Environmentally Responsible Fisheries Project FINAL SUMMARY REPORT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Environmentally Responsible Fisheries Project FINAL SUMMARY REPORT"

Transcription

1 Environmentally Responsible Fisheries Project FINAL SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for Defra By: Cefas: Jon Elson Chris Firmin Julian Addison Seafish: Hazel Curtis Enrico Longini Mark Edmonds 2010 Cefas contract: C3375

2 Contents Contents... 2 Executive Summary Introduction Background to project and timescales Collaborators, contributors and responsibilities Preparatory work choice of participants Methods Setting up Choice of VMS system Design of log books Initial meetings with fishermen training on how to complete log books Training of observers Data collection Sales notes Self-sampling and recording by participants of biological and economic data Observer trips Sampling of discards ashore Refresher courses Data collation and analysis Design of databases Biological section Analytical techniques GIS plots Catch Data Distribution and analysis of catch data Distribution of fishing effort of each vessel and gear over a full calendar year Distribution of target species and landings and discards for each vessel & gear Calibration of participant log book records from observer and onshore discard sampling data Size range of landings and discards Environmental footprint indices Fuel consumption rate and CO 2 emissions Distance of fishing operations from port Weight of discards as a ratio of weight of landings Distance from port to market for fish Fleet financial / Economic Section Methods for economic section Data issues and adjustment Vessels included in economic / financial analysis Vessel activity by project area Catch composition by project area Vessel earnings by project area Prices of key species by project area Vessel activity by main gear type Days at sea by gear type Catch composition by gear type Vessel earnings by gear type Vessel profit Annual fishing profit by project area

3 4.5.2 Annual fishing profit by gear type Characteristics of most and least profitable quartiles Multivariate analysis and drivers of profit margin Balance of fleet capacity and fishing opportunity Capacity utilisation theory Capacity utilisation in the inshore fleet Implications for management Annual variations as determined from first three months of year Discussion Achievement of project objectives Key outputs Inferences for future management Future use of data Future work and lessons learned Success of project Participant experiences of the project and views of future management Initial informal discussions Post-scheme survey Post-project coastal meetings Identification of monitoring and research priorities Conclusions References

4 Environmentally Responsible Fisheries: Project Report Executive Summary Introduction The primary aim of the Environmentally Responsible Fisheries project was to quantify the biological and economic components of the environmental footprint of under 10m commercial fishing vessels targeting finfish in inshore waters off the English coast. The project aimed to develop a range of indicators associated with the fishing operation, marketing and ancillary services, using this information to fill key gaps in the evidence base and in turn inform the Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) project and the implementation of Fisheries The project collected detailed information on fishing activities, catches, discards and economic data from participating vessels, and was restricted to three pilot areas; off the northeast coast centred around Hartlepool; off the east coast centred around Lowestoft and in the Thames Estuary. The project was aimed primarily at under 10 metre vessels 1. The focus was on vessels that are heavily reliant on quota stocks, and therefore vessels that target primarily shellfish were not included as these vessels can generally have a lower environmental impact. Participating vessels were required to complete detailed log books on all of their fishing activities. The vessels were allowed to land, and sell, all catches outside quota restrictions, under derogation for research purposes, as long as the fish were above the minimum landing size and vessels adhered to technical conservation measures. This was to provide information on the catching capacity of the inshore fleet as well as providing an incentive for full participation as the level of data recording required was relatively time-consuming. Vessels were restricted to an annual limit on fishing days based upon historical records to ensure that fishing effort did not increase significantly in the pilot areas over the course of this project. Data collection ran initially for 12 months from August 2008 to obtain information on the seasonal pattern of fishing activity of participating vessels over a full calendar year. In July 2009, Defra announced that the scheme would continue for a second year in the same three pilot areas until August However in November 2009, Defra terminated the scheme because analysis of the first year s data confirmed that the catch levels for a number of species being landed by participating vessels was much higher than anticipated and constituted a significant proportion of UK quotas. Such landings could not continue to be justified under derogation for scientific research, because any uptake of these vessels usual quota allocation by other vessels would potentially result in total landings significantly exceeding the UK quota and thus could not be considered sustainable. The specific scientific objectives were: 1. Ensure sufficient participation of eligible vessels from each of the three pilot areas to ensure a good coverage of the main fishing activities undertaken by the under 10m fleet. 2. Fit each participating vessel with a suitable automatic vessel monitoring system that records the position of the vessel at 15-minute intervals. 1 Although there was an exception made for the Lowestoft area where a 11.6 m vessel was included because the project had been planned to deliver one of the original proposals for the 2008/09 Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP), which was to look at the catches of the inshore longline fleet. 4

5 3. Design and introduce a log book that provides good quality data on species and size composition of catches, discarding practices and economic data, and which is acceptable to participating vessel skippers. 4. Undertake observer trips on each participating vessel at least three times to collect additional biological information. 5. Analyse samples of the discarded catch brought ashore by participating vessels. 6. Review progress of the project on a monthly basis to ensure that a sufficient number of vessels are still participating, that the quality of data provided by participating vessels is of sufficient quantity and quality, and assess whether fishing effort has increased within this sector of the fleet following the introduction of the scheme. 7. Analyse biological and economic data and develop indicators of the environmental footprint of the under 10m fleet, and the economic characterisation of the vessels. 8. Collate industry suggestions for more environmentally friendly fishing practices and identify research priorities to enable quantitative analysis of the effect of inshore fishing practices. 9. Produce final report of project and present results in a form suitable for fishermen, other stakeholders and Defra policy-makers. The project was a collaboration between the fishing industry, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) and Seafish. It was funded by Defra who retained responsibility for the selection of participants, the establishment of the rules of the scheme, and compliance with those rules by participants throughout the duration of the scheme. The project required the collection of detailed information from the skippers and crew of participating vessels about each fishing trip including the gear used, catches and discards, and economic information such as fuel consumption and markets for the landed catch, and the fitting and maintenance of automated monitoring systems to record information on course, speed and position of the participating vessels at regular intervals. A total of 31 vessels was selected for participation based on the following eligibility criteria relating to historical fishing patterns: <10m overall length (with the exception noted above about Lowestoft long-lining vessels) licensed, with up-to-date safety certificate and insurance to carry MFA and Cefas staff as observers spends 50 days or more at sea per year sailing from the identified ports (based on 2007 data) landed catch comprises greater than 50% finfish species no outstanding fines and costs from a fisheries prosecution. Methodology Prior to the commencement of the scheme, each participating vessel was equipped with a satellite monitoring system that would provide positional information every 15 minutes. The key aim was to link these positional data with information on what the vessels were catching and discarding and to the costs of production in order to provide a measure of the environmental footprint and economic impact of the fleets. Comprehensive log books were designed and full training on their completion was provided for the skippers of participating vessels. The log books included historic data, vessel details and a gear reference list to be completed once but continually maintained, a trip form including fuel consumption to be completed on each trip, a haul or fishing operation form to be completed every haul to record data on catches and discards and their survival prospects, and in addition 5

6 to this, the skippers were tasked to collect regular length samples of the commercial species caught and discarded. An economics form had to be completed every week to record all costs such as fuel, landings fees and gear maintenance, and access was granted to the participant s accounts for the previous and current financial years. To determine a baseline to measure the impact of this project and current management measures on the participants fishing patterns, we needed to know the historical fishing patterns of this under 10m fleet component. These data were collected informally through interviews, providing a reference for normal fishing practices and a background to influences and effects. Specifically we requested information on: recent and historic trends in the local fisheries - economy and scale influences on decision making in relation to fishing practices local perceptions on national management measures, local measures and agreements and the current status of local stocks A full programme of observer trips on participating vessels and sampling of discards ashore was set up and at the start of the project, all observer staff received full training on their role in the project. All participating vessels completed their personal log books and returned them to the local MFA port staff, who sent them on to Cefas for processing and entering on to electronic databases. Two separate databases were designed and constructed in Microsoft Access to collate, process and quality assure these data. The first database contained solely the positional data provided by the satellite monitoring equipment. The second database was designed to accommodate all the other data and to ensure the financial data, landings data, catch data and biological data could be easily linked and processed together. The design of this database was a major task given that it was effectively replicating processes incorporated in three national databases Defra s Fishing Activities Database, Cefas Fishing Survey System and the Cefas Biological Sampling System. A new database was required because landings from participating vessels could not be recorded against UK quotas and therefore could not be entered into the Fishing Activities Database, and because the other two existing databases did not have sufficient capabilities to capture all the data from the project. Cefas analysed all the biological data and following entry of all financial data onto databases, Cefas passed these economic data onto Seafish for analysis. Results The project was highly successful in collection of both biological and economic data. Participating vessels were very disciplined at completing the log books throughout the project and we believe that this unprecedented high return rate of completed log books was strongly influenced by the benefits of being allowed to fish off-quota. In addition, a total of 80 observer trips were completed, and 109 discard samples were collected and analysed ashore. The observer programme was more successful in Hartlepool and Lowestoft than in the Thames because of the difference in the range of localities and differences in the fisheries. In the Thames trips were governed more by tides and were more often around 12 or 24 hours long. Catch rates and weather were harder to work around and as a consequence there was a number of visits by observers to the area where they did not get out to sea. Trawlers were targeted more heavily because of the perceived higher mortality on discards and because of the greater range of species and higher expected volumes. It can be difficult therefore to accurately identify species in trawler catches, and so participants were required to measure only volumes 6

7 of discards and not collect length measurements. For that reason trawlers were targeted more heavily than other gears in the observer programme. Discard samples from vessels lining and netting over the winter were not brought ashore for analysis as for these gears the fishermen were collecting length samples of both discarded and retained commercial species. The satellite monitoring data provided a record of the vessel s position and speed every 15 minutes. From these records, the speeds logged by the system in each area were tallied by gear type and showed that speeds of less than around 7km/hr (4 knots) are more prevalent when the vessels are fishing rather than just steaming. Using the speed alone as a filter, without reference to the fishing operation times, we were able to review the data and map out the activity of a vessel. For the first time, a huge volume of information was obtained on where the under 10m fleet in the pilot areas had fished, what they caught and discarded and how much their fishing activities had cost. The biological data showed that there is a wide range of vessels in the inshore under 10m fleet which use a variety of gears targeting a variety of species on a seasonal basis, and therefore it is very difficult to categorise the under 10m fleet into various segments. In Hartlepool, all the participating vessels were trawlers targeting primarily whiting, cod, haddock and Nephrops, whereas the Lowestoft vessels used lines, nets, pots, trawls and rods to target a wide range of species with significant seasonal variation in fishing pattern and there was a similar range of fishing activity demonstrated by the Thames Estuary vessels. Fishing from Hartlepool was in a relatively restricted area. Fishing from Lowestoft had a hot spot around the port, but was distributed quite widely with a significant amount of effort beyond the 12 mile limit. The vessels in the Thames Estuary fished over a very wide area covering most of the region - coast to coast with a small amount of effort down in the English Channel. Significant seasonal variations in terms of fishing area, gear used and target species were observed in all three areas. Comparison of the detailed log books completed by the participants and satellite monitoring data showed that the latter along with a record of gear used and target species, and combined with landings data from sales notes, provide a good estimate of the fishing effort and landings of vessels. Participating vessels had to provide data on discards on each tow or haul of the gear. In general, tows or hauls with the highest commercial catch rates also showed the highest discard rates, suggesting that at least for trawls, when trying to maximise their catch it was difficult to avoid areas with high levels of discards. For the Lowestoft vessels, there was not the same high level of discards at positions where catch rates were high, primarily because there are very low levels of discarding in the line fisheries. In general discard rates were highest for trawls and much lower for nets and lines. In Hartlepool the discards made up, on average, 26% percent of the total catch. In Lowestoft, discards made up 8% of the overall catch, and compared with most global and national fisheries data this figure is low. This is predominantly down to the longlining over the winter when little, if any, discarding occurs, and the relatively low discard rates for nets. In the Thames, the discard rates in these fisheries are characterised by significant bycatch of benthos and abiota, particularly in the oyster dredge and the trawl fisheries. If you include all biota (except weed) in the discard component the overall discard rate is around 49% across the fleet and 66% for the otter trawlers and 68% for dredgers. Remove the non-commercial biota except non-commercial fish and the discard rate drops to 29% overall, 44% for trawlers and 2% for oyster dredgers. For the first time, we have collected a full picture of precisely where sectors of the under 10m fleet fishes, as well as what they catch and discard. A significant component of the fishing effort 7

8 of the Lowestoft fleet in particular was distributed outside the 12 mile limit. As all the participating vessels were fishing off quota, the project provided an opportunity to speculate on how a fishery might be managed without the need for restrictive quota, but purely through an effort-based management system. There was no doubt that the participating vessels had sufficient catching power to catch far in excess of any localised inshore quota, and that unrestricted fishing would not necessarily be the best solution for managing the inshore fleet. Comparison of landings and fishing effort for the first three months of year 1 of the project with the same three months in year 2 showed that the spatial distribution in each period for each year is similar, but there are subtle differences. There appears to be less effort occurring in the second period overall and the sum of the number of trips carried out by the fleet confirmed these differences. Weather conditions did not appear to be less conducive to fishing in the second year and it is most likely that fishing effort was higher initially in year 1 due to the new opportunities provided by the scheme, and by the start of year 2 participants were in a more settled routine. The relative catch rates of each species in both years were similar across the three months in all three areas. The environmental footprint of the fishing operations in each area was estimated through analysing the weight of fish caught in relation to fuel consumption rate or CO 2 emissions. The analysis suggested that on average the trawlers in Hartlepool were more productive per kg of fuel used or produced less CO 2 per kg of fish than the trawlers in the other two areas. The liners out of Lowestoft appear to have the most environmentally efficient gear landing around 2.2 kg of fish per kg of CO 2, although all figures need to be considered in relation to the value as well as the weight of the catch, and in relation to the overall environmental footprint of the fishing process including, for example, the cost of catching and storing bait for longlines. Other indices of the vessels environmental footprint were calculated based on the time the discards are on deck and the impact on survival rates and the distance from the point of sale. In each area the survival prospects of most round fish (as perceived by the vessels skippers) are poor - particularly whiting. The perception is that flatfish species fair much better and for most gears the survival prospects for elasmobranchs is good to very good. The perceived survival prospects for nearly all the selected species for the Thames trawlers are good and this may relate to the robustness of the most common species here but also the speed at which the decks are cleared. The perceived survival prospects of most of the discarded species when long lining off Lowestoft are good. The time on deck was significantly longer for trawls in Hartlepool than in the other two areas. In the Thames the trawlers fish short tows to keep the catch to a manageable size, and this keeps the overall average time clearing the deck to around 30 minutes. Off Lowestoft vessels take on average 30 to 45 minutes to clear the decks, whilst the Hartlepool trawlers, on average, take around 1 hour to 1½ hours. Off Lowestoft the netters more commonly take up to 15 minutes to clear their nets, but it may be significantly longer and will relate to the number of fleets fished in one fishing operation. In the Thames it takes on average 55 minutes to clear the decks when netting. Overall there may be a relationship between the time on deck and perceived survival prospects for some of the elasmobranchs. In all three areas, fish may be sold locally or transported significant distances to market in England or exported to the continent. The economic analysis confirmed the biological analysis that the three project areas revealed strikingly different catch composition profiles and different seasonal patterns. Similar differences were observed when the vessels were grouped by main gear type. These findings suggest that to be effective, management must take account of local characteristics of fisheries, since it seems unlikely that a standard approach could deliver the best results from such varied fisheries. 8

9 There was no real difference in the fishing profit margin of the vessels when grouped by project area. Although vessels using nets had an average fishing profit margin lower than other gear types, the difference was not statistically significant due to the combination of the amount of variation within each group and the small size of the groups. There was a wide variation in profit margin among the vessels and the key driver or drivers affecting profitability must therefore be among factors that we have not observed or measured, for instance, the experience, skill and motivation of the skipper. Comparison of performance between the project vessels and a group of comparable under 10m English vessels shows that the under 10m English fleet with uncapped licences contains substantially more fishing capacity than would be optimally required to land the permitted catch levels. Average profit is inevitably lower than it would be if only the optimal amount of capital were invested in landing the permitted amount of fish and shellfish. Some owners of under 10m vessels do not tend to think of themselves as running businesses, but rather as being fishermen. The outlook, values and motivations of the vessel owners needs to be taken account of when designing incentives within the management system. Vessel owners could also consider the opportunity costs of the money, labour and skill that they have chosen to invest in fishing. To ensure an accurate analysis of overall inshore vessel performance, including return on investment, it is necessary to establish a more representative data set based on vessel accounts and official landings and activity data. The project achieved all of its scientific objectives, principally because of the successful implementation of the satellite monitoring package on all participating vessels, and the diligence with which participating skippers and owners completed the log books. The only problem was the huge amount of time that it took MFA, Cefas and Seafish staff to handle the paper forms, input them into an electronic database and analyse the data. Collaboration by all partners in the scheme was a cornerstone of the successful achievement of the objectives. The key output from the project was the description of the biological and economic components of fishing activity in the absence of any catch restrictions, which will help to inform future management strategies for the inshore fisheries sector. Data collected at this level of intensity will provide a critical input to any discussion on marine spatial planning issues, for example, impact assessments in relation to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Participants provided important feedback on the project through interviews and informal discussion during the project, through a post-scheme survey carried out by Seafish and at postproject coastal meetings in the three areas to discuss the draft report. Vessel owners interviewed after the end of the project had generally good views about the project itself, but were frustrated and disappointed with the sudden manner in which the project was ended. They also found the data recording burdensome and believe that the delay in reporting since the end of the project was due to the large volume of data to be analysed by Cefas and Seafish. The surveys and post-project coastal meetings also provided opportunities for participants to express their views on future management strategies for the inshore fisheries sector. 9

10 Conclusions The diligence with which participating skippers completed their log books was critical to the success of the project. This diligence was founded upon excellent collaboration between participating skippers and Cefas, Seafish and the MFA, and the incentive of being able to fish off-quota. The project provided a detailed evidence base on which to base future management of the inshore fisheries. Information was collated on the range of species caught, the varying types of gear, and the wide geographical distribution of fishing effort for even small vessels. The data on discards are particularly valuable because they give a measure of discarding rates in the absence of any catch restrictions. The use of satellite monitoring packages which transmit information on the position of the vessels every 15 minutes provided, for the first time, detailed information on the distribution of fishing effort exhibited by certain inshore vessels. In the absence of detailed log book records, these positional data, combined with some knowledge of the gear and target species and a daily landings record, provide a good estimate of fishing effort and landings. Log book records showed localised high catches of some species, but these catch rates are a snapshot in space and time and so cannot necessarily be extrapolated across areas or across years. Fishing under derogation from quota restrictions demonstrated that under 10 metre vessels have significant catching capacity, which has implications for the introduction of any management system based on effort limitation alone. There is a substantial imbalance between permitted fishing opportunity and catching capacity in the English under 10m fleet. The project vessels, unrestricted by quota, had a higher catch rate and higher landings volume than a group of comparable under 10m English vessels with uncapped licences. This illustrated that there is more catching capacity in that section of the fleet than is necessary to land the currently permitted volumes of fish. The complex nature of the annual fishing activities of these small inshore vessels means that it would be difficult to segment the under 10 metre fleet into any easily-managed metiers. Data collected during this project provide a vast resource for research, and although only a snapshot in time, could also be used to describe the nature of fishing activity in the location of proposed sites for windfarms, aggregate extraction and other seabed uses or for impact assessments in relation to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Key future requirements for monitoring the activity of the under 10m fleet are the implementation of cheap, reliable satellite monitoring packages on all vessels and the development of effective electronic log books. 10

11 1 Introduction 1.1 Background to project and timescales The primary aim of this research project was to quantify the biological and economic components of the environmental footprint of commercial fishing vessels targeting finfish in inshore waters (generally within 12nm) off the English coast. The project aimed to develop a range of indicators associated with the fishing operation, marketing and ancillary services, using this information to fill key gaps in the evidence base for these activities and in inform the Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) project and the implementation of Fisheries The project required the collection of detailed information on fishing activities, catches, discards and economic data from participating vessels. It was restricted initially to three pilot areas; off the northeast coast centred around Hartlepool; off the east coast centred around Lowestoft and in the Thames Estuary. The project was aimed primarily at under 10m vessels although there was an exception made for the Lowestoft area where an 11.6m vessel was included because the project had been planned to deliver one of the original proposals for the 2008/09 Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP), which was to look at the catches of the inshore longline fleet. The focus of this project was on vessels that were heavily reliant on quota stocks, and therefore vessels that targeted primarily shellfish were not included as these vessels can generally have a lower environmental impact. Fishermen were allowed to sell the fish caught and quota restrictions were waived under derogation for scientific research as long as the fish were above the minimum landing size and vessels adhered to technical conservation measures. Vessels were restricted to an annual limit on fishing days based upon historical records to ensure that fishing effort did not increase significantly in the pilot areas over the course of this project. Data collection ran initially for 12 months from August 2008 to obtain information on the seasonal pattern of fishing activity of participating vessels over a full calendar year. In July 2009, Defra announced that the scheme would continue for a second year in the same three pilot areas until August However in November 2009 Defra terminated the scheme because analysis of the first year s data confirmed that the catch levels for a number of species being landed by participating vessels was much higher than anticipated and constituted a significant proportion of UK quotas. Such landings could not continue to be justified under derogation for scientific research, because any uptake of these vessels usual quota allocations by other vessels would potentially result in landings significantly exceeding the UK quota and thus could not be considered sustainable. The specific scientific objectives were: 1. Ensure sufficient participation of eligible vessels from each of the three pilot areas to ensure a good coverage of the main fishing activities undertaken by the under 10m fleet. 2. Fit each participating vessel with a suitable automatic vessel monitoring system that records the position of the vessel at 15-minute intervals. 3. Design and introduce a log book that provides good quality data on species and size composition of catches, discarding practices and economic data, and which is acceptable to participating vessel skippers. 4. Undertake observer trips on each participating vessel at least three times to collect additional biological information. 5. Analyse samples of the discarded catch brought ashore by participating vessels. 11

