FISHERIES IN THE BLACK SEA

Transcription

1

2

3 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES FISHERIES IN THE BLACK SEA NOTE

4 This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHOR Irina POPESCU Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Virginija Kelmelytė LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translations: BG DE ES FR IT PT RO ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: Manuscript completed in December Brussels, European Parliament, This document is available on the Internet at: DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

5 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES FISHERIES IN THE BLACK SEA NOTE Abstract This paper is a review of the fisheries sector in the Black Sea region, and presents the main marine resources and the evolution of the Black Sea fisheries, as well as fisheries management and regional cooperation issues. The Black Sea has undergone major environmental changes, and a dramatic resource crisis occurred around Fisheries have been one of the drivers for these changes, but have also been affected by them. The combined effect of this crisis and the deteriorating economic conditions in the former communist states after 1989 reshaped the Black Sea fisheries. IP/B/PECH/NT/ December 2010 PE EN

6

7 Fisheries in the Black Sea CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF MAPS 7 LIST OF FIGURES 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 BACKGROUND Introduction Jurisdictional waters The Black Sea ecosystem MARINE LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR FISHERIES Pelagic fish stocks Demersal fish stocks Anadromous fish stocks Molluscs EVOLUTION OF THE BLACK SEA FISHERIES Landings Fishing fleets FISHERIES MANAGEMENT The Common Fisheries Policy in the Black Sea Management measures in the Black Sea countries Challenges for fisheries management REGIONAL COOPERATION 57 REFERENCES 63 3

8 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 4

9 Fisheries in the Black Sea LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area BSC Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution BSEC Black Sea Economic Cooperation BSEP Black Sea Environmental Programme BSERP Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Programme BS-SAP Black Sea Strategic Action Plan CFP Common Fisheries Policy CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CPUE Catch per Unit of Fishing Effort DOALOS Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UN) DRP Danube Regional Programme EEA European Environment Agency EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFF European Fisheries Fund FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations GEF Global Environmental Facility GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River IMO International Maritime Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature 5

10 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies IW Internal Waters NAFO North Atlantic Fisheries Organization SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catches TS Territorial Sea UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme VMS Vessel Monitoring System 6

11 Fisheries in the Black Sea LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The Black Sea coastline and coastal population 13 Table 2: Methods and spread of state jurisdictions in the Black Sea (km 2 ) 16 Table 3: The characteristics of Turkish fishing vessels in the Black Sea, Table 4: Turkish fishing vessels by operating type, Table 5: Fish stocks protection measures for whiting implemented by the Black Sea countries 55 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Location of the Black Sea 13 Map 2: The Black Sea: seafloor bathymetry 14 Map 3: Black Sea surface salinity 15 Map 4: The Strait of Bosporus 15 Map 5: Maritime jurisdictions in the Black Sea 17 Map 6: Turbot distribution in the Black Sea 30 Map 7: Sturgeon distribution in the Black Sea 34 7

12 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Theoretical and agreed boundaries in the Black Sea 17 Figure 2: Mnemiopsis leidy 20 Figure 3: Commercial exploitation of marine living resources in the Black Sea ( ) 23 Figure 4: Landings of anchovy, sprat and horse mackerel in the Black Sea ( ). The total volume of the landings is indicated for comparison. 24 Figure 5: Total catches of the main pelagic fish species in the Black Sea ( ) 24 Figure 6: Black Sea anchovy: recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB), catches and fishing mortality 26 Figure 7: Black Sea sprat: recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB), catches and fishing mortality 27 Figure 8: Black Sea horse mackerel: recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB), catches and fishing mortality 28 Figure 9: Total catches of the main demersal fish species in the Black Sea ( ) 29 Figure 10: Total catches of the main anadromous fish species in the Black Sea ( ) 34 Figure 11: Total catches of the main molluscs in the Black Sea ( ) 37 Figure 12: Rapana venosa eating a mussel 38 Figure 13: Volume of the Black Sea landings by fishing country, Figure 14: Value of the Black Sea landings by fishing country, Figure 15: Volume of the landings in the Black Sea countries, Figure 16: Landings in Bulgaria and Romania 43 Figure 17: Landings by fishing gear,

13 Fisheries in the Black Sea EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Black Sea is an inland semi-enclosed basin which lies between Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Turkey. It receives significant fresh water input from major rivers (the Danube, the Dnieper and the Don) and its catchment area extends over one third of continental Europe. High river water supply, together with restricted circulation through the Strait of Bosporus, create the conditions for the peculiar stratification of the Black Sea waters, and for permanent anoxia below ca. 150 m depth. With more than 80% of its waters being anoxic with a high content of hydrogen sulphide, the Black Sea contains the largest mass of lifeless water on Earth. Marine life is concentrated in the upper oxygenated layer, and the continental shelf situated above the limit of anoxia hosts abundant bottom life. The wide north-western shelf in particular is the most important spawning and feeding area for the Black Sea fish species. In the Black Sea, all the waters are under the jurisdiction of the coastal states. The Black Sea has since the 1960s undergone dramatic environmental changes. These changes are thought to result from a complex interaction of different pressures, the most important being eutrophication, introduction of alien species and overfishing. Eutrophication is a major problem for the coastal Black Sea regions and especially for its north-western part where river-borne anthropogenic nutrients and pollution resulted in dramatic alterations in chemical and biological regimes: phytoplankton and harmful algal blooms, changes in the structure of the zooplankton community and a considerable increase in the biomass of jellyfish; also, a massive loss of bottom living flora and fauna caused by development of anoxia in the shallow habitats of the north-western Black Sea, as well as the reduction in light penetration in shallow areas impacted by eutrophication. Among all the species accidentally introduced in the Black Sea, the invasion of the ctenophore (comb jelly) Mnemiopsis leidyi was one of the most devastating biological explosions ever recorded, and resulted in major changes in the structure of the ecosystem. With no predators to control its abundance, Mnemiopsis spread suddenly through the Black Sea and contributed to the collapse of the Black Sea fisheries through food competition and direct predation on fish larvae. The levels of Mnemiopsis were subsequently reduced by the introduction of one of its predators, the ctenophore Beroe ovata. Overfishing appears to be at the origin of major regime shifts in the Black Sea. The two major shifts in the Black Sea during the 1970s and 1990s were associated with important perturbations of the upper levels of the pelagic foodweb. The first event was related to depletion of top predators, while the second was associated with a great reduction of planktivorous fish and an outburst of the alien Mnemiopsis leidyi. The triggering factor in both shifts appears to be overfishing and stock collapse of pelagic predators before 1970 and of planktivorous fish in The Black Sea ecosystem has seen some recovery over the last years, due to reduced nutrient inflow and the decrease of the invasive Mnemiopsis. However, the Black Sea represents a pattern of adaptation rather than one of true recovery. The system is characterised by ecological instability, manifested in, for example, significant stock decline of most of the large pelagic fish. Invasive species not (or rarely) present in the 1960s now occupy critical ecological niches. Fisheries have been one of the drivers for these changes, but have also been dramatically affected by them. It is impossible to understand the state 9

14 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies of the fish stocks of the Black Sea without taking into consideration the changing complexity of the Black Sea ecosystem. The Black Sea illustrates very clearly the futility of managing fisheries as if it was isolated from the wider dynamic ecosystems of which the fish stocks are important parts. The main part of the Black Sea catches falls into three groups: pelagic, demersal and anadromous fish. In each of these groups, more than 90% of the volume of the catches is represented by a few leading species. Also, several species of molluscs are harvested in the Black Sea. Pelagic fish, particularly the small-sized plankton-eating types, are the most abundant fish species in the Black Sea. The main target species of fisheries is European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), which since 1970 constantly represented more than half of the total volume of the landings (up to 75% in 1995). European sprat (Sprattus sprattus), Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) are the major pelagics in terms of fishing value. Evolution of the catches suggests partial recovery of major pelagic species after the fishery collapse in The most important demersal fish species are turbot (Psetta maxima), whiting (Merlangius merlangus), picked dogfish (Squalus acanthias), striped and red mullets (Mullus barbatus, M. surmuletus), and four species of the family Mugilidae. The total mean catches of these demersal fish species clearly decreased after The anadromous species in the Black Sea include the Pontic shad (Alosa pontica) and three sturgeon species (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, Acipenser stellatus and Huso huso). As regards the volume of the catches, anadromous fish ranks last, but their high consuming and economical value determines their specific role in the structure of the marine resources. The stocks of anadromous fish consist mainly of the Danube populations. Annual catches of anadromous fish significantly decreased in as compared with the previous period. Following the minimal catches which occurred in 1999, however, an increasing trend of annual catches was observed due particularly to the recovery of Pontic shad. Among molluscs, the clams (Chamelea gallina, Tapes spp.), the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis), and the sea snail (Rapana) have the greatest commercial value. The former two species are harvested mainly in Turkey, while the latter species is targeted in all the Black Sea countries. The catches of molluscs in show an increasing trend. Marine fisheries are an important economic sector in the Black Sea countries, and virtually all the commercial fish stocks in the Black Sea are shared among the bordering countries. Total reported landings in the Black Sea showed several peaks and troughs, driven primarily by the fluctuation in the landings of European anchovy, with a peak landing of tonnes recorded in After a precipitous decline in , the landings have increased, but have not returned to the level achieved in the mid 1980s. In terms of national landings, the resource crisis around 1990 provoked a sharp fall of the catches in all the Black Sea countries. The effect of this crisis combined with the deteriorating economic conditions in the former communist states after 1989 and resulted in dramatic changes in the Black Sea fisheries. Turkey has emerged as the most important fishery nation in the Black Sea, and literally dwarfs all the other countries, both in terms of volume and of value of the catches (up to 89% of the volume of the total landings and 91% of their value in 1993). 10

15 Fisheries in the Black Sea These changes have been also reflected by the dramatic shift in the relative importance of the fishing fleets of the Black Sea countries. After the early 1990s crisis years, Turkish fisheries were just as adversely affected by the resource crisis as the fisheries in the northern Black Sea, but for various reasons they turned out to be more resilient. In turn, the collapse of the Soviet Union and changes in international relations, state policies and economy provoked overall structural changes in the fisheries of Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia. The introduction of a market economy, the withdrawal of state support and economic decline resulted in weak demand. A lack of funds for investment and replacement of obsolete equipment in the harvesting and processing sectors - together with a critical resource situation, seriously weakened the fishing fleets of these countries. Meanwhile, investment in the Turkish fleet went forward and by 1995 the numerical domination of the Turkish fleet was overwhelming - ca. 95% of the total number of fishing vessels in the Black Sea. Romania and Bulgaria became members of the EU in 2007, which extended the EU Common Fishery Policy (CFP) into the Black Sea. These countries have basically accepted and met all the requirements for joining the CFP and are now eligible for support from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). Turkey is a candidate country and, although it cannot take advantage of direct EFF support, EU twinning projects and technical assistance are currently in place. In 2008, for the first time, EU Total Allowable Catches (TAC) for sprat and turbot in Bulgarian and Romanian waters were set. Fisheries management has very different backgrounds in the various Black Sea countries, with some tradition for applying TACs and vessel quotas in the states of the former Soviet Union. Turkey uses a range of different regulatory mechanisms, but does not favour TACs/quotas in the Black Sea. Except for some bilateral agreements, there is no overall agreement about regional management of Black Sea fish stocks. International cooperation in the Black Sea region has been more successful in addressing the environmental challenges of the Black Sea than in other areas. The main initiatives for regional cooperation relevant to fisheries have been in the area of fisheries research, especially in documenting ecosystem and fishery changes. Apart from the problems of analysing complex changes in the ecosystem, the main problem appears to be the lack of a forum for negotiating common management measures and deciding how to implement them. Indeed, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) has not played an active management role in the Black Sea so far. Although a number of regional initiatives concerning economic and environmental aspects around the Black Sea have been developed, and negotiation of a fisheries Commission for the Black Sea had been underway intermittently since the early 1990s, an international body dedicated to the Black Sea fisheries does not exist so far. The difficulty in arriving at appropriate shares in both the resource base and fleet capacities, given that these have changed dramatically over the last few decades, will eventually have to be overcome however, or all parties will suffer economically from resource declines. If basic sharing arrangements continue to remain in abeyance, there is a risk of resource collapse, and the long term economic damage that has already occurred to fisheries for some resources will spread more widely. 11

16 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 12

17 Fisheries in the Black Sea 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. Introduction The Black Sea is an inland semi-enclosed basin linked to the Mediterranean Sea through "the Narrows", a passageway consisting of the Strait of Bosporus (Istanbul), the Sea of Marmara and the Strait of Dardanelles (Çanakkale). To the north, it connects with the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait. The Black Sea forms an east-west trending elliptical basin which lies between Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Turkey (Map 1). The Black Sea coastal zone is densely populated with ca. 16 million inhabitants (Table 1), and a further 4 million tourists visit the coast in summer seasons (BSERP, online). Map 1: Location of the Black Sea Source: Wikipedia Table 1: The Black Sea coastline and coastal population Country Coastline (km) Coastal population (inhabitants) Bulgaria Georgia Romania Russia Turkey Ukraine Total Source: 13

18 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Map 2: The Black Sea: seafloor bathymetry Dnieper Don Danube Bosporus Source: NASA World Wind The Black Sea has an area of ca km 2, and a maximum depth of 2212 m. The broad north-western continental shelf (up to 190 km wide) is the submarine prolongation of the flat Russian, Scythian and Moesian Platforms, whereas the very narrow shelf of the southern and eastern basin corresponds to the Balkans, Pontides, Greater Caucasus and Southern Crimea mountain ranges. The shelf break is located at m depth in the north-western Black Sea, and to ca m to the south and east. The slope is steep all around the basin and incised by canyons. The central abyssal plain has depths of m. The Black Sea receives a significant input from Europe's second, third and fourth largest rivers: the Danube, the Dnieper and the Don. Its catchment area extends over 17 countries and contains more than 160 million people. This huge river supply is an essential factor for the ecology of the Black Sea, as it pours into the basin a huge amount of freshwater, and with it nutrients and pollutants from one third of continental Europe (Panin and Jipa, 2002). The distribution of the sea surface salinity reflects this freshwater input, transported by the anti-clockwise main current along the western coast down to the Bosporus (Map 3). The Strait of Bosporus (31 km long, with a minimum depth of 35 m and a minimum width of 704 m; Maps 2 and 4) is the only connection of the Black Sea to the World Ocean. The Bosporus is the gateway for saline waters from the Mediterranean (38 ) penetrating into the Black Sea through a bottom current, and for low salinity surface waters from the Black Sea flowing into the Mediterranean. The Black Sea has a most unusual vertical stratification, with low salinity surface waters (ca. 18 ) separated from the saltier deep waters (22 ). This stratification is a result of the combined input of river water (at the surface) and Mediterranean salty water (at the bottom). The salinity step (halocline) determines a density step (pycnocline), both situated at m depth. The stratification effectively inhibits vertical mixing of waters and 14

