61105 Implement Ion Final Report

D deep

MAY 2010

The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) brings together world experts in the science, socioeconomics and governance of marine ecosystems to identify how humankind is changing the capacity of the Global Ocean to support life and human societies on Earth.

IPSO will use this knowledge to identify solutions to restore the health of the Ocean, so as to sustain environmental security and benefits for the present and future generations. The programme will communicate its findings to the public, industry and policymakers in order to impel the required changes in human behaviour needed to achieve these solutions.

The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) is a coalition of over 60 organizations worldwide promoting fisheries conservation and the protection of biodiversity on the high seas.

The DSCC has been actively involved in the international debate and negotiationsconcerning the adverse impacts on deep-sea biodiversity in areas beyond nationaljurisdiction from bottom trawling and other methods of bottom fishing on the high seas since 2003/2004.

A report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean

Dr Alex D. RogersMatthew Gianni

ocean

coralwww.stateoftheocean.org www.savethehighseas.org

The Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas

ThE ImPlEmEnTaTIOn Of Un RESOlUTIOnS 61/105 anD 64/72 In ThE manaGEmEnT Of DEEP-SEa fIShERIES On ThE hIGh SEaS 1ThE ImPlEmEnTaTIOn Of Un RESOlUTIOnS 61/105 anD 64/72 In ThE manaGEmEnT Of DEEP-SEa fIShERIES On ThE hIGh SEaS 1

The Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas

Dr alex David RogersScientific Director, International Programme on the State of the Ocean,Institute of Zoology,Zoological Society of london,Regent’s Park,london,nW1 4RY

matthew Giannihigh Seas fisheries Consultant,Political and Policy advisor, Deep Sea Conservation Coalitionamsterdam,The netherlands

Reviewed by Dr Richard haedrichProfessor of fisheries Biology emeritus, Department of Biology, memorial Universitynewfoundland

Citation:Rogers, a.D., Gianni, m. (2010) The Implementation of UnGa Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the management of Deep-Sea fisheries on the high Seas. Report prepared for the Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition. International Programme on the State of the Ocean, london, United Kingdom, 97pp.

Cover photograph: mediterranean roughy (hoplostethus mediterraneus), over coral garden habitat mainly comprising acanthogorgia hirsuta, faial Island, azores, north atlantic, 350m depth. © a.D. Rogers and Rebikoff foundation.

About this report:This report was prepared for the Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean.

ContentsSUmmaRY 2

SUmmaRY TaBlE 6

RECOmmEnDaTIOnS 8

InTRODUCTIOn 10

mEThODS 13

northeast atlantic Ocean 15

northwest atlantic Ocean 35

mediterranean Sea 45

Southwest atlantic Ocean 51

north Pacific Ocean 56

South Pacific Ocean 62

Southwest Indian Ocean 68

Southern Ocean 72

REFERENCES 82

ANNEXES 93

ThE ImPlEmEnTaTIOn Of Un RESOlUTIOnS 61/105 anD 64/72 In ThE manaGEmEnT Of DEEP-SEa fIShERIES On ThE hIGh SEaS2 ThE ImPlEmEnTaTIOn Of Un RESOlUTIOnS 61/105 anD 64/72 In ThE manaGEmEnT Of DEEP-SEa fIShERIES On ThE hIGh SEaS 3

1. Paragraph 204: “Some States have undertaken, or are in the process of undertaking, extensive efforts to protect some fishery habitat areas within their national jurisdiction, in particular through the establishment of protected areas. however, this is not the case on the high seas, though deep-sea habitats in these areas are extremely vulnerable and require protection.”

For the past eight years, the issue of protecting biodiversity in the deep sea in areas beyond national jurisdiction – the high seas – has been extensively debated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and in other international fora. The UNGA adopted a series of resolutions, beginning with Resolution 59/25 in 2004, which called on high seas fishing nations and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) to take urgent action to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawl fishing, in areas beyond national jurisdiction (UNGA, 2004).

relevant UnGa resolutions has not previously been conducted. This report assesses the measures and regulations adopted with regards to the four key actions in the 2006 UnGa Resolution 61/105 and reinforced by Resolution 64/72 by the following RfmOs: north East atlantic fisheries Commission (nEafC); northwest atlantic fisheries Organization (nafO); General fisheries Commission for the mediterranean (GfCm); South East atlantic fisheries Organisation (SEafO); and Commission for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources (CCamlR). The report also reviews the interim measures adopted by the states participating in the negotiation of the new north Pacific fisheries Commission (nPfC), the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation (SPRfmO), and in the Southern Indian Ocean. The review covers the measures adopted both prior to and in response to the 2006 UnGa resolution. The key findings of the report include the following.

ConduCting impaCt assessments of individual bottom fishing aCtivities The degree to which nations conducted impact assessments varied widely. Despite the call from the UnGa for impact assessments for all bottom fisheries in the high seas, some RfmOs have had no Contracting Parties conduct impact assessments (e.g. nEafC, nafO), while in other areas all Contracting Parties have submitted impact assessments (e.g. CCamlR, nPfC), or some Contracting Parties have conducted impact assessments (e.g. SPRfmO). The impact assessments undertaken also varied in their scope. In some cases, Contracting Parties conducted full risk assessments that included

details of fishing history, intended fishing operations, gear to be used, a full definition of VmEs likely to be encountered, and a full ecological risk assessment in consultation with scientists, managers and industry to assess the potential impacts of the proposed fishing operations. Other impact assessments lacked sufficient information to assess the impacts of proposed fishing operations or were based on incorrect assumptions about the presence or lack of presence of VmEs. In addition, several RfmOs have not required impact assessments for exploratory fisheries in new areas and/or existing fishing areas, despite the UnGa resolutions and faO Guidelines (faO, 2009a) that call for all deep-sea bottom fisheries to be assessed.

preventing impaCts on vulnerable marine eCosystemsRfmOs have undertaken a variety of measures to protect known or suspected VmEs within their Regulatory areas. In some cases, technical measures were adopted, such as the banning of gillnets below a certain depth or from the entire region because of the high risk of by-catch and ghost fishing (e.g. nEafC, SEafO, SPRfmO) or prohibiting of bottom trawling (CCamlR). most RfmOs have adopted spatial conservation measures to protect VmEs, although the extent and type of closures implemented by the RfmOs varied (e.g. nEafC, nafO, SEafO, GfCm and, most recently, CCamlR). Some have not closed all areas despite strong evidence of the presence of VmEs (e.g. nEafC) and some have closed very few areas despite evidence of wide-ranging destruction of VmEs by bottom fishing and potential ecological consequences, not only in terms of ecosystem function but also in terms of loss of essential habitat for species targeted by fisheries (e.g. GfCm). In most cases, closures have not been implemented because the lack of information on deep-sea ecosystems has prevented RfmOs from identifying where VmEs exist and scientific information on where some VmE types (e.g. stony corals) are likely to occur has not been used. There is also evidence that some RfmOs have limited their interpretation of which species can form VmEs (e.g. only corals or sponges; nEafC, nPfC) or what structurally constitutes a VmE (e.g. only areas where a very high density of individuals on the seabed are recognised as VmEs; nPfC). In most cases, this likely reflects the use of the few example VmEs referred to in the UnGa

a report from the United nations (Un) Secretary General in 2006 on progress on the implementation of the 2004 resolution concluded that little action had been taken to protect deep-sea ecosystems on the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fisheries despite the fact that “deep-sea habitats in these areas are extremely vulnerable and require protection”. (UnSG, 2006)1

as a result of a review by the UnGa regarding the effectiveness of the measures called for in Resolution 59/25, the UnGa called for a series of specific actions to be taken by states and RfmOs in UnGa Resolution 61/105, adopted by consensus in December 2006 (UnGa, 2007). Resolution 61/105 committed nations that authorise their vessels to engage in bottom fisheries on the high seas to take a series of actions, outlined in Paragraph 83 of the resolution (see annex I of this report). The four main action points are summarised as follows.

•Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing activities have significant adverse impacts (SaIs) on VmEs.

•To ensure that if fishing activities have significant adverse impacts they are managed to prevent such impacts, including through closing areas to bottom fishing where VmEs are known or likely to occur, or they are not authorised to proceed.

•To establish and implement protocols to cease fishing where an encounter with VmEs occurs during fishing activities, and to report such encounters so that appropriate measures can be adopted with respect to that site.

•To implement measures in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law, and to sustainably manage deep-sea fish stocks.

a set of International Guidelines for the management of Deep-Sea fisheries in the high Seas (faO Guidelines) were then negotiated under the auspices of the United nations food and agriculture Organization (Un faO) to, inter alia, further define and agree to criteria for the conduct of impact assessments of high seas bottom fisheries; identify VmEs; and then assess whether deep-sea fisheries would have “significant adverse impacts” on VmEs. The faO Guidelines were adopted in august 2008. Key elements of the Guidelines are contained in annex II of this report (faO, 2009a).

In 2009, the UnGa determined that Resolution 61/105 had not been implemented sufficiently. as a result the General assembly adopted additional provisions in Resolution 64/72 (UnGa, 2009). This resolution reaffirmed the 2006 resolution and made it clear that the measures called for in Resolution 61/105 should be implemented, consistent with the faO Guidelines, by flag states and RfmOs prior to allowing, or authorising, bottom fishing on the high seas to proceed. Resolution 64/72 placed particular emphasis on conducting impact assessments of bottom fisheries on the high seas and called on states and RfmOs to “ensure that vessels do not engage in bottom fishing until such assessments have been carried out”. Resolution 64/72 further called for stock assessments and conservation measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks and non-target species, and the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks (UnGa, 2009: Paras 119–120). Key paragraphs of both resolutions are contained in annexes I and III of this report.

a comprehensive review of the extent to which RfmOs and states have been implementing the

Summary

Argos Georgia in Port

Stanley, the Falkland

Islands. U.K. vessel

involved in fishing for

toothfish (Dissostichus

spp.) in the Ross Sea,

2008/2009. © A.D. Rogers


resolutions and faO Guidelines rather than being based on a scientific assessment of the full range of types of VmEs that may be found within a specific geographic area (faO, 2009a).

sustainably managing deep-sea fish stoCks for most of the target and by-catch species taken in deep-sea bottom fisheries on the high seas, there is insufficient information on the biology, life history, fishing mortality and geographic range of stocks of these species. This information is crucial for evaluating stock status, sustainable harvest levels and biological reference points for each population. In the absence of such data it is important that the precautionary principle is applied in the management of deep-sea fish stocks. Instead, the report found evidence that many deep-sea fish stocks were not subject to assessment or long-term management plans. furthermore, where specific management advice was provided by scientists or scientific bodies (e.g. the International Council for Exploration of the Sea [ICES]), total allowable catches (TaCs) set by RfmOs or states often exceeded advice, even where there was a significant possibility of overfishing or collapse of a fish stock. The high biodiversity of high seas fish communities means that by-catch in many high seas fisheries forms a significant proportion of overall catch. In some cases, populations of by-catch species

have collapsed to the point where they have become threatened with local extirpation or extinction under IUCn Red list criteria. In many cases, little action has been taken to manage by-catch species with a low productivity, although exceptions include skates, rays and grenadiers in antarctica and the banning of gillnets by several RfmOs, which are associated with high by-catch of species like sharks. for several of the RfmOs reviewed, there was evidence from observer information and catch data from scientific advisory bodies to RfmOs, of significant levels of misreporting, under-reporting or non-reporting of catch, particularly of by-catch species, in the deep-sea fisheries. for the other RfmOs the extent of reporting of catches is unknown. accurate reporting of catches of target and by-catch species is required to assess fishing mortality on populations and, without such data, formulation of management plans that ensure sustainable levels of exploitation are extremely difficult.

for most areas, with the possible exception of the Southern Ocean, most of these deep-sea fisheries are also not regulated sufficiently to ensure sustainable levels of exploitation of target species or mortality of non-target by-catch species. fishery management plans for deep-sea fisheries in high seas areas and the establishment of biological reference points aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fisheries are rare.

enCounter rulesThe requirement to establish rules to ensure that fishing ceases when potential VmEs are encountered is a complex area of the UnGa resolutions. Implementation of these rules is particularly problematic for deep-water regions of the high seas where there are few data available on benthic ecosystems and the interactions between bottom fishing gear and VmEs. Encounter protocols have been generally implemented as move-on rules, whereby, at a threshold weight of by-catch of VmE-associated species in a single trawl tow or set of static fishing gear, a vessel moves away from the area and reports the encounter. In some cases, the diversity of VmE-associated species is also taken into account.

a number of significant problems with move-on rules were identified in the present report. for many RfmOs, move-on rules for VmE encounters apply to only a limited number of VmE-related species, despite scientific evidence of and, sometimes, specific advice by scientific bodies on the presence of, various types of VmEs within RfmO Regulatory areas. This has resulted from RfmOs using only the example VmEs mentioned in UnGa Resolution 61/105 and the faO Guidelines or from simply using move-on rules developed by other RfmOs without considering the specific biogeography or biodiversity within a region. further, the threshold by-catch weights that trigger move-on rules are set at such a high level by many RfmOs that they are unlikely to result in triggering the action to cease fishing in the vicinity of a VmE, nor to report the presence of a VmE to the responsible management authority. many RfmOs are also using the same threshold levels for different kinds of fishing gear and for different kinds of organisms. These practices fail to take into account the different impacts of active and passive fishing gear, nor the different vulnerability and likelihood of retention of different VmE species when impacted by fishing gear. In most cases, this is likely to lead to underestimation of VmE encounters. many RfmO encounter rules require a vessel to move two nautical miles (nm) when a threshold weight of VmE organisms is caught as by-catch. This is likely to be ineffective as a conservation measure for mobile fishing gears with long tow times as it is impossible to identify where a VmE encounter occurs along a tow using commercial bottom trawl gear (commercial trawl tows are up to 20nm long). In this case the mid-point of the tow, usually the point used as the centre of the 2nm temporary

Mediterranean

roughy (Hoplostethus

mediterraneus), over coral

garden habitat mainly

comprising Acanthogorgia

hirsuta, Faial Island,

Azores, North Atlantic,

350m depth

(© A.D. Rogers and

Rebikoff Foundation.)

exclusion zone for the fishing vessel, could be as far as 10nm from the actual VmE. It is also questionable whether a 2nm move-on rule is effective for passive fishing gears, such as long-lines, where the gear may be up to 20km long, although a better idea of encounter position can be attained by recording which VmE species were caught on which segments of the gear and then estimating the area of encounter on the seabed from the position of deployment. Several RfmOs (e.g. nEafC, nafO) also use move-on rules that differentiate between fished and non-fished areas. This is inconsistent with Paragraph 23 of the faO Guidelines, which requires that deep-sea fisheries should be rigorously managed throughout all stages of their development, including experimental, exploratory and established phases.

The following table (see page 6) provides an overview of actions taken, or not taken, by existing and incipient RFMOs in relation to the key actions called for in the 2006 UNGA Resolution 61/105 and reinforced by Resolution 64/72.

summary of the findings of the report on the implementation of unga resolutions and fao guidelines by rfmosThe table shows a selection of managed and unmanaged stocks of target and by-catch species (the list is not necessarily complete for unmanaged stocks). It also shows whether scientific recommendations have been followed by RfmOs in setting sustainable harvest levels of target and by-catch species, whether or not there is evidence of non-reporting or misreporting of catches and information on closed areas, and the application of the move-on rule. Whether or not Contracting Parties have submitted environmental impact assessments for fisheries has also been included. note: a managed fishery is one where reliable catch data have been collected in recent years (last five years) and preferably where there has been fisheries-independent scientific assessment of stock status. On the basis of these data, harvest and management plans have been developed by fisheries scientists to determine TaCs appropriate to maintain the long-term sustainability of the fishery. In some cases, where data are not available, precautionary TaCs have been set. These cases are denoted with a ‘*’ symbol.


Deep-water species managed

Deep-water species not managed TACs fall within scientific recommendations

Evidence of misreporting of catches or catches being unreported

nEafC hoplostethus atlanticus; micromesistius poutassou;Sebastes mentella

alepocephalus bairdii; a. rostratus; argentina silus; Beryx spp.; Brosme brosme; Chaceon affinis; Chimaera monstrosa; Coryphaenoides rupestris; Epigonus telescopes; helicolenus dactylopterus; hydrolagus spp.; lepidopus caudatus; macrourus berglax; molva molva; Phycis blennoides; Polyprion americanus; sharks 2

no. Examples: hoplostethus atlanticus; Sebastes mentella

Yes

nafO Pandalus spp.; Penaeus spp.; Rajidae; Reinhardtius hippoglossoides; Sebastes spp.; Urophycis tenuis

anarhichas lupus; anarhichas minor; anarhichas denticulatus; antimora rostrata; Chimaeridae; Coryphaenoides rupestris; macrourus berglax; sharks

no. Examples: Sebastes spp. and skates

Yes

GfCm aristeus antennatus; merluccius merluccius; nephrops norvegicus; Parapenaeus longirostris

Sharks; others not known not identified in current report

Unknown

SEafO Beryx spp.*; Chaceon spp.*; Dissostichus eleginoides*; hoplostethus atlanticus*; Pseudopentaceros richardsoni*; sharks*

not Known Unknown Unknown

nPfC none allocyttus verrucosus; Beryx decadactylus; Beryx splendens; Chaceon spp.; Chioniocetes tanneri; Corallium spp.; Coryphaenoides spp.; Epigonus denticulatus; Erilepis zonifera; helicolenus spp., lepidocybium flavobrunneum; Paralomis spp.; Physiculus spp.; Pseudopentaceros wheeleri; sharks; Zenopsis nebulosa; and many other species

no. Example: Beryx splendens

Yes

SPRfmO none allocyttus niger; allocyttus verrucosus; Beryx spp.; Caprodon longimanus; Centroberyx affinis; Dissostichus eleginoides; Epigonus spp.; ; Etelis carbunculus; Etelis coruscans; helicolenus spp.; hoplostethus atlanticus; Jasus spp.; macrouridae; micromesistius australis; mora moro; nemadactylus spp.; neocyttus rhomboidalis; Paristiopterus labiosus; Pentaceros richardsoni; Pentaceros japonica Polyprion oxygeneios, Polyprion americanus; Pseudocyttus maculatus;Rexea spp.; Seriola lalandi; sharks

not identified in current report

Unknown

SIOfa (South Indian Ocean fisheries agreement)

none Beryx decadactylus; Beryx splendens; Epigonus spp.; hoplostethus atlanticus; Pseudopentaceros richardsoni; Plagiogeneion rubiginosum. all other low-productivity deep-sea species taken as catch or by-catch

n/a Unknown

CCamlR Champsocephalus gunnari; Dissostichus eleginoides; Dissostichus mawsoni; macrouridae; Rajiformes

antimora rostrata and other species Yes no

Closure of areas to protect VMEs

Closures for other reasons

Move-on rule Threshold Environmental impact assessments of fisheries

Coral (kg) Sponge (kg)

nEafC Yes >10 Yes Yes 60 800 no

nafO Yes >10 no Yes 60 800 no

GfCm Yes<5 but fishing banned below 1000m depth

no no n/a n/a no

SEafO Yes >10 no Yes 60 800 no

nPfC no Yes. (Spatial measures for alfonsino)

Yes 50 n/a Yes

SPRfmO no, but note that new Zealand has closed areas to its vessels

no Yes 30 (new Zealand)100 (Spain)

50 (new Zealand)1000 (Spain)

Yes

SWIO Yes Yes no n/a n/a no

CCamlR Yes Yes Yes 10 10 Yes

2 note that many of these species are listed as “regulated” by nEafC but are only covered by general measures to reduce effort on deep-sea fisheries (nEafC, 2010a). These measures have not been effective at reducing catches of deep-sea species collectively and do not represent effective management of individual species (see main report).


Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing activities have significant adverse impacts on VMEs •a standard for assessments of deep-sea

bottom fisheries on the high seas should be developed with participation of fisheries managers, the industry and scientists. Examples of comprehensive assessments exist (e.g. new Zealand assessments for CCamlR and SPRfmO) and can be built upon.

•Part of any assessment should include consideration of which VmEs are present within the geographic region in which fishing activities occur or will occur in accordance with the faO Guidelines. These should include fragile habitats with a low resilience to fishing impacts and biologically significant areas, such as spawning grounds and threatened or endangered species. Such data are often unavailable for deep-sea ecosystems so this may require investment in new research and/or synthesis of existing data.

•States whose vessels engage in bottom fisheries on the high seas should perform impact assessments consistent with the criteria agreed in the faO Guidelines (paragraphs 47, 42, 17–20) as a precondition to further authorising bottom fishing in areas that have been historically fished as well as those where exploratory fishing activities are proposed.

To ensure that if fishing activities have significant adverse impacts they are managed to prevent such impacts, including through closing areas to bottom fishing where VMEs are known or likely to occur, or they are not authorised to proceed •Where impact assessments cannot make

a clear determination that bottom fishing

will not produce SaIs on VmEs, fishing should be prohibited, particularly in respect of bottom trawl fisheries, in accordance with the precautionary approach, especially where knowledge of deep-sea ecosystems is deficient.

•all areas where VmEs are known or likely to occur should be closed to bottom fishing with immediate effect, unless or until an assessment has determined that management measures for fisheries in these areas would not result in SaIs to VmEs.

•States should implement measures sufficient to protect VmEs, even where an RfmO fails to adopt sufficient measures, e.g. if the decision-making structure of an RfmO has allowed one or more Contracting Parties to block the adoption of measures necessary to effectively implement UnGa Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72, the other Contracting Parties should nonetheless establish measures to regulate their high seas fleets to ensure the full and effective implementation of the UnGa resolutions.

•The widespread deep-sea bottom fisheries on the high seas in the 1960s to 1990s have impacted on a large area of the seabed likely to be suitable for the occurrence of VmEs. The species diversity of many such ecosystems is unknown, as is the capacity for recovery. Where there is a history of bottom fishing on the high seas then, at a minimum, states and RfmOs should establish closures of representative sites in historically fished areas where VmEs are likely to have previously occurred, to allow for recovery or regeneration of degraded areas.

•all closures of areas of seabed to bottom fishing should be considered within the framework of a network of protected areas, with clear objectives in terms of conservation and/or fisheries management.

To establish and implement protocols to cease fishing where an encounter with VMEs occurs during fishing activities, and to report such encounters so that appropriate measures can be adopted with respect to that site•The trigger thresholds for encounter rules

should be based on rigorous scientific analyses of relationships between by-catch and the presence of VmEs within the geographic region in which bottom fishing activites take place. Such analyses can be undertaken on fisheries-independent catch data or on fisheries data in combination with scientific surveys or other information. Thresholds should be specific to particular groups or size-classes of organisms and to the fishing gear and methods used.

•Evidence of by-catches of VmE indicator species at levels indicated by scientists to represent a likely encounter with a VmE should trigger an immediate (and at least temporary) cessation of fishing and closure of the area until an assessment of the area has been conducted and a determination has been made as to whether fishing can be resumed in the area without SaIs on VmEs.

•move-on rules should ensure that subsequent to an encounter there is no risk of SaIs occurring on identified VmEs as a result of continuing fishing activities. move-on distances should reflect the accuracy with which the location of a VmE has been identified.

To implement measures in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law, and to sustainably manage deep-sea fish stocks•The fish stocks targeted by deep-sea bottom

fisheries should be subject to scientific assessment of status at a minimum of every five years or more frequently where scientists and managers consider it appropriate. Based on such assessments, TaCs should be determined that ensure long-term sustainability.

•The impact of fishing mortality on by-catch

species should be assessed to determine whether there are SaIs on population viability. Where such impacts take place, management measures should be applied to ensure the long-term sustainability of populations of non-target species.

•Scientific recommendations on annual catches and other measures to ensure the sustainability of target and by-catch species should be adopted by RfmOs and states unless a clear case can be made that the information on which such decisions were based is inaccurate. This is likely to occur when new information becomes available. In situations where there is a dispute over scientific information or advice, the precautionary approach should be adopted when making management recommendations for a stock.

•high seas fisheries taking low-productivity species (either as targeted catch or as by-catch), where the long-term sustainability of the target species or viability of populations of non-target species cannot be ensured through management plans based on sound scientific assessment of the state of stocks or populations, should be closed. Such fisheries should remain closed until management plans are in place and can ensure, with a high degree of confidence and taking into account any uncertainties with regard to data or other information, that such fisheries are sustainable and consistent with ecosystem-based and precautionary approaches.

•all deep-sea bottom fisheries operating on the high seas should ensure that data on catches, utilised by-catch and discards are collected accurately and to the species level. Where there are issues of species identification then by-catch should be retained for expert identification on land or observers with the expertise to accurately evaluate catch should be carried.

•Where misreporting is suspected, systems that ensure correct reporting of catches should be implemented.

•In regions where there are few data, collaborative programmes between managers, scientists and industry should be established to help with identification of catch and by-catch species.

RecommendationsThe following are a set of recommendations for improving the implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 by RFMOs and flag states, including in regions where RFMOs are under negotiation or have not yet been established. These are organised to reflect the four key requirements of the resolutions.


The Un faO report (Bensch et al., 2008) also estimated that 285 vessels flagged to 27 countries engaged in high seas bottom fisheries in 2006, though many of the vessels were only involved in bottom fishing on the high seas on a part-time basis. Of this number, 80 percent were flagged to only 10 states: Spain, Republic of Korea, new Zealand, Russia, australia, Japan, france, Portugal, Belize and Estonia. Over one-third were flagged to European Union (EU) countries and the EU fleet took one-half or more of the total high seas catch, mostly through bottom trawling. The EU plays an even more significant role in high seas bottom fishing within some geographic regions. for example, the EU fleet is responsible for approximately 80 percent of the catch in high seas bottom fisheries in the northwest atlantic and 95 percent of the catch in the northeast atlantic. most high seas bottom fishing is done by bottom trawl vessels. The conclusions of the Un faO report were similar to the findings of an earlier study published by the International Union for Conservation of nature (IUCn) in 2004.

Deep-sea bottom fisheries have significant impacts on deep-sea communities formed by emergent epifaunal animals such as corals and sponges. Relevant studies have included comparisons between adjacent-fished versus unfished areas using seafloor observations with towed cameras; observations of fishing impacts with submersibles or remotely operated vehicles (ROVs); acoustic imaging of the seafloor; sampling of seabed communities in impacted versus non-impacted areas; and documenting by-catch of benthic invertebrates in fishing gear (Koslow & Gowlett-holmes, 1998; Rogers, 1999; Roberts et al., 2000, 2009; Koslow et al., 2001;

hall-Spencer et al., 2002; fosså et al., 2002; anderson & Clark, 2003; Clark & O’Driscoll, 2003; freiwald et al., 2004; ardron, 2005; Gass & Willison, 2005; mortensen et al., 2005; Shester & ayers, 2005; Stone, 2006; Clark & Koslow, 2007; Edinger et al., 2007a; althaus et al., 2009; Clark & Rowden, 2009). Such work has demonstrated that bottom fishing damages or destroys long-lived epifaunal animals such as corals, reducing the three-dimensional complexity of the seabed and leading to decreased species diversity and faunal biomass (Koslow et al., 2001; Reed et al., 2005; Stone, 2006; althaus et al., 2009; Clark & Rowden, 2009). Bottom trawling is likely to have the most serious adverse impacts on vulnerable deep-sea benthic species, given the size and weight of bottom trawl gear, the scale of the seabed area impacted by bottom trawl tows, and the fact that it is the dominant method of bottom fishing for deep-sea species on the high seas (Gianni, 2004; friewald et al., 2004; Davies et al., 2007; WGDEC, 2008). however, such effects arise not only from bottom trawling but from all bottom-contact fishing methods, including benthic longlines, gillnets and pots (e.g. Stone, 2006; Edinger et al., 2007a; faO, 2008). The intensity of impact differs between gears and can be influenced by fishing practices (WGDEC, 2006; faO, 2008).

Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VmEs) on the sea bottom may also be susceptible to the direct and indirect effects of increased sediment load in the water overlying the seabed that can smother live colonies or bury hard substrata required for settlement of larvae. Removal of target fish species and the dumping of by-catch or offal from fish processing can impact

ecosystems in general, potentially including coral, sponge and other communities that form VmEs, and individual species, especially if they influence food webs within such habitats (Clark & Koslow, 2007; DeVries et al., 2007). Offal from hoki fisheries off new Zealand has been observed to alter oxygen concentrations at depths as great as 800 metres (m) and change the composition of the benthic community there (Clark & Koslow, 2007). The removal of antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) from the Ross Sea by deep-sea fishing has been implicated in local/regional declines in the abundance of predators such as killer whales (DeVries et al., 2007).

Observations of significant adverse impacts (SaIs) of fishing on deep-water coral communities have been widely reported in all oceans, including especially the northeastern (hall-Spencer et al., 2002; fosså et al., 2002; Wheeler et al., 2005) and northwestern atlantic (mortensen et al., 2005; Edinger et al., 2007a), and the northeastern (Stone, 2006; Krieger, 1998, 2001; Stone et al., 2005) and southwestern Pacific (Koslow & Gowlett-holmes, 1998; Koslow et al., 2001; Clark & O’Driscoll, 2003; Rowden et al., 2004; althaus et al., 2009; Clark & Rowden, 2009), but recovery of deep-sea ecosystems from the mechanical impacts of bottom fishing has been poorly studied. however, it is likely that such ecosystems will only recover very slowly, if at all, as habitat-forming corals have slow growth rates, especially some antipatharia and Octocorallia (Roark et al., 2006, 2009; Sherwood & Edinger, 2009), and the coral habitat itself may have taken thousands of years to develop (hall-Spencer et al., 2002). In some areas impacted by trawling, there have been observations of the occurrence on the seabed of stylasterid corals, potentially indicating that these are capable either of surviving trawling impacts or of colonising areas of rock relatively quickly after disturbance (Clark & Rowden, 2009). however, in many cases no recovery of seabed ecosystems has been observed even many years after fishing impacts (Waller et al., 2007; althaus et al., 2009).

The UnGa adopted Resolutions 59/25 and 61/105 in 2004 and 2006, respectively, to address international concerns regarding the adverse impacts of deep-sea fisheries on VmEs and individual species, including targeted and non-targeted fish, in the deep sea (UnGa, 2004, 2007). The latter of the two resolutions called on states and regional fisheries management

organisations (RfmOs) to regulate high seas bottom fisheries through conducting impact assessments to determine whether SaIs on VmEs would occur. furthermore, the resolution calls on high seas fishing nations to close areas of the high seas to bottom fishing where VmEs were known or likely to occur unless such fishing could be managed to prevent SaIs on VmEs. The resolution also called for high seas bottom fisheries to be managed to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks targeted or otherwise impacted, e.g. caught as by-catch (UnGa, 2007: Paras 80–91). Since 2006, a number of states and RfmOs, including those involved in high seas bottom fisheries in the north atlantic, northwest Pacific, South Pacific and Southern Ocean have adopted framework agreements to implement UnGa Resolution 61/105.

Subsequent to the adoption of the UnGa resolution, the Un faO hosted a series of consultations and negotiations to draft a set of guidelines for the implementation of UnGa Resolution 61/105. The Un faO International Guidelines for the management of Deep-Sea fisheries in the high Seas (faO Guidelines), adopted by member countries of the Un faO in 2008, sought to elaborate science-based criteria to identify VmEs, conduct impact assessments of bottom fisheries on the high seas, and determine whether “significant adverse impacts” to such ecosystems would occur (faO, 2009a).

In 2009, the UnGa reviewed the implementation of Resolution 61/105, adopted in 2006. Recognising that the implementation of the resolution was insufficient, the General assembly adopted Resolution 64/72 (UnGa, 2009). This resolution reaffirmed the 2006 resolution and made it clear that the measures called for in Resolution 61/105 should be implemented consistent with the faO Guidelines by flag states and RfmOs prior to allowing, or authorising, bottom fishing on the high seas. Resolution 64/72 places particular emphasis on conducting impact assessments of bottom fisheries on the high seas and calls on states and RfmOs to “ensure that vessels do not engage in bottom fishing until such assessments have been carried out”. Resolution 64/72 further calls for stock assessments and conservation measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks and non-target species, and the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks (UnGa, 2009: Paras 119–120).

IntroductionThe protection of biodiversity in the deep-sea in areas beyond national jurisdiction has been extensively debated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and other international fora. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), in 2008, published a report that estimated the total global catch in high seas bottom fisheries in 2006 was some 250,000 tonnes, representing 0.3% of the marine capture fisheries worldwide (Bensch et al., 2008). The value of the high seas bottom catch in 2006 was estimated at approximately $450 million US dollars or €360 million euros. Of this amount, approximately 105,000t were caught in high seas bottom fisheries in the North Atlantic in 2006.


The present report reviews the regulations adopted by the RfmOs with responsibility for the management of deep-sea bottom fisheries on the high seas in the north atlantic, mediterranean, southeast atlantic, north Pacific, South Pacific and the Southern Ocean. The southwest Indian Ocean has also been included as an agreement to establish an RfmO has been adopted but is not yet in force, while several high seas deep-water fishing companies have undertaken voluntary conservation measures within the region to protect deep-sea ecosystems. The report includes a set of recommendations on further actions needed by both RfmOs and states to ensure the effective management of bottom fisheries on the high seas so as to protect deep-sea ecosystems and ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks and species.

note that the European Commission has also implemented UnGa Resolution 61/105 through Regulation 734/2008, which requires all European states operating deep-sea bottom fisheries outside areas where competent RfmOs exist to undertake impact assessments of those fisheries or not to issue licences for such fishing activities. an assessment has been undertaken of deep-sea bottom fisheries by Spain for the southwest atlantic but this was not available in a form suitable for analysis by the authors in the present report. Both Spain and new Zealand undertook assessments for fisheries in the South Pacific and these have been analysed under the section of this report on the South Pacific Ocean.

To review the implementation of UnGa resolutions by RfmOs and flag states in respect of management of deep-sea bottom fisheries on the high seas, this report focused on five main areas.

1. Development of assessment and management regimes which ensure that harvest levels for target species of deep-sea fish characterised by low productivity are sustainable in the long term. here, we define a managed fishery as one where reliable catch data have been collected in recent years (last five years) and where there has been a scientific assessment of stock status. Ideally, such assessments should be undertaken with fisheries-independent data. On the basis of these data, harvest and management plans have been developed to determine Total allowable Catches (TaCs) and biological reference points appropriate to maintaining the long-term sustainability of fished populations.

2. Development of assessment and management regimes that ensure that by-catch of non-target species of fish and other marine organisms are not a threat to the viability of populations, nor to biodiversity. Thus, harvest and management plans for deep-sea high seas fisheries must ensure the long-term survival of populations and species within the regulated area.

3. Protection of known or recently identified VmEs, and areas where VmEs are likely to occur.

4. The development of management tools and

practices to detect and subsequently protect previously unidentified VmEs encountered during the course of fishing.

5. The development of impact assessments by states for their deep-water high seas fisheries in order to achieve sustainable ecosystem-based management.

Thus the present report reviews progress in the implementation of all aspects of the UnGa resolutions.

To achieve this review it was necessary to identify which species of fish were categorised as having a low productivity and which were vulnerable to overfishing in the areas of the high seas regulated by RfmOs. Typically, these were species that exhibit low rates of growth, high longevity and low levels of fecundity and which may aggregate during periods of spawning, rendering them vulnerable to high levels of fishing pressure. It was also necessary to identify which by-catch species showed a high vulnerability to overfishing or damage by bottom fisheries as well as a low capacity for recovery following impact (low resilience). This required study of peer-reviewed scientific literature, the work of scientific advisory bodies to state governments and RfmOs, and analyses of data presented by RfmOs themselves in annual reports or the reports of RfmO committees.

Once low-productivity or vulnerable species were identified, all the information pertaining to the management, catch levels and population size of each species was reviewed. Data were

MethodsThis report reviews the implementation of UNGA Resolutions 59/25, 61/105 and 64/72 (UNGA, 2004, 2007, 2009) with respect to deep-sea bottom fisheries in the high seas, mainly by RFMOs but also by individual flag states. Here, interpretation of the requirements of Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 has been largely based on the UN FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas (FAO, 2009a). The FAO Guidelines were developed as practical guidance on what was required to enable fisheries managers to develop sustainable ecosystem-based deep-sea fisheries on the high seas in accordance with international law and agreements related to fisheries, as directed by the UNGA resolutions. The FAO Guidelines were produced through a series of international workshops of experts, including scientists, fisheries managers and representatives of the fishing industry, and were agreed by Member States of the UN FAO Committee on Fisheries in 2008/09 and endorsed by the UNGA in 2009.

Stylasterid or hydrocoral,

Faial Island, Azores, 350-

500m depth (© A.D.

Rogers and the Rebikoff

Foundation).


obtained through RfmO annual and committee reports, reports from other sources (e.g. non-peer-reviewed scientific reports, reports from governmental and non-governmental organisations) and peer-reviewed scientific literature. Based on a synthesis of all literature sources, it was determined whether fisheries were or were not being managed to ensure long-term sustainability in populations of target or non-target species taken in individual fisheries.

To identify whether or not action had been taken to protect known VmEs, all literature relating to the distribution of VmEs, particularly cold-water coral reefs, coral gardens and sponge grounds, was reviewed and the occurrence of these ecosystems identified in the high seas. This was possible for the northeastern and northwestern atlantic but was difficult for many other regions of the world’s oceans and seas, where levels of scientific knowledge on the seabed fauna are poor. all sources of literature were reviewed, especially peer-reviewed scientific literature and reports of scientific advisory bodies to state governments and RfmOs, but also RfmO reports and reports from other sources. Progress of individual RfmOs in the protection of known VmE localities using site-specific (e.g. establishment of protected areas) or activity-specific (e.g. banning of gillnets) measures were also reviewed.

measures to identify and report previously unidentified VmEs during fishing operations and to subsequently act to protect such VmEs from fisheries impacts were also reviewed for each RfmO. In particular, attention was paid to the design of move-on rules and the thresholds of by-catch of VmE species. here, the aim was to determine whether or not the threshold levels of by-catch were based on sound scientific analyses or previous experience within fisheries and to determine whether they would be likely to trigger management responses to protect VmEs, if present. This represents one of the complex areas of the UnGa resolutions and faO Guidelines and it required detailed analyses not only of individual RfmOs and the ecosystems within regions but also the comparison of practices across RfmOs or what is known about VmEs across different geographic regions. Knowledge of the distribution and abundance of species that comprise VmEs was gathered from the scientific peer-reviewed literature and from the reports of the scientific advisory bodies and committees of RfmOs and states. RfmO annual and committee reports, recommendations and

regulations were scrutinised for details of move-on rules and threshold levels.

finally, the UnGa resolutions and faO Guidelines require the performance of impact assessments for deep-sea fisheries. In the present report, it was identified whether or not states had carried out such impact assessments. If such assessments had been carried out then their content was compared to the requirements of RfmOs, as several have requested specific information to be contained in such assessments, as well as the faO Guidelines.

