Environmental Effects of Fishing Gears and the Socioeconomic Consequences of Their Modification, Substitution Or Suppression

Home , Artisanal fishing, Braided fishing line, Cast net, Crab trap, Electric pulse fishing, Lampara net

STUDY

Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF FISHING GEARS AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR MODIFICATION, SUBSTITUTION OR SUPPRESSION

FISHERIES

September 2007 EN

Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union

Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies

FISHERIES

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF FISHING GEARS AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR MODIFICATION, SUBSTITUTION OR SUPPRESSION

IP/B/PECH/IC/2006-179 30/09/2007

PE 375.312 EN

This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries.

This paper is published in the following language: - Original: EN.

Author: Jose FRANCO1

Responsible Official: Jesús IBORRA MARTÍN Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament Rue Wiertz 60 B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected]

Manuscript completed in October 2007.

This study is available on Internet: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert/eStudies.do?language=EN

Brussels, European Parliament, 2007.

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

1 AZTI TECNALIA, Txatxarramendi ugartes, z/g 48395 Sukarrieta, Bizkaia, Spain

Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies

FISHERIES

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF FISHING GEARS AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR MODIFICATION, SUBSTITUTION OR SUPPRESSION

STUDY

Content: The purpose of the study is to provide the committee on Fisheries with a clear and detailed description of the recent developments in fishing gears and fishing techniques in order to improve selectivity and reduce impacts on the habitats.

The study describes the environmental effects of fishing gears and analyzes the technical measures in each of the fishing gears, the economic performance of European fishing fleet and the implications of modifications, substitution or suppression of fishing gears.

IP/B/PECH/IC/2006-179

PE 375.312 EN

Environmental effects of fishing gears

Executive summary

In the European Union alone (EU-25) the fishing activity produced in 2004 approximately 6.8 B€ worth of fish. The total number of fishing vessels in that year was 92.178.

In 2006, the total number of fishing vessels was 82.476. The sustainability of the fishing activity of these units requires improving cost-effectiveness and reducing its environmental impact. To ensure the exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions the CFP adopts (between others) technical measures.

Existing legislation of those technical measures are defined by the Council Regulation (EC) 850/98 of 30 March 1998 (2), which is under revision and has been amended by several Council Regulations.

The present study covers several aspects: • Description of the EU fishing fleet (Chapter 2); • Description of the EU fishing gears (Chapter 3 and 7); • Fishing gears and the marine environment (Chapter 4); • Technical measures for improving fishing gears (Chapter 5); • Implications of modifications, substitution or suppression of fishing gears (Chapter 6).

In Chapters 2 the focus is on the analysis of the European fishing fleet and the description of its performance.

At the end of 2.006, the total number of fishing vessels were 87.426, with a total GT of 1.965.440 and a power of 7.105.513 kW. The approximate employment was 181.610 people. • From the 27 member states of the European Union, 22 have a registered marine fishing fleet (including Bulgaria and Romania). • EU fishing fleet has reduced its figures in last years in spite of the increase of Members States: 88.106 fishing vessels, a total tonnage of 2.005.008 GT and an engine power of 7.194.600 KW. • EU fishing fleet (EU-25) performs its fishing activity in most world waters, obtaining a catch around 5.5 millions tonnes, where the NE Atlantic Area represents 85%. • Five countries (Denmark, Spain, France, United Kingdom and Netherlands) accounts for the 64% of all the European production (EU-25). • Italy has the best ratio ‘value of landings/total quantity of landings’: 5.011€/t. France and Spain comes in the second and third place for this ratio, with 2.627€/t and 2.151 €/t respectively (year 2005). • A large part of the European fleet relies on access to non-Community fish resources either in waters under the jurisdiction of third countries with which the European Community has fisheries agreements, or in international waters. • Around 2.500 fishing vessels operate in EU distant waters. The 80% of this EU fleet (around 2000 fishing vessels) works in non-Community waters north of the EC (Greenland, Norway, Iceland and Faeroes Islands). The rest of the fishing vessels involved in non-Community waters south of the EC are trawlers (bottom and midwater), tuna purse seiners, tuna pole and line vessels and surface longliners.

2 OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1. iii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Chapter 3 deals with the fishing gears used by the European fleet: • European fishing fleets use 27 different fishing gears: surrounding nets (purse seines and lampara nets), seine nets (beach, Danish, Scottish and pair seines), trawls (beam trawls, bottom otter trawls, bottom pair trawls, midwater otter trawls, midwater pair trawls and otter twin trawls), dredges (hand, boat and mechanized and suction dredges), lift nets (boat operated), gillnets and entangling nets (set gillnets, driftnets, encircling nets, trammel nets and combined gillnet-trammel nets), traps (pots), hooks and lines (hand and pole lines, set longlines, drifting longlines and trolling lines). • The most important fishing gears can be grouped in 9 main fishing gears: o purse seines o seines o beam trawls o bottom trawls o midwater trawls o dredges o gillnets o pots o hooks and lines • Active fishing gears are used by fleets that show more GT than passive fishing gears (1.585.157 GT vs 380.283 GT) while passive fishing gears comprise more fishing vessels (68.155 vs 19.271). • Set gillnets and set longlines are principal fishing gears according to the number of fishing vessels, while bottom trawls and midwater trawls are the principal fishing gears according to the total tonnage. • Only 22 fleets from 12 countries account for the 70% of the total tonnage. Five of the 22 fleets belong to Spain.

Chapter 4 is concentrated in the analysis of the interactions of the fishing gears with the marine environment.

The effects of the fishing gears are analyzed according to previous studies related with the interactions between fishing gears and the marine environment. Special attention is paid to size and species selectivity, bycatch, catch of sensible species and interactions between fishing gears and the sea bottom.

In Chapter 5, technical measures for improving the fishing gears are discussed. The summary of findings for the 9 main categories of fishing gears related with its selectivity, impacts on species and on habitats and the technical measures implemented is the following:

1. Purse seine a) Selectivity: - purse seining is a non-selective gear regarding fish size. - catches normally consist of a single species with a rather narrow length distribution. b) Impacts on species: - the potential negative impact may come from occasional bycatch/discards effects (undersize specimens, no marketable specimens, non-target species, etc.). c) Impacts on habitats:

iv PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

- there is no impact on the bottom habitat except when the water depth is less than the height of the purse seine. d) Measures and devices: - Limits on the depth - selective panels - selective grids - Dolphin Mortality Limits (DML) - Dolphin Safety Panel (DCP) for releasing marine mammals

2. Seines a) Selectivity: - mesh size is the main factor in seine nets size selectivity. b) Impacts on species: - the potential negative impact may come from occasional bycatch/discards effects (undersize specimens, no marketable specimens, non-target species, etc.) and results from the use of a large net, with, frequently, too small meshes, in coastal waters. c) Impacts on habitats : - The impact on the sea bed (flat and smooth bottom) is limited. d) Measures and devices: - mesh selection panels.

3. Beam trawls a) Selectivity: - mesh size is the main factor in beam trawl size selectivity. - differences in netting material can bring differences in size selectivity. b) Impacts on species: - capture and frequently discarding of non target sizes and species both of fish and non- fish species. - serious effects on large sessile fauna. c) Impacts on habitats: - the sole plates and the thickler chaines make substantial impact to the sea bottom. d) Measures and devices: - Benthos release panel - Electrical stimulation (electric fishing regulated in ices zones IVc and IVb).

4. Bottom trawls a) Selectivity: - mesh size is the main factor in bottom trawl size selectivity. - differences in netting material can bring differences in size selectivity. b) Impacts on species: - capture and frequently discarding of non target sizes and species both of fish and non- fish species. - serious effects on large sessile fauna. c) Impacts on habitats : - irreversible habitat effects on hard bottoms. In soft bottom habitats will be restored with time.

v PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears d) Measures and devices: - escape panels (square, T90, rectangular meshes). - Rigid sorting grids - Flexible sorting grids - "self-spreading" groundgear - Light groundgears - Bottom non-contact otter boards - Raised footropes - Horizontal separator panels - Sieve netting - Escape panels (BACOMA…)

5. Midwater trawls a) Selectivity: - mesh size is the main factor in midwater trawl size selectivity. - differences in netting material can bring differences in size selectivity. b) Impacts on species: - the potential negative impact may come from occasional bycatch/discards effects (undersize specimens, no marketable specimens, non-target species, etc.). c) Impacts on habitats: - as a mobile non-contact bottom fishing gear, have very little negative impact on habitats. d) Measures and devices: - grids and escape panels similar to bottom trawl devices.

6. Dredges a) Selectivity: - Dredge selectivity is affected by seabed, tow duration and velocity, the hanging coefficient of the net bag, the twine material and its diameter, tooth spacing and mesh size. b) Impacts on species: - Bycatch in dredges includes finfish such as monkfish and flounders, as well as, lobsters and other benthic organisms. - serious effects on large sessile fauna. c) Impacts on habitats: - damage to reef and similar structures d) Measures and devices: - restrictive areas in order to protect sensitive habitats.

7. Gillnets a) Selectivity: - mesh size is the main factor in gillnet size selectivity. - key parameters important on species selectivity: length, soak time, hanging ratio of gillnets and the height of the headline. b) Impacts on species:

vi PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

- incidental catch of a number of endangered species such as turtles, sharks, marine mammals or seabirds. - ghost fishing is of big concern. c) Impacts on habitats: - static nets have a relatively small impact on the environment compared with the mobile bottom-contact fishing gears. d) Measures and devices: - enlargement of the mesh size. - pinger deterrents for cetaceans. - low-profile nets. - limit the length of nets. - limit the soaking time

8. Pots a) Selectivity: - The size of the mesh or the distance between the slats makes the selection. b) Impacts on species: - low negative impact on species, as caught juveniles or undersized species can be released alive. - ghost fishing reported (perhaps 5-7% of the total catch). c) Impacts on habitats : - Pots, and in general any kind of traps, have very little negative impact on habitats. d) Measures and devices: - Limits on the number of pots. - escape-gaps

9. Hooks and lines a) Selectivity: - species selectivity is mainly influenced by the bait type. - size selectivity is mainly influenced by the bait size. b) Impacts on species: - no problems with trolling lines and pole and line fisheries, as both fishing methods are very selective. - Incidental catch of seabirds when setting or hauling the longlines. - Incidental catch of sharks and turtles on pelagic longlines. c) Impacts on habitats : - as passive methods they have minor effects on the seabed. - the mortality rate by “ghost fishing” from lost demersal longlines is usually low. d) Measures and devices:

- Bird-scaring lines (‘tori poles’). - Longline setting funnels to avoid the catch of birds. - non-offset circle hooks. - Limits on the number of hooks. - Limits on the soaking time. - New designs of hooks to avoid incidental catch. - Bait deterrents for some species (sharks).

vii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

In Chapter 6 the implications of substitutions or suppression of different fishing gears is analyzed, taking into account the concept of ‘responsible fishing gears’ and the economic performance of European fishing fleet. The main findings are the following:

In the ranking for identifying “responsible fishing methods”, the least responsible fishing gears (beam trawls, bottom trawls and dredges) account for the 50% of the total EU fishing fleet (expressed in GT).

The 9 main groups of fishing gears had a value of landings in 2004 of 6.758.700 m€, being bottom trawls at the top, with 2.600.440 m€.

The EU fleets spent in 2004 about 1 B € on fuel.

The substitution of gears is an issue of income distribution among actors, starting from the fishermen and ship owners to then move on to the allocation among fleets using different gears, and furthermore to the countries and the EU in what refers to the decision about the quotas.

The comparison of different indicators (as the one proposed here) with other measures of employment or financial performance helps to explain why a wider approach to socioeconomic aspects of fishing gear is needed.

Short and long term considerations are taken into account and social and economical impact of technical measures on the fleet are considered.

For fishing gears based in netting (purse seines, seines, trawls, gillnets…) the fishermen will approve with more enthusiasm technical measures based in netting than other selection device difficult to handle (rigid grids or complicate devices with difficult gear construction). Technical measures based on gear modifications like escape panels of T90 or rectangular meshes seems to be according to the latest scientific work the most promising implements for reducing bycatch and impacts on species. The implementation of the technical measures will cause a reduction in the yield although benefit the fisheries in the long term. Values of this reduction up to 15% could be acceptable. The short-term impacts on the profitability of commercial fishing would be negative, and probably it would take some years before the expected present value of the catch exceeded the value prior to the adoption of the technical measures, and probably more years before the value of the catch would be positive.

Thus, in addition to these technical measures, economic incentives may be used in these periods to alleviate the economic consequences some of these measures may have on the livelihood of fishermen.

As has been pointed out (Fischler, 2004), ‘over the past 10 years - the EU has contributed some 8 million € a year for over 400 projects on increasing gear selectivity, reducing discards

viii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears or quantifying the impact of fishing on the environment’. More research is needed in the next years to advance in this field and because is the only way to measure positive development after the introduction of technical measures in the fisheries.

ix PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Glossary of abbreviations and acronyms

ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area ACFA Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture ACFM Advisory Committee on Fishery Management ACFR Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (FAO) ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific countries ADD acoustic deterrent device AIDCP Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas B € billion euros BRD Bycatch reduction device CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefish Tuna Commission for the Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries (West CECAF Africa) CFP Common Fisheries Policy (European Union) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild CITES Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on Migratory Species COFI Committee on Fisheries CPUE Catch per unit effort CWP Coordinating Working Party on Atlantic Fisheries Statistics DCR Data Collection Regulation DRB ISSCFG abbreviation for Boat dredges DRH ISSCFG abbreviation for Hand dredges DSP Dolphin safety panel EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFF European Fisheries Fund EFZ Exclusive Fishing Zone e.g. for example EPAs Economic Partnership Agreements EPO Eastern Pacific Ocean ETP Eastern Tropical Pacific EU European Union fa Fathom; 1 fa = 1.829 m FAD fish aggregating device FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FIFG Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance FPAs Fisheries Partnership Agreements FPO ISSCFG abbreviation for Pots GCF Gross cash flow GFCM General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean GHG Greenhouse Gas

x PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

GNC ISSCFG abbreviation for Encircling nets GND ISSCFG abbreviation for Driftnets GNS ISSCFG abbreviation for Set gillnets (anchored) GRT Gross registered tonnage GTN ISSCFG abbreviation for Combined gillnets-Trammel nets GTR ISSCFG abbreviation for Trammel nets GVA Gross value added HMD ISSCFG abbreviation for Mechanized dredges HMPE high modulus polyethylene HMS Highly migratory species HPPE high performance polyethylene IATTC Inter–American Tropical Tuna Commission IBSFC International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES CM ICES Council Meeting ICES WG ICES Working Group ICNAF International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries ICSEAF International Commission for the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries IDCP International Dolphin Conservation Program INPFC International North Pacific Fisheries Commission IOFC Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission ISSCFG International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Gear International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural IUCN Resources (World Conservation Union) IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) IWC International Whaling Commission LA ISSCFG abbreviation for Lamparas (without purse lines) LHM ISSCFG abbreviation for Handlines and pole-lines (mechanized) ISSCFG abbreviation for Handlines and pole-lines (hand LHP operated) LLD ISSCFG abbreviation for Drifting longlines LLS ISSCFG abbreviation for Set longlines LME Large marine ecosystem LNB ISSCFG abbreviation for Boat operated lift nets LOA Length over all LTL ISSCFG abbreviation for Trolling lines M million m thousand, meters M € Million x euros m€ Thousand x euros MLS Minimum landing size MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MMS Minimum mesh size MPA(s) Marine protected area(s) MSY maximum sustainable yield N Newtons NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

xi PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation NEAFC Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (United States) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (United States) NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management Council OTB ISSCFG abbreviation for Bottom otter tra OTM ISSCFG abbreviation for Midwater otter trawls OTT ISSCFG abbreviation for Otter twin trawls PA Polyamide PE Polyethylene PES Polyester PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council PP Polypropylene PS ISSCFG abbreviation for Purse seines PTB ISSCFG abbreviation for Bottom pair trawls PTM ISSCFG abbreviation for Midwater pair trawls RFO Regional fisheries organization SAC Special Areas of Conservation SB ISSCFG abbreviation for Beach seines SCRS Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (ICCAT) SDN ISSCFG abbreviation for Danish seines SEAFO South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre SGDBI Study Group on Discard and By–catch Information (ICES) SGECA Sub-Group on Economic Affairs SGFEN Sub-Group on Fishery and Environment SGRN Sub-Group on Research Needs SOFIA The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO) SPA Special Protected Areas SPC South Pacific Commission SPR ISSCFG abbreviation for Pair seines SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme SSC Species Survival Commission SSC ISSCFG abbreviation for Scottish seines SSD Seal saver device STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries TAC Total allowable catch TBB ISSCFG abbreviation for Beam trawls TED Turtle excluder device TEN Trawl Escapement Net TREND Trawl flow Regulative Ecological friendly Netting Device UN United Nations UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNIA United Nations Implementing Agreement UHMWPE ultra high molecular weight polyethylene VNIRO Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography vs versus

xii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WECAFC Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission WGFTFB Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour WIOTO West Indian Ocean Tuna Organization WTO World Trade Organization WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

xiii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

List of tables

Table 2.1. European (EU-25) fishing fleet (number, tonnage and engine power) by country...... 6 Table 2.2. Total catches (EU-25) by major fishing areas...... 10 Table 2.3. Fishing activity of EU fishing fleet in FAO marine major fishing areas (Catch of year 2004 in thousands of tonnes)...... 11 Table 2.4. Ranking of catch by Member States (year 2004)...... 12 Table 2.5. Ranking of species by catch (EU-25; year 2004)...... 13 Table 3.1. Fishing gears used by the European fishing fleet...... 18 Table 3.2. Number of vessels, tonnage and engine power by fishing gears ...... 19 Table 3.3. Ranking (the Top 10) of fishing gears according to the number of vessels (95.2% of total number)...... 20 Table 3.4. Ranking (the Top 10) of fishing gears according to the tonnage of the vessels (94.6% of total number)...... 20 Table 3.5. Ranking (the Top 10) of fishing gears according to the power of vessels (93.2% of total kW)...... 21 Table 3.6. Ranking of fishing fleets with more than 20.000 GT Source: Community fishing fleet register (year 2006)...... 22 Table 3.7. Main fishing gears...... 23 Table 4.1. Main fishing gears to by analyzed in the present study...... 31 Table 6.1. Ranking of main fishing gears according to an “ecosystem effect index”...... 65 Table 6.2. Fuel costs by gear and size of vessel (2002)...... 68 Table 6.3. Total value of landings by fishing gear (year 2004). Figures in m €...... 69 Table 6.4. Total value of landings for the beam trawl by Member States...... 70 Table 6.5. Total value of landings for the bottom trawl by Member States...... 70 Table 6.6. Total value of landings for dredges by Member States...... 71 Table 6.7. Two different scenarios with losses in commercial landings of 15% and 30%...... 74 Table 6.8. Ranking of main fishing gears according to their efficiency indicator, before and after the substitution of beam trawls and bottom trawls. Data estimated from AER (2005)...... 75 Table 6.9. Ranking of main fishing gears according to their weighted efficiency indicator, before and after the substitution of beam trawls and bottom trawls. Data estimated from AER (2005)...... 76 Table 6.10. Ranking of countries according to their individual losses and the share in the total losses of the fleet using that gear after the substitution of beam trawls and bottom trawls ...... 78 Table 6.11. Technical measures based on gear modifications for the main fishing gears...... 84 Table 7.1. leets that use purse seines as main fishing gear...... 89 Table 7.2. Fleets that use lampara nets as main fishing gear...... 91

xiv PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.3. Fleets that use beach seines as main fishing gear...... 93 Table 7.4. Fleets that use Danish seines as main fishing gear...... 94 Table 7.5. Fleets that use Scottish seines as main fishing gear...... 94 Table 7.6. Fleets that use pair seines as main fishing gear...... 95 Table 7.7. Fleets that use beam trawls as main fishing gear...... 97 Table 7.8. Fleets that use bottom otter trawls as main fishing gear...... 98 Table 7.9. Fleets that use bottom pair trawls as main fishing gear...... 99 Table 7.10. Fleets that use midwater otter trawls as main fishing gear...... 100 Table 7.11. Fleets that use midwater pair trawls as main fishing gear...... 101 Table 7.12. Fleets that use otter twin trawls as main fishing gear...... 102 Table 7.13. Fleets that use boat dredges as main fishing gear...... 104 Table 7.14. Fleets that use hand dredges as main fishing gear...... 104 Table 7.15. Fleets that use boat-operated lift nets as main fishing gear...... 106 Table 7.16. Fleets that use set gillnets as main fishing gear...... 108 Table 7.17. Fleets that use drift nets as main fishing gear...... 109 Table 7.18. Fleets that use encircling nets as main fishing gear...... 110 Table 7.19. Fleets that use trammel nets as main fishing gear...... 111 Table 7.20. Fleets that use combined gillnet-trammel nets as main fishing gear...... 112 Table 7.21. Fleets that use pots as main fishing gear...... 114 Table 7.22. Fleets that use handlines and pole-lines (hand operated) as main fishing gear...... 116 Table 7.23. Fleets that use handlines and pole-lines (mechnized) as main fishing gear...... 116 Table 7.24. Fleets that use set longlines as main fishing gear...... 117 Table 7.25. Fleets that use drifting longlines as main fishing gear...... 118 Table 7.26. Fleets that use trolling lines as main fishing gear...... 119 Table. 7.27. Fleets that use mechanized dredges as main fishing gear...... 120

xv PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

List of figures

Fig. 2.1. Member states of the European Union with a registered marine fishing fleet showing the number of vessels and the total tonnage in GT (December 2006)...... 3 Fig. 2.2. Evolution of the fleet's number of vessels...... 4 Fig. 2.3. Age of the European fishing fleet ...... 5 Fig. 2.4. FAO major fishing areas for statistical purposes...... 8 Fig. 2.5. Major Fishing Area 27 (Atlantic, Northeast) corresponding to the ICES fishing areas for statistical purposes...... 9 Fig. 4.1. Explanation of selectivity parameters ...... 28 Fig. 5.1. Rigid sorting grid for a mackerel purse seine ...... 43 Fig. 5.2. Sorting grid mounted in a mackerel purse seine ...... 44 Fig. 5.3. The Medina panel, a DSP device...... 44 Fig. 5.4. Backdown operation in a tuna purse seiner...... 45 Fig. 5.5. Horizontal panel...... 47 Fig. 5.6. Grids designs. A) Nordmøre; b) Sort-X; C) Sort-V...... 48 Fig. 5.7. Schematic illustration of a Turtle Excluder Device (TED)...... 49 Fig. 5.8. Classification of the Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) ...... 50 Fig. 5.9. Ultracross four panel codend...... 51 Fig. 5.10. Square mesh windows...... 52 Fig. 5.11. A trawl net with the Bacoma escape window...... 52 Fig. 5.12. The benthos release panel principle ...... 53 Fig. 5.13. A diamond mesh (A) converted into T90 (B) after turning 90º from its usual orientation...... 54 Fig. 5.14. Comparison of T90 and square mesh shapes. The red ellipse is the cross- section of a cod...... 55 Fig. 5.15. Schematic illustration of TREND ...... 56 Fig. 5.16. Schematic illustration of a Electro Shrimp Beam Trawl ...... 57 Fig. 5.17. Bird-scaring lines (tori poles)...... 60 Fig. 5.18. Longline setting funnel ...... 60 Fig. 6.1. Capture responsible methods. Scores for an index made of 7 variables (catch quality, size and species selectivity, habitat impact, energy cost, bycatch, catch welfare) for different capture methods...... 67 Fig. 7.1. Surrounding nets...... 87 Fig. 7.2. Purse seine. Details of the net and fishing operation ...... 88 Fig. 7.3. Differences between the ringnet (a) and the purse seine (b)...... 89 Fig. 7.4. Lampara net. Details of the net and fishing operation...... 90 Fig. 7.5. Seine nets ...... 91 Fig. 7.6. Beach seine net...... 92 Fig. 7.7. Danish seine ...... 93

xvi PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.8. Beam trawl ...... 96 Fig. 7.9. Bottom otter trawl ...... 97 Fig. 7.10. Bottom pair trawl...... 99 Fig. 7.11. Midwater otter trawl...... 100 Fig. 7.12. Midwater pair trawl...... 101 Fig. 7.13. Otter twin trawl ...... 102 Fig. 7.14. Dredges...... 103 Fig. 7.15. Liftnet vessel ...... 105 Fig. 7.16. Cast net, a falling gear...... 106 Fig. 7.17. Set gillnet ...... 108 Fig. 7.18 Driftnet ...... 109 Fig. 7.19. Encircling net ...... 110 Fig. 7.20. Trammel net ...... 111 Fig. 7.21. Combined gillnet-trammel net ...... 112 Fig. 7.22. Pot 113 Fig. 7.23. Handline for mackerel...... 115 Fig. 7.24. Set longline (Semipelagic) ...... 117 Fig. 7.25. Drifting longline...... 118 Fig. 7.26. Trolling lines ...... 119

xvii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table of contents

Page

Executive Summary...... iii Glossary of abbreviations and acronyms...... iii List of Tables ...... xviii List of Figures...... xx Contents ...... xxii 1 Introduction...... 1 1.1 Methodological notes...... 2 2 EU fishing fleet ...... 3 2.1 EU catches and main fishing areas...... 8 2.2 EU distant waters fleet ...... 13 2.3 Key Findings (EU Fishing fleets) ...... 15 3 EU fishing gears...... 17 3.1 Latest developments of fishing gears...... 24 3.2 Key Findings (EU Fishing gears)...... 25 4 Fishing gears and the marine environment ...... 27 4.1 Introduction...... 27 4.2 Selectivity...... 27 4.3 Interactions of main fishing gears...... 30 4.4 Key Findings (Fishing gears and the marine environment)...... 41 5 Technical measures for improving fishing gears...... 43 5.1 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of purse seines...... 43 5.2 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of seines ...... 46 5.3 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of trawls ...... 46 5.4 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of dredges...... 58 5.5 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of gillnets and entangling nets ...... 58 5.6 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of traps ...... 59 5.7 Measures and devices for reducing impacts of hooks and lines ...... 59 5.8 Key Findings (Technical measures)...... 61 6 Implications of modifications, substitution or suppression of fishing gears...... 63 6.1 Introduction...... 63 6.2 Responsible fishing methods...... 65 6.3 Fuel costs...... 67 6.4 Economic performance of European fishing fleet ...... 69 6.5 Socioeconomic consequences of modification, substitution or suppression of fishing gear 71 6.6 Short and long term measures...... 79 6.7 Key Findings (Implications of changes in fishing gears)...... 86 7 Description of EU fishing gears ...... 87 7.1 Surrounding nets ...... 87 7.2 Seine nets ...... 91 7.3 Trawls...... 95 7.4 Dredges ...... 102 7.5 Lift nets ...... 104 7.6 Falling gear...... 106

xviii PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7.7 Gillnets and entangling nets...... 107 7.8 Traps...... 113 7.9 Hooks and lines...... 114 7.10 Grappling and wounding...... 120 7.11 Harvesting machines ...... 120 8 Bibliography ...... 121 9 ANNEXES...... 129 9.1 BACOMA ...... 130 9.2 BY-CARE ...... 132 9.3 COST-IMPACT ...... 134 9.4 DEGREE...... 135 9.5 ECODREDGE...... 136 9.6 EMPAFISH...... 137 9.7 EUROGRID ...... 138 9.8 FANTARED 2 ...... 139 9.9 NECESSITY ...... 140 9.10 NETRASEL ...... 141 9.11 NOVARRAST ...... 142 9.12 PREMECS II...... 144 9.13 RECOVERY ...... 145 9.14 REDUCE...... 146 9.15 RESPONSE...... 147 9.16 SELDAT ...... 149 9.17 SELDAT-2 ...... 150 9.18 SELMED...... 151 9.19 SOBETRA...... 152 9.20 SURVIVAL...... 153 9.21 TECTAC ...... 154

xix PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

xx PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

1. Introduction

To promote the sustainability of fishing activities in EU waters and protect a specific stock or a group of stocks the EU may use a number of conservation measures. These measures include: • Total Allowable Catches (TACs) to limit the maximum amount of fish that can be caught from a specific stock over a given period of time. • Technical measures, such as mesh sizes, selective fishing gear, closed areas, minimum landing sizes, and by-catch limits. • Limiting fishing effort by reducing the number of fishing days at sea of fishing vessels. • Fixing the number and type of fishing vessels authorised to fish

In addition to these conservation measures, economic incentives and measures may be used to promote more selective fishing, reduce fishing effort and to alleviate the economic consequences some of these measures may have on the livelihood of fishermen.

The main objective of this study is to provide the Committee on Fisheries with a clear and detailed description of the recent developments to improve gears, equipment, and fishing techniques. This will permit evaluate the applicability and assess the consequences for doing some technical changes in EU fishing gears to minimize the interactions between those fishing gears and the marine environment. Existing legislation of those technical measures are defined by the Council Regulation (EC) 850/98 of 30 March 1998 (3), which is under revision and has been amended by Council Regulations (EC) Nos 308/1999, 1459/1999, 2723/1999, 812/2000, 1298/2000, 724/2001, 973/2001 and 602/2004.

The CFP ensures the exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions and is by adopting (between others) technical measures.

The new regulation that is in preparation will divide the technical measures into three groups according to their objectives, which are: • Conservation of regulated species • Protection of the environment • Reduction of the discards

The main objective of this study is to provide the Committee on Fisheries with a clear and detailed description, comprehensive and comprehensible even to non-specialists, by covering these aspects: • Typology of EU fishing fleet • General description of EU fishing gears • Interactions of fishing gears with the marine environment • Technical measures to reduce the impact of fishing gears

The overall situation includes 27 Member states, 27 different main fishing gears, more than 200 different segments of fishing fleet and an uncountable number of different fishing activities or ‘metiers’.

3 Ibid., p. 1.

1 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Short and long-term considerations are taken when dealing with the technical measures and its application, as there is considerable differences between the different fishing gears and their characteristics, physical and biological impacts in the marine environment and the specific technical measures to reduce the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems and non target species.

Methodological notes In order to make the study clear, comprehensive and comprehensible to non-specialists some procedures have been taken: • As numerous reviews of the topics are mentioned along the text, only bibliographical references cited in the text appear in Section 6. Bibliography. • Existing available databases from fishing fleets have been analysed and summarized in tables to provide a clear and detailed description in a comprehensible way. • The 27 fishing gears used by the European fishing fleet are summarized and discussed as 7 main fishing gears (surrounding nets, seine nets, trawls, dredges, gillnets, pots and hooks and lines). When convenient the trawls have been split into beam trawls, bottom otter trawls and midwater trawls. • The fishing activity and its analogy with the word ‘métier’ corresponds to a combination of fishing vessel, fishing gear, target species, fishing geographic zone and time of the year. "Metier" notion enables to better define the effective effort implemented on a resource and it leads to a fleet’s distribution bearing in mind the strategies, the usages and the fishermen knowledge. It allows identifying more operational management units. But in the present study, it is not easy to use the metier concept because with so many member states, fishing vessels, fishing gears and fishing areas it would be impossible to handle the complex situation. • Tonnage expressed as GT is well correlated with the engine power expressed in kW and gives a better understanding of the importance of the fleet. To simplify the tables where segments of fleet appear, only number of fishing vessels and the tonnage expressed in GT are presented. • Terms related with fisheries along the study are defined in the Glossary. • Acronyms and abbreviations used in the present study are explained in Acronyms and abbreviations. • Fishing gear schematic illustrations and specific technical measures are provided (in Chapter 7) to a better understanding of the fishing operation and its interaction with the marine environment. • A list of European research projects dealing with the subjects of this study is presented in the Annex.

2 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

2. EU fishing fleet From the 27 member states of the European Union, 22 (4) have a registered marine fishing fleet. Five countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia) have only fish production from inland waters (in FAO Area 05 = Europe inland waters).

EU fishing fleet has reduced its figures in last years in spite of the increase of Members States. In January 2006 the European fishing fleet had 88.106 fishing vessels, a total tonnage of 2.005.008 GT (5) and an engine power of 7.194.600 KW (Fig. 2.1.).

Fig. 2.1. Member states of the European Union with a registered marine fishing fleet showing the number of vessels and the total tonnage in GT (December 2006).

Source: Community fishing fleet register. The marked decrease in number of fishing vessels from year 1998 to 2006 is remarked in Fig. 2.2., where the peak in year 2004 corresponds to the entry of new member states with marine fishing

4 Including Bulgaria and Romania. 5 Under the EU legislation, the Member States are required to record the vessel tonnage using the Gross Tonnage (GT) under the London Convention (1969) as opposed to the previously used Gross Register Tonnage (GRT) under the Oslo Convention (1946).

3 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears fleet (Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovenia). In year 2007, the decrease will be also slightly stopped with the additional fishing vessels from Bulgaria and Romania.

The evolution of the fleet's tonnage has followed similar pattern, from 2.004.634 GT in 1998 to 1.965.440 GT in 2006 and the same for the fleet's engine power: 7.842.782 kW from 1998 to 7.105.513 kW in 2006.

This marked decrease will increase in following years according to the age of the fishing vessels (Fig. 2.3.), as the aid for the renewal of the fleet, which contributed to creating overcapacity, came to an end in December 2004. The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) 2007-20013 (6), which succeeds the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) covering the 2000-2006 period, will maintain that attitude.

Fig. 2.2. Evolution of the fleet's number of vessels

105000

100000

95000

90000

No Fishingvessels

85000

80000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Community fishing fleet register

The number, total tonnage, engine power and employment of the European fishing fleet by Member States (December 2006) is presented in Table 2.1. Employment figures are estimated and must be taken into account that national fishing fleet registers contain significant numbers of vessels which are not commercially active and that are around 40.000 fishermen that are probably active only on part time basis in fishing.

6 OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1.

4 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 2.3. Age of the European fishing fleet

16000

14000

12000 10000

8000

6000 No Fishing Vessels 4000

2000

0 0<5 5<10 10<15 15<20 20<25 25<30 30<35 35<40 40<= Age

Source: Community fishing fleet register.

5 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 2.1. European (EU-25) fishing fleet (number, tonnage and engine power) by country

State Member State No GT kW Employment* Code Belgium BE 109 20.245 61.095 562 Denmark DK 3.168 87.190 311.444 3.257 Germany DE 2.055 62.843 159.225 2.259 Estonia EE 995 20.826 53.339 551 Greece EL 18.113 92.725 533.137 29.560 Spain ES 13.419 483.366 1.100.485 44.034 France FR 7.692 209.985 1.058.640 13.152 Ireland IE 1.796 85.412 215.899 5.017 Italy IT 14.229 211.704 1.216.886 36.192 Cyprus CY 875 5.498 40.822 896 Latvia LV 898 37.321 61.352 2.318 Lithuania LT 265 61.095 66.264 3.382 Malta MT 1.411 15.261 98.945 1.235 Netherlands NL 840 159.019 385.695 2.211 Poland PL 886 31.665 99.655 3.690 Portugal PT 8893 106.875 380.598 19.961 Slovenia SI 173 1.070 11.283 138 Finland FI 3.208 16.556 170.060 525 Sweden SE 1.594 43.097 215.253 1.405 United Kingdom UK 6.807 213.687 865.436 11.263 Total 87.426 1.965.440 7.105.513 181.610

Source: Community fishing fleet register (31 December 2006). * = estimated from previous years

Due to the wide range of countries, fishing ports, types of fishing techniques, target and non target species, fishing areas and fishing seasons, is essential to describe and catalogue the overall fishing activity. That will be the first step in taking measures to improve the sustainability of fishing.

The fishing activity corresponds to a combination of fishing vessel, fishing gear, target species, fishing geographic zone and time of the year. A “fleet” is a group of fishing vessels sharing, during a reference period (e.g. one year), similar characteristics in terms of technical features, economic structure and/or major activity. Vessels may have different fishing activities during the reference period, but they can be classified in only one fleet. The fleet is the unit for sampling economic data in the ICES area.