19 Fisheries in the Black Sea results in permanent lack of oxygen (anoxia) below ca. 150 m depth. More than 80% of the Black Sea waters represent an anoxic environment (also known as euxinic), with a high content of hydrogen sulphide, making it the largest anoxic basin worldwide. As the deep anoxic waters and sea bottom are virtually lifeless (except for sulphate-reducing bacteria), marine life is concentrated in the upper oxygenated layer and forms "a surface film of life stretched over an abyss of lifelessness" (Ascherson, 2007). The continental shelf is situated above the upper limit of anoxia and hosts abundant bottom life. The wide north-western shelf in particular is the most important spawning and feeding area for the Black Sea fish species, but also the most exposed to eutrophication and pollution. Map 3: Black Sea surface salinity Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal (2001) Map 4: The Strait of Bosporus Source: Wikipedia 15

20 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Bottom water anoxia in the Black Sea is not a recent development and began ca years ago. During glacial times, the Black Sea was an isolated lake with oxygenated waters and very low salinity (almost fresh water). At the end of the last glacial period, rising water level reconnected the Black Sea to the World Ocean and higher salinity waters entered the basin, which created stratification and anoxia. This was a general pattern of the Quaternary history of the Black Sea: a succession of glacial stages (characterised by isolation and oxygenated fresh water) and interglacial periods (which correspond to reconnection and water stratification, higher salinity and bottom water anoxia) Jurisdictional waters In the Black Sea, all the waters are under the jurisdiction of the coastal states and there are no high seas (Map 5), unlike the Mediterranean where the high seas cover a significant part of the basin. The main forms of national jurisdiction of the Black Sea maritime space, as defined by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, are: Internal waters (IW): waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the state (UNCLOS, Art. 8). States exercise full territorial sovereignty over such waters, the seabed and subsoil and superjacent airspace; Territorial sea (TS): strip of sea adjacent to the territory and internal waters of the coastal state over which the state exercises full sovereignty both over the groundwater and over the superjacent airspace, seabed and subsoil of that sea. The maximum breadth of territorial sea is 12 nautical miles (UNCLOS, Arts. 2, 3 and 4); Exclusive economic zone (EEZ): maritime area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea in which the coastal state exercises sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, the seabed and its subsoil and the superjacent waters. Its breadth is 200 nautical miles from the straight baselines from which the territorial sea is measured (UNCLOS, Arts. 55, 56 and 57). In the Black Sea, with the exception of Turkey, all coastal states have signed and ratified UNCLOS 1. Table 2: Methods and spread of state jurisdictions in the Black Sea (km 2 ) Country IW TS EEZ Total Bulgaria % Georgia % Romania % Russia % Turkey % Ukraine % Total % Source: Modified after Suárez de Vivero (2010) 1 Bulgaria (15 May 1996), Romania (16 December 1996), Russian Federation (12 March 1997), Ukraine (26 June 1999), Georgia (21 March 1996), ( 16

21 Fisheries in the Black Sea Map 5: Maritime jurisdictions in the Black Sea EU coastal states Inland waters Territorial sea Exclusive economic zone Source: Modified after Suárez de Vivero (2010) In the Black Sea region, two countries belong to the EU, Bulgaria and Romania, and there is one candidate country, Turkey. The weight of the EU in Black Sea waters can be seen in terms of surface of Member States' jurisdictional waters. Bulgaria and Romania together have jurisdiction over ca km 2 of water (Table 2), representing 13% of all maritime jurisdictions in this sea. Turkey's jurisdiction covers 41.9% of the basin (Suárez de Vivero, 2010). In the Black Sea, the coastal states generate nine theoretical or agreed boundary contacts between their maritime jurisdictions (Map 5 and Figure 1). Turkey has signed the most agreements: with the former USSR (1978, 1986 and 1987), with Georgia (1997) and with Bulgaria (1997). There is also an agreement between Russia and Ukraine (2003). Figure 1: Theoretical and agreed boundaries in the Black Sea COUNTRIES Romania Bulgaria Russia Ukraine Georgia Turkey Romania Bulgaria Russia Ukraine Georgia Turkey Agreed boundaries Theoretical boundaries No boundary Source: Modified after Suárez de Vivero (2010), based on DOALOS data 17

22 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies There has been a territorial dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between Romania and Ukraine around the small Serpents' Island (ca. 662 m long and 440 m wide), located at ca. 21 nautical miles from the Danube Delta. Serpents Island previously belonged to Turkey (until 1829), Russia ( ), Turkey again ( ) and finally Romania ( ) until, at the end of the Second World War, it passed to the USSR, which built a military base there. When the USSR disappeared, it passed to Ukraine. Romania maintained that Serpents Island should be considered under the provisions of Article 121 of UNCLOS: "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf"; they can only create territorial sea. According to Ukraine, it is an island and is inhabited (in 2006 the settlement reached the legal category of small town) and so, in addition to territorial sea, it can create other jurisdictional waters. In 2009 the International Court of Justice ruled that Serpents Island should be considered under Article 121 of UNCLOS and, as such, could not be taken into account in the delimitation of the continental shelf and EEZ The Black Sea ecosystem Once described by Aristotle (4th century B.C.) as healthy and dominated by various marine predators, the Black Sea ecosystem was considered a relatively unproductive and low diversity water body up until the 1930s (Ivanov and Beverton, 1985; Daskalov et al., 2007). This original view has changed, such that estimates of primary productivity made in 1990 were comparable with those from a fertile sea, the Baltic (Balkas et al., 1990). The most productive areas are the north-west and north-east (including the Sea of Azov) under the influence of incoming rivers, and the sea as a whole has much higher levels of dissolved organics than the world oceans. The structure of the Black Sea ecosystem differs from that of the neighbouring Mediterranean Sea in that species variety is lower and the dominant groups are different. However, the abundance, the total biomass and the productivity of the Black Sea are much higher than in the Mediterranean Sea. A total of 3800 species have been identified in the Black Sea (Zaitsev and Mamaev, 1997). The Black Sea macrozoobenthos is represented by approximately 800 species and the fish fauna by 171 species. There are 320 bird species in the Danube Delta, and 4 species of mammals are found in the Black Sea (the monk seal Monachus monachus, the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus ponticus, the common dolphin Delphinus delphis ponticus and the harbour porpoise Phocaena phocaena relicta; Heileman et al., online). Higher species richness in shallower waters is associated with good dissolved oxygen conditions, whilst in deeper areas there is lower diversity due to natural oxygen depletion. Consequently, the number of macrobenthic species decreases rapidly with increasing depth - only the Polychaeta worm Notomastus profundus is found below a depth of about 120 m. The Black Sea has, since the 1960s, undergone dramatic environmental changes. There is at present no overall agreement among scientists about the reasons for and dynamics of the shifts in the Black Sea ecosystem. However, the changes in the Black Sea ecology are probably best understood as a complex interaction of different pressures, the most important being eutrophication, introduction of alien species and overfishing (Caddy, 2008). 18

23 Fisheries in the Black Sea Eutrophication Eutrophication refers to anthropogenic enrichment by nutrients and subsequent accelerated growth of algae and higher life forms. During the last three decades, eutrophication has been identified as a key ecological problem for the coastal Black Sea regions and especially for its north-western part, where strong anthropogenic nutrient and pollution loads resulted in dramatic alterations in chemical and biological regimes, and significantly modified the structure and functioning of the ecosystem as a whole (Oguz et al., 2009). These changes first became evident in the 1980s, with abnormal phytoplankton and harmful algal blooms (Caddy, 2008 and references therein). Changes also occurred in the structure of the zooplankton community, with several species having disappeared or substantially decreased, while some others more adapted to eutrophic conditions appeared or increased (e.g. the dinoflagellate Noctiluca). However, these latter species are often regarded as "dead end" species as they do not serve as prey for zooplankton or the rest of the food. Another change that occurred in the Black Sea ecosystem was the considerable increase in the biomass of jellyfish. A dramatic rise in the abundance of the large scyphozoan Rhizostoma pulmo occurred in the early 1970s, while in the early 1980s, another species (Aurelia aurita) became dominant. By the late 1980s, however, this species was replaced by the invading Mnemiopsis leidyi. The development of low oxygen conditions in the shallow, otherwise oxygenated habitats of the north-western Black Sea, as well as the reduction in light penetration in shallow areas impacted by eutrophication, led to massive loss of bottom living flora and fauna. Among the most notable cases was the sudden and catastrophic collapse of the north-western shelf system, as demonstrated by the sharp reduction of the Zernov's Phyllophora field (a submerged meadow of red algae). This undersea meadow shrank from km 2 to 500 km in the 1990s while its biomass decreased from 10 million to tonnes (Black Sea Commission, 2002). The loss in the Phyllophora field was disastrous because of its unique biocenoesis with specific fauna, as well as its habitat value for a large number of juvenile and bottom dwelling fish. Also, the Black Sea brown alga, Cystoseira barbata, began disappearing from the coastal waters of Ukraine and Romania in the 1980s. This large perennial alga, unable to survive in the eutrophic coastal waters, was replaced by filamentous green and red algae. Hypoxic conditions were also accompanied by fish and zoobenthos mass mortality. Vast amounts of dead plants and animals covered the beaches of Romania as well as western Ukraine between 1973 and The biological losses over this 18-year period were estimated as 60 million tonnes of bottom animals including 5 million tonnes of fish (Black Sea Commission, 2002). The benthos community structure of the shelf and nearshore areas was significantly modified. For instance, some areas showed a predominance of Polychaeta and Oligochaeta worms and mollusc species such as Mya arenaria, which are better adapted to low-oxygen conditions. Introduction of alien species The number of registered alien species at the regional level amounts to 217 (parasites and mycelium excluded). Nearly half of them (102) are permanently established. This high ratio of invasive aliens suggests a serious impact on the Black Sea native biological diversity, with negative consequences for human activities and economic interests. Between 1996 and 2005 a total of 48 new alien species were recorded, which represents over 22% of all registered aliens. The majority belong to phytoplankton (16) and zoobenthos (15), followed by zooplankton (8), fish (5), macroalgae (3) and mammals (1) (Heileman et al., online). 19

24 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Some of these alien species have had a high predating effect, such as the Japanese sea snail Rapana venosa, which decimated the oyster stocks. The invasion of the ctenophore (comb jelly) Mnemiopsis leidyi was one of the most devastating biological explosions ever recorded, and resulted in dramatic changes in the structure of the ecosystem. Mnemiopsis leidyi has been recorded in the Black Sea since 1982, but its population expanded in when decreased zooplankton consumption by overfished stocks created a favourable trophic condition of surplus zooplankton productivity to be used by the Mnemiopsis population (Daskalov et al., 2007). With no predators to control its abundance, Mnemiopsis spread suddenly through the Black Sea and contributed to the collapse of the Black Sea fisheries through food competition and direct predation on fish larvae. The levels of Mnemiopsis were subsequently reduced by the introduction of one of its predators, another ctenophore, Beroe ovata (Kideys, 2002). This was hypothesized to lead to a recovery of fish stocks, however, sprat and anchovy stocks started to recover after the decrease in fishing pressure, when Mnemiopsis were still abundant (Daskalov et al., 2007). Figure 2: Mnemiopsis leidy Source: Wikipedia Overfishing Overfishing appears to be at the origin of major regime shifts in the Black Sea (Daskalov et al., 2007). The two major shifts in the Black Sea during the 1970s and 1990s were associated with important perturbations of the upper levels of the pelagic foodweb. The first event was related to depletion of top predators, which provoked a system-wide trophic cascade (i.e. an indirect top-down effect on two or more trophic levels). The second event was associated with a great reduction of planktivorous fish and an outburst of the alien Mnemiopsis leidyi, which resulted in a second system-wide trophic cascade, with similar alternating effects on zoo- and phytoplankton, and water chemistry. The triggering factor in both shifts in the Black Sea ecosystem appears to be overfishing and stock collapse of pelagic predators before 1970 and of planktivorous fish in 1990 (Daskalov et al., 2007 and references therein). Consequently, fisheries for pelagic predatory fish vanished in most of the Black Sea, and one species, mackerel Scomber scomber, disappeared from the Black Sea (Daskalov, 2002). In the 1990s, anchovy, sprat, and horse mackerel catches dropped by a factor of six. This event took place at the same time as the invasive Mnemiopsis leidyi was entering the system, so that the Mnemiopsis bloom seems to have been triggered by a fish stock collapse. The fast development of 20

25 Fisheries in the Black Sea Mnemiopsis in subsequent years led to a massive decline in zooplankton biomass, strong competition for food, and a further decrease in fish stocks. Human activities have also affected other communities in the Black Sea. Dolphins were hunted 2 for about one century until 1966, when the USSR, Romania and Bulgaria prohibited dolphin fishing in the Black Sea (Birkun, 2008). By then, their numbers had been greatly reduced from over 1 million to under Turkey continued dolphin hunting until 1983, but calls for culling of dolphins are still not unusual in this country, based on the assumption that fish consumption by dolphins affects the state of the commercial stocks. Deterioration of the ecosystem must also have impacted the dolphin populations (Mee and Topping, 1999), and a peak in bottlenose dolphin mortality with unknown causes was recorded in 1990 (Birkun, 2008). The accidental capture of marine mammals by fishing gear is a particularly serious problem for the harbour porpoise. Other marine mammals are critically endangered and the monk seal is virtually extinct (Black Sea Commission, 2002; Black Sea TDA, 2007). *** The Black Sea ecosystem has seen some recovery over the last years, due to reduced nutrient inflow and the decrease of the invasive Mnemniopsis leidyi (Gomoiu, 2004; Nicolaev et al., 2004; Caddy, 2008; Oguz et al., 2009). There are signs of increased biodiversity, hypoxia occurrences have decreased on the north-western shelf, and stocks of anchovy and sprat are to some extent recovering. However, this recovery is far from being total. From the dark days of its decline into the severely degraded ecosystem that it once was (in 1990, 80% of the north-western shelf was considered to be a dead zone), the Black Sea represents a pattern of adaptation rather than one of true recovery. The system is characterized by ecological instability, manifested in, for example, significant stock decline of most of the large pelagic fish. Invasive species, not (or rarely) present in the 1960s now occupy (and dominate) critical ecological niches. To a large extent mussels, which once acted as a huge filter for the overlying water, have now been replaced by tunicates (sea squirts), which fulfil a similar role, and the once huge Phyllophora field has overwhelmingly been replaced by fine filamentous algae. Between the Danube and Dniester river inputs, very rapidly growing green algae (Enteromorpha and Cladophora) have largely been replaced by more robust Polysiphonia elongata. However, Cystosiera, which dominated before the 1960s, is not yet re-established in this area (Caddy, 2008). Fisheries have been one of the drivers for these changes, but have also been dramatically affected by them. It is impossible to understand the state of the fish stocks of the Black Sea without taking into consideration the changing complexity of the Black Sea ecosystem. The Black Sea illustrates very clearly the futility of managing fisheries as if it was isolated from the wider dynamic ecosystems of which the fish stocks are important parts (Knudsen, 2008). 2 For manufacturing oils, paint, glue, varnish, foodstuffs, medicine, soap, cosmetics, leather, fish meal and bone fertilizer ( 21