12 6. Review progress of the project on a monthly basis to ensure that a sufficient number of vessels are still participating, that the quality of data provided by participating vessels is of sufficient quantity and quality, and assess whether fishing effort has increased within this sector of the fleet following the introduction of the scheme. 7. Analyse biological and economic data and develop indicators of the environmental footprint of the under 10m fleet, and the economic characterisation of the vessels. 8. Collate industry suggestions for more environmentally-friendly fishing practices and identify research priorities to enable quantitative analysis of the effect of inshore fishing practices. 9. Produce final report of project and present results in a form suitable for fishermen, other stakeholders and Defra policy-makers. 1.2 Collaborators, contributors and responsibilities The project was a collaboration between the fishing industry, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) and Seafish. It was funded by Defra who retained responsibility for the selection of participants, the establishment of the rules of the scheme, and compliance with those rules by participants throughout the duration of the scheme. The project required the collection of detailed information from the skippers and crew of participating vessels about each fishing trip including the gear used, catches and discards as well as economic information such as fuel consumption and markets for the landed catch, and the fitting and maintenance of automated monitoring systems to record information on course, speed and position of participating vessels at regular intervals. The project was managed overall by Cefas, but the MFA and Seafish played key roles in the project. Initially the MFA led on equipping all participating vessels with automatic data recording equipment that recorded vessel position on a regular basis similar to the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), which is currently obligatory for vessels over 15m in length, and ensured maintenance of this equipment. During the course of the project, the key roles played by the MFA were liaison with participating skippers in their local area, ensuring compliance to the rules of the scheme, and ensuring that all participating vessels completed and submitted the relevant paper records. MFA also contributed where possible to sorting samples of total catch including discards brought ashore by participating vessels. Seafish supported Cefas in the maintenance of the project and in carrying out some of the observer trips on participating vessels. The analysis of the biological and economic data collected during the project was carried out by Cefas and Seafish respectively and both these analyses are presented in this final project report. Seafish also undertook a post-project survey to gauge the participants assessment of the success and impact of the scheme. The analysis presented in this report has been screened to ensure the records of individuals cannot be identified. 1.3 Preparatory work choice of participants Prior to the scheme actually commencing in August 2008, a considerable amount of preparatory work was required. Fishing records for 2007 for the three pilot areas were examined and, based on these records, criteria were set for participation in the scheme. The eligibility criteria for participating vessels were identified as follows: <10m overall length (with the exception noted above about Lowestoft long-lining vessels) 12

13 licensed, with up-to-date safety certificate and insurance to carry MFA and Cefas staff as observers spends 50 days or more at sea per year sailing from the identified ports (based on 2007 data) landed catch comprises greater than 50% finfish species no outstanding fines and costs from a fisheries prosecution. The plan was to invite around 30 vessels to participate in the scheme giving a reasonable range and breadth of coverage of fishing activities, whilst ensuring that the number of observer trips required and the volume of data collection and analysis would be manageable. Based on the number of vessels reporting landings in 2007, a total of 9, 10 and 20 eligible fishing vessels was identified in the three pilot areas of Hartlepool, Lowestoft and Thames Estuary respectively, although it was recognised that there were likely to be other vessels in the three areas that had fished in 2007 for which there were no reported landings. Defra, MFA and Cefas colleagues visited the three areas to outline the proposed project to potential participants and also wrote to all potential participants requesting expressions of interest to participate. Over 60 expressions of interest were received, and eventually a total of 31 vessels was selected for participation based on the criteria outlined above, except that the minimum days at sea criterion was increased to 60 days for vessels in the Thames Estuary area in order to reduce the number of selected vessels to a manageable number in that area. 13

14 2 Methods 2.1 Setting up Choice of VMS system One of the key aims of the project was to equip each participating vessel with a satellite monitoring system that would provide positional information on each participating vessel every 15 minutes. The MFA undertook this procurement exercise. A restricted tender process was carried out where four potential contractors were invited to tender, following which Applied Satellite Systems of Great Yarmouth (AST) was awarded the contract. This tendering process took some time and, along with the necessary development of the hardware and the fitting of the equipment to the participating vessels, was the main reason why the project was not fully operational until August The satellite monitoring data provided by the AST system provided information about the spatial and temporal range of the fisheries and fleet activity. The key aim of this project was to link these positional data with information on what the vessels were catching and discarding to get a measure of the impact of the fleet on the local marine ecology and linking these data to the costs of production would provide a measure of the environmental footprint and economic impact of the fleet Design of log books Whilst the vessel positional data were provided electronically, all the other data had to be recorded manually on forms. Electronic log book technology is developing rapidly but at the start of this project, no system was available that could record electronically the volume of data that was required from each fishing trip. Seven paper forms were created for the participants (Table 2.1). 14

15 Table 2.1 Forms and data to be collected Form Data Contributor Frequency Submit name to - Historic Fisher and Once, but NA data coordinator/observer continuous B Vessel Fisher and details coordinator/observer C Gear reference list Fisher Once but continually maintained. Once but continually maintained. Adhoc - inform local Cefas coordinator of any changes. Adhoc - inform local Cefas coordinator of any changes. D Economics Fisher Weekly Local MFA coordinator. E Trip forms Fisher Every trip Local MFA coordinator F and F deck G Haul or Fishing operation forms Trip length forms Fisher Fisher Every fishing operation Once per month and gear type on arrangement Local MFA coordinator Local MFA coordinator by NA Within 14 days of the end of the month. Within 14 days of the end of the month. Within 14 days of the end of the month. Within 48 hours of the landing. Within 48 hours of the landing. Within 48 hours of the landing. To determine a baseline to measure the impact of this project and current management measures on their fishing patterns, we needed to know the historical fishing patterns of the under 10m fleet component. These data were collected informally through interview, providing a reference for normal fishing practices and a background to influences and effects. Specifically we needed information on: recent and historic trends in the local fisheries - economy and scale influences on decision making on fishing practices local perceptions on national management measures, local measures and agreements and the current status of local stocks All the vessels details are already held by Defra but to ensure that all the vessels physical characteristics and the contact details of the skipper were correct, a partially completed form (Form B) was produced for the skipper to check, correct if necessary and complete. Any missing data had to be completed - additional details required were the number of crew commonly used (including skipper); a summary of the gear types used and further contact details. 15

16 To get a measure of the cost of production the skippers were asked to provide accounts of their income and expenditure. Costs would include vessel maintenance, mooring fees, fuel costs, crew, gear maintenance and replacement, bait, marketing and processing costs, landing fees, transportation costs, insurance and agency fees etc. Income would come from the sale of the fish and shellfish and through charter work. Since 2005 Seafish have been producing reports on economic surveys of the UK fishing fleet for which Seafish requires permission from owner/skippers to access their annual accounts with each vessel s accountant providing summaries. This project required the same access to the participants accounts, both of those covering the term of the project but also accounts of the previous financial year. This provided some comparison with their costs and income the year before the pilot scheme commenced. All participants signed an accounts permission form at the end of their training (see training). Income and expenditure was also required at a finer time scale to relate costs to particular fisheries, gears and working practices which for some of the participants could change daily. It was decided that weekly breakdown of their finances would be sufficient and an economics form (Form D) was designed, to be filled in weekly and submitted monthly. Estimates of fuel costs and landing fees would also be collected on a trip-by-trip basis as part of the trip form (Form E). To get a measure of the fishing power, fishermen were required to record catch details including some measure of the survival prospects of discards on a haul-by-haul basis (Form F). The trip form (Form E) was designed to provide a summary or header for the trip. Date, time and ports of departure and arrival were recorded. The landed weights and value by species and grade as well as their destination for sale were recorded, along with some simple cost estimates. The haul form (Form F) was designed to record all the data relating to a haul or fishing operation on one side of A4. For this project a fishing operation was defined by the period the gear was in the water. For example, for trawls this would cover one haul and for more passive gears this would cover the use of one fleet of nets or lines. In some instances, depending on the tides and weather, a fishing operation included more than one haul or fleet, for instance if a vessel was drift trammelling when 4 or 5 fleets of nets were shot in sequence. A dummy of this form that covered the key details available on deck was created as a waterproof pad (Form F deck). The pad would not be submitted but was a tool the fishers could use in poor weather outside anything recorded on that could be transcribed to the top copy of the haul form for submission. Length data were collected by the skippers to quality assure, quantify and qualify what the skippers were recording in their catch and to provide data on the age range of the commercial species and some of the local ecology. The length forms (Form G) were based on those used by Cefas observers as part of the Discard Sampling Programme. To reduce the amount of repetitive haul-by-haul recording and limit the number of forms required at sea, a Gear Reference List (Form C) was designed so that the skipper would only need to populate once with a description of the gear that vessel owned. The physical characteristics such as gear type, mesh size, construction, number of nets/pots in a fleet, size and number of hooks, fishing length etc. would be recorded against a unique reference number. For each haul or fishing operation a single gear reference could then be recorded instead of a list of details. 16

17 Other forms were designed to record the occurrence and volume of all the larger living organisms brought ashore in the discard samples. The forms used by the observers for quality assurance again were based on those used by Cefas observers as part of the Discard Sampling Programme but with other fields recording the sampling processes used by the skipper Initial meetings with fishermen training on how to complete log books The final versions of the logbook had been agreed following feedback from participants. Training sessions for participating skippers and crew were run in each of the pilot areas, and at least one of the Cefas and Seafish observers were present to meet the participants. All participants were issued with a starter pack of forms, joining instructions, rules of compliance and tools for the job. Each session concluded with an exercise using a sample of discards from one of the local vessels to demonstrate the collection of a length sample and the processing and recording of discards. This training was followed up within a month of the project starting with further practical training offshore or further sessions onshore with individual fishermen Training of observers A training session was held at Lowestoft on 22 & 23 July 2008 for all the Cefas and Seafish observers involved in the scheme to ensure they were clear on the objectives of this project, were clear of their roles and the standard protocols to which they would be working. 2.2 Data collection Sales notes There was no derogation from Buyers and Sellers legislation and all vessels on the scheme, their buyers, merchants, and agents had to comply and submit sales notes and receipts for the fish and shellfish landed and sold as required. The expression sales note in this report is used as a collective term for all sales notes, buyer declarations, landing chits, receipts and transport dockets processed to provide landings data. Overall 4,810 sales notes were processed for the first year of the scheme. An additional 789 sales notes were processed for the extension of the scheme which together provided 42,443 landing records Self-sampling and recording by participants of biological and economic data On each trip the skipper would record the times and ports of departure and return. On their return to port the vessel would weigh and record their landings by species and the merchant or agent who bought or sold the landings. The monetary value was either estimated or transcribed from a sales note. The total amount of fuel used was recorded together with any trip related costs. These values or costs would support the financial analysis carried out and 17

18 the fuel used would also contribute to any environmental impact indicators. Overall 4,073 trips were recorded in the first year of the scheme For each fishing operation, whether that be the track of a trawl from shoot to haul or the shooting of a number of fleets of drift nets, the skipper recorded the times and positions that the gear was shot/started fishing and the times the gear was retrieved. The positions provided were a georeference for the start and end of the fishing operation and the times recorded would allow the geopositional data to be restricted to the periods the vessels or gear was actively fishing. Overall 11,014 fishing operations were recorded in the first year of the scheme. The catch from each fishing operation was processed as normal (sorted, cleaned and boxed) but the participants had to also record the volume, by species, of what was retained and the volume, by species or species groups, of what was discarded. The recorded catch had to include all non-commercial and commercial discards including weed and abiota. Overall 6,750 records were processed in the first year of the scheme. In addition to the quantities caught, the time it took to process the catch was recorded and the species discarded were assessed on their potential survival prospects. The participants were provided with waterproof note books to record data on deck in all weathers. Some participants adopted these or used their own notebooks or even Dictaphones transcribing the data later; others recorded the data directly onto the catch forms. The intention was to try and limit the impact of the scheme on an unrestricted fishing pattern as much as possible and the participants developed their own way of working to record the information effectively and efficiently within their normal working practice. Environmental data in the form of depth and weather information were also recorded. In addition to the catch data the skippers were tasked to collect regular length samples of the commercial species caught and discarded. This qualified what was being recorded and would provide a reference for weight if required and age in any further analyses. Overall 1,783 length samples and 23,770 fish were measured for the first year of the scheme. On a monthly basis the skippers had to provide a breakdown of their costs and expenses as well as income. Overall 370 returns were submitted for the first year of the scheme. The Seafish Accounts Permission Form would provide Seafish with access to the participant s business accounts. The monthly returns corroborated by their business accounts would provide the backbone for the economic analyses. Table 2.2 summarises the scale of the returns by project area and gear group. 18

19 Table 2.2 Summary of self-sampled trips (August 2008 to 15 August 2009) Project area Gear group Gear type Trips * Fishing operations Records Hartlepool Trawls Nephrops trawls Trawls Otter trawls Trawls Pair trawls Hartlepool total Lowestoft Lines Long lines Nets Gill nets Nets Trammel nets Nets subtotal Pots Parlour pots Rods Hand lines Trawls Otter trawls Lowestoft total Thames Estuary Dredges Oyster dredges Lines Long lines Nets Drift nets Nets Gill nets Nets Tangle nets Nets Set nets Nets Trammel nets Nets subtotal Pots Parlour pots Pots Whelk pots Pots subtotal Rods Hand lines Trawls Otter trawls Trawls Pair trawls Trawls subtotal Thames estuary total Grand total * Subtotals and totals include polyvalent trips trips on which more than one gear type was used, and trips where the vessel did not fish Observer trips The observer trips provided the skippers with further contact for advice to resolve any concerns, ensured that protocols were being followed and allowed observers to collect additional qualitative data. The sample data provided quality assurance on what was being collected and qualified some of the collective species groups being used by the participants when recording discards. The measurement data collected enhanced that being collected by the skippers and provided a source of size data for some of the discarded species that were not required to be measured by the skippers. These measurements and volumes provided a reference for weight for the discarded component of the catch. Overall 1,362 length samples and 20,931 fish were measured in the first year of the scheme. The intention was that the first trip to sea would be used by the observer to ensure the participant was happy with what was required and to help out with any concerns. Overall 80 observer trips were made and on 57 trips catch composition data and length samples were collected, see Table 2.3 below. 19

20 The observer programme was more successful in Hartlepool and Lowestoft than in the Thames because of the difference in the range of localities and differences in the fisheries. In the Thames, trips were governed more by tides and were more often around 12 or 24 hours long. Catch rates and weather were harder to work around and as a consequence there were a number of visits by observers to the area where they did not get out to sea. These trips were used to meet with the participants ashore if feasible and resolve any issues with them there. Table 2.3 Summary of observer trips where catch sampling occurred Project area GearGroup GearType Trips * Fishing Operations Records Hartlepool Trawls Nephrops trawls Trawls Otter trawls Trawls Pair trawls Hartlepool total Lowestoft Lines Long lines Nets Trammel nets Pots Parlour pots Lowestoft total Thames Dredges Oyster dredges Lines Long lines Trawls Otter trawls Nets Drift nets Nets Gill nets Nets Trammel nets Nets subtotal Thames estuary total Grand total * Subtotals and totals include the following polyvalent trips ProjectPort area Gear combination Trips Lowestoft Lines / nets 1 Nets / pots 2 Thames Gill / trammel nets Sampling of discards ashore Every three months the trawlers and some of the netters were required to bring in samples of the discarded component of the catch. The samples brought ashore were analysed by Cefas with help in Hartlepool from MFA staff. These samples allowed an even greater degree of speciation for further catch composition analysis and the weights and measures contributed to converting the discarded volumes of species and species types to a discarded liveweight. Overall 109 discard samples were brought ashore yielding 799 length samples consisting of 12,533 fish and 318 additional species observations (Table 2.4). Trawlers were targeted more heavily because of the perceived higher mortality on discards and because of the greater range of species and higher expected volumes. It can be difficult therefore to accurately identify species in trawler catches, and so participants were required to measure only volumes of discards and not collect length measurements. For that reason trawlers were targeted more heavily than other gears in the observer programme. Discard samples from vessels lining and netting over the winter were not brought ashore for analysis 20

21 as for these gears, the fishermen were collecting length samples of both discarded and retained commercial species. Samples were not collected from liners because it was perceived that discards would be minimal and would be of larger species and therefore easily identified. The participants were also expected to measure samples of the discarded component on these trips. The seasonality of some of the net fisheries limited the number of samples collected overall from this fleet component. Table 2.4 Summary of discard samples brought ashore. Project area Gear group Gear type Trips Samples Records Hartlepool Trawls Nephrops trawls Trawls Otter trawls Trawls Pair trawls Hartlepool total Lowestoft Trawls Otter trawls Pots Parlour pots Nets Trammel nets Lowestoft total Thames Trawls Otter trawls Nets Drift nets Nets Gill nets Nets Trammel nets Nets subtotal Thames estuary total Grand total * Subtotals and totals include the following polyvalent trips Refresher courses Port area Gear combination Trips Hartlepool Nephrops and otter trawls 1 Lowestoft Parlour pots and trammel nets 1 Thames estuary Gill and trammel nets 1 Gill net and otter trawl 1 After the first six months a series of refresher courses was run for the skippers to discuss the data recorded to date and resolve any issues and maintain or improve on the quality of what was being collected. 2.3 Data collation and analysis Design of databases The size of the AST dataset and the processes sourcing the data effectively precluded, within the scope of this scheme, collating this data within the same database as those from the paper records. Two separate databases were designed and constructed in Microsoft Access to collate, process and quality assure these data. The first database contains solely the AST data. The second database was designed to accommodate all the other data and to ensure all the financial data, landings data, catch data and biological data could be easily 21

22 linked and processed together. The AST dataset would be later merged where required with processed outputs of trip and catch data. AST dataset The raw data reported by AST was uploaded to the system monthly so that it could be checked and in turn reported to the MFA to assist them with monitoring the effort of vessels on the scheme. It was also possible to log into the AST datahost system directly and view the current state and location of any of the vessels on the scheme. During the course of the scheme, there were only very minor and occasional glitches in data collection from AST, none of which compromised the output from the project. Project dataset The remainder of the data was input into the second database manually. The time limit for creating this database limited the complexity that could be built in but did not limit the complexity of the task effectively replicating processes incorporated in three national databases Defra s Fishing Activities Database, Cefas Fishing Survey System and Cefas Biological Sampling System. A new database was required because landings from participating vessels could not be recorded against UK quotas and therefore could not be entered into the Fishing Activities Database, and because the other two existing databases did not have sufficient capabilities to capture all the data from the project. To limit transcription errors the forms provided the template for each data entry screen. This made it easier to process the data, transcribing what was on the forms to the field mirrored on the screen. The only data entry screen that did not mirror a form was the sales note as the sales notes / invoices / transport documents came in a number of different formats. Financial Dataset Cefas collated, checked and processed the financial data for Seafish. The skippers returned the completed monthly financial forms anonymously to MFA who collated and batched them with other returns and sent them to Cefas. Some skippers posted these records directly to Cefas. As with the other data entry screens, this screen was designed to mirror the form to minimise transcription errors and to help with data checking. These records related to a month of activity and so were not linked directly to the other datasets. Once entered and processed on the master database, summaries of the data were produced before being anonymised. Encrypted electronic copies were then generated and ed to Seafish. 22

