Offshore windfarms - monitoring impacts on the commercial fishing industry: good practice guidance

7 Appendix A Rapid Litrature Review

A.1 Executive Summary

The primary aim of the Rapid Literature Review was to collate and analyse existing information on commercial fisheries monitoring approaches. The Rapid Literature Review covered Scotland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the United States (US). These countries were selected as they employ similar commercial fishing practices and offshore industries sectors as those within Scotland, are known for their extensive research around commercial fisheries and offshore wind, or due to in house native speakers, e.g., the Netherlands and France.

The conclusions drawn from the Rapid Literature Review highlight that monitoring of the commercial fishing industry in relation to Offshore Windfarms (OWF) is limited in all countries considered. While spatial monitoring practices are implemented on larger vessels, such as Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), Automatic Identification System (AIS) and logbooks, smaller vessels under 15 m are underrepresented within monitoring practices. Literature and data on the potential impacts of OWFs on the commercial fisheries industry is lacking, in particular in relation to socio-economic impacts. Although the methodology for general fisheries data collection is broadly similar between the countries, (i.e., VMS, AIS, logbooks), the data is often collected in different ways, at different levels of detail, not continuously (leading to outdated datasets) and uses different metadata.

The Rapid Literature Review findings demonstrated that commercial fisheries data is not centrally stored in Scotland, the European Union (EU) nor the United States of America (USA). A centralised database would improve data sharing, although it is acknowledged some countries may be hesitant to do so due to confidentiality of some sources. A more centralised streamlined, accessible, and user-friendly approach would be advised, at a national level where possible. Furthermore, standardising the collection of data and streamlining the collected datasets for ease of combining and comparing, would give opportunity for well-organised monitoring programmes to assess the potential impacts of OWFs on the commercial fishing industry. It would also provide a useful tool for research and to facilitate co-existence between marine sectors, whereby developers, the commercial fishing industry and government bodies alike can make well-informed decisions.

Further lessons learned from other countries include the importance of collecting long-term data to show change over time, ensuring that data has the right metadata attached for correct processing of the data and the need to collect socio-economic data alongside fisheries data to provide the full picture.

A.2 Introduction

The growth and expansion of marine offshore renewables, including Offshore Windfarm (OWF) developments and the potential for associated displacement of fishing activity has resulted in a need for dialogue between offshore developers, governments, and the commercial fishing industry to promote co-existence. Monitoring the potential socio-economic effects of marine activities on the commercial fishing industry is of critical importance to facilitate this dialogue. Reviewing and understanding where and how other countries have monitored impacts on the commercial fishing industry is advantageous for identifying and implementing effective monitoring and facilitating co-existence between the OWF and commercial fisheries sectors in Scotland.

This work has been commissioned with the objective of informing the development of good practice guidance on commercial fisheries monitoring in Scotland, in relation to OWF developments. The main aim of this Rapid Literature Review (hereafter referred to as the/this “Review”) is to contribute to closing the evidence gap identified by the ScotMER Fish and Fisheries Receptor Group, ‘Monitoring of commercial fishing activity in the vicinity of offshore windfarm and cables’ (FF.03-2022)^[22]. This report also covers the evidence gap identified by the Socio-Economic Receptor Group ‘How can we improve the monitoring and evaluation (comparing predicted against monitored impacts) of socio-economic impacts?’ (S.07-2022)^[23].

The geographical extent of this Rapid Literature Review covers commercial fishing monitoring approaches with regards to offshore industries in the United Kingdom (UK), with particular focus on Scotland, as well as other relevant countries: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States (US). These countries were selected as they have similar commercial fishing and offshore wind industry sectors to Scotland and accessible literature. Further details on existing monitoring datasets within the UK, particularly Scotland, can be found in the Dataset Analysis Report^[24], which has been developed alongside this report to provide a comprehensive account on databases which could be adopted to monitor commercial fisheries in relation to OWFs within the UK, in particular Scotland.

For the purposes of this review, the term ‘monitoring’ is defined as gathering data and evidence on the impacts of all project stages (pre-application, pre-construction, construction, and post-construction) of an OWF on the commercial fishing industry, including validation or evaluation of predicted impacts (i.e., auditing).

Monitoring examples, both positive and negative, from other countries illustrate how monitoring practices can vary between countries. This report identifies existing and planned monitoring practices and highlights the limitations that may lead to inadequate, inefficient data capture and analysis. It should be noted that the OWF industry is more mature in Scotland compared to other nations which may limit comparisons that can be drawn.

This Review will focus on the potential socio-economic impacts on the commercial fishing industry but does not consider ecological impacts on target species.

A.3 Objectives

The objectives of this Rapid Literature Review are as follows:

1. Review existing literature associated with monitoring commercial fisheries in the UK (with a particular focus on Scotland) and other relevant countries;
2. Identify commercial fisheries datasets that are used within the UK and relevant other countries for commercial fisheries monitoring; and
3. Summarise the findings, assess the limitations, data gaps and the relevance to potential monitoring practices in Scotland.

A.4 Approach to review

This Section explains how relevant countries were identified for this Rapid Literature Review^[25] and discusses the approach used to review the assessed literature.

Countries with similar commercial fishing sectors (in relation to fishing methods and regulations), and spatial planning and offshore industries to Scotland (Marine Protected Areas (MPAs and OWFs) were short-listed. The short-list included all countries bordering the North Sea, as well as the US and Canada. This list was then refined to a maximum of five countries to focus on the most relevant countries for this Rapid Literature Review. The reasons for choosing these specific five countries were as follows:

• Belgium: available extensive research on the potential impacts of OWFs on the commercial fisheries sector;
• France: internal language skills within the project team gave access to a broader literature range;
• The Netherlands: internal language skills within the project team gave access to a broader literature range;
• Germany: one of the European leaders in offshore wind developments; and
• US: has a thorough and comprehensive monitoring system for their fishing industry.

A desk-based review gathered relevant documentation pertaining to fisheries monitoring in these countries. Search engines Microsoft Bing, Google, and Google Scholar were used to identify relevant literature, with a focus on literature published within the last 10 years. Specific resources relating to the following were searched for:

• The country’s commercial fisheries regulations;
• Monitoring commercial fisheries with regards to OWFs;
• Monitoring commercial fisheries within MPAs; and
• Any other relevant documentation, where time permitted.

Key search terms (including but not limited to: “socio-economics and fishing in 'X country”, “commercial fishing practices in X country”, and “monitoring commercial fishing industry in X country”) reflected the key areas of focus outlined above. Any additional literature was identified based on the search results (e.g., references within the search results).

There were some limitations noted during the internet search, which have been highlighted below:

• Language barriers restricted access to some literature;
• Accessibility to some relevant literature was limited (e.g., not all literature was freely available);
• Many papers were older than 10 years and therefore potentially out of date;
• Limited availability of reliable data on inshore fishing activity;
• Insufficient literature on the impact of OWFs on the commercial fishing industry; and
• The entire fishing industry not being represented, as some countries only monitor the most prevalent fishing practices (e.g., in Belgium only beam trawls were monitored by Degraer (2020)).

This Review identifies relevant, available scientific literature, national policy and guidance documents, and other grey literature relevant to commercial fisheries monitoring in the UK (Scotland), Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the US.

A.5 Literature Review

This literature review considers:

• The general monitoring practices within each country;
• The potential impacts of OWFs and how commercial fisheries are monitored in relation to them;
• The impacts of MPA restrictions on the fishing industry; and
• Any other relevant literature, where available, accessible and time permitted.

A.5.1 Scotland

Overview of commercial fisheries regulation and monitoring

The UK has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 730,102 km². The Scottish EEZ, approximately 63% of the UK EEZ, has a size of 462,315 km² (Scottish Government, 2023). The UK wild capture fisheries had a value of approximately 1,334 million United States Dollars (USD) in 2018 (OECD, 2021e).

Before leaving the European Union (EU), the UK adhered to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (Section A.5.2). Since leaving the EU in 2020, the UK no longer falls under the CFP legislation and has since implemented the Fisheries Act 2020. Through the Fisheries Act, the UK government manages the UK’s territorial waters (to 12 NM) and its EEZ (out to 200 NM, or median line with other states, whichever comes first) (UK Government, 2020).

• In Scottish waters, the Marine Directorate is responsible for managing commercial fisheries. Fishers are legally required to provide fishing activity information to the Scottish Government, including:
• Landings data:
  • Vessels over 12 metres (m) are required to maintain an electronic logbook system to capture daily information from fishing trips, such as information on catch (by species, including quantity of fish retained on board), fishing gear, and location. Vessels between 10 and 12 m must maintain paper logbooks and those under 10 m must supply FISH1 forms in Scotland, which require similar details to be logged as the electronic logbooks, such as fishing activity dates, location, gear, quantity, and species of fish caught, and number of creels hauled (if applicable). Landing declarations and sales notes are required to provide data on the weight and value of fish landed and sold.
• Vessel information:
  • Vessel information must be supplied when applying for a licence to fish, including information on vessel length, engine power, gross tonnage, age, home port, and fishing method.
• Employment information:
  • Collected by Marine Directorate through a fisher employment survey carried out by fishery officers at 18 port districts.

Landings data supplied by fishers is processed by the Marine Directorate to summarise landings data by value (£), effort (days) and weight (tonnes) by ICES rectangle and port. In addition, as part of their compliance responsibilities, Marine Directorate conduct routine vessel and aircraft patrols to record fishing vessel sightings, gathering information on vessel nationality, location, and activity (i.e., steaming or actively fishing). In other regions of the UK, similar commercial fisheries regulations and compliance responsibilities are implemented, with similar data collected by the relevant fisheries administrations, including the MMO in England, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) in Northern Ireland and the Welsh Government in Wales.

In addition to the above, certain fishing vessels are required to provide positional information on fishing activity. Vessels over 12 m are required to be fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), which is a satellite tracking device that transmits positional information every two hours. VMS data can be cross-referenced with landings, engine power and logbook data to provide an indication of value and fishing effort. Furthermore, vessels over 15 m are required to be fitted with an Automatic Identification System (AIS) which transmits positional information at a higher frequency than VMS.

The UK submits fisheries data used for monitoring to the ICES Database of Trawl Surveys (DATRAS). DATRAS works primarily for trawl fish surveys, collating and documenting survey data from the North Sea and farther afield. The data is publicly accessible through the ICES data portal (ICES, 2023). Other ICES programmes include InterCatch, which collates catch data for the North East Atlantic, and FishFrame, which is a regional database covering the North Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea. InterCatch and FishFrame address monitoring fisheries needs related to the CFP (ICES, 2024a; ICES, 2024b). Access to InterCatch and FishFrame data can only be obtained through data access requests or via a log-in through ICES.

Monitoring commercial fisheries and offshore wind

In March 2024, Scotland had seven operational OWFs^[26], three under construction^[27], four in development, 18 projects in their early stages in the recently awarded ScotWind round (Crown Estate Scotland, 2023), and a further 13 within the Innovation and Targeted Oil & Gas (INTOG) leasing round (Crown Estate Scotland, 2023). The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and UK Electricity Act (2004) support commercial fishing within Scottish OWFs (Schupp et al., 2021).

To date, there has typically been no requirement to monitor impacts on commercial fisheries from offshore wind developments in Scotland, by developers, the fishing industry, or the government. However, developers in Scotland are required to prepare post-consent plans prior to construction as a condition of their consent, and recently consented projects have been required to consider strategies to monitor commercial fishing activity in accordance with consent conditions. These plans are submitted for approval to the Marine Directorate – Licensing Operations Team (MD-LOT) (on behalf of Scottish Ministers), in consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as the fishing industry. Consent conditions relating to post consent plans may vary due to project specific requirements.