6 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Following the detailed disaggregation of vessels according to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 (7) the fishing gears should be considered as mobile gears (beam trawl, demersal trawl and demersal seine, pelagic trawl and seines and dredges), passive gears (fixed gears and lines, drift nets and pots and traps) or a combination of both. European fleet structure and its activity are very complex and have been studied through a typological approach based on multivariate analyses (principal component analysis, cluster analysis, and partition). In this study the European fishing activity within the EU waters and non-EU waters will be described using all the data available to get an integrated picture of the activity. The segmentation of fishing fleets and fishing gears used in these previous European projects and the same approach based on multivariate analyses will be followed.

When the first DCR, EC Regulation 1639-2001 ( 8 ), was written, fisheries management was essentially stock-based. One of the main objectives of the current revision is to reshape the entire DCR, ‘so that it meets the data requirements of both the existing, stock-based assessments and the fleet-based management system that is likely to be implemented in the foreseeable future’. In this process, some European projects have been essential (9).

STECF reviewed the SGRN report on “Evaluation of 2005 National data collection programs undertaken under Commission regulation (EC) No 1639/2001”. In the last Report of the Ad Hoc Meeting of independent experts on Fleet-Fishery based sampling (June, 2006) the following criteria for defining fleet segments has been proposed:

• Exclusive trawler: Using exclusively trawl during the year (bottom and/or pelagic). • Non exclusive trawler: Combination of trawl with other gear (towed gears and/or fixed gears). • Seiner: Exclusion of trawl; Exclusively using seine and combination of seine with other gear (towed gears and/or fixed gears). • Other towed gear: Exclusion of trawl and seine; exclusively using towed gear exclusively and combination of towed gears with fixed gears. • Exclusive netter: Using exclusively net during the year. • Other fixed gear: Exclusion of trawl, seine and other towed gears; combination of fixed gears. • Inactive: Vessels for which fishing time equals zero, but which may have been active in other fields, e.g. aquaculture.

7 OJ L 222, 17.8.2001, p. 70. 8 OJ L 222, 17.8.2001, p. 53. 9 Project TECTAC; Q5RS-2002-01291.

7 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

EU catches and main fishing areas EU fishing fleet (EU-25) performs its fishing activity in most world waters (see Table 2.2 and Fig. 4), obtaining a catch around 5.5 millions tonnes, where area 27 (Atlantic, Northeast; Fig. 2.5.) represents 85%.

Fig. 2.4. FAO major fishing areas for statistical purposes.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

8 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 2.5. Major Fishing Area 27 (Atlantic, Northeast) corresponding to the ICES fishing areas for statistical purposes.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

9 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 2.2. Total catches (EU-25) by major fishing areas

FAO MAJOR FISHING AREAS 2001 2003 2005 Area

Atlantic, Northeast 27 4.536.897 4.173.919 4.106.213

Atlantic, Eastern Central 34 492.358 575.388 450.893

Mediterranean and Black Sea 37 561.288 502.905 510.648

Indian Ocean, Western 51 203.368 314.550 186.342

Atlantic, Northwest 21 41.824 95.999 63.341

Atlantic, Southwest 41 118.470 36.631 84.262

Other areas 163.324 112.801 168.091

Total 6.117.529 5.812.193 5.569.790 Source: EUROSTAT.

In the NE Atlantic (Area 27) European fishing fleets report half of the total catch in that area. From the European fleets, Denmark accounts for the 25% of the European catch followed by UK, France, Nederland, Spain, Sweden and Ireland. The NE Atlantic Area is a major fishing region for 15 of the EU-25 Member States. Only those Member States with coastal waters exclusively in the Mediterranean (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Slovenia) do not fish in the NE Atlantic.

In the E Central Atlantic (Area 34) European fishing fleets report most of the total catch in that area. From the European fleets, Netherlands (midwater trawlers) accounts for the 30% of the European catch followed by Spain (tuna purse seiners) with the 25% and Lithuania (midwater trawlers) with the 19%. In the Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area 37) European fishing fleets account for the half of the total catch in that area. From the European fleets, Italy accounts for the 45% of the European catch followed by Spain, Greece and France.

In Area 51 (Indian Ocean, Western) fishing operations are performed mainly by Spanish (60%) and French (35%) tuna purse seiners. Italy (3%) and Portugal (2%) also have some fishing vessels operating in the area.

In Area 21 (Atlantic, Northwest) fishing operations are performed mainly by NAFO trawlers from Spain (36% of the catches), Portugal (24%), Estonia (17%), Lithuania (12%), Latvia (5%) and Germany (4%).

In Area 41 (Atlantic, Southwest) fishing operations are performed mainly by Spanish (88%) and British (10%) fishing vessels. “Other areas” in Table 2.3 includes the following FAO maritime areas: 31, 47, 48, 57, 58, 77 and 87. EU fishing operations in those areas are the following: • In Area 31 (Atlantic, Western Central) fishing operations are performed by fishing vessels from Spain.

10 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

• In Area 47 (Atlantic, Southeast) fishing operations are performed by fishing vessels from Spain (51%), Lithuania (22%), Poland (21%) and Portugal (6%). • In Area 48 (Atlantic, Antarctic) fishing operations are performed by Polish (75%), British (18%) and Spanish (7%) fishing vessels. • In Area 57 (Indian Ocean, Eastern) fishing operations are performed only by Spanish fishing vessels. • In Area 58 (Indian Ocean, Antarctic and Southern) fishing operations are performed only by French fishing vessels. • In Area 77 (Pacific, Eastern Central) fishing operations are performed only by Spanish fishing vessels (tuna purse seiners). • In Area 87 (Pacific, Southeast) fishing operations are performed only by Spanish fishing vessels (tuna purse seiners).

Table 2.3. Fishing activity of EU fishing fleet in FAO marine major fishing areas (Catch of year 2004 in thousands of tonnes)

2004 Catches Area Main Area Denomination m tonnes Area 18 Arctic Sea 0 96 Area 21 Atlantic, Northwest Area 27 Atlantic, Northeast 4.209

Area 31 Atlantic, Western Central 4

Area 34 Atlantic, Eastern Central 575 Area 37 Mediterranean and Black Sea 505 Area 41 Atlantic, Southwest 37 Area 47 Atlantic, Southeast 21 Area 48 Atlantic, Antarctic 12 314 Area 51 Indian Ocean, Western Area 57 Indian Ocean, Eastern 8

Area 58 Indian Ocean, Antarctic and Southern 7

Area 61 Pacific, Northwest 0

Area 67 Pacific, Northeast 0 Area 71 Pacific, Western Central 0 Area 77 Pacific, Eastern Central 24 Area 81 Pacific, Southwest 0 Area 87 Pacific, Southeast 17 0 Area 88 Pacific, Antarctic Total 5.829

Source: Eurostat.

11 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

European catches (EU-25) ranked by country figure in Table 5. The total catch was 5.904.461 tonnes of live weight. Bearing in mind that in 2004 the world production was 95.806.484 tonnes, EU catches represented 6,2% of world fisheries. The first five countries (Denmark, Spain, France, United Kingdom and Netherlands) accounts for the 64% of all the European production (EU-25). Denmark is at the top with 1.031.201 tonnes (more than the 60% of this production is for industrial use). Nevertheless, taking into account the total value of landings, Spain would be clearly at the top with a total value of 1.848 M€. If we take into account the ratio ‘value of landings/total quantity of landings’, Italy would have a ratio of 5.011€/t (compared with the ratio of Denmark it would be more than 12 times higher). France and Spain comes in the second and third place for this ratio, with 2.627€/t and 2.151 €/t respectively (year 2005).

Table 2.4. Ranking of catch by Member States (year 2004)

2004 catch Member State Code (t) Denmark DK 1.031.201

Spain ES 896.923

France FR 709.204 United Kingdom UK 640.710 Netherlands NL 526.275 Italy IT 295.704 Sweden SE 286.876

Ireland IE 266.236

Germany DE 260.863 Portugal PT 212.851 Poland PL 180.400 Lithuania LT 157.205 Finland FI 121.956

Latvia LV 114.543

Greece EL 93.387 Estonia EE 79.081 Belgium BE 26.835 Cyprus CY 1.791 Slovenia SI 1.282

Malta MT 1.138

Total 5.904.461

Source: Eurostat.

The relative importance of the marine species is presented in Table 6, showing the ranking for the main 24 marine species for the catch of year 2004.

12 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 2.5. Ranking of species by catch (EU-25; year 2004).

CATCHES 2004 (EU-25)

Ranking Marine Species Live weight (m tonnes) 1 Atlantic herring 737 2 European sprat 608 3 Blue whiting 380 4 Atlantic mackerel 370 5 Sandeel 338 6 European pilchard 258 7 Yellowfin tuna 250 8 Atlantic horse mackerel 182 9 Skipjack tuna 182 10 Cod 151 11 European anchovy 144 12 Blue mussel 112 13 European plaice 78 14 Haddock 63 15 European hake 60 16 Norway lobster 56 17 Saithe 51 18 Striped venus 42 19 Edible crab 40 20 Common shrimps 39 21 Atlantic redfish 36 22 Common sole 35 23 Mediterranean mussel 35 24 Swordfish 31 Subtotal 4.278 Rest of species 1.551 Total 5.829 Source: Eurostat.

EU distant waters fleet A large part of the European fleet relies on access to non-Community fish resources either in waters under the jurisdiction of third countries with which the European Community has fisheries agreements, or in international waters.

13 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Due to its exclusive competence for fisheries, the European Union is entitled to enter into international fisheries obligations with third countries or with other international organisations. Accordingly, the European Commission, acting on behalf of the Union, negotiates bilateral fisheries agreements with third countries and takes part in different Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFO). The RFOs to which the EU is a contracting party are: • North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) • North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NEAFC) • Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) • North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) • Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) • International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) • General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM) • Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) • Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) • South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO) • Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC)

Around 2.500 fishing vessels operate in EU distant waters. The 80% of this EU fleet (around 2000 fishing vessels) works in non-Community waters north of the EC (Greenland, Norway, Iceland and Faeroes Islands).

The remnant 20% (around 500 EU fishing vessels) fish under the various bilateral fisheries agreements with ACP countries (African, Caribbean and Pacific countries). The cost to the EU taxpayers is some €145 million per annum, paid to ACP countries as compensation payments in exchange for negotiated fisheries access. European operators pay an additional €30 million in access fees. The activities of the EU fleet operating under these agreements produce a turnover of about €1 billion per annum, representing about 20% of the total turnover of EU fishing activities. A cost-benefit analysis undertaken for the Commission in 1999 showed that, on average, for each euro invested by EU tax-payers in a fisheries agreement, there was a return of 3 euros for the EU operators. The ACP countries with bilateral fisheries agreements in force (or not, depending of the date of the latest protocols) are Angola, Cape-Verde, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles and Solomon Islands. These bilateral fisheries agreements come under the emerging framework for the new Fishery Partnership Agreements (FPAs).

The European fishing vessels involved in these bilateral fisheries agreements are mainly trawlers in non-Community waters north of the EC. These vessels target a variety of species, including whitefish (cod, haddock, saithe, redfish, ling, capelin, blue ling, whiting and flatfish), pelagic fish (blue whiting, herring and mackerel) and crustaceans (shrimp, snowcrab). The European fishing vessels involved in non-Community waters south of the EC are trawlers, tuna purse seiners, tuna pole and line vessels and surface longliners. These vessels target a variety of species, including demersal fish, shrimp, tuna fish, swordfish and cephalopods (squid and octopus).

14 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Key Findings (EU Fishing fleets) ¾ From the 27 member states of the European Union, 22 have a registered marine fishing fleet (including Bulgaria and Romania). ¾ EU fishing fleet has reduced its figures in last years in spite of the increase of Members States: 88.106 fishing vessels, a total tonnage of 2.005.008 GT and an engine power of 7.194.600 KW. ¾ EU fishing fleet (EU-25) performs its fishing activity in most world waters, obtaining a catch around 5.5 millions tonnes, where the NE Atlantic Area represents 85%. ¾ Five countries (Denmark, Spain, France, United Kingdom and Netherlands) accounts for the 64% of all the European production (EU-25). ¾ Italy has the best ratio ‘value of landings/total quantity of landings’: 5.011€/t. France and Spain comes in the second and third place for this ratio, with 2.627€/t and 2.151 €/t respectively (year 2005). ¾ A large part of the European fleet relies on access to non-Community fish resources either in waters under the jurisdiction of third countries with which the European Community has fisheries agreements, or in international waters. ¾ Around 2.500 fishing vessels operate in EU distant waters. The 80% of this EU fleet (around 2000 fishing vessels) works in non-Community waters north of the EC (Greenland, Norway, Iceland and Faeroes Islands). The rest of the fishing vessels involved in non-Community waters south of the EC are trawlers (bottom and midwater), tuna purse seiners, tuna pole and line vessels and surface longliners.

15 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

16 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

3. EU fishing gears The catching process starts with the localization and detection of the fish, followed by the fishing operation (that starts as the fishing gear is deployed in the water and ends as it is retrieved from the water) and finishes with the handling on the fish, usually on the deck of a fishing vessel.

Fishing gears can be classified in different ways. According to the interaction of the target species and the fishing gear they are classified in two main categories: • active fishing gears (e.g. trawls, dredges, purse seines...) • passive fishing gears (e.g. gillnets, longlines, traps…)

Active fishing gears are generally based on movement of the gear towards the target species, while in passive fishing gears, the capture of fish is generally based on movement of the target species towards the gear. Sometimes “active fishing gears” are referred as “towed fishing gears”.

A different classification of the fishing gears can be based on the principal element of the gear: • Fishing gears that use nets (e.g. trawls, seines, gillnets…) • Fishing gears that use hooks (e.g. longlines, trolling lines…) • Fishing gears that use other devices (e.g. dredges, traps, harpoons…)

In the case of fishing gears that use nets, they are divided according to their catching principle: • Purse seines: the fish is encircled by the net, ending in a bunt. • Trawls: the fish is caught by towing the net, ending in a codend. • Seines: is a mixture of purse seine and trawl: first the fish is encircled and then is caught by towing the net, ending in a codend. • Lift nets: the fish above the net is caught hauling the net. • Gillnets: the fish is caught by "gilling” all along the net. • Trammel nets: the fish is entangled all along the net.

Finally, fishing gears can also be classified taken into account the impacts on the bottom: • Mobile bottom-contact fishing gears o Beam trawls (TBB) o Bottom trawls (OTB, PTB, OTT) o Dredges (DRB, DRH, HMD) o Seines (SB, SDN, SSC, SPR) • Mobile not-bottom-contact fishing gears o Surrounding nets (PS, LA) o Pelagic trawls (OTM, PTM) o Trolling lines (LTL) • Passive bottom-contact fishing gears o Set gillnets and entangling nets (GNS, GNC, GTR, GTN) o Traps (FPO) o Set longlines (LLS) • Passive not-bottom-contact fishing gears o Drifnets (GND) o Drifting longlines (LLD) o Handlines and pole-lines (LHP, LHM) o Lift nets (LNB)

17 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

FAO in 1971 drawn up the International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Gear (Nédélec and Prado, 1990). Initially designed to improve fishery statistics, this classification (recommended by CWP (10) and FAO) has also been found very useful for fisheries technology and the training of fishermen and the sequence and numbering of the gear categories was adopted during the 10th session of the CWP. A draft report on proposed FAO-ICES classification and description of fishing gears has been recently proposed (ICES, 2006) with minor changes to the existing 1971 and 1980 FAO classifications.

The EU fishing fleet operates with almost all kind of fishing gears included in the ISSCFG (11) list. European fishing fleet uses 27 different fishing gears included in 9 main gear categories. From the 11 main fishing gears categories classified by the ISSCFG, only falling (cast nets) and grappling and wounding (harpoons) gears are not represented in European fish capture statistics (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Fishing gears used by the European fishing fleet.

ISSCFG ISSCFG Type of Gear Categories Fishing Gears Code Abbrev. gear PS Purse seines Active 01.0.0 SURROUNDING NETS LA Without purse lines (lampara) Active SB Beach seines Active SDN Danish seines Active 02.0.0 SEINE NETS SSC Scottish seines Active SPR Pair seines Active TBB Beam trawls Active OTB Bottom otter trawls Active PTB Bottom pair trawls Active 03.0.0 TRAWLS OTM Midwater otter trawls Active PTM Midwater pair trawls Active OTT Otter twin trawls Active DRB Boat dredges Active 04.0.0 DREDGES DRH Hand dredges Active 05.0.0 LIFT NETS LNB Boat-operated lift nets Passive 06.0.0 FALLING GEAR Not used GNS Set gillnets (anchored) Passive GND Driftnets Passive 07.0.0 GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS GNC Encircling nets Passive GTR Trammel nets Passive GTN Combined gillnets-Trammel nets Passive 08.0.0 TRAPS FPO Pots Passive LHP Handlines and pole-lines (hand operated) Passive LHM Handlines and pole-lines (mechanized) Passive 09.0.0 HOOKS AND LINES LLS Set longlines Passive LLD Drifting longlines Passive LTL Trolling lines Active 10.0.0 GRAPPLING AND WOUNDING Not used 11.0.0 HARVESTING MACHINES HMD Mechanized dredges Active

The figures for the fishing gears used by the European fishing fleet appear in Table 3.2 (end of year 2006). From the total figures it can be seen that active fishing gears show more GT than passive fishing gears (1.585.157 GT vs 380.283 GT) while passive fishing gears comprise more fishing vessels (68.155 vs 19.271). These very unbalanced figures will probably reduce its gap in next years. The reason is because of the fuel prices: active fishing fleets (e.g. trawlers) expend more fuel than passive fishing fleets (e.g. longliners) and it is expected that in the next future the ratio of reduction will be higher in active fishing vessels.

10 Coordinating Working Party on Atlantic Fisheries Statistics. 11 International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Gear. 18 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 3.2. Number of vessels, tonnage and engine power by fishing gears

ISSCFG Eng. power Type Fishing gear Nº vessels Tonnage (GT) Code (kW) LNB Passive Boat-operated lift nets 36 1.112 2.848 GNS Passive Set gillnets (anchored) 30.202 130.014 961.441 GND Passive Drift nets 1.167 17.310 90.807 GNC Passive Encircling gillnets 41 184 1.406 GTR Passive Trammel nets 3.924 14.518 157.047 GTN Passive Combined gillnets-trammel nets 90 365 4.253 FPO Passive Pots 8.496 34.183 482.672 LHP Passive Handlines and pole-lines (hand) 2.277 11.006 79.880 LHM Passive Handlines and pole-lines (mech.) 11 29 1.036 LLS Passive Set longlines 20.813 101.993 666.467 LLD Passive Drifting longlines 1.098 69.569 149.463 SUBTOTAL PASSIVE 68.155 380.283 2.597.320 PS Active Purse seines 3.863 240.417 696.769 LA Active Without purse lines (lampara) 37 559 6.021 SB Active Beach seines 554 3.398 29.310 SDN Active Danish seines 186 6.239 25.407 SSC Active Scottish seines 94 3.019 8.892 SPR Active Pair seines 10 1.383 3.588 TBB Active Beam trawls 1.061 117.020 414.252 OTB Active Bottom otter trawls 9.476 779.695 2.328.167 PTB Active Bottom pair trawls 145 21.688 50.420 OTM Active Midwater otter trawls 886 309.960 497.696 PTM Active Midwater pair trawls 155 19.398 58.846 OTT Active Otter twin trawls 138 12.338 39.166 DRB Active Boat dredges 1.979 55.420 269.785 DRH Active Hand dredges from a boat 33 554 2.716 HMD Active Mechanised / Suction dredges 117 9.947 33.419 LTL Active Trolling lines 537 4.122 43.739 SUBTOTAL ACTIVE 19.271 1.585.157 4.508.193 TOTAL 87.426 1.965.440 7.105.513

Source: Community fishing fleet register (year 2006).

The relative importance of each fishing gear (according to the number of vessels, the tonnage and the power is presented in Tables 3.3., 3.4. and 3.5.

19 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 3.3. Ranking (the Top 10) of fishing gears according to the number of vessels (95.2% of total number). Fishing vessels Nº Main fishing gear Total Nº % Set gillnets (anchored) 30.202 34,5 Set longlines 20.813 23,8 Bottom otter trawls 9.476 10,8 Pots 8.496 9,7 Trammel nets 3.924 4,5 Purse seines 3.863 4,4 Handlines and pole-lines (H) 2.277 2,6 Boat dredges 1.979 2,3 Drift nets 1.167 1,3 Drifting longlines 1.098 1,3 Source: Community fishing fleet register (year 2006).

Table 3.4. Ranking (the Top 10) of fishing gears according to the tonnage of the vessels (94.6% of total number). Fishing vessels GT Main fishing gear Total GT % Bottom otter trawls 779.695 39,7 Midwater otter trawls 309.960 15,8 Purse seines 240.417 12,2 Set gillnets (anchored) 130.014 6,6 Beam trawls 117.020 6,0 Set longlines 101.993 5,2 Drifting longlines 69.569 3,5 Boat dredges 55.420 2,8 Pots 34.183 1,7 Bottom pair trawls 21.688 1,1 Source: Community fishing fleet register (year 2006).

20 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 3.5. Ranking (the Top 10) of fishing gears according to the power of vessels (93.2% of total kW). Fishing vessels kW Main fishing gear Total kW % Bottom otter trawls 2.328.167 32,77 Set gillnets (anchored) 961.441 13,53 Purse seines 696.769 9,81 Set longlines 666.467 9,38 Midwater otter trawls 497.696 7,00 Pots 482.672 6,79 Beam trawls 414.252 5,83 Boat dredges 269.785 3,80 Trammel nets 157.047 2,21 Drifting longlines 149.463 2,10 Source: Community fishing fleet register (year 2006).

Bottom otter trawls, midwater otter trawls and purse seines (Table 3.4), three active fishing gears, account for the 67,7% of the total tonnage of the European fleet, while gillnets and longlines, passive fishing gears, accounts for the 65,4% of the number of fishing vessels.

Table 3.6 gives an indication of the main fishing fleets (more than 20.000 GT) ranked by GT. From the 22 fishing fleets ranked in that table only 5 are fishing fleets that use passive fishing gears.

21 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 3.6. Ranking of fishing fleets with more than 20.000 GT Source: Community fishing fleet register (year 2006).

Rank Gear Member State GT 1 OTB Spain 225.682

2 OTB Italy 157.881 3 PS Spain 120.033

4 OTB United Kingdom 89.261

5 OTB France 88.494

6 OTM Netherlands 66.860

7 TBB Netherlands 62.381 8 LLD Spain 58.995

9 OTB Denmark 51.395 10 OTM Ireland 51.092

11 OTB Portugal 50.392 12 OTM Lithuania 49.998

13 PS France 48.072 14 OTB Greece 38.677

15 LLS Spain 35.182 16 PS Italy 29.243

17 GNS Spain 29.024 18 LLS Greece 27.622 19 OTM Latvia 26.609 20 OTM United Kingdom 21.886 21 GNS Denmark 20.342 22 TBB Belgium 20.030 Total 22 Fleets (69.6%) 1.369.151 Total rest of fleets (30.3%) 596.289 Total EU Fishing fleet (100%) 1.965.440

From Tables 3-3 to 3.6 it is clear that there are few fishing gears with more weight than others. This point will be strengthened taken into account the value of landings and the employment (Chapter 6). Grouping the fishing gears according to their catching principle (e.g., purse seine with lampara nets; otter bottom trawl with pair bottom trawl; gillnets with drifnets) in 9 main fishing gears, the relative importance of these main fishing gears can be seen from the point of view of the total tonnage of the fleets, their value of landings and the generated employment (Table 3.7.).

22 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 3.7. Main fishing gears

High importance = . Low importance =

According to the amount of landings, these 9 EU main fishing gears are not used in the same proportion in all fishing areas. In the NE Atlantic (FAO Area 27) midwater trawls are the dominant (34% of the landings) followed by bottom trawls (19%) and purse seines (16%). However, in the Mediterranean Sea (FAO Area 37), purse seines are the dominant (36%), followed by bottom trawls (16%) and gillnets (13%).

Even inside the NE Atlantic (FAO Area 27) the use of fishing gears is not homogeneous: in the North Sea (ICES Area IVabc), bottom trawls are the leaders (31%) followed by midwater trawls (23%) and gillnets (15%), while in the Baltic Sea (ICES Area IIId), midwater trawls are responsible of the 49% of the landings, followed by gillnets (22%) and purse seines (14%). In the Iberian coast (ICES Areas VIIIc and IXa) the purse seine is the fishing gear most used while in ICES Areas VI and VII the leaders are the bottom trawls and the midwater trawls.

23 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Descriptions, catching principles, target species and fishing vessels used by all the fishing gears (classified according the ISSCFG code) can be found in Chapter 7. The definitions of the fishing gears are based as far as possible on the international definitions (FAO).

Latest developments of fishing gears

The recent developments to improve gears, equipment, and fishing techniques have to do with improvements of the fishing gears to ameliorate its selectivity and reduce its impact on the marine environment. All the scientific research in the last years related with fishing gears has been dedicated to this aim, and this will be considered in Chapter 5. Fishing operations can be improved also to advance in the work conditions on board, but very little is done nowadays to progress in the efficiency of the gear, with the exception of the work performed by commercial fishing companies. The developments of the fishing gear will be discussed based on the principal element of the gear:

3.1.1 Fishing gears that use nets For purse seining and trawling the use of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), also known as high modulus polyethylene (HMPE) or high performance polyethylene (HPPE) has revolutionized fishing nets. It has extremely long chains, with molecular weight numbering in the millions, usually between 2 and 6 million. The longer chain serves to transfer load more effectively to the polymer backbone by strengthening intermolecular interactions. This result in a very tough material, with the highest impact strength of any thermoplastic presently made. The strength of Dyneema®, one of the most known UHMWPE commercial material (up to 4 times stronger than nylon), results in a smaller twine diameter and therefore in lighter, stronger, and more efficient nets. The abrasion resistance is also better than nylon.

Another development is a new knotless netting: ULTRA CROSS®. It is a highly advanced 4 strand, braided, continuous monofilament, knotless netting used for heavy duty commercial fishing applications. Ultra Cross netting delivers superior strength and performance over conventional netting, maximizing the use of Dyneema®, nylon or polyester fibres.

In trawling, the development of a “shearing plate ground gear” could reduce resistance and increase gear spread.

3.1.2 Fishing gears that use hooks Recently, other alternatives to standard nylon monofilament lines have been introduced made of copolymers or fluorocarbon, or a combination of the two materials. Flurocarbon in particular is well regarded for its refractive index, which is similar to that of water and as a result less visible to fish. There are also braided fishing lines, thermally fused lines, also known as 'superlines' for their small diameter, lack of stretch, and great strength relative to standard nylon monofilament lines.

3.1.3 Fishing gears that use other devices In this category we could mention the dredges and the pots. An innovative hydraulic dredge with vibrating and sorting bottom on clam beds has been tested (Rambaldi, 2001). In pots, comparative fishing trials have demonstrated three times higher catch rates of red king crabs in square pots than in conical pots.

24 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Key Findings (EU Fishing gears)

¾ European fishing fleets use 27 different fishing gears. ¾ The most important fishing gears can be grouped in 9 main fishing gears: • purse seines • seines • beam trawls • bottom trawls • midwater trawls • dredges • gillnets • pots • hooks and lines ¾ Active fishing gears are used by fleets that show more GT than passive fishing gears (1.585.157 GT vs 380.283 GT) while passive fishing gears comprise more fishing vessels (68.155 vs 19.271). ¾ Set gillnets and set longlines are principal fishing gears according to the number of fishing vessels, while bottom trawls and midwater trawls are the principal fishing gears according to the total tonnage. ¾ Only 22 fleets from 12 countries account for the 70% of the total tonnage. Five of the 22 fleets belong to Spain.

25 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

26 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

4. Fishing gears and the marine environment

Introduction Scientific work on the effects of fishing activities on marine ecosystems started more than fifty years ago (Graham, 1955). Since then, the effects of fishing gears on marine ecosystems have been gradually reviewed (De Groot, 1984) and in the last decade has increased substantially (Jennings and Kaiser, 1998; Hall, 1999; Kaiser and De Groot, 2000).

The common property of all the fishing gears related with the marine environment is the selectivity of the fishing gear (species and size selectivity; see Section 4.2. Selectivity).

Impacts of fishing gears in the marine environment can be divided en physical impacts and biological impacts (Auster and Langton, 1999; Løkkeborg, 2005), generating three different effects: • effects on substrate (structural components of habitat) • short-term effects on benthic communities • long-term effects on benthic communities

The fishing gear type and the nature of the seabed are two factors that seem to have a great influence on the level of disturbance caused by fishing activity (Collie et al., 2000).

These effects on the bottom can be classified as scraping, penetration, pressure, sediment suspension, habitat destruction, burying, and mortality in benthos.

In a fishing area, a range of species and sizes normally occur together, both fish and non-fish. Although there is considerable debate in both the fishing and scientific communities regarding the magnitude of impacts of mobile-fishing gear on habitat complexity and the ability of fished areas to recover, it is assumed that fishing with mobile gear (such as bottom trawls and dredges) reduces the complexity of seafloor habitats. The current understanding of mobile gear impacts considers the following topics when analysing mobile fishing gears: 1) Distribution of fishing effort and physical interactions with the seabed, 2) effects of fishing on benthic fauna and habitats, 3) fishing as a source of energy subsidies, 4) long-term changes associated with fishing, 5) conservation methods, issues and implications for biodiversity, and 6), socio-economic implications and mechanisms for reducing fisheries impacts.

Areas with a soft muddy bottom or with low tidal currents are likely to be more severely affected by mobile bottom-contact fishing gears than areas with a firm substratum and those subject to periodic strong tidal currents or wave turbulence caused by gales in shallow coastal areas (Anon., 1988).

The understanding of the indirect impacts of fishing in trophic relations in the marine ecosystem, that is the key issue on long term effects, is still poorly developed and there are very few and limited studies well documented (Jennings and Kaiser, 1998).

Selectivity

Selective fishing refers to a fishing method's ability to target and capture organisms by size and species during the fishing operation allowing non-targets to be released unharmed. Species selection is the mechanism by which non-target fish escape while target marketable fish are retained. Species selectivity is the proportion of each species of fish present on the fishing ground that is caught and retained by the gear.

27 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Size selection is the mechanism by which small fish escape while larger marketable fish are retained. Size selectivity is the proportion of each size group of fish present on the fishing ground that is caught and retained by the gear.

Thus, the selectivity of a fishing gear is a measurement of the selection process and describes the relative likelihoods that different sizes and species of fish would have of being caught by the gear if there were equal numbers of each in the population. To measure that selection process, it is of interest to focus on the so-called ‘selectivity parameters’ (L50, L75, L25, SR and SF; see Fig. 4.1). The selection curve, r (l), is the probability that a fish of length l is retained given that it has entered the codend. A logistic curve is fitted to original data from selectivity experiments. The logistic curves are symmetrical about the 50% retention length (L50). The 50% retention rate (L50) is defined as the length at which 50% of the fish are retained. Analogously, L25 and L75 are the lengths at 25% and 75% retentions respectively. The selection factor (SF) and the selection interval (SR) are obtained by adjusting the data to a logistic curve. SR is defined as: SR = L75 - L25.

Although it was thought that the selection factor would be a constant for a given fish species and gear, some experiments, particularly those of Reeves et al., (1992), found that the selection factor increased with mesh size (MS) for demersal round fish. It is defined as: SF = L50/MS Fig. 4.1. Explanation of selectivity parameters

Example of a codend mesh selection curve (codend mesh size = 140mm), showing the 25% retention length (L25), 50% retention length (L50), 75% retention length (L75), Selection Range (SR) and Selection Factor (SF). Different methods for measuring the selectivity of a fishing gear have been standardized (Pope et al., 1975; Hamley, 1975; Wileman et al., 1996), including different methods: alternate trawl/haul, trouser trawl and covered net cod-end comparisons. The most recent review on selectivity topics is done by Stewart (2002), reviewing 116 relevant papers from the western and eastern Mediterranean. No gear is known to be one hundred percent selective for a given species or size range of individuals, therefore the catch in many fisheries consists of a mixture of targets and non-targets.

28 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Non-targets are often synonymous with bycatch. It has also been defined as the harvest of fish or shellfish other than the species for which the fishing gear was set (Wallace and Fletcher, 2000). Bycatch, thus, is that part of the catch which is caught but discarded, either because it has no value to the fisher or because regulations prevent it being kept. Bycatch also includes that part of the catch that is not landed but is killed as a result of interaction with the fishing gear. More precisely, unwanted by-catch can be divided into four classes (Van Marlen, 2000): 1. Species of commercial value • Undersized species • Fish for which there is no more quota • Fish of lower value others of the same species 2. Species with low commercial value • No market value • Rare or protected species 3. Some invertebrates 4. Inert material and debris

Rare or protected species are those species that appear in the 'Red List' - an inventory of the current global status of plant and animal species - to raise awareness of species threatened with extinction and promote their conservation. The Red List is published every 4 years by the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). Of the total number (284) of marine fish assessed by IUCN, 57% are considered threatened (i.e. Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).

Selective fishing has a large potential to reduce bycatch and discards, but it can be justified only if significant numbers of escaping fish survive. The many factors that affect the survival of fish escaping from fishing gears has been recently reviewed (Suuronen, 2005) ending in the conclusion that evaluation of escape mortality should be an integral part of the development of selective fishing gears.

A selective fishing gear should have the ability to target and capture organisms by size and/or species during the fishing operation and the non-targets species should be released unharmed. Various fishing gears are known to be more selective than others and when fish are encountered by a fishing gear, they will be captured at different rates, depending on different factors related with the gear design and its mode of operation.

In selectivity studies, two tools are basic: to have a selectivity database to compare previous works and to have an objective mesh gauge to measure the mesh opening. Both implements have been put into practice with the aid of two EU research projects: SELDAT and OMEGA (see Annex): a) A selectivity database (SELDAT) was developed in two EU-projects, SELDAT (12) and SELDAT2(13) in the 1990s by institutes in several EU countries and Norway. The aim was to make a central database of selectivity data on towed fishing gears to be used in research and management advice. In the last meeting (April, 2006) of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) hold in Turkey was clear the need for such a database. However, it is recognized that the system is underutilised by the gear technology community, and that problems related with the maintenance of the database, still some errors of the database and the complexity of the

12 FAIR-CT96-1531 13 FAIR984044. 29 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

data entry must be solved. b) The OMEGA mesh gauge (Fonteyne, 2005) is an electrically driven instrument that applies a pre-set longitudinal force to the mesh to be measured. The device was developed in the frame of the European Research and Demonstration project OMEGA (14). The results obtained in the project allow to conclude that the ICES mesh gauge and the wedge gauge are no longer regarded as suitable for mesh measurement. The final recommendations were: • Apply a force of 125 N for meshes greater than 55 mm. • Apply a force of 50 N for meshes between 35 and 55 mm. • Apply a force of 20 N for meshes smaller than 35 mm.

Some other European projects (see Annex) have been important in the development of selectivity studies: - Project PREMEC II (15): This project develops a predictive model of cod-end selection so that the selectivity of commercially used cod-ends fished in commercial conditions can be predicted.

- Project RECOVERY (16): This project aims at developing novel species-selective gear prototypes for three mixed-species demersal trawl fisheries (i.e. demersal otter, Nephrops, and beam trawling) in the North and Irish Seas.

- Project SURVIVAL (17): This project deals with the survival of fish escaping from towed fishing gears, that is essential if selective devices are to be used as a practical conservation tool.

From the first selectivity studies of commercial fishing gears (see Pope et al., 1975; Millar and Walsh, 1992; Wileman et al., 1996) there have been many suggestions on how to reduce bycatch. All the solutions fall into three main categories: • how to keep the animal out of the gear, not catching it. • how to help the animal escaping from the gear. • how to minimize damage to the animal when leaving the gear.

At international level, the most prominent action to reduce bycatch during fishing is the ban on large size driftnetting on the high seas (UN General Assembly resolution 1990).

Interactions of main fishing gears In the present study, to analyze the effects of fishing gears in the marine environment, the EU fishing gears are classified into 9 main categories (Table 4.1) although trawls are split in their three main systems: beam trawls, bottom trawls and pelagic trawls.

14 Developing and testing of an objective mesh gauge. Contract Nº Q5CO-2002-01335. 15 PREMECS II - (QLRT-2001-01328). 16 RECOVERY - (QLRT-2001-00935). 17 SURVIVAL - (QLRT-2001-01603). 30 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 4.1. Main fishing gears to by analyzed in the present study.

