DOCSLIB.ORG

UK Fisheries, Climate Change and North Sea Fishes: a Long-Term Perspective Tina Katharina Kerby

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UK Fisheries, Climate Change and North Sea Fishes: a Long-Term Perspective Tina Katharina Kerby UK fisheries, climate change and North Sea fishes: a long-term perspective Tina Katharina Kerby A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK School of Environmental Sciences July 2013 © This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived therefrom must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. Learning about the past is important because it will help us determine our future J. Jackson, J. Jacquet (The shifting baselines syndrome: perception, deception, and the future of our oceans. In V. Christensen, J. Maclean (Eds.), Ecosystem approaches to fisheries: a global perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2011) Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ I Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ II Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction 1.1 The North Sea ................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 North Sea fish .................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 North Sea fisheries ............................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Factors affecting fish distributions .................................................................................... 5 1.5 The shifting baseline phenomenon .................................................................................... 6 1.6 Historical fisheries data ..................................................................................................... 7 1.6.1 Research initiatives ........................................................................................................... 7 1.6.2 Cefas .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.6.3 ICES .................................................................................................................................. 9 1.6.3.1 Commercial fisheries data ................................................................................................ 9 1.6.3.2 Research survey data ...................................................................................................... 10 1.7 Thesis outline .................................................................................................................. 11 1.7.1 Research context ............................................................................................................. 11 1.7.2 Objectives of the thesis ................................................................................................... 12 1.7.3 Thesis structure ............................................................................................................... 12 1.8 References ....................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 20 The United Kingdom’s role in North Sea demersal fisheries: a hundred year perspective 2.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.3 Data ................................................................................................................................. 22 2.4 North Sea demersal landings in the twentieth century .................................................... 23 2.5 Technological drivers ...................................................................................................... 25 2.5.1 Vessel improvements ...................................................................................................... 25 2.5.2 Large scale modern fisheries ........................................................................................... 30 2.5.3 Fishing gear ..................................................................................................................... 31 2.6 Economical drivers: demand and supply of seafood ....................................................... 32 2.7 Legislation and political events ....................................................................................... 33 2.7.1 Fishing without restrictions and the effects of two wars ................................................. 33 2.7.2 The ‘Cod Wars’ and fishing limits .................................................................................. 34 2.7.3 Sharing resources: the European Union and the Common Fisheries Policy ................... 35 2.7.4 Adjustment and change in the fishery of the United Kingdom ....................................... 36 2.8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 37 2.9 References ....................................................................................................................... 39 Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Wondering about wandering whiting: distribution of North Sea whiting between the 1920s and 2000s 3.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 47 3.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 47 3.3 Material and Methods...................................................................................................... 49 3.3.1 Fisheries data ................................................................................................................... 49 3.3.2 Distribution of British whiting landings in the North Sea .............................................. 50 3.3.3 Analysis of the spatial distribution of whiting ................................................................ 50 3.3.4 Whiting distribution shift in relation to climate variables and fishing pressure ............. 52 3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................. 54 3.4.1 Long-term landing trends of international North Sea whiting fisheries .......................... 54 3.4.2 Distribution of whiting landings by British fisheries ...................................................... 56 3.4.3 Nine decades of whiting distribution .............................................................................. 58 3.4.4 Correlations of distribution shifts with environmental and fishing variables ................. 61 3.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 63 3.5.1 Lack of deepening and latitudinal shifts ......................................................................... 64 3.5.2 The longitudinal shift of whiting ..................................................................................... 65 3.5.3 Influence on distribution patterns .................................................................................... 66 3.5.4 Challenges of commercial fisheries data ......................................................................... 67 3.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 67 3.7 References ....................................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 76 The catching and landing in demersal fisheries: a comparison between commercial fisheries data and research survey data for whiting distribution in the North Sea 4.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 77 4.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 77 4.3 Material and Methods...................................................................................................... 80 4.3.1 Sources of commercial fisheries and research survey data ............................................. 80 4.3.2 Distribution analysis for commercial and survey data .................................................... 80 4.3.3 Examining discrepancies in whiting distribution between commercial and survey data 81 4.3.4 Revenue-per-unit-effort of more valuable fish species ................................................... 81 4.4 Results ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dutch Case