26 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 22

27 Fisheries in the Black Sea 2. MARINE LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR FISHERIES Among the whole specific diversity of the Black Sea, the greatest economic value comes from about two dozen species that produced about 98% of catch in (Figure 3). The remaining 2% included commercially less important fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other aquatic organisms. The main part of the catches falls into three groups: pelagic, demersal and anadromous fish. In each of these groups, more than 90% of the volume of the catches is represented by a few leading species (Shlyakhov and Daskalov, 2009) 3. Figure 3: Commercial exploitation of marine living resources in the Black Sea ( ) Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) 2.1. Pelagic fish stocks Pelagic fish, particularly the small-sized plankton-eating types, are the most abundant fish species in the Black Sea. The main target species of fisheries is European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), which since 1970 constantly represented more than half of the total volume of the landings (up to 75% in 1995; Figure 4). European sprat (Sprattus sprattus, Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) are the major pelagics in terms of fishing value. This latter species is a large-sized predator which enters the Black Sea from the Marmara and Aegean Seas for feeding and spawning in spring and leaves the Black Sea for wintering in late autumn. Evolution of the catches suggests partial recovery of major pelagic species after the fishery collapse in 1991 (Figure 5). 3 This chapter is based on the recent review of Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009). 23

28 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 4: Landings of anchovy, sprat and horse mackerel in the Black Sea ( ). The total volume of the landings is indicated for comparison Landings (t) Anchovy Sprat Horse mackerel Total Year Data source: Figure 5: Total catches of the main pelagic fish species in the Black Sea ( ) Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) 24

29 Fisheries in the Black Sea Black Sea anchovy Anchovy plays a crucial role in the Black Sea pelagic food web as a prey of many predators such as bonito, blue fish, horse mackerel, dolphins and others. It is also an important consumer of zooplankton, especially when the stock is large, and thus acts as a competitor of other planktivores (Daskalov et al., 2007). The Black Sea anchovy is distributed over the whole Black Sea 4. It migrates to the wintering grounds along the Anatolian and Caucasian coasts (October-November to March), forming dense concentrations targeted by intensive commercial fishery. During the rest of the year it occupies its usual spawning and feeding habitats across the sea, with the northwestern shelf being the largest and most productive area (Fashchuk et al., 1991; Daskalov, 1999). Anchovy reaches maturity several months after spawning, which takes place during the summer. Anchovy is subject to both artisanal fisheries (with coastal trap nets and beach seines) and commercial purse-seines fishery on their wintering grounds. Time-trajectories of abundance, catch and fishing mortality reveal pronounced decadal fluctuations (Figure 6). The increase in biomass and catch during the 1970s and 1980s was promoted by the expansion of powerful trawl and purse seine fishing fleets in Turkey and thus a steady increase in fishing effort (Gucu, 1997). After the 1981/1982 fishing season the limit of fishing mortality for safe stock exploitation has been systematically exceeded, however, the high catches were maintained by the relatively large reproductive stock. The first signs of overfishing appeared after 1984, when anchovy shoals were difficult to be found and the fishery enterprises incurred losses (Shlyakhov et al., 1990). However, the real catastrophe occurred after 1986, when the stock shrunk from to tonnes in two subsequent years. Catches during the 1986/87 and 1987/88 fishing seasons remained high, but in 1988/1989, the catch suddenly dropped to tonnes. Then, the stock experienced an abrupt decline to less than tonnes in 1990, which was the lowest level over the period The fishing effort and fishing mortality also dropped subsequently because of decreasing profitability of fishing. During the collapse phase, the size/age structure of the catch shifted toward a predominance of small, immature individuals (Prodanov et al., 1997; Gucu 1997). In , the stock partially recovered and catches increased to tonnes, but because the fishing effort and the catches remained relatively high, the exploited biomass could not reach the 1980s levels. Probably the strongest environmental effect on anchovy stock by the end of the 1980s was the food competition with the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi, but also predation by Mnemiopsis on anchovy larvae and eggs (Oguz et al., 2008). The major outbreak of Mnemiopsis in the Black Sea was reported in It appears that the catastrophic reduction of the Black Sea anchovy stock in the late 1980s was due to the combined action of two factors: excessive fishing and the Mnemiopsis leidyi outburst (Grishin et al., 2007). The total loss from the anchovy catch over the years due to the Mnemiopsis outbreak can be roughly estimated at about 1 million tonnes. 4 Two different anchovy populations exist in the Black Sea: the Black Sea anchovy and the Azov Sea anchovy. The latter reproduces and feeds in the Azov Sea and hibernates along the northern Caucasian and Crimean coasts. As this stock is of lower ecological and commercial importance it will not be considered here. 25

30 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 6: Black Sea anchovy: recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB), catches and fishing mortality Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) The state of the anchovy stock has improved after the collapse in 1990s, and in the catches reached ca tons. However, the anchovy catches dropped substantially in 2006 indicating a distressed stock condition. The other possible cause of the drop in anchovy stock include climatic effects (higher water temperature may cause a dispersal of fish schools making them less accessible to the fishing gears) and abundant predators (bonito). Given the strong natural variability, transboundary migratory behaviour and sensitivity to various environmental impacts, the protection and sustainable use of the anchovy resource can be achieved only by coordinated international management and regulation based on sound scientifically grounded stock assessment Sprat Sprat is the second most abundant and commercially important pelagic fish species in the Black Sea after anchovy, and it serves as an important food source for larger fish. It is distributed over the whole Black Sea, but its maximum abundance occurs in the northwestern region. In spring, schools migrate to coastal waters for feeding. In the summer, sprat stays under the seasonal thermocline forming dense aggregations near the bottom during the day and in the upper mixed layer during the night. Sprat reaches maturity at 1 year and reproduces during the whole year, but its peak spawning takes place between November and March. Eggs and larvae are mostly concentrated near the shelf edge and within the central cyclonic gyres with relatively stable subsurface layer (20-50 m). Food competition with Mnemiopsis leidyi (mainly on the coldwater copepods Calanus and Pseudocalanus) can partly explain the reduction of the sprat stock in the early 1990s during the Mnemiopsis population outburst. As with the other commercial stocks, heavy overfishing took place before and during the Mnemiopsis outbreak, which could have aggravated the stock depletion. In addition to Mnemiopsis leidyi, the jellyfish Aurelia aurita distributed in deeper waters has a strong trophic interference with sprat. This may explain the coincidence between the declining phase of 26

31 Fisheries in the Black Sea sprat recruitment and biomass and the peak abundance of Aurelia aurita during the 1980s (Daskalov, 2003). Sprat has always been subject to both artisanal and commercial mid-water trawl fisheries. Time-series of the main stock parameters show that a quasi-decadal cyclic pattern dominates the recruitment abundance, as in the case of anchovy (Figure 7). Maxima of recruitment and biomass occurred in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s. Its maximum catch was recorded in 1989, leading to the highest fishing mortality prior to the stock collapse. The combination of low recruitment and excessive fishing as well as the Mnemiopsis outburst were the major causes of the 1990 stock collapse since the survey indices, age and size composition consistently showed a drop in recruitment, biomass, mean size and age (Daskalov, 1998). Figure 7: Black Sea sprat: recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB), catches and fishing mortality Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) After the 1990 stock collapse, sprat recruitment, biomass and catches started to increase, and the stock reached the previous peak-level recorded in the 1980s by the mid-1990s and even higher stock size in The catch, however, remained at a relatively low level because of the stagnating economies of Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine, although the fishing mortality increased between 1990 and Consequently, the catch attained its former 1980s level after 1995 and reached ca tonnes in The decreasing catch per unit of fishing effort (CPUE) and mean catch size in Bulgarian and Romanian fisheries in indicate that the current level of fishing pressure might be too strong for the size of exploited stock biomass and therefore further catch limitations may be needed Horse mackerel The Black Sea horse mackerel is a subspecies of the Mediterranean horse mackerel Trachurus mediterraneus. It is a migratory species distributed all over the sea. In the spring, it migrates to the north for reproduction and feeding. In the summer, it is found 27

32 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies mainly in shelf waters above the seasonal thermocline. In the autumn it migrates towards the wintering grounds along the Anatolian and Caucasian coasts. It matures at 1-2 years during the summer, which is also the main feeding and growth season. It spawns in the upper layers, both in the open sea and near the coast. Eggs and larvae are often found in areas with high productivity. The horse mackerel fishery operates mainly on its wintering grounds in the southern Black Sea using purse seine and mid-water trawls. Over the last 40 years, highest horse mackerel catches were reported in the years preceding the Mnemiopsis outbreak. The maximum catch of tonnes was recorded in 1985, from which ca tonnes were taken by Turkey (Prodanov et al., 1997). In the period , the stock increased, although years of high abundance alternated with years of low abundance due to year class fluctuations, typical for this fish (Figure 8). According to Bryantsev et al. (1994) and Chashchin (1998), intensive fishing in Turkish waters in led to overfishing of horse mackerel population and to reduction of the stock and catches in the subsequent years. A drastic decline in stock abundance occurred after 1990 when the stock was diminished by 56%. In 1991, the horse mackerel stock dropped to a minimum of tonnes and the catch dropped to 4700 tonnes, which was a twenty fold reduction compared to the average annual catch in Figure 8: Black Sea horse mackerel: recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB), catches and fishing mortality Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) Moreover, since the first Mnemiopsis outburst in the autumn of 1988, its strong feeding pressure on zooplankton directly affected larval and juvenile horse mackerel, especially through the sharp decline of the copepods Oithona nana and Oithona similis, which constitute the main food of larval horse mackerel. In contrast to anchovy and sprat, the horse mackerel stock still remains in a depressed state. The horse mackerel fishery was extremely limited in the former USSR countries during because of the lack of fishable aggregations on the wintering grounds. Small quantities of horse mackerel were caught with trap-nets in the coastal areas of 28

33 Fisheries in the Black Sea Crimea and Caucasus. In Turkish waters, horse mackerel catches in were tonnes, i.e. at the level of the years before the start of industrial fishing Demersal fish stocks From the Black Sea fisheries perspective, the most important demersal fish species are turbot (Psetta maxima), whiting (Merlangius merlangus), picked dogfish (Squalus acanthias), striped and red mullets (Mullus barbatus, M. surmuletus), and four species of the family Mugilidae. The total mean catches of these demersal fish species in were lower than the total average, and clearly decreased after 2000 (Figure 9). Figure 9: Total catches of the main demersal fish species in the Black Sea ( ) Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) Turbot Turbot occurs all over the Black Sea shelf. It is a large-sized fish with long life cycle: it reaches 85 cm in length, 12 kg in weight and can live more than 17 years. Larvae and fries in the first two months inhabit the pelagic zone, feeding on zooplankton. Adults feed mainly on fish, both on demersal (whiting, red mullet and gobies), and pelagic species (anchovy, sprat, horse mackerel, shad). The diet of turbot also includes crustaceans (shrimps, crabs), molluscs and Polychaeta worms. Turbot does not undertake distant transboundary migrations. Local migrations for spawning, feeding and wintering occur between the coast and the offshore areas (Map 6). It matures in majority at the age of 3-6 years. It spawns in spring, from late March until late June, at water temperatures of 8-12ºC. The spawning peak occurs in May at depths from to 60 m. After spawning turbot moves downwards to m depth and maintains low-activity life with limited feeding until the early autumn. In autumn, turbot returns to coastal waters again, where it feeds intensively. For wintering it migrates to depths from 60 m to 140 m. In all the Black Sea countries, turbot is one of the most valuable fish species. The fishery targeting turbot was conducted with bottom (turbot) gill nets with a minimum mesh size of 180 mm in the waters of Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine 29

34 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies (Prodanov et al., 1997) and with mm minimum mesh size as well as with bottom trawls with 40 mm minimum mesh in the waters of Turkey (Tonay and Öztürk, 2003). Since 2007, Romania and Bulgaria apply a 400 mm minimum legal mesh size for bottomset nets. Turbot as a by-catch is harvested with trawls, long-lines and purse seines. Turbot fishing in Turkish waters of the Black Sea used 72% bottom gill nets and 26% trawls, while 2% came from purse seines by-catch (Zengin, 2003). More than 80% of the Ukrainian turbot catches were performed by target fisheries using nets with mesh size mm, the remainder mainly corresponding to by-catches. In , the mean annual turbot catches were 1235 tons for Turkey, and 177 tons for the other Black Sea countries. The turbot fishery was completely banned or largely limited by the Total Permitted Catch in all countries except Turkey in the early 1990s and therefore was at a negligible level. Map 6: Turbot distribution in the Black Sea Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal (2001) As with many demersal fish species, a serious problem for estimating the state of the turbot population and for justifying efficient fisheries regulation measures is the considerable difference between the recorded statistics and the real catches. According to the expert assessments (Shlyakhov and Charova, 2003), the unregistered annual yield of turbot for Ukrainian waters was in the range of tonnes in These incomplete assessments (including only unregistered turbot by-catch during sprat fisheries and poaching (illegal) catches of Turkish vessels) show that unregistered annual yield was even higher than official turbot statistics. In the base period ( ), Turkish landings made up 82% of total catches of all the countries. In and the Turkish fishery was conducted mainly on local turbot stocks in its own waters, but in it extended into the western and northwestern stocks within international waters (Acara, 1985). By 1985, the western and northwestern stocks appeared to be overfished. For this reason, in 1986 the former USSR imposed banning of turbot fisheries in its waters to which Bulgaria and Romania joined soon. Turkey refused to join this ban. Turbot stocks which decreased prior to 1989 had a partial recovery of turbot in waters of all countries except Turkey, as a result of banning and limiting the fisheries by the early 1990s. 30