In compiling the present report, we encountered limitations to our assessments. The lack of availability of data on the catch and by-catch of deep-sea fisheries at high spatial resolution was a significant barrier to understanding the impacts of fishing on target and non-target populations of fish and other species. In addition, data for by-catch were often not available for individual species but rather were aggregated by genus (e.g. Sebastes spp.) or taxonomic group such as ‘skates’ or ‘sharks. In some instances there was also evidence of non-reporting or misreporting of catches of deep sea species, which is a significant problem when assessing the effects of harvesting on exploited fish stocks. for many regions of the deep-sea, fisheries are exploiting stocks in areas where there is limited or no knowledge of the occurrence or extent of distribution of VmEs. This is particularly the case for waters that are a long distance from developed countries, such as the southern Indian Ocean or large parts of the Pacific Ocean. In such cases, it is almost impossible, given the current state of knowledge, to identify where fisheries may impact VmEs or populations of by-catch species. The problem of a lack of baseline knowledge on the diversity and distribution of species across large parts of the world’s oceans cannot be over-emphasised in the context of sustainable ecosystem-based management of fisheries.

finally, the reader should be reminded that the report only covers geographic areas in which high seas deep-sea fisheries are regulated by RfmOs or areas where agreements (treaties) to establish RfmOs are either under negotiation or have been adopted but have not yet entered into force. Deep-sea fisheries on the high seas in many parts of the world’s oceans that fall outside these geographic regions are unmanaged, unless there is state regulation of the activities of their flagged vessels.

northeast atlantiC oCeanThe Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1) is important in terms of fisheries production, with catches of 9.1 million tonnes of fish recorded for 2006 (FAO, 2009b). The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) is the competent RFMO in this area.

The four main fisheries under regulation by nEafC are spring-spawning herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), blue whiting (micromesistius poutassou) and pelagic redfish (Sebastes mentella). Of these species, blue whiting and pelagic redfish are found in deep water, with the former classed as mesopelagic at depths between 30–400m and the latter as benthic or bathypelagic at depths between 300 and >1,440m (Whitehead et al., 1986; http://www.fishbase.org). These fisheries make up a catch of < 4 million tonnes in the northeast atlantic of which approximately one million tonnes, worth in the region of US$236 million or some €190 million, were reported as caught in the Regulatory area (nEafC high seas areas) in 2005 (arbuckle et al., 2008; nEafC press release, 2009). These fisheries are mainly pelagic and nEafC states that they are relatively clean (i.e. catches are close to 100 percent target species) and do not impact on the seabed.

This assertion has been questioned in a recent review of management by nEafC, which called for verification of low levels of by-catch through scientific studies, so that a full understanding of the ecosystem-level impacts of these fisheries can be reached (arbuckle et al., 2008). In addition, there are fisheries for a variety of demersal species, including cod, haddock, hake and others that take place both within EU waters and outside waters under national jurisdiction. While all are high-productivity fish species, they are fished using bottom-contact fishing gear that has the potential to impact on VmEs associated with the seabed. In particular, the haddock fishery on the Rockall Bank has been identified as having the potential to impact populations of by-catch fish species as well as benthic communities (arbuckle et al., 2008). finally, there are a variety of deep-sea species of fish that are exploited in the region using a variety of different types of gear, including bottom trawls, longlines, gillnets and pots.

Management of fisheries for deep-sea species of low productivity

Pelagic redfish (Sebastes mentella)Whether or not pelagic redfish fall within the remit of the faO Guidelines has not been

Figure 1.

The NEAFC

Regulatory

Area (NEAFC,

2009).


addressed by nEafC or states in the region, perhaps because it is assumed this is not a low-productivity species. however, S. mentella exhibits several features that suggest that it may not be able to sustain the levels of exploitation possible for high-productivity species. These features include ovoviviparity (live bearing) and a high longevity (ageing studies have indicated that adults were generally 65 years old, but ages up to 75 years were found; Campana et al., 1990). The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), a body of more than 1,600 scientists from 200 institutes from around the north atlantic that is the prime source of scientific advice on marine ecosystems and marine living resources in the region, ranked S. mentella highly on a scale of vulnerability for deep-sea species, lying below roundnose grenadier and orange roughy (the former species having a similar vulnerability score to S. mentella, the latter having a considerably higher vulnerability score; ICES, 2001; see also Koslow et al., 2000; WGEafm, 2008a). ICES has advised that this species is vulnerable to overfishing in the nEafC Regulatory area and the stock size at the present time is estimated to be low compared to the early 1990s, although clear trends have not been apparent since 1999 (arbuckle et al., 2008).

Pelagic redfish are fished in two regions of the nEafC Regulatory area: the Irminger Sea between east Greenland and Iceland, and the norwegian Sea. These fisheries occur both within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and on the high seas. There has been substantial disagreement on whether pelagic redfish form a single or multiple stocks in the Irminger Sea region, with objections to nEafC’s management proposals arising mainly from Iceland and Russia (arbuckle et al., 2008), and these continued through 2009 (nEafC, 2010a). The result has been that no management objectives or harvest controls (biological reference points) have been set for the species (arbuckle et al., 2008; nEafC, 2009a). nEafC has set overall TaCs for pelagic redfish but they have been exceeded because of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and as a result of objections to management measures by coastal states (arbuckle et al., 2008). Since 2002, this has meant that specific advice from ICES on TaCs for pelagic redfish has not been agreed upon and catches have exceeded recommended limits (nEafC, 2009a). The independent review of nEafC concluded that there was an

urgent requirement to resolve outstanding issues regarding stock structure by means consistent with the precautionary principal so that management for the species, regarded as vulnerable, could progress in a manner that ensured sustainability (arbuckle et al., 2008). In addition, the report indicated significant problems with catch data for pelagic redfish, with catches not always being reported, as well as inconsistencies in acoustic survey data for the species resulting in uncertain estimates of stock size (arbuckle et al., 2008). Problems of reporting of catches of redfish were again discussed during the nEafC annual meeting in 2009 (nEafC, 2010a).

Directed deep-water bottom fisheries

Ling (Molva molva)ling are fished in deep water but are regarded as one of the less vulnerable species (ICES, 2008). ling are mainly targeted by longline fisheries within EEZs but some catches are from high seas areas, such as the western Rockall Bank. The species are also taken by trawl fisheries within the northeast atlantic, mainly as by-catch. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from the fishery indicate a decline in catches from the 1970s to 1990s and stocks remain at a reduced level (ICES, 2008). There has been limited provision of data from some of the major fisheries for this species in the nEafC region. at present, length and age data are inadequate for reliable age-based assessments of ling (WGDEEP, 2009) and there are no data on discards of this species in the northeast atlantic.

Blue ling (Molva dypterygia)fisheries for this species began around Iceland, targeting spawning aggregations, but these were depleted relatively quickly. The species is now taken mainly as by-catch in redfish and other fisheries, mostly within the Icelandic EEZ. Some catches are from the high seas portion of the Irminger Sea and Rockall and hatton Banks. In northern areas fishing has been mainly by bottom trawls, although the species is now also targeted by longlines. landings from high seas areas have been very variable and little information is available on these (e.g. Spanish landings in 2003). ICES advised that there should be no directed fisheries towards blue ling because the species is vulnerable to overfishing, especially when spawning aggregations are targeted (WGDEEP, 2009). It also advises that areas where spawning aggregations are present

they should be closed to fishing. Currently, in Icelandic waters, spawning areas are closed but there is no TaC for blue ling and the increased effort from longline fishing targeted at this species is contrary to ICES advice (WGDEEP, 2009). Other spawning areas have also been identified in northern regions off the norwegian continental slope (Storegga) and on the Reykjanes Ridge near the Icelandic EEZ (ICES, 2007a: fig 2). In november 2009 nEafC agreed to close an identified area during the spawning season where another spawning aggregation exists for blue ling in the northern part of the mid-atlantic Ridge, just south of the Icelandic EEZ (nEafC, 2010a). This area is bounded by the following coordinates:

60°58’76 n – 27°27’32 W60°56’02 n – 27°31’16 W60°59’76 n – 27°43’48 W61°03’00 n – 27°39’41 W

Blue ling has been important in by-catch from mixed deep-water trawl fisheries on the hatton Bank (ICES, 2008). In other high seas areas, such as in the norwegian Sea and north of the azores, it is taken in small quantities. In the hatton Bank area, CPUEs have been variable but a dramatic reduction in catches occurred between 2002 and 2006. no catches were reported from this region in 2007 and 2008. The main states involved in this fishery were Spain and france. Recently, results from the EU POORfISh, a project aimed at developing methods to provide advice on fisheries where data are poor, together with other information, enabled ICES to advise nEafC and the EU on the likely presence of spawning aggregations of blue ling in the hatton and Rockall Bank areas.

These studies indicated spawning grounds for blue ling on the continental slope off western Scotland and around the hatton, Rockall and Rosemary Banks (ICES, 2007a; fig. 3). In EU waters these spawning grounds have been protected from fishing during the spawning period by specific fisheries measures. as yet, no specific measures on the basis of this advice have come from nEafC, despite the information having been available since 2007/08. however, the measures that extended the closures to bottom trawling on hatton Bank in 2007 and 2008 include at least part of the putative spawning area for blue ling (nEafC, 2006a, 2007a). The presence of a spawning ground is viewed as a feature that identifies a geographic area as a VmE (faO, 2009a: Para 42 [i]).

fishing on spawning aggregations may result in underestimation of stock trends and so any such analyses for blue ling require cautious interpretation (arbuckle et al., 2008). ageing is difficult in this species, making stock analysis for management purposes problematic (WGDEEP, 2009).

Tusk (Brosme brosme) Genetic evidence suggests that it is likely that tusk form several distinct stocks in the northeast atlantic region and that stocks from the northwest atlantic, mid-atlantic Ridge and Rockall should be treated as distinct (ICES, 2008; WGDEEP, 2009). Where there is a directed fishery, management is in place (e.g. Icelandic EEZ). however, in other areas there is no species-specific management (e.g. ICES areas I and II, including the high seas areas of the Banana hole and Barents Sea). On the mid-atlantic Ridge tusk is taken as by-catch

Known area

Known area

28°

61°

62°

63°

64°

26° 24° 22° 20° 18° 16°

Figure 2. Blue ling: Spawning areas in the Icelandic EEZ

(WGDEEP, 2009).

Figure 3. Blue ling: Spawning areas identified in ICES

areas XII, VIb, VIb and V (ICES, 2007a).

USED WITh ThE KInD PERmISSIOn Of ThE InTERnaTIOnal COUnCIl fOR ThE ExPlORaTIOn Of ThE SEa


from gillnet and longline fisheries. There does not seem to be any specific management of the species in this region of the high seas and there are no clear trends in available catch data. The same is true for Rockall, where tusk is also a by-catch species landed mainly by norwegian vessels. length and age data are inadequate for aged-based population analyses (WGDEEP, 2009). The species is considered Threatened in the northwest atlantic (COSEWIC, 2003).

Greater silver smelt (Argentina silus) Silver smelt were taken as by-catch and generally discarded up to 1996. Since 1997, a directed bottom trawl fishery has existed for this species, although it is also taken as by-catch in the redfish fisheries in the region. ICES advised that greater silver smelt is a low-productivity species and that it can sustain only low levels of exploitation (ICES, 2008). It also shows aggregating behavior increasing its vulnerability to overfishing (ICES, 2008). Catches have been very variable for this species along the continental slope west of the British Isles and Ireland, in the norwegian Sea and around the faroes and Iceland. In some cases, there is evidence of overexploitation but in others no evidence of significant decline is apparent; catches seem to reflect market demand. Stock structure in greater silver smelt has not been resolved and there is an urgent requirement for genetic studies to identify biologically relevant management units. The greater silver smelt is often caught as by-catch in other fisheries and data on discards are lacking (ICES, 2008). like redfish, species of argentina appear very similar and confusion exists in regard to identification of smelts in the region. There have been no recent stock assessments.

Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Orange roughy are recognised as a low-productivity species that aggregate at seamounts to spawn. Throughout the northeastern atlantic this species has been targeted by fishing vessels when aggregations have been located and, in almost all cases, depletion of stocks has occurred (WGDEEP, 2009). ICES recommends that no fisheries be directed at this species as a result of its vulnerability (ICES, 2008). There are no stock assessments for orange roughy, but stock status is based on CPUEs that fluctuate strongly, perhaps as a result of fishing being targeted at spawning aggregations. It is likely that management should be directed at the level of individual aggregations around specific

topographic features but spatial fisheries statistics are not available to enable such an approach. Despite continued advice that there should be no fisheries directed at orange roughy, nEafC agreed both in 2008 and 2009 to allow a TaC of 150t for each Contracting Party (a maximum of 750t) with no directed fishing in ICES Sub-areas V, VI and VII (nEafC, 2010a).

Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) In 2001 ICES ranked roundnose grenadier high on a scale of vulnerability for deep-sea species, lying below orange roughy (ICES, 2001). The females mature at age 9–11 years and produce a small number of large eggs (Kelly et al., 1996), with large individuals making the largest contribution to egg production (alekseyev et al., 1992). This species is subject to a directed trawl fishery west of the British Isles including around the Rockall and hatton Banks and has been fished in the Skagerrak and on the northern mid-atlantic Ridge. The Ridge fishery was closed to bottom trawling and static gear in 2007 (Shibanov & Vinnichenko, 2008). In the western part of the northeast atlantic it is suspected that landings in international waters are unreported, especially in areas to the west of the hatton Bank where Spanish vessels have been operating. This is a concern as catches in this area have been high. In almost all these areas there have been indications of declining stocks with major reductions in catches (WGDEEP, 2009). Virtual population analysis of stocks, to the west of the UK and around the faroes, indicates a significant decline in roundnose grenadier (WGDEEP, 2009). Statistics from the area to the west of the hatton Bank were not included in this analysis because of their unreliability. It is also reported that numbers of large fish are declining, a concern because of the large contribution to spawning capacity in this species (arbuckle et al., 2008; see also Kelly et al., 1997, for the Rockall Trough).

fisheries on the mid-atlantic Ridge for roundnose grenadier commenced in the 1970s and were targeted at seamounts, using both pelagic and bottom trawls. from a peak catch of 29,900t in 1975, the fishery has since declined with the fall of the Soviet Union, although sporadic fishing by various nations has taken place since then. Roundnose grenadier is also taken as by-catch in orange roughy and blue ling fisheries in this area. There is insufficient data on current exploitation of this species on the

mid-atlantic Ridge, which in 2005 amounted to about 2,000t (Shibanov & Vinnichenko, 2008). ICES identifies roundnose grenadier as a low-productivity species and has recommended restricted fishing with no further fisheries to be developed until it is shown that they are sustainable. nEafC has initiated regulations to reduce effort in deep-water fisheries although these have been ineffective (see below); the EU has established species-specific TaCs for this species in the northeastern atlantic for its vessels; nafO has banned a directed fishery. There are age-based stock assessments for this species for some areas. Roundnose grenadier is considered Endangered in the northwest atlantic (COSEWIC, 2008).

Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) In the northern parts of the northeast atlantic this species has been targeted along the continental slope and off the Rockall and hatton Banks by bottom trawl fisheries. further south, in areas such as the azores, it is targeted by longline fisheries. In most areas, in the northern part of the northeast atlantic, stocks have shown significant declines in CPUE (to ~20 percent of original CPUE estimates; WGDEEP, 2009). ICES has recommended that catches be restricted to 50 percent of the level prior to the fishery expansion in 1992/93 in the northern area and that no further fisheries be developed unless they can be proven sustainable (ICES, 2008).

It is suspected that this species undergoes significant ontogenetic migrations over considerable distances but further information is required on the reproductive and population biology of the species before this can be confirmed.

Goldeneye perch (Beryx splendens and Beryx decadactylus) These species are generally taken as by-catch in the northeast atlantic region, particularly along the mid-atlantic Ridge, on the high seas to the north of the azores EEZ. General trends are for a decline in catches. no assessments are available but there is concern about sequential depletion of stocks and under-reporting of catches from high seas areas (WGDEEP, 2009). ICES has identified these species as being highly vulnerable to trawl fisheries as a result of their aggregating behaviour around seamounts, the result of which may be that Beryx can only sustain low levels of exploitation. There are insufficient data for assessment of the status

of populations. The stock structure of this species is poorly understood and aspects of reproductive biology are poorly known. It has been recommended that no new stocks of Beryx spp. are exploited prior to assessments being undertaken to determine sustainable levels of fishing (ICES, 2008).

Blackspot sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo) The species has been fished on the continental slope off the UK, france, Portugal and Spain, as well as the azores. Stocks along the northern European continental shelf collapsed in the 1980s following overfishing over at least 10 years when the fishery was unmanaged. fisheries continue in other areas. It is speculated that the life history of this species (a protandrous hermaphrodite) makes it vulnerable to overfishing as all large fish are female. There is evidence of population differentiation between the European continental slope/shelf and the mid-atlantic Ridge (Stockley et al., 2005).

Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) This species is mainly taken as by-catch in bottom trawl and longline fisheries throughout the northeast atlantic region, along the European continental slope, offshore banks and oceanic islands and the mid-atlantic Ridge. Trends in catches are unclear and vary markedly from area to area. In general, data on catches of this species are not reliable as it is a by-catch species and not always recorded and is also confused in landing statistics with other species (hakes and morids), which it resembles.

Deep-sea sharks Sharks are low-productivity species as a result of life histories exhibiting low fecundity, slow rates of growth and a long time to maturity (ICES WGEf, 2007; Gibson et al., 2008). In the northeast atlantic region, sharks are captured along the European continental shelf, including the Rockall and hatton Banks, and on the mid-atlantic Ridge. They have been targeted directly by gillnet and longline fisheries, make up an important component of mixed deep-water species fisheries (hareide et al., 2004) and are taken as by-catch, especially in hake and monkfish fisheries but also others. at present, TaCs are set by the EU for ‘deep-water sharks’ including Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis), leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus), birdbeak dogfish (Deania calceus), kitefin shark (Dalatias licha), greater lanternshark (Etmopterus


princeps), velvet belly (Etmopterus spinax), black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii), gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus), blackmouth dogfish (Galeus melastomus), mouse catshark (Galeus murinus), Iceland catshark (apristurus spp.), rough longnose dogfish (Deania hystricosum) and arrowhead dogfish (Deania profundorum).for the majority of these species, fisheries are essentially unmanaged and reporting on catches, by-catches and discards is unreliable. This is exacerbated by confusion over the identification of shark species or the placing of many species into a single category of ‘deep-water sharks’ (ICES, 2008).

Siki sharks (Centroscymnus coelolepis and Centrophorus spp.) These sharks are widely distributed in the northeast atlantic but many aspects of their biology are poorly understood. fisheries directed towards these sharks commenced in the late 1980s, while in the last decade CPUEs have declined substantially, indicating that stocks are depleted (ICES WGEf, 2007). In 2006 ICES recommended that no fisheries should be targeted at these species unless sufficient information was available to determine sustainable levels of exploitation, and that efforts to limit by-catch of these species should also be taken. all three appear on the IUCn Red list as being at risk of extinction: near Threatened – Centroscymnus coelolepis (Endangered in the northeast atlantic); Vulnerable – Centrophorus granulosus (Critically Endangered in the northeast atlantic); Centrophorus squamosus (Endangered in the northeast atlantic).

In the northeast atlantic, gillnets have now been banned from waters deeper than 200m on the high seas and in the areas around the azores, madeira and Canary Islands, and deeper than 600m elsewhere.

Other deep-water species a variety of other deep-sea fish species are fished in the northeast atlantic, including high seas areas such as the hatton Bank. These include roughhead grenadier (macrourus berglax), common mora (mora moro) and other moridae, rabbit fish (Chimaera monstrosa and hydrolagus spp.), Baird’s smoothhead (alepocephalus bairdii), Risso’s smoothhead (a. rostratus), wreckfish (Polyprion americanus), bluemouth (helicolenus dactylopterus), silver

scabbard fish (lepidopus caudatus), deep-water cardinalfish (Epigonus telescopus) and deep-water red crab (Chaceon affinis). Some of these species appear to be showing marked declines in catch. all of these species are now listed as Regulated Species by nEafC (nEafC, 2009b) but there appears to be no specific management in place for them on the high seas other than the requirement for a general reduction in effort for deep-sea fisheries. furthermore, because data on catches are likely to be unreliable as a result of misreporting or under-reporting of catches (arbuckle et al. 2008), and because some species are discarded, realistic assessments of population status and trends are not feasible under the present management regime. Catches of alepocephalus bairdii, in particular, increased markedly in recent years (nEafC, 2004, 2006b, 2007b), perhaps a reflection of increased effort in the deeper waters where this species occurs. The latest figures indicate a major decrease in catches of this species in the nEafC Regulatory area from 2007 to 2008 (nEafC, 2010b).

nEafC has made several requests to ICES with respect to improving information on the spatial and temporal patterns of deep-sea fishing in its area of competence. ICES reported (WGDEEP, 2009) that the Vessel monitoring System (VmS) and reported catch data provided by nEafC was insufficient for these purposes. This was because of the low frequency of VmS reporting on vessel positions (once every two hours, although it has recently increased in frequency to every hour; nEafC, 2010a) and because fishing operations were not generally logged to tally with VmS data. ICES also judged it likely that there were significant amounts of missing data or misreporting of catches. In addition, 70 percent of vessels reporting demersal catches only reported catches of a single species. This is highly unlikely given that demersal deep-sea fish communities are of relatively high diversity and thus almost all deep-sea fisheries are de facto multispecies fisheries. The conclusion must be that only the target species or most abundant species in catches are being reported and that data on total catches are incomplete or misreported. for similar reasons, ICES was unable to help nEafC classify deep-sea fishing activities into management categories (e.g. targeted fishery, by-catch fishery, etc.; WGDEEP, 2009).

The review of management of fisheries by nEafC (arbuckle et al., 2008) identified that deep-sea fisheries in the area were not subject to long-term management objectives and therefore long-term management plans were not in place. Some unilateral and multilateral agreements had been initiated for some species/fisheries. It was also concluded that the status of many of the deep-sea species targeted in the nEafC Regulatory area was unknown. The review panel summed up its concerns:

“The Panel nonetheless considers the situation for deep-sea species to be inadequate, in particular as regards knowledge of the species, nature of the fisheries, status of the resources and management planning. This is a critical issue that nEafC needs to address as a priority and every effort should be made to develop the necessary fisheries database to begin this process.” (arbuckle et al., 2008).

In 2004 nEafC established a cap on fishing effort (no more than the highest level in previous years) for deep-sea species in its Regulatory area – the first measure to regulate fisheries for deep-sea species on the high seas of the northeast atlantic. In 2006, nEafC Contracting Parties agreed to further reduce fishing effort by 35 percent in fisheries for deep-sea species (Bjorndal, 2009). Over the duration of these regulations, the reported catch of deep-sea species in bottom fisheries in the nEafC area has varied several fold but has risen from just over 25,000t in 2004 to more than 45,000t in 2008, with 2007 representing the year of highest catches at over 90,000t (Table 1). EU fleets are responsible for 95 percent of the reported catch of deep-sea species in the nEafC area. While these catches include

species that are of high or medium productivity, catches of species around which there is considerable concern, including blue ling, sharks and argentines, have increased dramatically (catches of orange roughy declined). Information on whether these catches are from high seas areas or not is difficult to ascertain, as are the accuracy of the catch data presented, but it is certain that there has been a dramatic increase in reported catches of deep-sea species over the last five years for which statistics are available in the nEafC Regulatory area.

The nEafC Commission agreed to maintain the 35 percent reduction in fishing effort on deep-sea species until 2012 (nEafC, 2010a), despite the fact that this measure has not prevented a large increase in catches of deep-sea species. The ineffectiveness of these measures may reflect that the estimates of fishing effort used (aggregate power, aggregate tonnage, fishing days at sea, aggregate number of vessels; nEafC, 2010a) do not reflect the killing power of the deep-water fishing fleets in the region. Changes in technology within a fishing fleet over time are likely to increase the efficiency of fishing vessels and may result in increased fishing mortality even if vessel numbers, tonnage or other fleet-related estimates of effort remain stable. Variation in deep-sea catches over the last five years may also reflect changes in the status of fish stocks, changing patterns of fishing (changes in geographic areas or in targeted species) or problems in reporting of deep-sea catches. The nEafC Commission also agreed to ban discards in high seas fisheries, although the ban only applies to annex Ia species (redfish, herring, blue whiting, mackerel and haddock) and not to annex IB species, which include most deep-sea species.

Table 1. High seas catches of deep-sea species in the NEAFC Regulatory Area 2004-2008 (tonnes). Data extracted from NEAFC

catch statistics.

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 2004–2008

EC 25,157 69,883 51,346 90,554 42,471 279,681

Faroe Islands 642 756 253 202 261 2,114

Greenland 0 0 1,913 2,391 1,415 5,719

Iceland 0 0 0 0 0 0

Norway 648 620 963 933 275 3,439

Russia 56 2,188 148 366 362 3,120

Total 26,503 73,447 54,623 94,446 45,054 294,073


Protection of benthic marine ecosystems

To determine whether impacts from existing deep-sea fisheries in the nEafC area have impacted, or have the potential to impact, on benthic ecosystems, requires the overlaying of geo-referenced fisheries data onto maps of the known occurrence of VmEs. In the case of the northeast atlantic, the following VmEs are known to occur in the region beyond areas of national jurisdiction (WGDEC, 2009): ● cold-water coral reefs;● other coral-associated benthic habitats

(octocoral meadows or forests, dense stands of antipatharia or Stylasterida);

● dense stands of sea pens; ● sponge-associated habitats; ● areas of dense occurrence of xenophyophores; ● dense stands of cerianthid sea anemones; ● serpulid reefs (filograna); ● deep-water oyster reefs (Wisshak et al., 2009).

These systems are especially associated with areas of elevated or steep topography; the occurrence of strong bottom currents, especially those generated by small-scale oceanographic phenomena such as internal waves; a high concentration of food; and the occurrence of hard substrata (e.g. Rogers et al., in press).

Cold-water coral reefs

Cold-water coral reefs have been studied more thoroughly in the northeast atlantic than anywhere else in the world. In this region, reefs are mainly formed by the framework-building coral lophelia pertusa, with contributions from other species, mainly madrepora oculata but also Solenosmilia variabilis, Desmophyllum dianthus and Dendrophyllia cornigera (Rogers, 1999; Roberts et al., 2009). for lophelia pertusa, the northeast atlantic is the most important known area in terms of the number of observations of the species, especially as a component of deep-water coral reefs. The coral occurs on the shelf-break and upper continental slope of norway, and continental Europe, including offshore banks such as the faroes, Rosemary, lousy, hatton and Rockall Banks. Elsewhere, the coral occurs along the mid-atlantic Ridge and on the continental slope of West africa, in the mediterranean, along the continental slope in the northwest atlantic, in the southern atlantic, Indian and north Pacific Oceans (Rogers, 1999; Davies et al., 2008; fig. 4).

Rockall Bank following evidence presented by the ICES Working Group on Deep-Water Ecology (WGDEC), nEafC closed a number of areas on the Rockall Bank, including northwest Rockall, The logachev mounds and West Rockall mounds (fig. 5). In addition to this, an area known as the haddock Box remained closed to trawling to protect haddock stocks on the Rockall Bank (WGDEC, 2007). The EU closed the portions of these areas lying within the EEZs of member States.

Subsequently, further observations indicated the presence of lophelia pertusa reefs on the southwestern Rockall Bank and on the Empress of Britain Bank (fig. 6). In addition, significant areas of lophelia pertusa reefs were also detected on the northeastern part of the Rockall Bank and just outside of the northwestern Rockall Bank protected area (fig. 7). ICES subsequently recommended that all these areas be closed to bottom fishing. The adjustments to the northwestern Rockall protected area and the adoption of the Empress of Britain protected area were accepted by nEafC and remain in place at the present time (nEafC, 2010a), while the eastern proposed area is under consideration (nEafC, 2007a).

Figure 5. Rockall Bank,

showing closures

to fishing in 2007

(WGDEC, 2007).

Figure 4. Global distribution

of Lophelia pertusa (Davies

et al., 2007).


Hatton Bank In 2007 nEafC also closed a portion of the hatton Bank because of evidence of the presence of lophelia pertusa reefs presented by ICES (WGDEC, 2005), following a proposal to close a portion of the bank from norway. In 2008, this was extended following evidence gathered by UK and Spanish researchers indicating areas of lophelia pertusa reef to the south of the 2007 closure (WGDEC, 2007; nEafC, 2007a; fig. 8). Subsequently, Spanish scientists obtained evidence of further occurrences of cold-water coral reefs in three

areas to the west of the existing closure, all associated with rock outcrops forming ridges or more irregular topographic features lying between 700 – >1,700m deep (fig. 9). Coral mounds are present in this area and live Scleractinia (lophelia pertusa, Solenosmilia variabilis, madrepora oculata), antipatharia and Octocorallia have been sampled (munõz et al., 2008). In 2009, nEafC agreed to extend the hatton Bank protected area in line with ICES recommendations (nEafC press release, 2009; nEafC, 2010a).

Mid-Atlantic RidgeIn 2004 nEafC closed five areas in the mid-atlantic Ridge region to fishing as a precautionary and interim measure to protect benthic marine ecosystems. These regions were chosen to provide a variety of ridge and seamount habitats placed at different latitudes along and to either side of the mid-atlantic Ridge. Recent synthesis of current knowledge on the biogeographic classification of the deep ocean indicates that the sites selected represent areas lying in different water masses along the mid-atlantic Ridge (UnESCO, 2009) and may also represent different bathyal provinces, and so are likely to exhibit some general differences in fauna beyond those that would reflect only variation in the local physical environment. Beyond this aim of biogeographical representivity, the choice of sites did not take into account the (albeit) limited information on the presence of VmEs at the time (norwegian government, 2008). These sites were hecate Seamount, a complex of seamounts around faraday Seamount, an area of the Reykjanes Ridge and the altair and antialtair Seamounts to the south (norwegian government, 2008). With the exception of the Reykjanes Ridge, these protected areas were all small given the conservation objectives for which they were originally set up (representivity of deep-water

ecosystems along the mid-atlantic Ridge). On the basis of new scientific observations, the norwegian government proposed five new protected areas along the mid-atlantic Ridge, encompassing some of the existing protected areas but, because of their larger size, including a wider depth and range of habitats (fig. 10). These sites were chosen to represent colder northern regions of the mid-atlantic Ridge (Reykjanes Ridge); the zone of the Sub-arctic front around the Charlie Gibbs fracture Zone, an area of high biological productivity; and an area in the southern section of the mid-atlantic Ridge representing the warmer areas just to the north of the azores EEZ. The altair and antialtair Seamounts were retained but areas were expanded to include the seamount flanks.

It was already known that there were a number of observations of the occurrence of lophelia pertusa on the Reykjanes Ridge (e.g. WGDEC, 2006), and further evidence of the presence of colonies of these corals further south along the ridge were presented by mortensen et al. (2008), based on ROV footage from mar-Eco, a Census of marine life project aimed at understanding the distribution and ecology of the animal communities of the mid-atlantic Ridge. along the mid-atlantic Ridge lophelia pertusa was only observed as relatively small colonies, up to 50cm in diameter, although in places large areas of dead coral skeleton were also observed. Whether corals had died naturally or these observations were a result of past fisheries impacts (deep-water trawl fisheries have existed on the mid-atlantic Ridge since the 1960s and 70s; Shibanov & Vinnichenko, 2008) is unknown, although it is possible that small colonies represent recolonisation following damage from fishing (mortensen et al., 2008). Various octocorals were also observed during the mar-Eco mid-atlantic Ridge investigations and areas with corals supported a higher abundance of other megafauna (mortensen et al., 2008). Despite existing data, knowledge of the location of VmEs on the mid-atlantic Ridge is sparse. In 2009 nEafC agreed to establish a seasonal closure of an area on the northern mid-atlantic Ridge to protect a spawning aggregation of blue ling (nEafC, 2010a; see above).

ICES reported that following the closures in 2004, fishing effort actually increased on the faraday, altair and antialtair Seamounts (ICES, 2007b). It is not known if nEafC traced the VmS signatures that were likely to have been fishing in the protected areas.

Figure 6. ICES recommendation for the protection of the Empress of

Britain Bank as adopted in NEAFC Recommendation IX 2008 (NEAFC,

2007a).

Figure 7. ICES recommendations for adjustment of northwestern

Rockall Bank protected area (adopted in 2010) and for a new eastern

Rockall Bank protected area.

Figure 8. Hatton Bank showing the area protected in 2007 and that

proposed for protection by WGDEC (2007) and subsequently protected

by NEAFC until late 2009 (NEAFC, 2007a).

Figure 9. ICES’ proposed extension to Hatton Bank closed areas on

the basis of Spanish data indicating the presence of cold-water coral

habitats in three areas to the west of the existing protected area

(WGDEC, 2008).

Figure 10. Proposed Mid-Atlantic Ridge and seamount protected areas;

adopted by NEAFC in 2009 (Norwegian government, 2008).


The Wyville-Thomson Ridge This area is within the European EEZ. In 2003 the area to the south of the Wyville-Thomson Ridge was closed to fishing as a result of the discovery of the Darwin mounds, an area of low-relief submarine hills with coral growing on their summits (Davies et al., 2007; fig. 11). This area had been impacted by fishing, especially the french roundnose grenadier fishery in the Rockall Trough (Wheeler et al., 2005). ICES has recommended that the Wyville-Thomson Ridge itself be closed to fishing because of the presence of lophelia pertusa (WGDEC, 2009).

Deep-sea spongesSponge grounds occur in the north atlantic at depths of between 200 and 1,500m. In the northeast atlantic, they comprise two distinct types of aggregations: those formed by glass sponges (hexactinellida) and those formed by silaceous sponges (Demospongiae). Glass-sponge beds, formed mainly by the species Pheronema carpenteri, are found on the upper slope at 740–2,000m, depending on location

(WGDEC, 2007), from Iceland to West africa, with mass occurrences being reported west of Scotland, in the Porcupine Seabight (fig. 12a) and off morocco (le Danois, 1948; Rice et al., 1990; Barthel et al., 1996). These sponges live on mud and generate spicule mats, which are associated with increased biomass of macrofauna (Bett & Rice, 1992). Demosponges form dense grounds dominated by a few species of massive sponge. These are referred to as ‘ostur’ (‘cheese’ in faroese and Icelandic because the sponges resemble cheese when brought out of the water), reflecting the large by-catches of these sponges taken by fishers in northern waters. The dominant species on these grounds include Geodia barreti, Geodia macandrewi, Geodia mesotriaenia, Geodia phlegraei, Stryphnus ponderosus (now recognised as two species) and Thenea muricata. There is evidence to suggest that there is a distinct boreal ostur comprising Geodia barreti, Geodia macandrewi, Stryphnus ponderosus and other species, found around the faroes, norway, Sweden, parts of the Barents Sea and south of Iceland, and a cold-water ostur, dominated by Geodia mesotriaenia and other species, found north of Iceland, in the Denmark Strait, off east Greenland and north of Spitzbergen (Klitgaard & Tendal, 2004; fig. 12b). Recent surveys have also indicated that important sponge grounds may occur on the UK continental slope north of the Wyville-Thomson Ridge, while trawl surveys by Spanish researchers have encountered high by-catches of the sponges east of the hatton Bank and in the hatton-Rockall Basin (WGDEC, 2007).

The sponges that form Ostur have 242 species identified as associated with them, including some obligate associates (Klitgaard, 1991, 1995; Warén & Klitgaard, 1991). Knowledge of these communities is restricted to a very few studies. Sponge grounds represent important benthic habitats in the deep waters of the northeastern atlantic. They have been demonstrated to be associated with increased biomass of associated fauna and so may be viewed as structural species within distinct communities. Sponges are especially vulnerable to bottom fishing gear because of their upright structure (freese et al., 1999), the fragile nature of tissues and skeletons (especially glass sponges) and susceptibility to smothering with sediment (WGDEC, 2009). Bottom trawls in particular can take enormous by-catches of sponges, with up to 50t in a haul reported from areas south of Iceland, 12t per tow in areas of the norwegian Shelf and 1–3t per tow off the faroes. Experimental trawling on sponge grounds has also shown that 30–60 percent of colonies left on the seabed can be damaged (freese, 2001). Survival of damaged colonies depends on the extent of damage (henry & hart, 2005). Wounded sponges may become infected by necrotising bacteria and subsequently die (freese, 2001). little is known about the growth rates of sponges in deep water. In shallow waters, growth rates of 0.76 to 5.6cm per year have been estimated, with colonies living for up to 220 years (leys & lauzon, 1998). It is likely that deep-water sponges, living at the depths associated with glass and silaceous sponge grounds in the northeast atlantic, grow at much slower rates. Some Canadian sponge reefs, located on the deep shelf, have existed at the same locality for up to 9,000 years. Thus, sponge grounds fit definitions of VmEs in that they are important as diverse benthic communities, are vulnerable to trawl damage, and have a very low resilience to fishing impacts.

To date, there has not been a systematic evaluation of interactions between fisheries and sponge grounds in the nEafC Regulatory area. localities where it is likely that there are significant impacts on sponge grounds by deep-water bottom fisheries on the high seas are on the northern mid-atlantic Ridge (Reykjanes Ridge) and the eastern hatton Bank and the hatton-Rockall Basin. no action has been taken to study sponge/fishery interactions or to close any areas to fishing on the basis of the presence of sponge habitats. Some sponge

grounds may have been protected by existing closures for lophelia pertusa but this has not been evaluated.

Coral gardens Scleractinia, Octocorallia, antipatharia and Stylasterida may form dense stands associated with many other species of invertebrates and fish. These habitats have been termed coral gardens, coral forests or coral meadows. Defining these habitats is difficult but they appear to exhibit a high density of corals compared to the surrounding seabed and are often associated with higher species diversity or a distinct community of other mega- and macrofaunal species. The functional relationships between the coral stands and associated fauna are often unclear (see below). a number of studies have examined the density of octocorals and other corals forming these habitats and indicate that densities may vary between 0.1 – >10 colonies per m2 and are generally higher than background densities by a factor of 10 (Orejas et al., 2002; mortensen & Buhl-mortensen, 2004, 2005; Stone, 2006). To some extent the density of corals in such habitats reflects size, with larger species of coral occurring at lower densities than smaller species or mixed coral gardens with a variety of taxa (WGDEC, 2007).

Rogers et al. (in press) suggest the following definition for a coral garden:

“Coral communities formed by one or more of the coral groups Scleractinia, Octocorallia, antipatharia or Stylasterida where the density of colonies reaches >10 times background densities, is usually >0.1 colonies per m2, and where there is an enhanced diversity of associated fauna or a distinct associated faunal community compared to the background benthic, epibenthic and epizoozoan fauna.”