    The Dutch Case A Network of Marine Protected Areas The Dutch Case – A Network of Marine ProtectedEmilie Areas Hugenholtz Abbreviations BALANCE Baltic Sea Management: Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Ecosystem through Spatial Planning BPA(s) Benthic Protection Areas CFP Common Fisheries Policy EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EC European Commission EU European Union HP Horse Power HELCOM Regional Sea Convention for the Baltic Area IBN 2015 The Integrated Management Plan for the North Sea 2015 ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMARES Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature Lundy MNR Lundy Marine Nature Reserve MESH (Development of a Framework for) Mapping European Seabed Habitats MPA(s) Marine Protected Area(s) NM Nautical Mile (1.852 km) NGO(s) Non-Governmental Organisation(s) OSPAR Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic RFMOs Regional Fisheries Management Organisations SACs Special Areas of Conservation under 92/43 Habitats Directive SCI Site of Community Importance SPAs Special Protected Area under 79/409 Birds Directive SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t Ton (1,000 kilo) TRAC Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (USA/Canada) WWF World Wide Fund for Nature Cover Illustration (left) North Sea wave breakers in Cadzand, The Netherlands Cover Illustration (right) White-bellied monkfish (Lophius piscatorius) is a predominant species in the northern North Sea. Common along the entire Norwegian
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Modelling 321 (2016) 35–45
    Ecological Modelling 321 (2016) 35–45 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Modelling journa l homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel Modelling the effects of fishing on the North Sea fish community size composition a,∗ b a Douglas C. Speirs , Simon P.R. Greenstreet , Michael R. Heath a Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK b Marine Scotland Science, Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK a r a t i b s c t l e i n f o r a c t Article history: Ecosystem-based management of the North Sea demersal fish community uses the large fish indicator Received 18 March 2015 (LFI), defined as the proportion by weight of fish caught in the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) Received in revised form 23 October 2015 exceeding a length of 40 cm. Current values of the LFI are ∼0.15, but the European Union (EU) Marine Accepted 27 October 2015 Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires a value of 0.3 be reached by 2020. An LFI calculated from an eight-species subset correlated closely with the full community LFI, thereby permitting an exploration Keywords: of the effects of various fishing scenarios on projected values of the LFI using an extension of a previously Length-structured population model published multi-species length-structured model that included these key species. The model replicated Multi-species model historical changes in biomass and size composition of individual species, and generated an LFI that was North Sea ∼ Fisheries significantly correlated with observations.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.9.2020 SWD(2020)
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.9.2020 SWD(2020) 206 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REGIONAL SEA BASIN ANALYSES REGIONAL CHALLENGES IN ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY – A SEA BASIN PERSPECTIVE TO GUIDE EMFF PROGRAMMING EN EN Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5 1 Reducing the impacts of fishing on ecosystems ............................................................................. 7 1.1 Reducing fishing pressure ........................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Managing the landing obligation on board and on land............................................................. 8 1.3 Preserving ecosystems through environmental legislation ........................................................ 8 2 Providing conditions for an economically viable and competitive fishing sector and contributing to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities ................................................ 10 2.1 Addressing overcapacity ........................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Consolidating economic and social performance ..................................................................... 10 2.3 Estimation of the impact of COVID-19 crisis on the fisheries sector ........................................ 11 3 Improving enforcement and control
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Working Group on Fish Technology and Fish
    ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2016 SCICOM/ACOM STEERING GROUP ON INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM OBSERVATION AND MONITORING ICES CM 2016/SSGIEOM:22 REF. ACOM AND SCICOM Report of the Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) 25-29 April 2016 Merida, Mexico International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2016. Report of the Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 25-29 April 2016, Merida, Mexico. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEOM:22. 183 pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen- eral Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2016 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2016 | i Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 1 Administrative details .................................................................................................... 4 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 3 Terms of Reference.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland's Contested European Policy