35 Fisheries in the Black Sea Whiting In the Black Sea, whiting is one of the most abundant demersal species. Like turbot, it does not undertake distant migrations, and spawns mainly in the cold season all across the basin. Whiting produces pelagic juveniles, which inhabit the upper 10 m water layer for one year. The adult whiting lives in cold waters (6-10ºC) and forms dense concentrations at depths up to 150 m (most often at m depth; Shlyakhov and Charova, 2003). The main whiting diet consists of zooplankton, small pelagic fish and benthos organisms (crustaceans and Polychaeta worms). In turn, whiting is an important prey species for large predators, dolphins and fish-consuming birds. In Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, whiting was rarely a target species, and was collected mainly as by-catch by trawl fisheries or non-selective fisheries with fixed nets in the coastal areas. This fishery was most developed in Romanian waters. In , the total mean annual catch of whiting by Black Sea countries (except Turkey) was less than 600 tonnes. Whiting landings by-caught in larger quantities during target trawl fisheries for sprat and other fish in Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania and the Russian Federation were specified in the official reports of these countries. Thus, the whiting by-catch in the waters of Ukraine in was assessed in the range of tonnes (Shlyakhov and Charova, 2003). On the other hand, by-catches of small-sized whiting populations were often not graded and merely discarded (although it is prohibited by the Regulations of Fisheries) or recorded in statistics as sprat. On the southern coast whiting concentrations are more stable. Turkey is the only country in the region to conduct target trawling fisheries for whiting, which is allowed between September and April within offshore areas outside the 3 mile zone from the coast. Among the Turkish by-catches, whiting is usually ranked third or fourth. Along the eastern coast of Turkey in , more than 80% of landings of whiting were caught by trawl (Zengin, 2003). The research on trawl fisheries in the vicinity of Samsun indicated that as much as 75% of whiting trawl catches were discarded in 2005 due to their small size average length (Knudsen and Zengin, 2006). Whiting stock in Turkish waters may be characterised as excessively exploited. The main reason for whiting overfishing in Turkey may be the lack of any limitation for annual catch sizes and/or fishing efforts. The tendency of increasing whiting biomass along the Bulgarian and Romanian coasts was associated with improved ecological conditions of the Black Sea environment after 1993 (Prodanov and Bradova, 2003; Radu et al., 2006). Rehabilitation of small-sized pelagic fish stocks reduced the pressure on whiting populations, thus leading to a slight recovery of their stock. Another likely cause of rehabilitation of the whiting stocks may be natural variations in their reproduction, length-weight and age parameters (Shlyakhov, 1983), whereas intensity of whiting fisheries along the coasts of Bulgaria and Romania has been too low to exert major effect on its abundance and biomass Picked dogfish Picked dogfish inhabits the whole Black Sea shelf at water temperatures 6-15ºC. In autumn, they migrate in the form of large schools to the Crimean, Caucasus and Anatolian coasts, for overwintering and feeding on anchovy and horse mackerel. In the Ukrainian and Romanian grounds of whiting and sprat concentrations, abundant wintering concentrations of picked dogfish are also observed at depths from m to m (Kirnosova and Lushnicova, 1990). Reproductive migrations of picked dogfish take place in spring and autumn in coastal waters at m depth. The major grounds for reproduction are the Crimean coastal waters such as the Karkinitsky Bay, the vicinity of Kerch Strait, and the 31

36 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Feodosia Bay. Picked dogfish belongs to long-living viviparous fish. Two peaks of birth of juveniles can be distinguished in April-May and in August-September, at water temperatures of C (Serobaba et al., 1988). The picked dogfish population includes 19 year-classes, and is inferior only to sturgeons in duration of life cycle among commercial fish species of the Black Sea. The picked dogfish is mostly caught as by-catch in trawl and purse seine operations, mainly during their wintering period. The largest catches are along the coasts of Turkey. In the Ukrainian waters, picked dogfish is mainly harvested in spring and autumn by target fishing with nets of 100 mm in mesh and with long-lines. It is also taken as by-catch during sprat trawl fisheries. In , the picked dogfish stock on the Ukrainian shelf reduced gradually. The stock increased until 1981 due to high abundance of their main dietary species (whiting, sprat, anchovy and horse mackerel), and then started to decrease due to intensification of the dogfish fishery (according to Prodanov et al., 1997). However, other authors consider that the role of fisheries in reduction of picked dogfish stock was overestimated, as the mean annual capture from the stock in the Black Sea made up 8254 tonnes or about 4% of the initial stock in , and was reduced to 3.5% in (Kirnosova, 1990). Even taking into account unreported catches, real capture was not excessive. The mean length of picked dogfish in the north-western Black Sea in trawl catches in did not reduce and even increased, which does not indicate overexploitation of this species. The causes of reduction of picked dogfish stock could therefore be related to changes in the Black Sea ecosystem due to pollution and subsequent progressive deterioration of reproductive ability of females (Shlyakhov and Charova, 2003) Striped mullet Striped mullet 5 is distributed all over the Black Sea shelf. It prefers waters with temperatures over 8º C and with salinity higher than 17. Striped mullet reaches maturity at 1-2 years, and usually lives 4-5 years reaching a length of more than 20 cm. Striped mullet spawns in warm periods with a maximum in mid-summer. Eggs and juveniles (up to the age of 1.5 months) are pelagic; adults live near the bottom, feeding on Polychaetes, crustaceans and molluscs. Near the Crimean and Caucasian coasts, two distinct forms occur (one of which is settled while the other one is migratory). The migratory form has a greater commercial value. It moves to the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov for fattening and spawning in spring and returns to the coasts of Crimea for wintering. Due to its taste, the striped mullet is a valuable target species for fisheries. Most of all striped mullet is harvested in Turkish waters, where it is the second most important target species in the bottom trawling fisheries after whiting. In , around 75% of the landings of striped mullet were caught by trawl along the eastern Black Sea coast of Turkey (Zengin, 2003). Mean annual catches made up 2590 tonnes and, as compared with the previous 7-year period, decreased by 46% in due mainly to decreased catches in the eastern part of the sea. Since 1999, more than half of the striped mullet landings came from the western Turkish waters, where the proportion of trawl fisheries is much lower. To some extent this is evidence of excessive pressure of trawl fisheries on striped mullet stocks near the Turkish coasts. 5 Two physiologically similar species Mullus barbatus and Mullus surmuletus (striped and red mullets) belong to the family Mullidae. Hereafter the name striped mullet is used for both species. 32

37 Fisheries in the Black Sea In Bulgarian and Romanian waters the striped mullet is not a target species for fisheries. It is harvested as by-catch during trawl fisheries or together with other species during nonselective fisheries with trap nets. In , catches of striped mullet in Bulgarian waters increased slightly. In the waters of Georgia in , catches of striped mullet were absent or included in the "other fish" group, while in mean annual catches reached 28 tonnes. Along the coasts of the Russian Federation, fisheries targeting striped mullet are performed mainly with passive fishing gear. In Ukrainian waters target fishing of striped mullet was permitted only with beach seines and scrapers. However, the main part of the catches corresponded to the non-target fishing with bottom traps (Shlyakhov and Charova, 2003). The amount of nonregistered catches of striped mullet is undefined Mullets (Mugilidae) Among the six species of mullets from the Mugilidae family inhabiting the Black Sea, three aboriginal species (Liza aurata, Mugil cephalus and Liza saliens) and one acclimatized species Mugil so-iuy (Liza haematocheilus) are of commercial value. Mullets are distributed all over the coastal waters and in the estuaries adjacent to the sea. Their migration routes run along the whole coast and via the Kerch Strait (to the Sea of Azov and back). Wintering migrations of mullets are the most intensive in November. Wintering of warm-loving aboriginal mullets takes place in the narrow coastal zone and in bays at less than 25 m depth. Spawning migrations of aboriginal mullets from feeding grounds to the Black Sea take place in late August-September. The most abundant stock occurs in the northern Black Sea in the waters of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. All coastal countries are engaged in mullet fisheries. Due to its geographical position and wide application of active fishing gears for mullets capture, Turkey has the largest landings. So-iuy mullet fisheries along the coasts of Anatolia are mainly based on fishing off prespawning and spawning concentrations. In other countries, the mullet fisheries are carried out with passive fishing gears with traps of different design. The 1980s and early 1990s marked a period of very low mullet stocks in the Crimean- Caucasus coasts and thus their fisheries were prohibited. Populations of mullets started to recover only in the late 1990s. However, their renewed fisheries became less intensive Anadromous fish stocks Anadromous fish is characterised by a life cycle consisting of marine periods (for wintering and fattening) and river periods (for spawning). The anadromous species in the Black Sea include the pontic shad (Alosa pontica) and three sturgeon species (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, Acipenser stellatus and Huso huso). As regards the volume of the catches, anadromous fish ranks last (Figure 3), but their high consuming and economical value determines their specific role in the structure of the marine resources. The stocks of anadromous fish consist mainly of the Danube populations. Annual catches of anadromous fish significantly decreased in as compared with the previous period (Figure 10). Following the minimal catches occurred in 1999, however, an increasing trend of annual catches was observed due particularly to the recovery of Pontic shad. 33

38 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 10: Total catches of the main anadromous fish species in the Black Sea ( ) Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) Sturgeons Out of the six sturgeon species of family Acipenseridae occurring in the Black Sea and inflowing rivers, the most common are the Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii), the starred sturgeon (Acipenser stellatus) and the beluga (Huso huso). They are large-sized fish with a long life cycle: beluga lives up to 100 years, reaching weights of more than 1 tonne and 490 cm in length; for Russian sturgeon the maximum recorded age is 37 years, the length is 236 cm and the weight is 115 kg; starred sturgeon reaches the length of 218 cm, weight 54 kg and age 23 years. Russian sturgeon and starred sturgeon feed mainly on benthic organisms, namely molluscs and Polychaeta worms. Beluga is a typical predator, feeding exclusively on fish. Map 7: Sturgeon distribution in the Black Sea Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal (2001) 34

39 Fisheries in the Black Sea Anadromous sturgeons undertake long migrations during their life from the sea into the rivers, and back into the sea after completion of spawning (Map 7). The coastal waters of Ukraine are the main fattening and wintering grounds for the Danube and Dnieper populations of Russian sturgeon and starred sturgeon, as well as juveniles of beluga. The Danube, the Dnieper and the Rioni Rivers offer most important habitats for their reproduction. Most adult sturgeon comes from the Danube and Dnieper populations. The Danube populations of Russian sturgeon, starred sturgeon and beluga are all abundant. Among Dnieper populations, the Russian sturgeon is the most abundant, and artificial reproduction (restocking) plays an important role in keeping its abundance above a certain level. In 1998, all sturgeon species were included in the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES Appendix II/Notification to the Parties No. 1998/13 Conservation of Sturgeons), due to the unfavourable state of sturgeon populations. In the opinion of the IUCN experts, stocks of migratory sturgeons in the lower Danube River have been overexploited and a collapse of the stocks was inevitable if the rate of exploitation was maintained. Statistics on targeted and non-targeted fisheries comprise only officially documented catch or by-catch. Unreported catch due to its hidden part during legal fisheries and from poachers' catch, as well as dead fish which is not landed by some reasons (fish died in nets, discarded illegal catch etc.) were not usually included in statistics, but their proportion may be much higher than the officially reported catch size. Therefore, any reliable assessment for the state of sturgeons has to include the contribution of unreported catches (Prodanov et al., 1997; Navodaru et al., 1999; Shlyakhov et al., 2005). After the USSR disintegration, the unreported catches increased up to 280 tonnes in 1994, due to illegal fishing of sturgeon aggregations wintering in the Karkinitsky Bay (Zolotarev et al., 1996). About 60-70% of these poaching catches consisted of Russian sturgeon. The unreported catch of sturgeons was estimated at ca. 600 tonnes for 1995, which was 12 times more than the officially reported catch by all the Black Sea countries. This number is expected to be even higher since the calculations did not cover all areas of the sturgeon fishery and no correction was made for fish death at sea. In the Sea of Azov, mean annual unreported catch of the Russian sturgeon was estimated at tons for Overfishing led to the collapse of the sturgeon stock in the Sea of Azov in less than 10 years, and there has been no recovery so far, in spite of the complete banning of commercial fisheries of Azov sturgeons after 2000 by the Russian Federation and Ukrainian authorities. Banning of commercial sturgeon fisheries by Turkey in 1997, Ukraine in 2000 and Romania in 2006 was an important step towards conservation of sturgeon stocks. However, such measures, as well as insufficiently developed restocking and inefficient control of poaching, cannot solve this transboundary problem. Concerted actions of all Black Sea countries are necessary Pontic shad The Pontic shad (Alosa pontica) is an anadromous pelagic fish up to 45 cm long, maturing at the age of 3-4 years. It is not found in the catches at an age older than 6-8 years. Mature Pontic shad feeds mainly on fish (anchovy, sprat) and, to a lesser extent, on crustaceans. It is considered that two populations of Pontic shad (Don and Danube) inhabit the Azov and Black Seas. The Don populations winter in the eastern part of the sea from the Crimean coasts to Batumi, and the Danube populations in the western part of the sea. 35