23 3 Biological section 3.1 Analytical techniques All data were processed in Microsoft Access a relational database management system. Subsets of the data were processed in Microsoft Excel - a spreadsheet application. Processes included programming in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) and some preliminary bivariate analysis and data checks were carried out using R - a freeware statistical and graphical programming language. All the spatial data checks and the spatial analysis of the satellite monitoring (VMS) data were processed using ArcView 9.3, a geographic information system (GIS) GIS plots The VMS data provide us with the spatial distribution of fishing effort. The AST satellite monitoring system provided information at 15 minute intervals on the exact position and speed of each vessel throughout a fishing trip. The 15 minute interval was chosen based on the cost of each transmission and the period it was perceived that would log, on at least one occasion, some part of each fishing operation. Determining when a vessel is fishing is important when defining fishing effort. The term fishing can include the process of actively hunting for the target species before the gear hits the water. As a consequence fishing effort can include the process of getting to the fishing grounds as well as actively handling the gear. Fisheries managers may use days at sea to limit fishing activity. However within a day at sea different gears may be used, some gears may be left passively fishing whilst the vessel returns to port or the vessel may be able to fish more than one gear type. Knowing what a vessel is doing within a day at sea is important for managers but also scientists to determine the exact catch and effort potential of that vessel in that area. The term actively fishing will be used in this report to cover the period that the fishing gear is in the water. Satellite monitoring provides a simple tool for monitoring the activity of a vessel. On this scheme the same VMS data were collected every 15 minutes and in addition the participants recorded the start time and end time of each fishing operation. This gave us the opportunity to review the speeds at which a vessel was travelling when actively fishing and let us determine the filters we might apply to the data to limit the data spatially. The speeds logged by the system in each area were tallied by gear type and showed that speeds less than around 7km/hr (4 knots) are more prevalent when the vessels are actively fishing rather than just steaming. Using the speed alone as a filter, without reference to the fishing operation times, we can review the data and map out the activity of a vessel. Figure 3.1 below shows an example of the activity of a single vessel that fished four consecutive trips from Hartlepool. Each arrow is the position of the vessel plotted at 15-minute intervals, and the direction of the arrow mirrors the logged movement of the vessel at the time. The speed is indicated by the distance between each consecutive point but has been highlighted by colouring the arrows blue if greater than 7 km/hour (4 knots) and red if less than 7 km/hour. 23

24 It is clear that this particular trawler varied its fishing grounds on a day-to-day basis. Although trips 2 and 4 were essentially fishing the same grounds, very different fishing patterns occurred during trips 1 and 3. The logbook data completed by the vessel skipper were consulted to see what the vessels were doing on those days (see Table 3.1, but note that for purposes of confidentiality, actual catch weights or numbers have been removed). Table 3.1 Activity of one of the scheme vessels over four consecutive days. Fleet Day Target Time absent Main Catch Hartlepool Trawler 1 Mixed whitefish 13.5 hrs 3 hauls Whiting x weight Cod x value 2 Mixed whitefish 9.5 hrs 2 hauls Mainly whiting Cod x value 3 Mixed whitefish 11 hrs 2 hauls Whiting x weight Cod x value 4 Mixed whitefish 11hrs 2 hauls Whiting x weight Cod x value The AST data provides us with another estimate of effort or a proxy for effort. For future monitoring and management purposes a VMS system could be adopted for under 10m vessels without having to introduce a new under 10m logbook scheme. This system could provide measures of effort which could aid the management of this fleet component. 24

25 Figure 3.1 Example of the activity of a single fishing vessel over the course of 4 trips from Hartlepool Catch Data The catch data provided us with information on the spatial and temporal distribution of individual species and their relative importance, and the impact of particular gear types in each different project area. On its own the data provided us with landings and discard 25

26 information for each fishery and the relative discards from different gear types which is important when discussing the environmental impact of each fishery. Combined with the VMS data, we are able to plot and see the key areas for particular fisheries and identify areas which may be particularly sensitive in terms of discards. Both the landed and discarded components of the catch from each fishing operation were recorded in terms of volumetric measures or estimated weights. The landed weights and the weights collected from the onshore discard samples were our only reference to actual weights and each component of the catch had to be converted to a nominal live weight. Difference between sales note data and declared landings data The scheme produced two references for landings, the landings recorded by the participants with the trip details on the landing declaration (Form E) and the landings recorded on the sales notes. Outside this scheme, MFA collate fisheries statistics for Defra on a national database. Currently over 10m vessels submit daily catch records with landing declarations in the form of EU logbooks and these are corroborated with returns from buyers and sellers. Normally, the under 10m fleet are not required to submit EU logbooks and all catch data and effort data collated are taken from buyers and sellers returns. Outside the scheme, the vessels in our sample fleet, bar the one over 10m vessel out of Lowestoft, would fall into this category. As stated before, the sales note data represent the official data, providing the level of information normally received for the fleet, albeit the data would be processed on a different system. This study was not set up to review the current national reporting scheme for the under 10m fleet but it became more apparent that there are limits to the information the sales notes provide. Area information, date of landing, gear and effort information were not apparent on most of the sales notes. These data would require MFA to use local knowledge or refer to the fishermen to get these details. In the national scheme, the first sales note received for a landing creates a trip reference. If there is not an accurate date of landing on the sales note it is difficult to link that sales note s data to the vessel s actual activity and if there is more than one sales note for one landing then the chance of creating more than one trip reference increases. The chances increase again if the fish are sold directly to agents or merchants rather than through an auction. 37% of the trips on this scheme generated more than one sales note and 12% of the sales notes covered more than one trip. 36% of all the sales notes provided a date that tallied within a day of the date of landing. 25% of the sales notes provided a date 2 or more days different to the landing date. Around 30% of the landings from these trips had more than one buyer or seller. 73 of the sales notes (1%) could not be linked to a trip. 268 of the trips (7%) did not produce sales notes. Using the national database, the MFA staff that collate the data may have a system to deal with the range of merchants and dates that could occur for one or more landings but there is a marked potential for effort estimated from the sales note data to end up either being underrepresented or exaggerated. We calculated the differences between the sales note landings and the nominal landings calculated from the comparison of both the reported landings and sales notes. In Hartlepool the difference was around 15 tonnes overall - 3% of the total for the area - and was predominantly down to landings of bait and fish for home consumption which officially never get recorded and from around 55 missing sales notes. 26

27 In Lowestoft and the Thames a significant proportion of the landings are sold privately to the public at levels which do not require the submission of sales notes. These landings were included with landings without sales notes and when added to any fish taken home for their own consumption (homers) and pot bait, they account for a difference of 35 and 27 tonnes (5% and 7%) in Lowestoft and Thames respectively. These figures do not include 7 and 3 tonnes from sales notes that could not be allocated to trips if these landings are included then the difference is reduced to 4% and 6% respectively Distribution and analysis of catch data Basic descriptions of the participating vessels in each area Hartlepool The initial sample fleet of 9 vessels in Hartlepool was made up of a range of under 10m trawlers all targeting the same fisheries. Although the lengths of the vessels differed only by up to 0.5 metres, the material, the width, the shape of the hull and super structure led to a range of vessels weighing between 6 and 14 tonnes. Four of the vessels had fibre glass hulls and the rest were made of steel. Engine power started at 80 kw for the smallest vessel; the rest ranged from 100 to 120 kw. The oldest vessel was built over 30 years ago and the youngest was only fitted out in The size and power of these vessels restricts the weather in which they can fish safely, and they are very dependent on the winter prawn (Nephrops) fishery. By the end of March 2009 the original fleet of nine vessels had been reduced to six. The 2009 under 10m decommissioning scheme attracted a number of applications from skippers on the ERF scheme. In Hartlepool four of the skippers applied; one was rejected and of the three applications accepted by Defra only two took up the offer. These two vessels therefore effectively left the ERF scheme on 5 March The Skipper whose application for decommissioning had been rejected also left the scheme in mid May 2009, selling his vessel on to a fisherman based in Seahouses. These three vessels included two fibre glass vessels - the two oldest, the two lightest and the two with the least engine power. After the decommissioning period the skipper of the youngest and one of the largest vessels in the fleet started looking to down-size to a smaller vessel. He sold his vessel at the end of June and was unable to replace it before the end of the first year pilot. Whilst these changes to the Hartlepool fleet have compromised our full calendar year of data from all participating vessels in Hartlepool, the changes may simply reflect the natural turnover that occurs to the fleet within the under 10m sector. 27

28 August September October November December January February March April May June July August Number of Trips August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Tonnes Whiting Cod Haddock Norway lobster European plaice Lemon sole Others SalesNotes Trawls a) Hartlepool area landings liveweight b) Landings by gear group Nephrops trawl Otter trawl Pair trawl Polyvalent c) Number of trips by gear type Figure 3.2 Hartlepool monthly landings liveweight by species and by gear group and monthly number of trips by gear type. Nominal monthly landings by species are plotted in Figure 3.2 a. The sales note figures here have not been linked to the trip data and are overlaid to show any seasonal differences if any between the nominal and official figures. The sales note data in August 2009 cover the whole of August and the nominal landings are only up to the end of the first year of the scheme on 16 th August Locally, over the summer months, the fleet here are restricted to fishing for whitefish that will include some plaice, lemon sole and sole but predominantly whiting, cod and haddock. Normally the whitefish become less available over the autumn as Nephrops become increasingly available and start to dominate the catch. Effort appears to be seasonal, Figure 3.2 c shows two periods of effort with the number of trips in a month peaking in May and November. Weather and the relatively low catch rates of Nephrops influenced effort over the winter months. The higher number of trips in the first half of the study period, see below, include those vessels that left the scheme in March March shows the lowest effort as vessels switched from targeting Nephrops to gear targeting Whitefish. 28

29 The trawls used varied in size and construction but all were fished singly with cod-ends varying from 80 to 120mm in mesh size. 160mm square mesh panels had been fitted as standard to comply with technical conservation regulations. All vessels used gear they had in store and only towards the end of the first year was some replaced because of wear and tear. The spread, length and headline height of the trawls used would be influenced by the power of the vessel. Over the first year some of the vessels fished up to six different trawls and further tuned these by changing cod ends and/or adjusting footropes and sweeps depending on the target species and ground conditions. The smaller mesh cod-ends were used to target Nephrops over the winter months and the larger meshes and higher headline trawls were used during the summer months to target whitefish. Four of the vessels cooperated in pair trawling over the summer months. These trawls were larger with greater spread and headline height and fished with a larger cod-end mesh size. At the start of the scheme most of the landings were sold through local merchants or on the fish market at North Shields. During the scheme some of the participants attempted to improve on their returns by sending their landings to markets in Grimsby and to merchants on the south coast. Lowestoft There were 10 vessels in the Lowestoft sample fleet covering a range of different gears and fisheries. Two vessels were included in the Lowestoft selection in order to additionally contribute to the objective relating to the proposed FSP project on the local winter/spring spurdog fishery. The first of these vessels was based in Lowestoft, around 12m in length, wooden hulled with a 52kW engine. It was used to net for sole in the summer and targeted cod, rays and spurdogs with longlines in the winter and spring. The second vessel was based in Orford, made of fibreglass and just under 10m in length. It was less than 6 tonnes, had 350kW of power and worked the same fisheries, but also potted for crabs and lobsters most of the year round. Although a derogation from the spurdog maximum size limit introduced in early 2009 was agreed, these two vessels never received those derogations and as a consequence the objective relating to the local spurdog fishery was made redundant. The remaining fleet were all based in Lowestoft. They were between 8 and 10m in length, six had fibreglass hulls and the remaining two were converted wooden lifeboats. They ranged from 3 to 13 tonnes with engines ranging in power from 30 to 190Kw. Over the winter all of these vessels longlined for cod and rays with a few targeting spurdogs. Over the summer the majority switched to drift trammel for sole; one vessel went trawling for sole and a few continued to longline for cod and rays. These vessels are very dependent on the winter cod fishery (Figure 3.3). Overall effort in terms of numbers of trips remains relatively consistent throughout the year fluctuating around an average of 130 days per month (Figure 3.3c). Most effort was in October 2008 and the least was in May 2009 when catches of cod started to decline. In June effort picks up again as some of the vessels move to using gears other than long lines. More commonly long lines are held in a tin bath or pack and each line is between 70 and 80m long with around 20 to 30 hooks on each line. Once baited each bath or pack holds around 10 lines and between 200 and 300 hooks. Each vessel adopts their own optimum number and distance between the hooks. The distance between the hooks can depend on the ground they are fishing and the species they are targeting. Up to 20 baths can be fished in one fishing trip but usually around 8 to 12 baths are fished. All the lines are joined together or broken into 2 or 3 fleets and usually shot in a straight line perpendicular to the 29

30 August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Tonnes August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Number of Trips Tonnes August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Tonnes coast. When cod fishing, the fleets are usually shot end to end. When skate and spurdog fishing, the effort is usually more concentrated, with the fleets being shot alongside. The spatial plots of fishing effort demonstrate this quite nicely Cod Skates and rays Sole (dover sole) Spurdog Dogfishes Basses Others SalesNotes Lines Nets Pots Trawls Rods a) Lowestoft area landings liveweight b) Landings by gear group Longlines Trammel Nets Polyvalent Otter trawl Cod Skates and rays Spurdog Dogfishes Parlour Pots Rods Gill Net Others Basses Whiting Smooth hound Others c) Number of trips by gear type d) Landings from lining trips Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Cod Basses Flounder (european) Smooth hound Dab Others Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Flounder (european) Cod Dab Whiting Smooth hound Others e) Landings from netting trips f) Landings from trawling trips Figure 3.3 Lowestoft monthly landings liveweight by species and by gear group; monthly number of trips and monthly landings of species by selected gear types. 30

31 The trammel nets used in the sole fishery range from 90 to 100mm internal mesh and from 450 to 600mm outer mesh and are fished on the stronger tides to get the drift. A fleet of 4, 5 or 6 nets is usually shot with four others to fish the tide. The size of the clear ground, the speed of the tide and the number and the distance between the fleets will influence how long the nets stay in the water. Sometimes other nets were used including 50mm mesh gill nets to catch longline bait and 120 to 150mm mesh fixed gill nets to catch cod and skate. At times some of the vessels went wreck fishing or drifting with rod and line to catch cod. Two of the vessels consistently went potting for crabs and lobsters throughout the summer, from May to October. One participant targeted sole with a low headline 80mm cod-end single trawl before switching to lines in December, switching back to sole using the same trawl again in June. Most of these vessels landed onto Lowestoft market or sold direct to local merchants. Some of these merchants acted as agents and at times forwarded some of the sole landings to markets abroad and some of the cod to other markets around the UK. Some of these vessels had their own businesses and sold catch direct to the public through these. Thames Estuary The Thames Estuary covers a wider range of ports, fisheries and vessel types and the sample fleet was made up of 12 vessels. The ports include Shotley, Harwich, Leigh-On- Sea, Clacton, West Mersea, Whitstable and Margate, with only West Mersea having more than one vessel based there. The vessels ranged in size from just under 8m to just under 10m and from 3 to 16 tonnes. Only one of the vessels had a wooden hull; six were fibreglass and five were steel and the engine power ranged from just under 60 to 160kW. Seven of the vessels used trawls (single, twin and triple rigs and pair trawls) targeting sole and rays over the summer and cod and rays in autumn and winter and a few of these vessels turned to other gears depending on what was available, for example netting for bass and sole in the summer or dredging for oysters or lining for cod in the winter. The rest of the fleet used a variety of drift nets, trammel nets, fixed nets and tangle nets predominantly targeting sole with some effort directed at bass and rays. As the sole fell away towards winter, some of this effort became redirected at skate and cod. Most of the fisheries in this area are perceived to be particularly unpredictable and as a consequence most of the vessels adapt their fishing activity to what appears to migrate into the Thames. Generally the trawlers are dependent on the sole, cod and skate. When the catch rates of those species in the Thames become unviable over the winter, they stop fishing, turn to dredging for oysters or fish further afield. The netters target the same but also bass and pelagics, adapting to their seasonality. Within this fleet, permission was granted for two skippers to change their vessels for similar vessels and remain on the scheme. Only one changeover occurred and the new netter started on 19 June The netter was exchanged for a vessel of similar construction but slightly bigger and more powerful. Despite the differences it still fell within the range of specifications in the original fleet. The trawls used varied in size and construction and were fished singly, rigged in pairs or triples. The trawls were more commonly rigged in multiples with a cod-end mesh size of 80mm and were used predominantly to target sole and skate over the summer. The single mm cod-end mesh trawls were used over the summer and winter to target bass, cod and skate. All vessels used gear they had in store and only towards the end of the first 31

32 year was some replaced because of wear and tear. All trawls had 160mm square mesh panels fitted as standard to comply with technical conservation regulations. Over the first year some of the vessels fished up to four different trawls in different configurations and further tuned these by changing cod-ends and/or adjusting footropes and sweeps depending on target species and ground conditions. Four of the vessels cooperated in pair trawling over the winter months. These trawls were larger with greater spread and headline height and fished with 120mm cod-end mesh. The range of nets used in this area was considerable. Some vessels used up to 10 different types of net over the year. Drift trammels ranged in mesh size from 90 to 140mm for the inner tier and from 450mm to 630mm for the outer tiers and were used to target sole, bass, and cod. Some of these drift nets could be used as fixed trammels so these and cross tide trammels ranged in mesh size from 90 to 300mm inner and from 450 to 800mm outer and were used to target cod and ray. Single tier drift nets were also used to target flatfish, bass and cod and these ranged in mesh size again from 95mm to 150mm. Cod, ray and bass were further targeted with tangle nets, wreck nets and gill nets. Sprat nets and herring nets with mesh sizes of 27 and 63mm respectively were also used. The target species, the state of the tide, the depth of water and the ground influenced which configuration the fisherman would use net type, mesh size, height of the net, and number of nets in the fleet or the length of the fleet. The length of a fleet, as another variable, ranged from 30m for a sprat net, 300m long to a 2000m long fleet of 300mm mesh skate nets. The drift trammels could be between 150 and 500m in length. Fixed nets could be left out for up to a week while drift trammels tended be fished over a tide. The range of nets used over a season, within one trip or even within the same fishing operation (different height drift nets down the edge of a bank) make determining an overall effort index particularly complex. Managers tend to talk in terms of using hours fished or days at sea as a management measure, but such an index would not capture the complexity of these fishing operations. Winter/spring saw a number of vessels turning to alternative gears and fisheries. As well as the herring and sprat netting, four vessels went pair trawling, two trawlers turned to dredging for oysters and two went longlining. One vessel was potting regularly for lobster over the summer months. Most of these vessels landed to more than one merchant or business. Often these merchants acted as agents passing on parts of the catch for auction on foreign markets. Some skippers dealt direct with foreign merchants and/ or had their own businesses selling direct to the public. 32

33 August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Tonnes August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Number of Trips Tonnes August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Tonnes Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Cod Basses Sprat Herring Others SalesNotes Nets Trawls Lines Dredges Pots Rods a) Thames area landings liveweight b) Landings by gear group Otter trawl Trammel Nets Polyvalent Gill Net Basses Skates and rays Cod Sole (dover sole) Drift Net Longlines Dredge Others Sprat Herring Smooth hound Others c) Number of trips by gear type d) Landings from netting trips Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Cod Basses Whiting European plaice Flounder (european) Others Cod Skates and rays Spurdog Basses Whiting Dogfishes Others e) Landings from trawling trips f) Landings from lining trips Figure 3.4 Thames monthly landings liveweight by species and by gear group; monthly number of trips and monthly landings of species by selected geartypes. 33

34 3.1.4 Distribution of fishing effort of each vessel and gear over a full calendar year Standard landing statistics collected by Defra for the under 10m fleet do not include effort information. Instead, sales notes provide a proxy for effort in terms of the number of trips. This project provides actual recorded effort by the participants in terms of hours at sea. Hours fished, defined as the period the gear was in the water, can also be calculated from the records provided. The satellite data can provide estimates in terms of the hours at sea but may also be used to calculate an estimate of the hours actively fishing using the speed data. These data offer the opportunity to compare the estimates from the two different sources and should help managers in how they may monitor or manage effort in the future. Spatial effort In Figure 3.5 effort is represented by the total number of valid satellite pings registered in a 0.02 degree (1.2 nm) square. The count is limited to fishing activity based on their recorded effort and when the satellite data indicated they were travelling less than 4 knots. This figure shows that fishing from Hartlepool has been in a relatively restricted area. The fishing from Lowestoft has a hot spot around the port, but is distributed quite widely with a significant amount of effort beyond the 12 mile limit. The vessels in the Thames Estuary have been fishing over a very wide area covering most of the region - coast to coast with a small amount of effort down in the English Channel. The same spatial effort disaggregated by month would showed that the distribution of fishing activity did not appear to change much from month to month off Hartlepool. Although the area covered in December 2008 and July 2009 appears smaller, the overall effort does not appear to be significantly different in these months. The activity off Lowestoft and the Thames is far more disaggregated. There are distinct aggregations of effort inshore for the summer months from April on with spots of directed effort offshore. Over the winter months the effort appears to be concentrated further offshore with additional activity in and towards ICES area VIId off the south coast. Temporal effort Effort in terms of time at sea and the time actively fishing can be calculated. Three sources have been used to calculate fishing effort; the trip forms (Form F), the haul forms (Form E) and the AST satellite data (VMS). Of these, the trip form data have been used to calculate the time absent from port and the haul forms used to calculate the fishing activity. The AST satellite data were reviewed to see how a proxy for both time absent and fishing activity compared to the logbook estimates. Time absent from port was calculated from logbook data as the number of hours between time of departure and time of arrival. For each area the time absent from port followed a normal distribution, although a primary peak in trip duration was observed at 12 hours but the full spread of trip duration times followed a polynomial, in line with other gear groups. However, the full spread of trip duration times followed a polymodal distribution with subsequent local peaks at 24 hours, 36 hours and 48 broadly approximating to 1,2,3 and 4 tides. 34