Main Mobile / Passive GT Nº kW Fishing gears 1 Purse seines M 240.976 3.900 702.790 2 Seines M 14.039 844 67.197 3a Beam Trawls M 117.020 1.061 414.252 3b Bottom Trawls M 813.721 9.759 2.417.753 3c Midwater Trawls M 329.358 1.041 556.542 4 Dredges M 65.921 2.129 305.920 5 Gillnets P 162.391 35.424 1.214.954 6 Pots P 34.183 8.496 482.672 7 Hooks and lines P 186.719 24.736 940.585

Row 1 includes all the surrounding nets: purse seines (PS) and lamparas (LA), although lampara nets contribution is negligible.

Row 2 includes all the seine nets: beach and boat seines (SB, SV), Danish or anchored seines (SDN), Scottish or flying shooting seines (SSC), Pair seines (SPR).

Row 3a includes all the beam trawls (TBB).

Row 3b includes all the bottom trawls (except beam trawls): bottom otter trawls (OTB), bottom pair trawls (PTB) and multi-rig otter trawls (OTT).

Row 3c includes all the pelagic trawls: midwater otter trawls (OTM) and midwater pair trawl (PTM).

Row 4 includes all the dredges: hand dredges (DRH), boat dredges (DRB) and mechanised or suction dredges (HMD).

Row 5 includes all gillnets and entangling nets: trammel nets (GTR), set gillnets (GNS), driftnets (GND), encircling gillnets (GNC) and combined gillnets-trammel nets (GTN).

Row 6 includes all pots (FPO).

Row 7 includes all rod and lines and longlines: handlines and pole-lines (hand operated; LHP), handlines and pole-lines (mechanized; LHM), trolling lines (LTL), drifting longlines (LLD) and set longlines (LLS).

4.1.1 Purse seines Surrounding nets (see section 7.1.) are surface nets, thus, in principle, can be used everywhere. The only limitation could be in too shallow waters where the water depth is less than the height of the surrounding net during the fishing operations making a risk of damage to the fishing gear.

31 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

4.1.1.1 Selectivity of purse seines

The catching principle of the purse seine (and of the other surrounding nets as lampara nets and ring nets) is to surround the fish and finally keep them in the bunt. Therefore, the mesh size is chosen to be so small that there should be no risk of mass meshing of fish, even by the smallest size groups of the target species. Therefore, we can say that purse seining is a non-selective gear regarding fish size. As purse seining is usually carried out on schools or dense shoals, catches normally consist of a single species with a rather narrow length distribution. The uniform catch during purse seining on schools is due to natural selection mechanisms with regard to species and size distribution in the formation of fish schools (Pitcher and Parrish, 1993). In cases where the fish size in the catch is too small, there is usually an opportunity to release the fish. The species selectivity is high and with the help of the latest models of sonar equipment, it is not too difficult to identify the species before the seine is set.

4.1.1.2 Impacts of purse seines on species

In purse seines (and in lampara and ring nets) the potential negative impact may come from occasional bycatch/discards effects (undersize specimens, no marketable specimens, non-target species, etc.).

Due to the ability of fishermen to catch in excess of processor or vessel holding capacity at some locations and times, there has been a common practice of discarding unwanted catch by ‘rolling’ the excess fish over the headline of purse seine nets. Mortality experiments (Mitchel et al., 2003) with Sardinops showed that fish that had been bunted tightly in the purse seine net and which had been rolled over the headline had a significantly higher mortality.

The purse-seine fishery for tunas operates over a large region of tropical waters. The purse-seine fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean employs three fishing modes (“set types”), depending on how the fish aggregate (Hall, 1998). Sets are made on tuna schools associated with marine mammals, primarily dolphins (Delphinidae; “mammal sets”), with floating objects (“floating- object sets”), and on unassociated schools (“unassociated sets”). Most bycatch is discarded at sea to leave room in the fish holds for the tunas, which are of greater commercial value. Typically, tuna purse-seine fishing occurs in the daytime.

In the case of tuna purse seine nets incidental capture of dolphins is regarded as an irresponsible fishing practice. The increasingly used practice of encircling floating objects, including man- made FADs (Fishing Aggregating Devices) increases the capture of small sized and immature aggregating around such devices. Other fishing operations, such as setting on floating objects instead of dolphins has also served to reduce dolphin deaths, but often results in high levels of other types of unintentional catch or "bycatch" such as juvenile fish, sharks, billfish, and sea turtles. Bycatch of large squid (Dosidicus gigas) has also been reported (Olson, 2006).

4.1.1.3 Impacts of purse seines on habitats Because of its characteristics, there is no impact on the bottom habitat except when the water depth is less than the height of the purse seine. Then the leadline of the gear can graze the sea bottom. Nevertheless, in the fishing operation, more and more depth sensors with alarms are used and the skipper hauls the purse line before contacting with the bottom.

In the case of lampara nets, as the gear can only be used to catch fish close to the water surface, there is no impact on the bottom.

32 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

4.1.2 Seines Beach seines are generally used near the shore in shallow waters. Boat seines nets are operated down until 500 m in marine waters. In some areas, boat seines are used to catch schooling fish off the bottom.

4.1.2.1 Selectivity of seines Seines eventually finish as netting bags that are towed through the water to catch different target species in their path, so their selectivity properties are similar that those showed for trawls in Section 4.3.2.1.

4.1.2.2 Impacts of seines on species Some studies have been performed dealing with selectivity in Danish seines (Jackobson, 1985) and in beach seines (Jones, 1982; Lamberth et al., 1995). These latter studies showed that the mesh sizes used in seine net fisheries in South Africa and South Australia were inappropriate, primarily because many small fish were retained and subsequently discarded (often dead). Both these studies concluded that significant increases in mesh size were required to reduce the quantity of bycatch, and that this would reduce considerably the catch of the target species.

Shallow waters close to the shore are often spawning or nursery grounds. Beach seining in such areas disturb the breeding activities and lead frequently to the capture of juveniles. For these reasons, the use of beach seine is in a number of countries is regulated or restricted by law.

The impact on living resources by beach and boat seines is similar to that of trawls: small meshes in the codend may result in capture of undersized fish and sometimes non-target species. The potential negative impact may consist in the bycatch/discards (undersize specimens, no marketable specimens, non target species, etc...) and results from the use of a large net, with, frequently, too small meshes, in coastal waters.

4.1.2.3 Impacts of seines on habitats These techniques are most efficient on flat and smooth bottom when long ropes (2500 m) are used. The impact on the sea bed is limited. This is one of the main reasons that support the substitution of bottom trawls by seine nets.

4.1.3 Trawls Trawls are used in sea fisheries where there is sufficient space for towing and a clean environment (bottom without too many obstacles for the bottom trawls, open water without too much floating debris for the midwater trawls).

4.1.3.1 Selectivity of trawls As beam trawl, bottom trawls and pelagic trawls are towed systems and are based on netting, their selectivity properties are similar.

Substantial research has been spent in recent years to understand selection in trawls and improve the size and species selectivity of trawl gear especially in demersal and pelagic trawls (Casey et al., 1992; Reeves et al., 1992).

33 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

For cod-ends of towed fishing gear the size and shape of the mesh openings are important parameters governing the selectivity. A large mesh size increases the selection factor and the 50% retention length, allowing juvenile fish to escape by a greater proportion (Wileman et al., 1996). However, some variation always occurs from haul to haul even though the net remains unaltered. This variation is generally attributable to several uncontrolled variables such as the randomness of fish arrival in the cod-end.

Apart from the mesh size, differences in netting material can bring differences in size selectivity: for similar twine diameters and mesh sizes, PE netting material provides a significantly lower L50 value than the PA netting material (Deval et al., 2006) for rose shrimp in the Turkish twin rigged beam trawl fishery.

The increase of towing speed may affect cod-end selectivity, causing a change of the geometry of the cod-end and/or a change of the ability of fish to escape. However, experimental results are contradictory and the effect of speed can be both beneficial and detrimental. In the first case, an increase of towing speed can lead to an increase of the lateral mesh opening (O’Neill, 1997) and, in theory, an increase of cod-end selectivity. In the second case, an increase of towing speed may prompt the exhaustion of swimming fish (Dahm et al., 2002), reducing their ability to escape, and thereby leading to a decrease of cod-end selectivity.

Another factor that may affect cod-end selectivity is gear size, but there is little experimental prove.

Trawls of different type such as bottom trawl and beam trawl produce differing catches in the same area (Dahm et al., 1996). It is also known that the catch composition in the cod-end of the same net changes depending on the groundgear used (Ehrich, 1987).

In relation with species selectivity, pelagic trawls have higher species selectivity than bottom trawls, as they are commonly used, like the purse seine, for catching schooling pelagic fish that tend to occur in single-species aggregations.

4.1.3.2 Impacts of trawls on species

Beam trawls Beam trawls are used to catch species that stay on the bottom or are partly buried in the seabed. Accordingly, beam trawls have tickler chains that are designed to disturb the seabed surface and penetrate the upper few centimetres of the sediment.

Beam trawls cause direct mortality in two ways. First, the sole plates, tickler chains or chain mat impacts on benthic organisms (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000). The same authors measure the mortality caused by beam trawls hitting benthic invertebrates, who compared the densities of animals before and after trawling. Second, animals that are caught in the net can die from injuries sustained in the net, during hauling or when the catch is processed and animals discarded.

At present, the overall impacts of beam trawling on benthic communities are best controlled by not beam trawling on vulnerable habitats with the existing designs of beam trawl. Restricting the spatial distribution of fishing effort will also serve to protect habitats, as it is known that the effects of initial trawling with many of the current designs of beam trawl on a previously un- trawled seabed are much greater than the effects of subsequent trawling (Jennings and Kaiser, 1998).

34 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

The optimisation of a species selective beam trawl has been also carried out through an international cooperative programme (SOBETRA) financed by the European Commission (Fonteyne et al., 2005) (18).

Bottom otter trawls

The major potential detrimental impact of trawling on species can be the capture and removal from the ecosystem of small sized organisms and non-target species, which frequently are discarded at sea.

Bottom trawls can be operated in a very wide range of depths (from a few meters to around 1500-2000 m).

The major negative impact of bottom otter trawls and bottom pair trawls on the biological environment is related to the capture and frequently discarding of non target sizes and species both of fish and non-fish species. Regulation concerning minimum mesh size in the codend is the most commonly used methods to limit the capture of non-target fish sizes. In recent years, such size selectivity has been improved by the introduction of square mesh codends and selection devices like grids. The most serious effects of bottom trawling have been demonstrated for hard-bottom habitats dominated by large sessile fauna (sponges, anthozoans and corals) and a decrease of its abundance in the path of the ground gear has been clearly demonstrated (Moran & Stephenson, 2000).

In the Baltic Sea, to protect the cod, fishermen are interested in developing a directed flounder fishery during the summer period, when cod are protected by a fishery ban. Considering the similar situation of the cod stock in Kattegat, Skagerrak and the North Sea, a selective flatfish trawl concept appears to be a useful management tool to substantially reduce bycatches of cod smaller than the MLS in the plaice fishery.

Pelagic trawls

Midwater otter trawling and midwater pair trawling is carried out from coastal to offshore areas, so no impact on bottom habitat and bottom structure. Iin most cases it is a single species fishery, so bycatch rates of other species are low. Incidental catch of dolphins and marine mammals may occur in some areas and is the main problem.

Megafauna refers to marine mammals, turtles, large sharks, seals and other protected species. Bycatch and associated mortality of megafauna is currently considered as a problem in several pelagic fisheries (Morizur et al., 1999; Zeeberg 2006; Zellott and Rosenberg, 2006). The project NECESSITY (19) develops alternative gear modifications and fishing tactics in collaboration with the fishing industry to reduce by-catches in the relevant Nephrops and pelagic fisheries, without reducing the catch of target species significantly.

Common and bottlenose dolphins are caught in the tuna drift net fishery (Antoine et al., 1997) and in smaller numbers in set gill nets in the Celtic Sea (Tregenza et al., 1997). White-sided dolphins are believed to be caught by Irish trawlers fishing for mackerel off the west coast of

18 SOBETRA-AIR2-CT93-1015. 19 EC contract No: SSP8-CT-2003-501605. 35 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Ireland (Berrow and Rogan, 1997) and this by-catch may be quite high as there have been unconfirmed reports of up to 50 dolphins in a single tow (Morizur et al., 1999).

Although some “ghost fishing” has been reported in trawling, the larger diameter synthetic multifilament twine common to trawl nets is the key factor that reduces ghost fishing mortality in lost trawl gear because the material is visible and can be sensed by the fish. Although lost trawl gear will often be suspended by floats and form a curtain that rises well from the bottom, many of the losses form additional habitat for such organisms as ocean pout, wolfish, and cod and ‘substrate’ for attaching benthic invertebrates such as hydroids, and sea anemone (Carr and Harris, 1995).

4.1.3.3 Impacts of trawls on habitats Most of the research work concerning the effects of bottom trawling, as a mobile bottom-contact fishing gear, until the 90’s has been previously (Anon., 1988) reported. A more recent review (Linane et al, 2000) covers research (especially European) work until year 2000. The fishing gears covered in this review were beam trawl and bottom trawl. Finally, impacts of trawling on benthic habitats and communities have been recently reviewed (Løkkeborg, 2005) and the conclusion is that short and long-term impact on the bottom environment is still poorly documented. More research on this impact is urgently needed.

A rapidly growing literature shows that trawling may substantially alter benthic habitats (Koslow et al., 2001) but to date it has been difficult to attribute benthic habitat changes to fishing effort (Kaiser et al. 2000) and few impacts of fishing have been well documented (Currie & Parry, 1996). In addition, research regarding the effects of trawling on seafloor habitat has been limited to a few regions (Freese et al., 1999). In beam trawls the impact is due to the sole plates and thickler chaines, while in the bottom otter trawl the main impact is due to the otterboards.

Bottom pair trawl has the advantage over the bottom otter trawl that pair trawls do not have the ploughing impact of trawl doors.

Midwater trawls, as mobile non-contact bottom fishing gear, have very little negative impact on habitats.

4.1.4 Dredges Dredges are used to catch species that stay on the bottom or are partly buried in the seabed. Accordingly, dredges have teeth that are designed to disturb the seabed surface and penetrate the upper few centimetres of the sediment. A dredge thus, may give rise to various degrees of impacts to the sea floor and the benthic organisms living there.

4.1.4.1 Selectivity of dredges Dredge selectivity may be affected by several factors, including the type of seabed, tow duration and velocity, the hanging coefficient of the net bag, the twine material and its diameter, tooth spacing and mesh size.

Some results have showed that the space between teeth does not have an effect on selectivity (Gaspar et al., 2003) and that tooth length was directly related to the dredge's capture efficiency. The only factor that contributed to dredge size selection is mesh size of dredges (or the distance between the bars of iron grid and the sieves on the deck of the boats). The same authors have

36 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears found that he most appropriate mesh size to be enforced within the Portuguese north-western Spisula solida fishery should be 40mm. The contact probability and size-selectivity of toothed dredges has been modelled (Mituhasi et al., 2005), founding that no clear difference in shell length distribution between dredges of different tooth spacing was found in the simulation when the contact probability was small.

4.1.4.2 Impacts of dredges on species Bycatch in dredges include finfish such as monkfish and flounders, as well as, lobsters and other benthic organisms.

The fishery of baby-clams (Chamelea gallina) and of other species of bivalve molluscs on the soft bottoms is carried out by dredges that take the molluscs from the bottom by means of a jet of water under pressure. Research carried out in 1988, showed that those gears have an effect on the benthic communities by upsetting the bottom, caused by the high-pressure water jets from the nozzles surrounding the opening on the dredge, and the collection of organisms, according to the selectivity of dredge. After the passage of the dredge, some time is necessary for the texture of the substratum to reform. Worms carry out the recolonisation of the same area. For both the habitats concerned (beds of Ensis minor and of Chamelea gallina) it is possible to assume that between thirty and sixty days is sufficient to restore the original fauna (Vaccarella et al., 1994).

4.1.4.3 Impacts of dredges on habitats The effect of dredging on the bottom may include 1) bringing stones to the surface, 2) sediment compaction and chemical changes, 3) damage to reef and similar structures, 4) non-catch mortalities and 5) increased vulnerability to predation. The physical effect diminish with time, depending on the level of natural disturbance, influenced by exposure to prevailing weather conditions and tidal strength, depth and sediment type. The degree of dredge effect will be influenced by a number of factors, including: the dredge type, the width and weight, sediment type, number of dredges operated, methods of fishing and whether any form of deflector or rakes are used.

Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging include increased levels of suspended sediments and the potential for associated dissolved oxygen reduction and release of natural and industrially-derived chemicals. The magnitude and spatial extent of the suspended sediment field around any dredging operation (Lasalle, 1990) is a function of the type of dredge used, the physical/biotic characteristics of the material being dredged (e.g., density, grain size, organic content) and site-specific hydrological conditions (e.g., currents, water body size/configuration). As in trawling, impacts of dredging on benthic habitats and communities has been recently reviewed (Løkkeborg, 2005), concluding that knowledge of the impacts of towed fishing gears is still rather rudimentary.

Although several studies have shown that dredging, as trawling, has negative effects on benthic species, there are also positive effects on small opportunistic species (Trush et al., 1998) resulting in an increased productivity of heavily trawled areas of the North Sea (Rijnsdorp et al., 1998).

4.1.5 Gillnets and entangling nets

4.1.5.1 Selectivity of gillnets and entangling nets Selectivity in gill nets has been discussed and reviewed very early (Hamley, 1975) and recently (Stewart, 2002), reviewing 11 relevant papers about statics nets from the western and eastern

37 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Mediterranean. Gillnets are usually highly size-selective (Hamley, 1980) and it is usually possible to reduce the bycatch of smaller fish by increasing the minimum mesh size.

Although minimum mesh size is the main factor in gillnet size selectivity, there are other key parameters important on species selectivity: length, soak time and hanging ratio of gillnets.

The height of the headline is also important for species selectivity because of the fish behaviour: underwater observations on winter flounder in the natural environment showed that the species never rose to 0.6m above seabed (He, 2003).

4.1.5.2 Impacts of gillnets and entangling nets on species Gillnets with a single netting, are, in general, considered as having a high degree of selectivity, in terms of fish species, as well as size of the fish that directly depends on the size of the mesh. But incidental catch of a number of endangered species such as turtles, sharks, marine mammals or seabirds, in certain areas is a matter of growing concern. By-catches appear to occur specially during shooting and hauling of nets (Tregenza and Collet 1998). Research is carried out aiming to a reduction of this risk; at the same time, international plans of action for the reduction of the incidental catch of sharks or the entanglement of seabird when operating gillnets, were agreed on.

Monofilament nylon gillnets could be detected by small porpoises at ranges of only 2 m or less (Hatakeyama et al., 1988), although for other dolphin species the calculated ranges are considerably greater (Au and Jones, 1991).

One of the main problems of gillnetting is the so-called "Ghost fishing", when lost (or discarded) gillnets, or any piece of netting, drifting or somehow attached to the bottom, continue, somehow, is also a serious concern. The use of new material or mounting can now make that lost nets will not fish for too long or unlimited time. For the above-mentioned reasons, the United Nations banned, in 1991, the use of large-scale high seas driftnets over 2.5 kilometres long. From the point of view of environment, in general, it is also worth noting the low energy consumption for fishing with gillnets. Carr and Cooper (1987) estimated that in protected, near-shore locations where depths are less than 30 metres gillnets may continue to catch fish at a reduced, yet substantial, rate of 15 per cent of normal the gillnet rate if roundfish and flatfish are present. Breen (1990) undertook a review of ghost fishing and the work undertaken at the time. He reported that lost herring gillnets in British Columbia, Canada, continued catching fish for seven years, while Erzini et al (1997) report that eight year old gillnets retrieved in Norwegian waters were found to contain fish.

The project FANTARED (Anon, 1997) has quantify the amount of lost gill nets and trammel nets and rates of gear loss by métier, obtaining information on the principal factors responsible for these losses and describing and quantify the impacts of gill nets and trammel nets on living species. Following the FANTARED study, estimates of ghost catches in European fisheries are both limited and approximate, and depending on areas and species are around 0,01% - 4,46% of the catch of the target species (cod, hake and monkfish).

4.1.5.3 Impacts of gillnets and entangling nets on habitats Static nets have a relatively small impact on the fishery resource and the environment compared with the mobile bottom-contact fishing gears (Sacchi et al., 1995). Although little information is available, but as the gear is static, it must be assumed that the damage inflicted on the sea floor is limited.

38 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

The project FANTARED 2 (20) takes in consideration environmental impacts of gillnets, the economic cost/benefits analysis of gear retrieval programmes (ghost fishing) and drawing up of a work programme for future management and research.

4.1.6 Traps

4.1.6.1 Selectivity of traps Traps are among the most versatile and efficient methods of fishing fish, crabs and lobsters, as they fish unattended, are suitable for most bottom types and depth ranges, and are inexpensive and robust (Krouse, 1989; Miller, 1990).

The size of the mesh (diamond plastic or square wire) or the distance between the slats makes the selection, letting the smallest individual to escape.

Research on different types of pot for crab species have examined the effect of shape (Miller, 1979), mesh size (Sinoda and Kobayashi, 1969; Guillory and Prejean, 1997; Jeong et al., 2000), entrance type (Salthaug, 2002), number (Miller, 1990) and location (Smith and Sumpton, 1989) on capture efficiency. Comparatives between the efficiency of different collapsible pots and standard pots have also been performed (Furevik and Løkkeborg, 1994; Vazquez Archdale and Kuwahara, 2005).

Traps usually catch a narrow size range than other fishing gears, almost all of the catch is larger than the size at sexual maturity, and vulnerability of large males is higher (Bellchambers and Lestang, 2005). This sex vulnerability may be related to the males being more active than females (Sumpton and Smith, 1990).

Most commercial crustacean fisheries use baited traps and have legal minimum length regulations.

4.1.6.2 Impacts of traps on species Pots have low negative impact on species, as caught juveniles or undersized species can be released alive. Lost pot will continue to fish and thus "ghost fish" as in gillnetting and trawling; it will be limited if, at least a part of the pot is made from biodegradable material. Godøy et al, (2003) found that lost pots do not substantially contribute to crab mortality in Norwegian North Sea fisheries.

Estimates for pot loss rates in European waters are scarce comparing with outside Europe.

Lobster pot loss rates run as high as 20–30 per cent per year (Smolowitz 1978) while the reported catch of lobster in those pots was 5% of the total lobster landings. Along the Maine coast the pot loss rate reported in 1992 was 5–10% (ICES, 2000). In crab pots of British Columbia, Canada, the loss rate of crabs from ghost pots was estimated to be 7% of the reported catch (Breen, 1987). This was from an estimated annual trap loss rate of 11 per cent.

20 EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338. 39 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

4.1.6.3 Impacts of traps on habitats Pots, and in general any kind of traps, have very little negative impact on habitats. Furthermore, they are considered between the most responsible fishing gears.

4.1.7 Hooks and lines Hooks and lines include handlines and pole-lines, hand-operated (LHP) and mechanized (LHM), set longlines (LLS), drifting longlines (LLD) and trolling lines (LTL). Although all of them use hooks, they are different in their catching principle, construction and fishing operation. Some of them (set longlines) use natural baits because fish attraction is mainly based by chemical stimuli (although vision plays also a role). Others use artificial baits (trolling lines) where only vision is involved. There are even some fishing gears (handlines for mackerel and pole and line for skipjack tuna) that only bright hooks are used to catch the fish.

4.1.7.1 Selectivity of hooks and lines The main gear parameter that influences longline species selectivity is the bait type (Bjordal and Løkkeborg, 1996). Fernö et al. (1986) Larger fish are assumed to swim faster than smaller fish, covering a wider area (Hart, 1993) and winning the competition for the baited hooks as they are supposed to reach the longline before the smaller fish. Based on observations of length distributions, Allen (1963) showed that the biggest individuals are most successful in the competition for the bait, while size selectivity is mainly influenced by the bait size (Løkkeborg et al., 1989;).

The hook design also affects the species composition of longline catches while hook size have little effect on the size composition of longline catches.

Most of the studies have been performed dealing with hook (design and size) and bait (type and size).

The relationship between soak time and catch efficiency of longlines is influenced by attractant release rate, bait loss and local fish density; changes in all these factors modify efficiency over time (Løkkeborg, 1994).

Artificial additions to normal hook structure have been conducted with some success. Løkkeborg and Bjordal (1995), Huse and Soldal (2000) and Willis and Millar (2001). The use of hooks modified by the addition of a wire appendage reduces the catch rate of undersized fish while incurring a modest loss of catch weight of legal-sized snapper (Willis and Millar, 2001). More importantly, the modified hooks dramatically lower the incidence of ‘‘gut-hooking’’ in all size classes.

In the absence of non-selective data, which is the case for experiments with passive gears as the longlines, any conclusive form of selectivity curve cannot be determined (Millar, 1995), and the choice of curve will depend on specific knowledge about the mechanism in the capture process. Usually, the highly overlapped longline catch size frequency distributions parameters could only be estimated for very few species (Konstantinos et al., 2002).

4.1.7.2 Impacts of hooks and lines on species With trolling lines and pole and line fisheries, non-targeted fish is seldom captured as both fishing methods are very selective on species.

40 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

With longlines, incidental catch of turtle, of certain species of sharks or other endangered species are possible negative impacts, especially with drifting longlines due to the distribution of these species in the water column.

Incidental catch of seabirds when setting or hauling the line are also possible.

Marine turtles are especially vulnerable to fishing gear (FAO, 2004).

The mortality rate by “ghost fishing” from lost demersal longlines (as for other fishing gears that use hooks and lines) is usually low (ICES, 2000).

4.1.7.3 Impacts of hooks and lines on habitats Apart from the trolling lines that are an active fishing method, all the fishing gears based on hooks and lines are passive methods, and obviously have minor effects on the seabed, even those with contact with the bottom.

Key Findings (Fishing gears and the marine environment)

¾ Main findings about selectivity: • Purse seines: purse seining is a non-selective gear regarding fish size; catches normally consist of a single species with a rather narrow length distribution. • Mesh size is the main factor in size selectivity for fishing gears based on netting (seines, beam trawls, bottom trawls, midwater trawls, gillnet). • Differences in netting material can bring differences in size selectivity for fishing gears based on netting (seines, beam trawls, bottom trawls, midwater trawls, gillnets). • Dredge selectivity is affected by seabed, tow duration and velocity, the hanging coefficient of the net bag, the twine material and its diameter, tooth spacing and mesh size. • Key parameters important on gillnet species selectivity: length, soak time, hanging ratio of gillnets and the height of the headline. • Pots selectivity: the size of the mesh or the distance between the slats makes the selection. • Hooks and lines selectivity: species selectivity is mainly influenced by the bait type; size selectivity is mainly influenced by the bait size.

¾ Main findings about impacts:

• Purse seines and seines: the potential negative impact may come from occasional bycatch/discards effects (undersize specimens, no marketable specimens, non- target species, etc.). In purse seines there is no impact on the bottom habitat except when the water depth is less than the height of the purse seine. In seines the impact on the sea bed (flat and smooth bottom) is limited. • Trawls: capture and frequently discarding of non target sizes and species both of fish and non-fish species (beam trawls, bottom trawls and midwater trawls). Serious effects on large sessile fauna. In beam trawls, the sole plates and the thickler chaines make substantial impact to the sea bottom. In bottom trawls, irreversible habitat effects on hard bottoms. In soft bottom habitats will be restored with time. Midwater trawls: as a mobile non-contact bottom fishing gear, have very little negative impact on habitats.

41 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

• Dredges: bycatch in dredges includes finfish such as monkfish and flounders, as well as, lobsters and other benthic organisms. Serious effects on large sessile fauna. Damage to reef and similar structures • Gillnets: incidental catch of a number of endangered species such as turtles, sharks, marine mammals or seabirds. Ghost fishing is of big concern. Static nets have a relatively small impact on the environment compared with the mobile bottom-contact fishing gears. • Pots: low negative impact on species, as caught juveniles or undersized species can be released alive. Ghost fishing reported (perhaps 5-7% of the total catch). Pots, and in general any kind of traps, have very little negative impact on habitats. • Hooks and lines: no problems with trolling lines and pole and line fisheries, as both fishing methods are very selective. Incidental catch of seabirds when setting or hauling the longlines. Incidental catch of sharks and turtles on pelagic longlines. As passive methods they have minor effects on the seabed. The mortality rate by “ghost fishing” from lost demersal longlines is usually low.

42 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

5. Technical measures for improving fishing gears

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of purse seines As a By-catch Reducing Device (BRD), the use of a 70 mm diamond mesh panel in a section of the frontal wing of the purse seine was evaluated (Gonçalvez et al., 2004), noticing that most of the escapees were juveniles, leaving apparently in good condition.

For size selection of purse seine catches of mackerel and saithe, a method based on rigid sorting grids mounted to the bag of the purse seine (Fig. 5.1 and Fig. 5.2.) has been developed (Misund and Beltestad, 1994; Beltestad and Misund, 1995). This method produces relatively sharp size selection of mackerel and saithe, and the fraction of mackerel over 600 g has been increased by about 10% in catches of up to 60 t. While mackerel purse seining may cause too high a mortality, the mortality in the saithe experiments was insignificant, and the use of size selection grids in saithe purse seines can therefore be recommended (Misund and Beltestad, 2000).

Fig. 5.1. Rigid sorting grid for a mackerel purse seine

Source: Misund & Beltestad, (1994).

43 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.2. Sorting grid mounted in a mackerel purse seine

Source: Misund & Beltestad, (1994).

Special techniques have been developed to reduce bycatch of dolphins; the Medina panel and "back down" operation, which ensure that encircled dolphins are released alive. Its name comes from the Californian skipper who first used it, this is a panel of relatively small mesh netting (50 mm or less) sewn into the purse seine at the distance of about 1/3 of the floatline length from the bunt-end tip, to surround the apex of the ‘backdown area’ where porpoises are most likely to come in contact with the net (Fig. 5.3. and 5.4). Usually it is one or two strips deep and 330 m long. The longer Medina panel the more effective it is, especially fitted into the net throughout the bunches area and as near the bunt as practical.

Fig. 5.3. The Medina panel, a DSP device.

Source: www.fao.org (mod.)

44 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.4. Backdown operation in a tuna purse seiner

Source: www.fao.org

In tuna purse seining, the Dolphin Safety Panel (DSP) is compulsory by some agreements for the tuna purse seine nets in some waters operated by EU tuna purse seine fleet.

By the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) a vessel with a carrying capacity of more than 363 metric tonnes operating in the Agreement Area of the IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission) shall have a purse seine equipped with a dolphin safety panel (DSP) with the following characteristics: • A minimum length of 180 fathoms (as measured before installation), except that the minimum length of the DSP in nets deeper than 18 strips must be determined in a ratio of 10 fathoms in length for each strip of net depth. The DSP must be installed so as to cover the backdown channel along the corkline, beginning at the outboard end of the last bow bunch pulled and continuing to at least two-thirds the distance from the apex of the backdown channel to the point where the net is secured at the stern. The DSP shall consist of small-mesh webbing not to exceed 1 ¼ inches (3.2 cm) stretched mesh, extending downward from the corkline to a minimum depth of two strips.

The purse seine fisheries should incorporate a net design which allows quick release of any unwanted catch.

The fishing by purse-seine vessels in the Regulatory Area of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) shall be prohibited for Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares), Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus) and Skipjack Tunas (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the following period and areas: • from either, 1 August to 11 September 2007, or, 20 November to 31 December 2007. • in the area defined by the following limits: the Pacific coastlines of the Americas - longitude 150º W - latitude 40º N - latitude 40º S. In Community waters the undertaking of any encirclement with purse seines of any school or group of marine mammals is prohibited.

45 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of seines Seines are a mixture of purse seines and trawls. In their first phase (acting as purse seines), panels of transparent netting tested in different experiments have shown potential as a means of improving the size selectivity of fish seine nets (Gray et al., 2000). Although if vision was the primary cue for fish escaping from the panels, then these types of panels would probably be less effective in turbid water and would not work as well at night (and this has not been tested yet).

In the second phase of the fishing operation, when the seines are acting as trawls, most of the measures showed for trawls in relation with the netting would apply for the seines.

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of trawls Numerous species and size selection devices have been tested for trawls. They are based mainly in the mesh size (minimum mesh size), the mesh shape (square-meshed codends and square- meshed panels), horizontal separator panels, sieve nettings, sorting grids, etc.

Technical modifications to reduce the by-catchs and impacts of towed fishing gears have been recently reviewed (Van Marlen, 2000).

Mesh size In mixed fisheries (for example Nephrops and demersal whitefish fisheries) fishermen may opt to use 70 or 80mm mesh, but the poor selective properties of the minimum mesh size (MMS) in relation to fish minimum landing sizes (MLS), and high grading associated with by-catch limits, often result in high levels of fish discards (Catchpole et al., 2005).

A minimum mesh size (MMS) of 70 or 80mm (depending on region and gear) is considered suitable for trawling Nephrops, whilst a 120mm MMS is considered appropriate for northern North Sea whitefish fleets. In the mixed Nephrops and fish fishery, Graham and Ferro (2004) conclude that, for many Nephrops fisheries, there is a need to develop trawls with similar selection patterns for the fish by-catch as the 120mm mesh used in the demersal whitefish fishery.

The current 40mm diamond mesh codend enforced in the NW Mediterranean demersal trawl fishery produces catches with large amounts (one third of the total captured biomass) of discards composed of commercially important species below the legal minimum landing size (MLS) and of non-commercial species (Bahamon et al., 2006). It is rather probable that with the building up of the catch in the cod-end, the meshes open increasingly, thus improving the selectivity, until a point is reached where it levels out or begins to decrease (Dahm et al., 2002).

In NAFO area, vessels fishing for shrimp (Pandalus borealis) shall use nets with a minimum mesh size of 40 mm.

Horizontal separator panels A separator trawl is designed with a horizontal panel of netting that effectively divides the trawl into two compartments (Fig. 5.5). Shrimp and flatfish enter the lower compartment, and depending its behaviour, roundfish enters the upper or the lower compartment.

46 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.5. Horizontal panel

Source: Van Marlen, (2000).

Some authors have tested these devices: Valdemarsen et al. (1985) tested a separator trawl in the Barents Sea and found that 70% of cod (Gadus morhua) and almost 100% of plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) entered the lower compartment while up to 70% of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) entered the upper compartment. Galbraith and Main (1989) tested a different separator trawl in the North Sea: 100% of Nephrops and almost 95% of groundfish (skates, flatfish, etc.) were caught in the lower compartment whereas over 90% of haddock were caught in the upper compartment. By underwater observation, it is known that Nephrops rise less than 70 cm above the seabed when approached by the trawl (Glass, 2000).

Sorting grids There are various grid designs to separate non-targets species from target species (Fig. 5.6). The first models were rigid sorting grids developed for the Norwegian prawn fishery. The introduction of rigid sorting grids has greatly improved the selection properties of trawls with regard to both species and size selection (Valdemarsen and Isaksen, 1994). In shrimp trawling, the rigid Nordmøre grid mounted in the extension piece of the trawl successfully sorts out bycatches of fish that are too large to pass between the bars of the grid (Isaksen et al., 1992; Broadhurst et al., 1996). In bottom trawling for gadoids, mounting a rigid sorting grid improves the size selection properties of the trawl (Larsen and Isaksen, 1993). In comparison with size selection through meshes, the selection curves of rigid grids are steeper, and the selection range is narrower. A grid system has been tested for size selectivity in the Baltic herring fishery (Suuronen, 1993), although, this has also had limited uptake by industry and not implemented into regulation. An EU funded project (SELMITRA) was carried out in the 1990s with the objective to improve species and size selection in midwater trawls through behaviour studies and gear modification.

47 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.6. Grids designs. A) Nordmøre; b) Sort-X; C) Sort-V

Source: Van Marlen, (2000).

In Norwegian mackerel pelagic trawl fisheries, a grid with 42 mm bar spacing was developed to reduce small mackerel, but was not introduced into regulation due to suspected high mortality of the escaping fish (Kvalsvik et al., 2002).