40 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Other studies suggested wintering along the Turkish coasts. The Danube population migrates into the Danube, Dnieper and Dniester Rivers for spawning in spring. The Pontic shad fishery is conducted both at sea (during the spring migration period in Bulgaria and Romania, and during the wintering phase in Turkey) and in the western rivers (by Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine). This fishery is almost absent in the territorial waters of Georgia and Russian Federation. After the peak in till the early 1990s, the stock and catches of Pontic shad tended to reduce even excluding the Turkish catch. After 1989, the catch statistics also included the Turkish catches that accounted for tonnes from 1989 to Intensification of fishing in Turkish waters was most likely due to the yearning of fishermen to compensate their losses as a result of collapses in anchovy and horse mackerel fisheries. The extensive harvesting caused a sharp drop in shad catches after 1994 to less than 500 tonnes in The Turkish catches increased again in 2005, exceeding 1000 tonnes. In the catches of Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine were approximately at the same level of 1000 tonnes. They declined sharply in 1999 and acquired a slight recovery afterwards. The present state of the Danube population of Pontic shad should be regarded as unfavourable. Even taking into account unfortunate ecological changes due to natural factors such as lower water level, water temperature and pollution that could affect the success of the Danube shad reproduction, the most important cause of the stock decrease appears to be overfishing, mainly in the Danube Delta area (Radu, 2006). Indeed, poaching fishery for shad in the lower Danube during the last decade has become wide-scale, although it has not been assessed properly so far. Marine fisheries of Turkey possibly made a comparable contribution to the overexploitation of the Danube stock of shad Molluscs Among molluscs, the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis), the clams (Chamelea gallina, Tapes spp.) and the sea snail (Rapana) have the greatest commercial value. The former two species are harvested mainly in Turkey, while the latter species is targeted in all the Black Sea countries. The catches of molluscs in show an increasing trend (Figure 11) Mediterranean mussel The Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis has the highest commercial value among the Black Sea molluscs. It is one of the most abundant macrozoobenthos species in the Black Sea, and forms communities all along the coast from the shoreline to m depth. In , mussel fisheries were developed in Turkey and Ukraine, while harvesting in the waters of Bulgaria and of the Russian Federation was less significant. At that time, Georgia and Romania did not harvest this mollusc at all. As compared with the previous period , mussel harvesting in shows a major reduction in the volume of catches in the waters of Turkey and Ukraine. 36

41 Fisheries in the Black Sea Figure 11: Total catches of the main molluscs in the Black Sea ( ) Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) Mediterranean mussel banks have been seriously affected and production rates have decreased. In the Ukrainian waters, degradation of the mussel settlements occurred mainly due to the deterioration of the environmental conditions and anthropogenic impacts, in particular bottom trawling (Fashchuk et al., 1991; Gubanov, 2005). The most abundant settlements of this mollusc were concentrated in the north-western basin. Up to the mid- 1970s, mussel biomass in the north-western Black Sea varied between 8 and 12 million tonnes. In subsequent years, massive death of bottom organisms occurred almost every year due to the oxygen deficiency in the near-bottom water layer. This resulted in rejuvenation of the mussel population as compared with the preceding period. In the 1980s, the total mussel stock on the Ukrainian north-western shelf reduced to 4-6 million tonnes (Zaitsev, 1992). The juveniles made up the basic population at the age of fingerlings and yearlings. In some years the juvenile proportion became as high as 75% of the total population Sea snail Rapana This species of mollusc is Rapana venosa, but the name Rapana thomasiana is also used (Figure 12). It supposedly came to the Black Sea in ballast waters from its home places of the Indian-Pacific oceans (Sorokin, 1982). Near the Ukrainian coast, the sea snail becomes mature at the age of 2-3 years; it lives up to 8-9 years and reproduces during the warm period (July-September). Pelagic larvae of sea snail feed on nanoplankton algae. Adults feed mainly on bivalves of families Cardiidae, Mytilidae, Veneridae and Arcidae, and travel over large distances for feeding. In some periods of the year it buries itself into the ground. Introduction of this predatory mollusc into the Black Sea ecosystem turned out to be a catastrophe for oyster biocenoses. In the Ukrainian waters sea snail destroyed the oyster banks in the Kerch Strait zone and in the Karkinitsky Bay, and biocenoses of other molluscs up to 30 m depth suffered as well. Distribution of sea snail is associated with reduction in area and density of mussel settlements, in particular near the coasts of Anatolia and Caucasus. 37

42 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Turkey has been conducting large-scale harvesting of sea snail since the mid-1990s, and the other Black Sea countries have also joined in this fishery. The Turkish catches remained, however, much higher than the catches of the other countries and increased noticeably during the 2000s. Analysis of fisheries along the eastern coast of Turkey (Samsun Province) showed that the number of vessels using drags for sea snail harvesting in increased considerably, typically with boats that combine sea snail dredging, bottom trawling and net fishing (Knudsen and Zengin, 2006). Although resources of this mollusc are still withstanding these activities, such high intensity of fisheries and the largescale implementation of dragging have a destructive effect on the sea floor ecosystem as a whole. Sea snail also became a commercially important resource in Bulgaria after Bottom trawling and dredging were officially forbidden, although these fishing gears were still used for the sea snail fishery. According to the assessments of the Private Bourgas Fishery Association, sea snail landings were almost 17 times higher than the official report (8557 tonnes in 2005; Raykov, 2006). Until the early 1990s, sea snail was harvested along the Ukrainian coast in an amateurish way for a fine shell used as souvenirs. Between the initial commercial exploitation in 1990 and the period of intensive fishing, sea snail stocks decreased from tonnes (virgin population) to 1300 tonnes (exploited population), which provides evidence of the drag fisheries impact. The use of knife-edge drags adversely affected the bottom ecosystem. Figure 12: Rapana venosa eating a mussel Source: Clams - Striped venus Striped venus (Chamelea gallina) is a small-sized bivalve mollusc, inhabiting sandy ground down to 35 m depth. It maturates in the second year of life and reproduces during the warm period of the year (July-September). Its larvae are pelagic. Adult mollusc is a filtrator and seston-eater. Biocenoses of striped venus are characterised by abundant biomass. In the north-western Black Sea, the largest abundance of clam is observed at 7-8 m depth on sands (up to individuals/m 2 and even higher in the southern areas). 38

43 Fisheries in the Black Sea Turkey is the only country to conduct regular striped venus harvesting in the Black Sea. Dynamics of its harvesting show a rapid growth for the first three years after the beginning of harvesting and a subsequent five-year period of decline. In , an increase in landings was observed, with mean annual catches making up 9459 tonnes. The hydraulic dredge boats operating in clam fishing are mainly concentrated along the south-western coast of the Black Sea. Pressure on different sites of the coast is regulated by means of opening or closure from season to season. Its sustainable production requires standardising the sieves, freezing the fishing license of striped venus, applying quotas and sharing out the fishing grounds between the boats. Due to the lack of a market in Turkey, striped venus is exported to EU countries as frozen or canned food. 39

44 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 40

45 Fisheries in the Black Sea 3. EVOLUTION OF THE BLACK SEA FISHERIES Marine fisheries are an important economic sector in the Black Sea countries, and virtually all the commercial fish stocks in the Black Sea are shared among the bordering countries. This chapter presents the evolution of the sector at a basin scale Landings Total reported landings in the Black Sea showed several peaks and troughs, driven primarily by the fluctuation in the landings of European anchovy, with a peak landing of tonnes recorded in After a precipitous decline in , the landings have increased, but have not returned to the level achieved in the mid 1980s (Figure 13). The value of the reported landings reflects the trend in the landings, peaking in 1985 at ca. 792 million US$ 6 (Figure 14). In terms of national landings, the resource crisis around 1990 provoked a sharp fall of the catches in all the Black Sea countries (Figures 15 and 16). The combined effect of this crisis and the deteriorating economic conditions in the former communist states after 1989 has resulted in dramatic changes in the Black Sea fisheries. Turkey has emerged as the most important fishery nation in the Black Sea, and literally dwarfs all the other countries, both in terms of volume and of value of the catches (up to 89% of the volume of the total landings and 91% of their value in 1993; Figures 13 and 15). Figure 13: Volume of the Black Sea landings by fishing country, Source: 6 In 2000 real US$. 41

46 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 14: Value of the Black Sea landings by fishing country, Source: Figure 15: Volume of the landings in the Black Sea countries, Landings (t) Year Bulgaria Romania Ukraine Georgia Russia Turkey Data source: 42

47 Fisheries in the Black Sea Figure 16: Landings in Bulgaria and Romania (detail of Figure 15; note the different scale of the landings) Landings (t) Year Bulgaria Romania Data source: Between 1970 and 2005, 98-99% of the catches were landed in the bordering countries. Italy and Spain, which had had significant shares of the total landings in the period (up to 27.2% and 12.8% respectively), resumed their activity in the Black Sea in As shown above, intense and unregulated fishing pressure (including illegal fishing) in the 1960s-1970s led to severe overexploitation of most of the major fish stocks 7. Only five of the 26 commercial stocks fished in the 1960s-1970s were viable by the 1980s (Black Sea Commission, 2002). The Black Sea is characterised by a high level of collapsed stocks, with close to 90% of the reported landings coming from overexploited stocks (Heileman et al., online). Prior to the 1970s, there were abundant stocks of several valuable species in the Black Sea, such as tuna (Auxis rochei rochei, Thunnus thynnus, Thunnus allalunga and Euthynnus alletteratus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), mackerel (Scomber japonicus, Scomber scombrus, Trachurus mediterraneus and Trachurus trachurus). Large pelagics, especially tuna and swordfish, were heavily exploited with the introduction of purse seining in the 1960s and 1970s and through large-scale surface longline and gill net fisheries in the 1980s (Caddy, 1993). None of the tuna species is now caught in the Black Sea. The bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) has disappeared from the Romanian waters since the 1960s (Dumont et al., 1999), and a drastic reduction in the bluefin tuna stock was reported in the late 1980s (Zaitsev and Mamaev, 1997). Furthermore, no individual of this species has been caught or even sighted in the Turkish Black Sea since The reduction in the Black Sea bluefin tuna population has probably reached the level of extinction (Karakulak and Oray, 2009). 7 For a detailed presentation of the most important fish stocks, see Chapter 2. 43

48 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Landings of turbot, migratory pelagics and anadromous species, especially sturgeon, have declined to low levels in recent decades. Some valuable species such as mackerel, pike (Esox sp.), perch (Sander sp.), roach (Rutilus sp.) and bream (e.g. Abramis sp.) have practically disappeared. By the early 1970s, most of the demersal resources were also being intensively exploited (Caddy, 1993) Fishing fleets Significant changes have also occurred in the size of the Black Sea fishing fleets since the late 1980s. The resource crisis and the changed conditions for fisheries in the former communist states have resulted in a dramatic shift in the relative importance of the fishing fleets of the Black Sea countries. Turkish fisheries were just as adversely affected by the resource crisis as the fisheries in the northern Black Sea, but for various reasons they turned out to be more resilient (Knudsen, 2008). In turn, the collapse of the Soviet Union and changes in international relations, state policies and economy triggered overall structural changes in the fisheries of Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia (Knudsen and Toje, 2008). The introduction of a market economy, withdrawal of state support and economic decline brought about a weak demand. A lack of funds for investment and replacement of obsolete equipment in the harvesting and processing sectors, together with a critical resource situation, seriously weakened the fishing fleets of these countries. The socio-economic turmoil resulting from the transition to private ownership in countries where formerly the means of production were owned by the government has evidently not been an easy one (e.g. Knudsen and Toje, 2008). Meanwhile, investment in the Turkish fleet went forward, and by 1995 the numerical domination of the Turkish fleet was overwhelming - ca. 95% of the total number of fishing vessels in the Black Sea (Caddy, 2008; Knudsen, 2008). For this reason, the current state of the Turkish fleet will be presented here in more detail. In 2009, there were 5973 Turkish fishing vessels in the Black Sea 8, which represents 35% of the total Turkish fleet in the Mediterranean, Aegean, Marmara and Black Seas (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2009). Most of these vessels are small boats operated by a mixture of professional, subsistence and recreational fishermen. Fishing boats less than 10 m long constitute 83.8% of the total number of vessels (Table 3). In terms of capacity, vessels under 10 tonnes and under 100 kw predominate (86.1% and 82.6% respectively). The combined capacity of these small vessels is significant and, knowing that they mostly focus on inshore waters, they are likely to have a great impact on species living in these waters. The vast majority of the vessels have a wooden hull (92.3%). Less than 6% of the fishing vessels are equipped with a generator, deep freeze or ice machine. Around 21.2% of the vessels have radar onboard, and relatively few have a sonar (4.8%), eco-sounder (15.1%) or GPS (13.3%). In general, vessels on the Western Turkish coast have higher individual engine power and are better equipped than those on the Eastern coast. Most fishermen in the Turkish Black Sea fleet are employed in the small scale fisheries sector, and use basic gear (especially trammel nets and longlines). About 10.6% of the vessels use trawls, purse seines or both (Table 4), with a higher number of trawlers in the western Black Sea. Dredging is used in sea snail fisheries (in the eastern Black Sea), and for clams (in the western basin). 8 See Box 1 for a comparison with the Romanian and Bulgarian fishing fleets. 44

49 Fisheries in the Black Sea Table 3: The characteristics of Turkish fishing vessels in the Black Sea, 2009 LENGTH (m) No. % TONNAGE (GT) No. % POWER (kw) No. % > > > Total Total Total Data source: Turkish Statistical Institute (2009) Table 4: Turkish fishing vessels by operating type, 2009 TYPE EAST BLACK SEA WEST BLACK SEA TOTAL BLACK SEA No. % No. % No. % Trawler Purse seiner Trawler-Purse seiner Carrier vessels Other Total Data source: Turkish Statistical Institute (2009) 45

50 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 17: Landings by fishing gear, Source: As shown above, most of the Black Sea catches concern pelagic fish stocks. The structure of the total Black Sea landings by fishing gear reflects this feature (Figure 17). Purse seines, mid-water trawls and lampara nets clearly dominate since the late 1960s, and their cumulated effect gave the major peak in landings between 1970 and Bottom trawling, which has also been a significant fishing method in terms of landings, represents a highly controversial issue. Large scale bottom trawling especially for sprat is thought to have played a major role in structural and functional alterations of the ecosystem in the north-western Black Sea (Eremeev and Zuyev, 2007). Bottom trawling on the northwestern shelf began in the 1970s and more than operations were performed between 1979 and Bottom trawling directly affects the marine ecosystem by mechanic destruction of the sea bottom, damaging or destroying the benthic communities. Also, as marine sediments are the sink for many pollutants, resuspension caused by bottom trawling moves them back into the food chain. Other major harmful effects of bottom trawling come from the fine fraction of the sediments being raised into the water, which affects its transparency and inhibits photosynthesis. Water turbidity is considered to be one of the main reasons for Zernov s Phyllophora field degradation in the Black Sea (Gubanov, 2005). Fine particles are spread by currents over long distances and redeposited far from the trawling area. As a result, more than 5000 km 2 of the shelf west of Crimea have been covered by a silt layer usually 2-5 cm thick, but up to 50 cm in some places (Eremeev and Zuyev, 2007). Macrobenthos abundance in these zones has significantly decreased, with mussels being particularly affected (Zaitsev et al., 1999; Gubanov, 2005). Vast reproductive and feeding areas for most demersal fish species, including sturgeons, turbot, gobies and others appear to be lost as a result of silt deposition, and the decline of the turbot stock on the western Crimean shelf was associated with biotope destruction through bottom trawling (Eremeev and Zuyev, 2007). 46

