and sea. |
|
|
| could be included on this timeline – it is an award-winning assessment, and it has informed the Seascape section of the JMSP. |
|
|
JMSP- 570294023 | International relations | Marine management organisation | 4.2 International legislative and policy context 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 provide a good overview of marine spatial plans surrounding Jersey's waters and cross-boundary agreements relating to the management of Jersey's marine environment. Whilst there is not a border with the South West Marine Plan, adjacent areas to it include the Bailiwick of Guernsey and French marine plan areas. It is noted that there is not a stand-alone priority for cross-border cooperation and collaboration. o 4.4 Key related planning documents It is positive to have a section on the BIP and to see reference to it throughout the JMSP – a link could be provided each time it's mentioned for ease. Key intertidal and marine parts from the BIP are highlighted that have direct relevance to the JMSP. It's noted that other key relevant documents have their own section also eg Shoreline Management Plan, and Economic Framework for the Marine Environment, further strengthening the JMSP's approach to marine/terrestrial integration | No | Integration of the JMSP with neighbouring jurisdictions will be considered for future iterations. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Climate | Marine management organisation | 6.3 raises Jersey's potential for 'carbon offsetting'. Does this mean Jersey will introduce compensatory habitats? Is Jersey looking to maintain, protect or restore blue carbon habitats? | Yes | Blue carbon habitats are considered within the MPA network, and seagrass has it's own priority. Understanding our blue carbon habitats better is addressed by policies SP5 and EN5 in the Carbon Neutral Roadmap, this has been added to the text in section 8.6.6. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Admin | Marine management organisation | 7.1 Seascapes This section is detailed and helps to focus on the issues identified in the first priority (retaining and enhancing the existing seascape). Embed a link to Jersey's Integrated Seascape and Character Assessment as it is specifically referred to within Action SC1a. | Yes | The suggested links will be live in the final document. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Management | Marine management organisation | 8.2 No take zones (NTZ) Action NB1a wording uses retained' and monitored'. However, there is no mention of management. Will the NTZ be adaptively managed depending on the monitoring? Will the monitoring be reviewed? Are there management plans? For example, if it is found that protected habitats and species move with climate | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP. This will be addressed by current management and changes will be considered in future in response to environmental change. |
|
|
| change or other species move in, will the boundaries and protections be adapted? |
|
|
JMSP- 570294023 | Management | Marine management organisation | Action NB3a only states SSI designation will be retained. Will the sites be managed? Action NB3c incorporates monitoring for all sites. | No | This will be addressed by SSI regulations. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Management | Marine management organisation | o 8.5 Marine mammals and birds, and Areas of Special Protection (ASP) There is recognition of climate change impacting marine mammals and birds in the plan and the movement through Jersey's waters due to being at the northern and southern edges of ranges. However, the JMSP states it is not within its scope to address these wider changes. Action NB4b is for monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of ASP designation, however how is adaptation being considered? | No | ASP management plans are individual to each ASP and focussed on an annual basis but will be guided by long term biodiversity and climate strategies. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Seabed Protection | Marine management organisation | 8.6 Marine habitats and MPAs There is recognition of being at the start of Jersey's MPA designations but Actions NB5a, 5b and 5c don't allow for future proofing of sites. Potential to review and monitor the MPA network and addition of adaptability and enhancing resilience moving forward. How will priority NB5 protect MPAs from non-fishing pressures or developments? This will be relevant in the intertidal and coastal areas for ongoing developments. | Yes | A new action has been added (NB5f) to cover monitoring of MPAs. Protection from non fishing pressures is the focus of Ramsar management and other existing structures but will be considered in future iterations of the MSP. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Fishing restrictions | Marine management organisation | o 9.4 Proposed fishing zones A cumulative impact assessment is required to determine the impacts that the zonation of fishing zones will have on the fishing industry and community. In addition to this, any proposed activities or development in the areas where fishing is allowed will need to undergo a further cumulative impact assessment to avoid or minimise any impacts on the fishing industry and community. Careful management of other activities will be required if this approach is implemented to reduce the impacts on the social and economic aspects of fishing. | Yes | Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final Marine Protected Area boundary and this is referenced in sections 8.6.9 and 9.4.3. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Aquaculture | Marine management organisation | o 9.6 Aquaculture FA3: 'sustainable methods of aquaculture' or 'recognised professional standards in sustainability' doesn't appear to be defined. FA4a and b: it is assumed a review similar to the evidence project to determine the suitability of aquaculture, but it seems a move away from the BIP policy which provides safeguarding for existing sites (unless these priorities are in addition to the BIP policy?). | Yes | Priority FA3 has been amended to reflect this. FA4a and b relate to phytoculture which is not specifically covered under the Bridging Island Plan (BIP). |
JMSP- 570294023 | Imports | Marine management organisation | 9.7 Encouragement and promotion of sustainable fishing Will the sustainability mark just be applicable to vessels fishing in Jersey waters or to those that wish to import fish into Jersey as well? This could have knock-on implications for fishers and markets external to Jersey. There needs to be thought given to how this will be implemented, and standards enforced. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - this falls under fisheries management |
JMSP- 570294023 | General | Marine management organisation | Cultural Heritage (Chapter 10) Consider how priorities will be implemented, for example consider including a policy on increasing knowledge, appreciation and understanding of the marine environment and to promote the uniqueness of the island and the impact of lost heritage. (Similar to the MMO's marine plan(s) SOC-1 policy: "Those bringing forward proposals should consider and demonstrate how their development shall enhance public knowledge, understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the marine environment as part of (the design of) the proposal.") | Yes | A new priority (NB7) has been added regarding a Marine Environment Visitor Centre Priority RT6 also addresses marine awareness. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Management | Marine management organisation | 11.2 Types of coastal and offshore recreation 11.2.4: covers recreational fishing. Does recreational fishing fall under the suggested management measures in chapter 9? This needs to be clear | Yes | Clarity has been improved around commercial and recreational fishing. In Chapter 9, the priorities and actions relating to recreational fishing have been made clear in the text, if recreational fishing is not mentioned then it applies only to commercial fishing. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Disturbance | Marine management organisation | o 11.5 Respecting wildlife and habitats 11.5.2: Reference to disturbance of wildlife (physically, or through noise). However, it is noted that there is no standalone priority for underwater noise monitoring or minimisation. | Yes | Respecting wildlife and habitats, and underwater noise minimisation and monitoring has been added to action IT3a (formerly IT4a). |
JMSP- 570294023 | Infrastructure | Marine management organisation | There is minimal mention of coastal erosion and flooding. This section appears to address man-made defences rather than nature-based solutions. Nature- based solutions are only mentioned on pg. 41 under the Carbon Neutral Roadmap. | Yes | An extra sentence has been added to section 12.2 to summarise flood risks (from the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)). |
JMSP- 570294023 | International relations | Marine management organisation | Action IT1b: protection presumably only extends within Jersey'smarine area so would suggest encouraging cross-border protection given the significance. | No | Neighbouring jurisdictions have and continue to be consulted during the MSP process but Jersey does not have authority to establish protected areas outside of our territorial waters. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Renewable energy | Marine management organisation | There is no distinction between fixed bottom or floating wind (assume fixed). Also, this section is pending the publication of the Government's wind plan so it's difficult to make any more specific comments. | Yes | A sentence has been added to section 12.5 (formerly 12.6) stating that it is likely that fixed foundation turbines would be required, rather than floating turbines. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Boat passages | Marine management organisation | 12.8 Harbours and passages Fig 12e: the text is very hard to read. |
| The text size has been increased. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Boat passages | Marine management organisation | 12.9 Boat passages There is limited mention of smaller or recreational vessels in this section (potentially in another) and not included on the map. Fig 12a is referred to multiple times but is not easily flipped back to (19 pages apart), suggest having separate maps for each sector where particularly relevant for ease of understanding and reading. |
| These are included in the recreational chapter (Fig 11b and c). Fig 12a has not been repeated in the interests of saving pages for printing. |
JMSP- 570294023 | Admin | Marine management organisation | o Appendix A We welcome the inclusion of Appendix A. Noting that the JMSP is a non-statutory document intended to provide " an overarching strategic framework setting the approach for a range of tools, including land use planning, marine resource management and fishing regulation...", we think it would be helpful to clarify how the JMSP will be taken into account when those tools' are themselves largely statutory. Will the relevant authorities responsible for the tools be bound by the JMSP? Experience in England, elsewhere in the UK, and internationally suggests that the JMSP will struggle to achieve the purposes, vision and aims unless it carries sufficient weight in decision-making. This could be covered in an opening paragraph in Appendix A. o Appendix B Appreciate links to documents will be added later, but inclusion on this draft would have been helpful. | Yes | Additional text has been added to section 1.2 and to topic chapters explaining how priorities and actions will be put into practice when the JMSP is not a statutory document. |
JMSP- 581511856 | MSP | National Trust for Jersey | National Trust for Jersey's vision is to permanently protect Jersey's natural beauty, rich wildlife and historic places for everyone to enjoy and experience. The Trust believes that Jersey, with its dramatic coastline, rich marine environment and extensive maritime history, retains a strong sense of place, identity and above all beauty. However, its rural character, ecology, and heritage remains threatened, possibly more than at any other time. This is due to unsuitable development, unsustainable fishing practices and short-term economic policies in addition to the threat of climate change. As a result, wildlife is in serious decline, the health of our environment is at risk, and sense of place is becoming increasingly elusive. For these reasons, the Trust welcomes the Minster for the Environment's publication of the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) consultation. Both the vision and the aims of the MSP align very closely with the Trust's own vision to create "a thriving, marine environment providing environmental, economic, cultural and social benefits" is surely one we can all support and the three aims below are most pertinent to the Trust's ethos: - Seascapes are valued and their character is retained and enhanced; | No | General agreement comment |
|
|
| - The natural environment is restored and biodiversity is thriving; - Cultural heritage is understood and protected The trust believes the MPS provides the framework for putting Jersey is very strong position on a local and international perspective in managing our marine territory. Following the adoption of the MSP, the trust sincerely hope the Minister and States Members seek to move the required regulatory structures and mechanisms as soon as practicable to ensure legal basis for the MSP. It is vital that this step is taken and that all the work done so far is, not effectively wasted. This plan cannot remain a policy document only – it must be given the legal teeth to cement the vision and goals of the plan in law. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511856 | Seascapes | National Trust for Jersey | Seascape The Trust believes that seascape and landscape are critical to the identity of Jersey and have been tat the forefront of coastal and marine conservation and protection for many years, including the campaign to protect Plemont and the Coastline Campaign. The coast and marine environment provide the tranquilitiy that is so needed in today's busy society. It is critical that these spaces are protected now and the future and the Briding Island Plan (BIP) and future iterations ensure that the highest level of protection is afforded to these parts of our island and seas. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581511856 | Seabed protection | National Trust for Jersey | Natural Environment and Biodiversity With respect to Marine Protected Aras (MPAs) the Trust supports the evidence- based approach that has been taken. Clearly setting out the stages as to how the proposed network of MPAs was assessed was extremely helpful. However, the Trust feels that Jersey must also ensure it fulfils our international obligations, specifically the recent "30 by 30" commitment by the Minister. In addition, the Trust also advocates for the establishment of Highly Protected MPAs (i.e. No Take Zones) in the network. We would emphasize the importance of resisting the pressure to reduce the benefits in exchange for short term economic / political gain. The Trust does acknowledge the impact MPAs can have on existing use but in our view the benefits far outweigh the costs. Our partner, Blue Marine Foundation, together with the New Economics Foundation, has published research into the value of ecosystem services provided by marine habitats, highlighting the economic benefits of habitat protection. Clarification as to whether the MPAs network would enable and support aquaculture development would be helpful. | No | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511856 | Aquaculture | National Trust for Jersey | Fishing/Aquaculture The Trust is fully aware of the cultural and societal importance of fishing and its history in the Island and is supportive of well regulated, sustainable fishing activity into the future. The Trust would encourage high environmental and welfare standards in all fisheries. We would also encourage Government and industry to aim for sustainable certification for all fisheries. Furthermore, we would support any programmes or opportunities for diversification from higher impact to lower impact fisheries as well as diversification into other maritime opportunities. Globally, as well as locally, wild caught fisheries are under significant pressure and so we would support low trophic aquaculture/ phytoculture of appropriate species and volume (little point in high volume fertiliser, need high end pharmaceutical / nutraceutical) due to terrestrial space. The MSP lacks specific allocation of space for new / innovative aquaculture and this should be considered in the final iteration of the plan. In addition, the Trust would support any measures that reduce the risk of any unintended entrapment or injury to people, or to marine fauna and birds. | No | Outside of scope of JMSP - but priorities FA3 and FA4 recommend that aquaculture and phytoculture be reviewed. |
JMSP- 581511856 | Admin | National Trust for Jersey | The fishing zones proposal would appear to similar in many ways to the MPA network other than zones to protect cables, which would, on the face of it, be logical. However, the use of the terminology "lightly regulated" could sound like a bit of a lack of regulation or a "free for all". Surely the aspiration for all Territorial Waters should be "well regulated" and not "lightly regulated"? We suggest this could just be the "regulated zone" as the vast majority of fishing legislation and licence conditions apply to these areas and perhaps gives a better signal as to the intentions of Government in this aspect. | Yes | Zone A has been amended to 'Regulated fishing zone' throughout. |
JMSP- 581511856 | Cultural heritage | National Trust for Jersey | Cultural Heritage The Trust fully support the aims to protect and conserve coastal heritage including military and archaeological sites in coastal, intertidal and subtidal locations especially in the light of an absence of appropriate legislation for the protection and conservation of historic wrecks. There have been a number of reports to Government with certain recommendations in respect of underwater cultural heritage. These have been summarised in the MSP report and we would support the development of these recommendations. We would highlight the nature conservation value of wrecks, in additions to the other cultural and societal values, not to mention the war graves designation. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581511856 | Cultural heritage | National Trust for Jersey | We also have a number of culturally significant navigation marks and the Trust would support some statutory recognition for these structure with an obligation to ensure Ports of Jersey recognise and maintain/conserve such marks under their public service obligations. We would also like to highlight the important in protecting the intangible cultural heritage, as was also recognised in the Heritage Strategy for Jersey published in 2022. We would support these aims fully. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581511856 | Renewable energy | National Trust for Jersey | Infrastructure, Energy and Transport The Trust understand the need for critical infrastructure but are keen to ensure the right checks and balances are in place when authorities are considering such development. With respect to submarine cables we have no issue provided rigorous environmental assessments in place. The Trust is likely to provide further narrative on its position in respect of the offshore wind through the specific consultation but, in brief, support the principle of renewable energy provision for the island. As above the Trust would expect authorities to ensure the most rigorous environmental and socio- economic assessments were in place for such a significant project. The Trust remains open to the development of other offshore renewable energy technologies but would require further detail before commenting. | No | General comment of support |
JMSP- 570613861 | Compensation | Protect Blue | Having worked closely with the local commercial fishing fleet I think it's vital that we support the transition to a more sustainable fishing industry. Whilst I agree with the proposed plans the new MSP will clearly have direct impacts on the livelihoods of fishers, and as such we need to address those issues and provide solutions for those who will be impacted. If we're able to co-design a solution with the fishers then this MSP would become an incredible case study for other areas in the UK who are facing similar issues. | No | This will primarily be addressed through Marine Economic Framework work and through a Business Impact Assessment that will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. |
JMSP- 570613861 | Conservation | Protect Blue | I also think that Jersey would benefit from higher levels of ocean literacy integrated into our education system, via comms campaigns & our tourism sector. It would be interesting to understand how ocean literate our community is - as it seems that although most islanders gain much enjoyment from our beaches & ocean activities, there is a general lack of understanding in terms of our influence on the ocean and the oceans influence on us. Our work with Plastic Free Jersey & Climate Conversations showed us a disconnect between ocean health & climate change. I've attached Pamela Buchan's report on Marine Citizenship. | No | A new priority (NB7) has been added regarding a Marine Environment Visitor Centre Priority RT6 also addresses marine awareness. |
JMSP- 581511851 | International relations | Republique Francais - Brittany | The French authorities appreciate Jersey's rigorous analysis underlying the delimitation of closure zones where towed fishing gear is prohibited. Nevertheless, they share the following comments, supplemented by the technical analysis provided in the annexes: The French authorities note that the documents on which the scientific arguments are based are not yet available for consultation, which harms the credibility of the document as it stands. | No | While the evidence base documents were not available online during the consultation they were available on request. The documents will also be published alongside the post- consultation version of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511851 | International relations | Republique Francais - Brittany | The socio-economic impact of the plan has not been quantified. Precise knowledge of this impact is essential if the plan is to be implemented in a way that is sustainable for economic stakeholders. In order to contribute to this exercise effectively, the French authorities have attached the impact on fishing by French vessels which was quantified by IFREMER during the consultation. This study would require further investigation on the basis of the underlying Jersey documents referred to above, which the French authorities are requesting to consult. The French authorities propose that the JMSP should also be the subject of a more comprehensive socio-economic impact study and are therefore at the disposal of the Jersey authorities to participate in the process of reflection in depth prior to implementation. Jersey's central location in the Channel and the scientific knowledge available should enable the various marine uses to coexist without harming ecosystems. | Yes | Business Impact Assessment will be carried out on the final proposed MPA boundaries. This is referenced in sections 8.6.9 and 9.4.3. Wider study and partnership working will take place ahead of implementation of spatial management measures that impact fishing, French representation in this process will be sought. It is the intention of Marine Resources to commission a full Economic Impact Assessment following adoption of the JMSP by the States of Jersey. |
JMSP- 571427043 | Seabed protection | Republique Francais - Brittany | The French authorities question the validity of certain closure measures: - Regarding the exclusion corridors prohibiting towed gear, due to the presence of undersea cables, the French authorities question their usefulness in view of the burial work carried out precisely to avoid any interaction between these two uses. There is currently frequent fishing activity in these areas. In addition, these closures would have a widespread socio-economic impact because their layout and position make them impossible to bypass during a fishing operation. The French authorities therefore request that these proposed closures be excluded from the management plan and be the subject of in-depth discussions about existing risks. | Yes | Action IT2b regarding protection of the Guernsey electricity cable has been updated. Energy security is of high importance to the island so the safe management of these connections is of high priority. |
JMSP- 571427043 | Seabed protection | Republique Francais - Brittany | - Justification for the closure of Zone C in the south-east of Jersey's EEZ (Les Sauvages reef) is set out on page 86 of the consultation document. It states that Les Sauvages reef has 10 years'-worth of surveys carried out by divers and supports an exceptional range of species (described in EB/NB/11), including rare and slow-growing species such as sea fans and corals; as well as submerged prehistoric archaeological sites. Jersey deems this exceptional site to be threatened by static gear, as traps and lines snag seabed flora and fauna, and would like it to be fully protected (NTZ) without waiting for further analysis of the benefits of the existing Portelet NTZ. France was unable to consult document EB/NB/11 (entitled "A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef", Jersey Blue Marine Foundation, 2023). France requests that the benefits of such a closure in an area important for static fishing gear be demonstrated by a scientific consensus prior to possible measures. Furthermore, rare species have developed when static gear fishing has continued, which shows that this type of fishing is compatible with these rare species. | No | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. There is published research from studies in Lyme bay that show E. verrucosa to be found in greater abundance where potting levels are lowest. While E. verrucosa is found elsewhere, Les Sauvages is a hot spot. |
JMSP- 581511851 | Renewable energy | Republique Francais - Brittany | In addition, the envisaged wind farm in the south-west of Jersey waters is a laudable initiative in the context of the common goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. However, in order not to make the impact of these measures on fishing activities even more severe, the wind-farm section of the current plan should be detailed. In this way, the overall impact of the JMSP can be quantified and anticipated, which will help to alleviate the feeling of successive reductions in fishing rights in Jersey waters. In particular, it will need to be specified whether fishing will be permitted within the wind farm, and under what terms. The French authorities are also proposing that bilateral discussions be set up to examine the various connection options for the wind farm envisaged in Jersey waters. These discussions will make it possible to co-construct a coherent connection network and identify possible landing points on the French coastline. The latter will have to take account of the capacity of the electricity grid in Western France, which may require studies and investment for which the Direction Générale de l'Energie et du Climat (DGEC) and RTE, the French electricity grid operator, will be your contacts. Furthermore, the DGEC is contributing on France's behalf to the specific consultation set up on the issue. Given the proximity to the Saint-Brieuc wind farm of the areas envisaged at this stage, it will also be beneficial if in-depth discussions on the siting of offshore wind farms in Jersey waters and French waters focus on the details of their geographical location. These constructive discussions will have to help ensure maritime safety in the area, prevent any masking effects and maximize | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - the JMSP does not go into the detail of a windfarm as Jersey is only in the early stages of investigating a windfarm following the approval of the proposal to the States (P82-2023). Local stakeholder and neighbouring jurisdictions will be consulted during key stages of this project. Please also note that the priority wording for the windfarm (IT3) has changed to "An appropriate and rigorous assessment and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments should be introduced." Neighbouring jurisdictions will continue to be engaged in future. |
|
|
| production capacity. Finally, with a view to developing joint use of offshore wind farms, the French authorities are also willing to exchange knowledge to help develop best practice. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511851 | Navigation | Republique Francais - Brittany | The French authorities also welcome the close attention paid to maritime safety issues and the maintenance of shipping lanes to St Helier. We share the same concern for a coherent distribution of maritime space between the envisaged wind farm and the shipping lanes, particularly for ferries departing from Saint- Malo. | Yes | Priority IT7 now specifically refers to neighbouring jurisdictions. |
JMSP- 581511851 | Aquaculture | Republique Francais - Brittany | In this respect, sharing feedback would be beneficial for the seaweed-farming project envisaged by Jersey, as well as for any possible coexistence with fishing activities. In a constructive spirit of good neighbourliness, the French authorities are therefore at Jersey's disposal to organize working meetings that will enable sustainable and harmonious development in the Bay of Granville. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP but future developments with respects to spatial management in the Bay of Granville area will be carried out in consultation with Normandy, Brittany and central French Government. |
JMSP- 580780525 | Management | Seafaris | Action RT7a: We strongly agree that a management plan for the offshore reefs should be introduced. It is imperative that enough users are consulted during the production of the offshore reef management plans. We have concerns that heavy involvement from certain associations could result in biassed plans which are not representative of all stakeholders. We would propose that users', includes, but is not limited to, commercial operators (both fisherman and rib operators), wildlife experts and local boat owners associations. Organising meetings and forums for open discussions with these stakeholders can provide valuable insights and help develop a management plan that truly reflects the collective vision of our community. The introduction of a permit system does not specify whether this is for vessels or persons and whether it applies to recreational access, commercial access or both. It also presents legal challenges as it would restrict access to a large public area. Any proposal for a permit system should carefully consider the economic implications for businesses, particularly those reliant on the popularity of the Ecrehous as a tourist destination. We agree that a reef warden would be beneficial but we express reservations about securing funding and ensuring the position's long-term sustainability. | No | This will be addressed by RT7 - further detail is not possible within the scope of the JMSP. |
JMSP- 580788274 | Designations | Seafaris | We recommend there should be an additional action point for consultation into the effects further ASP's at the Ecrehous would have on commercial operators. Restricting access to particular areas could cause a significant loss in revenue for fishermen. Most tour operators are WiSe accredited and stick to set routes which mitigate disturbance to seals. Consideration should be given as to whether all commercial operators must attend an appropriate WiSe Scheme course. | Yes | This will be addressed by priority NB4 but consideration to current users, residents and operators had been highlighted in section 8.5.5 and in action NB4a. The rest will be addressed by RT7a - if a permit system is brought in there would be conditions relating to wildlife disturbance. |
JMSP- 580788274 | Seabed protection | Seafaris | We strongly agree that Action NB5a is included in the final plan. Mobile gear has a significant detrimental effect on marine ecosystems through habitat destruction. Shallow sea areas, especially around our offshore reefs, are key habitats for maerl and seagrass beds. These habitats need the highest protection as they are the very building block of marine ecosystems. It is difficult for our organisation to showcase our offshore reefs as heavily protected when we have mobile gear being used in such close proximity. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 580788274 | Seagrass | Seafaris | Action NB6a: We agree that Seagrass Habitat Management Areas need to be established. Management should consider focusing on the removal of disused moorings whilst simultaneously raising awareness of seagrass friendly moorings. Action NB6b: We believe that seagrass friendly moorings should be recommended and subsidised but should not be a requirement. Making them a requirement would be too much of a financial burden for the majority of boat users. It would also likely lead to the deterioration of the relationship with boat owners and those who take on responsibility of the management of the seagrass areas. | Yes | Action NB6b has been amended to"such moorings should be incentivised within the Seagrass Habitat Management Areas." |
JMSP- 581511864 | Conservation | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | Comments on the Marine Spatial Plan The Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy 2008, itself was long overdue, and was often flagged as addressing concerns about the lack of research and conservation around the coast of Jersey, the MSP appears to be just repeating some of the proposals from 2008, it would therefore appear there is still little will to address some areas of conservation by the authorities. It is disappointing that some comments and concerns raised within the consultation do not appear to have been properly addressed. Also, that the section proposal for a "No Take Zone" was dismissed only due to the lack of fishery activity in the area, and we think this is a missed opportunity to improve the management of our marine flora and fauna. | No | No Take Zones are one of the strictest forms of marine management and the recommendations were therefore considered very seriously. It was decided that only Les Sauvages was biodiverse and sensitive enough to warrant this level of proposed protection ahead of any results from Portelet No Take Zone. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Climate | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 4.4.4 It does not appear the government is that serious about emissions from aviation or maritime transport with zero duty on marine fuel, and aviation fuel duty and gst free. More encouragement and incentive should be in place for the use of sail power. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP - this falls under the remit of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap |
JMSP- 581511864 | Conservation | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 8.3.3 Ramsar sites; some years ago, the section worked with the kite surfing association to minimise bird disturbance, and set up a voluntary code and designated area, sadly this is no longer adhered to, maybe this should be revisited and put in place in a more regulatory manner, if a voluntary approach cannot be adhered to. Management plans have already been produced in 2011, and 2012. It is disappointing to say the Ramsar designation gives the public a false impression that the areas are meaningfully protected, when this is far from it, and the habitat and several species have suffered as such. | No | This will be addressed by priorities NB4 (Areas of Special Protection), RT6 (Seaside Code), and RT7 (Management of offshore reefs). |
JMSP- 581511864 | Conservation | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 8.5.3. It was disappointing to see when the ASP on Marmotier, Les Ecrehous came into being, the area was smaller than had been in the previous year, and public access to the area increased, and the Roseate tern failed to nest there as it had previously done, and observations appear to show very few, if any Common terns fledged in 2023. It has been suggested that under OSPAR we are obliged to have an action plan for the rare Roseate tern, a freedom of information request failed to get an adequate response to this, we would suggest that a plan be made public. We suggest improved monitoring include cameras on the nesting sites and birds, current cameras are focused on the surrounding area, not the nesting site or the birds themselves. No mention is made that the common tern has abandoned the coast of Jersey as a nesting site, including within the Ramsar site. Perhaps it is worth looking into if it would be viable to help them re-establish. | No | This will be addressed by NB4 and RT7 and section 11.6.3. Specific details about how these priorities will be actioned is outside of scope of the JMSP. |
|
|
| The use of drones in sensitive areas is causing disturbance to a variety of bird life, this is not being addressed. The same could be said for the now common use of loud fireworks which disturb wildlife for several miles. |
|
|
JMSP- 581511864 | Conservation | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 8.5.5 Regarding seal haul out sites, the main disturbance issues are caused by commercial rib operators, and the seals have mostly been displaced from their traditional haul out sites, and moved to areas outside of them, and in one area the commercial operators have realised this and pursued the seals there. It should not be that difficult to make a licenced and supposedly wildlife trained operator accountable for these actions. It is disappointing to see the no one has been prosecuted under the wildlife law even though there have been numerous concerns raised over the years about operators and the public disturbing marine life. Drones are now common place at the Ecrehous, with the guidelines advocating use outside of the nesting season. | No | This will be addressed by RT7 and RT6. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Seabed protection | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 8.6.8 Although in theory the section is in favour of MPA's, we do have some reservations about the lack of meaningful management, protection, and the continuing of extraction of commercial species from the existing areas, and suggest conservation measures be improved and reviewed before any extension takes place. For example, the damaging activity of turning of stones by low water fishers often in important and sensitive habitats is causing serious damage, and although it has been raised by many in the consultation, the action is to continue with an educational approach, that is not working now, it certainly is unlikely to work in the future. Another issue is the use of monofilament nets which are locally known to entrap birds, seals, and fish which are discarded, we would suggest the use of monofilament nets within Protected areas be banned. There may also be some benefit of extending shore MPA's to the territorial limits, thus creating corridors for species to move and reach spawning areas unhindered. | Yes | The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. Netting is recommended to be reviewed under action FA2a. A need to monitor migratory fish species has been highlighted in action NB5. And a beach warden scheme has been recommended (RT6a) to promote enforcement of new Seaside Code. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Seagrass | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 8.7.3 Seagrass beds – At the Ecrehous the small areas there have had some of the wireweed cleared around its borders during the spring, this has resulted in a small growth in size of the seagrass bed area. It may be worth looking into this as part of a management of some of the smaller areas around Jersey. (To decide as a group) | No | The seagrass area at the Ecrehous is small and not located near main human activity areas or anchorage areas and so has not been included in the seagrass management area in this iteration of the MSP. It will be considered for future iterations should the extent and human use of this seagrass bed change. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Restoration | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 9.2.2 We suggest looking into establishing native oyster beds in the areas where they were previously very productive, by the spreading of seed oysters, such schemes are being carried out in the UK and USA. | No | Outside of scope of the JMSP |
JMSP- 581511864 | Seabed protection | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 9.4.3 It is disappointing to see only one small NTZ proposed, we would suggest some areas are trialled to assist in fishery management, which is generally failing. Most NTZ's have significant fishery activity around them, due to their ability to hold and allow stocks to reproduce, Lundy is a good example, and Portelet is now well bordered and encroached by pots. | Yes | There were a number of comments relating to No Take Zones, both positive and negative. There were several comments asking for more NTZs but the evidence base remains the same and the previous recommendation of retaining the Portelet NTZ and including a new NTZ around Les Sauvages have not changed. The MPA boundaries have been adjusted to reflect a suitable balance between the general support for the MPA concept and reasonable concerns expressed primarily by the fishing community. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Aquaculture | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 9.6.2 Over the years there has been several issues of discarded and redundant oyster trestles, and when these are reported action often takes several months at least, we would ask that these issues are addressed quicker in future. Trestles are altering the ecology; we suggest these issues are monitored and that efforts to look at means of minimising the resulting damage are undertaken. | No | This will be addressed by current regulation/policy and will not be addressed by the JMSP. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Cultural Heritage | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 10.6.3 The section routinely discover areas of interest whilst undertaking shore surveys, and have a wealth of knowledge on vraic tracks, marks, clay and peat deposits, and quarrying evidence, and would be pleased to assist with any survey that would take place. | No | General comment of support and offer of help gratefully noted. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Cultural Heritage | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 10.7.3 We would suggest where possible efforts are made to make navigation marks as wildlife friendly as possible, and when restoration works are carried out this is taken into consideration, There are environmentally friendly options to Buoy moorings in the form of synthetic alternatives to chain, we suggest this is investigated and trials take place. | No | Many navigational markers either don't have chain or are too heavy to be on an eco-friendly mooring. In these instances safety has to be prioritised. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Education | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | 12.11.3 We suggested some form of maritime hub be created as part of the Coastal Strategy 2008, there was the creation at great cost of "Discovery Pier" at Gorey. Perhaps La Crete at Anne Port has the potential to be a small centre with wet facilities which could tie in with a NTZ in front of it, Archirondel tower with Heritage permission could be a base for visiting students and researchers. | No | This will be addressed by priority NB7 regarding a visitor centre. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Enforcement | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | General A proposal to make an Honorary Environmental Officer within the Parish system to undertake protection, and education matters environmentally, was rejected by the Chefs de Police committee, stating they already undertook such a role. We suggest this is investigated further and implemented in some way; time past produce inspectors doubled as fishery inspectors. We must be one of the few places with a National Park that has no wardens. | Yes | References to beach wardens have been added to section 11.5.3 paragraph 1 and to action RT6a. |
JMSP- 581511864 | Infrastructure | Societe Jersiaise marine biology section | We suggested some form of maritime hub be created as part of the Coastal Strategy 2008, there was the creation at great cost of "Discovery Pier" at Gorey. Perhaps La Crete at Anne Port has the potential to be a small centre with wet facilities which could tie in with a NTZ in front of it, Archirondel tower with Heritage permission could be a base for visiting students and researchers. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 581511867 | Disturbance | Societe Jersiaise Ornithological Section | Submission from the Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section regarding the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan. Below is a listed of ideas we would like to see included in the marine spatial plan, as a way to increase protections for our coastal birds and also to help minimise the high levels of disturbance that they currently have to endure. - Full protection of certain areas of coastline, for example an area of special protection at Petit Port during and either side of high tides to protect the | Yes | Most points are already addressed by priorities NB4 and RT5 and action RT6b. Action RT6a has been expanded to include - 'not disturbing sensitive wildlife'. |
|
|
| historical wader roost there. Other areas should be considered, like the wader roost at La Tour Carre in St Ouens Bay. - Regular monitoring of the ASPs to not only ensure there is no disturbance being carried out but also to monitor the breeding or wintering numbers birds. - Exclusion zones in certain areas of the coastline at certain times. For example, no water activities between Le Hocq and Seymour slip during high tide to prevent the roosting waders from being flushed off the rocks by kayakers and paddleboarders. Alternatively, an exclusion zone around certain rocks that are used, example, the two large rocks off La Rocque could have a 100-meter exclusion zone around them during high tides. - Dog bans on certain areas of coastline during differing states of the tide and a full year-round dog on lead in Grouville bay, especially the southern part extending from Le Hurel south to La Rocque. Also including dog walking into the exclusion zones at the same times as other activities. This is one of the biggest causes of disturbance on our beaches, and would also need enforcing. - Full protection for Brent Geese from any kind of h, this should already happen under the Wildlife law 2021 anyway. We would like to see people being actively encouraged to keep away and give them space as well as protection their eel grass feeding areas. - Complete ban on all types of water sports in Grouville Bay, especially during winter months and also much stricter controls in regard to motorised craft (i.e., jet skis) from riding through the middle of resting Brent Geese and other seabird flocks. - RIB operators should be properly licensed, I believe they are currently by the harbour office, but they should also be by Environment dept, and a limit to how many can land at the same time on our offshore reefs. Reef wardens would also be a good idea during breeding season. - As we know, enforcement is key, the possibility to introduce official wildlife wardens? something like the honorary police but with a role specific to policing wildlife laws. An unpaid voluntary position with limited statutory powers, perhaps under the authority of the Connetable. |
|
|
JMSP- 579829159 | MSP | St. Catherines Sailing Club | Firstly I'd like to state that we welcome your plans to safeguard the marine environment, and stand by you in your aims for conservation of our environment and heritage. | No | General comment of support. |
JMSP- 579829159 | Watersports | St. Catherines Sailing Club | Our number one concern is a loss of access to the sea for sailing in St Catherine's bay, We are highly weather and tide dependant and would stringently resist any attempts to curtail our unimpeded access to launch, ie to the slipway at St Catherines Bay. We recognise and welcome the recent influx of users to the bay, chiefly the blooming rib charter businesses and the growing popularity of sea swimming. We are concerned that the slipway is at capacity use, and would welcome steps to limit parking on the slipway at peak times. We are the island's only dinghy sailing club, and a registered charity, the entire Island Games sailing team is drawn from our ranks, we are an outstanding RYA training center. In other words a well run, well governed, grass-roots sports club in our 76th year or operation. We adhere strictly to governing body safety regulations and teach around 300 youngsters a year to sail. We are family centered and performance oriented. I am concerned that one of your stated aims is to encourage participation in sports and yet the plan contains no plans to bolster participation at clubs such as ours and has been prepared without consultation with organisations who are using the sea for sport or recreation, a case in point is that the slipway remains unusable for half the tidal cycle, having been put out of action by years of poor maintenance. We welcome your stipulation that bylaws maintaining the 5 knot speed limit inside the yellow bouys will be upheld, and would like assurance that they will be placed no closer inland than currently positioned. Roughly inline with the 'Three Arches' and Archirondel tower. We are an expanding club and have plans to remodel our clubhouse to better meet the needs of our members and our training program we would be concerned if underdue planning restrictions were placed on us as a result of regulation. In short whilst we welcome the aims of the report, the lack of details and the lack of engagement with established users means we cannot give it unqualified support. | Yes | Sentence added to end of section 11.4.2 paragraph 5 regarding the condition of slipways and their importance to watersports. A new action (RT5e) has also been added to highlight the need to assess the condition of slipways and repair as necessary, prioritising St Catherine's Bay. |
Appendix B: Submitted reports
The following pages are reports submitted from organisations that include graphs and references to support their comments.
