Conditio. Authors: Project Seafish. Head office

Cefas Report C6115 Economic Impact Assessment and Alternative Options Appraisal of European Commission Proposals for Specific Conditions to Fishing for Deep Sea Fish Stocks Project Seafish Authors: SC Mangi, A Kenny, L Readdy, P Posen and A Santos Issue date: 30 July 2014

Economicc Impact Assessment and Alternativee Options Appraisal of European Commission Proposals for Specific Conditio ons to Fishing for Deep Sea Fish Stocks Project Seafish Cefas Contract Number: C61155 Authors: SC Mangi, A Kenny, L Readdy, P Posen and A Santos Issue date: 09 June 2014 Head office Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK Tel +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax +44 (0) 1502 511 3865 www.cefas. defra.gov.uk Cefas is an executive agency of Defra Project Seafish Page i

Executive Summary The European Commission has published proposals for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing specific conditions relating to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. The key aspects of the EC proposal is the introduction of permits or authorisations so as to restrict the number of vessels allowed to catch deep sea species, and the prohibition of bottom trawling and fishing by bottom set gillnets on deep sea stocks two years after the new Regulation enters into force. Several species (including ling, tusk and conger eel) that are found in the catch composition of many UK vessels, some of which fish in shallow waters, are listed as deep sea species in the Commission proposal. We have conducted an economic impact assessment and an assessment of alternative options to inform the on-going debate to develop the EC proposal, and to assist the UK fishing industry and Government in making best decisions on how to manage deep sea fish stocks in the interests of the UK. Results (rounded off to the nearest 5) indicate that enforcing the EC proposal as originally drafted results in a number of implications for the UK fleet including: Under the proposal, a significant number of UK vessels would be adversely affected. Because of the proposed changes to the list of species defined as being deep sea species, and new definition for what constitutes a vessel targeting deep sea species, a total of around 695 UK fishing vessels would need an authorisation or permit to fish for deep sea species, but would be unable to get one because it would exceed the capacity limit. The EIA of these changes from the status quo reveals that in the short term, landings would decrease by around 6,540 tonnes (4,985 tonnes from the Scottish fleet), reducing gross value added by around 3.3 million. To illustrate the scale of this impact, these 695 vessels would generate lower revenues which in turn would likely reduce crew wages. On average this could mean a wage reduction of around 13% or 3,458 per crew member, with average annual wages decreasing from 27,399 to 23,941. Alternatively, if average earnings per crew member were to be maintained, around 160 crew members would need to exit the fleet. The reductions in UK fleet landings, employment and gross value added due to the implementation of the EC proposal would also directly affect onshore jobs and Project Seafish Page 1

income especially at the landing ports where a large proportion of the catch of deep sea species is landed such as Kinlochbervie, Peterhead and Lerwick. If catches of ling and conger eel are excluded from the proposed species list however, the number of vessels meeting the restriction criteria is similar to those meeting the restriction criteria under the existing regulation. Under this scenario, 85 UK vessels would be affected in the short term, leading to a reduction of about 1,530 tonnes of landings and a decrease in gross value added of around 0.5 million. Assuming average earnings per crew member were to be maintained; around 26 crew members would need to exit the fleet. Another aspect of the Commission proposals was to ban bottom trawling and bottom set gillnets. The economic impact assessment of the gear ban only (without permit limitation) revealed that around 585 (180 from Scottish fleet) vessels from the UK fleet would be affected. In the short term, there would be a reduction of 4,837 tonnes or 10% of total landings; affecting 277 crew jobs and reducing gross value added by 3.4 million. On average this would mean a wage reduction for each crew of 2,829 with average annual wages falling from 27,930 to 25,101. The alternative options assessment provides mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the EC proposal whilst at the same time providing more effective protection of deep sea Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). The main results indicate that: At depths of 400 metres and greater there is a significant increase in the proportion of deep sea species caught per trawl. Such a depth limit when applied to the North East Atlantic region could be used to define when a fishery is entially targeting deep sea species. This would essentially define a spatial limit where the proposal may be applied and enforced. Setting a 400 metre depth rule for fishing for deep sea species would be very similar to amending the regulation by excluding ling and conger eel from the list of deep sea species. This is because the majority of catches of these two species are at depths of less than 400 m. From an economic perspective, setting a depth rule at 400 metres would result in 40 UK vessels being affected by the EC proposal (i.e. this number of vessels would fall out-with the capacity limit based on the available 2011 catch and landing statistics) and thereby reducing landings by about 380 tonnes per year. This would lead to a reduction in gross value added by around 0.3 million. Assuming average earnings per crew member were to be maintained; around 9 crew members would need to exit the fleet. Project Seafish Page 2

Designating core areas for deep sea fishing (corresponding to 90% of the fishing effort) at depths >400 metres minimises the risk of further impacts of bottom fishing on deep sea VMEs, whilst at the same time maintaining access to deep sea stocks. Under the proposed depth and core fishing area approach, the impact of the EC proposal would essentially be zero, that is, on average no vessels (using the status quo capacity baseline) would be impacted by the proposal as a result of applying these two mitigation criteria. In summary, the key impacts of the EC proposal are: Scenario Options Change in landings, tonnes Change in crew wages, % Change in GVA, million UK fleet Scottish fleet UK fleet Scottish fleet UK fleet Scottish fleet Current EC Permit limitation and gear ban 6536 4984 13 8 3.3 2.5 proposal Current proposal excluding ling 1526 789 7 5 0.5 0.5 and conger eel Gear ban Combination of 10% catch and 4837 3475 10 4 3.4 2.6 only 100kg landings Proposal set at 100kg of landings 4807 3475 6 4 3.3 2.6 Proposal set at 10% of catch 4269 3129 14 8 2.9 2.3 Alternative options Setting a 400 m depth rule for fishing for deep sea stocks Designating an area for deep sea fishing at the 90% of effort beyond 400 m 377 12 0.34 47 9 0.04 We have based our analyses on the original EC text provided in the EC COM (2012) 371 Final. However, we understand that several discussions / meetings have been held since this study was first commissioned to refine the EC proposal (above) to minimise its impact on fishing vessels not targeting deep sea species. For example, the European Parliament s 1 st reading plenary vote on 10 December 2013 on this proposal included the removal of ling, conger eel and tusk from the species list. Whilst we included a scenario which excludes ling and conger eel in anticipation of such a proposal amendment, we did not extend this to tusk as this was not known at the time of our analysis. However, the analysis suggests that the inclusion of tusk in this analysis is not likely to significantly alter the results. Project Seafish Page 3

