EFEP European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan: Northern Seas

EC Study contract Q5RS-2001-01685

Partners

Partner 1:

University of Newcastle - UK School of Marine Science and Technology School of Geography, Politics and Sociology

Partner 2:

Instituto Português de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar - Portugal

Partner 3:

University of Tromsø - Norway

Partner 4:

Iceland Marine Research Institute -

Partner 5:

Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research – the Netherlands

Overall aim

: To provide a management plan which will take account of the ecosystem effects of fishing, provide adequate controls on exploitation and ensure the viability of the European fishing industry.

To develop a FEP we need to:

 Better understand how fishing affects the ecosystem.

 Understand how management regimes may be used to limit these effects.

 Understand stakeholders’ wishes.  Communicate and listen.

The EFEP’s work packages.

WP1 Review stakeholders’ preferences for marine ecosystem-based management techniques.

WP2 Characterise the physical and biological environment of the North Sea and investigate existing ecological models. WP5 Examine uncertainty in models. Simulate management schemes.

WP3 Parameterise and review conceptual models of the North Sea ecosystem. Examine ecosystem metrics. WP6 Formulate and apply models to provide quantitative forecasts for management scenarios. Re-assess stakeholders’ preferences for management techniques. WP7 Draft a European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan: A case study of the North Sea. WP4 Assess the mortality of North Sea ecosystem components.

WP1

 Consult and develop links with fishers and other stakeholders in fisheries communities/industry.

 Review management regimes which protect ecosystem functioning.  Ask the stakeholders about their preferred management regimes.

 Led by the University of Newcastle, UK (School of Geography, Politics and Sociology)  Ends June 2003

WP1

 Interview stakeholders from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.

 Semi-structured, qualitative interviews (30-60 minutes long) to maximise the scope of the information collected.

Questions: ● Are you optimistic/pessimistic about particular North Sea fish stocks and the health of the North Sea ecosystem?

● What do you regard as the main threat(s) to the ecosystem?

● How could management policies and management structure be improved?

6% 7% 4% 3% 17%

The % of stakeholders interviewed in each stakeholder category (UK, Norway & Netherlands)

20% 43% Fishers & Fishers' Representatives Fishing-Related Industries Regulators Scientists Social Scientists ENGOs Local Government

 Widespread acknowledgement that the status of the North Sea fish stocks is poor.

● Over-fishing is a key contributor to the situation. ● Environmental factors such as global warming and increased UV light are equally as important. “Canada closed the Grand Banks in 1992. A survey was carried out last year and the stocks were actually worse than when they closed it. It’s not fishermen because no one has fished it.”  Most fishers were unfamiliar with the term ecosystem and unwilling to comment on its status.

 Most fishers were optimistic about the long-term future of fish stocks and the resilience of the North Sea, whilst scientists were much more pessimistic.

The management preferences of UK stakeholders 25 20 15 10 5 0 Q uo ta s In Favour Against IT Q M s ul ti Sp D ec ec ie om s m is si on in D g ay s A t S ea Te ch ni ca l M ea su re D s is ca rd B an C lo se d Ar ea s

 Universal rejection of the CFP. • “…you can go to sea as much as you want, catch as much as you want. The only restriction is on what you land is obviously no good for conservation at all.”  Regulations too complicated and uneven.

 Irregular enforcement of regulations across Europe.

 Management needs to be more responsive to local needs. • Many stakeholders would like to be included in management and stock assessment. • Feel current management is too distant.

 Poor relationship between the players.

• A lack of trust and respect between fishermen, scientists, legislators and managers makes dialogue and communication difficult.

WP2

 Characterise the biological and physico chemical environment of the North Sea which supports the fishery.

 Develop a conceptual model of the North Sea food web.

 Led by the University of Newcastle, UK (Dove Marine Laboratory)  Completed September 2002 • report available on the EFEP website

WP2

 Characterise the biological and physico-chemical environment of the North Sea.

The North Sea is a semi-enclosed, highly productive (>300 g C m -2 yr -1 ), relatively shallow, temperate sea. A variety of human activities affect the marine ecosystem: • nutrient enrichment, • coastal developments, • the fisheries.

Fisheries

 Fishing activity represents the largest human impact on the ecosystem of the North Sea.

Direct effects

: Those which are caused as an immediate effect of fishing.

e.g. removal of target and non-target species, suspension of sediment, direct injury to epifauna and benthos.