Marine spatial plan submission-Jersey Fishermen's Association (JFA) January 2024
In order to provide clarity and detail, this document is designed specifically to accompany the nav chart submitted as response to the first draft of MSP by the JFA, on behalf of the mobile gear sector.
It is intended that fishing track plotter data from a small number of boats will also accompany the chart and is to be considered as supporting evidence in the context of "comparative best usage"of specified areas and continued access to both traditional and current fishing areas.
The principle of comparative best usage of the areas to which the fleet requires continued access is fundamental to this submission. The JFA hold that, along with the notion of comparative best usage, our established marine economy, along with the potential for future growth, is an element which must feature with equal significance in the process of delivering a marine spatial plan, as any other criteria. By way of example, with reference to comparative best usage, we note that within the same timeframe as the production of a marine spatial plan, Jersey's environment minister has issued a public statement and a consultation exersize based on plans to develop a large wind-farm in Jersey's sea area to the SW of Corbiere. Hence the use of the comparative best usage principle, as the proposed windfarm is located in an area known to be important for a number of important fish and shellfish species including Bluefin Tuna. Clearly the minister considers that the impact and extreme disturbance of the seabed in that area for the purpose of a windfarm, to be acceptable and the concept of a wind-farm to be of greater importance than protection of habitat and the health of the many important fish species that rely on the area.
The chart; For clarity , we refer to specific areas or zones for continued access on the chart, by the numbers as illustrated on the chart.
Straight Lines; It should be noted that in the interests of all concerned and for obvious reasons, the JFA proposed chart uses straight lines to define the perimeters of the Marine protected area and access zones, (as opposed to the series of arcs used on the chart proposed by the Environment/MSP team). Additionally, wherever possible these lines run parallel to lat long lines and in a number of instances the lines are set to correspond with round numbers of latitude or longtitude. e.g. ref point 11 sits at 49'08.50 x 02.15.50. Other lines use well known landmarks or seabed features as reference points.
Seasonal Access; To be noted also that the the JFA chart specifies some areas under the principle of "temporal or seasonal access". It is the view of the JFA, that protection of breeding, spawning or nesting areas for important fish species is of equal validity as protection of any other sensitive habitat. The value of such seasonal access areas and the need for closure to mobile gear is best defined around the known seasonality of the species concerned . This represents a more pragmatic approach than total closure.
Within the first draft of MSP is a proposed exclusion zone around GJ1and GJ2 cables. The JFA very strongly rejects the proposal or indeed any notion of restricted access to traditional fishing grounds, given that all the dialogue surrounding the route of the cables through productive fishing grounds and the need to ensure continued access for fishing, had already taken place prior to the laying of the cables. Much of the dialogue will be minuted in the Marine Resources Panel meetings of that era (1980s?)
The Zones. In numerical order along with numbered reference points as follows;
Zone 1; is the area extending from the existing limits within St Aubins bay extending out to Ref point No 10 due south of Noirmont point in the Southwest, to ref point 9 in the SE (to the SE of Demi des Pas pas light). This zone represents an important and productive area which has been fished, mainly for scallops for decades. It is the case that the area constitutes an important lifeline to those local boats, practically all of which are under ten meters, during periods of poor weather. No seasonality has been attached to the zone, however neither has it been ruled out.
Zone 2; working around the island clockwise to the south and west the JFA chart proposes an enlarged area for protection from Noirmont to Corbiere using ref points ten and eleven encompassing the known kelp reefs/beds SW of Noirmont, along with the banc known as the Jumente banc. This then leads to Zone 2 which is effectively the Corbiere banc, otherwise known as the Great Banc. This is to be a seasonal access area closed during the summer months and open during the winter months on roughly 6 monthly cylces. It is an area which has been fished using mainly trawl gear for decades and is crucial to the existence of a local sector targeting finfish targeting skates, rays & finfish, the banc being a very productive area for those species.. The eastern limit line of zone 2 runs due North-South, while the Northern limit is set on a NW-SE line running from Rocco Tower to West Rock.
Zone 3(a&b); heading North from zone 2 is an enlarged protected area for kelp focused around St Ouens Bay and the Rigdon banc. This then leads to access zones 3a and 3b set around the paternosters reef. 3A is a seasonal access area to the SW of the Paternosters reef and is an important area traditionally accessed by our local fleet using the demersal trawl metier. As with the Corbiere banc it is an essential zone for the finfish sector with skates rays and flatfish the target species.
3b is to the NE of Paternosters and is a productive and important area for the scallop sector. No particular case has been made for seasonality, however it has not been ruled out either. The timeframe for any seasonality on 3b would almost certainly align with the nearby zone 5, but not align with zone 4
Zone 4; is another seasonal access zone which focuses specifically on the banc known as the Plemont Deep banc where there is a long history of trawling for skates and rays. Western limit is defined by a N-S longtitude line running from ref points fourteen to fififteen. While it is a relatively small area it is nevertheless extremely important, particularly given that our local fleet currently only has exclusive access to a small number of areas for finfish within Jersey's 3nm. Traditional areas beyond the 3nm where the much more powerful french fleet have access, do not and cannot sustain a small scale fleet such as ours due to the almost constant effort and activity of powerful french trawlers .
As with the Corbiere banc seasonality is anticipated, based on a summer closure, with winter months opening.
Zone 5; links to zone 4 geographically ,but represents an important area for our scallop fishery rather than the finfish sector. The location on the North coast provides for semi sheltered access during periods of poor weather from the south. It is important to note that while seasonality is proposed for this zone, being a scallop production area, it will differ from zone 4 where seasonality is centered around finfish .
Zone 6; from zone 5 there is then another fully protected area of North coast with its western edge on a N-S longtitude line on ref points 16 & 17, to run north either from La Crete point or to use longtitude 02.06.50. This protected area continues eastward to St Catherines breakwater where a line is proposed running NE to Maitre isle. This leads to the larger access zone 6, where there is an extremely important scallop fishery. This is a zone which again enables fishing in relatively sheltered conditions during heavy weather from the prevailing westerly conditions. Fishing for scallops in this zone and in earlier times, for oysters has been going on for centuries. The area represents the most productive area for our mobile gear fleet to which access is absolutely critical. The JFA hold that the combined production of zones 1, 3b, 5 & 6 (all within our 3nm limit) represents around 80% of the entire scallop production of the Jersey fleet, with Zone 6 being by far the most important .
Exclusion from this area would beyond doubt have catastrophic implications for the island's fishing and broader marine economy, including the merchant and export sector. It would likely also have negative implications for the hospitality sector. Zone 6 covers an area which to the South is defined mainly by existing lines surrounding the protected area of the Violette banc, Anquettes area.
Zones 7. From zone 6 there is an exclusion zone, which is to a large extent, already defined and closed for protection of mearl. There is a small amendment proposed to the MPA Southern limit line after which there is a seasonal access area, zone 7, focused specifically on the well known Frouquier Box bream nesting grounds.
Zone 8; is part of the area to the west of Les Minquiers where access is required for the scallop sector but where there is a small Bream nesting area on the Northern edge. Our scallop fishery in the broader NW Minquiers area has existed for decades. Seasonality for the bream nesting grounds which forms part of zone 8 will coincide with the known breeding season while seasonality to the wider area has neither been proposed nor ruled out.
Zone 9 is to the South east of Minquiers and is specifically proposed as an important area for scallop production.
The JFA considers that the proposed chart, along with the qualifying points for each zone as above, represents a reasoned and measured response to the first draft MSP.
The numerous other issues, most of which have been raised already by individuals concerned with the broader marine economy, such as the negative effects of displacement and increased carbon footprint resulting from having to import our seafood in the case of loss of our fishing fleet, all remain valid but need not be included as part of this submission.
21 December 2023
NOTE VERBALE
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF JERSEY
****
Response by the French authorities to the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan consultation draft.
The marine planning process begun by the Government of Jersey is a positive initiative towards the integrated, sustainable management of maritime issues in the Bay of Granville. The services of the French authorities, which are pleased to provide their contribution to the discussions in a spirit of good neighbourliness, closely consulted the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) with interest.
The JMSP is especially welcome in that it echoes the French planning initiative, which is currently entering its second phase following an initial exercise begun in 2017. At the same time as the adoption of a second National Strategy for the Sea and Coast (SNML) for the period 2023- 2029, the strategic seaboard documents (DSFs) are in fact being revised for metropolitan France's four seaboards.
In France, the DSFs are designed to adapt at local level the national ambitions expressed in the SNML and are being publicly debated under the aegis of the Commission nationale du débat publique (CNDP) until April 2024. This extensive consultation will focus on three main objectives: identifying interactions between uses and preventing potential conflicts, identifying areas of strong protection with a concern for environmental preservation, and mapping priority areas for installing and connecting offshore wind turbines, over a 10-year period and by 2050.
Just as the French authorities are pleased to contribute to the JMSP consultation phase coming to an end, they invite Jersey to take part in the debates currently taking place onour seaboards. Contributions by your government and your fellow citizens will be carefully considered at events likely to be of interest to Jersey's government and citizens concerning the East Channel- North Sea (MEMN) and North Atlantic-West Channel (NAMO) maritime areas, and on the dedicated website (https://www.debatpublic.fr/la-mer-en-debat).
The French authorities are pleased to note that planning initiatives in France and Jersey are based on the principles of UNESCO's International Oceanographic Commission. France's and Jersey's marine spatial plans share an integrated, balanced approach to ecological, economic and social issues, backed up by scientific evidence and democratically approved. This common methodology provides a valuable basis for discussion for a sustainable, integrated, concerted management of resources in the Bay of Granville. It will undoubtedly facilitate future discussions on the points of attention that will have to be addressed jointly to ensure a smooth coexistence of uses. The French authorities would like such discussions to continue and a process to be confirmed between the European Union and the United Kingdom for dealing with the spatial protection of oceans in a formal discussion forum between the parties. The regional dialogue in place between France, the European Commission, DEFRA and Jersey is proving to be an appropriate structure concerning the Bay of Granville waters.
1
The French authorities reiterate their desire to work towards a long-term management of fisheries resources that guarantees the sustainability of fishing activities in European waters. The protection of marine species and habitats is a strong goal shared by the French authorities on which work is under way on all seaboards. At both national and European level, every measure taken is justified scientifically and consulted on with all local stakeholders, including fisheries professionals. This approach makes it possible to achieve the protection targets aimed at, while taking account of all human activities present within the protected site. In this respect, the complexity of the planning exercise for marine uses means that socio-economic issues linked to all activities on a coastal scale should be taken into account.
It should be recalled that, pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), and particularly articles 494 and 496, the Parties shall cooperate with a view to ensuring the sustainable conservation and exploitation of stocks. Decisions on the issue shall be made on the basis "of the best available scientific advice, principally that provided by the ICES" (Article 494). Moreover, any measure taken by one party which is likely to affect the vessels of the other party must be duly notified to that party. Compliance with these provisions is essential for maintaining fisheries cooperation between the European Union and UK.
The French authorities appreciate Jersey's rigorous analysis underlying the delimitation of closure zones where towed fishing gear is prohibited. Nevertheless, they share the following comments, supplemented by the technical analysis provided in the annexes:
- The French authorities note that the documents on which the scientific arguments are based are not yet available for consultation, which harms the credibility of the document as it stands.
- The socio-economic impact of the plan has not been quantified. Precise knowledge of this impact is essential if the plan is to be implemented in a way that is sustainable for economic stakeholders. In order to contribute to this exercise effectively, the French authorities have attached the impact on fishing by French vessels which was quantified by IFREMER during the consultation. This study would require further investigation on the basis of the underlying Jersey documents referred to above, which the French authorities are requesting to consult. The French authorities propose that the JMSP should also be the subject of a more comprehensive socio-economic impact study and are therefore at the disposal of the Jersey authorities to participate in the process of reflection in depth prior to implementation. Jersey's central location in the Channel and the scientific knowledge available should enable the various marine uses to coexist without harming ecosystems.
- The French authorities question the validity of certain closure measures:
- Regarding the exclusion corridors prohibiting towed gear, due to the presence of undersea cables, the French authorities question their usefulness in view of the burial work carried out precisely to avoid any interaction between these two uses. There is currently frequent fishing activity in these areas. In addition, these closures would have a widespread socio-economic impact because their layout and position make them impossible to bypass during a fishing operation. The French authorities therefore request that these proposed closures be excluded from the management plan and be the subject of in-depth discussions about existing risks.
- Justification for the closure of Zone C in the south-east of Jersey's EEZ (Les Sauvages reef) is set out on page 86 of the consultation document. It states that Les Sauvages reef has 10 years'-worth of surveys carried out by divers and supports an exceptional range of species (described in EB/NB/11), including rare and slow-growing species such as sea fans and corals; as well as submerged prehistoric archaeological sites. Jersey deems this exceptional site to be threatened by static gear, as traps and lines snag seabed flora and fauna, and would like it to be fully protected (NTZ) without waiting for further analysis of the benefits of the existing Portelet NTZ. France was unable to consult document EB/NB/11 (entitled "A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef", Jersey Blue Marine Foundation, 2023). France requests that the benefits of such a closure in an area important for static fishing gear be demonstrated by a scientific consensus prior to possible measures. Furthermore, rare species have developed when static gear fishing has continued, which shows that this type of fishing is compatible with these rare species.
In addition, the envisaged wind farm in the south-west of Jersey waters is a laudable initiative in the context of the common goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. However, in order not to make the impact of these measures on fishing activities even more severe, the wind-farm section of the current plan should be detailed. In this way, the overall impact of the JMSP can be quantified and anticipated, which will help to alleviate the feeling of successive reductions in fishing rights in Jersey waters. In particular, it will need to be specified whether fishing will be permitted within the wind farm, and under what terms.
The French authorities are also proposing that bilateral discussions be set up to examine the various connection options for the wind farm envisaged in Jersey waters. These discussions will make it possible to co-construct a coherent connection network and identify possible landing points on the French coastline. The latter will have to take account of the capacity of the electricity grid in Western France, which may require studies and investment for which the Direction Générale de l'Energie et du Climat (DGEC) and RTE, the French electricity grid operator, will be your contacts. Furthermore, the DGEC is contributing on France's behalf to the specific consultation set up on the issue.
Given the proximity to the Saint-Brieuc wind farm of the areas envisaged at this stage, it will also be beneficial if in-depth discussions on the siting of offshore wind farms in Jersey waters and French waters focus on the details of their geographical location. These constructive discussions will have to help ensure maritime safety in the area, prevent any masking effects and maximize production capacity.
The French authorities also welcome the close attention paid to maritime safety issues and the maintenance of shipping lanes to St Helier. We share the same concern for a coherent distribution of maritime space between the envisaged wind farm and the shipping lanes, particularly for ferries departing from Saint-Malo.
Finally, with a view to developing joint use of offshore wind farms, the French authorities are also willing to exchange knowledge to help develop best practice.
In this respect, sharing feedback would be beneficial for the seaweed-farming project envisaged by Jersey, as well as for any possible coexistence with fishing activities.
In a constructive spirit of good neighbourliness, the French authorities are therefore at Jersey's disposal to organize working meetings that will enable sustainable and harmonious development in the Bay of Granville.
In assuring them of France's shared ambition for the peaceful coexistence of maritime activities, the energy transition and the preservation of biodiversity, the French authorities thank the Jersey authorities for taking these comments on board.
Draft Jersey Marine Spatial Plan Consultation
Response from Blue Marine Foundation 28 January 2024
Blue Marine has been working in Jersey since 2018, conducting research, education and supporting sustainable fishers. Our work has included (but not limited to):
• Supporting a PhD to measure the recovery of marine life within Jersey's existing MPAs. This has provided crucial evidence that areas protected from mobile fishing gear, such as dredging and trawling, result in improved biodiversity and abundance of species[1]. The study also found that less than three per cent of habitats associated with Jersey's most valuable commercial fishery species are protected from mobile gear[2].
• A further six MSc students, supported by Blue Marine, have undertaken similar research, further strengthening the evidence base for marine protection and appropriate fisheries management[3].
• Supporting research to assess the movement and storage of blue carbon in Jersey's marine environment. Phase one, a desk-based study, has been published[4], finding that Jersey's seabed permanently removes (sequesters) over 10,000 tonnes of carbon annually, with further ground truthing work in progress.
• Production of other research reports, including "A cost benefit analysis of a static gear marine park[5]", an ecosystem service valuation[6] and a biodiversity assessment of a local offshore reef[7].
• Development and support of models of sustainable fishing (such as scallop potting and diving).
• Conducting fisher-involved research to inform local fisheries management and safeguard the future of commercially important species.
• Launched Jersey Hand Dived and Jersea to spread awareness of small-scale, low-impact fishing throughout the community.
• Building connections between people and the sea. Blue Marine launched Snorkel Portelet and Snorkel Bouley, in 2022 and 2023 respectively, providing residents and tourists the opportunity to explore Jersey's amazing marine environment. Created by Blue Marine, in partnership with the Societe Jersiaise, the snorkel trails are the first of a new network planned for the Island. This was paired with a comprehensive education programme providing the opportunity for 600 school children between the ages of nine and 11 to connect with their local marine environment.
Financing | JMSP | N/A | The draft JMSP lacks a detailed budget and financing plan for its potential delivery. Funding for the delivery of MSPs often come from the governing authority. However, the Government of Jersey has an opportunity to explore sustainable financing models such as credit structures including nature positive biodiversity credits, investment from private finance such as tourism and user fees, and loan/debt structures. These have proven to contribute to marine spatial planning and delivery of MPAs[8]. | Blue Marine propose that a financing strategy for the delivery of the JMSP is developed. | Blue Marine proposes the addition of the following commitment in the final JMSP: To deliver the JMSP, the Government of Jersey will explore avenues of sustainable financing mechanisms to secure the long- term funding for sustainable marine use and management, such as biodiversity monitoring, financial support for small scale, low impact fishing and compensatory measures for displaced fishing. |
Chapter 8.2: No Take Zones | Priority NB1: No Take Zones. To support current and future No Take Zones for the most important and valuable marine resources. | Action NB1a: The existing No Take Zone at Portelet Bay will be retained and will continue to be monitored. | One NTZ already exists in Jersey territorial waters allowing monitoring of changes to ecological health after removal of fishing, and how the local marine environment reacts to environmental change where other pressures are removed.[9] NTZs are well documented to significantly improve fish biomass through the restoration of complex habitats and ecosystems. While this results in ecological benefits within local and surrounding areas, NTZs have also shown to have a positive impact on local economies through improved fisheries and ecotourism[10]. It should also be noted in Chapter 8.2.1 of the draft MSP that Blue Marine have never recommended for Les Sauvages to be a NTZ. Evidence Base Document EB/NB/11 clearly recommends for the site to be considered for further protection and robust fisheries management approaches are proposed, consulted upon and delivered.'. This should be clarified in the relevant section of the JMSP. | Fully supportive | Blue Marine formally requests a change to the wording on p85 from Three additional areas have been proposed for NTZs in the consultation for this MSP: Les Sauvages Reef (south-east of Les Minquiers) (proposed by Blue Marine);' to, Les Sauvages Reef (south-east of Les Minquiers) has specifically been recommended for further protection (based on evidence which shows significantly high levels of biodiversity). Additionally, two areas have been proposed for NTZs: Archirondel and Anne Port Bays' |
Action NB1b: A new No Take Zone will be designated at Les Sauvages, with the boundary determined following a review of the evidence against agreed criteria. | Fully supportive | ||||
Action NB1c: Subject to the impacts and effects of the Portelet Bay and Les Sauvages No Take Zones being found to be positive, further No Take Zones will be considered within Jersey's waters. These should be targeted to achieve social and biodiversity goals. | Fully supportive | ||||
Chapter 8.6: Marine habitats and Marine Protected Areas | Priority NB5: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). To protect marine habitats through the expansion of the network of Marine Protected Areas, to cover at least 30% of Jersey's waters by 2030. | Action NB5a: The existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) will be extended and linked to cover the inshore area; the offshore reefs (Les Écréhous, Les Minquiers, the Paternosters and Les Anquettes), and parts of the sedimentary basins which contain a high coverage of OSPAR listed habitats. No mobile fishing gear will be permitted to be used within the MPAs. | Based on evidence from research in Jersey and other locations in the UK, protection of the proposed areas from trawling and dredging are expected to result in recovery and expansion of nationally important habitats. These areas also serve as important nursery, spawning and feeding grounds, and protection in this form would lead to an increase in biodiversity13,14 and increased resilience to storms and climate change15,16. The increase in biodiversity as a result of MPA implementation is also expected to benefit the local fishing industry through increased abundance of commercially important stocks[11]. The implementation of MPAs can also have significant economic benefits through the delivery of ecosystem services. As part of the consultation, Blue Marine submitted an Ecosystem Service Valuation (ESV) referred to as Evidence Base document EB/NB/9' in the draft JMSP. This model has now been updated (report attached with the submission of this response) with the JMSP MPA scenario, calculating revised net estimates for a net ecosystem service impact value of £1.6m, £9.6m and £27.8m over a 5-, 10- and 20-year period respectively after designation. These numbers reflect the net impact after considering the cost of lost fishing which was estimated to be £15.9m, £44.4m and £104.2m over a 5-, 10- and 20-year period respectively. While the net impact may be positive over the longer term, stakeholders affected (both economically and socially) by displacement from traditional fishing grounds due to the introduction of MPAs need support to make a just transition. To assess the impact and identify and fund appropriate and proportionate measures to support this transition, a socio- economic impact assessment is needed. This should not delay | Supportive – minor proposed amendment and two additional actions. | Blue Marine recommends the following changes:
|
|
|
| statutory introduction of the MPAs, but must be initiated at the soonest possible time. Following the socio-economic impact assessment, dialogue with the fishing industry is needed to identify the most effective, equitable and proportionate support measures to enable a just transition. Blue Marine has commissioned a study to better understand the costs and benefits of a just transition for UK inshore fisheries. The study considers realistic options to replace existing destructive fishing practices with lower-impact marine activities. A framework is being developed that can be applied to demonstrate the social, economic and environmental impacts of transition options. This will be published in March 2024 and could be very relevant for the Government of Jersey to consider. A comprehensive MPA monitoring programme should be integral to the delivery of priority NB5 as this is necessary to provide accurate assessments of the performance and impact of implementing MPA management measures and inform adaptive management[12]. The efficacy of MPAs is known to increase if well enforced[13]. Therefore, an enforcement regime must be designed and delivered alongside any MPA designations. |
|
|
|
| Action NB5b: Legislation will be revised to give the MPAs a statutory basis. | Statutory legislation for marine management has historically proved to achieve better results when compared to voluntary MPAs[14]. It is important to clearly state the timeframe for introduction of this legislation and Blue Marine believes that this should be by January 2025. | Fully supportive with a recommendati on to commit to a set timeframe | Proposed amendment to Action NB5b: "Legislation will be revised to give the MPAs a statutory basis by January 2025". |
|
| Action NB5c: Further research will be undertaken in order to inform the future expansion of the Marine Protected Area network. This will include gaining greater understanding of the distribution of ross worm habitats, and the potential consequences of the changed MPA boundaries on habitats and species. | Jersey's responsibilities under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) are clear. As the Government of Jersey chose to have the UK's signature to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity extended to itself in 1994, Jersey has a clear responsibility to reflect relevant frameworks in local policy. This therefore includes 30 per cent marine protection by 2030 (30x30), as outlined in target three of the GBF[15]. | Fully supportive- this action is necessary to meet the Island's commitment to the international 30x30 target. |
|
Chapter 8.7: Seagrass | Priority NB6: Seagrass Habitat Management Areas. To designate Seagrass Habitat Management Areas to promote the protection and regeneration of seagrass. | Action NB6a: Seagrass Habitat Management Areas should be established in St Catherine's Bay, Archirondel and Anne Port, the Royal Bay of Grouville , South-East Reefs and St Aubin's Bay, where damaging activities will be restricted. It will be necessary to explore options regarding their legal framework. | Seagrass is a highly important habitat, supporting high biodiversity, spawning and nursery grounds for commercial fish22,23 and drawing down and storing carbon24. Nearly 97 per cent of Jersey's existing seagrass beds already lie within the existing MPAs and are therefore protected from trawling and dredging. However, a significant number of boat moorings are known to cause damage25,26, resulting in an estimated 6000m2 of seagrass being lost to date27. The potential natural recovery and expansion of seagrass beds achieved by restricting damaging activities such as anchoring in the proposed areas would boost local marine biodiversity as well as mitigate the impacts of climate change28. These actions would also further contribute to Jersey's Carbon Neutral Roadmap ambition to double the extent of seagrass habitats. | Fully supportive – minor proposed revision | Proposed revision to Action NB6a: Seagrass Habitat Management Areas will be established in' |
Action NB6b: Subject to the findings of research into seagrass-friendly moorings proving to be positive, such moorings should become required within Seagrass Habitat Management Areas. | Supportive – minor amendment to action proposed | Proposed revision to action NB6b: , such moorings will become required, with legislation introduced to ensure mandatory use within Seagrass' |
Chapter 9.4: Proposed fishing zones | Priority FA1: Fishing zones. To introduce an area-based, three-zone system comprising: | Fishing Zone A (Lightly Regulated Fishing Area) | It is likely that tiered systems like this will help to provide clarity and resolve conflicts between different fishing activities and other marine uses/values such as development, recreation, biodiversity and blue carbon. The MSP lacks management for recreational fishing and should consider developing a recreational fishing code/guidance document to help promote best practice. The JMSP does not outline suitable areas for potential sustainable aquaculture/phytoculture. Aquaculture farms (including bivalve and seaweed farming) can play a significant role in cycling nutrients, creating habitats and nursery grounds to promote recruitment of fish, and generate economic growth through production and employment[16]. Areas for these activities should be outlined in the JMSP and supported by updating existing regulations and frameworks. | Fully supportive with minor amendment proposed. | Proposed amendment to Fishing Zone A: Fishing zone A (Lightly Regulated Fishing Area)' |
Fishing Zone B (Seabed Protection Area) | Fully supportive |
| |||
Fishing Zone C (No Take Zones) | Fully supportive – additional fishing zone proposed | Additional proposed fishing zone: Fishing Zone D (Sustainable and Innovative Aquaculture)' | |||
Action FA1a: Fisheries regulations will be updated to reflect the new area- based system, following the standard process with regard to consultation. | It is vital for fisheries regulations to be updated in line with new management measures. This will help to ensure enforcement of new measures such as MPAs. Regulation measures should be updated and implemented before January 2025 and necessary discussions on mitigating impact on displaced fishermen should start as soon as possible. | Fully supportive | Proposed amendment to Action FA1a: "Fisheries regulations will be updated by January 2025 to reflect the new area-based system, following the standard process with regard to consultation." | ||
Action FA1b: A programme of public engagement will be undertaken with the Jersey and French fishing fleets to make sure that all are aware of the new system. | As Jersey's waters experience fishing from the local commercial fleet, the French commercial fleet and a significant local recreational fishing sector, engagement with these three stakeholder groups is key to ensure compliance. In addition to engagement with the commercial fishing sector, the MSP should include engagement with the recreational fishing sector and the development of a recreational fishing code of conduct to mitigate environmental impact of this fishing sector. | Fully supportive | Proposed amendment to action FA1b: "...undertaken with the Jersey and French fishing fleets and recreational fishing sector to make sure that all are aware of the new system." | ||