In most instances to date, however, monitoring of commercial fisheries impacts is not proposed within post-consent plans. Monitoring is typically only required where there are significant uncertainties around the potential impacts of a project on the receiving environment. Some recently consented OWFs, such as Moray West and Neart na Gaoithe, have listed monitoring of commercial fisheries impacts as a consent condition. The monitoring methodologies for these developments were agreed with MD-LOT (on behalf of Scottish Ministers) through the approval of a Project Environmental Monitoring Programme (PEMP) prior to construction commencing that was required as a condition of their consent. Within their PEMP, the developers proposed the use of publicly available and project-specific data sources to provide primary (i.e., project-specific), and secondary (i.e., publicly available) quantitative and qualitative data, including:

• Primary data:
• Records from Offshore Fisheries Liaison Officer (OFLO) and guard vessels (where available);
• Analysis of Marine Traffic Surveys in respect of fishing vessel activity;
• Analysis of Marine Coordination Centre (MCC) records; and
• Stakeholder engagement with the fishing industry via the Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO).
• Secondary data:
• Monthly landings weights to understand changes in catch and value; and
• Annual VMS data.

Moray West also proposed that a squid fishery scour survey was undertaken during construction. Both Moray West and Neart na Gaoithe committed to monitoring commercial fisheries impacts periodically during the post-application, pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases, in accordance with the following reporting schedules:

• Post-application:
• Moray West and Neart na Gaoithe: One report covering a three-year period prior to the pre-construction phase to update the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) baseline;
• Pre-construction:
• Moray West and Neart na Gaoithe: One report covering the pre-construction phase to the start of construction;
• Construction:
• Moray West: Annual reports from start to end of construction;
• Neart na Gaoithe: Six-monthly interim reports from start to end of construction in addition to full annual reports; and
• Post-construction:
• Moray West and Neart na Gaoithe: One report covering the three years after construction.

At the time of writing, four monitoring reports for Neart na Gaoithe have been published on the Marine Directorate website, covering the post-application and pre-construction phases and the first year of construction^[28]. Monitoring during these periods was conducted for a local and regional study area, defined as:

• Local study area: ICES rectangles that the development overlaps; and
• Regional study area: Overlapping and adjacent ICES rectangles.

The monitoring data for Neart na Gaoithe indicated a slight decrease in landings during construction compared with previous years, although this trend was considered likely associated with the Covid-19 pandemic and the UK’s exit from the EU. Furthermore, an observed reduction in lobster landings was predicted to have resulted from the projects implementation of a justifiable co-operation payment to the affected fishers. The Neart na Gaoithe monitoring reports note that due to the resolution of the data being monitored combined with the multitude of factors that can affect fishing activity, it may not be possible to attribute any changes in fishing activity to the project (Neart na Gaoithe, 2024a, b).

Monitoring within MPAs

The Scottish Government conducted a study on monitoring the potential socio-economic impacts on the fishing industry and other sectors resulting from the introduction of MPAs in 2016 (Scottish Government, 2020). The study used both quantitative and qualitative data to better understand the socio-economic impacts of MPA measures in Scotland. The following data was analysed:

Primary data:

• Qualitative data collected through interviews in September 2019 with key stakeholders and members of communities affected by MPAs;
• Qualitative data collected through structured interviews with the general public and local businesses, also during September 2019, which determined the wider impact on coastal communities;

Secondary data:

• Existing quantitative fishing activity data, including landings data per ICES rectangle and port, and VMS data;
• Data on fisheries employment and compliance, provided by Marine Directorate (then Marine Scotland); and
• Relevant information in the Marine Social Attitudes survey (2018).

The study noted that it was very challenging to determine which factors influenced the changes within the commercial fishing industry, due to the complexity of the marine environment and its associated industries. The overall results showed that there were changes in landings after MPA management measures were introduced. Both positive and negative impacts were localised and varied between different parts of the industry. It was suggested that monitoring of the impacts of MPA management measures should be continued, and the inclusion of qualitative techniques, such as various forms of interviews was recommended. It is unclear if monitoring was continued, as no report has been published since the 2020 report.

Summary

Key regulatory requirements

All fishers required to provide landings data to the Scottish Government (Marine Directorate) detailing information on fishing trips, catch, fishing gear and location (form in which this is provided differs by vessel length);

All fishers required to supply vessel information when applying for a fishing licence;

All fishers with vessels over 12 m required to transmit positional information via VMS;

All fishers with vessels over 15 m required to transmit positional information via AIS; and

Marine Directorate collate information on employment via surveys conducted by fishery officers.

Maturity of OWF industry

Well established with planned expansion.

Co-location of fisheries and OWFs

Fishing within operational OWFs is not prohibited; and

Mitigations apply in accordance with effects predicted at the EIA stage, implemented through a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy (FMMS), and in line with FLOWW (2014; 2015) guidance.

Monitoring approaches for OWFs

Limited monitoring of commercial fisheries impacts conducted to date. At the time of writing, only two OWFs have consent conditions to monitor commercial fisheries impacts, the Neart na Gaoithe and Moray West OWFs. It was proposed that monitoring data is collected during post-application, pre-construction, construction and post-construction phases of these developments using a combination of project-specific and publicly available data.

Monitoring approaches for MPAs

Limited monitoring of the socio-economic impacts of MPAs to date;

One study considered the socio-economic impacts of MPAs conducted in 2016 using quantitative data (e.g., landings data, VMS data, fisheries employment, and compliance data) and qualitative data (e.g., structured interviews).

Monitoring datasets

Records from OFLO and guard vessels (where available);

Analysis of Marine Traffic Surveys in respect of fishing vessel activity;

Analysis of MCC records;

Stakeholder engagement with the fishing industry via the FLO;

Landings Data through (electronic and paper) logbooks;

VMS;

AIS;

Vessel and aircraft patrols;

Surveys, questionnaires and interviews;

In-situ fishery resources measurements.

Key monitoring findings (if available)

Interim results of monitoring at the Neart na Gaoithe OWF indicated a change in landings during construction, likely as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, though it could also be as a result of the implementation of a co-operation agreement with certain affected fishers.

A.5.2 European Union

All EU countries are bound to EU legislation. General EU fisheries legislation is discussed in the sections below.

The Common Fisheries Policy

The EU CFP was introduced in 1970 and has undergone significant evolution since. The CFP was originally part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with the objectives being to stabilise the markets, increase productivity, provide a source of healthy food and to ensure reasonable prices for consumers. As more countries with important fisheries resources and fleets joined the EU, the CFP evolved through:

• Implementation of EEZs;
• Consideration for environmental, economic, and social dimensions of fisheries;
• Fish stock management at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for all managed stocks;
• Regionalisation of regulations, e.g., allowing EU countries to propose and transpose EU measures into law;
• Consideration and communication in matters regarding fisheries and the energy transition;
• Fleet capacity ceilings, including the responsibility for EU countries to ensure a stable and enduring balance between fishing opportunities and fishing capacity; and
• Implementation of fisheries control system regulations (European Commission, 2024).

In early 2023, the European Commission issued an implementation report that reassessed the functionality of the CFP. The assessment reaffirmed the need for protection of marine ecosystems, sustainable control of the commercial fishing industry and additionally, considered the role of EU fisheries in the energy transition (European Commission, 2024). The assessment report did not propose reform to the CFP. The overall conclusion of the report stated that the 2013 reform was fit for purpose (Scholaert, 2023).

The monitoring requirements under the CFP are described in Section A.5.2 “Fisheries Control System Regulations”.

Fisheries Control System Regulations

In 2010, the EU adopted the Fisheries Control System Regulations (Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009). The control regulations were implemented to establish systems for the control, inspection and enforcement by national authorities as set down by the CFP (European Parliament, 2024). The Fisheries Control System Regulations were recently updated to incorporate digital catch reporting and stricter controls for larger vessels through Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM). The control regulations require all EU vessels to conduct routine monitoring using:

REM:

• Incorporating Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV), sensors and automatic recognition software to track vessels over 18 m (European Parliament, 2021).

AIS:

• It is an EU requirement that all vessels with an Overall Length (OAL) over 15 m should be equipped with AIS; (Oceana, 2022).

VMS:

• It is an EU requirement that all vessels over 12 m must transmit their positions with VMS every two hours (MMO, 2019); and
• By 2028, all vessels, including those 12 m and under in length, will be required to carry VMS. There may be exemptions for vessels under 9 m until 2030, depending on Member State; and
• Electric Reporting Systems (ERS):
• Electric logbooks for recording, reporting, and storing of data on catches, landings, sales, and transhipments of EU vessels over 12 m (European Parliament, 2021); and
• Vessels 15 m and under with specific conditions could be exempt until January 2026. From 2028, fishing vessels of all sizes will have to carry ERS.

The recent changes to the Fisheries Controls Regulations have improved traceability throughout the supply chain through digitised identification and declaration for all EU fishing vessels and establishment of a new system for weighing fish during landing (European Council, 2023). The requirement for all vessels to carry electronic monitoring also ensures that all vessel sizes are accounted for, rather than only vessels above certain sizes.

Marine Spatial Planning

Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and European Council established a framework for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) to be used as a tool for safe, sustainable, and efficient management of human activities in the marine environment, including fisheries management (European Commission, 2023a).

Each EU Member State is required to establish and implement MSP, and plans should:

• Be developed and produced in accordance with institutional and governance levels determined by member states;
• Have due regard to the particularities of:
• Marine regions;
• Existing and future activities and their environmental impact;
• Natural resources; and
• Land-sea interactions.
• Include national policy in conformity with the Directive.

Monitoring the impacts of OWFs is important to inform MSP, specifically to address the increasing and competing demands for maritime space.

A.5.3 Belgium

Overview of commercial fisheries regulation and monitoring

The Belgian Part of the North Sea (BPNS) covers an area of 3,454 km² which includes its territorial waters out to 12 NM and its EEZ (European Commission, 2022a). Although the BPNS covers below 0.5% of the total surface area of the North Sea itself, it is one of the busiest sea areas in the world. Its shallow coastal waters provide an ideal environment for a productive and intensive commercial fishing industry (Derudder and Maes, 2015), and this industry was worth 100.8 million USD in 2018 (OECD, 2021a).

The Belgian programme for the CFP supports the collection of data from 2014 - 2016 and 2017 - 2020 which ‘included measures for data harmonisation’ to better monitor and manage fisheries (European Commission, 2020). The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) programme implements the CFP in Belgium for the 2021 – 2027 period, including fisheries control and data collection (European Commission, 2022b). In the past, monitoring has been conducted primarily via VMS and logbooks. As an EU member state, Belgium is also required to comply with the Fisheries Control Regulations, now requiring electric monitoring of all vessels, electronic logbooks and landings declarations (see Section A.5.2). Additionally, Belgium submits fisheries data to DATRAS, InterCatch and FishFrame (see Section A.5.1).

Monitoring commercial fisheries and offshore wind

The BPNS has two areas, 238 km² and 284 km², designated for offshore electricity generation (De backer et al. cited in Dragraer et al., 2019). These development zones are implemented through the MSP (Directive 2014/89/EU) process, most recently updated for the period between 2020 - 2026. In 2008, the operational phase of Belgian offshore wind in the BPNS began after the construction of the country’s first six offshore wind turbines. By 2018, over 318 turbines were constructed with a capacity of 1,556 Megawatts (MW) (Dragraer et al., 2019). Fishing within offshore wind developments in Belgium is generally prohibited, thereby making some fishing grounds inaccessible after placement of turbines (Gill et al., 2020). Under the new Belgian MSP (2026 – 2030), passive fishing is permitted in two OWFs^[29].