Gardens of Scleractinia, Octocorallia, antipatharia and Stylasterida are associated with distinct communities of animals but there is less known about these communities than those associated with cold-water coral reefs. In the case of octocorals, analyses of just 25 colonies of octocorals from the atlantic coast of Canada identified 114 species of associated animals (Buhl-mortensen & mortensen, 2005). In alaska 97 percent of juvenile rockfish and 96 percent of juvenile golden king crab were associated with emergent epifaunal invertebrate communities, especially those formed by octocorals and

Figure 11. Wyville-Thomson Ridge: Protected areas and proposed protected areas (WGDEC, 2009).

Figure 12a

(on left).

Pheronema

carpenteri

distribution in

the Porcupine

Seabight.

Figure 12b

(on the

right). Ostur

distribution in

the northeast

Atlantic.


sponges (Stone, 2006). Identifying why such associations occur is difficult. In many cases, fish may use coral in a similar way to other complex topography, such as rocks and boulders on the seabed, for shelter and for foraging. Other large predators may also use coral habitat as foraging areas. The endangered hawaiian monk seal has been observed as foraging preferentially for fish among beds of octocorals and black corals off hawaii (Parrish et al., 2002).

Coral garden communities are extremely vulnerable to damage from bottom fishing gear (Stone, 2006; Edinger et al., 2007a; Waller et al., 2007; heifetz et al., 2009). Species are slow growing and some octocorals and antipatharians are among the most long-lived species on the planet (ages of >4,000 years for leiopathes spp.; Roark et al., 2009). Such communities show a very low resilience to fishing impacts, and observations indicate no

recovery of coral gardens decades after fishing impacts (Waller et al., 2007). These habitats therefore meet criteria for classification as VmEs.

Compilation of records of deep-sea octocorals indicate that they are distributed throughout the world’s oceans, including areas such as the arctic and off continental antarctica where Scleractinia are relatively rare (fig. 13). While there is no clear pattern of distribution (see fig. 14), high levels of diversity have been observed in the north Pacific, especially around the hawaiian Islands; the southwestern Pacific, especially off new Zealand; the north atlantic, especially on the mid-atlantic Ridge; as well as seamounts and on the flanks of oceanic islands in the northeastern atlantic; and to a lesser extent in the Pacific and atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean (Rogers et al., in press). Records from the Indian Ocean are sparse.

On the basis of existing knowledge, the nEafC Regulatory area may be considered a globally important region in terms of abundance and diversity of octocorals. Within the region, knowledge of the distribution of coral garden communities is extremely sparse. most records of octocorals come from the northern mid-atlantic Ridge; the mid-atlantic Ridge around the azores; non-ridge seamounts, such as the Josephine Bank; along the continental slope from norway to West africa; the slopes of oceanic islands, including the azores and Canary Islands; and around Iceland and the faroes (hall-Spencer et al., 2007; WGDEC, 2007; Rogers et al., in press; fig. 15). The distribution of stylasterids and antipatharians is less well known but probably similar, albeit with differences in depth distribution (see Rogers et al., 2007).

at present there has been one study of the interactions of deep-sea bottom fisheries with octocorals/antipatharians in the nEafC Regulatory area (Durán muñoz et al., 2007), despite the known occurrence of octocoral gardens in the region (e.g. seamounts on the high seas and around the azores). Such interactions are likely to take place in high seas deep-water fisheries on the mid-atlantic Ridge and on the hatton Rockall Banks. Spanish observer studies indicate limited by-catch from bottom-fishing gear in the hatton Bank area but note that such organisms were rare on trawl grounds (WGDEC, 2007; fig. 16). nEafC has not undertaken assessment of such interactions and its discussions to date have mainly been concentrated on cold-water coral reef habitats and sponge grounds.

Figure 13. Global

distribution of

records of deep-

sea octocorals

(records >50m

deep). Note each

dot may represent

more than one

record (Rogers et

al., in press)..

Figure 14. Relative diversity of octocoral species in the world’s oceans (darker shades = higher diversity; Rogers et al., in press).

Figure 15. Distribution of non-reefal

corals in the North Atlantic region

based on ICES data (WGDEC, 2007).


General considerations

ICES was requested to identify the current temporal and spatial extent of deep-water fisheries in the northeast atlantic using VmS data. In 2009, ICES WGDEEP advised that:

“The quality of the data is not yet sufficient to provide information on the spatial and temporal extent of current deep-water fisheries in the nE atlantic.”

The reasons for this advice were that there was high interannual variability in data, suggesting that data were misreported or missing, and that in many cases only one species was reported from catches (70 percent of vessels; WGDEEP, 2009). This is highly unlikely in deep demersal fisheries (merrett & haedrich, 1997) and so it would seem that catches were misreported or that a portion of catch was unreported. notwithstanding this, these analyses did reveal some new information on where particular fish species were being fished and therefore the potential impacts on VmEs. ICES made a number of recommendations to nEafC regarding VmS data, notably to increase the transmission rate of VmS units and to note what fishing gear was deployed in fishing operations (because of the risk of confusing use of different types of gear). In 2009, nEafC agreed to increase the transmission rate of VmS units from once every

two hours to once every hour (nEafC, 2010a). a similar measure has been adopted by nafO (nafO fisheries Commission, 2009).

nEafC also requested that ICES assist it in developing a system for categorising fisheries using VmS and catch data. however, ICES reported that only 27 percent of vessels for which VmS data were available had reported catch data associated with individual vessels. This severely limited the possibilities of providing the requested work.

There has been no consideration of interactions of fisheries with other potential VmEs in the nEafC Regulatory area.

To date, there have been no impact assessments of fisheries on VmEs in the nEafC Regulatory area in accordance with recommendations of the faO Guidelines for management of deep-sea fisheries on the high seas. nEafC has now identified areas that are categorised as new/exploratory fishing areas in the nEafC Regulatory area, which include much of the mid-atlantic Ridge and seamount areas in the high seas of the northeast atlantic (nEafC press release, 2009). according to nEafC Recommendation xVI 2008, as from January 1 2009 all bottom fisheries in areas that are considered as new/exploratory areas are subject to impact assessments that are to be reviewed by PECmaS prior to permission to fish being given. as the areas to be identified as new/exploratory fishing areas were not identified until late October 2008 (PECmaS, 2008a), assessments were not forthcoming for 2009. a document confirming the geographic areas (5 by 10 minute boxes of latitude/longitude) classified as exploratory fishing areas and those classified as being fished has been published (PECmaS, 2008b). however, no impact assessments were reported to have been assessed by PECmaS in 2009 (PECmaS, 2009).

Move-on rules

The current nEafC move-on rule is triggered by a catch of >60kg of live coral (lophelia pertusa, antipatharians, gorgonians, cerianthid sea anemones or sea pens) or >800kg of live sponge (PECmaS, 2009; nEafC, 2010a). These threshold levels were modified following the adoption of lower VmE thresholds by nafO, which were reduced following scientific studies and were based on a simple extrapolation of threshold values estimated from scientific trawls

of 30 minutes duration (PECmaS, 2009; see below).

These trigger levels apply equally to a trawl tow or gillnet or longline set (nEafC, 2008: Para. 2.2). When an encounter takes place, it is reported to the flag state and/or Secretary (of nEafC) and the vessel moves on 2nm from the best-guess encounter position. Each year these encounter reports are reviewed by PECmaS and ICES and a decision is made on whether the accumulated evidence from encounters indicates the presence of a VmE (nEafC, 2008: Para. 2.2). for new fishing areas the encounter rules are the same except that the 2nm zone around the encounter position is automatically closed to fishing and then the temporary closure examined by PECmaS/ICES at the end of the year prior to making a decision about maintaining or lifting the closure (nEafC, 2008: Para. 3.2).

The threshold values for coral and sponge by-catch in the nEafC Regulatory area that trigger the move-on rule are not supported by any explicit assumptions of biomass-density relationships that produce some critical threshold for a VmE nor any related assumptions about catch efficiency in fishing gear. There are significant differences in both the area impacted and the catch efficiency of bottom trawl gear, gillnets or longlines for corals and sponges (WGDEC, 2006). Trigger levels for VmE encounters in the nEafC rules do not reflect these variations.

an additional issue related to the nEafC encounter rules is the actual quantity of by-catch that triggers move-on. limited studies indicate that by-catch may be a very poor indicator of seabed species composition and density. freese et al. (1999) quantified catch efficiency of trawl-caught invertebrates by comparing density estimates based on areas swept by the trawl, with density estimates from seafloor imagery at deep-water sites (206–274m depth) off southeast alaska. They found that nets retained only a fraction of the organisms on the seabed swept during tows and for some sessile organisms, such as octocorals and sponges, no quantifiable estimates of retention were made, presumably because of the size and fragility of species encountered. light, flexible and fragile specimens are either not retained by the net or once in the net are fragmented and lost through the meshes.

Figure 16. Distribution of catches of (A) Octocorallia and (B) Antipatharia on the

Hatton and Rockall Banks from bottom trawls (black symbols) and longlines

(red symbols) based on Spanish observer study (WGDEC, 2007).

Figure 17. Coral garden habitat from the slope of Faial Island, Azores, depth ~350m. Species include: Acanthogorgia hirsuta, Viminella flagellum, and

Narella sp. Note the lost longline along the top of the rock outcrop (© A.D. Rogers and the Rebikoff Foundation).


fisheries research surveys have recorded by-catch of benthic invertebrates, especially in the nafO area off the coast of eastern Canada. Spanish surveys in nafO Division 3lmnO, based on 30-minute tows at 3 knots (kts), did encounter large by-catches of sponges of up to 5t per tow. Thus, the nEafC threshold level for sponges would have triggered the VmE encounter move-on protocol in some instances for the fishing gear deployed. however, few encounters with live coral, including both small and large octocorals, antipatharians and scleractinians, would have triggered a move-on from these surveys (maximum catch was 69kg; murillo et al., 2008; see also WGEafm, 2008b). Data from standardised research trawls from the Canadian Department of fisheries and Oceans (DfO) surveys on the eastern coast of Canada (15-minute tows or standardised to 23,391m2) indicate that catches of up to 1,578.7kg of coral per haul of sponges were taken (WGDEC, 2009). Only a few instances of coral by-catch exceeding the threshold to trigger the move-on rule have been recorded. One was in an area east of the hudson Strait, northwest atlantic, where no previous fishing had taken place. here by-catch of up to 500kg of large octocorals (Primnoa resedaeformis and Paragorgia arborea) were taken per tow in the northern Shrimp Survey (Edinger et al., 2007b). The other case was in the Gulf of alaska at 365m depth, where 1,000kg of Primnoa were removed in a single trawl during a national marine fisheries Service (nmfS) survey (Krieger, 2001). In both instances massive octocoral colonies were the principal by-catch.

These data cannot be extrapolated to commercial trawls in terms of tow lengths and times (mean of four hours in de Cárdenas et al., 1997). It is not possible to simply extrapolate catches from short duration tows to longer duration commercial tows, as done by nafO and nEafC (PECmaS, 2009), because sponge and coral habitats have an aggregated distribution, meaning that the relationship between tow length, gear type and by-catch is not linear (WGDEC, 2007; WGEafm, 2008b). however, a trigger level of 800kg of sponge for bottom trawls is around one order of magnitude higher than the level estimated for research trawls of 15 to 30 minute duration in the northwest atlantic (WGEafm, 2009). an 800kg threshold would miss areas that murillo et al. (2008) considered as having high sponge by-catch. Given the scientific analyses undertaken by nafO (WGEafm, 2009; Kenchington et al.,

2009a), the current threshold for sponge by-catch may fail to meet conservation objectives. Equally, a trigger level established for bottom trawling is not appropriate for passive fishing gear such as gillnets or longlines as each fishing method has varying impact.

for habitat-forming corals the situation is similar. a 60kg trigger level for octocorals would miss the majority of coral garden habitats formed by large octocorals and probably 100 percent of coral garden habitats formed by small octocorals, antipatharians and stylasterids. for corals a trigger level of less than 10kg might be sufficient to detect VmEs if they are to be treated as a single category of organisms (even this is not appropriate for small habitat-forming octocorals, antipatharians and stylasterids). Such a weight would seem appropriate given coral by-catch in stock assessment surveys in areas such as the northwest atlantic (e.g. Edinger et al., 2007b). however, given the analyses undertaken by scientists for nafO, even lower trigger levels would be appropriate for smaller coral species or species with poor retention in nets (WGEafm, 2008b). This is because the low catch efficiency and sheer mass of fishing gear means many times the landed by-catch may be left on the seabed, destroyed or damaged. Thus, repeated trawling events that do not trigger the move-on rule may rapidly destroy a VmE given the current threshold levels set by nEafC.

for cold-water coral reefs, often the reef comprises a relatively thin layer of live coral overlying a dead coral framework which may form the greater part of the VmE. The dead coral framework is an integral part of the cold-water coral reef VmE and is the main habitat for many reef-associated species (e.g. see Rogers, 1999; freiwald et al., 2002). any differentiation between quantities of live and dead coral in the context of the VmE move-on rule is therefore unjustified both scientifically and for management purposes as they are both important components of a cold water coral reef.

for trawls, the 2nm move-on rule for fished areas has no conservation value. If mean tow time is four hours (de Cárdenas et al., 1997) and the usual speed of trawling is 3.5kts (WGDEC, 2009), then a trawl will cover a mean linear distance of 14km (up to 20nm is reported for the nafO Regulatory area; WGEafm, 2008b). VmEs are aggregated in their distribution and there is no way of ascertaining where a

VmE is actually encountered during normal fishing operations. Even for static gear such as longlines, doubts have been raised about identifying where VmEs occur from the position of a longline set and the specific location of VmE taxa on the longline (segment and hooks; Government of new Zealand, 2008a). Only larger cold-water coral reefs may be detected through irregularities in bottom topography on fisheries echosounders but this would require a constant watch to be maintained during trawling operations and for the position of any seabed mound recorded. Therefore, a vessel would have to move 2nm away from the entire trawl track for a move-on rule to be effective (see below). Depth zonation of fauna introduces another complication. a trawl or set across isobaths will encounter particular species at a very different rate than a trawl or set along isobaths.

nEafC distinguishes between fished and non-fished areas in the response to a VmE encounter. In a previously non-fished area (an exploratory fishing ground), when a VmE is encountered the area around it is closed to a diameter of 2nm. Only later, when the closure is considered by PECmaS/ICES, can a decision be made to maintain or lift such a closure. This makes sense, for a VmE when present is protected immediately from fishing. however, in an area with a history of fishing, although the encountering vessel must move on 2nm (as indicated above, this is unlikely to confer protection to VmEs from trawling), the area remains open to fishing until PECmaS/ICES make a decision at the end of the year as to whether or not the encounter represents a VmE. The VmE encounter area may be trawled time and time again by any vessel fishing in the area until the decision to close or not to close is made. a VmE encounter carries the same weight whether or not it occurs in an area with a fishing history, and the regulatory response should be the same. Indeed, it could be argued that a VmE in a fished area may be of greater conservation value as it may represent important habitat for target species of fisheries and a significant proportion of the habitat may have already been destroyed by fishing activities, thereby increasing conservation and fisheries value of the remaining habitat. Thus, discriminating in the application of the move-on rule between fished and non-fished areas by nEafC has a negative impact on protection of VmEs and is therefore inconsistent with the UnGa resolutions (UnGa, 2004, 2007, 2009) and faO Guidelines (faO, 2009a).

Conclusions (i) Conduct assessments of whether bottom

fishing activities have SAIs on VMEs.● nEafC now requires that impact assessments

are undertaken before bottom fishing is permitted in exploratory fishing areas.

● To date no impact assessments have been undertaken in the nEafC Regulatory area.

(ii) To implement measures in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law and to sustainably manage deep-sea fish stocks.

● Exploitation of deep-sea species within the nEafC Regulatory area has led to depletion of populations of several deep-sea species. Deep-water sharks are now classed as Endangered or Critically Endangered under IUCn criteria as a result of targeted fishing and/or by-catch.

● for the majority of deep-sea fish species, whether targeted, taken as by-catch, or both, there are no fishery-independent sources of data for analyses of stock status or trends. Reliance on fisheries (CPUE) data alone is extremely difficult for deep-sea species in this region because: > for aggregating species, such data are of

limited value as CPUE values can remain relatively constant and/or high in spite of stock depletion;

> ICES and nEafC suspect misreporting of catches of deep-sea species in the nEafC Regulatory area; and

> there are few data on by-catch/discards for many of the deep-sea fisheries in the nEafC Regulatory area.

● as a result of the above, the fisheries for many deep-sea species in the nEafC Regulatory area, including low-productivity species, are not sustainably managed. Indeed, for many deep-sea species management is impossible in view of the lack of reliable data on catches and an absence of scientific survey time series. nEafC countries agreed to reduce effort on deep-sea species; despite this, catches of deep-sea species increased from 2004–2008.

● Catches for deep-sea species have exceeded or been in contravention of ICES recommendations for several species, including the important redfish fisheries in the region.

● nEafC has banned the use of gillnets below 200m depth on the high seas in its Regulatory area, which may contribute to the protection of deep-sea shark species.

ThE ImPlEmEnTaTIOn Of Un RESOlUTIOnS 61/105 anD 64/72 In ThE manaGEmEnT Of DEEP-SEa fIShERIES On ThE hIGh SEaS34 ThE ImPlEmEnTaTIOn Of Un RESOlUTIOnS 61/105 anD 64/72 In ThE manaGEmEnT Of DEEP-SEa fIShERIES On ThE hIGh SEaS 3534 35

● nEafC agreed in 2009 to close one area for the protection of a deep-sea fish species (blue ling) during the spawning season; the extension of protected areas on the hatton Bank, also agreed in 2009, has also coincidentally protected part of a suspected spawning area for blue ling.

● Other areas previously closed by nEafC (e.g. several closed areas along the mid-atlantic Ridge and Rockall Bank) may have the effect of reducing the catch of some deep-sea species.

● multispecies deep-water trawl fisheries along the mid-atlantic Ridge and to the west of hatton Bank are in particular need of improved data and management.

(iii) To ensure that if fishing activities have SAIs they are managed to prevent such impacts, including through closing areas to bottom fishing where VMEs are known or likely to occur, or not authorised to proceed.

● VmEs are present in the deep sea in the nEafC Regulatory area beyond areas of national jurisdiction. These include cold-water coral reefs, sponge grounds and coral gardens. There are scattered data on the presence of other potential VmEs (e.g. occurrence of high densities of xenophyophores or reefs formed by filograna) in the northeast atlantic region.

● nEafC has closed significant areas to fishing because of the presence of VmEs, specifically cold-water coral reefs.

● nEafC has not closed all areas for which there is strong evidence of the presence of VmEs, specifically areas outside the current closures on Rockall Bank.

● nEafC has not closed areas to fishing because of the presence of non-cold-water coral reef VmEs specifically, but existing closures may confer some degree of protection to VmEs such as sponges and coral gardens.

● attempts to identify where deep-sea bottom fisheries on the high seas are interacting with

and/or impacting on benthic communities that constitute VmEs are hampered by a lack of data on where fisheries are taking place in any detail and especially at fine geographic scales.

(iv) To establish and implement protocols to cease fishing where an encounter with VMEs occurs during fishing activities and to report such encounters so that appropriate measures can be adopted with respect to that site.

● The threshold levels set by nEafC for VmE encounters apply to sponges and corals only.

● The threshold levels for sponges and corals may have little conservation value and underestimate the occurrence of VmEs and would only rarely result in any by-catch levels triggering move-on in most areas of the north atlantic.

● Using the same threshold levels for active and passive fishing gears does not reflect the large differences in their impact.

● Using the same threshold levels for different types of corals (and other VmE taxa) is likely to underestimate the occurrence of VmEs formed by smaller octocorals, antipatharians and stylasterids.

● Distinguishing by-catch of live and dead lophelia or any other coral is not based on current knowledge of the structure of cold-water coral reefs, many of which rely on dead structures for their make-up. not counting dead coral as a VmE encounter will lead to significant underestimates of the occurrence of coral VmEs in any area.

● Differentiating the post-VmE encounter protocol between areas with a fishing history and those without is inconsistent with conservation objectives. a VmE has the same conservation value whether or not it is in an area with a history of fishing.

● The 2nm move-on rule is ineffective from a conservation perspective as it is impossible to identify where a VmE encounter occurs along a tow for commercial bottom trawling.

northWest atlantiC oCeanThe northwestern Atlantic Ocean ranks tenth in importance in terms of capture fisheries, producing about 2.2 million tonnes of fish in 2006 (FAO, 2009b). Fishing yields in this region have been in decline since 2000 (FAO, 2009b). The RFMO for the area is the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) (Fig. 18), which replaced the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) in 1979. NAFO’s mandate extends to all fishery resources within its Regulatory Area except salmon, tuna, marlins and whales (Bensch et al., 2008).

at present, regulatory measures (TaCs or quotas) are in place for 11 species or groups of species, including cod (Gadus morhua), redfish (Sebastes spp.), american plaice (hippoglossoides platessoides), yellowtail flounder (limanda feruginea), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), capelin (mallotus villosus), skates (Rajidae), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), squid (Illex spp.) and shrimp (Pandalus spp. and Penaeus spp.) (nafO CEm, 2009). Several of these species are found in deep water and are caught in the high seas portions of the nafO Regulatory area, including redfish, white hake, skates, shrimp and Greenland halibut.

many other species occur in the nafO Regulatory area and are targeted or taken as by-catch in high seas deep-sea fisheries, including blue antimora (antimora rostrata), roughhead grenadier (macrourus berglax), roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris), marlin spike grenadier (nezumia bairdii), three-bearded rockling (Gaidropsarus ensis), silver rockling (Gaidropsarus argentatus), long fin hake (Urophycis chesteri), striped wolffish (anarhichas lupus), spotted wolffish (anarhichas minor), northern wolffish (anarhichas denticulatus), arctic eelpout (lycodes reticulatus), Esmark’s eelpout (lycodes esmarki), spiny eel (notacanthus chemnitzii), alfonsino (Beryx splendens and Beryx decadactylus), slickheads (alepocephalus spp.), black scabbardfish (aphanopus carbo), wreckfish (Polyprion americanus), black cardinalfish (Epigonus telescopus), barrelfish (hyperoglyphe perciformis), mediterranean roughy (hoplostethus mediterraneus), orange roughy (hoplostethus atlanticus), Cornish blackfish (Schedophilus medusophagus), hagfish (myxine glutinosa), large-eyed rabbitfish (hydrolagus mirabilis), narrownose chimaera (harriotta raleighana), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii), deep-sea catshark (apristurus profundorum), great lantern shark (Etmopterus princeps), bluntnose sixgill shark (hexanchus griseus) and Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis) (Kulka et al., 2003; muñoz et al., 2005; murua et al., 2005; murua & de Cárdenas, 2005; González-Troncoso et al., 2006; Grant, 2006; Kulka, 2006; González et al., 2007; Kulka et al., 2007a; Thompson & Campanis, 2007). This list is by no means inclusive of all targeted or by-catch species and for a more extensive list of potentially vulnerable deep-water species see WGEafm (2008a). most of these species, however, are either so rare or of such little value that they are discarded as unwanted by-catch.


Redfish (Sebastes spp.) (Deep-sea redfish [Sebastes mentella]; golden redfish [Sebastes marinus]; acadian redfish [Sebastes fasciatus]; beaked redfish [Sebastes mentella and Sebastes fasciatus]).

Because the species are very difficult to distinguish and hybrids are known, all are grouped together in the single statistical category ‘redfish’ in the northwest atlantic.Redfish are long-lived and slow-growing species

Figure 18. The NAFO Regulatory Area.


and are generally viviparous with larval exclusion occurring immediately before or after birth. for these reasons the species are regarded as low productivity or vulnerable species (WGEafm, 2008a; see above). management of redfish stocks in the nafO area is complicated by large fluctuations in catches from year to year (nafO SC, 2008).

Redfish have been targeted in high seas areas of the nafO Regulatory area, particularly in area 3m, around the flemish Cap. Initial catches in this region rose from around 20,000t in 1985 to 81,000t in 1990, followed by a steep decline in catches to around 1,000t in 1998/99 (fig. 19). as well as being subject to a directed fishery, redfish were also being caught at this time as a by catch in the shrimp fisheries in the region. as stocks declined, fishing effort directed towards these species also decreased but there was an increase in catches after 2000 when Russian and Portuguese fleets increased efforts to catch redfish in the region. Catches have since risen

to 6,500–8,500t in the last few years and it has been suggested that this is a result of some recovery in biomass of the targeted fish stocks, a claim not wholly supported by scientific survey data (morin et al., 2004; Devine & haedrich, 2010). These catches have been consistently above recommendations by the Scientific Committee for the recovery of the stock (e.g. nafO fisheries Commission, 2005; nafO SC, 2008). In 2009 nafO increased the quota for redfish in area 3m to 8,500t (nafO TaCS, 2009) despite a recommendation by the Scientific Committee to maintain catches at 5,000t per annum (nafO fisheries Commission, 2008). In the last few years the Russian fleet has begun to target pelagic redfish on the flemish Cap. as yet no data are available on this fishery, and its impacts on the redfish stock within the area as a whole are unclear (nafO SC, 2008). ICES provides advice on pelagic redfish for the whole north atlantic area, however, nEafC has consistently set TaCs for this species several times greater than scientific recommendations (nafO SC, 2008).

In areas 3ln, which also include high seas areas such as the flemish Pass and the southern tip of the Grand Banks, the fishing history has been similar. here, catches increased sharply from 1985, rising from 21,000t to 79,000t in 1987, followed by a steep decline to about 450t in 1996 (fig. 19). During this period catches were consistently above TaC levels. In 1998 a moratorium was established preventing directed fishing of Sebastes spp. in this region. Despite this, by-catch of redfish resulted in overall catches actually increasing from 1998 to 2000 (nafO SC, 2005). The moratorium in areas 3ln has since been lifted and a precautionary TaC of 3,500t set (nafO SC, 2008), although this is allocated as a 10 percent limit on by-catch of other fisheries in the area. The stock remains at a very low level compared to its size prior to 1985.

Redfish are also fished in area 3O but there was little specific information on the current status of this stock and indeed the Scientific Committee was unable to provide management advice for this area because of lack of data (nafO SC, 2008; nafO fisheries Commission, 2009). Despite this, a TaC of 20,000t was set by the fisheries Commission in 2005 and has remained at this level to the present day (nafO SC, 2008; nafO fisheries Commission, 2009). Catches in recent years have varied but have generally not reached the TaC.

Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) The roundnose grenadier is long-lived, late maturing and slow growing and therefore fits the faO criteria for a low-productivity species (see above). Roundnose grenadier were first exploited by Russian fleets in the late 1960s, with catches peaking in the early 1970s at around 80,000t and then declining rapidly. The fishery developed largely in the absence of any knowledge of the biology of the species and by the 1990s had declined markedly and effort switched to roughhead grenadier (macrourus berglax). analyses of catches of roundnose grenadier in research trawls concluded that catches had decreased by 99.6 percent from 1978–2003 (Devine et al., 2006; Supplementary Information), a decline fitting the IUCn definition for Critically Endangered (Devine et al., 2006). Subsequent study indicates that the decline in roundnose grenadier populations was a result of overfishing (Devine & haedrich, 2008). Sufficient demographic data exist for roundnose grenadier to calculate potential recovery times. These could be as little as 16 years assuming an unlikely high rate of increase (56 percent) and no fishing; with even a low fishing rate (5 percent), recovery time rises to 136 years (Baker et al., 2009). Catch history in recent years is complicated by evidence of extensive misreporting of catches of roughhead grenadier as roundnose grenadier (murua et al., 2005; González-Troncoso & Paz, 2007). The species was taken mainly as by-catch in Greenland halibut fisheries off Greenland (nafO areas 0 and 1) and further south (areas 2 and 3). Estimates of population biomass remain at extremely low levels. Roundnose grenadier is not under specific management measures by nafO although the Scientific Committee recommended no directed fisheries towards the species off Greenland and efforts to minimise by-catch (nafO SC, 2008). The species is considered Endangered in the northwest atlantic (COSEWIC, 2008).

Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) The roughhead grenadier is becoming an important commercial species in the northwest atlantic where it is taken as by-catch in the Greenland halibut fishery, mainly in nafO areas 3lmn, much of which lies in the high seas (fossen et al., 2003; Costas & murua, 2008). as with roundnose grenadier, this is considered to be a slow-growing species, late to mature and long-lived (20 years +). The species matures at 15 years of age but is recruited to fisheries

at eight years old (Devine & haedrich, 2008). as with the roundnose grenadier, it has been estimated that populations of this species have declined catastrophically in the northwest atlantic, with a decrease in catches in DfO research trawls of 93.3 percent between 1978 and 2003. These data have been somewhat controversial and indeed contradictory to recent papers suggesting that populations are stable or recovering, with increases in biomass in recent years (e.g. Costas & murua, 2008; but subsequent communications found that negative data from the region, i.e. tows with zero catch, were not provided to these investigators). Recovery times are calculated at as little as 19 years with no fishing and a 46 percent annual rate of increase, but rise to 248 years if even a low rate of fishing is allowed (Baker et al., 2009). Recent studies have only covered trends in populations since 1994, by which time the northwest atlantic stocks of m. berglax had already decreased significantly, probably as a result of by-catch and discarding in the halibut fishery, and as a result of environmental changes affecting population distribution (Devine & haedrich, 2008). Catches of m. berglax peaked at 9,000t in 2000 but have declined since, with catches at 3,000t and 1,500t in 2004 and 2007, respectively (Costas & murua, 2008). It has been suggested that decreased catches may have occurred because of efforts to regulate the fishery for Greenland halibut in this area (Costas & murua, 2008). however, several papers have identified extensive misreporting of catches of roughhead grenadier as roundnose grenadier, although the species are quite distinct. as yet there is no management regime in place for roughhead grenadier in the nafO Regulatory area. The species is considered to be of Special Concern (≈ IUCn Vulnerable) in the northwest atlantic (COSEWIC, 2007).

Blue antimora, blue hake or flat-nosed codling (Antimora rostrata) This is a widely distributed fish, occurring at depths between 400 and 4,000m in the northeast and northwest atlantic, northern mid-atlantic Ridge and elsewhere. In the nafO Regulatory area, blue hake are caught within the Canadian EEZ, but also on the eastern margins of the Grand Banks, the flemish Pass and flemish Cap (Kulka et al., 2003). Blue hake do not concentrate at sufficient densities to warrant directed fisheries but are taken as by-catch in commercial trawl and longline fisheries in the nafO Regulatory area (Kulka et al., 2003). Devine et al. (2006; supplementary material)

Figure 19. Beaked redfish

catches in (A) Area 3M

biomass, (B) Area 3M

numbers (Ávilo de Melo et

al., 2009) and (C) Areas

3LN (NAFO SC, 2008).

75

60

Thou

sand

ton

sM

illion

sTA

C/C

atch

(1,

000

tons

)

45

30

15

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997Year

A. STACFIS ESTIMATES OF BEAKEDREDFISH COMMERCIAL CATCH

B. BEAKED REDFISH COMMERCIALCATCH AND BY-CATCH IN NUMBERS

C. TAC / CATCH (1,000 TONS)

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Year

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975Year

1980 1985 1990199502000 2005

0

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

50

100

150

200

Commercial

By-catch250

300

350

TACCatch


report a decline in catches of blue hake of 92.7 percent in research trawls from 1978–1994. There are few other data on blue hake in the region. The resilience of the species is not understood and it is not possible to evaluate the current status of stocks in the northwest atlantic. There is no market for blue hake and all by-catch is presumably discarded.

Wolffish or catfish: striped wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor), northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), Wolffish are a small family of very large blennies, notable for their ferocious appearance and disposition. They have very unusual and conservative life histories that include internal fertilisation and the production of large eggs and larvae (2cm long in a. lupus), which are brooded in nests under rocks by the males for four to nine months. The level of parental care is extraordinary; in the striped wolffish, the male actively aerates and turns the eggs and covers them in skin mucus to prevent infection (Kulka et al., 2007b). They are long-lived (>20 years) and tagging studies have indicated that they are highly sedentary and apparently territorial. Juvenile wolffish may settle close to their nest sites but can also range quite far to establish new home bases where suitable habitat is found (natal behaviour; fuller & Watling, 2008). Wolffish are apex predators and exert considerable effects on ecosystem structure and the composition of benthic communities by feeding on urchins and other grazers (fuller & Watling, 2008). In all respects, wolffish fit the faO description of a low-productivity species, mainly because of the life history of the species (O’Dea & haedrich, 2003; Kulka et al., 2007b).

The three atlantic species reviewed here are distributed in the north atlantic only and are found within national waters and in high seas areas of both the nafO and nEafC Regulatory areas. The outer edges of the Grand Banks and the flemish Cap comprise significant areas of habitat (Kulka et al., 2007b). The depth range is considerable as they are found from 20–1,500m depth; northern wolffish have the narrowest range (Kulka et al., 2007b). These species are found in a narrow range of environmental temperatures (1.5–5oC; Kulka et al., 2007b). Wolffish have been subject to directed fisheries off Greenland, but off Canada they are caught as by-catch, with about 1,000t per year taken in the 1980s. The species have never been taken in directed fisheries in this area because they

do not reach sufficient densities to maintain a commercial fishery, despite their market appeal. The decline in wolffish populations in the northwest atlantic is catastrophic, with northern wolffish declining by 95 percent in three generations, and spotted wolffish declining by >90 percent in Canadian waters (Kulka et al., 2007b). Striped wolffish has declined significantly in Canadian waters (O’Dea & haedrich, 2003), and in US waters further south catches declined 94.9 percent between 1983 and 2004 (fuller & Watling, 2008). major contractions in the distribution of these species have also been identified, with a possible but unlikely shift in distribution to deeper waters (Kulka et al., 2007b). at present it would appear that all three of these wolffish species are threatened with local extinction in the northwest atlantic, an area of global significance for them. all three are considered species-at–risk in the northwest atlantic: a. lupus as Special Concern (≈ IUCn Vulnerable) and a. minor and a. denticulatus as Threatened (Baker et al., 2009).

Canadian assessments that established the threat status of the three wolffish species state that a definitive cause of their decline is not apparent. The size and habitat of all three species makes them highly susceptible to capture by bottom trawls. a significant part of the catch of wolffish in the nafO Regulatory area comes from outside the Canadian EEZ and it is suspected that catches are being under-reported (Kulka et al., 2007b). Catch statistics for the period 1995–2002 indicate that significant quantities of wolffish were taken in nafO areas (18.7 percent), which include high seas areas on the southern part of the Grand Banks, and the flemish Pass (Kulka et al., 2007b). These catches are retained for commercial purposes and it is likely that the fish stocks are continuous across national and high seas waters (Kulka et al., 2007b). There is often confusion in the identification of the three wolffish species and they may therefore be reported as wolffish or catfish for commercial purposes (Kulka et al., 2007a). at present there is no specific management regime for wolffish in the nafO Regulatory area. In Canadian waters, northern and spotted wolffish must now be released alive if caught as by-catch. In addition to direct mortality, it is likely that trawling damages shelter and nesting sites for wolffish and this may also be a contributory factor to its decline (Kulka et al., 2007b; fuller & Watling, 2008).

Skates (Rajidae)Skates are low-productivity species characterised by low rates of growth, high ages at maturity, low fecundities and high longevity (mcPhie & Campana, 2009). In the northwest atlantic attention was drawn to the impacts fishing had on skates following the suggestion that the largest species in the area, barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis), was close to extinction (Casey & myers, 1998). however, subsequent work has suggested that this species has increased over recent years on the Grand Banks (Gedamke et al., 2005) and has not become extinct, although numbers were reduced greatly in areas for which records are available off newfoundland (>99.9 percent decrease in 20–30 years; Casey & myers, 1998).

The most commonly landed commercial species in the northwest atlantic area include winter skate (leucoraja ocellata), little skate (leucoraja erinacea), thorny skate (amblyraja radiata) and the smooth skate (malacoraja senta). analyses of data on these species from Canadian waters (Scotia Shelf) indicates that from 1970 to 2006 the abundance of mature winter, thorny and smooth skate declined by >90 percent, whereas little skate increased in adundance (mcPhie & Campana, 2009). This pattern of declines in larger species and increases in smaller has been observed elsewhere in the world with other skate species (e.g. Dulvy et al., 2000). about 95 percent of the catches in the nafO Regulatory area are of thorny skate and mainly come from areas 3lnOP, which include the high seas. There are major uncertainties in the catches of these species prior to 1996 (nafO SC, 2008), primarily due to failure to distinguish between species. Catches are thought to have peaked at around 31,500t in 1991 and for areas 3lnO averaged at about 9,050t from 2000–2007. Currently, the biomass of the stocks, estimated from scientific surveys, are low compared to the 1980s but have remained stable in recent years and even increased slightly from 2005–2007. Skates came into regulation by nafO in 2004. nafO SC (2008) recommended that catches of skates be maintained at around 6,000t to allow continued recovery of the stock but the nafO fisheries Commission set a TaC for 2010 of 12,000t on the basis of evidence of increased stock size. Winter skate, a mainly shelf species, is considered a species-at-risk in the northwest atlantic with population assessments of Special Concern (Western Scotian Shelf), Threatened (Eastern Scotian Shelf), Endangered (Gulf of St

lawrence) and Data Deficient (newfoundland) (COSEWIC, 2005).

SharksWithin the region, porbeagle shark (lamna nasus) is subject to a directed longline fishery and, as a result of significant declines in populations, has been subject to a low TaC within Canadian waters. The species is also taken as by-catch in pelagic fisheries for tuna and billfish (nafO SC, 2008). In recent years catches from pelagic longlines have increased while mean size has decreased, indicating a serious threat to the species. The porbeagle is a pelagic shark of the high seas where it is caught in epipelagic waters <200m in depth (Campana & Joyce, 2004). Good catch statistics and demographic data exist for the region. The species is considered Endangered in the northwest atlantic (COSEWIC, 2004).

There are few data for other sharks in the region. The only sharks with commercial value in the area are the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), a shallow-water species mainly taken on the Canadian Shelf (Kulka, 2006). Other sharks, notably the black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii), have little commercial value and are only taken as by-catch in the nafO Regulatory area. Several other species are also taken outside the Canadian EEZ in the high seas areas of the nafO Regulatory area (murua & de Cárdenas, 2005; Kulka, 2006), including the Portuguese shark (Centroscymnus coelolepis), the deep-sea cat shark (apristurus profundorum) and the great lantern shark (Etmopterus princeps). however, fisheries data for these are either non-existent or the species are aggregated as deep-sea sharks/dogfish. Status of these species within the region is unknown, but all are relatively rare and of little commercial interest.

Other speciesRabbitfish (family Chimaeridae) are also caught in nafO Regulatory areas 3lmnO. Two species, the large-eyed rabbitfish (hydrolagus mirabilis) and the narownose rabbitfish (harriotta raleighana), are taken in mixed-species, bottom trawl fisheries in deep waters of the Grand Banks and flemish Cap (González et al., 2007). as with other Chondrichthyes, these species have a conservative life history and are low-productivity species. There is no information on the state of populations of these species in the northwest atlantic.