    An evolving EU engaging a changing Mediterranean region Jean Monnet Occasional Paper 01/2013 Iceland’s contested European Policy: The Footprint of the Past - A Small and Insular Society by Baldur Thorhallsson Copyright © 2013, Baldur Thorhallsson, University of Malta ISSN 2307-3950 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without any prior written permission from the Institute for European Studies, University of Malta. Publisher: Institute for European Studies, Msida, Malta. The Institute for European Studies The Institute for European Studies is a multi-disciplinary teaching and research Institute at the University of Malta, offering courses in European Studies which fully conform to the Bologna guidelines, including an evening diploma, a bachelor’s degree, a masters and a Ph.D. The Institute also operates a number of Erasmus agreements for staff and student exchanges. Founded in 1992 as the European Documentation and Research Centre (EDRC), the Institute was granted the status of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in 2004. The Institute is engaged in various research and publication activities in European Integration Studies and is a member of the Trans-European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA), the LISBOAN network, EPERN, EADI, and the two Euro-Mediterranean networks, EuroMeSCo and FEMISE. The Institute is also a member of the Council for European Studies (hosted at Columbia University). The research interests of its staff include comparative politics and history of the European Union (EU); EU institutions; EU external relations and enlargement; small states in the EU; Malta in the EU; Euro-Mediterranean relations; Stability and Growth Pact; economic governance of the euro area; Europe 2020; EU development policies, climate change, international economics, economic causes and consequences of globalisation and EU trade and cohesion policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 North Sea 6.1 Ecosystem Overview 6.1.1 Ecosystem Components
    6 North Sea 6.1 Ecosystem overview 6.1.1 Ecosystem components Seabed topography and substrates The topography of the North Sea can be broadly described as having a shallow (<50 m) southeastern part, which is sharply separated by the Dogger Bank from a much deeper (50–100 m) central part that runs north along the British coast. The central northern part of the shelf gradually slopes down to 200 m before reaching the shelf edge. Another main feature is the Norwegian Trench running east along the Norwegian coast into the Skagerrak with depths up to 500 m. Further to the east, the Norwegian Trench ends abruptly, and the Kattegat is of depths similar to the main part of the North Sea (Figure 6.1.1). The substrates are dominated by sands in the southern and coastal regions and fine muds in deeper and more central parts (Figure 6.1.2). Sands become generally coarser to the east and west, with patches of gravel and stones existing as well. In the shallow southern part, concentrations of boulders may be found locally, originating from transport by glaciers during the ice ages. This specific hard-bottom habitat has become scarcer, because boulders caught in beam trawls are often brought ashore. The area around, and to the west of the Orkney/Shetland archipelago is dominated by coarse sand and gravel. The deep areas of the Norwegian Trench are covered with extensive layers of fine muds, while some of the slopes have rocky bottoms. Several underwater canyons extend further towards the coasts of Norway and Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of International Fisheries Management Regimes
    Cefas contract report C7372 A review of international fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford & Duncan Vaughan Issue date: 02/08/2018 Cefas Document Control Title: A Review of International Fisheries Management Submitted to: Georgina Karlsson/Charlotte Wicker Date submitted: 02/08/18 Project Manager: Stuart A. Reeves Report compiled by: SAR Quality control by: Defra various & Kieran Hyder Approved by & Kieran Hyder, 8/1/2018 date: Version: 3.5a Version Control History Author Date Comment Version SAR et al. 20/06/17 Compiled from individual 2 chapters SAR et al. 19/07/17 Working version for comment 2.1 SAR et al. 1/09/17 Complete draft for comment 2.2 SAR et al. 21/11/17 Revised to take account of 3.1 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Further revisions in response to 3.2 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Revised structure inc. MRF 3.3 chapter SAR et al. 24/1/2018 Further corrections & enhanced 3.4 exec summary. SAR et al. 26/2/2018 Minor corrections 3.4a SAR et al. 27/7/18 Pre-publication corrections & 3.5 formatting SAR et al. 02/08/18 Fixing minor typos & formatting 3.5a A review of international fisheries management regimes Page i A review of international fisheries management regimes Page ii An international review of fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford and Duncan Vaughan1 Issue date: 02/08/2018 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 51 3865 www.cefas.defra.gov.uk Cefas is an executive agency of Defra 1 Contact Address: c/o Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, PE1 1NG.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing for Common Ground: Broadening the Definition of ‘Rights-Based’ Fisheries Management in Iceland’S Westfjords
    Master‘s Thesis Fishing For Common Ground: Broadening the Definition of ‘Rights-based’ Fisheries Management in Iceland’s Westfjords Katie Auth Advisor: Níels Einarsson, Ph.D. University of Akureyri Faculty of Business and Science University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management Ísafjörður, May 2012 2 Supervisory Committee Advisor: Níels Einarsson, Ph.D., Director of the Stefansson Arctic Institute Reader: Gísli Pálsson, Ph. D., Professor of Anthropology at the University of Iceland Program Director: Dagný Arnarsdóttir, MSc. Katie Auth Fishing For Common Ground: Broadening the Definition of ‘Rights-based’ Fisheries Management in Iceland’s Westfjords 45 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a Master of Resource Management degree in Coastal and Marine Management at the University Centre of the Westfjords, Suðurgata 12, 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland Degree accredited by the University of Akureyri, Faculty of Business and Science, Borgir, 600 Akureyri, Iceland Copyright © 2012 Katie Auth All rights reserved Printing: Háskólaprent, Reykjavík, June 2012 3 Declaration I hereby confirm that I am the sole author of this thesis and it is a product of my own academic research. __________________________________________ Student‘s name 4 Abstract Since the 1980s, so-called “rights-based” fisheries management regimes – specifically those designed to apply market forces to problems of inefficiency and overfishing by divvying up fixed, tradable proportions of a total allowable catch among individuals or cooperatives – have become both one of the most widely advocated and most contentious aspects of marine resource management. Iceland, promoted by some as a successful international model of this approach, has been the site – for nearly thirty years – of fierce debate and controversy regarding the system’s effects on regional development, social justice and wealth disparity.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Twentieh Session of the Committee on Fisheries. Rome, 15
