policy department b - european parliament · 2015. 1. 16. · based on vessel monitoring system...

Agriculture and Rural Development

Culture and Education

Fisheries

Regional Development

Transport and Tourism

Directorate-General For internal Policies

POLICY DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

RoleThe Policy Departments are research units that provide specialised advice to committees, inter-parliamentary delegations and other parliamentary bodies.

Policy AreasAgriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education FisheriesRegional DevelopmentTransport and Tourism

DocumentsVisit the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

B POLICY DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

PHOTO CREDIT: iStock International Inc., Photodisk, Phovoir

B Directorate-General For internal Policies



Fisheries

Culture and EducationCulture and Education


DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

FISHERIES

REAL TIME CLOSURES OF FISHERIES

NOTE

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHORS (listed in alphabetical order) Nick BAILEY, Neil CAMPBELL, Steven HOLMES, Coby NEEDLE, Peter WRIGHT Marine Science – Scotland RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Irina POPESCU Policy Department B - Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Virginija KELMELYTÉ LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: DE FR ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in June 2010 Brussels, © European Parliament, 2010. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER 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.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

FISHERIES

REAL TIME CLOSURES OF FISHERIES

NOTE

Abstract Real time closures (RTCs) are a relatively recent development in fisheries management. This paper reviews RTC programmes worldwide and presents details of the design and implementation of a Scottish RTC scheme, intended to reduce mortality of cod (Gadus morhua) and ongoing since 2007. With rapid assessment of data and cooperation of the industry in design and implementation of schemes, RTCs represent a dynamic and responsive tool which fisheries managers can use to protect spatially and temporally variable resources.

IP/B/PECH/IC/2009-091 JUNE 2010 PE 438.598 EN

Real-time closures of fisheries

CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5

LIST OF FIGURES 7

LIST OF TABLES 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

1. BACKGROUND 11

2. REAL TIME CLOSURES WORLDWIDE 13

2.1. Iceland 13

2.2. Faroes 14

2.3. Norway 14

2.4. United States of America 15

2.5. Joint agreements 15

3. REAL TIME CLOSURES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 17

3.1. France 17

3.2. England and Wales 17

3.3. North Sea Regional Advisory Council proposal for Kattegat 18

4. REAL TIME CLOSURES IN SCOTLAND 19

4.1. Objectives 20

4.2. Size and duration 20

4.3. Methods for establishing location for RTCs 20

4.4. Implementation 22

4.5. Safeguards 23

4.6. Monitoring for compliance purposes 24

5. REAL TIME CLOSURES AND THEIR EVALUATION 25

5.1. Conservation Credits RTCs in 2008 and 2009 25

5.2. Coincidence of Conservation Credits RTCs with other distributional data 27

5.3. Evaluating changes in fishermen's behaviour under the Conservation Credits RTC scheme 30

5.4. Evaluating differences in the amounts of cod landed as a result of RTC 31

5.5. Estimating overall catch trajectories in the main fishing gear categories 33

5.6. Ongoing scientific development related to RTCs 35

5.7. Responses to the Scottish RTC Scheme 37

3

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

4

6. STRUCTURES REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL REAL TIME CLOSURE IMPLEMENTATION 39

6.1. Legal 39

6.2. Governance and Administrative 39

6.3. Technical 40

7. POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES 43

7.1. Protection of spawning events 43

7.2. Use in a multi-species context 43

7.3. Protection of transitory events in the broader ecosystem 44

7.4. Protection of Quality and Safety of Product 45

8. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF REAL TIME CLOSURES 47

8.1. Advantages 47

8.2. Disadvantages 47

REFERENCES 49


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CCSG Conservation Credits Steering Group

CCTV Closed Circuit Television System

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

CIZ Commercial Impact Zone

DST Data Storage Tag

FIN Fisheries Information Network

FPV Fisheries Protection Vessel

GES Good Environmental Status

GIS Geographic Information System

IBTS International Bottom Trawl Survey

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas

LPUE Landings per Unit Effort

MFA Marine and Fisheries Agency

MMC Marine Monitoring Centre

MS(C) Marine Scotland (Compliance)

MS(S) Marine Scotland (Science)

MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive

NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

nm Nautical Mile

NSRAC North Sea Regional Advisory Council

PLL Pelagic Long Line fleet

RCII Relative Cod Importance Index

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RTC Real Time Closure

SFF Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

5


6

SFPA Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

SG Scottish Government

STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries

TAC Total Allowable Catch

VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WGCSE Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion

WGNSSK Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map showing closed area in the far northeast of ICES division VIa known as the ‘windsock’ and closed area in the Clyde. Dark line running close to shelf edge and following the 200 m depth contour is the current West of Scotland management line. Dark line running further east is the previous West of Scotland management line. 12

Figure 2 Temporary closures in Icelandic waters since 1977 affecting various fisheries denoted by different coloured bars 13

Figure 3: Time line of recent development of Scottish RTC System 20

Figure 4: Example of a variable trigger threshold for establishing a RTC based on observed cod catch rates 21

Figure 5: Map of RTCs and Commercial Impact Zones in the Northern North Sea, June 2010, as shown on the SG website. 23

Figure 6: RTCs and CIZs under the Conservation Credits Scheme, 2008. 26

Figure 7: RTCs implemented under the Conservation Credits Scheme, 2009. 26

Figure 8: RTCs in place during February 2010 27

Figure 9: Cod catch rates from MS(S) and SFF Observer Data, 2009 28

Figure 10: Distribution charts of cod ages 1-3+ in the North Sea from the International Bottom Trawl Survey in Quarter 1, 2006-2008. 29

Figure 11: (left) Distribution of VMS pings of vessels operating in an area which will become an RTC; (right) pings recorded during the period the RTC was in place. 30

Figure 12: Maps of relative cod importance index for January 2008 and 2009 31

Figure 13: Trajectory of cumulative Scottish North Sea cod landings and discards 34

Figure 14: Proportion of tagged cod remaining within a given distance of the release site over time 36

Figure 15: Closures implemented in 2009 to protect spawning aggregations of blue ling 44

Figure 16: Fishery closures in the Gulf of Mexico, 7th June 2010. 45

7


8

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: RTC results – Average landings of vessels observed in RTCs prior to the

latter being closed and the average landings of the same vessels during the closure. The bold text indicates RTCs which resulted in reduced landings 32

Table 2: RTC results – landings of cod by vessels affected by RTCs in 2009 prior to the RTC closure compared with during the closure. Annual figures and a quarterly breakdown are provided. 33


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Spatial closures are an established tool for fisheries management worldwide. Historically, areas have been closed permanently to fishing, for example through the establishment of marine protected areas. Such closures are often criticised by fishers for being unresponsive, disproportionate and unproven. Seasonal closures are also established by fisheries managers to protect transient features, such as spawning aggregations, from targeted exploitation. Real time closures (RTCs) are a relatively recent development in fisheries, requiring high volumes of data to be processed quickly to inform management decisions. They can be targeted at specific areas, for example, to protect areas of high abundance, areas where juveniles comprise a higher than average proportion of the catch or areas where catch composition is likely to result in high levels of discards. RTCs enjoy greater confidence from the fishing industry as they are seen to be more responsive to conditions “on the ground”; however their effectiveness is difficult to measure. RTCs have been implemented to some extent in a number of countries and, by international agreement, on the high seas. Precise details of implementation vary from scheme to scheme and the nature of the feature being protected, however schemes have some common features, such as requirements for defined thresholds which trigger RTCs, consistent rules for the size and distribution of closures, and durations which have some relevance to the feature being protected. Studies of the effectiveness of schemes remain incomplete, and many remain unevaluated altogether. Within the European Union, various RTC schemes have been proposed over the past decade, although none of these were implemented due to doubts about whether they could be managed with sufficient responsiveness. Although there is no centrally managed system of RTCs within the EU a number of member states have begun national RTC programmes. The principal aim of European schemes to date has been the reduction of cod mortality in the North East Atlantic and associated seas. Recent agreements with Norway also include RTCs for the protection of juvenile cod, haddock and whiting. Closures are instigated by mixtures of catch sampling, landings per unit effort data and self-reporting by fishers. The Scottish “Conservation Credits” scheme, of which the RTC programme is one component, was developed and implemented in 2008, to allow fishers to avoid losing effort allocations in exchange for agreeing to avoid areas where high cod catches could be identified. Closures cover an area of 56 square nm (typically a 7.5 by 7.5 nm square, although there is no requirement for the closures to be square, and they may be defined by up to six vertices) for 21 days. RTCs are triggered by either direct sampling of catches, or calculations of LPUE based on Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data and landings declarations. Certain spatial rules are enforced to prevent excessive clustering of closures. Vessels are informed of the positions of RTCs via the Scottish Government website, though email or via direct contact with Fisheries Protection Vessels. Compliance with RTCs is monitored using VMS data, and transgressions dealt with through administrative penalties, typically the deduction of 5 days effort from the vessels entitlement. RTCs represent an “uncontrolled experiment” as they displace fishing effort, rather than reducing it, and it is not possible to compare their outcomes against a hypothetical situation where they have not been deployed. This makes analysis of their effectiveness particularly difficult. Closures implemented under the Conservation Credits scheme follow what is known about the general distribution of landings around the north coast of Scotland, suggesting the methods used to generate them are operating successfully. VMS data shows that compliance