35 Figure 3.5 Spatial distribution of fishing effort August 2008 to 15 August

36 Trip duration was calculated from AST data using valid pings from the vessel s tracking unit. A successful ping was recorded whenever a vessel was outside its registered geofence, or normal mooring area. Where successful pings were recorded for 2 or more consecutive hours, a trip was reported. Where there was a break for 2 or more consecutive hours, a new trip was recorded after the break. Trips using this algorithm were determined automatically without a requirement to refer to the logbooks. Using gear information provided by the fishermen on their haul forms, the trips as generated with the processed AST vessel tracking data were linked to trips from the form E logbooks by date. They were then assigned with one or more gear codes and a total duration determined for each trip between the mid points of the start and end hours. Comparison of trip length data, as determined by the AST data and as derived from the log books, showed strong similarity as summarised in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Comparison of mean durations of trips in hours Dataset Port Area Gear ERF AST Hartlepool Nephrops trawls Otter trawls Pair trawls Hartlepool overall Lowestoft Lines Nets Pots Trawls Lowestoft overall Thames Estuary Dredges Lines Nets Pots Trawls Thames Estuary overall Some of the similarity between the mean trip lengths must be attributed to the fact that gear types for trips isolated from the AST system were assigned using the log book data. If the gear information is excluded and just the overall averages for each port area compared, the averages are still similar. However, the AST durations for 10 out of the 12 gear groupings used and in all 3 cases for the port areas overall, were slightly lower than the durations reported in the log books. It is likely that some of this difference is due to the fact that the very start and end of each trip was spent inside the vessel s designated geofence; also, that landing time, used as a proxy for arrival time where arrival time was not recorded, was likely to be slightly later. Comparison between the port areas highlights general differences in the amount of effort being applied to the respective fisheries by the separate fleets. Using the AST data, the figures demonstrate that Thames Estuary trips are generally longest, averaging 12.8 hours, followed by trips from Hartlepool at 11.8 with the shortest trips in Lowestoft at 8.3 hours. However, if trawls trips are excluded from the Thames data, average trip time drops to only 9 hours, indicating a possible need to deal with effort from trawl trips separately in the Thames port area. 36

37 In general and especially if satellite data can be linked to a gear group, the AST data are a good proxy for trip-based fishing effort. Duration of the fishing activity from logbook data and AST data From the AST system, trip time was separated into non-fishing and fishing time using the same 4 knot (<=7kmph) threshold used in previous analyses (Section 3.1.1). This subset of the data was then associated with the trip details by date. Duration of the fishing activity from the logbook data was calculated as the amount of time between shooting and hauling the gear as recorded on form F and is meant to be fully representative of the time the gear spent fishing for each of those fishing operations. Differences in the sources for calculating fishing activity Both sources (AST and logbook) for calculating fishing activity were partially flawed. Although the 4 knot threshold has already been shown as a reasonable proxy for actual fishing time, there are periods where a vessel might be classed as fishing but doing over 4 knots, for instance when shooting lines and likewise time where boats are not moving or moving slowly, for instance drifting with static gear or sitting and waiting while lines are fishing during slackwater for the next tide, or if a vessel slows after hauling a trawl to facilitate clearing the deck. Similarly, the start and end information of each fishing operation was recorded on the database to describe when gear was shot and when it was hauled; apparently simple enough, but complicated by those instances where vessels shot their gear one day then hauled it on another. Although the resultant duration was a good indication of how long the gear was fishing, it performed less well as an indicator of the amount of time that the vessel spent fishing per se. Fishing activity from logbook data Haul duration in Hartlepool was very consistent over the year and for all gears. Average duration was generally lower during autumn and winter and higher in spring and summer. The shortest observed haul duration was 0.4hrs for a Nephrops trawl haul in August and the longest 10.6 hours for a pair trawl haul in June. The shortest average haul duration was 5.3 hours for pair trawlers in March and the longest was 7.2 hours for pair trawlers in June. The overall picture for Lowestoft is one of increased haul durations in winter and spring with shorter haul durations in summer and early autumn. The highest average duration was 4.8 hours in January and the lowest 1.5 hours in August. Haul duration was typically higher during autumn and winter and lower in spring and summer. The associated variability was highest between these periods where there was a generally larger spread of gears being used. Most variable in terms of haul duration were nets hauls, with no clearly identifiable pattern and this may have been in part due to aggregated recording of fishing operations. Trawl and pot haul durations were more consistent however this is likely in part due to the limited number of vessels employing these gears but do indicate some consistency of approach in their use. The Thames area was perhaps the most variable of the three project areas in terms of variability of haul duration with average haul durations as high as 23.8 hours for nets in April. Much of this variability is a feature of the reporting process. The hauls from dredging trips were frequently aggregated and haul times displayed here are therefore artificially high and highlight mostly the need for these to be separated if this segment of the fleet is to be reliably represented. Netting haul durations are similarly very high, but due to gear being 37

38 deployed overnight and on occasions left much longer. It is worth emphasising these figures better indicate time the gear is fishing rather than the time the vessel is at sea fishing but are interesting in their divergence from the more ordered trip duration figures presented previously. Fishing activity from AST data Using the speed threshold value of 4 knots (7kmph), fishing activity was distinguished and separated from the rest of the AST data. This subset was then linked to the logbook data by date so that a gear code could be assigned. Hartlepool shared the highest activity figures at between 88% for Nephrops trawls and 92% for both otter and pair trawls. It is known that these vessels do not steam far before commencing fishing thus these figures are largely as expected. Lowestoft had high activity figures observed at 91% for its trawlers. This was largely as expected as it is known that these vessels trawl fairly close inshore. Lower figures were observed for the static gear types from 49% for rods to 73% for trammel nets, all gear shown to be fished further offshore. Thames figures varied considerably demonstrating quite clearly the polyvalent nature of the fishing activity within this port area. Activity during lines trips was lowest at 37%, suggesting either the longest steaming distances or that a component of the fishing time was spent in excess of 4 knots, for instance when shooting the gear. Other figures in the Thames ranged from 56% for drift nets to 92% for trammel nets. This variability is less well understood and would require some level of further investigation either on a gear-bygear or perhaps even a vessel-by-vessel basis to understand further. Low amounts of time absent was recorded for potting gear, dredging and for rods so these figures have only been included for completeness. Table 3.3 Comparison between time absent in hours and nominal fishing activity calculated from AST data. Port area Gear group Gear type Time absent Time <=4 knots % time <=4 knots % time >4 knots Hartlepool Trawls NT % 12% OT % 8% PT % 8% Lowestoft Lines LL % 44% Nets GN % 42% TN % 27% Pots PP % 32% Rods HL % 51% Trawls OT % 9% Thames Estuary Dredges OD % 42% PD 9 0% 100% Lines LL % 63% Nets DN % 44% GN % 21% LN % 33% SN % 41% TN % 8% Pots PP % 0% WP % 4% Rods HL % 0% Trawls * OT % 44% PT % 70% 38

39 It is apparent that the AST data is good for identifying the steaming component of the time absent but cannot be confidently used to identify individual fishing operations, particularly those back-to-back without increased temporal resolution in the satellite monitoring. Fishing activity (time spent <= 4 knots) identified in this manner could represent more than one type of activity. However, the activity estimates generated here are likely to be representative of when a vessel is on or near to the fishing ground and it is fair to suggest that, even regardless of the location, that time spent at a lower speed is essential time spent by the vessels during the course of their work. A breakdown of the exact nature of any activity would help clarify these figures Distribution of target species and landings and discards for each vessel & gear Two methods were used to look at where the vessels were going to catch their fish. The first was simply linking the AST data to two bits of information recorded by the participant on each fishing operation - the target species and the gear type. This provides us with information on how the vessels are targeting different species in different geographical areas. This information could be collected relatively simply, with VMS data, as part of a national monitoring scheme. The second is more complex and plots what was caught irrespective of the original intentions. This requires linking the filtered AST data to the actual catch weights from each fishing operation and ultimately provides an indication of the more productive areas. Target species and gear type Each of the project areas are considered in turn. The gears used have been grouped into the gear types provided by the participants on Form C. Participants would regularly target more than one species so the target species provided by the participants have been grouped into target assemblages with the key target species listed first. To present this data the process simply allocates a class (for example otter trawl as a gear and cod as a target) to each position logged by AST. Hartlepool For the Hartlepool fleet, the vessels used trawls but allocated their catch to three different trawl configurations: Nephrops trawl, otter trawl and pair trawl. The distribution of fishing effort shows that all three types of gear were used in approximately the same areas during the period August through to March, although there was some suggestion that Nephrops trawls are used slightly closer inshore than the other gear types. This distribution of fishing with different gear types is reflected in the distribution of catch of different target species where flatfish appear to be targeted very close inshore, Nephrops more inshore and whitefish stretching further offshore. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, we cannot show these full plots of disaggregated data but alternatively a 1.2nm grid has been laid over the data and the most frequent occurrence of a target species or gear type within each cell of that grid is displayed (Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7). 39

40 Figure 3.6 Hartlepool: the most frequent occurrence of a gear type in 1.2 nm squares. Figure 3.7 Hartlepool: the most frequent occurrence of target assemblages in 1.2 nm squares. Disaggregating the data by month reduces the number of points in a cell and reduces the opportunity for some of the data to be obscured (Figure 3.8). It shows a switch from targeting whitefish by October to Nephrops over winter. In March activity had declined, some switched to whitefish, but most was still directed at Nephrops. 40

41 Figure Hartlepool predominant target species by month. 41

42 Lowestoft Off Lowestoft the fleet targets sole closer inshore and works longlines both inshore and offshore for cod and rays. However gridding the data to a 1.2nm square to the most frequently targeted species for the year swamps the seasonal targeted sole activity inshore (Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10). Figure 3.9 Lowestoft: the most frequent occurrence of a gear type in 1.2 nm squares. Figure 3.10 Lowestoft: the most frequent occurrence of a target assemblage in 1.2 nm squares. Disaggregating the data by month reintroduces this activity. The shift in activity and area becomes more obvious when disaggregating the target species by month (Figure 3.11). The fleet is clearly seen to redirect their targeting from sole in September to cod and rays (with some to spurdogs) over winter. 42

43 Figure Lowestoft predominant target species by month. 43

44 Thames The distribution of the different fishing gears in the Thames Estuary fishery appears to be more clearly defined with very little apparent overlap in fishing grounds between the main gear types and subsequent target species. The gridded distribution once again loses some of the detail but still highlights the key areas without giving any positions away. Figure 3.12 Thames Estuary: the most frequent occurrence of a gear type in 1.2 nm squares. Figure 3.13 Thames Estuary: The most frequent occurrence of target assemblage in 1.2 nm squares. Looking at the targeted activity by month (Figure 3.14) shows the Thames as being far more dynamic spatially and temporally than first appears, and more dynamic than the other areas. Vessels predominantly target sole and bass in the summer. Over the winter the activity declines. What fishing does continue is around the fringes either inshore or offshore with effort predominantly targeted at rays and cod with some directed at sole, herring, sprat and oysters. 44

45 Figure 3.14 Thames predominant target species by month. 45

46 Figure 3.14 continued Catch and Discards Figure 3.15 shows the distribution of the entire fleet s catch across the area fished. The overall liveweight calculated for a fishing operation is divided amongst the satellite pings that represent that fishing operation. The sum of these occurring within a 1.2nm square is calculated. This provides an indication of the more productive areas. It would be inappropriate to use this plot to make comparisons between areas because of the differences in relative effort. 46

47 Figure 3.15 Spatial distribution of the overall landings for the first year of the scheme 47

48 Reviewing the overall catches of the key species in each area may highlight the more productive areas and may indicate more species specific grounds. Hartlepool Figure 3.16 shows the majority of the catch comes from around the six nautical mile limit. Figure 3.16 Overall catch off Hartlepool 48

49 Off Hartlepool, there is very little difference in the catch distributions of haddock, whiting, and cod and this may merely reflect the distribution of effort (Figure 3.17). The catch rates of plaice are lower so the difference may just be scaling - the higher catches are in the same areas as those of other species. Nephrops were mainly caught over the winter period when little other than whiting was being landed which is why their distribution may be different. Figure 3.17 Catch distribution of key species Hartlepool 49

50 Lowestoft Figure 3.18 shows that a significant proportion of the catch comes from outside the twelve mile limit. Figure 3.18 Overall catch off Lowestoft 50

51 Off Lowestoft cod and ray catches cover the same spatial distribution (Figure 3.19). The cod catches predominate in two relatively large areas within the 6 nautical mile limit and outside the 12 mile. The main hot spot for rays appears where effort is most significant. The distribution of sole catches is relatively small and fairly distinct. Figure 3.19 Catch distribution of key species Lowestoft 51

52 Thames The distribution of the catch in the Thames is far more variable than the other two areas (Figure 3.20). Figure 3.20 Overall catch for the Thames Estuary Within the Thames there appears to be some concurrence between the distributions of catches of cod, ray and sole although the cod plot highlights directed wreck netting. The key areas for bass appear to fall outside those for the other species. 52

53 Figure 3.21 Catch distribution of key species Thames 53

54 Overall the peaks in these landing distributions appear to mirror the spatial targeting plotted in the target species and gear type section. The seasonal distribution of these landings, if plotted, might indicate the changes in the catchability of the stocks they were targeting but may just indicate the movement of the fleet. Discards The distribution of discards relative to the landings are plotted in Figure 3.22 and appear to show that in the most productive areas you get the most discarding which is not surprising. Over the different areas it is clear however, that off Lowestoft discarding is relatively low offshore with the most discarding here occurring over a few productive patches inshore. This may reflect that the landings offshore are mainly limited to long line effort over the winter. 54

55 a) b) c) d) e) f) Figure 3.22 The spatial distribution of discards relative to the landings for each project area 55

56 Discard rates and species for each vessel, gear and area Internationally, fisheries economists, managers, monitors, environmentalists and industry bodies all consider discarding in fisheries a waste of fishery resources. Not just because of the wasted product but because of the waste in processing and handling costs and the impact of any unnecessary mortality on current and future stocks. Discards will include unwanted uncommercial catch as well as commercial catch returned because of limits on size and quota. The discard rate, the proportion of the catch (live weight) that is discarded, can be used as a simple measure of any impacts. However, how discards might be defined will depend on whether you are measuring the economic waste within the fishery, the environmental impact, or the impact on particular stocks. For example, to measure the economic impact you might include all the abiota (non living catch: culch, shell, rocks and mud etc) because if significant it could impact on operation and revenue e.g. the time required to handle the gear and clear the decks, and damage to gear and the potential impact on the value of landed fish. The discard data in this project have been processed to review the environmental impact so although at times significant, all abiota were excluded from the overall discard weights. There are two definitions of discards considered here, one which includes all biota (FAO, 1996, Kelleher, 2005) and the one used by the EU and nationally which includes all commercial biota and only non-commercial fish biota (Catchpole, 2010 in prep). The FAO definition is adapted from FAO Fisheries Report No. 547 (FAO, 1996). Discards, or discarded catch is that portion of the total organic material of animal origin in the catch, which is thrown away, or dumped at sea for whatever reason. It does not include plant materials and post harvest waste such as offal. The discards may be dead, or alive (Kelleher, 2005). The national definition is effectively the same but the discard weights do not include non commercial invertebrates such as starfish, sea urchins and shore crabs etc. The common perception is that the survival prospects of these and other benthic organisms are high. The vessels on the scheme were exempt from quota so the discarded component of the catch only consisted of un-commercial biota and abiota, economically unviable and unsaleable commercial species, and undersize commercial species. Seasonal discard rates have been calculated using both definitions of discards. The data from the four vessels in Hartlepool that did not complete the full year were excluded to limit any chance of bias in the overall indices calculated. The rates are presented in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 for the FAO definition and the National definition respectively. In comparison the respective discard rates are broadly similar however there are marked differences in the rates calculated for oyster dredges in the Thames being 68% using the FAO definition and 2% when using the national definition. The discard rates and the species composition of these discards are discussed in turn below. 56

57 Table 3.4 Seasonal discard rates (FAO definition of discards) Annual total Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 HARTLEPOOL Trawls 29% 28% 38% 22% 23% 26% All gears 29% 28% 38% 22% 23% 26% LOWESTOFT Lines 30% 9% 1% 8% 28% 8% Nets 12% 7% 3% 12% 10% 11% Pots 20% 24% 18% 11% 18% Trawls 28% 45% 18% 16% 32% Rods 14% 0% 0% All gears 26% 9% 1% 8% 24% 8% THAMES ESTUARY Dredges 8% 77% 68% Lines 5% 8% 22% 9% Nets 17% 12% 3% 14% 14% 12% Pots 0% 2% 0% 0% Trawls 66% 66% 31% 70% 75% 66% Rods 0% 0% 0% All gears 51% 51% 22% 55% 58% 49% Total fleet 38% 26% 13% 30% 37% 28% Table 3.5 Seasonal discard rates (National definition) Annual total Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 HARTLEPOOL Trawls 29% 27% 38% 22% 23% 26% All gears 29% 27% 38% 22% 23% 26% LOWESTOFT Lines 30% 9% 1% 8% 28% 8% Nets 12% 7% 3% 12% 10% 10% Pots 20% 24% 18% 11% 18% Trawls 23% 44% 18% 16% 31% Rods 14% 0% 0% All gears 26% 9% 1% 8% 24% 8% THAMES ESTUARY Dredges 0% 3% 2% Lines 5% 8% 22% 9% Nets 16% 12% 2% 14% 14% 11% Pots 0% 2% 0% 0% Trawls 51% 45% 22% 45% 52% 44% Rods 0% 0% 0% All gears 37% 33% 10% 32% 36% 29% Total fleet 31% 20% 9% 19% 27% 20% Hartlepool In this area the discards made up, on average, 26% percent of the total catch irrespective of the discard definition (Table 3.4 and Table 3.5). The gear configuration in this project area will change through the season with smaller mesh Nephrops gear being used exclusively in January. The figure in Qtr1 of 38% is comparable with the 35% calculated from the National observer programme for >10m Nephrops trawlers fishing in the Central North Sea in 2008 (Catchpole, 2010 in press). National figures are not available for the under 10m fleet. On a global scale the average discard rate for a Nephrops fishery was around 43% (Kelleher, 2005). Although the Hartlepool quarter 1 figure of 38% compares quite favourably with 43% the figures might not be directly comparable. The FAO try and preclude non- 57

58 August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes directed data from their fleet figures. The dependence on bycatch in the Hartlepool fishery suggests that it is a multispecies fishery and so the figures may not be directly comparable. For the rest of the year the scheme discard rates range from 22 to 29%. The gears used over this period will include pair trawling and other trawls with a greater mesh size. These figures compare favourably with the national figure of 31% for >10m Otter trawlers fishing in the Central North Sea in Again there were no figures for the under 10m fleet. Temporal composition of discards Figure 3.23 shows the temporal composition of the discards for the trawl fleet fishing out of Hartlepool. Where the species were identified, discards of haddock, whiting and Nephrops appeared to be significant. However the most significant component of the discards were the species groups of mixed flatfish and mixed roundfish (collective species groups that would include whiting and haddock and plaice).the overlay of the overall landings show that most discarding was during the Nephrops season when the relative proportion of whiting in the discards increased Mixed roundfish Mixed flatfish Whiting European plaice Norway lobster Haddock Others Nominal Landings Figure 3.23 Hartlepool discards related to overall landings. 58

59 August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Lowestoft Discards of non commercial invertebrates in Lowestoft appeared negligible so there was no difference between the discard rates calculated using the two definitions of discards (Table 3.4 and Table 3.5). Discards made up 8% of the overall catch. Compared to most global and national fisheries data this figure is low. This is predominantly down to the longlining over the winter when little if any discarding occurs, and the relatively low discard rates for nets. This overall discard rate remains low despite the discard rate from lines being high in Qtr3 - similar to the overall proportion discarded from trawling at 32%. Temporal composition of discards The discard rate for nets was consistently around 11% for the main drift trammel season. Outside this season it dropped to averages of between 3 and 7% when larger mesh fixed nets were used. The otter trawl discard rate of 32% is comparable to the Catchpole (2010) figure of 50% for Southern North Sea over 10m Otter trawlers. In this area dogfish and smooth hounds were the most significant discarded bycatch by weight (Figure 3.24). There are very little international and published discard data to compare these figures against. Published figures from the national observer programme either do not include this size of vessel or discard rates for these fisheries Lesser spotted dogfish Smooth hound Whiting Nurse hound Skates and rays Cod Tope shark Others Figure 3.24 Temporal distribution of discards by species off Lowestoft Thames The discard rates in these fisheries are characterised by the significant bycatch of benthos and abiota, particularly in the oyster dredge (as previously mentioned) and the trawl fisheries. If you include all biota (except weed) in the discard component, the overall discard rate is around 49% across the fleet and 66% for the otter trawlers and 68% for dredgers (Table 3.4). Remove the non-commercial biota except non-commercial fish and the discard rate drops to 29% overall, 44% for trawlers and 2% for oyster dredgers (Table 3.5). 59