Chapter 9.7: Encouragement and promotion of sustainable fishing | Priority FA5: Sustainable fishing. To support and promote facilities and actions which support sustainable fishing. | Action FA5a: The marketing of sustainably-caught fish should be promoted by the creation of a sustainability mark or similar mechanism to indicate high quality and sustainability in Jersey's fisheries. | Existing barriers such as cost, infrastructure and marketing can hinder achieving a thriving economically and environmentally sustainable fishing industry. Jersey's Genuine Jersey', Genuine Jersey Line Caught Bass' and Jersey Hand Dived' are all good examples of a sustainability mark. Lyme Bay is a very good example of how measures such as installing ice machines and chiller units in ports can maintain freshness of catch and thus ensure competitive market prices. [17] Grant schemes such as the UK Government's Fisheries and Seafood Scheme managed by the MMO in the UK has provided vital support for the fishing community to develop the necessary infrastructure and innovations to improve the quality of catch and marketing. Promotion of sustainable fishing can also be achieved through exploring methods of transition away from damaging fishing methods, as well as diversification away from target species and efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Transition to sustainable fishing methods could also lead to an increase in GDP, employment and stocks. In the UK, this has previously been estimated to generate £319 million, 5,100 new jobs and 30% more fish[18]. | Fully supportive – minor amendments proposed. | Proposed amendment to Action FA5a: sustainably-caught fish will be promoted by the creation, auditing and enforcement of a sustainability mark' |
Action FA5b: The provision of appropriate marine and onshore facilities for sustainable fishing will be encouraged. | Fully supportive – moderate amendments proposed and one additional action | Proposed amendment to Action FA5b: onshore facilities, such as ice machines, chiller units and processing hubs, for sustainable fishing will be encouraged and given financial support from the government.' | |||
Proposed additional action: Action FA5c: The development of initiatives and incentives to support a just transition to fishing practices that have least impact on the seabed, non-target species and emissions.' | |||||
Chapter 11.4: Enhancing access to the marine environment | Priority RT3: Access to the marine environment. To promote and manage access to the marine environment for the benefit of all. | Action RT3a: All existing public access to the coast and foreshore should be maintained. Opportunities should be sought to improve access for those with diverse needs. | Accessibility for all user needs is crucial in maximising the Island's community connection with the sea. | Fully supportive – minor amendment proposed. | Proposed amendment to Action RT3a: .Opportunities will be sought to improve access' |
Action RT3b: Community/health/sports /education organisations will be encouraged to use the coast for physical activity, education and for the enhancement of well-being. | Organisations such as Blue Marine, Societe Jersiaise, Jersey Marine Conservation, National Trust for Jersey, Bouley Bay Dive Centre, Jersey Heritage, Healing Waves, Jersey Kayak Adventures, Seafaris and many others are all undertaking effective ways of connecting people to the sea, resulting in enhanced education, awareness and appreciation of the marine environment. However, monitoring of recreational | Fully supportive – additional action proposed | Proposed additional action: Action RT3d: A monitoring programme will be developed and implemented to assess and manage any impacts of changes in accessibility and added infrastructure.' |
|
|
| activity within the marine environment is necessary to ensure sustainable use and to minimise human impact. |
|
|
Action RT3c: The safe storage of recreational equipment at the coast should be promoted in order to minimise transportation needs and reduce the need to store equipment on beaches. Guidance should be produced on suitable locations and designs for such facilities. | The reduction of transportation needs will likely increase accessibility while reducing emissions of these activities. Suitable locations and designs can be regulated and managed by existing resource in the planning department. | Fully supportive – minor amendments proposed | Proposed amendment to Action RT3c: at the coast will be promoted in order to Guidance will be produced' |
Chapter 11.5: Respecting wildlife and habitats. Recreation at the offshore reefs | Priority RT6: Increasing public education and awareness. To promote responsible use and enjoyment of the coastal and marine environment through increasing public education and awareness. | Action RT6a: A Seaside Code should be produced to encourage understanding of and respect for the coastal and marine environments through behaviours and actions including: - Not touching protected species. - Replacing turned stones. - Not dropping litter. - Making sure fishing gear is correctly labelled. - Not leaving belongings on slipways. Consider producing supplements to the Seaside Code for specific activities such as recreational and low water fishing. | Recreation is a significant and popular activity that takes place across Jersey's coastlines, seas and offshore reefs. Inherently, these activities can also negatively impact sensitive marine habitats[19]. Recreational fishing can generate significant littering issues if unmanaged and the Government of Jersey should commit to develop and promote a Code of Conduct for recreational shore and sea anglers to promote best practice. Seaside codes can work well in unison with safety guides. A combination of the two may streamline the process of both actions and simplify for user engagement. | Fully supportive – but merged with Action RT6a with a specific additional action for a Recreational Angling Code of Conduct. | Recommendation that the "Enjoying the Coast Safely" is combined and expanded to include the Seaside Code to create a Seaside and Safety Code to promote enjoyment of the coast safely and sustainably. Proposed additional action: A specific Code of Conduct will be produced for recreational shore and sea fishing.' |
Action RT6b: The "Enjoying the Coast Safely" booklet should be revised and updated to include more references to good practice with regard to avoiding disturbance of wildlife and habitats. | Fully supportive – but merged with Action RT6a | Recommendation that the "Enjoying the Coast Safely" is combined and expanded to include the Seaside Code outlined in Action RT6a | |||
Chapter 11.6: Recreation at the offshore reefs | Priority RT7: Management Plans for offshore reefs. To produce Management Plans for the offshore reefs which integrate the management of recreation, Marine Protected Areas and Ramsar Sites. | Action RT7a: Holistic Management Plans for the reefs should be produced through collaboration with users and Residents' Associations. These will address local issues including recreation management, cultural heritage and the natural environment. Issues for consideration include the feasibility of limiting visitor numbers, introducing a permit system, employing reef wardens and identifying particularly sensitive wildlife areas where additional restrictions may be required. | The Ramsar Management Authority already balance the opinions and needs from multiple users across the offshore reefs and should therefore be regarded as a key contributor to the Holistic Management Plans for the reefs. | Fully supportive – minor amendments proposed | Proposed amendment to action RT7a: Holistic Management Plans for the reefs will be produced with users, the Ramsar Management Authority, and Residents' Associations' |
Chapter 12.3: Submarine cables | Priority IT1: Protection of submarine cables. To protect submarine cables which form critical national infrastructure from damage by anchors and mobile fishing gear. | Action IT1a: The existing mandatory protection corridors covering the Normandie 1 and 2 cables will be retained. | The recent classification of OECMs contributing to the global MPA network[20] could allow any submarine cable protection zones to contribute toward Jersey's total MPA coverage. Although the reason for classification as an MPA is not for its environmental contribution, these protection zones will likely result in improvement of biodiversity, habitat regeneration and MPA connectivity to the surrounding marine ecosystem[21]. | Fully supportive – additional action proposed | Proposed additional action: Action IT1d: Any areas around submarine cables designated protection from mobile fishing gear and anchorage will be put forward to the UNEP- WCMC (UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre) to be officially recognised as OECMs (other effective area-based conservation measures)'. |
|
| Action IT1b: A new mandatory protection corridor covering the Guernsey – Jersey 1 overlay power cable, and the adjacent Ingrid Fibre Optic Outrigger telecommunications cable, should be created. The relevant legislation should be updated accordingly. |
| Fully supportive – minor amendment proposed | Proposed amendment to Action IT1b: telecommunications cable, will be created' |
Action IT1c: Advisory protection corridors along other telecommunications cables will be retained. | Fully supportive |
| |||
Action IT1d: Access to cable landfalls through intertidal areas for maintenance, repair and overlay will be retained. | Fully supportive |
| |||
Action IT1e: Provision will be made for cable maintenance, repair and overlay along all existing cable routes. | Fully supportive – moderate amendment proposed | Proposed amendment to Action IT1e: existing cable routes in accordance to best environmental practice to mitigate ecological damage.' | |||
Chapter 12.5: FEPA offshore deposition site | Priority IT3: FEPA offshore deposition area. To retain the existing FEPA offshore deposition site. | Action IT3a: The size and location of the existing FEPA offshore deposition area will be reviewed in relation to potential future needs and environmental requirements, and steps will be taken to formalise its use. | The deposition of substances such as construction materials, dredged materials, fish waste and burials at sea can have a significant negative impact on the marine environment and surrounding wildlife[22]. Suspended sediment from the deposition of large quantities of dredged spoil and sediment can affect kelp and seagrass growth[23] and an assessment of the potential impacts of further deposition at existing or any new FEPA sites on the Seagrass Habitat Management Areas and MPAs should be undertaken as part of the licencing process to avoid impacts on protected features and habitats. | Fully supportive – additional action recommended | Proposed additional action: Action IT3c: Any changes in the location and size of the FEPA offshore deposition site will be considered in light of an assessment of the potential impacts on any designated MPAs and Seagrass Management Areas.' |
Action IT3b: A review of current legislation should be undertaken to ensure it is fit | Fully supportive – minor | Proposed amendment to Action IT3b: current legislation will be undertaken' | |||
|
| for purpose for large-scale projects. |
| amendment proposed |
|
Chapter 12.6: Renewable energy: wind power | Priority IT4: Utility scale offshore wind generation. To support the principle of utility scale offshore wind generation in the south- western part of the Bailiwick. | Action IT4a: The following requirements should be considered in the consenting framework, covering the windfarm itself, associated submarine cables and onshore facilities: - best practice in marine conservation; - additional economic benefits, for example commercial seaweed production; - implications for search and rescue operations; and - minimisation of adverse impacts on visual and cultural heritage. | There are several environmental impacts associated with offshore wind farm developments, including bird strikes and direct impacts on benthic habitats and pelagic species (e.g. disturbance to migration routes)[24]. There are also socio- economic impacts such as displacement of fishing[25], which will likely reduce the area available for mobile gear fishermen (additional displacement as a result of MPA designation). While the JMSP is not the appropriate avenue for the consultation of offshore wind development, it is important to have consenting frameworks in place to ensure best practice. Blue Marine has been exploring the opportunities for nature restoration in Offshore Wind Farms across the UK and has developed a decision tool to allow feasibility recommendations for both passive and active (i.e., utilising nature inclusive design) restoration approaches to be made [26]. The utilisation of this tool should be considered by the Government of Jersey and associated developers to promote nature recovery as a key part of any development, contributing to 30 x 30 targets set out in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The tool could also help facilitate passive approaches in terms of Offshore Wind Farm site identification potentially being placed in an area that promotes nature enhancement through de- facto protection. | Fully supportive – minor amendments and one additional action proposed. | Proposed amendment to Action IT4a: The following requirements will be considered in - best practice in marine conservation, with a focus on restoration opportunities including Nature Inclusive Designs (NIDs); - additional economic' Proposed additional action: Action IT4b: Two working groups will be established consisting of: (1) Conservation specialists to ensure best practice; and (2) Fishing sector representatives, to discuss appropriate measures to mitigate any impacts of displacement.' |
Chapter 12.7: Renewable energy: tidal power | Priority IT5: Tidal Power. To investigate the potential of using tidal power to generate electricity within Jersey's waters. | Action IT5a: work should continue into investigating the potential for renewable energy generation using tidal power, especially where this can be combined with sea defence. | With the proposed offshore wind development to the SW of Jersey's territorial water with the potential of an energy supply six times the amount of current island usage, further renewable energy may not be necessary. However, tidal power (in the form of barrages as being explored in St. Aubin's Bay) has proven to have adverse effects on the marine environment[27], and mitigation of this should remain at the forefront of any investigations. | Fully supportive – moderate amendment to action. | Proposed amendment to Action IT5a: with sea defence. Active engagement with environmental specialists will remain at the forefront of scoping work.' |
Chapter 12.11: Research and logistics | Priority IT9: Maritime hub. To explore the potential for a Jersey-based maritime hub supporting research and development and logistics. | Action IT9a: Initial conversations with potential partners should be undertaken. | A maritime hub in Jersey could provide logistical support for marine activities, undertake research to better inform management, accommodate suitable infrastructure such as a hyperbaric chamber, as well as catering for other activities. Blue Marine and the National Trust for Jersey have discussed similar proposals and on request, are happy to provide the Government of Jersey with information that may be helpful in exploring the development of a maritime hub. | Fully supportive |
|
Action IT9b: Integrating development of the hub with the design and logistics of the offshore wind farm should be considered. |
| ||||
Action IT9c: Potential sites (within St Helier and potentially elsewhere) should be explored. |
|
NEF Jersey Marine Model Findings – January 2024
NEF Jersey Marine Model Findings
January 2024
The model estimates the benefits and costs of a policy scenario in which 31,810 hectares of Jersey's waters are closed to mobile gear fishing, in line with proposals contained in the Government of Jersey's draft Marine Spatial Plan. We estimate that the policy will lead to significant net benefits over a 20-year period as the ecosystems in the protected area recover, even after accounting for reduced fishing catch in the area and displacement of some of the fishing effort to other areas.
The cumulative net ecosystem services improvement arising from the policy is estimated at ~£5.7 million over the first 5-year period, ~£17.5 million over a 10-year period and ~£42.9million over a 20-year period. These figures refer to the cumulative value of the increase in ecosystem services in the protected area, minus the cumulative reduction in ecosystem services due to displacement of fishing activity into other areas.
This net impact assumes that 75% of the fishing effort is displaced elsewhere, offsetting some of the benefit in the protected area through reduced ecosystems services in the areas affected by this displaced effort. Before displacement, the gross ecosystem services benefits in the proposed protected area are much larger: these cumulative gross benefits are estimated at £17.5 million within the first five years, £54.0 million over a 10-year period and £132.0 million over twenty years.
When factoring the lost fishing value from these time periods, the cumulative net benefit of the marine park proposal over five, ten and twenty years is estimated as ~£1.6 million, ~£9.6 million and ~£27.8 million, respectively.
Due to the time lag for certain ecosystem service benefits to arise following a ban on mobile gear fishing, the proposed policy is estimated to constitute a net cost during each of the first two years (Year 1: -£473,000; Year 2: -£94,000) after considering lost fishing activity. This means that the cumulative impact of the policy is negative during the first three-year period. However, as the ecosystems services benefits rise steadily over time to outweigh these costs, the policy is estimated to become a cumulative net benefit from its fourth year onward and the size of this net benefit rises steadily thereafter. The model does not include an estimate of the costs of administering the policy.
For reference, if all Jersey's territorial waters were to implement a ban on mobile fishing gear, there would be a net cost for the first six years of implementation, however from year seven it becomes a cumulative net benefit of ~£4 million, with a cumulative net impact of ~£99 million over a 20-year period.
1
Annual net impact value
Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Year 6 | Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 |
-£472,971 | -£94,479 | £302,603 | £717,664 | £1,152,753 | £1,487,254 | £1,540,397 | £1,595,085 | £1,651,366 | £1,709,288 |
Year 11 | Year 12 | Year 13 | Year 14 | Year 15 | Year 16 | Year 17 | Year 18 | Year 19 | Year 20 |
£1,768,904 | £1,830,266 | £1,893,428 | £1,873,304 | £1,853,395 | £1,833,697 | £1,814,208 | £1,794,927 | £1,775,850 | £1,756,977 |
Note: Annual net impact' is the net improvement in ecosystem services (the improvement within the protected area, minus the disimprovement caused by displaced fishing activity in other areas) minus the cost of reduced fishing catch within the protected area. The figures in this table refer to the annual net impact accruing during each individual calendar year.
Cumulative impact
Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Year 6 | Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 | ||||||||||||
Ecosystem benefit | £361,130 | £1,097,528 | £2,216,557 | £3,741,971 | £5,693,890 | £7,971,815 | £10,294,481 | £12,663,521 | £15,080,615 | £17,547,494 | |||||||||||
Total costs | £834,100 | £1,664,977 | £2,481,404 | £3,289,154 | £4,088,319 | £4,878,991 | £5,661,259 | £6,435,213 | £7,200,942 | £7,958,532 | |||||||||||
Net impact | -£472,971 | -£567,450 | -£264,847 | £452,817 | £1,605,571 | £3,092,825 | £4,633,222 | £6,228,308 | £7,879,673 | £9,588,962 | |||||||||||
| Year 11 | Year 12 | Year 13 | Year 14 | Year 15 | Year 16 | Year 17 | Year 18 | Year 19 | Year 20 | |||||||||||
Ecosystem benefit | £20,065,937 | £22,637,776 | £25,264,895 | £27,864,093 | £30,435,667 | £32,979,910 | £35,497,112 | £37,987,562 | £40,451,543 | £42,889,337 | |||||||||||
Total costs | £8,708,071 | £9,449,644 | £10,183,335 | £10,909,229 | £11,627,408 | £12,337,954 | £13,040,948 | £13,736,471 | £14,424,601 | £15,105,419 | |||||||||||
Net impact | £11,357,866 | £13,188,132 | £15,081,560 | £16,954,864 | £18,808,259 | £20,641,956 | £22,456,164 | £24,251,091 | £26,026,942 | £27,783,918 | |||||||||||
Note: the figures in this table show cumulative totals for the sum of annual net impact (broken down into benefits, costs and net impact) as at the end of each calendar year.
Benefit by ecosystem service in the protected area (gross, excluding displacement)
Ecosystem service type | Ecosystem service | 1-year impact | 5-year impact | 10-year impact | 20-year impact |
Regulating | Resilience and resistance | £4,502 | £72,499 | £228,411 | £566,364 |
Regulating | Biologically mediated habitat | £17,610 | £283,598 | £893,489 | £2,215,480 |
Supporting | Nutrient recycling | £383,033 | £6,168,649 | £19,434,658 | £48,189,834 |
Regulating | Gas and climate regulation | £111,631 | £1,797,784 | £5,664,014 | £14,044,390 |
Supporting | Bioremediation of waste | £438,919 | £7,068,678 | £22,270,248 | £55,220,914 |
Provisioning | Leisure and recreation | £151,522 | £2,090,532 | £5,409,547 | £11,538,567 |
Provisioning | Food provision | £2,801 | £30,936 | £77,017 | £162,113 |
Provisioning | Raw materials | £797 | £5,255 | £11,536 | £23,135 |
Cultural | Cultural heritage and identity | £353 | £1,731 | £3,369 | £6,395 |
All ecosystem services | £1,111,168 | £17,519,661 | £53,992,290 | £131,967,191 |
Table des matières
- Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
- Pourquoi le CRPMEM de Normandie répond à cette consultation ? ...........................................3
- Rappel des relations historiques entre Jersey et la Normandie...................................................4
- Absence de prise en compte de la pêche normande dans la concertation .................................4
- Analyse des diagnostics environnementaux (Chapitre 8) ............................................................ 5
- Remarques sur le diagnostic des Habitats marins ........................................................................5
- Méthodologie Habitats .................................................................................................................6
- Herbiers de zostères, un herbier en bon état ..............................................................................7
- Forêts de laminaires, un habitat résilient .....................................................................................7
- Bancs de maërl, un habitat non menacé ......................................................................................8
- Remarques sur la « No Take Zone » du récif des Sauvages. ........................................................8
- L'exclusion systématique des arts traînants sans preuves concrètes ........................................10
Exemple d'une concertation réussie conciliant pêche et enjeux environnementaux : Méthode de mise en place des sites Ramsar dans le cadre des accords de la baie de Granville ......................................12
- Analyse du diagnostic sur la pêche professionnelle (Chapitre 9) ............................................... 13
- Tendances actuelles de la pêche ................................................................................................13
- Données exploitées et cartographie de l'activité de pêche .......................................................15
- Contre-analyse de l'activité de pêche des navires normands ....................................................17
- Réaction aux zones d'interdiction et de pêche proposées (Chapitre 9.4) ................................... 24
- Un référentiel incomplet des initiatives de pêche durable pourtant nombreuse (Chapitre 9.7) . 25
- Synthèse : Une demande de co-construction ............................................................................ 29 TEMOIGNAGES : Contributions individuelles de pêcheurs normands ............................................... 34
- Rappel des relations historiques entre Jersey et la Normandie
Jersey et la Normandie sont fortement liés par l'Histoire. Nous avons été séparés en 1204 lorsque la France a repris possession de la Normandie en oubliant les iles Anglo-normandes. Cependant, nos destinées ont toujours été liées. Les origines normandes sont d'ailleurs très marquées à Jersey.
De plus, nous pouvons facilement nous rendre compte de la proximité géographique qui se trouve entre les deux régions. Au plus proche, Jersey n'est qu'à 12.03 milles nautiques des côtes françaises, soit 22.2 km.
Cette proximité a d'ailleurs engendré des échanges entre pêcheurs depuis presque deux siècles. À ce titre, plusieurs accords ont déjà été signés, source de nombreux échanges. Le dernier en date était le Traité de la Baie de Granville qui avait notamment pour objectif de mettre en place des modalités de gestion commune concernant la pêche dans ce périmètre.
Dans le JMSP, il est mentionné que cet exercice de planification permettra à Jersey de remplir ses obligations internationales. Dans ce paragraphe, les obligations mentionnées concernent uniquement l'environnement dont notamment le principe 30x30. Nous tenons à rappeler que Jersey est également engagé à respecter les droits de pêche historiques et antérieurs au Brexit des navires français via un nouvel accord post-Brexit, le Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Dans ce cadre, Jersey est engagé à ce qu'il n'y ait pas de mesures discriminatoires et à assurer un maintien des activités telles qu'elles existaient avant le Brexit. Il nous semble donc primordial que la définition du réseau d'aires marines protégées se fasse en concertation avec la pêche française pour la prendre en considération.
- Absence de prise en compte de la pêche normande dans la concertation
Le CRPMEM de Normandie constate que les activités de pêche normandes sont très peu prises en compte dans la définition du réseau d'aires marines proposé. De même, l'impact et les conséquences socio-économiques d'un tel réseau d'AMP sur les pêcheurs normands, sur le territoire normand, ne sont pas évoqués.
Comme cité dans le MPA Assessment Methodology (Evidence Base document EB/NB/12), depuis le printemps 2023, 5 ateliers ont été organisés pour consulter les parties prenantes identifiées comme essentielles au déploiement du JMSP. Nous déplorons que la pêche normande et française, historiquement présente, n'ait été considérée comme une partie prenante importante. Nous sommes d'autant plus dans l'incompréhension que lors des ateliers de concertations, 100% (17/17) des avis sur la question "reconnaitre les zones de pêche commerciale traditionnelles au sein des AMP" sont favorables. Nous pensons donc que la pêche française, en tant qu'activité traditionnelle depuis des siècles dans les eaux de Jersey, est à considérer et qu'un temps d'échange aurait pu être organisé en 2023.
Nous aimerions également savoir ce que signifie concrètement la question "manage french fishing vessels better" dont 5/5 avis sont favorables alors que les navires français, dans les eaux de Jersey, sont ceux soumis à la réglementation la plus contraignante.
La pêche française représente plus de 50% de l'activité de pêche dans les eaux de Jersey. Le JMSP montre une volonté de prendre en compte l'ensemble des activités présentes, c'est pourquoi il nous semble important d'intégrer les représentants de la pêche française à l'ensemble de la démarche afin de trouver des solutions "gagnant-gagnant", permettant à la fin d'atteindre les objectifs environnementaux et de préserver les activités de pêche artisanales normandes.
- Analyse des diagnostics environnementaux (Chapitre 8)
Dans le chapitre 8 (the natural environment and biodiversity) du document soumis à consultation, la variété des habitats existants dans les eaux de Jersey est présentée. Nous observons que les eaux de Jersey sont divisées en deux grandes parties : à l'Ouest des eaux relativement profondes avec des habitats présentant peu d'enjeux et à l'Est, des eaux peu profondes où les enjeux environnementaux sont très importants.
Nous remarquons tout d'abord que les zones de protection proposées chevauchent fortement les zones de pêche des navires normands alors que certains secteurs auraient moins d'impact pour leur activité, c'est le cas notamment pour les laminaires. Nous sommes surpris par la répartition des habitats et nous nous interrogeons sur les études qui ont permis la réalisation de cette carte d'habitats (p.95).
Ensuite, les documents de référence utilisés pour la rédaction de ce chapitre entraînent quelques interrogations. Nous notons tout d'abord que beaucoup ont été rédigés par l'ONG Blue Marine Foundation qui se décrit elle-même comme ayant pour objectif de restaurer les océans suite à de la surpêche, un des plus gros problèmes environnementaux du monde. La pêche artisanale normande, aux réglementations très strictes dans le sens d'une pêche durable et responsable, n'est aucunement dictée par des valeurs de surpêche.
De plus, nous avons des interrogations sur l'exactitude des données utilisées pour caractériser les habitats. Effectivement, le MPA Assessment Methodology révèle que les cartes d'habitats des années 1970 et 1980 ont été actualisées en 2019 mais avec des données de 2014. Basé sur des données qui ont plus de 40 ans, l'état de connaissances actualisé des habitats a toujours 10 années de retard.
Ces observations nous mènent à douter de la rigueur scientifique et de la neutralité des études utilisées pour construire ce document.
- Remarques sur le diagnostic des Habitats marins
Trois habitats sont présentés comme étant d'enjeux majeur :
- Les herbiers de zostères
- Les forêts de laminaires
- Les bancs de maërl
-
Ces trois habitats sont listés dans l'Annexe V de la Convention OSPAR pour la zone Atlantique Nord-Est. Dans le MPA Assessment Methodology il est mentionné que minimum 30% de chaque habitat à protéger doit être représenté dans la totalité du réseau d'AMP et que c'est flexible selon l'état de conservation et la surface des habitats. Nous notons que 100% des herbiers de zostère, 89% des laminaires et 86,7% du maerl sont au sein du réseau d'AMP proposé.
Sans remettre en cause la nécessité de protéger les habitats, nous pensons qu'il est possible de remplir les objectifs environnementaux en redessinant les aires marines protégées afin de prendre en considération les enjeux socio-économiques de la pêche française.
- Méthodologie Habitats
Jersey, comme la France, a pour objectif d'atteindre 30% de ses eaux en aires marines protégées (AMP) d'ici 2030. Afin d'atteindre cet objectif commun, il serait intéressant de maintenir une cohérence entre les méthodologies utilisées par Jersey et la France.
Pour information, les autorités françaises ont une méthodologie appelée l'Analyse Risque Pêche (ARP) qui ne repose pas sur un principe de précaution mais sur une caractérisation des interactions engins/habitats. Ainsi, des cartes de distribution des habitats d'intérêts communautaires sont croisées avec celles des activités de pêche (pour chaque engin/métiers).
Puis à partir de ces éléments, un risque de dégradation est quantifié, pour cela il est nécessaire d'acquérir des connaissances sur la sensibilité des habitats aux pressions physiques. Ce qui permet de réaliser un risque de dégradation des habitats pour chaque engin (1 carte par engin/métier).
La dernière étape de cette méthodologie est d'estimer le risque de porter atteinte aux objectifs de conservation. Ce risque est déterminé à partir de la combinaison du risque de dégradation de l'habitat, et de la prise en compte du niveau d'enjeu de l'habitat et de paramètres locaux écologiques/ économiques (activités de pêche professionnelle)[28] . À partir de ces éléments, on peut évaluer un niveau de dégradation : nul, moyen et fort. Selon le niveau, des propositions de mesures réglementaires sont émises et présentées aux professionnels de la pêche pour concertation.
Une meilleure compréhension des mesures prises sur les habitats aurait pu être obtenue en fournissant davantage d'éléments. Effectivement, dans les documents fournis pour cette consultation, il n'est jamais spécifié l'état de conservation des habitats. L'argument principal semble être le caractère extraordinaire que ces habitats peuvent présenter en termes de diversité. Il est évident qu'un suivi particulier doit être accordé à des habitats aussi remarquables.
Toutefois, mettre en place des mesures d'interdiction de manière préventives dans des zones importantes économiquement et ayant une forte dépendance spatiale pour les professionnels de la pêche peut soulever des interrogations. Principalement lorsque l'effort de pêche ainsi que l'impact réel des engins de pêche sur les différents habitats marins ne sont jamais quantifiés. L'existence de 10 ans de preuves photographiques pour la zone des Sauvages est mentionnée p.86, mais, il n'y a aucune référence à l'évolution des habitats. Il est probable qu'en 10 ans, des modifications du milieu auraient été aperçues si les engins utilisés dans cette zone dégradaient les habitats.
Les éléments dont nous disposons témoignent d'habitats en bon état de conservation dans des zones de pêche historiques. L'impact présumé de ces activités ne semble donc pas rédhibitoire pour ces habitats.
Ainsi, il pourrait être intéressant de fournir un complément d'information sur l'état de conservation des habitats à protéger ainsi que de qualifier et quantifier l'impact réel des engins de pêche sur les fonds marins des eaux de Jersey.
- Herbiers de zostères, un herbier en bon état
Dans les eaux de Jersey comme dans les eaux françaises, des herbiers de zostères sont présents.
Côté français il est majoritairement présent au sein de l'archipel de Chausey où l'état des surfaces de l'herbier est connu depuis un siècle, principalement par des suivis photographiques qui permettent d'avoir une cartographie très fine de cet habitat.
A Chausey, des suivis réguliers ont permis de constater que cet habitat est en constante progression depuis 1980 (Fournier, 2002, 2008, 2014, 2020[29] ; Godet et al., 2009[30]). En effet, de 164 hectares en 1982 (Godet et al., 2009)2, l'herbier de Chausey couvre au moins 360 hectares en 2019 (Fournier, 2020).
De plus, plusieurs études prouvent que la régression de l'herbier avant les années 1980 était liée à la wasting disease' et non à cause d'une activité anthropique. Il faut d'ailleurs souligner que le redéveloppement de l'herbier de Chausey depuis 40 ans se fait en présence d'activités de pêche. L'évolution de l'herbier peut s'expliquer par différents facteurs notamment la dynamique naturelle de l'espèce qui est favorisée par la mise en place de concessions conchylicoles (Fournier,2020) mais aussi des conditions climatiques favorables.
Un phénomène rare à l'échelle du littoral européen où la plupart des herbiers de zostères marines sont en déclin ou stables. La régression surfacique de certains herbiers peut être attribuée à plusieurs facteurs. Cet habitat est très sensible aux variations de température et à la qualité des eaux (Arias-Ortiz et al., 2018[31] ; Ondiviela et al., 2014[32])
Au cours des 20 dernières années, le Golfe normand breton n'a pas connu de période de froid intense, ce qui pourrait expliquer l'émergence et le développement des herbiers de zostères. Il faut également noter qu'il s'agit d'un habitat dont la résilience est forte du fait de la présence de rhizomes.
Dans l'archipel de Chausey, aucune mesure réglementaire de restriction des activités humaines n'est actuellement prise. Elles ne sont d'ailleurs pas justifiées étant donné que cet habitat n'est pas propice à la pratique des arts trainants. D'eux même, les pêcheurs ont mis en place des bonnes pratiques qui permettent de concilier les activités de pêche et l'amélioration de l'état de conservation des herbiers de zostères.
Ces faits montrent bien que ce type d'habitat est plus sensible aux aléas climatiques qu'aux activités de pêche.
- Forêts de laminaires, un habitat résilient
Cet habitat a été rajouté en 2021 à la liste des habitats OSPAR[33]. Il est reconnu pour son rôle dans la captation de carbone mais n'est pas identifié comme étant un habitat menacé et/ou en déclin. D'après la liste OSPAR des espèces et habitats menacés et/ou en déclin[34] et l'étude de 2021, les espèces Laminaria spp. (qui composent les forêts de laminaires des eaux de Jersey) ne sont pas identifiées « menacé ou en déclin » pour notre région OSPAR. Ainsi, il s'agit effectivement d'un habitat à fort intérêt écologique mais en aucun sens d'un habitat rare ou dont l'état de conservation est menacé.