9


10

with RTCs has been good, that vessels move away from closed areas, in most cases towards areas thought to be of lower cod abundance. Fine-scale data on fish movements derived from data storage tags can be used to evaluate the suitable size and duration of closures. RTCs are generally seen in a positive light by stakeholders from both the environmental and fishing industry lobbies. There has been no common system of RTCs established across European regional seas, although there are a number of national RTC programmes established by individual member states. Greater success could be delivered through the integration of schemes, enforcement and incentivisation to ensure a level playing field across member states. Currently, technical limitations holding the scheme back are the resolution of landings data (currently considered reliable at the trip level) and the coverage of VMS data. The roll out of electronic logbooks and the extension of VMS to vessels below 15 m length could address these problems. Effective two-way communication with the industry is essential to ensure buy-in and acceptance by stakeholders from the industry, and to enable administrators to receive feedback on the effectiveness and perception of RTC schemes. There are a number of other applications in which RTC schemes could be deployed to protect events of limited scale or duration, such as spawning aggregations or phytoplankton blooms which pose a risk to public health. RTCs could also be used to “fine tune” quota uptake in multi-species fisheries, reducing discards by encouraging effort to move away from areas where species which have experienced high uptake are known to be abundant, to areas where the catch composition is likely to be more appropriate.


1. BACKGROUND

KEY FINDINGS

Spatial closures are an established tool for fisheries management throughout Europe and beyond.

Seasonal closures are established by fisheries managers to protect transient features, such as spawning aggregations, from targeted exploitation.

Real time closures are a relatively recent development in fisheries, requiring high volumes of data to be processed quickly to inform management decisions.

They can be targeted at specific areas, for example, to protect areas of high abundance, areas where juveniles comprise a higher than average proportion of the catch or areas where catch composition is likely to result in high levels of discards.

Real time closures enjoy the confidence of the fishing industry as they are seen to be more responsive to conditions “on the ground”; however their effectiveness is difficult to measure.

The idea of using closed areas as a tool for protection and recovery of fish stocks is long-established, dating back over 100 years (Garstang, 1900). To illustrate the use of a long-term closure within the European context, in 2000, the Commission and Council noted the urgent requirement to establish a recovery plan for cod (Gadus morhua) to the west of Scotland. The immediate requirement was to allow as many cod as possible to spawn. Two areas were identified for closure under emergency measures for 2001 – the ‘windsock’ and Firth of Clyde. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 456/20011 of 6 March 2001 an area in the north of ICES area VIa located to the west of the 4° west line, the ‘windsock’ area ( Figure 1), was established as a seasonal closure effective until 30 April. The scope of this closure was changed at the 2003 December Council to operate throughout the year in 2004 (Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003) 2. It has remained in place since then. Commission Regulation (EC) No 456/2001 also defined a closure in the Clyde Sea area. This seasonal closure (operational between 14 February to 30 April) has since continued under national UK legislation applied annually. The closure is intended to cover the spawning period and coincides with a similar Irish Sea closure (14 February to 30 April). In the past, the majority of Clyde landings were made during the spawning season when cod apparently aggregate in the area. Closures such as this are often criticised by fishers for being unresponsive to changes in spatial patterns of stocks, of being implemented without any clear means of demonstrating they are capable of achieving the objectives for which they are created and for unintentionally impacting on other fisheries which exploit the same areas.

1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu, Commission Regulation (EC) No 456/2001 2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu, Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003

11

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:100:0007:0008:EN:PDF



12

Figure 1: Map showing closed area in the far northeast of ICES division VIa known as the ‘windsock’ and closed area in the Clyde. Dark line running close to shelf edge and following the 200 m depth contour is the current West of Scotland management line. Dark line running further east is the previous West of Scotland management line.

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

55

56

57

58

59

60

100

200500

1000

2000

100

100

1000

VIa

Closed areas

West_Scot_Mgnt_Line (previous)

West_Scot_Mgnt_Line (present)

Source: Marine Scotland - Science

Real time closures (RTCs) are defined areas of the sea which are closed to fishing for a limited period, triggered by information gained by managers in "real time", often in cooperation with the industry, such as on-board sampling of catch composition, Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data, analysis of catch rates or skippers declarations. RTC schemes are designed to achieve specific objectives, such as a reduction in bycatch, discards or fishing mortality of targeted species. As such, they represent a shift in the general philosophy of European fisheries management. Whereas historically, efforts to reduce unwanted mortality have focussed on limits in what can be landed through the setting and enforcement of minimum landing sizes, total allowable catches (TACs) and the registration of buyers and sellers, RTCs form one part of a move towards reducing mortality by modifying what is actually caught - an approach more common elsewhere in the world. By reducing and measuring the quantity of unmarketable and unwanted fish brought on board vessels, fishers contribute to mortality reduction targets in a way which is felt to be more responsive and adaptable to events occurring "on the ground" such as unexpected changes in fish distribution or recruitment of strong year classes. While schemes such as the adoption of technical measures and closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems also play a part in the reduction of unintended mortality, this report focuses on RTC systems, particularly with reference to the scheme recently implemented in Scotland.


2. REAL TIME CLOSURES WORLDWIDE

KEY FINDINGS

Real time closure schemes have been implemented to some extent in a number of countries and, through international agreement, on the high seas.

Details of implementation vary from scheme to scheme and the nature of the feature being protected.

Evaluations of the effectiveness of schemes remain on an ad hoc basis at best, and many remain unevaluated.

Several countries have systems whereby fisheries can be closed for limited periods of time at short notice, for example, where shellfish products represent a hazard to public health through shellfish poisoning following toxic algal blooms or suchlike. Many have adopted spatial management measures to exclude fishing activity from areas of high conservation value, however relatively few have adopted real time measures, where information from the fishery feeds back into the management process of the fishery in the short term. A few of these schemes are highlighted below:

2.1. Iceland Fisheries management in Iceland has incorporates various forms of permanent closures to protect nursery areas and spawning grounds and since 1977, has included temporary (real time) closures to protect juveniles and help reduce discards. Fishing is prohibited for at least two weeks when the catch of juveniles observed by inspectors exceeds a certain percentage (we were unable to ascertain whether this percentage remains fixed). In the past 27 years there have been about 2000 closures. The implementation of closures through time is shown in Figure 2 and illustrates variable numbers applied in the different fisheries of Iceland. Figure 2 Temporary closures in Icelandic waters since 1977 affecting various

fisheries denoted by different coloured bars

Source: Hafrannsóknastofnunin

13


14

2.2. Faroes The Faroese government has moved from catch based management of fishery resources and implemented a system of spatial management measures (seasonal closures and RTCs) alongside a more traditional effort based approach. Since 1996, approximately 12000 km2 of the seas around the Faroes are closed to fishing on a permanent or seasonal basis. Smaller RTCs are directed at the protection of juvenile fish aggregations, and closures are triggered by Faroe Island Fisheries Inspections recording numbers of small cod, haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and saithe (Pollachius virens) exceeding 30% of the total catch. Closures persist for a period of between 7 and 14 days, and cover an area of approximately 1000 km2, defined by six to eight vertices. While there has been some evaluation of the seasonal and annual aspects of spatial management measures in Faroese waters (Zeller and Reinert, 2004; Baudron et al., 2010), the impacts of the RTC system on protecting juvenile fish has been largely overlooked.

2.3. Norway During the 1970's minimum mesh size regulations were introduced in Norwegian trawl fisheries with the aim of reducing bycatch of juvenile fish. These were set as a compromise in order to avoid large catches of juveniles of the main target species, whilst allowing minimum legal landing sizes for other species to be achieved. With the introduction of the Marine Fisheries Act in 1983, new principles were established shifting the balance from a minimum legal landing size to a minimum legal size for species in the catch. A bycatch allowance is normally set as part of TAC agreements and comprises a predetermined percentage of the legal catch. If the bycatch allowance is exceeded, it is illegal to continue fishing in the current area and the vessel is obliged by law to change fishing grounds until the catch composition is in accordance with the bycatch regulations. The enforcement of these regulations and the assurance that they are met by the fishermen is a difficult task. The problem is exemplified by cod fisheries in the Barents Sea where approximately 30% of the quota is taken by large trawlers, while the remainder is taken by a large number of small coastal vessels using different gears (e.g. gillnets, long lines, seine nets and jigging gear). The management approach has therefore been to monitor the major fishing grounds and temporarily close areas with large abundances of juvenile fish or protected species. During the course of the fishing season chartered fishing vessels, with representatives from the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, survey the major fishing grounds. Sampling of the catch allows areas to be closed at short notice if the bycatch of juveniles exceeds preset levels. In the trawl fishery for cod and haddock, areas where the combined number of undersized fish exceeds 15% are closed and kept closed until the results of the sampling programme show an acceptably low proportion of juveniles. The duration and area affected by closures of the fishery vary with the size composition of the commercial stocks, the relative geographical distribution of fish of different sizes and the pattern of exploitation evident in the fishery. Similar temporary area closures are also practised in other fisheries (e.g. the Barents Sea shrimp fishery), where the grounds are closed if the bycatch levels of juvenile cod, haddock and Greenland halibut are exceeded. Similarly, the fishing grounds for saithe may be closed when the bycatch of undersized fish exceeds 10% by weight in the purse seine fishery. More than 60 closures may be established in one year and some can be of large size. The scheme is believed to have assisted the recovery of Barents Sea cod and haddock and has wide support of Norwegian


and Russian fishermen. Details of closure schemes are established during Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission negotiations on quota agreements, along with technical measures such as sorting grids.

