Lecture 15 fisheries 3 Flashcards
(27 cards)
Fisheries regulation, management & marine conservation
*Technical measures – e.g. mesh size, square mesh panels
*By quotas of landings (note, NOT the same as catch) and discard reduction
*By regulating fishing effort:
-number of licences
- number of boats / gears
- number of days fishing (e.g. at sea)
- location / timing of fishing
- Temporary closure of fishing grounds
*Ecosystem approaches
- Marine Protected Areas
- No-Take Zones / Marine Nature Reserves
Need for inclusivity, transparency and ‘fair play’ (ethical to needs and history of fishing communities)
Fisheries regulation and management: mesh types
see notes for images of mesh types
Diamond mesh is most common as cheapest however it becomes narrow under tension
^ diamond mesh behaves differently under load (drag) + species effects
Square mesh designs will stay open under tension allowing more juvenile fish to escape but as shown in top right capture will vary by fish morphology
^ square mesh is more expensive so often just one section of the net will be square ( like a patch)
Fisheries regulation and management: net types
nets are non-selective
^trawls and prawn catchers are the least selective and most destructive – to stay within quota boats will often discard all finfish bycatch when prawn trawling – prawn trawlers often capture and drown turtles so a movable flap can be included to allow turtles to escape
^ less mixed catch can improve efficiency benefitting fishing companies
Bycatch reduction devices and specialised mesh
^ Technical measures – increasing selectivity of trawls e.g. separator panels, using the different swimming behaviour / escape responses of fish species to separate them.
E.g. Ferro et al. (2007) for enhanced efficiency, reduced cost of sorting BUT offers further potential.
BUT, with all these – what are impacts on long term survival and health of fish that are facilitated to escape??
using separator trawls shown to improve species grouping efficiency but may not reduce bycatch/discard (just better sorting)
Quotas
- Annual (or more frequent) recruitment variability is characteristic of most exploited fish and shellfish stocks.
- In theory, annual stock assessment should enable fluctuations in recruitment, F and M to be followed and annual ‘safe’ quotas for F to be set
North Sea has multiple countries fishing resulting in a ‘rush to quota’
Regulation and enforcement is challenging
A considerable proportion of catch landing is illegal and unrecorded
TAC – Total Allowable Catch (EU) – total catch of a given fish stock (e.g. X) allowable by entire fishing fleet in a given year. If fished by several countries, TAC divided between countries.
- Does not work well where multiple species caught (e.g. demersal trawl) or where stock migrates and ‘double fished’ from two assumed stock TACs. Problems of quota overshoot / selfish behaviour (‘Tragedy of the Commons’). Takes little account of discards of X when quota reached and fishing for stock Y. TAC involves throwing out decent catch (e.g. not allowed to take cod but haddock still within quota) which is not only inconvenient for fishing companies but also unsustainable as bycatch often dies
ITQ – Individual Transferable Quota – license sold by regulator to individual boat owners, who can sell personal quota to others. Can work well when restricted to individuals / small-businesses, as value is related to stock quality and potential for future profit (i.e. sustainability). Used widely in Australia, Canada etc. Can also be used to regulate size of boat / gear.
Regulating fishing effort
- Can be incorporated into ITQs
- Limit effort through size of boat, engine size or methods used – unpopular with fishermen, as this is a key way they can improve catches. E.g. Banning pair trawling; limiting boat size to < 30 m or < x tonnes.
- Limit effort through number of licenses – only effective if linked closely with technical constraints e.g. boat size. Difficulties with constraining technological innovation. Cannot de-invent sonar.
- Limit number of boat days at sea. E.g. only allowed to fish 4 days a week but this can result in forced fishing in dangerous weather etc. Effective but unpopular for socio-economic reasons; causes periods of hardship. Difficult to predict weather patterns and feasible access to fishing grounds.
But, limits on catches / effort do not greatly reduce wider damage associated with fisheries e.g. seabed damage, mortality of discards
Wider regulation of damaging activities may be more effective for stock management and wider conservation – ecosystem-based approach
The discard problem
*Non-selective fishing for e.g. cod, Nephrops (“prawn”/langoustine/scampi) catches many unsaleable / unintended (non-target) / undersized / over-quota species (bycatch) that are discarded. Big problem in international ‘shared resource’ marine fisheries e.g. North Sea, Bay of Biscay – run by EU Common Fisheries Policy TAC.
*North Sea – estimated discards prior to 2019 ~ 800,000 tonnes p.a.
*~33% of all North Sea landings
*~10% of North Sea fish biomass
*Worst discards in beam trawls
*But… value to birds e.g. fulmar Fulmarus glacalis increase & spread partly attributed to discards.
Beneficial for conserving marine bird species?
*[e.g. Garthe et al 1996, Tasker et al., 2000]
“The discards problem vs. The landings obligation”
Currently EU members manage fisheries and biodiversity in partnership, and by compromise, through the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and policies such as the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Natura 2000 sites / marine Special Areas of Conservation) respectively.