La baie de Granville constitue un secteur de fort développement de ces espèces du fait de sa faible profondeur. Plusieurs espèces de laminaires sont considérées en déclin par la convention OSPAR. Cependant, le principal facteur identifié est le réchauffement climatique, en effet, les laminaires sont très sensibles au réchauffement de l'eau. Or les derniers hivers n'ont pas permis à l'eau de descendre suffisamment en température. Les impacts se font d'ailleurs ressentir sur d'autres espèces locales.
D'un point de vue biologique, cet habitat a la particularité de présenter une croissance rapide, ce qui lui permet de se régénérer facilement s'il se trouve endommagé. Ces algues poussent sur des fonds durs impropres à la pratique des arts traînants (roches).
C'est d'ailleurs grâce à cette stratégie qu'il a pu se développer dans le golfe Normand-Breton. En effet, la région est exposée à la houle, notamment lors des tempêtes. Ces dernières ont de fortes conséquences sur les forêts de laminaires qui se trouvent arrachées, le fait de les retrouver échouées en masse sur les plages en est un bon témoin. Par ailleurs, leur capacité à pouvoir se régénérer facilement leur permet de se redévelopper rapidement.
Il est important de tenir compte des différents paramètres ayant un impact sur les laminaires avant de prendre des mesures très restrictives sur la pêche. Cette dernière n'est pas une variable d'ajustement. Il serait donc important de commencer par réaliser un inventaire des espèces présentes et des raisons qui entraînent leur déclin s'il existe de manière observable et objective afin de prendre des mesures adaptées.
- Bancs de maërl, un habitat non menacé
Cet habitat est présent dans toutes les régions OSPAR[35]. Toutefois, il est identifié comme étant menacé et/ou en déclin uniquement dans la région OSPAR III (mers celtiques). Le golfe normano-breton, donc Jersey, se trouve en région OSPAR II (mer du Nord au sens large). L'état de conservation des bancs de maërl de Jersey n'est donc pas menacé. Cet habitat est donc à considérer de manière différente des autres habitats OPSAR.
Il serait sans doute intéressant de réaliser des études complémentaires visant à caractériser plus précisément l'état de conservation du maërl. Par ailleurs, cet habitat est déjà protégé au niveau du site RAMSAR des Ecréhous.
- Remarques sur la « No Take Zone » du récif des Sauvages.
Le récif des Sauvages est identifié comme étant très riche. Plusieurs suivis scientifiques y ont été menés, permettant d'observer la présence de coraux d'eau froide tels que les gorgones (Eunicella verrucosa). Leur croissance est lente, ce qui les rend plus vulnérables à l'abrasion. C'est une espèce d'eau froide présente à Jersey dans sa limite basse de son aire de répartition géographique. Le principal facteur de risque pour cette espèce est donc le réchauffement climatique.
Le reste du document nous laisse à penser que ces espèces sont également présentes dans de nombreux autres secteurs des eaux jersiaises. De plus, elles ne font l'objet d'aucun classement de conventions internationales.
Une incohérence des enjeux de protection
Nous notons que le document présente un type d'habitat spécifique à la présence de gorgone, il s'agit des fonds durs stables. Le secteur où la présence de gorgone est identifiée sur cet habitat est le sud- ouest des eaux de Jersey. D'après la carte présentée, il s'agit clairement du site identifié comme étant idéal pour l'implantation d'un parc éolien. Cela fait réellement s'interroger sur l'intérêt réel de protéger les gorgones dans un site comme Les Sauvages, ce qui aurait un impact avéré sur la pêche normande alors qu'il serait possible de condamner une large zone où cette espèce est présente.
Absence de neutralité de l'auteur en charge du diagnostic
Dans les documents source, nous avons trouvé un rapport publié par l'ONG Blue Marine Foundation de septembre 2023 intitulé "A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef, Jersey" (Evidence Document EB/NB/11). Tout d'abord, l'auteur, Blue Marine Foundation ne nous semble pas être un organisme scientifique dans le sens où il n'est pas neutre mais clairement orienté contre la pêche. Par ailleurs, dans ce document, les données source semblent provenir de sorties d'observation organisées via l'administration jersiaise. Enfin, le fait d'avoir écrit ce rapport en septembre 2023 nous fait nous interroger : est-ce une source sur laquelle s'est basée le JMSP, si tard dans le calendrier ou est- ce l'inverse ?
Les espèces identifiées sont effectivement des espèces intéressantes mais restent communes en baie de Granville.
Ce site semble également identifié comme d'importance phylogénétique du fait de la présence de brachiopodes (Argyrotheca cistella). Quelles sont les connaissances sur cette espèce ? En nous renseignant, nous nous sommes rendu compte qu'elle avait également été observée dans le secteur d'Herm. Par ailleurs, étant donné les caractéristiques de cette espèce, peut-elle être vraiment impactée par des engins de pêche ?
Le rapport évoque également l'activité de pêche présente sur le site. Nous ne comprenons pas bien comment ces données ont été obtenues. Pourquoi seulement la pêche des coquilles Saint-Jacques est identifiée et présentée comme seule activité sur la zone ? Il y a également d'autres activités de pêche non négligeables comme la pêche du bulot et des crustacés qui ne figurent pas dans ce diagnostic.
Une pêche respectueuse des habitats et sans impact
Ce secteur est une zone de pêche importante que ce soit pour les caseyeurs ou pour les chalutiers- dragueurs. Concernant les navires traînants, ils n'ont aucun intérêt à passer sur le récif, ils le contournent : actuellement les appareils de navigation sont devenus suffisamment précis pour éviter le récif tout en travaillant à proximité. Cela explique vraisemblablement que ces espèces soient présentes et puissent se développer.
• Nous ne pouvons donc pas cautionner la mise en place de cette No Take Zone :
- Juste sur la base des éléments fournis. Pour justifier de telles mesures, il est impératif de se baser sur des études scientifiques, neutres et sans parti pris.
- Avec des données d'activité de pêche erronées ou incomplètes.
• Nous nous opposons à la mise en place d'une NTZ basée sur des éléments si faibles dans une zone présentant de tels enjeux pour la pêche normande.
- L'exclusion systématique des arts traînants sans preuves concrètes
Nous souhaitons également souligner le fait que les mesures proposées sur le réseau d'aires marines protégées identifié se basent essentiellement sur des principes de précaution et non sur des preuves scientifiques acquises localement.
En effet, une récente étude publiée en 2022 par l'IFREMER consistait à étudier l'impact des arts traînants sur les fonds marins en Manche. Il s'agit de l'étude IPREM motivée et portée par les professionnels de la pêche normande. Cette étude a démontré que l'intensité de pêche des navires français dans les eaux de Jersey est faible. De plus, le rapport IPREM dévoile que l'impact potentiel des arts traînants sur les fonds marins dans les eaux de Jersey est très faible voire nul (figure 1).
Figure 1 : Impact cumulé potentiel des engins de pêche traînants sur les différents habitats pour les navires européens en VIIe et VIId entre 2009 et 2017 (figure 30 du rapport)
Bien que l'impact d'un engin dépende de facteurs intrinsèques aux activités de pêche (surface exploitée, pénétration dans le sédiment), il faut rappeler que cet impact dépend également de facteurs environnementaux comme la nature des fonds où la sensibilité des communautés benthiques à différents facteurs. Or, le projet IPREM a démontré que la sensibilité des habitats benthiques et donc l'impact réel d'un engin reste encore inconnu en Manche. Côté français comme côté jersiais, il y a donc un manque de connaissances sur ce sujet. Enfin, IPREM indique qu'en Manche, les communautés de fond sont à la fois résistantes à l'effort de pêche et aux conditions environnementales difficiles et que la résistance à ces deux facteurs est liée. Il y a donc un réel besoin d'études complémentaires pour discerner des effets qui seraient liés à l'environnement ou à la pêche ainsi que pour définir l'impact réel que pourraient avoir les différents engins sur les différents types d'habitats.
Il est donc nécessaire que les zones de protection proposées se basent sur des preuves scientifiques locales mettant en relation l'état de conservation des habitats avec des sources et des niveaux de pressions qui seraient identifiées, avérés et quantifiés.
- Analyse du diagnostic sur la pêche professionnelle (Chapitre 9)
Dans cette partie, le CRPMEM de Normandie regrette tout d'abord que seuls les pêcheurs de Jersey soit considérés lorsque le JMSP cite pour objectif de garantir de pouvoir continuer à gagner sa vie de manière viable en tant que pêcheur. A titre d'exemple, avec ce projet d'AMP actuel, le navire normand LE STYX perdrait 100% de son activité, car il travaille uniquement dans les eaux de Jersey et dans des zones qui pourraient devenir des AMP.
De plus, nous regrettons qu'il n'y ait aucun document de référence officiel à propos de la pêche française. Nous regrettons fortement que seulement 2 lignes dans le JMSP suffisent à décrire la pêche française, pourtant si importante et dépendante des eaux de Jersey.
• "Today there are [...] 137 French Vessels." (P.130)
• "Jersey's waters are also fished by French fishers under the terms of a post-Brexit fishing agreement with the EU." (P.130)
Ensuite, nous constatons que le JMSP présente une méthodologie très confuse qui ne permet pas de savoir comment l'activité des navires français a été traitée. La méthodologie employée est à peine décrite, les activités de pêche cartographiées se résument à des présences/absences de navires.
Par ailleurs, ce n'est que dans le Maritime Activity Assessment (EB/G/22) que l'utilisation des données VMS pour les navires français est précisée.
Bien que le Maritime Activity Assessment présente une esquisse d'analyse des activités de pêche française, une analyse plus poussée aurait été nécessaire étant donné les enjeux économiques qui y sont associés.
De plus, dans le MPA Assessment Methodology, le Ministre de l'environnement indique que le développement du réseau d'aires marines protégées sera conforme aux objectifs environnementaux, économiques et sociaux globaux". Le terme "global" nous laisse penser que la pêche française est à considérer dans le développement du JMSP. Dès lors, et dans le cadre du TCA, il est nécessaire de considérer la pêche française comme un enjeu économique à part entière. Le terme "global" nous laisse également penser que les objectifs environnementaux et les enjeux pour la pêche française seront harmonisés avec les politiques environnementales françaises qui bordent les eaux de Jersey.
- Tendances actuelles de la pêche
Le chapitre 9.3.1 (Current fishing trend) donne les données de production au travers les volumes débarqués des principales espèces halieutiques. Premièrement, non regrettons que cette partie dédiée aux débarquements et aux stocks ne se réfère qu'aux données de débarquements et qu'aucune évaluation de stocks ne soit présentée.
Ensuite, nous constatons que les données présentées ne correspondent pas à celles compilées par le CRPMEM de Normandie issues d'organismes scientifiques (Ifremer, SMEL).
En effet, nous observons des tendances différentes sur quelques espèces. C'est le cas pour le homard, où les résultats sont estimés comme bons côté français (figure 2). C'est aussi le cas pour la coquille Saint- Jacques où les résultats des différentes prospections montrent un stock et des débarquements (figure 3) en constante progression.
Figure 2 : Evolution des indices d'abondance du homard pour le stock "Homard 7e8a"
Figure 3 : évolution des débarquements de coquille Saint-Jacques pêchées en Manche Ouest et débarquées à Granville – Cherbourg – Saint Malo en fonction des années
Les espèces marines ne connaissent pas de frontières, nous travaillons donc sur les mêmes stocks. De ce fait, comme démontré par Nicolle et coll. (2017)[36], les stocks des différents gisements de coquille Saint- Jacques du golfe normano-breton sont interconnectés et dépendant les uns des autres pour former un seul et même stock. Dans cette étude, il a été démontré que le recrutement et donc le stock local de coquille Saint-Jacques du sud-est de Jersey dépend largement des stocks locaux de Saint-Malo et de Chausey. Ainsi, les mesures de gestion autrefois applicables dans les eaux de Jersey, mais également l'ensemencement effectué depuis 2009 contribuent fortement à la qualité du stock dans les eaux de Jersey. Il nous parait donc d'autant plus étrange d'avoir des tendances contradictoires.
Nous avons un réel intérêt commun à assurer une gestion durable des stocks halieutiques en Baie de Granville, ce qui implique la mise en place d'un travail cohérent entre la Normandie, Jersey et la Bretagne et cela de façon concertée.
- Données exploitées et cartographie de l'activité de pêche
Dans le chapitre 9.3.2 (Current spatial fishing patterns) sur la spatialisation actuelle des activités de pêche, la description des activités de pêche est très succincte. De la manière dont est rédigée cette courte partie, cela laisse comprendre que les activités cartographiées sont celles issues des données AIS, des données de contrôle et des données déclaratives uniquement pour les navires de Jersey.
A défaut d'une présentation complète des activités de pêche française dans le JMSP, nous avons consulté les documents sources sur lesquels se base le JMSP, le MPA Assessment Methodology et le Maritime Activity Assessment ; Nous avons constaté que les activités de pêche française sont partiellement décrites. Nous souhaitons vous apporter nos remarques.
Pourquoi ne pas avoir présenté plus précisément dans le JMSP la méthodologie employée et les données utilisées, notamment sur les activités de pêche françaises qui sont mutualisées aux activités des navires jersiais ? De plus, pourquoi faire une analyse des activités de la pêche française sans concerter les services français concernés afin qu'elle soit la plus représentative possible ?
Pourquoi l'étude d'impact du réseau d'AMP sur les navires de pêche n'a pas été reprise et présentée dans le JMSP ?
Une cartographie incomplète – Analyse de la description des activités de pêche française des documents de référence :
Dans le Maritime Activity Assessment, une analyse des activités de pêche française est faite. Nous observons que les données utilisées ont été les données VMS sur une année, du 1 juillet 2022 (entrée en vigueur de l'obligation de VMS au quart d'heure dans les eaux de Jersey pour tous les navires français) jusqu'au 30 juin 2023. Comme cela est cité dans le document, une année de données est totalement insuffisante pour réaliser une analyse juste et précise des activités de pêche sachant que l'activité des pêcheurs français comporte de la variabilité interannuelle, non prise en compte ici.
De plus, à cette période et dans le cadre des discussions post-Brexit liées au TCA, nous étions en pleine période de négociations sur la définition de la Nature et l'Ampleur de l'activité. Les conditions de pêche dans les eaux de Jersey étaient donc extrêmement floues. La réglementation était fluctuante puisque la réglementation française avait été maintenue le temps des négociations. Ce n'est que le 1er février 2023 que les conditions de pêche de Jersey ont été publiées et qu'à partir du 27 juin 2023 (publication d'un arrêté ministériel[37]) qu'elles ont été pleinement appliquées. Les professionnels étaient donc désorientés, en pleine adaptation et précautionneux face à tous ces changements rapides.
Pour rappel, le TCA se base sur 3 années complètes, antérieures au Brexit, comprises entre 2017 et 2020. Cela permet de prendre en compte l'ensemble des activités ainsi que la variabilité interannuelle.
Par conséquent, cette période (01/07/2022 – 30/06/2023) n'est absolument pas une année de référence en ce qui concerne l'activité des navires français dans les eaux jersiaises.
De plus, il est cité que dans 75% des cas, les données VMS ont pu être reliées aux données déclaratives du journal de bord pour identifier le métier pratiqué. Pour les 25% des cas restants, les données VMS ont pu être reliées soit à un engin dormant soit à un engin trainant mais selon quelle méthode ? Ensuite, dans le document source, il semble qu'un trait de pêche est identifié à partir du moment où un navire évolue à une vitesse non nulle inférieure à 6 nuds. C'est effectivement la méthode qui est généralement utilisée. Cependant cette dernière a été mise en place pour les arts traînants, navires initialement équipés de VMS. La spécificité de la baie de Granville, c'est le fait qu'une flottille de petite pêche, principalement aux arts dormants se trouve à travailler dans les eaux d'un pays tiers. Les arts dormants ne travaillent pas de la même manière : ils virent à une vitesse nulle et filent généralement entre 5 et 7 nuds, la méthode utilisée n'est donc pas représentative pour les arts dormants.
De plus, il est vrai que la France a rendu la VMS obligatoire en juillet 2022, cependant, étant donné le contexte complexe du moment, beaucoup de navires ont mis du temps à s'équiper. Il est donc vraisemblable que ces données ne soient pas représentatives de l'ensemble de la flotte.
Ensuite, l'utilisation de la VMS comme seule source de données pose sérieusement question.
Pour caractériser les activités de pêche des navires de Jersey, toutes les données disponibles ont été utilisées en cherchant à utiliser les données VMS, iVMS, AIS puis les enquêtes FISHMAP menées par Jersey. Ces enquêtes FISHMAP reprennent d'ailleurs la méthodologie française d'enquêtes VALPENA. De plus, les données FISHMAP 2017 étant trop antérieures, les pêcheurs jersiais ont pu demander lors d'une consultation en mars 2023 d'actualiser ces données. De nouvelles enquêtes ont alors été menées pour caractériser les activités de pêche sur 4 années, de 2018 à 2022. Ainsi, sur 5 années d'enquêtes entre 2017 et 2022, la meilleure année pour les navires de Jersey a été retenue.
En tant que CRPMEM de Normandie, partenaire du réseau VALPENA, nous sommes dans l'incompréhension. Pourquoi d'autres sources de données plus complètes n'ont pas été recherchées pour caractériser les activités de pêche française ? Pourquoi ne pas solliciter les CRPMEM et utiliser des données semblables que sont les données VALPENA pour les navires français alors que la collaboration semblait acquise pendant les 20 années du Traité de la Baie de Granville ? Pourquoi ne pas chercher à identifier les activités de pêche sur plusieurs années et retenir la meilleure année ?
Pour pouvoir se baser sur des éléments objectifs, il est nécessaire que le JMSP adopte une méthodologie semblable pour la flotte jersiaise comme pour la flotte française en mobilisant les meilleures données disponibles.
Une nouvelle fois, nous jugeons les données utilisées pour les navires français non représentatives et incomplètes. L'exploitation de certains secteurs a donc été considérablement sous-estimée, comme pour le récif des Sauvages.
C'est pourquoi, AVANT la finalisation du JMSP, il nous semble primordial qu'une étude des activités de pêche des navires français soit menée conjointement avec les structures de la pêche professionnelle française.
Méthode d'analyse des données spatiales impertinente
Concernant l'analyse d'impact du projet de réseau d'AMP sur les activités de pêche, nous ne comprenons pas pourquoi elle n'a pas été présentée dans le JMSP d'autant plus que la pêche française représente une grande part, voir la totalité pour certains métiers, des activités de pêche cartographiées. Par ailleurs, nous ne comprenons pas la méthodologie employée pour identifier l'impact du potentiel réseau d'aires marines protégées sur la pêche française dans le MPA Assessment Methodology. Dans ce dernier document, cette analyse se base sur des jours attribuables aux arts trainants et aux arts dormants pour identifier leur activité au sein des différentes aires marines protégées proposées. Nous ne comprenons pas la logique de jours attribuables pour les arts dormants. Dans le cadre du TCA, des jours de pêche ont été attribués uniquement aux arts traînants et non aux arts dormants.
Ensuite, Jersey reconnait que les AMP entraînent un report des zones de pêche existantes vers d'autres zones. Les problématiques environnementales se trouvent alors déplacées sur d'autres zones, ce qui est contreproductif. Jersey préconise donc que l'impact des AMP sur les navires de pêche soit documenté pour éviter ce problème. Nous identifions également un risque de report d'activité qui pourrait fortement détériorer les zones adjacentes ce qui est dommage étant donné que l'impact global reste modéré et que les habitats sont en bon état.
Le MPA Assessment Methodology indique également comme objectif que le réseau d'AMP doit minimiser l'impact sur l'économie de la pêche et qu'il est recommandé de réaliser une évaluation, navire par navire, des conséquences des aires marines protégées une fois le JMSP finalisé et publié. L'analyse des conséquences socio-économiques est indispensable mais doit intervenir pendant le processus de consultation et de mise en place d'aires marines protégées.
Quel est le but de cette démarche à postériori ? Est-il prévu en fonction des résultats de l'étude d'impact sur les activités de pêche une remise en cause des zones du JMSP validé ?
Quel est l'intérêt d'une approche individuelle sur des flottilles ?
Comment minimiser l'impact sur l'économie alors que les zones proposées à l'interdiction sont calquées sur les zones de fréquentation des navires de pêche normands ?
Pourquoi faire intervenir cette étude d'incidence qu'après finalisation du JMSP et non avant ?
Nous demandons à ce que cette étude des conséquences socio-économiques sur les navires de pêche français soit réalisée AVANT la finalisation du JMSP et en collaboration avec les structures professionnelles françaises.
- Contre-analyse de l'activité de pêche des navires normands
Au regard de la faiblesse du diagnostic des activités de pêches normandes, il est primordial que les éléments que nous apportons ci-dessous le complètent et que leur intégration fasse l'objet d'un échange entre nous.
Une pêche normande très règlementée répondant aux enjeux de gestion durable
Les navires de pêche normands travaillent dans les eaux de Jersey depuis des siècles et encore actuellement. Aujourd'hui, les principales activités sont divisées en deux types de métiers :
- Les arts dormants : casiers à crustacés, casiers à bulot, filets et métiers de l'hameçon
- Les arts traînants : dragues à coquille Saint-Jacques, drague à praire et amande de mer, drague à bivalves, chalut de fond, chalut à perche, chalut pélagique, chalut en buf
Selon les métiers pratiqués, les stratégies de pêche de chaque navire diffèrent plus ou moins en fonction de la réglementation, de la saisonnalité, de l'espèce pêchée et de sa disponibilité, de la distance au port.
Cette variété de métiers et de pratiques permet de créer un équilibre compatible avec la durabilité des stocks, ce qui implique également une préservation des habitats dont les fonctionnalités pour les espèces halieutiques ne sont plus à démontrer.
De plus, la réglementation des pêches normandes est parmi les plus strictes et permet de soutenir voire améliorer l'état des stocks. En prenant l'exemple de la coquille Saint-Jacques, les contraintes que s'imposent les professionnels impliquent des temps de pêche plus courts ce qui contribue pleinement à réduire l'impact des arts trainants sur les fonds marins dans un esprit de pêche responsable et durable.
Une spatialisation de la donnée VALPENA des pêcheurs normands sur zone
Méthodologie Valpena : Dans leur mission de défense des intérêts des pêcheurs professionnels, les comités des pêches ont besoin de disposer de connaissances des activités de leurs navires à une échelle cohérente avec celle des projets de nouvelles activités en mer, les comités des pêches ont mis en place un outil de spatialisation de ces activités. VALPENA pour éVALuation des activités de PEche au regard des Nouvelles Activités a ainsi pour origine une volonté commune des comités des pêches d'apporter une donnée géographique normalisée et des éléments quantifiés selon une méthode scientifiquement établie permettant de caractériser l'activité des navires de pêche professionnelle à une échelle spatio- temporelle fine (maillage d'environ 3 milles nautiques de côté). La démarche scientifique sous-tendant l'ensemble de la méthodologie VALPENA s'appuie sur l'activité du Groupement d'Intérêt Scientifique (GIS) VALPENA et du laboratoire Géolittomer de l'UMR-LETG de Nantes, garants de l'intégrité des protocoles d'enquêtes et des modalités d'exploitation des données produites.
Les données VALPENA sont collectées par enquêtes individuelles directes auprès des pêcheurs pour l'année n-1 (dernière année complète). Chaque pêcheur déclare l'activité de son ou ses navires par mois, par engin et par espèce cible à l'échelle d'un maillage d'environ 3 milles nautiques de côté.
Les données utilisées dans ce rapport sont issues des données VALPENA issues des enquêtes pour l'année d'activité 2020. Le temps alloué pour réaliser ce retour ne nous a malheureusement pas permis de réaliser une évaluation pluriannuelle qui serait pourtant nécessaire.
De manière générale, les eaux de Jersey sont fréquentées toute l'année par les navires normands (figure 4). La figure 5 présente quant à elle l'indice d'intensité, soit le nombre de mois total travaillés par mailles. On peut alors observer que les navires normands travaillent principalement dans la partie Est des eaux de Jersey, à proximité de notre frontière. On observe également qu'une partie importante des futurs aires marines protégées jersiaises se trouve dans des secteurs très fréquentés par les navires normands.
Figure 4 : Indice de fréquence (nombre de mois travaillés) pour les navires normands, tous métiers confondus
Figure 5 : Indice d'intensité (nombre de mois x navires) des navires normands, tous métiers confondus
Casier à crustacés
Les principales espèces ciblées sont le homard, l'araignée et le tourteau (de manière plus ponctuelle). De récents rapports indiquent que le homard se porte bien à l'échelle globale.
Il s'agit d'une espèce territoriale, qui vit sur les fonds rocheux où elle peut se cacher et s'alimenter. Nous identifions deux secteurs où le homard est particulièrement ciblé : les Minquiers et les Ecréhous. La pêche de cette espèce se fait au casier.
La pêche des araignées est pratiquée principalement au casier pour les navires normands. Nous identifions plusieurs stratégies de pêche pour cette espèce. Il y a les moussettes, des araignées juvéniles fortement valorisées, qui font l'objet d'une pêcherie spécifique sur les côtes du Cotentin. Ces dernières sont présentes de manière saisonnière et sont très mobiles. La pêche commence donc dans les eaux de Jersey dans le courant du mois de mars et évolue vers la côte française, elle se termine généralement dans le courant du mois de juin. Les grands mâles sont également ciblés une grande partie de l'année. En 2020, 50 navires normands, aujourd'hui titulaires de l'accès à Jersey étaient détenteurs d'un Fishing permit Crustacés. Parmi eux, 39 ont participé aux enquêtes Valpena, soit 78%.
L'indicateur de densité Valpena nous montre une activité aux crustacés située principalement dans la partie Est des eaux de Jersey (figure 6). On retrouve bien les fonds rocheux (Ecréhous, Arconies,
Minquiers) mais également les fonds sableux situés entre ces secteurs et qui correspondent à des zones de pêche de l'araignée.
Figure 6 : Indicateur de densité (nombre de navires) pour les navires normands pratiquant la pêche des crustacés
Le secteur des Ecréhous est fréquenté tout au long de l'année, les Minquiers sont fréquentés essentiellement de février à septembre. La bande entre les deux archipels est surtout fréquentée de mars à juillet, ce qui correspond à la période de forte production pour l'araignée.
Casier à bulot (Buccinum undatum)
Le bulot est une espèce emblématique de la baie de Granville. Il fait l'objet de suivis depuis de nombreuses années, ce qui permet d'avoir de beaucoup de données à son sujet.
En 2020, 49 navires normands titulaires de la licence bulot Ouest-cotentin avaient une activité dans les eaux de Jersey. Parmi eux, 34 ont participé à l'enquête Valpena, soit 69%.
L'indicateur de densité Valpena nous montre une activité aux bulots située principalement dans la partie Est des eaux de Jersey (figure 7). On retrouve ici une activité pratiquée sur des fonds meubles et à proximité de fonds rocheux. Les secteurs de plus forte fréquentation se trouvent entre le nord des Sauvages et le sud des Ecréhous ainsi que dans le nord des eaux de Jersey.
Figure 7 : Indicateur de densité (nombre de navires) pour les navires normands pratiquant la pêche du bulot
L'activité est régulière tout au long de l'année (sauf en janvier où la pêche est fermée). Nous pouvons également identifier trois grands secteurs de pêche : les Sauvages, Les Arconies et le nord des Ecréhous.
Les arts traînants
Dans le cadre du TCA, Jersey a fait le choix d'attribuer un nombre de jours aux navires pratiquant les arts traînants dans leurs eaux afin de prendre en compte la polyvalence de ces navires. Il est vrai qu'un grand nombre d'entre eux peut pratiquer plusieurs métiers sur une même marée.
Concernant les données issues des enquêtes Valpena, 17 navires ont répondu en 2020 sur les 27 concernés, soit 63%. Cela nous a permis d'identifier les zones les plus fréquentées (figure 8).
Figure 8 : Indicateur de densité (nombre de navires) pour les navires normands travaillant aux arts traînants
Nous pouvons observer qu'une grande partie des eaux de Jersey est travaillée par les arts traînants. Les zones principalement travaillées sont l'Ouest de l'île et l'ensemble de la partie Est des eaux de Jersey frontalières avec les eaux normandes.
A l'Ouest, les activités aux chaluts et à la drague à coquille Saint-Jacques sont pratiquées.
Sur la bande Est des eaux de Jersey, nous retrouvons les métiers aux chaluts et à la drague à coquille Saint-Jacques auquel s'ajoutent les métiers des dragues à praire et amande de mer.
Ces métiers sont essentiellement pratiqués dans les secteurs du Sud et de l'Est des Minquiers, des Sauvages et à l'Est du plateau de l'Arconie. Cela s'explique notamment par le fait qu'il s'agit de zones d'abri par rapport aux vents dominants, donc des zones plus accessibles.
Pour des raisons économiques, les pêcheurs cherchent à limiter leur temps de route, le fait de travailler dans les eaux de Jersey n'est pas une fin en soi mais la réponse à une stratégie de pêche afin de trouver l'équilibre entre production et coûts. Ces secteurs sont donc essentiels au maintien économique des entreprises.
Le JMSP rappelle d'ailleurs dans sa méthodologie qu'il cherche à trouver un équilibre entre les enjeux écologiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels. A ce titre, le JMSP suit la méthodologie de planification
marine spatiale indiqué dans le Global International Guide on Marine Spatial Planning[38] de l'UNESCO. Ce guide indique que les parties prenantes à considérer dans la consultation peuvent être des parties prenantes étrangères. A ce titre et au regard de l'importance de la pêche française dans les eaux de Jersey, il nous semble indispensable que les navires français soient considérés et que leurs représentants soient consultés à défaut de l'avoir été durant l'année 2023.
De plus, le TCA est peu mentionné dans le JMSP, seulement deux fois sur une dizaine de lignes dans la partie 4.2.4. Le TCA engage tout de même Jersey à respecter les antériorités et l'activité historique des navires français dans ses eaux. Lors de son unique apparition, le JMSP rappelle justement cette obligation de respecter du TCA.
Le fait d'interdire des secteurs très pratiqués par les navires français est donc contradictoire avec le TCA puisqu'à aucun moment les activités de pêche françaises n'ont été considérées et qu'à aucun moment Jersey n'a cherché à créer un dialogue de concertation pour définir les aires marines protégées excluant certaines activités de pêche.
- Réaction aux zones d'interdiction et de pêche proposées (Chapitre 9.4)
Les zones proposées correspondent aux recommandations faites dans le chapitre 8. Les données de fréquentation des navires normands dans les eaux de Jersey montrent bien que certaines zones proposées représentent des secteurs à fort enjeu pour la pêche normande.
A la lecture du MPA Assessment Methodology, nous avons découvert que d'ici 2030 Jersey proposera de nouveaux des zones de protection complémentaires afin d'aboutir à 30% d'aires marines protégées (figure 9).
Sur la figure ci-dessous nous pouvons ainsi observer les zones prioritaires à étendre en AMP, lorsque des travaux complémentaires auront eu lieu.
Premièrement, nous regrettons fortement que l'intention d'étendre le réseau d'AMP autour des zones actuellement proposées ne soit pas affiché de manière transparente dans le JMSP. Il nous parait important que les périmètres actuellement proposés soit appréciés aux regards de l'ensemble des objectifs visés.
Secondement, nous remarquons que malgré le manque de connaissances scientifiques reconnues, les zones envisagées pour l'avenir se trouvent à nouveau exclusivement dans la partie Est des eaux de Jersey. Dans la mesure où les AMP semblent être associées à une interdiction systématique de la pratique des arts traînants voire de toute pêche, les conséquences du réseau actuellement proposées suivi d'une extension de ce réseau uniquement dans les zones de pêche des navires normands sont extrêmement inquiétantes.
Figure 9 : Zones d'extension potentielle des AMP jersiaises (source : MPA assessment methodology)
Dans ce cadre, il serait judicieux de revoir ces périmètres afin de trouver des solutions qui permettent de remplir les objectifs du JMSP, à savoir la protection des habitats à enjeux, l'atteinte de l'objectif 30% de zones protégées d'ici 2030 mais également la pérennisation des activités existantes.