    FAO Fisheries Report No. 488 FIPL/R488 ISSN 0429-9337 Report of the TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES Rome, 15-19 March 1993 FO,' FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1r FAO Fisheries Report No 488 2Lf REPORT OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES Rome, 15-19 March 1993 FOOD I,AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF INAT]Í NS Rome 1993 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever ori the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-40 ISBN 925-1 03399-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, rnechani- cal, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. © FAO 1993 PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT This is the final version of the report as approved by the Twentieth Session of the Committee on Fisheries. Distribution: All FAO Member Nations and Associate Members Participants in the session Other interested Nations and International Organizations FAO Fisheries Department Fishery Officers in FAO Regional Offices - iv - FAO Report of the twentieth session of the Committee on Fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Ice and Cod: the U.S.-Icelandic Alliance Throughout the Cold War
    ABSTRACT HOUSE OF ICE AND COD: THE U.S.-ICELANDIC ALLIANCE THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR From 1946 to 2006, the Icelandic government made sure to protect their people, their elves, and their cod from foreign powers. However, in a Cold War world, the need for spheres of influence on the part of the United States complicated Iceland’s security. The U.S. foreign policy makers intended to use economic and military coercion to create an alliance with Iceland. Iceland joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and offered an airbase in Keflavík to help the United States’ goal of collective security. The Icelanders and the British fought in three cod wars dragging the United States in to mediate between allies. The question of stationing military personnel and weapons further complicated their relationship. This work uses the range from 1946 to 2006 to show the ways in which two countries dealt with situations involving economics, the military, and the issues of alliance. Also, by showing these situations, one can view how the Cold War was truly a global war where nations large and small were affected in some way. Jeffrey Allen Moosios May 2015 HOUSE OF ICE AND COD: THE US-ICELANDIC ALLIANCE THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR by Jeffrey Allen Moosios A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History in the College of Social Sciences California State University, Fresno May 2015 APPROVED For the Department of History: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland's Search for Shelter
    n Fræðigreinar STJÓRNMÁL & STJÓRNSÝSLA A small state in world politics: Iceland’s search for shelter Baldur Thorhallsson, Professor in political science, University of Iceland Abstract The aim of this paper is to determine Iceland’s foreign policy options in relation to shelter theory. Iceland has been seeking political and economic shelter ever since the United States deserted it in 2006, by closing its military base, and in 2008, by refusing to provide it with assistance following its economic collapse. Iceland has made several new security and defence arrangements with its neighbouring states, applied for membership of the European Union and was the first European country to make a free-trade agreement with China. Moreover, the president of Iceland pressed for closer political and economic ties with Russia. Prominent Icelandic politicians frequently claim that Brexit will create a number of opportunities for Iceland and lead to closer cooperation with Britain. However, Iceland has not yet secured shelter of an extent comparable to what it had enjoyed from the United States. In this paper, we will answer questions such as: What does shelter theory tell us about Iceland’s overseas relations with the US, NATO, the EU, Britain, Russia, China, and the Nordic states? Will Iceland receive more reliable shelter provided by multilateral organizations than by a single shelter provider? Keywords: Foreign policy; small states; shelter theory; Iceland. Introduction Iceland has been searching for shelter ever since the US closed its military base in the country in 2006 and refused to provide it with a rescue package following the 2008 economic crash.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fisheries Dimension
    From Membership to Partnership, the EU and its Relations with the UK after Brexit: the Fisheries Dimension Dr Thomas Appleby Associate Professor in Property Law, University of the West of England, Bristol Abstract Fishing in European waters has been a contentious issue since the sixteenth century and was a key factor in the development of the international law of the sea itself. At the time the UK joined the EU and shared its waters with Member State vessels it also lost access to its traditional fishing grounds off Iceland. The Common Fisheries Policy developed a centralised approached based around historic fleet size rather than productivity of Member States’ waters. Controls were centered around technical measures, reduction in capacity and quota. These worked: the collapse of fish stocks was halted and started to recover a little. However many stocks are still potentially illegally allocated beyond scientific levels, and fishing continues unmanaged in the EU’s suite of offshore marine protected areas. The management institutions need greater transparency and stronger adherence to the law. There is scope to build a future relationship between the EU and the UK: the UK and some of its overseas territories needs the EU market, many stocks are shared, and the parties will need to agree on scientific approaches. However, It is likely that the UK is due a greater allocation of stocks than the current system. As we approach the endgame of the Brexit negotiations it is important that both sides reflect that fishing represents less that 0.1% of their economies and over-politicisation of a small sector will not help either party in the context of the larger negotiations.
    [Show full text]