Table of contents Executive Summary... 1 Table of contents... 4 1 Introduction... 5 2 Evidence base... 7 3 Analysis of economic impacts... 12 3.1. Impact of the EC proposal (EC COM (2012) 371 Final)... 12 3.2 Economic impacts on landing ports... 14 3.3 Economic impacts of a gear ban only (bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets)... 14 4 Analysis of mitigation options... 18 4.1 Depth related criteria to define fisheries targeting deep sea species... 18 4.1.1 Scottish survey data... 20 4.1.2 UK fisheries landings and catch data... 23 4.1.3 Impact of a depth criterion on the proposed regulation... 25 4.2 Spatial criteria to protect sea floor VME... 28 4.2.1 Analysis of UK fishing fleet VMS data... 30 4.2.2 Impact of a spatial criterion on the proposed regulation... 32 4.3 Impact of applying both spatial and depth related criteria... 35 5 Effects of a landings obligation on the EC proposal... 36 6 Summary and conclusions... 37 References... 39 Annexes... 41 Project Seafish Page 4

1 Introduction Deep sea fish stocks are generally slow-growing and long-lived, which makes them particularly vulnerable to fishing activity. Their habitats and ecosystems are largely unknown and this fragile environment is regarded as slow to recover once damaged. As a result, the EC has proposed new measures to regulate fishing for deep sea species in the North-East Atlantic. At the heart of these proposals is the need to ensure that deep sea species are fished sustainably, that unwanted by-catches are minimised, and the impact on fragile deep sea habitats is reduced. To this end, the EC has proposed to reinforce the licensing system and a gradual phase-out of fishing gears that specifically target deep sea species, such as bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets. Before putting these proposals forward, the Commission conducted a regulatory impact assessment focussing on five policy options, namely to: (a) Continue the current regime amending it only by periodic updates; (b) Ban fishing for deep-sea species altogether, (c) Scale the regime down to being a tool for transposing measures adopted in NEAFC (North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) and applying those measures also in European Union waters; (d) Phase out the most harmful fishing gears targeting deep-sea species; and (e) Introduce management approaches developed for bottom fishing in high sea areas of EU waters. The first three policy options (a-c) were not considered further because they were considered not representing meaningful management approaches, with disadvantages largely outweighing advantages (EC COM 371 final). Option D was retained since it represents the most effective and simplest instrument to implement, while option (e) would result in adding extensive regulatory requirements and their inherent constraints to investment to a fishery of relatively low economic value. There was no further justification given for this decision in the proposal text, therefore the present study was commissioned by SEAFISH to provide a more robust evidence base to support the decision making process and the drafting of an amended EC text. The aim of this study was therefore to conduct an economic impact assessment and an assessment of alternative options to inform the on-going debate to develop the EC proposal to regulate deep sea fishing activities and to assist the UK fishing industry and Government in making best decisions on how to manage deep sea fish stocks in the interests of the UK. Project Seafish Page 5

Specifically, we set out to: Describe the recent status quo on the structural, operational and economic performance of UK vessels that have landed deep sea species as defined by the EC proposal. Provide outline estimates of the changes in activity and revenues of the fishery and associated onshore sectors, due to the limitation of licenses permitting the catch of deep sea species, and prohibition of bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets for those vessels targeting deep sea species as defined by the EC proposal. Provide outline estimates of the changes in activity and revenues of the deep sea fishery and associated onshore sectors for variations to the EC proposal for those vessels targeting deep sea species; including a gear ban only (bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets) Conduct an appraisal of alternative options including depth, spatial limits to reduce the risk of impacts to deep sea vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME) and amendments to the species list covered by the proposals. This study used input from key stakeholders including Defra, Marine Scotland, Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Seafish and the Scottish Whitefish Producers Association through a project advisory group. Our economic impact assessment has also followed published guidelines for undertaking impact assessments by the UK treasury and the Seafish Best Practice Guidance for undertaking assessments of financial and economic impacts on fisheries. Project Seafish Page 6

2 Evidence base We have sourced extensive data sets not previously utilised to assess the impacts and possible alternative options associated with the EC proposals of European Parliament and the Council which will ultimately repeal the Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. In particular, six main datasets have been used: The IFISH database which contains details of landings, ports landed, gear types used and other parameters for specific vessels that catch and land deep sea stocks. The database includes details of all landings from UK registered vessels and landings into the UK from non UK registered vessels. Satellite based Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data, which provides information of a vessels position. VMS data have been available for monitoring purposes for all vessels 24 m long from January 2000; 15 m long from January 2005 and 12 m from January 2012. Seafish fleet costs and earnings database which contains financial, economic and operational performance indicators for UK fleet segments. Scottish discards observer data. English discards observer data. Scottish trawl survey data as part of the coordinated International Bottom Trawl Surveys (IBTS), targeting the UK continental shelf and deep water slope areas to the northwest of Scotland. The landings and catch information for vessels that land fish from deep sea stocks into UK ports and UK registered vessels that land fish into foreign ports were extracted from the IFISH database and summed for each fishing trip. The data from both the English and Scottish observer databases of commercial catches were raised against landings for all trips so as to estimate the total catches for all trips. Only vessels landing any number or mix of deep sea species as defined by the list of species in the EC proposal were selected and entered into a master dataset which was then used to progress the analyses for all the tasks in the present study, including different scenarios of deep sea species (see below). For data protection purposes all vessel numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5 and where numbers are less than 5, the vessel number is denoted by +. Three separate deep sea species scenarios were considered, namely: Species that are within the present regulation (Scenario 1); Species that are within the proposed regulation (Scenario 2); and Project Seafish Page 7

Species that are within the proposed regulation, with the exclusion of ling (Molva molva) and conger eel (Conger conger) (Scenario 3). These three species scenarios were then analysed based on the fishing authorisations detailed in Chapter II of the EC proposal with annual landings of deep sea species 10 tonnes used to define the capacity ceiling, and landings thresholds set at 100 kg and/or 10% of the overall catch weight of deep sea species per trip used to define the number of vessels that would require an authorisation to target deep sea species (as defined by the relevant species list). It was not possible to separate the landings into either deep sea species that were targeted or simply landed as by-catch. Discards, estimated through the English and Scottish discards observer programmes were included where available, to compute the total catch for each trip. Landings from trips that met the 100 kg landed and/or 10% catch thresholds were therefore treated as the total targeted landings with no bycatch distinction. The indicator fields included in the master dataset and used in the assessment are shown in Table 1. Table 1 1 : Indicator fields that were created based on the species scenarios and fishing authorisations detailed in the EC proposal. Fields Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Species Regulation Proposal Proposal_excl 10 tonnes Capacity_reg Capacity_prop Capacity_prop_excl 100 kg Reg_100kg Prop_100kg Prop_excl_100kg 10 % Per_reg_id Per_prop_id Per_prop_excl_id 1 Permit limitations and the ban on towed gears are the main measures contained in the EC proposal that are most likely to have a considerable economic impact on UK vessels. Each trip on the master data set was therefore identified as either having been conducted by a vessel that holds a permit to land deep sea species (DSS) or not. This was completed using information held by the MMO which lists the UK vessels that have either held, or currently hold, permits to land DSS from 2003. Similarly, fishing trips that were conducted by vessels using bottom trawling gear (beam trawls, Nephrops trawls, bottom otter trawls, otter twin trawls, bottom pair trawls) and bottom set gill nets were identified in the master data set. 1 Where capacity_reg refers to the vessel being permitted under regulation capacity, capacity_prop refers to the vessel being permitted under the EC proposal capacity, while capacity_prop_excl refers to the vessel being permitted under the EC proposal excluding ling and conger eel. The other variables refer to variations on the regulation, proposal and proposal excluding ling and conger based on the two landings thresholds of 100 kg and 10 %. Project Seafish Page 8

