Impact of fisheries on seabed bottom habitat : fisheries from The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) released new certification requirements in 2014. The new requirements come with new guidelines for scoring fisheries for several Performance Indicators (PIs). One of the adjusted PIs is PI 2.4.1: the Habitats outcome indicator:“The Unit of Assessment (UoA) does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management.”Up to now, the new guidelines for this PI have not yet been translated into an operational performance indicator. An international group of fisheries organisations, from the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Sweden, is interested in applying for MSC accreditation or for renewal of existing accreditation. For them it is relevant to know how the new guidelines for PI 2.4.1 translate into a scoring of their fisheries. Therefore, the fisheries organisations requested WMR to develop a methodology for assessing fisheries’ impact on the North Sea seabed which could be used in assessments for MSC accreditation.WMR combined the MSC guidelines with a methodology for assessing fisheries’ impact on the seabed developed in collaboration with partners in the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES). A so-called ‘Population Dynamic’ method was applied, which indicates how bottom trawling affects the biomass of the benthic community relative to an undisturbed situation. Recovery of a habitat is an important aspect in determining whether serious or irreversible harm is caused by a fishery. The benthic invertebrate community consists of many different taxa that differ in their sensitivity to fishing disturbance. This difference in sensitivity is reflected in the parameterisation which distinguishes between an average sensitivity (sensitivity I) and a high sensitivity (sensitivity II). Recovery of Seabed Integrity (SI) is used as an indicator for serious or irreversible harm. This methodology was applied for habitats with status type ‘commonly encountered’. Data that were used are satellite (VMS) and logbook data giving information on the spatial distribution and intensity of the fisheries. Information on North Sea habitats was obtained from EMODnet EU Sea Map and data on recovery rates and gear specific impact rates were obtained from an EU project called ‘BENTHIS’. The methods were applied to 11 UoAs for four different countries, in four different management areas (North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat and Eastern English Channel).The analysis comprised of a definition of the current state of seabed integrity (SI), based on historic fishing intensity. For each UoA a study area or ‘footprint’ was defined by gear and management area. Next, for each grid cell (1-minute longitude by 1-minute latitude) the fishing intensity was calculated from VMS data for three different gear groups: Beam Trawl (BT), Demersal Otter Trawls (TR) and Danish Seine (SDN). It was then possible to assess recovery rates for each grid cell (relative increase of biomass per year). The SI was calculated for the moment right after fishing impact and then for respectively 1, 5, 10 and 20 years after ceased fishing. Two indicators were used to assess whether recovery of the habitat to 80% of its unimpacted structure was achieved:- T80% > 0.95K: the top 80% of least impacted grid cells have an SI of at least 0.95 K, meaning that biomass is at more than 95% of the carrying capacity (K).- 100% > 0.80K: all grid cells in the study area have an SI of at least 0.80 K, so biomass is more than 80% of K.For habitats with status type ‘Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem’ (VME) we did not apply the methodology. In order not to cause any serious or irreversible harm to VMEs, the VMEs should not be fished at all. If that is taken into account during assessments for MSC accreditation, it is not relevant whether the VME habitat recovers. We did overlay maps of fishing by UoA with maps of vulnerable habitats (based on either ICES or OSPAR data) in order to see whether VMEs may be a relevant theme during assessments for MSC accreditation.Habitats with status type ‘minor’ were not considered, as with our interpretation these are insignificant in the North Sea and data for carrying out the above (or any) methodology is lacking.The analyses show that for the scenario with Sensitivity I (average recovery rates) none of the UoAs causes serious or irreversible harm to the commonly encountered habitats. I.e. recovery up to 80% is achieved within 20 years for both indicators. If the other Sensitivity is applied (II, with lowest recovery rates), the results are different. The ‘T80% > 0.95K’ indicator always reaches the threshold value within 20 years, but the ‘100% > 0.80K’ indicator does not reach the threshold value for 6 UoA. The 6 UoAs are the TR groups from Denmark (North Sea and Skagerrak), Germany (North Sea), the Netherlands (North Sea) and Sweden (Skagerrak) and the BT group from the Netherlands (North Sea). This may mean – dependant on whether both indicators should reach the threshold value or not – that for these 6 UoA it could be concluded that they do cause serious or irreversible harm to the habitat.Overlaying fishing activities by UoA with VMEs in the North Sea show us that there may be an issue for the German TR unit on the North Sea. This UoA has a minimal overlap with VMEs according to the ICES database. However, if data on threatened and/or declining species and habitats from OSPAR are used, a larger overlap is found. The methodology developed in this study can be a useful starting point for assessing the impact of fishing on the sea bed. It is not yet fully developed to be used in the framework of MSC accreditation: there are still several issues to be dealt with. First of all, a decision needs to be made on which performance indicator(s) to use: the ‘T80% > 0.95K’ indicator or the ‘100% > 0.80K’ indicator, or both. Second, a choice needs to be made about the sensitivity to be used.Another issue that needs to be considered concerns the UoAs. Each UoA may have a negligible impact on the seabed compared to the whole fleet. However, all UoAs together may cause serious or irreversible harm to the seabed. It is therefore important to be aware of the context in which the UoA is practicing the fishery