In the Norwegian herring fishery, a grid system for large pelagic trawls was developed to reduce catch of saithe and cod (Isaksen et al., 2005). The device is now being used by vessels of 40 m long and 2000 HP on a voluntary basis. However, large losses of herring have been observed with the use of the device when targeting dense schools of herring, and there is concern over the mortality rates of these escaping fish. More recently, similar grid systems have been tested in Faroe Islands and Iceland to reduce saithe and cod in the blue whiting fisheries (Zachariassen 2006). This grid system has been proven to reduce round fish catch significantly; however, technical improvements for easier handling of the grid are still needed for industry acceptance.

Rigid selectivity grids can result in heavy, expensive grids and with handling problems. A flexible grid with a 20mm spacing between bars performed successfully (Loaec et al., 2006) and

48 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears enabled a reduction in juvenile catch of 87% by weight to be achieved, but also significant loss of commercial catch.

Responsible fishing technologies and practices has been promoted particularly in the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) and Juvenile and Trash Excluder Devices (JTEDs), aiming to release the sea turtle, endangered species, and juvenile fish for the food security and sustainable fisheries.

The US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in collaboration with others, developed a trawl modification called Turtle Excluder Device (TED). The TED was developed based on the idea of the Nordmøre grid, as a rigid grid or "separator" of large mesh net with an escape opening for sea turtles and/or large fishes. Shrimps enter the cod end through the grid or the mesh of the separator, while sea turtles and large fishes are led to the escape opening by the grid/separator (allowing up to 97 per cent of marine turtles to escape with only a minimal reduction in shrimp catch). TEDs are usually fitted into a trawl net at the beginning of the codend (see figure 5.7). At this point in the net, water-flow is fastest and maximises the ability of a TED to separate target animals, such as prawns and scallops, from non-target animals, such as sea turtles.

Fig. 5.7. Schematic illustration of a Turtle Excluder Device (TED).

TEDs usually include a metal grid (hard TEDs) or a panel of large mesh webbing (soft TEDs) that is installed at an angle between 40° and 60°. This creates a physical barrier that allows prawns and other animals smaller than the bar spacing of a hard TED or mesh webbing of a soft TED to pass through the TED and into the codend. Sea turtles, other large animals and debris slide along the TED to an exit hole cut in the top (top opening TED) or bottom of the TED (bottom opening TED). The exit hole may be partially covered by a flap of webbing to reduce the possibility of losing prawns. TEDs come in many designs (see Fig. 5.8) and when working properly, catch loss associated with these devices should be minimal, with indications that they may improve the quality or the quantity of the prawn catch in certain circumstances.

49 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.8. Classification of the Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs)

Source: Villaseñor, 1997

Square mesh codends Square mesh codends as size selection devices are introduced in some bottom and pelagic fisheries. In the Icelandic redfish fishery, a 135 mm mesh size codend is used to improve species and size selectivity. Square mesh codend have been tested in the English Channel mackerel fishery and in the Mediterranean but this did not improve size selectivity of mackerel (Casey et al., 1992)

Square mesh codends were shown to improve size selectivity for roundfish compared to the traditional diamond shaped meshes (Robertson and Stewart, 1988; Metin et al., 1998).

Comparing the square and diamond mesh of codends (He, 2006a) the results indicate that larger codend mesh sizes retained larger fish for all species for both diamond and square mesh codends. The mesh shape (diamond or square) has no significant effect on the 50% retention length (L50) for roundfish while the square mesh codends have significantly smaller L50s for flounders. The square mesh codend has a narrower selection range (SR) than the corresponding diamond mesh codend for both cod and haddock.

Anyway, UltraCross four panels codends have gained popularity among fishermen because of its ability to keep its square mesh shape (the bars of square netting runs parallel and perpendicular to riblines; Fig. 5.9.); also, the quality of the fish is better because there are no knots to make dent marks in them.

50 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.9. Ultracross four panel codend.

Source: Villaseñor, 1997

Square-meshed panels

The results obtained with nets fitted with the square-meshed panels (Fig. 5.10) have shown consistent reductions in discard levels of species like haddock and whiting when compared with conventional nets made from diamond mesh. The results with cod have been less successful.

Large-meshed top panels were designed (van Marlen, 2003) for the tickler chain type of beam trawls used in this fishery. A reduction of 30–40% for cod and whiting could be obtained with the new gear design, with virtually no losses in flatfish (particularly sole and plaice). In beam trawl (van Marlen, 2003), sole contributes most to the earnings (between 50 and 75%), while the share of roundfish (cod and whiting) is low (between 1 and 1.5%) . Bearing in mind this, the new gears were found to be effective and acceptable for the fishing industry.

51 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.10. Square mesh windows

Source: Van Marlen, (2000).

Fig. 5.11. A trawl net with the Bacoma escape window.

Source: from www.fiskeriverket.se.

52 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

The BACOMA is an especial escape window (Fig. 5.11.) with a 120 mm that was introduced by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) in 2001 with no measurable positive development. This was at least partly because the short-term effects were not taken into account in the management decisions. In 2003, the mesh size was changed to a 110 mm mesh, that led to substantially better compliance, at least in Swedish and Danish fleets, and this BACOMA window better matchs the minimum landing sizes (the minimum landing size for cod is 38 cm).

Scientific information indicates that, for cod, towed gears without exit window are less selective than those with the “BACOMA” type exit window or the T90 type in which the mesh in the codend and extension piece is turned 90º. It is therefore appropriate not to allow within Community waters and for Community vessels the use of towed gears without the “BACOMA” type or T90 exit window when cod is a target species.

Another square-meshed panel has been used in the beam trawl that may serve to reduce discard mortality (Fig. 5.12). It is a benthos release panel (Revill & Jennings, 2005) that may reduce the overall environmental impact (expressed as invertebrate mortality) of beam trawl fisheries by 5– 10% without affecting their profitability.

Fig. 5.12. The benthos release panel principle

Source: From Fonteyne et al., 2005.

53 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

T90 panels A codend of turned meshes (T90) of trawls, Danish seines or other towed nets is produced from diamond knotted netting turned 90° from its usual orientation (Fig. 5.13). Contrary to the main direction of the run of the netting twine in a diamond mesh codend which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fishing gear (A), in a turned mesh codend the main run of the netting twine is parallel to this axis (B).

Fig. 5.13. A diamond mesh (A) converted into T90 (B) after turning 90º from its usual orientation.

Since the construction of T90 meshes is based on diamond netting, its production does not require any changes in the machinery.

The advantages of codends made with T90 meshes are remarkable (Moderhak, 2005): • Excellent good selective and protective properties (sharp selective curve, small by-catch) • Better fish condition and thus higher fish survival rates • Simple construction • Low price • Improved catch efficiency (catch rate) • Stability throughout towing process • Short fishing operation time • Decreased fuel consumption during towing • Better breaking strength • Widely available • Wide acceptance by the fishermen

The advantages in selectivity between the T90 and the square meshes are easily imagined in Fig. 5.14., where both shapes are compared and the elliptical cross-section of a cod is superimposed.

54 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.14. Comparison of T90 and square mesh shapes. The red ellipse is the cross-section of a cod

Source: Modified from Moderhak, 2005.

The European parliament has decided not to allow in Community waters and for Community vessels the use of towed gears without the “Bacoma” type window or a T90 codend when cod is a target species.

Rectangular meshes panels The results obtained with nets fitted with rectangular-meshed panels have shown selection range remarkably smaller than those of diamond and square meshes. In Japanese (Fuwa et al., 2005) and Korean projects (Shin et al., 2005) panels with rectangular meshes have been proposed with very good results. In the Japanese project a simple separator device for trawling has been proposed: TREND (Trawl flow Regulative Ecological friendly Netting Device). TREND is made of 4 panels of webbing in rectangular mesh and showing a cylinder shape (Fig. 5.15.). Small fish have passed through TREND safely, confirming its function as a bycatch-reducing device. This function does not depend on towing speed. In the Korean project, three different kinds of TEN (Trawl Escapement Net) have been analyzed.

55 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 5.15. Schematic illustration of TREND

Source: From Fuwa et al., 2005.

Sieve netting In the European project DISCRAN, sieve netting has been tested (Polet et al., 2004). The loss of commercial shrimp catch when using the sieve net was 15% or less in favourable conditions. The sieve net showed very poor selective properties for commercial fish species with a length below 10 cm but above 10 cm, the selection improves with increasing length. Especially for Age 1 and older fish, this selective device serves its purpose. The sieve net has advantages when comparing with the grids: performs better in different conditions, is less susceptible to clogging and is rarely subject to damage.

Acoustic pingers Several attempts have been made in European pelagic trawl fleets to minimise cetacean bycatch. Preliminary work on the reactions of captive animals to excluder devices and acoustic signals has been reviewed (de Haan et al., 1998) and where a prototype excluder panel was designed. Northridge (2002) reported on ongoing rigid grid trials in the UK bass pair trawl fishery, where the effectiveness of the device remains to be ascertained. BIM (2002) reported on trials in the Irish tuna pair trawl fishery where both pingers and remotely triggered acoustic deterrents were tested, with some promising results.

Groundgear designs Little attention has been focused towards designing ground gear to reduce the capture of specific fish species. McKiernan et al. (1999) have demonstrated the utility of raised footrope trawls in reducing bycatch.

Ground gear designs have also been developed with the aim of ensuring that the trawl maintains seabed contact and can safely pass over obstacles without sustaining damage.

56 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Still in phase of development, the use of the “shearing plate ground gear”(21) could be much better for the seabed, spreading the trawl sufficiently to eliminate the need for large, heavy trawl doors.

The fishermen usually express more confidence in devices based on netting than other selection device (grids for example).

Electrical stimulation The most recent measures and devices for reducing impacts of beam trawls comes from the results and conclusions of the two EU-funded research projects SOBETRA (Optimization of a species selective beam trawl) and REDUCE (Reduction of the adverse environment impact of demersal trawl) and the potential of electric pulses to develop a species selective shrimp trawl (Fig. 5.16.).

Fig. 5.16. Schematic illustration of a Electro Shrimp Beam Trawl

Source: From Fonteyne et al., 2005. Electrical stimulation has been investigated since the 1970s (de Groot & Boonstra, 1970; Stewart, 1979) but now is becoming a new research topic for reducing impacts on the seabed. Its effectiveness has been proved for catching sole (van Marlen & de Haan, 1988). Although problems related with the large investment needed prevented its use (van Marlen, 1988), new designs to ease production and to reduce costs got promising results (van Marlen, 2001). Finally, a recent Belgian project (Polet et al., 2005) has led to a commercial application.

21 http://www.imr.no/english/__data/page/6334/A_new_ground_gear_for_bottom_trawls.pdf 57 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (article 31, paragraph 1) states that ‘… The catching of marine organisms using methods incorporating … electric current shall be prohibited’. Nevertheless, the environmental concerns relating to the physical impact on the sea floor caused by beam trawling. By way of derogation from Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current shall be allowed in ICES zones IVc and IVb south of a rhumb line joined by the following points: a point on the east coast of the United Kingdom at latitude 55º N - east to latitude 55º N, longitude 5º E - north to latitude 56º N - east to a point on the west coast of Denmark at latitude 56º N.

The following measures shall apply in 2007: (a) No more than 5 % of the beam trawler fleet by Member State shall be allowed to use the electric pulse trawl. (b) The maximum electrical power in kW for each beam trawl shall be no more than the length in metre of the beam multiplied by 1,25. (c) The effective voltage between the electrodes shall be no more than 15 V. (d) The vessel shall be equipped with an automatic computer management system which records the maximum power used per beam and the effective voltage between electrodes for at least the last 100 tows. It shall be not possible for non authorized person to modify this automatic computer management system. (e) It shall be prohibited to use one or more tickler chains in front of the footrope.

For pelagic trawls, the mentioned project NECESSITY (see Annex) is currently developing and testing several types of net barriers, excluder devices and acoustic deterrent devices, specifically designed to reduce bycatch in pelagic trawl fisheries.

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of dredges Large mesh twine tops are being explored as a means of reducing finfish bycatch in the scallop fishery.

An innovative hydraulic dredge with vibrating and sorting bottom on clam beds (Chamelea gallina) has been tested (Rambaldi, 2001) with wide margins for further improvement. The selectivity of the vibrating dredge, with respect to a standard gear is clear: undersize clams are sieved out during the fishing process, and almost no juveniles are hauled. Nevertheless, the larger number of damaged shells suggests that the vibrating grid subjects the clams to a greater mechanical stress than the standard gear.

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of gillnets and entangling nets In some waters, enlargement of the mesh size is an excellent measure to increase the sustainability of the fishery, whereas in some cases it might even destroy a viable fishery. According to a recent study (Heikinheimo et al., 2006) about enlarging the mesh size from 43- 45 mm to 50mm in the pikeperch fishery, the yield would be reduced by 50% in the first year, but after some years it would stabilise at about 20% higher level than before the shift. The biomass of the spawning stock would be doubled as a result of the larger mesh size, which would reduce the risk of low recruitment and benefit the fisheries in the long term. However, the short-term impacts on the profitability of commercial fishing would be negative, because it would take 3 years before the expected present value of the catch exceeded the value prior to the change in mesh size, and 8 years before the expected net present value of the catch would be positive.

58 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Apart from the mesh size, closures of areas for these fishing gears are used: ‘Community vessels shall not deploy gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets at any position where the charted depth is greater than 200 metres in ICES Zones VIa, b, VII b, c, j, k and XII east of 27º W’.

To reduce the number of cetaceans caught incidentally in gillnets, two forms of acoustic modifications have previously been proposed. These modifications seek to make gillnets more obvious to cetaceans so they can avoid them, and include making gillnets more reflective to cetacean sonar and placing active sound emitters in the nets.

The effects on five species of seven different pingers (small beeping devices) were tested in tank experiments (Kastelein, 2007). Four of them elicited responses in at least one fish species, and three elicited no responses. Based on the small number of fish species tested, the present study suggests that the higher the frequency of a pinger, the less likely it is to affect the behaviour of marine fish. Although it is argued that neither strategy is likely to be effective, and that reductions in the number of cetaceans killed in gillnets are best achieved through the closure of specific areas to gillnetting (Dawson, 1991). Pingers are now required on gillnets in many areas to alert harbor porpoise to the presence of the nearly-invisible gillnets. Another area of nowadays research includes the development of net twine that reflects the acoustic signal of P. phocoena.

The project NECESSITY (see Annex) that will finish soon will bring new information about the efficiency of these devices.

Pol et al. (2003) tested a “low-profile low cod-bycatch gillnet” with lead lines or weights on the headline, to reduce the vertical profile of the net. Mesh Deep low profile nets showed (He, 2006b) great potential to substitute the standard cod gillnet to maintain flounder catch rates while reducing the catch of cod.

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of traps Mesh size is also used in the traps to release small sized individuals.

The problem of discarding undersize lobsters or crabs in heavily exploited fisheries can be rectified to a degree by using escape-gaps that reduce the retention of those specimens in traps (Bowen, 1963; Ritchie, 1966; Krouse and Thomas, 1975; Nulk, 1978; Fogarty and Borden, 1980; Brown, 1982; Brown and Caputi, 1986; reviews: Elner, 1980; Krouse, 1989; Miller, 1990). Most crustaceans fisheries around the world have regulations requiring traps to have escape- gaps or wide lath spacing. Some authors have suggested that catch rates of legal-size lobsters are higher when using pots with escape-gaps (Walker, 1977; Brown, 1982; Everson et al., 1992) although in some cases this increase in catch rate has not been demonstrated (Treble et al., 1998). In the Mediterranean, in the deep-water crustacean fishery, it shall be prohibited to have on board and set more than 5 km of pot lines.

For the North Atlantic including the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat (Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2006), and for restrictions on fishing for cod in ices zones VI and VII, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities using pots and creels provided that: a) no fishing gear other than pots and creels are carried on board, and b) no fish other than shellfish and crustacea are retained on board.

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of hooks and lines The preferred alternative in pelagic longline to mitigate the capture of marine turtles is to use only 16/0 or larger non-offset circle hooks and/or 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not

59 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears to exceed 10 degrees. Only whole finfish and squid baits may be possessed and/or utilized with allowable hooks.

To avoid the problem of incidental catch of seabirds when setting or hauling the line, bird scarers (Fig. 5.17) are used in the ‘bird feeding zone’ (Løkkeborg and Bjordal, 1992).

These bird-scaring lines are known also as ‘tori poles’ and are regulated under the Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2006 for Community vessels fishing in the SEAFO Convention Area: ‘All Community vessels fishing south of the parallel of latitude 30 degrees South shall carry and use bird-scaring lines (tori poles): a) tori poles shall comply with agreed tori line design and deployment guidelines, as set out in Part II of Annex XVI; b) tori poles shall be deployed prior to longlines entering the water at all times south of the parallel of latitude 30 degrees South; c) where practical, vessels shall be encouraged to use a second tori pole and bird-scaring line at times of high bird abundance or activity; d) back-up tori lines shall be carried by all vessels and be ready for immediate use.’ Another solution is to guide the longline beneath the sea surface directly, and some recent developments have been tested (Fig. 5.18).

Fig. 5.17. Bird-scaring lines (tori poles)

Source: Løkkeborg and Bjordal, (1992).

Fig. 5.18. Longline setting funnel

Source: Brochure of Solstrand Shipyard, Norway.

60 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Studies by NOAA have demonstrated that the use of circle hooks could reduce catches of loggerhead and leatherback turtles by between 65% and 90% (Watson et al., 2004). It is more difficult for turtles to become hooked on circle hooks than on J-hooks, and the larger the hook, the less chance there is of the hook being ingested.

Not only elements of the gear should be taken into account, but the whole fishing operation, since studies in the Pacific indicate that shallow-set longline gear takes 10 times more sea turtles than deep-set gear (SPREP, 2001). As sea turtle distribution is dependent on surface water temperature, fishing in colder water could reduce turtle interactions whilst increasing swordfish catch rates.

Key Findings (Technical measures)

Measures and devices for reducing impacts of the different fishing gears can be summarised as follows: ¾ Purse seine • Limits on the depth • selective panels • selective grids • Dolphin Mortality Limits (DML) • Dolphin Safety Panel (DCP) for releasing marine mammals ¾ Seines • mesh selection panels. ¾ Beam trawls • Benthos release panel • Electrical stimulation (electric fishing regulated in ices zones IVc and IVb). ¾ Bottom trawls • escape panels (square, T90, rectangular meshes). • Rigid sorting grids • Flexible sorting grids • "self-spreading" groundgear • Light groundgears • Bottom non-contact otter boards • Raised footropes • Horizontal separator panels • Sieve netting • Escape panels (BACOMA…) ¾ Midwater trawls • grids and escape panels similar to bottom trawl devices. ¾ Dredges • restrictive areas in order to protect sensitive habitats. ¾ Gillnets • enlargement of the mesh size. • pinger deterrents for cetaceans. • low-profile nets. • limit the length of nets. • limit the soaking time ¾ Pots • Limits on the number of pots. • escape-gaps

61 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

¾ Hooks and lines • Bird-scaring lines (‘tori poles’). • Longline setting funnels to avoid the catch of birds. • non-offset circle hooks. • Limits on the number of hooks. • Limits on the soaking time. • New designs of hooks to avoid incidental catch. • Bait deterrents for some species (sharks).

62 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

6. Implications of modifications, substitution or suppression of fishing gears

Introduction

According to the Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 (22) on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, ‘the CFP shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions’, by adopting (between others) technical measures, including: • measures regarding the structure of fishing gear, the number and size of fishing gear on board, their methods of use and the composition of catches that may be retained on board when fishing with such gear; • zones and/or periods in which fishing activities are prohibited or restricted including for the protection of spawning and nursery areas; • minimum size of individuals that may be retained on board and/or landed; • specific measures to reduce the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems and non target species;

Technical conservation measures are an important component of the CFP aimed at ensuring sustainability. The main purpose of the technical measures regulation is to protect juvenile fish by setting minimum mesh sizes for nets, minimum landing sizes for marine organisms and restrictions of the use and characteristics of gear types.

The basic aim is to avoid or limit the capture of: • immature fish to allow them to contribute to stock renewal as adults • unwanted fish because of their lack of commercial value or fish for which fishermen have no more quotas • marine mammals, birds and other species such as turtles

The Technical Measures Regulation (EC) 850/98 (23) defines these measures and now is under revision. The 2006-2008 Action Plan for Simplifying and Improving the Common Fisheries Policy (24) proposes some priorities to simplify legislation and one is concerning the technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms.

The legislation to be simplified includes some instruments adopted by the Council and some instruments adopted by the Commission: a) Instruments adopted by the Council: • Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, as amended, amended by • Council Regulation (EC) No 602/2004 (25) amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 as regards the protection of deepwater coral reefs aggainst the effects of trawling in an area

22 OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59. 23 OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1. 24 COM(2005) 647 final, December 2005. 25 OJ L 97, 1.4.2004, p. 30. 63 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

north west of Scotland, • Council Regulation (EC) No 2723/1999 (26) amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, • Council Regulation (EC) No 1459/1999 (27) amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, • Council Regulation (EC) No 308/1999 (28) amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, • Council Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 ( 29 ) laying down technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species, • Council Regulation (EC) No 724/2001 (30) amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, • Council Regulation (EC) No 1298/2000 (31) amending for the fifth time Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms and • Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2000 ( 32 ) amending Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean and Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. • Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 (33) specifying conditions under which herring may be landed for industrial purposes other than direct human consumption. • Council Regulation (EC) No 2549/2000 (34) establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stock of cod in the Irish Sea (ICES Division VIIa) • Council Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 (35) laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species. Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. • Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks, as amended (Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 811/2004 establishing measures for the recovery of the northern hake stock and • Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98).

26 OJ L 328, 22.12.1999, p. 9. 27 OJ L 168, 3.7.1999, p. 1. 28 OJ L 38, 12.2.1999, p. 6. 29 OJ L 137, 19.5.2001, p. 1. 30 OJ L 102, 12.4.2001, p. 16. 31 OJ L 148, 22.6.2000, p. 1. 32 OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 3. 33 OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 10. 34 OJ L 292, 21.11.2000, p. 5. 35 OJ L 137, 19.5.2001, p. 1. 64 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

b) Instruments adopted by the Commission: • Commission Regulation (EC) No 2056/2001 establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stocks of cod in the North Sea and to the west of Scotland, • Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d and e.

With regard to technical measures regulation some actions has been taken recently in the Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) 2005 meeting (ICES, 2005):

• To make a list of any relevant national measures which are additional to EU Technical Conservation Measures in Regulation 850/98 and associated regulations. • To make a list of the current Technical Conservation Measure issues, which are of highest priority or give the greatest difficulties to respective national industries. • To identify inconsistencies in Technical Conservation Measures between adjacent areas in national waters or where there are inconsistencies between scientific advice and/or stock management areas and the current Technical Conservation Regulations.

Responsible fishing methods

Fishing activities must combine the respect for ecosystems and biodiversity with the needs of consumers and the interests of the fisheries sector. As has been pointed out (Bjordal, 2002), the ideal fishing gear does not exist, as no fishing gear fulfils the complete list of desired criteria and properties to accomplish the requirements of responsible fisheries.

Table 6.1 gives a ranking of main fishing gears according to an “ecosystem effect index” based on their selectivity and ecosystem effects.

Table 6.1. Ranking of main fishing gears according to an “ecosystem effect index”.

Size Species By- Ghost Habitat Energy Catch Commercial Selectio Selectio Mortalit fishing impact Efficien quality INDEX Fishing Gear n n y cy Purse seines * 7 5 9 9 8 8 7,7 Traps 5 5 8 8 9 9 9 7,6 Handlining 4 4 6 10 9 9 9 7,3 Pots 7 7 9 3 8 8 9 7,3 Longlining 6 5 6 9 8 8 8 7,1 Pelagic trawls 4 7 3 9 9 4 8 6,3 Beach seines 2 2 5 10 6 9 9 6,1 Boat seines 5 5 6 9 4 5 8 6,0 Gillnets 8 4 5 1 7 8 5 5,4 Trammel nets 2 3 5 3 7 8 5 4,7 Demersal trawls 4 4 6 9 2 2 6 4,7 Beam trawls 4 4 6 9 2 1 6 4,6 Shrimp trawls 1 1 7 9 4 2 6 4,3 Source: Modified from Bjordal (2002). *Ranking on a skale from 1 (non-favourable to 10 (highly favourable) with respect to different ecosystem related factors. ** Purse seining is a non-selective gear regarding fish size, as the mesh size is chosen to be so small that there should be no risk of mass meshing of fish, even by the smallest size groups of the target species.

65 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Some remarks can be made: • Spears or harpoons are at the top of the ranking (8,4), but is not registered on top of the table because is not a commercial fishing gear. • The less responsible fishing gears ranked in the table are those related with bottom trawling, mainly because of their poor energy efficiency, bottom impact and low selectivity. • Dredges are not considered in this study (Bjordal, 2002) but taking into account the factors would be also at the bottom of the ranking. • Trolling lines can be assumed that are ranked in a similar way as handlining.

More recently (ICES, 2006), the WGFTFB Topic Group on Alternative Fishing Gears has conducted a qualitative assessment of different gears types with the aim of identifying “responsible fishing methods”, with respect to “12 ideal gear properties” grouped in Controllability of Catch, Environmental Sustainability and Operational Functionality. For each variable, a score was given as the consensus opinion of the members of the ICES WGFTFB Topic Group on Alternative Fishing Gears. For the purposes of the present study, taking into account only the 7 variables related with environmental effects of the fishing gears (catch quality, size and species selectivity, habitat impact, energy cost, non-commercial bycatch and catch welfare), three groups of fishing gears can be assumed (see Fig. 6.1): Most responsible (index>1) Diving, pole and line, pot, traps, purse seine, pelagic trawl, danish seine, jigging. Moderately responsible (1>index>0,5) Pelagic trawl, longline, driftnet, gillnet, trammel net Least responsible (index<0,5) Beam trawl, Bottom trawl, Dredge

66 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 6.1. Capture responsible methods. Scores for an index made of 7 variables (catch quality, size and species selectivity, habitat impact, energy cost, bycatch, catch welfare) for different capture methods

Diving Pole and line Pot Trap Jigging Purse seine Danish seine Pelagic trawl Longline

Capture Methods Gillnet Drift-net Trammel net Beam trawl Dredge Bottom trawl

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 Index

* 0= least responsible; 2= most responsible. Source: Modified from ICES (2006).

In the case of diving, ranked as the most responsible method, is not considered as a viable commercial fishing gear. It has to be in mind that the least responsible fishing gears (beam trawls, bottom trawls and dredges) account for the 50% of the total EU fishing fleet (expressed in GT).

Fuel costs

Fishing is a human activity that is also extremely dependent on oil. The Conference on Energy Efficiency in Fisheries hold in Brussels on May 2006 has shown that there are two ways to solve this critical problem: adopting more efficient propulsion systems, selecting, and developing energy efficient fishing gears. Mobile gears and especially towed gears consume more energy than passive gears (Table 6.2) but are also the fishing gears with highest environmental impact.

67 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 6.2. Fuel costs by gear and size of vessel (2002)

Fuel costs as % Fuel costs / Fuel costs / kW / LOA Fishing gears of value of vessel / year year (m) landings (1000 Euro) (Euro) <12 27% 4.6 21 12 – 24 13% 31.2 169 Beam trawl 24 – 40 26% 279.8 210 > 40 27% 339.3 245 <12 14% 15.4 72 Demersal and 12 – 24 15% 39.4 184 pelagic 24 – 40 16% 100.6 156 trawlers and seiners > 40 17% 590.8 151 <12 10% 2.4 66 12 – 24 11% 15.5 153 Passive gears 24 – 40 14% 80.4 148 > 40 14% 172.6 103 Dredges na na na <12 11% 2.7 66 12 – 24 14% 29.0 172 All gears 24 – 40 18% 120.1 183 > 40 17% 542.7 124 Total 15% 14.4 134

Source: From Salz and Smit (2006).

Also among active fishing gears there are differences: a coastal bottom otter trawler could spend 740.000 litres/year of fuel while a coastal purse seiner from the same area, even bigger, could spend ‘only’ 300.000 litres/year. This is because the trawling of a bottom otter trawler is responsible of about the 53%-88% of the fuel consumption (because of the drag of the net), while in the purse seiner the fuel consumption in the fishing operation is low (the main expenses is in the sailing and in the fish searching. The top in fuel consumption by year would be in beam trawling: a beam trawler of LOA between 24 and 40 meters could spend more than 1.300.000 litres of fuel.

It is not a coincidence that most of the recent research work deals with towed gears. Proposal of modifications for the relevant fishing fleets will take into account also this critical point. The issue of the fuel consumption is not only relevant in cost effectiveness in fisheries, but also with environment protection topics, bearing in mind that for every litre of diesel (gasoil) there is an emission of 2.7 kgs of CO2 (GHG).

Some countries have proposed compensations in the form of loan, which should be refunded by the sector in the future. These type of measures have been taken for example by France. The EU competition rules do not allow support of operational costs and these measures are still under legal review.

The EU fleets spent in 2004 about 1 B € on fuel (estimations for year 2004; Salz, 2005), with prices ranging between 0.25-0.38 Euro/litre. In April of 2006 the fuel price was approximately 60% higher. If the fuel price stabilize 40-50% above the 2004 level, the EU fleets will be faced with additional costs of 400-500 M €. It is clear that fuel price increase cannot be supported by special policy measures, as they can be excessively costly (and go against market forces). The only solution seems to shift to new or alternative fishing techniques, which are less energy intensive. The implementation of technical measures should take this into account.

68 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Economic performance of European fishing fleet The economic performance of selected European fishing fleets has been analyzed by the Sub- Group on Economic Affairs (SGECA) under a project of the specific RTD programme “Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources (36) and a report has been prepared for the year 2005 (AER, 2005)(37). Although the data is based on samples, surveys and estimations with proxies, it gives an overall indication of the European fishing fleet: in the European Union alone some 185,000 fishermen produced in 2004 approximately EUR 6.8 B€ worth of fish. Compared to the year 2003, the value of production has decreased by 8% and the employment by 3%.

To assess this economic and financial performance of fishing vessels according to the fishing gears used, in the mentioned report (SGECA, 2005) the following economic indicators were used: Value of landings, Gross value added (GVA), Gross cash flow (GCF), Net profit, Invested capital, Other running costs, Vessel costs, Depreciation, Interest, Nominal value, Real value, Break-even and Productivity. The report presents economic results for 2004 of 19 national fleets and 89 specific fleet segments, representing about 55-60% of the total fishery sector of the EU in terms of value, 65-70% in terms of volume of landings and about 40% of employment. There is no clear evidence of the fleet segments with better future expectations. In a recent work (Tietze et al., 2005) carried out in 13 South American, Caribbean, European, African and Asian countries during 2002 and 2003, coastal European fishing vessels achieved better financial and economic results than offshore vessels, but with exceptions.

With this coverage, an estimation of the values for the whole European fishing fleet (all member states, all fishing gears, all fishing vessels) by main fishing gears has been prepared and the results appear in Table 6.3. Although the figures are estimated, and some of them could be underestimated, it gives an idea of the relative importance of the main fishing gears and is a starting point to calculate the socioeconomic consequences of the fishing gear modification, substitution or suppression. Fishing gears used by tuna purse seiners and large midwater trawlers operating in distant waters are among the fishing gears that surely are underestimated, as the landings by vessels of the reporting country in foreign ports are excluded. This is especially the case of Spanish and French tuna purse seiners and the midwater trawlers from Lithuania, Latvia, Holland and others.

Table 6.3. Total value of landings by fishing gear (year 2004). Figures in m €. Value of Landings Fishing vessels Employment Main Fishing Gears (m €) % Nº % Nº % 1 Purse seines 702.980 10,4 3.936 4,5 14.876 8,2 2 Seines 86.608 1,0 844 1,0 3.190 1,8 3 Beam Trawls 464.575 7,0 1.061 1,2 3.583 2,0 4 Bottom Trawls 2.600.440 38,0 9.759 11,2 36.883 20,3 5 Midwater Trawls 270.128 4,0 1.041 1,2 3.934 2,2 6 Dredges 392.815 6,0 2.129 2,4 4.254 2,3 7 Gillnets 1.187.088 18,0 35.424 40,5 59.279 32,6 8 Pots 456.884 7,0 8.496 9,7 14.217 7,8 9 Hooks and lines 597.182 9,0 24.736 28,3 41.394 22,8 Total 6.758.700 100,0 87.426 100,0 181.610 100,0

36 EC Contract FISH/2005/12 (Q5CA-2001-01502 “Economic Assessment of European Fisheries”). 37 http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/sgeca/eaef/2005-final.pdf. 69 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Percentages of value of landings, number of fishing vessels and employment for the main fishing gears show the relative importance of each of them. Although great care has to be taken when talking about employment data, because there is a lack of harmonisation in the definitions and concepts used in the collection and compilation of the data by the national authorities.

The three least responsible fishing gear according of the ranking presented in Fig. 6.1., dredge, bottom trawl and beam trawl, accounts for more than 50% of the total value.

6.1.1 Beam trawls According to the value of landings per vessel for all their fleet segments (from LOA < 12 m to LOA > 40 m), the total value of landings for this fishing gear can be estimated in a figure around 465 M€ (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4. Total value of landings for the beam trawl by Member States.

Value of BEAM TRAWL Vessels Vessels Landings (TBB) Nº GT (m €) Netherlands 349 62.136 231.550 Germany 287 13.385 43.624 United Kingdom 225 18.134 141.975 Belgium 104 19.951 82.672 Others 96 3.414 50.037 Total 1.061 117.020 464.575

6.1.2 Bottom trawls The total value of landings for this fishing gear for all its segments can be estimated in a figure around 2.600 M€ (Table 6.5.).

Table 6.5. Total value of landings for the bottom trawl by Member States. Value of BOTTOM TRAWL Vessels Vessels Landings (OTB + PTB + OTT) Nº GT (m €) Italy 3.542 156.482 638.150 United Kingdom 1.730 104.413 316.940 Spain 1.591 238.903 1.050.837 France 1.242 89.287 218.943 Denmark 444 50.941 154.215 Greece 364 38.268 17.616 Sweden 268 17.414 50.283 Portugal 132 49.946 56.044 Poland 129 14.519 3.988 Others 317 53.547 93.424 Total 9.759 813.721 2.600.440

6.1.3 Dredges The total value of landings for this fishing gear for all its segments can be estimated in a figure around 393 M € (Table 6.6).

70 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 6.6. Total value of landings for dredges by Member States. Value of DREDGES Vessels Vessels Landings (DRB+DRH+HMD) Nº GT (m €) Italy 770 10.085 78.570 Ireland 373 10.920 90.143

France 361 4.202 90.474 United Kingdom 314 11.503 86.459 Others 311 29.211 47.169

Total 2.129 65.921 392.815

Socioeconomic consequences of modification, substitution or suppression of fishing gear

The socio-economic impact of the introduction of any technical measure must be evaluated (scientifically, technically and commercially) with the participation of the fishermen themselves. Additional and specific financial compensation for any loss of income or employment caused by the implementation of those measures must also be evaluated. For towed fishing gears the fishermen will accept with more conviction technical measures based in netting (escape panels of different types, for example), so investment to comply with the technical measure regulation is not a problem. The problem arrives when that implementation implies reduction of the catch and financial compensations to shoulder the consequences must be established.

The socioeconomic consequences originated by changes in the fishing gear differ greatly depending on the nature of the adjustment. In fact some gear modifications do not necessarily imply a change in the economic profitability of the gear, apart from the initial investment needed for the change. Nevertheless it is useful to separate a gear modification from a suppression or substitution of it. This is the main reason for considering separately the technical modification of the fishing gear from its substitution or suppression.

The substitution and suppression of fishing gear may be considered as a single issue because even in the more extreme case of gear suppression, the catches will not vanish but they will be taken up by some other vessels with different gear. Something different would be the existence of a moratorium or a reduction of a particular quota. The social consequences may differ when separating the national or even regional effects but in bare economic terms the total product will remain unchanged, with only distributive effects. However, a distinction must be taken into consideration between the short and the long term.