The nafO Regulatory area is dominated oceanographically by cold, low-salinity water flowing from the north in the labrador Current. To the south the region is bound by the Gulf Stream, which means that the region is characterised by very strong latitudinal gradients in temperature. Within the region there are areas of high primary production generated by input of nutrients from strong tidal mixing and, in areas, localised upwelling. The benthic ecosystems of the region are well studied in the south, especially on the northeastern shelf of the USa and the southeastern shelf of Canada, but less well studied in northern areas. however, the occurrence of cold-water coral habitats and deep-sea sponge grounds have been known in the region for nearly 90 years (e.g. Verrill, 1922; Deichmann, 1936; Breeze et al., 1997; Breeze & Davis, 1998; macIsaac et al., 2001; mortensen & Buhl-mortensen, 2004, 2005; Gass & Willason, 2005; mortensen et al., 2005; WGDEC, 2009) and they are presently under active investigation (Gilkinson & Edinger, 2009). The region has extensive offshore banks (topographic elevations associated with or on the continental shelf) but

a relatively limited number of large seamounts (isolated topographic elevations), estimated at 43 for the nafO Regulatory area, of which a fraction have summit depths in the range of fishing as currently practised (Kulka et al., 2007c).

In January 2007, six areas of seamounts were closed to fishing as a measure to protect benthic biodiversity (Table 2 and fig. 20). although biological information on these seamounts was extremely scant, there was some evidence of coral by-catch in trawls from some of the new England and Corner Rise Seamounts and it was suggested that deep-sea coral frameworks may exist in the Orphan Knoll region (Kulka et al., 2007c).

Some of these areas have been subject to significant fisheries for deep-sea species, particularly alfonsino (Beryx spp.), most notably a Russian fishery from 1978–1996 on the Corner Rise Seamounts and some exploratory fishing by other states (Kulka et al., 2007c; Thompson & Campanis, 2007). Subsequent to the cessation of the Russian alfonsino fishery, some fishing, including exploratory fishing trips, occurred on the Corner Rise Seamounts for alfonsino, wreckfish and black scabbardfish, mainly by Spanish vessels but also by Canadian vessels (Kulka et al., 2007; Thompson & Campanis, 2007). Recent ROV surveys on the Corner Rise Seamounts identified the existence of some remaining coral habitat, but large areas of the summits and upper flanks of two seamounts, Kükenthal and Yakutat, were denuded of large sessile animals and showed evidence of trawl damage in the form of seabed scars, other damage to the seabed and coral fragments (Waller et al., 2007) (fig. 22).

In reponse to UnGa Resolution 61/105, nafO closed an area along the southern slope of the Grand Banks to protect corals from bottom fishing, roughly along the 800 – 1,000m isobath. Subsequent analyses of the closed area showed that many records of octocorals and other corals actually occurred in waters shallower than the shallowest boundary of the closed area, just outside the closed zone (WGDEC, 2008; fig. 21). It was suggested that the protected area should be extended to the 200m-depth contour to protect all the deep-sea corals in this immediate area (WGDEC, 2008). So far this has not been acted upon.

Post-January 2008: A more systematic approach to identification of VMEs

In 2008, the nafO Scientific Committee and the Working Group on Ecosystem approach to fisheries management (WGEafm) initiated a new approach to assessing coral and sponge by-catch data from fisheries research surveys obtained by Canada and Spain. These research trawls covered a substantial portion of the nafO Regulatory area, including the high seas regions subject to bottom trawling (WGEafm, 2009). Two approaches have been used to identify VmEs formed by corals and sponges. The first involved the examination of cumulative catch data for VmE species by ranking the biomass of VmE taxa in each trawl from lowest to highest and then plotting the increase in accumulative biomass with each additional trawl. If VmE taxa show an aggregated distribution, as would be expected if they form high-density patches of individuals that structure the habitat, then at some stage the accumulation curve will show a marked sudden increase in biomass. This is because, for the greater part of the seabed, the density of individuals of VmE taxa is low, so biomass accumulates very slowly. Tows that encounter a VmE generate a large step in biomass of VmE species, identified by the area of maximum curvature of the accumulation curve. This method

was applied first to corals and then to sponges for the nafO Regulatory area.

The second method uses Geographical Information System (GIS) software to analyse the distribution of density of sponge by-catch in the nafO Regulatory area (WGEafm, 2009). Effectively, this identifies a circular search radius around each point (cell) on a map and then estimates the number of VmE features within that radius, dividing the number by the area around the cell to get a unit density. for sponge studies, a 25km search radius was chosen as it recognises distinct geological features. Smaller radii (e.g. 10km) resulted in a highly fragmented picture of sponge density. Contour maps of sponge density were then constructed.

Using the accumulation curve method, the presence of coral VmEs was assessed by nafO WGEafm (2008b). The report immediately identified that it was likely that different significance should be attached to the levels of by-catch of different types of corals as colonies have different weights and different morphology (shape and structure), making them more or less likely to be caught and retained in trawls (WGEafm, 2008b). Subsequent analyses revealed that large catches of corals and sea pens, indicating the presence of a potential VmE, were actually quite rare events in research trawls. Identifying significant steps on the accumulative curve of coral catches was difficult but a highly conservative point was chosen representing the 97.5 percent quantile (upper bound of the 95 percent quantile). This represented a catch of 1.6kg per trawl for sea pens (fig. 23) and 0.2kg per trawl for small gorgonian octocorals (acanella arbuscula; fig. 24). for larger gorgonians, because they are more prone to breakage and fragmentation in a trawl, a more precautionary quantile of 90 percent was set, representing a catch level of 2kg per trawl (WGEafm, 2008b; fig. 25), although in very exceptional circumstances, where the seabed has not been previously trawled, by-catch of such species has been high (Krieger, 2001; Edinger et al., 2007b).

for sponges, the area occupied by weight of sponges in trawls was broken into 25kg bins and then plotted using GIS (WGEafm, 2009; fig. 26). The weight at which a marked increase in area occupied by sponges was found to be between 100 and 75kg of sponge by-catch. further analyses indicated that the 75kg weight threshold for a trawl catch was the level that indicated potential encounter with a VmE. This was not

Figure 22. Kükenthal Peak

showing scar marks from

bottom trawling. © Deep-

Atlantic Stepping Stones

Research Group.

Figure 20. Map of seamount areas protected within NAFO

Regulatory Area (Thompson & Campanis, 2007).

Figure 21. NAFO coral protection area, initiated January

2008, showing records of sea pens (Pennatulacea) in green,

gorgonians in blue and soft corals in red (WGDEC, 2008).

Table 2. NAFO

seamount areas

protected from bottom

fishing in January

2007 (NAFO CEM,

2009).

Area Coordinate 1 Coordinate 2 Coordinate 3 Coordinate 4

Fogo Seamounts 142º31’33”N 53º23’17”W

42º31’33”N 52º33’37”W

41º55’48”N 53º23’17”W

41º55’48”N 52º33’37”W

Fogo Seamounts 241º07’22”N 52º27’49”W

41º07’22”N 51º38’10”W

40º31’37”N 52º27’49”W

40º31’37”N 51º38’10”W

Orphan Knoll50º00’30”N 45º00’30”W

51º00’30”N 45º00’30”W

51º00’30”N 47º00’30”W

50º00’30”N 47º00’30”W

Comer Seamounts35º00’00”N 48º00’00”W

36º00’00”N 48º00’00”W

36º00’00”N 52º00’00”W

35º00’00”N 52º00’00”W

Newfoundland Seamounts

43º29’00”N 43º20’00”W

44º00’00”N 43º20’00”W

44º00’00”N 46º40’00”W

43º29’00”N 46º40’00”W

New England Seamounts

35º00’00”N 57º00’00”W

39º00’00”N 57º00’00”W

35º00’00”N 64º00’00”W

35º00’00”N 64º00’00”W


compatible with the 97.5 percent quantile (close to 1,000kg; fig. 27) but was compatible with the maximum curvature of a plot of the cumulative weights of sponge by-catch in trawls (WGEafm, 2009; fig. 28). This threshold weight appeared to be consistent between approaches in identifying what weight of sponge by-catch in a trawl represented a likely encounter with a VmE.

These areas corresponded to the northern, eastern and southern flanks of the flemish Cap, southern parts of the flemish Pass and the eastern and southern flanks of the Grand Banks. They were used to guide the closure of 11 further high seas areas to bottom fishing in September 2009 to protect VmEs formed by sponges and corals (fig. 31). In addition to the previous nafO Regulatory area, 3O, this makes a total of 12 benthic areas in the high seas as well as a further six seamount areas closed to bottom fishing in the nafO region.

The move-on rule

The nafO move-on rule for coral by-catch was slightly adjusted at the annual meeting in September 2009 from 100kg of live coral to 60kg of live coral. This followed the realisation that within the nafO area the by-catch of corals in research trawls would never have triggered a move-on incident with a threshold value of 100kg. The current threshold levels are still more than one order of magnitude higher than that estimated using accumulation curves for large octocorals and more than two orders of magnitude larger than that for small corals. The scientists advising nafO undertook estimation of a by-catch that signified an encounter with a VmE using extensive datasets from research trawls and based on a consistent and rigorous methodological approach (WGEafm, 2008b, 2009). a similar inconsistency applies to sponge threshold levels, with a current trigger level of 800kg, compared to a threshold weight of 75kg for research trawls, which was estimated as indicative of the presence of a VmE (WGEafm, 2009). In spite of the much longer duration of commercial trawl tows, a linear increase in the ‘catch’ of sponge and corals in commercial fishing gear is not expected as coral or sponge VmEs occur in discrete patches (rarely more than 500m across) and encounters with such VmEs are relatively rare with trawls, although the chance of encountering more than one patch increases with increased trawl time (WGEafm, 2008b). Recognising this, the USa put forward a proposal at the annual meeting of nafO in 2009 to establish threshold limits of 2kg of corals and 75kg of sponges. nafO, however, only agreed to reduce the threshold levels of ‘live’ corals from 100 to 60kg and from 1,000 to 800kg for sponges. nafO has begun the process of developing identification guides for VmE taxa in the nafO Regulatory area (Kenchington et al., 2009b).

FIGURE 23

0 2 4 6 8 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0

WEIGHT QUANTILESmaximum

quartilemedianquartile

minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

0.1160004.7188801.6022000.4546000.1700000.0490000.0105000.0030940.0010000.0010000.000100

FIGURE 24.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.21.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

1.1953000.6691980.2397040.1037500.0350000.0100000.0030000.0010000.0010000.0001000.000100

FIGURE 25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.21.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

68.58000067.48490034.1188502.0662800.3250000.0300000.0100000.0020000.0010000.0010000.001000

Weight (kg)

Weight (kg)

Are

a (k

m2 )

Are

a (k

m2 )

250

3,980 1,994 999 500 250 125 62 31 15 7 3 1

0

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

250 175 150 125 100 75 50 25

FIGURE 26 (b)

FIGURE 26 (a) CODE WEIGHT (kg)

AREA (km2)

N TOWS

123459121416171819

3,9801,994999500250125623115731

5051,7436,7318,6239,18611,89619,20423,43228,04236,89556,69082,516

72137617393118155195264352501

CODE WEIGHT (kg)

AREA (km2)

N TOWS

5678910111315

250200175150125100755025

9,18610,14310,14310,14311,89815,03218,81020,36826,371

7387888993102113130168

FIGURE 27 FIGURE 28

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,0000

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0 COMBINED DATA(Weight > 0.5 kg)

50 100 150 200 250 300

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

f(x)

Weight (kg)

1.0WEIGHT QUANTILESmaximum


100%99.5%

99%97.5%

95%90%85%80%75%50%25%20%15%

50003370.582151.38953.13430.00124.4652.5225.8116.103.501.250.970.85

FIGURE 23

0 2 4 6 8 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

0.1160004.7188801.6022000.4546000.1700000.0490000.0105000.0030940.0010000.0010000.000100

FIGURE 24.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.21.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

1.1953000.6691980.2397040.1037500.0350000.0100000.0030000.0010000.0010000.0001000.000100

FIGURE 25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.21.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

68.58000067.48490034.1188502.0662800.3250000.0300000.0100000.0020000.0010000.0010000.001000

FIGURE 23

0 2 4 6 8 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

0.1160004.7188801.6022000.4546000.1700000.0490000.0105000.0030940.0010000.0010000.000100

FIGURE 24.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.21.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

1.1953000.6691980.2397040.1037500.0350000.0100000.0030000.0010000.0010000.0001000.000100

FIGURE 25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.21.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

f(x)

Weight (kg)

0.8

1.0



minimum

100%99.5%97.5%

90%75%50%25%10%2.5%0.5%

0%

68.58000067.48490034.1188502.0662800.3250000.0300000.0100000.0020000.0010000.0010000.001000

Figure 24. Cumulative distribution of catch

(kg) of Acanella arbuscula from research

trawl surveys (WGEAFM, 2008b).

Figure 23. Cumulative distribution of

catch (kg) of sea pens from research trawl

surveys (WGEAFM, 2008b).

Figure 25. Cumulative distribution of catch (kg) of large

gorgonians (Paragorgia spp., Primnoa resedaeformis,

Keratoisis ornata, Acanthogorgia armata, Paramuricea

spp.) from research trawl surveys (WGEAFM, 2008b).

Figure 27. Cumulative distribution of

weight of sponge catches from Spanish

(30-minute tows) and Canadian (15-minute

tows) research trawls. Box shows weights

corresponding to the maximum curvature of

catch cumulation curve (WGEAFM, 2009).

Figure 28. (Detail of Fig. 27) zoomed in to

show the curve between 10 and 300kg.

Black arrow indicates the first long step in

the cumulation curve, corresponding to 75kg

of sponge catch, Red arrows indicate the

100 and 125kg points (WGEAFM, 2009).

Figure 26. Area occupied by trawls

with decreasing catch weight of

sponges from (a) 3980 – 1kg and

(b) from 250 – 25kg, using GIS

density rasters (WGEAFM, 2009).

Figure 29. Areas where catches of octocorals exceed the threshold values

identified by WGEAFM (WGEAFM, 2008b).

Figure 30. Areas where the weight of catches of sponges exceeded the

threshold identified by WGEAFM. Numbers represent NAFO numbering system

for potential VME locations (WGEAFM, 2009).

Figure 31. Areas closed to bottom fishing by NAFO, September, 2009 (NAFO

Fisheries Commission, 2009).


Conclusions (i) Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing

activities have SAIs on VMEs.● as yet no impact assessments have been

undertaken for bottom fishing operations in the high seas of the nafO Regulatory area.


● The deep-water fisheries of the nafO Regulatory area have a record of severe overfishing and many stocks are at a fraction of historic abundance and biomass and are in recovery from, or remain in, a depleted state.

● The only deep-water low-productivity species managed by nafO are skates and redfish.

● Other low-productivity species are taken as by-catch in deep-water fisheries for Greenland halibut, redfish and skate. Some of these species are threatened with extinction in the nafO Regulatory area as a result of a combination of environmental change and overfishing. nafO has made no attempt to manage the catch of these species to ensure that populations remain in a viable state. This situation is a direct threat to the biodiversity of high seas deep-sea ecosystems in the nafO Regulatory area.

● new fisheries, such as the pelagic redfish fishery on the flemish Cap, are not regulated in a manner that would be consistent with the faO Guidelines in respect of exploratory fisheries.

● Extensive misreporting occurs in the deep-sea high seas fisheries in the nafO Regulatory area. Under-reporting of catches of some species or groups of species is suspected in the high seas deep-water fisheries.

● nafO also does not identify fish catches to species-level for several groups of regulated and unmanaged fish, including redfish, wolffish, skate and sharks.

● The nafO fisheries Commission has consistently set catches above the levels proposed by the nafO Scientific Council for low-productivity deep-water species, in some cases to levels more than double the recommended TaCs.


● nafO has identified areas of high concentrations of corals and sponges using information on by-catch from research trawls. Ongoing studies

have adopted non-destructive photo survey methods for assessments.

● This information has been used to designate areas for protection from bottom fishing.

● In some cases, the exact outline of the protected areas does not reflect data on the positions of occurrence of VmE taxa. The reasons for this are unclear.

● aspects of the scientific advice on the potential occurrence of VmEs and establishment of thresholds of coral or sponge catch that indicate the presence of VmEs have been exemplary. however, the knowledge gained is not currently reflected in the move-on rule (see below).

● The ecological and biological significance of lesser concentrations of corals, sponges and other VmE indicator species found in the nafO Regulatory area have not been assessed to establish whether additional protective areas are required.


● The threshold levels set by nafO for VmE encounters apply to sponges and corals only.

● The threshold levels for corals exceed scientific estimation of threshold levels that indicate coral VmEs by more than one or two orders of magnitude, depending on the category of coral (sea pens, small corals, large corals).

● The threshold levels for sponges are also set at more than one order of magnitude above levels estimated by examination of by-catch data from research trawls. as for corals, current threshold levels may have little or no conservation value.

● Using the same threshold levels for active and passive fishing gears does not reflect their greatly differing impact.

● Scientific advice to nafO identified that using the same threshold levels for different types of corals was likely to underestimate the occurrence of VmEs formed by smaller octocorals, antipatharians and stylasterids.

● Differentiating the post-VmE encounter protocol between areas with a fishing history and those without is inconsistent. a VmE has the same conservation value whether or not it is in an area with a history of fishing.

● The 2nm move-on rule is ineffective as a conservation measure, as it is impossible to identify where a VmE encounter occurs along a tow for commercial bottom trawling and therefore has no conservation value. In the case of nafO, commercial trawls are up to 20nm long.

mediterranean seaThe Mediterranean is an enclosed sea with depths as great as 5,121m and is notable for being one of the few warm, deep-ocean basins in the world, with temperatures a uniform 12.5–14.5oC (Cartes et al., 2004). It comprises many of the topographic features found elsewhere in the deep ocean, including canyons, cold seeps, seamounts and cold-water coral reefs. However, because the countries surrounding the Mediterranean have not exercised their rights to claim a 200nm EEZ, many of these features associated with the continental slope are in, or partially in, the high seas and not within waters under national jurisdiction (Bensch et al., 2008). The RFMO for the region is the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) (Fig. 32), which has been in existence since 1952, making it one of the oldest RFMOs in the world.

The mediterranean deep-sea fauna is unique, as a result of isolation by a shallow sill, current oceanographic conditions and the historical

impacts of the messinian Salinity Crisis (5.7–5.4 mYa). Elements of the deep-sea fauna are impoverished compared to that of the deep atlantic Ocean but levels of endemism in the mediterranean are high (>26 percent), although this varies markedly by taxonomic group and is rather low in fishes. The mediterranean is highly oligotrophic and this may explain the lower densities of fish, macrofauna and meiofauna compared to adjacent areas of the atlantic Ocean (Cartes et al., 2004). fish and decapod crustaceans are prevalent in the megafauna of the deep mediterranean. fish diversity is also lower than the atlantic and the composition is different, with a higher relative proportion of deep-sea sharks. Decapod communities are dominated by large shrimp of tropical origin. for these reasons, mediterranean deep-sea fisheries are targeted at relatively few species compared to other oceans, with an emphasis on hake (merluccius merluccius) and deep-water shrimps (aristeus antennatus, aristeomorpha foliacea) (Bensch et al., 2008). however, other deep-water species are also fished, including blue whiting (micromesistius poutassou),

Figure 32. Map of

the Mediterranean

showing the GFCM

Regulatory Area

(Bensch et al.,

2008).


greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides), angler fish (lophius spp.), conger eel (Conger conger) and blackspot sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo), as well as crustaceans including the shrimps Parapenaeus longirostris, Pasiphaea spp., acanthephyra eximia and Plesionika spp., the norway lobster nephrops norvegicus, and the crabs Geryon longipes and Paramola cuvieri (Cartes et al., 2004).


none of the main target species from deep waters in the mediterranean are low-productivity species. however, heavy fishing pressure in the mediterranean has resulted in stocks of high-productivity species such as hake being overexploited (e.g. off northern Spain Subdivision 6, Gulf of lions Subdivision 7, and elsewhere; GfCm SCmEE, 2008a) and some drastically so (e.g. northern levant Sea; GfCm SCmEE, 2008a). Growth rates of the shrimp aristeus antennatus are lower than other penaeids and some stocks in the mediterranean are overexploitated (Cartes et al., 2004). In 2005, at the 29th Session of the GfCm, it was decided not to allow fishing to extend beyond 1,000m depth in the mediterranean, a decision partially reflecting the lack of species of commercial interest living there (Cartes et al., 2004). The juveniles of aristeus antennatus recruit almost exclusively below depths of 1,000m and juveniles and males generally occur below these depths. This may explain the high resilience of this species to exploitation in many areas, as a substantial part of the population lives beyond the depths at which fishing takes place or is allowed (Cartes et al., 2004). aristeus anntenatus in the Gulf of lions undergoes periodic crashes in landings as a result of formation of cold, dense water at the surface of this area in winter, followed by cascading of the water into deep water. Three or four years after such cascading events the populations undergo good recruitment, probably because of transport of organic material into the deep sea during such events (Company et al., 2008). Other deep-water crustacean fisheries, such as those for deep-water pink shrimp Parapenaeus longirostris, are also depleted or overexploited in the region (GfCm SCmEE, 2008a).

While the serious by-catch problems associated with shallow-water fisheries in the mediterranean on sharks, turtles, cetaceans, birds and

pinnipeds are recognised (GfCm Scientific advisory Committee, 2008a), those affecting deep-water species are not. By-catches of deep-water species are especially associated with trawl fisheries, which in the mediterranean are almost all multispecies fisheries. Discard levels are high. One study of discards in six Spanish ports and one Italian indicate discards of 13–62 percent of catch in waters of 150–350m depth and 14–43 percent in waters of >350m depth (Carbonell, 1997; Carbonell et al., 1998). Studies of the deep-water trawl fleet of alacante (southeast Spain) indicated discards of 34.6 percent of the total catch (Soriano & Sánchez-lizaso, 2000). In this fishery, of the 95 species taken in trawls, 89 are discarded. The impacts of such multispecies trawl fisheries on biodiversity are significant. Experimental trawl surveys in the Gulf of lions in recent years recorded only 13 species of elasmobranchs, whereas 25 species were recorded in 1957–1960 (Tudela, 2000). The area is subject to an intensive trawl fishery and the main target stock of hake is overexploited.

By-catch for deep-water trawl, gillnet and longline fisheries is poorly documented but there are reports of significant by-catch of deep-water sharks in several fisheries. Off the coast of Italy significant by-catches of the black-mouth cat shark (Galeus melastomus) and gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus) have been reported, with the former species being taken on its spawning grounds (Tudela, 2000). Significant by-catch of the roughshark (Oxynotus spp.) has been reported from Greek waters (Tudela, 2000). The angular roughshark Oxynotus centrina has been classified as Critically Endangered in the mediterranean and is now rare or has been extirpated from many areas where it was formerly abundant (Cavanagh & Gibson, 2007).

Reports on the status of deep-water sharks in the mediterranean indicate that several are threatened with extirpation as a result, mainly, of being taken as by-catch. Particularly notable are three species of angel sharks in the genus Squatina: Squatina aculeata, Squatina oculata and Squatina squatina. all three were historically abundant in the region but have suffered severe range contractions and declines (Cavanagh & Gibson, 2007). These species have relatively small distributions in the mediterranean, along the west coast of africa and off Europe (Campagno et al., 2005). IUCn recognises Squatina squatina as Critically Endangered globally and S. aculeata and S.

oculata as Endangered globally (Cavanagh & Gibson, 2007). all three species are Critically Endangered in the mediterranean. IUCn has also classified the rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa as near Threatened in the mediterranean because its preferred depth-range lies entirely within the depth that deep-water fishing takes place (Cavanagh & Gibson, 2007). Other species of deep-water sharks taken as by-catch include Etmopterus spinax and hexanchus griseus (Saidi & Bradai, 2008). all of these species, as with many chondrichthyans, are long-lived with very low fecundities and therefore are highly vulnerable to overfishing.

GfCm recognises the issues of by-catch from mediterranean deep-sea fisheries and there is currently a working group within the Scientific advisory Committee on by-catch and incidental catches. Some species of sharks have been afforded protection by Recommendation GfCm 2005/1 to ban fishing below 1,000m depth, including the Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis, which occurs from depths of ~1,300m to >2,800m (Cavanagh & Gibson, 2007). In addition, Recommendation GfCm 2005/1 also requested a minimum of 40mm mesh size for the cod end of demersal trawls in an effort to reduce by-catch. however, this could only confer conservation value to very small or juvenile deep-water fish. This measure is currently in the process of being implemented and will be fully in place for the EU by 2010. Recommendation GfCm 2009/1 has called for a reduction in demersal trawling by 10 percent in the GfCm Regulatory area. Whether this reduction will benefit deep-sea species and habitats depends on where effort reductions in trawling are implemented. In general, the issue of by-catch in the deep waters of the mediterranean remains under-researched and is likely to impact a wide range of low-productivity and VmE species (see below).


The VmEs represented within the deep waters of the mediterranean are unique, reflecting the general characteristics of the fauna (see above). They include communities formed by crinoids (leptometra phalangium), octocorals (funiculina quadrangularis, Isidella elongata), stony corals (lophelia pertusa, madrepora oculata) and brachiopods (Gryphus vitreus). These habitats are associated with a high level of diversity of associated species and are also associated with juvenile and adult stages of commercially fished

species (European Commission, 2006). Some of these habitats have been largely destroyed in the deep waters of the mediterranean, for example, beds of funiculina quadrangularis and Isidella elongata have largely disappeared from many areas as a direct result of bottom trawling (European Commission, 2006).

Crinoid beds Communities associated with high densities of the crinoid leptometra phalangium occur on the shelf edge (120–180m depth off Italy) around the mediterranean, where there is strong water movement and a plentiful supply of plankton and organic matter. They comprise an abundance of suspension feeding organisms, and the crinoids introduce three-dimensional complexity to the environment, enhancing diversity. This habitat acts as essential fish habitat for a number of commercial species (Colloca et al., 2004) including hake, blue whiting and poor cod (Trisopterus minutus), John Dory (Zeus faber), red mullet (mullus barbatus), angler fish (lophius spp.), thornback ray (Raja clavata) and the squid Illex coindetti. leptometra are extremely fragile and are easily destroyed by trawling.

Gryphus vitreus (brachiopod)The brachiopod Gryphus vitreus is associated with particular soft-bottom communities under the influence of currents. Its density on the seabed is an excellent indicator of current speed and the species can form belt-like zones from 100–250m depth (Emig, 1988), where it may also be associated with leptometra phalangium (Ordines & massutí, 2009) or Isidella elongata. The sediments occurring with Gryphus vitreus may be silty, with a diversity of molluscs, infauna and epifauna colonising relatively small pieces of hard substrata (Rosso et al., 2009).

Isidella elongata (octocoral)This octocoral forms beds in areas of compact mud on the middle slope from 500m to at least 1,200m (European Commission, 2006; Ramírez-llodra et al., 2008). It forms coral gardens associated with a high diversity of benthic invertebrates and high densities of commercial species including shrimps (aristeus antennatus, aristaeomorpha foliacea, Parapenaeus longirostris), lobsters (nephrops norvegicus) and fish (merluccius merluccius, micromesistius poutassou). Both live and dead coral areas are important as habitat for other species. This habitat, along with gardens formed by the species funiculina quadrangularis, has been destroyed across large areas of the


mediterranean as a result of bottom trawling in deep water. all have largely disappeared from some areas.

Funiculina quadrangularis (sea pen)funiculina is a large sea pen reaching 1.5–2.1m in height that forms dense gardens on undisturbed sediments and occurs on the shelf edge and upper slope throughout the mediterranean (European Commission, 2006). The dense beds of sea pens represent essential habitat for some commercial crustaceans such as Parapenaeus longirostris and the norway lobster nephrops norvegicus. Communities formed by this species have been almost completely destroyed by trawling in many parts of the mediterranean.

Lophelia pertusa and other coral communities The distribution of the framework-building corals lophelia pertusa and madrepora oculata are poorly known in the mediterranean but they have been identified in scattered localities. These corals have been observed near the Gibralter Sill; in the northwest mediterranean canyons between Cap de Creus and the ligurian Sea; in the Sicilian Channel; on the apulian Plateau off southern Italy; and in the southwestern adriatic margin off the coast of southeastern Italy (fig. 33; freiwald et al., 2009). The stony coral communities occur in waters at depths of ~450m to more than 1,100m in a variety of environmental settings including canyons, submarine cliffs, and steep or complex submarine topography (Taviani et al., 2005; freiwald et al., 2009).

The largest complex of coral communities discovered lies off the coast of Santa maria de luca in apulia, southern Italy. The reefs were discovered through coral being caught in the nets of local fishermen. The corals occur at depths between 500m and >1,100m in an area of complex terrain characterised by hummocks on the seabed and strong current flows (Taviani et al., 2005). The coral communities at Santa maria de luca are dominated by madrepora oculata, with lophelia pertusa and Desmophyllum dianthus also occurring. associated diversity is lower than northeast atlantic cold-water coral reefs but includes other stony corals (Stenocyathus vermiformis), octocorals, bivalve molluscs, polychaetes, including the coral-associated Eunice norvegicus, and sponges (Taviani et al., 2005). fishing is regarded as a major threat to deep-water stony coral communities in the mediterranean, especially given that the occurrence of these habitats is poorly known, relatively rare and scattered (Cartes et al., 2004).

Chemosynthetic communities Cold seeps have been identified in several areas of the mediterranean in deep waters. The contact zone between the Eurasian and african plates represents one of the world’s major provinces associated with the seepage of hydrocarbon associated fluids, particularly in the deep sea (CIESm, 2006). at cold seeps, methane-rich fluids provide energy for bacteria, which may also produce hydrogen sulphide through the process of sulphate reduction.

Seeps have been identified in the southeastern mediterranean, on the mediterranean Ridge, to the south of Crete and Turkey (anaximander mountains) and to the north of Egypt near the nile Delta. These seeps are associated with unique communities of animals with endosymbiotic bacteria, including bivalve molluscs (lucinidae, Vesicomydae, mytilidae and Thyasiridae) and siboglinid worms that utilise hydrogen sulphide or methane (Vanreusel et al., 2009). non-symbiont-hosting fauna can also be abundant at these sites as a result of heterogenous habitat, elevated topography and high supplies of food, including polychaete worms, sponges, echinoids and other species (Vanreusel et al., 2009). Cold seeps may be associated with specific geological features on the seafloor, including mud volcanoes and pockmarks. Related features are deep hypersaline basins, which are high-salinity brine pools lying on the deep seabed that have high concentrations of associated methane and hydrogen sulphide (Cartes et al., 2004). most of the sites discovered so far lie below 1,000m depth but those around the nile Delta are shallower at 500–800m depths.

Seamounts Seamounts are not necessarily VmEs in themselves but often host VmEs such as cold-water coral reefs or coral gardens. The seamounts of the mediterranean are poorly explored. In the eastern mediterranean, Eratosthenes Seamount, a feature with an elevation of about 1,500m and a summit depth of 756m, has been subject to limited studies (Galil & Zibrowius, 1998). It hosts a diverse community of organisms including the corals Caryophyllia calveri and Desmophyllum dianthus as well as black corals and a variety of polychaetes; the crustaceans aristaeomorpha foliacea, aristaeus antennatus, Plesionika martia and Polycheles typhlops; and fish, including hoplostethus mediterraneus (Galil & Zibrowius, 1998). There are seamounts in other parts of the mediterranean, especially in the Tyrhennian Sea where they form part of the Eolian arc. hydrothermal activity has been identified on some (e.g. marsili and Enarete Seamounts; Uchupi & Ballard, 1989; Eckhardt et al., 1997).

Canyons Canyons are important ecosystems in the mediterranean, especially in the western mediterranean basin where they act as a conduit for organic matter from the shelf into the deep sea and can have an important influence on

commercial species (e.g. Company et al., 2008). Canyons can have a higher abundance and biomass of megafauna than surrounding slope areas (Sardà et al., 1994) and can be important in the distribution of suspension-feeding organisms such as corals (Ramírez-llodra et al., 2008).

Conservation measures for deep-sea VMEs in the GFCM Regulatory Area

Currently, deep-sea ecosystems are under-represented in the protected areas of the mediterranean. most marine protected areas are coastal (abdulla et al., 2008). Recommendation GfCm/2006/3 established areas protected from fishing with towed dredges and bottom trawls around the lophelia pertusa reefs at Santa maria de luca, the cold seep ecosystems in the nile Delta and the benthic communities of Eratosthenes Seamount (GfCm, 2006), representing about 15,666km2 of seabed (abdulla et al., 2008). Recently, a further fisheries-restricted area has been proposed in the Gulf of lions, specifically to protect spawning grounds of the hake merluccius merluccius (GfCm SCmEE, 2008b). This conservation measure (Recommendation GfCm/33/2009/1) is only a freeze on current fishing effort (GfCm, 2009) and so offers limited and temporary protection to benthic communities. The ban on fishing below a depth of 1,000m does confer protection to species of benthic organisms whose distribution lies partially or wholly below these depths. however, ecologically important deep-sea VmEs remain vulnerable, including coral gardens formed by Isidella elongata, funiculina quadrangularis, other corals and other habitat-forming groups such as crinoids and brachiopods, which customarily occur shallower than 1,000m.

To date, there has been almost no response to UnGa Resolution 61/105 in terms of impact assessments of deep-sea fisheries in the mediterranean on benthic ecosystems. Indeed, there are few data on many of the important VmEs of the mediterranean and their current and past distributions are not understood. many of these habitats are vital to commercial species, both juveniles and adults (see above). It is widely acknowledged that several of these important VmEs have been largely destroyed across wide areas of the mediterranean as a result of bottom fishing, especially trawling.

GfCm has recently established criteria for Figure 33. Locations where live Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata have been found in the Mediterranean (Freiwald et al., 2009).


identification of sensitive habitats of relevance for the management of priority species, including VmEs formed by corals, crinoids and other species, as well as seamounts, canyons and cold seeps (GfCm Scientific advisory Committee, 2008b). a report has also been made to the European Commission on Sensitive and Essential fish habitats in the mediterranean Sea (European Commission, 2006). This report also identifies many of the significant deep-sea VmEs in the mediterranean area and describes their relevance to fisheries and impacts on them from fishing activities. as yet there is no indication of the development of a systematic approach to identification of VmEs or the management of deep-sea fisheries to protect such habitats.

Conclusions

(i) Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing activities have SAIs on VMEs.

● There has been no impact assessment of fishing in the deep waters of the mediterranean on target and by-catch species, including those that form VmEs.


● The mediterranean is an enclosed sea with a shallow sill separating it from the atlantic as well as a unique palaeoclimatic history. as a result, it has a characteristic fauna and distribution of communities in the deep sea (e.g. a high proportion of chondrichthyans) that require special management consideration.

● The main target species of mediterranean deep-water fisheries are not low productivity.

● many of the trawl fisheries in the deep waters of the mediterranean are multispecies and have significant impacts on non-target species, some of which are characterised by low productivity. Some have been so severely impacted by fishing that they are regionally recognised as Critically Endangered,

Endangered or Threatened, raising the risk of long-term reduction in biodiversity of benthic communities in the deep mediterranean.

● at present GfCm has called for a minimum mesh size of 40mm in the cod end of nets and a reduction by 10 percent of the effort of demersal fisheries in the mediterranean. The 40mm mesh size requirement will not prevent the continued decline of the majority of threatened deep-sea species and its conservation value in waters down to 1,000m depth in preventing environmental impacts by multispecies demersal trawl fisheries is not clear. as yet it is unclear where reductions in fishing effort will take place and whether benefits will accrue for deep-water species and habitats.

● The GfCm has banned all forms of fishing beyond 1,000m depth, affording protection to species whose depth-range partially or completely lies below this depth.


● The mediterranean has a unique marine fauna that includes deep-sea VmEs formed by a variety of taxa, some of which are most common within, or unique to, the region.

● It is widely acknowledged that these ecosystems have been seriously impacted by bottom fishing.

● at present, three areas have been protected from deep-water dredging and trawl fishing and fishing is banned below 1,000m depth.


● no specific measures are in place to detect or map VmEs in the mediterranean region or to manage impacts on them by bottom fisheries outside current protected areas.

southeast atlantiC oCeanThe Southeast Atlantic includes one of the world’s major eastern boundary current upwelling systems, which makes it a highly productive marine region. Nonetheless, it does not feature among the 10 most important ocean areas in terms of fish landings (FAO, 2009b). The region includes the coastal areas off South Africa, Namibia and Angola and extends westwards to beyond the southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Fig. 34). The high seas region of the Southeast Atlantic includes a number of large topographic features including the southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the Walvis Ridge, the Vavilov Ridge, the Agulhas Ridge and a number of isolated seamounts (e.g. Vema Seamount) and rise features (e.g. Meteor Rise; SEAFO Scientific Committee, 2006; Clark et al., 2007; Bensch et al., 2008).

The RfmO for the region is the South East atlantic fisheries Organisation (SEafO). Current Contracting Parties include angola, the EU, namibia, South africa and norway. Other states have signed the Convention but have not ratified it, including Republic of Korea, Japan, UK, USa and Iceland (SEafO Commission, 2008). Several

of the non-ratifying states are actively fishing in the SEafO Regulatory area, notably Japan and Republic of Korea, and both of these have undertaken to ratify the Convention in 2010 (SEafO Commission, 2009).

fisheries in the region have included those for small pelagic fish, including sardine, anchovy, Whitehead’s round herring (Etrumeus whiteheadi) and horse mackerel, and trawl fisheries for hake (merluccius capensis, merluccius paradoxus, merluccius polli), kingklip (Genypterus capensis), snoek (Thyrsites atun), sole (austroglossus microlepis) and monkfish (lophius spp.; Boyer & hampton, 2001). There are also a number of line fisheries and fisheries for crustaceans, particularly lobsters (Jasus spp.). Over the past two decades or so, fisheries have developed on the continental slope for orange roughy, alfonsino and deep-sea red crab (Boyer & hampton, 2001). Catches of many of these species have declined in comparison to historical catches as a result of overexploitation, and in some cases the decline is also probably related to environmental change (Boyer & hampton, 2001).

Status of deep-sea fisheries on the high seas

Species managed by SEafO in the high seas are: Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), orange roughy (hoplosthethus atlanticus), alfonsino (Beryx spp.), deep-sea red crab (Chaceon spp.), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), armourhead/boarfish (Pseudopentaceros spp.), oreo dories (Oreosomatidae), cardinalfish (Epigonus spp.), octopus, squid (Ommastrephidae), wreckfish (Polyprion americanus), skates (Rajidae) and sharks.

Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) In 1994, exploration for deep-sea fish stocks by a commercial company began just inside the namibian EEZ. In 1995, spawning aggregations of orange roughy were identified on a ground known as hotspot, a seamount at the southern edge of the Walvis Ridge (19o20’S, 10o05’E; Boyer et al., 2001). This was followed by the discovery of further aggregations on the continental slope in 1995/96 at the sites known as Rix (22o30’S, 12o40’E), Johnies (26o20’S, 13o30’E) and frankies (24o30’S, 13o20’E). These fisheries were opened to full commercial fishing in 1997, when they produced 15,500t

Figure 34. Map of the SEAFO Regulatory Area.


of orange roughy (Branch, 2001). analyses of commercial CPUE in 1998 indicated that the stocks had declined significantly, although there were objections from industry suggesting that fishing effort had been directed at other species rather than roughy and CPUE estimates were therefore biased (Boyer et al., 2001). The TaC was therefore only reduced to 12,000t. In 1998/99 it was discovered that the stocks had declined precipitously, probably more so than could be explained by fishing alone, and the possibility that fishing was somehow disturbing the spawning aggregations was raised (Boyer et al., 2001). a TaC of 9,000t was issued but only 2,500t of orange roughy were caught and the frankies ground was closed to assess the impact of fishing on aggregating behavior by roughy. The TaC was further reduced to 1,200t in 2000/01. The fishery provided an example of how uncertainty concerning stock size and appropriate catch levels can lead to rapid depletion in a new deep-water fishery based on a low-resilience species.

In the high seas, orange roughy were fished on the Walvis Ridge in the 1990s but little explicit information on catches or landings is available for this fishery. SEafO has noted that fisheries for orange roughy in the SEafO Regulatory area are unmanaged and that sufficient data do not exist for a meaningful assessment of stock size or appropriate levels of exploitation. Because of the vulnerability of orange roughy to overexploitation, SEafO has set precautionary TaCs of 50t for the entire SEafO area for 2010 (SEafO Commission, 2009). no catches were identified for recent years (since 2005) for this species from the SEafO Regulatory area.

Alfonsino (Beryx spp.) alfonsino have been fished in the southeast atlantic Ocean since the 1970s when Soviet vessels targeted this and other species on the Vavilov Ridge (Clark et al., 2007). In 1978 about 4,200t of alfonsino and cardinalfish (Epigonus denticulatus) were caught on Udachnaya Seamount but the fishery declined until the 1990s when trawlers took mixed catches of 500–1,300t per year (Clark et al., 2007). fisheries for alfonsino still continue in the SEafO Regulatory area and, recognising that the species is vulnerable to overfishing because it forms easily targeted aggregations, SEafO has set a precautionary TaC for the area of 200t (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008; SEafO Commission, 2009).

Armourhead (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni) Statistics for SEafO refer to armourhead and boarfish. no specific identification is given for boarfish and the name may also refer to armourhead (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2006). The armourhead is a species associated with seamounts that has also shown a low resilience to exploitation because of its aggregating behaviour, especially in areas such as the north Pacific. armourhead have been fished on the high seas in the southeast atlantic since the 1970s when Soviet vessels targeted the species along the Walvis Ridge. The species has also been taken by a Japanese trawler on the Valdivia Seamount in an exploratory fishery in 1979, along with bluemouth (helicolenus dactylopterus). Recent, relatively small, catches of this species have been reported in the SEafO Regulatory area by Russia, Cyprus, mauritius and namibia (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008).

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) longline fisheries for Patagonian toothfish are regarded as one of the most valuable in the SEafO Regulatory area. Catch figures are available from Japan and Republic of Korea for this species, with fishing in some years also recorded for the EU (Spain). SEafO initially set a precautionary catch limit of 260t of Patagonian toothfish for 2009, a level higher than the reported yearly catches of the species within the SEafO Regulatory area in recent years (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008; SEafO Scientific Committee, 2009). for 2010, SEafO reduced the quota to 200t (SEafO Commission, 2009).

Deep-Sea red crab (Chaceon spp.) The main species of deep-sea red crabs in the SEafO Regulatory area is Chaceon maritae, which occurs along the west coast of africa, but other species also occur. Deep-sea red crabs are fished using pots, particularly in area Division B1, which borders the namibian EEZ and which includes several seamounts, e.g. Valdivia Bank, maloy and Ewing. They are also fished further south in Division D1. SEafO has recommended precautionary catch limits of 200t for Division B1 and 200t for the rest of the SEafO Regulatory area. Recent catches of crab by Japanese vessels alone have exceeded 500t for the SEafO region (2007 figures; SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008).

Information on catches of other species in the SEafO area is poor and/or indicates that

catches are low. Incomplete reporting of catches remains a problem and countries with a history of fishing in the SEafO Regulatory area, such as Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, mauritius, Japan, Russia, Poland, norway, South africa and namibia have not supplied SEafO with historical catch data (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008). Even if some information is present there is often no spatial component. There are recent indications of improvement in this situation, with increased reporting from Japan and Republic of Korea.

SEafO has ruled that no directed fisheries should be undertaken for deep-water sharks in the area because of their extreme vulnerability to overfishing (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008).


SEafO is a relatively new RfmO faced with a very large area of ocean and with extremely limited knowledge of benthic ecology and the presence of VmEs within the region. It

has established a number of precautionary measures to protect seabed ecosystems and vulnerable species in response to UnGa Resolution 61/105 including: ● the closure of seamount areas because of

the likelihood that they host VmEs; ● instruction of observers to collect data on

by-catch of VmE species; ● support of research initiatives to improve

knowledge of the distribution of VmEs within the SEafO Regulatory area (e.g. southern mar-Eco project);

● adoption of move-on rules for encounters with VmE species;

● banning the use of gillnets for fishing in the SEafO Regulatory area – agreed at the 2009 annual meeting of SEafO (SEafO Commission, 2009).

In 2006, SEafO decided to divide the Regulatory area into areas and subareas, with the latter encompassing seamount areas thought to be ecologically sensitive (fig. 35; SEafO Scientific Committee, 2006).

Figure 35. Map showing SEAFO Regulatory Area divisions and subdivisions, with protected seamounts indicated: 1. Dampier Seamount; 2.

Malahit Guyot; 3. Ewing Bank; 4. Valdivia Bank; 5. Molloy Seamount; 6. Vema Seamount; 7. Wust Seamount; 8. Africana Seamount; 9. Schmidtt-

Ott and Erica Seamount; 10. Panzarini Seamount; 11. Discovery Seamount, Junoy Seamount and Shannon Seamount; 12. Schwabenland

Seamount and Herdman Seamount (SEAFO Commission, 2006 – note: closed area 13 not identified in Commission report).

B R A Z I L

ANGO L A

NAMBIA

S OU THA F R I C A

A1

12

3

4

5

6

7

910

8

11

1213

Ascension

St Helena

Tristan da Cunha

Gough

B B1

C1

D1

C

DEEZ


The SEafO fisheries Commission requested that consideration be given to opening a small proportion of each of these seamounts to fishing (SEafO Commission, 2007) but subsequently it was agreed that this should only occur after mapping the geomorphology to identify VmEs (SEafO fisheries Commission, 2008). It was also conditional on an assessment of the sustainability of such fishing operations on target species and of the potential for damage to VmEs present within the area (i.e. an impact assessment of the fishery; SEafO Commission, 2008).

alongside this modification of the rules regarding closed areas, Spain has undertaken a joint expedition with namibia to map the Valdivia Seamounts and Ewing Bank. This expedition surveyed the multibeam bathymetry of these seamounts, producing maps of Ewing Bank, Valdivia north Seamount, Valdivia Central Seamount, Valdivia West Seamount and Valdivia South Seamount. Trawl surveys were also undertaken on these seamounts and data collected on both the fish fauna around the seamounts and the benthic fauna retained by the trawls. On Ewing Bank the expedition recovered about 7kg of benthic invertebrates, including mainly sea urchins (hygrosoma pertersii) and hermit crabs, with an associated zoanthid. Bamboo corals were also recovered (González-Porto, 2008). Trawls on Valdivia Bank recovered over 11,000 specimens of benthic animals weighing about 32kg, including a very large number of hydroids and large biomass of sea anemones as well as other taxa including sea stars (Echinaster reticulatus) and sponges (González-Porto, 2008).

The Expedition Report identified four main communities of fish that occurred in different depth-zones of the seamounts (navarro et al., 2008). The most representative fish of the shallowest depths (200–500m depth) were bluemouth (helicolenus dactylopterus) and pelagic armourhead or boarfish (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni). from the depth-zone 800–1,100m various macrourid species were found, including Bathygadus favosus, Cetonurus globiceps, Coelorinchus

labiatus, Gadomus capensis and nezumia brevibarbata. Other species included the shark Etmopterus brachyurus and orange roughy. a deeper assemblage, roughly corresponding to the 900–1,300m zone, included alepocephalus productus, Coryphaenoides striaturus and the warty oreo (allocyttus verrucosus). The deepest stratum included some species from stratum three but also others such as Bathysaurus ferox and Bathygadus favosus. a comprehensive list of species caught at the seamounts is presented (navarro et al., 2008), which includes commercial and potential by-catch species characterised by low productivity and low resilience to exploitation. Biological characteristics of some of the commercial or important species on the seamounts were also recorded (length frequency, length/weight ratio, reproductive characteristics, sex ratio).

The Expedition Report includes new information on the geomorphology, physical oceanography and invertebrate and fish communities associated with the Ewing and Valdivia Bank seamounts. It was also aimed at identifying “bioconstructions associated with seamounts as potential vulnerable marine ecosystems that could be damaged by fishing gears”. It concluded that the trawl samples presented no evidence of potential VmEs. This statement does not address the limitations of fish trawls in sampling benthic fauna (see discussion of the move-on rule in the northeast and northwest atlantic Ocean sections of the report). It also suggests that the definition of VmEs in this case is narrow, as samples from Valdivia Seamount comprised very large numbers of erect hydrozoan colonies, sponges and large sea anemones that may be indicative of the presence of VmEs (and are included in the VmE indicator species guides in other RfmOs such as CCamlR). The SEafO Scientific Committee also agreed that “few conclusive results were obtained” (SEafO Scientific Committee, 2008).

The SEafO Scientific Committee (2008) received VmS data over 2007 and 2008 for vessels pot fishing for crab and longlining for Patagonian toothfish and other species. There was evidence of fishing by these vessels in areas closed

to bottom fishing, including molloy, Discovery, Junoy, Shannon, Schwabenland and herdman Seamounts. however, it was viewed as possible that these vessels were fishing for non-SEafO species and no further investigation of these fishing activities has been presented.

The move-on rule

SEafO adopted a protocol for encounters with VmE species in Conservation measure 12/08. This measure adopts the same threshold levels as the old nEafC and nafO threshold: 100kg of live coral and 1,000kg of sponges. These levels have already been discussed in relation to nEafC and nafO as having little conservation value given the current knowledge on distribution of VmEs in the deep sea. In 2009, these threshold levels were revised downwards in line with nEafC and nafO to 60kg of corals and 800kg of sponges (SEafO Commission, 2009; note: there is a mistake in this report suggesting 60kg of sponges and 800kg of corals). SEafO stated that in 2010 the levels will be revised according to a more rigorous determination of appropriate threshold levels and VmE indicator species for the SEafO region. Triggering the current threshold requires a fishing vessel to move 2nm away from the end of the trawl tow or longline set and to report the encounter to the Scientific Committee, which then makes an annual assessment of the likely occurrence of VmEs within the Regulatory area.

Conclusions


● SEafO requires that impact assessments are undertaken prior to fisheries commencing in areas currently closed to fishing because of the risk of SaIs on VmEs.


● The level of information for catches of deep-sea species on the high seas of the SEafO Regulatory area is sparse because of a failure

of flag states to provide SEafO with data, including historical data, on catches, discards and areas of fishing. This lack of information is insufficient for effective management goals and targets and therefore SEafO has only set precautionary TaCs for many of the species within the Regulatory area.

● There is currently no information available on how effective the regulation of deep-sea fisheries by SEafO has been in preventing overfishing. Several nations fishing in the area (e.g. South Korea and Japan) have not ratified the Convention and Japan is currently exceeding recommended TaCs for deep-sea red crab.


● SEafO has acted rapidly to protect some localities that are likely to host VmEs within the Regulatory area.

● SEafO has also adopted a number of other measures to protect VmEs and species, including the banning of gillnetting and requirements for impact assessments before any fisheries can commence in closed areas.

● VmS data suggest evidence of non-compliance of states in respect of SEafO closed areas.


● The current move-on rules for SEafO are based on high threshold levels unlikely to trigger a VmE-encounter action. no scientific bases for these threshold levels are given. In 2009, SEafO reduced the threshold levels in line with nEafC and nafO and have stated that they will revise these further following an analyses of appropriate threshold levels for VmE indicator species.


north paCifiC oCeanThe North Pacific is the most important area in the world in terms of marine capture fisheries with about 24.7 million tonnes of fish landed in 2006 (FAO, 2009). Important commercial species in the region include Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus), Alaska pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and large-head hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus; FAO, 2009). Until recently no RFMO existed to regulate fisheries for non-highly-migratory and non-anadromous species on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. In 2006, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the USA initiated negotiations to establish a new RFMO to regulate fisheries in this area, known as the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC). The new RFMO is still under negotiation, although interim measures to manage high seas bottom fisheries in the northwest Pacific were adopted in 2007 in response to UNGA Resolution 61/105. No interim measures have been adopted for bottom fisheries on the high seas of the northeast Pacific. Vessels from Japan, South Korea and Russia engage in high seas bottom fishing in the northwest Pacific.

The high seas area that comprises the nPfC area under negotiation includes the Emperor Seamount Chain that extends from the aleutian Island Chain in the north 2,000km to the hawaiian Ridge (figs. 36, 37). This area was one of the first regions of the world to be subject to deep-sea fisheries that targeted the seamount-associated slender or pelagic armourhead, Pseudopentaceros wheeleri. Initially, large catches of this fish were taken (133,000t in 1969 by Russia; Sakiura, 1972; 200,000t by Russia and Japan in 1973; Clark et al., 2007) and catches were maintained at 20,000–30,000t until 1976, when there was a dramatic decline in the fishery (800,000t taken in total; Clark et al., 2007). most catches of armourhead were taken on Kinmei, milwaukee, Colahan and hancock Seamounts (Clark et al., 2007). Effort in the fishery then switched to alfonsino and oreos, although there were abrupt sporadic increases in armourhead catches from time to time. Thus the fisheries have been characterised by a switch between these species over the last 30 years, although catches of oreos and especially alfonsino never approached the landings levels of armourhead. Initial catches in the alfonsino fishery are not well recorded, rarely exceeding a few hundred tonnes annually, but total Pacific catches are thought to be in the region of 80,000t (Clark et al., 2007). In the mid-1960s precious corals were discovered on milwaukee Bank and along the Emperor Seamount Chain. a substantial tangle-net fishery for Corallium secundum was soon developed by Japan and Taiwan, with an estimated removal of 150,000kg in the late 1960s; within a few years, however, the fishery had declined drastically (humphreys, 2008). nonetheless, by 1983 70 percent of the world’s catch of red coral came from this area; in part this resulted from the discovery of a slope-dwelling Corallium sp. that yielded 200,000kg to the fishery in 1980 alone (Grigg, 1982). These tangle-net fisheries were highly destructive, but this method has been replaced by submersibles and ROVs in and around hawaii. Statistics on the coral fisheries are very poor with respect to amounts, locations and by-catch, but serious impacts on VmEs are known to have occurred (humphreys, 2008).


Pelagic armourhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri)This species typically aggregates around

seamounts, where it is targeted by bottom trawl fisheries. The life cycle of armourhead is unusual. The larvae and post-larvae disperse away from seamounts in the surface waters of the temperate and sub-arctic Pacific and return after around two years to the seamounts where they stop growing and reproduce annually, gradually becoming emaciated before dying after four to five years (Boehlert & Sasaki, 1988). Thus, seamount populations are maintained largely through recruitment from juveniles originating in a different geographic region. armourhead have not been assessed in the north Pacific since the early 1990s and at present the status of the fish stock is unknown and insufficient data exist to identify a sustainable level of exploitation. nOaa (2008) recommends a new assessment of the armourhead stock in the north Pacific but the situation is complicated by the highly episodic nature of recruitment in this species. There is, therefore, no current international management plan for pelagic armourhead.

Alfonsino (Beryx splendens)This species is considered vulnerable to overexploitation because it forms aggregations around seamounts. In the north Pacific region, alfonsino are thought to spawn in summer and disperse away from seamounts for about

one year. They recruit back to seamounts and juveniles are thought to occur above and around the seamounts, while adults are benthopelagic. fish mature at three to four years and live about 15 years. There was a recent assessment of alfonsino stocks in the north Pacific, Emperor Seamounts region (fisheries agency of Japan, 2008: appendix C). This analysis was complicated by possible changes in the patterns of fishing, changes in catchability of the species over time and potential interactions between alfonsino and armourhead. however, the overall picture is of a decline of alfonsino stocks over time (nOaa, 2008). at the end of 2007 the fishing nations party to the nPfC negotiations decided to freeze fishing effort to current levels and to only allow fishing south of 45on (north Pacific fisheries Commission, 2007). alfonsino are overexploited in the region and recent analyses indicate a significant reduction in fishing effort will be required (fisheries agency of Japan, 2008: appendix C).

Other target and by-catch speciesReporting on catch of other species by Japan is very limited and appears to be mainly broad alfonsino (Beryx decadactylus; fig. 38), mirror dory (Zenopsis nebulosa) and cardinalfish (Epigonus denticulatus and Epigonus atherinoides). Of these, Beryx decadactylus has

Figure 37.

North Pacific

Fisheries

Commission

region

showing the

position of

fished and

unfished

seamounts.

Fig. 36. NPFC RFMO Map (Zoomed)


undergone a major decline, while catches of all the other species have declined, although their current status is unknown (fisheries agency of Japan, 2008: appendix f). however, examination of fish in research trawls from the early 1990s and those reported from gillnet catches indicates a high diversity of potential by-catch species, including deep-water sharks. Species identified include allocytus verrucosus, antigonia capros, antigonia spp., argyropelacus aculeatus, Benthodesmus pacificus, Brama japonica, Callionymidae, Chascanopsetta prorigera, Chaunax sp., Chimaera spp., Chlorophthalmus sp., Congriscus megastomus, Cookeolus japonicus, Decapterus tabi, Emmelichthys struhsakeri, Erilepis zonifer, Etmopterus pusillus (fig. 39), Evoxymetopon spp., helicolenus spp., hyperoglyphe japonica, hoplostethus crassispinus, lophiomus miacanthus, macrorhamphosus sp., macrouridae, malthopsis spp., meadia abyssalis, microstomus shuntovi, moridae, myctophidae, Parabothus coarctatus, Parapercis spp., Parazen pacificus, Pentaceros japonicas, Physiculus spp., Plectranthias kelloggii, Polymixia japonica, Promethichthyus prometheus, Satyrichthys engyceros, Scorpaena spp., Sebastidae, Sphoeroides pachygaster, Squalus mitsukurii, Symphysanodon maunaloae, Thyrsitoides marleyi, Zenion japonicum (fisheries agency of Japan, 2008: appendices a, B, f). Some of these species are mid-water pelagic fish and not relevant to UnGa Resolution 61/105 and only a few are large enough and abundant enough to be of any potential interest to fisheries. Sharks are of particular concern as they are low-productivity benthic species that, even if not targeted, are especially vulnerable to gillnets and longlines, which are commonly used in the region for fishing. The dominant catch on the Emperor Seamounts by a South Korean longliner was 65 percent composed of sharks (Republic of Korea, 2008).

In this region, Russian gillnet vessels target oreo (allocyttus verrucosus), mirror dory and alfonsino, while longliners target rockfish (primarily helicolenus spp.), alfonsino, pelagic armourhead, skilfish (Erilepis zonifera) and grenadiers (Coryphaenoides spp.). The Russians also maintain a pot fishery for tanner (Chioniocetes tanneri), red (Chaceon spp.) and snow crab (Paralomis spp.). Significant by-catch from trawl fisheries includes sharks but there are no data on by-catch from the gillnet fishery. longline by-catch species include escolar (lepidocybium flavobrunneum), wahoo (acanthocybium solandri), dorado (Coryphaena hippurus), grenadiers (Coryphaenoides spp.) and codling (primarily Physiculus spp.). Catches of ‘other’ species are substantial on Russian vessels, indicating that the fisheries are catching a mix of species. no real trends can be identified in catch data.

Grenadiers (Macrouridae): A future fishery?The seamount fisheries have been of most interest in the region, but recent interest has focused on the continental slopes, where two grenadier species are potentially the target of significant bottom trawl fisheries in the future. The popeye (Coryphaenoides cinereus) and giant (albatrossia pectoralis) grenadiers are large fish and both abundant and widespread on the slope from alaska through Russian waters to Japan. The giant grenadier can exceed 2m in length and 35kg in weight. Its flesh is quite watery, so it has not met with much favour in the market to date. Surveys indicate that stock size could be of the order of 800,000t in the Eastern Bering Sea; 1,500,000t in the Gulf of alaska; and 2,000,000t off the aleutian Islands (Clausen 2008); with perhaps 1,000,000t in the Sea of Okhotsk (Tuponogov et al., 2008). Because of its abundance, it is likely that the giant grenadier is important in the slope ecosystems of the north Pacific Ocean (Rodgeveller et al., 2010). There is no directed grenadier fishery in alaska but they

are nonetheless taken in other fisheries as by-catch (e.g. in the longline fishery for sablefish, anoplopoma fimbria; Rodgeveller et al., 2010). Data are poor, but estimated by-catch of all grenadiers (mostly giants) from alaskan waters has been 10,000–21,000t annually since 1997 (Clausen, 2008).

Biological studies of these fish have only recently begun, but the fish seem no different from other grenadiers, i.e. slow-growing, late-maturing (age at first maturity 15–36 years), long-lived (58 years for giants), and hence can be considered de facto vulnerable and susceptible to overfishing (Rodgeveller et al., 2010). There are concerns even now because the by-catch, which is discarded and presumably dies, is mostly large females that are segregated from the males and most abundant at depths where sablefish and Greenland halibut are sought (Clausen, 2008). While grenadier stocks are likely to be found predominantly within EEZs, it may be possible that in the future a fishery could develop for these species in the high seas.


The Pacific is very rich in seamounts but less than 1 percent have been adequately surveyed

(humphreys, 2008). Those that have display great faunal diversity (De forges et al., 2000). Japan, South Korea, Russia and the USa (which, unlike the former three countries, does not have any vessels bottom fishing on the high seas) have undertaken impact assessments for the Emperor Seamounts region. all these assessments appear to draw heavily from Japanese work. Seamounts are well-known localities where VmEs are likely to occur, including, particularly, corals because of the availability of hard substrata and the occurrence of strong currents that carry a supply of food to suspension-feeding organisms (Rogers, 1994; Rogers et al., 2007). The Emperor Seamounts have been well-known for some time as a rich source of precious corals. however, it is likely that bottom fishing, including the high seas bottom drag fishery, which targeted precious corals in previous decades, will already have heavily impacted many areas (humphreys, 2008). The impact assessment undertaken by Japan for the Emperor Seamounts comprised ROV surveys, camera drop surveys and an assessment of snagging points for nets on the seabed (interpreted as resulting from fishing gear being caught on corals). Some records of coral by-catch have also been presented but these only refer to the presence of coral in catch and no quantitative data are available.

Figure 41. Koko Seamount showing incidence of net hang ups. Snagging of

nets occurred on Koko Seamount more than any other seamount for which

there was records.

Figure 40. Koko Seamount showing video survey stations undertaken

by the Fisheries Agency of Japan (2008: Appendix H). Octocoral

gardens were observed at Stations 12 and 15 and Corallium at

Station 11. The proposed protected area is shown in cross-hatch.

Figure 39. Deep-water sharks, Etmopterus cf pusillus.

Note, large specimen has squid in mouth. © Alex Rogers

Figure 38. Broad alfonsino, Beryx decadactylus. © Alex

Rogers


During the late 1980s to early 1990s, nOaa surveys found only sparse patches of octocorals, presumably the remnants from overfishing (humphreys, 2008).

The fisheries agency of Japan (2008: appendix m) has also reported recent sightings of Taiwanese vessels fishing for coral, indicating that the precious coral fishery is still operating and potentially damaging VmEs present on the Emperor Seamounts.

Observations

Information from the Japanese ROV and camera surveys indicates the presence of octocoral garden communities on the Koko Seamount, which has historically been the focus of significant fisheries for precious corals. Octocoral gardens are classed as VmEs. The Japanese impact assessment for trawling states that despite aggregations of corals existing at Stations 12 and 15 on Koko Seamount (fig. 40), it is “not possible to reach any conclusion they constitute VmEs”. The assessment notes that the faO Guidelines on managing deep-sea fisheries on the high seas provides no quantitative guidance as to what constitutes a VmE and that the communities on Koko Seamount do not resemble extremely high density stylasterid/sponge/bryozoans communities from the antarctic. While this may be true, the antarctic VmEs comprised of stylasterids are unusually dense, probably because of their location on the continental slope of the antarctic and the extremely high seasonal productivity of surface waters there, and do not constitute any ‘normal’ benchmark situation. additionally, the antarctic areas in the photographs referred to (australian antarctic Division, 2008) are unlikely to have been fished with bottom-contact gear. Comparison with coral garden habitats elsewhere (see discussion under northeast atlantic region; Rogers et al., in press) suggests that observations on Koko Seamount do represent VmEs. Data on trawl hang-ups were also plotted in the Japanese assessment (fig. 41). Some of these are congruent with the coral gardens observed in the ROV footage of Koko Seamount but hang-ups can occur for other reasons such as lodging of the gear on rocks or under ledges or entanglement with lost fishing gear. The location of the high coral densities on Koko Seamount (see photographs in: fisheries agency of Japan, 2008: appendix h; see fig. 40) follow a pattern that has been seen on other seamounts: that of

high abundance of organisms close to the edges of the summit (Rogers, 1994).

The Japanese and other impact assessments by fishing nations in this region have proposed a zone protected from fishing on Koko Seamount to protect the single locality at which Corallium was observed (Station 11; fig. 40). This has little conservation value for the identified octocorals garden VmEs on the seamount. Data were also obtained from other seamounts in the Emporer Seamount Chain, including Yuryaku, Kammu, Colahan, Jimmu, Suiko, Showa and Youmei Seamounts. Corals were present on these but not as abundantly as on Koko Seamount. however, sampling effort was extremely low for some sites, comprising just a few camera drops in some cases. The variability in coral densities both within a single seamount and on the different seamounts in this study is striking. Studies so far are not sufficient to support the conclusion that there were no VmEs on other seamounts of the Chain. Some photographs indicate heavily trawl-impacted seabed on some of the seamounts investigated. no other data are presented on the potential for deep-sea fishing activities to impact benthic communities on the Emperor Seamounts.

The move-on rule

The fishing nations involved in the nPfC negotiations initially adopted the nEafC move-on rule with respect to coral but have lowered the threshold by-catch limit to 50kg. Points raised previously in this report with respect to the move-on rules for nEafC apply in large part to the nPfC area. There has been no attempt to identify VmE communities in the region other than coral communities, and South Korea does not require its vessels to report encounters with VmEs.

Conclusions


● Impact assessments have been undertaken by Japan, Republic of Korea and Russia for the Regulatory area of the north Pacific fisheries Commission.

● The impact assessments submitted by Republic of Korea and Russia appear to draw heavily on the impact assessment produced by Japan.

● These assessments have been undertaken in a region for which there are few data on

deep-sea benthic ecosystems and where data on effort and catches for some fisheries are lacking. Even where there is evidence of the presence of species associated with VmEs, interpretation of data has not been precautionary nor is it in line with studies elsewhere on what constitutes a VmE (see text and Section (iii) below).

● The impact assessments conclude that in general SaIs to VmEs do not exist.


● The new RfmO is still under negotiation although interim measures to manage high seas bottom fisheries in the northwest Pacific have been adopted.

● The pelagic armourhead fishery has been severely depleted over the last 40 years yet there is no stock assessment for the species.

● alfonsino is overexploited but current management plans (aimed at maintaining current levels of fishing effort) do not reflect an accurate status of the stock.

● for most other species, catch statistics are unavailable or unreliable and, therefore, assessment of the effects of fishing mortality on stocks is not possible. There is no current plan to change this situation or to plan for potential grenadier fisheries.

● Overall, impacts on many low-productivity species, such as sharks, cannot be assessed on the Emperor Seamount Chain at this time.


● VmEs are present on the Emperor Seamount Chain. however, intensive historical bottom fishing, some targeting precious corals, will have heavily impacted this and other local seamounts.

● The fishing nations involved in the nPfC negotiations have proposed a single protected area on the Koko Seamount because of the presence of Corallium at one station. This protected area does not protect the coral gardens known to be present elsewhere on seamount summit edges. Japan and Republic of Korea have proposed to prohibit their vessels from engaging in bottom fishing on the high seas north of 45°n and 40°n latitude, respectively. Japan further proposes to limit

the allowable depth of bottom fishing to 1,500m.

● Coral fishing is reported as continuing on the Emperor Seamount Chain.

● Comparison of the Emperor Seamount benthic communities with those of the antarctic continental slope is misleading and does not reflect the work done to quantify densities of octocorals in RfmOs elsewhere (e.g. north atlantic, northeast Pacific; Stone, 2006; WGDEC, 2007; Edinger et al., 2009; Rogers et al., in press).

● The seamounts investigated are likely to have been heavily impacted by fishing. Where remnant populations of corals and other VmE species exist, area closures should be established to allow for some degree of regeneration.

● Current impact assessments are not adequate to identify VmEs along the fished seamounts of the Emperor Seamount Chain and there have been no analyses of fisheries data to identify where fishing activities are taking place on fished seamounts. Given the lack of data on fishing activities in general, such assessments are impossible.

● Interim measures consistent with UnGa Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 are needed for the northeast Pacific.


● The threshold levels set by nPfC for VmE encounters apply to corals only.

● The threshold level for corals do not take into account the small size and delicate morphology of coral colonies observed on the seamounts.

● Using the same threshold levels for active and passive fishing gears does not reflect large differences in their impact.

● Differentiating the post-VmE-encounter protocol between areas with a fishing history and those without does not serve conservation objectives.

● The 2nm move-on rule is an ineffective means of conserving deep-sea species because it is difficult to identify where a VmE encounter occurs along a tow for commercial bottom trawling.

● Some states (e.g. South Korea) are not reporting VmE encounters even when a VmE-encounter protocol is in operation in the RfmO.


south paCifiC oCeanThe southeast and west-central Pacific is one of the most important areas of the world in terms of global fish catches, mainly as a result of large pelagic fisheries (FAO, 2009b). The area is geographically vast and only recently have the high seas fisheries for deep-water species become subject to management measures. In May 2007, the countries involved in negotiating an RFMO in the region adopted a set of interim measures to implement UNGA Resolution 61/105. In November 2009 an agreement to establish the new RFMO, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, was adopted; the RFMO will be established once countries ratify the Convention (SPRFMO; Fig. 42). To date, New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Chile, Columbia and Peru have signed the Convention out of the 32 states that have participated in consultations related to the establishment of SPRFMO.

The total reported deep-sea fish catch in the southern Pacific in 2004 was 426,112t (EEZ and high seas), about 7 percent of the world’s total catch (Sissenwine & mace, 2007). however, this includes most of the global catch for orange roughy (hoplostethus atlanticus), a long-lived species that is fished generally in aggregations over seamounts and ridges (Sissenwine & mace, 2007). most of the high seas bottom fishing in the SPRfmO Regulatory area in recent years has

taken place in the southwestern Pacific, mainly by australian and new Zealand vessels, with the catch averaging several thousand tonnes per year (Bensch et al., 2008). These high seas fisheries have mainly occurred in association with the seamounts of the norfolk Ridge, the northwest Challenger Plateau, the lord howe Rise, the louisville Ridge and, to a lesser extent, the Three Kings Ridge and South Tasman Rise (Clark et al., 2007; SPRfmO, 2007a; Government of new Zealand, 2009). Some fishing has taken place in the southeastern Pacific on the nazca and Sala Y Gomez Ridges (Clark et al., 2007). The fisheries have been conducted mainly with bottom trawls. With the depletion of deep-sea stocks, and for market reasons, there has been a shift away from trawling towards line fishing by some states, notably new Zealand (Government of new Zealand, 2009).


Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) The southwest Pacific is the main area where orange roughy, the iconic species of deep-water fishing, are caught. The orange roughy has a very low productivity as a result of its extreme longevity (isotopic age validation up to 150 years; andrews & Tracey, 2007), slow growth rate in relation to size, and late onset of maturity

(Rogers, 1994; SPRfmO, 2007a). Orange roughy breed in aggregations over seamounts but also demonstrate lengthy periods of low recruitment to populations, sometimes lasting 10–20 years (Koslow & Tuck, 2001; francis & Clark, 2005). Overall, the extremely conservative life history of orange roughy reflects low rates of natural mortality and adaptation to life on seamounts and other deep-sea habitats. These same life-history characteristics render this species very vulnerable to overfishing, especially as it is easily targeted by modern fishing vessels when forming aggregations over elevated topographic features. Other seamount species also show similar characteristics and modeling studies have demonstrated that they are more vulnerable to overfishing than non-seamount species (morato et al., 2006; morato & Clark, 2007).

Orange roughy fisheries have typically followed a boom-bust pattern globally, with examples including stocks off namibia, the southwest Indian Ocean, and australia (Branch, 2001; lack et al., 2003). In some cases, serial depletion has occurred, an example being the Chatham Rise within the new Zealand EEZ where stocks were successively discovered on small seamount features, heavily fished and then depleted as the fishing fleet moved eastwards searching for new aggregations (Clark, 1999). Orange roughy fishing peaked in the 1990s and has since declined (SPRfmO, 2007a). most catches came from the lord howe Rise and the northwest Challenger Plateau, although more recent fisheries have developed on the norfolk, Three Kings and louisville Ridges. The status of the high seas stocks of orange roughy in this region are uncertain and are likely to vary. The Tasman Sea fisheries for orange roughy are depleted. non-standardised CPUE on the lord howe Rise, northwest Challenger Plateau and the louisville Ridge has declined significantly (Clark, 2004). Elsewhere in the South Pacific, orange roughy are fished within Chile’s EEZ. These stocks are also currently overfished (SPRfmO, 2007a) and were closed to fishing except for research purposes in 2006 (Clark, 2009).

at present there is no management in place for high seas stocks of orange roughy, apart from those in the South Tasman Rise region, where the fishery is subject to a bilateral arrangement between australia and new Zealand to limit catches. at present the stock status of high seas populations of orange roughy is unknown,

so it is unclear whether current levels of exploitation are sustainable (SPRfmO, 2007a).

Oreos: Black oreo (Allocyttus niger), smooth oreo (Pseudocyttus maculatus), spikey oreo (Neocyttus rhomboidalis), warty oreo (Allocyttus verrucosus), family Oreosomatidae In the South Pacific region, oreos occur on the continental slopes of australia, new Zealand and Chile, the Tasman Sea, the louisville Ridge and the southern Chatham Rise (SPRfmO, 2007b). Oreos occur in deep water, close to the seabed, and are often associated with topographic features such as pinnacles and canyons. like orange roughy, these species aggregate around submarine features, making them easy targets for trawlers (SPRfmO, 2007b). They were caught as by-catch in fisheries for orange roughy but are now targeted themselves. like orange roughy, oreos are extremely long-lived and slow growing, with ages up to 150 years or more (black oreo; Smith & Stewart, 1994; Doonan et al., 1995), as estimated by counts of otolith rings. Genetic studies indicate that these fish form discrete populations on large-scale topographic features such as the new Zealand and australian slopes and also at smaller spatial scales.

The major fisheries for oreos in the high seas include the South Tasman Rise, the West norfolk Ridge, the lord howe Rise, the northwest Challenger Plateau and the louisville Ridge. The status of high seas stocks of oreos are currently uncertain but are likely to vary (SPRfmO, 2007b). Catches have dropped markedly in recent years on the South Tasman Rise (Clark et al., 2007). at present there are no estimates of stock size in areas beyond national jurisdication and no management measures in place for oreos, with the exception of a bilateral arrangement by australia and new Zealand with respect to the South Tasman Rise (SPRfmO, 2007b). Catches are monitored by australia and new Zealand for their vessels.

Figure 43. Spikey oreo, Neocyttus rhomboidalis. © Alex

Rogers

Figure 42. Map of South Pacific showing SPRFMO Regulatory Area

(still under review; Bensch et al., 2008).


Black cardinalfish (Epigonus telescopus) and other cardinalfish, family Epigonidae.Black cardinalfish are found throughout the atlantic Ocean and in the Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific (SPRfmO, 2007c). The species is long-lived, with ages being reported at over 100 years, but commercial catch ages are generally between 35 and 55 years. The species is extremely slow growing and does not mature until it is 40–50cm in length, with recruitment at 45 years of age. The species is benthic or bentho-pelagic, forming schools at up to 150m above the seabed, particularly around hills or rough seabed topography. Information on the biology of this species in the South Pacific region is extremely limited.

Black cardinalfish are taken as by-catch in fisheries for orange roughy, as with oreos, and also alfonsino. The largest catches have come from the northern Challenger Plateau and the lord howe Rise. There is no information on the status of stocks of black cardinalfish on the high seas and fisheries are unmanaged. Some experimental trawl fisheries in the 1970s on the louisville and Geracyl Ridges caught other cardinalfish species, including Epigonus pectinifer, Epigonus denticulatus, Epigonus parini and Epigonus geracleus, and estimates at that time suggested substantial stocks in these areas (Clark et al., 2007). There was some fishing on the Geracyl Ridge in the 1970s and early-1980s and the louisville Ridge has been targeted for other species (Clark et al., 2007).

Goldeneye perch or alfonsino (Beryx splendens) as described previously, this species is vulnerable to overfishing as a result of its aggregating behaviour. In the South Pacific, alfonsino are found on outer continental shelves, the slope and on ridges and seamounts. The majority of catches of this species during the period 1969–2004 came from the South Pacific, although most of the catches were from inside EEZs (SPRfmO, 2007d). In the southwestern Pacific significant catches of alfonsino have been taken in high seas areas (SPRfmO, 2007d), including on the louisville Ridge (Clark et al., 2007). There are few data on the alfonsino stocks that are fished on the high seas and there are no regulatory measures in place to manage fisheries in the region (SPRfmO, 2007d).

Bluenose (Hyperoglyphe antarctica)Bluenose are found across the southern atlantic, southern Indian Ocean and southwestern

Pacific. They are found over rough ground from 200–750m depth and are often associated with seamounts (SPRfmO, 2007e). They live to about 25 years old and mature at 7–12 years of age. The species is caught using both bottom and mid-water trawls as well as a variety of line gear. Only a small proportion of the current catch comes from high seas areas (SPRfmO, 2007e). Bluenose are an aggregating species, a behaviour that can result in an apparently stable CPUE over several years before a sudden decline in catches from overexploitation (Government of new Zealand, 2009).