- Un référentiel incomplet des initiatives de pêche durable pourtant nombreuse (Chapitre 9.7)
Tout d'abord, ce paragraphe ne mentionne pas les mesures et labels déjà en place ce qui est regrettable. Nous tenons à rappeler que la pêche est déjà règlementée, que ce soit côté français ou jersiais. Dans un objectif de gestion durable, de nombreuses mesures ont été mises en place. Il existe deux niveaux de réglementation : européenne pour les espèces suivies par le CIEM (de manière générale il s'agit des poissons et sélaciens) et régionale pour les autres espèces (coquillages et crustacés).
Pour ces dernières, ce sont les pêcheurs, via les Comités des pêches qui mettent en place des mesures basées sur des suivis halieutiques afin d'assurer une pêche durable et économiquement viable.
La Côte Ouest du Cotentin est d'ailleurs un exemple de gestion sur le long terme avec des espèces suivies et gérées depuis très longtemps, c'est le cas par exemple du bulot pour qui les premières mesures ont été prises dans les années 70 !
Si nous prenons l'exemple de cette espèce, elle fait l'objet de nombreuses mesures de gestion qui ont été prises au cours des années (cf schéma). Ces mesures ont pour but de pérenniser la pêcherie et de l'adapter au mieux aux conditions de ressource.
En 2023, la diminution du nombre de licences normandes a permis d'atteindre un nombre de licence total de 65 licences. Parmi elles, 45 étaient associées à des accès aux eaux de Jersey.
Il est également important de rappeler que les eaux de Jersey ont bénéficié de l'ensemble des mesures de gestion normandes ces mesures de gestion jusqu'en 2021 avec la mer commune. Dans ce cadre, bon nombre de mesures communes ont pu être prises à travers le Traité de la Baie de Granville. Ce qui a permis d'assurer une cohérence dans la gestion des eaux sur des flottilles entières. Les figures 10 et 11 présentent l'ensemble des mesures qui ont été prises de manière commune ces trente dernières années.
De plus, les mesures mises en place sur les casiers à crustacés permettent de répondre à certains objectifs du JMSP concernant la pêche fantôme : les casiers-pièges ont la particularité de rester très pêchants lorsqu'ils sont perdus, le fait de les avoir interdits dans les Minquiers et les Ecréhous (figure 12) permet donc de limiter fortement des impacts liés à la pêche fantôme.
Figure 12 : Zones d'interdiction des casiers pièges
Par ailleurs, le fait d'avoir rendu obligatoires les trappes d'échappement sur l'ensemble des casiers- parloirs (et sur tous les casiers à crustacés côté normand) permet de réaliser un tri sur le fond et non sur le pont. Les homards sous-taille n'ont donc plus à subir le fait d'être rejetés dans la colonne d'eau où ils étaient très vulnérables. De plus, cela permet aux petits homards de ressortir plus facilement, limitant donc le risque de cannibalisme au sein des casiers.
Ces mesures ont d'ailleurs permis d'aboutir à l'obtention du label MSC pour le homard en 2011. Ce dernier à la particularité d'être partagé entre Jersey et la Normandie, ce qui est unique. Cela représente plus de 10 ans de certification. Il s'agit là d'un modèle de gestion commune qui a porté ses fruits. L'obtention et le maintien de ce label, renouvelé en décembre 2023, montre l'engagement commun d'aller vers une pêche durable, cela a également permis une forte amélioration des connaissances sur l'état de ce stock.
Nous avons tout intérêt à continuer à travailler dans ce sens et à travailler de concert afin de garantir la durabilité des pêcheries. Nous tenons à rappeler que nous travaillons sur des stocks communs, non concernés par la frontière, nous avons donc les mêmes enjeux.
• Le JMSP ne prend pas suffisamment en considération le TCA alors qu'il s'agit d'un accord international au même titre que les conventions environnementales. Nous souhaitons que des moyens suffisants soient mis en place pour le respecter.
• Malgré la présence historique des pêcheurs français à Jersey, malgré les recommandations du guide de planification de l'UNESCO suivi par Jersey, malgré 1 an de consultation des parties prenantes réalisées, malgré le nombre de réunions communes auxquelles nous nous sommes vus en 2023, nous regrettons que la pêche française n'ait pas été considérée comme une partie prenante et qu'elle n'ait pas été consultée en amont de la démarche.
• Nous regrettons la surprise que nous avons eue de découvrir, dans un document de référence, l'intention d'étendre le réseau d'AMP d'ici 2030 autour des zones actuellement proposées. Nous aurions souhaité que cette intention soit affichée de manière transparente dans le JMSP, d'autant plus qu'il s'agit de zones uniquement à l'Est de Jersey et donc de zones de pêche des navires français, tout comme les zones déjà proposées.
• Les câbles sous-marins doivent être ensouillés ou protégés pour permettre le maintien de l'ensemble des activités de pêches (trainants et dormants).
Nous remettons en cause la validité des données, leur fondement scientifique et la neutralité des analyses présentées car :
• La description des habitats se base sur des documents non scientifiques : l'ONG Blue Marine Foundation est une ONG anti-pêche. Nous souhaitons la réalisation d'études issues d'organismes scientifiques locaux.
• Les mesures proposées sont fondées uniquement sur le principe de précaution : Ce n'est pas acceptable.
• Les mesures proposées exclues systématiquement les arts trainants : Ce n'est pas acceptable. L'exemple des AMP françaises montre que l'impact des arts trainants est tout d'abord évalué avant toutes propositions de mesures ajustées.
Sur le diagnostic des habitats
• Les données pour cartographier les habitats, vieilles de 40 ans, ont été actualisées avec des données de 2014. L'état des connaissances date de 10 ans. Les habitats ont pu évoluer. Il faut actualiser l'état des connaissances avec des études scientifiques récentes.
• L'état de conservation des habitats n'est pas pris en compte. En cohérence avec les travaux français et pour ajuster les mesures de conservation nécessaires nous souhaitons que l'état de conservation des habitats soit considéré. A titre d'exemple, les AMP françaises permettent de protéger seulement les zones où c'est nécessaire.
• La qualification et la quantification de l'impact réel des engins de pêche sur les habitats est non évalué en Manche. Le niveau de dégradation d'un engin sur un habitat est non connu. Il y a besoin d'acquisition de connaissances.
• Les habitats peuvent subir des effets liés à l'environnement, à la pêche ou aux deux facteurs conjointement. Actuellement, il n'y a aucune connaissance permettant de différencier l'origine d'effets sur des habitats. Il y a besoin d'acquisition de connaissances avant de prendre des mesures.
• Il est recommandé de protéger au minimum 30% de chaque habitat mais cela est variable selon la surface et l'état de conservation des habitats actuellement, il est proposé de protéger 100% des herbiers de zostère, 89% des laminaires et 87% du maërl. Il est donc possible de trouver un juste milieu pour concilier protection des habitats et activités de pêche.
• Nous souhaitons que la pêche ne soit pas une variable d'ajustement à sacrifier uniquement pour remplir les objectifs annoncés. De même, nous ne souhaitons pas que des mesures d'exclusion des activités de pêche soient prises alors même qu'un habitat présente un bon état de conservation, cela laisserait penser que l'objectif serait plutôt d'exclure la pêche plutôt que de réellement protéger un habitat.
Sur les habitats à fort intérêt :
• Herbiers de zostères : l'exemple de Chausey montre un habitat résilient présentant un développement constant depuis 1980 alors qu'il n'y a aucune mesure restrictive des activités de pêche. L'impact de la pêche est donc négligeable : Il est nécessaire de réaliser un suivi de l'évolution des herbiers à Jersey.
• Forêts de laminaires : Selon OSPAR, l'état de conservation de cet habitat est non menacé à Jersey. Ces forêts ne sont pas fréquentées par les arts traînants car impropres à la pêche. La description des espèces constituant ces forêts est imprécise : la priorité est donc d'identifier leur composition, et leur état de conservation.
• Bancs de maërl : Selon OSPAR, l'état de conservation de cet habitat est non menacé à Jersey. Il serait donc intéressant d'identifier quels sont réellement les besoins de conservation avant de prendre des mesures ultra-restrictives et ayant un impact économique fort.
• La « No Take Zone » des Sauvages
- Désignation basée sur une étude produite par une ONG anti-pêche s'appuyant elle- même sur des éléments produits par l'administration jersiaise et non sur des documents scientifiques objectifs et neutres.
- La présence de coraux d'eau froide à croissance lente montre que les activités de pêche présentes sur ce secteur nont pas d'interactions directes avec ces espèces.
- Pas de précisions sur les interactions potentielles entre les engins de pêche et les brachiopodes dont la taille en elle-même constitue la meilleure protection.
- Quelle est la valeur écologique réelle de ce récif par rapport à d'autres secteurs des eaux de Jersey ?
- Il y a une importante activité de pêche dans ce secteur, à peine mentionnée dans le document et basée sur des données erronées concernant la pêche normande
Pour les habitats à fort intérêt, les facteurs environnementaux sont les plus influents sur la dynamique des habitats comparés aux autres usages. Pour proposer des mesures non pas sur le principe de précaution mais sur des preuves tangibles, il y a un réel besoin d'études visant à caractériser l'état de conservation des différents habitats, de discerner l'impact environnemental (houle, courant) de l'impact anthropique, d'identifier et de quantifier l'impact réel des différents engins sur les différents habitats.
Sur la description des activités de pêche
• Il est dommage que seules les données de débarquements aient été présentées car elles ne reflètent en rien l'état actuel des stocks. Ces données, sur des stocks communs à nos deux pays, sont d'ailleurs en contradiction avec les données issues d'organismes scientifiques français.
• Il n'ait pas mentionné les efforts de gestion des navires français dans les eaux de Jersey depuis des décennies ainsi que les écolabels commun (MSC homard et bulot), signes d'une pêche durable.
• Dans le JMSP, l'analyse des activités de pêche est extrêmement faible (seulement de la présence/absence de navires)
• L'explication de la méthodologie est peu claire et porte à confusion puisque les flottilles françaises et jersiaises ont été graphiquement mutualisées alors que la description ne parle que des navires de Jersey.
• L'analyse des activités de pêche des navires de Jersey et des navires français est inégale et basée sur une méthodologie différente :
- Les navires de Jersey sont décrits sur 10 ans au travers des données VMS, AIS et des enquêtes pluriannuelles FISHMAP. A l'inverse, les navires français sont inclus au travers d'une seule source de données (VMS), sur une seule année où nous étions en négociation post-Brexit et où la réglementation était extrêmement fluctuante. L'analyse des activités de pêche française est non représentative et incomplète sur cette période.
- L'activité sur certains secteurs a été largement minorée et donc ne reflètent pas les enjeux pour certains métiers (exemple : secteur des Sauvages). Il est donc nécessaire, à minima, que les activités de pêche françaises soient mentionnées à leur juste valeur telles qu'elles sont pratiquées dans les eaux de Jersey
- Une utilisation des données VMS douteuse : 25% des données n'ont pas pu être reliées à des déclarations de pêche mais ont pourtant été traitées.
Comme préconisé par Jersey, nous proposons qu'une analyse socio-économique de l'activité des navires français soit réalisée, cependant en sollicitant les représentants des pêches français pour que l'analyse soit la plus représentative possible.
Afin de répondre à vos objectifs de conservation tout en préservant nos pêcheries artisanales, à l'instar de la démarche à laquelle nous avions été associés lors de la mise en place des zones de protection Ramsar, nous souhaitons qu'un dialogue de concertation soit mis en place entre Jersey et les représentants des pêches français avant l'adoption des zones proposées et la finalisation du JMSP.
Nous aimerions pouvoir revoir les zones proposées car nous pensons qu'il est possible d'arriver à la même surface protégée et pour des habitats tout aussi intéressants d'un point de vue biologique mais avec des impacts moins marqués sur la pêche normande.
TEMOIGNAGES : Contributions individuelles de pêcheurs
normands
Des pêcheurs normands ont également apporté leur contribution à titre individuel à cette consultation. Certaines de ces contributions nous ont été retransmises et sont présentées ci-dessous.
Au-delà des ballets diplomatiques, des conventions et lois, des arguments scientifiques plus ou moins complets, des analyses administratives, se joue la vie d'hommes et de femmes pleinement intégrés dans la vie sociale, culturelle et économique du littoral.
Nous tenions à partager ces témoignages.
Il s'agit des pêcheurs :
-
Contribution de , navire
Madame, Monsieur,
Je tiens à vous faire un retour au sujet de la consultation publique en cours. , ans, patron et armateur du depuis mars . Je suis inscrit maritime depuis et pratique la pêche depuis mes 20 ans.
Je suis la troisième génération de pêcheurs dans ma famille. Mon père et mon grand-père avant moi ont travaillé dans les eaux de Jersey, de Guernesey et de Sercq.
Je pratique la pêche de bulots et de gros crustacés (araignées, homards) dans la zone des Dirouilles et des Ecréhou, toute l'année, sauf au mois de janvier à cause de la fermeture de la pêche des bulots.
La cohabitation avec les pêcheurs jersiais s'est toujours bien passée pour ma part. Les relations étaient déjà bonnes sous le Traité de Baie de Granville. Depuis le Brexit, et malgré les difficultés de mise en place au départ, tant pour les pêcheurs jersiais que pour les pêcheurs français, ces relations sont toujours bonnes entre pêcheurs aujourd'hui.
Cependant, je pense que les projets envisagés par Jersey de développer un réseau d'aires marines protégées, interdites aux arts traînants, mais aussi d'implanter un parc éolien, vont fortement réduire les zones de pêche des chalutiers, qui vont devoir exploiter les zones déjà occupées par les caseyeurs. La cohabitation sera difficile car les deux types d'exploitation ne sont pas idéalement compatibles. Cela va impacter les pêcheurs français entre eux, mais aussi les pêcheurs jersiais et les pêcheurs normands. L'espace qui sépare nos côtes de Jersey n'est pas si grand et pourra difficilement accueillir tant de navires. Il y aura forcément un impact sur la petite pêche artisanale, que je pratique, déjà en difficulté quant aux quotas.
Actuellement, l'espace est déjà très occupé, il est important de voir que nous travaillons partout afin d'effectuer des rotations et éviter d'épuiser un secteur, le fait de retirer de si grandes zones va donc avoir un impact sur la ressource et entraîner de la surpêche. De plus, cela va provoquer des problèmes de cohabitation sur les secteurs qui resteront ouverts.
Il serait dommage que la petite pêche artisanale disparaisse des eaux normandes et jersiaises, car à mon avis, c'est la pêche la plus respectueuse du milieu marin, avec une gestion réfléchie et durable des ressources et des saisonnalités.
Encore une fois, vous nous présentez ici des mesures qui vont diminuer les possibilités de pêche des navires professionnels, français ou jersiais. Cela ajoute donc une contrainte supplémentaire à la pratique de la pêche. Nous nous sentons totalement mis dehors, que ce soit avec la perte des zones de pêche mais aussi avec la mise en place de ce genre de démarche. Nous avons toujours travaillé dans les eaux de Jersey et il est difficile de s'imaginer en être exclu étant donné notre histoire mais également vu la distance qui nous sépare : seulement quelques milles entre Carteret et les Ecréhous...
Bien cordialement
Contribution de , navire
Bonjour,
Je m'appelle pratiquons la
, je suis patron armateur du chalutier-coquillier . Nous
|
|
|
p | êche dans | les eaux |
de Jersey depuis 37 ans au chalut comme à la drague à coquille Saint- Jacques. Nous pratiquons le chalut pratiquement toute l'année dans les eaux de Jersey. Nous ciblons la daurade au printemps et nous avons perdu depuis le Brexit les ¾ des zones de pêche à Jersey pour cette espèce. Le projet tel qu'il est présenté me retire toutes les zones de pêche. Je tiens à rappeler que la pêche de la daurade se fait au chalut pélagique, qui n'a pas d'impact sur le fond.
Nous faisons également le chalut dans l'est et dans l'ouest de Jersey, si les aires marines protégées sont mises en place, nous perdrons toutes nos zones à l'est.
Ma famille pratique la pêche dans les eaux de Jersey depuis au moins 4 générations. On s'est vu retirer des zones de pêche depuis 30 ans. Nous sommes des bateaux d'artisans-côtiers, il n'est pas possible de partir pêcher au large.
Nous perdons des droits de pêche de manière régulière dans vos eaux, d'abord sous prétexte de protection des habitats avec les sites Ramsar, puis il s'agit de protection des daurades avec les zones de nidification et là, la protection de 25% de vos eaux, et cela en mentionnant d'office une future interdiction des arts traînants. Je ne parle même pas des pertes de droits engendrées par le Brexit alors qu'il était encadré par un Traité censé nous garantir la possibilité de travailler « comme avant ».
La façon dont ces mesures sont présentées, et les zones identifiées comme futures aires marines protégées me font douter du réel bienfondé de la démarche : est-ce uniquement une volonté de protéger les habitats ou est-ce un moyen supplémentaire de faire pression sur les arts traînants français ?
Concernant les sites eux-mêmes, il y a deux zones qui représentent un fort enjeu économique pour moi, elles sont présentées dans les cartes ci-dessous.
Concernant le secteur des Arconies, nous sommes nombreux à l'utiliser comme zone d'abri : elle permet de travailler par des vents d'Ouest Sud-ouest, ce qui la rend très importante pour nous.
Il est vraiment important que l'on puisse discuter avec vous de ces secteurs. Je sais que nous sommes maintenant deux pays différents, qu'il n'y a plus de Traité qui nous unit mais il doit être possible de pouvoir maintenir les échanges.
Lors de la mise en place des sites Ramsar, nous avions été consultés et cela avait permis de définir des zones qui permettaient de protéger les habitats à enjeux tout en limitant les impacts sur notre activité. Ce type de procédé permet d'évoluer plus sereinement et donc de limiter les tensions qu'un tel projet peut générer.
On sort à peine du Brexit, on a entendu partout que les pêcheurs locaux ne seraient pas impactés par le Brexit, or ce n'est pas vrai et là vous parlez de nous retirer à nouveau des zones de pêche.
Durant toute cette période trouble, nous avons tout fait pour garder un climat de bonne entente avec nos collègues de Jersey et on aimerait bien que cela puisse continuer.
En vous souhaitant bonne réception.
Contribution de , navire
Madame, Monsieur,
Je suis Mr , Patron-pécheur de ans, propriétaire du navire de pêche «
» acheté en septembre
Issue d'une famille de pêcheurs, c'est mon père lorsqu'il était patron du chalutier « » qui m'a donné l'envie et la passion d'exercer le métier d'artisan pêcheur. Depuis je suis embarqué sur le . En , je suis devenu le patron jusqu'à en être le propriétaire depuis . Cela fait donc 23 ans que je suis sur le même navire de pêche artisanale dans les mêmes eaux.
Comme vous pouvez le constater, je suis le navire qui a le plus de jours acquis dans les eaux de Jersey. Ceci s'explique car j'exerce mon métier UNIQUEMENT dans les eaux de Jersey et toute l'année.
C'est pourquoi je suis attaché à entretenir de bonnes relations avec vous. Je vous fournis en temps et en heure mes déclarations de pêche. À chaque fois que je me fais contrôler par vos services de contrôle, et cela depuis des années, je suis toujours courtois, poli et ouvert au dialogue pour entretenir nos bonnes relations voisines, même depuis les complications du Brexit. Ainsi, je respecte scrupuleusement la réglementation jersiaise. Je n'ai jamais été verbalisé pour du surquotas ou du hors-taille par exemple.
Si je travaille entièrement dans les eaux jersiaises, c'est que je n'ai pas le choix, pas d'autres endroits où je pourrais pêcher des amandes de mer (GKT). Cette espèce très localisée représente 3/4 de ma pêche annuelle.
Je suis l'un des seuls navires de Granville et même de l'Ouest Cotentin à exercer cette pêche bien spécifique. Contrairement aux autres navires qui pêchent essentiellement autour de Chausey, avec la possibilité de s'abriter autour de l'archipel en cas de mauvais temps, mon activité m'occasionne des frais de gazole supplémentaire pour rejoindre les eaux de Jersey. De plus, je n'ai pas de zones d'abris, je suis toujours en plein vent.
Mon activité m'oblige à travailler dans des secteurs spécifiques. Je n'ai d'autres choix que de travailler au Sud et à l'Ouest des Minquiers, au contour de la zone RAMSAR existante. Je travaille également dans les secteurs des CAUX, à l'ANQUETE, la GRUNE LA HAUCHE, Les ARCONIES, de l'ECREVIERE et dans le secteur des câbles téléphoniques.
Toutes ses zones citées sont indispensables au bon fonctionnement de mon entreprise.
Je suis également étonné que les retombées liées au BREXIT ne soient finies et que nos voisins jersiais veulent déjà nous imposer de nouvelles interdictions de pêche via des aires marines protégées (AMP) en excluant systématiquement les arts traînants. En France, les AMP n'excluent pas systématiquement les arts traînants qui restent ainsi autorisés. Je suis donc dans l'incompréhension.
Je tiens à dire que je travaille dans des fonds sableux, contrairement à ce que peux indiquer la carte des habitats sur certaines zones, et que je peux vous certifier n'avoir jamais péché d'herbier de zostère, de Kelp ou de Maërl dans les secteurs ou j'exerce mon activité. Preuve que la pêche aux arts trainants est compatible dans certains secteurs. Protéger ne veut pas dire interdire.
Par conséquent, je vous sollicite pour que vous étudier mon cas personnel, pour entamer un dialogue afin de trouver un « terrain d'entente ». Je souhaite que l'on puisse se concerter, échanger sur des zones à privilégier plutôt que d'autres. Je souhaite que nous trouvions des solutions de façon conjointe qui conviennent et sont acceptées par tout le monde, comme cela l'a été dans le passé pour les zones RAMSAR et qui a fait ses preuves.
Enfin, j'aimerais vous faire part que la survie de mon entreprise de pêche artisanale et celle de ma famille dépend EXCLUSIVEMENT de mon activité de pêche dans les eaux de Jersey. Mon entreprise
fait vivre 3 matelots et leur famille. Elle fait aussi vivre ma propre famille puisque mon père et mon épouse sont employés à terre pour l'entreprise.
Si malheureusement toutes les AMP proposées étaient interdites à vie, je serais dans l'obligation d'arrêter mon métier que j'exerce avec passion, de vendre mon bateau qui est toute ma vie, de licencier mes 3 matelots, ainsi que mon père et mon épouse. Ce serait terrible.
En espérant que ma participation et mon exemple soient étudiés et considérés par Jersey. Je reste convaincu que l'amitié entre nos deux pays permettra de trouver une solution commune. Je me raccroche à cet espoir afin de pouvoir continuer à vivre de mon métier qui m'a été transmis de père en fils avec passion.
En effet, depuis le Brexit et toutes les conséquences, le moral est au plus bas et la peur de tout perdre du jour au lendemain joue encore plus sur le moral au quotidien.
En attendant des nouvelles qui je l'espère seront positives afin de trouver un terrain d'entente entre les différentes parties, je vous adresse mes sincères salutations.
Mr
Contribution de M , navires et Monsieur,
Je suis armateur du et je patronne le , deux bulotiers de . Dans les deux cas, mes bateaux pratiquent surtout la pêche du bulot mais également les crustacés, en particulier l'araignée.
Je travaille toute l'année entre le secteur du Buf et le plateau de l'Arconie. Nous avons une activité frontalière, autant dans les eaux jersiaises que normandes. Nous sommes nombreux à travailler dans ce secteur, que ce soit les caseyeurs ou les traînants, il s'agit d'une zone riche et très intéressante pour la pêche. Le fait d'être nombreux et avec des métiers différents provoque des enjeux de cohabitation. Suite au Brexit, entre ceux qui avaient l'accès aux eaux de Jersey et les autres, il a fallu retrouver un équilibre afin de permettre à tout le monde de travailler. Maintenant, vous voulez mettre en place des aires marines protégées, dont une grande dans l'est de l'Arconie. Cela va reprovoquer de forts changements dans les pratiques des traînants car, si je comprends bien, ils ne pourront plus venir.
Concrètement, cela signifie qu'ils vont devoir aller travailler ailleurs. Cela va donc impacter l'ensemble de la pêcherie dans le secteur. Et cela aura donc de grosses conséquences sur les autres métiers : problèmes de cohabitation, moins de possibilités de rotation entre les métiers. Cela va donc avoir un impact sur l'ensemble des entreprises de pêche de la côte mais également sur la ressource : nous ne pourrons plus changer aussi facilement de zone, ce qui risque d'épuiser certains secteurs.
Je suis impliqué dans la gestion de la pêche. Quand c'est nécessaire, je trouve normal de prendre des mesures mais là, je dois avouer que je ne comprends pas l'intérêt de prendre des mesures sur des zones en bon état au risque d'avoir des impacts négatifs sur la ressource.
Selon le document, actuellement seuls les arts traînants sont concernés à part au niveau des Sauvages. Qu'est ce qu'il en sera des arts dormants dans les années à venir ? est-ce que l'interdiction aux Sauvages est un début ? La démarche qui est lancée avec ce document est très inquiétante pour nous, on a le sentiment qu'il vient dans la continuité du Brexit afin de mettre les français dehors.
J'ai toujours travaillé dans ce secteur, jusqu'à présent nos relations me semblaient bonnes, maintenant, j'ai l'impression que nous sommes devenus la bête noire. Pourtant nos pratiques n'ont pas changé, au contraire, des mesures sont prises régulièrement pour diminuer l'effort de pêche. Il est donc difficile de concevoir la mise en place de tels sites et que ces derniers ne contraignent que les pêcheurs.
En espérant un retour à des relations plus paisibles et fluides, veuillez agréer, monsieur, mes salutations distinguées.
Contribution de M , navire
Bonjour,
Je m'appelle et j'exerce une activité de pêche professionnelle dans les eaux de jersey depuis juin , d'abord en tant que matelot, puis de à seul à bord de mon bateau le « ». Depuis janvier mon fils navigue avec moi dans le but de reprendre mon activité. Nous pêchons principalement le homard et l'araignée de mer au casier, sur le plateau des minquiers. J'ai été un des acteurs du traité de la baie de Granville dont j'ai participé à toutes les réunions préparatoires de à puis après sa signature j'ai siégé à son comité de gestion jusqu'à son abrogation en 2020. La collaboration avec les représentants jersiais y fut d'abord hésitante puis constructive puis à nouveau tendue sur fond de Brexit.
En 2000 le traité avait consacré une forte diminution de nos droits de pêche dans les eaux de jersey, diminution largement consentie et en contrepartie de laquelle un système de cogestion de l'espace maritime avait été mis en place.
Dans ce cadre, nous avons d'un commun accord défini les zones d'exclusion des arts traînants à Minquiers et aux Ecréhous , ce qui, tout en répondant aux obligations RAMSAR de Jersey, préservait au maximum nos droits de pêche.
Ce système gagnant gagnant ne semble pas sous-tendre votre projet actuel où la majeure partie des zones que vous proposez à l'interdiction des traînants parait calquée sur leurs principaux lieux de pêche, alors que, dans d'autres zones, vos cartes de protection et nos cartes d'activités ne se superposent pas.
De plus, il vous semble comme acquis qu'une zone de protection doive absolument exclure les traînants alors que leur activité n'a, jusqu'alors, pas empêché les fonds que vous prétendez protéger de prospérer et que cette activité, TCA oblige, n'a pas fonction à augmenter.
Vous souhaitez, dans un souci de cohérence, relier votre réseau au réseau français d'AMP. Il vous aura sans doute échappé que les activités des traînants n'y sont pas interdites car considérées comme peu impactantes sur les habitats.
Si votre projet devait aboutir en l'état, il constituerait en une forte diminution des droits de pêche de nos plus petits traînants, en les excluant des zones les plus proches de nos côtes, ce qui est contraire à l'esprit du TCA. Cela serait un très mauvais message à envoyer dans un contexte où les braises du Brexit ne sont pas éteintes et où les négociations sur la suite ne sont pas complètement finalisées.
En ce qui me concerne plus directement, vos relevés d'activité des caseyeurs français, pour les crustacés comme pour le bulot, ne montrent pas ou peu de présence dans les parties est et sud-est des Minquiers alors que nous y travaillons toute l'année, aussi bien en dehors que dans la NTZ des Sauvages où malgré une activité régulière depuis des décennies, les espèces que vous dites vouloir protéger semblent prospérer. Espèces qui pour la gorgone, corail d'eau froide, serait plus sensible au réchauffement qu'à la pêche et dont la protection par interdiction d'une pêche peu impactante dans des eaux peu profondes est bien vaine face à l'augmentation des températures. Quant aux brachiopodes ils paraissent, de par leur taille, insensibles à notre activité.
Créer une NTZ dans un endroit si fréquenté, de la taille d'environ 160 terrains de football, pour des motifs si peu fondés semble plus répondre à l'air du temps qu'à une réelle préoccupation de conservation.
En vous remerciant de nous avoir associés à cette consultation, best regards,
.
Contribution de M , navire
Bonjour,
Je suis armateur du , un caseyeur de Gouville sur Mer. Je pratique essentiellement la pêche du bulot dans le secteur du Buf et je pêche également les crustacés : homard et araignées.
Mon activité dans les eaux de Jersey est assez frontalière, je travaille à proximité du plateau de l'Arconie.
Dans votre document, je comprends que la volonté est de protéger les habitats et que les caseyeurs seraient moins concernés. Cependant, sur le secteur des Sauvages, vous parlez de les interdire car les filières abîment les fonds. Est-ce un projet à long terme sur les autres AMP ?
Le fait d'interdire les arts traînants dans de grands secteurs comme vous le proposez dans votre document va avoir de grosses conséquences. Nous sommes nombreux à travailler entre Jersey et la France, nous cherchons à cohabiter dans de bonnes conditions, en se respectent les uns et les autres et en faisant en sorte que le matériel soit respecté. Cela s'est fortement complexifié en 2021 lorsque plusieurs collègues ont perdu leur accès aux eaux de Jersey. Je travaille beaucoup sur la cohabitation entre les navires, notamment entre les arts traînants et dormants. Le fait de retirer encore des zones aux arts traînants va tout déséquilibrer et cela aura des conséquences sur l'ensemble des navires. Cela aura donc également un impact fort sur nos stratégies de pêche et nos possibilités de rotation entre les différentes zones.
La proximité entre Jersey et les côtes normandes est flagrante, nous sommes de proches voisins. Nous avons donc les mêmes enjeux, que ce soit écologiques ou économiques. En tant que pêcheurs, nous avons toujours cherché à assurer une pêche durable, respectueuse de l'environnement. Nous sommes habitués à prendre des mesures mais uniquement lorsqu'elles sont justifiées. Dans le cas des zones présentées ici, je me pose la question : savons-nous si les habitats que vous souhaitez protéger sont en bon état ? il y a-t-il un intérêt de protéger des écosystèmes qui vont bien au détriment d'activités économiques en place depuis des années ?
J'ai l'impression qu'il s'agit d'un moyen supplémentaire de nous écarter des eaux de Jersey. C'est difficile à comprendre quand on voit que les échanges entre pêcheurs ou avec les mareyeurs sont plutôt bons. Nous avons une histoire commune, et de longue date. Nous avons toujours travaillé ensemble et partagé la mer. Il ne faut pas oublier que nous sommes de proches voisins, il est donc important de le prendre en compte dans votre document et d'assurer les échanges entre nos deux régions afin de garantir nos intérêts communs.
Bien cordialement
Contribution de M , navire Madame, Monsieur
Je soussigné Monsieur patron pêcheur à Granville naviguant dans les eaux de Jersey depuis l'acquisition du navire de mon père qui lui-même naviguait dans ses eaux avec son premier bateau (la ) en puis avec le de à l'année de sa retraite. Mon grand-père naviguait également dans les eaux de Minquiers aux casiers avec son bateau qui s'appelait le dans les années 1970.