51 Fisheries in the Black Sea Box 1: Romania and Bulgaria ROMANIA AND BULGARIA State of the fishing fleets Romania The 1970s and 1980s in Romania saw intensive production in marine fisheries, and the Romanian fleet operated in the Atlantic west of the African coast and offshore Labrador. After 1990, fishing activity has focused on the Black Sea. Currently the fishing fleet consists of 468 fishing vessels, mostly small craft that fish with fixed nets in coastal waters (boats under 12 m long account for 95% of the fleet). A dozen trawlers fish for small pelagic species in the 12-mile coastal zone. About half of the entire fishing fleet is registered in Danube delta ports. The rest of the fleet is concentrated in two poles: Constanta (39%, with the nearby ports of Tomis 18% and Mamaia 14%), and Mangalia (30%). Constanta is by far the main port in terms of capacity (53% of the total gross tonnage of the Romanian fleet, and 45% of the total engine power). The total number of vessels has been roughly constant since 2007, but the total capacity has significantly decreased. Bulgaria Like Romania, Bulgaria headed a large high-seas fleet active in the Atlantic Ocean from 1965 to 1990, but from the early 1990s Bulgarian sea fisheries refocused on the Black Sea coastal zone. The Bulgarian fleet is made up of 2332 vessels at present, mostly small boats used for small-scale fishing, but also 135 vessels over 12 m long (ca. 6% of the fleet). The most important port is Varna, both as regards the number of vessels (25% of the Bulgarian fishing fleet) and their capacity (31% gross tonnage and 28% engine power). Burgas is the second Bulgarian port, with 13% of the vessels (but individual capacity is higher so it almost equals Varna in terms of gross tonnage). Other significant ports are Nessebar, Sozopol and Tzarevo on the southern Bulgarian coast (each of which hosts ca. 9% of the fleet). Both the number of vessels and their capacity have slightly decreased since Data source: Community Fishing Fleet Register (December 2010). Processing: J. Iborra Martin 47

52 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 48

53 Fisheries in the Black Sea 4. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 4.1. The Common Fisheries Policy in the Black Sea Romania and Bulgaria became members of the EU in 2007, which extended the EU Common Fishery Policy (CFP) into the Black Sea. In Romania and Bulgaria the transfer to the CFP has not encounter major problems: these countries have basically accepted and met all the requirements for joining the CFP and are now eligible for support from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). In 2008, for the first time, EU Total Allowable Catches (TAC) for sprat and turbot in Bulgarian and Romanian waters were set. In 2008 and 2009, the catch limit for turbot was set at 50 tonnes for Bulgaria and 50 tonnes for Romania, and in 2010 at 48 tonnes for each of them (after an initial Commission proposal of 38 tonnes). The TAC for sprat was tonnes in 2008, and tonnes in 2009 and 2010 (to be fished only by vessels flying the flag of Bulgaria and Romania). The technical measures accompanying the quantitative restrictions for the turbot fishery consist of a fishing ban from 15 April to 15 June, a minimum landing size of 45 cm, and the use of a 400 mm minimum legal mesh size for bottom-set nets. Turkey is a candidate country and, although it cannot take advantage of direct EFF support, EU twinning projects and technical assistance has addressed a range of issues such as (Knudsen, 2008): Training of field staff Restructuring of administrative institutional composition Fisheries Information System and statistics (port offices, vessel monitoring system (VMS) and information centre) Legal issues new fishery law waiting to be ratified by parliament Fishery management plans for 10 major species Management advice in favour of TACs Vessel registration Subsidies and support Producer organisations Common organisation of the market, market/quality standards The process of aligning Turkish fisheries policies with the CFP is considerably delayed relative to benchmark dates set in twinning contracts, but is making some significant progress at the level of technical infrastructure (e.g. Port Offices, VMS). The most significant reduction in fishing capacity is expected to result from structural aid for decommissioning, which will most likely only be available with membership (Knudsen et al., 2007). 49

54 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 4.2. Management measures in the Black Sea countries Fisheries management has very different backgrounds in the various Black Sea countries, with some tradition for applying TACs and vessel quotas in the states of the former Soviet Union. Turkey uses a range of different regulatory mechanisms, but does not favour TACs/quotas in the Black Sea. Except for some bilateral agreements (e.g. between Georgia, Turkey and Ukraine about anchovy fishing in Georgian waters) there is no overall agreement about regional management of Black Sea fish stocks (Knudsen, 2008). While the main contours of formal structures of the fishery management systems in the Black Sea countries are largely known, the actual on-the-ground implementation of the management, such as regulation and control activities, is less transparent (Knudsen, 2008). Moreover, with the recent adoption of the CFP in Bulgaria and Romania, and of CFPrelated measures in Turkey, together with constant reform of fishery administrations and the down-grading of fishery management to lower institutional levels in Ukraine and Russia, fishery management systems of Black Sea countries are currently experiencing significant changes (Knudsen and Toje, 2008) Bulgaria Various management strategies have been formulated in Bulgaria to control fishing effort and promote rehabilitation and conservation of aquatic resources and ecosystems. These measures include (Duzgunes and Erdogan, 2008): Direct limitation of fishing effort through registration of fishers and licensing of fishing gear and fishing vessels; Closed seasons to ensure reproduction and survival of juveniles, i.e for winter and spring reproduction of trout and other cold water species (1 October to 31 January) as well as beluga and grayling (Thymallus thymallus) (1 January to 31 March), and for spring and summer reproduction of carp, catfish and other warm water species (15 April 31 May). For Danube fisheries, there is a 30 to 60 days closure in compliance with the international agreements on sturgeon species and pontic shad. For the Black Sea turbot, closure starts at 15 April and applies for 45 to 60 days; Rehabilitation of resources through establishment of artificial reefs outside mussel facilities (pending on the Bulgarian Black Sea shelf); Restocking of the Danube River and inland water bodies with sturgeon and cyprinid juveniles, which have been developing since 1998; Controls on size and power of fishing vessels (through the Fisheries and Aquaculture Act (2001), the EU-supported Fishing Vessel Register Data project, the fishing vessel management scheme, and controls on size and power of fishing vessels in line with the EU CFP); Closed fishing areas and restriction of some gears (bottom trawling and dredging); Establishment of management zones through a licensing scheme: Fishing Zone 1 from the coastline to 3 miles, and Fishing Zone 2 from 3 miles to the EEZ limit. The two management zones attempt to provide equitable allocation of resources and to reduce conflict between traditional and commercial fishermen. 50

55 Fisheries in the Black Sea Crayfish and sea mammal fishing is prohibited. By-caught sea mammals should be immediately released to the sea. Where the populations of certain fish and other aquatic species have been endangered by overfishing, the Environment Minister may ban fishing until their populations are restored. Explosives, poisons and narcotics, electrical fishing, bottom trawls, dredges, firearms and harpoons are banned as destructive to the environment and fisheries resources. Commercial fishing may be carried out by Bulgarian citizens and legal entities that have been granted a commercial fishing license. Foreign vessels can be allowed to carry out commercial fishing in national waters. There is no Individual Transferable Quota system in Bulgaria. TACs are applied for turbot and sprat production, and for caviar (sturgeon) export Romania Romania completed negotiations with the EU in the area of fisheries in June 2001, and accepted the entire acquis communautaire without requesting derogations or transition periods. Fisheries have traditionally been managed through direct restrictions, including seasonal and area closures, minimum mesh size, and access limitations. In recent years, licensing and individual quota system were introduced as effort-control measures, in order to bring fishing effort more in line with the available resources. Licenses relate to a specific group of species or gear type, and usually delimit the fishing area (Duzgunes and Erdogan, 2008). Quota allocations have primarily been based on historical catch rates, but are now allocated within the limit of the TACs, based on research studies. All commercial fishing vessels have to be recorded in the Fishing Vessel Register as a first condition for obtaining a fishing licence and quotas. The Fishing Vessel Register Office of the Directorate of Fisheries records the data concerning all fishing vessels in line with EU CFP rules. Fishery and protection of the sturgeon stocks is based on fishing quotas and TAC approved by the Romanian Academy, as the highest scientific authority, and guided by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It is compulsory for each individual sturgeon captured to be marked with a special tag to allow easy identification and traceability, and each fisher has to fill out landing declarations with all the catch data: sturgeon species, place and time of capture, and biometrical measurements (weight, length). In the Black Sea, the use of fishery resources is provisionally free of charge to allow marine fisheries development, with a tax of 1% on sales. In the coastal fisheries, the precautionary principle is applied and fishing activity by trawlers is forbidden within the area of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration, and in less than 20 m depth for the rest of the coast Turkey According to the Fisheries Law of 1971 and 1986, licensing both fishermen and their vessels has become compulsory. During the fishing season, fishermen can fish in all waters any amount of any species, with some exceptions such as closed areas and gear type in specific areas identified in the annual circular. Fishing regulation is based on the following criteria (Duzgunes and Erdogan, 2008): Minimum mesh size (i.e. trawl net 20 mm in the Black Sea), Minimum fish size - length (cm) and/or weight (g), 51

56 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Closed area and specific terms for fishing gears and/or vessels, Closed season and area, Species under full conservation (dolphin, seal, salmon, sea turtle, sponge, corals and sturgeons), Completely banned fishing methods and fishing gears, Gear restriction for identified species, Gear or fishing method restrictions, Some restrictions concerning pollutants. Seasonal prohibition protects spawning stocks by banning the use of trawl and purse seines between May and September. Trawling is not allowed in the area within 3 miles off the coast. Fleet capacity was frozen by not permitting to construct and license new vessels over 12 m in In 1997, all licensing was stopped for new fishing vessels. However, limited numbers of licences were granted to fishing vessels for short periods in 1994, 1997 and No vessel entry into the fleet has been allowed since New entries are only allowed when a vessel is exiting the fleet. In such cases a maximum of 20% increase in length is tolerated. Both in case of modification and replacement of vessels, engine power or tonnage are disregarded (Duzgunes and Erdogan, 2008). There are no such management measures as TACs and landing quotas, exclusive regional or subregional fishing permits. Almost half of the fishery regulations target trawls and similar fishing gears. However, the current regulations and measures are using ineffective methods and insufficient prohibitions and inspection, and do not help the fish resources to recover (OECD, online) Russia The Law On Fishery and Protection of Aquatic Biological Resources of December 2004 requires the setting of TAC levels for fishery stocks, and defines it as scientifically justified annual catch of aquatic biological resources of particular species in a fishing area (FAO, 2007). The quota for commercial fisheries in Russia s internal marine waters, territorial sea and the EEZ is provided by the annual TAC proposed by the assessments of particular fisheries institutes and the administrative boundaries of the basins controlled by particular fisheries directorates (rybvods). All the vessels need registration and all fishermen should be licensed. Besides TAC setting for commercial fisheries, all categories of fisheries are regulated by socalled Fishing Rules (Pravila rybolovstva), which are set separately for several major areas, including the Black Sea Azov Sea Basin. All Fishing Rules specify: Closed areas, Seasonal closures, Limitations of particular gear, Minimum mesh sizes, Minimum allowable size of catch, and Allowable by-catch. 52

57 Fisheries in the Black Sea The management of fisheries has been changing since the break up of the former USSR, and more changes are expected (FAO, 2007). The constant reform of fisheries bureaucracy and management is affecting fishery organizations in various ways. The reformation of the quota system serves well as an example of the unstable character of the fisheries administrative framework (Knudsen and Toje, 2008). The basic principle for quota allocation in the former Soviet Union was based on catch capacity and previous performance. Between 1995 and 2000, the quota allocation was additionally determined on the basis of the following principles: special rights of indigenous people; the interest of communities depending on fishery; contributions to research funding, supervision and reproduction of fish stocks; and compliance with fishing regulations (Hønneland, 2004). In December 2000, a new system for quota allocation was introduced. Annual quota auctions were set up, intended to increase transparency in the allocation of quotas. Three years later, however, the system was abolished because of the negative effect of the auctions: a sharp increase in seafood costs and a nearly 50% yearly increase in trade liability of the national industry establishment. From the fishing companies point of view, the auction system clearly privileged the big and financially strong fishing enterprises over smaller actors. Various practitioners within the fishing sector successfully protested against the system. The auction system was replaced by a new quota system from 1 January The quotas now apply for five years at a time and are distributed in accordance with a socalled historical aspect; that is, the companies most aggressive in buying quotas at fishery auctions in the preceding three years benefit by being allocated the largest quotas (Knudsen and Toje, 2008) Ukraine Similarly to Russian fisheries, Ukrainian fisheries have experienced changes in the principle of quota allocation. In the early days of Ukrainian independence, quotas were allocated to individual enterprises (Shlyakhov, 2003). This arrangement did not prove effective; some fishing firms were not able to catch their share given the resource situation on certain fishing grounds. Others had to keep their crews and vessels in port because they had reached their limit too rapidly. The system prohibited the buying and selling of quotas. Some companies, however, found a way around that rule by renting vessels and crew with spare quotas. Since 2002, a new system of state licence has been introduced for fishing species such as anchovy and sprat, modelled on an Olympic system: catch as much as you can until the TAC is reached. Only valuable and scarce species are regulated through individual quotas. Crimean fishing companies complained that there was no transparency in the allocation of quotas, especially for valuable species. Many maintain that corruption is also a serious problem in Ukrainian fisheries management (Knudsen and Toje, 2008). As regards the relations between the former Soviet states, Ukraine has fisheries agreements with Russia and Georgia. Ukraine and Russia manage the Sea of Azov and its marine resources together in a Russian-Ukrainian Committee established in 1993, which elaborates measures for fisheries management. Russia and Ukraine also have a specific agreement whereby the boats of the two nations are allowed to catch anchovy in each other s territories. This applies mostly to Ukrainian vessels, since the migratory route of anchovy goes south along Russian shores. Ukraine and Georgia jointly manage the stocks of small pelagic fish in their respective waters. This means that Ukrainian fishermen may catch anchovy off the Georgian coast, as they did in the former USSR from the beginning of the 1960s. Few Ukrainian vessels choose to take up this opportunity. Toll barriers and bureaucratic slow-downs make it difficult and unprofitable to follow anchovy into Georgian waters (Knudsen and Toje, 2008). 53