Foundation lobster (Jasus caveorum) This lobster is known only from the foundation Seamounts and has been fished sporadically (SPRfmO, 2007f). Other fisheries for Jasus spp. on seamount localities have resulted in rapid depletion of stocks. no management is in place for this species on the high seas. Other lobster fisheries also probably take place in the South Pacific Ocean but there is very little information available on these fisheries (SPRfmO, 2007f).

Other species a number of other species have been subject to targeted fishing or are taken in the high seas area of the South Pacific (Clark et al., 2007; Government of new Zealand, 2008b, 2009). These include pink mao mao (Caprodon longimanus), armourhead (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni and Pentaceros japonicus), ruby snapper (Etelis carbunculus and Etelis coruscans), southern blue whiting (micromesistius australis), grenadiers (e.g. Caelorhinchus australis), ribaldo (mora moro), giant boarfish (Paristiopterus labiosus), bass or hapaku (Polyprion oxygeneios, Polyprion americanus), tarakihi (nemadactylus spp.), gemfish (Rexea spp.), kingfish (Seriola lalandi), toothfish (Dissostichus spp.), rock cod (helicolenus spp.), red snapper (Centroberyx affinis) and sharks (e.g. Dalatias licha, Squalus acanthias, Galeorhinus galeus). Data on catches of these species are only available from some states and include both bottom trawl and longline fisheries. In some cases, catches of these species may be very small. no specific management measures are in place by SPRfmO for any of these fisheries on the high seas at the present time (but see new Zealand impact assessment below). Other species taken as by-catch from high seas deep-sea fisheries include a variety of sharks, rays, chimaerids and a number of teleost species but detailed information on catches is not available

(SPRfmO, 2007a). few of the species reported are presently of commercial interest.


Prior to the SPRfmO negotiations there were no protected areas in the high seas of the South Pacific. following UnGa Resolution 61/105, SPRfmO Contracting Parties agreed to a set of interim measures to implement the resolution in may 2007, including an agreement to ‘freeze the footprint’ of existing high seas bottom fisheries until 2010 (SPRfmO Interim measures, 2007). They further developed an Interim Benthic assessment framework, followed by a Draft Bottom fishery Impact assessment Standard (DBfIaS). These measures established standards for environmental impact assessment of deep-sea fisheries on the high seas and included consideration of the move-on rules for fishing vessels. The DBfIaS has been criticised by some member states (e.g. Chile), while others have adopted their own move-on rules along with their impact assessments (e.g. Spain). Efforts to establish and act upon environmental impact assessments by new Zealand have met with opposition from the deep-water fishing industry (Government of new Zealand, 2009).

Pending the adoption of the final Bottom fishery Impact assessment Standard, the DBfIaS serves as the standard for impact assessments for all bottom fisheries in the SPRfmO Regulatory area down to 2,000m, based on the assumption that the deepest depths fished were 1,500m (SPRfmO, 2008). however, it is known that fishing now takes place down to 2,200m in areas such as the antarctic, so that assumption is not correct on a global scale. The interim measures adopted in 2007 required all member states to prepare a benthic impact assessment of their bottom fisheries regardless of scale or previous fishing history (SPRfmO, 2008). These assessments were required prior to bottom fishing activities taking place. So far only new Zealand and, more recently, the European Union have submitted impact assessments to the SPRfmO Science Working Group, and these have been placed on the SPRfmO website for comment. SPRfmO outlined the content of these assessments as follows.

Details of proposed fishing activity: ● description of vessels used; ● description of the proposed fishing method,

including a gear plan;

● depth-range to be fished; ● target species and potential by-catch; ● period of intended fishing; ● effort (number of vessels, number of tows,

expected tow duration); ● estimated catch and discard of target and

by-catch species.

Mapping of the intended fishing area: ● maps of the intended fishing area; ● mapping of VmEs, potential VmEs or areas

likely to support VmEs in the intended fishing area;

● any other information useful in assessing likely impacts of the fishery.

Scoping of issues of concern: ● potential impact of the fishing activity,

including all gear types; ● the risk of loss of fishing gear.

Assessment of: ● intensity or severity of impacts; ● how long the impacts are likely to last; ● spatial extent of impact compared to the

spatial extent of the VmE; ● cumulative impact.

Overall assessment of the risk

Interactions with VMEs: ● what interactions will occur between the

fishing gear used and VmEs; ● what is the probability of interaction, its likely

extent and its magnitude; ● what are the characteristics of seabed

habitats likely to be impacted; ● what is the diversity of the fished ecosystem

and likely impacts on diversity of the fishing activity;

● what is the spatial scale, duration of impact and cumulative impacts;

● are there any other threats associated with the proposed fishing plan?

Status of deep-water stocks to be targeted: ● intended target and likely by-catch species; ● historic catches and catch trends in the area

to be fished; ● trends in CPUE in target and likely by-catch

species; ● results of any surveys on stocks to be

targeted; ● results of any stock assessments, if they

exist.


Following this assessment, where a medium or high risk of impacts of intended fisheries on VMEs, diversity, or target/by-catch species is found to exist, a plan of monitoring and mitigation measures is required. This plan should include: ● details of methods of collection of VmS data; ● details of the catch and effort data collection

systems; ● details of observer coverage; ● details of any other information provided; ● proposed mitigation measures to prevent or

reduce adverse impacts on VmEs; ● proposed management measures such as

implementation of move-on rules.

new Zealand presented the first comprehensive impact assessment of its deep-sea bottom fisheries in the SPRfmO Regulatory area. The report follows the DBfIaS guidelines closely and uses a number of novel approaches, as well as those adopted by other RfmOs, in implementing UnGa Resolution 61/105 and the interim measures agreed by the SPRfmO process. Under the latter, all countries agreed to ‘freeze the footprint’ of their bottom fishing activities until 2010. The footprint was defined as geographic areas measuring 20 by 20 minute latitude and longitude ‘blocks’ of ocean space (a footprint of approximately 1,000km2 in new Zealand’s case), within which any bottom fishing, including even a single tow of a trawl net, had occurred during the period 2002–06.

One novel aspect of the new Zealand impact assessment was analysis of trawl records to identify the blocks that have been heavily, moderately or lightly fished by new Zealand vessels bottom trawl fishing in the SPRfmO Regulatory area (Penney et al., 2009). altogether, new Zealand identified 200 such blocks, with much of the new Zealand fishing effort in the high seas having been directed towards seamounts. heavily trawled blocks in the SPRfmO area tend to be located over these features, which have been the source of most of the deep-water catches in the area. new Zealand has closed all ‘lightly’ trawled blocks to bottom fishing, totaling 62 blocks or approximately 31 percent of the new Zealand footprint, thus protecting these areas (Penney et al., 2009). In addition, new Zealand has closed 20 ‘representative’ areas of the remaining 138 blocks of moderately and heavily fished areas, bringing the total closed area to approximately 40 percent of the footprint or some 40,000km2

(Government of new Zealand, 2009; Penney et al., 2009). Overall, these closures add up to protection of a significant area of the deep seabed that was potentially subject to continued fishing by new Zealand vessels. new Zealand considers this its primary tool in protecting deep-sea ecosystems and, furthermore, potentially useful for protecting not only VmEs but also non-targeted by-catch species such as sharks. new Zealand has also designed a move-on rule for fishing vessels that encounter VmE-associated species. The determination of the threshold values is based on an approach similar to nafO’s approach of examining by-catch accumulation curves, in this case with data from commercial trawlers taken by observers rather than from fisheries’ survey trawls (Parker et al., 2009). The threshold value was taken from an arbitrary cut-off value of the 50th percentile from the biomass accumulation curve of by-catch (threshold = 30kg for stony coral, 50kg for sponges and less for other coral classes; Parker et al., 2009). Determination of a potential VmE encounter considers whether the threshold is exceeded as well as the number of VmE-associated taxa that are encountered, regardless of weight, to take into account impacts on species-diverse habitats (Parker et al., 2009). Such an approach was only possible because of the provision of detailed observer data on by-catch on new Zealand vessels.

Together, the move-on rule and closed areas represent a serious attempt to implement the UnGa Resolution 61/105 and the faO Guidelines on management of deep-sea fisheries. however, the high seas areas that remain open to continued bottom trawl fishing by new Zealand vessels may contain significant areas of VmEs. The move-on rule is not applied to heavily trawled blocks. The new Zealand government’s view is that such areas are open to fishing and that VmEs are protected by having existing areas closed to bottom fishing. It remains to be seen how effective the measures adopted by new Zealand will be, particularly if other states allow their vessels to fish in the areas closed by new Zealand. new Zealand also proposes to freeze current catches of deep-sea species such as orange roughy. however, it acknowledges that this freeze in catches, based on the 2002–2006 figures for catch, is likely to exceed sustainable levels of exploitation for species such as orange roughy in the SPRfmO Regulatory area. It proposes to undertake stock assessments of such deep-sea species but

also points out that the implementation of such analyses will require international cooperation. In the meantime, fishing of low-productivity species such as orange roughy will continue while a scientifically based harvest plan is being developed.

Spain (the EU) has also submitted an impact assessment on its gillnet fisheries in the SPRfmO Regulatory area. The document lists the vessels it is fishing, the intended target species and the method and depth of fishing (gillnets; Government of Spain, 2008). It also outlines a VmE-species encounter protocol that is identical to the old nEafC and nafO thresholds of 1,000kg of live sponges and 100kg of live coral (see previous discussion on higher threshold limits) and is at variance with recommendations by SPRfmO and the government of new Zealand. Spain states that the by-catch of gillnetting vessels, which are fishing on similar features to the new Zealand fleet, including the Challenger Plateau, is insignificant in terms of VmE taxa and that its fishing operations have low or no impact. The effects on target or non-target fish species by gillnets in the SPRfmO area are not considered in the Spanish impacts assessment and neither are precautionary management or mitigation measures. The november 2009 International meeting of SPRfmO adopted a resolution to ban deep-water gillnet fishing in the SPRfmO Regulatory area.

Conclusions

(i) Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing activities have SAIs on VMEs.● Only two states (new Zealand and Spain)

have submitted impact assessments of their bottom fisheries in the South Pacific. none of the other states whose vessels have engaged in bottom fishing in the region have submitted impact assessments to the SPRfmO Science Working Group.

● The two impact assessments that have been carried out vary markedly in quality but both propose that fishing takes place on stocks of deep-sea fish species that are not subject to management, i.e. they are unmanaged.

● The new Zealand impact assessment includes most of the information required by SPRfmO.

(ii) To implement measures in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law and to

sustainably manage deep-sea fish stocks.● high seas deep-sea fisheries in the region

target low-productivity species using bottom trawls, longlines and traps.

● at present, no management measures are in place for high seas deep-sea bottom fisheries on target or by-catch species, with the exception of bilateral agreements between australia and new Zealand for fisheries on the South Tasman Rise.

● Information on stock size, distribution, abundance, catch, and the impact of fishing for most of the deep-sea species taken in the high seas bottom fisheries in the region is limited.

(iii) To ensure that if fishing activities have SAIs they are managed to prevent such impacts, including through closing areas to bottom fishing where VMEs are known or likely to occur, or not authorised to proceed.● new Zealand has established novel

measures, including precautionary closures of approximately 40 percent of the area of the seabed within its historic fisheries ‘footprint’ to deep-sea fishing by its vessels. however, the remaining 60 percent of the areas open to fishing within the new Zealand bottom trawl fisheries footprint has not been subject to an impact assessment consistent with the faO Guidelines.

(iv) To establish and implement protocols to cease fishing where an encounter with VMEs occurs during fishing activities and to report such encounters so that appropriate measures can be adopted with respect to that site.● Both new Zealand and Spain adopted

thresholds for the triggering of a move-on action for its deep-sea fishing vessels on encountering VmE species.

● The new Zealand rules included threshold weights for VmE species as well as the diversity of VmE species within a catch. however, the move-on rules were only applicable to moderately fished or exploratory fisheries and areas that have historically been heavily fished will not be subject to move-on rules.

● The Spanish move-on rules adopted an encounter protocol identical to the old nEafC and nafO encounter rules. The limited conservation value of such encounter rules are discussed in the nEafC and nafO sections of this report.


southWest indian oCeanThe Indian Ocean is globally important for marine capture fisheries, representing more than 10 percent of global catches, with the western Indian Ocean most notable for recent increases in catches (FAO, 2009b). However, it is also the region of the world where the highest proportion of exploited fish stocks are of unknown or uncertain status (Kimani et al., 2009), reflecting problems in fisheries management and ocean governance. Artisanal fisheries in the Indian Ocean are critical for the livelihoods and food security of people in coastal states, particularly island nations such as the Seychelles. However, there is evidence that fish catches by the artisanal sector are grossly under-reported by a factor of up to five times the FAO statistics. The offshore fisheries of the western Indian Ocean are rich but countries within the region have been unable to develop the infrastructure to exploit them. Distant-water fishing fleets of developed countries have gained access to fish resources through multilateral or bilateral agreements (Kimani et al., 2009). This situation is exacerbated by the subsidies to foreign distant-water fleets, which give them a competitive advantage over local fishing fleets (Kimani et al., 2009).

at present, two main agreements exist for the southern Indian Ocean: the Southwest Indian Ocean fisheries Commission (SWIOfC; fig. 44) and the South Indian Ocean fisheries agreement (SIOfa; see fig. 45). SWIOfC was initiated in 2004 to promote sustainable utilisation of marine living resources and was signed by the Comoros, france, Kenya, madagascar, mauritius,

mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, and Tanzania. at present, SWIOfC is investigating new fisheries for deep-water species within the EEZ of mauritius or mauritian dependencies (nazareth and St Brandon Banks; SWIOfC, 2009). SIOfa was opened in 2006 and signatories so far include australia, the Comoros, france, Kenya, madagascar, mozambique, mauritius, new Zealand, Seychelles and the European Union. SIOfa forms the basis of a regional RfmO for the management of deep-sea fisheries on the high seas, but that has not yet entered into force. Delay in the implementation of the SIOfa agreement caused sufficient concern among several deep-water fishing companies operating in the region for them to form an association in 2006 to promote technical, research and conservation activities to provide the future RfmO with data required for management of deep-water fisheries (Shotton, 2006). This association is known as the Southern Indian Ocean Deepwater fishers’ association (SIODfa), formed by four companies with four deep-water trawlers flagged to australia, the Cook Islands and mauritius.


The development of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas of the Indian Ocean were undertaken by distant-water fleets of developed countries, particularly the Soviet Union, which in the early 1970s maintained the largest distant-water fishing fleet in the world (Romanov, 2003). Exploratory fishing on the Southwest Indian Ocean Ridge, the mozambique Ridge and the madagascar Ridge began in the 1970s by the Soviet fleet and commercial trawling began in

the early 1980s (Romanov, 2003; Clark et al., 2007). These fisheries targeted shallow-water redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) and rubyfish (Plagiogeneion rubiginosum), with catches peaking about 1980 and then decreasing into the mid-1980s (Clark et al., 2007). fishing then switched to the deeper-living alfonsino (Beryx splendens) in the 1990s as new seamounts began to be exploited.

In the late 1990s a new fishery developed on the Southwest Indian Ocean Ridge, with trawlers targeting deep-water species such as orange roughy (hoplostethus atlanticus), black cardinalfish (Epigonus telescopus), southern boarfish (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni; fig. 46), oreo (Oreosomatidae) and alfonsino (Clark et al., 2007). This fishery rapidly expanded, with estimated catches of orange roughy in the region of 10,000t, but then rapidly collapsed (Gianni, 2004). fishing has shifted to the madagascar Plateau, mozambique Ridge and mid-Indian Ocean Ridge, targeting alfonsino and rubyfish (Clark et al., 2007).

fishing continues along the Southwest Indian Ocean Ridge, mainly targeting orange roughy and alfonsino. Recent fishing has also taken place on the Broken Ridge (eastern Indian Ocean), ninety- East Ridge, possibly the Central Indian Ridge, the mozambique Ridge and Plateau and Walter’s Shoal (western Indian Ocean), where a deep-water fishery for lobster (Palinurus barbarae) has developed (Bensch et al., 2008). The banks around mauritius, within the EEZ and high seas portions of the Saya da malha Bank, have been targeted by fisheries for shallow-water snappers (lutjanus spp.) and emperors (lethrinidae; SWIOfC, 2009). a new longline fishery has developed in the northwest Indian Ocean, mainly by Chinese vessels targeting deep-water longtail red snapper (Etelis coruscans; Bensch et al., 2008). There are also reports of unmanaged gillnet fishing for sharks

in areas of the southern Indian Ocean such as Walter’s Shoal (Shotton, 2006). new deep-water fisheries are developing off India, although at present it is unclear whether the latter is within or outside the EEZ. SIODfa reports that its vessels undertake approximately 2,000 deep-water trawl tows per year in the entire Indian Ocean. By-catch of fish from SIODfa fishing operations in the region is reported to be small, especially when fishing below 500m depth (Shotton, 2006). as with new Zealand vessels operating in the southern Pacific Ocean, tow times were typically short, with a duration of 10–15 minutes (Shotton, 2006), reflecting the highly-targeted nature of roughy and alfonsino fisheries on seamounts. Currently, little or no information is available for the assessment of the impacts of deep-sea fishing on high seas areas of the Indian Ocean on populations of either target or by-catch species. few scientific surveys have been undertaken in deep water. What little information there is suggests that the dominant slope-dwelling grenadiers in sub-tropical regions are rather small (Gil et al., 2008). Reporting of data from commercial fleets is complicated by issues of confidentiality in those fisheries where stocks may be located across a wide area (e.g. the Southwest Indian Ocean Ridge) and there is no RfmO in force to regulate fishing. at present, new fisheries are developing in the region with no apparent assessment of resource size or appropriate exploitation levels to ensure sustainability of fisheries. SIODfa has reported that it is collecting data on both fishing operations and catches (tow by tow data), as well as other biological information on target species, to feed into a future arrangement (SIOfa) when it is implemented (Shotton, 2006).


at present, the only initiative protecting VmEs in the high seas region of the Indian Ocean is the unilateral declaration by SIODfa of 11 Benthic Protected areas (BPas). The companies that belong to SIODfa have voluntarily closed these areas to bottom fishing or mid-water trawling (Shotton, 2006). The BPas were selected on the basis of a number of criteria including: ● representivity of seabed type (e.g. seamount,

slope edge, etc.); ● fishing history; ● level of pre-existing knowledge concerning

geology, bathymetry and biology; ● protection of benthic communities;

Figure 45.

SIOFA area of

competence..

Figure 46. Pelagic armourhead, Pseudopentaceros

richardsoni (top), and alfonsino, Beryx splendens (bottom),

from the Southwest Indian Ocean Ridge. © Alex Rogers.

Figure 44. SWIOFC’s proposed area of competence

(SWIOFC, 2005).


● protection of areas of special scientific interest (e.g. geological features of atlantis Bank).

Ten areas in the Indian Ocean were designated by SIODfa as BPas (the eleventh is located in the southeast atlantic) on the basis of the knowledge gathered by the members of the association from various sources as well as the research and data gathered during commercial fishing operations. These sites include a number of seamounts, knolls, ridges and other topographic features that in some cases are known or suspected to host VmEs as well as populations of commercial and non-commercial fish species (see fig. 47).

at present little is known concerning the representivity of the BPas or whether they offer protection from bottom fishing. non-members of SIODfa are under no legal obligation to avoid fishing these areas. Currently, a collaborative international scientific project is underway to investigate the Southwest Indian Ocean Ridge and Walter’s Shoal. This project, funded by the Global Environment facility and the UK’s natural Environment Research Council, will investigate the ecology and biodiversity of benthic and pelagic ecosystems, including observations of birds and cetaceans, associated with five seamounts, from the atlantis Bank in the north to the Coral Seamount in the south. The project will provide direct observations on the nature of

seabed communities there and how they change along the ridge. Other information will include acoustic data on pelagic biomass and records of birds that are potentially at risk during fishing operations (particularly longline fishing); both are data deficient in the region (Shotton, 2006). BPas protect a very small area of the seabed (figs 47 and 48), estimated to represent approximately 6 percent of the seamounts at fishable depths in the region (mCBI, 2009a). furthermore, models of habitat suitability in the Indian Ocean for deep-sea stony corals indicate that the BPas are only likely to protect a small proportion of seamounts that may host VmEs (see fig. 48), but useful observations of benthic communities are sparse. Possible designs for a representative network of marine-protected areas on the high seas in the Indian Ocean need to be evaluated on the basis of increasing knowledge of deep-sea ecosystems and current ideas regarding the area and distribution of protected areas that have conservation value.

Conclusions

(i) Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing activities have SAIs on VMEs. ● no RfmO is in operation in this region, nor

have the flag States whose vessels engage in bottom fisheries on the high seas region agreed to or implemented interim measures for the management of the fisheries, as called for in UnGa Resolution 61/105. Therefore, no

Figure 47. Map of the

Indian Ocean showing high

seas areas; seamounts

<2,000m summit depth

(green dots), seamounts

>2,000m depth (red dots)

and BPAs (John Guinotte,

Ph.D., MCBI, 2009a).

Figure 48. Habitat

suitability modeling

for stony corals on

the seamounts in the

southwest Indian Ocean.

As can be seen, the

BPAs do protect areas of

suitable habitat, but many

other areas lie outside

the protected zones (John

Guinotte, Ph.D., MCBI,

2009b).

impact assessments have been carried out for deep-sea fisheries in the high seas of the Indian Ocean.

● The Cook Islands have published information about vessels authorised to fish in the South Indian Ocean on the Un faO website, as called for in UnGa Resolution 61/105 (paragraph 87) but have not published any information on impact assessments or conservation measures adopted with respect to their flagged vessels; no other country currently fishing in the region has published any information whatsoever (faO, 2010).

(ii) To implement measures in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law and to sustainably manage deep-sea fish stocks.● Deep-sea fish resources in the high seas

regions of the Indian Ocean have been severely overexploited in the past.

● In the absence of a RfmO or interim management measures, as called for in UnGa Resolution 61/105, deep-sea fisheries on the Indian Ocean are ongoing and unmanaged, with the exception of individual state reporting requirements for some deep-sea fishing vessels.

● at present, there is little information on present deep-sea fisheries within the region in respect of catches of target and by-catch species or impacts on VmEs or on sustainable

levels of exploitation for fished stocks. It is, therefore, not possible to assess the status of any stocks or species, as has been done for other localities and RfmOs.

(iii) To ensure that if fishing activities have SAIs they are managed to prevent such impacts, including through closing areas to bottom fishing where VMEs are known or likely to occur, or not authorised to proceed.● The only protected areas are voluntary BPas

declared by SIODfa. These do not provide legal protection from fishing activities by companies outside SIODfa.

● The BPas have been set up on the basis of best current knowledge of benthic ecosystems of the Indian Ocean by the fishing industry. This information, however, is extremely limited, so the BPas only cover a small percentage of the seamounts at fishable depth in the region and the conservation value of the BPas is unknown.

(iv) To establish and implement protocols to cease fishing where an encounter with VMEs occurs during fishing activities and to report such encounters so that appropriate measures can be adopted with respect to that site.● There are currently no encounter protocols in

operation for vessels bottom fishing in deep water on the high seas of the Indian Ocean.


southern oCeanThe Southern Ocean comprises about 6.5 percent of the world’s oceans and is defined as having a northern boundary at a latitude of 60oS (Earle & Glover, 2009). However, it is physically bounded by the Antarctic Convergence, a major frontal system that varies in its position but which can be located as far north as 45oS. This zone, marked by a steep gradient in temperature, separates the frigid Antarctic Circumpolar Current from the warmer Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans to the north. The Southern Ocean surrounds the Antarctic continent which, because it lies underneath a huge weight of ice, has an unusually narrow and deep shelf ranging from 350–500m deep. Surrounding the continent of Antarctica are a number of sub-Antarctic islands, including the South Shetland Islands, South Orkney Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, Bouvet Island, the Prince Edward Islands, Crozet Islands, Kerguelen Island, Heard and MacDonald Islands, and the Balleny Islands. These islands are generally located on large submarine features that isolate the deep basins of the Southern Ocean, including the South Georgia Ridge, the East Scotia Ridge, the America-Antarctic Ridge, the Atlantic-Indian Ridge, the Southwest Indian Ridge, the Crozet and Kerguelen Plateaus, the Southeast Indian Ridge, the South Tasman Rise and the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge. Large areas of the coastal seas of Antarctica lie beneath ice shelves and more than one-half of the Southern Ocean freezes each winter. Because of the limited shelf seas, a lack of the micronutrient iron in surface waters, harsh environmental conditions and extreme

seasonality, the fisheries in the Southern Ocean tend to be limited in productivity, with the exception of the pelagic Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba).


large-scale fisheries for finfish in the Sub-antarctic/antarctic commenced in 1969 around South Georgia and other Sub-antarctic/antarctic Islands. large catches were taken, with 400,000t of marbled notothenia (notothenia rossii) taken in 1969/70 and 100,000t in the following season by Soviet fleets. The fishery then collapsed after being fished for a couple of years (Kock et al., 2007). Other fisheries followed a similar pattern of collapse after a short period of intense exploitation, including those for mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari), yellow notothenia (Gobionotothen gibberifrons), Scotia Sea icefish (Chaenocephalus aceratus), South Georgia icefish (Pseudochaenichthys georgianus), Patagonian rockcod (Patagonotothen brevicauda), spiny icefish (Chaenodraco wilsoni) and grey notothenia (lepidonotothen squamifrons). Overall, by 1992, some 2.08 million tonnes of fish had been extracted from the atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean, with 3 million tonnes taken from the Southern Ocean overall, not including illegal or unreported catches (ainley & Blight, 2009). It has now been realised that this massive extraction of biomass has significantly contributed to the decline of predator (seals and birds) populations in the antarctic (ainley & Blight, 2009). Such mining of fisheries resources was brought to an end by the

declaration of 200nm limits around many of the Sub-antarctic Islands and the establishment of the Convention on the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources (CCamlR; fig 49) in 1982. The only finfish fisheries remaining in the CCamlR area at present are for mackerel icefish, which is taken by bottom and mid-water trawl fishing around heard Island (Division 58.5.2) and pelagic trawls around South Georgia (Division 48.3), and toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides and Dissostichus mawsoni), taken in a number of established and exploratory fisheries around antarctica, mainly by longline, but also by trawl in heard Island. Toothfish were initially fished by Russian vessels around South Georgia in the 1980s but the fishery was only recently noted because there was a lack of reporting in the late 1980s (Kock et al., 2007).

Other fisheries of note in the region included those for antarctic krill, which reached a peak of 550,000t in the 1980s but fell dramatically with the collapse of the Soviet Union. a fishery for the small mesopelagic lanternfish, Electrona carlsbergii, also took place in the 1980s–1990s but was discontinued for commercial reasons. at present, catches in the Southern Ocean are a fraction of past fisheries and Un faO views the region as one where relatively high proportions (20 percent or more) of stocks are moderately or underexploited. There are plans to increase the exploitation of krill for fishmeal and pharmaceutical products (CCamlR Review Panel, 2008), despite evidence of krill’s key position in the food chain and of declines in krill populations over time in some regions of the antarctic.

The long period of completely unmanaged directed fishing in the Southern Ocean meant that many fish stocks were encountered and exploited before they came under CCamlR management. Rules were initiated in 1991 for new or exploratory fisheries, which require that any state with vessels that intend to undertake exploratory fishing activities must notify the Commission in advance so that such applications can be assessed and management measures established prior to exploitation (Kock et al., 2007). These measures have prevented the further development of unmanaged directed fisheries in recent years. all the fisheries presently targeting finfish in the CCamlR Regulatory area are deep water, with those at heard Island including bottom and mid-water trawl fisheries and at South Georgia,

pelagic trawls. all other fisheries are based on bottom longlines, although there have recently been experimental fisheries using pots. Three main species are exploited: mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) and Patagonian and antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides and Dissostichus mawsoni).

Mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) mackerel icefish feed on krill and in turn are an important prey species for other predators in the antarctic, such as fur seals and gentoo penguins (Kock et al., 2007). Recruitment to stocks of mackerel icefish vary by up to a factor of 20 and in some years adult mortality can also be high. Catch limits are set, therefore, on a two-year projection based on survey estimates of stock size; the surveys occur annually (Kock et al., 2007). The species is generally fished at depths of 180–400m depth in the heard Island fishery (mSC, 2006). In general, although this fishery is classed as fully exploited and recent TaCs have been set at a very low level, the fishery is regarded as well managed and received certification from the marine Stewardship Council (mSC) in 2006. mackerel icefish grow relatively quickly and are short lived and, overall, the species can be viewed as one of intermediate productivity. The stock that is fished using bottom trawl gear does not, therefore, fall into the scope of the faO Guidelines (2009a) because it is fished within the australian EEZ around heard and macDonald Islands and not on the high seas.

Toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides and Dissostichus mawsoni) Both of these species are fished with bottom longlines in the CCamlR Regulatory area and both are long-lived (40–50 years) and slow-growing species that reach maturity at 6-10 years old. The fish grow to a very large size and move into deeper waters (up to 3,000m depth) as they get older (Kock et al., 2007). aspects of the life history of toothfish identify it as a low-productivity species and declines in exploited populations suggest that it is vulnerable to overfishing. most of the fished stocks of toothfish are managed and have been fished to planned levels of biomass aimed at sustainable exploitation over the long term (CCamlR Review Panel, 2008). The South Georgia fishery, for example, has been certified by the mSC and was recertified in 2009 without condition and is the first fishery to have received such unconditional certification. In some cases, though, stocks have been overexploited in the CCamlR area,

Fig. 49. Map showing the

CCAMLR Regulatory Area.


a situation that has been aggravated by IUU fishing, reflecting the difficulties in monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries in the remote Southern Ocean (CCamlR Review Panel, 2008). This remains a problem in many areas throughout the Southern Ocean but has reduced in recent years as a result of catch certification.

Recent evidence suggests that the exploratory fishery for toothfish in the Ross Sea (area 88.1) is having significant impacts on toothfish populations, and further on the wider ecosystem through impacts on its predators of toothfish (killer whales, sperm whales and Weddell seals) and its prey (demersal fish, of which toothfish can remove up to 70 percent of the annual production; ainley et al., 2009; CCamlR Scientific Committee, 2008a). Significant declines in catches of toothfish in long-term sampling programmes on the coast of the Ross Sea (DeVries et al., 2007) indicate fishery-induced declines of toothfish populations and/or changes in the distribution of toothfish in response to fishing (density-dependent behaviour). a draft document supporting the mSC certification of the Ross Sea fishery as sustainable has been drawn up (moody marine ltd, 2008) but has been severely criticised by

the antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (aSOC, 2009) and other nGOs (moody marine ltd, 2008). These critics point out that many aspects of the biology of toothfish in the Ross Sea region are unknown and the species is vulnerable to overfishing, and, therefore, management of the fishery is subject to serious uncertainties, reflected in its continued status as exploratory.

Other retained and discarded by-catch species The information on by-catch from the current deep-water fisheries in the CCamlR Regulatory area is patchy in respect of species, area and the interests of the Contracting Parties of the Commission (CCamlR Independent Review, 2008). CCamlR has set catch limits on a number of deep-water species that are likely to be of low productivity and thus high vulnerability and low resilience to fishing pressure. In many cases, such catch limits are precautionary but are based on limited scientific information. There are too few fishery-independent data to allow an assessment of the impacts of fishing on non-target fish species. for new and exploratory fisheries there are by-catch limits for skates and rays in all management areas and a by-catch limit of 20t for all other species combined. If by-catch thresholds are exceeded for any Regulatory areas, then fishing must stop and the vessel responsible must move on 5nm (CCamlR Review Panel, 2008).

Macrourids a number of grenadier species are taken as by-catch in Southern Ocean fisheries for toothfish including macrourus carinatus, macrourus holotrachys, macrourus whitsoni, Coryphaenoides armatus and Caelorhynchus marinii (CCamlR Scientific Committee, 2008a). however, much confusion exists regarding the identification of these species and in many cases they are identified simply as macrourus sp. or Coryphaenoides sp. It is recognised that these are long-lived species with low productivity (e.g. CCamlR Scientific Committee, 2008a).

Table 3 shows the reported by-catch of macrourids in bottom fisheries in the CCamlR Regulatory area. In many cases reported by-catches are below the maximum allowed by-catch for individual areas. By-catches of macrourids are highest in the South Georgia, Crozet and, particularly, Kerguelen fisheries for toothfish. Those at Kerguelen represent a significant proportion of the total catch. all

three of these areas are overseas territories and the fisheries take place within the EEZ of the islands and so are not high seas. for some areas, assessments on macrourus species have been undertaken and catches are currently within acceptable limits (e.g. area 88.1). however, for many of the regions within the CCamlR Regulatory area there are no fisheries-independent data on macrourid populations (CCamlR Review Panel, 2008) and so it is not possible to assess the overall impact of fisheries on macrourid populations. This is aggravated by the fact that by-catch for grenadiers is not identified to species, but is usually listed only as macrouridae. Reasonable keys to Southern Ocean macrourids are available (e.g. Gon & heemstra, 2000) but there is still confusion over their identification in some regions of the Southern Ocean.

In some places, species information has been recorded. macrourus whitsoni is the dominant by-catch species in the Ross Sea longline fishery for toothfish, averaging abut 10 percent of the total catch and amounting to 480t in 2005 (hanchet et al., 2008). nonetheless, commercial CPUE catches are not a good estimator of abundance because these rates are shown to vary markedly with vessel, area and depth. Standardised scientific surveys will be required to properly assess populations.

Skates and rays (Rajiformes, Bathyraja spp., Raja spp., Bathyraja eatonii, Bathyraja irrasa, Bathyraja maccaini, Bathyraja meridionalis, Bathyraja murrayi, Raja georgiana, Raja taaf) The other major group of deep-sea fish that are taken as by-catch in the bottom fisheries of the

Area (Existing fisheries)

Macrourids/ Macrouridae

48.3 South Georgia 161t

58.5.1 Kerguelen 453t

58.6 Crozet103t (mainly M. carinatus)

58.6 + 58.7 Prince Edward Islands.

4t (South African EEZ)

58.4.4 Ob & Lena Banks No data

58.5.2 Heard Island 71t

48.1 Peninsula and South Shetland Isls.

Closed

48.2 South Orkney Isls. Closed

48.4 S Sandwich Isl. 16t

Exploratory fisheries

48.2 Crab fishery

48.4 Crab fishery

48.6 Bouvet Is. Sector0t (no fishing in 2007/2008 season)

58.4.1 South Indian Basin 36t

58.4.2 Prydz Bay 12t

58.4.3a Elan Bank 0t

58.4.3b Banzare Bank 7t

88.1 Balleny Isls. 112t

88.2 Ross Sea 17t

Table 3. By-catch of

Macrouridae from

established and exploratory

fisheries in 2007/2008

(CCAMLR Scientific

Committee, 2008)

Area (Existing fisheries) Rajids

48.3 South Georgia 12t (19,558 released)

58.5.1 Kerguelen 230t

58.6 Crozet 39t

58.6 + 58.7 Prince Edward Islands.

0t (South African EEZ)

58.4.4 Ob & Lena Banks No data

58.5.2 Heard Island 13t (8,586 released)

48.1 Peninsula and South Shetland Isls.

Closed

48.2 South Orkney Isls. Closed

48.4 S Sandwich Isl. 4t (8,276 released)

Exploratory fisheries

48.2 Crab fishery

48.4 Crab fishery

48.6 Bouvet Is. Sector 0t (no fishing in 2007/2008 season) Bathyraja eatonii

58.4.1 South Indian Basin 0t Bathyraja eatonii, Bathyraja spp., Rajiformes

58.4.2 Prydz Bay 0t

Raja georgiana, Bathyraja eatonii, Bathyraja maccaini, Bathyraja irrasa, Bathyraja spp., Raja spp.,Rajiformes

58.4.3a Elan Bank 2t Raja taaf, Raja georgiana, Rajiformes

58.4.3b Banzare Bank 1t (155 released) Raja georgiana, Bathyraja maccaini, Bathyraja murrayi, Bathyraja spp., Raja spp., Rajiformes

88.1 Balleny Isls. 4t (7,190 released)

Raja taaf, Raja georgiana, Bathy-raja eatonii, Bathyraja maccaini, Bathyraja murrayi, Bathyraja irrasa, Bathyraja meridionalis, Bathyraja spp., Raja spp., Rajiformes

88.2 Ross Sea 0t Raja georgiana, Bathyraja eatonii, Bathyraja maccaini, Raja spp., Rajiformes

Table 4. By-catch of skates

and rays from bottom

fisheries in the CCAMLR

Regulatory Area.


CCamlR Regulatory area are skates and rays. These are low-productivity species because of their very conservative life histories and are vulnerable to overfishing.

In most areas the reported by-catch of skates and rays is low. The exceptions to this are Kerguelen and Crozet, where the by-catch of skates and rays is substantial. These fisheries take place within the EEZ of the islands and not on the high seas. Presently, measures are in place to assess skates that are captured during fishing. If they are injured or dead they are retained on the vessel but if they are likely to survive being returned to the sea they are cut free from the longline and the hook is removed if it can be done without damaging the animal. at present, it is unclear what proportions of animals survive capture and release, however, a research programme is currently in place that should produce data to help assess the survival rates of released skates and rays. large numbers are returned to the sea in some regions (Table 4). as with macrourids, assessments have been made on skates and rays for some regions within the CCamlR Regulatory area but in some cases these have been problematic because of a lack of data and uncertainties regarding the life history and growth rates of Southern Ocean species. for most regions within the CCamlR area there is no assessment of skate and ray populations and so no way of evaluating the state of populations. In addition, in many areas the skates and rays are not identified to species; this partially reflects the systematic problems in this group of fish in the Southern Ocean, although reasonable keys do exist to aid identification (e.g. Gon & heemstra, 2000).

Blue hake (Antimora rostrata) little is known about this species but it appears to have undergone major declines in other regions as a result of by-catch in deep-water fisheries (e.g. northwest atlantic; Devine et al., 2006). By-catches of blue hake are significant in the bottom fisheries of Kerguelen and Crozet (45t and 49t, respectively, in 2007/08) and it is also being taken as by-catch in Regions 88.1 and 88.2. Elsewhere in the CCamlR Regulatory area it is being reported in relatively low quantities as by-catch. as yet there has been no assessment of this species in terms of the impact of fishing on populations and it is unmanaged in the CCamlR region. Currently, the species is of little commercial interest.