FP6 CEDER Project Deliverable 3.2 "Benefits of a new reporting system"

Addressing the uncertainties in fishing activities, the CEDER project examines the use of observer reports, landings, e-logbooks, VMS and GPS tracks, and fishery-specific information. Such information was assessed in order to provide more accurate and timelier data on effort, catches, discards, and/or landings. This document contains CEDER¿s Project Implementation Plan for policy makers, as well as expected benefits for government, industry, and science. The CEDER consortium advocates the use of GPS data at 15 minute intervals for scientific purposes. Among these are improved spatial planning and a new fishing effort measure, the actual effort while fishing, which can be inferred from vessel behaviour. The correlation between catch and effort can be used as an indicator for inspectors, but one cannot reliably guess catches from effort. VMS and logbook data can be matched using rule-bases systems, leading to higher data quality and better use of quota. Furthermore, if fishing mortality were known in near real time, then the integration of current year fishing mortality into management plans would yield benefits for stock recovery. The full realisation of such benefits requires a re-appraisal of the 15% TAC revision rule. The CEDER consortium insists that any roll-out of the ERS e-logbook must be properly enforced, and that the e-logbook cannot by itself replace observer reports. Finally, estimating discards may be feasible in selected fisheries, but additional means such as gear sensors may be required in order to get more reliable data in the general case.JRC.G.4-Maritime affair

FP6 CEDER Project Deliverable 1.1.2 "Data Quality Report"

Addressing the uncertainties in fishing activities, the CEDER project harnessed fishery observer reports, landings, logbooks, and VMS records information. The project collected data from these sources for six selected fisheries. This document explores the quality of aforementioned data.JRC.G.4-Maritime affair

The influence of market and fish stocks density on fishers' foraging

ABSTRACT This study has investigated the spatial structure of fishing effort distribution and also, using Levy flights theory, some properties of fishermen's foraging. The case studies examined were a selection of North Sea Dutch and French vessels, for which catch and effort data were collected on a haul-by-haul basis. A 3x3 nautical miles observation window could be reasonably appropriate to carry out investigations on fleet behavior. Foraging behavior may reasonably be represented by a Levy flight process. Efficient foraging led to high catch rates, while the knowledge of fishing grounds with high stock density is shown to increase foraging efficiency in the short-term future. The absence of correlation between the French vessels' foraging and saithe price was less expected. It could be explained by the limited span of the time series being analysed and/or the fact that there are only limited alternatives to saithe fishing for the fleet being investigated

The compatibility of fishers and scientific surveys : Increasing legitimacy without jeopardizing credibility

For a long time, fishery-independent surveys were only carried out by scientists. On-going criticism by Dutch fishers on the North Sea beam trawl survey prompted scientists to invite fishers on board. Since 2007, fishers have annually joined the survey as observers. Observing all steps in the survey like rigging the gear, the selection of fishing locations, catch sorting, and data registration enables fishers to provide feedback based on their experience instead of preconceptions. Where possible, their suggestions for improvements are incorporated. Since fishers joined, the nature of discussions about the survey has changed to being constructive. The fishing industry’s trust in survey methods, results, and the scientific crew increased. Scientists gained a better understanding of the importance of the survey for fishers’ livelihoods. The observers also inspired continuous scientific scrutiny of the survey, its setup, and objectives. We describe the process of incorporating fishers in a fishery-independent survey, its benefits, and challenges. We show how perceptions about the survey changed. Allowing stakeholders behind the scenes of a survey and taking their expertise into account contributes to a more reciprocal relation in the co-production of knowledge through collaborative research and increases legitimacy. We propose guidelines for involving stakeholders without compromising the survey’s and professional credibility

Integrating collaborative research in marine science: Recommendations from an evaluation of evolving science‐industry partnerships in Dutch demersal fisheries

The increasingly complex nature of marine resource management calls for stronger stakeholder participation in advancing knowledge and developing management approaches. Studies on stakeholder involvement in marine resource management have primarily focussed on participation in resource use negotiation and not on participation in science. Using fishers' knowledge research frameworks, we evaluate over 15 years of science-industry research collaboration (SIRC) in Dutch demersal fisheries. Four key lessons emerge: (a) Capacity building in SIRC works multiple ways and triggers shifts in the fishers' knowledge research spectrum; (b) Successful SIRC depends on acceptance of industry collected data for scientific advice, which necessitates close involvement of end-users from the outset to provide feedback and obtainsupport; (c) (Fisher) participation raises often-overlooked equity questions and may result in selection bias; and (d) The governance context strongly influences structure of SIRC and integration of SIRC knowledge. To ensure a sustainable, continuous process of stakeholder participation and use of their knowledge in marine resources research, collaborative research should be embedded in the institutional frameworks for science and management. It demands continuous maintenance of the relationship between scientists and stakeholders in the context of management developments, calls for reflection about selection and equity considerations, and requires continuous attention for communication with all parties involved at different levels. The lessons learnt in science-industry research collaboration in fisheries are also relevant for the wider field of marine science, where stakeholder participation is necessary but not yet common