Using the Seafish fleet costs and earnings database, the financial, economic and operational performance for most UK vessels between 2009 and 2011 were obtained and added to the master dataset. The parameters used include the number of days at sea, vessel length, number of crew, proportion of deep sea species in landings and gross value added. The data were analysed and details of the structure (total number of vessels, vessel lengths, number of crew), operational (days at sea, landings, total catch) and economic performance (gross value added) for UK, Scottish and non UK registered vessels that have caught DSS were tabulated. These indicators are presented for vessels that meet the criteria based on the regulation, proposal and proposal excluding ling and conger eel. Focusing on the definition of the capacity ceiling for deep sea permits, the existing EC regulation states that Member States shall calculate the aggregate power and the aggregate volume of its vessels which, in any one of the years 1998, 1999 or 2000, have landed more than 10 tonnes of any mixture of the deep-sea species This criteria was used to calculate the number of vessels that define the capacity ceiling and therefore meet the EC regulation except we used data for the year 2000 as it was the only year for which data was available. In order to calculate the number of vessels meeting the criteria set out under the proposal, we based the capacity calculation in the same way but used only the two most recent years (2011 and 2012) and taking whichever is the greater. Results indicate that in 2011, ~20 UK registered vessels met the EC regulation criteria for defining the capacity limit, whereas if the proposal was enforced in its current form, then the vessels that would have met the criteria would have been about 100. However, when ling and conger eel are removed from the species list, then the number of vessels that meet the criteria reduces back down to 20 (similar to the number that meet the regulation criteria). This indicates that the inclusion of ling and conger eel in the proposed species list has a disproportionate effect on the number of vessels used to define the total number of fishing permits available (Table 2a). Therefore, if these two species are removed from the proposed deep sea species list, the number of vessels meeting the criteria laid out in the proposal for defining the capacity ceiling is significantly reduced. A high proportion of the UK registered vessels that catch and land deep sea species are from the Scottish fleet. Results indicate that ~10 out of the 20 vessels meeting the criteria under the existing regulation, ~70 out of the 100 vessels meeting the criteria under the EC proposal, and ~15 out of the 20 vessels meeting the criteria under the proposal when ling and conger eel are removed from the species list, are Scottish (Table 2b). Project Seafish Page 9

The number of vessels meeting the criteria based on the regulation, and those when catches of conger eel and ling are excluded spend a similar number of days at sea (around 270 days in 2011), while those that meet the criteria based on the proposal (which include ling and conger) spend less days (220 days per year). This suggests that vessels fishing for ling and conger are smaller vessels fishing nearer to their home ports (Table 2a). Using landings data from 2011, vessels meeting the proposal criteria (excluding ling and conger eel) have landings of about 75 tonnes per vessel. By contrast vessels under the proposal (including ling and conger) have average annual landings of 58 tonnes per vessel. Vessels under the existing regulation, on the other hand, land on average 52 tonnes per vessel. The average length of the vessels under the proposal is significantly less (at 25 metres) compared to the vessels under the existing regulation and proposal excluding ling and conger (at 36 metres - Table 2a). These results show that a higher number of vessels would be included under the proposal. If catches of ling and conger eel are excluded however, the number of vessels in the existing regulation and proposal would be similar. Project Seafish Page 10

Table 2: Average (per vessel) characteristics of UK, Scottish and non UK vessels permitted to land deep sea species into UK ports for each of three species scenarios under the capacity limits set by the regulation, EC proposal and EC proposal with the exclusion of ling and conger eel. EC Regulation EC Proposal EC Proposal excluding ling and conger eel a) All UK 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 vessels 15 25 20 100 100 100 15 25 20 Length, m 34.6 33.7 35.6 26.1 26.6 25.4 34.0 34.1 35.5 Power, kw 1220 1084 1077 662 664 636 1179 1137 1250 Tonnage, GT 671 594 674 299 306 290 645 599 683 Days at sea, # 250 255 265 220 225 220 255 255 270 crew 10 10 10 5 10 5 10 10 10 Total landings, tonnes 1 1620 1091 1657 691 672 740 1702 1251 1748 Deep sea species, tonnes 60 64 52 56 64 58 118 98 75 deep sea species, % 6 8 7 9 11 10 9 9 6 Gross value added, million 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 b) Scottish fleet vessels 10 15 10 80 75 70 10 15 15 Length, m 31.1 30.1 30.0 26.7 26.9 26.8 30.8 30.1 30.6 Power, kw 1100 967 875 688 673 686 1066 967 1115 Tonnage, GT 450 421 401 291 291 296 442 421 446 Days at sea, # 250 270 270 230 235 230 255 270 275 crew 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total landings, tonnes 1 984 829 852 603 601 615 969 829 950 Deep sea species, tonnes 73 81 58 58 73 64 104 110 54 deep sea species, % 8 9 10 9 12 10 10 11 7 Gross value added, 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 c) Non UK vessels 35 25 25 65 40 40 45 25 30 Total landings, tonnes 1 704 710 604 472 529 485 540 622 515 Deep sea species, tonnes 414 423 242 265 298 194 330 391 222 deep sea species, % 51 53 35 49 47 40 54 56 42 1 Total landings per vessel from trips landing deep sea species Project Seafish Page 11

3 Analysis of economic impacts 3.1. Impact of the EC proposal (EC COM (2012) 371 Final) The master dataset was analysed to identify the vessels that would most likely be impacted by capacity restrictions (entially limiting the number of permits) and the banning of bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets. Only vessel trips defined as targeting deep sea species (i.e. with landings 100 kg and catch 10% composed of any mix of deep sea species) were selected. Once the trips of vessels meeting these criteria were selected, the corresponding vessel costs and earnings data were used to compute the change in landings, employment and gross value added based on the EC proposal set against the status quo. It is worth noting that not all the vessels whose trips meet the EC criteria had economic data available. Averages (mean per vessel) were therefore used to illustrate the economic impact of the EC proposal. Given that the proposal will most likely exclude conger eel and possibly ling, the economic impact analysis was completed for the species that are within the proposal, but excluding ling and conger eel (Scenario 3). The initial capacity is to be set based on annual landings greater than 10 tonnes of deep sea species in either of the two years immediately preceding the introduction of the proposed regulation (which ever year is the greater). Analyses were therefore completed using data for 2011 for all UK and Scottish vessels based on all vessels with and without permits and using gear that would be restricted under the proposed phased in gear ban. Results show that if the EC proposal was enforced in its current form, it would directly affect about 695 active UK fishing vessels (~215 vessels from the Scottish fleet) including some that currently have permits and are using bottom trawling and bottom set gill nets (Table 3a). Based on 2011 data, setting the total landings threshold at 100 kg and/or catch at 10% as proposed would in the short term decrease landings of deep sea species of around 6,540 tonnes per year and the ential loss of 160 jobs. This would reduce gross value added by around 3.3 million. In order to illustrate the scale of the impacts, the reduction in crew wages as a result of the reduced earnings was used. The average crew share per vessel (obtained from Seafish costs and earnings data) was divided by the number of crew to estimate the annual wage per crew member. Using the proportion of tonnage of landings that are of deep sea species that would be impacted by the EC proposal, a proportionate reduction in crew wages was computed. The results indicate that the vessels employing these 160 crew members would Project Seafish Page 12