Je suis issu de la 6ème génération de marins pêcheurs. Avant le Brexit, nous pêchions régulièrement dans la partie sud-est, Est, Nord-est des Minquiers, ainsi que dans la partie Sud-est de Jersey particulièrement pour la pêche de la praire et de la coquille Saint-Jacques.
Je ne suis pas opposé aux Aires Marines Protégées (AMP). Cependant des petits navires arts trainants comme les notre peuvent pêcher dans les AMP françaises. Pourquoi être d'office interdit de pêche dans les AMP de Jersey ?
Notre chiffre d'affaire dans ces zones y est assez important pour notre entreprise familiale. Si nous perdions l'accès à ces zones telles que proposées par le réseau d'aires marines protégées, cela mettra notre activité en péril.
Nos règlementations régionales antérieures au Brexit nous permettaient une gestion particulièrement rigoureuse dans vos eaux (quota journalier, anneaux de 92mm, jour de pêche avec horaire, fermeture les week-end, ensemencement de cette zone, fermeture biologique de quatre mois et demi du 15 Mai au 1er Octobre).
Cela nous a permis de conforter la ressource qui se porte au mieux, notamment dans vos eaux. Je souhaiterai que vous preniez tous ces éléments en compte me concernant et vous en remercie d'avance.
Je vous d'agréer Madame, Monsieur mes sincères salutations.
Mr
Contribution of CRPMEM of Normandy to the public consultation on Jersey Marine Spatial Plan
CRPMEM Translated document (from French to English)
Contents
- INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
- Why does the CRPMEM of Normandy respond to this consultation? ......................................... 3
- Reminder of historical relations between Jersey and Normandy ................................................. 3
- Absence of taking Norman fishing into account in the consultation ............................................ 4
- Analysis of environmental diagnostics (Chapter 8) .......................................................................... 6
- Notes on the diagnosis of marine habitats ................................................................................... 6
- Habitats Methodology .................................................................................................................. 7
- Eel grass beds, a herbarium in good condition ............................................................................. 9
- Kelp forests, a resilient habitat ................................................................................................... 10
- Maërl banks, a non-threatened habitat ...................................................................................... 11
- Notes on the "No Take Zone" of the Sauvages Reef................................................................... 11
- The systematic exclusion of dragging arts without proof concrete ............................................ 14
- Analysis of the diagnosis on professional fishing (Chapter 9) ........................................................ 17
- Current Fishing Trends ................................................................................................................ 18
- Data used and mapping of fishing activity .................................................................................. 20
- Counter-analysis of the fishing activity of Norman ships ............................................................ 23
- Reaction to proposed no-go and fishing zones (Chapter 9.4) ............................................................ 33 5.An incomplete repository of sustainable fishing initiatives yet numerous (Chapter 9.7) ................... 34
6. Summary: A request for co-construction ........................................................................................... 38 TESTIMONIALS: Individual contributions from fishermen Normans ...................................................... 44
- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Why is the CRPMEM of Normandy responding to
thi | s consultation |
|
|
The Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) aims to bring together all the current issues present in the waters of Jersey and to provide a framework for organizing human and marine resources and activities while enabling the development of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The CRPMEM of Normandy was invited to respond by the Jersey authorities and, as a professional body, aiming to defend the interests of all Norman fishermen, we wish to make our contribution to this document to remind Jersey of the importance of Jersey waters for Norman fishing and to ask for our due consideration.
1.2 | .Reminder of the historical relationship between Jersey and Normand |
|
|
Jersey and Normandy are strongly linked by history. We were separated in 1204 when France regained possession of Normandy, forgetting the Channel Islands. However, our destinies have always been linked. Norman origins are also very marked in Jersey. In addition, there is the obvious geographical proximity between both regions. At its closest, Jersey is only 12.03 nautical miles (22.2 km) from the French coast.
This proximity has meant exchanges between fishermen for almost two centuries. Several agreements have already been signed: a source of numerous discussions. The latest one was the Granville Bay Treaty which had the particular objective of establishing common management measures concerning fishing in this area.
In the JMSP it is mentioned that this planning exercise will enable Jersey to fulfill its international obligations. In this paragraph, the obligations mentioned concern only the environment, including the 30x30 principle. We would like to remind you that Jersey is also committed to respecting the historic and pre-Brexit fishing rights of French vessels via a new post-Brexit agreement, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). In this context, Jersey is committed to ensuring that there are no discriminatory measures and to ensuring that activities are maintained as they existed before Brexit. It therefore seems essential to us that the definition of the network of marine protected areas is done in consultation with French fishermen to ensure they are taken into consideration.
1.3. Lack of consideration for Norman fishing in the consultation
The CRPMEM of Normandy notes that Norman fishing activities are barely considered in the definition of the proposed network of marine areas. Likewise, the impact and socio-economic consequences of such a network of MPAs on Norman fishermen, in Normandy territory, are not mentioned.
As cited in the MPA Assessment Methodology (Evidence Base document EB/NB/12), since spring 2023, 5 workshops were organized to consult stakeholders identified as essential to the deployment of the JMSP. We deplore that Norman and French fishing, historically present, have not been considered as an important stakeholder. We are all the more dumbfounded as during the consultation workshops, 100% (17/17) of the opinions on the question "recognize traditional commercial fishing zones within MPAs" are favorable. We therefore believe that French fishing, as a traditional activity for centuries in the waters of Jersey, must be considered and that some time to exchange on the subject could have been organized in 2023.
We would also like to know what the question "manage French fishing vessels better" actually means? of which 5/5 opinions are favorable, while French vessels, in Jersey waters, are those subject to the most restrictive regulations.
French fishing represents more than 50% of fishing activity in Jersey waters. The JMSP shows a desire to consider all the present activities, which is why it seems important to integrate representatives of French fishing into the entire process to find the "win-win" solutions, ultimately allowing the environmental protection objectives to be achieved, and to preserve Normandy's traditional fishing activities.
- Analysis of environmental diagnostics (Chapter 8)
In chapter 8 (the natural environment and biodiversity) of the consultation document, the variety of existing habitats in Jersey waters is presented. We observe that the waters of Jersey are divided into two large parts: in the West, relatively deep waters with habitats presenting few issues and, in the East, shallow waters where environmental issues are very important.
We first note that the proposed protection zones strongly overlap the fishing zones of Normandy vessels while certain sectors would have less impact on their activity, this is particularly the case for kelp. We are surprised by the distribution of habitats, and we question the studies which made it possible to produce this habitat map (p.95).
Next, the reference documents used for the writing of this chapter lead to some questions. We first note that many were written by the NGO Blue Marine Foundation which describes itself as aiming to restore the oceans following overfishing, one of the world's biggest environmental problems. Norman traditional fishing, with its very strict regulations in the sense of sustainable and responsible fishing, is in no way dictated by overfishing values. In addition, we have questions about the accuracy of the data used to characterize the habitats. Indeed, the MPA Assessment Methodology reveals that the habitat maps of the years 1970 and 1980 were updated in 2019 but with data from 2014. Based on data that has more than 40 years, the updated state of knowledge of habitats is still 10 years behind schedule.
These observations lead us to doubt the scientific rigor and neutrality of the studies used to construct this document.
- Notes on the diagnosis of marine habitats
Three habitats are presented as being of major concern:
- Eelgrass beds
- Kelp forests
- The maërl banks
These three habitats are listed in Annex V of the OSPAR Convention for the North-East Atlantic area. In the MPA Assessment Methodology it is mentioned that a minimum of 30% of each habitat to be protected must be represented in the entire MPA network and that it is flexible depending on the state of conservation and the surface area of habitats. We note that 100% of eelgrass beds, 89% of kelps and 86.7% maerl are within the proposed MPA network.
Without calling into question the need to protect habitats, we believe that it is possible to fulfill environmental objectives by redesigning marine protected areas whilst taking into consideration the socio-economic issues of French fishing.
- Habitats Methodology
Jersey, like France, aims to achieve 30% of its waters in marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2030. In order to achieve this common objective, it would be interesting to have consistency between the methodologies used by Jersey and France.
For information, the French authorities have a methodology called Fisheries Risk Analysis (ARP) which is not based on a precautionary principle but on a characterization of interactions gear/habitats. Thus, distribution maps of habitats of communal interest are crossed with those of fishing activities (for each gear/metier).
Then from these elements, a risk of degradation is quantified, for this we need to acquire the necessary knowledge on the sensitivity of habitats to physical pressures. This makes it possible to achieve a risk of habitat degradation for each type of gear (1 type of gear /metier).
The last step of this methodology is to estimate the risk of undermining the conservation objectives. This risk is determined from the combination of the risk of habitat degradation, and taking into account the level of concern of the habitat and local ecological parameters/ economic (professional fishing activities[39]). From these elements, we can assess a level of degradation: zero, medium and strong. Depending on the level, proposals for regulatory measures are issued and presented to fishing professionals for consultation.
A better understanding of the measures taken on habitats could have been obtained by providing more elements. Indeed, in the documents provided for this consultation, it is never specified the state of conservation of habitats. The main argument seems to be the extraordinary nature that these habitats present in terms of diversity. It is obvious that special monitoring must be granted to such remarkable habitats.
However, implementing preventive ban measures in economically important areas and having a strong spatial dependence for fishing professionals raises questions. Mainly, when the fishing effort as well as the real impact of fishing gear in different marine habitats are never quantified. The existence of 10 years photographic evidence for the Savages area is mentioned on p.86, but there is no reference to the evolution of habitats. It is probable that in 10 years, changes in the environment would have been seen if the gear used in this area degraded the habitats.
The elements available to us demonstrate habitats in a good state of conservation in historic fishing areas. The presumed impact of these activities therefore does not seem prohibitive for these habitats.
Thus, it could be interesting to provide additional information on the state of conservation of the habitats to be protected as well as to qualify and quantify the real impact of fishing gear on the seabed in Jersey waters.
- Eel grass beds, a herbarium in good condition
In Jersey waters as in French waters, eelgrass beds are present.
On the French side it is mainly present within the Chausey archipelago where the state of the surface of the herbarium has been known for a century, mainly through photographic monitoring which allows us to have a very detailed map of this habitat.
In Chausey, regular monitoring has shown that this habitat is constantly growing. since 1980 (Fournier, 2002, 2008, 2014, 2020; Godet et al., 2009 ). Indeed, from 164 hectares in 1982 (Godet et al., 2009), the Chausey herbarium covers at least 360 hectares in 2019 (Fournier, 2020). In addition, several studies prove that the regression of the herbarium before the 1980s was linked to the wasting disease' and not because of anthropogenic activity. It must also be emphasized that the redevelopment of the Chausey herbarium for 40 years has been carried out in the presence of fishing activities. The evolution of the herbarium can be explained by different factors, notably the natural dynamics of the species which is favored by the establishment of shellfish concessions (Fournier, 2020) but also favorable climatic conditions. A rare phenomenon on the scale of the European coast where most of the eelgrass beds are declining or stable. The surface regression of certain seagrass beds can be attributed to several factors. This habitat is very sensitive to temperature variations and water quality (Arias-Ortiz et al., 2018 ; Ondiviela et al., 2014 )
Over the last 20 years, the Normandy Breton Gulf has not experienced a period of intense cold, which could explain the emergence and development of eelgrass beds. It is also necessary note that this is a habitat with high resilience due to the presence of rhizomes. In the Chausey archipelago, no regulatory measures to restrict human activities are in place. They are also not justified given that this habitat is not conducive to the use of mobile gear. The fishermen themselves have put in place good practices which make it possible to reconcile fishing activities and improving the state of conservation of seagrass meadows.
These facts clearly show that this type of habitat is more sensitive to climatic hazards than to fishing activities.
- Kelp forests, a resilient habitat
This habitat was added in 2021 to the list of OSPAR habitats. It is recognized for its role in carbon capture but is not identified as a threatened and/or declining habitat. According to the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats and the 2021 study, Laminaria species spp. (which make up the kelp forests of Jersey waters) are not identified as "threatened or in decline" for our OSPAR region. Thus, it is indeed a habitat of strong ecological interest. but in no sense a rare habitat or one whose conservation status is threatened.
Granville Bay constitutes a sector of strong development of these species due to its low depth. Several species of kelp are considered in decline by the OSPAR convention. However, the main factor identified is global warming, in fact, kelp are very sensitive to water warming. But the last few winters have not allowed the water temperature to drop sufficiently. The impact of these warm winters is also being felt by other local species.
From a biological point of view, this habitat has the particularity of exhibiting rapid growth, which allows it to regenerate easily if it is damaged. These algae grow on hard bottoms unsuitable for mobile gear practice (seabed: rocks). It is also thanks to this strategy that kelp have been able to develop in the Normandy-Breton Gulf. Indeed, the region is exposed to significant swell, particularly during storms. The storms have strong consequences on the kelp forests which are uprooted, as seen en mass on beaches post storms. Furthermore, their ability to regenerate easily allows them to redevelop quickly.
It is important to take into account the different parameters having an impact on kelp before taking very restrictive measures on fishing. Fishing is not an adjustable variable. It would therefore be important to start by carrying out an inventory of the species present and reasons that lead to their decline if it exists in an observable and objective manner in order to take appropriate measures.
- Maërl banks, a non-threatened habitat
This habitat is present in all OSPAR regions. However, it is identified as being threatened and/or declining only in the OSPAR III region (Celtic Seas). The Norman-Breton Gulf, therefore Jersey, is located in the OSPAR II region (North Sea in the broad sense). The state of conservation of the banks of Jersey maërl is therefore not threatened. This habitat must therefore be considered differently from other OPSAR habitats.
It would undoubtedly be interesting to carry out additional studies aimed at characterizing more precisely the state of conservation of the maërl. Furthermore, this habitat is already protected at a site level by it's Ecréhous RAMSAR staus.
- Notes on the "No Take Zone" of the Sauvages Reef.
The Sauvages reef is identified as being very rich. Several scientific monitoring studies have been carried out there, allowing the presence of cold-water corals such as gorgonians (Eunicella verrucosa) to be observed. Their growth is slow, which makes them more vulnerable to abrasion. It's a cold-water species present in Jersey at the lower limit of its geographical distribution area. The main factor of risk for this species is therefore global warming.
The rest of the document leads us to believe that these species are also present in many other areas of Jersey waters. In addition, they are not subject to any international convention classification.
An inconsistency of protection issues
We note that the document presents a type of habitat specific to the presence of gorgonians, it is stable hard seabed. The area where the presence of gorgonians is identified in this habitat is the south west of Jersey's waters. According to the map presented, this is clearly the site identified as ideal for the installation of a wind farm. This really raises questions about the real interest in protecting gorgonians in a site like Les Sauvages, which would have a proven impact on Normandy fishing whereas it would be possible to condemn a large area where this species is present.
Absence of neutrality of the author in charge of the diagnosis
In the source documents, we found a report published by the NGO Blue Marine Foundation of September 2023 entitled "A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef, Jersey" (Evidence Document EB/NB/11). First of all, the author, Blue Marine Foundation does not seem to us to be a scientific organization in the sense that it is not neutral but clearly oriented against fishing. Furthermore, in this document, the source data appears to come from observational outputs organized via the Jersey administration. Finally, the fact of having written this report in September 2023 makes us wonder: is this a source on which the JMSP was based, so late in the calendar or is it the other way around?
The species identified are indeed interesting species but remain common in the bay of Granville.
This site also seems identified as being of phylogenetic importance due to the presence of brachiopods (Argyrotheca cistella). What is known about this species? When informing, ourselves we realized that it has also been observed in the sector of Herm. Furthermore, given the characteristics of this species, can it really be impacted by fishing gear?
The report also mentions the fishing activity present on the site. We don't understand how this data was obtained. Why is only scallop fishing identified and presented as the only activity in the area? There are also other significant fishing activities such as whelk and shellfish fishing which do not appear in this diagnosis.
Fishing that respects habitats and has no impact
This sector is an important fishing area, whether for potters or dredger trawlers. Concerning the mobile gear vessels, they have no interest in passing over the reef, they circumvent, currently navigation devices have now become sufficiently precise to avoid the reef while working nearby. This probably explains why these species are present and can develop.
We therefore cannot support the establishment of this No Take Zone:
- Just based on the elements provided. To justify such measures, it is imperative to base ourselves on scientific, neutral and bias-free studies.
- With erroneous or incomplete fishing activity data.
We oppose the establishment of an NTZ based on such weak elements in
an area presenting such challenges for Normandy fishing
- The systematic exclusion of mobile gear without concrete proof
We would also like to emphasize the fact that the measures proposed for the network of marine protected areas identified are essentially based on the precautionary principle, and not on locally acquired scientific evidence. Indeed, a recent study published in 2022 by IFREMER consisted of studying the impact of mobile gear on the seabed in the English Channel. This is the IPREM study initiated and carried out by Normandy fishing professionals. This study demonstrated that the fishing intensity of French vessels in the waters of Jersey is weak. In addition, the IPREM report reveals that the potential impact of mobile gear on the seabed in Jersey waters is very little or even zero (figure 1).
Figure 1: Potential cumulative impact of towed fishing gear on different vessel habitats Europeans in VIIth and VIId between 2009 and 2017 (figure 30 of the report)
Although the impact of a gear depends on intrinsic factors to fishing activities (surface area exploited, penetration into the sediment, etc.), it must be remembered that this impact also depends on environmental factors such as the nature of the seabed or the sensitivity of benthic communities to different factors. However, the IPREM project demonstrated that the sensitivity of benthic habitats, and therefore the real impact of a device, remains unknown in the Channel. On the French side as well as the Jersey side, there is therefore a lack of knowledge on this subject. Finally, IPREM indicates that in the Channel, the communities of the seafloor are both resistant to fishing effort and difficult environmental conditions and that the Resistance to these two factors is linked. There is therefore a real need for additional studies to discern the effects that would be linked to the environment, or fishing, as well as to define the real impact on what the different gear could have on the different types of habitats.
It is therefore necessary that the proposed protection zones are based on local scientific evidence, relating to the state of conservation of the habitats with identified sources and levels of pressures that are proven and quantified.
An example of a successful consultation reconciling fishing and environmental issues: Method for establishing Ramsar sites within the framework of the Granville Bay agreements
In 2014, Jersey proposed the establishment of habitat protection sites for maërl and eelgrass beds. This was the first environmental approach within the framework of Granville Bay.
This was the source of numerous debates in order to respond to all of the issues: protecting habitats of proven ecological interest while allowing activities to be maintained. The different steps are presented in the table below:
February 2014 | 1st contact Identification of the need for consultation |
June 2014 | Consensus on the need to protect habitats Request for charts sent by Jersey in July 2014 |
October 2014 | Request for details on the issues linked to these habitats by France |
February 2015 | Report presenting the challenges for the activity of French ships Proposal of new limits |
June 2015 | Société Jersiaise is mandated to carry out a study to identify the problem areas |
October 2015 | Discussions on the scope of future sites |
February 2016 | Agreement on the perimeter of the Minquiers site Normandy has reservations about that of Ecréhous Request for the return of the report from the Société Jerseyaise to be able to decide |
July 2016 | Publication of the Société Jerseyaise report Jersey proposes to extend the perimeter in the Ecréhous sector to protect the maërl Proposal for setting up a fallow system |
August 2016 | The JFA opposes the fallow system and calls for a definitive ban of mobile gear in this sector |
February 2017 | Agreement on the perimeter of the zone Normandy calls for a ban on scallop fishing (dredging and diving) |
September 2017 | Publication of the Jersey decree with a ban on trawling and dredging on the perimeter |
Through this example, we can see that the exchanges lasted 3 years, but this made it possible to achieve a compromise.
Furthermore, this work promoted the acceptance of such a project by (fishing) professionals.
This methodology should serve as an example for future projects.
- Analysis of the diagnosis on professional fishing (Chapter 9)
In this part, the CRPMEM of Normandy is sadened to see that only Jersey fishermen are considered, when the JMSP cites the objective of ensuring that one can continue to earn a viable living as a fisherman. As an example, with this current MPA project, the Norman ship LE STYX would lose 100% of its business, because it only works in Jersey waters and in areas that could become MPAs. In addition, we regret that there is no official reference document about French fishing. We strongly regret that only 2 lines in the JMSP are used to describe French fishing, and yet Jersey waters are so important to French fishermen who depend on these waters.
• "Today there are [...] 137 French Vessels." (P.130)
• "Jersey's waters are also fished by French fishermen under the terms of a post-Brexit fishing agreement with the EU." (P.130)
Then, we note that the JMSP presents a very confusing methodology which does not allow us to know how the activity of French ships was treated. The methodology used is barely described, the mapped fishing activities boil down to the presence/absence of vessels. Furthermore, it is only in the Maritime Activity Assessment (EB/G/22) that the use of VMS data for French ships is specified. Although the Maritime Activity Assessment presents an outline analysis of French fishing activities, a more in-depth analysis is necessary given the economic issues that exist.
Furthermore, in the MPA Assessment Methodology, the Minister of the Environment indicates that the development of the network of marine protected areas will be consistent with environmental objectives, global, economic and social". The term "global" makes us think that French fishing is considered in the development of the JMSP. Therefore, and within the framework of the TCA, it is necessary to consider French fishing as an economic issue in its own right. The term "global" leaves us also think that the environmental objectives and the challenges for French fishing will be
Figure 3: evolution of landings of scallops fished in the Western Channel and landed in Granville – Cherbourg – Saint Malo depending on the years
Marine species know no borders, so we all work with the same stocks. As demonstrated by Nicolle et al. (2017), the stocks of the different scallop shell deposits in the Norman-Breton Gulf are interconnected and dependent on each other to form one and the same stock. In this study, it was demonstrated that the recruitment and therefore the local stock of scallops from southeast Jersey depend largely on local stocks from Saint-Malo and Chausey. Thus, the management measures formerly applicable in Jersey waters, but also the stocking carried out since 2009 strongly contributes to the quality of the stock in the waters of Jersey. It therefore seems all the stranger to us to have contradictory tendencies.
We have a real common interest in ensuring sustainable management of fish stocks in the Bay of Granville, which implies the establishment of coherent work between Normandy, Jersey and Brittany and this in a concerted manner.
- Data used and mapping of fishing activity
In chapter 9.3.2 (Current spatial fishing patterns) on the current spatialization o |
fishing activities, the description of fishing activities is very succinct. From the wa |
this short section is written, we understand that the mapped activities are thos |
resulting from AIS data, control data and declarative data only for Jersey vessels. I |
the absence of a complete presentation of French fishing activities in the JMSP, w |
have consulted the source documents on which the JMSP is written; the MPA |
Assessment Methodology and the Maritime Activity Assessment. We note that |
French fishing activities are partially described. We would like to provide you wit |
our comments. |
|
Why have you not presented the methodology used and the data more precisely i |
the JMSP? In particular on French fishing activities which are mixed in with the |
activities of Jersey vessels? Furthermore, why have you carried out an analysis of |
French fishing activities without consulting the French services concerned so that i |
is as representative as possible? Why was the MPA impact study of the network on |
fishing vessels not taken up and presented in the JMSP? |
|
An incomplete cartography – Analysis of the description of French fishing activitie |
reference documents : |
In the Maritime Activity Assessment, there is an analysis of French fishing activities |
We observe that the data used was the year old VMS data, from July 1, 2022 (entr |
in force of the quarter-hour VMS obligation in Jersey waters for all French vessels |
until June 30, 2023. As cited in the document, one year of data is completel |
insufficient to carry out a fair and precise analysis of fishing activities knowing tha |
the activity of French fishermen contain interannual variability, not taken int |
account here. Furthermore, at this period and within the framework of the post- |
Brexit discussions linked to the TCA, we were in the middle of period of negotiation |
on the definition of the Nature and Extent of the activity. Fishing conditions in Jerse |
waters were therefore extremely vague. The regulations were fluctuating since th |
French regulations had to be maintained during the negotiations. It's only Februar |
be documented to avoid this problem. We also identify a risk of postponement of activity which could significantly deteriorate adjacent areas, which is a shame given that the overall impact remains moderate and the habitats are in good condition.
The MPA Assessment Methodology also indicates as an objective that the MPA network must minimize the impact on the fishing economy and it is recommended to carry out an assessment, vessel per vessel, of the consequences of marine protected areas once the JMSP is finalized and published. The analysis of the socio- economic consequences is essential but must take place during the process of consultation and establishment of marine protected areas.
What is the aim of this retrospective approach? Is it foreseing that based on the results of the impact of fishing activities there will be a questioning of the proposed areas of the JMSP?
What is the benefit of an individual approach to fleets?
How to minimize the impact on the economy when the areas proposed for the ban are modelled on the areas frequented by Norman fishing vessels? Why carry out this impact study only after finalization of the JMSP and not before?
We ask that this study of the socio-economic consequences on fishing vessels French is carried out BEFORE the finalization of the JMSP and in collaboration with the professional French organisations.
- Counter-analysis of the fishing activity of Norman ships
Given the weakness of the diagnosis of Normandy fishing activities, it is essential that the elements that we provide below complete it and their integration is the subject of an exchange between us.
A highly regulated Normandy fishery meeting the challenges of sustainable management
Norman fishing vessels have worked in Jersey waters for centuries and continue to do so to this day. Today, the main activities are divided into two types of professions:
- Static gear: shellfish pots, whelk pots, nets and line fishing
The activity is regular throughout the year (except in January when fishing is closed). We can also identify three major fishing sectors: Les Sauvages, Les Arconies and the north of Les Ecréhous.
Mobile gear
As part of the TCA, Jersey has chosen to allocate a number of days to mobile gear vessels in their waters, in order to take into account the versatility of these vessels. It is true that many of them can use several metiers on the same trip.
Concerning the data from the Valpena surveys, 17 vessels responded in 2020 out of the 27 concerned, or 63%. This allowed us to identify the most frequented areas (figure 8).
We can observe that a large part of the waters of Jersey are worked by mobile gear boats. The areas mainly worked are the West of the island and the entire eastern part of Jersey waters border with Normandy waters.
In the West, trawl and scallop dredge activities are carried out. On the eastern strip of Jersey waters, we find trawling and scallop dredging and clam and sea almond dredges. These professions are mainly practiced in the southern and eastern sectors of Minquiers, Les Sauvages and east of the Arconie plateau. This is explained in particular by the fact that these areas are sheltered from the prevailing winds, therefore more accessible areas.
For economic reasons, fishermen seek to limit their travel time, working in Jersey waters is not an end in itself but the response to a fishing strategy in order to find the balance between production and costs. These sectors are therefore essential to the economic maintenance of businesses.
The JMSP also specifies in its methodology that it seeks to find a balance between the ecological, economic, social and cultural issues. As such, the JMSP follows the marine space planning methodology indicated in the UNESCO Global International Guide on Marine Spatial Planning'. This guide indicates that the stakeholders to be considered in the consultation may be foreign stakeholders. As such and in view of the importance of French fishing in the waters of Jersey, it seems essential to us that French ships be considered and that their representatives be consulted unless they have been consulted during the year 2023.
Furthermore, the TCA is rarely mentioned in the JMSP, only twice out of ten lines in the part 4.2.4. The TCA still commits Jersey to respecting the precedents and historical activity of French ships in its waters. During its only appearance, the JMSP recalls precisely this obligation to respect the TCA.
The fact of prohibiting sectors widely used by French ships is therefore contradictory with the TCA since at no time were French fishing activities considered and at no time has Jersey sought to create a consultation dialogue to define marine areas protected areas excluding certain fishing activities.
- Reaction to the proposed no-go and fishing zones (Chapter 9.4)
The proposed zones correspond to the recommendations made in chapter 8. The data from frequentation of Norman ships in Jersey waters clearly shows that certain areas proposed represent sectors with high stakes for Normandy fishing.
After reading the MPA Assessment Methodology, we discovered that by 2030 Jersey will offer new additional protection zones in order to achieve 30% marine protected areas (figure 9).
In the figure below we can thus observe the priority areas to be extended as MPAs, when additional work will have to take place.
Firstly, we strongly regret that the intention to extend the network of MPAs around the areas currently proposed is not transparently displayed in the JMSP. It seems to us important that the perimeters currently proposed be appreciated in the light of all the goals.
Secondly, we note that despite the lack of recognized scientific knowledge, areas envisaged for the future are again found exclusively in the eastern part of the waters of Jersey. To the extent that MPAs appear to be associated with a systematic ban on the practice of dredging and trawling or even any fishing, the consequences of the network currently proposed followed by an extension of this network only in the fishing zones of Normandy vessels is extremely worrying.
In this context, it would be wise to review these perimeters in order to find solutions that allow you to fulfill the objectives of the JMSP, namely the protection of critical habitats, the achievement of the objective 30% protected areas by 2030 but also the sustainability of existing activities.
- An incomplete repository of sustainable fishing initiatives even
though they are numerous (Chapter 9.7)
First of all, this paragraph does not mention the measures and labels already in place, which is regrettable. We would like to remind you that fishing is already regulated, whether on the French or Jersey side. With an objective of sustainable management, numerous measures have been put in place. There are two levels of regulation: at a European level for species monitored by ICES (generally speaking these are fish and selachians) and at a regional level for other species (shellfish and crustaceans). For the latter, it is the fishermen, via the Fisheries Committees, who put in place measures based on fishery monitoring, to ensure sustainable and economically viable fishing.
The West Coast of the Cotentin is also an example of long-term management with monitored species and management over a very long time, this is the case for whelks for which the first management measures were taken in the 70s! If we take the example of this species, it has been the subject of numerous management measures taken over the years (see diagram). These measures aim to perpetuate the fishery and adapt it as best as possible to resource conditions.
In 2023, the reduction in the number of Normandy licenses made it possible to reach a total number of 65 licenses. Among them, 45 were associated with access to Jersey waters.
It is also important to remember that Jersey's waters have benefited from all the Norman management measures, these management measures until 2021 within the context of the common sea (la mer commune). In this mer commune context, a good number of common measures could be taken through the Granville Bay Treaty. This made it possible to ensure consistency in water management across the entire fishing fleets. Figures 10 and 11 present all the measures that have been taken jointly over the last thirty years.
The establishment of this common management, even if it remains subject to improvement, has made it possible to achieve coherent measures at the scale of local stocks which are compatible with their life cycles and biology.
In addition, the measures put in place on shellfish pots make it possible to respond to certain objectives of the JMSP concerning ghost fishing: these pots have the
sustainable fishing, this has also allowed a strong improvement in knowledge on the state of this stock.
We have every interest in continuing to work in this direction and working together to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries. We would like to remind you that we work on common stocks, unaware the border, we therefore have the same issues.
- Summary: A request for co-construction
As a professional structure aiming to defend the interests of traditional Norman fishing , the CRPMEM of Normandy wants to contribution to this consultation document with the aim of pointing out the importance of Jersey waters for Normandy fishing, and the need for this to be taken into account. Over the years, Norman fishing vessels have continually lost rights in Jersey's waters (table 1). This is associated with a feeling of injustice among professionals who do not do not understand the loss of rights while their fishing practices constantly evolve in the direction of more sustainable management and a reduction in fishing effort.
We would like to remind you that French fishing represents a significant part of fishing activity in Jersey waters and has been doing so for centuries. While their fishing rights have been significantly reduced by Brexit, and the post-Brexit negotiations are still not finalised, this new regulatory layer risks putting a terrible strain on already weakened fishing businesses. This therefore involves taking them into consideration as well as the economic issues associated with it.
• 40 year old data for habitat mapping has been updated with data from 2014. This data used dates back 10 years. Habitats may have evolved. You must update your knowledge with recent scientific studies.
• The state of conservation of the habitats has not been taken into account. To be consistent with the French work, and to adjust the necessary conservation measures, we hope that the state of conservation of habitats will be considered. For example, French MPAs make it possible to protect only necessary areas.
• The qualification and quantification of the real impact of fishing gear on habitats is not evaluated in the Channel. The level of degradation of gear on a habitat is unknown. You need to acquire more knowledge.
• Habitats may be affected by the environment, fishing, or both factors jointly. Currently, there is no knowledge to differentiate the origin of the effects on habitats. You need to acquire more knowledge before taking any measures.