In the short term one fishing gear will be substituted for another or even one particular type of fishing gear eliminated, leaving all other aspects constant. These include not only socioeconomic aspects, but also environmental. For example, a less responsible type of gear, such as a beam trawl could be substituted for a gillnetter, or, equivalently for this purpose, the beam trawler could be left out and the other fishing gears take up its catches. In economic terms, this means substituting a more efficient gear by a less efficient one, and therefore reducing the overall efficiency of the fleet. Considering its socioeconomic effects, it will be shown that this result is not so obvious.

In the long term, however, other aspects have to be considered, as the evolution of the environment and the state of the biomass due to the more responsible fishing. This could imply a reduction of costs for fishers, as the resource would be less scarce. However, this would only be true for the non schooling species. The schooling fisheries keep the size of the school constant due to the particular behaviour of the fish, thus the unit costs stay the same if the stock declines unless it reaches extremely low levels (Bjorndal, 1988).

71 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Another factor to consider would be the uncertain evolution of the fuel prices. In case of a very high and sustained increase, for example, it would also reduce the costs of the fleet if the most fuel consuming gears are substituted or eliminated. These potential cost reductions would also interact with the lower profits due to lower technical efficiency, but the effect and evolution over time of the ecosystem, the biomass and the fuel prices turn the final economic result unclear.

However, the proposed classification is just a model of the real situations. The socioeconomic effects of the complete set of possible technical measures cannot be covered in this study. Therefore, it is by force based on abstract categories that are not found in practice. Many of the actions performed on the gear will have a mixture of the effects described below, fitting partially into more than one category. This will be illustrated with some examples. The purpose of the generalization is, as always, to identify the most significant traits. This will enable us to track the origin of social and economic effects, and link them with specific characteristics of the gear.

For the analysis of the substitution of one gear by another, the data used comes from the Economic Assessment of European Fisheries (AER, 2005) for 17 EU countries performed in 2005. Most of the data belongs to 2004 with some exceptions that have been estimated or use 2001 data as a proxy, such as France. The data covers the majority of each national fleet, with lower coverage percentages for Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and Greece. Both Latvia and Estonia delivered only data on their fleet working on the EU.

It must not be overlooked that apart from the actions carried out on the gear, there are other aspects that combine with them and have an effect on the catches. The type of seabed, tow duration and its speed are factors that interact with the dredges and influence the catch of the vessel (Drinkwater, 1974; Reeves et al., 1992). In other cases a change in the depth at which a gear is set may also influence the catch without physically modifying the device, as in the case of swordfish in the pacific (SPREP, 2001). These features are related to socioeconomic aspects as they will affect the economic performance and social acceptance of a modification.

6.1.4 Modification of fishing gear

The first case of gear modification analysed occurs when the modification has an implementation cost but it does not involve a reduction of catches. The modification may consist of a slight change in design or size of the gear. An example that applies to one of the most damaging type of gears, the dredge, is the one reported by Gaspar (1999; 2003) for white clam fishing in the northwest of Portugal. Increasing the size of the mesh while at the same time taking into consideration the size and morphology of the target species allows the juveniles to escape without failing to retain the adults. The introduction of this kind of modification implies a financial investment at the beginning (that can be partially or totally subsidized), but the variable costs of the vessels do not change as the catches remain the same. In spite of this, this type of modification of the gear facilitates enforcement (Gaspar, 1999) and therefore reduces the social costs.

A second case would comprise the modifications that, despite their having a cost in terms of catch, bring also some compensation to the fishermen and ship owners in one way or another. An example of this would be the introduction of larger mesh top panels in the beam trawlers in The Netherlands (Van Marlen, 2003). The positive effect for the environment of this modification lies on the reduction of the catch of juveniles of plaice and sole as well as the bycatch of other species. Between 30% and 40% of the cod and whiting bycatch could be released without reducing the main catch. The loss for the fishermen was precisely the value of the bycatch, as for some time they where allowed to sell it commercially. This loss in value of

72 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears landings amounted for less than a 5% of their earnings. However, the fishermen as a whole were reluctant to bear any loss of catch (Van Marlen, 2003).

The compensation for the fishermen is a long term one, under the form of an increase in the stock of plaice thanks to the lower catch of juveniles. In addition to this type of compensation to the beam trawler fleet, it could represent a positive externality for other fleets. This positive effect was clear in the case of the vessels aiming at cod, as the beam trawlers were actually catching 10% of the North Sea landings for cod and 3% of those for whiting. The loss of the Dutch beam trawlers was therefore benefiting the stock of cod in the North Sea. The modification of gear has also a positive effect on the side of enforcement. Instead of causing a higher discard, as the regulation restricting the landing of cod and whiting did, (Van Marlen, 2003) the introduction of this technical measure diminished bycatch from its origin.

The previous example illustrates the different types of compensation that may appear in this kind of modification. Direct compensations to the fishermen may come in a short term horizon or later and compensations could exist for other fleets or for society as a whole. In this case it would be necessary to carefully separate the effects by their time horizon, type of fleet that receives the benefit and regions involved in order to quantify the overall social effect of a measure belonging to this group.

Finally, the last case of interest would include the modifications that represent a net loss for the fishermen, as they reduce catches without direct compensation in the short run. One example of this would be the introduction of vibrating dredges presented by Rambaldi (2006). This device sorts out the juveniles reducing the environmental impact of the dredges, but to achieve this it damages the main catch. There is therefore no compensation for the fishers for the use of a more responsible gear, apart from the long term one of the increase of the stock. Here the social cost would also be incremented if financial aid is given as compensation or if quota is diverted from some other fishery for the same purpose.

There are, however, other aspects of the situations just described. Research that has taken place to solve problems of bycatch or environmental damage can in fact improve the efficiency of some gears while still preventing or reducing the damage. One example of this is the case of the rounded hook in the longliners showed by Watson (2005), where the catch efficiency was maintained and the quality of the product improves as it is more likely to be alive at haulback. This benefits the fishermen directly. Furthermore Watson reports the case of fishing grounds closed for environmental reasons that have been reopened thanks to the use of these modified gear. As some species become more highly endangered in Europe, this may also be a possibility. This preserves all the social benefits of the environment while enabling the achievement of the social and economic goals of the fishing activity. Another case of additional benefits from the research is the increased capture efficiency of longer tooth for the dredges in Gaspar (Gaspar, 2005), which enables the dredge to uncover more adult white clams without increasing the catch of juveniles, this framework of analysis may be of help to evaluate the trade offs between different economic actors and social groups. After identifying these interactions a cost-benefit analysis may help clarify the most appropriate option to deal with the economic and social consequences of a gear modification. The following table shows some possible scenarios with a !5% and a 30% loss in value of landings. The figures for two different scenarios, losses in commercial landings of 15% and 30% when using technical measures in those fishing gears, appear in columns ‘Reduction 15%’ and ‘Reduction 30%’ of Table 6.7.

73 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 6.7. Two different scenarios with losses in commercial landings of 15% and 30%. Value of Reduction Reduction Main Fishing Gears Landings % 15% 30% (m €) (m €) (m €) 1 Purse seines 702.980 10,4 105.447 210.894 2 Seines 86.608 1,0 12.991 25.983 3 Beam Trawls 464.575 7,0 69.686 139.372 4 Bottom Trawls 2.600.440 38,0 390.066 780.132 5 Midwater Trawls 270.128 4,0 40.519 81.038 6 Dredges 392.815 6,0 58.922 117.844 7 Gillnets 1.187.088 18,0 178.063 356.126 8 Pots 456.884 7,0 68.533 137.065 9 Hooks and lines 597.182 9,0 89.577 179.155 Total 6.758.700 100 1.013.804 2.027.610

In what follows a study into more detail of some cases of substitution of fishing gear will be presented, to analyse its general socioeconomic implications and some particular effects on member states that may be more affected by these actions.

6.1.5 Substitution of fishing gear

The analysis of the effect of a substitution of fishing gear is, as it has been said in the introduction, more reliable when limited to a short term horizon. Given this, the current situation of the European fishing fleets is considered, supposing that a hypothetical substitution takes place among different fishing gears. For the sake of simplicity the characteristics of the remaining vessels are left constant even if some short term dynamics (adaptation) can be expected. In this way it is shown how the socioeconomic aspects change in the short term when a substitution inside one section of the fleet takes place, leaving all other parameters (such as oil prices or evolution of the stock) constant. As it has been anticipated, the different implications that this action has on the fleet in general and on its distribution among the national fleets are explained below.

Our starting point is the assumption that the catches of the substituted gear will be taken up by other gears that are still permitted. The assumption is introduced that the size of the fleet substituting the banned gears may increase to occupy the space of the disappeared one and that they will be fully capable of catching the same preys. Another assumption related to this one is that the economic efficiency of a gear (see below) will remain constant after the change has taken place. This implies that the costs of the fleet do not decrease, because even though it may be less costly to fish due to disparison of a competitor and the higher availability of stock, new vessels will enter the fishery using the still allowed gears, until the extraction reaches the same cost level as before.

The socioeconomic consequences of the gear change are best reflected by the Gross Value Added (GVA) than by some other financial indicators, basically because it reflects the remuneration of the workers and the owners. This gives a clearer measure of the social implications of the activity of a fleet using a particular gear. By dividing the GVA over the value of the landings WE observe the contribution of those landings to remunerate the main actors of the extracting sector. In other words, it shows us the economic and social efficiency of a fleet that uses a concrete fishing gear.

In order to increase the explicative capacity of our indicator it is weighed by the proportion in which the fishing gear contributes to the total value of the landings of all EU fleets. This

74 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears weighted efficiency indicator gives an idea of how representative a fishing gear is if considered in the context of the fleets of the whole EU.

With this aim, the case of two of the most environmentally damaging types of gear, the bottom trawlers and the beam trawlers is examined. This fulfils the double objective of evaluating the economic effects of the most aggressive gears (and therefore of most urgent substitution) and the possible alternatives to their use. However, it presents some difficulties. The perfect substitution may not be possible for technical reasons, as the technical efficiency of a bottom trawl may not be completely achieved by other gears. In spite of this small limitation it is considered that the catches delivered by the bottom trawls and beam trawls could be shared among the gillnets, lines and pots, given that they aim at the same stocks. As said before, the dredges are not included in this part of the analysis despite their high degree of environmental damage, due to the fact that their volume of catches cannot be realistically undertaken by other substitutive gears (DFO, 2006).

In our setting it is observed that the socioeconomic efficiency of the beam and bottom trawlers is not so high, despite their higher technical capacity. In fact their efficiency indicators are average-low in relation to other gears. The following classification (Table 6.8) gives a different picture from the ones described in environmental or technical parameters.

The analysis of the modification of fishing gears for environmental purposes should take into consideration the crossed effects between fleets and countries, without forgetting the time horizon in the evolution of the resource. The substitution of gears is an issue of income distribution among actors, starting from the fishermen and ship owners to then move on to the allocation among fleets using different gears, and furthermore to the countries and the EU in what refers to the decision about the quotas.

Table 6.8. Ranking of main fishing gears according to their efficiency indicator, before and after the substitution of beam trawls and bottom trawls. Data estimated from AER (2005).

Before Substitution After Substitution

GVA/value of GVA/value of Main fishing gear Main fishing gear landings landings

Dredges 72.3% Dredges 72.3% Pots 67.2% Pots 67.2% Purse seines 57.9% Purse seines 57.9% Gillnets 53.3% Gillnets 53.3% Midwater trawl 46.7% Average 52.0% Bottom trawls 44.9% Midwater trawl 46.7% Average 44.8% Seines 43.9% Seines 43.9% Hooks and lines 40.0% Beam trawl 41.6% Beam trawl / Hooks and lines 40.0% Bottom trawls /

75 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

On the left hand side of the table the more selective, environmentally responsible gears such as pots are situated next to completely opposite ones in this type of characteristics, such as dredges. This is due to the definition of economic efficiency chosen, relating the value of the landings to the value added derived from them. Other examples are, the bottom trawls and gillnets as well as the beam trawls and the hooks and lines categories.

As anticipated before, the value of the efficiency indicator for each gear does not change with the disappearance of the most damaging ones, assumed that the efficiency (GVA/value of landing) of the remaining ones stays constant. Once their value of landing was increased, there has simply been a recalculation of GVA by multiplying the new value of landing by the efficiency indicator of each gear.

The focus is in fact more in the weighted efficiency indicator. To achieve this, the value of landings of the bottom trawls and beam trawls has been redistributed among the gillnets, lines and pots keeping the same proportion of catches that the last three gears had among them before the change. That is, a further assumption is introduced that the redistribution of catches does not affect the gears which do not aim at the same stocks (such as the seines, purse seines and midwater trawls (38) and that the additional catches are distributed among the gears that already aimed at the stocks keeping the same proportion as before (39).

Table 6.9. Ranking of main fishing gears according to their weighted efficiency indicator, before and after the substitution of beam trawls and bottom trawls. Data estimated from AER (2005).

Before Substitution After Substitution

Weighted Weighted Main fishing gear Main fishing gear Efficiency I. Efficiency I. Seines 29.4% Seines 29.4% Midwater trawl 7.9% Midwater trawl 7.9% Average 5.0% Average 6.5% Bottom trawls 4.6% Gillnets 4.7% Beam trawl 1.2% Hooks and lines 1.8% Purse seines 1.0% Purse seines 1.0% Gillnets 0.4% Pots 0.6% Hooks and lines 0.1% Dredges 0.1% Dredges 0.1% Beam trawl / Pots < 0.1% Bottom trawls /

The Table 6.9. (above) shows how gillnets, lines and pots increase their weighted efficiency, and the average weighted efficiency improves also. By keeping other factors constant, it is concluded that a transfer of value of landings from the less environmentally friendly to the closer equivalents improves the efficiency of the fleet, under the chosen definition of efficiency.

38 However, there is no further increase in the catches of the dredges, as they are environmentally irresponsible. 39 Before the substitution, catches among gillnets, lines and pots were distributed according to the percentages of 62.5%, 31.25% and 6.25% respectively. In order to isolate the effect of the additional value of landings on the efficiency of the fleet these percentages are kept constant. 76 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Here the technical efficiency is left constant and so is the allocation of the value of the landings inside each gear type, the result being an increase in the overall efficiency defined in terms of GVA/ value of landing.

Therefore, using a definition of efficiency more focused on socioeconomic aspects it is conceivable to obtain benefits from a substitution of some gear that may seem more efficient under other criteria. Nevertheless, this result refers only to the whole EU, and national distinctions must be taken into consideration. The effects of the substitution of one particular type of gear differ considerably from one country to another, depending on the importance of the substituted gear for the national fleet, the existence of substitutes locally and the specific socioeconomic situation of the extraction sector.

Some countries such as Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Portugal or Poland use both types of gears, therefore the effect on the value of landings would be to a certain extent mitigated. The impact of a reduction of the beam trawlers would affect in a most extreme way to Belgium, whose fleets is specialised in this type of gear, with few substitutes or vessels aiming at different types of stock. The Netherlands would be the next worse off, with a 25% of the analysed value of landings obtained by beam and bottom trawlers and none by the use of the less harmful equivalents in its fleet.

In an intermediate position Sweden has a 48% of its considered value of landing delivered by bottom trawls and only 6% of it by potential substitutes, while the remaining 46% is covered by gears unaffected by the substitution. Additionally, there is the more favourable situation of Poland, with a 19% of the analysed value given by bottom trawls, and a 36% delivered by gillnets and lines and still a 45% of the value of landings under unchanged types of gear. With the peculiarity that even some of its bottom trawls present a negative GVA.

This whole methodology and the examples aim to illustrate the situation in a theoretical way, to model the socioeconomic consequences of the fishing gear. Despite its being helpful to illustrate an approach, it has its limitation as it does not take into account the relative stability principle and the quota share established in the EU. The analysis serves, however, as a basis to highlight in general terms the effects of the measures on fishing gear.

There are special situations that would be benefited only by such a measure, as is the case of Ireland which has none of the restricted gears and a comparatively high use of pots, which have been selected as substitutes. This change would particularly improve the situation on the North West of the country, where the pots are predominant, leaving the situation in the rest of the country unchanged.

The effect on the different countries of the proposed exercise can be seen in Table 6.10.

77 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 6.10. Ranking of countries according to their individual losses and the share in the total losses of the fleet using that gear after the substitution of beam trawls and bottom trawls

Gross value Value of share of share of added landings loss loss (GVA) Beam trawl Beam trawl Netherlands 231.550 45% Netherlands 105.741 52% United Kingdom 141.908 27% United Kingdom 38.315 19% Belgium 82.672 16% Belgium 33.620 17% Germany 43.624 8% Germany 25.302 12% Bottom trawl Bottom trawl Spain 1.189.848 41% Spain 672.264 46% Italy 722.568 25% Italy 404.638 27% United Kingdom 322.389 11% France 140.648 10% France 247.906 9% United Kingdom 88.335 6% Denmark 174.616 6% Denmark 80.323 5% Germany 79.056 3% Portugal 26.970 2% Portugal 63.458 2% Germany 26.616 2% Sweden 56.935 2% Sweden 14.803 1% Both gears Both gears Spain 1.189.848 35% Spain 672.264 40% Italy 724.608 21% Italy 404.638 24% United Kingdom 464.297 14% France 140.648 8% France 255.106 7% United Kingdom 126.650 8% Netherlands 238.562 7% Netherlands 110.018 7% Denmark 174.626 5% Denmark 80.323 5% Germany 122.680 4% Germany 51.917 3% Belgium 83.072 2% Belgium 33.620 2% Portugal 63.484 2% Portugal 26.970 2% Sweden 56.935 2% Sweden 14.803 1%

The analysis of the modification of fishing gears for environmental purposes should take into consideration the crossed effects between fleets and countries, without forgetting the time horizon in the evolution of the resource. The socioeconomic consequences go well beyond the modified vessels and therefore there is a need for a global policy approach.

The substitution of gears is, more than a matter of supply of fish, an issue of income distribution among actors, starting from the fishermen and ship owners to then move on to the allocation among fleets using different gears, and furthermore to the countries and the EU in what refers to the decision about the quotas.

Even though the quantitative analysis is only partial, the comparison of different indicators (as the one proposed here) with other measures of employment or financial performance helps to explain why a wider approach to socioeconomic aspects of fishing gear is needed.

78 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Short and long term measures Considering the outlook (economical performance, fuel costs and responsible fishing), short and long terms considerations should be taken into account in the adoption of technical measures to ensure the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources.

6.1.6 Short and medium term measures In the short and medium term, improving the environmental status of dredge, beam trawl and bottom trawl should be the priority. These three fishing gears have in common their main disadvantages with respect to responsible fishing: the negative impact on the bottom and the considerable fuel consumption.

In bottom trawling, for reducing fuel consumption, the drag of the net must be reduced. The change of the net design should be taken into account as the only measure for reducing drag. The use of special netting as the T90, or application of new materials (Dyneema, Ultracross) could be a solution. Those T90 meshes or rectangular meshes should also be used on escape panels.

For reducing the impact on the bottom, a doorless trawling could be the key. A promising answer is the use of “variable thrust vector devices” (VTVDs) powered from the ship (Shenker, 2004) instead of the use of conventional otter doors. However, must be remind that sand clouds from doors digging into the seabed play a significant role in herding groundfish species, so the implementation of these devices will create surely a loss in the catch (but could be applied in shrimp fisheries, were the herding effect of doors is not important).

For beam trawling and dredges, electrical stimuli seem to be the near solution.

From the economic and financial performance of the fishing fleet studies, it is clear that productivity level of the fishing fleets needs to be increased. The gradual reduction year by year of the European fishing fleet, unintentionally, could help in the increase of productivity.

In the short and medium term, technical measures must be implemented especially to improve the condition of the least responsible fishing gears (beam trawl, bottom trawl and dredges). The FP7 Cooperation Work Programme (Theme 2 – Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology) in the Activity 2.1: Sustainable production and management of biological resources from land, forest and aquatic environments, is an opportunity to advance. Two topics deal with these short-medium term solutions: • KBBE-2007-1-2-10: Improving cost-efficiency in the fisheries

• KBBE-2007-1-2-13: Mitigating adverse impacts of fisheries However, these two topics are also an opportunity to start evaluating the concrete options and feasibility for operators to change from fishing methods that are energy inefficient and are deleterious to the environments to less fuel demanding fishing methods that are environmentally friendly and responsible.

On March 9th 2006, it was announced that the EC had adopted a Communication on ways to improve the economic situation in the fishing industry. This paper analyses the causes of the current economic difficulties faced by a number of European fishing fleets and states that the economic profitability of the European fleets has been undermined by the depletion of a number of fish stocks, making them vulnerable to increases in costs, like the recent surge of fuel prices. The communication outlines possible short- and long-term measures to address this situation. 79 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Short-term measures include: • a first change of fishing gear resulting in a less fuel-intensive fishing method; • purchase of equipment to improve fuel efficiency or one replacement of engine provided that: • for vessels under 12 m in overall length and not using towed gear (trawls, dredges), the new engine has the same power as the old one or less; • for trawlers of more than 24 m in overall length, the new engine has at least 20% less power than the old one and the vessel changes to a less fuel-intensive fishing method.

6.1.7 Long term measures The technical conservation measures in the long term should be added to the two long-term management tools for mitigating degradation or loss of habitat structure while maintaining healthy sustainable fisheries (Turner et al., 1999): • protective habitat management, which involves the designation of protected marine and coastal areas which are afforded some level of protection from fishing • habitat restoration, whereby important habitat and ecological functions are restored following the loss of habitat and/or resources.

Problems with fisheries were usually associated only with overfishing; in recent years, society has realized that overfishing is not the only problem. Collateral impacts of fishing methods on incidental take and on habitats are also cause for concern. Previous workshops (NEFSC, 2002) have agreed that in order to protect habitat from gear impacts three management measures deserve consideration: 1) effort reduction, 2) spatial closures, and 3) gear modification.

We will focus on the last two ones.

6.1.7.1 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and spatial closures Simulations suggest that current area closures could be considered beneficial in conserving major stocks of demersal species, with biomass for cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and other demersal species (Zeller and Reinert, 2004) increasing over the 10-year simulation period. One promising approach to reduce the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems is the idea of establishing networks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) at local, regional and global levels. In European waters the main way this is being achieved is through two types of protected areas: Special Protected Areas (SPAs) for birds which are put in place through the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC); and Special Areas of Conservation for habitats and species, which are put in place through the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). For example, in Italy more than 20 areas are protected in order to preserve local bio-diversity and sensitive habitats. All are closed to all kinds of trawling operations all year round. In each area, three types of protected zones are defined: • zone A: no acts of making the zone of land or water profitable, productive or use-ful; • zone B: artisanal fishing and recreational activities are permitted under controlled conditions; • zone C: antropic activities are allowed under sustainable conditions

As another example, the German Bundesminister for Environment has proposed ten new marine protected areas (MPAs) in the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), between 12 and 200 nautic miles offshore. Two of the proposed areas will be designated as Special Protected Area

80 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

(SPA) under the EU Wild Bird Directive (BD). The other eight will be designated as Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive (HD).

Highly sensitive deepwater habitats have been found and mapped in the Atlantic (some areas around the Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands). Those habitats host important and highly diverse biological communities and are considered to require priority protection. In particular, they are defined as habitats of Community interest in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (40). Furthermore, deep-water coral reefs have recently been included in a list of endangered habitats in the framework of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (‘OSPAR Convention’).

In those areas, any gillnet, entangling net or trammel net at depths greater than 200 metres and any bottom trawl or similar towed nets operating in contact with the bottom of the sea are prohibited (41).

There is an international commitment to develop a network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012 (World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002). Implementation of both Directives is a legal obligation on EU Member States and provides major elements in the protection of the marine environment in European waters. Both types of protected areas will form a European network of MPAs within the so-called NATURA 2000 network, which includes both marine and terrestrial protected areas. The aim is to complete designations of the SPAs and SACs by 2008 in order to finish the marine NATURA 2000 network by 2012.

Marine Protected Areas are proposed as a management measure to promote the recovery of stocks. However, some results (Andrews et al., 2004) clearly show that the effectiveness of this strategy is greatly limited unless the displaced fishing effort is removed completely from the system.

6.1.7.2 Gear modification The new regulation that is in preparation will divide the technical measures into three groups according to their objectives, which are: • Conservation of regulated species • Protection of the environment • Reduction of the discards

The list of the current Technical Conservation Measure issues, which are of highest priority or give the greatest difficulties to respective national industries and have discussed in in the Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) 2005 meeting (ICES, 2005) are the following:

Issue 1. Twine Thickness Comments: Twine thickness is regulated because thicker twine has an adverse effect on selectivity. However, reducing twine thickness may compromise strength and hence safety. New types of stiff twines are coming onto the market having characteristics, which may reduce selectivity.

40 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 41 OJ L 252, 28.9.2005, p. 1. 81 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Suggested action: Assess whether there is a need to take ac-count of limitations in twine strength in certain fisheries and also investigate whether twine stiffness influences codend selectivity.

Issue 2. Twine Construction Comments: A new regulation (129/2003) has recently been introduced to control twine thickness but the instrument for testing compliance is not yet available.

Suggested action: Review the application of the new regulation.

Issue 3. Codend/Extension Construction Comments: There are a number of anomalies in the current regulations regarding dimensions and construction of codends/extensions, which could be rationalised. For example, the rules limiting meshes round the codend could be simplified, while those on codend and extension length also seem unduly complex and unnecessary.

Suggested action: Review and summarise appropriate selectivity data, with a view to advising on the need to simplify the current legislation.

Issue 4. Square Mesh panels Comments: Some aspects of regulations on square mesh panels are poorly defined, e.g., on panel position, width or joining ratio. With single or four selvedge codends there are also potential difficulties in defining panel width. The availability and description of materials for panels is poorly specified in the legislation.

Suggested action: Review available selectivity data on square mesh panel position and define materials and construction of square mesh panels.

Issue 5. Headline Panels Comments: The regulation on headline panels for trawls appears to be based on relatively little data and no assessment has been made of the effects of such panels.

Suggested action: Review any available selectivity data testing this concept as well as data from trials planned for later in 2005 under the EU funded NECESSITY Project, which will test similar headline panels.

Issue 6. Strengthening Bags Comments: Strengthening bags, which are widely used in many countries have been shown to have an adverse effect on codend selectivity. These effects, however, are not well documented.

Suggested action: Review available data to assess the benefits of restricting the use of strengthening bags.

Issue 7. Top Side Chafers Comments: The use of top side chafers is potentially detrimental to codend selectivity. It is questionable whether such devices should be permissible.

Suggested action: Assess the effect of the use of top side chafers on selectivity.

Issue 8. Strengthening Ropes Comments: Under the current gear attachment regulation there is no restriction on the number or specification of strengthening ropes. By attaching multiple strengthening ropes, codend selectivity could be potentially reduced.

82 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Suggested action: To review work in this area, with a view to amend the regulation and define the number and specifications of strengthening ropes.

Issue 9. Gillnets Comments: In a number of sea areas, e.g., The Baltic, there are specific regulations (both national and EU) governing the length, soak time and hanging ratio of gillnets. No such restrictions apply in Western waters or in the North Sea. Studies have shown excessive soak times caused by the use of unmanageable gear lengths in gillnet fisheries result in very high discards.

Suggested action: Assess the effect of additional technical conservation measures.

Issue 10. Asymmetric Meshes Comments: Under Article 9 (1) of Regulation 850/98 the use of mesh shapes other than diamond or square mesh is prohibited. The use of hexagonal mesh to improve selectivity through improved water flow has been tested but the legality of using hexagonal meshes is unclear under this regulation.

Suggested action: Check the legality of the mesh shape.

Issue 11. Bycatch Regulations Comments: Under the current EU Days at Sea legislation the maximum permitted bycatch of cod increases when using an 80mm mesh size compared to 100mm or greater. This actively encourages use of the smaller mesh size.

Suggested action: Carry out a technical analysis of changes in fishing pattern as a result of this regulation.

Issue 12. Multiple Rigs Comments: The use of multiple rigs i.e., more than two nets has increased significantly in recent years but the increase in level of fishing power associated with the use of such gears has not been properly defined.

Suggested action: Assess data on the difference in fishing power associated with multiple rigs com-pared to conventional gears.

Issue 13. Pelagic Trawls Comments: Pelagic trawls are used in some fisheries close to the sea bed resulting in bycatches of non-target demersal species.

Suggested action: Examine the potential of gear modifications such as raised footropes.

Issue 14. Trouser Codends Comments: Current regulations limit the number of meshes allowed in the circumference of codend/extensions. This regulation prevents the effective use of trouser codends, which are used by some vessels, particularly in the North Sea, to enhance fish quality and also reduce the effect of codend damage.

Suggested action: Assess the need for changes in legislation onto accommodate trouser codends. Apart from the minimum mesh size (MMS) and minimum landing size (MLS) that are applicable to some gears and species, the Table 6.11 summarizes the gear modifications for the main fishing gears. These main gear modifications could be used as technical measures in order to mitigate those effects that interfere with some of the aims of the new regulation: conservation

83 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears of regulated species, protection of the environment and reduction of the discards. Some of the gear modifications are already explained in this study and some of them are still in research, sometimes even without published results.

Table 6.11. Technical measures based on gear modifications for the main fishing gears.

ISSCFG Gear Categories Technical Measure Code Escape panels (different types of meshes) 01.0.0 SURROUNDING NETS Rigid sorting grids Dolphin Safety Panel (DSP) (Medina panel) Panels of transparent netting 02.0.0 SEINE NETS Minimum mesh size Escape panels (different types of meshes) Rigid sorting grids Flexible sorting grids Minimum mesh size "self-spreading" groundgear Light groundgears 03.0.0 TRAWLS Bottom non-contact otter boards Raised footropes Horizontal separator panels Sieve netting Escape panels (different types of meshes) Electrical stimulation (beam trawl) Toothless dredges 04.0.0 DREDGES Minimum mesh size Acoustic and electrical stimulation Minimum mesh size GILLNETS AND 07.0.0 Low profile nets (headline height) ENTANGLING NETS Hanging ratio Escape-gaps 08.0.0 TRAPS Minimum mesh size (or slat distance) Type of hooks (Circle Hooks) Size of hooks Degrees of offset 09.0.0 HOOKS AND LINES Wire appendage Bird-scaring lines (‘tori poles’). Setting funnel

84 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

6.1.7.3 Gear substitution In the long term, alternative fishing gears should be considered. The topic on alternative fishing gears that was launched at the WGFTFB 2004 meeting ‘to explore the potential for alternative fishing gears for traditional species that are environmentally friendly and a responsible fishing method’ should be taken into account.

Two criteria will be critical in the election of an alternative fishing gear as a responsible fishing gear: the energy efficiency and the ecosystem effects of the fishing gear.

In relation with energy efficiency, an allegation is clear: passive fishing gears are more energy efficient than active fishing gears. For those active fishing gears particularly fuel-intensive, and where profitability has been undermined by lower catches and rising costs, as the towed gears, it is expected that member states will target restructuring aid primarily at trawlers.

Taken into account the rankings of the fishing gears of Table 6.1. and Fig. 6.1., the fishing gears placed on top should have priority over the rest.

Surrounding nets should be the prevalent fishing gear for catching small pelagic species (herring, sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel, mackerel, etc.). Its use in shallow waters of the neritic zone (where the purse line should be avoided to prevent bycatch. Surround nets could replace in great manner pelagic trawls, that is a fuel-intensive fishing gear.

Seine nets could be the prevalent fishing gear for catching demersal fish on soft bottoms. Bottom trawls as otter trawlers and beam trawlers should remain with less impact on the bottom (further research is needed). As the last measure, the replacement of beam trawling by other less impacting fishing methods has been already proposed (Revill & Jennings, 2005). The use of towed fishing gears in hard bottoms should be prevented. This is particularly the case for fleet segments which target demersal species using towed gear, where fishing is particularly fuel- intensive, and where profitability has been undermined by lower catches and rising costs.

In Community waters, for highly migratory species (Bluefin tuna, Albacore…) pole and line and trolling lines should prevail as the fishing gear in the Atlantic. In the Mediterranean, surrounding nets will also be used with some measures already in force: ‘fishing for bluefin tuna with encircling nets in the Mediterranean Sea is prohibited from 16 July to 15 August each year’ (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 831/2004(42).

Pots should be the widespread fishing gear to catch not only crustaceans but some species of fish. Technical measures should be concentrated in the mesh size or the distance between the slats, and limiting the number of pots.

Passive fishing gears as handlines and longlines should be habitual for hard bottoms. Number of hooks, soaking time, and size and type of hooks should be the technical measures to be implemented.

Artisanal fleets based on passive fishing gears (pots, hand lines, longlines, gillnets and entangling nets) should be promoted. Special attention should be paid to avoid interactions between fishing gears.

42 OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 33. 85 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Key Findings (Implications of changes in fishing gears)

¾ The 9 main groups of fishing gears had a value of landings in 2004 of 6.758.700 m€, being bottom trawls at the top, with 2.600.440 m€.

¾ In the ranking for identifying “responsible fishing methods”, the least responsible fishing gears (beam trawls, bottom trawls and dredges) account for the 50% of the total EU fishing fleet (expressed in GT).

¾ The EU fleets spent in 2004 about 1 B € on fuel (estimations for year 2004

¾ The analysis of the modification of fishing gears for environmental purposes should take into consideration the crossed effects between fleets and countries, without forgetting the time horizon in the evolution of the resource.

¾ The substitution of gears is an issue of income distribution among actors, starting from the fishermen and ship owners to then move on to the allocation among fleets using different gears, and furthermore to the countries and the EU in what refers to the decision about the quotas.

¾ The comparison of different indicators (as the one proposed here) with other measures of employment or financial performance helps to explain why a wider approach to socioeconomic aspects of fishing gear is needed.

86 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7. Description of EU fishing gears

7.1. Surrounding nets

7.1.1 Description (43) Surrounding nets (ISSCFG Code: 01.0.0) consist of netting framed by lines; a floatline on top and sinker line at the bottom (Fig. 7.1). Apart from a few exceptions, they are surface nets in which the float line is supported by numerous floats.

Fig. 7.1. Surrounding nets.

Source: From FAO.

7.1.2 Catching principle These nets catch the fish by surrounding them both from the sides and from underneath, thus preventing the target preys from escaping into deep waters by diving downwards. The surrounding nets are used to encircle fish schools in mid-water, close to the surface, by a netting wall with small meshes. In the case of purse seine, the net is closed when the purse line is pulled through the purse rings attached to the leadline. In the case of the lampara, the shoal of the fish is retained when the two wings are hauled up at the same time. For most of the situation, it is the most efficient gear for catching large and small pelagic species that is shoaling.

7.1.3 Target species Surrounding nets are effective gears to catch aggregated pelagic species of all sizes both large (tuna and tuna-like species) and small ones (small sardines and anchovies).

7.1.4 Types of surrounding nets Surrounding nets include purse seines (PS) and lamparas (LA) and the ring net, which is an intermediate hybrid form of a purse seine and a lampara net.

43 All descriptions of fishing gears are taken from Commission of the European (1987) and ICES (2006). 87 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7.1.4.1 Purse seine Purse seine (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 01.1.0; PS) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation

A purse seine is made of a long wall of netting framed with a lead line of equal or longer length than the float line. Characteristic is the purse rings hanging from the lower edge of the gear. The purse seine is set around a detected school of fish. The net is closed by hauling the purse line running through the rings (Fig. 7.2). The purse seines, which may be very large (2.800 meters for tuna purse seines and 400 meters for coastal purse seines), are operated by one or two boats. Most usual is a purse seine operated by a single boat, with or without an auxiliary skiff. The handling of the gear is usually mechanised, e.g. by a hydraulic power block, a roller or a net drum. Artificial "Fish Aggregating Devices" (FAD's) and light attractions are used in some fisheries to concentrate the fish.

Fig. 7.2. Purse seine. Details of the net and fishing operation

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

A ring net is an intermediate hybrid form of a purse seine and a lampara net. It normally has a groundrope shorter than the headline and a bunt in the middle. It is also provided with rings through which a purse can be pulled and thus close the net from below (Fig. 7.3).

88 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.3. Differences between the ringnet (a) and the purse seine (b).

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

Searching for fish aggregation, then checking (when possible) the fish species and evaluating school sizes and its catchability, prior to surrounding it is the major part of a purse seine operation. The purse seine is set around a detected school of fish. After that, the net is closed underneath the school by hauling the purse line running through the rings (pursing).