experience reduced earnings with crew wages being reduced on average by 13%. This equates to an average wage reduction of 3,458 for each crew member with average annual wages falling from 27,399 to 23,941 (Table 4a). By contrast if ling and conger eel were removed from the species list, the EC proposal would affect ~85 UK vessels (Table 3b) which equates to 7% or 1,526 tonnes of landings being lost with the ential job losses of ~26 crew members (~20 from Scottish vessels). This would represent a decrease in gross value added of 0.5 million and a wage reduction of 2,494 for each crew member with average annual wages falling from 35,895 to 33,401 (Table 4b). Table 3: Summary of the economic impact assessment of implementing the EC proposal against the status quo based on landings data from 2011. The impact considers the restriction of permits, banning of bottom trawling gear and bottom set gill nets. All UK Scottish fleet a) EC Proposal 2011 2011 vessels 695 215 Landings of deep sea species, tonnes 6,536 4,984 Landings of deep sea species as a proportion of total landings, % 5 7 crew 160 100 Reduction in gross value added, million 3.3 2.5 b) EC Proposal excluding ling and conger eel vessels 85 65 Landings of deep sea species, tonnes 1,526 789 Landings of deep sea species as a proportion of total landings, % 4 4 crew 26 20 Reduction in gross value added, million 0.5 0.5 The vessels impacted by the EC proposal could entially move to other fishing grounds and continue fishing. If this were to happen there will most likely be displacement effects whereby the EC proposals will lead to impacts on other vessels not directly banned or limited by permits. Such impacts have not been assessed in this report. Our analyses assume that for trips affected by the regulation, income from catches of deep sea species is lost. If affected vessels move their effort to other areas however, this may help reduce the ential impact of the EC proposal, but it could also have knock-on effects on other fisheries which we have not calculated in this study. Project Seafish Page 13

Table 4: Summary of the reduction in crew wages as a result of implementing the EC proposal against the status quo based on landings data from 2011. All UK Scottish fleet a) EC proposal 2011 2011 Crew share per vessel, 125,686 211,223 crew per vessel 5 7 Annual wage per crew, 27,399 32,405 Reduction in wages, % 13 8 Reduction in wages, 3,458 2,518 Annual wage due to reduction in landings of DSS, 23,941 29,887 b) EC proposal excluding ling and conger eel Crew share per vessel, 277,675 280,595 crew per vessel 8 8 Annual wage per crew, 35,895 36,095 Reduction in wages, % 7 5 Reduction in wages, 2,494 1,749 Annual wage due to reduction in landings of DSS, 33,401 34,346 3.2 Economic impacts on landing ports There is likely to be direct impacts on the UK ports where a large proportion of the catch of deep sea species is landed (Table 5). Furthermore, a considerable proportion of deep sea species caught by UK vessels are landed at ports outside the UK. The changes in landings, employment and gross value added due to the EC proposal therefore have direct impacts on onshore jobs in ports inside and outside of the UK. It is not clear what the skippers who use bottom trawling gear and bottom set gill nets (that will be banned) would do following such restrictions. However, for the majority of fishermen deep sea species make up only a small fraction of their total landings, but any slight loss in earnings may cause some fishing vessels to go out of business. 3.3 Economic impacts of a gear ban only (bottom trawls and bottomset gillnets) Analyses were performed on the same master dataset compiled for use in this project to assess the economic impacts of banning bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets for the species under Scenario 2 (species defined within the proposal) and Scenario 3 (species defined within the proposal, but excluding ling and conger eel). The corresponding costs and earnings data were computed to assess the change in landings, employment and gross value added based upon applying the restrictions of a per trip landings threshold of 100kg and a 10% of catch for any mix of deep sea species. Project Seafish Page 14

Using catch and landings statistics from 2011, a gear ban (without permit limitation) would affect ~585 vessels in the UK fleet (180 from Scottish fleet) and result in the reduction of 4,837 tonnes or 10% of total landings. This would result in ~277 jobs losses and reduce gross value added by around 3.4 million (Table 6a). The vessels employing these 277 crew members would experience on average reduced earnings of about 10%. This would mean a wage reduction of 2,829 for each crew member with average annual wages falling from 27,930 to 25,101 (Table 7a). Applying a landings threshold of 100kg would affect ~360 vessels (~175 from Scottish fleet) from the UK fleet and affect ~121 crew members. This equates to a reduction of 4,807 tonnes of total landings and a reduction in gross value added of 3.3 million (Table 6b). On the other hand, applying the catch rule of >10%, would entially affect ~410 vessels from the UK fleet which would result in the loss of earnings of 14% for ~232 crew and reduce total landings by 4,269 tonnes (Table 6c). This would mean on average a wage reduction of 3,711 for each crew member with average annual wages falling from 26,693 to 22,982 (Table 7c). Project Seafish Page 15

Table 5: The top 18 landing ports in UK likely to be directly impacted by the EC proposal if implemented.the table shows the tonnage of deep sea species landed at each port in 2011. However, it should be noted that UK vessels also land a considerable proportion of deep sea species into ports outside of UK, but this has not been assessed. Landing port Proposal 10% of catch Proposal 100kg landings Proposal 10% catch excluding ling and conger eel Landings of Landings of Landings of deep Landings of Landings of deep Landings of deep sea deep sea sea species deep sea sea species, deep sea species species as a (tonnes) species as a tonnes species as a (tonnes) proportion proportion of proportion of of total total landings, % total landings, landings, % % Proposal 100kg landings excluding ling and conger eel Landings of deep Landings of deep sea species, tonnes sea species as a proportion of total landings, % 1 Kinlochbervie 748 14 753 13 355 11 359 11 2 Peterhead 727 6 929 3 1 0 23 1 3 Lerwick 624 9 646 8 8 2 25 1 4 Scrabster 398 9 441 7 85 31 89 10 5 Ullapool 138 7 147 7 9 1 12 1 6 Newlyn 178 7 223 4 1 28 1 28 7 Cullivoe 138 10 139 10 0 0 3 0 8 Lochinver 94 9 94 9 12 2 12 2 9 Scalloway and 81 6 86 5 2 0 Isles 10 Fraserburgh 60 3 99 2 3 1 3 1 11 Mallaig 75 8 77 7 4 7 8 2 12 Milford Haven 37 6 54 4 1 8 1 8 13 Macduff 20 10 20 7 11 35 11 16 14 Mevagissey 49 11 44 13 15 Plymouth 25 6 27 2 16 Looe 23 7 21 7 17 Brixham 7 5 22 1 18 Padstow 13 5 13 4 Project Seafish Page 16