2.4. United States of America Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the United States federal government has exclusive fishery management authority beyond the 3 nm limits over all living marine resources found within its exclusive economic zone, vested in the Secretary of Commerce. The preparation of detailed fishery management plans for those marine resources requiring conservation and management is devolved to regional "Fishery Management Councils". RTC schemes (also known as "triggered area closures" or "time/area closures") have been employed or are in consideration in a number of areas since 2008, for example, to reduce bycatch of Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), in the Alaskan pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) trawl fishery, to reduce bycatch of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) in the Bering Sea, and to protect aggregations of marine mammals in conjunction with a variety of technical measures along the Atlantic coast. The diversified nature of fisheries management in the US makes the assessment of the contribution of any of these single measures difficult to quantify, however bycatches of herring in the Bering Sea have been reduced from 1700 t in 1994 to 134 t in 2002 (NPFMC, 2004).

2.5. Joint agreements A number of international treaty organisations and intergovernmental agreements contain provisions specifying or proposing RTC programmes.

2.5.1. EU/Norway In 2009, as part of a package of measures to reduce discards, the EU and Norway agreed to implement a system of RTCs to protect juvenile and undersized fish (cod, haddock, saithe and whiting (Merlangius merlangius) in the North Sea. The trigger for a closure is based on the juvenile percentage of these four species by weight, i.e. 15% by weight of the total of the four species, calculated from a 200 kg sample. However, if the quantity of cod exceeds 75% of the total, the trigger level is set at 10%. Samples are only taken when it is estimated that at least 300 kg of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe are present in one haul. During closures pelagic trawls, purse seines, driftnets and jiggers targeting herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, as well as pots and scallop dredges may be used inside the area. Gillnets may be used if the mesh size is in accordance with technical regulations applicable in the fisheries for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe. Reopening occurs automatically after 21 days.

2.5.2. High Seas In 2006, the UN General Assembly established a deadline of 31 December 2008 for States and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to adopt and implement measures to prevent 'significant' adverse impacts to vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from high seas bottom fisheries (UNGA 61/105). Where these measures have not been implemented, high seas fishing nations agreed to prohibit ("not authorize to proceed") their vessels from high seas bottom fishing after 31 December 2008. In the northeast Atlantic, VMEs of most concern comprise deep-water sponges (Geodia baretti, G. macandrewi,

15


16

Isops phlegraei and Stryphnus ponderosus) and cold-water coral (Lophelia pertusa) reef systems. At its plenary meeting in 2008, the competent RFMO, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) implemented a “move-on” rule, requiring vessels recording catches of 100 kg of live coral or 1000 kg of sponges to cease fishing and move at least 2 nm before recommencing fishing activities. Given the low density of fishing vessels on the high seas of the northeast Atlantic, this represents a de facto RTC system. Similar "move on" rules have been incorporated in to management of New Zealand based demersal trawlers fishing in the high seas of the south Pacific for Hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae). There is little information available to assess the appropriateness of this system of regulation or its degree of success, the key information required being information on the spatial heterogeneity of the sea-bed with respect to coral and sponge banks and their relation to the tow length of trawls. One possible impact of such a management measure is an increased impact of fisheries upon VMEs. In many cases, the single passage of a trawl gear over unfished grounds containing long-lived and slow growing sponge and coral species may be enough to cause serious adverse impacts. The requirement of fishers to move a set distance away from impacted sites may cause damage to further vulnerable ecosystems. Furthermore, the fragility of these sensitive species and their unknown net retention properties means that fixed catch thresholds are not necessarily indicative of the scale of impact upon the seabed. The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) has advised that all previously untrawled ecosystems and habitats are likely to be vulnerable to trawling activity because they are likely to contain fragile species. An alternative strategy for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems therefore would be to plot all areas where fishing has already occurred (or has occurred in the period for which records are available) and then to assume that all other areas contain vulnerable marine ecosystems. Prohibition or restriction of fishing activities in these areas would then protect many vulnerable marine ecosystems.

2.5.3. Tuna Although not yet implemented, a number of RTC options have been evaluated and presented to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). For example, potential RTC systems to reduce discards and bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic long line (PLL) fleet in the Gulf of Mexico have been evaluated. For each closure, changes in bycatch, discards, and catch of marlin, sailfish, turtles, sharks, swordfish, and tunas were analysed using a Geographic Information System (GIS) program to plot observed and reported effort and catches of all the species considered in the Gulf of Mexico between 2001 and 2003. Data for each species were mapped and compared spatially to one another in order to select the areas of highest concentration of bycatch and discards. The degree of mobility in the vessels of the PLL fleet was assessed from trip to trip, and changes in bycatch, discards, and catch predicted assuming effort in closed areas was removed completely, and exploring several different scenarios of a redistribution of fishing effort to predict the potential range of impacts from a given closure. Although there were decreases in the predicted catch, bycatch, or discards of the species considered, no single closure would have reduced the bycatch or discards of all species considered, and bycatch or discards of some species were predicted to increase. In some cases, this increase could have been substantial when the redistribution of effort was taken into account (Wilson et al., 2007).


3. REAL TIME CLOSURES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

KEY FINDINGS

Within the European Union, no common system of RTCs has been established, but a number of member states have begun national RTC programmes.

The principal aim of European schemes to date has been the reduction of cod mortality in the North East Atlantic and associated seas.

Closures are instigated by mixtures of catch sampling, landings per unit effort data and self-reporting by fishers.

To date there has been no common European system of RTCs; however individual member states have recently instigated national programmes, as part of efforts to reduce fishing mortality of cod.

3.1. France Since 2009, France has established two separate RTC schemes, one operating in the North Sea and the other in the Eastern Channel (ICES division VIId). The North Sea scheme shares elements with the EU-Norway scheme, i.e. the trigger for closure being weight of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe exceeding 15% of sampled weight of fish from at sea inspections, or 10% if cod represents greater than 75% of the four named species. Also closures apply for a period of 21 days. The French scheme, however, applies to fish above minimum landing size. Fishers can initiate at sea inspections by informing the French control authority of high catch rates of the named species. Closures are centred on the location of the inspection that triggered the closure, are 50 square nm in size and bounded by four to six points. The scheme in ICES division VIId applies to cod only. The trigger for closure is an at sea inspection recording a catch rate of over 60 cod per hour of over 50 cm in length. As for the North Sea closures are centred on the observation and reopen automatically after 21 days. They are 20 square nm in size and bounded by four points. The scheme is limited to a maximum of three simultaneous closures or two if RTCs are spaced less than 20 miles apart. Fishers can initiate at sea inspections by informing the French control authority of high catch rates of cod over 50 cm in length. For both schemes, the results of all observations are recorded in the hope the resulting database can be used to help make improvements to the schemes.

3.2. England and Wales The Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) in England introduced a RTC and Seasonal closure scheme at the beginning of 2009, designed to avoid concentrations of cod in the North Sea. These measures were instigated to provide a contribution to the UK target of reducing cod mortality by 25%. Initially this scheme was based on live sampling of catches, with the scheme designed to protect mature spawning cod, therefore a trigger threshold for the instigation of an RTC was established at a rate of 10 mature (50cm+) cod per hour towed. However, a review of these measures several months after the scheme was introduced determined that insufficient areas would be closed, with the result that the English contribution to the UK mortality cuts would not be met. In order to increase the English

17


18

contribution to the 25% mortality cut, in June 2009 it was decided to introduce 9 RTCs based on historical Landings per Unit Effort (LPUE) data according to logbook entries and cross-referenced with VMS data from June 2007 and June 2008. These RTCs were reviewed and updated each month based on the LPUE data from the equivalent period in 2007 and 2008. In order to share out the impact of these closed areas on the fishing opportunities of the English fleet it was decided to split the North Sea (ICES division IV, south of 56N) into 3 divisional-areas and to ensure that the 9 RTCs were spread through the 3 divisional-areas. The process of real time sampling of cod catches continued concurrently with the RTC scheme, and the focus was shifted to juvenile cod in the second part of the year, with the trigger threshold being changed to a rate of 80 cod of any size per hour. These closures applied to all UK vessels which may catch cod in these areas, and vessels of other member states were asked to respect these closures. Closures followed the Scottish precedent of a 7.5 nm square around the sampling point or VMS cell, as well as incorporating the Commercial Impact Zone system whereby no more than 3 closures could be established inside a circle of 50 nm diameter. Closures were established for a period of 21 days, or 14 days for closures within 12 nm of the coast. Information on current closures was conveyed to skippers via a dedicated page on the MFA website. Skippers could also inform managers of areas of high cod abundance via a dedicated email address, fax or phone line.