Fishing vessels The purse seine can be used by a large range of vessel sizes, ranging from open boats and canoes up to large ocean going vessels. The purse seines can be operated by one or two boats. Most usual is a purse seine operated by a single boat, purse seiner, with or without an auxiliary skiff. Fishing vessels that use purse seines as the main fishing gear are about 3.863 (see Table 7.1). Spain, France and Italy represents more than the 80% in GT of the fleet while Italian and Spanish purse seiners account for the 80% of the total number of EU purse seiners.

Table 7.1. leets that use purse seines as main fishing gear.

PURSE SEINE (PS) Nº % GT %

Spain 815 21,1 120.033 49,9

France 131 3,4 48.072 20,0

Italy 2.303 59,6 29.243 12,2

Greece 291 7,5 11.630 4,8

Portugal 129 3,3 5.560 2,3

Estonia 100 2,6 330 0,1

Others 94 2,4 25.549 10,6

Total 3.863 100,0 240.417 100,0

89 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7.1.4.2 Without purse lines (lampara) The lampara net (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 01.2.0; LA) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation

The lampara net is designed with the central bunt in the form of a spoon and two lateral wings (Fig. 7.4.). The fish is captured when the two wings are hauled up at the same time. The gear can only be used to catch fish close to the surface.

Fig. 7.4. Lampara net. Details of the net and fishing operation.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use lampara nets as the main fishing gear are about 37 (see Table 7.2).

Malta (100%) accounts for all the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear.

90 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.2. Fleets that use lampara nets as main fishing gear.

LAMPARA (LA) Nº % GT %

Malta 37 100,0 559 100,0

Others 0 0,0 0 0,0

Total 37 100,0 559 100,0

Seine nets

7.1.5 Description Seine nets (ISSCFG Code: 02.0.0) are composed of a bunt (bag or lose netting) and long wings (Fig. 7.5) often lengthened with long towing ropes or warps. Seines are usually set from a boat to surround a certain area and can be hauled either from the shore (beach seines) or from the boat itself (boat seines, e.g., Danish, Scottish and pair seines).

Fig. 7.5. Seine nets

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

7.1.6 Catching principle The catching principle of seine netting is a combination of trawl nets and surrounding nets. The surrounded and catching area depends on the length of the seine and of the hauling lines. When the seine and warps have sunk to the bottom, the warps are hauled. As they are tightened, the long wings and the warps move inwards towards the centre line between the vessel and the seine bag. Fish in the encircled area will then be herded towards the central part of the area. As the warps are further tightened, the seine bag moves forward and catches the fish, that ends or not in a codend depending on the types of seine nets. The technique is most efficient on flat and smooth bottom when long ropes (2500 m) can be used. Boat seines are also used in rougher grounds, but then with shorter ropes.

7.1.7 Target species Target species of seine nets are mainly demersal species, less frequently for pelagic species.

7.1.8 Types of seine nets Seine nets include beach seines (SB) and boat seines (SV). Boat seines are divided in Danish seines (SDN), Scottish seines (SSC) and pair seines (SPR).

91 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7.1.8.1 Beach seines Beach seine (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 02.1.0; SB) is a mobile fishing gear and is represented in European fish capture statistics.

Description and fishing operation

Beach seines comprise the seine nets operated from land, which are generally used near the shore in shallow waters (Fig. 7.6). The bottom and surface act as natural barriers, which prevent the fish from escaping from the area enclosed by the net. A distinction is made between beach seines with a bag and beach seines without a bag; the latter do have, however, a central part with smaller meshes and more slack, which retains the fish caught.

Fig. 7.6. Beach seine net

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

In some places, beach seine is called fish hauling or estuarine hauling.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use beach seine nets as the main fishing gear are about 554 (see Table 7.3).

Greece (85% of the total GT) is the country more representative of this type of fishing gear.

92 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.3. Fleets that use beach seines as main fishing gear.

BEACH SEINE (SB) Nº % GT % Greece 399 72,0 2.890 85,1 Portugal 94 17,0 165 4,9 United Kingdom 20 3,6 35 1,0 Estonia 16 2,9 42 1,2 France 19 3,4 24 0,7 Others 6 1,1 242 7,1 Total 554 100,0 3.398 100,0

7.1.8.2 Danish seines Danish seine (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 02.2.1; SDN) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation

The Danish seine is a boat seine consisting of two long wings, a body and a bag. Another important component for the capture efficiency of boat seines is the long ropes extending from the wings, which are used to encircle a large area in more or less a triangular pattern. Fish inside the ropes are frightened into the forward moving path of the seine net where they are subsequently overtaken by the net and captured. The seine is commonly used on the bottom and the codend mesh size is used to regulate size selectivity.

In the Danish seine the fishing operation starts setting an anchored dahn (marker) buoy and the boat comes back to the anchored buoy hauling the ropes (Fig. 7.7).

Fig. 7.7. Danish seine

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use Danish seine nets as the main fishing gear are about 186 (see Table 7.4). Denmark, Portugal and United Kingdom account for the 92% of the total GT of the EU fishing fleet that use this type of fishing gear.

93 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.4. Fleets that use Danish seines as main fishing gear.

DANISH SEINE (SDN) Nº % GT %

Denmark 66 35,5 2.937 47,1

Portugal 44 23,6 1.871 30,0

United Kingdom 15 8,1 898 14,4

Estonia 51 27,4 164 2,6

France 5 2,7 12 0,2

Others 5 2,7 357 5,7

Total 186 100,0 6.239 100,0

7.1.8.3 Scottish seines Scottish seine (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 02.2.2; SSC) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation

The Scottish seine is a boat seine, like the Danish seine, consisting of two long wings, a body and a bag.

The difference with the Danish seine is that instead of using an anchored buoy, a single buoy is used.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use Scottish seine nets as the main fishing gear are about 94 (see Table 7.5). The important fleets for this gear are United Kingdom (57%) and Nederlands (33%). Portugal accounts for the 63% of the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear, but with very little tonnage (only 2.9% of the total GT).

Table 7.5. Fleets that use Scottish seines as main fishing gear.

SCOTTISH SEINE (SSC) Nº % GT %

United Kingdom 17 18,0 1722 57,0

Netherlands 4 4,3 991 32,8

Portugal 59 62,8 89 2,9

Polonia 6 6,4 31 1,0

Estonia 6 6,4 16 0,5

Others 2 2,1 170 5,6

Total 94 100,0 3019 100,0

94 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7.1.8.4 Pair seines Pair seine (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 02.2.3; SPR) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation

The pair seine is a boat seine, like the Scottish and Danish seine, consisting of two long wings, a body and a bag.

The difference with the Danish and the Scottish seine is that two boats are used instead of one boat, and one boat is keep stationary during haul back with the propeller.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use pair seine nets as the main fishing gear are about only 10 (see Table 7.6). United Kingdom and Nederlands are the main fishing fleets for this type of fishing gear.

Table 7.6. Fleets that use pair seines as main fishing gear.

PAIR SEINE (SPR) Nº % GT %

United Kingdom 6 60,0 877 63,4

Netherlands 2 20,0 400 28,9

Ireland 1 10,0 104 7,5

France 1 10,0 2 0,1

Others 0 0,0 0 0,0

Total 10 100,0 1.383 100,0

Trawls

7.1.9 Description Trawl nets are towed gears consisting of a funnel-shaped body, closed by a codend. They can be towed through the water by one or two boats on the bottom or in midwater (pelagic). The horizontal opening of the gear while towing is maintained by beams, otter boards or by two vessels. Floats and weights and/or hydrodynamic devices provide for the vertical opening. In otter trawling, the trawl is connected to the trawl boards by a pair of sweeps (rope or steel wire) and the trawl doors are connected to the vessel by a pair of warps (normally steel wire). Two or more parallel trawls might be rigged between two otter boards. The mesh size in the codend or special designed devices are used to regulate the size and species to be captured.

7.1.10 Catching principle Catch is kept in the codend after the trawl has been towed through the water. to catch different target species in their path. During fishing, the trawl entrance or trawl opening must be kept open, and horizontal and vertical opening are the critical parameters (together with the speed) of the trawl performance. In otter trawling and partially in pair trawling, the sweeps and warps are also part of the catching system, as they will herd fish towards the centre of the trawl path and

95 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears the approaching trawl, so that the trawl may catch fish over a larger area than that of the trawl opening. In beam trawl there is no herding effect in front of the trawl, so the effective catching area is that of the trawl.

7.1.11 Target species Depending on the different types of trawl systems, bottom, demersal and pelagic species are the target of this fishing gear.

7.1.12 Types of trawls Trawls (ISSCFG Code: 03.0.0) include bottom trawls and midwater trawls. Bottom trawls: beam trawls (TBB), bottom otter trawls (OTB), bottom pair trawls (PTB) and otter twin trawls (OTT). Midwater trawls: midwater otter trawls (OTM) and midwater pair trawls (PTM).

7.1.12.1 Beam trawls Beam trawl (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 03.1.1; TBB) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation

A beam trawl is a bottom trawl in which the horizontal opening of the net is provided by a beam made of wood or metal and which may be up to 12–16 m long.

Beam trawls (Fig. 7.8) are used mainly for flatfish and shrimp fishing. One beam trawl can be towed from the stern or alternatively two beam trawls from outriggers. Close bottom contact is necessary for successful operation and heavy tickler chains are used to scare the flatfish off the seabed.

Fig. 7.8. Beam trawl

Source: From Polet, 2000.

96 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use beam trawls (beam trawlers) as the main fishing gear are about 1.061 (see Table 7.7). They are in most cases specialized medium size vessels, equipped with powerful engines arranged with large outriggers that tow two parallel beam trawls.

Netherlands and Belgium accounts for the 70% of the total GT. Germany and United Kingdom stand for the 47% of the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear but they are, especially in the case of Germany, smaller shrimp beam trawlers with less GT.

Table 7.7. Fleets that use beam trawls as main fishing gear.

BEAM TRAWL (TBB) Nº % GT % Netherlands 349 32,9 62.381 53,3 Belgium 104 9,8 20.030 17,1 United Kingdom 225 21,2 18.205 15,6 Germany 287 27,0 13.438 11,5 France 36 3,4 1.028 0,9 Portugal 26 2,5 56 0,0 Others 34 3,2 1.882 1,6 Total 1.061 100,0 117.020 100,0

7.1.12.2 Bottom otter trawls Bottom otter trawl (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 03.1.2; OTB) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation Bottom otter trawl (Fig. 7.9) is a single bottom trawl in which the horizontal opening is provided with two otter boards.

Fig. 7.9. Bottom otter trawl

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

97 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

The net consists of a cone-shaped body, normally made from two or four panels, ending aft in codend and with lateral wings extending forward from the opening. Bottom trawls usually have an extended top panel (square) to prevent fish form escaping upwards over the top of the net. The horizontal opening is obtained by two otter boards. A boat can be rigged to tow a single or two parallel trawls from the stern or from each of two outriggers. The trawl is designed and rigged to have bottom contact during fishing, and is, depending on the bottom substrate equipped with different kinds of ground gear with the purpose of keeping bottom contact, protecting the trawl from damage and facilitating movement across the bottom. Selective devices and codend mesh size are commonly used methods to reduce capture of non-target species and sizes.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use bottom otter trawls as the main fishing gear are about 9.476 (see Table 7.8).

The fleets of Spain (29%), Italy (20%), United Kingdom (11%) and France (11%) stand for the 72% of the total GT. Italy represent in number the largest fleet (37%).

Table 7.8. Fleets that use bottom otter trawls as main fishing gear. BOTTOM OTTER Nº % GT % TRAWL (OTB) Spain 1.577 16,6 225.682 28,9 Italy 3.542 37,4 157.881 20,2 United Kingdom 1.541 16,3 89.261 11,4 France 1.229 13,0 88.494 11,3 Denmark 444 4,7 51.395 6,6 Portugal 132 1,4 50.392 6,5 Greece 364 3,8 38.677 5,0 Sweden 228 2,4 17.027 2,2 Poland 123 1,3 14.431 1,9 Others 296 3,1 46.455 6,0 Total 9.476 100,0 779.695 100,0

7.1.12.3 Bottom pair trawls Bottom pair trawl (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 03.1.3; PTB) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A bottom pair trawl (Fig. 7.10) consist of a cone-shaped body, normally made of two panels, ending aft in a codend and with lateral wings extending forward from the opening. It is towed simultaneously by two boats, the distance between them ensuring the horizontal opening of the net. Varying length of sweeps in bottom contact in front of the trawl may affect the catching width of such gears.

98 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.10. Bottom pair trawl.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use bottom pair trawls as the main fishing gear are about 145 (see Table 7.9). Spain (63%) and United Kingdom (29%) represent the 92% of the total GT of this fleet. Sweden (28%) stand out in number of vessels but represents very little in GT (2%).

Table 7.9. Fleets that use bottom pair trawls as main fishing gear.

BOTTOM PAIR TRAWL Nº % GT % (PTB) Spain 14 9,8 13.694 63,1 United Kingdom 67 46,2 6.213 28,6 France 6 4,1 824 3,8 Sweden 40 27,6 480 2,2 Poland 6 4,1 221 1,0 Germany 6 4,1 198 0,9 Netherlands 3 2,1 17 0,1 Others 3 2,1 41 0,2 Total 145 100,0 21.688 100,0

7.1.12.4 Midwater otter trawls Midwater otter trawl (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 03.2.1; OTM) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description

A midwater otter trawl (Fig. 7.11) is towed by a single boat. The horizontal opening is maintained by otter boards. Mid-water otter boards are normally designed with higher hydrodynamic efficiency and with a larger surface area than bottom otter boards. Mid-water trawls may also be rigged with four otter boards.

99 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.11. Midwater otter trawl

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use midwater otter trawls as the main fishing gear are about 886 (see Table 7.10). They vary very much in range, from lengths between 5 meters long and more than 100. Netherlands (22% of total GT) and Lithuania (16%) have a short fleet with big vessels. Ireland (24%), France (22%) and Latvia (13%) accounts for the 70% of the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear.

Table 7.10. Fleets that use midwat er otter trawls a s main fishing g ear. MIDWATER OTTER Nº % GT % TRAWL (OTM) Netherlands 15 1,7 66.860 21,6 Ireland 208 23,5 51.092 16,5 Lithuania 14 1,6 49.998 16,1 Latvia 119 13,4 26.609 8,6 United Kingdom 84 9,5 21.886 7,1 France 195 22,0 19.645 6,3 Germany 5 0,6 18.857 6,1 Sweden 41 4,6 14.707 4,7 Poland 36 4,1 10.432 3,4 Estonia 61 6,9 9.270 3,0 Malta 2 0,2 7.569 2,4 Finland 83 9,4 6.943 2,2 Denmark 21 2,4 5.011 1,6 Others 2 0,2 1.081 0,3 Total 886 100,0 309.960 100,0

7.1.12.5 Midwater pair trawls Midwater pair trawl (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 03.2.2; PTM) is a mobile fishing gear.

100 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Description and fishing operation A midwater pair trawl (Fig. 7.12) is towed simultaneously by two boats, thus ensuring the horizontal opening of the net. It has similar characteristics as midwater trawls used with otter boards. This gear is easy to operate in surface waters. Midwater pair trawls might be rigged with two towing warps form each vessel or alternatively with one towing warp from each vessel and a bridle arrangement.

Fig. 7.12. Midwater pair trawl.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use midwater pair trawls as the main fishing gear are about 155 (see Table 7.11). United Kingdom and France are the powerful fleets that use this type of fishing gear.

Table 7.11. Fleets that use midwater pair trawls as main fishing gear.

MIDWATER PAIR Nº % GT % TRAWL (PTM) United Kingdom 39 25,2 6.769 34,9 France 72 46,4 6.720 34,6 Estonia 12 7,7 572 2,9 Ireland 4 2,6 507 2,6 Finland 17 11,0 311 1,6 Italy 5 3,2 239 1,2 Others 6 3,9 4.280 22,1 Total 155 100,0 19.398 100,0

7.1.12.6 Otter twin trawls Otter twin trawl or multi-rig otter trawl (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 03.3.0; OTT) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation This special rigging system for this particular gear was developed to increase the horizontal fishing area of the trawl and comprises two identical trawls ("twin") fixed together (Fig. 7.13). The horizontal opening is provided by a single pair of otter boards, which are attached to the

101 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears trawl close to the wings. Their inner wings are attached to a sledge towed simultaneously with the otter boards from a common crow foot. Another option used on modern vessels in the northern shrimp fishery is to tow the gear with three warps.

Fig. 7.13. Otter twin trawl

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use otter twin trawls as the main fishing gear are about 138 (see Table 7.12). The fleet of United Kingdom represents the 88% in number and 85% of GT for this type of fishing gear.

Table 7.12. Fleets that use otter twin trawls as main fishing gear.

OTTER TWIN TRAWL Nº % GT % (OTT) United Kingdom 122 88,4 10.500 85,1 Netherlands 9 6,5 1.018 8,3 France 7 5,1 820 6,6 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 138 100,0 12.338 100,0

Dredges

7.1.13 Description The dredges (Fig. 7.14) are gears that are dragged along the bottom. They scrape up scallops and other shellfish from the sea bed. These gears consist of a mouth frame attached to a holding bag constructed of metal rings or meshes. One or more dredges can be used at the same time. At industrial scale, up to 10 dredges can be mounted side by side on a beam which is towed from a unique warp.

102 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.14. Dredges.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

7.1.14 Catching principle The dredges are gears that are dragged along the bottom. They scrape up scallops and other shellfish from the sea bed using the powerful teeth.

7.1.15 Target species Dredges are employed usually to collect shellfish and molluscs such as mussels, oysters, scallops, clams, etc.

7.1.16 Types of dredges Dredges (ISSCFG Code: 04.0.0) include boat dredges (DRB) and hand dredges (DRH).

7.1.16.1 Boat dredges

Boat dredge (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 04.1.0; DRB) is a mobile fishing gear. These dredges are towed forward by a boat and are of varying weight and sizes. Some dredges are mechanised for transporting the catch by pumps or conveyor belts to the deck for sorting.

Description and fishing operation These dredges are towed forward by a boat and are of varying weight and sizes. Some dredges are mechanised for transporting the catch by pumps or conveyor belts to the deck for sorting. They are included as harvesting machines (ISSCFG Code: 11.0.0).

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use boat dredges (dredgers) as the main fishing gear are about 1.979 (see Table 7.13).

The fleets of Netherlands, Italy, Ireland and France stand for the 83% of the total GT of fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear.

103 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.13. Fleets that use boat dredges as main fishing gear.

BOAT DREDGE (DRB) Nº % GT % Netherlands 113 5,7 17.513 31,6 Ireland 373 18,8 10.920 19,7 Italy 770 38,9 10.085 18,2 United Kingdom 197 10,0 7.476 13,5 France 361 18,2 4.202 7,6 Denmark 74 3,7 1.299 2,3 Portugal 51 2,6 292 0,5 Greece 25 1,3 67 0,1 Others 15 0,8 3.566 6,4 Total 1.979 100,0 55.420 100,0

7.1.16.2 Hand dredges Hand dredge (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 04.2.0; DRH) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation These are small, light dredges, operated by hand in shallow waters, from the shore or from a boat.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use hand dredges as the main fishing gear are about 33 (see Table 7.14). Netherlands represents the 89% of the total GT. United Kingdom accounts for the 73% of the fleet (small fishing vessels of less than 12 meters long).

Table 7.14. Fleets that use hand dredges as main fishing gear. HAND DREDGE (DRH) Nº % GT % Netherlands 8 24,3 493 89,0 United Kingdom 24 72,7 60 10,8 Denmark 1 3,0 1 0,2 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 33 100,0 554 100,0

Lift nets

7.1.17 Description Lift nets consist of a horizontal netting panel or a bag shaped like a parallelepiped, pyramid or cone with the opening facing upwards. The prey is attracted and brought over the net by light or bait. They are caught when the net is lifted or hauled out of the water, by hand or mechanically, from the shore or from a boat (Fig. 7.15).

104 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.15. Liftnet vessel

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

7.1.18 Catching principle The lift net pocket the fish like the surrounding nets, but lifting the net instead of surrounding the fish like the surrounding nets.

7.1.19 Target species Small pelagic species (fish, squid and crustaceans), attracted by the powerful lamps.

7.1.20 Types of lift nets

Lift nets (ISSCFG Code: 05.0.0) include portable lift nets (LNP), boat-operated lift nets (LNB) and shore-operated stationary lift nets (LNS). Only boat-operated lift nets (LNB) are taken into account in the Community fleet statistical bulletin.

7.1.20.1 Boat-operated lift nets Boat-operated lift net (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 05.2.0; LNB) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation These gears comprise the bag nets (‘basnig’) and the blanket nets, operated from one or more boats.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use lift nets as the main fishing gear are about only 36 (see Table 7.15). Only fishing vessels from Portugal, Ireland and France use this type of fishing gear.

105 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.15. Fleets that use boat-operated lift nets as main fishing gear. BOAT-OPERATED LIFT Nº % GT % NET (LNB) France 6 16,7 784 70,5 Ireland 9 25,0 306 27,5 Portugal 21 58,3 22 2,0 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 36 100,0 1.112 100,0

Falling gear

7.1.21 Description These are gears (Fig. 7.161) that are clapped down on the prey to be captured. Wooden cover pots and cast nets made of netting are typical gears belonging to this group.

Fig. 7.16. Cast net, a falling gear

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

7.1.22 Catching principle The catching principle is that the net is thrown flat upon the water surface and catch the fish by falling and closing in on them. Their use is usually restricted to shallow waters. The operation of a cast net requires considerable knowledge and skill from the fisherman.

7.1.23 Target species This kind of nets is used to catch fish swimming near the water surface, in rather shallow waters. Some species of shrimps are also captured with cast nets.

7.1.24 Types of falling gears Falling gears (ISSCFG Code: 06.0.0) include cast nets (FCN).

The cast net (Fig. 7.16) is a circular net with weights attached to the perimeter. The catching principle is that the net is thrown flat upon the water surface and catch the fish by falling and closing in on them. It is used from the shore or from a boat. Their use is usually restricted to shallow waters.

106 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

A cover pot is commonly of a wicker construction like a beehive with an opening at the top whereas the lantern net is cover pots made of wooden frames covered by netting. The gear is clapped over the prey and any catch, often a single individual, is taken out though the opening on top. These gears are, generally hand-operated by wading fishers in very shallow waters. Falling gears are not taken into account in the Community fleet statistical bulletin.

Gillnets and entangling nets

7.1.25 Description Gillnets and entangling nets are strings of single, double or triple netting walls, vertical, near by the surface, in midwater on on the bottom, in which fish will gill, entangle or enmesh. Gillnets and entangling nets have floats on the upper line (headrope) and, in general, weights on the ground-line (footrope). Gillnets or entangling nets consist in single or, less commonly, double (both are known as "gillnets", strictly speaking) or triple netting (known as " trammel net") mounted together on the same frame ropes. Several types of nets may be combined in one gear (for example, trammel net combined with gillnet). These nets can be used either alone or, as is more usual, in large numbers placed in line ('fleets' of nets). The gear can set, anchored to the bottom or left drifting, free or connected with the vessel.

7.1.26 Catching principle In gillnet and entangling nets fish are usually caught by "gilling" or entangling in the meshes: the fish is caught in one of the meshes of the gillnet, normally by the gill region (between the head and the body). Thus, fish capture by gillnets is based on fish encountering the gear during feeding or migratory movements. As fish may avoid the gillnet if they notice the gear, catches are normally best at low light levels or in areas with turbid water.

7.1.27 Target species Depending on the different types of gillnets, bentonic, demersal and pelagic species are the target of this fishing gear.

7.1.28 Types of gillnets and entangling nets Gillnets and entangling nets (ISSCFG Code: 07.0.0) include set gillnets (GNS), driftnets (GND), encircling nets (GNC), fixed gillnets on stakes (GNF), trammel nets (GTR) and combined gillnets-trammel nets (GTN).

7.1.28.1 Set gillnets (anchored) Set gillnet (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 07.1.0; GNS) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A set gillnet (Fig. 7.17) consists of a single netting wall kept more or less vertical by a floatline and a weighted groundline. The net is set on the bottom, or at a certain distance above it and kept stationary by anchors or weights on both ends. The dominant method of capture is by gilling.

107 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.17. Set gillnet

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

The size distribution of the catch is very much dependant on the mesh size used in the gillnet.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use set gillnets (anchored) as the main fishing gear are about 30.202 (see Table 7.16). Most of them are small artisanal boats as there are only 4.347 fishing vessels with a LOA of more than 24 meters. Spain, Denmark, Portugal and France represent the 62% of the total GT. Other Mediterranean countries, as Greece and Italy, have a large fleet of small fishing boats but with less contribution in GT.

Table 7.16. Fleets that use set gillnets as main fishing gear. SET GILLNET (GNS) Nº % GT % Spain 9.330 30,9 29.024 22,3 Denmark 2.482 8,2 20.342 15,6 Portugal 2.806 9,3 16.859 13,0 France 1.356 4,5 14.684 11,3 United Kingdom 1.038 3,4 10.288 7,9 Greece 4.033 13,3 8.427 6,5 Finland 2.071 6,9 5.380 4,1 Poland 508 1,7 5.004 3,8 Latvia 773 2,5 4.623 3,6 Germany 1.619 5,4 4.391 3,4 Italy 2.410 8,0 4.371 3,4 Sweden 626 2,1 4.033 3,1 Estonia 589 2,0 900 0,7 Others 561 1,8 1.688 1,3 Total 30.202 100,0 130.014 100,0

108 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

7.1.28.2 Driftnets Driftnet (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 07.2.0; GND) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation Driftnets (Fig. 7.18) means any net operated on the sea surface or at certain distance below it by floating devices , consist of a string of gillnets and are used in the open sea to catch fish and other marine organisms near the surface. They may drift independently, accompanied by a vessel, but generally, they are fastened to a boat that drifts with them.

Fig. 7.18 Driftnet

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

The predominant method of capture is by gilling, and driftnets are highly size selective.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use driftnets as the main fishing gear are about 1.167 (see Table 7.17). Ireland (31%), France (20%) and Italy (13%) accounts for the 64% of the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear but Ireland alone stand for the 70% of the total GT.

Table 7.17. Fleets that use drift nets as main fishing gear. DRIFT NET (GND) Nº % GT % Ireland 367 31,4 12.256 70,8 France 235 20,1 908 5,2 Finland 143 12,3 817 4,7 Italy 154 13,2 786 4,5 Poland 20 1,7 645 3,7 United Kingdom 150 12,9 631 3,6 Sweden 35 3,0 344 2,0 Estonia 25 2,1 244 1,4 Portugal 31 2,7 104 0,6 Others 7 0,6 575 3,3 Total 1.167 100,0 17.310 100,0

7.1.28.3 Encircling nets Encircling net (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 07.3.0; GNC) is a passive fishing gear.

109 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Description and fishing operation This gear (Fig. 7.19) is generally used in shallow water with the floatline on the surface. After the net has encircled the fish, noise or other means are used to force them to gill or entangle themselves in the netting surrounding them.

Fig. 7.19. Encircling net

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use encircling nets as the main fishing gear are about 41 (see Table 7.18). Finland reports the 71% of the units and Ireland represents the 71% in GT.

Table 7.18. Fleets that use encircling nets as main fishing gear. ENCIRCLING NET Nº % GT % (GNC) Ireland 4 9,8 130 70,7 Finland 29 70,7 31 16,8 United Kingdom 5 12,2 19 10,3 Netherlands 3 7,3 4 2,2 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 41 100,0 184 100,0

7.1.28.4 Trammel nets Trammel net (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 07.5.0; GTR) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A trammel net (Fig. 7.20) consists of three layers of netting with a slack small mesh inner netting between two layers of large mesh netting. The fish entangle themselves in a pocket of small mesh webbing between the two layers and large meshed walls.

110 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.20. Trammel net

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels

Fishing vessels that use trammel nets as the main fishing gear are about 3.924 (see Table 7.19). Portugal, Cyprus and France represent the 89% of the vessels and the 86% of the total GT.

Table 7.19. Fleets that use trammel nets as main fishing gear. TRAMMEL NET (GTR) Nº % GT % France 610 15,6 5.973 41,1 Portugal 2.012 51,3 3.821 26,3 Cyprus 832 21,2 2.638 18,2 United Kingdom 64 1,6 837 5,8 Malta 335 8,5 650 4,5 Others 71 1,8 599 4,1 Total 3.924 100 14.518 100,0

7.1.28.5 Combined gillnets-Trammel nets Combined gillnet-trammel net (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 07.6.0; GTN) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation This bottom-set gear is made with a gillnet, the lower part of which is replaced by a trammel net (Fig. 7.21). It may catch bottom fish in the lower trammel net part, together with semidemersal or pelagic fish in the upper gillnet part.

111 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.21. Combined gillnet-trammel net

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use combined gillnet-trammel nets as the main fishing gear are about 90 (see Table 7.20). The small fleet that use this type of fishing gear is dominated in figures by Greece and France.

Table 7.20. Fleets that use combined gillnet-trammel nets as main fishing gear. COMBINED GILLNET- Nº % GT % TRAMMEL NET (GTN) Greece 63 70,0 185 50,7 France 13 14,5 150 41,1 Malta 11 12,2 25 6,8 Netherlands 2 2,2 4 1,1 Portugal 1 1,1 1 0,3 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 90 100,0 365 100,0

112 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Traps

7.1.29 Description These are a group of gear in which the fish enters voluntarily, but is hampered from coming out. Usually in these traps there is one or more chambers which will be closed when the prey enters or which have a retarding device like a gorge or a funnel. Smaller types are completely closed except for the entrance.

7.1.30 Catching principle Pot fishing is normally based on attracting target organisms by bait (chemical stimuli). When attracted to the pot, the target organism must enter the pot to gain access to the bait. This can be done through one or several entrances (funnels) of the pot. The shape, mesh size, entrance type and bait type are important items to take into account on capture efficiency.

7.1.31 Target species Pots are mainly designed to catch crustaceans, like crabs, lobsters and shrimps. However, they are also used for catching different species of finfish like sablefish, tusk and cod in temperate waters and reef fish such as groupers in tropical waters. Other species that are caught with pots are whelks and octopus.

7.1.32 Types of traps Traps (ISSCFG Code: 08.0.0) include stationary uncovered pound nets (FPN), pots (FPO), fyke nets (FYK), stow nets (FSN), barriers (FWR) and aerial traps (FAR). Only pots (FPO) are taken into account in the Community fleet statistical bulletin.

7.1.32.1 Pots Pot (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 08.2.0; FPO) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A pot (Fig. 7.22) is designed in the form of cages or baskets made from various materials (wood, wicker, metal rods, wire netting, plastic etc.) They might have one or more openings or entrances. They are usually set on the bottom, mostly with bait, singly or in strings connected to a line (longline system).

Fig. 7.22. Pot

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

113 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use pots as the main fishing gear are about 8.496 (see Table 7.21). The fleets of United Kingdom (44% of the total GT), France and Portugal are the most important, in units and in GT, in using this type of fishing gear.

Table 7.21. Fleets that use pots as main fishing gear. POTS (FPO) Nº % GT % United Kingdom 2.567 30,2 15.268 44,7 France 2.268 26,7 8.364 24,5 Portugal 1.059 12,5 3.946 11,5 Ireland 675 7,9 1.861 5,4 Finland 813 9,6 1.735 5,1 Sweden 560 6,6 1.436 4,2 Poland 149 1,8 493 1,4 Greece 97 1,1 257 0,8 Malta 134 1,6 196 0,6 Others 174 2,0 627 1,8 Total 8.496 100,0 34.183 100,0

Hooks and lines

7.1.33 Description Hooks and lines are gear where the fish is attracted by a natural or artificial bait (lures) placed on a hook fixed to the end of a line or snood, on which they get caught. Hooks or metallic points (jigs) are also used to catch fish by ripping them when they pass in its range of movement. Hook-and-line units may be used singly or in large numbers.

7.1.34 Catching principle Hooks and lines are gear where the fish is attracted by a natural or artificial bait (lures) placed on a hook fixed to the end of a line or snood, on which they get caught.

7.1.35 Target species All kind of fish: pelagic, demersal and benthic species.

7.1.36 Types of hooks and lines Hooks and lines (ISSCFG Code: 09.0.0) include handlines and pole-lines, hand-operated (LHP) and mechanized (LHM), set longlines (LLS), drifting longlines (LLD) and trolling lines (LTL).

7.1.36.1 Handlines and pole-lines (hand operated and mechanized) Handlines and pole-lines (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 09.1.0; LHP; (hand operated; 09.1.) Handlines and pole-lines (hand operated) (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 09.1.0; LHP) are a passive fishing gear.are a passive fishing gear.

114 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Description and fishing operation A vertical line (Fig. 7.23) consists of a line to which is attached sinker and one or several hooks. In commercial fisheries the lines have usually several hooks. A special form of vertical lines are the jigger lines, mostly used in the fishery for squid. Special squid jiggers (Ripped hooks) are mounted one after the other in a certain distance with a monofilament line. The line weighed down by sinkers can be set up to 200 m depth and is hauled with jerky movements.

Fig. 7.23. Handline for mackerel.

Source: From Puente (1993).

The lines might be operated manually or mechanically, using powered reels or drums. They are generally used on medium size vessels, but they may also be used on relatively small boats. A pole and line consists of a hooked line attached to a pole. The line is generally of the same length as the pole. Pole and lines may be mechanized, e.g., for tuna catching, with the pole movement being entirely automatic.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use handlines and pole-lines (hand operated) as the main fishing gear are about 2.277 (see Table 7.22).

Portugal, Greece and United Kingdom show the 92% of the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear and the 85% of the total GT.

115 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Table 7.22. Fleets that use handlines and pole-lines (hand operated) as main fishing gear. HANDLINES AND POLE-LINES (HAND Nº % GT % OPERATED) (LHP) Portugal 963 42,3 5.425 49,3 United Kingdom 356 15,6 2.560 23,3 Greece 768 33,7 1.424 12,9 France 49 2,2 1.186 10,8 Netherlands 42 1,8 111 1,0 Malta 47 2,1 42 0,4 Others 52 2,3 258 2,3 Total 2.277 100,0 11.006 100,0

Fishing vessels that use handlines and pole-lines (mechanized) as the main fishing gear are about 11 (see Table 7.23). France (91%) and Netherlands (9%) accounts for all the EU fishing vessels that use this type of fishing gear.

Table 7.23. Fleets that use handlines and pole-lines (mechnized) as main fishing gear. HANDLINES AND POLE-LINES Nº % GT % (MECHANIZ.) (LHM) France 10 90,9 26 89,7 Netherlands 1 9,1 3 10,3 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 11 100 29 100,0

7.1.36.2 Set longlines Set longline (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 09.3.0; LLS) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A set longline (Fig. 7.24.) consists of a main line and snoods with baited hooks at regular intervals. The gear is set on the bottom or near the bottom (semipelagic). Its length can range from few hundred meters in coastal fisheries to more than 50 km in large scale mechanised fisheries.

116 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.24. Set longline (Semipelagic)

Source: Puente (1993). The baiting of hooks may be manual or by a machine.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use set longlines as the main fishing gear are about 20.813 (see Table 7.24). Is the second lartgest fleet (in units) behind set gillnets. Countries from the South (Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal) represent the 90% (in GT) of the EU fishing fleet. As for the set gillnets, Greece and Italy have large number of small fishing boats.

Table 7.24. Fleets that use set longlines as main fishing gear. SET LONGLINE (LLS) Nº % GT % Spain 1.401 6,7 35.182 34,5 Greece 11.624 55,8 27.622 27,1 Italy 5.004 24,0 15.390 15,1 Portugal 1.431 6,9 13.328 13,1 Malta 556 2,7 2.443 2,4 France 502 2,4 2.400 2,4 Others 295 1,5 5.628 5,5 Total 20.813 100,0 101.993 100,0

7.1.36.3 Drifting longlines Drifting longline (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 09.4.0; LLD) is a passive fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A drifting longline (Fig. 7.25) consists of a mainline kept near the surface or at a certain depth by means of regularly spaced floats and relatively long snoods with baited hooks. Drifting

117 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears longlines may be of considerable length. Some drifting longlines are set vertically, each line hanging from a float at the surface.