Table 6: Economic impact analysis for a ban on bottom trawling and bottom set-gill nets targeting deep sea species. All UK Scottish fleet a) Combination of 10% catch and 100kg landings 2011 2011 vessels 585 180 Landings of deep sea species, tonnes 4,837 3,475 Landings of deep sea species as a proportion of total landings, % 10 4 crew 277 47 Reduction in gross value added, million 3.4 2.6 b) Proposal at 100kg landings vessels 360 175 Landings of deep sea species, tonnes 4,807 3,475 Landings of deep sea species as a proportion of total landings, % 6 4 crew 121 47 Reduction in gross value added, million 3.3 2.6 c) Proposal at 10% catch vessels 410 85 Landings of deep sea species, tonnes 4,269 3,129 Landings of deep sea species as a proportion of total landings, % 14 8 crew 232 45 Reduction in gross value added, million 2.9 2.3 Table 7: Changes to wages as a result of a ban on bottom trawling and bottom set-gill nets targeting deep sea species. UK fleet Scottish fleet a) Combination of 10% catch and 100kg landings 2011 2011 Crew share per vessel, 132,447 213,991 crew per vessel 5 7 Annual wage per crew, 27,930 32,553 Reduction in wages, % 10 4 Reduction in wages, 2,829 1,418 Annual wage due to reduction in landings of DSS, 25,101 31,136 b) Proposal at 100kg of landings Crew share per vessel, 169,972 215,404 crew per vessel 6 7 Annual wage per crew, 30,539 32,618 Reduction in wages, % 6 4 Reduction in wages, 1,983 1,401 Annual wage due to reduction in landings of DSS, 28,556 31,218 c) Proposal at 10% of catch Crew share per vessel, 108,343 233,371 crew per vessel 4 7 Annual wage per crew, 26,693 34,764 Reduction in wages, % 14 8 Reduction in wages, 3,711 2,667 Annual wage due to reduction in landings of DSS, 22,982 32,098 Project Seafish Page 17

4 Analysis of mitigation options This section explores possible alternative options to the proposed Article 4 fishing authorisations based upon an empirical analysis of fisheries independent stock assessment survey data and data from the fisheries, catching and landing any quantity of deep-sea species. There are essentially two questions we consider when assessing possible alternative criteria for fishing authorisations, namely: i) how to determine when a fishery is either actually or entially targeting deep sea species of fish?, and ii) how to protect sea floor Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME), notably areas of high biodiversity associated with sponges and cold water corals, from the impacts of bottom fishing activities. The approach we have taken in this study, is to firstly consider if depth can be used as a criteria to define when a fishery is entially targeting deep sea species of fish, and secondly, to consider if spatial criteria can be applied to the fishery to minimise its impact on known and/or ential VMEs. 4.1 Depth related criteria to define fisheries targeting deep sea species The proposed authorisations (specifically Article 4.2c) stipulates that fishing activities are deemed to target deep-sea species if the vessel s master records in the log book show a percentage of deep-sea species equal or superior to 10% of the overall catch in weight in the fishing day concerned. The question therefore is: What is the scientific evidence for setting a catch threshold at the 10% level? Does this correspond to known significant changes in the catch composition of trawls, and if so how does the proportion of deep sea species in a catch actually change with depth? Criteria which define when a fishing vessel or fishery is targeting deep sea species based upon depth could entially provide a more meaningful, reliable and enforceable measure for the management of deep sea fisheries. These considerations and questions have therefore been investigated and answered in the present study. Specifically we use empirical data on actual deep-sea populations of fish and their associated fisheries using four key sources of data, namely: i) the IFISH landings database for the period between 2006 and 2012; ii) the English discards database for the same period; iii) the Scottish discards data-base for the period 2008 to 2012; and iv) the Scottish bottom trawl survey data for the period 2006 to 2012. Collectively, the number of records for this study comprises the following: i) a total of 127,157 trips which caught or landed any quantity or mix of deep sea species as defined by Annex 1 in the proposal Project Seafish Page 18

(Annex 2) and the list of deep sea species under the current regulation (Figure 1 - left); ii) 42,984 trips defined by the list of deep sea species in the present regulation and, iii) 12,089 trips which have caught or landed any quantity or mix of deep sea species as defined by Annex 1 in the proposal and the list of deep sea species under the current regulation, but excluding ling (Molva molva) and conger eel (Conger conger) (Figure 1 right). The large difference in the number of records between i and iii suggests that a large number of trips which catch deep sea species are actually only taking species of ling and/or conger eel as their catch of DSS. Figure 1: Left: VMS pings associated with 127,157 fishing trips catching any mix or number of deep sea species (pings are only shown where fishing is actually occurring) between 2006 and 2012. Right: VMS pings associated with the 12,089 fishing trips catching any mix or number of deep sea species, but excluding ling (Molva molva) and conger eel (Conger conger) between 2006 and 2012. The rationale behind considering depth as a possible criterion to establish whether or not a fishery is entially targeting deep sea species, is that at shallow depths (e.g. < 50 m), the likelihood of catching deep sea species is a lot less than if fishing is occurring, for example, at depths > 1000 metres. Obviously, there is a huge range of depth related distributions associated with many fish species (including deep sea species). However, by definition a deep sea species should be more likely to occur at depths typically associated with the deep sea, or have critical life stages which are confined to the deep sea. It follows that simply quantifying the abundance of deep sea species caught at different depths, along with the proportion of deep sea species making up catches at different depths, could entially provide a valuable insight into any depth related transition between predominantly shelfbased and deep sea living populations of fish. Project Seafish Page 19