3.3. North Sea Regional Advisory Council proposal for Kattegat In 2008 the Swedish government proposed to establish a permanent closure of an area in south eastern Kattegat in order to protect cod. To reduce the impact on fisheries in the area, including vessels targeting Nephrops and sole, the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) proposed a system of coupled RTCs. The first type of RTC would occur during the spawning season to protect spawning aggregations. The second type of RTC would be applicable later in the year with the intention of protecting juvenile cod, defined as fish below the minimum landing size. To protect spawning fish the NSRAC defined a single rectangular area to be closed for a period of 6 weeks from the point when spawning cod are observed in catches. If spawning cod were still found in catches after the area was reopened the proposal was to close the area again until the 15 April (on the assumption that spawning will have finished by this date even in years of relatively late spawning). To protect juvenile cod ICES rectangles were split into 9 sub-rectangles (approximately 5 nm square). If a vessel caught cod above a trigger level of 50 cod (below the minimum landing size) per hour that sub-rectangle would be closed for two weeks before being reopened automatically. Closures would apply to all boats using a fishing mesh larger than 70 mm unless the gear included a sorting grid designed to exclude cod. The proposal from the NSRAC would have relied on notification of catch of spawning cod or juveniles above the trigger level from fishing vessel skippers to a RTC committee within the NSRAC. It considered it would help the scheme if national authorities adopted a process of formally closing areas on request from the RTC committee such that closures were compulsory, but it is unclear whether closures were anticipated to occur without reference to the RTC committee if observations by national fishery control vessels matched the closure criteria.


4. REAL TIME CLOSURES IN SCOTLAND

KEY FINDINGS

RTC schemes have been proposed for around a decade, although not implemented due to doubts about whether they could be managed with sufficient responsiveness.

The Scottish “Conservation Credits” scheme, of which the RTC programme is one component, was developed and implemented in 2008, to allow fishers to avoid losing effort allocations in exchange for agreeing to avoid areas where high cod catches could be identified.

Closures cover an area of 56 square nm (typically a 7.5 by 7.5 nm square, although there is no requirement for the closures to be square, and they may be defined by up to six vertices) for 21 days.

RTCs are triggered by either direct sampling of catches, or calculations of LPUE based on VMS data and landings declarations. Certain spatial rules are enforced to prevent excessive clustering of closures.

Vessels are informed of RTCs via the Scottish Government website, though email or via direct contact with Fisheries Protection Vessels. Compliance with RTCs is monitored using VMS data, and transgressions dealt with through administrative penalties, typically the deduction of 5 days effort from the vessels entitlement.

Industry requests for the use of RTCs (as opposed to more permanent closures) have been made over a number of years. In the early 2000s, their use was advocated by the NSRAC but in discussion with the European Commission it was argued that in the context of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) management structures, it would not be possible to implement them effectively or quickly enough. There have been numerous discussions of RTCs since then. The establishment of the EU cod recovery plan and associated effort regime with its progressive cuts in the days available for fishing, led to calls for opportunities to trial alternative management methods designed to reduce mortality on cod. At the Council of Ministers meeting in December 2007, provision was given in the Regulation for 2008 allowing member states to trial the use of a national KW/days 'pot' of effort alongside alternative measures designed to reduce cod mortality. Council of Ministers meetings in 2008 revised the cod recovery plan and gave member states control of how they managed their effort 'pots' with extended provision for the use of alternate measures; strict requirements for evaluation of those measures were built in. From the outset, Scotland took the opportunity of using the new provision to pilot its Conservation Credits scheme where additional days fishing were made available for the use of conservation measures and within this initiative; RTCs have formed a major part. This report deals mainly with RTCs but it is important to note the context (described above) in which this scheme was developed, since this affects the implementation, governance, and evaluation of the programme. From the outset it was recognised that RTCs were being instigated without detailed information on a number of aspects of spatial behaviour of cod and fishermen. In this respect, the scheme is developing and will continue to develop with adjustments and refinements; a section at the end of the briefing presents some of the

19


20

supporting developmental work. The EU requirements for evaluation mean that in this scheme attempts are being made to evaluate the effectiveness of RTCs. A time line of the development of the scheme from its inception to the present date is shown in Figure 3. The Conservation Credits scheme began in 2007 with the objective to reduce mortality on small cod. In 2008 closures for protection of juvenile and undersized cod were introduced. The scheme was evaluated by the EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) in November 2008. In 2009, the scheme was expanded with the aim of reducing F on all sizes of cod. Figure 3: Time line of recent development of Scottish RTC System

Development of RTCs in Scotland

2007 2008 2009 2010

RTCs implemented with the objective to reduce mortality on small cod

First genesis of ideas discussed NSRAC meetings (early 2000s)

RTCs for protection of juvenile and undersized cod

Nov 2008 STECF evaluation of trial scheme - positive but needed to scale up

RTCs for protection of all cod

Conservation Credits Steering Group established

Calculations suggest 10 times number of RTCs (=150) could deliver about half required F reduction

144 closures by year end

EU December Council agrees provision for MS trials

RTC scheme continuing, more detailed evaluations ongoing

Source: Authors

4.1. Objectives

In response to the cod recovery plan target of reducing the average instantaneous fishing mortality (F) by 25% in 2009 compared to 2008, the Scottish Conservation Credits scheme aims to reduce cod mortality arising from Scottish vessels by that amount. A greatly expanded RTC element of Conservation Credits has been made compulsory for Scottish registered vessels and, based on 2008 results, it is estimated that this element of the scheme can deliver an 11% reduction in cod mortality.

4.2. Size and duration

The scheme requires closures to be 56 square nm in size (7.5 by 7.5 nm square, although there is no requirement for the closures to be square, and they may be defined by up to six vertices). This is approximately one sixteenth the size of rectangle used when recording catch location in official logbooks. Closures apply for 21 days and are automatically re-opened thereafter. Ongoing research on cod movement behaviour will inform whether adjustments to these parameters are required.

4.3. Methods for establishing location for RTCs There are currently two means of triggering a RTC. The first is based on observations made during compliance boardings of vessels, where a catch of cod exceeding a threshold level (at present 40 cod of all sizes per hour fished) is taken to indicate an area of high cod abundance. Catch rates can be reported by skippers, Marine Scotland (Science) (MS(S))


observers or a team of observers employed by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF). Guidance on appropriate trigger levels is obtained from observer data collected by MS(S). The example in Figure 4 shows how the trigger level may change from year to year as the abundance of fish of different sizes (here, cod >50cm length) changes in the trips observed. Figure 4: Example of a variable trigger threshold for establishing a RTC based on

observed cod catch rates

Cod >50cm 2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 More

cod per hr

No

tri

ps

>50cm

Cod >50cm 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 More

cod per hr

No

tri

ps

>50cm

Source: Authors

The second method involves determining a landings rate per unit effort (LPUE) based on landings declarations and a measure of fishing effort derived from VMS data. In 2009, 27 of 144 closures were based on observed catch rates, the remainder being based on VMS and landings rate information. When the LPUE method is used the sea is partitioned according to a grid measuring 7.5x7.5 nm, with cells referred to as sub-rectangles. The seas fished by Scottish vessels and subject to the cod long term management plan are divided into 4 RTC zones and within each of the 4 RTC zones, sub-rectangles are ranked according to their LPUE and the top 25

21


22

rectangles in each zone supplied to Marine Scotland (Compliance) (MS(C))3 who make the final proposals for closure. When it is necessary for analysis to identify the top 25 LPUE sub-rectangles, data is evaluated for the previous 14 days. Data availability covers VMS data for all UK vessels in “Scottish” waters, and all European voyages landing into Scotland. Files containing VMS data linked to trip landings data are created as required in the analysis. VMS data is limited to vessels of 15 m and over and therefore the matching with VMS data is restricted to landings recorded by vessels of 15 m and over. Logbook data is filtered to exclude all but information on cod. For each trip in the logbook database, daily sums of recorded cod landings and a subset of the VMS pings recorded by that vessel between the date/time of departure and the date/time of the end of voyage is taken; pings when the vessel is stationary in port are discarded, as are pings which look to emanate from faulty VMS equipment (defined as more than 10% of VMS pings separated by over 3 hours). The data is further filtered to remove positions where the vessels were travelling at non-fishing speeds or when vessels are stationary (i.e. speeds faster than 5 knots or at zero knots are excluded). The result is that for each vessel cod catch data for each date are associated with each VMS ping for that date. In the process of developing the methods required for identifying areas suitable for RTCs based on VMS data, it was noticed that very low levels of fishing effort in some “offshore” statistical rectangles, coupled with modest catches of cod on a particular trip could result in a very high apparent landing per unit effort. Consequently, a decision was taken to restrict potential RTCs to the area within the 400 m depth contour.