Fig. 7.25. Drifting longline

Source: Puente (1993).

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use drifting longlines as the main fishing gear are about 1.098 (see Table 7.25). Only Spain (85% of the total GT) has an important fleet of veesels more than 24 meters long (in less extent Portugal). France, Greece and Malta show the 65% in numbers of vessels but only the 6% in GT.

Table 7.25. Fleets that use drifting longlines as main fishing gear. DRIFTING LONGLINE Nº % GT % (LLD) Spain 281 25,6 58.995 84,8 Portugal 27 2,5 4.149 6,0 France 226 20,6 2.108 3,0 Greece 389 35,4 1.566 2,3 Malta 103 9,4 935 1,3 Cyprus 21 1,9 792 1,1 Finland 42 3,8 587 0,8 Others 9 0,8 437 0,6 Total 1.098 100,0 69.569 100,0

7.1.36.4 Trolling lines Trolling lines (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 09.6.0; LTL) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description and fishing operation A trolling line (Fig. 7.26) consists of a line with natural or artificial baited hooks that is trailed by a vessel (near the surface or at a certain depth). Several lines are usually towed at the same time, by using outriggers. Handling of trolling lines, including removal of fish from the hooks might be mechanised.

118 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fig. 7.26. Trolling lines

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use trolling lines as the main fishing gear (trollers) are about 537 (see Table 7.26). France (66% in numbers) and Malta (29% in numbers) accounts for the 96% of the total GT. But in some countries, e.g. Spain, although trolling lines (LTL) is the main gear in fact of the fishing vessel, the vessel appears in the Community fishing fleet Register as a gillneter (GNS), underestimating the number of trollers.

Table 7.26. Fleets that use trolling lines as main fishing gear. TROLLING LINES Nº % GT % (LTL) France 355 66,1 3.256 79,0 Malta 153 28,5 709 17,2 Italy 10 1,9 106 2,6 Others 19 3,5 51 1,2 Total 537 100,0 4.122 100,0

119 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Grappling and wounding

7.1.37 Description As in hunting, man has extended the range of his arm by using long-handled implements, which can be pushed, thrown or shot. The prey is taken by grappling, squeezing, piercing, transfixing or wounding. Barbs prevent efforts to escape. Clamps, tongs and raking devices are types within this group but so also are spears, harpoons, arrows and other missiles.

7.1.38 Types of grappling and wounding gears Grappling and wounding (ISSCFG Code: 10.0.0) include harpoons (HAR) but these fishing gears are not taken into account in the Community fleet statistical bulletin.

Harvesting machines

7.1.39 Description Hydraulic jet dredges are used to dig and to wash out mussels that have buried themselves in the seabed. Some dredges are so improved that the prey is not only dug out, or stirred up and collected in a bag, but is also conveyed on board the vessel by the same gear. Therefore this gear, combining and hauling, can be considered a harvesting machine. This is especially true in cases where mechanical shellfish diggers are combined with suction pumps, escalators or conveyors. The catching principle and the target species are the same than the other dredges.

7.1.40 Types of harvesting machines Harvesting machines (ISSCFG Code: 11.0.0) include pumps (HMP) and mechanized dredges (HMD). Only mechanized dredges (HMD) are taken into account in the Community fleet statistical bulletin.

7.1.40.1 Mechanized dredges Mechanized dredge (ISSCFG Code and abbreviation: 11.2.0; HMD) is a mobile fishing gear.

Description Mechanized dredges are boat dredges mechanized for transporting the catch by pumps or conveyor belts to the deck for sorting.

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels that use mechanized dredges as the main fishing gear are about 117 (see Table 7.27). United Kingdom and Netherlands are the exclusive fleets that appear using this kind of gear, although fishing vessels using this kind of dredge are located as boat dredges (Italy and Ireland).

Table. 7.27. Fleets that use mechanized dredges as main fishing gear. MECANIZED DREDGE Nº % GT % (HMD) Netherlands 24 20,5 5.640 56,7 United Kingdom 93 79,5 4.307 43,3 Others 0 0,0 0 0,0 Total 117 100,0 9.947 100,0

120 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

8. Bibliography

Allen, K.R., 1963. The influence of behaviour on the capture of fishes with baits. In: The Selectivity of Fishing Gear. Special Publication No. 5. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish., Dartmonth, NS, Canada, pp. 5-7. Andrews, J.M. Gurney, W.S.C., Heath, M.R., Gallego, A., Carl M. O’Brien, C.M., Darby, C., Tyldesley, G. (2004). Modelling the spatial demography of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) on the European continental shelf. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 1027–1048. Anon. (1988). Report of the study group on the effects of bottom trawling. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, C.M. 1988/B:56, 30 pp. Anon. (1997) Incidental impact of gill nets. Final report. DG XIV, Ref. 94/095. 152pp + annexes Antoine, L., Goujon, M., Massart, G., 1997. Captures accidentelles de dauphins dans les filets derivants aÂ thons en Atlantique Nord Est. ICES, CM 1997/Q:10. Auster, P. J., Langton, R.W. (1999). The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:150-187. Barham, E. G., W. K. Taguchi, and S. B. Reilly. 1977. Porpoise rescue methods in the yellowfin purse seine fishery and the importance of Medina panel mesh size. Mar. Fish. Rev., 39 (5): 1-10. Bellchambers, L.M., de Lestang, S. (2005). Selectivity of different gear types for sampling the blue swimmer crab, Portunus pelagicus L. Fisheries Research, 73: 21–27 Beltestad, A.K., Misund, O.A., 1995. Size selection in purse seines. In: Solving Bycatch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 96-03. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AL, USA, pp. 1-13. Ben-Yami, M. 1994. Purse seining manual. Fishing News Books, Oxford, 406 pp. Bergman, M.J.N., van Santbrink, J.W. (2000). Fishing mortality of populations of megafauna in sandy sediments. In: Kaiser, M.J., de Groot, S.J. (Eds.), Effects of Fishing on Non-Target Species and Habitats: Biological, Conservation and Socio-Economic Issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 49–68. Berrow, S.D., Rogan, E., 1997. Review of cetaceans stranded on the Irish coast, 1901-1995. Mammal Rev. 27(1), 51-76. Bjordal, A., Lokkeborg, S., 1996. Longlining. Fishing News Books, Oxford, 156 pp. Bjordal, A., 2002. The use of technical measures in responsible fisheries: regulation of fishing gear. In: Cochrane, K.L. (ed.). A fishery manager’s guidebook. Management measures and their application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 424. Rome, FAO. 2002. 231p. Bjørndal, T. 1988. The Optimal Management of North Sea Herring. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 9–29. Bowen, B.K., 1963. Preliminary report on the effectiveness of escape-gaps in crayfish pots. West. Aust. Dep. Fish. Fauna Rep. 2, 9. Breen P.A. (1990) Report of the Working Group on Ghost Fishing. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris. II: 1216-1225.

Broadhurst, M.K., Kennelly, S.J., Isaksen, B., 1996. Assessments of modified codends that reduce the by-catch of fish in two estuarine prawn-trawl fisheries in New South Wales, Australia. Fish. Res. 27, 89- 111. Brown, C.G., 1982. The effect of escape gaps on trap selectivity in the United Kingdom crab Cancer pagurus L. and lobster Homarus gammarus L. fisheries. J. Cons. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 40, 127–134.

121 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Brown, J, G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, J. Magnus and J. Tumilty (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd joint report. Brown, R.S., Caputi, N., 1986. Conservation of recruitment of the western rock lobster Panulirus cygnus by improving survival and growth of undersize rock lobsters captured and returned by fishermen to the sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43, 2236–2242. Carr H.A., Cooper, R.A., (1987) Manned submersible and ROV assessment of ghost gillnets in the Gulf of Maine, in: Proceedings of the Oceans’87, The Ocean- An International Workplace, vol.2, Halifax, NS, pp. 984-986. Cochrane, K.L. (ed.) 2002. A fishery manager’s guidebook. Management measures and their application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 424. Rome, FAO. 2002. 231p. Commission of the European, C. (1987). Glossarium: fishing gear. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 384 pp. Curry, D.R., Parry, G.D. (1999). Effects of scallop dredging on a soft sediment community: a large-scale experimental study. Marine Ecology Progress series, 134: 131-150. Dahm, E., Weber, K., Damm, U., Lange, K., 1996. The plaice box effects of different fishing gear and area on the catch composition. ICES CM 1996/B:21. Dahm, E., Wienbeck, H., West, C.W., Valdemarsen, J.W., F.G. O’Neill, F.G. (2002). On the influence of towing speed and gear size on the selective properties of bottom trawls. Fisheries Research, 55: 103–119. Dawson, S.M. (1991). Modifying gillnets to reduce entanglement of cetaceans. Marine Mammal Science 7 (3), 274–282. De Groot, S.J. (1984). The impact of bottom trawling on the benthicfauna of the North Sea. Ocean Management, 10, 21-36. Deval, M.C., Bök, T., Ates, C., Özbilgin, H. (2006). Selectivity of PE and PA material codends for rose shrimp (Parapenaus longirostris) in Turkish twin rigged beam trawl fishery. Fish. Res. 81: 72-79. Dieter, B. E., D. A. Wion, and R. A. McConnaughey. 2003. Mobile fishing gear effects on benthic habitats: A bibliography (second edition). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-135, 206 p. DFO, 2006. Impacts of Trawl Gears and Scallop Dredges on Benthic Habitats, Populations and Communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/025. Drinkwater, J., 1974. Scallop dredge selectivity experiments. ICES C.M. 1974/K:25, 5 pp. Economic Assessment of European Fisheries (AER) 2005, report carried out with financial support from the Commisssion of the European Communities, under contract FISH/2005/12, unpublished Elner, R.W., 1980. Lobster gear selectivity—a Canadian review. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 932, 77–84. Ehrich, S., 1987. The portion of young cod escaping under the GOV-trawl rigged with a heavy bobbin footrope. ICES CM 1987/B:28. Erzini K., Monteiro C. C., Ribeiro J., Santos M. N., Gaspar M., Monteiro P., Borges T. C., (1997) An experimental study of gillnet and trammel net ‘ghost fishing’ off the Algarve (southern Portugal), Marine Ecology Progress Series, 1997,158:257-265. FAO. (2004). Report of the Expert Consultation on Interactions between Sea Turtles and Fisheries within an Ecosystem Context. 9-12 March 2004. FAO Fisheries Report No. 738. Supplement. Fernö, A., Solemdal, P., Tilseth, S., 1986. Field studies on the behaviour of whiting (Gadus merlangus L.) towards baited hooks. Fisk. dir. Skr. Ser. HavUnders. 18, 83-95. Fischler, F., (2004). Fast tracking the development of environmentally friendly methods. Speech at the Conference on environmentally-friendly methods. Dundulk, 11-12 March 2004. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/speeches/archives/speeches_2004/speech04_02_en.htm.

122 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Fogarty, M.J., Borden, D.V.D., 1980. Effect of trap venting on gear selectivity in the inshore Rhode Island American lobster Homarus americanus, fishery. Fish. Bull. 77, 925–933. Fonteyne, R. (1997). Optimization of a species selective beam trawl. Final Report to the European Commission, Project AIR2-CT93-1015, SOBETRA, 250 pp. Fonteyne, R. (2005). Development and testing of an objective mesh gauge. The Omega project. In: Contributions on the Theory of Fishing Gears and Related Marine Systems, vol. 4. Proceedings of the Seventh Interntional Workshop on Methods for the Development and Evaluation of Maritime Technologies (Busan 23-26 November, 2005): 347-357. Fonteyne, R., Polet, H., Depestele, J. (2005). Mitigation of the environment impact of beam trawls. In: Contributions on the Theory of Fishing Gears and Related Marine Systems, vol. 4. Proceedings of the Seventh Interntional Workshop on Methods for the Development and Evaluation of Maritime Technologies (Busan 23-26 November, 2005): 121-134. Freese, L., P.J. Auster, J. Heifetz & B.L. Wing (1999). Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 182: 119-126. Furevik, D.M., Løkkeborg, S., 1994. Fishing trials in Norway for torsk (Brosme brosme) and cod (Gadus morhua) using baited commercial pots. Fish. Res. 19, 219–229. Fuwa, S., Ebata, K., Kumasawa, T., Hirayama, M., Fukuda, R., Uchiyama, M, Yoshinaga, K., Masumitsu, S. (2005). The field experiment of a simple separator device for trawling: TREND. In: Contributions on the Theory of Fishing Gears and Related Marine Systems, vol. 4. Proceedings of the Seventh Interntional Workshop on Methods for the Development and Evaluation of Maritime Technologies (Busan 23-26 November, 2005): 305-312. Galbraith, R.D., Main, J. (1989). Separator Panels for Dual Purpose Fish/ Prawn Trawls. Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet. Number 16. Gaspar, M.B., Castro M., and Monteiro, C.C., Effect of tooth spacing and mesh size on the catch of the Portuguese clam and razor clam dredge. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 103–110. 1999 Article No. jmsc.1998.0423, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Gaspar, M.B., Leitao F., Santos M.N., Sobral M., Chcharo L., Chcharo A., Monteiro C.C. (2003). Size selectivity of the Spisula solida dredge in relation to tooth spacing and mesh size. Fisheries Research, 60 (2): 561-568. Gilkinson, K., E. Dawe, B. Forward, B. Hickey, D. Kulka, S. Walsh. 2006. A Review of Newfoundland & Labrador Region Research on the Effects of Mobile Fishing Gear on Benthic Habitat and Communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/055. GFMC, 2001. Report of the third stock asssessment sub-committee meeting, Scientific Advisory Committee of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, Lacco Ameno, Italy, p. 27. Glass, C.W. (2000). Conservation of fish stocks through bycatch reduction: A review. Godøy H., Furevik D. M., and Stiansen S., (2003) Unaccounted mortality of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in deliberately lost pots off Northern Norway, Fisheries Research Volume 64, Issues 2-3, November 2003, Pages 171-177. Gonçalvez, J.M.S., Bentes, L., Monteiro, P., Coelho, R., Corado, M., Erzini, K. (2004). Reducing discards in a demersal purse-seine fishery. ICES, CM 2004/K:73. Gordon, D.C. Jr., E.L.R. Kenchington and K.D. Gilkinson. 2006. A review of Maritimes Region research on the effects of mobile fishing gear on benthic habitat and communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/056. Graham, M. (1955). Effect of trawling on animals of the seabed. Deep Sea Research, 3 (Suppl.), 1-16. Graham, N. (2003). The Nephrops fisheries of the NE Atlantic—a review and assessment of fishing gear design. ICES Cooperative Research Report no. 270, 38 pp. http://www.ices.dk/pubs/crr/crr270/crr270.pdf.

123 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Graham, N., Ferro, R.S.T. (2004). The Nephrops fisheries of the NE Atlantic—a review and assessment of fishing gear design. ICES Cooperative Research Report no. 270, 38 pp. http://www.ices.dk/pubs/crr/crr270/crr270.pdf. Gray, C.A., Larsen, R. B. & Kennelly, S. J. (2000). Use of transparent netting to improve size selectivity and reduce bycatch in fish seine nets. Fisheries Research, Volume 45 (2), 155-166. Guillory, V., Prejean, P. (1997). Blue crab trap selectivity studies: mesh size. Mar. Fish. Rev. 59, 29–31. Hall, M.A., (1998). An ecological view of the tuna-dolphin problem: impacts and trade-offs. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 8, 1–34. Hall, S. J. (1999). The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems and Communities. Blackwell Science, Ltd. Oxford, U.K. 274 p. Hamley, J.M. 1975. Review of gillnet selectivity. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32, 1943-1969. Hamley, J.M., 1980. Sampling with gill nets. In: Backiel, T., Welcomme, R.L. (Eds.), Guidelines for sampling fish in inland waters. FAO European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission Technical Paper 33, Rome, Italy, pp. 37–53. Haan, D. de, Drémière, P.Y., Woodward, B., Kastelein, R.A., Amundin, M., and Hansen, K. 1998. Prevention of the by-catch of cetaceans in pelagic trawls by technical means. CETASEL. Final Report to DG XIV of contract number AIR III-CT94–2423 1994–1997. DLO – Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, IJmuiden. 204 pp. Hart, J.B., 1993. Teleost foraging: facts and theories. In: Pitcher, T.C. (Ed.), Behaviour of Teleost Fishes, 2nd Edition. Fish and Fisheries Series No. 7. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 715. He, P. (2006a). Selectivity of large mesh trawl codends in the Gulf of Maine I. Comparison of square and diamond mesh. Fisheries Research, 83: 44–59. He, P. (2006b). Effect of the headline height of gillnets on species selectivity in the Gulf of Maine. Fisheries Research, 78:252–256. Huse, I., and Soldal, A. V. 2000. An attempt to improve size selection in pelagic longline fisheries for haddock. Fisheries Research, 48: 43-54. ICES (2000). Fisheries Technology Committee ICES CM 2000/B:03 Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour IJmuiden, The Netherlands 10–14 April 2000. ICES. (2004). Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Be-haviour (WGFTFB), 20-23 April 2004, Gdynia, Poland. ICES CM 2004/B:05, Ref. ACE. 189 pp. ICES. (2005). Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Be-haviour (WGFTFB), 18–22 April 2005, Rome, Italy. ICES CM 2005/B:04. 283 pp. ICES. (2006). Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 3–7 April 2006, Izmir, Turkey. ICES CM 2006/FTC:06, Ref. ACFM. 180 pp. Isaksen, B., Valdemarsen, J.W., Larsen, R.B., Karlsen, L. (1992). Reduction of fish by-catch in shrimp trawl using a rigid separator grid in the aft belly. Fish. Res. 13, 335-352. Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M. J. (1998). The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology., 34: 201-352. Jeong, E., Park, C., Park, S., Lee, J., Tokai, T. (2000). Size selectivity for male red queen crab Chionoecetes japonicus with extended SELECT model. Fish. Sci. 66, 494–501. Jones, G.K. (1982). Mesh selection of hauling nets used in the commercial marine scal fishery in South Australian waters. Fish. Res. Pap. Dept. Fish. S. Aust. 5, 1-14. Kaiser, M. J. and de Groot, S. J. (eds.) (2000). Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. 399 p. Kastelein, R. A. et al., Effects of acoustic alarms, designed to reduce small cetacean bycatch in gillnet fisheries, on the behaviour of North Sea fish species in a large tank. Mar. Environ. Res. (2007) doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2006.12.012

124 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Konstantinos I. Stergiou and Karim Erzini, Comparative fixed gear studies in the Cyclades (Aegean Sea): size selectivity of small-hook longlines and monofilament gill nets, Fisheries Research, Volume 58, Issue 1, , October 2002, Pages 25-40. Koslow, J.A., Gowlet-Holmes, K., Lowry, J.K., O’Hara, T., Poore, G.C.B, Williams, A. (2001). Seamont benthic macrofauna off southern Tasmania: community structure and impacts of trawling. Marine Ecology Progres Series, 213: 111-125. Krouse, J.S., 1989. Performance and selectivity of trap fisheries for crustaceans. In: Caddy, J.F. Ed., Marine Invertebrate Fisheries: Their Assessment and Management. Wiley, New York, pp. 307–325. Krouse, J.S., Thomas, J.C., 1975. Effects of trap selectivity and some lobster population parameters on size composition of the American lobster, Homarus americanus catch along the Maine coast. Fish. Bull. 73, 862–871. Kvalsvik, K., Misund, O.A., Engås, A., Gamst, K., Holst, R., Galbraith, D., Vederhus, H., 2002. Size selection of large catches: using sorting grid in pelagic mackerel trawl. Fish. Res. 59, 129–148. Kvalsvik, K., Huse, I., Misund, O.A., Gamst, K., 2006. Grid selection in the North Sea industrial trawl fishery for Norway pout: Efficient size selection reduces bycatch. Fish. Res. 77, 248-263. Lamberth, S.J., Bennett, B.A., Clark, B.M., (1995). The vulnerability of fish to capture by commercial beach-seine nets in False Bay, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 15, 25-31. Larsen, R., Isaksen, B., 1993. Size selectivity of rigid sorting grids in bottom trawls for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinnus). ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196, 178-182. Lasalle, M. W. 1990. Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging: An overview. Pages 1- 12 in C.A. Simenstad (ed.), Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. Workshop proceedings, Seattle, September 8-9, Washington Sea Grant Report WSG-WO 90-01. Loaec, H., Morandeau, F., Meillat, M., Davies, P. (2006). Engineering development of flexible selectivity grids for Nephrops. Fisheries Research, 79: 210–218. Mckiernan, D., Johnstone, R., Hoffman, B., Carr, H., Mccarron, D. (1999). 1998 Southern Gulf of Maine Raised Footrope Trawl Experimental Fishery. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Marine Fisheries. Internal Report. 52 pp. Metin, C., Lök, A., Ulaş, A. (1998). Preliminary experiments to develop species selectivity in bottom trawl cod-ends. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1998. 15: 277-282. Misund, O.A., Beltestad, A.K. (1994). Size-selection of mackerel and saithe in purse seine. ICES CM 2005/B:28. 12 pp. Misund, O.A., Beltestad, A.K. (2000). Survival of mackerel and saithe that escape through sorting grids in purse seines. Fisheries Research, 48: 31-41. Moran, M.J., Stephenson, P.C. (2000). Effects of otter trawling on macrobenthos and management of demersal scalefish fisheries on the continental shelf of north-western Australia. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 510-516. Løkkeborg, S., (2005). Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 472. Rome, FAO. 2005. 58p. Løkkeborg, S., Bjordal, Å ., Fernö, A., 1989. Responses of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddoch (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) to baited hooks in the natural environment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46, 1478-1483. Løkkeborg, S., Bjordal, Å . 1992. Species and size selectivity in longline fishing: a review. Fish. Res., 13, 311-322. Lokkeborg, S., and A. Bjordal. 1992. Reduced bait loss and bycatch of seabirds in longlining by using a seabird scarer. ICES Fishing Technology and Fish Behavior Working Group, Bergen, Norway, May 1992. Linnane et al., 2000. A review of potential techniques to reduce the environmental impact of demersal trawls. Irish Fisheries Investigations (New Series), 7: 43 pp.

125 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Løkkeborg, S., and Bjordal, Ar 1995. Size-selective effects of increasing bait size by using an inedible body on longline hooks. Fisheries Research, 24: 273=279. Millar, R.B., 1995. The functional form of hook and gillnet selection curves cannot be determined from comparative catch data alone. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52, 883-891. Miller, R.J., 1979. Entry of Cancer productus to baited traps. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 38, 220–225. Miller, R.J., 1990. Effectiveness of crab and lobster traps. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47, 1228–1251. Mituhasi, T., Kitakado, T., Hu, F., Tokai, T. (2005). Modelling the contact probability and size- selectivity of toothed dredges. Fisheries Science 71 (4): 703–712. Misund, O.A., Beltestad, A.K., 1994. Size-selection of mackerel and saithe in purse seines. ICES CM 1994/B 28, 1-12. Misund, O.A., Beltestad, A.K., 2000. Survival of mackerel and saithe that escape through sorting grids in purse seines. Fisheries Research 48: 31–41. Mitchell, R.W., Blight, S.J., Gaughan,D.J., Wright, I.W. (2002). Does the mortality of released Sardinops sagax increase if rolled over the headline of a purse seine net? Fisheries Research, 57: 279– 285. Nédélec, C., Prado, J. (1990). Definitions and classification of fishing gear categories. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 222 (Rev. 1): 92p. NEFSC (Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee). (2002). Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the Northeastern United States, October 23-25, 2001, Boston, Massachusetts. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 02-01; 86 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026. Nulk, V.E., 1978. The effect of different escape vents on the selectivity of lobster traps. Mar. Fish. Rev. 40, 50–58. Olson, R.J., Román-Verdesoto, M.H., Macías-Pita, G.L., (2006). Bycatch of jumbo squid Dosidicus gigas in the tuna purse-seine fishery of the eastern Pacific Ocean and predatory behaviour during capture. Fisheries Research 79 (2006) 48–55. O’Neill, F.G., 1997. The effect of twine bending stiffness on codend geometry. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hydrodynamic Aspects of Fishing Gears, Lorient, France, 1997. Pitcher, T.J., Parrish, J.K., 1993. Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In: Pitcher, T.J. (Ed.), Behaviour of Teleost Fishes, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 363-439. Pol, M.V., Carr H.A., Mackinnon R., 2003. Testing of low-profile, low cod-bycatch gillnet. Final report submitted to the Northeast Consortium by Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Available online: http://northeastconsortium.org/ProjectFileDownload.pm%3F;report id=171&table =project report. Polet, H., Coenjaerts J., Verschoore, R. (2004). Evaluation of the sieve net as a selectivity-improving device in the Belgian brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) fishery. Fisheries Research, 69: 35–48. Polet, H., Delanghe, F., Verschoore, R. (2005). On electrical fishing for brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) I. Sea trials. Fish. Res., 72: 13-27. Pope, J.A., Margetts, A.R., Hamley, J.M., Akyuz, E.F. 1975. Manual of methods for fish stock assessment Part 111 Selectivity of fishing gear. FA0 Fish. Tech. Pap., 41 Rev. 1. Puente, E. (1993). La pesca artesanal en aguas costeras vascas. Colección Itxaso, 11. Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco; Vitoria: 121 pp. Rambaldi, E., Bianchini M.L., Priore G., Prioli G., Mietti N., Pagliani, T. (2001) Preliminary appraisal of an innovative hydraulic dredge with vibrating and sorting bottom on clam beds (Chamelea gallina). Hydrobiologia, 465: 169-173. Reeves, S.A., Armstrong, D.W., Fryer, R. J., and Coull, K. A. (1992). The effects of mesh size, codend extension length and codend diameter on the selectivity of Scottish trawls and seines. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 49:279-288.

126 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Revill, A.S., Jennings, S. (2005). The capacity of benthos release panels to reduce the impacts of beam trawls on benthic communities. Fisheries Research, 75: 73–85. Rice, J.C. (2006). Impacts of Mobile Bottom Gears on Seafloor Habitats, Species, and Communities: A Review and Synthesis of Selected International Reviews. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/057. Rijnsdorp, A.D., Buys, A.M., Storbeck, F., Visser, E.G. (1998). Micro-scale distribution of beam trawl effort in the southern North Sea between 1993 and 1996 in relation to the trawling frequency of the sea bed and the impact on benthic organisms. ICES Journal of marine Science, 55: 403-419. Ritchie, L.D. (1966). Crayfish pot escapement gap survey November 1965–January 1966. Mar. Dep. Fish. Tech. Rep. N.Z. 14, 23 pp. Robertson, J.H.B., Stewart, P.A.M. (1988). A comparison of size selection of haddock and plaice by square and diamond mesh codends. J. Constr. Int. Explor. Mer. 44, 148–161. Sacchi, J., Carbajosa, M.J., Feretti, M., Petrakis, G. (1995). Selectivity of Static Nets in the Mediterranean (SELMED). EU Project Report 1995/012, 99 pp + 7 annexes. Salthaug, A. (2002). Do triggers in crab traps affect the probability of entry? Fish. Res. 58, 403–405. Salz P., (2006). Economic performance of EU fishing fleets and consequences of fuel price increase. Proceddings of the Conference on Energy Efficiency in Fisheries, Brussels, 11-12 May 2006: 6.13. Salz P., Smit, J.G.P. (2006). The impact of the increase of the oil price in European fisheries. Rapport Europees Parlement. Shenker, M.I. (2004). Active Trawl System - “Four Wheel Drive” Trawl Technology. http://users.iafrica.com/m/ms/mshenker/ATSMM.HTM. Sinoda, M., Kobayashi, T. (1969). Studies on the fishery of Zuwai Crab in the Japan Sea-VI. Efficiency of theToyama kago (a kind of crab trap) in capturing the Beni-zuwai crab. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 35 (10), 948–956. Smith, G.S., Sumpton, W.D. (1989). Behavior of the commercial sand crab Portunus pelagicus (L) at trap entrances. Asian Fish. Sci. 3, 101–113. Smolowitz R.J. (1978). Trap design and ghost fishing: discussion. Mar. Fish. Rev. 40, 59-67. SPREP. (2001). A review of turtle bycatch in the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. A report prepared for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). 26pp. Stewart, P. (2002). A review of studies of fishing gear selectivity in the Mediterranean. COPEMED Report No. 9, 57 pp. Sumpton, W.D., Smith, G.S. (1990). Effect of temperature on the emergence, activity and feeding of male and female sand crabs (Portunus pelagicus). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 41, 545–550. Suuronen, P. (2005). Mortality of fish escaping trawl gears. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap., 478. Rome, FAO: 72 pp. Treble, R.J., Russell B. Millar, R.B., b, Terence I. Walker, T.I., (1998). Size-selectivity of lobster pots with escape-gaps: application of the SELECT method to the southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) fishery in Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research, 34: 289–305 Tregenza, N.J.C., Berrow, S.D., Leaper, R., Hammond, P.S. (1997). Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis L., bycatch in bottom set gillnets in the Celtic Sea. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 47, 835-839. Tregenza, N. J. C. and A. Collet. 1998. Common Dolphins Delphinus delphis bycatch in pelagic trawl and other Fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission. 48: 453- 459. Tietze, U., Thiele, W., Lasch, R., Thomsen, B., Rihan, D. (2005). Economic performance and fishing efficiency of marine capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 482. Rome, FAO. 2005. 68p.

127 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Trush, S.F., Hewitt, J.E., Cummings, V.J., Dayton, P.K., Cryer, M., Turner, S.J., Funnel, G.A., Budd, R.G., Milburn, R.G., Wilkinson, M.R. (1998). Disturbance of the marine benthic habitat by commercial fishing: Impacts at the scale of the fishery. Ecological Applications, 8: 866-879. Turner, S. J., Thrush, S. F., Hewitt, J. F., Cummings, V. J., and Funnell, G. (1999). Fishing impacts and the degradation or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 6(5) : 401-420. Vaccarella, R.; Pastorelli, A.M.; Marano, G. (1994). Study on the efficiency of a turbo-pump dredger and the its effect on the benthic community. Boll. Malacol. 1994. vol. 30, no. 1-4, pp. 17-28. Valdemarsen, J.W., Engas, A., Isaksen, B. (1985). Vertical Entrance into a Trawl of Barents Sea Gadoids as Studied with a Two-level Fish Trawl. ICES CM 1985/13:46. Valdemarsen, J.W., Isaksen, B. (1994). Bycatch reduction in trawls by utilizing behaviour differences. In: Fernö, A., Olsen, S. (Eds.), Marine Fish Behaviour in Capture and Abundance Estimation. Fishing News Books, London, pp. 69-83. van Marlen, B. (2000). Technical modifications to reduce the by-catchs and impacts of bottom-fishing gears. In: Kaiser, M. J. and de Groot, S. J. (eds.). Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. 399 p. van Marlen, B., A.R. Boon, L.G. Oschatz, J.B. van Duyn, Fonds, M. (2001). Experiments in 1999 on a beam trawl with electrical stimulation. RIVO Report C028/01. van Marlen, B. (2003). Improving the selectivity of beam trawls in The Netherlands. The effect of large mesh top panels on the catch rates of sole, plaice, cod and whiting. Fisheries Research, 63: 155-168. Vazquez Archdale, M.F., Kuwahara, O. (2005). Comparative fishing trials for Charybdis japonica (A. Milne Edwards) using collapsible box-shaped and dome-shaped pots. Fish. Sci. 71, 1229–1235. Villaseñor Talavera, R. (1997). Dispositivos excluidores de tortugas marinas. FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca. No. 372. Roma, FAO. 1997. 116p. Watson, J.W., Foster, D.G., Epperly, S., Shah, S. (2004). Experiments in the Western Atlantic Northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline fishery. Report on experiments conducted in 2001-2003. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Fisheries. http://www.mslabs.noaa.gov/mslabs/docs/watson4.pdf. Watson, J. W. et al. (2005) Fishing methods to reduce sea turtle mortality associated with pelagic longlines. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 965–981. Wileman, D.A., Ferro, R.S.T., Fonteyne, R., Millar, R.B. (Eds.), (1996). Manual of Methods of Measuring the Selectivity of Towed Fishing Gears. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 215. Willis, T.J. and Millar, R.B. (2001). Modified hooks reduce incidental mortality of snapper (Pagrus auratus: Sparidae) in the New Zealand commercial longline fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58, 830-841. Zeller, D. and Reinert, J. (2004). Modelling spatial closures and fishing effort restrictions in the Faroe Islands marine ecosystem. Ecol. model., 172, (2-4): 403-420.

128 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

9. ANNEXES

Annex 1. European Projects

List of the acronyms of the European projects relevant for this study that are included in this Annex: • BACOMA • BY-CARE • COST-IMPACT • DEGREE • DISCRAN • ECODREDGE • EMPAFISH • EUROGRID • FANTARED 2 • NECESSITY • NETRASEL • NOVARRAST • PREMECS II • RECOVERY • REDUCE • RESPONSE • SELDAT • SELDAT-2 • SELMED • SELMITRA • SOBETRA • SURVIVAL • TECTAC

129 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

BACOMA

Title: Improving technical management in baltic cod fishery

Objectives: 1. To provide quantitative measurements of dominant factors which cause variability in trawl codend selectivity in Baltic cod fishery, and to develop codend modifications and operational approaches that will improve trawl size-selection relative to present designs. 2. To develop, test and apply improved methodology for estimating the escape-survival of cod under commercial fishing conditions, and to identify codend designs that may enhance survival. 3. To develop a model for assessing biological and socio-economic consequences of improved selectivity in the Baltic fishing fleet.

The project consists of the following specific tasks: Task 1.1. Development of a new cod-end cover Task 1.2. Development of methodology for assessing fish survival Task 2. Assessment of optimal window position and window/codend mesh size Task 3. Effect of season, vessel-size and vessel-gear interaction on selectivity Task 4. Effect vessel type/hauling technology on selectivity Task 5. Escape mortality and skin injury of cod under commercial fishing conditions Task 6. New innovative codend designs Task 7. Data processing Task 8. Modelling of biological and socio-economic impacts Task 9. Project management and technology transfer

Achievements: The top-panel window codends showed higher L50-values than the corresponding standard codends. In window codends a pronounced positive correlation was observed with L50 and selection range (SR). The confidence regions, however, were relatively large for the 125 mm and 135 mm window codends.

The codend without the cover caught on average 15% more cod than the codend with the cover. The variation in catches between the hauls, however, was fairly large. The codend with the cover caught significantly less cod below 45 cm than the codend without the cover. The hauls made without the cover had a substantially larger variability in individual selection curves, and L50 and SR of the combined hauls were higher.

A large between-haul and between-vessel variability in selectivity was obtained in vessel-size experiments. Vessel-size, however, was not found to have any clear effect on the L50.. On the other hand, indications were obtained that vessel hauling technology can be a potentially important factor causing variability in selectivity. The best selectivity in terms of L50 was found on a side trawler. This difference is likely connected to the duration the gear is slack during the haul-back. Indication of a negative correlation with catch size and L50 was obtained.

A slightly higher survival was obtained in the Ultra-Cross window codend escapees (99.2%) than in the Danish exit window codend escapees (94.6%). Generally, the survival of trawl escapees was very high. No seasonal or catch-size effect in mortality was noticed. It is noteworthy, however, that hauls were conducted with fairly small catches in 1998.

Fish length was the main factor affecting to the probability of fish to be injured; the bigger fish the more probably it will have an injury. Fish escaping from a conventional diamond mesh codend had a higher injury probability than those escaping the Danish exit window codend. Codend catch (kg) affected negatively to the injury probability and in particular to net marks and

130 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears bleeding lesions. Water temperature affected strongly and positively to the scale loss probability but had no effect on bleeding lesions.

The Turned-Mesh-Codend configuration appeared to be a simple and efficient way to open the codend meshes and improve the codend selectivity. More experience and data, however, are required for final conclusions. Possibilities to improve the on-deck handling should be investigated.