58 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Georgia Over the last decade, the fisheries sector has lost its historical importance in Georgia (Duzgunes and Erdogan, 2008). A national fisheries policy to regulate marine resources use in the country is currently non-existent in Georgia (FAO, online). The conclusions on the commercial fish stock, ecological conditions and prognosis on fishing are provided by the Marine Ecology and Fisheries Scientific Research Institute of Georgia on the basis of licenses given by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resource. The coastal fishery in Georgia is performed without registration, though by law the fishery is to be licensed. The fishery is legalised by the law on entrepreneurship and is controlled by eco-police. The coastal fisheries in the Georgian Black Sea area are performed by fixed, throw net, beach seine net, large angle and trap nets of Turkish production with a so-called parachute (Duzgunes and Erdogan, 2008). According to the existing legislation and governmental agreements, since 1997, Ukrainian and Turkish vessels can fish in the Georgian EEZ (FAO, online) Challenges for fisheries management Assessments of fisheries national experts have identified the main transboundary threats for demersal and anadromous fish stocks, as shown below (Shlyakhov and Daskalov, 2009): Demersal fish stocks In all the Black Sea countries, protection measures for fish stocks were adopted e.g. for whiting (Table 5). However, implementation of TACs and quotas without efficient enforcement of the measures does not avoid the overfishing problem and other negative impacts of fisheries on exploited species. The main challenges for management of whiting, picked dogfish and turbot are: Lack of regional cooperative management of fisheries. For the group of nonmigratory fish with shared stocks, management of shared stocks can be successful only with rather developed regional cooperation. It requires a unique methodological approach in all the aspects of stock assessment (methodology, collection, processing and analysis of common data set, etc.), agreed measures of fisheries regulation (terms and grounds of banning, permitted fishing gears, mesh size for nets, fishable length of fish, allowable by-catches for juveniles, etc.), agreed system of satellite monitoring for commercial fishing vessels and many other aspects. Use of destructive harvest techniques. The use of destructive harvest techniques by trawls is a real threat for whiting populations due to high by-catch capture rate of the year 0+ small-sized populations. In addition to its direct impact on the reduction of whiting recruitment, it may indirectly cause wrong TAC assessments and thus false decision-making. Eutrophication and pollution. The alterations of trophic flow structure due to eutrophication-induced effects in the ecosystem may be critical for whiting populations because zooplankton, small pelagic fish and benthos organisms (crustaceans and Polychaeta worms) are among their important diet. In turn, whiting is an important prey species for large predators, dolphins and fishconsuming birds. Whiting juveniles and bottom-dwelling whiting less than 2 years 54

59 Fisheries in the Black Sea old distributed mainly in shallow depths are the most vulnerable for eutrophication effects. The main threats defined above for whiting also apply to the Black Sea picked dogfish and turbot. One more threat may be added in the case of the picked dogfish: Pollution from land based sources (rivers) and direct discharges (inshore area). As a long-living predator, as compared with other fish in the Black Sea, picked dogfish has the ability to accumulate toxic pollutants - heavy metals (mercury, arsenic, lead, copper, cadmium and zinc) and chlorine organic compounds. As regards the turbot resources in the Black Sea, the main threat is illegal fishing and use of destructive harvest techniques. In the broad sense, it is not only poaching but deliberate avoidance of adopted measures of regulation by fishermen. This threat is of social and economic character, and not easy to reduce. An almost equivalent threat is the lack of regional cooperative management of fisheries. Table 5: Fish stocks protection measures for whiting implemented by the Black Sea countries. PROTECTION MEASURES BG GEO RO RU TR UKR Periodic ban X X X X X X Total Allowable Catch (TAC) X X X X X Total Permitted Catch (Limit) X X Minimum admissible size X X X X X X Periods for fishing bans X X X X X X Fishing-Free Zones X X X Prohibited fishing gears X X X X X X Allowable mesh size for nets X X X X X X Source: Shlyakhov and Daskalov (2009) Anadromous fish stocks The main threats for anadromous fish (sturgeon and Pontic shad) are as follows: Illegal fishing and use of destructive harvest techniques. Illegal fishing since 1993 was the major reason for overfishing of sturgeons, and perhaps for the collapse of their stocks. Control of poaching in the former Soviet Union countries had no effect at all, and responsible authorities were often engaged in illegal fishery (Toje and Knudsen, 2006). In the opinion of IUCN experts, control of poaching and illegal caviar trade should be carried out via development and implementation of regional trade and law enforcement agreements; improvement of social and economic conditions of people; improvement enforcement of existing laws. Loss of valuable spawning and nursery habitats in rivers and lagoons. Recovery of spawning and nursery habitat in rivers and lagoons in the very near future is not realistic. Key habitats in the Danube, Dnieper and Rioni Rivers and in the Black Sea should be protected. 55

60 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Modification in river flow regimes (including building of dams and draining of meadows). Reduction and loss of sturgeons may also be connected with dam construction. Prior to the dam construction, the Dnieper sturgeons used to travel up to Mogilev (Belarus) and the major spawning area was extended from Kherson all over the lower Dnieper, including the Dnieper rapids. After construction of Kakhovka dam in 1956, the spawning area reduced to 75 km. Even in the vicinity of New Kakhovka and village Lvovo, conditions for spawning of sturgeons became unsuitable. Similarly, important spawning sites in the Middle Danube River were reduced after the construction of the Iron Gate Dam I in The Iron Gate Dam II in 1980 further reduced the migration potential of sturgeons. The dams in the Turkish Rivers Sakarya, Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak were the reason of complete loss of their significance for spawning of sturgeons. The main threats for anadromous Pontic shad are almost the same as those defined above for sturgeons. The only additional point is the slightly better state of shad stock as compared with sturgeon due to their natural ability for rapid recovery. Therefore, the regional level of fishery regulation should be sufficient to improve the Danube population of Pontic shad. 56

61 Fisheries in the Black Sea 5. REGIONAL COOPERATION International cooperation in the Black Sea region has been more successful in addressing the environmental challenges of the Black Sea than in the other areas (e.g. Bologa, 2004; Nicolaev and Bologa, 2005). The main initiatives for regional cooperation relevant to fisheries so far have been in the area of fisheries research, especially in documenting ecosystem and fishery changes. Apart from the problems of analysing complex changes in the ecosystem, the main problem appears to be the lack of a forum for negotiating common management measures and deciding how to implement them (Caddy, 2008). In the past, several Commissions have received successive incomplete mandates for managing fisheries in the Black Sea basin. The 1959 Varna Convention coordinated fisheries by the former communist countries until an effective cessation of activities in The Varna Convention was focused on data gathering for stock assessments, which were used for resource management (Toje and Knudsen, 2006). Nonetheless, since one fishing nation, Turkey, was not a member, even though at the time Turkish catches were much smaller than they are now, it is difficult to see this Commission as a fisheries management body for the whole Black Sea. Beginning in the 1990s, the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP) provided logistic support for the signing of the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, also referred to as Bucharest Convention 9 (Caddy, 2008). The Convention was signed in Bucharest on 21 April 1992 and entered into force on 15 January Responsible for the achievements of the Convention purposes is the Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution 10 (BSC), an intergovernmental body assisted in its activities by a Permanent Secretariat established in Istanbul. The Secretariat became operational in September In order to support the BSC with advice and information on topics which are key to the implementation of the Convention, Advisory Groups and Activity Centers have been designated to work under the coordination of the Permanent Secretariat. There are seven BSC Advisory Groups for: (a) pollution monitoring and assessment (PMA); (b) control of pollution from land based sources (LBS); (c) development of common methodologies for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM); (d) environmental safety aspects of shipping (ESAS); (e) conservation of biological diversity (CBD); (f) environmental aspects of the management of fisheries and other marine living resources (FOMLR); and (g) information and data exchange (IDE). Within the institutional framework co-ordinated by the BSC, seven Black Sea Regional Activity Centres have been established based of existing national organisations. The main objective of the BSC is to improve environmental quality in the Black Sea. The intention originally was that a separate Black Sea Fisheries Commission would be negotiated to manage work on shared fishery resources. Negotiations on the form and responsibilities of such a Fisheries Commission have apparently occurred sporadically over more than a decade, without any agreed resolution to date. Although fisheries have been on the agenda of meetings of the BSC for some time, no major controls on catches, capacity or allocations were adopted in the absence of an agreement on a specific fisheries Commission. Cross-border fishing activities remain largely unregulated. At its thirteenth meeting in November 2005, the BSC received the mandate to manage fisheries as an 9 10 The name Bucharest Convention actually refers not only to the framework convention itself, but also to its five Resolutions, and three Protocols (the Land-Based Sources Protocol, the Emergency Response Protocol, and the Dumping Protocol). Sometimes referred to as the Black Sea Commission or the Istanbul Commission. 57

62 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies additional responsibility to its main task of restoring environmental quality, presumably as an interim measure (Caddy, 2008). The Bucharest Convention mentions fisheries only briefly in its Article XIII on Protection of the marine living resources: "The Contracting Parties, when taking measures in accordance with this Convention for the prevention, reduction and control of the pollution of the marine environment of the Black Sea, shall pay particular attention to avoiding harm to marine life and living resources, in particular by changing their habitats and creating hindrance to fishing and other legitimate uses of the Black Sea, and in this respect shall give due regard to the recommendations of competent international organizations." BSC possesses co-operation links and options for consultative conversation with other intergovernmental organisations involved in marine pollution affairs at the global and regional level. The EU has a status of observer (represented by the European Commission, DG ENV), as well as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), the European Environment Agency (EEA) and some other organisations. The Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) created in 1992 is a regional economic organisation aimed at "fostering interaction and harmony among the Member States 11, as well as to ensure peace, stability and prosperity encouraging friendly and good-neighbourly relations in the Black Sea region". The BSEC has taken some limited initiatives concerning maritime affairs (Knudsen and Toje, 2008). In the early 2000s, negotiations took place within the BSEC on whether a BSEC-wide agreement on a fisheries convention could be reached. Although extensive discussions took place, it was decided that BSEC should not conclude a fisheries agreement. However, the BSEC takes part as an observer in continued negotiations about a fisheries convention under the auspices of the BSC. To date, fisheries do not represent a BSEC area of cooperation on its own, but the priorities of the Working Group on Agriculture and Agro-Industry for the current period include holding consultations on elaboration of efficient measures of control and surveillance for the fishing in the boundary-neighbouring aquatories. The Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project (BSERP) has been developed under the auspices of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) International Waters Program, and is implemented by the UNDP. Initial GEF efforts in the Black Sea ecosystem protection date from The Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP, ) served an important function of making the various interventions coherent and comprehensible to the public and to the governments. Under BSEP, a series of background studies have been completed, and a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis was finalised in June On the basis of this comprehensive scientific report senior government officials negotiated the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP), signed on 31 October 1996, during the Ministerial Conference in Istanbul. Implementation of the BS-SAP is currently somewhat behind schedule. There are many reasons for this, including the delays in completing the institutional arrangements described earlier and the continuing economic difficulties confronted by many of the countries. In its April 2000 meeting, the BSC reiterated its commitment to oversee implementation of the BS-SAP. They also agreed to approach the 11 The BSEC includes the six Black Sea countries, as well as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Greece, Moldova and Serbia. Since 2007 the European Commission has observer status in the BSEC. 58

63 Fisheries in the Black Sea GEF and the European Commission for renewed support to help them achieve this objective. A revision of the Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis has been undertaken in In the period , National Strategic Action Plans were developed and implemented with the help of funding from the regional GEF intervention. GEF support also enabled completion of reviews of the current legal, policy and institutional provisions for limiting nutrient discharges to the aquatic environment at the national level in the year This latest effort, commencing in 2002, is linked under the Danube/Black Sea Strategic Partnership, together with the Danube Regional Project (UNDP), and the Black Sea Nutrient Reduction Facility (World Bank). The Strategic Partnership is a US$ 97 million support framework, providing investments and capacity building to the 17 riparian countries of the Danube/Black Sea basin, to improve water quality and reduce nutrient loading. The BSERP was launched as a two phase, US$10 million, 5-year effort, with UN Operations Services acting as managing agent on behalf of UNDP. The project includes an implementation unit in Istanbul, housed together with the BSC Permanent Secretariat. The project supports the regional aspects of the Black Sea Partnership for Nutrient Control and it assists and strengthens the role of the BSC. The BSERP ensures the provision of a suite of harmonised legal and policy instruments for tackling the problem of eutrophication, and release of certain hazardous substances, and to facilitate ecosystem recovery. The BSERP is closely working with the BSC, which is the project s main client, besides the wider public of the Black Sea region. The World Bank Investment Fund and the Danube Regional Project (DRP) are the other key partners under the GEF Black Sea-Danube Strategic Partnership, where the BSERP also belongs. All together, they are addressing transboundary environmental degradation in the Danube/Black Sea basin, the BSERP and the DRP through policy and legal reform, public awareness raising, and institutional strengthening, and the World Bank Investment Fund through funding investments in nutrient reduction in the Black Sea region. The Black Sea Synergy is a regional cooperation initiative put forward by the European Commission in April 2007, intended to increase cooperation with and between the countries in the Black Sea region 12. The Black Sea Synergy was designed as a flexible framework complementary to existing EU policies in the region, i.e. the European Neighbourhood Policy, the strategic partnership with the Russian Federation and the pre-accession policy for Turkey. Although an EU-framed initiative, the Black Sea Synergy was conceived as a collective endeavour which aimed at stimulating democratic and economic reforms; supporting stability and promoting development; focusing on practical projects in areas of common concern; responding to opportunities and challenges through coordinated action in a regional framework; and developing a climate more conducive to the solution of conflicts in the region. The list of priorities and tasks of the Black Sea Synergy covers a large number of sectors, which was sometimes criticised as leading to dispersion (European Parliament, 2008). Fisheries are one of the cooperation areas defined by the Black Sea Synergy, and a number of concrete tasks are formulated: 12 The Black Sea region is defined as Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova in the west, Ukraine and Russia in the north, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the east and Turkey in the south. Though Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Greece are not littoral states, history, proximity and close ties make them natural regional actors (European Commission, 2007). 59