4.4. Implementation Although practical aspects of the implementation of RTCs in Scotland, described in this section, are handled by Marine Scotland, a crucial role is played by an overarching Conservation Credits Steering Group (CCSG). This group discusses and takes decisions on strategic aspects of RTCs prior to their implementation. The composition and role of the group is discussed below. RTCs are notified to the industry via an e-mail distribution. The e-mail distribution list covers all the main agents, associations, federations and producer organisations plus others in the industry who have asked to be included. During the period that RTCs have been in effect, the list has expanded significantly and additional recipients are encouraged to join it. When the e-mail issues, recipients are requested to cascade the information onto individual vessels and the system appears to get the information to skippers in the vast majority of cases. As an additional measure, the Marine Monitoring Centre (MMC) and Fishery Protection Vessels (FPV) will make direct contact with individual vessels that are in the vicinity of a closed area or are steaming towards a closed area. The Scottish Government website4 is updated with all the relevant details at the same time as the e-mail issues to the industry. The e-mail contains a link to the website but all the detail of co-ordinates, date and time of closure and a map illustrating the closed area are included in the body of the e-mail so access to the SG website is not necessary to obtain the information. All current, or 'live', RTCs are illustrated graphically on a dedicated website. A second page provides the precise coordinates for current closures together with all previous closures that year. Other links detail the coordinates of closures from previous

3 Formerly the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) 4 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/17681/closures

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/17681/closures


years, the results of at sea samples as well as the location of the joint EU-Norway RTCs designed to protect juveniles and the at sea sampling results associated with this second RTC scheme.

4.5. Safeguards To prevent excessive restrictions on fishing activity in any one time or place the scheme limits the number of closures in place at any one time to twelve. The seas around Scotland were also split into 4 zones with the intention that at least one closure should be in operation in each zone at all times. The 4°W line is used as the longitudinal division with the 2 zones west created by drawing a line at 58°N and the 2 zones east created by drawing a line at 58°30’N. This "4-zone rule" quickly became a "3-zone rule" as catches of cod in the south-western zone were so low that RTCs were not being triggered. Finally “Commercial Impact Zones” (CIZ) are defined to exist around closures such that no more than 3 closures can be adopted within any CIZ at any one time. The CIZs are circular and of 25 nm radius. Examples of RTCs and their surrounding CIZs are shown in Figure 5. The limit of 3 RTCs per CIZ was decided upon as a result of negotiations with industry. This compromise prevents having a very large area closed as a result of having several closures side by side. Figure 5: Map of RTCs and Commercial Impact Zones in the Northern North Sea,

June 2010, as shown on the SG website.

Source: Authors

23


24

To take account of the different nature of fishing by small vessels close to shore, the RTC scheme adopted the principle that closures within the 12 miles limits will not necessarily follow the same standard size and may be smaller and of different shape taking account of geography, community needs and fleet structure and also that closures inside 12 miles will always be based on physical inspections.

4.6. Monitoring for compliance purposes In the first few days following the establishment of a new RTC area, the Scottish Government's Marine Monitoring Centre (MMC) provide information on RTCs directly to fishing vessels in the vicinity of or within the new area. The MMC would not normally report a vessel detected within a newly established RTC to the days at sea team for possible sanction. Following this period of ‘grace’ MMC would commence reporting cases to days at sea team but would also notify the vessel that it is within an RTC and provide details of all current RTCs. This information is sent directly to the vessel via e-mail where contact details are available or to the vessels agent where MMC do not have direct contact details for the vessel. This ability to track vessels in real time and inform skippers of potential transgressions helps fishers comply with the scheme, rather than simply punishing them for breaching the terms of the Conservation Credits scheme. The Conservation Credits scheme includes a regime of administrative penalties. The penalty for fishing within an RTC area is typically the deduction of 5 days at sea from a vessel's annual allowance. Where the MS(C) team is considering the application of a penalty it notifies the relevant person in writing of the intention to impose the penalty, and the reasons for its possible application. The affected person may appeal and if an appeal is lodged an officer of Marine Scotland from out with the effort management team is appointed to consider the terms of the appeal. Following incursions into active RTCs during the 2009/10 scheme year, letters were issued to owners or agents of 21 Scottish vessels advising of their vessel’s incursion, giving details of the administrative penalty which could be applied. Following receipt and consideration of appeals, the penalty of deduction of 5 days from a vessel’s days at sea allocation was implemented on a total of 7 occasions. Five vessels each had 5 days deducted from their allocation for one RTC incursion, and one vessel had 10 days deducted for two RTC incursions.


5. REAL TIME CLOSURES AND THEIR EVALUATION

KEY FINDINGS

RTCs are an “uncontrolled experiment” and their evaluation is difficult as they displace fishing effort, rather than reduce it, and it is not possible to compare their outcomes against a hypothetical situation where they have not been deployed.

Closures implemented under the Conservation Credits scheme follow what is known about the general distribution of cod from survey and landings data around the north coast of Scotland, suggesting the methods used to generate them are operating successfully.

VMS data shows that compliance with RTCs has been good, that vessels move away from closed areas, and generally move towards areas thought to be of lower cod abundance.

Fine-scale data on fish movements derived from data storage tags can be used to evaluate the suitable size and duration of closures.

RTCs are generally seen in a positive light by stakeholders from both the environmental and fishing industry lobbies.

The evaluation of RTCs is inherently difficult as they displace fishing effort from an area, rather than reduce total effort per se. Closures therefore proceed as something of an uncontrolled experiment, as we have no data on what would have been caught within closed areas against which to compare recorded catches. This difficulty in evaluation and the fact that the RTC schemes are very recent introductions, within the last assessment cycle, has led to some criticism of their effectiveness, for instance, in the press release accompanying the 2010 TAC proposals, the European Commission stated "Real-time closures and cod-avoidance schemes have not been enough to protect the stock and have had little effect on fishing patterns". In the absence of evaluation, such judgement is somewhat premature. The Scottish scheme has been running for just over two years and during 2008 and 2009 almost 160 closures were put in place. Throughout this time it has been important to update stakeholders with progress reports as regularly as possible in order to ensure 'buy-in' and to enhance governance. Attempting to analyse the effects of RTCs has therefore been a key activity. Furthermore a requirement in the 2008 Council Regulation is the evaluation of the effectiveness of member state schemes to ensure that the targets of the cod plan are reached. In this section a summary of the closures is presented along with preliminary consideration of the potential contribution made by them to reducing fishing morality rate on cod.

5.1. Conservation Credits RTCs in 2008 and 2009

Maps of the RTCs implemented in Scotland during 2008 and 2009 are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. Both figures show the aggregate closures for the year and clearly demonstrate the vastly increased number in 2009, almost 10 times as many. The ability to achieve this was largely through the use of the LPUE approach based on VMS and landings coupled with a dedicated implementation team. Full details of all the closures are given on the Scottish Government's website.

25


26

The figure for 2009 gives the impression of a large area closed. At any one time only a fraction of these closures are in place (see Figure 8 for an example from February 2010) so that on a month to month basis, only a small proportion of the sea is covered by RTCs. Figure 6: RTCs and CIZs under the Conservation Credits Scheme, 2008.

Source: Authors

Figure 7: RTCs implemented under the Conservation Credits Scheme, 2009.

Source: Authors


Figure 8: RTCs in place during February 2010

Source: Authors However, information on cod landings by vessel suggest that a large proportion of landings are taken by rather few vessels and also those certain specific trips in relatively small areas often contributes quite large landing amounts. This implies that effectively positioned closures may offer relatively good protection. Of course, this depends on where displaced vessels subsequently deploy their effort and the assumption that landings information can tell us something about catch. It is important to recognise the extent to which evaluation is possible. Controlled, scientific analysis of the direct effect of RTCs in reducing and controlling fishing mortality is not possible. However, a variety of methods can be employed to provide an indication of the effect that this form of management measure is having.

5.2. Coincidence of Conservation Credits RTCs with other distributional data

One measure of the potential effectiveness of the current RTC scheme is the extent to which the distribution of RTCs coincides with other information on cod distribution for example abundance estimates from observer trips and research surveys.

Figure 9 presents data from onboard observer analysis showing that the highest cod catch rates occur in an arc around the north of Scotland and extending across and south-eastwards to the Norwegian Deeps.

27


28

Figure 9: Cod catch rates from MS(S) and SFF Observer Data, 2009

-15 -10 -5 0 5

54

56

58

60

62

Other trawlers, total cod catch by rectangle

Long

La

t

Catch (kg)

67470

53970

40480

26990

13490

0

Source: Authors Data obtained from International Bottom Trawl Surveys (IBTS) show a similar distributional pattern (Figure 10). The close correspondence between the distributions shown by these data and the 2009 RTC distribution which are also mainly located in an arc around the north of Scotland, suggests that the RTCs are broadly in the most appropriate parts of the sea. A similar area was identified for the EU wide emergency cod closure in 2001, but this was criticised for being overly large and indiscriminately closing all locations, rather than identifying the localised high density areas which RTCs are capable of. A consequence of the 2001 global closure was that considerable effort was displaced into other areas. In the case of the RTCs a more focussed approach is possible without requiring such wholesale shifts of effort, but an essential underlying requirement is that sufficient movement takes place to reduce the net mount of cod caught.