4.1.1 Scottish survey data The fish community of large areas of the UK continental shelf and deep water slope areas to the northwest of Scotland are surveyed annually by Marine Scotland Science. Total catch data from the fishery independent surveys covering parts of ICES Subareas IV, VI & VII were analysed covering the period 2006 to 2012. This dataset comprises 2,318 survey trawls at depths ranging between 22 m to 2,030 m, but with most trawl samples taken at around 250 m, 500 m, 1000 m, 1500 m, and 1800 m. The spatial location of the survey trawls used in this analysis is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: The location of Scottish bottom trawl survey hauls between 2006 and 2012 used in the present study data courtesy of Marine Scotland - Science, Aberdeen. For each trawl (or survey sample), the total species composition of the catch was recorded and enumerated. Individuals of deep sea species were selected according to the list of species as specified in Annex 1 of the EC proposal, but the selection also included 2 other species of Notocanthus sp. (in addition to Notocanthus chemnitzii) which are deepwater species and sampled off Scotland. The full list of species used for this analysis is provided in Annex 1 of this report. The analytical approach involved the exclusion of both ling and conger eel as these have been shown to be particularly abundant in relatively shallow shelf sea areas (less than 200 m deep) (Figure 1). For each sample (or survey trawl) the total abundance of deep sea fish, Project Seafish Page 20

the total number of deep sea species, including the depth of each trawl were recorded. From this we determined the relationship between the abundance of deep sea species sampled against depth, and the relationship between the proportion of deep sea species sampled (by abundance) against depth (Figure 3). Given the large differences in the number of samples at any given depth, the depths were categorised into intervals of 100 m and then a box-and-whisker analysis was performed (Tukey, 2006) on the corresponding sample abundances (Table 8) of deep sea species using the R programming and statistical software package (Development Core Team 2008). The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 3 (left). It is noteworthy that for the shallower depth categories (>0-100m and >100-200m) there is considerable variability in the sample abundances of deep sea fish with a relatively large number of outliers in the data, suggesting that some of the deep sea species may not in fact be true deep sea species, or at least they are observed in varying abundances at relatively shallow depths. This highlights the value of using a depth rule over a species list to define when a fishery is entially targeting DSS. A recently completed EU FP7 project deepfishman argued that deep sea species should be defined as those which have at least 50% of their adult biomass permanently below a given depth limit. In the case of the deepfishman project this was specified to be 200 m. However, the depth limit in this case was not based upon any empirical evidence of fish population abundance by depth; rather it was based upon the geomorphology of the sea floor, defining the average depth of transition between the shelf break and continental slope in the North East Atlantic. Plots of deep sea species abundance and depth (Figure 3 left) show a rapid change in the abundance of deep sea species sampled between the 300 m and 500 m isobaths (log10 scale). The rapid increase in the abundance of deep sea species with depth is also observed when analysing the proportion of deep sea fish in each sample (Figure 3 right). These two figures show that the most rapid increase in the proportion of deep sea fish species in each sample occurs between 300 m and 500 m isobaths. Observing such a rapid increase, or conversely decrease, in deep sea fish species abundance over a relatively narrow depth range (200 m) suggests that this zone represents a zone of transition between the shelf and deep sea populations of fish. A depth limit of 400 m could therefore be considered as the optimal depth which separates the predominately shelf based populations of fish (i.e. <400 m) from the predominantly deep sea living populations of fish (i.e. >400 m). Project Seafish Page 21

Figure 3: Left: Box-and-whisker plot of sample (trawl) abundances (log10) of deep sea species for each depth category. The black horizontal line within each box represents the median value (e.g. 50% of abundances of deep sea species sampled are greater than this value), the top limit of each box represents the upper quartile (e.g. 25% of abundances of deep sea species sampled are greater than this value) and the bottom limit the lower quartile. The whiskers represent the greatest and smallest values excluding the outliers and the outliers are shown as open circles. Right: Scatter plot of % of deep sea species per sample (survey haul) against depth in metres with a fitted smooth spline function and vertical line drawn at 400 m isobaths and horizontal line drawn at 20% of deep sea fish per sample. Table 8: Mean abundance of deep sea fish species (excluding ling and conger) from haul samples at different depth categories between 2006 and 2012. Depth Categories (m) Mean Sample Abundance >0-100 112 >200-300 154 >300-400 343 >400-500 946 >500-600 1149 >600-700 307 >700-800 611 >800-900 761 >900-1000 1299 >1000-1100 655 >1100-2050 1447 Furthermore, if we apply the 400 m depth limit as the threshold isobath and calculate the total abundance of deep sea species sampled <400 m and >400 m (calculated as the sum of the sample means by depth category below and above 400 m), we observe a total of 609 individuals of deep sea species sampled <400 m, whilst there are 7,175 individuals sampled Project Seafish Page 22

>400 m. This corresponds to approximately 92% of the abundance of all deep sea species sampled occurring at depths greater than 400 m for the North East Atlantic region. To compensate for the bias caused by the difference in the number of depth categories below and above the 400 m isobaths, we have used the mean of means of depth categories above and below 400 m isobath. This generates an estimate of 347 and 896 individuals of deep sea species per sample (survey haul) respectively, which corresponds to approximately 72% of all the deep sea fish abundance occurring at depths > 400 m. 4.1.2 UK fisheries landings and catch data In order to use the UK fisheries data it was first necessary to link the VMS data with each trip in the database so as to derive an average depth for each trip when the vessel was actually fishing. However, there are a number of trips for which there is no VMS data. In these cases we have used the corresponding ICES rectangle and generated an average depth for the rectangle which is then assigned to each trip. This is mainly required to estimate the impact of the depth criterion on the proposed regulation since all trips are required to have a corresponding depth for the economic impact analysis, but for the analysis of depth related trends in the landings and catch data we have only used trips for which we know there is accurate VMS depth related data. The total number of trips which have VMS records is 62,582, which represents 49% of the total number of trips catching any amount of deep sea species between 2006 and 2012. However, after excluding ling and conger (that is the trips which only land or catch ling or conger as their deep sea species), then the number of trips is reduced to 12,089 of which there is VMS depth data for 9,979 trips. Using these data we created similar plots as for the Scottish survey data (Figure 4). Project Seafish Page 23

Figure 4: Left: Box-and-whisker plot of fishery landings data per trip (kg landings on log10 scale) of deep sea species for each depth category. The black horizontal line within each box represents the median value (i.e. 50% of abundances of deep sea species sampled are greater than this value), the top limit of each box represents the upper quartile (i.e. 25% of abundances of deep sea species sampled are greater than this value) and the bottom limit the lower quartile. The whiskers represent the greatest and smallest values excluding the outliers (shown as open circles). Right: Scatter plot of % of deep sea species per trip (kg landings) against depth in metres with a fitted smooth spline function and vertical line drawn at 400 m isobaths and horizontal line drawn at 20% of deep sea fish per sample in order to compare the intersection point with Figure 3. Based upon the landings data alone we observe an increase in the landings of deep sea species, and the proportion of deep sea species per trip, with depth. The increase is most notable between the 300 m and 500 m isobaths, as observed in the survey data. However, there are some important differences to note between the landings and the survey data results. Firstly, the rate of increase in the landings and proportion of the landings of deep sea species per trip with depth is less than observed in the survey data. One possible explanation for this difference is that the landings data does not accurately reflect what is being caught, that is there is a proportion of the catch which is being discarded and that the discarding increases with depth (as evidenced by the less steep rise in the landings of DSS compared to rise in DSS in the survey catch data). Secondly, the percentage of the total trip landings comprising deep sea species caught at the 400 m isobaths is about 10% and not 20% as observed in the survey data. Again this would suggest there is an amount of the catch being discarded and that the amount of discarding of deep sea species increases with depth. Nevertheless, despite these specific differences there is remarkable consistency in the depth related trends of DSS shown by the fisheries and survey data. Project Seafish Page 24