Project Reference: FAIR961994 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1996-12-01 End Date: 1999-11-30 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: BACOMA

131 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

BY-CARE

Title: Assessment and reduction of the by-catch of small cetaceans

General Project Information

Objectives: a. Develop methodologies for assessing the magnitude of marine mammal bycatch in selected EU fisheries. b. Develop a framework for assessing the ecological importance of this by-catch, and collect relevant data. C. Investigate the way in which the risk of by-catch varies in relation to gear type, environmental factors and season. d. Develop a framework for assessing the relative costs and benefits of gear modifications and area closures for reducing by-catch, and the socio-economic impacts of such measures.

General Information: Description of work

The effectiveness of a range of techniques for determining by-catch rates has been evaluated. A standardized technique, using independent observers placed on participating fishing vessels, has been agreed and used to estimate by-catch rates in English, Danish and Swedish bottom-set gillnet fisheries in the North Sea and Kattegat/Skagerrak, and in the Irish drift net fishery for tuna. The ecological importance of these by-catches is being evaluated first by estimating the additional mortality on individual cetacean populations caused by the by-catches, and then by evaluating the likely consequences of this for the status of each species.

The relationship between by-catch rates and various operational features of each fishery is being investigated. Trials of various modifications to gear, especially the use of acoustic alarms, have been carried out in the Danish gillnet fishery in the North Sea. A set of computer programs which can be used to establish a framework for evaluating the implications of various management actions is being assembled.

Achievements: State of progress

Progress in year 1 of the project was slow because of delays in appointing new staff, illness of key staff members, and difficulties in establishing the independent observer scheme in some fisheries. Permission to extend the project by an additional 12 months was sought from the Commission and this was granted.

Estimates of by-catch rates are now available for all the target fisheries although it has only been possible to estimate total by-catch for the Swedish gillnet fishery in the Kattegat/Skagerrak Genetic analysis of material from by-caught and stranded animals has been used to identify at least two distinct populations of harbour porpoises in the North Sea, and to demonstrate differences between these populations and those in the Baltic and Kattegat/Skagerrak. Additional information on population structure from an analysis of contaminant levels, variation in tooth structure, and the composition of fatty acids in blubber supports this division.

There have been only one or two dedicated surveys of cetacean abundance in the areas used by the fisheries which are being studied in this project. In order to assess the ecological impact of the levels of by-catch estimated in this project information on a more detailed spatial and temporal scale is required. Studies are now underway to obtain this information from observations of cetaceans which have been collected opportunistically on surveys directed at other marine species. Studies of the movements of harbour porpoises using satellite-linked telemetry have been conducted.

132 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

Participants in the BY-CARE project have made a major contribution to discussions about the ecological consequences of the reported by-catches of porpoises in the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission and ' in the Advisory Committee of the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas. A model framework for evaluating these impacts has been developed and will be implemented in year 3.

Trials of acoustic alarms, to deter porpoises from becoming entangled in nets, have been conducted successfully in the Danish bottom set gillnet fishery- Preliminary work has begun on developing a model framework to evaluate the effects of changes in fisheries practice on cetacean populations and the catches and profitability of relevant fisheries.

Achievements: A standardised methodology for monitoring by-catch of small cetaceans using independent observers has been developed and used to estimate by-catch rates in all of the target fisheries. These results have been used to estimate total by-catch in the Swedish bottom-set gillnet fishery in the Kattegat/Skagerrak.

Satellite-linked telemetry has been used to follow the movements of a harbour porpoise for 42 days.

Trials of acoustic alarms have indicated that use of these devices can result in a significant reduction in the by-catch rate for harbour porpoises in bottom-set gillnets.

Future actions: Independent observers will continue to monitor by-catch rates in the English and Danish gillnet fisheries and in the Irish drift net fishery. Samples from by-caught and stranded animals will continue to be analysed to determine the nature of the by-catch and to investigate population structure.

Estimates of total by-catch for each fishery, and estimates of cetacean abundance at appropriate spatial and temporal scales will be made,

A model framework for investigating the effects of by-catches on population status (particularly for the harbour porpoise in the North Sea) will be implemented. The relationship between bycatch rates and operational factors will be investigated.

The model framework for analysing the socio-economic implications of various management options designed to reduce by-catch will be developed.

Project Reference: FAIR950523 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1995-12-01 End Date: 1998-11-30 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: BY-CARE

133 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

COST-IMPACT

Title: Costing the impact of demersal fishing on marine ecosystem processes and biodiversity

The primary objectives are to provide advice to decision-makers on: • How demersal fishing impacts the biodiversity of marine benthos and the associated goods and services, such as nutrient cycling that they provide. • How these impacts influence other marine ecosystem processes. • What the likely values of marine ecosystem goods and services are and how these values are affected by fishing.

If successful, the project will help managers to integrate fishing policy with environment policy. COST-IMPACT will provide tools that help determine whether a balance can be achieved between the economic value of a fishery and the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems and the economic value of the goods and services they provide.

With such knowledge strategies can be developed for management of fisheries effort. Such strategies would balance the environmental impact on marine benthic biodiversity and the services the benthos provides for marine ecosystem functioning against the socio-economic benefits of fishing.

Objectives 1) To seek, collate and add value to existing data on the effects of demersal fishing on benthic communities inhabiting marine soft sediments in order to produce a coherent and unified database of spatially referenced faunal information, upon which models and analyses may be based. 2) Carry out mesocosm and field experiments to elucidate: • the relative contribution of large individual benthic organisms and the communities associated with them to nutrient cycing • the influence of large individuals and groups/patches of large benthic organisms on associated benthic biodiversity • the relationship between nutrient cycling capacity and biodiversity of benthic communities in areas subjected to different degrees of fishing • how these functions vary seasonally

Model effects of fishing on marine benthic communities and marine ecosystem processes. Model the values of ecosystem services and natural capital and how these change in response to changes in fishing effort.

Results: An integrated European database. Models of relationships between fishing and biodiveristy. Models of the relationship between biodiversity and nutrient cycling. Model of the effects of changes in fishing on marine ecosystems. Web address of the project http://www.cost-impact.org/

Project Reference: QLRT-2000-00993 Contract Type: Start Date: 2001-12-01 End Date: 2004-12-01 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: 3.203.115 € Project Funding: 1.932.894 €

134 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

DEGREE Title: Development of fishing Gears with Reduced Effects on the Environment

The objectives of Policies Priority 8.1.B.1.3 Task 12 are: - To develop new gears/fishing techniques that have a lower impact on benthic habitats, - To quantify the potential reduction of the physical impact as well as the negative effects on benthic communities, - To weigh the socio-economic consequences of these changes against those of alternative management measures, e.g. closing of areas.

Eleven participants propose to work together to develop new gears/fishing techniques that have a lower impact on benthic habitats, to quantify the potential reduction of the physical impact as well as the negative effects on benthic communities, to weigh the socio-economic consequences of these changes against those of alternative management measures, e.g. closing of areas. They will do so by focusing on the development of modified towed gears.

A generic approach is chosen in which cases (e.g. North Sea, Mediterranean) can be worked out. The overall ecological impact to benthic systems will be assessed by developing physical/biological models verified by tests at sea. This will provide a tool to fisheries managers to identify gear and sediment type combinations, which will minimise impact to the habitat. A group of experts will work to appraise the socio-economic consequences of the new gears and techniques. Gear types under study involve: otter trawls, beam trawls and dredges.

The project will consist of six work packages, as follows: WP 1: Management and co-ordination WP 2 Modelling and quantification of benthic impact WP 3 Otter trawl modifications WP 4 Beam trawl and Dredge modifications WP 5 Economics WP 6 Dissemination and implementation.

The duration of the project will be 38 months. Special emphasis will be given to consultation with and dissemination of the results of the work to the fishing industry through national Industrial Liaison Groups and an adequate implementation of alternative fishing gears and techniques.

Project details Project Reference: 22576 Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research Project Start Date: 2006-02-01 End Date: 2009-03-31 Duration: 38 months Project Status: Execution Project Cost: 3.52 million euro Project Funding: 2 million euro

135 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

ECODREDGE

Title: Evaluation and improvement of shellfish dredge design and fishing effort in relation to technical conservation measures and environmental impact.

General Project Information

Objectives: To review operating conditions in a number of shellfish dredge fisheries and develop techniques appropriate to each fishery to study the selectivity and environmental effects of dredging. To examine the physical impact of dredging and study the incidental mortality, stress, ecological, physical and chemical environmental effects on a seasonal basis.

1. To review dredge fisheries, their operating environments and environmental effects in all the nations considered. 2. To develop the means for describing the physical, chemical, physiological and ecological effects of shellfish dredging. 3. To describe the physical, chemical, physiological and ecological effects of shellfish dredging on a seasonal basis. 4. To develop dredges with reduced environmental effects on affected species and the seabed. 5. To compare the environmental effects of dredges designed arising from Objective 4 with standard dredges. 6. To quantify the role of dredge components in the selectivity of scallop dredges catching Pecten maximus and Aequipecten opercularis in UK waters. 7. To quantify the role of dredge components on the selectivity of clam dredges catching Spisula solida, Veuns striatula, Donax truncatus and Ensis siliqua in Portuguese fisheries. 8. To compare the environmental effects of dredge components which are found to play a part in dredge selectivity in UK scallop and Portuguese clam dredge.

General Information: Dredge fisheries face stock and environmental management pressures. Size and species selectivity and non-catch (incidental mortality) are important issues concerned with technical measures. Environmental issues are likely to become of increasing influence, in particular in relation to seabed degradation. This is particularly as many dredge fisheries take place in coastal waters which are increasingly managed in terms of multiple resource use.

This project aims to study the interactions between shellfish dredges, affected species and the marine environment. The work will be oriented towards the goals of improving selectivity, understanding and reducing incidental mortality and undesirable environmental effects. Ultimately, the intention is to develop dredge designs and management strategies with reduced environmental impacts.

Two main species groupings will be studied; Scallop fisheries in Northern Europe, and_ clam fisheries on the Adriatic and Iberian Peninsula. Hydraulic ('turbo-soffianti') dredging for Chamelea gallina pursued by fisheries in the Adriatic, and towed dredge fisheries for Spisula solida, Venus striatula, Donax trunculus and Ensis siliqua on the Iberian Peninsula.

Project Reference: FAIR984465 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1998-12-01 End Date: 2001-11-30 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: ECODREDGE

136 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

EMPAFISH

Title: European Marine Protected Areas as tools for FISHeries management and conservation

The present research proposal has three general objectives: I) To investigate the potential of different regimes of MPAs in Europe as measures to protect sensitive and endangered species, habitats and ecosystems from the effects of fishing. II) To develop quantitative methods to assess the effects of marine protected areas. III) To provide EU with a set of integrated measures and policy proposals for the implementation of MPAs as fisheries and ecosystem management tools. Objective I is to be completed through the compilation, comparative analysis, and interpretation of data issued from selected case studies amongst EU MPAs, considering ecological (WP1), fishery (WP2), and socio-economic (WP3) aspects (the latter making the distinction between consumptive, non- consumptive, and institutional benefits and costs). In all cases, data already exist, or, in some cases, will be sampled in situ to complete the inputs to subsequent tasks. Case studies will be selected among the most studied European MPAs after a first typification, considering the following major management regimes: i) no-take zones, ii) partial reserves, and iii) species-oriented reserves.

A second source of information will emerge from meta-analysis of published results (both in the European context, and worldwide).

Objective II is being approached by providing and evaluating impact indicators of MPA effects (WP4) (considering ecological, fisheries, and socio-economic effect), and through the use of bio-economic modelling (WP5) (the latter serving also to complete the depiction of scenarios defined by different protection regimes, as empirically observed from previous WPs).

Objective III will consist on, based on the results of prior WPs, providing management guidelines for the implementation, management, monitoring, and assessment of EU MPAs. A Decision Support System is to be designed as a tool to help stakeholders applying this essential instrument for the management of marine ecosystem and resources.

Project details Project Reference: 6539 Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research Project Start Date: 2005-03-01 End Date: 2008-02-29 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Execution Project Cost: 3.06 million euro Project Funding: 2.4 million euro

137 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

EUROGRID

Title: Selective whitefish grid system for demersal towed gear fisheries in the North Sea and adjacent waters.

General Project Information

Objectives: To develop a selective, user-friendly grid system for the bottom trawl and seine net fisheries for whitefish in the North Sea and adjacent waters, with the aim of reducing the bycatch of juvenile fish, and thus provide a more sustainable exploitation pattern for demersal gadoid fish species.

General Information: The catches and discarding of juveniles and the by-catch both of fish and of other species are two of the major problems in the North Sea fisheries. The ultimate objective of the project is do develop a selective grid system for demersal towed fishing gears that reduces this waste of resources to a minimum.

Project Reference: FAIR983536 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1998-11-01 End Date: 2001-10-31 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: EUROGRID

138 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

FANTARED 2

Title: A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost at sea

General Project Information

Objectives: This project follows on from work of the study DG-XIV contract 94/95 FAANTARED which assessed the ecosystem impact of "ghost fishing" by bottom set gill nets which had been abandoned or lost, and the impact of these nets on benthic habitats in shallow waters. The project extends these investigations to fisheries operating at depths greater than 40 meters and attempts to quantify the impact of ghost fishing mortality on stocks of commercially important species in the gillnet fisheries considered in the project. The impact of lost traps will also be considered to a limited extent in this project.

Project Reference: FAIR984338 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1999-01-01 End Date: 2001-12-31 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: FANTARED 2

139 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

NECESSITY

Title: Nephrops and CEtacean Species Selection Information and Technology

Action Line: POLICIES-1 Sustainable management of Europe's natural resources Twenty-three institutes propose to work together in two Task Groups, i.e. Nehru¿s and cetaceans to develop alternative gear modifications and fishing tactics in collaboration with the fishing industry to reduce by-catches in the relevant Nehru¿s and pelagic fisheries, without reducing the catch of target species significantly.

The project consists of ten work packages, as follows: WP1: Management and co-ordination WP2: Statistical planning, modelling and analysis WP3: Species selective Nehru¿s gears WP4: Alternative tactics Nehru¿s fisheries WP5: Biological effects Nehru¿s fisheries WP6: Cetacean by-catch and alternative tactics WP7: Gear modifications Pelagic Trawls - Cetaceans WP8: Impact on Cetacean stocks WP9: Socio-economic repercussions WP10: Dissemination and implementation.

The duration of the project is 38 months. Special emphasis will be given to disseminating the results of the worktop the fishing industry and recommending proper implementation of alternative gears and fishing tactics, as wells knowledge transfer between partners from North- West Europe and the Mediterranean. Biological and socio-economic effects will also be evaluated.

Project details Project Reference: 501605 Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research Project Start Date: 2004-03-01 End Date: 2007-04-30 Duration: 38 months Project Status: Execution Project Cost: 7.73 million euro Project Funding: 4.27 million euro

140 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

NETRASEL

Title: Nephrops trawl discard reduction using activating selection grids

General Project Information

Objectives: The overall objective of the project is to develop a semi-rigid grid system to reduce the by-catch of fish and immature Nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus) from Nephrops trawl fisheries. The Northern North sea, Southern North sea, and the Aegean sea will be targeted. Species and size selection will be employed to reduce discard levels.

Key Objectives

1. To develop a primary grid system to separate fish from Nephrops. 2. To develop a secondary grid system to release immature Nephrops. 3. To conduct fishing trials with a view to confirming discard reduction. 4. To inform industry and receive advice from industry about the commercial viability of the research.

The fishery, whilst having a high economic value, suffers from a large by-catch of undersize commercial fish species and other organisms. This can be up to half the live caught, comprising of a mix of un-wanted fish and under size Nephrops which can be as much as 60% by number for Nephrops discards. The reason for this high level of discarding is attributable the smaller mesh sizes permitted in Nephrops trawls as compared to white fish trawls. These fisheries can occur on the same grounds and a white fish by-catch limits often applies to Nephrops trawl fisheries.

Project Reference: FAIR984164 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1999-01-01 End Date: 2001-03-31 Duration: 27 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: NETRASEL

141 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

NOVARRAST

A review of acceptable means by which towed gear discards may be reduced in ICES areas VII and VIII

General Project Information

Objectives: The main objective of this Concerted Actions was to find a framework within which discards could be reduced in the towed gear fisheries of any given fishing area. Specifically the work aimed to: - Review the fisheries being prosecuted in Areas V11h and j and VIIIa and b; - Rview the available information on seasonal catch profiles and discard rates; - Determine the main biological and commercial aspects of those fisheries; - Agree national priorities for change through industry liaison groups; and - Seek consensus on the discard reduction priorities from the fisheries in question through a liaison group of fishermen from all four countries involved.

General Information: RATIONALE

The concept behind this project was fairly novel. It sought to find ways of forming a partnership between practising fishermen, fishing gear technologists and other researchers. The work programme involved looking at various aspects of the motivation and incentives for fishermen to behave (fish) in certain ways; at the market forces affecting the operational decisions taken by fishing skippers in a given fishing area; and at the management protocols affecting that area. It took advice on the biological (stock) priorities that should inform management policies and tried to match the existing suite of by-catch reduction devices to those biological priorities.

Achievements: CONCLUSIONS

After this phase of the discussion the group went on to consider the ways in which a research proposal could be framed that would be acceptable to all concerned. The group agreed a number of general points about such a which would cover three main areas over a three year period: - Development and demonstration of technical measures intended to increase selectivity and reduce discards in appropriate fisheries, - Economic and biological modelling of the consequences of introducing these measures to the fleet. This would examine the economic effects at boat and fleet level and consider medium and long term predictions, - Examining a range of other factors, which may affect the feasibility of introducing, improved selectivity. These might include market dynamics, the import of small fish and the potential to devise 'hybrid' packages - for example a combination of new technical measures and quota swap arrangements.

Working up the proposal would require liaison groups to be set up which would bring together each country's fishing industries and researchers. These Groups would be responsible for reviewing the draft research proposals and amending them as necessary before agreeing a final version to be submitted to the Commission.

As for the sea trials that would be used to evaluate the candidate technical measures, it was agreed that they should be carried out with: - modified standard commercial gear, - coverage of all fishing seasons, - provision for independent observers - swapping trials staff,

142 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

- regular by-catch/discard sampling of other boats in the fleet, - scientific rigour and full statistical analyses, - a representative range of boats, gear types and ground conditions, and - adequate financial support for the trials vessels.

It was tentatively agreed that the prime responsibility for the above tasks should be: Nephrops trawling - Ireland, general benthic trawling - France, haddock discards - UK, and hake selectivity -Spain.

Project Reference: FAIR962001 Contract Type: Coordination of research actions Start Date: 1996-12-01 End Date: 1998-03-31 Duration: 16 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: NOVARRAST

143 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

PREMECS II

Title: Development of predictive model of cod-end selectivity

This project develops a predictive model of cod-end selection so that the selectivity of commercially used cod-ends fished in commercial conditions can be predicted.

Objectives: This project will be achieved by investigating and including the following influences in the model: 1) netting materials made from thicker and stiffer twines 2) the dynamic effects of the interaction of sea state, fishing vessel, trawl gear and cod-end 3) fish morphology and fish escape behaviour.

Progress to Date

A statistical and a deterministic model of the catch shape in the cod-end are in progress.

Results: The specialised instrument to measure the forces required to open a piece of netting were developed.

Experiments measuring the forces required to open panels of netting were carried out.

Web address of the project http://www.ifremer.fr/premecs

Project Reference: QLRT-2001-01328 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 2002-01-10 End Date: 2005-01-31 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: 2.141.628 € Project Funding: 1.156.789 € Project Acronym:

144 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

RECOVERY

Title: Research on effective cod stock recovery measures

This project addresses the current, critical survival level of the cod stock in the North Sea and the Irish Sea in support of the European Union Cod Recovery Plan. In this project, gears that are more selective will be developed for the three most relevant fisheries in the North and Irish Seas that take cod with the highest number of discards and total catches (i.e. the otter trawl, the beam trawl, and the Nephrops trawl). It forms a co-operation between fisheries research organisations in Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium and The United Kingdom (Scotland, England and Northern Ireland).

Objectives: The European Commission has issued a emergency plan for North Sea cod in 2001 and has developed a rebuilding plan for cod and hake. This project aims at developing novel species-selective gear prototypes for three mixed-species demersal trawl fisheries (i.e. demersal otter, Nephrops, and beam trawling) in the North and Irish Seas.

Progress to Date

A plan was made describing the various gear options to be tested by each participant with opportunities for co-operative work. The first series of trials was carried out on the Dutch RV 'Tridens' in November 2002, followed by similar trials in March 2003. Data is currently being analysed.

Preliminary data has been analysed on the selectivity of tickler chain beam trawls on plaice, sole, dab, whiting and cod with a large meshed upper panel, and an escape window in front of the cod-end.

Web address of the project http://www.rivo.dlo.nl

Project Reference: ID QLRT-2001-00935 Contract Type: Start Date: 2002-01-11 End Date: 2005-03-11 Duration: 38 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: 2.806.946 € Project Funding: 1.496.090 € Project Acronym: RECOVERY

145 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

REDUCE

Title: Reduction of adverse environmental impact of demersal trawls

General Project Information

Objectives: The main objective is to asses methods to reduce the adverse impact of demersal trawls on benthic marine organisms through changes in net design and alternative methods of stimulation.

General Information: EU funded research has shown that commercial beam trawling has detrimental affects on the structure and composition of benthic communities in the North Sea, as does otter trawling for Nephrops in the Irish Sea. It appears that short-lived species are favoured while longer-lived species are more adversely affected, with the result that the disturbed communities may favour scavengers, and predators other than fishery target species. Reducing potential damage to longevous benthic invertebrates could result in more viable standing crops of prey for target species. This project seeks to find technical solutions whereby the adverse effects of demersal trawls on benthic organisms can be significantly lessened.

The work programme will therefore: - Review alternative techniques that could reduce the adverse effects of demersal trawls on marine benthic organisms, and to identify, in co-operation with the fishing industry, those with most promise for further investigation. - Investigate the practical feasibility of the identified alternative techniques with respect to the following criteria: reduction of fish/benthos by-catch, effectiveness, economy, and acceptability to the fishing /scientific community, and to refine selected alternatives, driven by the requirement that catch levels can be maintained with emergent new gear designs. - Evaluate the impact of the modified gear by taking representative benthos samples prior to and after its passage along accurately demarcated transects. Results will be disseminated to the fishing industry and the scientific community, using appropriate paper documentation and a dedicated video / CD.

Modification to existing techniques and novel approaches will be explored both in liaison meetings with fisheries and scientific interests and in flume tank experiments, prior to a programme of planned sea trials. Approaches identified for study at this time (i.e. ahead of a planned review of this whole area of activity) include: changes in stimulation systems e.g. new chain arrangements, water jet injection and electrical stimulation, and changes in net design e.g. the incorporation of benthos release holes or separating panels. The practical feasibility of the most promising techniques (including considerations of equipment handling, durability and maintenance) will be investigated through sea trials. Effects on benthos mortality will be determined in the field by taking benthic samples before and after the passage of the gear.

Project Reference: FAIR973809 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 1998-01-01 End Date: 2001-03-31 Duration: 39 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: Project Funding: Project Acronym: REDUCE

146 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

RESPONSE

Title: Response of benthic communities and sediment to different regimens of fishing disturbance in European coastal waters

REPONSE is an integrated strategy to know the response of the biotic environment structure and the changes of the particulate matter dynamic, caused by the disturbance of fishing activity. This is a case study for biological and physical geological interactions.

This research is focused on providing new perspectives and management options to the CFP in order to achieve sustainable fisheries and of protection of biodiversity, a widely recognised problem in moving towards ecosystem-based management in fisheries.

The main objective is to obtain more knowledge on mid- and long-term effects to different regimens of fishing trawl perturbation on the seabed. The study will be performed in fishing grounds off European coasts: the North Sea, Irish Sea and Mediterranean Sea.

The specific objectives, estimation of changes in sedimentologic process, benthic and fish community, estimation of secondary production of the lower trophic levels, and analysis of the synthesis and integration of the results, will be achieved with six multudisciplinary workpackages.

The main achievement is related to understanding how long it takes for the benthic community to recover and what is its response to fishing activity, and the consequences of the sediment resuspension caused by trawlers.

The integration of environmental considerations in fisheries policy will benefit not only the environment but also the fishing sector, because fish resources need healthy marine ecosystems to flourish.

Objectives: RESPONSE has as a fundamental goal to achieve sustainable fisheries and to explore measures of protection of biodiversity on marine communities.

The main scientific objective of RESPONSE is to know the mid- and long-term effects of fishing perturbation on the seabed by considering two main strategies of analyses: 1) cessation of fishing activity 2) different levels of fishing activity.

The specific research objectives of RESPONSE will be achieved by progressively developing the following scientific programme: - To identify Appropriate Study Areas (ASA). To define the spatial and temporal variability of different regimes and trawl activity in these ASA (Part of WP1). - To estimate the fishing activity and fishing effort in the ASA during a whole year: (i) spatial distribution and temporal variability of the trawl fleet (ii) trawl tracks. (iii) historical data sets of spatio-temporal distribution of fishing effort. (iv) Correlation between fishing effects and existing/historical data on benthic communities (Part of WP1). - To analyse the physical and biological response of the benthic ecosystem to different regimens of fishing activity in the ASA (Part of WP2 and WP3).

147 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

- To establish the energy flow in marine ecosystem by estimates the secondary production of suprabenthos and infauna in the ASA (WP4). - To combine the results as synthesis and recommendations (WP5).

The main achievement of RESPONSE will be to relate the recovery of the benthic community to the impact of commercial fishing activity and the consequences of the sediment resuspension caused by trawling.

The results of the project are expected to contribute in the development of a Common Fishery and Environmental Policy in the implementation of fishing regulation. They can help elucidate the potential effectiveness of: . Using different time limited closure periods . The most appropriate level of fishing effort

Results: The project will provide information on the variability and resilience of marine ecosystems, especially for marine communities relevent to fisheries. This information may help determine the best times to close fishing grounds to allow benthic ecosystems to recover.

Project Reference: ID QLRT-2001-00787 Contract Type: No contract type Start Date: 2002-10-01 End Date: 2005-10-01 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: 2.810.172 € Project Funding: 1 579 766 € Project Acronym: RESPONSE

Web address of the project http://www.icm.csic.es/rec/projectes/response

148 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

SELDAT

Title: Selectivity database

General Project Information

Objectives: This proposal is a Concerted Action with thirteen partners to define the specifications and conditions for use and maintenance of a selectivity database.

General Information: The creation of such a database is a wish expressed by various groups within the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), but did not come off the ground. This project brings together several disciplines in many EU-member states with relevance to the subject, i.e. fishing gear technology and selectivity, information technology and database expertise, and fish stock assessment biology. ICES is actively participating as possible host for the database, with fisheries institutes and universities in the Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Germany and France. The project is managed through three plenary discussion meetings, and in between work is to be done by correspondence. Participants will collect information on available computer facilities and software, as well as selectivity data. The result of the project will be a document containing information on how to set up a database with selectivity data, including its specifications, and estimates of the costs for creating and maintaining the database, as well as recommendations where the database should be housed.

Achievements: Selectivity data are used in mesh assessments by assessment biologists. Estimates of fleet selectivity are necessary to calculate fishing mortality rate at age. The objective of this feasibility study was to define the specifications and conditions for creation, use and maintenance of a database containing fishing gear selectivity information. The project was split in sixteen tasks, among which three plenary discussion meetings, an inventory of needs with potential users, an inventory of available computer facilities and software, an inventory of available selectivity data, and cost estimates for creating and implementing the database as well as filling it with data. A total of twenty experts participated. Database options considered were: an on-line catalogue only; an on-line catalogue with an exchange format; an on-line catalogue with a user data screening program; a central store of ASCII files with on-line catalogue (web site) and extract bunch of data; a hosted database with an on-line catalogue (web site) and extract subset of data. The various options were scored against a set of criteria involving: quality, availability, security, ease of management, relevance, ease of use, data extensibility, function extensibility, effort for data provider, and turnaround time after which database type hosted database with an on-line catalogue (web site) and extract sub-set of data seemed to offer the best value for money, although the costs for software development, data handling and future management are the highest of all the options compared. The group also produced draft lists of variables at experiment and at haul level with field specifications, and thoroughly discussed a follow-up project proposal.

Project Reference: FAIR961531 Contract Type: Coordination of research actions Start Date: 1996-12-01 End Date: 1998-04-30 Duration: 17 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: SELDAT

149 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

SELDAT-2

Title: Selectivity Database-2

General Project Information

Objectives: This proposal is a logical follow-up of concerted action FAIR-CT96-1531 Selectivity Database (SELDAT), in which the specifications and conditions for use and maintenance of a selectivity database were investigated.. Fishing gear technology and selectivity, stock assessment, information technology and database experts from fourteen organisations in The Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Germany, and France will cooperate in three small teams to define a detailed requirements specification for the selectivity database and acceptance tests for the database.

General Information: Through a tender a consultant will be contracted to carry out the physical design, the implementation and testing, as well as the development of a data entry program. Data will be typed in using this data-entry program by the participating institutes. The database will be demonstrated to users in a workshop at the end of the project. An international Steering Group will be established with leading fishing gear and stock assessment scientists to give guidance on the management of the project, to advice on the database development process to give approval to major decisions within the project and to ensure that the end product fulfils the defined specification. The project duration is twenty-eight months.

Project Reference: FAIR984044 Contract Type: Coordination of research actions Start Date: 1999-09-01 End Date: 2001-11-30 Duration: 27 months Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: SELDAT-2

150 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

SELMED

Title: Selectivity of fixed nets in Mediterranean

Objectives: This two-year project aimed to assess the impact of technical conservation measures as laid out in new regulations (no. 1626/94 and no. 3094/86) for passive gear, in particular static fishing nets, used in static net métiers in the Mediterranean.

Approach and methodology

In the first two phases of the study, the main net métiers were identified and defined in terms of fishing gear used, fishing practices and catches (landings by species). This allowed those factors to be identified that were most important in influencing the selectivity of the métiers. This involved examination of available statistics and documentation, filed surveys and observations made on-board commercial vessels.

In the last two phases of the study, investigations were carried out on the effect of altering net mesh size and depth of net on gear selectivity for hake and mullet. Selectivity was determined in terms of the species of fish retained and size of fish retained. Experiments were also carried out to improve the selectivity of hake gill-nets and to provide mechanisms whereby juveniles could escape easier from the nets.

Main findings and conclusions

Static nets are an important gear used by small-scale artisanal fisheries in the Mediterranean. Artisanal fishermen in the Mediterranean commonly deploy several métiers in a day, depending on the season, fishing area and their ability to operate the gear. The diversity of métiers can be explained by the morphology of the coastal fringe and continental shelf. Twenty types of métier were identified in the countries taking part in the project, with three main types of straight static nets common to European waters. These included gill-nets, trammel nets and combined nets. Among these, most nets used to target hake, sea-breams and pelagic (nearsurface) species had to be of sufficient depth in order to limit the avoiding actions of fishes. Static nets catch fish by either catching them behind the gills (gilling) or entanglement of the body. Factors found to influence catch rate and thus selectivity of the gear include the abundance of fish in the vicinity of the net, mesh size, net hanging ratio, depth of the net (from header rope to foot rope) and characteristics of the line and twine used in the construction of the net. Selectivity is expressed in terms of species and size selectivity. Increasing net depth was found to increase entanglement catching efficiency for juveniles and large individuals and for species with spines and protuberances. The factors that effect entanglement in static gear was found to be a main determining factor in the species diversity of the catch, and thus the number of by-catch species.

The study concluded that although static nets are generally viewed as having relatively lower impact on fishery resources and the environment in comparison to active (towed) fishing gears, their effectiveness might be further improved by a better understanding of the factors affecting entanglement and gilling of fish.

Project Reference: 95/C/76/12 Contract Type: International co-operative programme Start Date: End Date: Duration: Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: SELMED

151 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

SOBETRA

Title: Optimisation of a species selective beam trawl

Project Reference: AIR2-CT93-1015 Contract Type: International co-operative programme Start Date: End Date: Duration: Project Status: Completed Project Acronym: SOBETRA

152 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

SURVIVAL

Title: Survival: An assessment of mortality in fish escaping from trawl cod-ends and its use in fisheries management

The survival of fish escaping from towed fishing gears is essential if selective devices are to be used as a practical conservation tool. Several studies have attempted to test this principle and assess the mortality of escaping fish. Unfortunately, these early endeavours have recently been shown to be fundamentally flawed in methodology so there are currently no reliable estimates of escape mortality. This project will develop methods for accurate assessment of escape mortality. The work will start with the development of the techniques to sample fish escaping from a trawl cod-end, without introducing biases into the mortality estimates. These techniques will then be applied in the field to estimate mortality in cod and haddock under various circumstances including escape at depth and surface, in high intensity fisheries and at different times of the year. Methods will be developed to include escape mortality data in stock assessment models and they will be implemented.

Objectives: The objectives of the project are: 1) to develop sampling techniques that overcome current biases in escape mortality estimation 2) to test these techniques directly against previous protocols in order to establish the validity of the new methods 3) to develop a methodology to compare the cod-end selectivity, and survival, of gadoid fish escaping at the surface in a side-trawler fishery with that of fish escaping at depth 4) to estimate the number of repeated encounters with trawls on intensively fished grounds 5) to study the effect of repeated gear encounters on escape mortality 6) to determine if gadoid escape mortality varies throughout the year and identify its cause 7) to develop models for including escape mortality data in stock assessments and predictive modelling 8) to determine the sensitivity of these stock assessment and predictive modelling techniques to escape mortality data and the impact on the fisheries management process 9) to report the project work and results to the fishing industry, the public and the European commission.

Progress to Date

A review of available literature and unpublished research in this field has been done to make an in-depth evaluation of the techniques used in the estimation of escape mortality in towed fishing gears. The most suitable sites for field work have been identified, protocols are in progress, the vessel charter specifications have been identified and a suitable vessel chosen. The site logistics have been completed.

Project Reference: QLRT-2001-01603 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 2002-10-01 End Date: 2005-10-01 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: 3.470.296 € Project Funding: 1.380.000 € Project Acronym:

153 PE 375.312 Environmental effects of fishing gears

TECTAC

Title: Technical developments and tactical adaptations of important European Union fleets

The fish stocks managed under the European Common Fisheries Policy are considered to be in danger because of excessive fishing mortalities. A common concern of fisheries managers is to be able to reconcile the objectives of maintaining fisheries profits while safeguarding the fish resources, especially when these are exploited beyond biologically safe limits. In EU waters, the management of fisheries and fish resources has been adversely altered by the lack of consensus on management targets and strategies, and also the poor understanding of the links between management tools, fleet developments and the pressure exerted on fishing communities. The carrying idea is the investigation of the dynamics of the elements that cause changes in fleet dynamics: the technological advances in both gear and vessel equipment, and also the overall tactical adaptation of fishing vessels. How do they occur? Why do they occur? What are their consequences on the resource and their socioeconomics?

Objectives: The overall objective of this project is to address the poor understanding of the links between management tools, fleet developments and the pressure exerted on fishing communities, and more precisely to supply fisheries managers with a modelling tool that will allow them to evaluate the impact of regulations (TACs, multiannual guidance plans (MAGPs), area and season closures, subsidies) on the dynamics of fleets and fishing mortality.

Examples will be drawn from a wide selection of demersal fleets operating in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the eastern Channel, the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay.

Results: 1. to collect information on technological development (e.g. gear, materials, electronics) and to assess their importance for the catching efficiency of the fleets. 2. to collect information on fleet activity changes (including within trip information on timing and positioning of individual operations) and to assess their importance; 3. to collect retrospective information on regulatory orders, fish prices, operating costs, and fish density; 4. to identify major patterns and trends in the important fleet utilisation of the resource base; 5. to model catch rates relative to stock abundance; 6. to estimate the contribution of external factors (management, socioeconomics, stock abundance) to fleet dynamics; 7. to model variations in fishing effort through the technical development and the tactical adaptation of fishing fleets in relation to management regulations; 8. to model the relationship between fleet dynamics, fishing mortality and fisheries profits; 9. to model the impact of management regulations on fishing mortality, fleet dynamics and fisheries profits.

Project Reference: QLRT-2001-01291 Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts Start Date: 2002-11-09 End Date: 2005-11-01 Duration: 36 months Project Status: Completed Project cost: 3.344.368 € Project Funding: 1.850.895 € Project Acronym: TECTAC

154 PE 375.312