Other species Sleeper sharks, Somniosus antarcticus, are occasionally taken as by-catch in the Southern Ocean but CCamlR has assessed the risks to this species and concluded that it is ‘low’ from longline fisheries (CCamlR Review Panel, 2008). however, deployment of gillnets by IUU vessels in the region does pose a risk to these, and to most, sharks.

a variety of other species are taken as by-catch in both the bottom trawl and longline fisheries in the CCamlR region, although generally not at the same level as macrourids, skates and rays and antimora rostrata. The most significant species include the moray cods (muraenolepis spp.) and various species of nototheniidae and Channichthyidae but there are low levels of catches of other species throughout the CCamlR Regulatory area (CCamlR Impact assessments, 2008). Some of these by-catches are limited, or the by-catch of ‘other’ species is limited in exploratory fishing areas. at present there are no assessments of the impact of fishing mortality on these species and very little is known of their relative abundance.


In 1991, it was agreed that the antarctic Treaty, through the Protocol on Environmental Protection, article 4, Paragraph 1, annex V, would acquire the powers to designate “any area, including any marine area” as an antarctic Specially Protected area (aSPa) or an antarctic Specially managed area (aSma) during the antarctic Treaty Consultative meeting (aTCm). annex V was adopted in 2002 and placed the antarctic Treaty in the unique position of being able to designate any part of the marine environment, including the high seas within the Treaty area, as a marine protected area (mPa). however, annex V, article 6, Paragraph 2 stipulated that no area was to be closed without prior approval of CCamlR, although this was later modified to include areas where harvesting or the potential for harvesting existed, or where CCamlR-related activities could be prevented or restricted. Effectively, this gave CCamlR powers of veto over any mPa in the Regulatory area where Contracting Parties could make a case that harvesting or some future possibility of harvesting existed. This meant that any proposals for mPas had to enter a process of dual consideration by the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) and CCamlR3.

This placed CCamlR in a unique position whereby states could use the Commission to refuse any proposals for mPas that they considered might presently, or in the future, affect their commercial (fishing) activities. The result of these decisions has been that, even with the antarctic Treaty in place, there has been little development of the legal means required to initiate a network of mPas, even in the high seas, and in recent years only relatively small areas have been designated, mostly around overseas territories or in coastal areas (see fig. 50). note that some fisheries protection measures have been directed at specific areas of the Southern Ocean, for example the closure of the Ob and lena Banks (seamounts; Statistical Division 58.4.4.) to fishing for lepidonotothen squamifrons (Conservation measure 32-08 (1997); CCamlR, 2009a). The CCamlR Review Panel (2008) identified that there were marked differences in views among Contracting Parties as to how to define aSPas and aSmas and indeed, despite the fact that CCamlR had the power to close areas to fishing for conservation purposes, little action had been taken. Until 2009, the CCamlR Regulatory area

Figure 50. Map of Antarctica showing current protected areas, including sites on

South Orkney Islands, South Shetland Islands, Palmer Archipelago, Marguerite Bay,

Ross Island, Beaufort Island, White Island, Granite Harbour, Edmonson Point, Cape

Hallett, Cape Adare, Sabrina Island, Point Martin, Pointe Geologie, Haswell Island,

Hawker Island and Rookery Island.

was not as active as other RfmOs’, such as nEafC and nafO, in the designation of networks of mPas to protect VmEs.

Recently, however, CCamlR and CEP clarified their roles in relation to conservation activities, including the protection of the marine environment at a workshop (CCamlR, 2009b). During this meeting it was agreed that CCamlR and CEP would work more closely on the protection of marine areas by adopting harmonised approaches to data gathering and designation of protected areas. The Scientific Committee of CCamlR will in future lead work on spatial protection and management of antarctic marine biodiversity (CCamlR, 2009b). To this end, both communities are adopting a unified approach in the use of bioregionalisation methods to identify 11 priority representative areas in the Southern Ocean and coastal antarctica (CCamlR, 2008, 2009b; CCamlR Scientific Committee, 2008b). This bioregionalisation approach has used a combination of oceanographic, geomorphological and environmental data as well as information on species diversity and biogeography, to identify how to distribute a system of mPas that represent major and rarer ecosystems. however, other approaches, for example, specific knowledge of rare or vulnerable ecosystems, can also be used for designation of mPas. Two bioregionalisation workshops have now taken place, the first in hobart, australia (Grant et al., 2006) and the second in Belgium (Penhale & Grant, 2007). The CCamlR Independent Review (2008) pointed out that there was now an urgent need to maintain momentum on the designation of a network of mPas in the CCamlR/antarctic Treaty area and that the next stage, the identification of sites for protection, is a critical one. This was acknowledged during the SC-CCamlR/CEP workshop (CCamlR, 2009b).

In november 2009, the UK government designated a large mPa at the South Orkney Islands. The protected area, which covers 94,000km2 (fig. 51), protects a range of marine habitats including shelf and seamounts as well as habitat for important prey species such as antarctic krill and predators such as adélie penguins. It also protects an area where significant concentrations of VmEs have been located through trawl and video surveys by US scientists (lockhart & Jones, 2009). The area is protected from fishing activities and will come into force in may 2010.

3 note that CCamlR cannot designate aSPas or aSmas, although it can designate CCamlR protected areas, which can subsequently be designated as aSPas or aSmas by the aTCm.


Protection of VMEs

In response to UnGa Resolution 61/105, Conservation measures (Cm) 22-05, 22-06 and 22-07 were adopted by CCamlR. Cm22-05 banned bottom trawling from the Regulatory area, apart from areas in which conservation measures were in place for bottom trawling (heard Island) and with the exception of scientific trawling. Cm22-06 required Contracting Parties to undertake an impact assessment of all bottom fishing activities in areas where exploratory fisheries were in operation, to cease fishing where VmEs were encountered (in accordance with Cm22-07), to carry observers on all vessels, and to collect data related to the by-catch of VmE taxa. Impact assessments and other measures in Cm22-06 were not required in fisheries established prior to 2006/07. Cm22-07 outlined the protocols for the move-on rule for CCamlR, but again this only applies to exploratory or recent fisheries (those that started after 2006/07). In addition, a previous conservation measure, Cm22-04 had already banned gillnetting from the CCamlR area.

Impact assessments

Despite the requirement for impact assessments, only five of 11 states (australia, Japan, new Zealand, Spain and the UK) undertaking exploratory bottom fisheries submitted impact assessments in 2008 (CCamlR, 2008: 5.8). furthermore, the impact assessments varied considerably in substance because several of them did not follow the pro-forma that accompanied Cm22-06 when it was agreed. This required the following information.

1. The fishing method. 2. CCamlR Division (area).

3. The year for which the application is made. 4. a detailed description of the fishing gear,

including a diagram of gear configuration. 5. The scale of the proposed activity (number

of hooks/lines to be deployed). 6. Subareas and depths in which fishing was to

take place. 7. mitigation measures to reduce impacts on

VmEs. 8. Estimated spatial footprint of fishing effort. 9. a summary of potential VmEs present in the

area of fishing.10. Probability of impacts. 11. magnitude and severity of impacts on VmEs. 12. Physical and biological/ecological

consequences of impacts. 13. Previous research. 14. Research planned during the season. 15. future research.

Of the Contracting Parties that completed impact assessments, new Zealand produced the most comprehensive assessment and was the only Contracting Party that followed the recommended pro forma for assessments under Cm22-06 (Table 5). Its submission provides a useful model for other Contracting Parties to follow and, furthermore, offers much background information to be used for other impact assessments. Spain and the UK produced assessments that followed many of the recommendations of the pro forma but the assessments for these Contracting Parties did not contain the same depth of information as new Zealand, particularly in terms of the footprint of the fishery and assessment of the extent and ecological impacts of by-catch of VmE species (Table 5). australia and Japan did not follow the pro forma and their assessments are not comprehensive (Table 5). no impact assessments were undertaken by argentina, Chile, Republic of Korea, Russia, South africa or Uruguay despite the fact that all applied to undertake exploratory fisheries in 2008/09 (CCamlR Scientific Committee, 2008: annex 5).

new Zealand provided an assessment of its past years’ fishing efforts and its intended fishing operations for 2008/09. This included a comprehensive literature review and data-gathering exercise and an ecological risk assessment (ERa) for the fishery, including workshops with participants from the scientific, management and fishing industries and nGO communities. These defined VmEs and then identified VmE indicator organisms. VmE taxa included sponges, anemones, stony corals,

black corals, soft corals, sea fans, sea pens, hydrocorals, hydroids, bryozoans, crinoids, basket stars, sea squirts, and species belonging to chemosynthetic communities. new Zealand also assessed the distribution of VmEs in collaboration with scientists, undertaking scientific surveys of the benthic ecosystems of the region under the Caml project (Census of antarctic marine life, part of the Census of marine life programme). It then used fishing effort rather than by-catch as a conservative method to assess potential impacts and concluded, as did the UK, that overall impact on seabed communities was likely to be small. future avenues of research were explored as well as possible mitigation measures in the fishery. Some aspects of the analyses might be disputed, for example the classification of stony corals as particularly vulnerable to longline fishing. most antarctic Scleractinia are solitary, not colonial, forms with erect branching morphology. The extreme fragility of crinoids to physical impacts was also not taken into account. The assessment also concluded that it was probably not possible to accurately determine VmE positions from longline data on by-catch, as explored in the present report for other methods of fishing.

In 2009/10 reporting improved, with argentina, Japan, Republic of Korea, new Zealand, Russia, Uruguay, South africa, Spain and the UK all providing assessments (Table 6). Still, not all were complete and in many cases were quite vague. Korea, for example, stated that it would comply with relevant measures but provided no detail and failed to provide any information on impacts or future research. Japan, as it had done in 2007/08, provided a small proportion of what was required and its commitment to future research was to send a scientist to a CCamlR VmE workshop. argentina, Russia, South africa and the UK provided fuller reports, with reference to gear details, background literature and information on research plans. new Zealand’s report was again the most comprehensive. It included a detailed and sophisticated research plan with subjects that included specific studies, inter alia, of D.

mawsoni, macrourids, skates, modeling fishing distribution vs VmEs, and ecosystem impacts of bottom fishing. literature produced and cited ranged from Working Group reports to papers in scientific literature, all of it useful in the context of the Southern Ocean generally.

australia submitted no assessment for 2009/10 although it had done so in 2008/09. In the earlier report it stated that while the impacts of bottom longlining on deep-sea taxa are unknown, it was likely that only sub-lethal damage would occur, with some mortality a possibility. The report cited poor knowledge of which VmE-forming groups actually occurred in the area, an argument that recurred in many of the reports from Contracting Parties in both years. australia did acknowledge that, given the knowledge of the marine fauna around heard and macDonald Islands on the Kerguelen Ridge or Plateau and knowledge of the marine fauna located in the Ross Sea (australian antarctic Division, 2008), the occurrence of VmEs in this region is likely. Gorgonians are reported as common in the heard Island area and bryozoans form extensive habitats on some of the banks around heard and macDonald Islands (hibberd & moore, 2009). VmEs formed by stylasterid corals and sponges have been recently identified by the Collaborative East antarctic marine Census (CEamaRC) project in the region (australian antarctic Division, 2008).

Such studies, and the information provided by new Zealand, suggest it is not possible to conclude that only negligible damage is expected in areas where exploratory fishing is planned, as asserted by many states’ assessments. There is by now considerable evidence from various fisheries around the world that benthic longlines, which is what the vessels of most Contracting Parties employ (argentina uses pots), do damage to VmEs (e.g. Stone, 2006; Edinger et al., 2007), and indeed by-catch has been well-documented in the South Georgia fisheries for Patagonian toothfish. The impact on sessile epibenthic fauna is less than that of bottom trawls but damage has nonetheless been shown to be significant and cumulative.

State 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Aus Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No

Jpn Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No

NZ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Spa Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

UK Yes Yes Yes No* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Table 5. Summary of the

impact assessments for the

2008/09 season in terms of

providing information on the

15 aspects of the pro forma

for CM22-06 provided by

CCAMLR.

Figure 51.

New MPA

south of

Coronation

Islands.


The move-on rule

The move-on rule has been adopted by CCamlR for exploratory fishing areas only. The measures are detailed in Cm22-07 and rely on estimating the number of ‘VmE units’ taken as by-catch per segment of a longline (1,000 hooks or 1,200m, whichever is shorter). a single VmE unit is 1 litre of organisms in a 10l bucket or 1kg of organisms that do not easily fit into a bucket. however, some Contracting Parties have proposed alternative triggers for identification of VmE risk areas (e.g. 15–20 individual VmE taxa per 1,000 hooks; Spain and UK, Impact assessments). a ‘risk area’ is designated where 10 VmE units are recovered from a single segment of longline. here, a radius of 1nm from the midpoint of the estimated position of the line segment is defined as the risk area. a vessel encountering a risk area should not shoot any further lines within the risk area and has to report the encounter area to the flag state and the Secretariat. following this action, the area is closed to fishing. If five or more VmE units are recovered in a segment, that is also notified to the flag state and Secretariat. If five or more notifications of catches of five VmE units are recorded in a fine-scale rectangle, the Secretariat notifies all fishing vessels of the possibility of occurrence of VmEs within that area.

VmEs are defined on the basis of organisms listed in the Benthic Classification Guide. This is a full-colour set of classification cards with photographs and defining features of VmE taxa noted on them. Taxa include gorgonians, hydroids, stylasterids, stony corals, black corals, bryozoans, sponges, sea anemones, soft corals, sea pens, sea squirts, stalked crinoids and basket stars. most of these are habitat-forming groups; basket stars associated with habitat-forming groups tend themselves

to form further fine-scale habitats. analyses, based on the first year of operation of these guides for identification of trigger levels for VmE risk areas, have indicated that they worked well for most taxa, although there was some confusion between hydrocorals, stony corals and precious corals (red corals, octocorals; Parker et al., 2009). a CCamlR workshop in 2009 extended the list of potential VmE taxa to include cidaroid sea urchins (pencil urchins), brachiopods, serpulid worms, barnacles from the family Bathylasmatidae, the scallop adamussium colbecki, pterobranchs and xenophyophores (CCamlR, 2009c).

By June 2009, 30 notifications had been received by the Secretariat from fisheries operations in the 2008/09 season. These were from Division 48.6 (one notification; 5.5 VmE-indicator units per line segment; seafloor depth 880–980m), Division 88.1 (18 notifications; 5.0–68.6 VmE-indicator units per line segment; seafloor depth 585–1528m) and Division 88.2 (11 notifications; 5.1–10.4 VmE-indicator units per line segment; seafloor depth 1,272–1,694m). no notifications were made for Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2 and 58.4.3b. Seven risk areas were identified in Divisions 88.1 and 88.2 and one small-scale rectangle was noted as having a risk of encounters of VmEs in Division 88.2. Trigger levels for actions related to the closure of risk areas for VmEs are much lower in the CCamlR area than for other RfmOs, including nEafC, nafO and nPfC. These reflect an assessment of the potential retention of animals taken as by-catch when a longline encounters a VmE. however, research over one season has indicated that different trigger levels may be appropriate for different-sized taxa (e.g. large gorgonians vs small hydrocorals; mitchell et al., 2009), as also indicated by research by nafO for the northwest atlantic (WGEafm, 2008b). furthermore, it is likely that there are

systematic and significant differences in catch data depending upon vessel, year, gear type and fisher behaviour, and level of reporting (hanchet et al., 2008). The number of line hauls for which fine-scale VmE data was reported (by June, 2009) varied between Contracting Parties with some reporting on a large proportion of line sets and others reporting on very few or no sets.In addition to fishing encounters with VmEs, the Secretariat received 30 notifications of encounters with VmEs during research surveys under Cm22-06. These encounters were reported by the USa in Division 48.1 (17 notifications, seafloor depth 92–642m) and Division 48.2 (11 notifications, seafloor depth 96–252m) and by australia in Division 58.4.1 (two notifications, seafloor depth 436–844m). VmEs were documented with video/photography or by research trawls.

CCamlR measures Cm22-06 and Cm22-07 have been operating over a relatively short time period. however, given the iterative approach taken by the CCamlR Secretariat and the research undertaken by Contracting Parties in exploratory fisheries, the current methods of assessment of encounters with VmEs would appear likely to improve in coming years. as more data become available, approaches based on accumulation curves or GIS-analyses of density of VmE encounters may prove useful in refining both the trigger levels for designation of risk areas and for identifying areas with a high probability of comprising VmEs.

Conclusions

(i) Conduct assessments of whether bottom fishing activities have SAIs on VMEs.● all states fishing in the CCamlR Regulatory

area now undertake impact assessments for exploratory or experimental fishing activities.

● assessments are not undertaken for areas in which fishing has taken place historically.

● The quality of assessments undertaken to date are variable with respect to conformity to CCamlR requirements.

(ii) To implement measures in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystems approaches and international law and to sustainably manage deep-sea fish stocks.● historically, fish stocks in the Southern

Ocean were heavily overexploited (mined) in the 1970s and 1980s.

● CCamlR has been successful in ending extreme overexploitation of fish stocks in

the Southern Ocean region. In comparison to other areas of oceans, stocks of targeted deep-sea species appear relatively well managed though in some cases the management of the fisheries is adversely impacted by IUU fishing (e.g. Patagonian toothfish). The ecosystem impacts of targeted fisheries remain poorly understood.

● By-catch of deep-sea species with a low productivity, particularly macrourids and skates/rays, occurs in the bottom fisheries throughout the CCamlR Regulatory area but is higher in some regions than others (especially Kerguelen).

● The understanding of the impacts of fishing on deep-sea by-catch species varies markedly between sub-regions in the CCamlR Regulatory area and, in general, is poor.

● The management of fisheries to prevent/reduce by-catch of deep-sea, low-productivity species also varies markedly between sub-regions. for by-catch species such as antimora rostrata no specific management is in place.

(iii) To ensure that if fishing activities have SAIs they are managed to prevent such impacts, including through closing areas to bottom fishing where VMEs are known or likely to occur, or not authorised to proceed.● Closed areas are currently being implemented

around the South Orkney Islands and where there have been significant by-catches of VmE-associated species or where research has identified VmEs on the seabed.

● CCamlR and the CEP are currently working towards the establishment of 11 representive mPas around antarctica.

(iv) To establish and implement protocols to cease fishing where an encounter with VMEs occurs during fishing activities and to report such encounters so that appropriate measures can be adopted with respect to that site.● CCamlR has initiated measures aimed at

protecting VmEs in areas where exploratory fisheries are taking place.

● Rules for identification of VmE risk areas have been implemented at a conservative level and have resulted in the identification of some risk areas. Research work will continue to refine and improve the estimation of levels of by-catch that signify the presence of VmEs.

● at present, not all states are reporting to the same degree on fine-scale assessment of by-catch during longline operations in exploratory areas.

State 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Arg Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes* No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes

Aus N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jpn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kor Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

NZ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Rus Yes Yes Yes No No Yes* No No No No No No Yes Yes No

SA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes* No No No No No No No Yes No

Spa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

UK Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ury Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No

Table 6. Summary

of the impact

assessments for the

2009/10 season in

terms of providing

information on the

15 aspects of the

pro forma for CM22-

06 provided by

CCAMLR.

*Not all details

provided as required

by CCAMLR.


abdulla, a., Gomei, m., maison, E., Piante, C. (2008) Status of marine Protected areas in the mediterranean Sea. IUCn, malaga and WWf, france, 152 pp.

ainley, D.G., Ballard, G., Olmastroni, S. (2009) an apparent decrease in the prevalence of “Ross Sea killer whales” in the southern Ross Sea. Document SC/61/Sm26, submitted to the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, 16pp.

ainley, D.G., Blight, l.K. (2009) Ecological repercussions of historical fish extraction from the Southern Ocean. fish and fisheries 10: 13–38.

alekseyev, f., alekseyeva, I., Zakharov, a.n. (1992) Vitellogenesis, nature of spawning, fecundity and gonad maturity stages of the roundnose grenadier, Coryphaenoides rupestris, in the north atlantic. Journal of Ichthyology 33: 32–45.

althaus, f., Williams, a., Schlacher, T.a., Kloser, R.J., Green, m.a., Barker, B.a. Bax, n.J., Brodie, P., Schlacher-hoenlinger, m.a. (2009) Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 279-294.

anderson, O.f., Clark, m.R. (2003) analysis of bycatch in the fishery for orange roughy, hoplostethus atlanticus, on the South Tasman Rise. marine and freshwater Research 54: 1–10.

andrews, a.h., Tracey, D.m. (2007) age validation of orange roughy and black cardinalfish using lead-redium dating. final Research Report for ministry of fisheries Research Project DEE2005-02 Objective 1, 42pp.

arbuckle, m., atkinson, B., Germani, V. (2008) Performance Review Panel Report of the north East atlantic fisheries Commission nEafC. nEafC, london, UK, 102pp.

ardron, J.a. (2005) Protecting British Columbia’s Corals and Sponges from Bottom Trawling. a Report by living Oceans Society, Sointula, British Columbia, Canada, 21pp.

aSOC (2009) letter to Dr andrew hough, moody marine ltd from the antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition Secretariat, Washington DC, USa, 6pp.

australian antarctic Division (2008) notification of vulnerable marine ecosystems in Statistical area 58.4.1 CCamlR SC-CamlR-xxVII/13, 26 September 2008, agenda Item no. 4, appendix n, 13pp.

Ávilo de melo, a., Saborido-Rey, f., González-Troncoso, D., Skryabin, I., alpoim, R. (2009) an assessment of Beaked Redfish (S. mentella and S. fasciatus) in nafO Division 3m Based on Revised 2005–2008 catches (Is a Retrospective Biased assessment necessarily Useless in Terms of Scientific advice?). Scientific Council meeting – June 2009. Serial no. n5664, nafO SCR Doc. 09/29, 56pp.

Baker, K.D., Devine, J.a., haedrich, R.l. (2009) Deep-sea fishes in Canada’s atlantic: declines and predicted recovery times. Environmental Biology of fishes 85: 79–88.

Barthel, D., Tendal, O.S., Thiel, h. (1996) a wandering population of the hexactinellid sponge Pheronema carpenteri on the continental slope off morocco, northwest africa. marine Ecology 17: 603–616.

Bensch, a., Gianni, m., Grébroval, D., Sanders, J.S., hjort, a. (2008) Worldwide review of bottom fisheries in the high seas. faO fisheries and aquaculture Technical Paper no. 522, food and agricultural Organisation of the United nations, Rome, Italy, 145pp.

Bett, B.J., Rice, a.l. (1992) The influence of the hexactinellid sponge (Pheronema carpenteri) spicules on the patchy distribution of macrobenthos in the Porcupine Seabight (bathyal nE atlantic). Ophelia 36: 217–226.

Bjorndal, T. (2009) Overview, roles and performance of the north East atlantic fisheries Commission. marine Policy 33: 685–697.

Boehlert, G.W., Sasaki, T. (1988) Pelagic biogeography of the armourhead Pseudopentaceros wheeleri, and recruitment to isolated seamounts in the north Pacific Ocean. fisheries Bulletin of the United States 86: 453–465.

Boyer, D.C., hampton, I. (2001) an overview of the living marine resources of namibia. South african Journal of marine Science 23: 5–35.

Boyer, D.C., Kirchner, C.h., mcallister, m.K., Staby, a., Staalesen, B.I. (2001) The orange roughy fishery of namibia: lessons to be learned about managing a developing fishery. South african Journal of marine Science 23: 205–221.

Branch, T.a. (2001) a review of orange roughy hoplostethus atlanticus fisheries, estimation methods, biology and stock structure. South african Journal of marine Science 23: 181–203.

Breeze, h., Davis, D.S. (1998) Deep sea corals. In: harrison, W.G., fenton, D.G. (eds) The gully: a scientific review of its environment and ecosystem. Canadian stock assessment secretariat research document 98/83. Department of fisheries and Oceans, pp. 113–120.

Breeze, h., Davis, D.S., Butler, m., Kostylev, V. (1997) Distribution and status of deep sea corals off nova Scotia. marine Issues Committee’s special publication number 1. Ecology action Centre, halifax, nova Scotia.

Buhl-mortensen, l., mortensen, P.B. (2005) Distribution and diversity of species associated with deep-sea gorgonian corals off atlantic Canada. In: freiwald, a., Roberts, J.m. (eds) Cold-Water Corals and Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin heidelberg, pp. 849–879.

Campagno, l., Dando, m., fowler, S. (2005) Collins field Guide to the Sharks of the World. harper-Collins Publishers ltd, london, UK, 368pp.

Campana, S.E., Joyce, W.n. (2004) Temperature and depth associations of porbeagle shark (lamna nasus) in the northwest atlantic. fisheries Oceanography 13: 52–64.

References Campana, S.E., Zwanenburg, K.C.T., Smith, J.n. (1990) 210Pb/226Ra determination of longevity in Redfish. Canadian Journal of aquatic Science 47: 163–165.

Carbonell, a. (co-ord.) (1997) Discards of the western mediterranean trawl fleets. final Report to the General Directorate for fisheries, EC DGxIV. Project mED/94/027.

Carbonell, a., martín, P., de Ranieri, S. and WEDIS team (1998) Discards of the Western mediterranean trawl fleets. Rapport, Commission International pour la mer méditerranée 35: 392–393.

Cartes, J.E., maynou, f., Sardà, f., Company, J.B., lloris, D., Tudela, S. (2004) The mediterranean deep-sea ecosystems: an overview of their diversity, structure, functioning and anthropogenic impacts. In: The mediterranean deep-sea ecosystems: an overview of their diversity, structure, functioning and anthropogenic impacts, with a proposal for conservation. Part 1 IUCn, málaga and WWf, Rome, Italy, pp. 9–38.

Casey, J.m., myers, R.a. (1998) near extinction of a large widely distributed fish. Science 281: 690–692.

Cavanagh, R.D., Gibson, C. (2007) Overview of the Conservation Status of Cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the mediterranean Sea. IUCn, Gland, Switzerland and malaga, Spain, vi + 42pp.

CCamlR (2008) Report of the twenty-seventh meeting of the Commission. hobart, australia, 27 October – 7 november, 2008, CCamlR-xxVII, Commission for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 203pp.

CCamlR (2009a) Schedule of Conservation measures in force 2009/10 Season. Commission for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 232pp.

CCamlR (2009b) Report of the Joint SC-CamlR-CEP Workshop (Baltimore, USa, 3 and 4 april, 2009). SC-CamlR-xxVIII/6 1 June 2009 agenda Item no. 9. Commission for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 20pp + appendices.

CCamlR (2009c) Report of the Workshop on vulnerable marine ecosystems (la Jolla, Ca, USa, 3 to 7 august 2009). SC-CamlR-xxVIII/10 20 august 2009 agenda Item no. 4. Commission for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 17pp.

CCamlR Impact assessments (2008) Preliminary assessments of known and anticipated impacts of proposed bottom fishing activities on vulnerable marine ecosystems. Collated by the Secretariat. CCamlR xxVII/26*, 24 September, 2008, agenda Item no. 5, SC agenda Item no. 4, 107pp.

CCamlR Review Panel (2008) CCamlR Performance Review Panel Report, 168pp.

CCamlR Scientific Committee (2008a) Report of the 27th meeting of the Scientific Committee, hobart, australia 27–31 October, 2008. appendices D to Q fishery Reports, Scientific Committee for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia.

CCamlR Scientific Committee (2008b) Report of the 27th meeting of the Scientific Committee, hobart, australia 27–31 October, 2008. SC-CCamlR-xxVII. Scientific Committee

for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 635pp.

CIESm (2006) Executive Summary. fluid seepages/mud volcanism in the mediterranean and adjacent domains, Bologna 19–22 October, 2005. CIESm Workshop monographs no. 29, monaco, 18pp. http://www.ciesm.org/online/monographs/bologna06.pdf

Clark, m.R. (1999) fisheries for orange roughy (hoplostethus atlanticus) on seamounts in new Zealand. Oceanologica acta 22: 593–602.

Clark, m.R. (2004) Descriptive analysis of orange roughy fisheries in the new Zealand region outside the EEZ: lord howe Rise, northwest Challenger Plateau, West norfolk Ridge, South Tasman Rise, and louisville Ridge to the end of the 2002/03 fishing year. new Zealand fisheries assessment Report 2004/51, 36pp.

Clark, m.R. (2009) Deep-sea seamount fisheries: a review of global status and future prospects. latin american Journal of aquatic Research 37: in press.

Clark, m.R., Koslow, J.a. (2007) Impacts of fishing on seamounts. In: Pitcher T.J., morato, T., hart, P.J.B., Clark, m.R., haggan, n., Santos, R.S. (eds) Seamounts: Ecology, fisheries & Conservation, fish and aquatic Resources Series 12, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 413–441.

Clark, m.R., O’Driscoll, R. (2003) Deep-water fisheries and aspects of their impact on seamount habitat in new Zealand. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 31: 441–458.

Clark, m.R., Rowden, a.a. (2009) Effect of deepwater trawling on the macro-invertebrate assemblages of seamounts on the Chatham Rise, new Zealand. Deep-Sea Research I 56: 1540–1554.

Clark, m.R., Vinnichenko, V.I., Gordon, J.D.m., Beck-Bulat, G.Z., Kukharev, n.n., Kakora, a.f. (2007) large-scale distant-water trawl fisheries on seamounts. In: Pitcher T.J., morato, T., hart, P.J.B., Clark, m.R., haggan, n., Santos, R.S. (eds) Seamounts: Ecology, fisheries & Conservation, fish and aquatic Resources Series 12, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 361–399.

Clausen, D.m. (2008) The giant grenadier in alaska. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment, and fisheries. american fisheries Society, Symposium 63, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 413–450.

Colloca, f., Carpentieri, P., Balestri, E., ardizzone, G.D. (2004) a critical habitat for mediterranean fish resources: shelf-break areas with leptometra phalangium (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). marine Biology 145: 1129–1142.

Company, J.B., Puig, P., Sardà, f., Palanques, a., latasa, m., Scharek, R. (2008) Climate influence on deep-sea populations. PlOSone 3: e1431.

COSEWIC (2003) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the cusk Brosme brosme in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, vi + 30pp.

COSEWIC (2004) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the porbeagle shark lamna nasus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa viii + 43pp.


COSEWIC (2005) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the winter skate leucoraja ocellata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 41pp.

COSEWIC (2007) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the roughhead grenadier macrourus berglax in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, vii + 40pp.

COSEWIC (2008) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Roundnose Grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, vii + 42pp.

Costas, f., G.-, murua, h. (2008) an analytical assessment of the roughhead grenadier stock in nafO Subareas 2 and 3. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment and fisheries. american fisheries Symposium 63: Springer, heidelberg.

Davies, a.J., Roberts, J.m., hall-Spencer, J. (2007) Preserving deep-sea natural heritage: Emerging issues in offshore conservation and management. Biological Conservation 138: 299–312.

Davies, a.J., Wisshak, m., Orr, J.C., Roberts, J.m. (2008) Predicting suitable habitat for the cold-water reef framework-forming coral lophelia pertusa (Scleractinia). Deep Sea Research I 55: 1048–1062.

de Cárdenas E., avila de melo, a., Iglesias, S., Saborido, f. (1997) Selectivity of 130mm mesh size in deep-sea bottom trawl fishery in nafO Regulatory area. nafO Scientific Council Studies 30: 21–25.

de forges, B.R., Koslow, J.a., Poore, G.C.B. (2000) Diversity and endemism of the benthic seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific. nature 405: 944–947.

Deichman, E. (1936) The alcyonaria of the western part of the atlantic Ocean. harvard University, museum of Comparative Zoology memoirs 53: 1–317.

Devine, J.a., haedrich, R.l. (2008) Population trends and status of two exploited northwest atlantic grenadiers, Coryphaenoides rupestris and macruorus berglax. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment and fisheries. american fisheries Symposium 63: Springer, heidelberg.

Devine, J.a., haedrich, R.l. (mss submitted) The role of environmental conditions and exploitation in determining dynamics of redfish (Sebastes species) in the northwest atlantic.

Devine, J.a., Baker, K.D., haedrich, R.l. (2006) Deep-sea fishes qualify as endangered. nature 439: 29.

DeVries, a.l., ainley, D.G., Ballard, G. (2007) Decline of the antarctic toothfish and its predators in mcmurdo Sound and the Southern Ross Sea, and recommendations for restoration. CCamlR WG-Emm 08/07, 20pp.

Doonan, I.J., mcmillan, P.J., Kalish, J.m., hart, a.C. (1995) age estimates for black and smooth oreo. new Zealand fisheries assessment Research Document 95/14, 26pp.

Dulvy, n.K., metcalfe, J.D., Glanville, J., Pawson, m.G., Reynolds, J.D. (2000) fishery stability, local extinctions, and shifts in community structure in skates. Conservation Biology 14: 283–293.

Durán muñoz, P., Sacau, m., Sayago-Gil, m., Patrocinio, T., fernández-Salas, l.m., murillo, f.J., Díaz del Río, V., Serrano, a. (2007) first preliminary results from ECOVUl/aRPa (Estudio de los eCOsistemas VUlnerables y los aRtes de Pesca): a Spanish interdisciplinary research project, focused on the study of the deep-sea vulnerable ecosystems/habitats in the hatton Bank area (ICES xIIb and VIb1). Working document presented to the ICES Working Group on Deep-water Ecology. Plymouth (UK), 26–28 feb 2007.

Earle, S., Glover, l.K. (2009) Ocean: an Illustrated atlas. national Geographic Society, Washington DC, USa, 352pp.

Eckhardt, J.D., Glasby, G.P., Puchelt, h., Berner, Z. (1997) hydrothermal manganese crusts from Enarete and Palinuro Seamount in the Tyrrhenian Sea. marine Georesources and Geotechnology 15: 175–208.

Edinger, E., Baker, K., Devillers, R., et al. (2007a) Coldwater Corals off newfoundland and labrador: Distribution and fisheries Impacts. WWf-Canada, Toronto, Canada, 41pp.

Edinger, E.n., Wareham, V.E., haedrich, R.l. (2007b) Patterns of groundfish diversity and abundance in relation to deep-sea coral distributions in newfoundland and labrador waters. In: George, R.Y., Cairns, S.D. (eds) Conservation and adaptive management of Seamount and Deep-Sea Coral Ecosystems. Rosentiel School of marine and atmospheric Sciences, University of miami, miami, USa, pp. 101–122.

Edinger, E., Wareham, V., Baker, K., haedrich, R. (2009) Relationships between deep-sea corals and groundfish. In: Gilkinson, K., Edinger, E. (eds) The ecology of deep-sea corals of newfoundland and labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Canadian Technical Report of fisheries and aquatic Science, no. 2830, vi + 136pp.

Emig, C.C. (1988) Distributional patterns along the mediterranean continental margin (upper bathyal) using Gryphus vitreus (Brachiopoda) densities (investigated by submersible and dredging). Book of abstracts, fifth Deep-Sea Biology Symposium, Brest, france, June 26/July 1, 1988, p. 62.

European Commission (2006) Sensitive and essential fish habitats in the mediterranean Sea. Report of the mediterranean Subgroup (SGmED 06-01) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for fisheries (STECf), Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Paper, Rome, Italy, 60pp.

faO (2008) Deep-sea fisheries in the high seas: a trawl industry perspective on the International Guidelines for the management of Deep-sea fisheries in the high Seas. faO fisheries and aquaculture Circular, no. 1036, 22pp, food and agricultural Organisation of the United nations, Rome, Italy.

faO (2009a) International Guidelines for the management of Deep-Sea fisheries in the high Seas. food and agricultural Organisation of the United nations, Rome, Italy, 73pp.

faO (2009b) State of World fisheries and aquaculture 2008. food and agricultural Organisation of the United nations, Rome, Italy, 176pp.

faO (2010) Deep-sea high seas fisheries (UnGa 61/105) Vessels authorized to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction. food and agricultural

Organisation of the Un (faO), Rome, Italy: ftp://ftp.fao.org/fI/DOCUmEnT/UnGa/deep_sea/UnGa61_105.pdf (accessed 20 January 2010).

fisheries agency of Japan (2008) Report on Identification of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems in the Emperor Seamount and northern hawaiian Ridge in the northwest Pacific Ocean and assessment of Impacts Caused by Bottom fishing activities on such Vulnerable marine Ecosystems or marine Species as well as Conservation and management measures to Prevent Significant adverse Impacts (Bottom Trawl), December 2008. appendix a. list of fishes collected by the meisyo maru #128 in 1993, expressed in relative abundance in weight by seamount depth zone, with related information, 1p.

fisheries agency of Japan (2008) Report on Identification of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems in the Emperor Seamount and northern hawaiian Ridge in the northwest Pacific Ocean and assessment of Impacts Caused by Bottom fishing activities on such Vulnerable marine Ecosystems or marine Species as well as Conservation and management measures to Prevent Significant adverse Impacts (Bottom Trawl), December 2008. appendix B. list of recent levels of Japanese bottom gillnet fishing effort, 2pp.

fisheries agency of Japan (2008) Report on Identification of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems in the Emperor Seamount and northern hawaiian Ridge in the northwest Pacific Ocean and assessment of Impacts Caused by Bottom fishing activities on such Vulnerable marine Ecosystems or marine Species as well as Conservation and management measures to Prevent Significant adverse Impacts (Bottom Trawl), December 2008. appendix C. nishimura, a., Yatsu, a. application of surplus production models to splendid alfonsin stock in the Southern Emperor and northern hawaiian Ridge (SE-nhR), 11pp.

fisheries agency of Japan (2008) Report on Identification of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems in the Emperor Seamount and northern hawaiian Ridge in the northwest Pacific Ocean and assessment of Impacts Caused by Bottom fishing activities on such Vulnerable marine Ecosystems or marine Species as well as Conservation and management measures to Prevent Significant adverse Impacts (Bottom Trawl), December 2008. appendix f. assessment of associated species, 5pp.

fisheries agency of Japan (2008) Report on Identification of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems in the Emperor Seamount and northern hawaiian Ridge in the northwest Pacific Ocean and assessment of Impacts Caused by Bottom fishing activities on such Vulnerable marine Ecosystems or marine Species as well as Conservation and management measures to Prevent Significant adverse Impacts (Bottom Trawl), December 2008. appendix h. Yamigamoto, T., Takao, Y., abe, K. Distribution of four orders of corals observed by ROV survey. Powerpoint presentation; 23 slides.

fisheries agency of Japan (2008) Report on Identification of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems in the Emperor Seamount and northern hawaiian Ridge in the northwest Pacific Ocean and assessment of Impacts Caused by Bottom fishing activities on such Vulnerable marine Ecosystems or marine Species as well as Conservation and management measures to Prevent Significant adverse Impacts (Bottom Trawl), December 2008. appendix m. Information on coral fisheries in the Emperor Seamount area, 3pp.

fosså, J., mortensen, P., furevik, D. (2002) The deep-water coral lophelia pertusa in norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. hydrobiologia 471: 1–12.

fossen, I., Jørgensen, O.a., Gundersen, a.C. (2003) Roughhead grenadier (macruorus berglax) in the waters off East Greenland: distribution and biology. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 31: 285–298.

francis, R.I.C.C., Clark, m.R. (2005) Sustainability issues for orange roughy fisheries. Bulletin of marine Science 76: 337–351.

freese, J.l. (2001) Trawl-induced damage to sponges observed from a research submersible. marine fisheries Review 63: 7–13.

freese, J.l., auster, P.J., heifetz, J., Wing, B.l. (1999) Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of alaska. marine Ecology Progress Series 182: 119–126.

freiwald, a., Beuck, l., Rüggerberg, a., Taviani, m., hebbeln, D. (2009) The white coral community in the central mediterranean Sea revealed by ROV surveys. Oceanography 22: 58–74.

freiwald, a., fosså, J.h., Grehan, a., et al. (2004) Cold-Water Coral Reefs: Out of Sight – no longer Out of mind, United nations Environment Programme-World Conservation monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK, 84pp.

freiwald, a., hühnerbach, V., lindberg, B., Wilson, J.B., Campbell, J. (2002) The Sula Reef complex, norwegian Shelf. facies 47: 179–200.

fuller, E. Watling, l. (2008) Before the Secretary of Commerce: Petition for a rule to list the U.S. population of atlantic Wolffish (anarhichas lupus) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species act. Conservation law foundation, Boston, USa, 112pp.