60 August September October November December January February March April May June July August Tonnes Temporal composition of discards Although seasonally higher than Lowestoft, the overall discard rate for the netters is the same in the Thames and displays a similar seasonal trend. Using the national definition of discards, trawlers have a higher average discard rate than all the other gear groups in this area, ranging from 22% over winter to 52% in the summer. This still compares quite favourably to the national overall discard rate of 50% for >10m Otter trawlers fishing in the Southern North Sea (Catchpole, 2010 in press). As the key fisheries in this area are sole and rays it is unsurprising that they feature amongst the most significant discard species in this area, however overall catches of starfish and urchins are by far the most significant Starfishes Sea urchins Skates and rays Mixed fish Mixed weed Sole (dover sole) Flounder (european) Others Figure 3.25 Temporal distribution of discards by species for the Thames Estuary Calibration of participant log book records from observer and onshore discard sampling data At the outset it was recognized that there would be problems expecting the participants to identify all species particularly small discards down to the lowest taxonomic group. As a consequence species group codes were offered to cover groups of uncommercial species not easily identified. Trained observers went on board and identified all the commercial species and most of the uncommercial species but used grouped species codes for some of the benthos. The discard samples worked through onshore under laboratory conditions allowed the samples to be worked up and species to be identified down to a lower taxonomic level. This served two purposes, one to provide a general but comparable overview of the potential impact of the fishing activity in terms of extent and numbers of the species removed and either displaced or returned dead as part of that particular fishing activity. Second, by identifying species to the lowest reasonable taxonomic grouping, any subsequent analyses could then associate both finely grouped and coarsely grouped species such that they could then be compared directly. Also, in the case of the coarsely grouped species list, an estimate of the finer taxonomic structure and assumptions about missing taxa could be made. 60

61 Samples of discards brought ashore and processed by Cefas staff were identified mostly to species level. When many members of a very similar taxonomic group were potentially present then these were grouped to a higher taxonomic level. This mostly occurred with groups of algae, isopoda (small insect-like invertebrates) and with macropodia / inachus (long-legged spider crabs). Where species were grouped it was done with a view to being at least as sensitive as the log book data to avoid ambiguity in the calibration of the log book data. Both log book data and shore-based discard data, were then grouped into broad taxonomic groups, typically the taxonomic family level but sometimes higher. Identification to species level Species composition of discard samples processed ashore lists the number of hauls by gear type analysed ashore and their species composition to the lowest reasonable taxonomic level. The number of taxa identified by gear group for the port areas is summarised below. Port area Gear group Number of hauls Number of taxa Hartlepool Trawls Lowestoft Nets Trawls 6 38 Thames Estuary Nets Trawls It is known that there is a degree of correlation between the numbers of samples taken and the consequent number of taxa identified. However, with identical numbers of Lowestoft and Thames nets samples, we can reasonably state that higher numbers of taxa were found in the discard samples from Lowestoft, suggesting a higher species diversity off Lowestoft. Summary and discussion Between three and four times the number of taxa recorded by the participants were present in the onshore samples from trawls for all three of the port areas and approximately double the number from nets samples. This result was largely as expected as fishermen were instructed to report mainly on species groups. Typically, fishermen identified the main species groups quite well, especially of commercial species, but where the number of species families identified by fishermen was low, further investigation is required. Often fishermen did identify more species and species groups but then recorded a collective volume or weight. This was then processed and had to be entered at that collective species group or level and the detail was lost. In the case of an ongoing project, this calibration would be used to identify where extra observer trips or training sessions might have been required to standardise the log book returns from all participants Size range of landings and discards Length samples were collected by the participant, by the observer and when the discard samples were analysed ashore. These data were crucial for estimating weights for some of the discarded species. These data provide us with some comparable spatial and temporal data for the different fisheries. Discard samples processed ashore provided length samples for the discarded component of the catch, commercial and uncommercial. Self-sampled length measurements collected by the participant were largely of the landed component of the catch but included some sampling of discarded commercial species. Length samples taken during observer trips were 61

62 predominantly of commercial species and separated into both landed and discard components. Length measurement data from all three of these data streams were combined and raised to quarterly length distributions. The length data were raised in several stages, firstly to the individual fishing operation, then to the trip, then by trips and gear and finally the discarded and landed components were combined by port area and quarter. By raising and combining them this way, both the discarded and landed components of a given haul were not necessarily required and meant full length distributions could be generated wherever at least one or both these components were present during a quarter in a port area. Table 3.6 shows the annual average sizes of the discarded and retained components for each species. Overall figures are occasionally present in both of these tables despite an absence of either discard or retained components due to total catch samples being taken, either by observers, or sampled participants at different points in the programme. Table 3.6 Table of overall average lengths by port area to the nearest centimetre unless specified otherwise (D = discarded, R = retained) Hartlepool Lowestoft Thames Estuary Common name D R All D R All D R All Monkfish Brill Basses Cod Edible crab (mm) Cuttle-fishes Dab Spurdog Dragonets Flounder Gurnards Haddock Herring European hake John dory European lobster (mm) Lemon sole Common ling Lesser spotted dogfish Mackerel Mullets (red) Norway lobster (mm) European plaice Poor cod Saithe Pollack Skates and rays Sole (dover sole) Sprat Common squids Tub gurnard Turbot Whiting Witch

63 Key species While small seasonal and port area based differences were apparent, these were not investigated further. Larger differences were however observed between bass, cod and skates and rays and so these are discussed here briefly. Bass Of the bass seen and measured off Hartlepool, they were generally smaller than the other two port areas. Size of bass both retained and discarded was fairly similar and consistent between Lowestoft and Thames Estuary although on average larger animals were observed in Lowestoft during the 1 st and 2 nd quarters. Cod The average size of discarded cod was similar in Lowestoft and Thames Estuary and smaller in Hartlepool. Retained cod were larger in Lowestoft than in the other two port areas. This was also reflected in the overall statistics. This could relate to the gear types used in each area and/or the fishermen targeting different parts of the population in the different areas. The cod catches off Lowestoft were predominantly line caught, those caught off Hartlepool were trawl caught and in the Thames the cod landings were effectively shared between the netters and trawlers. Skates and rays Skates and rays include the length samples of different species. This is to account for the process of calculating overall landings for this group of species. The species in the discards could not always easily be recorded accurately and the species in the landings was not always recorded. The data could be processed by species but would be limited and as skates and rays are an important target species in both the Thames and off Lowestoft, the results are presented here. Average size of discarded skates and rays was smallest in the Thames Estuary. The average size was similar in Lowestoft and Hartlepool. The size of retained animals was comparable but larger in Lowestoft and the Thames. However the actual species compositions are markedly different. In Lowestoft and the Thames Estuary the species group is almost exclusively Thornback Ray and in Hartlepool Starry and Cuckoo rays predominate and both are a smaller species. 3.2 Environmental footprint indices The life cycle approach (LCA) has been the focus of much recent work by Danish and Norwegian scientists looking at the life cycle of a fish product and making an assessment of the impact of production, transportation and consumption of fish products on the environment (Schau, 2006; Thrane, 2006, Tydemers, 2001, 2004; Ziegler, 2006). The assessments go into each stage but in most cases in the analyses they have found the capture part of the process to have the largest impact potential. For instance, almost a half of the global warming potential, 90% of the ozone depletion potential, around 60% of acidification potential, and practically the entire water ecotoxicity potential are related to fishing activity. This is mainly due to relatively high fuel consumption and significant emissions of biocides from antifouling agents. - Thrane, Total energy inputs are not easily calculated and the data from this study only provide a small component of what would be required for a complete impact assessment. These previous studies give us insight into what can be comparable. To calculate the production efficiencies of these fisheries we would need to know the energy yield of what is produced (Tyedmers, 2001, 2004). Key contributors to these assessments are: 63

64 The rate of or average fuel consumption (litres/tonne). Energy intensity (MJ/tonne) the MJ of energy required to yield a round or live weight mass of fish or shellfish harvested Total CO 2 emissions. A full assessment would consider the CO 2 emissions for the entire production cycle and not just the fuel burnt in catching the fish. It would even include the production of the gear, transport to markets and fuel burnt chilling the fish etc. This is too big a task for this project but some of the components of these sorts of assessments are calculable and comparable. Focussing on the capture part of this project, the fuel consumption rates and the CO 2 emissions from the fuel burnt can be calculated. Fuel consumption is a product of the size and power of the vessel and the characteristics associated with deploying, fishing and retrieving the gear. It would be unfair to judge the impact of this fleet component when there are not comparable figures available for the rest of the UK fleet but comparisons can be made within the project fleet areas and gear types. Within this study there are limits to the comparisons that can be made. For example although it may appear that long-liners burn less fuel, the industry behind catching, producing and storing the bait has some environmental impact as does the production of the materials used in the trawls, nets and lines. The other environmental indices and impacts considered here are the discard rates already touched on previously, the time the discards are on deck and the impact on survival rates and the distance from the point of sale Fuel consumption rate and CO 2 emissions To contribute to an estimate of the environmental impact of this fleet component, participants were asked to provide figures for fuel consumption on each trip. The estimates they provided were based on the hours at sea and the engine revs and an actual average consumption. There were two sources of data on fuel consumption overall spend on fuel from the finance data or the daily estimate. This section only deals with the skippers estimates of fuel usage. To calculate the CO 2 emissions the sum of the fuel used was converted using Petrol and Diesel Conversion factors from 2009 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting Only one vessel used petrol and although petrol provides a lower carbon impact per volume used, in this analysis the data, once converted, were combined with the rest. The data provided 3,179 estimates of fuel usage from 4,075 trips. CO 2 emissions Recent figures produced by the environmental NGO Seas At Risk quote a global estimate of 1.7 tonnes of CO 2 emitted for each tonne of liveweight landed but it is not clear whether this figure includes the production costs. Tydemer (2001) calculates fuel emission rates of 0.08 for a purse seine fishery, 0.93 for a scallop dredge fishery and 0.80 for a turbot trawl fishery in Canada. Table 3.7 shows the overall emission rates for each area and gear type. The figures in this table represent mixed fisheries but still allow us to make comparisons 64

65 across the different areas. Assuming the fuel consumption estimates made by the skippers were reasonable the overall emission rate of 0.85 is lower than that quoted by Seas At Risk and around about the same as the Canadian scallop and turbot fisheries. These figures suggest that on average the trawlers in Hartlepool were more productive per kg of fuel used or produced less CO 2 per kg of fish than the trawlers in the other two areas and averaged around 1.0 kg fish for 1 kg CO 2. This could be down to the engine efficiency or the smaller distance the vessels had to cover before they were on the fishing grounds. Table Overall CO 2 emission rates Annual ProjectArea Gear Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 HARTLEPOOL Trawls Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate LOWESTOFT Lines Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO THAMES ESTUARY CO 2 emission rate Nets Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Pots Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Rods Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO2 emission rate Trawls Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Dredges Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Lines Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Nets Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Trawls Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate Overall Tonnes liveweight Tonnes CO CO 2 emission rate

66 In Hartlepool the emission rate appears to be fairly consistent throughout the year despite the changes in the fisheries. During the Nephrops season, because of lower overall catch rates, the emission rate increased to 1.07 kgco 2 /kg. The higher emission rates for trawlers in the two other areas would relate to the distance travelled but also the differences in the two fisheries. Compared to those in Hartlepool, the trawlers in these two areas were targeting high value relatively low bulk species. This is similar in the comparison of the netting in Lowestoft and netting in the Thames although the sole fisheries are similar, in the Thames the net fisheries include ray, bass, cod, herring and sprat which may produce higher bulk than the sole fisheries. So, despite the bigger distances that the Thames netters might travel they have a lower CO 2 emission rate per kg fish landed than the Lowestoft netters. The liners out of Lowestoft appear to be the most environmentally efficient gear with an overall emission rate of 0.45 which equates to 2.2 kg of fish per kgco 2. Qtr produced the lowest quarterly emission rate of In this quarter the cod were a lot closer inshore than in the previous quarters. A high emission rate would be indicative of a higher fuel cost per kilo of fish. The high emission rate for the pot fisheries and rod and lining could be an anomaly with the data or could be deemed an acceptable cost because of the higher return on the end product. This may also be the case in the Thames with the trawlers targeting sole, a relatively low bulk, high value fish. In summary, when making comparisons of emission rates between areas and gears it is important to consider the whole range of underlying factors that might contribute to that emission rate. There may be biological factors, such as seals taking significant parts of the catch from the gear, or technical factors such as the immediate impact of non-commercial bycatch on the efficiency of the gear, which will affect these rates. As noted above, the value of the catch in addition to the weight of the catch should be considered for high value species, and we reiterate that in this report we have considered only the catching process, and the full environmental impact of any fishery should consider the overall production costs. Fuel use per kg of landings by area and by gear Another way of looking at the same information above is to consider the fuel consumption per kg of fish. This is exactly the same information without converting the fuel consumed into an emission. Tydemer (2001) calculates a range of figures from 0.03 litres/ kg liveweight for a purse seine fishery to 0.8 litres/kg for a shrimp trawl fishery. Ziegler (2006) calculates a fuel consumption rate of between 4.3 and 9.0 litres of diesel for a kilogram of Nephrops depending on the selectivity of the gear. Using the same data as above, the fuel consumed on a trip is apportioned to the landings of each species summed and raised to landings for all the trips by gear type. Figure 3.26 shows the overall monthly fuel consumption for the entire fleet apportioned to the main species landed. The fuel consumption per kilogramme of fish is overlaid. Overall the most fuel is used in April, May and June and mainly in the pursuit of cod and sole landings. The most environmentally efficient period is over the winter months December through to May. 66

67 August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg Cod Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Whiting Haddock Norway lobster Others litres per kg Figure 3.26 Overall landings by species apportioned to fuel used. In Hartlepool the fuel consumption is relatively consistent throughout the year. More fuel is burnt at the start of the Nephrops season perhaps in searching for prawns and targeting haddock and when the cod appear in May/June (Figure 3.27) Whiting Cod Haddock Norway lobster European plaice Lemon sole Others litres per kg Figure 3.27 Hartlepool landings by species apportioned to fuel used. The fuel consumed off Lowestoft highlights again the significance of the cod (Figure 3.28). Most of the fuel is used in March when effort is more disaggregated across the whole area (Figure 3.11). 67

68 August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg 1000 litres litres per kg August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg 1000 litres litres per kg August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg Cod Skates and rays Sole (dover sole) European lobster Edible crab Spurdog Others litres per kg Figure 3.28 Lowestoft landings by species apportioned to fuel used. Both the fuel rates for the trawl and pots show a sharp increase in the month preceding a switch by those vessels to another gear (Figure 3.29). Both the trawlers and nets appear to be prepared to burn more fuel for less bulk because of the higher value per kg of sole Cod Skates and rays Spurdog Dogfishes Basses Sole (dover sole) Others litres per kg a) Lines b) Nets Sole (dover sole) Cod Skates and rays Basses Smooth hound Flounder (european) Others litres per kg Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Flounder (european) Cod Whiting Dab Others litres per kg c) Trawl d) Pots European lobster Edible crab Sole (dover sole) Cod Skates and rays Brill Others litres per kg Figure 3.29 Lowestoft landings by species and gear apportioned to fuel used. 68

69 August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg Thames The most fuel burnt was in April, May and June (Figure 3.30) at the start of the sole season. The most environmentally efficient period appeared to be January through to February and March when the trawling declined, the sole fishing stops and the ray and cod lining and netting and the oyster dredging appears to start Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Cod Basses European flat oyster Smooth hound Others litres per kg Figure 3.30 Thames landings by species apportioned to fuel used. Apart from the limited return in January, the fuel consumption rate appears to be fairly consistent throughout the year for trawlers (Figure 3.31). The netting fuel consumption rate is at its lowest in January around the period when some of the netting is targeted at herring and sprats fairly close to port. The period for lining is relatively short compared to the vessels fishing from Lowestoft and the most fuel is burnt in the month when the consumption rate is at its lowest. 69

70 August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg 1000 litres litres per kg August September October November December January February March April May June July August August September October November December January February March April May June July August 1000 litres litres per kg 1000 litres litres per kg Sole (dover sole) Skates and rays Cod Basses Sole (dover sole) Cod Basses Skates and rays Whiting European plaice Others litres per kg Smooth hound Herring Others litres per kg a) Trawl b) Nets Cod Skates and rays Basses Spurdog Whiting Dogfishes Others litres per kg e) Lines c) Dredges European flat oyster Common whelk Dab Scallops Sole (dover sole) Cod Others litres per kg Figure 3.31 Thames landings by species and gear apportioned to the fuel used Distance of fishing operations from port The VMS data might provide an alternative source for an environmental index if that is all the information you had, the distance travelled could be used as a proxy for fuel burnt. The distance covered in a trip can be calculated from VMS data and related to the quantity of fish landed and a kilogramme per kilometre rate calculated. This offers an alternative to the fuel consumption rate discussed in the previous section. Fuel consumption is going to relate to the distance travelled in a trip although the consumption rate is going to be significantly affected by the fishing activity and the gear used. Monthly distance rate calculated for each project area plotted against the monthly fuel consumption rate presented in the previous section, suggested for Lowestoft and the Thames that distance might be a useful proxy for the fuel consumption rate already discussed. However the relationship in Hartlepool is poorer. This could relate to fishing gear used. The vessels in Hartlepool are exclusively trawlers and the fuel consumption rate is going to be significantly different for the distance travelled when actively fishing than when steaming. With static gears the fuel consumption rate is going to be fairly consistent throughout a fishing trip. In Lowestoft nearly all these vessels were using static gear, but in the Thames there was a mix of different gear types. This analysis is preliminary but does suggest that, without the information on fuel consumption VMS data could be used to calculate an alternative environmental index particularly for the vessels using static gears. 70

71 3.2.3 Weight of discards as a ratio of weight of landings Considerable research over the last couple of decades has shown that discarding impacts on the yields of fisheries and the functioning of ecosystems (Gray 2001, Fennessy 1994, Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Hall 1999, Kaiser and de Groot 2000). As a consequence, a considerable amount of research and effort is being spent looking at ways to reduce discarding. The weight of discards compared to the weight of retained catch provides us with one measure of the environmental impact of the fisheries within these project areas. Table 3.5 provides us with these overall environmental indices for the gear types in each area. The discarded weight used in creating this table does not include non-commercial benthos such as starfish, sea urchins and shore crabs etc. Unsurprisingly the trawl fisheries have the highest annual discard rates than any of the other gear types across all areas. The quarterly discard rates range from 16% off Lowestoft to 52% in the Thames. However in each area the annual discard rates for the trawlers compare very well with those calculated for the over 10m fleets from the 2008 national observer programme. The overall discard rates for the Thames and Lowestoft trawlers (44% and 31% respectively) are the highest on the scheme. However in quarter 1, 2009 off Hartlepool the discard rate rises to 38% when the vessels are all targeting Nephrops with smaller meshes. However this comparison of the overall discard rates with the Hartlepool trawlers belies the fact that the average tow length in the Thames and off Lowestoft is around 1.5 hours whereas the average for the Hartlepool trawlers is 5 hours (Section 3.1.4, subsection Temporal effort ) so the survival prospects of the discarded component might be perceived to be better (see below). The lowest overall discard rate appears to be oyster dredges at 2%. Although the data are limited it is unsurprising that the catch of non-commercial finfish biota is low because of the nature of the gear and the grounds fished. The discard rate for long liners off Lowestoft and the Thames are 8 and 9% respectively with the discards in 2009, quarter 1, off Lowestoft being at 1%. Netting in both Lowestoft and the Thames are not much far behind at 10 and 11% and apart from quarter 1, 2009 are relatively consistent. Compared to the quarterly discard rates for long lines, ranging from 1% to 30%, across both areas the netting discard rate only varies from 3 to 16% across both areas. The discard rate might be considered a fairly reliable measure of the environmental impact of these fisheries because of the waste in terms of mortality and the cost of having to deal with the discards as well. In most of these fisheries unwanted by catch is inevitable so to get a feel for the overall impact on the discarded component of the catch, the participants were asked to record their perception of survival prospects of each species discarded. Time on deck for sorting catches and implications for survival of discards Survival Prospects No experiments were carried out to assess the discard survival rates of the species discarded but the skipper was asked to say what proportion of the species discarded had no prospects, poor prospects, good prospects and excellent prospects of survival. This was a subjective measure, and is only an index of perception as much as a measure of survival. Survival index is a score calculated from the ratio of perceived prospects ranging from 1 for no prospect to 4 for excellent. A weighted average for each species in each area by month and gear type was calculated. The average and range of perceived survival prospects were calculated for the top six 71

72 species by weight discarded and key gear groups in each area an example of which is shown in for Hartlepool Figure In each area the perceived survival prospects of most round fish are poor - particularly whiting. The perception is that flatfish species fair much better and for most gears the survival prospects for elasmobranchs is good to very good. The Lowestoft netters appear more optimistic about the survival prospects of the skates and rays than the Thames netters but this might be a product of the different types of nets in each area and how they are fished in each area and also the size range of the fish. The perceived survival prospects for nearly all the selected species for the Thames trawlers are good and this may relate to the robustness of the most common species here but also the speed which the decks are cleared, see below. The perceived survival prospects of most of the discarded species when long lining off Lowestoft are good. 72

73 Survival Index Survival Index n = n = Upper limit Mean Lower limit n Upper limit Mean Lower limit n a) Whiting b) Plaice Survival Index Survival Index n = n = Upper limit Mean Lower limit n Upper limit Mean Lower limit n c) Nephrops d) Haddock Survival Index Survival Index n = n = Upper limit Upper limit Mean Mean Lower limit Lower limit n n e) Lemon sole f) Rays Figure 3.32 The perceived survival prospects of discarded key species from Hartlepool trawlers. 73