The Belgian Government has implemented monitored safety zones around OWFs, and fines may be given to vessels who breach them. This has caused some spatial displacement and discontent within the fishing industry, as a result of the competition for space coupled with existing and potential further restrictions from MPAs in an already small territory and EEZ. OWFs are equipped with equipment such as radars, Very High Frequency (VHF) and AIS which are monitored by the Coast Guard to ensure compliance with the regulations. Fines for breaches of security can reach up to €10,000 but can be more serious depending on the severity and/or duration of the infringements (BOP, n.d). Offshore operators may grant permission for aquaculture within these zones (Van Hoey et al., 2018), although currently there are no offshore aquaculture sites in operation within OWFs in Belgium, nor any future plans to develop them (European Commission, 2023).

Competition for space in the BPNS has increased between the fishing industry and other maritime sectors, including OWF developments. Fisheries representatives stated that fishing restrictions within OWFs reduced available space for fishing activity and increased steaming times to fishing grounds, as OWFs block some transit routes to/from their home ports (Van Hoey et al, 2018). Despite the fact that, as an EU member state, Belgium must adhere to VMS reporting as per the requirements of the Council Regulation (EC No 2371/2002), public access to raw VMS data is severely limited.

Monitoring of commercial fishing activity has been conducted in Belgian waters using AIS and VMS data (European Parliament, 2020). In 2013, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Operational Directorate Natural Environment released the WinMon:Be report, detailing the impacts of OWFs. Fishing activity and density mapping were utilised to monitor the industry and the optimal location of OWFs. VMS and logbook data were used from vessels over 15 m between 2006 - 2009 and 2006 - 2011. UK and Dutch data were also incorporated to account for other flag states (Van Hoey et al., 2018; Vandendriessche et al., 2011; WinMon:Be, 2013). All data for the WinMon:Be study was mapped on BPNS maps per 3 km² grid cell for VMS data with a 2-hour interval. The monitored effort identified primarily trawling activities increasing around the periphery of OWFs and recreational angling near the Thornton Bank OWF (WinMon:BE, 2013). Future monitoring is recommended to trace specific fisheries, as one of the limitations of the WinMon:BE project was the lack of available metadata on gear and engine power, limiting the monitoring analysis of fishing vessel presence as opposed to fishing intensity (WinMon:Be, 2013).

Degraer et al. (2020) monitored commercial fisheries patterns after fishers were displaced by the placement of OWFs, specifically within the 238 km² area. Between 2006 - 2017, beam trawl fishing (main fishery) was monitored for any spatio-temporal change in effort, landings, and the catch rate of target species, sole and plaice, using VMS and logbook data (Degraer et al, 2020). As fishing within operational OWFs in Belgian waters is generally prohibited, fishing activity stopped post-installation. However, fishing for target species within the vicinity of OWFs remained comparable to the wider BPNS. Belgian and Dutch beam trawlers adapted to the restrictions successfully by fishing around the edges of OWFs, where catch rates of sole remained similar to before, and catch rates of plaice increased significantly (European Commission, 2023a). Monitoring indicated that some vessels were displaced into other fishing grounds, such as the English Channel, though there are no further details available on whether other adaptions were made by these vessels (i.e., gear, target species) (Degraer et al, 2020).

Although monitoring of trawl fisheries in Belgian waters provides insight into how these fisheries can adapt to prohibitions on entering OWFs, it is not representative of the commercial fisheries sector as a whole. Many other gear types have not been monitored, including various types of static gear. The only static gear monitored near offshore wind developments is angling in the WinMon:BE (2013) project. There is also a paucity of information in the literature on how monitoring is performed. The 2021 EU control regulations should, in theory, aid in more accurate research into monitoring in Belgian waters by providing more vessel data (see Section A.5.2). However, this will also depend on data availability and data sharing between industries, stakeholders, and regulators.

Monitoring within MPAs

No literature on monitoring of MPA impacts on commercial fisheries in Belgium was identified. However, there are fisheries restrictions in place in Belgium within MPAs. The Flemish Banks Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was established in 2012 under the Habitats Directive covering 32% of Belgian waters. The MPA contains four zones where restrictions are in place, mainly on bottom trawling techniques (Derudder and Maes, 2015). Furthermore, Pecceu et al. (2021) provided an up-to-date analysis of fisheries monitoring within MPAs in the BPSN produced by the Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO, in Flemish). The aim of this report was to identify and evaluate new potential candidate areas for fisheries restrictions, in accordance with the Belgian MSP (2020 – 2026). Three subareas were identified where fisheries activities will be prohibited. In order to evaluate the proposed areas for fisheries restrictions, a socio-economic analysis of fishing activities was conducted. The fishing techniques considered included traditional beam trawling, shrimp trawl, otter trawl, bottom otter trawl, pulse trawl, Scottish seine, and mechanical dredges. Fishing activity was characterised using VMS and logbook data (to determine ‘days at sea’ and landings weight and value) coupled with vessel identity.

Although not used within the socio-economic analysis for fisheries by Pecceu et al. (2021), the VALDUVIS tool was used to determine seabed disturbance/impact from the various fishing gears considered. The VALDUVIS tool is a sustainability indicator developed in 2014 by the ILVO (2024) to inform fishers about their performance and potentially monitor the economic, ecological, and social sustainability of the fishing industry electronically. To do this, gear type, catch composition and catch area data is collected from electronic logbooks to make trip-based sustainability assessments. The tool was utilised by 80% of the Belgian fleet as of 2017 but there are no recent updates to this figure (Pecceu et al., 2021; Kinds et al., 2014; Kinds et al., 2014). While more research is required into the use of the tool as a monitoring technique, Pecceu et al. (2021) support its usefulness as a monitoring tool as it provides a method for the collation of electronic logbook data from multiple gear types. Kinds et al. (2014) advocated for more development of the system to use it for monitoring purposes.

Summary

Key regulatory requirements

• All fishers required to comply with requirements of EU legislation (see Section A.5.2). By 2030, all vessels will be required to have a tracking device.

Maturity of OWF industry

• Well established with planned expansion.

Co-location of fisheries and OWFs

• Fishing within OWFs is generally prohibited, with the exception of passive fishing in certain OWF sites.

Monitoring approaches for OWFs

• Limited ongoing monitoring of commercial fisheries impacts;
• OWFs equipped with equipment such as radars and AIS which are used to monitor compliance with safety zones;
• Monitoring of AIS and VMS data at the periphery of an OWF was undertaken in 2013 but the absence of specific information on gear and engine power resulted in only a limited understanding of change; and
• Monitoring of landings and VMS between 2006 - 2017 for beam trawls only to identify spatio-temporal change in effort, landings and the catch rate of target species.

Monitoring approaches for MPAs

• Limited ongoing monitoring of the socio-economic impacts of MPAs to date; and
• Socio-economic analyses of historical fisheries data have been conducted to inform the evaluation of fisheries restricted areas using VMS and landings data and the VALDUVIS tool offers a potentially useful monitoring tool.

Monitoring datasets

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• VMS;
• AIS;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• Radars (VHF);
• In-situ fishery resources measurements; and
• VALDUVIS system.

Key monitoring findings (if available)

• Increased effort and catch rates (species-dependent) on the periphery of OWFs.

A.5.4 France

Overview of commercial fisheries regulation and monitoring

The French EEZ has total area of 10,911,921 km², covering its European waters in the English Channel, Bay of Biscay and Gulf of Lyon and its plethora of oversea territories (République Française, 2023). In 2018, the commercial fishing industry in France was worth 1,487.04 million USD and produced 800,000 tonnes of fish. The value of the fishing industry increased by 13% while the quantity produced only increased by 8% between 2008 and 2018. The French fleet consisted of 6,379 (down by 13% from 2008) vessels in 2021, with small-scale vessels (12 m and under) accounting for 86.1% of the fleet (OECD, 2021b).

As an EU member state, France is expected to adhere to the requirements laid out by the fisheries control regulations (see Section A.5.2) by applying electric monitoring, ERS and other regulations to relevant fishing vessels. The Centre National des Pêches (CNSP) (also called the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) under the EU regulations) is responsible for the coordination of controls at sea and on landings. All electric monitoring and ERS data are collected and processed by the CNSP to coordinate controls, and the Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture of the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (DPMA) carry out yearly inspections to monitor landings data (Client Earth, 2017). Additionally, France submits fisheries data to DATRAS, InterCatch and FishFrame (see Section A.5.1).

Departments at various levels of government monitor fisheries in French waters. The departments, discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs, are responsible for implementing the EU fisheries control measures and implementing administrative and criminal sanctions for vessels not adhering to the rules (Client Earth, 2017).

Under the Rural Maritime and Fisheries Code, administrative fisheries controls are implemented. These controls are implemented to ensure the:

• Rules of the code and EU regulations are implemented and followed;
• France’s international commitments and other subsequent regulations are implemented; and
• Legally binding decisions are made by the competent authorities.

Fisheries monitoring and controls in France rely on a complex network of legislation and authorities at a national, regional, and local level (Client Earth, 2017). A simplified explanation of the top-down regulation of French fisheries can be found in Table 7‑1.

Table 7‑1 Control and monitoring authorities in France (Client Earth, 2017).

National Level

DPMA, applies a national control fishery plan every two years. The plan provides general guidelines and objectives towards the enforcement and control of fisheries under the CFP and control systems regulations.

Regional Level

The regional authorities are the Interregional Directorates for the SEA (DIRMA) and the Directorates of the Sea (DM). Their role is to oversee the implementation of regional and interregional plans based on the national plan.

Local Level

Control plans can be carried out by different authorities depending on the nature of the controls and the respective area of confidence. These authorities are generally:

• The maritime affairs administration – apply coastal and EEZ controls;
• Customs – apply supply chain controls;
• The French Navy - apply controls in international waters; and
• The national and maritime gendarmarie – apply controls in coastal waters.

Monitoring commercial fisheries and offshore wind

At the time of writing, France had two operational offshore wind projects. The Sainte-Nazaire in the Bay of Biscay and St. Brieuc in Saint-Brieuc Bay. These OWFs have an operational capacity of 480 and 496 MW, respectively. France’s current energy goals are to reach 40 Gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2050 (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024).

Oceanic Dévelopment (2011) considered the economic impacts of St Brieuc OWF on the commercial fishing industry. A baseline of the existing fishing activity and stocks within the potential array area was established using data available from scientific and technical sources, including data from the regional fisheries and aquaculture committee (Comité Régional des Pêches Maritimes & des Élevages Marins, CRPMEM) of Brittany and stock evaluations from the National Institute for Ocean Science (IFREMER). The data included the gear type and target species from the CRPMEM. This was complemented by interviews with fishing representatives and researchers from IFREMER. The investigation included an estimation of the variation in income generated by the direct loss of turnover, resulting from a reduction in fishing opportunities in the area. The subsequent increase in costs as a consequence of the OWF location and by-proxy the redeployment of vessels to alternative fishing areas was also considered (fuel costs and adaptation of fishing gear). During this study, discussions were undertaken with fishing representatives to identify potential actions that could be implemented to limit the impact of the OWF on fisheries, as well as to involve fishers early in the project. To assess potential impacts of the OWF, the study suggests adopting monitoring of economic impacts by measuring changes in revenue and any increases in costs from fishing in alternative sites and/or adopting alternative fishing methods. This would involve adequate stakeholder engagement prior to monitoring. It is unclear if any of these suggestions identified in the literature have since been implemented.