• It is recommended to protect at least 30% of each habitat but this varies depending on the surface area and state of conservation of habitats currently, it is proposed to protect 100% eelgrass beds, 89% of kelp and 87% of maërl. It is therefore possible to find a happy medium to reconcile habitat protection and fishing activities.
We hope that fishing is not an adjustable variable to be sacrificed solely for the sake of fulfilling the objectives announced. Likewise, we do not want measures to exclude fishing activities taken even though a habitat has a classification as a good state of conservation', this would suggest that the objective is excluding fishing rather than really protecting a habitat.
On habitats of high interest:
• Eelgrass beds: the example of Chausey shows a resilient habitat with constant development since 1980 while there are no restrictive measures on fishing activities. The impact of fishing is therefore negligible: You need to monitor the evolution of seagrass beds in Jersey.
• Kelp forests: According to OSPAR, the conservation status of this habitat is not threatened in Jersey. These forests are not frequented by mobile gear boats because they are unsuitable for fishing in this area. The description of species making up
If I work entirely in Jersey waters, it's because I have no choice, no other places where I could fish for sea almonds (GKT). This very localized species represents 3/4 of my annual fishing.
I am one of the only vessels in Granville and even in West Cotentin to do this specialised type of fishing. Unlike other vessels which mainly fish around Chausey, with the possibility of shelter around the archipelago in case of bad weather, my type of fishing racks up additional diesel costs to reach Jersey waters. In addition, I have no shelter areas, I am always in the full force of the wind.
My type of fishing means I work in specific sectors. I have no choice but to work to the South and West of the Minquiers, around the existing RAMSAR zone. I also work in the sectors of CAUX, ANQUETE, GRUNE LA HAUCHE, Les ARCONIES, ECREVIERE and in the telephone cable sector.
All of these areas mentioned are essential to the proper functioning of my business.
I am also surprised that the fallout linked to BREXIT is not over and that our neighbors in Jersey already want to impose new fishing bans on us via marine protected areas (MPAs) by systematically excluding mobile gear. In France, MPAs do not systematically exclude mobile gear which thus remain authorized. So I'm at a loss. I would like to state for the record that I work on sandy bottoms, contrary to what the map of the habitats in certain areas state, and that I can certify to you that I have never brought up eelgrass, Kelp or Maërl in the sectors where I fish. Proof that mobile gear fishing is compatible in certain sectors. Protecting does not mean prohibiting.
Therefore, I ask you to study my personal case, to begin a dialogue in order to find "common ground". I would like us to be able to consult and discuss areas to be favored over others. I hope that we find solutions jointly that are suitable and accepted to everyone, as has been the case in the past for the RAMSAR areas which has proven itself.
Finally, I would like to inform you that the survival of my traditional fishing business and that of my family depends EXCLUSIVELY on my fishing in Jersey waters. My
with representatives from Jersey was initially hesitant, then constructive, then tense again against the backdrop of Brexit.
In 2000 the treaty established a sharp reduction in our fishing rights in the waters of jersey, a reduction widely agreed to and in return for which a system of co- management of maritime space was established. In this context, we have, by mutual agreement, defined the exclusion zones for mobile gear in the Minquiers and Ecréhous, which, while meeting Jersey's RAMSAR obligations, preserved our fishing rights as much as possible. This win-win system does not seem to underlie your current project where the majority of the areas that you propose banning mobile gear appears to be modeled to the main fishing grounds, while, in other areas, your protection charts and our activity charts do not overlap.
Furthermore, it seems that your protection zone must now absolutely exclude mobile gear yet this activity has, until now, not prevented the seabed that you claim to protect from prospering and that mobile gear,the TCA obliges, is not going to increase. For the sake of consistency, you would like to connect your network to the French AMP network. You will no doubt have missed that the activities of mobile gear are not prohibited there because they are considered to have little impact on habitats.
If your project were to succeed as is, it would constitute a significant reduction in fishing rights of our smallest mobile gear boats, excluding them from the areas closest to our coasts, which is contrary to the spirit of the TCA. This would be a very bad message to send in a context where the embers of Brexit have not been extinguished and where negotiations on the future are not completely finalized.
As far as I am concerned more directly, your activity records of the French potholders, for the crustaceans as for the whelk, show little or no presence in the eastern and southeast of Minquiers while we work there all year round, both outside and in the NTZ of Les Sauvages where despite regular activity for decades, the species that you say you want to protect seem to prosper. Species which for the gorgon, cold water coral, would be more sensitive to global warming than to fishing and whose protection by banning a low-impact fishing in shallow waters is futile in the face of increasing fishing temperatures. As for brachiopods, they seem, due to their size, insensitive to our activity.
solutions. All the more that there would be no problem for part of the sectors to be protected. However, some areas are sectors of concern for us, so it would be good to redefine the zoning.
In your document, you talk about taking into account all the issues, including those related to fishing, I hope in this case that you will identify the impact that the establishment of such sites will have on our activity and that you will take it into account when implementing your measures.
Hoping that you will take these elements into consideration, please accept my sincere greetings
4.4.4 Develop a Carbon Sequestration Framework
Although I accept that the smaller Seagrass meadows may have expanded, can we confirm this is true of the largest substantial meadow namely St Catherines harbour. In that area, substantial areas that should have seagrass cannot be productive due to seagrass mooring. The argument has been put forward that that area did not arise due to natural factors that should not reduce our regard for its importance since the potential for carbon sequestration is very high. New evidence supports the importance of avoiding in sediment disturbance.
Suggested Action - Annually measure St catherine's Harbour Seagrass and scrape areas. 5.4 Tides
The current circulation shown is potentially an oversimplification being 2 dimensional that does not indicate whether there are differences in current speed, water temperature and direction at depths. The tidal range and topography modify dispersal. There are inshore currents that run in the opposite direction. In some places there are gyres and hydrological anomalies. These affect species breeding and distribution with impacts on the commercial crustacean and mollusc industry. Dispersion along the north coast as an example is affected by smaller gyrations e.g. Bouley Bay. The states of tide and speed variation caused by topography all play a part in dispersion, settlement and algae blooms. The creation of a network needs to consider this as a key factor in siting decisions.
Action – Detailed tidal and topography study is needed.
6.3 Reference is made to Zostra and Kelp forests. There are very few extensive Kelp Forests', Rigdon Bank is a Kelp Park' and due to the slope gradient most algae on a reef is located on top section in a fairly narrow belt.
Suggested Action - A more accurate assessment of the Kelp communities – size and density.
P.70 Deep Sea- the description is misleading as we also have a deep channel running west to east between the north coast and Jersey. As a natural resource that area is important as it is not conducive to mobile gear.
P.91. JMC are not given recognition here for our contribution JMC/ Jersey Seasearch undertook a number of surveys, provided data and published reports notably for the Société Jersiaise that identified key species and communities on submerged reef systems notably Sauvage and Rigdon.
8.2 No Take Zones – Portelet Sub-tidal surveys. I have raised my concern that sub-tidal benthic surveys are very important. They seem to be being played down with inter-tidal studies, BRUVs, grabs and towed cameras being utilised. These methods do not identify diversity and small-scale species. Diving even though it cannot be part of a government operation should be outsourced and integrated within the NB 1 priority.
I once again have to ask for a more truthful statement as it is both unfair and inaccurate to attribute the proposal to protect the Sauvage to BMF and to suggest that Rigdon Bank was an anonymous suggestion. Since at least 2015, JMC have promoted Rigdon and published supportive data and reports. The concept of an NTZ has evolved as a mechanism for protection that fits with Jersey legislation but the call for some form of safeguard was initiated and has regularly been reiterated by JMC. The reef surveys were organised by us, following MB & Fisheries requests, principally promoted by Greg Morel . All the subsequent data was published and summary reports were also created. Publishing data that raises the profile of these key sites is an important part of a protection proposal. When asked to help with the BMF dive planning I proposed their 2021 visits as a continuation of our surveys. JMC published species reports for Rigdon in 2020 & 2021.
8.5.1 Contrary to the implied statement, I would suggest that the Jersey Wildlife Law does not offer the necessary level of protection. Although threatened species are listed, there is no association in this text with necessary habitat protection. Reference to OSPAR and ASCOBANS identifies Jersey as a signatory but does not recognise the absence of applied mechanisms that identify infringements. Human demands take precedence over animal welfare. Our monitoring program identifies regular and repeated disturbance affecting mammal life cycles and family structure. Vulnerable species are listed but frameworks for practical management have not been developed.
8.5.3 We are using thermal imaging drones to locate seal pups and breeding sites. Also, the equipment is helping us locate and map shallow water seabed areas. Could the licence be with the permission of the RMA Chairman and never during the breeding season. JMC uses the equipment to help us locate and extract fishing debris as that is the safest way to do so.
Possible action NB4 A licence must be obtained for drone flying and will only be granted to organisations with a legitimate scientific need to deploy the equipment.
P. 90 relates sitings to population. Numerous submitted public reports identify activity but since much repetition is possible these cannot be used to estimate population size. I would suggest High numbers of porpoises on p.90 be changed to High numbers of porpoise sightings have been submitted ..'. Sea haul-out sites used in the summer are full-filling a digestive and resting function. They are not necessarily breeding sites. None of our own surveys confirm the population sizes anywhere near the claims being made. The report Pinnipeds, people and photo identification: the implications of grey seal movements for effective management of the species' Sayer et al. 2019 provides useful suggestions for research and JMC are following this methodology in an attempt to accurately map distribution and behaviour. The OSPAR report on seal colony management suggests that we are not complying with that directive. The study Grey seal abundance patterns in the Channel Islands from 2010 to 2023' By G.Tully in which JMC had been participating, recommends revisions in methodology. More accurate recording also relates to my previous comment on drones. The MSP makes no reference to this ongoing study.
NB4 and all regular seal out sites should be considered..
8.6 I find myself struggling to agree with the 8d map. The area in green indicating Kelp distribution is very misleading. Rather than indicating where Kelp can be found, the map suggests actual area coverage and has the potential to be used to calculate carbon storage. This implication then distorts the importance of other seabed types. From our survey data CAFOR scale, the actual coverage is about 10% of that implied by the map from my estimates. I have to accept some of the responsibility for this as the Seasearch reports don't clearly quantify habitat area within a survey site. I know of very few kelp forests' in Jersey water. Possibly more study needs to be done to estimate Kelp density. Also, the generalisation on Seagrass is misleading. Zostera m. and Zostera n. function very differently and overlap different littoral zones; Management considerations for subtidal Zostera marina beds in Ireland' Dale eta al., 2008.
The section on Seagrass beds is misleading. St Catherine's Harbour is substantially larger and functioning as a significant seagrass meadow. JMC funded and supervised the report on the extent of the area. Investigating the carbon sequestration potential of seagrass (Zostera spp.) in St. Catherine's Bay, Jersey' Kuo, 2022.
8.6.3. Rock-Kelp Reference section to Seagrass Forests and the inference that we have numerous extensive dense areas is misleading Status and Trends for the World's Kelp Forests' Wernberg et al. 2019. A Kelp Forest should not to be confused with the presence of species Forest Kelp (Laminara
hyperborea).
Figure 1 Hardground unstable
8.6.6 The BC3 areas in fig 8j since they contain high inorganic carbon potentially should be considered as areas requiring some form of protection and there is a link to the Wind Farm proposals isn't there?
Figs 8k and 8l Once again the vocabulary is misleading. Yes, Maerl and Seagrass should be protected under OSPAR but the text implies that Seagrass protection is in place. Actually evidence demonstrates that areas of gravel and sand (ie mobile) are depleted of biodiversity through mobile gear disturbance.
8.6.8 Suggestion for revised stronger wording As a contracting party to the OSPAR convention the government of Jersey is now prioritising the aims of the ..'
Fig 8z Stage 6 & 7 not sure whether we have conclusive evidence of that!
Priority NB6 Excellent!! Does JMC deserve a mention here with 3 published reports? Fig 9j. Excellent proposals!!
Section 9.5 Areas of low crustacean yield are over potted. In some particular areas, Ghost pots and ropes foul active strings. There appears to be no proposed control over potting density which could potentially restore depleted reef based crustacean populations. My impression was that the reduction in Edible Crab and Crawfish was a big concern. Key sites for juveniles are netted and heavily potted. For example, Noirmont, Bouley Harbour, Bonne Nuit Bay and the tidal fringes of the SW Ramsar area.
10.7 & 10.8 The work by JMC and published information to recognise the significance of our wrecks is
absent here. The Maritime Officer Roger Hills and Jon Carter from Jersey Heritage, met with us in December, to discuss the situation and our proposals for the future. The MSP information is massively out of date and the map irrelevant.
I have already submitted a separate response to this through your feedback portal but include it again here.
From our research and numerous visits to the remaining wrecks, there is strong evidence that they provide a window on our heritage, acting as time capsules that reveal the importance of the maritime environment in the shaping of our culture. Also, data gathered by JMC demonstrates that the wreckages are functioning artificial reefs populated by high biodiversity including rare and unique species, providing protection for mobile juvenile communities, and acting as dispersal stepping stones. These factors align with the JMSP vision.
If, as I would hope the intention of 10.8 is, to formally recognise what remains, then potentially the second question is; how do we intend to document and monitor these sites while they still exist? Potentially should we be compiling a record that highlights their function within the JMSP?
I am not sure whether 10.8 clearly aligns with those objectives. As you astutely observed, preserving the wrecks for those wanting to visit without that turning into total exclusion is challenging and if not handled carefully, could result in legislation that prevents divers from exploring the sites. This is an important consideration.
Important questions need to be addressed. Can we maintain access while preventing the further removal of artefacts or destruction cause by activities that are causing structural damage and accelerating decomposition? Could we include the sites as exclusion areas for mobile gear and pot lines? As an example, protective solution, mooring points could be placed secured to blocks a few metres away from the wrecks, maintained and clearly marked.
The Schokland wreck diagram used in the JMSP could be clearer and more informative, has a key without explanation, is out of date and is copyrighted by the author. I would be happy to provide an updated free version of my diagram, see above.
The known wrecks map (10d) perhaps is misleading, as most sites marked indicate where ships and aircraft sank but as most vessels were fragile structures, very little that corresponds with most symbols visibly remains. The key to the diagram could be enhanced and be revised to better convey sites where visible wreckage remains. (I enclose a suggested alternative).
Potentially with some funding help from various sources, JMC could create short videos on each of sights that can be viewed by those interested in the wrecks and their history.
(JMC has been surveying and fulfilling Action CH7a and holding discussions related to CH7b and CH7c since 2015).
Action RT3b Examining this from a Ramsar and personal aspect, this should perhaps show positive and meaningful commitment that the public can identify with: the government will undertake a program that will improve and enhance beach and recreational opportunities within the St Helier area'. For example where is the recognition of the Ramsar area within the Town boundary or proposals to encourage activities along Greve D'Azette? To improve quality of life we need the development of marine linked educational facilities, that explore and utilise the harbours, inter-tidal pools and adjoining beach area, enhancing awareness and the healthy mind and body benefits. Cycle routes should be set up to allow safer access and reduce demands for parking.
12.2 Action XX As this work is essential, improvements to coastal defences should where possible include improved footpaths, cycle lane and possibly parking'.
12.3.2 No ground proofing of proposed cable sites looking at the impact on OSPAR defined important habitats.
End Ref EB/NB/12 data on the Sauvage reef and many other sensitive areas has been published by JMC
Thank you.
Jersey Marine Conservation
COMITE REGIONAL DES PECHES MARITIMES ET DES ELEVAGES MARINS DE BRETAGNE
---Article L 912-1 et suivants du Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime--- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION OF THE CRPMEM OF BRITTANY ON THE DRAFT OF JERSEY MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (JMSP)
The CRPMEM appreciates the clarity of the documents submitted for consultation and on which this opinion is based. It considers that these documents provide an enlightening vision of the guidelines for the protection and enhancement of the environment, as well as for the development of activities envisaged in the marine area of the Bailiwick. It regrets, however, that the documents underpinning the arguments developed in the draft report submitted for public consultation are not available. This makes it impossible to assess the scientific basis for the proposed protection measures and restrictions on activities such as professional fishing.
The CRPMEM appreciates the fact that the Jersey's planning process is taking place at a time when France is undertaking a major public debate on this issue. The CRPMEM points out, however, that the French waters adjacent to the Bailiwick are already covered by planning documents (Documents Stratégiques de Façade) adopted in particular under Directive 2014/89/EU. Taking them into account in the JMSP would have been an added value, particularly in terms of the coherence of public planning policies in the Golfe Normand Breton, and as an ecological entity in its own right. Similarly, the dossier submitted for consultation does not enable us to assess the stakes for French professional fishing in the context of the Jersey's planning process. In particular, the presence of French fishermen in Jersey waters appears too anecdotal through the rights put in place after the Brexit.
About the management of fishing activities to protect the environment :
The JMSP proposes the introduction of a three-tiered framework for the specific supervision of professional fishing activities aimed at protecting the marine environment and the resources dependent on it. This framework proposes to establish a supervisory regime that goes beyond the current regulatory framework. The CRPMEM regrets the failure to take into account the activity of French vessels in the description of current fishing trends in Jersey waters. No assessment of the socio-economic impacts of these three new regimes has been carried out within the framework of the JMSP. The CRPMEM demands that this aspect be considered before any decision is taken on regulatory changes, and asks that this assessment be coordinated with the French authorities and consulted with all stakeholders. It is at the disposal of the authorities to provide its expertise on the activity of the Brittany's fleets, but also on the state of fishery resources in the waters of the Normano-Breton Gulf.
The CRPMEM questions the merits of the proposed ban on dragging in submarine cable sectors, and calls for it to be withdrawn from the JMSP. Over and above the socio-economic impact, which has not been assessed within the framework of the JMSP, but whose negative consequences for the activities of French vessels are obvious given their location and geometry, the CRPMEM questions this measure on two counts. The first is linked to the history of submarine cable installation, which was completely buried precisely to enable the maintenance of dragnet activities. The second is linked to the objective of protecting the seabed. While the extension of the boundaries of the Marine Protected Areas appears to be well founded on scientific grounds, there is no scientific justification for banning dragging in these areas. The information presented on the habitats of interest and justifying their protection does not mention these sectors as being of particular ecological interest.
About the offshore wind farm project in the southwest sector of Jersey waters :
By the end of 2024, France has undertaken to draw up a spatial plan for the development of offshore wind power between 2035 and 2050. Given this planning context, the CRPMEM is asking for this process to be truly integrated at the scale of the Normano-Breton Gulf. The proximity of the Saint- Brieuc Bay wind farm and French waters likely to host new MRE projects calls for a fully integrated approach to this development. To this end, consideration should be given to setting up bilateral exchanges with the French authorities as part of a regional dialogue on the subject (in particular on the aspects of siting, connection and consideration of environmental, socio-economic and cumulative effects). As stated in the methodology, the JMSP principle requires that "the needs of stakeholders be taken into account".
The deployment of MREs in Jersey waters carries the real risk of further undermining the fishing capacity of French vessels in the sector, capacity already largely undermined as a result of the Brexit agreement in Channel Island waters and the siting of the Saint-Brieuc wind farm in French waters. Professional fishermen and the scientific community have also repeatedly pointed to the lack of knowledge about the direct and indirect impacts of marine renewable energy deployment on fishery resources and the environment. Aspects such as habitat disturbance and loss, changes in current patterns, disruption of species' biological cycles, noise/electromagnetic fields/vibration, discharges into the environment due to infrastructure maintenance, etc., are still being questioned and/or need further investigation.
The CRPMEM requests that the approach to deploying MREs in Jersey waters considers and integrates the feedback from the Saint-Brieuc Bay project on the one hand, and on the other, respects the commitments made in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (article 502 of the TCA) concerning the commitment of each party to authorize the vessels of the other party to fish in its waters with constant effort in relation to the reference period 01 02 2017 and 31 01 2020.
The CRPMEM would like to point out that the Avoid Reduce Compensate (ERC) approach has long been adopted in MRE projects in France and many other European countries. This approach ensures that the effects of projects (particularly cumulative effects) are taken into account, that their impact is assessed and that decisions are taken to minimize, reduce and, where necessary, compensate for them. The CRPMEM calls for a coherent approach, particularly in a sector where the marine environment, fisheries resources and socio-economic activities affected by different projects are shared.
A number of points relating to the Jersi wind farm project need to be clarified, in particular with regard to the consideration given to professional fishing activities. While the JMSP states that additional economic benefits will be studied (particularly seaweed farming), the subject of other activities such as fishing is not mentioned. The CRPMEM points out that coactivity with fishing activities prevailed for the Saint-Brieuc windfarm park, resulting in numerous exchanges with government departments and project developers in order to integrate the maintenance of activities into the architecture of the project, right from the earliest phases of the administrative procedures.
The CRPMEM reiterates its willingness to take into consideration feedback from the Saint-Brieuc project, and to draw inspiration from the procedures implemented to minimize the impact on fishing activities.
Rennes, January 25, 2024
The President of the CRPMEM of Brittany, Olivier LE NEZET
Appendix 3
Business Impact Assessment of the proposed Marine Protected Area network on the mobile gear fishing fleet
July 2024
Prepared by the Government of Jersey Marine Resources team and Economic team, with input from Tautenay Ltd and Terra Mare Ltd.
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Objective ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Spatial area loss............................................................................................................................... 5 Jersey mobile fleet assessment....................................................................................................... 5 Profit and loss analysis on the Jersey fleet ..................................................................................... 6 French mobile fleet assessment ..................................................................................................... 8 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Spatial area loss............................................................................................................................... 8 Jersey mobile fleet assessment....................................................................................................... 9 Profit and loss analysis on the Jersey fleet ................................................................................... 10 French mobile fleet assessment ................................................................................................... 12 Summary of results ....................................................................................................................... 14
The draft Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) was released for public consultation in October 2023. An instruction was given by the States Assembly for an expansion of Jerseys Marine Protected Area (MPA) network to be included in the JMSP. These MPAs are to be highly protected in that no mobile fishing gear (dredging or trawling) will be permitted within their boundaries. An evidence-based assessment identified 27% of Jersey's territorial waters as meeting the key conservation criteria required for inclusion within the MPA network (Chambers et al. 2023, and JMSP section 8.6.8). However, during the consultation process the commercial fishing sector raised concerns around the importance of parts of the proposed MPA network to vessels operating mobile fishing gear such as trawling and dredging. Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of navigating the MPA as many of the boundary lines were not straight or aligned to reference points at sea: please see the JMSP consultation summary report for more information, Marine Resources, 2024.
Amendments to the boundaries were made to take the above concerns into account and the new boundary consists of multiple zones (Figure 1):
- MPA (referred to as the initial MPA' in this report)
- Phased protection areas,
- Further survey work areas and
- Seasonal access areas (not included in this assessment).
The initial MPA is the area where mobile gear would be excluded at the earliest possible opportunity. The phased protection areas are areas with strong evidence regarding their habitat sensitivity, but they would be protected at a later date due to their high economic importance to mobile fishing. This phased approach is suggested to follow a timeline of five years or to close the areas to mobile gear by 2030, to allow time for those with an economic reliance on these areas to transition to new fishing areas. The survey areas are those that have been identified as having high economic importance and more work is required to refine the boundary, with further towed video surveys and benthic grab samples to determine hotspots and the overall distribution of sensitive habitat.
The seasonal access areas were highlighted as being important winter trawl fishery areas inshore around Jersey. Their original inclusion in the plan was for a) their shallow depth (identifying them as productive seabed) and b) for their proximity to the coast and therefore their increased conflict with other marine users (as the majority of coastal activities occur within 1 nautical mile of the coast). As coastal marine use is minimal in the winter (compared to summer), it was agreed that winter access would not conflict with the social use of these areas. Further, the benthic habitats are predominantly mobile sands (sand banks) which are thought to be tolerant to infrequent pressure from trawling that typically puts less pressure on the seabed than dredging (dredges consist of chain ring bags with metal teeth at the front, whereas trawls have rollers and a net/rope bag which drags over the surface of the seabed). Following these amendments, the MPA area is now proposed to cover 23.3% of Jersey waters.
Jersey licences both local and French vessels to fish in Jersey waters, employing a mix of mobile (dredging and trawling), static (pots, nets, and lines), diving and low water fishing. The make-up, operation and management differs between the two fleets based on economic, cultural and traditional factors. The Jersey fishing fleet is primarily a small inshore vessel fleet (all bar two vessels are < 12 m in length and one had not started fishing at the time of writing) made up of static potting vessels targeting crab and lobster, a mix of dredge and dive vessels targeting scallop, and a small number of vessels employing nets, lines and low water fishing. Currently, there is little trawling activity carried out by the Jersey fleet but historically this was a more regular practice. The French fleet has a similar proportion of vessels employing mobile gear compared to pots and there are a greater number of French vessels that are > 12 m in size (n~30) compared to the Jersey fleet. There are a number of French vessels employing trawls. For this assessment, it is only the mobile gear fishing activity in Jersey waters that has been assessed.
This assessment focusses on the proposed MPA network, covering both the initial and phased MPA areas. The initial MPA (including the No Take Zone equates to 22.3% of Jersey's territorial sea) will be designated at the earliest opportunity, whereas phased MPA areas (1%) will be designated at a later date. There are additional areas (3.7%) that require further survey work prior to deciding on their inclusion in the MPA network (Figure 1). The areas identified for further survey work have been included in the spatial loss section of this report, but economic analysis on these areas has not been carried out at this stage as the final areas for inclusion in the MPA network are undecided.
Figure 1. The initial, phased, No Take Zone, and survey areas of the proposed Marine Protected Area network. Note that the No Take Zone has been combined with the initial MPA area for this assessment.
The initial and phased MPA network will result in the displacement of some fishing effort from mobile gear. This report provides a high-level business impact assessment on the Jersey and French mobile gear vessels that are currently fishing within the proposed MPA network. This assessment has been carried out separately for Jersey and French vessels due to the different spatial and catch information available for each fleet.
The purpose of this assessment is to quantify the effect of displacement on both Jersey and French mobile gear fishing fleets:
- Loss of access. The area of fishable ground that will be lost to mobile fishing vessels (Jersey and French fleet);
- Estimate weight (kg) of king scallop (Pecten maximus) caught inside the proposed MPA areas (Jersey fleet only);
- Determine profit and loss scenarios where data are available (Jersey fleet only);
- Determine days at sea spent within the proposed MPA areas (French fleet only)
The area of fishable substrate for scallop and clam dredging was calculated inside and outside the proposed MPA boundaries (initial and phased) for each reporting zone. Areas with seasonal mobile gear restrictions have not been included in this assessment as they still allow access to mobile gear at important times of year. Fishable substrate was calculated using a habitat map that was created as part of the JMSP process (Chambers et al. 2023). The habitats were filtered for areas that were: (a) suitable for scallop and clams; and (b) accessible by vessels operating mobile gear. The European Nature Information System (EUNIS) level categories of habitats included in the assessment are detailed in Table 1. The combined area of these six habitat categories inside and outside the proposed MPA areas were used to calculate the area that would be closed to mobile gear vessels. This has been analysed for the initial MPA area, the phased MPA area, and the survey areas.
Table 1. EUNIS habitat classification codes, the corresponding JNCC code and a description of the habitat.
EUNIS category | JNCC equivalent | Description |
A5.14 | SS.SCS.CCS | Circalittoral coarse sediment |
A5.23 | SS.SSa.IFiSa | Infralittoral fine sand |
A5.24 | SS.SSa.IMuSa | Infralittoral muddy sand |
A5.43 | SS.SMx.IMx | Infralittoral mixed sediments |
A5.45 | SS.SMx.CMx | Circalittoral mixed sediments |
A5.51 | SS.SMp.Mrl | Maerl beds |
Jersey mobile fleet assessment
There is limited information on spatial fishing for the current Jersey dredging fleet as only one vessel is over 12 m and therefore warrants having a VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) unit. There are currently eleven authorised Jersey based mobile gear vessels, nine of which were in operation as of 2024, but only six were active during the assessment period for the Jersey fleet (2019-2022). Jersey had two active trawlers, one of which was sold and now only dredges, the other of which was sadly lost at sea. A separate assessment on trawling can be carried out in the future of the Jersey fleet if required. It is important to highlight that changes in stock density and abundance may occur within and across years at a regional and localised scale. The changes may be due to natural (environmental and biological) fluctuation and anthropogenic means (fishing, pollution, habitat alteration, etc.). This produces good fishing and bad fishing years on a localised and regional basis. On top of this markets (and their prices) and running expense (fuel, crew, etc.) may be subject to sudden or long-term change. Therefore, caution needs to be exercised when using historical fishing data to model future stock density and economic return.
For each day fished, landed catch declarations are legally required to be submitted including data relating to the catch (species and landed weight), gear used, fishing effort and a geographic reporting zone (Figure 1). As the proposed MPA areas do not align to reporting zones and therefore do not provide a resolution sufficient to understand the fishing activity inside the MPAs. However, a percentage loss has been calculated for each zone based on the fishable substrate and MPA area within each reporting zone. This can then be applied to submitted landings data to quantify the weight of scallop that was caught in the proposed MPA areas. This catch (by weight) will represent what the fishing industry in Jersey will have to catch elsewhere (displaced activity) to maintain the same level of catch, if the current proposed MPAs (initial and phased) are put into place. Note that this only provides an estimated weight (kg) of catch as Landings Per Unit Effort (LPUE) will vary across the reporting zones and also across the MPA areas.
Figure 2. Reporting zones for fishing activities with the proposed MPA network overlaid. The Initial and No Take Zone are combined for this assessment as they will both have the same impact on mobile gear fisheries. The reporting zones are illustrated by the blue lines, with the reporting zone name labelled along its perimeter.
Profit and loss analysis on the Jersey fleet
A profit and loss analysis was carried out by the consultancy Tautenay who have worked extensively in Jersey on marine economic issues over the last five years. This analysis was done on a vessel-by-vessel basis for the six scallop dredgers that were active during the assessment period (2019 and 2022). This analysis was carried out for the initial and phased MPA areas a whole. All profit and loss results are presented as an average for the above 11 m vessel size and below 11 m vessel size. This is because the above 11 m vessels have greater operating costs and therefore different profit and loss margins.
Vessel profitability was calculated with reference to the UK Economic Fleet Estimates produced annually by Seafish. These estimates are produced for each segment of the UK fishing industry, with comparable datasets available for UK scallop dredge vessels under 15m; and for UK pot and trap vessels between 10–12 m. The UK estimates include all fishing costs (e.g. commission, bait and harbour dues, gear repair and insurance) as well as vessel ownership costs (finance, harbour fees, insurance, etc) and they allow for an estimate of the operating profit for individual vessels based on engine size and days at sea.
One adjustment was made to the UK data set so that it was applicable to Jersey. Fuel consumption for the current scallop dredging operation are estimated to be between 38-51% lower for the Jersey fleet than the comparable UK fleet; i.e. using 200-250 litres/day in Jersey compared to an average of 524 litres/day within the UK. These lower costs are due primarily to the close proximity of Jersey's scallop dredging grounds to the port of St Helier where the mobile gear fishing fleet are based. Crew costs for the current Jersey operation are estimated to be the same as in the comparable UK fleet e.g. two crew for a four-a-side dredge; three crew for a six-a-side dredge; and other operating and vessel ownership costs are assumed to be similar across the jurisdictions.
Jersey data for vessel length, power, fishing effort and fish caught were provided in anonymised form for the period 2018-2022. There were six scallop dredging vessels within the dataset, of which the two largest vessels were solely or predominantly dredgers and the remainder employed multiple fishing metiers.
Vessel costs (i.e. the fixed costs of vessel ownership, regardless of fishing effort) were calculated for the two largest and most active dredgers as the average vessel costs for 2018-2022 for scallop dredgers less than 15 m in length. For the remaining vessels, all of which were in the region of 10m in length, the average vessel costs for 2018-2022 for potting vessels 10-12 m in length were used.
Fishing income was calculated by reference to the published prices achieved at first sale in the fish market at Granville, which were cross-referenced with UK prices at first landing and through discussion with the JFA.