64 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Action at regional level to help the Black Sea fish stocks to recover; Promotion of sustainable development through fisheries management, research, data collection and stock assessment in the Black Sea region; Exploration of new ways to ensure sustainable and responsible use of fisheries resources in the region; Better use of the possibilities offered by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, which includes the Black Sea in its mandate. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) is a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, aiming to promote development, conservation, rational management and best utilisation of living marine resources, as well as the sustainable development of aquaculture in the Mediterranean, Black Sea and connecting waters. The GFCM is based on an Agreement approved by the FAO Conference in 1949 and entered into force in Amendments to this Agreement were approved in 1963, 1976 and Three of the Black Sea countries are members of the GFCM: Bulgaria (since 3 November 1969), Romania (since 19 February 1971) and Turkey (since 6 April 1954). Ukraine, Russia and Georgia are not members, which is a serious constraint to an effective GFCM role in the region. GFCM has not played an active management role in the Black Sea, other than providing experts and institutional memory (Caddy, 2008). If compared, however, with other active management commissions such as NAFO and ICES, it appears that no commission so far is managing shared resources of the Black Sea using the conventional tools of internationally agreed quotas and/or access/effort controls. GFCM has also played a secondary role for member states fishing tunas which are not members of ICCAT, but in this case, a very active tuna commission, ICCAT, plays the lead role (Caddy, 2008). The GFCM recently expressed its commitment to reinforce its action in the Black Sea, especially at its 32nd Session in 2008, where the GFCM Secretariat presented a draft project framework on "Strengthening cooperation in the Black Sea". There was general agreement on the necessity to specifically focus on enhancing the capacity of Black Sea countries to address the challenge of managing Black Sea fisheries and its ecosystem through the quick formulation and implementation of a scientific and technical project in the Black Sea. *** The negotiation of a fisheries Commission for the Black Sea had been underway intermittently for close to a decade after the effective termination of the Varna Commission activities. It is not clear why these preceding negotiations were unsuccessful, but it may be supposed that the considerable contrast between the past performance of the fisheries of some coastal states and their recent performance under the widely differing economic situations that now prevail nationally, was in part responsible (Caddy, 2008). As noted in the Black Sea Transboundary Analysis 13, the current distribution of benefits by coastal country does not well reflect the territorial distribution of resources. Indeed, after the dismantling of the Soviet Union, Turkey has taken a more dominant role. In Ukraine and Russia, it is a widely held notion among fishermen, bureaucrats and marine scientists alike, that Turkish fishermen have everything to lose in an international agreement, as they

65 Fisheries in the Black Sea believe Turkey has been operating in an open-access regime with no or little control of their fishing activities (Knudsen and Toje, 2008). The difficulty in arriving at appropriate shares in both the resource base and fleet capacities, given that these have changed dramatically over the last few decades, will eventually have to be overcome however, or all parties will suffer economically from resource declines. If basic sharing arrangements continue to remain in abeyance, there is a risk of resource collapse, and the long term economic damage that has already occurred to fisheries for some resources will spread more widely (Caddy, 2008). 61

66 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 62

67 Fisheries in the Black Sea REFERENCES Acara A., The Black Sea turbot. State Planning Organization, Ankara Turkey. Ascherson N., Black Sea, the birthplace of civilisation and barbarism. Vintage Books London, 306 pp. Balkas T., Decheo G., Mihnea R., Serbanescu O., Unluata U., Review of the State of the Marine Environment of the Black Sea. United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Seas Reports and Studies 124. Birkun Jr. A.A, Tursiops truncatus ssp. ponticus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Black Sea Commission, State of the Environment of the Black Sea - Pressures and Trends Istanbul, Turkey. Black Sea TDA (Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis), Online at Bologa A., A Black Sea integrated environmental quality monitoring - a prerequisite for regional cooperation and EU accession. Geo-Eco-Marina Bryantsev V.A., Serobaba I.I., Shlyakhov V.A., Yakovlev V.N., Biological resources of the Black Sea in the present ecological conditions. Proceedings of the Black Sea Symposium Ecological Problems and Economical Prospects, Istanbul, BSERP online, Caddy J.F., Contrast between recent fishery trends and evidence for nutrient enrichment in two Large Marine Ecosystems: The Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In: K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander, B.D. Gold (editors), Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation and Sustainability, AAAS Washington D.C., U.S., Caddy J.F., Recent experience and future options for fisheries assessment and management in the Black Sea: A GFCM perspective. GFCM: XXXII/2008/Dma.4 Strengthening cooperation in the Black Sea, Attachment 1. Chashchin A.K., The anchovy and other pelagic fish stock transformations in the Azov-Black Sea basin under environmental and fisheries impact. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Fisheries and Ecology, Daskalov G., Relating fish recruitment to stock biomass and physical environment in the Black Sea using generalised additive models. Fisheries Research 41, Daskalov G.M., Overfishing drives a trophic cascade in the Black Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 225, Daskalov G.M., Long-term changes in fish abundance and environmental indices in the Black Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 255, Daskalov G.M., Grishin A.N., Rodionov S., Mihneva V, Trophic cascades triggered by overfishing reveal possible mechanisms of ecosystem regime shifts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104/25,

68 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Dumont H., Mamaev V.O., Zaitsev Y.P., Black Sea Red Data Book, United Nations Office for Project Services, 413. Duzgunes E., Erdogan N., Fisheries management in the Black Sea countries. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 8, Eremeyev V.N., Zuyev G.V., Commercial fishery impact on the modern Black Sea ecosystem: a review. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 7, European Commission, Black Sea Synergy - a new regional cooperation initiative, communication to the Council and the European Parliament, COM (2007) 160 final, European Parliament, A Black Sea Regional Policy Approach, Resolution of 17 January 2008 (2007/2101(INI), P6_TA(2008)0017, FAO, Fishery and aquaculture country profiles, National fishery sector overview: The Russian Federation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/fcp/en/fi_cp_ru.pdf. FAO, online. Fishery and aquaculture country profiles, National fishery sector overview: Georgia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fashchuk D.Y., Samyshev E.Z., Sebakh L.K., Shlyakhov V.A., Forms of anthropogenic impact on the Black Sea ecosystem and its state under modern conditions. Journal of Ecology of the Sea 38, Naukova dumka, Kiev Ukraine, (in Russian). Gomoiu M.T., New approaches in the assessment of the Black Sea ecosystems. Geo-Eco-Marina Grishin A., Daskalov G., Shlyakhov V., Mihneva V., Influence of gelatinous zooplankton on fish stocks in the Black Sea: analysis of biological time-series. Marine Ecological Journal 6/2, Gubanov E.P., Technogenic influence on the Black Sea ecosystem and its consequences. Rybnoe khozyaistvo Ukrainy 3/4, (in Russian). Gucu A.C., Role of fishing in the Black Sea ecosystem. In E. Özsoy and A. Mikaelyan (editors), Sensitivity to change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North sea. NATO ASI Series 2, Environment 27, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Heileman S., Parr W., Volovik G., online. Black Sea: LME#62, &catid=41:briefs&itemid=72 Hønneland G., Russian fisheries management: The precautionary approach in theory and practice. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinius Nijhoff. Ivanov L., Beverton R.J.H., The fisheries resources of the Mediterranean. Part two: Black Sea. FAO studies and reviews 60, 135 pp. Karakulak F.S., Oray I.K., Remarks on the fluctuation of bluefin tuna catches in Turkish waters. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 63,

69 Fisheries in the Black Sea Kideys A.E, Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystems. Science 297 (5586), Kirnosova I.P., Growth parameters and mortality of spiny dogfish from the Black Sea. Biological resources of the Black Sea, Collected papers, VNIRO Moscow, (in Russian). Kirnosova I.P., Lushnicova V.P., Feeding and food requirements of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias L.). Biological resources of the Black Sea, Collected papers, VNIRO Moscow, (in Russian). Knudsen S., GFCM Black Sea programme: preliminary elements for a project framework. GFCM: XXXII/2008/Dma.4 Strengthening cooperation in the Black Sea, Attachment 3. Knudsen S., Zengin M., Multidisciplinary modeling of Black Sea fisheries: a case study of trawl and sea snail fisheries in Samsun. 1st Bilateral Scientific Conference Black Sea Ecosystem 2005 and Beyond, 8-10 May 2006, Istanbul Turkey. Knudsen S., Toje, H., Post-Soviet transformations in Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea fisheries: socio-economic dynamics and property relations. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 8/1, Mee L.D., Topping G., Black Sea Pollution Assessment. Black Sea Environmental Series 10. UNDP, United Nations Publications, New York, U.S. Navodaru I., Staraş M., Banks R., Management of sturgeon stocks of the lower Danube River system. In: R. Stiuca and I. Nuchersu (editors), The Deltas: State-of-theart protection and management, Conference Proceedings, Nicolaev S., Bologa A., Romanian involvement in the Black Sea management - scientific and political tools ( ): the case study of the National Institute for Marine Research and Development "Grigore Antipa". Geo-Eco-Marina 11, Nicolaev S., Papadopol N.C., Bologa, A.S., Cociasu A., Dumitrescu E., Zaharia T., Patrascu V., Needs for sustainable development of the Romanian Black Sea coast. Cercetari marine INCDM 34, OECD, online. Country Note on National Fisheries Management Systems Turkey, Oguz T., Fach B., Salihoglu B., Invasion dynamics of the alien ctenophore Mnemipsis leidyi and its impact on anchovy collapse in the Black Sea. Journal of Plankton Research 30/12, Oguz T., Velikova V., Kideys A., Overall assessment of the present state of the Black Sea ecosystem. Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea ( ), Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC) , Istanbul, Turkey, Panin N., Jipa D., Danube River sediment input and its interaction with the northwestern Black Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 54/3, Prodanov K., Bradova N., Stock Assessment of the Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in the Western Part of the Black Sea during Proceedings of the Institute of Oceanology 4,

70 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Prodanov K., Mikhailov K., Daskalov G.M., Maxim K., Chashchin A., Arkhipov A., Shlyakhov V., Ozdamar E., Environmental management of fish resources in the Black Sea and their rational exploitation. Studies and Reviews, GFCM 68, FAO Rome, 178 pp. Radu G., The state of main habitats important for Black Sea marine living resources. Romanian second Fishery Report, UNDP/GEF Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project Phase II, 29 pp. Radu G., Nicolaev S., Radu E., Anton E., Evolution of main indicators of marine living resources from the Romanian Black Sea sector in 2004 and st Bilateral Scientific Conference Black Sea Ecosystem 2005 and Beyond, 8-10 May 2006, Istanbul Turkey. Raykov V., Schlyakhov V., Maximov V., Radu Gh., Staicu I., Panayotova M., Yankova M., Bikarska I., Limit and target reference points for rational exploitation of the turbot (Psetta maxima L.) and whiting (Merlangius merlangus euxinus Nordm.) in the western part of the Black Sea. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, Suppl. 2, Serobaba I.I., Domashenko G.P., Yuriev G.S., Malyshev I.I., Gapishko A.I., Shlyakhov V.A., Kirillyuk M.M., Kaminer K.M., Domashenko Yu.G., Vinarik T.V., Timoshek N.G., Kirnosova I.P., Mikhailyuk A.N., Korkosh N.I., Akselev O.I., Chashchin A.K., Zhigunenko A.V., Litvinenko N.M., Commercial Fishery Description of the Black Sea (section Characteristics of the commercial species - Description of fishing grounds). AzcherNIRO, Publishing House of the Chief Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Ministry of Defense for the Ministry of Fisheries of the USSR, (in Russian). Shlyakhov V.A., Biology, distribution and fishery of whiting (Odontogadus merlangus euxinus, Nordmann) in the Black Sea. USSR, Moscow, Proceedings of VNIRO Biological resources and prospects of fishery of new species - fishes and invertebrates, (in Russian). Shlyakhov V., Management of fisheries: National report of Ukraine. The workshop of responsible fisheries, Sile Turkey: Black Sea Environmental Program. Shlyakhov V., Charova I., The Status of the Demersal Fish Population along the Black Sea Cost of Ukraine. In: B. Öztürk and S. Karakulak (editors), Workshop on Demersal Resources in the Black and Azov Seas, Turkish Marine Research Foundation, Istanbul Turkey, Shlyakhov V.A., Daskalov G.M., The state of marine living resources. Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea ( ), Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC) , Istanbul, Turkey, Shlyakhov V.A., Chashchin A.K., Korkosh N.I., Intensity of fisheries and dynamics of the Black Sea anchovy stocks. In: Biological resources of the Black Sea, USSR, Moscow: VNIRO (in Russian). Shlyakhov V.A., Goubanov E.P., Demyanenko K.V., On the state of stocks and unreported catches of Azov sturgeons. In: L.V. Izergin (editor), Problems and solutions of the modern fisheries in the Azov Sea basin, Renata Publishing House, Mariupol Ukraine, (in Russian). Sorokin Y.I., The Black Sea: Nature, resources. Nauka Moscow, 216 pp (in Russian). 66

71 Fisheries in the Black Sea Suarez de Vivero J.L., Jurisdictional waters in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. European Parliament, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion policies, Fisheries, 134 pp. Toje H., Knudsen S., Post-Soviet transformations in Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea fisheries: socio-economic dynamics and property relations. 1st Bilateral Scientific Conference Black Sea Ecosystem 2005 and Beyond, 8-10 May 2006, Istanbul Turkey. Tonay A.M., Öztürk B., Cetacean Bycatch - Turbot fisheries interaction in the western Black Sea. In: B. Öztürk and S. Karakulak (editors), Workshop on Demersal Resources in the Black and Azov Seas, Turkish Marine Research Foundation, Istanbul Turkey, 1-8. Turkish Statistical Institute, Fishery statistics. Turkish Statistical Institute Printing Division, Ankara Turkey, 59 pp. UNCLOS, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Maps and Graphics Library, Zaitsev U.P., Phesunov O.E., Sinegub I.A., The influence of bottom trawling fishery on the ecosystem of the Black Sea shelf. Reports of Academy of Science 3, (in Russian). Zaitsev Y., Mamaev V., Marine Biological Diversity in the Black Sea: A Study of Change and Decline. Black Sea Environmental Series 3, GEF-BSEP, UN Publications New York, 208 pp. Zaitsev Y.P., The ecological state of the shelf zone of the Black Sea near Ukrainian costs. Journal of Hydrobiology 28/4, 3-18 (in Russian). Zengin M., The Current Status of Turkey's Black Sea Fisheries and Suggestions on the Use of Those Fisheries. Workshop on Responsible Fisheries in the Black Sea and the Azov Sea, and Case of Demersal Fish Resources, Black Sea Environmental Programme Country Report, 34 pp. Zolotarev P.N., Shlyakhov V.A., Akselev O.I, The food supply and feeding of Russian sturgeon Acipenser gueldenstaedti and the starred stuggeon A. stellatus in the north-western part of the Black Sea under modern ecological conditions. Journal of Ichthyology 36/4, (in Russian). 67

72 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 68

73 Fisheries in the Black Sea NOTES 69

74

75

76