A fishery observatory was developed by the Côtes d’Armor fishing committee to monitor fishing fleets reactions to OWFs. However, the specifics of how they are monitored have not been detailed (European MSP Platform, 2018).

While some monitoring practices have been conducted in France, a clear programme for monitoring fisheries in relation to OWFs is lacking.

Monitoring within MPAs

Monitoring of MPAs and commercial fisheries in France is severely underrepresented in the literature. There were no studies identified that focussed specifically on monitoring the impact of MPAs on the commercial fishing industry. Monitoring has been conducted in the Parc Naturel Marin d’Iropise (PNMI), an MPA to the north of the Bay of Biscay and also within the Bay of Biscay, as part of a study evaluating the fisheries management within these areas. Vessels in the PNMI were primarily monitored using VMS while fisheries in the Bay of Biscay were monitored via stock analysis. The primary result of the monitoring study indicated that more co-operation between stakeholders is required before effective ecosystem-based fisheries management could be implemented (Le'Floch et al., 2018).

Summary

Key regulatory requirements

• All fishers required to comply with requirements of EU legislation (see Section A.5.2). By 2030, all vessels will be required to have a tracking device. A tiered approach is undertaken for monitoring, with different agencies responsible for monitoring at a national, regional, and local level.

Maturity of OWF industry

• Only two operational developments at the time of writing but planned expansion.

Co-location of fisheries and OWFs

• Fishing within OWFs is generally prohibited for mobile fishers. Passive fishing activity may be permitted.

Monitoring approaches for OWFs

• Limited ongoing monitoring of commercial fisheries impacts; and
• Economic analyses of the St. Brieuc OWF (undertaken prior to construction) recommend monitoring of economic impacts by estimating changes in revenue and any increases in costs associated with displacement to alternative areas and/or adaptations of gear.

Monitoring approaches for MPAs

• Limited monitoring of the socio-economic impacts of MPAs to date.

Monitoring datasets

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• VMS; and
• AIS.

Key monitoring findings (if available)

• Not applicable.

A.5.5 Netherlands

Overview of commercial fisheries regulation and monitoring

The Dutch commercial fishing industry had a value of 509.8 million USD, producing 0.5 million tonnes of fish in 2018. Consisting of around 833 vessels in 2021, 41.2% of which are smaller vessels (12 m and under), the industry value decreased by 12% between 2008 and 2019 while the quantity of produce decreased by 5% (OECD, 2021c).

As an EU member state, the Netherlands is expected to adhere to the rules of CFP and EU control system regulations and, as of 2023 must update their fleet to accommodate the new rules (see Section A.5.2). In tandem with electronic monitoring (VMS, AIS, and REM), ERS and other monitoring requirements under the regulations, Dutch fishing vessels are required to register with the government under the Dutch Register of Fishing Vessels (NRV). Registration allows traceability monitoring as vessels must declare any changes to the vessel’s operations, including any changes in fishing technique. Vessels registered in the Dutch fleet are subject to yearly vessel inspections, with registration renewals every five years (Netherlands Enterprise Agency, n.d.). Additionally, the Netherlands submits data to DATRAS, InterCatch and FishFrame (see Section A.5.1).

Monitoring commercial fisheries and offshore wind

Between 2020 – 2023, the Netherlands installed a capacity of 4.7 GW in offshore wind developments, reaching its 2023 goal to reach 4.5 GW of installed capacity. There is a further fourteen OWF projects being tendered between 2022 and 2031 (Government of the Netherlands, 2020; Government of the Netherlands, 2023). Fishing within OWFs in the Dutch EEZ is prohibited without appropriate authorisation but vessels may transit within OWFs if gear is appropriately secured. Multi-use measures originally proposed in 2015 were adopted by the government stating:

• Professional fishing vessels may transit within OWF safety zones when bottom fishing gear is in a position above the waterline;
• Bottom disturbing activities are prohibited within safety zones (i.e., anchoring or dragging of fishing gear); and
• Fishing may take place only if the Dutch government deems the fishing gear permissible.

To measure the impact of offshore wind on the commercial fisheries sector, the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) combines VMS data with individual catch-data (catch per species, hours at sea) (WUR, n.d.). Furthermore, VMS and AIS data are also used to monitor fisheries operations around OWFs (European Parliament, 2020).

In 2019, the “Wind op Zee” (Wind at Sea) Project estimated the commercial fisheries value of potential OWF areas by using historical fishing patterns (Mol et al., 2019). The data used to characterise these fishing patterns was VMS, logbooks, fleet information from the Dutch Register of Fishing Vessels (NRV), and economic details from Wageningen Economic Research. Only one published report was identified that discusses the monitoring of the fishing intensity within an operational OWF. Monitoring of fisheries at the Prinses Amalia Wind Park was conducted through available VMS and logbook data and produced various fisheries intensity maps (Machiels, 2017). The Win-Wind project focussed on mammals and bird monitoring; however, no fisheries monitoring was completed. Nevertheless, the potential for passive commercial fisheries within Dutch OWFs has been investigated. Tonk & Rozemeijer (2022) reviewed the potential for co-existence between European lobster and brown crab fisheries (gill nets, fykes and pots and creels) and OWFs using available literature and interviews with fishers. Further to this, Rozemeijer et al., (2023) undertook a ten-day experiment within the Prinses Amalia Wind Park to understand the feasibility of operating crab and lobster passive fishing gear within an operational OWF. Successful catches were obtained at the Prinses Amalia Wind Park, however, the authors recommended that a longer-term study is conducted over a full fishing season.

Monitoring within MPAs

A Dutch study by Spaans (2020) reviewed available studies and evidence on the potential benefits of MPAs in Europe (i.e., not only the Netherlands). The literature identified by Spaans (2020) included commercial fisheries monitoring of spill-over effects around MPAs through biomass estimations, in combination with:

• Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) in relation to distance from the respective MPAs;
• Catch data; and
• Fishing effort around the MPA.

Other examples of data collection on fisheries around MPAs involved questionnaires, surveys and interviews. It was, however, noted that there was no specific monitoring of the fishing industry in most researched MPAs.

It was also mentioned that, whilst some MPA effects could be beneficial for the commercial fishing industry, this would not always be evident in fisheries economic data due to other factors, such as displacement into fishing grounds further away. Additionally, whilst monitoring can provide baseline data and show changes over time, inadequate monitoring may result in inaccurate representation of fishing industry performance. Standardised monitoring can be used to compare monitoring outcomes. Finally, any long-term effects could take a substantial time to accrue, therefore it was recommended that monitoring should take place over longer periods of time, although the authors did not reflect on how long (Spaans, 2020).

Socio-cultural monitoring

Due to the immense changes the Dutch fishing industry has recently undergone due to Brexit (i.e., as a result of reduced fishing rights in the UK), MPAs, offshore wind and policy changes, Wageningen Economic Research conducted a socio-economic impact analysis on the Dutch fishing industry. The study investigated the socio-cultural value of the fishing industry in the Netherlands by using:

• Literature relevant to the research questions;
• Semi-structured local focus group meetings with a mixed group of stakeholders from the fishing industry. The focus groups aimed to understand the impact of policy changes on the fishing industry, its supply chain, and the fishing communities;
• An online and paper questionnaire targeting members of the fishing industry focussed on their social well-being, their views on the future, the future of their company and the future of their community. The questionnaire was similar to one performed in 2008, to show changes through time;
• One-on-one interviews with stakeholders from the fishing industry. The aim of the interviews was to get a better and more contextualised understanding to enhance the questionnaire responses; and
• Mapping, by digitalising and combining maps from 1906 and 2022 from the fishing registration. The maps included data on fishing villages, fishing location, type of vessel, number of crew, number of vessels and target species.

It was noted that data is often collected at various levels, including individually, locally, rurally, nationally, or internationally. For the study, this was linked with other data, such as fleet information or other social-cultural- or economic fisheries data available, both qualitative and quantitative (Kraan et al., 2023).

The study recommended structural monitoring of social and economic indicators on local and aggregated level for easy assessment of the socio-economic value of the commercial fishing industry in the future. It suggested investigation of the social-cultural value of the fishing industry through mapping of fishing communities, then linking that with fleet information or fishing-related cultural or economic indicators, both quantitative and qualitative. No further examples were given on the details of these indicators. It was noted that, whilst large volumes of socio-economic data are collected, the data is often not detailed enough to monitor fisheries specific details (e.g., fisheries data is combined with other data such as agriculture and/or forestry), and there is the possibility of mismatches between strategic policy making and localised impacts, as policy is developed at a high level (EU/national), whilst social impacts are only visible at a local level (Kraan et al., 2023).

Summary

Key regulatory requirements

• All fishers required to comply with requirements of EU legislation (see Section A.5.2). By 2030, all vessels will be required to have a tracking device; and
• All vessels required to register with the government under the Dutch NRV. Vessels are subject to yearly inspections.

Maturity of OWF industry

• Well established with planned expansion.

Co-location of fisheries and OWFs

• Fishing within OWFs is generally prohibited without appropriate authorisation; and
• Some access is permitted for transit under certain circumstances.

Monitoring approaches for OWFs

• Monitoring is conducted by the NVWA using VMS data, catch data and AIS;
• One study was identified which monitors the fishing intensity at an operational OWF using VMS and landings data;
• Several studies are investigating the potential for co-existence between passive fisheries and OWFs; and
• Although not monitoring per se, recent socio-economic analysis of the Dutch fishing industry gathered qualitative data through stakeholder engagement, questionnaires, interviews, and mapping.

Monitoring approaches for MPAs

• Limited ongoing monitoring of the socio-economic impacts of MPAs to date.

Monitoring datasets

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• VMS;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• AIS;
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• Fishing effort;
• Questionnaires;
• Surveys;
• Interviews; and
• Socio-economic data such as fleet information, socio-, cultural- and economic fisheries data.

Key monitoring findings (if available)

• Studies on co-existence of passive fisheries within OWF have shown that this can be successful, although more realistic studies are required.

A.5.6 Germany

Overview of commercial fisheries regulation and monitoring

The German fishing fleet consisted of 1,330 vessels in 2018, down 27% compared to a decade earlier (OECD, 2021d). The fleet lands approximately 261,000 tonnes per year at a value of 331.6 million USD (OECD, 2021d; Schupp et al., 2021). The German EEZ covers an area of 28,600 km² across the North Sea and Baltic Sea, with the zone split into two areas separated by the Jutland Peninsula (Reckhaus, 2022).

As an EU member state, Germany is required to comply with EU control regulations, applying vessel wide electronic monitoring, ERS and landings declarations (see Section A.5.2). Monitoring in Germany is conducted by four research institutes:

• The Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute of marine and fisheries;
• The Institute of Sea Fisheries;
• The Institute of Fisheries Ecology (North Sea fisheries); and
• The Institute for Baltic Sea fisheries.

These institutions provide their research to the Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture (BMEL). The Thünen Institute in particular is tasked with the monitoring and development of fishing methods through randomly selected on-board stock assessments (Centenera, 2014; Thünen, 2024). The Thünen Institute is also involved in internationally recorded monitoring programs such as the Baltic International Acoustic Survey (BIAS) for herring and sprat and the Baltic International Trawl Survey (BIS) for demersal fish species. The fisheries-independent data is stored in a national database. The original, aggregated and nationally raised data is transmitted to ICES databases such as DATRAS, InterCatch and the regional database FishFrame (Thünen, 2023) (see Section A.5.1).