The two largest vessels and one of the smaller vessels were single-metier across one or more years, allowing simple analyses. For the remainder, estimates were made of the number of days dredging by reference to the record of dredges towed, with the assumption that a vessel would either dredge or use another metier on any one day at sea, but would not dredge and use another metier in the same day. The none-dredge days were assigned to pots and traps.
To estimate the economic impact on individual vessels, three scenarios were considered:
• A reduction in overall days of scallop fishing effort of either 15% or 25%;
• A shift of either 15% or 25% days of scallop fishing from the current scallop fishing grounds to alternative (hypothetical) grounds at a greater distance from Jersey's shore and yielding a lower catch per unit effort, so increasing fuel costs and decreasing catch volumes;
• For vessels operating more than one metier in 2022, a shift of either 15% or 25% days of scallop fishing to pots and traps. In this case we assume that vessels would increase the days spent on pots and traps in proportion to the decrease in days scallop dredging, and that the profitability of pots and traps is in proportion to current activity in this metier. This of course assumes that there is the capacity for additional pots and traps in the immediate vicinity.
Two figures were used to estimate the impact of a projected shift to fishing in waters that (i) are further from the Jersey coastline and (ii) are assumed to be less productive:
• For the four smaller vessels, for the proportion of days that are estimated as lost to scallop fishing in current grounds, fuel costs were increased by 20% and catch volumes were decreased by 20%;
• For the two larger vessels, for the proportion of days that are estimated as lost to scallop fishing in current grounds, fuel costs were increased by 10% and catch volumes were decreased by 20%.
French mobile fleet assessment
The dataset available for licenced French vessels fishing in Jersey waters differs to that of the Jersey fleet. Spatial information is much more detailed as all French vessels fishing for scallops and clams must by law have Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) that track their position while at sea. The assessment years in this analysis are 2019-2023.
In accordance with analyses undertaken with the EU as part of the TCA implementation, fishing activity was identified from VMS data as being periods of time when the vessels moved at (or equal to) six knots in an areas where fishing activity was permitted. The use of metier specific permits by the Normandy and Brittany authorities and, since February 2022, the Jersey authorities, permit vessels to be categorised as either mobile' (the vessel exclusively holds dredging and trawling permits), static' (potting, netting or lining permits) or mixed' (mobile and static gear permits). Only vessels in the mobile' and mixed' categories are considered here as this assessment details loss relating to trawling and dredging. It should, however, be noted that the proposed No Take Zone (NTZ) at Les Sauvages could affect static gear vessels.
Licenced French fishing have been required to submit landed catch data to the Jersey authorities since May 2021. However, compliance with this requirement has taken time to achieve which means that catch submissions for French vessels operating in Jersey waters during 2021 was patchy and, while better in 2022 and 2023, still incomplete. Additionally, not all submitted logbooks from French vessels had corresponding VMS data for the same day. Logbooks without corresponding VMS data accounted for approximately 10% of the dataset. Due to having limited catch (kg) weight information for all vessels, it was not possible to calculate a reliable estimate of catch (kg) of scallop and clam from the proposed MPA area for French vessels.
A high-level assessment of trawling activity was carried out to determine the percentage of time spent in the proposed MPA network across the French fleet.
The spatial area was assessed for the multiple types of MPA designation that have been recommended (initial, phased and survey). The initial and phased percentage are the areas that are both high priority areas for protection, whereas the survey areas are those that need further information before a decision to designate is made. Therefore, it is the initial and phased total in Table 2. Initial, phased and survey MPA areas as a percentage of each reporting zone. that will be used for this economic assessment but the survey areas have been included for transparency.
The overall area of fishable scallop and clam substrate that will be protected within the initial MPA area is 20.7%, with a further 1.2% to be protected within the phased MPA area. The area of initial protection will be greatest in zone 26E7JSY which includes the Minquiers reef, the initial proposed MPA in this zone covers 37.8% of the area, with a further 3.1% of the area to be protected once the phased MPA area is brought in, resulting in 40.9% protection, and therefore 40.9% spatial loss of mobile gear fishing ground (Table 2). Zones 27E8JE and 27E7JE have similarly high levels of initial protection at 33.4% and 33.5% respectively. Neither of these zones have phased protection recommended, but there is a large survey area for zone 27E8JE (18.5%). Zone 27E8JSY has 8.8% of its area recommended for initial protection and a further 1.4% of phased protection which totals 10.2%. The last two zones have relatively low initial MPA protection areas, Zone 26E8JSY at 9.7% and Zone 27E7JSY at only 1%, neither have phased protection recommended.
Table 2. Initial, phased and survey MPA areas as a percentage of each reporting zone.
Reporting zone | Initial MPA % | Phased MPA % | Total initial and phased % | Survey Area % | Total with survey area % |
26E7JSY | 37.73 | 5.70 | 43.43 | 3.10 | 46.64 |
26E8JSY | 9.69 | 0 | 9.69 | 0.06 | 9.75 |
27E7JE | 33.53 | 0 | 33.53 | 0.35 | 33.89 |
27E7JSY | 1.02 | 0 | 1.02 | 0.07 | 1.1 |
27E8JE | 33.35 | 0 | 33.35 | 18.45 | 51.81 |
27E8JSY | 8.79 | 1.36 | 10.15 | 16.32 | 26.47 |
Jersey mobile fleet assessment
Each vessel was assessed separately using their logbooks to calculate annual catch weight (kg) for each reporting zone. This was then adjusted based on the total percentage of initial and phased protection to calculate a loss of fishing (i.e. if 100 kg of scallop was caught annually in one of the zones and 20 % of that zone is proposed to be included in the MPA, this would equate to a loss of 20 kg per annum). To ensure anonymity in this report, this has been calculated as an average for each zone based on the data from all six scallop dredging vessels.
The average catch from within the proposed MPA areas across the four years was calculated to be 39,815 kg per year (18% of total catch), with 38,736 attributed to the initial MPA area and 1,079 to the phased MPA area (Table 3). However, 2019 and 2020 were considered to be poor for fishing in general due to effects from Brexit and covid. If only considering the latest two years of data (2021 and 2022) the average catch is 54,621 kg (52,709 kg from the initial MPA and 1912 kg from the phased MPA), which is 19% of the total catch for 2021 and 2022.
Table 3. Total annual catch from scallop dredging vessels from each reporting zone and an estimated potential loss of catch (kg) of scallops as a result of closure to scallop dredging inside the proposed MPAs (initial and phased.
Year | Zone | Annual kg | Displaced % initial MPA | Displaced % phased MPA | Displaced kg initial MPA | Displaced kg phased MPA | Total displaced kg |
2019 | 26E7JSY | 2,350 | 37.73 | 5.70 | 887 | 134 | 1,021 |
26E8JSY | 13,680 | 9.69 | 0 | 1,326 | 0 | 1,326 | |
27E7JE | 49,105 | 33.53 | 0 | 16,465 | 0 | 16,465 | |
27E7JSY | 88,026 | 1.02 | 0 | 898 | 0 | 898 | |
27E8JE | 15,192 | 33.35 | 0 | 5,067 | 0 | 5,067 | |
27E8JSY | 750 | 8.79 | 1.36 | 66 | 10 | 76 | |
2019 total | 169,103 |
|
| 24,707 | 144 | 24,852 | |
2020 | 26E7JSY | 2,515 | 37.73 | 5.70 | 949 | 143 | 1,092 |
26E8JSY | 38,590 | 9.69 | 0 | 3,739 | 0 | 3,739 | |
27E7JE | 47,955 | 33.53 | 0 | 16,079 | 0 | 16,079 | |
27E7JSY | 6,930 | 1.02 | 0 | 71 | 0 | 71 | |
27E8JE | 7,970 | 33.35 | 0 | 2,658 | 0 | 2,658 | |
27E8JSY | 15,020 | 8.79 | 1.36 | 1,320 | 204 | 1,525 |
2020 total | 118,980 |
|
| 24,817 | 348 | 25,164 | |
2021 | 26E7JSY | 5,100 | 37.73 | 5.70 | 1,924 | 291 | 2,215 |
26E8JSY | 87,008 | 9.69 | 0 | 8,431 | 0 | 8,431 | |
27E7JE | 48,285 | 33.53 | 0 | 16,190 | 0 | 16,190 | |
27E7JSY | 31,233 | 1.02 | 0 | 319 | 0 | 319 | |
27E8JE | 36,205 | 33.35 | 0 | 12,074 | 0 | 12,074 | |
27E8JSY | 49,229 | 8.79 | 1.36 | 4327 | 670 | 4,997 | |
2021 total | 257,060 |
|
| 43,265 | 960 | 44,226 | |
2022 | 26E7JSY | 49,685 | 37.73 | 5.70 | 18,746 | 2,832 | 21,578 |
26E8JSY | 119,170 | 9.69 | 0 | 11,548 | 0 | 11,548 | |
27E7JE | 63,195 | 33.53 | 0 | 21,189 | 0 | 21,189 | |
27E7JSY | 45,725 | 1.02 | 0 | 466 | 0 | 466 | |
27E8JE | 29,975 | 33.35 | 0 | 9,997 | 0 | 9,997 | |
27E8JSY | 2,350 | 8.79 | 1.36 | 207 | 32 | 239 | |
2022 total | 310,100 |
|
| 62,153 | 2,864 | 65,017 | |
Annual average | 213,811 |
|
| 38,736 | 1,079 | 39,815 |
Profit and loss analysis on the Jersey fleet
The total landings of scallops by Jersey vessels (dredged and hand dived) is shown in Table 4, alongside the landings estimated by Marine Resources to be fished from the MPA areas from 2019-2022, and the proportion by which this might be subsequently reduced, estimated by Marine Resources based on vessel logbook data (see previous section).
Table 4. Scallop landings in Jersey (total and dredged) and estimates of catch from proposed MPA.
Year | Total landings | Of which from scallop dredgers (% of total)) | Estimated reduction by MPA designation (% of dredged)) |
2019 | 293,514 kg | 169,103 kg (58%) | 24,851 kg (15%) |
2020 | 240,124 kg | 118,980 kg (50%) | 25,164 kg (21%) |
2021 | 346,566 kg | 257,060 kg (74%) | 44,225 kg (17%) |
2022 | 473,138 kg | 310,100 kg (66%) | 65,016 kg (21%) |
If we assume a consistent relationship between catch landed and days fished, then the proportion of days of scallop fishing effort that would be lost by designation of the proposed MPA ranges from 15% in 2019 to 21% in 2021. For the purpose of our subsequent analyses we have used 15% and 25% as the lower and upper estimates of days fishing lost.
Average baseline data for the above and below 11 m vessels operating in the year 2022 is presented in Table 5. Note that for 2022 there was a significant increase in fuel prices which impacted across all operating costs other than crew. Whilst the inflationary pressure has subsequently reduced, it remains the case that the 2022 figures are the nearest approximation that can be made to current costs.
Table 5. Averaged baseline operating profit per vessel for > 11 m and < 11 m vessels.
Vessel ID | < 11 m | > 11 m |
Total days at sea | 100 | 73 |
- Of which scallop dredging | 58 | 73 |
Scallops – value at first landing | £73,714 | £237,983 |
Other fish – value at first landing | £23,479 | £258 |
Total income | £97,192 | £238,112 |
Costs - dredging | £47,563 | £98,672 |
Costs - potting | £31,616 | - |
Profit before vessel costs | £25,918 | £139,441 |
Vessel ownership costs | £41,260 | £70,340 |
Operating profit | -£15,083 | £69,141 |
Looking at the data for 2022, there are two factors that should be borne in mind when looking at the economic impacts of reduced scallop dredging activity:
- When vessel ownership costs are taken into account the four < 11 m vessels in this study were loss making in 2022. Only the > 11 m (and predominantly scallop dredging) vessels were profitable.
- Potting was only marginally profitable or was loss making for the < 11 m vessels that were potting in 2022, whereas scallop dredging (before vessel ownership costs) was profitable across all six vessels (regardless of size of vessel).
Table 6 shows the impacts of scenarios for reduced dredging activity on vessel operating profit. The impact of reduced scallop fishing activity was to reduce profit for both size class of vessel. The impact was generally greatest when this was a straightforward drop in activity, e.g. for > 11 m vessels a straightforward 15% reduction in activity resulted in a 30% reduction in operating profit, whilst a transfer of this "lost activity" to more distant fishing grounds (with a commensurate reduction in catch) still resulted in a 11% drop in operating profit. A 25% reduction in effort is estimated to result in 50 % decrease in operating profit for > 12 m vessels.
Transferring effort from scallop dredging to potting slightly exacerbated the losses for the < 11 m vessels employing multi-metiers, with an extra loss of £1,888 on average. This reflects the marginal profitability of potting for these vessels.
Table 6. Operating profit under different scenarios for reduced dredging activity.
Vessel ID | < 11 m | > 11 m |
Baseline profit (2022) | -15,083 | 69,141 |
15% reduction in activity | -18,983 | 48,244 |
15% transfer to alternative grounds | -17,600 | 61,684 |
15% transfer to potting | -20,871 | - |
25% reduction in activity | -21,620 | 34,313 |
25% transfer to alternative grounds | -19,278 | 56,713 |
25% transfer to potting | -23,449 | - |
French mobile fleet assessment Days fished
Of the 131 French vessels currently licenced to fish in Jersey waters, the proposed MPA areas (initial and phased) have the potential to affect 50 vessels (41 operating mobile gear only and nine operating a mix of static and mobile gear). The proposed MPA network consists of the initial MPA area and the phased MPA area.
From the VMS data, the number of days fished was analysed and results can be seen in Table 3 below. Fishing that took place either inside the initial MPA area or inside the phased MPA area is expressed in the table below as a percentage of the total fishing activity observed across Jersey's territorial waters. The percentage of activity falling within each of the areas highlighted is less than 10% for each of the five years analysed, with the average percentage of activity being 7.82% within the initial MPA and 6.12% inside the phased MPA.
Table 3. Percentage of total fishing activity inside initial and phased MPA area
Year | Total days inside Initial MPA area | Total days inside Phased MPA area | Total outside | days | Total days | % inside Initial MPA area | % inside Phased MPA area |
2019 | 131 | 142 | 1358 |
| 1631 | 8.03 | 8.71 |
2020 | 51 | 23 | 910 |
| 984 | 5.18 | 2.34 |
2021 | 112 | 73 | 1341 |
| 1526 | 7.34 | 4.78 |
2022 | 186 | 127 | 1558 |
| 1871 | 9.94 | 6.79 |
2023 | 206 | 191 | 1994 |
| 2391 | 8.62 | 7.99 |
Vessel usage inside the MPA areas
Further analysis of this data looked at the vessel level impacts and percentage usage within the two areas (initial and phased). It was important to do this to identify any heavy weightings or concentrated usage by any vessels. The data was analysed in two sections, firstly the usage by vessels between 1- 50% of their time (Figure 3) and secondly those vessels who did not use the areas (Table 4.).
In general, for the vessels that utilised the initial and phased MPA areas for fishing, the majority used these areas between 1-10% of the time.
For the mobile gear vessels inside the initial MPA area in 2023, four vessels fished in the area for between 20-30% of their time, and no vessels spent more than 30% of time within the area. The last time usage of 40-50% was seen was by one vessel back in 2021. For the mixed vessels inside the same area, less usage still can be observed, with no usage figures over 20% for the period 2021-2023. In 2023, one vessel used the area for 10-20% of their time and three vessels spent between 1-10% of their time.
For the mobile gear vessels within the phased MPA area in 2023, two vessels fished in the area for between 20-30% of their time, and one vessel for 20-30% of their time. For the mixed vessels inside the same area during 2023, only three vessels spent 1-20% of their time in the area
Figure 3. Fishing activity as a proportion of total activity in the initial MPA for a) mobile gear and b) mixed vessels and in the phased MPA area for c) mobile gear and c) mixed vessels
Time not spent in the MPA areas
Of the French vessels that fished within Jersey waters between the years 2019-2023, in some years there were a number of vessels who did not spend any time fishing within either the initial MPA area or the phased MPA area (Table 7).
In 2023, 62% did not access the initial MPA area and 81% of mobile gear vessels did not access the phased MPA area. Overall, more mixed vessels entered the initial MPA in comparison to mobile vessels. This is assumed to be because mixed vessels will be spending a proportion of their time using static gear within the reef systems that primarily fall with the initial MPA areas. In respect of the phased MPA area, similar proportions of entry between mobile and mixed gear are seen. This is likely due to the phased MPA areas being predominantly sedimentary habitat which is typically targeted by mobile gears and therefore only affects mixed vessels when they are using mobile gear.
Table 7. Percentage of vessels that did not fish inside the initial MPA area or phased MPA area during each year
|
| |||||
Initial MPA | Phased MPA | |||||
| Mobile gear | Mixed gear | Mobile gear | Mixed gear | ||
2019 | 68% | 33% | 76% | 67% | ||
2020 | 83% | 29% | 79% | 71% |
2021 | 77% | 50% | 79% | 63% |
2022 | 59% | 38% | 61% | 75% |
2023 | 62% | 56% | 81% | 67% |
Trawling assessment
Trawling (pair trawling and beam trawling) accounted for only nine fishing days from two vessels inside the proposed MPA zones in 2023. In terms of hours fished, 8 hours (0.7%) of trawling occurred inside the proposed initial MPA at the Ecrehous, and 20 hours (1.7%) inside the proposed phased MPA at the Ecrehous. Trawling did not occur in any other proposed MPA area.
The potential impact of the proposed MPA network has been quantified for both the Jersey and French mobile fishing fleets. As a whole (initial and phased), the proposed MPA network would exclude mobile fishing from 20.7% of fishable scallop and clam substrate that is currently open to mobile gear fishing. The spatial loss, in terms of fishable scallop and clam seabed, varied across the six reporting zones (between 1 and 43 %).
The data available for Jersey and French fishing fleets were not consistent with one another, so different analyses were performed. For the Jersey fleet, the average annual catch (2019-2022) of scallop from the MPA areas was 39,814 kg, which was 18.6% of the annual average catch (213,811 kg). This translated into a greater loss of operating profit when operating costs were taken into account, with the larger vessels (> 11 m) would be likely to experience a 30% reduction in operating profit from a 15% reduction in fishing days. However, it is expected for both the Jersey and French mobile fishing gear vessels that it will be possible to displace some or all of their fishing to areas outside of the MPA network in the long-term.
For French vessels, a weight of catch from the zones could not be determined but as a percentage of French vessel fishing days they spent 13.9% of their time inside the proposed MPA areas (7.8% initial, 6.1% phased). There are a number of French vessels that operate both scallop and clam dredges. Scallop dredges target king scallop (Pecten maximus) and clam dredges target praire/warty venus (Venus verrucosa) and dog cockle/amande (Glycymeris glycymeris). It is not possible to determine which type of dredging occurred based on VMS data but the impact of the MPA network will differ between these two metiers as the species targeted hold different market values.
Due to there being a greater number of French vessels targeting scallop and clam in Jersey waters compared to Jersey vessels, there are a greater number of French vessels that will be impacted. However, a large portion of the MPA network falls within Jersey's three-mile exclusive fishing area where French vessels are not permitted. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed MPA network will have a greater impact on the Jersey mobile gear vessels on an individual basis.
In summary, the economic effect of a marine spatial plan will, in the short-term, be to increase costs of the fishing fleet that currently operates in the areas that will form the MPA network. This fleet won't be able to fish in the waters covered by the MPA network and so can be expected to incur additional costs (from having to travel further to other areas). The amount of catch may be affected, if for example, the LPUE from the seabed that the fleet moves to is lower than the catch from the areas they have been displaced from but no evidence is available for this yet. The effect on revenues is unclear but it is expected that prices should adjust to a change in catch. In the medium and longer term, the economic impact of the proposed MPA network is expected to be negligible. A review of 51 MPAs (Costello, 2024) suggested that marine protected areas lead to an increase in fish stocks and catch volumes which outweighs any short-term disruption.
This assessment has only focused on the impact to vessels that will be excluded from the proposed MPA network. While an assessment has not been carried out, it is necessary to highlight the potential gain to other fleets as a result of the proposed MPAs. Scallop diving and static gear vessels would gain fishing ground through removal of conflict from mobile gears. There is also an assumed benefit from the removal of mobile fishing gear in terms of improved ecosystem functioning which is likely to benefit both the biodiversity and fishery species inside and outside the MPAs. Results from a dive survey inside and outside the current MPAs has shown a greater density of scallops per m2 inside the MPAs compared to outside the MPAs. It is expected that similar results will be seen for the proposed MPA network in time. A full economic assessment on value and impact of the MPAs is needed to quantify the changes to other fishing metiers, ecosystem service values and supply chains they result in.
References
Blampied, S., Chambers, P., Binney, F., Plaster, A., 2023. Ecosystem service assessment of Jersey's marine habitats. Technical report. Marine Resources, Government of Jersey.
Marine Resources, 2024. Jersey Marine Spatial Plan Public Consultation Response Summary. Government of Jersey.
Chambers, P.M., Blampied, S., Binney, F., Austin, W.E.N., Morel , G., 2022. Blue carbon resources: an assessment of Jersey's territorial seas. Government of Jersey.
Chambers, P., Blampied, S., Binney, F., Plaster, A., 2023. Marine Protected Area Assessment Methodology. Technical report. Marine Resources, Government of Jersey.
Costello MJ. Evidence of economic benefits from marine protected areas. Sci. mar. [Internet]. 2024 Mar.27 [cited 2024Jul.17];88(1):e080. Available from: https://scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/view/5526
[1] Samantha R. Blampied, Sian E. Rees, Martin J. Attrill, Francis C.T. Binney, Emma V. Sheehan, Removal of bottom-towed fishing from whole-site Marine Protected Areas promotes mobile species biodiversity, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 276, 2022, 108033, ISSN 0272-7714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2022.108033.
[2] Blampied, S. R., Sheehan, E. V., Binney, F. C., Attrill, M. J. & Rees, S. E. (2022). Value of coastal habitats to commercial fisheries in Jersey, English Channel, and the role of marine protected areas. Fisheries Management and
Ecology, 29, 734–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12571
[3] Seagrass habitats get better with age: A comparison between blue carbon storage and species diversity in old and young seagrass beds (University of Plymouth, 2021), Investigating the effectiveness of two Marine Protected Areas of different ages on species recovery in Jersey, Channel Islands (University College London, 2022), Assessment of essential sand eel habitat extent and distribution around Jersey (Channel Islands) in relation to the management of local puffin (Fratercula arctica) populations (University of Plymouth, 2022), The Seasonal, Spatial, and Size Related Patterns of European Lobster (Homarus gammarus) Spawning in a Jersey, English Channel, Fishery (University of Plymouth, 2023), Monitoring the effectiveness of Jersey's Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for mobile marine fauna. (University of Plymouth, 2023) and The assessment of species diversity and carbon storage of Jersey's seagrass beds in relation to their age and condition, and partial condition evaluation of seagrass beds in the UK Channel Islands. (University of Plymouth, 2023).
[4] https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20greener%20living/R%20Blue%20Carbon%20Resources%20Report%20An%20Assessment%20of%20Jersey%E2%80%99s%20Territorial%20Seas.pdf
[5] https://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/3299R01C_MEP-Fisheries-review-and-impact-assessment_FINAL.pdf
[6] https://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230406_Jersey_ESV_Report.pdf
[7] Rees, A., Williamson, A., Watson, F., Fanshawe, S. 2023. A baseline description of the benthic assemblages of Les Sauvages reef, Jersey. A report for Blue Marine Foundation. Pp 44.
[8] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF FOA The Ocean Finance Handbook April 2020.pdf
[9] https://collections.societe.je/posts/sj-projects/2022/11/portelet-no-take-zone
[10] Enric Sala, Sylvaine Giakoumi, No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 75, Issue 3, May-June 2018, Pages 1166–1168, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx059
13 Chloe Renn, Sian Rees, Adam Rees, Bede F R Davies, Amy Y Cartwright, Sam Fanshawe, Martin J Attrill, Luke A Holmes, Emma V Sheehan, Lessons from Lyme Bay (UK) to inform policy, management, and monitoring of Marine Protected Areas, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2024;, fsad204, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad204
14 Samantha R. Blampied, Sian E. Rees, Martin J. Attrill, Francis C.T. Binney, Emma V. Sheehan, Removal of bottom-towed fishing from whole-site Marine Protected Areas promotes mobile species biodiversity, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 276, 2022, 108033, ISSN 0272-7714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2022.108033.
15 Sheehan EV, Holmes LA, Davies BFR, Cartwright A, Rees A and Attrill MJ (2021) Rewilding of Protected Areas Enhances Resilience of Marine Ecosystems to Extreme Climatic Events. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:671427. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.671427
16 Roberts, Callum & O'Leary, Bethan & Mccauley, Douglas & Cury, Philippe & Duarte, Carlos & Lubchenco, Jane & Pauly, Daniel & Sáenz-Arroyo, Andrea & Sumaila, Rashid & Wilson , Rod & Worm, Boris & Castilla, Juan. (2017). Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114. 201701262. 10.1073/pnas.1701262114.
[11] Blampied, S. R., Sheehan, E. V., Binney, F. C., Attrill, M. J. & Rees, S. E. (2022). Value of coastal habitats to commercial fisheries in Jersey, English Channel, and the role of marine protected areas. Fisheries Management and
Ecology, 29, 734–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12571
[12] Chloe Renn, Sian Rees, Adam Rees, Bede F R Davies, Amy Y Cartwright, Sam Fanshawe, Martin J Attrill, Luke A Holmes, Emma V Sheehan, Lessons from Lyme Bay (UK) to inform policy, management, and monitoring of Marine Protected Areas, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2024;, fsad204, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad204
[13] Irene Rojo, Julio Sánchez-Meca, José A. García-Charton, Small-sized and well-enforced Marine Protected Areas provide ecological benefits for piscivorous fish populations worldwide, Marine Environmental Research, Volume 149, 2019, Pages 100-110, ISSN 0141-1136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.06.005.
[14] Prior, S (2011) Investigating the use of voluntary marine management in the protection of UK marine biodiversity. Report to Wales Environment Link
[15] https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222
22 Unsworth, Butterworth, freeman, Fox, Priscott. The ecosystem service role of UK Seagrass meadows. Project Seagrass – May 2021. https://www.projectseagrass.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ES-of-UK-seagrass-Unsworth-et-al.pdf 23 Jackson , Emma & Rowden, Ashley & Attrill, Martin & S.J, Bossey & B, Jones. (2001). The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and marine biology. 39. 269-304.
24 Dahl, M., Asplund, M.E., Björk, M. et al. The influence of hydrodynamic exposure on carbon storage and nutrient retention in eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) meadows on the Swedish Skagerrak coast. Sci Rep 10, 13666 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70403-5
25 Collins, K.J. & Suonpää, A.M. & Mallinson, J.J.. (2010). The impacts of anchoring and mooring in seagrass, Studland Bay, Dorset, UK. Underwater Technology: The International Journal of the Society for Underwater. 29. 117-123. 10.3723/ut.29.117.
26 Jackson , E.L., Rowden, A.A., Attrill, M.J., Bossey, S., Jones, M., 2001. The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology 39, 269-304.
27 Blue Carbon Resources, an Assessment of Jersey's Territorial Seas p.50.
28 https://catchmentbasedapproach.org/learn/seagrass-restoration-handbook/
[16] Luke T. Barrett, Seth J. Theuerkauf, Julie M. Rose, Heidi K. Alleway, Suzanne B. Bricker, Matt Parker, Daniel R. Petrolia, Robert C. Jones, Sustainable growth of non-fed aquaculture can generate valuable ecosystem benefits, Ecosystem Services, Volume 53, 2022, 101396, ISSN 2212-0416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101396.
[17] Rees, S.E., Ashley, M., Evans, L., Mangi, S., Rodwell, L., Attrill, M., Langmead, O., Sheehan, E., Rees, A. 2016. An evaluation framework to determine the impact of the Lyme Bay Fisheries and Conservation Reserve and the activities of the Lyme Bay Consultative Committee on ecosystem services and human wellbeing. A report to the Blue Marine Foundation by research staff the Marine Institute at Plymouth University, Exeter University and Cefas. pp
[18] More Food, More Jobs and More Money in the UK. Oceana's Recipe for Fish Recovery: https://europe.oceana.org/press-releases/transition-sustainable-fishing-could-land-uk-nearly-30-more-fish/
[19] Kayleigh J. Wyles, Sabine Pahl, Richard C. Thompson, Perceived risks and benefits of recreational visits to the marine environment: Integrating impacts on the environment and impacts on the visitor, Ocean & Coastal Management, Volume 88, 2014, Pages 53-63, ISSN 0964-5691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.005.
[20] https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222
[21]Helena Alves -Pinto, Jonas Geldmann, Harry Jonas, Veronica Maioli, Andrew Balmford, Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec, Renato Crouzeilles, Bernardo Strassburg, Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, Volume 19, Issue 2, 2021, Pages 115-120, ISSN 2530-0644, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.01.004.
[22] Mousavi, S.H., Kavianpour, M.R. & Alcaraz, J.L.G. The impacts of dumping sites on the marine environment: a system dynamics approach. Appl Water Sci 13, 109 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-023-01910-9
[23] https://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Sussex-Coast-Sediments-and-Kelp_HR-Wallingford_Blue-Marine-Final-Report-Jan-2023-secured.pdf
[24] Galparsoro, I., Menchaca, I., Garmendia, J.M. et al. Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms. npj Ocean Sustain 1, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00003-5
[25] Gray, M., Stromberg, P-L., Rodmell, D. 2016. Changes to fishing practices around the UK as a result of the development of offshore windfarms – Phase 1 (Revised).' The Crown Estate, 121 pages. ISBN: 978-1-906410-64-3
[26]Opportunities for nature recovery within UK offshore wind farms. Blue Marine Foundation. GB3003. Final Report. April 17, 2023. Submitted by MRAG. Opportunities-for-nature-recovery-within-UK-offshore-wind-farms Final-Report-2.pdf (bluemarinefoundation.com)
[27] Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie. (2013). Tidal barrages in the UK: Ecological and social impacts, potential mitigation, and tools to support barrage planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 23. 289–298. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.001.
[28] Paramètres locaux : état de conservation des habitats, effort de pêche, Taux de production/ dépendance des navires, caractéristiques locales des engins, réglementation déjà existante, autres éléments pertinents
[29] Jérôme Fournier, 2020, Suivi surfacique de l'herbier de Zostera marina de l'archipel de Chausey.
[30] Laurent Godet, 2009, Recolonisation des herbiers à Zostera marina après la Wasting Disease" des années 1930.
[31] Arias-Ortiz et al.2018, A marine heatwave drives massive losses from the world's largest seagrass carbon stocks. DOI : 10.1038/s41558- 018-0096-y
[32] Ondiviela et al., 2014, The role of seagrasses in coastal protection in a changing climate. DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.11.005
[33] de Bettignies T. et al (2021). Case Report for kelp forests habitat. OSPAR 787/2021, 39 pp. ISBN 978-1-913840-16-7
[34] Liste OSPAR des espèces et habitats menacés et/ou en déclin, référence : 2008-6 - MNHN
[35] Liste OSPAR des espèces et habitats menacés et/ou en déclin, référence : 2008-6 - MNHN
[36] Nicolle Amandine, Moitie Roderic, Ogor Julien, Dumas Franck, Foveau Aurelie, Foucher Eric, Thiebaut Eric (2017). Modelling larval dispersal of Pecten maximus in the English Channel: a tool for the spatial management of the stocks. Ices Journal Of Marine Science , 74(6), 1812-1825. https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00363/47375/
[37] Arrêté du 27 juin 2023 modifiant l'arrêté du 25 février 2021 relatif aux mesures techniques et de gestion transitoires pour l'exercice de la pêche professionnelle dans les eaux de Jersey
[38] UNESCO-IOC/European Commission. 2021. MSPglobal International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning. Paris, UNESCO. (IOC Manuals and Guides no 89)
[39] Local parameters: state of conservation of habitats, fishing effort, production rate/dependence of vessels, characteristics local equipment, already existing regulations, other relevant elements