Indirect effects

: Those which occur secondary to the direct effects.

e.g. trophic effects, provision of food to scavengers, changes to the nutrient flux.

Direct effects

Size-selective removal of fish

Indirect effects

change population structure recruitment genetics Removal of fish food web implications species replacement change species assemblage extinction reduced adult abundance By-catch and discarding change species assemblage / dominance Ghost fishing The effect of fishing on target species

Direct effects

Size-selective removal By-catch removal

Indirect effects

change population structure recruitment implications genetic change species assemblage change species assemblage genetic food-web implications change species assemblage Discarding Ghost fishing Fatal encounters with gears Fishing disturbance (non-fatal injury) Disturbance (no injury) change species assemblage The effect of fishing on non target species

Direct effects

Structural simplification

Indirect effects

hydrological changes reduced refugia value destruction/damage to biogenic structures Resuspension of sediment smothering of adjacent areas removal of fresh detritus Disturbance to sub-surface layers Alteration of benthic-pelagic nutrient flux Release sediment-bound toxins The effect of fishing on habitats

MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE Effects on target population Effects on non-target population Habitat Habitat modification modification (nutrient (direct) flux) TECHNICAL

● mesh size ● grid panels ● reduced penetration ● gear types

EFFORT QUOTA DISCARD MANAGEMENT CLOSED AREAS

0.5

0.5

0 0 1 1 0.5

(0.5) 1* 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

(0.5) 1*

KEY: 0 = no protection, 0.5 = some protection, 1 = fully protected (1* = fully protected in closed areas)

0 0 0.5

0.5

0 0 0 1 0 0 0.5

0.5

0 0 0 1

WP3

 Rationalise the food web into the ‘significant web’.

 Review and compare metrics which have been used to measure the state/health of the ecosystem, and if necessary, develop new metrics and/or modify existing ones.

  Led by the Marine Research Institute, Iceland Ends June 2003

WP3

The significant food web

:  Economic value • Assess in terms of monetary value to human society.

 Functional value • The provision of goods and services to the ecosystem.

 Ecological value • Examine linkages within the ecosystem.  Societal value • Those protected by conservation and harvesting legislation.

WP3

Metrics

:  To assess the sensitivity of specific ecosystem components to alterations in food web structure and whether and how these metrics may detect alterations in community/ecosystem dynamics.  To determine the nature and strength of the ecological linkages and the relative influence of fishing effects compared to other physical and abiotic factors

WP4

 To calculate the total removals from the ecosystem, including incidental mortality, and show how they relate to standing biomass, production, optimum yields, natural mortality and trophic structure.  Led by RIVO, Netherlands  Ends June 2003

WP5

 To assess the degree of uncertainty in work packages 3 and 4 and consider buffers against uncertainty in models.  Review the input from stakeholders and develop a set of possible management regimes for later testing on the ‘significant web model’.

 Led by IPIMAR, Portugal  Ends Sept 2003

WP6

 Assess the evidence for the effects of fishing on the ecosystem and match management responses, which are acceptable to stakeholders, against them.

• Develop key metrics of ecosystem health and food web functions which can be used as management targets. • Use models of food-web dynamics and fishing scenarios to investigate the response of metrics to various management schemes and fisher behaviour scenarios.

 Led by the University of Troms ø, Norway (Institute of Social Science)  Runs Sept 2003 - June 2004.

WP7

 Feedback the results of management scenarios to stakeholders to elicit views.

 Develop a

draft

the North Sea. • Fisheries Ecosystem Plan for To provide a rational basis for the development of policy to protect ecosystem function, fish stock integrity, biological diversity and economic activity.  Led by the University of Newcastle, UK (School of Marine Science and Technology)  Runs July - Dec 2004

Summary

 Understand how fishing affects the ecosystem.  Understand how management regimes may be used to limit these effects.

 Understand stakeholders’ wishes.  Communicate and listen.

Area of investigation

Stakeholder opinions Management strategies Modelling Metrics Food web Habitat effects Benthic-pelagic coupling Removals

EFEP activities and contacts

Leader Contact details

Knut Mikalsen (Norway) Chris Frid & Tim Gray (UK) [email protected]

C.L.J. [email protected]

[email protected]

Bill Silvert (Portugal) [email protected]

Stefan Aki Ragnarsson (Iceland) [email protected]

Catherine Scott (UK) Odette Paramor (UK) [email protected]

[email protected]

Odette Paramor (UK) Gerjan Piet (Netherlands) [email protected]

[email protected]