Summary landings data by depth category are given in Table 9. From this we estimate that the sum of the mean landings < 400 m is 2,749 kg, whereas at depths > 400 m, the sum of the mean landings is 175,214 kg which is equivalent to 98% of all deep sea species (excluding ling and conger) being caught at depths > 400 m. To compensate for the bias caused by the difference in the number of depth categories below and above the 400 m isobaths, we have used the mean of means of depth categories above and below 400 m isobath. This generates estimates of 388 kg and 18,631 kg of landings of deep sea species per trip, respectively, which corresponds to approximately 98% of all the deep sea fish landings occurring at depths > 400 m. Table 9: Summary landings data of deep sea species (excluding ling and conger) by depth category from 9,979 trips between 2006 and 2012. Depth Categories (m) Mean Trip Landings (kg) >0-100 430 >200-300 110 >300-400 624 >400-500 1593 >500-600 4453 >600-700 11187 >700-800 22552 >800-900 26909 >900-1000 31614 >1000-1100 28674 >1100-2050 18623 We repeated this analysis with the total catch data, but the results showed no discernible difference. The paucity of the discards data when raised against the landings data resulted in the catch data effectively being the same as the landings data. We would expect the fisheries catch data to demonstrate a comparable trend to that which we see in the Scottish survey data. The fact that we do not, suggests the discard data used to raise the landings data to catches is not sufficiently representative of the actual catches. 4.1.3 Impact of a depth criterion on the proposed regulation From the above results we conclude that the 400 m isobath represents the depth at which there is a significant increase in the sampling or catch of deep sea species for the North East Atlantic region. Applying the depth threshold of 400 m as a possible criterion to the proposed Article 4(2) fishing authorisations, would make a large reduction in the number of vessels affected by the proposed regulation. It is noteworthy that the calculations presented above Project Seafish Page 25

(Figure 3 right panel) also reveal that at a depth of about 400 m, the corresponding proportion of deep sea fish species in the catch is about 20% (by abundance). Therefore, amending Article 4(2c) to 20% would in affect correspond to a 400 m depth rule, since these two criteria are closely related. However, we consider it more effective to apply a 400 m depth limit to determine if a fishing vessel is entially targeting deep sea species. This is because, the assessment of VMS data can be effectively applied to monitor if a vessel is fishing at depths >400 m. By contrast using the proportion of catch to determine if a fishing vessel is targeting deep sea species is subject to the errors associated with quantifying the total catch (i.e. including discards) and the possibility that large quantities (i.e. biomass & abundance) of deep sea fish may still be caught despite their being under a certain percentage of the total catch. Furthermore, the precise wording of Article 4(2c) is ambiguous, e.g. it states...in the fishing day concerned. How is the fishing day defined? Is this set in any 24 hour period, or a fishing activity or a fishing trip? If this is taken literally to mean any fishing within a 24 hour period, then simply dividing the total landings or catch by the number of trip days would be equivalent to the fishing day. Indeed, this is how we have interpreted Article 4(2c) for the purpose of this study. We therefore favour a depth criterion of 400 m, and not a 20% rule, to assess the ential impact of the proposed regulation on the UK fishery. All trips classified as targeting DSS (according to Article 4.2c and 5 criteria defined in the proposal) at depths < 400 m were identified. Data summarising the total number of vessels and their total tonnage classified as targeting deep sea species is shown in Table 10, alongside data for vessels and their tonnage which are exclusively fishing at depths less than < 400 m. This represents the part of the fishery that would benefit by the addition of a 400 m criterion to the proposed regulation, as at these depths they would not be classified as targeting deep sea species if a depth rule (or criterion) were introduced into an amended proposal. Project Seafish Page 26

Table 10: The ential impact of the EC proposal on the number and tonnage of fishing vessels after implementing a 400 m depth rule. The data shaded in grey relate to the impact without the depth rule, (i.e. the number of vessels impacted by the proposal) while the non-shaded data shows the number of vessels negatively impacted following the application of a 400 m depth rule. Vessel number rounded to the nearest 5. Year vessels impacted by EC proposal Total gross tonnage impacted by EC proposal vessels impacted after applying 400 m depth rule % vessels fishing < 400 m Total gross tonnage of vessels fishing < 400 m % tonnage of vessels fishing < 400 m 2006 590 73084 50 92 54444 74 2007 690 72409 45 93 53792 74 2008 710 74111 40 94 57269 77 2009 790 78479 50 94 55226 70 2010 735 74675 50 93 50380 67 2011 685 70954 40 95 52169 74 2012 665 63896 45 93 44526 70 It is noteworthy that the percentage of vessels fishing at depths less than 400 m is consistently higher than the percentage of vessel tonnage, suggesting that this rule in particular protects the interests of smaller vessels fishing at depths of less than 400 m. It is most likely that these vessels are catching mainly ling and/or conger eel as their only deep sea species. The benefit of a 400 m rule may actually be very similar to amending the regulation by excluding ling and conger from the list of deep sea species, but we suggest that until we fully understand which are true deep sea species, a 400 m depth rule would protect against further problems associated with the accuracy of defining specific deep sea species in Annex 1 of the proposal. This assertion is further supported by the results from the spatial analysis presented in section 4.2 below. At an economic level, setting a depth rule at 400 metres would (on its own) affect 40 UK vessels annually based on 2011 catch and landing statistics, and result in a reduction of 377 tonnes of deep sea species total landings. This also equates to the loss of 9 jobs and a reduction in gross value added by 0.3 million (Table 11). Project Seafish Page 27

Table 11: Potential economic impact of setting a 400 m depth rule for fishing deep sea stocks. These numbers relate to the vessels fishing at depth < 400. 2009 2010 2011 Average vessels affected by EC proposal without depth rule 790 735 690 738 vessels affected < 400m depth rule 50 50 40 47 Total landings of deep sea species < 400m depth rule (tonnes) 421 480 377 426 crew < 400m depth rule 12 14 9 12 Gross value added < 400m depth rule ( million) 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 4.2 Spatial criteria to protect sea floor VME The only fishing authorisation directed at protecting sea floor VMEs in the proposal is Article 9, which proposes a phased in ban over two years for all bottom trawl gears and bottom-set gill nets used to target deep sea species of fish. It should be noted that this does nothing to protect VMEs from vessels which can demonstrate they are not targeting deep sea species by not exceeding the % catch and landings of DSS criteria, but are nevertheless fishing in deep water, such as those fisheries targeting anglerfish and hake. There are two fundamental spatial approaches to consider in relation to protecting known or ential VMEs. These are: i) to identify all known and likely areas of VMEs and close these off to any form of bottom fishing activity, or ii) to define the most active areas of fishing and to restrict fishing within those areas only. The former approach, whilst offering the greatest long-term flexibility for the fishery, requires robust evidence on the spatial distribution of VMEs which is not currently available and is prohibitively expensive to obtain. However, the second approach although more restrictive in terms of enabling the development of new fishing opportunities, can be implemented cost effectively using quantitative and robust VMS data and therefore could be adopted as a risk reduction measure immediately. The question then is: What is the evidence for the actual or ential risk of significant adverse impacts on VMEs arising from fishing with bottom contact gears, notably trawls and gill nets? Fishing vessel position data is now routinely captured by satellite Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), with the data being managed by RFMOs and CFP contracting parties within member state EEZs. The provision of this system enables vessel monitoring to be precisely undertaken, making it possible to effectively manage spatially the fishing footprint. Work on VMS data for mixed demersal fishing fleets has shown the spatial coherence of many fishing fleet activities, that is, they tend to fish in the same general areas from one year to the next Project Seafish Page 28