74 Time on deck Discard survival is a function of the time the fish is interacting with the gear and the time it is out of the water. Recent published work on the discard survival rates has been limited to lesser spotted dogfish (Revill et al, 2004) and rays (Catchpole et al, 2007, Ellis et al, 2008). The ray studies appear to show that the tow duration and the total catch weight has a negative effect on survival. Neither the dogfish nor ray studies looked at the impact of the time on deck. Participants were asked to record the time they finished clearing the deck after each fishing operation. Subtracting this time from the time the gear was hauled aboard provides us with a maximum time that each discard species caught could have been out of the water. During some fishing operations the gear was cleared as it was hauled on board for instance when lining and in some instances when netting. These instances could be missed in these analyses if no time was recorded. Figure 3.33 shows the range of times it takes to clear the decks of trawlers in each area. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Minutes HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY a) Trawl Figure 3.33 Comparison of the periods on deck recorded in the trawl line and net fisheries 74

75 % 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Minutes HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY b) Nets 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Minutes HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY c) Lines Figure 3.33 continued. The time on deck will be influenced by the quantity of bulk that requires sorting. Because of the quantities of rubbish (starfish, urchins, culch and weed) that can be caught at different times of year in the Thames the trawlers fish short tows to keep the catch to a manageable size. This keeps the overall average time clearing the deck to around 30 minutes and this 75

76 persists through each quarter of the year. Off Lowestoft one trawler working single handed targeting sole takes on average 40 to 65 minutes to clear the decks more often 30 to 45 minutes, whilst the Hartlepool trawlers, on average, take longer to clear the decks with time ranging from around 1 hour to 1 ½ hours. Off Lowestoft the netters more commonly take up to 15 minutes to clear their nets. On average though it takes around 65 minutes to clear the decks after one fishing operation but the range of times is far more widespread than other gears. This will relate to the number of fleets fished in one fishing operation. Often if the net cannot be cleared as it is hauled on board then the fleet may be cleared after all the other fleets have been retrieved. In the Thames it takes on average 55 minutes to clear the decks ranging between 50 and 65 minutes through each quarter. The range and types of net and how they are fished will affect these averages. This gear group includes drift trammels, set nets and herring and sprat nets amongst others. The times recorded for the lines probably include the whole process of hauling for these participants, rarely will the lines be brought on board and then the catch sorted. As well as the time on deck, the period the fish is interacting with the gear and other components of the catch will affect the survival prospects of the discarded species. The perception is that long tows when trawling or passive gear left over night for up to a week will have a greater negative effect on survival prospects. Plotting the time on deck against the survival prospects for the key species indicated that there may be a relationship between the time on deck and perceived survival prospects for some of the elasmobranchs. However the results of this analysis seems to be driven by extremes and the analysis might just be investigating a circular argument the skippers perception on survival may be driven by the time it takes to clear the decks Distance from port to market for fish Tracking where the fish finally ended up for consumption and the environmental cost would contribute to any life cycle approach (LCA) assessment but this was not part of the scheme. All we were able to monitor was local fish movements. Hartlepool has a limited local market. The Nephrops could go to a national buyer and the whitefish might be auctioned at North Shields or sold through one of three different local merchants. At the start of the scheme, the participants landings were naturally larger than they were able to land prior to the scheme and higher than local fishermen not on the scheme could land. This upset local competition and caused concern about prices, both amongst those within the scheme and those outside the scheme. A number of the participants tried alternatives to the local markets including the fish auction at Grimsby and buyers on the South coast. The price they received from the buyer on the south coast covered the transport costs and improved on their return, but of course this added to the environmental impact of their fishing activity. At Lowestoft the vessels were able to land direct to a fish market. Most of the vessels sold everything through the auctions and the local merchants and buyers benefited from the increased availability of fish. Some of the fish went direct to merchants who exported bulk to Belgium and some of the fish was transported down to Plymouth and Brixham for sale. Some of the vessels sold direct to the public. 76

77 The ports covering the Thames stretch over a larger geographical area and none of the ports had a local auction to sell their catch through. Some of the vessels north of the Thames sold fish through Lowestoft market but most dealt with local merchants or agents. Although it is not clear from all the sales notes where the fish went beyond the first merchant, it is clear a large proportion of the bulk catch went to auctions in Zeebrugge, Ostende and Cherbourg. Some vessels transported catch direct to these markets without using a local agent. All the vessels sold some of their catch locally to restaurants and abroad and merchants from London were relatively close. Some of the vessels sold direct to the public. The range of merchants or outlets is varied and broad and it is clear that a lot of the bulk will travel large distances before being consumed, but it is also clear that these vessels do service a number of local businesses and some have outlets direct to the local public. 77

78 4 Fleet financial / Economic Section This section of the report presents analysis of the financial and operational data collected during the project and includes some discussion of implications for fisheries management. 4.1 Methods for economic section Fishermen completed data forms during the project and also completed the usual sales notes required for fish landings in the UK. Annual accounts were also available for just over half of the vessels in the project. Financial data were analysed by Seafish Economics Data issues and adjustment Seafish did not receive annual accounts from all vessels in the project, which limited the ability to analyse and corroborate data collected during the project. Some of the vessels that started the project were not active throughout and five vessels were removed from the financial analyses. For the financial analyses, we used data for August 2008 to July 2009 to give an approximate annual picture. Skippers wages In order to ensure that the cost of skipper s wages was included in fishing costs for all vessels we had to make adjustments to the cost data for some vessels. Fishing income Fishing income was recorded on project forms by fishermen and also on sales notes. For most vessels, there was a difference between the two figures. To represent total sales value per vessel, we used the higher of the two figures for each vessel for financial analysis. For catch composition analysis we used only sales notes data. Main gear type Vessels were assigned a main gear type for the year based on the gear type used most during the year. 4.2 Vessels included in economic / financial analysis 25 vessels were included in the financial analysis. Characteristics and activity levels of the project vessels, grouped by project area, are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Average and (range) of vessel characteristics by area Project Area No. of boats HARTLEPOOL 5 LOWESTOFT 9 THAMES ESTUARY 11 Length (m) 9.96 ( ) 9.76 ( ) 9.43 ( ) Ton Gt 13.8 ( ) 6.1 ( ) 9.0 ( ) Power Main (kw) 116 ( ) 120 (29-350) 100 (57-157) Vessel Age at start (years) 7 (4-10) 30 (3-71) 17 (1-47) Days at sea 148 (98-180) 166 ( ) 147 (81-205) 78

79 Liveweight tonnes On average, trawlers were the longest and the heaviest vessels, and netters were both the shortest and most powerful on average (Table 4.2). Table 4.2 Average (and range) of vessel characteristics by main gear type. Main gear type No. of boats LOA (m) Ton Gt Trawls Nets Lines Power Main (kw) 110 (61 127) 132 (57 350) 91 (29 187) Vessel Age at start (years) 12 (3 47) 16 (1 30) 34 (4 71) Days at sea 140 (81 180) 160 ( ) 167 ( ) 4.3 Vessel activity by project area The amount of fishing time and the landings per vessel are analysed by project area in this section Catch composition by project area The three project areas showed strikingly different catch composition profiles. For project vessels in Lowestoft, cod was clearly the most important species by weight during the first year of the project, whereas in Hartlepool and Thames Estuary, there was no single species making up such a large proportion of landings by weight (see Figure 4.1). In Hartlepool, whiting was the species that made up the largest proportion of landings, closely followed by cod. For Thames Estuary vessels, the top three species (or species groups) by weight were cod, Dover sole and skates and rays. Top Five Species by weight in each area Aug 08 to July Smooth hound Sprat Basses Skates & rays Dover sole Norway lobster European plaice Haddock Cod Whiting HARTLEPOOL THAMES ESTUARY LOWESTOFT Figure 4.1 Weight of top five species landed in each project area For Hartlepool vessels, cod made up 35% of the catch value and Nephrops (Norway Lobster) made up the next highest proportion of value at 18% (see Figure 4.2). Vessels in Hartlepool 79

80 had a range of species in the catch which means that low volume or low prices in one species would not necessarily cause a bad outcome for the year. In the Thames Estuary, there was reliance on four key species groups: Dover sole, bass, skates & rays and cod. Participating fishermen reported that catch compositions can change substantially over a period of years. Catch composition by landed weight, Hartlepool (sales notes) Catch composition by value, Hartlepool (sales note data) Whiting - 33% Cod - 27% Haddock - 13% European plaice - 7% Nephrops - 7% Lemon sole - 3% Other - 9% Cod - 35% Nephrops - 18% Whiting - 16% Haddock - 10% European plaice - 4% Lemon sole - 4% Turbot - 3% Other - 11% Figure 4.2 Catch composition Hartlepool vessels (sales note data) Aug08 July09. Catch composition by landed weight, Lowestoft (sales notes) Catch composition by value, Lowestoft (sales note data) Cod - 71% Skates and rays - 19% Dover sole - 4% Basses - 1% Other - 4% Cod - 70% Skates and rays - 15% Dover sole - 9% Basses - 3% European lobster - 1% Other - 3% Figure 4.3 Catch composition Lowestoft vessels (sales note data) Aug 08 July 09. Catch composition by landed weight, Thames Estuary (sales notes) Catch composition by value, Thames Estuary (sales note data) Dover sole - 31% Skates and rays - 23% Cod 19% Basses - 17% Sprat - 2% Herring - 2% Other - 5% Dover sole - 53% Basses - 19% Skates and rays - 14% Cod - 10% European flat oyster - 1% Other - 3% Figure 4.4 Catch composition Thames Estuary vessels (sales note data) Aug 08 July Vessel earnings by project area Vessels based in Lowestoft had, on average, the highest level of gross earnings from fishing activity, while vessels in Thames Estuary had, on average, the highest level of earnings from non-fishing activity. Non-fishing activity is any other use of the vessel which generates 80

81 income for the business, such as guard duties for wind farm, charter for research or recreational sea-angling. 160, , , ,000 Average Fishing Income and non-fishing income per vessel Aug 08 - July 09 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY non-fish income fish income Figure 4.5 Average fishing income and non-fishing income by project area Vessels in the Thames Estuary area had fishing income of 655 per day at sea on average, while Hartlepool vessels made fishing income of 512 per day at sea on average, over the period Aug 08 to July 09. Vessels based in Lowestoft had the highest average fishing income per day at 863. These figures apply only to the project period however and there is no information to hand to suggest whether the differences between ports are typical. 1, Average Fishing income per day Aug 08 - July 09 HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY Fish income per day Figure Average fishing income per day, by project area Seasonal variations For Hartlepool vessels, there were seasonal peaks in value of cod landed in October and in May (see Figure 4.7). In December, there was a peak in value of Nephrops landed, which is due to higher volume landed rather than higher prices. To show whether seasonal variations are typical however, it would of course be necessary to have data from several years activity. 81

82 Top six species Monthly value landed Hartlepool 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Cod Haddock Lemon sole European plaice Whiting Norway lobster - August September October November December January February March April May June July Figure Monthly value landed by all vessels, top six species by weight, Hartlepool Vessels in the Thames Estuary area achieved peaks for value of Dover sole landed in April and another, smaller peak in September (see Figure 4.8). The peak in value is due to a peak in volume landed. There were peaks for value of basses landed in July and in September and these were also due to higher volumes landed. Top four species Monthly value landed Thames Estuary 120, ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - August September October November December January February March April May June July Basses Cod Skates and rays Dover sole Figure 4.8 Monthly value landed by all vessels, top four species by weight, Thames Estuary Vessels based in Lowestoft had peaks in monthly value landed of cod, their main species landed, in December and in April (see Figure 4.9). These peaks in monthly earnings were due to volume rather than to higher prices. 82

83 Average annual price per Kg Top five species Monthly value landed, Lowestoft 180, , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - August September October November December January February March April May June July Figure 4.9 Monthly value landed by all vessels, top five species by weight, Lowestoft Prices of key species by project area Average annual prices for each species were different for vessels in each project area (see Figure 4.10). For, cod, whiting, Dover sole and basses, vessels based in Lowestoft had higher average prices for the period August 08 July 09 and this may well be due to the fact that most Lowestoft vessels are long liners and their product is generally perceived to be higher quality than trawl-caught fish. For skates and rays, vessels in Thames Estuary and Lowestoft had a much higher average price than vessels in Hartlepool. Hartlepool vessels achieved lower prices in general than the other two areas which may in part be due to their greater distance to the biggest markets of south east England and Europe. Basses Cod European lobster Skates & rays Dover sole Average annual prices of popular species by project area HARTLEPOOL THAMES ESTUARY LOWESTOFT Cod Whiting Skates and rays Dover sole Basses Nephrops Figure 4.10 Average annual prices of key species, by project area (sales note data) In Lowestoft and the Thames Estuary, highest prices for key species by weight were achieved for Dover sole and basses, whereas in Hartlepool, highest prices for key species landed were achieved for Nephrops. 83

84 4.4 Vessel activity by main gear type The amount of fishing time and the landings per vessels are analysed by main gear type in this section Days at sea by gear type There was a wide range of activity level among the vessels in the project (Table 4.3). Vessels mainly using nets and vessels mainly using lines had very similar average activity levels and similar ranges of lowest and highest number of days at sea. Vessels mainly using trawl gear had distinctly lower level of days at sea. Table 4.3 Vessel activity by gear type, Aug 08 July 09 Main gear type No. of boats Trawls 10 Nets 7 Lines 8 Days at sea 140 (81 180) 160 ( ) 167 ( ) Catch composition by gear type Whereas vessels using mainly trawls and vessels using mainly nets landed a range of key species by weight, it is clear that vessels using mainly lines have a high dependence on cod. Trawlers in the project landed whiting (27%), cod (25%), haddock (10%) and skates & rays (6%) as their key species by live weight equivalent Vessel earnings by gear type Vessels mainly using long lines had higher average income than vessels mainly using nets, which in turn had higher average annual income than vessels mainly using trawl gear (Table 4.4 and Figure 4.11). Fishing income per day at sea followed the same pattern (Figure 4.12). Catch composition of trawlers in the project included a higher proportion of lower priced species, compared to other gear types with more Dover sole and basses in their catch composition. Table 4.4 Income and activity levels by gear type Fish Annual Main gear No. of Days at income Fishing type boats sea per day income Trawls ,795 Nets ,802 Lines ,479 84

85 Average annual income by main gear type 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Fishing Income Non-fishing income 0 Lines Nets Trawl Figure 4.11 Average annual income by gear type Average fishing income per day Lines Nets Trawl Figure 4.12 Average fishing income per day by gear type Monthly value landed by gear type 180, , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Lines Nets Trawls - Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Figure 4.13 Monthly total value landed by gear type (using data from fishermen s forms) There was considerable month to month variation in fishing income for all gear types, with nets and trawls showing a peak in August and lines showing peaks in December and April (Figure 4.13). 85

86 4.5 Vessel profit Fishing profit margin in this study is calculated as fishing income minus total fishing and vessel expenses, as a proportion of fishing income. So if annual fishing income was 200,000 and total expenses were 160,000, then we calculate: income expenses = 200, ,000 = 40,000. Then we calculate: profit / income = 40,000 / 200,000 = 0.2, which we then multiply by 100 to give a profit margin of 20% Annual fishing profit by project area On average, vessels from the Lowestoft area had the highest average amount of fishing profit at 39,365. Vessels from the Thames Estuary area had the next highest income and average profit of 24,321, while vessels from Hartlepool having the lowest levels of average fishing income and profit, at 21,942 for the year. Fishing Income and fishing profit by area Aug 08 - July , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000-41,420 21,942 24,321 HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY fish income fishing profit Figure 4.14 Average fishing income and fishing profit per vessel, by area When we used project area as a potential factor to explain different profit margins we found that project area was not a good predictor of profit margin for vessels. This means project area could not be used to accurately predict the profit margin of a vessel so we conclude that project area does not directly affect how profitable vessels were. Lowestoft vessels had the highest average profit margin at 29% and the Thames Estuary had the lowest average profit margin at 24%, although the difference is not statistically significant. That means that being in a certain project area is not a good predictor of profit margin in this group of vessels. The data collected for this project do not allow us to make conclusions about vessels in one area being generally more profitable than vessels in another area. 86

87 Fishing profit as percent of fishing income Aug 08 - July 09 35% 30% 25% 25% 29% 24% 20% ` 15% 10% 5% 0% HARTLEPOOL LOWESTOFT THAMES ESTUARY Figure 4.15 Average fishing profit margin per vessel, by area 2 These average results were for this time period only and we have no information to suggest whether there would be similar differences by area if average profit were measured over a period of several years Annual fishing profit by gear type Although vessels in the project using mainly lines had the highest average profit margin, followed by those using mainly trawls and then those using mainly nets, the differences in profit margin between the gear type groups are not statistically significant. This is due to the small sample size, the variation within each group and the fact that other gear types were also used by many vessels as well as the main gear type. Therefore, the main type of gear used is not a good predictor of the profit margin of a vessel in this group (Figure 4.16). 2 Please note that the average annual fishing profit margins per vessel by area, show the average of vessels profit margins, rather than the average profit amount as a percentage of the average fishing income, which gives a slightly different figure. 87

88 Average annual fishing profit as percentage of fish income 35% 30% 25% 20% 31% 21% 26% 15% 10% 5% 0% Lines Nets Trawl Figure 4.16 Average fishing profit margin per vessel by gear type One skipper on the scheme pointed out that trips using nets produced a better operating profit margin for his vessel than trips using long lines. His experience contradicts the annual profit margins of the participating vessels grouped by main gear type, and illustrates well that this analysis should not be taken to imply that working with lines is always more profitable than working with nets. The data collected for this project do not allow us to make safe conclusions about vessels mostly using one gear type being generally more profitable than vessels mostly using another gear type Characteristics of most and least profitable quartiles Each project region is represented in every quartile of vessels when vessels are ranked according to profit margin. That is, there are vessels from every region in the most profitable quartile of vessels, in the second, the third and the least profitable quartile of vessels. None of the characteristics shown in Table 4.5 appears to be a driver of profit. Table 4.5 Average characteristics of vessels in each profit-margin quartile Quartiles by fish profit as % of fish sales Fishing profit as % fish income Days at sea Fishing profit per day Vessel Age at start LOA m Power Main kw Fish Income top quartile 49% ,385 2nd quartile 29% ,555 3rd quartile 22% ,454 bottom quartile 7% ,719 88

89 4.6 Multivariate analysis and drivers of profit margin We conducted statistical analyses to try to identify any significant relationships between physical or activity characteristics of vessels, their gear type or their location and their profit margin. Various different combinations of independent variables were tried. Due in part to the small number of vessels and the degree of variation in each vessel group, the estimation results do not show that any of the characteristics we have measurements of are the key drivers of profit margin. We cannot identify any of the physical characteristics of the vessels, the activity levels, the gear type or the project area as having a statistically significant influence on profit margin. The key drivers of variation in profit margin in this particular year must be factors for which we have no information. Likely factors are the knowledge, motivation, energy levels and skill levels of the skippers. Skill is a combination of skill in operating the fishing vessel, business management skill and marketing skill. Another factor for which we had no information is the amount of time that the skipper puts into the business on shore. We know how many days at sea each vessel worked, but we do not know how many additional hours per week each skipper / owner worked whilst on shore. Age of skipper can be an indirect influence on profit margin in so much as it may reflect the energy levels or physical capabilities of skippers and the level of their hunger for success as one project skipper put it. These two factors may counteract each other in line with the age of the skipper, but knowledge and skill gained from experience can only increase with age. Activities such as repairs and engine refits which may occur only once every several years, will also impact on the performance of individual vessels in any one year. These effects will smooth out in the long term but in a single year analysis, and a small sample, can skew the results. Another important factor affecting profit level of the vessel business in the immediate term and in the longer term is the level of wage paid to the crew. Some vessel owners will pay their crew (and themselves) a little bit more than the market rate in order to retain skilled crew whose handling of the fish will ensure it is better than average quality. Paying higher wages means the business takes a lower operating profit margin and the converse is also true. In a given year, the crew could be paid lower wages, which would leave more profit for the vessel. In the longer run, a well-paid skilful crew may help achieve higher than average prices for the landings of the vessel, making a contribution to the long term profitability of the vessel. It is important to note that the variation in profit among the participating vessels will change from year to year. In any given year, one gear type might, on average, be more successful than another, due to variations in behaviour of fish depending on local conditions relating to available feed and sea temperatures. Some characteristics and factors might affect profit margin in the short term, but there might be another range of factors that affect long term profitability. This project has not assessed long term profitability. 4.7 Balance of fleet capacity and fishing opportunity One of the most important issues facing the inshore fleet is the issue of balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity. Too much fleet capacity in relation to the fishing opportunity leads to lower profitability for vessels. 89

