EFEP European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan: Northern Seas

1
EFEP European Fisheries Ecosystem PlanNorthern
Seas

• EC Study contract Q5RS-2001-01685

2
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 Marine Research Institute - Iceland
Partner 5 Netherlands Institute for Fisheries
Research the Netherlands
3
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.
4
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.

5
The EFEPs 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.
WP4 Assess the mortality of North Sea ecosystem
components.
WP3 Parameterise and review conceptual models of
the North Sea ecosystem. Examine ecosystem
metrics.
WP5 Examine uncertainty in models. Simulate
management schemes.
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.
6
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

7
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?
8
(No Transcript)
9

• 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.
• 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.

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. Its not
fishermen because no one has fished it.
10
The management preferences of UK stakeholders
11

• 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.

12
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

13
WP2

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

The North Sea is a semi-enclosed, highly
productive (gt300 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.

14
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.
15
Direct effects Indirect effects
Size-selective removal of fish change population structure
Size-selective removal of fish recruitment
Size-selective removal of fish genetics
Removal of fish food web implications
Removal of fish species replacement
Removal of fish change species assemblage
Removal of fish extinction
By-catch and discarding reduced adult abundance
By-catch and discarding change species assemblage / dominance
Ghost fishing
The effect of fishing on target species
16
Direct effects Indirect effects
Size-selective removal change population structure
Size-selective removal recruitment implications
Size-selective removal genetic
Size-selective removal change species assemblage
By-catch removal change species assemblage
By-catch removal genetic
By-catch removal food-web implications
Discarding change species assemblage
Ghost fishing
Fatal encounters with gears change species assemblage
Fishing disturbance (non-fatal injury) change species assemblage
Disturbance (no injury) change species assemblage
The effect of fishing on non- target species
17
Direct effects Indirect effects
Structural simplification hydrological changes
Structural simplification reduced refugia value
Structural simplification destruction/damage to biogenic structures
Resuspension of sediment smothering of adjacent areas
Resuspension of sediment removal of fresh detritus
Disturbance to sub-surface layers Alteration of benthic-pelagic nutrient flux
Disturbance to sub-surface layers Release sediment-bound toxins
The effect of fishing on habitats
18
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE Effects on target population Effects on non-target population Habitat modification (direct) Habitat modification (nutrient flux)
TECHNICAL
? mesh size 0.5 0.5 0 0
? grid panels 0.5 0.5 0 0
? reduced penetration 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
? gear types 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
EFFORT 1 0.5 0 0
QUOTA 1 0.5 0 0
DISCARD MANAGEMENT 0.5 0.5 0 0
CLOSED AREAS (0.5) 1 (0.5) 1 1 1
KEY 0 no protection, 0.5 some protection, 1
fully protected (1 fully protected in closed
areas)
19
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

20
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.

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
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 Tromsø, Norway
  (Institute of Social Science)
• Runs Sept 2003 - June 2004.

25
WP7

• Feedback the results of management scenarios to
  stakeholders to elicit views.
• Develop a draft Fisheries Ecosystem Plan for the
  North Sea.
• 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

26
Summary

• Understand how fishing affects the ecosystem.
• Understand how management regimes may be used to
  limit these effects.
• Understand stakeholders wishes.
• Communicate and listen.

27
EFEP activities and contacts
Area of investigation Leader Contact details
Stakeholder opinions Knut Mikalsen (Norway) knutm_at_sv.uit.no
Management strategies Chris Frid Tim Gray (UK) C.L.J. Frid_at_ncl.ac.uk T.S.gray_at_ncl.ac.uk
Modelling Bill Silvert (Portugal) wsilvert_at_milpah.com
Metrics Stefan Aki Ragnarsson (Iceland) steara_at_hafro.is
Food web Catherine Scott (UK) C.L.Scott_at_ncl.ac.uk
Habitat effects Odette Paramor (UK) O.A.L.Paramor_at_ncl.ac.uk
Benthic-pelagic coupling
Removals Gerjan Piet (Netherlands) G.J.Piet_at_rivo.dlo.nl
O.A.L.Paramor_at_ncl.ac.uk
Odette Paramor (UK)