Additionally, the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) is responsible for fisheries protection and ensuring the implementation of the EU CFP regulations. Fisheries are thereby monitored by three vessels (Meerkatze, Seefalke and Seeadler), operating outwith 12 NM of the coast in the EEZ, ensuring compliance with national and international legislation (MSZ, 2018).

Furthermore, the BLE are responsible for adherence to the Common Market Organisation for Fisheries (CMO), a vital pillar of the CFP. The CMO outlines the EU’s market managing policy, enhancing the fisheries sector’s responsibilities regarding the CFP. In turn they monitor and manage the national catch quota and the upkeep of price reporting, electronic log booking and VMS (MSZ, 2018; European Parliament, 2023). Individual vessels can be monitored by BLE inspectors, who inspect the fishing gears, quantities and vessel papers, species, minimum catch sizes and quantity. These controls and inspections ensure compliance with EU regulations, general fishing bans and conditions allowing access to specific fishing grounds (MSZ, 2018).

Monitoring commercial fisheries and offshore wind

Second only behind the UK, Germany is one of the European leaders in offshore wind developments. The German introduction of offshore wind initially began in 2009 after establishing the MSP for the North and Baltic Seas EEZ (Schupp et al., 2021; BSH, 2021). The Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BHS) is responsible for overseeing MSP, OWF and other energy developments in German waters. The BHS is required to follow the goals set out by the government to reach the target of 40 GW by 2040.

The German MSP restricts mobile commercial fisheries operating within OWFs. OWFs are classified as ‘Priority Areas’ which grants applying maritime users priority of sea space over other user groups. Congruently, fisheries are not considered for priority area designation due to their high spatial variability and EU controlled management systems. Vessels must attain special permission to use Priority Areas (including OWF areas) (Schupp et al, 2021).

Reckhaus (2022) conducted interviews with members of the commercial fishing industry who have expressed displeasure with the current restrictions on fishing vessels with regards to offshore wind developments within German waters (see ‘Priority Areas’ in above paragraph’). Furthermore, Reckhaus (2022) stated that underrepresentation of the fishing industry in the planning process has led to an unbalanced situation, particularly in the North Sea where the majority of OWF developments and fishing activity are present. This is, in addition to the 500 m exclusion zone around OWFs, further restricting the space within which the German fleet can operate (Dupont et al., 2020).

How commercial fisheries are affected by offshore wind developments in the German part of the North Sea is not well understood. The Thünen Institute conducts monitoring of fisheries activity and effort based on AIS and VMS data to gauge the impacts on commercial fishing around offshore wind developments (European Parliament, 2020). A separate Thünen Institute study from the German part of the North Sea has also conducted monitoring work with anglers to assess catch rates of cod near OWFs with various foundation types. The study indicated greater cod catch rates in the vicinity of monopiles with rock foundations compared to monopiles with sandbags or jackets. This offered an important insight into the importance of monitoring fisheries activity in relation to offshore wind, as the findings highlighted the potential for economically viable fish stocks to aggregate near OWFs (Werner et al., 2024). Additionally, the Thünen Institute monitored passive gear interactions with OWFs across the North Sea, using fisheries-dependant data from 2013 - 2021 and cross referencing them with 4C Offshore^[30] OWF location data, relevant ICES rectangles, current industry practices and EIAs (Bonsu et al., 2024). The study identified that there is a high spatial overlap between the passive fishing activity and operational and planned OWFs. Amongst other recommendations for enabling co-existence, Bonsu et al. (2024) identified a need for experimental research and monitoring to better understand ecological and economic benefits of co-locating passive fisheries and OWFs. Stelzenmüller et al. (2021) laid baited pots targeting brown crab along transects adjacent to the operational Meerwind Süd/Ost OWF at distances between 50 – 1,500 m to the closest turbine. The pots were left to soak for 24 hours before being hauled and the carapace width, weight and sex of the crabs caught was measured. Alongside this experiment, Stelzenmüller et al. (2021) analysed VMS data from 2012 - 2019 across the German part of the North Sea to identify the distance of each VMS transmission to the nearest boundary of an OWF. Spill-over effects were identified out to 300 – 500 m from the nearest turbines and analysis of VMS data indicated that, at certain OWF locations, crab fishing effort increased over time, indicating that crab abundances had increased in the vicinity of the OWFs. It is acknowledged that this could also partly result from an increased demand for crab (Stelzenmüller et al., 2021).

Monitoring within MPAs

Approximately 31% of the German EEZ is designated as MPAs. There are six MPAs (Salomon and Schumacher, 2019), covering the German part of the North Sea and Baltic Sea (Fock et al., 2008). After European Commission fisheries conservation measures entered into force in March 2023, fishing on the seabed (i.e., bottom trawling) and the use of gillnets has been prohibited in all or part of three MPAs in Germany (Seas at risk, 2023). In the past, surveys have been conducted using beam trawl surveys and VMS mapping (Fock et al, 2008; Pedersen et al, 2008). The limited research on the impacts of MPAs on commercial fisheries shows that more is required, particularly as the current focus seems to be on why certain practices need to be restricted and/or monitored, whereas there is very limited information available on how commercial fisheries could be monitored or how restrictions within MPAs could affect the commercial fishing industry.

Summary

Key regulatory requirements

• All fishers required to comply with requirements of EU legislation (see Section 5.2).

Maturity of OWF industry

• Well established with planned expansion.

Co-location of fisheries and OWFs

• Fishing within OWFs is generally prohibited without appropriate authorisation.

Monitoring approaches for OWFs

• Limited monitoring of commercial fisheries impacts;
• Thünen Institute conducts monitoring of fisheries activity and effort based on AIS and VMS data; and
• Discrete monitoring/experimental studies have focussed on assessing the potential for OWFs to attract fish or result in spill-over effects.

Monitoring approaches for MPAs

• Limited ongoing monitoring of the socio-economic impacts of MPAs to date. Research focuses on the impact of fishing on MPA features to inform management decisions (e.g. establishment of restricted areas).

Monitoring datasets

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• Participation within international monitoring programmes of commercial species;
• Hosting through national databases;
• Monitoring through survey vessels;
• Monitoring of catch quota and price reporting;
• On-board inspectors;
• AIS;
• VMS (2-hour pings);
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data; and
• Interviews with fishers.

Key monitoring findings (if available)

• Studies on co-existence of passive fisheries in areas adjacent to OWFs have shown that spill-over effects occur, although this dependent on the site.

A.5.7 USA

Overview of commercial fisheries regulation and monitoring

The commercial fishing industry in the US was valued at 5.5 billion USD in 2019 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2019) and covers five distinct regions: Alaska, New England/Mid-Atlantic, Pacific Islands, Southeast and West Coast. These regions in turn have their own sub regions managed collectively by:

• NOAA;
• Regional Fishery Management Councils (Methratta et al., 2020); and
• Individual state governments through various fisheries commissions for the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf States and Hawaii Fisheries Commissions/Councils.

One of the primary purposes of these agencies/commissions is to research and manage projects related to interstate fisheries by providing monitoring data. Data collection is a joint state and federal responsibility, whereby landings data is collated by state mandated fisheries trips, landings weighting reports from seafood dealers, federal logbooks of fisheries CPUE and biological sampling of catches. Data collection is primarily conducted by the state fisheries agencies but can work in conjunction with NOAA to ensure data from various states and years is comparable (NOAA, 2023a). The Magnuson-Stevenson Act (MSA) of 1976, the Sustainable Fisheries Act 2921 and the MSA Reauthorization Act 2007 set out the requirements for fisheries monitoring as described in the text below (NOAA, 2023e).

In the US, monitoring is reliant on Fishery Dependant Data (FDD). This data is collected by NOAA as part of routine fishing operations to inform stock assessments, monitor fishery quotas, and evaluate and describe changes in socio-economic trends and fishing patterns, such as economic performance, market dynamics, and spatial choice behaviour. VMS requirements differ by region^[31]. Commercial FDD in the northeast is collected from positioning data such as VMS (reports locations every 30 - 60 minutes) and AIS, dealer landings reports, study and research vessels, portside samplers, at-sea monitors and catch reports. Fishers may supply local ecological knowledge and socio-economic data such as market pricing, operational costs, and crew numbers via independent research studies (Hogan et al., 2023). Vessels utilising VMS are expected to make a ‘declaration of trip intent’ stating explicitly their gear type, target species and management area. AIS transponders on the other hand are only required by vessels over 65 ft (approximately 19.8 m) and are allowed to be deactivated beyond 12 NM. Research programmes and observer data provide a useful first-hand account for data collection and gaining insights into the local site-specific ecological and socio-economical knowledge (Hogan et al, 2023).

In order to monitor fisheries, the NOAA has set up the National Cooperative Research Programme (NCRP) whereby ‘cooperative research’ is conducted with the various regional fisheries commissions/councils and, by-proxy, the local fishing industries and other stakeholders such as university scientists (NOAA 2023b). The Data and Information Systems (DIS) branch of the NOAA develop and maintain archival data information systems that can be utilised in regional monitoring and research efforts (NOAA, 2023c). Table 7‑2 below details the monitoring systems used in the New England region, around the Gulf of Maine. The large amount of monitoring conducted within this region stems from the importance of the commercial fishing sector in the region and the presence of both commissioned and planned offshore wind developments.

Table 7‑2 Monitoring systems utilised in the north-eastern US

Pre-Trip Notification System (PTNS)

Assigns observers and at-sea monitors to vessels. The PTNS automatically links the user (NOAA, fishing industry or scientific observers) that at-sea monitors and electric monitoring data systems for efficiency. The data gathered includes:

• Vessel name and permit number;
• Fishery;
• Trip type;
• Sail date and time;
• Estimated trip duration;
• Gear/mesh size;
• Fishing region;
• Exemption or Exempted Fishery Program (EFP) participation; and
• Pair trawl information (if applicable).

NOAA (2023c)

NOAA (2023d)

Fishery Monitoring Portal

New England based system that acts as the central hub for communications and monitoring operations. The data available includes:

• Scheduled deployments;
• Vessel safety information;
• Train and certification information; and
• Vessel availability.

NOAA (2023c)

Northeast Electronic Monitoring Information System (NEMIS)

An application programming interface designed for submitting third party electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring fishing dependant data is submitted by fisheries to the NOAA fisheries.

NOAA (2023c)

Observer At-Sea Information System (OASIS)

Mobile application that monitors and collects on-board fisheries data (target species, catch rates, landings data) from commercial fishing vessels at sea.

NOAA (2023c)

Fisheries Logbook and Data Recording Software (FLDRS)

Used by the NCRP study fleets, this tool provides data on fishing effort, catch and discards. The data is used to support:

• Stock assessment;
• Offshore wind impacts on commercial fisheries;
• Thermal niche models; and
• Regional oceanographic condition models.

NOAA (2023c)

Gulf of Maine Cooperative Bottom Longline Survey

Collects fisheries data in the western gulf in rocky bottom habitats to complement annual bottom trawling surveys for which rocky habitats cause a challenge. The survey provides information on commercially important fish species for fisheries operating in that part of the Gulf of Maine.