*High profile cases of ‘waste’ and damage have forced EU to try and deal with the Discards Problem.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards/index_en.htm
Forced to land all catch – but many species have no market and no quota
*Updated CFP progressively banned discards (the “landings obligation”) by 2019 – but only discarding of saleable ‘fishing quota’ species is banned, most biota (> 50% by species) are shovelled back, mostly dying.
*Trade-off of impacts on seabirds – many protected by EU Birds Directive
Temporary closure of fishing grounds
Closing off areas from fishing practice particularly in nursery areas – usually not permanently, just for a few months per year related to spawning times
Case study: North Sea
In the North Sea there are a number of areas closed to fishing. None of these exclude all fishing activities.
‘Boxes’ were established for very different purposes (e.g. to allow particular species to recover, to prevent accidental bycatch,
to protect juveniles, to protect seabirds).
‘Boxes’ have had varying success - some have worked, some have completely failed!
More permanent closure of some fisheries
*Historically, North Sea sandeel fishery managed by EU CFP – right of fishing access to UK waters by EU countries.
*Increasing evidence of ecological impacts, especially on kittiwake, puffin over decades. Increasing pressure from NGOs e.g. RSPB.
*Some sandeel protection since 2000. Post-Brexit – greater fisheries management autonomy - Fisheries Act (2020). UK boats banned from landing North Sea sandeel since 2021.
*Jan 2024 – all EU members prohibited from fishing for and landing sandeel from UK part of North Sea and all Scottish waters.
British boats don’t fish sand eels so protected areas benefit:
Ecosystem-based marine protection vs. other biomes
see table by Chape et al 2005
Ecosystem-based marine protection (Polunin et al., 1983)
MPA: Marine Protected Area not a reserve but an area w/some protection
Overall terrestrial PAs ~ 16% of land area; marine 8% in 2022
Hard to maintain policy enforcement in open ocean especially that which is not owned by a particular nation
Ecosystem-based marine protection (Polunin et al., 1983)
Marine Protected Area (MPA) – geographic conservation unit designed to protect marine habitats and communities, often incorporating provision of reproductive reserves of fish stocks that will disperse over wider areas, contributing to fisheries outside the MPA – Ecosystems approach to fisheries management, while sustaining biodiversity (Roberts et al. 2005)
Justification:
1.Protection of diverse structural habitats, or communities that are deemed by society to be of importance for economic, educational, or aesthetic reasons
2.Protection of areas crucial to the maintenance or population expansion of exploited fishery resources (‘source’ metapopulations)
Requirements for MPA vary according to target species / habitats and risks to those - areas for large, trans-ocean migrating species such as turtles are difficult to identify and protect, but discrete nesting / nursery areas are more feasible.
MPAs – continuum from strict reserves – no ‘damaging’ activities whatsoever, to mild restrictions on access, fishing etc – most are intermediate (local stakeholders)
MPA management – multi-tiered strategies & stakeholder engagement
Most MPAs have multiple zones with varying levels of protection.
Coastal communities often had prior historical rights of use of marine resources – pressure to retain these (livelihood) – hence MPAs may allow trawling etc
MPAs need support from local stakeholders, often with widely varying viewpoints
Most MPAs do not include full fishery protection; but increasingly MPAs have No-Take Zones (NTZs) or are fully protected Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) or Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs).
see figure
Co-design of MPA zoning, Algarve, Potugal
Horta e Costa et al. (2022) Frontiers in Marine Science
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.969234
With buffer zones around core areas
Do MPAs and No-Take Zones work?
Increasing no. of studies carried out to evaluate effects of MPAs, including ‘no-take’ MPAs on community structure, production and wider benefits, e.g. adjacent fisheries e.g. Roberts et al. (2001). Likely to be successful for quite sedentary animals. Ideal for rock reefs and coral reefs – studied widely in temperate and tropical regions.
Restricting exploitation in conservation areas causes spill-over beyond the no-take zone benefitting fishermen in surrounding areas – this most benefits areas fishing of species with specific habitat restrictions – open ocean pelagic ranging species may not benefit in the same way
Why should MPAs, especially those with NTZs, MNRs work?
- Offer ecosystem approach to management.
- For fisheries, ‘spillover effect’ of immature/adult + export of eggs/larvae– some debate as to how positive effects are, how much needs to be protected and to what degree.
- +ve studies come from coral and rock reef systems, within territorial waters, where many fish species are quite sedentary and disperse radially as population grows (see e.g. Roberts & Polunin, 1991; Roberts et al. 2001, 2005).
- How appropriate to ocean systems and wide-ranging species? (Gell & Roberts, 2003; Roberts et al. 2005). Less suitable, but there are an increasing no. of large HMPAs in remote oceanic regions (but policing & protections?)
- Can still protect key areas, e.g. historic areas for reproduction (aggregation).
Durban Action Plan (5th IUCN world parks congress, 2003) aimed to establish a network of marine reserves covering 20-30% of the world’s oceans by 2012. Ambitious?