90 4.7.1 Capacity utilisation theory Fleet capacity can be described as the ability of vessels to produce landings of fish and shellfish over a given time period, for instance so many tonnes per year. For a given level of landings, there would be an optimal amount of capacity. If the permitted fishing opportunity is too small to keep all vessels fully active, the vessels are under-utilised and the costs of production are higher than they need to be. If there are more vessels than necessary, they incur more operating costs and higher costs of capital in total than if there were fewer vessels, all fully active. The fishery is less profitable than it could be, wages are lower on average and there is less contribution to the wider economy from fishing, because the fleet capability is more costly than necessary to land the permitted harvest. Fleet capacity is about more than just the number and capability of the vessels. Smith and Hanna (1990) described these four components: 1. Number of vessels 2. Size of each vessel 3. Technical efficiency of vessel operation 4. Potential fishing time of each vessel, per period of time, e.g. year or season. If the sum of these components is more than necessary to catch and land the available fishing opportunity, then costs will be higher than necessary and profits will be lower than they could have been Capacity utilisation in the inshore fleet The total volume landed in 2008 by the English under 10m uncapped licence vessels, could have been landed by many fewer vessels, if those vessels were more active. Or, put the other way around, the English under 10m uncapped licence vessels would have been capable of landing a great deal more fish than they did in This is even taking account of the fact that under 10m vessels are often limited by the weather. Table 4.6 English under 10m vessels with uncapped licences that declared minimum 48 days at sea in figures LOA m Volume landed tonnes live weight Value landed Days at Sea Average , Total 13,692 26,289,380 56,924 Maximum , Minimum , No. of boats 512 Source: Data from MFA, computed by Seafish There were 782 English under 10m vessels with uncapped licences active in Of those vessels however, 270 vessels were active for less than 48 days a year (Table 4.6) so they were not fully utilised. Instead of having 270 vessels fishing less than 48 days per year each, it could be possible that, say, ¼ of that number of vessels could be more active and could 90

91 land the same volume of fish that the 270 landed, and at much lower total cost and therefore, more total profit. Table 4.7 shows 2008 activity figures for English vessels with uncapped licences, between 9 and 10m long that fished a minimum of 81 days in 2008 (the same minimum days fished by the vessels participating in the project). This group of 213 vessels does not include the vessels that were in the project and is presented as an approximate comparison group to the project vessels, given that it was not possible to have a scientific control group for the participating vessels. The comparison group had an average length of 9.77m overall, slightly longer than the average length of the project vessels. This is because the project group contained a few vessels under 9m, which reduced the average length. Table 4.7 English 9m -10m vessels with uncapped licences that declared minimum 81 days at sea in Comparison group of vessels figures LOA m Volume landed tonnes live weight Value landed Days at Sea Landings per day tonnes live weight Average , Total 9,690 17,622,554 28,585 Maximum , Minimum , No.of boats 213 Source: Data from MFA, computed by Seafish The vessels in the comparison group of English under 10m fished on average 12% fewer days at sea and landed on average 20% lower volume and 23% lower value during 2008, than the project vessels did during August 08 July 09. Overall, the comparison group vessels were underutilised compared to the project vessels, indicating that they have more catching capacity than was necessary to land that volume of fish. The vessels participating in the project landed on average 0.38 tonnes per day at sea (live weight, based on sales notes) whereas the comparison group of vessels landed on average 0.34 tonnes per day at sea (based on declared landings to MFA). On average, the project vessels landed around 10% more volume per day at sea than the comparison group of vessels, which may be due to the project vessels spending more hours at sea per day and not having to discard any quota species caught because they were not limited by quotas. Table 4.8 ERF vessel activity and characteristics, Aug 08 July 09. ERF Vessels Aug 08 Jul 09 LOA m Volume landed tonnes live weight Value landed Days at Sea Landings per day tonnes live weight Average , Total 1,482 2,792,314 3,948 Maximum , Minimum , No. of boats 26 91

92 Table 4.9 Comparison group vessels compared to ERF vessels 2008 figures Average per vessel LOA m Comparison group vessels Percentage different from ERF vessels Volume landed tonnes live weight Value landed Days at Sea Landings per day tonnes live weight -20.2% -23.0% -11.8% -9.5% In 2008, there were 359 9m 10m English vessels with uncapped licences that declared at least one day at sea (Table 4.10). If all of these 359 vessels were as active and efficient on average as the project vessels, with 152 days at sea each and landings rate of 0.38 tonnes per day, then the total days at sea would be 359 x 152 = 54,568 days. If those days yielded landings of 0.38 tonnes each, then total volume of landings would be 54,568 x 0.38 = 20,736 tonnes. This compares to their actual landings of 11,213 tonnes, achieved in 35,119 days at sea. Table English 9m - 10m vessels with uncapped licences, active in figures LOA Volume landed tonnes live weight 92 Value landed Days at Sea tonnes per day Average , Total 11,213 20,726,505 35,119 Maximum , Minimum No. of boats 359 Source: Data from MFA, computed by Seafish These comparisons lead to the conclusion that there is significantly more vessel capacity in the English under 10m uncapped licence fleet than would be necessary to land the volume of fish permitted under current fishing regulations. Therefore, the total cost of fishing is higher than necessary and accordingly total profit is lower than would be possible if the fleet were of lower total capacity and more in balance with current allowable catches. Some inshore fishermen doubt the validity of stock advice used in setting quotas or question the distribution of quota between fleet segments. Some say that it is not that the inshore fleet is too big, but that the fishing opportunity is too small. In fact, this is essentially the same argument put the other way around. The key point is that there is currently an imbalance between catching capability and permitted landings. The solution to the imbalance is a political decision and could in theory be any combination of reducing fleet capacity and increasing permitted landings (or catch) volume by this fleet sector Implications for management These financial and business performance analyses have implications for business management and for management of the English inshore fisheries. Motivations of vessel owners Some of the vessel owners in this project mentioned that they had not really thought of themselves as running a business, but rather as being a fisherman. From the point of view of managing fisheries, it is crucial to consider the values and motivations of people involved

93 in the fisheries and in particular, the motivations as perceived by those people, in order to ensure that management incentives are appropriate and will be effective. Fishing vessels as businesses In reality, many sole traders (and not just in the fishing business) do not differentiate between the different sources of their income that arise from the business. As a sole trader, the owner takes owner s drawings from the business and there is no distinction as to whether these are in respect of labour, management skill or return on capital invested. Hence most of the skippers who participated in the project would not have thought of their fishing operations in this way. Measuring and monitoring performance Fish stocks are a valuable natural resource that ought to be able to generate wealth on a sustainable basis wealth to be distributed in one way or another depending on the preferences of those in power in the country. It is possible to catch and bring fish to shore in a way that generates a true profit and therefore creates wealth. The profit generated ought to be enough to pay a return on the money invested in the fishery, over and above the return that the money might have generated if placed in a low-risk investment such as a savings account. Fisheries can be managed in a way that enables vessel businesses to be profitable. It is important to check that the fishery is generating the desired outcomes in order to be sure that the management is operating as intended. Accurate financial information, in the form of vessel accounts, is required, along with accurate information about the operation of smaller fishing vessels, in order to assess accurately whether the fishery is truly operating in a profitable way. Difference in local fisheries The three project areas showed strikingly different catch composition profiles which suggests that local management is very important. It is unlikely that such different fisheries could be successfully managed in exactly the same way. 93

94 5 Annual variations as determined from first three months of year 2 In July 2009 the scheme was extended to run for a second year until16 August There were slight changes to the rules of the scheme but no changes were made to the data collection. Apart from review and refresher meetings held with the participants, fishing and monitoring continued without a break. A subsequent year s data would provide a measure of the variability between years in terms of seasons, catches, income and adaptive fishing practice. The extension was terminated early on 4 November 2009 due to concerns about the proportion of the UK quota being landed by scheme participants under derogation. All the data for the extension were processed in the same way but the short period of extension limited the interpretation of comparisons with the previous year s data. Figures 5.1 to 5.3 below show the relative distribution of effort over the same periods in subsequent years from the start of the original scheme in August 2008 to 31 October 2008 and from the start of the extension from 16 August 2009 to the 31 October For the figures to be comparable, the landings and effort for the four vessels that left the scheme in Hartlepool before the end of the first year have been excluded from the earlier data along with the satellite data from one vessel whose system stopped functioning properly towards the end of the first year. The spatial distributions below show the distribution of effort based on the AST data where the speed of the vessel is less than or equal to 4 knots. The spatial distribution in each period for each area is similar but there are subtle differences. There appears to be less effort occurring in the second period overall and the sum of the number of trips carried out by the fleet bears this out (Table 5.1). The larger amount of effort in the first period of the scheme could be down to a release mentality, restrictions had been lifted and the opportunity to go fishing was taken. By the start of the second period the participants were into a settled routine. More simply, the difference could be down to opportunities based on weather or the availability and catchability of the key target species. The differences are most likely to be a combination of both. The data on weather provided by the fishermen shows a slight decline in the average wind force and sea state in the second year. This does not account for the days that vessels could not get to sea because of bad weather but it might suggest that participants were prepared to fish in worse weather at the start of the scheme in The distribution of effort appears to have expanded in Hartlepool and retracted in Lowestoft and the Thames. In each area some of the peaks of effort have changed and effort has expanded into areas not fished at the start of year one. 94

95 a) 2008 August to October Hartlepool b) 2009 August to October Hartlepool Figure 5.1 Spatial distribution of effort off Hartlepool for the same period at the start of each project year. a) 2008 August to October Lowestoft b) 2009 August to October Lowestoft Figure 5.2 Spatial distribution of effort off Lowestoft for the same period at the start of each project year. 95

96 a) 2008 August to October Thames b) 2009 August to October Thames Figure 5.3 Spatial distribution of effort in the Thames Estuary for the same period at the start of each project year. The catch rates in terms of total landings per trip were broadly similar (Table 5.1) between the two years for all of the port areas and gears, however, slightly higher catch rates were observed in the second year overall. A small decline in the catch rates of the liners in Lowestoft and the trawlers in the Thames is apparent. Off Lowestoft, this was reflected in the lower landings of cod in the latter period (Figure 5.4) however in the Thames, no landings of any single species stood out as having declined in proportion other than bass, which is targeted by both nets and trawl. The distribution of effort across gear types was consistent in each period. This suggests that there were no overall changes in targeting patterns off Lowestoft although proportionally less effort was spent further offshore. In the Thames the fleet appeared to spend proportionally more effort further out in the second period. 96

Best Practice Guidance for Assessing the Financial Performance of Fishing Gear: Industry-led gear trials

Best Practice Guidance for Assessing the Financial Performance of Fishing Gear: Industry-led gear trials Best Practice Guidance for Assessing the Financial Performance of Fishing Gear: Industry-led gear trials Prepared for The UK Fisheries Economic Network (UKFEN) by Seafish Introduction and Background Reducing

More information

Fully Documented Fisheries

Fully Documented Fisheries Industry Guidance Note October 2012 Fully Documented Fisheries Catch Quota Trials or fully documented fisheries (FDF) using onboard video cameras (CCTV), coupled with the use of highly selective gears,

More information

Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations The Fisheries White Paper

Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations The Fisheries White Paper Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations The Fisheries White Paper Key messages The Fisheries White Paper Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations charts the course for a sustainable and profitable

More information

Towards a mixed demersal fisheries management plan in the Irish Sea. (ICES subdivisions VIIa): framework and objectives

Towards a mixed demersal fisheries management plan in the Irish Sea. (ICES subdivisions VIIa): framework and objectives Towards a mixed demersal fisheries management plan in the Irish Sea (ICES subdivisions VIIa): framework and objectives Draft for Discussion July 2013 Deleted: Approved: March 2011 / Last Update: November

More information

Sourced from:

Sourced from: Catch Comparison trials using a 400mm Square Mesh Panel Louise Jones SFF Data Analyst Sourced from: http://www.worldfishingtoday.com/newbuildings/default.asp?nyid=621277 Summary: The 400mm SMP alone is

More information

The Orkney Creel Fishery

The Orkney Creel Fishery The Orkney Creel Fishery Fishery Improvement Project Work Plan Michael Bell, Kate Walker 2/21/2013 Introduction This work plan has been developed as part of the Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) of the

More information

Collection of Fisheries Information and Fishing Data by the IFG Network

Collection of Fisheries Information and Fishing Data by the IFG Network Collection of Fisheries Information and Fishing Data by the IFG Network Discussion Paper for IFG Meetings 1. Introduction 1.1 The need to collect basic fishing data to inform management considerations

More information

Stuart J. Hetherington, Victoria A. Bendall & Paul Trebilcock. FDI symposium, Rome 3 rd 6 th March 2014

Stuart J. Hetherington, Victoria A. Bendall & Paul Trebilcock. FDI symposium, Rome 3 rd 6 th March 2014 Science & Fishery Collaboration A new approach for evaluating elasmobranch stocks Stuart J. Hetherington, Victoria A. Bendall & Paul Trebilcock FDI symposium, Rome 3 rd 6 th March 2014 Why elasmobranchs?

More information

Fisheries Resource Access Mapping Project (FishRAMP):

Fisheries Resource Access Mapping Project (FishRAMP): Fisheries Resource Access Mapping Project (FishRAMP): The Co. Down Wind Resource Zone Contributors: Matthew Service and Laurence Rooney (AFBI); Rod Cappell (Poseidon); Lynn Gilmore (Seafish) and the NI

More information

Welsh Waters Scallop Strategy 28 th May Summary of research

Welsh Waters Scallop Strategy 28 th May Summary of research Welsh Waters Scallop Strategy 28 th May 2013 Summary of research Introduction This document describes the scallop research being conducted by Bangor University s Fisheries & Conservation Science Group

More information

Blue cod 5 (BCO5) pot mesh size review

Blue cod 5 (BCO5) pot mesh size review Blue cod 5 (BCO5) pot mesh size review Discussion Document MPI Discussion Paper No: 2017/01 Prepared for public consultation by the Ministry for Primary Industries ISBN No: 978-1-77665-454-3 (o) ISSN No:

More information

Why has the cod stock recovered in the North Sea?

Why has the cod stock recovered in the North Sea? Why has the cod stock recovered in the North Sea? Summary The expansion of European fisheries during the 1970s and 1980s resulted in high fishing pressure on stocks of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe

More information

GITAG. Gear Innovation and Technology Advisory Group

GITAG. Gear Innovation and Technology Advisory Group GITAG Gear Innovation and Technology Advisory Group Phase 2 industry based project established in August 2015 to foster flexible working partnerships between active fishers, industry and public bodies,

More information

Statistical News Release

Statistical News Release PRE-RELEASE ACCESS - RESTRICTED UNTIL 9.30 AM on MAY 25, 2017 Statistical News Release A National Statistics Publication for Scotland May 25, 2017 PROVISIONAL SCOTTISH SEA FISHERIES STATISTICS 2016 Provisional

More information

SEAFISH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

SEAFISH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SEAFISH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UK 15m & over Scallop Fleet Area VII Economic analysis of the UK 15m and over scallop fishing fleet in ICES Area VII March 2016 AUTHORS: Arina Motova (Seafish) Hazel Curtis (Seafish)

More information

Final Report. Discard survival rates of commercially caught ray. Cefas Lowestoft, Exeter

Final Report. Discard survival rates of commercially caught ray. Cefas Lowestoft, Exeter Final Report Discard survival rates of commercially caught ray 2007 Cefas Lowestoft, Exeter Prepared by: T.L. Catchpole R. Enever Summary All ray and skate species are commonly marketed as skate. The status

More information

SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION. TWENTY-SECOND REGIONAL TECHNICAL MEETING ON FISHERIES (Noumea, New Caledonia, 6-10 August 1990)

SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION. TWENTY-SECOND REGIONAL TECHNICAL MEETING ON FISHERIES (Noumea, New Caledonia, 6-10 August 1990) Page 1 ORIGINAL : ENGLISH SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION TWENTY-SECOND REGIONAL TECHNICAL MEETING ON FISHERIES (Noumea, New Caledonia, 6-10 August 1990) STOCK STATUS OF SKIPJACK TUNA IN THE WESTERN TROPICAL

More information

CMM Conservation and Management Measure for the Management of Bottom Fishing in the SPRFMO Convention Area

CMM Conservation and Management Measure for the Management of Bottom Fishing in the SPRFMO Convention Area CMM 03-2018 1 Conservation and Management Measure for the Management of Bottom Fishing in the SPRFMO Convention Area The Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; RECOGNISING

More information

Introduction to sustainable fishing workshop. March 8 th Dartington Hall, Devon

Introduction to sustainable fishing workshop. March 8 th Dartington Hall, Devon Introduction to sustainable fishing workshop March 8 th Dartington Hall, Devon Gus Caslake Seafish SW Regional Advisor Independent Chairman of Cornish Sardine Management Association (CSMA) Fishing Gear

More information

Trials of a Net Grid for the UK Nephrops trawl fisheries

Trials of a Net Grid for the UK Nephrops trawl fisheries Trials of a Net Grid for the UK Nephrops trawl fisheries Tom Catchpole, Frank Armstrong, Stuart Masson, Dave Price, Mark O Brien & John Hingley June 2012 This work was funded by Defra Executive Summary

More information

High seas: conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems

High seas: conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems High seas: conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems ABSTRACT Australia has consented to implement the interim measures adopted in 2007

More information

The Development of Multi-Rig Trawling Systems in the UK Past, Present and Future?

The Development of Multi-Rig Trawling Systems in the UK Past, Present and Future? The Development of Multi-Rig Trawling Systems in the UK Past, Present and Future? Technical Information Sheet No: 2000/04/FG Background Multi-rig trawling developments started in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp

More information

Salmon Five Point Approach restoring salmon in England

Salmon Five Point Approach restoring salmon in England Salmon Five Point Approach restoring salmon in England Our Mission To restore the abundance, diversity and resilience of salmon stocks throughout England We will do this by:- a) Maximising the production

More information

At Sea Simulation of the Landing Obligation on Irish Vessels

At Sea Simulation of the Landing Obligation on Irish Vessels At Sea Simulation of the Landing Obligation on Irish Vessels Report to the Discard Implementation Group February 2015 Ronan Cosgrove 1, Norman Graham 2, Sara-Jane Moore 2, Eoghan Kelly 2, Richard Curtin

More information

ICES WGCSE REPORT

ICES WGCSE REPORT ICES WGCSE REPORT 2009 291 6 Irish Sea 6.1 Area overview Description of fisheries Fishing effort and vessel numbers within the Irish Sea have declined in recent years by around 28% and 15% respectively

More information

Policy Instruments for Fisheries Management and the Concept of Fisheries Refugia

Policy Instruments for Fisheries Management and the Concept of Fisheries Refugia REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS Policy Instruments for Fisheries Management and the Concept of Fisheries Refugia Christopher Paterson, UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery s Trawl Catch Share Program Preliminary Draft EIS

Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery s Trawl Catch Share Program Preliminary Draft EIS Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery s Trawl Catch Share Program Preliminary Draft EIS First preliminary draft released March, 2016 (Council meeting) Had not undergone NEPA Coordinator

More information

FLEET ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE DATASET

FLEET ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE DATASET FLEET ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE DATASET 28-16 Steve Lawrence Arina Motova Jennifer Russell Date: September 217 Seafish Report No: SR79 ISBN No: 978-1-91173-15-4 Copyright Seafish 217 Seafish Economics Seafish

More information

LYME BAY HOW IT WORKS. The Reserve is managed by a Consultative Committee; 42 boats fish under voluntary regulation through a code of conduct;

LYME BAY HOW IT WORKS. The Reserve is managed by a Consultative Committee; 42 boats fish under voluntary regulation through a code of conduct; LYME BAY BACKGROUND LYME BAY HOW IT WORKS The Reserve is managed by a Consultative Committee; 42 boats fish under voluntary regulation through a code of conduct; current voluntary measures are better than

More information

ECAS 3 rd Periodic Activity Report; Publishable summary

ECAS 3 rd Periodic Activity Report; Publishable summary ECAS 3 rd Periodic Activity Report; Publishable summary Grant Agreement number: 312088 Project acronym: BENTHIS Project title: Funding Scheme: Collaborative project Project coordination: IMARES, IJmuiden,

More information

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Common Implementation Strategy

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Common Implementation Strategy Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Common Implementation Strategy Good Environmental Status Working Group on Descriptor 3 24-25 April 2012, Paris Title: Statement on the Definition of MSFD Descriptor

More information

The economic implications of changing regulations for deep sea fishing: UK case study

The economic implications of changing regulations for deep sea fishing: UK case study The economic implications of changing regulations for deep sea fishing: UK case study Stephen Mangi, Andrew Kenny, Lisa Readdy, Paulette Posen, Ana Ribeiro-Santos, Francis Neat and Finlay Burns Mangi et

More information

FANTARED 2. A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost at sea

FANTARED 2. A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost at sea FANTARED 2 A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost at sea Abstract This note describes a large scale, systematic study of ghost fishing in Europe under EC contract

More information

Falmouth and St.Austell pspa bird bycatch analysis report year

Falmouth and St.Austell pspa bird bycatch analysis report year Natural England Commissioned Report NECR231 Falmouth and St.Austell pspa bird bycatch analysis report year 1-2014 First published 20 April 2017 www.gov.uk/natural-england Foreword Natural England commission

More information

Potential Economic Repercussions of a Discards Ban in EU Fisheries

Potential Economic Repercussions of a Discards Ban in EU Fisheries Potential Economic Repercussions of a Discards Ban in EU Fisheries Presented to: Wakefield Symposium Anchorage Alaska Presented by: John Anderson Rod Cappell Graeme Macfadyen Gordon Gislason May 2014 1

More information

5. purse seines 3 000

5. purse seines 3 000 Sea Bass Q and A Latest News What have the 28 Member States decided on 2 July? The EU has today taken another step to protect sea bass. The 28 EU member states agreed to the Commission's proposal to increase