NOAA (2023e)

Monitoring of commercial fisheries and offshore wind

With a goal of reaching 30 GW by 2030 and 110 GW by 2050, the US has set ambitious offshore wind commitments particularly in the Northeast of the country (New-York, New-Jersey and Massachusetts). Currently, the country has an overall capacity of 42 MW generated from the Block Island OWF (BIWF) – the country’s first OWF which became operational in 2016 – and the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot Project (von Krauland et al, 2023). Furthermore, with an extensive network of over 1,000 MPAs and other no access or exclusion zones such as military bases or NASA installations, monitoring goals for fisheries are not always clear. It is unclear on whether monitoring is aiming to further understand the positive or negative impacts of reduced access for fisheries, where an example of a positive impact may be a spill-over effect (e.g., increased catches near the area of restricted access) and an example of a negative impact may be reduced revenue for fishers, particularly in the short-term. This can be perceived either from a conservation perspective or from a socio-economic/cultural perspective for the fishing industry (Stack et al, 2022).

Monitoring within and around offshore wind in the US is still in its infancy. There has been some monitoring performed both academically and industrially. Monthly and seasonal trawl surveys and habitat assessments conducted by researchers and local fishers have been used to monitor and inform CPUE of demersal and invertebrate catches around the BIWF area, in order to monitor commercial fisheries activity before and after construction. Findings showed that spatial variability increased as fishers used the areas around the OWF. Monitoring of the CPUE indicated that the changes in fish biomass led to more bountiful catch rates outside the OWF. However, more research is required, as it is not well understood what level of change in catch is significant (Carey et al, 2020; Wilber et al., 2022). Active GPS location data and log booking has also been used to create spatial footprints of fishing fleets within planned OWF areas in southern New England and the Mid Atlantic Coasts (Allen-Jacobson et al., 2023).

The planned Revolution Windfarm (RWF) will be located off the coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts and will be approximately 18.5 NM from the BIWF. A Research Monitoring Plan (RMP) has been developed based on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Guidelines “Providing Information on Fisheries for Renewable Energy Development”. In conjunction with BOEM, the RWF is working closely with the commercial fishing industry throughout the project lifecycle to maintain and deliver relevant fisheries data in relation to the OWF. Trawl surveys, seasonal surveys and fisheries’ independent surveys will continue to be used for monitoring fishing vessels during the project lifecycle, through monitoring catch rates and landings in and around offshore wind developments. Furthermore, commercial fishing activity in the RWF Project area was characterised from VMS, AIS and Vessel Trip Report Data (VTR) (Revolution Wind, 2023).

The monitoring practices mentioned previously included qualitative and quantitative research into the effects of OWFs on fisheries monitoring practices. The Responsible Development Alliance (RODA), together with the NOAA, BOEM, the National Fisheries Marine Service (NMFS) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Centre (NEFSC) have conducted research into the applications and concerns regarding existing monitoring practices in the US (Hogan et al., 2023). BOEM have released guidelines for monitoring of fisheries resources as part of the site characterisation and to inform BOEM’s decision-making process (BOEM, 2019). These guidelines focus on collecting data on fish and shellfish stocks. The scientific surveys include long-term data collection and datasets essential for fisheries management and monitoring (Hare et al, 2022).

NOAA and BOEM are working on a strategy to reduce impacts of OWFs on NOAA fisheries surveys. There is concern that OWFs will adversely affect NOAA fisheries surveys by restricting the areas in which survey vessels can operate, resulting in increased transit times around OWFs. Displacement of fishing vessels, changes in fishing operations (e.g., increased fixed gear usage) and displacement of survey vessels may impact the regulators’ ability to survey efficiently in the vicinity of OWFs, thus decreasing availability of data that is essential for fisheries monitoring. Decreased efficiency and lack of scientific survey mitigation may also have significant socio-economic impacts on commercial fishers, due to potential uncertainty or inaccuracies in scientific advice potentially restricting what fishers are permitted to do if stocks or quotas are miscalculated or misrepresented. These uncertainties could potentially lead to lower fishery quotas and, as consequence, lower revenue (Hogan et al, 2023).

NOAA (2024) recently produced reports assessing the socio-economic impacts of the offshore wind lease areas along the U.S Atlantic Coast from Maine to North Carolina. Although the purpose of these reports is not to monitor impacts of OWFs on commercial fisheries, they provide a valuable insight into the available socio-economic datasets. NOAA (2024) outlines the contents of the reports, which include socio-economic baselines for commercial fisheries using the following key data sources:

• Annual landings data (weight and value);
• Individual vessel fishing revenue dependence within the lease area, including the proportion of landings attributed to the lease area;
• Small and large business count and associated revenue; and
• Fishing effort.

The data was obtained using logbook data and dealer reports. However, it is noted that not all vessels are represented in the data sources above. The reports themselves were not publicly accessible.

Monitoring within MPAs

Between 2015 - 2019, NOAA created new maps of commercial fishing activity in the US based on VMS data. The VMS data does not distinguish between areas of transit and fishing activity, so ports occasionally show as high-density fishing regions (NOAA Ocean Data, 2022). While it does not cover MPAs specifically, the visualised data may be useful for overlaying with MPA presence as it overlaps with Gulf of Maine MPAs such as the Gerry E. Studds/Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts. On the west coast, the California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program (CCFRP) has partnered with members of the commercial fishing industry to research and monitor groundfish within California’s MPA network. Volunteer anglers work alongside research scientists to conduct catch-and-release monitoring inside and outside MPAs to collect data on the fish caught. The research has succeeded in generating ongoing biological observations. The research highlights the importance of collaboration of monitoring efforts with those directly involved with the industry and the particular fishery they may be involved in. The collaborative research conducted by the CCFRP, although a heterogenous group in terms of experience with groundfish, their insight and perceptions of groundfish stock health and management has proved invaluable, highlighting the need for similar approaches industry wide (Mason et al., 2020).

Summary

Key regulatory requirements

• Data collection primarily conducted by state fisheries agencies in conjunction with NOAA to ensure standardisation of data. The NOAA collect data for stock assessments, monitoring of fisheries quotas, and to describe changes in socio-economic trends and fishing patterns;
• Landings data collated by state mandated fisheries;
• Landings weightings reports required from seafood dealers;
• VMS requirements differ by region; and
• The NOAA set up the NCRP for collation of data collected by regional fisheries commissions/councils.

Maturity of OWF industry

• Limited operational capacity but ambitious expansions planned.

Co-location of fisheries and OWFs

• 500 m safety zones applied around offshore construction which prohibits fishing activity; and
• Fishing within operational OWFs is not prohibited and co-existence is encouraged.

Monitoring approaches for OWFs

• Monitoring of socio-economic impacts from operational OWFs is limited, partly due to offshore wind in the USA being in its infancy;
• Monitoring of fisheries is conducted academically and industrially. The NOAA provide fisheries data to BOEM related to fishing activities, and this includes conducting research and monitoring to better understand the effects of OWFs on fisheries; and
• Monitoring at the BIWF area focussed on changes in demersal and invertebrate CPUE to understand changes in fish biomass. Similarly, guidelines produced by BOEM focus on characterising fish stocks at OWFs, rather than commercial fisheries.

Monitoring approaches for MPAs

• Monitoring conducted by CCFRP involves volunteer anglers working alongside scientists to collect data inside and outside MPAs to understand any variations on the fish caught.

Monitoring datasets

• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• VMS;
• AIS;
• Portside sampling and at sea monitoring via fisheries observers;
• Catch reports;
• Market prices;
• Operational costs;
• Crew numbers;
• PTNS;
• OASIS; and
• FLDRS.

Key monitoring findings (if available)

• Monitoring studies of fish stocks at the BIWF area indicated an increase in stocks on the periphery of the OWF.

Key limitations

• Limited availability of monitoring data, partly due to offshore wind in the USA being in its infancy; and
• Vessels may not be represented by all datasets.

A.6 Discussion

This report reviewed available literature on fisheries monitoring in Scotland, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany and the US, with a focus on information related to the potential impacts of OWFs on the commercial fishing industry. The key objectives of the study were to identify potential datasets which could be used for monitoring in Scotland, understand existing and future monitoring practices and to assess key limitations and data gaps. A wider objective was to identify any lessons learned from monitoring practices of non-UK countries which could be used in Scotland.

Data collected for management of fisheries (i.e., for fisheries compliance) provides a useful insight into potential data sources available for monitoring. For most countries, as a minimum, landings data (via logbooks), VMS data and AIS data are processed by fisheries management organisations to monitor fishing activity and compliance. For those countries in the EU, recent changes in legislation mean that by 2030, all vessels will be required to have a tracking device (e.g., VMS), and larger vessels over 18 m in length will be required to utilise REM. Additionally, there is a transition to digital catch reporting through ERS with a move away from paper logbooks.

In general, the level of data collected by EU countries is considered to be comparable to Scotland, and this is likely due to the UK previously being required to comply with the CFP (e.g., Scotland proposes to implement regulations to require tracking devices on all 12 m and under vessels by 2026, and REM on specific vessels where there are clear scientific and compliance benefits (Marine Directorate, 2023)).

In Belgium, it was identified that monitoring of compliance with safety zones was conducted using radar, VHF and AIS. Again, this is considered comparable to monitoring which could be conducted within Scottish OWFs through the MCC, although this may not detect smaller vessels that do not require AIS. In the US, a tiered approach to fisheries compliance is undertaken. The NOAA is ultimately responsible for fisheries compliance and management within the US EEZ; however, individual states are responsible from the coast out to 3 NM. The NOAA work with relevant authorities to ensure a standardised and holistic approach to fisheries management is undertaken. Again, the US collects similar data to Scotland, such as landings data and VMS, and additionally on-board observers and at-sea monitoring is conducted. According to the NOAA website, socio-economic analyses are undertaken using the collected data to monitor trends in economic performance, market dynamics and regional economic impacts. The NOAA provide relevant data to BOEM to inform their decision-making processes with regards to consenting OWFs. Across all countries analysed, VMS data was identified as a key source for monitoring fisheries. Similar data limitations for VMS currently apply to other EU countries, as at time of writing, not all vessels are required to use this technology. In the US, VMS requirements also differ by region and certain vessels are not required to utilise VMS.

Within the considered countries, very few sources were identified that monitored the socio-economic impacts of OWFs on the commercial fishing industry. Instead, monitoring studies typically focussed on a specific fishing gear type or fish species, with the aim of identifying the potential for spill-over effects or co-existence between (passive) fisheries and OWFs. Studies looking into the potential for co-existence between passive fisheries and OWFs were conducted under experimental conditions, and longer-term real-world studies are required. Although these studies provide valuable insights which could help inform monitoring approaches in Scotland, there is a distinct lack of real-time monitoring of fisheries impacts. Where monitoring is conducted, data sources typically only include VMS data and landings data. It was noted that in order to appropriately characterise the potential effects of OWFs on commercial fishing industry, longer-term monitoring programmes may be required. For instance, any positive impacts on the commercial fishing industry associated with spill-over or fish aggregation may only be realised in the long-term. In addition, no studies were identified that monitored the impacts of OWFs across all stages of development in a comparable manner. It is considered likely that there is a lack of monitoring of fisheries within the OWFs in the EU due to most countries having banned any fishing practices within OWFs. In the US, the lack of monitoring studies is likely due to the infancy of the OWF industry.

Similar to OWFs, a lack of monitoring of the socio-economic impacts of MPA restrictions on commercial fisheries was also identified. In most instances, fisheries data analysis was conducted to help inform the siting of fisheries restrictions, rather than to assess how MPA restrictions were impacting the commercial fishing industry.