(Campbell et al. 2011). However, comprehensive time series of VMS data is limited to the last 7 or 8 years. Defining an active fishing footprint beyond which no fishing should be allowed, unless supported by an appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment, is possible and would serve to protect as yet unidentified VMEs. Given the relatively high spatial coherence of deep sea fishing activities (e.g. over the last 7-8 years) such a measure would likely have very little impact on present fishing activities, but it would greatly protect as yet unidentified VMEs in areas outside of the active fishing footprint from possible fishing impacts in the future. It has been suggested by Weaver et al. (2011) that the fishing footprint should be based on accurate and verifiable data on the areas actually towed or fished, using, for example, the previous 5 years of VMS data and detailed log-book data. It should also take into consideration information on intensity and frequency of fishing effort. The overall footprint of the fishing effort within the NEAFC RA and EU EEZs is well known, and analysis of fishing vessel VMS data for the North Sea and parts of the Western Waters RAC reveals that most of the fishing effort is confined to relatively small areas along the margins of the continental slope (Figure 5). Indeed, a recent analysis of VMS data in the UK sector revealed that the direct management of fishing footprints, e.g. by defining fishing grounds that exclude existing margins, can greatly reduce trawling impacts per unit effort or value (Jennings et al. 2012). Furthermore, direct evidence of the risk of fisheries encountering VME indicator species in areas traditionally fished at relatively high levels of effort is low compared to encounters observed in areas less intensively fished (NAFO, WGESA Report 2013 in prep). The evidence therefore suggests that if policy commitments to reduce fishing impacts are required to meet specific targets (e.g. targets for achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) for sea floor integrity that result from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC 2008) or to reduce to a minimum the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems (EC 2007), then changes to fishery management plans by identifying areas where fishing is permitted could possibly achieve greater overall reductions in fishing impact in the short term than the exclusion of bottom fisheries from closed areas such as VMEs. Project Seafish Page 29

Figure 5: Total hours fished by all gear types in 2007 as calculated from aggregated VMS data for parts of the North Sea and North Western Waters off Ireland and Scotland. 4.2.1 Analysis of UK fishing fleet VMS data The European Union (EU) adopted VMS to monitor the activities of all vessels >24 m long overall from 1 January 2000. By 1 January 2005 the EU had extended monitoring to all vessels >15 m long (European Commission 2003) and from 1 January 2012 to all vessels 12 m or longer overall (European Commission 2009). Information on the distribution and intensity of fishing activity in the UK fisheries sector of the UK EEZ was based on the analysis of VMS vessel identity, position, and speed data obtained from the Marine Management Organization (MMO) of the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). All available VMS records for the period 2006 2012 were included. Unprocessed VMS data do not indicate whether vessels are in port, fishing, steaming, or at sea, but not making way. Therefore, we differentiated records that were linked to fishing activity following the approach of Lee et al. (2010). In brief, duplicate VMS records and records close to ports were removed, the interval between remaining records was calculated, and a speed-based rule was applied to identify periods of fishing activity. Each period of fishing activity was assigned to a vessel and gear type by linking the VMS data to national logbook data using the vessel identifier and time. Using methods described by Jennings and Lee (2012) we linked VMS data to all fishing trips which have caught any deep sea species between 2006 and 2012 (excluding ling and Project Seafish Page 30

conger), where the VMS data is available, and generated maps representing 90% and 100% of the total fishing activity (Figure 6). The difference between the mapped areas, corresponding to bottom 10% of the total effort, covers a large surface area and so the actual unit area fishing pressure on the sea floor (hours trawled per km 2 ) is very low. As explained previously, this area represents an area of ential high risk in terms of likely encounters with VME indicator species. By contrast the area representing the top 90% of effort is an area where the fishing pressure is (and has historically been) greater and therefore the chances of encountering any VME indicator species in the area defined by the top 90% of effort is much less. Figure 6: The distribution of fishing activity for all trips landing and catching any number and mix of DSS excluding ling and conger (100%) and the spatial distribution of where 90% of all that effort is directed. Note the relatively large area defined by the difference between the 90% and 100% effort layers which corresponds to the bottom 10% of all effort and therefore represents the area at highest ential risk to VME. It is also apparent that despite the exclusion of ling and conger there are still large areas on the shelf where DSS are being caught, notably the Northern North Sea and South West Approaches. It is noteworthy (in Figure 6), that despite the exclusion of ling and conger from the spatial analysis of fisheries for DSS, we still observe significant areas of fishing activity on the shelf (e.g. at depths less than 400 m). This suggests that the list of DSS in Annex 1 of the proposal (Annex 2, present report) may actually include species which are not truly deep sea in nature. We therefore observe an apparent discrepancy between the empirical evidence which shows populations of DSS occurring predominantly at depths greater than 400 m, whilst the Project Seafish Page 31

spatial evidence reveals that parts of the DSS fishery also occur at depth less than 400 m. To overcome this discrepancy, we applied the depth rule to filter out only those trips which on average are fishing at depths below 400 m, since it is these trips which (by definition) are likely to be targeting DSS (according to the criteria of Article 4). The trips landing or catching DSS at depths (on average) greater than 400 m were then used to define the spatial area where the top 90% of DSS fishing occurs. The area representing the top 90% of DSS fishing effort (or effort >10th percentile of fishing effort) is an area of relatively low risk as the chances of encountering VMEs is likely to be low, but clearly fishing in these areas would still be subject to the control measures associated with enforcing the published biennial fishing opportunities and the reporting of any VME indicator species encounters, e.g. as part of the NEAFC enforcement and conservation measures. A map showing the 90% of total effort using VMS data from trips catching or landing DSS at depths greater (below) than 400 m isobath is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of the top 90% of fishing effort at depths greater than 400 m (trip depth average) and 100% of effort at depths greater 400 m (trip depth average). 4.2.2 Impact of a spatial criterion on the proposed regulation In making an assessment of the impact a spatial criterion would have on the proposed regulation, it is first necessary to precisely understand the relationship between the fishing effort layer (i.e. the >10th percentile area or the top 90% of effort) and specific vessel fishing activity. For example, it is not realistic to exclude from the regulation all vessels which have fished entirely within the defined active fishing area as many of vessels will have spent only Project Seafish Page 32