More information

Trawl fishery management of Eastern Arabian Sea

Trawl fishery management of Eastern Arabian Sea Trawl fishery management of Eastern Arabian Sea Dr. A.P.Dineshbabu, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, India Existing management practices Seasonal closure of fishery: The regulations for closed

More information

Angling Trust Save Our Sea Bass Bass Position Statement 2018

Angling Trust Save Our Sea Bass Bass Position Statement 2018 Angling Trust Save Our Sea Bass Bass Position Statement 2018 Background Up until the 1980s, sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) which are present in the central and southern North Sea, Irish Sea, English Channel,

More information

T H E A R E A I N VO LV E D

T H E A R E A I N VO LV E D SEABED DREDGING: THE AREA INVOLVED In the past thirty years the UK marine aggregate industry has become a major supplier of sand and gravel for the UK and European construction industries and domestic

More information

Regional Logbook Best Practices Guidelines: Module 4, 5 and 6: Daily Catch Reporting, Biological Data, Socio-economic Data

Regional Logbook Best Practices Guidelines: Module 4, 5 and 6: Daily Catch Reporting, Biological Data, Socio-economic Data Regional Logbook Best Practices Guidelines: Module 4, 5 and 6: Daily Catch Reporting, Biological Data, Socio-economic Data Nancie Cummings (nancie.cummijgs@noaa.gov) Yann Laurent (yann.laurent@fao.org)

More information

DSBG Findings Helping Fishermen and Policy Makers Explore the Economics of Deep Set Buoy Gear in the West Coast Swordfish Fishery

DSBG Findings Helping Fishermen and Policy Makers Explore the Economics of Deep Set Buoy Gear in the West Coast Swordfish Fishery June 2016 DSBG Findings Helping Fishermen and Policy Makers Explore the Economics of Deep Set Buoy Gear in the West Coast Swordfish Fishery Photos courtesy of The Pew Charitable Trusts Developed by Cap

More information

AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY. A transparent and reliable hull and propeller performance standard. Submitted by Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC)

AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY. A transparent and reliable hull and propeller performance standard. Submitted by Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) E MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE 63rd session Agenda item 4 MEPC 63/4/8 23 December 2011 Original: ENGLISH AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY A transparent and reliable hull and propeller performance

More information

SA New Trial Artificial Reef Project

SA New Trial Artificial Reef Project BACKGROUND PAPER SA New Trial Artificial Reef Project Development of options for the trial artificial reef 1. Summary CONTENTS Each year, an estimated 236,000 South Australians participate in recreational

More information

Modelling historical distribution of. trawling effort. British steam trawlers in the North Sea

Modelling historical distribution of. trawling effort. British steam trawlers in the North Sea Modelling historical distribution of trawling effort British steam trawlers in the North Sea Motivation Why study fleet dynamics? North Sea: dramatic changes fish abundance For understanding, not enough

More information

11th Meeting of the Science Working Group. Lima, Peru, October SWG-11-12a. New Zealand SPRFMO Observer Implementation Report for 2011

11th Meeting of the Science Working Group. Lima, Peru, October SWG-11-12a. New Zealand SPRFMO Observer Implementation Report for 2011 11th Meeting of the Science Working Group Lima, Peru, 15-19 October 2012 New Zealand SPRFMO Observer Implementation Report for 2011 Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand This report constitutes

More information

MOVING TO RIGHTS BASED MANAGEMENT: GREEN-LIPPED MUSSEL CASE STUDY. Martin Workman, Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand,

MOVING TO RIGHTS BASED MANAGEMENT: GREEN-LIPPED MUSSEL CASE STUDY. Martin Workman, Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand, MOVING TO RIGHTS BASED MANAGEMENT: GREEN-LIPPED MUSSEL CASE STUDY Martin Workman, Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand, workmanm@fish.govt.nz ABSTRACT The strategic direction of fisheries management in New

More information

IOTC Agreement Article X. Report of Implementation for the year 2016

IOTC Agreement Article X. Report of Implementation for the year 2016 IOTC Agreement Article X Report of Implementation for the year 2016 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE REPORT 17 MARCH 2017 Reporting CPC: MALAYSIA Date of submission: 28/02/2017 Please NOTE: this document

More information

Conservation Services Programme Project MIT : Protected species bycatch media

Conservation Services Programme Project MIT : Protected species bycatch media Conservation Services Programme Project MIT2016-01: Protected species bycatch media Annual Report J. P. Pierre johanna@jpec.co.nz September 2017 Executive summary The objectives of Conservation Services

More information

PERSONALISED TRAVEL PLANNING IN MIDLETON, COUNTY CORK

PERSONALISED TRAVEL PLANNING IN MIDLETON, COUNTY CORK PERSONALISED TRAVEL PLANNING IN MIDLETON, COUNTY CORK Elaine Brick Principal Transport Planner AECOM Abstract Smarter Travel funding was awarded to the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation

More information

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Sea Turtle Mitigation Plan (TMP)

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Sea Turtle Mitigation Plan (TMP) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE FIFTH REGULAR SESSION 10-21 August 2009 Port Vila, Vanuatu Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Sea Turtle Mitigation Plan (TMP) WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-IP-15 Australian Government Department

More information

AGGREGATE DREDGING AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

AGGREGATE DREDGING AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AGGREGATE DREDGING AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT The marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund ( marine ALSF ) programme represents one of the most substantial investments in UK marine research. The research

More information

2018 COM Doc. No. PA4_810 / 2018 November 7, 2018 (11:44 AM)

2018 COM Doc. No. PA4_810 / 2018 November 7, 2018 (11:44 AM) EXPLANATORY NOTE FOR A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT TO ESTABLISH THE FOUNDATION FOR REBUILDING PROGRAMS FOR BLUE MARLIN AND WHITE MARLIN/SPEARFISH Proposal submitted by United States Page 1 of 6 Original:

More information

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/11/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-09960, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF

More information

A reformed CFP needs to be based on sustainability, and use the principle of caution

A reformed CFP needs to be based on sustainability, and use the principle of caution Response from the North-Norwegian county councils of Troms and Nordland to the EU Commission s Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Introduction Troms and Nordland are two coastal

More information

Whiting Electronic Monitoring Program Heather Mann, Midwater Trawlers Cooperative (541)

Whiting Electronic Monitoring Program Heather Mann, Midwater Trawlers Cooperative (541) Whiting Electronic Monitoring Program Heather Mann, Midwater Trawlers Cooperative heathermunromann@gmail.com (541) 272-4544 May 15, 2018 Under an Exempted Fishing Permit sponsored by Midwater Trawlers

More information

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REPORT ON HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES (HMS) ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REPORT ON HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES (HMS) ACTIVITIES Agenda Item J.1.a NMFS Report 1 March 2019 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REPORT ON HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES (HMS) ACTIVITIES Deep-set Buoy Gear (DSBG) Authorization and National Environmental

More information

How illegal discarding. failing EU fisheries. and citizens. How illegal discarding in. fisheries and citizens. Executive summary

How illegal discarding. failing EU fisheries. and citizens. How illegal discarding in. fisheries and citizens. Executive summary THROWN Thrown Away AWAY How illegal discarding in in the the Baltic Baltic Sea is Sea failing is EU fisheries and citizens How illegal discarding failing EU fisheries Executive summary and citizens Rebecca

More information

NZ s Fishery Management Framework The Fisheries Act 1996 & Spatial Management Tools

NZ s Fishery Management Framework The Fisheries Act 1996 & Spatial Management Tools NZ s Fishery Management Framework The Fisheries Act 1996 & Spatial Management Tools Inshore Fisheries Management 24 November 2014 www.mpi.govt.nz www.mpi.govt.nz 1 Brief outline 1. Historical context resources

More information

Socioeconomic Profile and Spatial Analysis of Fisheries in the three central California National Marine Sanctuaries

Socioeconomic Profile and Spatial Analysis of Fisheries in the three central California National Marine Sanctuaries Socioeconomic Profile and Spatial Analysis of Fisheries in the three central California National Marine Sanctuaries Overview and Assessment of CDFG Fisheries Data for use in the Joint Management Plan Review

More information

REC.CM-GFCM/40/2016/4

REC.CM-GFCM/40/2016/4 REC.CM-GFCM/40/2016/4 establishing a multiannual management plan for the fisheries exploiting European hake and deep-water rose shrimp in the Strait of Sicily (GSA 12 to 16) The General Fisheries Commission

More information

Fisheries data collection of Thai oversea fishing fleet

Fisheries data collection of Thai oversea fishing fleet Fisheries data collection of Thai oversea fishing fleet Pattira Lirdwitayaprasit* Aekkarat Wongkeaw and Prasit Luesrithawornsin Oversea Fisheries and Transshipment Control Division, Department of Fisheries,

More information

RESEARCH Massachusetts Recreational Boater Survey. Project Summary

RESEARCH Massachusetts Recreational Boater Survey. Project Summary Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning RESEARCH Project Summary 2010 Massachusetts Recreational Boater Survey The 2010 Massachusetts Recreational Boater Survey gathered spatial and economic data relating

More information

GeoCrust 2.0 a Geographical Information System for Monitoring the Portuguese Crustacean Trawl Fishery using VMS, Landings and Logbooks Data

GeoCrust 2.0 a Geographical Information System for Monitoring the Portuguese Crustacean Trawl Fishery using VMS, Landings and Logbooks Data FAO - Marine Resources Department (FIRM) GeoCrust 2.0 a Geographical Information System for Monitoring the Portuguese Crustacean Trawl Fishery using VMS, Landings and Logbooks Data Manuel Afonso-Dias and

More information

Shropshire Cricket Board Cricket Policy

Shropshire Cricket Board Cricket Policy Cricket Policy 1. Background SCB exists as a limited company with charitable status with objectives to: Promote, encourage and support cricket within the county of Shropshire with due reference to the

More information

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel) Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions Published 30 June 2016 Version 2: 15 May 2017 5.3.51 Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel) ICES stock advice ICES advises

More information

Planning for tennis in your Local Government Area. A resource from Tennis Australia

Planning for tennis in your Local Government Area. A resource from Tennis Australia Planning for tennis in your Local Government Area A resource from Tennis Australia Part 1 July 2016 ABOUT THIS RESOURCE This resource forms part of Tennis Australia's Local Government Engagement Program.

More information

NMFS and External Partner Data Uses, Strengths/Weaknesses of Existing System, and Future Characteristics

NMFS and External Partner Data Uses, Strengths/Weaknesses of Existing System, and Future Characteristics NMFS and External Partner Data Uses, Strengths/Weaknesses of Existing System, and Future Characteristics Holly McBride Data Management Systems Northeast Fisheries Science Center Doug Christel Sustainable

More information

Coastal and marine recreation in New England is ingrained in the region s economic and

Coastal and marine recreation in New England is ingrained in the region s economic and RECREATION Coastal and marine recreation in New England is ingrained in the region s economic and social fabric. Recreation on the ocean and coast includes many of New Englanders most time-honored and

More information

Prepared by Australia

Prepared by Australia SIXTH REGULAR SESSION Papeete, Tahiti, French Polynesia 7-11 December 2009 AUSTRALIA REVISED DRAFT EASTERN TUNA AND BILLFISH FISHERY SEA TURTLE MITIGATION PLAN (TMP) WCPFC6-2009/IP16 16 th November 2009

More information

Aequipecten opercularis fishery management plan. December 2009

Aequipecten opercularis fishery management plan. December 2009 Aequipecten opercularis fishery management plan December 2009 1. BACKGROUND The queen scallop, Aequipecten opercularis, fishery prosecuted around the Isle of Man was entered for assessment against MSC

More information

DRAFT REPORT. EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament 2017/2120(INI)

DRAFT REPORT. EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament 2017/2120(INI) European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Fisheries 2017/2120(INI) 19.12.2017 DRAFT REPORT on the state of play of recreational fisheries in the European Union (2017/2120(INI)) Committee on Fisheries

More information

Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Final Report Final Report (using 2013

Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Final Report Final Report (using 2013 Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Final Report Final Report (using 2013 baseline) Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment (EIA)

More information

Northeast Atlantic Mackerel, Handlines

Northeast Atlantic Mackerel, Handlines Northeast Atlantic Mackerel, Handlines Northeast Atlantic Mackerel, Handlines Content last updated 3rd Apr 2017 Stock: Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1 7 and 14, and in divisions 8.a e and 9.a

More information

Briefing on the IWC s Conservation Committee

Briefing on the IWC s Conservation Committee Briefing on the IWC s Conservation Committee 1 June 2005 Taking the IWC Conservation Committee forward At its 55 th Annual Meeting in 2003, the International Whaling Commission voted to establish a Conservation

More information

Monitoring Fishery Catch to Assist Scientific Stock Assessments in Scottish Inshore Fisheries

Monitoring Fishery Catch to Assist Scientific Stock Assessments in Scottish Inshore Fisheries Monitoring Fishery Catch to Assist Scientific Stock Assessments in Scottish Inshore Fisheries and Identifying Catch Composition to Improve Scottish Inshore Fisheries Management using Technology to Enable

More information

NFR 8. Tuna fisheries in French Polynesia in SCTB16 Working Paper

NFR 8. Tuna fisheries in French Polynesia in SCTB16 Working Paper SCTB16 Working Paper NFR 8 Tuna fisheries in French Polynesia in 2002 Christophe Misselis Fisheries Department (Service de la Pêche) Tahiti, French Polynesia June 2003 Tuna fisheries in French Polynesia

More information

Date: 21 March General observations:

Date: 21 March General observations: Proposal for a LDAC submission to the Commission on the minimum terms and condition for fisheries access within South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC) member states jurisdiction. Date: 21

More information

5.1 BELGIUM. Short description of the national fleet. Fleet capacity. Fleet structure. Employment. Effort. Production

5.1 BELGIUM. Short description of the national fleet. Fleet capacity. Fleet structure. Employment. Effort. Production 5.1 BELGIUM Short description of the national fleet Fleet capacity The Belgian national fleet capacity continued to decline with a total of 79 vessels in 2015 (6 of which were inactive), a combined gross

More information

The Transformation Status of Marine Commercial Fisheries. and Marine Aquaculture in South Africa

The Transformation Status of Marine Commercial Fisheries. and Marine Aquaculture in South Africa The Transformation Status of Marine Commercial Fisheries and Marine Aquaculture in South Africa Introduction Fishing rights have always been a contentious issue. In Offshore fisheries such as the demersal

More information

3.4.3 Advice June Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod)

3.4.3 Advice June Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod) 3.4.3 Advice June 2013 ECOREGION STOCK Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod) Advice for 2014 ICES advises on the basis of the Norwegian rebuilding plan,

More information

Advice October 2014 Version 2, December-2014

Advice October 2014 Version 2, December-2014 5.3.29.11 Advice October 2014 Version 2, December-2014 ECOREGION STOCK Celtic Sea and west of Scotland Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in Divisions VIId, e (English Channel) Advice for 2015 and 2016 ICES

More information

FISHERY BY-PRODUCT REPORT

FISHERY BY-PRODUCT REPORT FISHERY BY-PRODUCT REPORT IFFO GLOBAL STANDARD FOR RESPONSIBLE SUPPLY OF FISHMEAL AND FISH OIL FISHERY By-Product: LOCATION: King Scallop (Pecten maximus) UK & Ireland-Ices Area IVa-c, VI a, VIIa,b,d-h,j2

More information

Review of Taiwan s SBT Fishery of 2005/2006

Review of Taiwan s SBT Fishery of 2005/2006 CCSBT-CC/0710/SBT Fisheries-Taiwan CCSBT-EC/0710/SBT Fisheries-Taiwan Review of Taiwan s SBT Fishery of 2005/2006 1. INTRODUCTION Taiwan has been fishing for southern bluefin tuna (SBT) since 1970s. The

More information

STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 18-09

STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 18-09 STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 18-09 on a fishing effort regime for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea 18-22 June 2018, Arona, Italy DG MARE focal point: Amanda Perez Perera Chair: Clara

More information

Advice June 2014

Advice June 2014 5.3.23 Advice June 2014 ECOREGION STOCK Celtic Sea and West of Scotland Plaice in Division VIIa (Irish Sea) Advice for 2015 Based on ICES approach to data-limited stocks, ICES advises that catches should

More information

Turning the tide for low impact fisheries. Ways to improve the CFP reform proposal

Turning the tide for low impact fisheries. Ways to improve the CFP reform proposal Turning the tide for low impact fisheries Ways to improve the CFP reform proposal urning the tide Promoting low impact fisheries All fisheries have an impact on the marine environment, both directly on

More information

OR DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY:

OR DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY: E 55 OR DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY: an economic analysis of productivity and profitability David S. Liao Joe B. Stevens OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM Publication no. ORESU-T-75-005 AGRICULTURAL

More information

IFFO RS V2.0 FISHERY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TEMPLATE REPORT. Fishery Under Assessment. Date. Assessor

IFFO RS V2.0 FISHERY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TEMPLATE REPORT. Fishery Under Assessment. Date. Assessor IFFO RS V2.0 FISHERY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TEMPLATE REPORT Fishery Under Assessment Date Assessor IFFO RS Ltd, Unit C, Printworks, 22 Amelia Street, London, SE17 3BZ, United Kingdom Application details

More information

Draft Discussion Document. May 27, 2016

Draft Discussion Document. May 27, 2016 Draft Discussion Document May 27, 2016 Action to consider modifications to the sub-acl of GB haddock allocated to the Atlantic herring fishery and associated accountability measures AP/ CMTE Input 1. Review

More information

Using Fishermen s Expertise to Improve Fisheries Management

Using Fishermen s Expertise to Improve Fisheries Management Using Fishermen s Expertise to Improve Fisheries Management Patty L. Clayton, University of Aberdeen, Dept. of Land Economy Abstract. Given the fragile nature of fish stocks in the North Sea, it is of

More information

A century of change in a marine fish assemblage. Martin Genner

A century of change in a marine fish assemblage. Martin Genner A century of change in a marine fish assemblage Martin Genner School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth Demersal fishes of the English Channel

More information

Fisheries Unit Welsh Government Rhodfa Padarn Llanbadarn Fawr Aberystwyth SY23 3UR 15 November 2013

Fisheries Unit Welsh Government Rhodfa Padarn Llanbadarn Fawr Aberystwyth SY23 3UR 15 November 2013 Fisheries Unit Welsh Government Rhodfa Padarn Llanbadarn Fawr Aberystwyth SY23 3UR 15 November 2013 Re: Natural Resources Wales response to Welsh Government s consultation Further Review of the Exceptions

More information

APPENDIX 2 PROPOSAL FOR REPLACEMENT FOR POOLE (DOLPHIN) LEISURE CENTRE FINAL SPECIFICATION

APPENDIX 2 PROPOSAL FOR REPLACEMENT FOR POOLE (DOLPHIN) LEISURE CENTRE FINAL SPECIFICATION APPENDIX 2 PROPOSAL FOR REPLACEMENT FOR POOLE (DOLPHIN) LEISURE CENTRE FINAL SPECIFICATION 1 PURPOSE 1.1 To provide the following information and supporting evidence for the Member decision (reference

More information

Management advisory for the Bay of Bengal hilsa fishery June 2012

Management advisory for the Bay of Bengal hilsa fishery June 2012 Page1 Management advisory for the Bay of Bengal hilsa fishery June 2012 What is the BOBLME RFMAC The BOBLME Project is supporting countries to implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management of

More information

Conservation Limits and Management Targets

Conservation Limits and Management Targets Conservation Limits and Management Targets Setting conservation limits The use of conservation limits (CLs) in England and Wales (E&W) has developed in line with the requirement of ICES and NASCO to set

More information

Energy Consumption of Small Scale Fishing Vessel Operations in Indonesia A Case Study in Palabuhanratu, Indonesia

Energy Consumption of Small Scale Fishing Vessel Operations in Indonesia A Case Study in Palabuhanratu, Indonesia Energy Consumption of Small Scale Fishing Vessel Operations in Indonesia A Case Study in Palabuhanratu, Indonesia Vita R KURNIAWATI Richard W BIRMINGHAM Alan J MURPHY School of Marine Science and Technology

More information

Onshore management of unwanted catch

Onshore management of unwanted catch Onshore management of unwanted catch Update and discussion Discard Action Group, 25 October 2016 Work to date Defra hosted a cross- industry taskforce in 2014 & 2015 looking at challenges and potential

More information

Can trawling effort be identified from satellite-based VMS data?

Can trawling effort be identified from satellite-based VMS data? Not to be cited without prior reference to the author International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Theme session N: Technologies for monitoring fishing activities and observing catch Can trawling

More information

Structural Adjustment in Australia s South East Trawl Fishery. Frank Meere

Structural Adjustment in Australia s South East Trawl Fishery. Frank Meere Structural Adjustment in Australia s South East Trawl Fishery Frank Meere 1 What are we talking about? 2 Australian fisheries 3 The South East Trawl Fishery 4 What am I going to talk about? Some background

More information

Possible Management Approaches to Address Historical Fisheries

Possible Management Approaches to Address Historical Fisheries New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 PHONE 978 465 0492 FAX 978 465 3116 John Pappalardo, Chairman Paul J. Howard, Executive Director Possible Management

More information