A summary of the available monitoring data for the countries considered within this review is provided in Table 7‑3. The key limitations and data gaps are listed, alongside any key lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices.

Table 7‑3 Data analysis of fisheries monitoring within the UK (Scotland), Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany and USA.

Country: Scotland/UK

Summary of monitoring datasets:

• Records from OFLO and guard vessels (where available);
• Analysis of Marine Traffic Surveys in respect of fishing vessel activity;
• Analysis of MCC records;
• Stakeholder engagement with the fishing industry via the FLO;
• Landings Data through (electronic and paper) logbooks;
• VMS;
• AIS;
• Vessel and aircraft patrols;
• Surveys, questionnaires, and interviews; and in-situ fishery resources measurements.

Data limitations and data gaps:

• Data does not represent the whole fishing industry, i.e. VMS/AIS is only used on vessels over 12 and 15 m respectively;
• Monitoring through patrols may only give a snapshot in time and may lead to inadequate/unrepresentative data; and
• Data collection through interviews is only conducted as a one-off, instead of repeatedly to show changes over time.

Lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices:

• N/A

Country: Belgium

Summary of monitoring datasets:

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• VMS;
• AIS;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• Radars ( VHF);
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• and VALDUVIS system.

Data limitations and data gaps:

• Data accessibility issues;
• Data does not represent the whole fishing industry;
• Metadata (e.g. gear type) for VMS is not always available, limiting the use of the data;
• and Lack of socio-cultural and socio-economic monitoring data and research.

Lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices:

• Similar data accessibility issues apply in Scotland for smaller vessels. However, data accessibility and availability are considered sufficient for larger vessels;
• Monitoring studies in Belgium focus on specific gear types and species, however, in Scotland, all relevant fisheries for a Project should be represented for monitoring;
• Similar lack of socio-cultural and socio-economic monitoring and research applies to Scotland. However, there are now scheduled and existing monitoring studies (Neart na Gaoithe and Moray West) that will provide valuable monitoring data;
• and In Scotland, metadata is typically collected and combined with VMS data for published outputs.

Country: France

Summary of monitoring datasets:

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• VMS; and
• AIS.
• Data limitations and data gaps:
• No accurate monitoring of how the French fleet could have been impacted by fishing restrictions from OWF;
• Lack of socio-cultural and socio-economic monitoring data and research;
• and Limited information on application of monitoring practices.

Lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices:

• Due to the infancy of OWFs in France, limited monitoring studies have been conducted to date. Therefore, there are limited lessons to be learned for Scotland

Country: Netherlands

Summary of monitoring datasets:

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• VMS;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• AIS;
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• Fishing effort;
• Questionnaires;
• Surveys;
• Interviews;
• and Socio-economic data such as fleet information, socio-, cultural- and economic fisheries data.

Data limitations and data gaps:

• Beneficial effects from monitoring may not show in economic data as a consequence of poor data availability;
• No standardised monitoring data available, data difficult to combine and compare;
• Data collection at varying levels (i.e. locally vs. internationally) also makes datasets difficult to compare and combine;
• and Short term monitoring may only give a snapshot in time and may lead to inadequate/unrepresentative data.

Lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices:

• In accordance with the limitation identified through Dutch monitoring, long-term Scottish monitoring data should be collected to ensure that effects are appropriately characterised. Currently, monitoring for Neart na Gaoithe and Moray West is proposed to be completed three years post-construction, which may not be long enough for effects to be fully realised; and
• In Scotland, publicly available fisheries data is standardised, however, standardisation of primary data outputs is required.

Country: Germany

Summary of monitoring datasets:

• EU directed electronic monitoring;
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• Participation within international monitoring programmes of commercial species;
• Hosting through national databases;
• Monitoring through survey vessels;
• Monitoring of catch quota and price reporting;
• On-board inspectors;
• AIS;
• VMS;
• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data; and
• Interviews with fishers.

Data limitations and data gaps:

• There is a lot of emphasis on why restrictions have been placed on certain fishing practices but a lack of insight on the impacts of OWFs or other restrictions on the commercial fishing industry;
• Lack of socio-cultural and socio-economic monitoring data and research; and
• Importance of considering market trends when considering changes in fishing effort.

Lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices:

• Monitoring studies focus on specific gear types and species, however, in Scotland, all relevant fisheries for a Project should be represented for monitoring;
• Socio-economic data could potentially be monitored alongside market trends to account for any increases in demand of a particular species when determining impacts of OWFs on commercial fisheries

Country: USA

Summary of monitoring datasets:

• Logbooks;
• Effort and landings data;
• In-situ fishery resources measurements;
• VMS;
• AIS;
• Portside sampling and at sea monitoring via fisheries observers;
• Catch reports;
• Market prices;
• Operational costs;
• Crew numbers;
• PTNS;
• OASIS; and
• FLDRS.

Data limitations and data gaps:

• Information regarding monitoring within MPAs and other no-take zones is vague. Unclear how monitoring is conducted in relation to commercial fisheries.

Lessons learned for Scottish monitoring practices:

• Due to the infancy of OWF in the US, limited monitoring studies have been conducted to date. Therefore, there are limited lessons to be learned for Scotland;
• With regards to data resolution, the US has a higher frequency of VMS pings (every 30 – 60 mins rather than 2 hours) which could lead to a more detailed dataset;
• Reports based on scientific and industry research and co- operation could be compiled in a centralised database and should include reports regarding:
  • An overview of monitoring practices in Scottish waters;
  • Management of monitoring practices;
  • Monitoring vessels with regards to OWFs; and
  • Socio-cultural and economic reports.

A.7 Conclusion

This Rapid Literature Review summarises existing fisheries monitoring practices in Scotland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the USA, focussing on monitoring related to OWFs. It is clear that the socio-economic impacts of OWFs on commercial fisheries are not well monitored within any of the countries reviewed. General monitoring practices of larger vessels (over 12 m) is implemented (i.e., through VMS, AIS, logbooks) in each of the assessed countries, whereas data gaps remain in all researched countries on data collection for smaller fishing vessels (12 m and under). Although the methodology for general fisheries data collection appears similar between the countries, the data is often collected in different ways, at different levels, not continuously (leading to outdated datasets) and using different metadata. Therefore, while some data is available that could be used for monitoring, it is often vague, underdeveloped and not representative of the whole fishing industry, thus making it difficult to compare or combine. An example of this is the three different data portals within ICES, which makes data analysis, comparisons and data mining for monitoring purposes difficult and time consuming.

Furthermore, commercial fisheries data is not centrally stored in Scotland, the EU nor US. A centralised database would improve data sharing, though a barrier could be the willingness and ability of countries/states and their respective fishing industries to share this economically sensitive data. A more centralised streamlined, accessible, and user-friendly approach would be advised, at a national level.

Additionally, standardising the collection of data, especially within one country, and streamlining the collected datasets to ensure combining and comparing is possible, would give opportunity for a well-organised monitoring programme to assess the potential impacts of OWFs on the fishing industry. It would also provide a useful tool for research and co-existence, whereby developers, the fishing industry and government bodies alike can make well-informed decisions.

Finally, it is recommended that data collection for monitoring should be transparent, with details on monitoring practices made available. The collected data would need to be continuous and long-term to avoid outdated datasets. All relevant fishing vessels, regardless of size, should be represented within the monitoring datasets, and enough metadata (e.g., gear type, engine power, vessel length, target species) should be collected and made available, where practicable, for the data to be used for monitoring impacts. Aside from monitoring direct effects from OWFs on commercial fisheries, secondary impacts, such as socio-economic factors, could also be monitored through catch and market analysis, socio-cultural and economic reports, and supplemented with direct engagement with the local fishing industry.

A.8 References

Allen-Jacobson, L.M., Jones, A.W., Mercer, A.J., Cadrin, S.X., Galuardi, B., Christel, D., Silva, A., Lipsky, A. and Haugen, J.B. (2023). Evaluating Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind Development on Fishing Operations by Comparing Fine- and Coarse-Scale Fishery-Dependent Data. Mar Coast Fish, 15: e10233.

BOP (N.D). Available at: MOB website [Accessed January 2024].

Bonsu, P.O., Letschert, J., Yates, K.L., Svendsen, J.C., Berkenhagen, J., Rozemeijer, M.J.C., Kerkhove, T., Rehren, J. and Stelzenmuller (2024). Co-location of fisheries and offshore windfarms: Current practices and enabling conditions in the North Sea. Marine Policy. 159.

BSH (2021a). Maritime Spatial Plan 2021. Available at: BSH website [Accessed January 2024].

Carey, D.A., Wilber, D.H., Read, L.B., Guarinello, M.L., Griffin, M. and Sabo, S. (2020). Effects of the Block Island Windfarm on Coastal Resources: Lessons learned, Oceanography. 33(4).

Centenera, R (2014). Directorate-general for internal policies, policy department B: structural and cohesion policies: Fisheries in Germany. European Parliament. Available at: Europarliament website. [Accessed January 2024].

Client Earth (2017). The control and enforcement of fisheries in France. Available at: Client Earth website [Accessed January 2024].

Crown Estate Scotland (2023). INTOG: 13 projects selected to support green innovation and help decarbonise North Sea. Available at: CES website [Accessed March 2024]

Degraer, S., Brabant, R., Rumes, B. and Vigin, L. (2020). Environmental Impacts of Offshore windfarms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Marking a Decade of Monitoring, Research and Innovation. Brussels: Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, 134 p.

Derdudder, T. and Maes, F (2015). COUNTRY REPORT: BELGIUM Marine Spatial Planning and the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Belgian Part of the North Sea, Belgium: Marine Spatial Planning.

Dupont, C., Herpers, F and Le Visage, C. (2020). Recommendations for positive interactions between offshore windfarms and fisheries. European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (European Commission).

European Commission (2022a). Belgium Country Profile, European MSP Platform. Available at: European Commission website [Accessed December 2023].

European Commission (2022b). Belgium will receive €40.3 million from the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 2021-2027. Available at: European Commission website [Accessed March 2024].

European Commission (2023a). Maritime Spatial Planning. Available at: European Commission website [Accessed January 2024].

European Commission (2024). Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Available at: European Commision website [Accessed February 2024].

European Council (2023). Fight against overfishing: Council adopts revised rules for EU fisheries control regime. Available at: European Council website [Accessed January 2024].

European MSP Platform (2018). Conflict fiche 5: Offshore wind and commercial fisheries: Story 2: Fierce negotiations on the final location of an offshore windfarm in France. Available at: EU MSP Platform [Accessed January 2024].

European Parliament (2020). Impact of offshore wind and other marine renewables on European fisheries. Available at: European Parliament website [Accessed February 2024].

European Parliament (2021). Inspections, monitoring and surveillance. Available at: European Parliament website [Accessed February, 2024].

European Parliament (2023). Parliament approves new EU fisheries control rules. Available at: European Parliament website. [Accessed February 2024].

European Parliament (2024). Fact Sheets on the European Union, Fisheries Control. Available at: European Parliament website [Accessed February 2024]

FLOWW (2014). Best Practice Guidance for Offshore Renewables Developments. Recommendations for Fisheries Liaison. FLOWW (Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group). Available at: Crown Estate website [Accessed January 2024]

FLOWW (2015). Best Practice Guidance for Offshore Renewables Developments: Recommendations for Fisheries Disruption Settlements and Community Funds. Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group (FLOWW) Available at: Crown Estate website [Accessed January 2024]

Fock, H., Sell, A. and Rice, J (2008). Fisheries and marine spatial planning in German offshore waters - resolving spatial conflict issues, ICES ASC 2008.

Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. (2021). Cochrane rapid reviews methods group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clinical Epidemiol, 130:13–22.

Gill, A., Degraer, S., Lipsky, A., Mavraki, N., Methratta, E., Brabant, R., (2020). Setting the context for offshore wind development effects on fish and fisheries. Oceanography, Vol 33, No 4.

Government of the Netherlands (2020). Offshore wind energy. Available at: Dutch Government website [Accessed February 2024].

Government of the Netherlands (2023). Offshore wind: The Netherlands well on schedule, tender round to double capacity will start early 2024. Available at: Dutch Government website. [Accessed February 2024].

Hare, J., Blythe, B., Ford, K., Hooker, B., Jensen, B., Lipsky, A., Nachman, C., Pfeiffer, L., Rasser, M. and Renshaw, K (2022). NOAA Fisheries and BOEM federal survey mitigation strategy – Northeast U.S. Region. Available at: NOAA website [Accessed January 2024].

Hogan, B., Hooker, B., Jensen, B., Johnston, L., Lipsky, A., Methratta, E., Silva, A. and Hawkins, A (2023). Fisheries and offshore wind interactions: Synthesis of science, NOAA. Available at NOAA website [Accessed January 2024].

ICES (2023). ICES Database on Trawl Surveys (DATRAS). Available at: Datras ICES website [Accessed March 2024].

ICES (2024a). InterCatch. Available at: ICES website [Accessed March 2024].

ICES (2024b). Regional DataBase FishFrame. Available at: ICES website [Accessed March 2024].

ILVO (2024). Aquaculture at sea. Available at: IVLO website [Accessed March 2024].

Kinds, A., Sys, K., Schotte, L., Mondelares, K. and Polet, A (2014) VALDUVIS, an innovative way of assessing the sustainability of fishing activities., ICES. Available at: ICES website. [Accessed January 2024].

Kraan, M.L., Steins, N.A., Verschuur, X., van der Valk, O., van Wonderen, O.D., Puister-Jansen, L., A. Klok. And Deetman, B 2023. Sociale en culturele waarde van visserij voor de visserijgemeenschap; En gevolgen van beleidswijzigingen. Wageningen, Wageningen Economic Research, Rapport 2023-053. 136 pp.; 20 fig.; 10 tab.; 52 ref. ISBN 978-94-6447-685-9.

Le Floc’h, P., Bertignac, M., Curtil, O., Macher, C., Mariat-Roy, E. and, Paulet, Y.M (2018). A multidisciplinary approach to the spatial dimension in ecosystem-based fisheries management. Aquatic Living Resources. 31 (23).

Machiels, M, (2017). Visserij-intensiteit in en rondom het Prinses Amalia Wind Park; Wageningen, Marine Research Wageningen UR (University & Research centre), rapport C091/17, 23 blz.

Marine Maritime Organisation (2019). Vessel Monitoring System (VMS+) guidance. Available at: MMO website [Accessed February 2024].

Marine Directorate (2023). Improving inshore fisheries data: Consultation on requiring electronic tracking and monitoring technology on under 12 metre commercial fishing vessels. Available at: Scottish Government website [Accessed May 2024].

Mason ET, Kellum AN, Chiu JA, Waltz GT, Murray S, Wendt DE, Starr RM, Semmens BX. (2020). Long-term participation in collaborative fisheries research improves angler opinions on marine protected areas. PeerJ 8:e10146

Methratta, E.T., Hawkins, A., Hooker, B.R. and Hare, J.A. (2020). Offshore Wind Development in the Northeast US Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem: Ecological, Human, and Fishery Management Dimensions, Oceanography, vol. 33, no. 4.

Mol, A., van Oostenbrugge, H and Hintzen, N., (2019). Wind op Zee; Bepaling van de waarde van geplande windparkgebieden voor de visserij. Wageningen, Wageningen Economic Research, Nota 2019-011. 34 blz.; 22 fig.; 5 tab.; 10 ref.

MSZ (2018). Federal office for Agriculture and food. Available at: MSZ website [Accessed January 2024].

Neart na Gaoithe (2024a). Commercial Fisheries Monitoring Report 3a – Construction Revision 2. May 2023. Available at: Scottish Government website [Accessed May 2024].

Neart na Gaoithe (2024b). Commercial Fisheries Monitoring Report 3b – Construction Revision 2. December 2023. Available at: Scottish Government website [Accessed May 2024].

Netherlands Enterprise Agency (n.d.). Registering fishing vessels. Available at: NEA website [Accessed February 2024].

NOAA (2019). Fisheries of the United States 2019. Available at: NOAA website [Accessed December 2019].

NOAA Ocean Data (2022). New Maps of Commercial Fishing Vessel Activity Between 2015-2019 Available at: NOAA website. [Accessed January 2024].

NOAA (2023a). Commercial fisheries landings. Available at: NOAA website [Accessed January 2024].

NOAA (2023b). National cooperative research programme. Available at: NOAA website. [Accessed January 2024].

NOAA (2023c). Data information systems in the Northeast. Available at: NOAA website [Accessed January 2024].

NOAA (2023d). Pre-trip notification system (Northeast). Available at: NOAA website [Accessed January 2024].

NOAA (2023e). Gulf of Maine bottom longline survey. Available at: NOAA website. [Accessed January 2024].

NOAA (2024). Socioeconomic impacts of Atlantic Offshore Wind Development. Available at: NOAA website [Accessed May 2024].

Oceana (2022). AIS: What is it? Available at: Oceana website. [Accessed February 2024].

Oceanic Dévelopement (2011). Projet eolien en mer de la bai de Saint-Briuec. Available at: CPDP websiteCPDP website[Accessed January 2024].

OECD (2021a). Fisheries and Aquaculture in Belgium. Available at: OECD website [Accessed December 2023].

OECD (2021b). Fisheries and aquaculture in France. Available at: OECD website [Accessed February, 2023].

OECD (2021c). Fisheries and aquaculture in the Netherlands. Available at: OECD website [Accessed February 2024].

OECD (2021d). Fisheries and Aquaculture in Germany. Available at: OECD website [Accessed January 2024].

OECD (2021e). Fisheries and Aquaculture in the United Kingdom. Available at: OECD website [Accessed March 2024].

Pecceu, e., Paoletti, S., Van Hoey, G., Vanelsander, B., Verlé, K., Degraer, S., Van Lancker, V., Hoestens, K. and Polet, H (2021). Scientific background report in preparation of fisheries measures to protect the bottom integrity and the different habitats within the Belgian part of the North Sea, ILVO.

Pedersen, S. A., Fock, H., Krause, J., Pusch, C., Sell, A. L., Bo¨ttcher, U., Rogers, S. I., Sko¨ld, M., Skov, H., Podolska, M., Piet, G. J., and Rice, J. C. 2009. Natura 2000 sites and fisheries in German offshore waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 155–169.

Reckhaus, N (.2022). The ongoing conflict between offshore windfarms the fishing industry in the North Sea: How to Manage and Distribute the Space of the German Exclusive Economic Zone. Available at: University of Groningen website [Accessed January 2024.]

République Française, (2023). L’oceán en reference. Available at: French Government website [Accessed February 2024]

Revolution Wind (2023). Fisheries research and monitoring plan. Available at: BOEM website [Accessed February 2024].

Rozemeijer, M.J.C., Chen, C., and van der Wal, J.T. (2023). Passive fisheries on brown crab, velvet swimming crab and European lobster in Prinses Amalia Wind Park in the North Sea, Netherlands.

Salomon, M., Schumacher, J., (2019). Fisheries Management measures in the marine protected areas of the German EEZ. Natur und Landschaft. 94. 188-195. 10.17433/5.2019.50153687.188-195.

Schupp, M. F., Kafas, A., Buck, B. H., Krause, G., Onyango, V., Stelzenmüller, V., Davies, I. & Scott, B. E. (2021). Fishing within offshore windfarms in the North Sea: Stakeholder perspectives for multi-use from Scotland and Germany. Journal of Environmental Management, 279, 111762.

Scholaert, F (2023). Common fisheries policy: state of play, European Parliamentary Research Service. Available at: European Parliament website [Accessed February, 2024].

Scottish Government (2020). Monitoring the Socio-economic Impacts of Marine Protected Areas: 2019 Report. Available at: Scottish Government website [Accessed January 2024]

Scottish Government (2023). Webpage “Facts and figures about Scotland's sea area (coastline length, sea area in sq kms)”. Available at: Scottish Government website [Accessed March 2024]

Spaans, M (2020). Marine Protected Areas in Europe: An assessment of the current status and the representation of benefits in socioeconomic analyses in order to support decision-making, Rijkswaterstaat. Available at: University of Groningen website [Accessed January 2024].

Stelzenmüller, V., Gimpel, A. Haslob, H., Letschert, J., Berkenhagen, J., Brüning, S. (2021). Sustainable co-location solutions for offshore wind farms and fisheries need to account for socio-ecological trade-offs. Sci Total Environ, 1:776:145918, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145918.

Thunen (2023). Processing German fisheries data for use in stock assessment of commercially used stocks in the Baltic Sea. Available at: Thunen website [Accessed January 2024]

Thünen Institute (2024). Impact of the use of offshore wind and other marine renewables on European fisheries. Available at: Thunen website [Access February 2024].

Tonk, L, Rozemeijer, M (2022). Passive fisheries of brown crab (Cancer pagurus) and European lobster (Homarus gammarus) in Dutch offshore windfarms: With reflections on its feasibility as a form of multi-use in offshore windfarms. Wageningen Marine Research (Wageningen Marine Research report C050/22)

United Kingdom (UK) Government (2020). Web Page: Fisheries Act 2020. Available at: UK Government website [Accessed March 2024].

Vandendriessche, S., Hostens, K., Courtens, W. and Stienen, E.W., 2011. Monitoring the effects of offshore windfarms: evaluating changes in fishing effort using Vessel Monitoring System data: targeted monitoring results. Offshore windfarms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Selected Findings from the Baseline and Targeted Monitoring. RBINS-MUMM, Brussels, pp.83-92.

Van Hoey, G., Bastardie, F., Birchenough, S., De Backer, A., Gill, A., de Koning, S., Hodgson, S., Mangi Chai, S., Steenbergen, J., Termeer, E., van den Burg, S., and Hintzen, N. (2018). Overview of the effects of offshore windfarms on fisheries and aquaculture, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, p. 99.

Von Krauland, A.K., Long, Q., Enevoldsen, P. and Jacobson, M.Z (2023). United States offshore wind energy atlas: availability, potential, and economic insights based on wind speeds at different altitudes and thresholds and policy-informed exclusions, Energy and Conservation Management: X

Werner, K.M., Haslob, H., Reichel, A.F., Gimpel, A.G. and Stelzenmuller, V (2024). Offshore windfarm foundations as artificial reefs: The devil is in the detail. Fisheries Research. 272.

Wilbur, D.H., Brown, L., Griffin, M., DeCellas, G.R. and Carey, D.A. (2022). Demersal fish and invertebrate catches relative to construction and operation of North America’s first offshore windfarm, ICES Journal of Marine Science. 79 (4).

WinMonbE (2013). Environmental impacts of offshore windfarms in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Available at: WinMonBe website [Accessed January 2024].

WUR (n.d.). Offshore wind energy: Impact on fisheries' catches and revenues, webpage Data collection and analysis of fishing grounds. Available at: WUR website [Accessed February 2024]