Figure 10: Distribution charts of cod ages 1-3+ in the North Sea from the International Bottom Trawl Survey in Quarter 1, 2006-2008.

Source: Authors

29


30

5.3. Evaluating changes in fishermen's behaviour under the Conservation Credits RTC scheme

Observations of movement out of RTCs areas can be simply demonstrated. Figure 11 shows the number of vessels operating in an area which will become an RTC, and the period following its establishment. Vessels identified by coloured symbols have moved out of the pink (RTC) area in a number of other directions. This rather superficial qualitative observation has been developed in a new approach described below. Figure 11: (left) Distribution of VMS pings of vessels operating in an area which

will become an RTC; (right) pings recorded during the period the RTC was in place.

Source: Authors Under the terms of the Conservation Credits scheme, a vessel which is fishing in an area (an RTC) that is closed during that fishing trip or shortly thereafter must move away and fish elsewhere for the 21-day duration of the closure. VMS position and speed data have been used to identify such vessels for 2008 and 2009, and estimates have been made of the average distances between the closed areas and the areas to which vessels move. It is also important that we are able to determine whether such vessels have made a significant effort to move away from cod: if they simply move from an RTC to another area of high cod density, then the closure is unlikely to have a positive effect on overall abundance. Landings records can be used to evaluate this, but these may not reflect catch (and therefore abundance) very directly if discarding changes through the year. To address this, a spatial monthly measure was generated of how prevalent cod are across the North Sea and West of Scotland: the Relative Cod Importance Index (RCII). This is based on information from research vessel surveys and at-sea observations from commercial vessels which is interpolated between observation points and between months to provide a cod distribution index which changes smoothly with time and space. Examples are given in Figure 12 (for January 2008 and 2009), which (in common with earlier figures) demonstrate that cod are broadly concentrated in an arc around the northern North Sea.


Figure 12: Maps of relative cod importance index for January 2008 and 2009

Source: Authors

Once the RCII is generated, it is possible to estimate the importance of cod in the area of the RTC at the time during which a vessel is fishing there, along with the importance of cod in the area to which that vessel subsequently moves. The difference between these two estimates can then be used to determine whether the vessel is moving away from cod or not. If the difference is negative, then the vessel would appear to be trying to move away from cod; if the difference is positive, the vessel seems to be moving towards cod (whether deliberately or not). This approach has been applied to the VMS data of all vessels landing into Scotland during 2009. This is still a work in progress as aspects of the VMS data need to be refined, but the interim results suggest that vessels did indeed move away from cod during the first and third quarters of 2009. The results are currently inconclusive for the second and fourth quarters, but this should improve with further work.

5.4. Evaluating differences in the amounts of cod landed as a result of RTC

For the net movements of fishermen to translate into reductions in the amount of cod caught, the subsequent fishing activity needs to take place in areas of reduced cod abundance; otherwise fishing mortality cannot be reduced. For a full evaluation of this, observed catches on board vessels affected by closures prior to and subsequent to the closures would be needed. In addition, monitoring of the rest of the fleet is required since any reduction in cod catch through RTCs would be ineffective if the remainder of boats moved into areas of higher abundance. This information is not available. Furthermore, an understanding of the behaviour of cod (for example residency time) is also required in order to estimate effectiveness of the closures. Research towards understanding this is discussed in section 5.6. In the absence of catch data, preliminary indications of the effectiveness of closures can be obtained from the recorded landings data of vessels observed through VMS to have been operating in the areas of closures prior to and during closures. Examination of the relationship between landings and catches made during the Scottish observer programme work suggests that landings do provide a good indication of likely catch.

31


32

Analysis of the more limited 2008 RTCs was performed for evaluation at the autumn meeting of STECF in 2008. This included data for the first 12 RTCs and the estimated average landings of vessels observed in RTC areas (prior to the latter being implemented) and the subsequent landings of the same vessels after moving away. Table 1 shows that in most RTCs there was a reduction in catch, and that a substantial proportion of vessels exhibited this. Overall for 2008 there was an estimated reduction of 61 tonnes which translates to a reduction in catch of 153 tonnes (based on the observed quite high discard rates in 2008 of 60%). STECF commented that the initiative and results were encouraging but that the numbers of RTCs needed to be scaled up in order to have a meaningful effect on mortality. Table 1: RTC results – Average landings of vessels observed in RTCs prior to the

latter being closed and the average landings of the same vessels during the closure. The bold text indicates RTCs which resulted in reduced landings

7 DAY PERIOD PRE-CLOSURE

PERFORMANCE OF BOATS, FIRST TRIP DURING CLOSURE

CLOSURE AVG.

LANDING (t)

AVG. LANDING

(t)

CHANGE IN LANDING

(t)

NO. BOATS LANDING LOWER

TOTAL NO. OF BOATS

PROPORTION LOWER

1 4.72 0.25 -4.47 3 3 1.00

2 2.08 0.51 -1.57 5 6 0.83

3 0.23 1.44 1.12 1 6 0.17

4 1.06 0.57 -0.49 2 7 0.29

5 0.90 0.79 -0.11 1 4 0.25

6 1.03 0.26 -0.77 2 2 1.00

7 0.24 0.37 0.13 2 5 0.40

8 3.44 1.12 -2.32 2 3 0.67

9 5.58 3.32 -2.26 1 1 1.00

10 3.67 1.47 -2.20 9 10 0.90

11&12 4.76 1.47 -3.29 9 13 0.69

Total - - - 37 60

Source: Authors


In 2009 a much larger number of RTCs (144) were put in place during the course of the year. For brevity the results presented here in Table 2 are restricted to a summary of the annual landings of vessels affected by RTCs just prior to and during the closure period. A quarterly breakdown is also provided. Overall the landings reduction estimated for the year was about 431 tonnes which translates to a reduced catch of about 707 tonnes (based on observations of discards suggesting a much lower rate in 2009 of about 35%). Interestingly the quarterly results show that the effectiveness of the RTCs was not the same throughout the year and that in the fourth quarter the landings actually increased a little. Table 2: RTC results – landings of cod by vessels affected by RTCs in 2009 prior to

the RTC closure compared with during the closure. Annual figures and a quarterly breakdown are provided.

PRE-RTC

LANDINGS (t) DURING RTC

LANDINGS (t) REDUCTION (t)

Annual 2127.0 1696.1 430.9

Q1 526.0 412.4 113.6

Q2 642.4 560.1 82.3

Q3 756.9 530.5 235.5

Q4 192.7 193.2 -0.5

Source: Authors

5.5. Estimating overall catch trajectories in the main fishing gear categories

Although it is not possible to fully evaluate the contribution of individual measures in the Conservation Credits scheme (including RTCs), it has been possible to examine more closely the catch uptake as a whole and as part of effort management. The Scottish RTC system is an element of the Scottish Conservation Credits scheme. This overarching scheme has the objective of reducing fishing mortality on cod by the Scottish fleet by the amount required from the cod recovery plan (now long term management plan), a 25% reduction in 2009. The fishing mortalities resulting from all fleets prosecuting a given stock of cod are estimated by ICES assessment working groups. Cod assessments of relevance to the Scottish fleet are conducted by the working group on the assessment of demersal stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) and the working group for the Celtic Seas ecoregion (WGCSE). The assessments make short term projections to estimate levels of removals that would be consistent with the cod long term management plan. Starting with the projected removals for 2009 from the most recent

33


34

assessment and taking a proportion equal to the proportion of TAC that is the quota for cod held by Scottish producer organisations, defines a target level of cod catch for the Scottish fleet. Using information from one or more national discard observer programmes, the assessment working groups also estimate an average rate of discarding by the international fleet. The level of catch resulting after applying the international discarding rate to landings made by the Scottish fleet can be used as a second benchmark against which to judge the level of Scottish catch. Either benchmark can be the more demanding depending on the size of TAC relative to the working groups' estimate of recent cod removals. Landings totals for the gear categories TR1 and TR2 (as defined in Annex IIA of Regulation (EC) 43/20095) were compiled monthly and for each category a discard rate was calculated by quarter using results from the Scottish discard observer programme. To compare Scottish fleet catch and discard rates to the defined benchmarks, ‘catch trajectory plots’ can be produced. Because discard rates are calculated quarterly these can be produced on a quarterly basis, providing an opportunity for measures under the Conservation Credits scheme to be adjusted if indications are that target levels may be exceeded, or indeed if results indicate the measures in place are restricting cod catch to an unnecessary degree. A catch trajectory plot for the full year for the North Sea area is given in Figure 13. Figure 13: Trajectory of cumulative Scottish North Sea cod landings and discards

2 4 6 8 10 12

0

5000

10000

15000

Month

Ton

nes

Lnds quota

Catch quota

F=0.75*F08 quota

Source: Authors 5 http://eur-lex.europa.eu, Regulation (EC) 43/2009



Figure 13 incorporates discards raised from discard rates for all sizes of cod, using landings data from the Scottish Government’s “Fishery Information Network” (FIN) database. Coloured horizontal bands in the figure below (moving from lowest to highest band) represent at their upper boundaries annual limits for:

"Lnds quota": landings assigned to Scottish producer organisations;

"Catch quota": derived by adding discards to the landings quota by applying the 2009 annual discard rate for the international fleet estimated by ICES (37%);

"F=0.75*F08 quota": Scottish quota share of the cod removals predicted by ICES to deliver a 25% reduction in F in 2009 compared to 2008.