Currently 8% of world’s oceans are “protected”, but only ~3% are highly protected
Currently 38% of UK waters are in MPAs, but only ~6% highly protected.
Current MPA boundaries in Atlantic European ocean regions (red areas)
See figure in notes
OSPAR =Oslo & Paris Commission:
Regulates protection & conservation of NE Atlantic
OSPAR-registered MPAs: including EU Natura 2000 sites = SACs – Special Areas of Conservation [Habitats Directive] + EU marine SPA – Special Protection Areas [Birds Directive] + marine national conservation sites
Mostly very recent, almost all are post-2000.
UK national marine conservation sites – Marine Conservation Zones - MCZs – fishing often restricted/ some types banned
Complexity of England’s (and UK) MPA network designation
see figure explaining types of mpa on uk coast
^ the MPA network is complex with many diff levels of enforcement and variation in policy
Paper marine parks?
2020 – UK MPAs (comprising marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Marine Conservation Zones, marine Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
JNCC (2020)
Only a very small area is a no take zone – many MPA still even allow trawling!
*4 UK MPAs (1% by #) are full NTZs - no biota extraction at all - Lundy (3.3 km2), Lamlash Bay, Arran (2.7 km2), Medway estuary (12.1 km2), Flamborough (0.7 km2)
*Area fully protected = ~19km2 = 0.006% of UK MPA area, 0.002% UK sea bed area
*Prof. Callum Roberts (Exeter Uni.) has labelled UK MPAs as mostly ‘paper parks’
*3 pilot HPMAs (potential NTZs) introduced for England in 2023 - consultation
*32% of UK MPAs have no fishing restrictions; 92% allow bottom trawling / dredging across large areas.
*10% of Scottish waters planned for HPMAs (likely NTZs) by 2026 but this policy was dropped due to backlash from coastal communities (election imminent)
Lamlash Bay NTZ, Arran, Firth of Clyde, Scotland: successful case of MPA enforcement
*First community-based high conservation MPA in Scotland
*Established 2008 – all extractive activities (including recreational fishing) banned
*Rapid recovery observed – ecotourism, education
*See also Lyme Bay MPA, Dorset coast – see the work of Dr Emma Sheehan’s group, following banning of demersal and benthic towed fishing gears
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/institutes/marine-institute/lyme-bay
Scottish ‘Overall Assessment’ 2020
Success/failure in protection of Scottish key marine habitat elements (Nature Scot & Marine Scotland)
found in many areas that conservation efforts to date were ineffective
See also Newton et al 2017
&Burke et al 2011 in notes
Global state of coral reproduction and MPA effectiveness for coral reefs
Policing MPAs
*Costs… Limited numbers of (fisheries) patrol vessels; difficult for poorly resourced countries
*Difficult for MPAs that are long distances from land
*‘Global Fishing Watch’ - Processes public data from Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders required by large (fishing) vessels [required to publicly broadcast position to avoid collisions at sea]. Used to show when supertrawlers have entered MPAs e.g. Galapagos Islands. Cooperation with WWF / Greenpeace etc
see notes for : Global Fishing Activity - 2016
Industrial-scale fishing activity by vessels broadcasting AIS. Boundaries or ‘holes’ in effort show where regulations apply, e.g. the exclusive economic zones of island states.
Kroodsma et al. 2018
Direct action in ‘MPAs’ to make them protected areas?
*Dogger Bank – massive sand bank (12,331 km2), central North Sea – particular set of habitats and fauna; widely and historically used as a fishery – lots of beam trawling. Most of area is registered as UK, Dutch, German SAC & overlaps with a UK MPA – but commercial fishing common.
*WWF etc unsuccessfully campaigned for end to bottom trawling in DB.
- 2020 - Greenpeace dropped granite blocks over 47 sq. miles (122 km2 [~1%]) of Dogger Bank Sept 2020 to stop bottom trawling in sub-area
*2022 – used of Fisheries Act (2020) to ban bottom trawling in UK MPA DB
see: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/dogger-bank-wildlife-marine-protected-area-fishing/
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/mmo/formal-consultation-mmo-mpa-assessments/supporting_documents/Dogger%20Bank%20SAC%20MMO%20Assessment%202021.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62569be5d3bf7f6002963937/Dogger_Bank_SAC_Byelaw.pdf
Offshore wind – marine conservation friend or foe?
See figure from Glarou et al 2020
*Massive expansion of offshore wind farms for energy decarbonisation
*Seabird collision, or avoidance of OWF to / from feeding grounds -ve
*No fishing (= NTZ by default) +ve
*Habitat heterogeneity – artificial reef structures + diverse biota +ve
From developed world to less developed world:
Are more multi-level approaches needed for effective conservation, especially in regions with poor stakeholders?
“Coral reef fish and the Aquarium trade: Ecological impacts & socio-cultural influences in southern Sri Lanka” - James Howard (Durham Biosci. PhD) (see e-thesis, Durham library)