The bold black line represents cumulative landings, whilst the top of hatched area represents cumulative catch using raised discard observations, and the top of the pale blue-grey area represents cumulative catch assuming the 2009 annual discard rate for the international fleet estimated by ICES (37%). Results suggest Scottish catch has been kept close to its limits.

5.6. Ongoing scientific development related to RTCs Estimating the persistence of fished aggregations of cod in both time and space is an important first step to developing appropriate models of the potential consequences of spatial management actions. In this section we report on an investigation into site fidelity by cod using tagging studies conducted by MS(S). A combination of both historic tag-recapture experiments and recent electronic data storage tag (DST) deployments were used to estimate site fidelity over a range of geographical ranges. Information on net movements was derived from tag-recapture data from releases undertaken between 1960 and 1984 throughout the northern North Sea and Scottish west coast (ICES VIa). This data includes release positions from scientific surveys and the subsequent recapture position reported by fishermen. Further details of the data are given in Wright et al. (2006a). A total of 6277 recapture records were available to examine the proportion of tagged fish recaptured by day within a given distance from the release site. The data were stratified into <3.75, 7.5, 15, 30 and 60 nm strata, since 3.75 nm is the minimum distance that a cod in the centre of a temporary closure would have to travel to leave the area. As cod behaviour may be affected by the tag and release process (Neat et al., 2009), estimates of movements over many weeks to months from electronic tags should provide a more reliable indication of site fidelity. However, as these tags only record temperature and depth (pressure), movements have to be inferred from a tidal geolocation model which uses the sinusoid pressure signal of a resting cod to compute its most probable location (Berx et al., 2008). A total of 47 DSTs with ~10000 days of records were used from North Sea cod releases based on published (Neat et al., 2006; Wright et al., 2006b) and unpublished data sources. As cod do not move continuously but instead appear to reside in an area for some days and then move on to the next area, the DST records for all individuals were sub-divided into events beginning with no movement and ending on the subsequent geolocation estimate before the next cessation in activity. By this means 303 events were generated and again the data were stratified by distance and time similar to the tag-recapture data. However, as the scale of the RTCs is at the very limit of the geolocation model resolution, this data cannot be used to identify cod resident in RTCs.

35


36

Whilst cod are capable of rapid and extensive migrations, the average distance from a tag release site by 21 days was 17 nm and no movement was detected in DST records on 80% of days. Both tag-recapture and DST results suggested that most cod are unlikely to remain within the confines of the current scale of closures for more than a week. By 21 days 27% of tagged cod would be remaining within 3.75 nm from the release site according to the tag-recapture data (Figure 14). Fidelity appears to be much higher for an area four times the size (i.e. 15 x 15 nm) and hence 7.5 nm from the centre to the edge. According to DST results, 70 % of cod would be expected to have remained in such an area after 21 days. Of course larger areas would only be useful if high densities of cod were found to extend over these larger areas. This work is a preliminary step to providing scientific advice on closures and clearly estimating residency in such small areas with the available tagging data is a problem. Small scale acoustic telemetry studies, as have been conducted on cod by DFU Aqua, Denmark, may help in the interpretation of our larger scale tagging results. Further work is also needed on the geographic scale of aggregation and the relative contribution of protected aggregations to the whole stock, before it is possible to advise on the optimal geographical scale and duration of temporary closures. Ongoing analyses of VMS and haul by haul catch reports may provide suitable information for this purpose. As a result of this analysis, the scale of real time closures under the Conservation Credits scheme was increased from 7.5 x 7.5 nm to 15 x 15 nm from 1 July 2010. Figure 14: Proportion of tagged cod remaining within a given distance of the

release site over time

Source: Authors


5.7. Responses to the Scottish RTC Scheme The underlying principles of RTCs are broadly supported by stakeholders, and were welcomed by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in its response6 to the Commission Non-Paper on the implementation of the policy to reduce unwanted bycatch and eliminate discards in European fisheries as an important and flexible step forward. They were also welcomed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), who, in their evidence7 on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to the House of Lords European sub-committee, stated "…real-time closures have been overlooked for far too long by the UK Government. Real-time closures have only just been recently introduced on a voluntary basis by the Scottish whitefish fishermen to avoid areas of spawning and juvenile cod. They have been a successful part of Norwegian fisheries management for years and deserve much stronger societal support”. The implementation of RTCs in the Scottish Conservation Credits scheme also enjoys the support of the majority of the fishing industry, with Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) Chief Executive, Bertie Armstrong, quoted8 as saying: "The Scottish fishing industry is fully committed to sustainable harvesting [...] and industry innovation is seen as taking the European lead in such matters as more selective fishing gear, real-time closure of maritime areas to protect stocks and international accreditation of our fisheries.". Negative views of the scheme were generally limited to aspects relating to restrictions on fishing gear construction, particularly in a "multi-species" context, in fisheries where cod were a bycatch, rather than the RTC system.

6 http://assets.wwf.org.uk/ Commission Non-Paper 7 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ Memorandum RSPB 8 http://www.sff.co.uk/ Scottish Marine Bill

37

http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf__discard_policyjune2008_final_1.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/929/929we15.htm

http://www.sff.co.uk/search_article.php?articleid=139&keyword=%5C


38


6. STRUCTURES REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL REAL TIME CLOSURE IMPLEMENTATION

KEY FINDINGS

Within the European Union, no common system of RTCs has been established, but a number of member states have begun national RTC programmes. Greater success would likely be delivered through the integration of schemes, enforcement and incentivisation to ensure a level playing field across member states.

Currently, technical limitations holding the scheme back are the resolution of landings data (currently considered reliable at the trip level) and the coverage of VMS data. The roll out of electronic logbooks and the extension of VMS to vessels below 15m length could address these problems.

Effective two-way communication with the industry is essential to ensure buy-in and acceptance by stakeholders from the industry, and to enable administrators to receive feedback on the effectiveness and perception of RTC schemes.

6.1. Legal Within the UK (Scotland, and England and Wales) schemes operate within a system which relies not on the concept of breaking the law and criminal offence sanctions but rather on administrative penalties which deny access to the benefits of the scheme. In principle, a regulatory approach with recourse to the courts could be used but this would be cumbersome and insufficiently ‘real-time’ to be effective. It is believed that the incentive based approach offers advantages. RTCs for North Sea juvenile gadoids are now backed by European regulation under the management of stocks shared with Norway. There are also commitments for member states to deploy RTCs in the eastern English Channel in the second half of 2010, should cod catch uptake targets not be met (paragraph 2.3, appendix to annexe I, of Council Regulation 23/2010, fixing fishing opportunities for 2010). It will be interesting to observe the experiences arising in this more structured legal framework.

6.2. Governance and Administrative Full details of the Conservation Credits scheme applying in 2010 can be found on the Scottish Government website (link provided above). Governance aspects of Conservation Credits and of the RTC element have been given high priority and a key element of this is the Conservation Credits Steering Group (CCSG). This group, comprising managers, scientists, fishermen and NGOs meets regularly to discuss and decide on the development of management measures employed under the Conservation Credits scheme. The group has an important role in consultation and providing feedback from stakeholders and the shared responsibility encourages constructive debate. The ‘real-time’ nature of the process requires an understanding and acceptance of the importance of introducing or adjusting rules rapidly and so decisions are taken in a timely fashion. The CCSG is supported by a

39


40

secretariat provided by Marine Scotland and implementation of measures is through the Marine Scotland framework. Provision of information on the scheme is important to encourage continued buy-in from fishermen, to inform day to day operational matters and to evaluate progress. Preparing briefing documents and presenting output results forms a key part of the groups work and strategic decisions on RTCs flow from this work. A critical part of the process is support from industry leadership and dissemination of results by them to their membership and wider forums (for example an industry talk on "Real Time Closures – the Scottish experience" at NSRAC, 16-17 February 20099).

6.3. Technical RTC schemes rely on up to date intelligence on the spatial distribution of the resource which is subject to protection. The inspection of commercial vessels while fishing offers one source of information. Self reporting may be useful but despite regular requests for information on high abundance from vessels in the Scottish scheme, this has not often been provided. The Scottish scheme is heavily reliant on VMS technology linked to up to date recordings of landings. It requires an ability to process and analyse both VMS and landings data quickly and on a regular basis through a team involving technologists, data processors, software programmers and fishery managers. At present VMS coverage is restricted to larger vessels, which may provide an incomplete picture. This will gradually improve as the technology is extended to more categories. Electronic logbooks will be available on over 24 metre vessels from July 2010. The UK is currently involved in a type approval process for software suppliers. The roll out of the electronic logbook systems to other vessels will be in line with the requirements of Council Regulation 1224/200910. A further drawback in the process is that landings do not necessarily reflect catch and may not therefore give a true picture of spatial distribution. Moves towards the use of CCTV onboard vessels should increasingly enhance the opportunities to assess catches but also requires significant monitoring resources. The methods described essentially focus on up to date encounters of the fishing fleets with high fish abundance, and one advantage of the VMS approach is that all fishing operations are 'captured' and included in the analysis of where RTCs should be placed. Arguably, however, the methods above are already somewhat ‘late’ since fishing on the aggregation has already taken place. Ideally an independent sampling system could provide information ahead of the encounters, definitively identify the highest abundances and also enable a more refined system of opening closures based on information about subsequent changes in abundance. This would, however, be very costly. If the definition of successful implementation includes assessment of overall success in modifying fleet catch rates, it is necessary to have an observer programme capable of allowing discarding rates to be assessed. If in year monitoring of this output measure is desired, then an observer programme with sufficient coverage to allow quarterly estimation

9 http://www.acsfilmfest.co.uk/nsrac/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wpc5_wd20090216_MPark.ppt 10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu , Council Regulation 1224/2009

http://www.acsfilmfest.co.uk/nsrac/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wpc5_wd20090216_MPark.ppt



of discard rates together with processes allowing recording of official landings in a timely manner are required. The introduction of CCTV discussed above may provide improvements. The Scottish Government has established a website giving up to date information, (especially ‘live’ closures). This information technology ensures the scheme is transparent and open for all to see, and this is considered to assist with buy-in and acceptance of the scheme by stakeholders from the industry side and those with other interests in the marine environment.

41


42


7. POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES

KEY FINDINGS

There are numerous applications in which RTC schemes can be deployed to protect events of limited scale or duration, such as spawning aggregations, capture of lower value animals in poor condition or toxic phytoplankton blooms which pose a risk to public health.

RTCs could also be used to “fine tune” quota uptake in multi-species fisheries, reducing discards by encouraging effort to move away from areas where species which have experienced high uptake are known to be abundant, to areas where the catch composition is likely to be more appropriate.

In the context of Conservation Credits, RTCs have been used to encourage avoidance of cod and thereby reduce fishing mortality across the population. There are numerous other potential uses for RTCs in fisheries management, some of which have not to our knowledge been used so far.

7.1. Protection of spawning events Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) is a deep-water fish, related to cod, which forms large spawning aggregations on the shelf-slope to the west of the British Isles and forms part of a valuable international trawl fishery. It is recognised as a vulnerable stock by the European Commission, due to its susceptibility to sequential depletion. In 2009 large areas of ICES subdivision VIa were subject to special regulations such that if vessels fishing within them caught 6 or more tonnes of blue ling they were required to leave the area (Figure 15). This impacted on fishers targeting other species in the area. A system of RTCs whereby reports of spawning blue ling in catches could result in a smaller targeted closure would be a more flexible option and enjoy greater industry support.

7.2. Use in a multi-species context Current systems of output controls such as TAC limits are difficult to implement in multi-species fisheries where there are multiple components of the catch which fishers are targeting, such as the beam trawl fishery in the southern North Sea, which targets plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and sole (Solea solea). These species may have different levels of quota uptake or allocation. It is possible to imagine a scheme whereby if catch uptake of one species nears its quota limits, RTCs could be deployed in areas where catch composition information suggests this species is abundant, relative to other species in the fishery, as a means of reducing mortality and avoiding discards.

43


44

Figure 15: Closures implemented in 2009 to protect spawning aggregations of blue ling

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2

5455

56

57

58

59

60

Longitude

La

titu

de

2005001000150020

00

VIaVIa

Source: Authors

7.3. Protection of transitory events in the broader ecosystem Many of the threats to Europe’s marine resources require cooperation and collective action to be tackled effectively. It is within this context that an Integrated European Maritime Policy is being developed, which aims to provide a coherent framework for joined up governance of the marine environment. The environmental pillar for this integrated policy is Directive 2008/56/EC on establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, known as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and formally adopted by the European Union in June 2008. The MSFD outlines a transparent, legislative framework for an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities which supports the sustainable use of marine goods and services. The overarching goal of the Directive is to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) by 2020 across Europe’s marine environment. Amongst the high-level descriptors of GES, the MSFD requires all elements of the marine food web to occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity. As we manage human activity rather than the ecosystem, a system of RTCs could be envisaged which protected, for example, migratory marine mammals, or the feeding grounds of a seabird colony following a successful hatching season.


7.4. Protection of Quality and Safety of Product As previously mentioned, several countries have measures whereby fisheries can be closed for limited periods to protect public health when fish and shellfish safety may be impacted, for example, due to toxic phytoplankton blooms, a pollution incident such as the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill, where areas are being closed and opened in real time using satellite imagery, radar and aerial data (Figure 16), or increased surface water run-off contaminating seafood with fecal bacteria. Closures designed to ensure the safety of the product could be extended by the industry to support the value of the product too. There are clear examples of where catches containing significant proportions of poor quality fish and shellfish, such as soft, post-moulting Nephrops or post-spawning blue whiting and herring obtain a significantly lower market price than those obtained from better quality stocks. The rational exploitation of resources and "catching to the market" would improve economic outputs of the fishing industry and improve long-term sustainability. Figure 16: Fishery closures in the Gulf of Mexico, 7 June 2010.

Source: NOAA

45


46


8. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF REAL TIME CLOSURES

8.1. Advantages

Immediate and command respect for being relevant to what is happening at the time

Responsive

Simple to implement and, using VMS, to observe compliance

Potentially act as an ongoing reminder of the need to avoid cod

Can be tailored to stock requirements

Given adequate technical and logistic support the measure is straightforward and efficient to implement

Relatively easy to monitor and assess

8.2. Disadvantages

Rely on behaviours of vessels after the implementation

Presently only as good as the inspection rate and/or the information gained from landings data

Avoidance of RTCs may require increased time for steaming between fishing events, lowering fuel efficiency

Results in a displacement of effort onto other species

Implementation and administration carries a significant overhead

Currently implemented on a state by state basis, no overall coordination or compulsion to comply with RTCs proposed by other states

47


48


REFERENCES

Baudron A, Ulrich C, Nielsen JR, Boje J (2010) Comparative evaluation of a mixed-fisheries effort-management system based on the Faroe Islands example. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67 (in press).

Berx B, Neat FC, Pedersen MC, Wright PJ, Proctor R (2008) Increasing confidence in tidal-based geolocation models by including temperature information: the case of cod in the northern North Sea. ICES CM 2008/P:07.

Garstang W (1900) The impoverishment of the sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 6: 1-69.

Neat FC, Wright PJ, Zuur AF, Gibb IM, Gibb FM, Tulett D, Righton DA, Turner RJ (2006) Residency and depth movements of a coastal group of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.). Marine Biology, 148: 643-654.

Neat FC, Breen M, Cook RM, Gibb IM, Wright PJ (2009) Electronic tags reveal behaviour of captured and discarded fish. Journal of Fish Biology, 74: 715-721

NPFMC - North Pacific Fishery Management Council (2004). In: D. Witherell (Editor), Managing our nation’s fisheries: past, present, and future. Proceedings of a conference on fisheries management in the United States, November 2003, Washington D.C., N. Pac. Fish. Manage. Counc., Anchorage: 129–150.

Wilson J, Rilling C, Desfosse J, Brewster-Geisz K (2007) Temporal and spatial analyses of pelagic longline time/area closures in the Gulf of Mexico to reduce discards of bluefin tuna. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers, ICCAT 60(4): 1179-1236.

Wright PJ, Galley E, Gibb IM, Neat FC (2006a) Fidelity of adult cod to spawning grounds in Scottish waters. Fisheries Research 77: 148-158

Wright PJ, Neat FC, Gibb FM, Gibb IM, Thordarson H (2006b) Evidence for metapopulation structuring in cod from the west of Scotland and North Sea. Journal of Fish Biology 69: 181-199

Zeller D, Reinert J (2004) Modelling spatial closures and fishing effort restrictions in the Faroe Islands marine ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 172: 403-420.

49


50


Culture and Education

Fisheries



Directorate-General For internal Policies

POLICY DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

RoleThe Policy Departments are research units that provide specialised advice to committees, inter-parliamentary delegations and other parliamentary bodies.

Policy AreasAgriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education FisheriesRegional DevelopmentTransport and Tourism

DocumentsVisit the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

B POLICY DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

PHOTO CREDIT: iStock International Inc., Photodisk, Phovoir

B Directorate-General For internal Policies



Fisheries

Culture and EducationCulture and Education