Galil, B., Zibrowius, h. (1998) first benthos samples from Eratosthenes Seamount, Eastern mediterranean. Senckenbergiana maritima 28: 111–121.

Gass, S.E., Willison, J.h.m. (2005) an assessment of the distribution of deep-sea corals in atlantic Canada by using both scientific and local forms of knowledge. In: freiwald, a., Roberts, J.m. (eds) Cold-Water Corals and Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin heidelberg, Germany, pp. 223–245.

Gedamke, T., DuPaul, W.D., musick, J.a. (2005) Observations on the life history of the barndoor skate, Dipturus laevis, on George’s Bank (Western north atlantic). Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 35: 67–78.

GfCm (2006) General fisheries Commission for the mediterranean, Report of the Thirtieth Session, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–27 January, 2006. GfCm Report 30. faO, Rome, Italy, 56pp.

GfCm (2009) General fisheries Commission for the mediterranean, Report of the Thirty-third Session, Tunis 23–27 march, 2009. GfCm Report 33. faO, Rome, Italy, 125pp.

GfCm Scientific advisory Committee (2008a) Eleventh Session, marrakech, morocco, 1–5 December, 2008, Report of the Transversal Working Group on Bycatch/Incidental Catches, Rome, Italy, 15–16 September, 2008. GfCm:SaC11/2008/Inf.17. faO, Rome, Italy, 24pp.

GfCm Scientific advisory Committee (2008b) Eleventh Session, marrakech, morocco, 1–5 December, 2008, Criteria for the identification of sensitive habitats of relevance for the management of priority species. GfCm:SaC11/2008/Inf.20. faO, Rome, 3pp.


GfCm SCmEE (2008a) Sub-Committee on the marine Environment and Ecosystems, Report of the ninth meeting of the SCSa/Working Group on Demersal Species, Izmir, Turkey, 15–19 September, 2008. GfCm, Rome, Italy, 57pp.

GfCm SCmEE (2008b) General fisheries Commission for the mediterranean, Scientific advisory Committee, Eleventh Session, marrakech, morocco, 1–5 December, 2008, Report of the ninth Session of the Sub-Committee on marine Environment and Ecosystems (SCmEE) antalya, Turkey 13–16 October, 2008. GfCm:SaC11/2008/Inf.5, faO, Rome, Italy, 36pp.

Gianni, m. (2004) high seas bottom trawl fisheries and their impacts on the biodiversity of vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems: options for international action. International Union for the Conservation of nature (IUCn), Gland, Switzerland.

Gibson, C., Valenti, S.V., fordham, S.V., fowler, S.l. (2008) The Conservation of northeast atlantic Chondrichthyans: Report of the IUCn Shark Specialist Group northeast atlantic Red list Workshop. IUCn Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group. newbury, UK, viii + 76pp.

Gil, J., Sobrino, I., Baro, J., González, J., afonso, P.S., Balguerias, E. (2008) Distribution and relative abundance of main grenadiers (macrouridae, Gadiformes) from mozambique. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment, and fisheries. american fisheries Society, Symposium 63, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 103–118.

Gilkinson, K., Edinger, E. (eds) (2009) The ecology of deep-sea corals of newfoundland and labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relations to fishes. Canadian Technical Report of fisheries and aquatic Sciences no. 2830, 136pp.

Gon, O., heemstra, P.C. (eds) (2000) fishes of the Southern Ocean. J.l.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South africa, xviii + 462pp.

González, C., Teruel, J., lópez, E., Paz, x. (2007) feeding habits and biological features of deep-sea species of the northwest atlantic: large-eyed rabbitfish (hydrolagus mirabilis), narrownose chimaera (harriotta raleighana) and black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii). nafO Scientific Council meeting – September, 2007, Serial no. n5423, nafO SCR Doc. 07/63, 9pp.

González-Porto, m. (2008) Resultados preliminares del estudio de los invertebrados bentónicos de la campaña namIBIa-0802. In: Preliminary Report of the multidisciplinary Research Cruise on the Walvis Ridge Seamounts (atlantic Southeast-SEafO). Spanish Institute of Oceanographny of the Canaries and national marine Information and Research Centre, nambia, pp. 85–94.

González-Troncoso, D., Paz, x. (2007) Biomass and length distribution for roughhead grenadier, thorny skate and white hake from the surveys conducted by Spain in nafO 3nO. Scientific Council meeting – June 2007, Serial no. n5500, nafO SCR Doc. 08/009, 38pp.

González-Troncoso, D., Paz, x., Cardoso, x. (2006) Persistence and variation in the distribution ofbottom-trawl fish assemblages over the flemish Cap. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 37: 103–117.

Government of new Zealand (2008a) Preliminary assessment of bottom fishing activities in 2008–2009 for new Zealand: implementing Conservation measure 22-06 (Bottom fishing in the Convention area). Impact assessment submitted to CCamlR, CCamlR-xxVII/26*, 24 September 2008. Original: English agenda Item no. 5, SC agenda Item no. 4, 70pp.

Government of new Zealand (2008b) new Zealand national Report on fishing and Research activities in the SPRfmO area during 2008. SP-08-SWG-08. ministry of fisheries, 9pp.

Government of new Zealand (2009) Bottom fishing activities by new Zealand Vessels fishing in the high Seas in the SPRfmO area During 2008 and 2009. ministry of fisheries, 102pp.

Government of Spain (2008) The fisheries of Spain in the Regional Organization of management of fisheries in the Pacific South (SPRfmO) During the Season 2009/2010. Preliminary assessment of the Risk of Cause Serious Damage to Vulnerable marine Ecosystems and Protocol of action. SP-08-SWG-DW-02. ministerio De medio ambiente Y medio Rural Y marino, 12pp.

Grant, S., Constable, a., Raymond, B., Doust, S. (2006) Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean: Report of Experts Workshop, hobart, September 2006. WWf-australia and aCE CRC, 46pp.

Grant, S.m. (2006) an exploratory fishing survey and biological resource assessment of atlantic hagfish (myxine glutinosa) occurring on the southwest slope of the newfoundland Grand Bank. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 36: 91–110.

Grigg, R.W. (1982) Precious corals in the Pacific: Economic and development potential. Infofish 2: 8–11.

hall-Spencer, J., allain, V., fosså, J.h. (2002) Trawling damage to northeast atlantic ancient coral reefs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of london, Series B: Biological Sciences 269: 507–511.

hall-Spencer, J.m., Rogers, a.D., Davies, J., foggo, a. (2007) historical deep-sea coral distribution on seamount, oceanic island and continental shelf-slope habitats in the nE atlantic. In: George, R.Y., Cairns, S.D. (eds) Conservation and adaptive management of Seamount and Deep-Sea Coral Ecosystems. Rosenstiel School of marine and atmospheric Science, University of miami, miami, USa, pp. 135–146.

hanchet, S., O’Driscoll, R., Ballara, S., Dunn, a. (2008) Grenadier bycatch in the toothfish longline fishery in the Ross Sea, antarctica. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment, and fisheries. american fisheries Society, Symposium 63, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 451–462.

hareide, n-R., Garnes, G., Rihan, D., mulligan, m., Tyndall, P., Clark, m., Connolly, P., misund, R., mcmullen, P., furevik, D.m., humborstad, O-B., høydal, K., Blasdale, T. (2004) a Preliminary Investigation on Shelf Edge and Deep-water fixed net fisheries to the West and north of Great Britain, Ireland, around Rockall and hatton Bank.

heifetz, J., Stone, R.P., Shotwell, S.K. (2009) Damage and disturbance to coral and sponge habitat of the aleutian archipelago. marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 295-303.

henry, l‐a., hart, m. (2005) Regeneration from injury and resource allocation in sponges and corals – a review. International Review of hydrobiology 90: 125–158.

hibberd, T., moore, K. (2009) field identification guide to heard Island and macDonal Island benthic invertebrates: a guide for scientific observers aboard fishing vessels. australian government, australia antarctic Research Division, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 152pp.

humphreys, R.l., Jr. (2008) Sources of information for evaluating the existence of Vulnerable marine Ecosystems (VmEs) on seamounts within the Southern Emperor-northern hawaiian Ridge. PIfSC Working Paper WP-08-003, Scientific Working Group meeting, north Pacific RfmO, Vladivostok, Russia, 8pp.

ICES (2001) Report of the ICES advisory Committee on fishery management, Copenhagen 22–31 may, 2001, Copenhagen 9–17 October 2001. ICES Cooperative Research Report no. 246, Part 1 of 3, 895pp.

ICES (2007a) 9.3.2.7.b nEafC request to compile data on documented historical or present spawning/aggregation areas of blue ling in the nEafC Convention area – additional information supplied by the EC POORfISh project. ICES advice Book 9, agenda Item 7f, Document am2007/27, 16pp.

ICES (2007b) Widely Distributed and migratory Stocks. 9.3.2.4. nEafC request to continue to provide all available new information on distribution of vulnerable habitats in the nEafC Convention area and fisheries activities in the vicinity of such habitats. ICES advice Book 9, 9pp.

ICES WGEf (2007) Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch fishes (WGEf). ICES advisory Committee on fishery management. ICES Cm 2007/aCfm: 27.REf.lRC, 318pp.

Kelly, C.J., Connolly, P.l., Bracken, J.J. (1996) maturity, oocyte dynamics and fecundity of the roundnose grenadier from the Rockall Trough. Journal of fish Biology 49 (Suppl. a): 5–17.

Kelly, C.J., Connolly, P.l., Bracken, J.J. (1997) age estimation, growth, maturity and distribution of the roundnose grenadier from the Rockall Trough. Journal of fish Biology 50: 1–17.

Kenchington, E., Cogswell, a., lirette, C., murillo-Perez, f.J. (2009a) The use of density analyses to delineate sponge grounds and other benthic VmEs from trawl survey data. nafO Scientific Council meeting – June, 2009 Serial no. n5626, nafO SCR Doc. 09/6, 15pp.

Kenchington, E., Best, m., Cogswell, a., macIsaac, K., murillo-Perez, f. J., macDonald, B., Wareham, V., fuller, S. D., Jørgensbye, h. I. Ø., Sklya V., Thompson, a. B. (2009b) Coral Identification Guide nafO area. Sci. Coun. Studies, 42: 1-35. doi:10.2960/S.v42.m1.

Kimani, E.n., Okemwa, G.m., Kazungu, J.m. (2009) fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean: Trends and Governance Challenges. In: laipson, E., Pandya, a. (eds) The Indian Ocean; Resource and Governance Challenges. The henry l. Stimson Centre, Washington, DC, USa, pp. 3–90.

Klitgaard, a.B. (1991) Gnathia abyssorum (G.O. Sars, 1872) (Crustacea, Isopoda) associated with sponges. Sarsia 76: 33–39.

Klitgaard, a.B. (1995) The fauna associated with outer shelf and upper slope sponges (Porifera, Demospongiae) at the faroe Islands, northeast atlantic. Sarsia 80: 1–22.

Klitgaard, a.B., Tendal, O.S. (2004) Distribution and species composition of mass occurrences of large sized sponges in the northeast atlantic. Progress in Oceanography 61: 57–98.

Kock, K.h., Reid, K., Croxall, J., nicol, S. (2007) fisheries in the Southern Ocean: an ecosystem approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 362: 2333–2349.

Koslow, J.a., Boehlert, G.W., Gordon, J.D.m., haedrich, R.l., lorance, P., Parin, n. (2000) Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal of marine Science 57: 548–557.

Koslow, J.a., Gowlett-holmes, K. (1998) The seamount fauna off southern Tasmania: benthic communities, their conservation and impacts of trawling: final Report to Environment australia and the fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Rep. fRDC Project 95/058, CSIRO, hobart, Tasmania, australia, 104pp.

Koslow, J.a., Gowlett-holmes, K., lowry, J.K., et al. (2001) Seamount benthic macrofauna off southern Tasmania: community structure and impacts of trawling. marine Ecology Progress Series, 213: 111–125.

Koslow, J.a., Tuck, G. (2001) The boom and bust of deep-water fisheries: Why haven’t we done better? nafO Scientific Research Council Doc. 141 Ser. 4535, 10pp.

Krieger, K. (1998) Primnoa spp. observed inside and outside a bottom trawl path from a submersible. abstract. 10th Western Groundfish Conference, asilomar, California, USa.

Krieger, K.J. (2001) Coral (Primnoa) impacted by fishing gear in the Gulf of alaska. In: Willison. J.h.m., Gass, S.E., Kenchington, E.l.R., et al. (eds) Proceedings of the first International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals, Ecology action Centre and nova Scotia museum, halifax, nova Scotia, Canada, pp. 106–116.

Kulka, D.W. (2006) abundance and distribution of demersal sharks on the Grand Banks with particular reference to the nafO Regulatory area. Scientific Council meeting – June 2006. Serial no. n5237, nafO SCR Doc. 06/20, 36pp.

Kulka, D.W., miri, C., Thompson, a.B. (2007a) Identification of wolffish, hake and rockling in the northwest atlantic. northwest atlantic fisheries Organization Scientific Council Studies 40, 5pp.

Kulka, D., hood, C., huntington, J. (2007b) Recovery Strategy for northern Wolffish (anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (anarhichas minor), and management Plan for atlantic Wolffish (anarhichas lupus) in Canada. fisheries and Oceans Canada: newfoundland and labrador Region. St. John’s, nl, Canada, x + 103pp.

Kulka, D.W., Simpson, m.R., Inkpen, T.D. (2003) Distribution and biology of the blue hake (antimora rostrata Günther 1878) in the northwest atlantic with comparison to adjacent areas. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 31: 299–318.

Kulka, D.W., Templeman, n., Janes, J., Power, a., Brodie, W. (2007c) Information on seamounts in the nafO Convention area. nafO Scientific Council meeting – June 2007, Serial no. n5414, nafO SCR Doc. 07/61, 17pp.


lack, m., Short, K., Willock, a. (2003) managing risk and uncertainty in deep-sea fisheries: lessons from Orange Roughy. TRaffIC Oceania and WWf Endangered Seas Programme, 72pp.

le Danois, E. (1948) les profondeurs de la mer, trente ans de recherches sur la faune sous‐marine au large des côtes de france, Payot, Paris, france.

leys, S.P., lauzon, n.R.J. (1998) hexactinellid sponge ecology: growth rates and seasonality in deep-water sponges. Journal of Experimental marine Biology and Ecology 230: 111–129.

lockhart, S.J., Jones, C.D. (2009) Detection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the Southern Scotia arc (CCamlR Sub-areas 48.1 and 48.2) through research bottom trawl sampling and underwater imagery. CCamlR Document WG-Emm-09/32, 27pp.

macIsaac, K., Bourbonnais, C., Kenchington, E., Gordon, D. Jr, Gass, S. (2001) Observations on the occurrence and habitat preference of corals in atlantic Canada. In: Willison, J.h.m., hall, J., Gass, S.E., Kenchington, E.l.R., Butler, m., Doherty, P. (eds) Proceedings of the first International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals, halifax, Canada, pp. 58–75.

mCBI (2009a) Seamount map of the Indian Ocean (by John Guinotte), 3pp.

mCBI (2009b) Global habitat suitability for reef-forming cold-water corals. final Report to the Pew Charitable Trusts, 12pp.

mcPhie, R.P., Campana, S.E. (2009) Reproductive characteristics and population decline of four species of skate (Rajidae) off the eastern coast of Canada. Journal of fish Biology 75: 223–246.

merrett, n.R., haedrich, R.l. (1997) Deep-sea demersal fish and fisheries. Chapman & hall, london, UK, 282pp.

mitchell, R.E., Peatman, T., Pearce, J., agnew, D.a. (2009) analysis of VmE data collected by UK vessels fishing in the Ross Sea during the 2008/09 CCamlR season. CCamlR WS-VmE-09/5, 18 July, 2009, agenda item nos 5, 6.2., 10pp.

moody marine ltd (2008) Public Comment Draft Report for Ross Sea Toothfish longline fishery. Client: argos Georgia ltd, Sanford ltd, nZll ltd, Ref. 82044/Vers. 3, moody marine ltd, Derby, UK, 79pp + appendices.

morato, T., Cheung, W.W.l., Pitcher, T.J. (2006) Vulnerability of seamount fish to fishing: fuzzy analysis of life history attributes. Journal of fish Biology 68: 209–221.

morato, T., Clark, m.R. (2007) Seamount fishes: ecology and life histories. In: Pitcher T.J., morato, T., hart, P.J.B., Clark, m.R., haggan, n., Santos, R.S. (eds) Seamounts: Ecology, fisheries & Conservation, fish and aquatic Resources Series 12, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 170–188.

morin, B., méthot, R., Sevigny, J-m., Power, D., Branton, B., mcIntyre, T. (2004) Review of the structure, the abundance and distribution of Sebastes mentella and S. fasciatus in atlantic Canada in a species-at-risk context. CSaS Res. Doc. 2004/058, 96 pp.

mortensen, P.B., Buhl-mortensen, l. (2004) Distribution of deep-water gorgonian corals in relation to benthic habitat

features in the northeast Channel (atlantic Canada). marine Biology 144: 1223–1238.

mortensen, P.B., Buhl-mortensen, l. (2005) Deep-water corals and their habitats in The Gully, a submarine canyon off atlantic Canada. In: freiwald, a., Roberts, J.m. (eds) Cold-Water Corals and Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin heidelberg, pp. 247–277.

mortensen, P.B., Buhl- mortensen, l., Gordon, D.C., et al. (2005) Evidence of fisheries damage to deep-water gorgonians in the northeast Channel, nova Scotia. In: Thomas, J., Barnes, P. (eds) Proceeding from the Symposium on the Effects of fishing activities on Benthic habitats: linking Geology, Biology, Socioeconomics and management, american fisheries Society, november 12–14, 2002, florida, USa.

mortensen, P.B., Buhl-mortensen, l., Gebruk, a.V., Krylova, E.m. (2008) Occurrence of deep-water corals on the mid-atlantic Ridge based on maR-ECO data. Deep-Sea Research II 55: 142–152.

mSC (2006) mSC assessment Report, The australian antarctic mackerel Icefish fishery at heard and macDonald Islands. final Report. Scientific Certification Systems Inc., marine fisheries Conservation Programme, Emeryville, California, USa, 273pp.

muñoz, P.D., mandado, m., Gago, a., Gómez, C., fernández, G. (2005) Brief results of a trawl experimental survey at nW atlantic. Scientific Council meeting – June 2005 northwest atlantic fisheries Organisation, Serial no. n5095, nafO SCR Doc. 05/32, 4pp.

muñoz, P.D., murillo, f.J., Serrano, a., Sayago-Gil, m., Parra, S., Díaz del Río, V., Sacau, m., Patrocinio, T., Cristobo, J. (2008) a case study of available methodology for the identification of vulnerable ecosystems/habitats in bottom deep-sea fisheries: possibilities to apply this method in the nafO Regulatory area in order to select marine protected areas. nafO Scientific Committee Working Group on the Ecosystem approach to fisheries management – may 2008. Serial no. n5491, nafO SCR Doc. 08/6, 20pp.

murillo, f.J., muñoz, P.D., Sacau, m., González-Troncoso, D., Serrano, a. (2008) Preliminary data on cold-water corals and large sponges bycatch from Spanish/EU bottom trawl groundfish surveys in nafO Regulatory area (Divs. 3lmnO) and Canadian EEZ (Div. 3l): 2005–2007 period. nafO Scientific Committee Working Group on the Ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Serial no. 5501, nafO SCR doc. 08/10, 28pp.

murua, h., de Cárdenas, E. (2005) Depth distribution of deepwater species in flemish Pass. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 37: 1–12.

murua, h., González, f., Power, D. (2005) a review of the fishery and the investigations of roughhead grenadier (macrourus berglax) in flemish Cap and flemish Pass. Journal of northwest atlantic fishery Science 37: 13–27.

nafO CEm (2009) northwest atlantic fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement measures. Serial number n5614, nafO/fC Doc. 09/01. northwest atlantic fisheries Organisation, Dartmouth, nova Scotia, Canada, 92pp.

nafO TaCs (2009) annual Quota Table (annex I.a.) and Effort allocation Scheme (annex I.B.): http://www.nafO.int/about/frames/about.html

nafO fisheries Commission (2005) Report of the fisheries Commission meeting (fC Doc. 05/15), 27th annual meeting, 19–23 September 2005, Tallinn, Estonia, Part 1, pp. 113–174.

nafO fisheries Commission (2008) Report of the fisheries Commission 30th annual meeting, 22–26 September 2008, Vigo, Spain. Serial no. n5613 nafO/fC Doc. 08/22. northwest atlantic fisheries Organization, 86pp.

nafO fisheries Commission (2009) Report of the fisheries Commission and its Subsidiary Body (STaCTIC), 31st annual meeting 21–25 September 2009 Bergen norway. Serial no. n5735 nafO/fC Doc. 09/21. northwest atlantic fisheries Organization, 90pp.

nafO SC (2005) northwest atlantic fisheries Organization, Scientific Council Reports 2005, Dartmouth, nova Scotia, Canada, 359pp.

nafO SC (2008) northwest atlantic fisheries Organization, Scientific Council Reports 2008, Dartmouth, nova Scotia, Canada, 328pp.

navarro, S.J., alayón, P.J.P., abellán, l.J.l., holtzhausen, h., Jiménez, J.f.G. (2008) Seamount associated Species namibia 08-02. In: Preliminary Report of the multidisciplinary Research Cruise on the Walvis Ridge Seamounts (atlantic Southeast-SEafO). Spanish Institute of Oceanographny of the Canaries and national marine Information and Research Centre, nambia. annex III, pp. 99–191.

nEafC (2004) monthly catches of regulated resources. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, 4pp.

nEafC (2006a) Recommendation Ix – 2007: Recommendation by the north East atlantic fisheries Commission at its annual meeting in november 2006 to adopt Conservation and management measures by Closing Certain areas in the Regulatory area to Protect Deep-Water Corals. nEafC, london, UK, 2pp.

nEafC (2006b) agenda Item 4b am2007/47 rev2. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, 6pp.

nEafC (2007a) Recommendation Ix – 2008: Recommendation by the north East atlantic fisheries Commission in accordance with article 5 of the Convention on future multilateral Cooperation in north East atlantic fisheries at its annual meeting in november 2007 to adopt Conservation and management measures by Closing Certain areas in the Regulatory area in Order to Protect Deep-Water Corals. nEafC, london, UK, 2pp.

nEafC (2007b) agenda Item 4a am2008/59 rev 1. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, 6pp.

nEafC (2008) Recommendation xIII: 2009 Recommendation by the north East atlantic fisheries Commission in accordance With article 5 of the Convention on future multilateral Cooperation in north East atlantic fisheries at its annual meeting on 10–14 november 2008 to adopt the following Recommendation on Operational Procedures for fishing in Existing and new Bottom fishing areas. nEafC, london, UK, 3pp.

nEafC (2009a) nEafC fisheries Status Report 1998–2007, Kjartan hoydal (ed). nEafC, london, UK, 47pp.

nEafC (2009b) Scheme of Control and Enforcement. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, london, 96pp.nEafC press release (2009) nEafC press release relating

to the 28th annual meeting, london, 9–13 november 2009, 7pp.

nEafC (2010a) Report of the 28th annual meeting of the north East atlantic fisheries Commission 9–13 november 2009. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, london, 25pp + annexes (113pp total).

nEafC (2010b) Statistics on quota uptake 2008 final. am2009/62 rev.3. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, london, UK, 9pp.

nOaa (2008) north West Pacific Ocean; Reports on identification of VmEs and assessment of impacts caused by bottom fishing activities on VmEs and marine species. nOaa fisheries, USa, December 23 2008, 47pp.

norwegian government (2008) Proposal for revision of areas closed to bottom fisheries in the nEafC Ra on the mid‐atlantic Ridge and in the adjacent abyssal plains. Royal ministry of fisheries and Coastal affairs. annex 2 to the Report of the meeting of the Permanent Committee on management and Science (PECmaS), 1718 June, 2008, nEafC, london, UK, 13pp.

north Pacific fisheries Commission (2007) Second Inter-governmental meeting on management of high Seas Bottom fisheries in the north Western Pacific Ocean Busan, Republic of Korea 31 January – 2 february 2007 Establishment of new mechanisms for protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems and sustainable management of high seas bottom fisheries in the north Western Pacific Ocean. north Pacific fisheries Commission, Japan, 6pp.

O’Dea, n.R., haedrich R.l. (2003) a review of the status of the atlantic Wolffish, anarhichas lupus, in Canada. Canadian field-naturaliste 116: 423–433.

Ordines, f., massutí, E. (2009) Relationships between macro-epibenthic communities and fish on the shelf grounds of the western mediterranean. aquatic Conservation: marine and freshwater Ecosystems 19: 370–383.

Orejas, C., lópez-González, P.J., Gili, J.m., et al. (2002) Distribution and reproductive ecology of the antarctic octocoral ainigmaptilon antarcticum in the Weddell Sea. marine Ecology Progress Series, 231: 101–114.

Parker, S.J., mormede, S., Tracey, D.m., Carter, m. (2009) Evaluation of VmE taxa monitoring by observers from five vessels in the Ross Sea region antarctic toothfish longline fisheries during the 2008–09 season. CCamlR TaSO-09/8, 19 June 2009, agenda Item no. 3.2.2., 13pp.

Parker, S.J., Penney, a.J., Clark, m.R. (2009) Detection criteria for managing trawl impacts in vulnerable marine ecosystems in high seas fisheries of the South Pacific Ocean. marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 309-317.

Parrish, f.a., abernathy, K., marshall, G.J., et al. (2002) hawaiian monk seals (monachus schauninslandi) foraging in deep-water coral beds. marine mammal Science 18: 244–258.

PECmaS (2008a) Permanent Committee on management and Science of the north-East atlantic fisheries Commission meeting 28–29 October 2008 at nEafC headquarters, london, UK, 13pp + annexes.


PECmaS (2008b) mapping Existing fisheries areas in the nEafC Regulatory area. agenda Item 6; am2008/53 rev 1. north East atlantic fisheries Commission, london, UK, 9pp.

PECmaS (2009) Permanent Committee on management and Science of the north East atlantic fisheries Commission meeting 28–29 September, at nEafC headquarters, london, UK, 14pp + annexes.

Penhale, P., Grant, S. (2007) Workshop on the bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean, (Brussels, Belgium, 13–17 august 2007), Executive Summary, Report of the Workshop, annex 9, Report of the Twenty-Sixth meeting of the Scientific Committee, hobart, australia, 22–26 October, 2007, SC-CCamlR-xxVI, Scientific Committee for the Conservation of antarctic marine living Resources, hobart, Tasmania, australia, pp. 590–676.

Penney, a.J., Parker, S.J., Brown, J.h. (2009) Protection measures implemented by new Zealand for vulnerable marine ecosystems in the South Pacific Ocean. marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 341-354.

Ramírez-llodra, E., Ballesteros, m., Company, J.B., Dantart, l., Sardà, f. (2008) Spatio-temporal variations of biomass and abundance in bathyal non-crustacean megafauna in the Catalan Sea (northwestern mediterranean). marine Biology 153: 297–309.

Reed, J.K., Shepard, a.n., Koenig, C.C., et al. (2005) mapping, habitat characterization, and fish surveys of the deep-water Oculina coral reef marine Protected area: a review of historical and current research. In: freiwald, a., Roberts, J.m. (eds) Cold-Water Corals and Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin heidelberg, pp. 443–465.

Republic of Korea (2008) Reports on identification of VmEs and assessment of impacts caused by bottom trawl fishing activities on VmEs and/or marine species. ministry for food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, Republic of Korea, 22 December 2008, 8pp.

Rice, a. l., Thurston, m. h., new, a. l. (1990) Dense aggregations of a hexactinellid sponge, Pheronema carpenteri, in the Porcupine Seabight (northeast atlantic Ocean), and possible causes. Progress in Oceanography 24: 179–196.

Roark, E.B., Guilderson, T.P., Dunbar, R.B., Ingram, B.l. (2006) Radiocarbon-based ages and growth rates of hawaiian deep-sea corals. marine Ecology Progress Series 327: 1–14.

Roark, E.B., Guilderson, T.P., Dunbar, R.B., et al. (2009) Extreme longevity in proteinaceous deep-sea corals. Proceedings of the national academy of Sciences USa 106: 5204–5208.

Roberts, J.m., harvey, S.m., lamont, P.a., et al. (2000) Seabed photography, environmental assessment and evidence for deep-water trawling on the continental margin west of the hebrides. hydrobiologia 441: 173–183.

Roberts, J.m., Wheeler, a., freiwald, a., et al. (2009) Cold Water Corals: The Biology and Geology of Deep-Sea Coral habitats, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 352pp.

Rodgeveller, C.J., Clausen, D.m., nagler, J.J., hutchinson, C. (2010) Reproductive characteristics and mortality of female giant grenadiers in the northern Pacific Ocean. marine and Coastal fisheries: Dynamics, management, and Ecosystem Science 2: 73-82.

Rogers, a.D. (1994) The biology of seamounts. advances in marine Biology 30: 305–350.

Rogers, a.D. (1999) The biology of lophelia pertusa (linnaeus 1758) and other deep-water reef-forming corals and impacts from human activities. International Review of hydrobiology 84: 315–406.

Rogers, a.D., Baco, a., Griffiths, h.J., et al. (2007) Corals on seamounts. In: Pitcher T.J., morato, T., hart, P.J.B., Clark, m.R., haggan, n., Santos, R.S. (eds) Seamounts: Ecology, fisheries & Conservation, fish and aquatic Resources Series 12, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 141–169.Rogers, a.D., Taylor, m.l., Kemp, K., Yesson, C., Davies, a.J. (in press) The Diseases of Deep-Water Corals. In: Downs, C. (ed.) Diseases of Corals. CRC Press, london / new York. In press. 97pp (ms) + figs.

Romanov, E.V. (ed.) (2003) Summary and Review of Soviet and Ukrainian scientific and commercial fishing operations on the deepwater ridges of the Southern Indian Ocean. faO fisheries Circular no. 991, 84pp.

Rosso, a., Vertino, a., Di Geronimo, I., Sanfilippo, R., Sciuto, f., Di Geronimo, R., Violanti, D., Corselli, C., Taviani, m., mastrototaro, f., Tursi, a. (2009) hard- versus soft-bottom thanatofacies from the Santa maria di leuca deep-water coral mound province, Recent mediterranean. Deep-Sea Research II, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2009.08.024.

Rowden, a.a., Clark, m.R., O’Shea, S. (2004) The influence of deep-water coral habitat and fishing on benthic faunal assemblages of seamounts on the Chatham Rise, new Zealand. ICES Cm2004/aa:09.

Saidi B., Bradai, m.n. (2008) Elasmobranchs Bycatch in the mediterranean Sea. GfCm Scientific advisory Committee, SCmEE/SCSa transversal working group on by catch/incidental catches. General fisheries Commission for the mediterranean, faO headquarters, Rome, Italy, 14pp.

Sakiura, h. (1972) The pelagic armourhead Pentaceros richardsoni, fishing grounds off the hawaiian Islands, as viewed by the Soviets. Suisan Shuho 658: 28–31.

Sardà, f., Cartes, J.E., Company, J.B. (1994) Spatio-temporal variations in megabenthos abundance in three different habitats of the Catalan deep-sea (Western mediterranean). marine Biology 120: 211–219.

SEafO Commission (2006) Report of the 3rd annual meeting of the Commission, 2006. Walvis Bay, namibia, 63pp.

SEafO Commission (2007) Report of the 4th annual meeting of the Commission. Walvis Bay, namibia, 48pp.



SEafO Scientific Committee (2006) Report of the SEafO Scientific Committee 2006. Walvis Bay, namibia, 59pp.



Sherwood, O., Edinger, E. (2009) Carbon-14 composition of deep-sea corals of newfoundland and labrador: proxy records of seawater 14C and quantification of deep-sea coral growth rates. In: Gilkinson, K., Edinger, E. (eds) The ecology of deep-sea corals of newfoundland and labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Canadian Technical Report of fisheries and aquatic Sciences no. 2830, pp. 74–84.

Shester, G., ayers, J. (2005) a cost effective approach to protecting deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems with an application to alaska’s aleutian Islands region. In: freiwald, a., Roberts, J.m. (eds) Cold-Water Corals and Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin heidelberg, pp. 1151–1169.

Shibanov, V.n., Vinnichenko, V.I. (2008) Russian investigations and the fishery of roundnose grenadier in the north atlantic. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment, and fisheries. american fisheries Society, Symposium 63, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 399–412

Shotton, R. (2006) managment of demersal fisheries resources of the Southern Indian Ocean. faO fisheries Circular no. 1020, faO, Rome, Italy, 90pp.

Sissenwine, m.P., mace, P.m. (2007) Can deep water fisheries be managed sustainably? In: Report and documentation of the expert consultation on deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. faO fisheries Reports 838: 61–111.

Smith, D.C., Stewart, B.D. (1994) Development of methods to age commercially important dories and oreos. final Report, australian fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project 91/36.

Soriano, S., Sánchez-lizaso, J.l. (2000) Discards of the upper slope trawl fishery off alicante province (W. mediterranean). 6th mediterranean Symposium on Seabirds. Conference on fisheries, marine Productivity and Conservation of Seabirds. Benidorm, Spain. 11–15 October 2000. Book of abstracts, p. 73.

SPRfmO (2007a) Information describing orange roughy hoplostethus atlanticus fisheries relating to the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation, Working Draft 4 may 2007. SPRfmO, 23pp.

SPRfmO (2007b) Information describing Oreosomatidae (allocytus niger, neocyttus rhomboidalis, and Pseudocyttus maculates) fisheries relating to the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation, Working Draft, 2 September, 2007. SPRfmO-IV-SWG-11, 16pp.

SPRfmO (2007c) Information describing black cardinalfish (Epigonus telescopus) fisheries relating to the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation, Working Draft, 21 June, 2007, 11pp.

SPRfmO (2007d) Information describing alfonsino (Beryx splendens) fisheries relating to the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation, Working Draft, 20 June, 2007, 14pp.

SPRfmO (2007e) Information describing bluenose (hyperoglyphe antarctica) fisheries relating to the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation, Working Draft, 22 June, 2007, 14pp.

SPRfmO (2007f) Information describing Jasus caveorum fisheries relating to the South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation, Revised, 20 february, 2007. SPRfmO-III-SWG-12, 8pp.

SPRfmO Interim measures (2007) InTERIm mEaSURES aDOPTED BY PaRTICIPanTS In nEGOTIaTIOnS TO ESTaBlISh SOUTh PaCIfIC REGIOnal fIShERIES manaGEmEnT ORGanISaTIOn. International Consultations on the Establishment of the Proposed South Pacific Regional fisheries management Organisation. 3rd meeting, Renaca, Chile. 4 may 2007.

SPRfmO (2008) Revised Draft Bottom fishery Impact assessment Standard. Eighth International meeting: Science Working Group, SP-08-SWG-DW-01, 39pp.

Stockley, B.m., menezes, G., Pinho, m.R., Rogers, a.D. (2005) Genetic population structure of the black-spot sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo) from the nE atlantic. marine Biology 146: 793–804.

Stone, R.P. (2006) Coral habitat in the aleutian Islands of alaska: depth distribution, fine-scale species associations, and fisheries interactions. Coral Reefs 25: 229–238.

Stone, R.P., masuda, m.m., malecha, P.W. (2005) Effects of bottom trawling on soft sediment epibenthic communities in the Gulf of alaska. In: Barnes, P.B., Thomas, J.P. (eds) Benthic habitats and the effects of fishing. american fisheries Society, Symposium 41, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 461–475.

SWIOfC (2005) South West Indian Ocean fisheries Commission, first Session, mombasa, Kenya, 18–20 april, 2005. Resolution and Statues of the South West Indian Ocean fisheries Commission. SafR/Dm/SWIOfC/05/Inf 4 E, faO Rome, Italy, 5pp.

SWIOfC (2009) South West Indian Ocean fisheries Commission, Report of the Third Session of the Scientific Committee, maputo, mozambique, 16–19 September 2008, 85pp.

Taviani, m., freiwald, a., Zibrowius, h. (2005) Deep coral growth in the mediterranean Sea: an overview. In: freiwald, a., Roberts, J.m. (eds) Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems. Springer, heidelberg, Germany, pp. 137–156

Taviani, m., Remia, a., Corselli, C., freiwald, a., malinverno, E., mastrototaro, f., Savini, a., Tursi, a. (2005a) first geo-marine survey of living cold-water lophelia reefs in the Ionian Sea (mediterranean basin). facies 50: 409–417.

Thompson, a.B., Campanis, G.m. (2007) Information on fishing on and around the four closed seamount areas in the nRa. Scientific Council meeting – June 2007 northwest atlantic fisheries Organisation, Serial no. n5347, nafO SCR Doc. 07/06, 10pp.

Tudela, S. (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing in the mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats of fishing gear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. faO fisheries Department (EP/InT/759/GEf), Rome, Italy, 45pp.

Tupanogov, V.n., Orlov, a.m., Kodolov, l.S. (2008) The most abundant grenadiers of the Russian far East EEZ: distribution and basic biological patterns. In: Orlov, a.m., Iwamoto, T. (eds) Grenadiers of the World Oceans: Biology, Stock assessment, and fisheries. american fisheries Society, Symposium 63, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 285-316.

Uchupi, E., Ballard, R.D. (1989) Evidence of hydrothermal activity on marsili Seamount, Tyrrhenian Basin. Deep-Sea Research 36: 1443–1448.


UnESCO (2009) Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) Bioregional Classification. Vierros, m., Cesswell, I., Escobar-Briones, E., Rice, J., ardron, J. (eds) IOC Technical Series 84, UnESCO-IOC, Paris, france, 89pp.

UnGa (2004) Resolution 59/25 Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United nations Convention on the law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and management of Straddling fish Stocks and highly migratory fish Stocks, and related instruments. UnGa a/RES/59/25. available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_reports.htm, 16pp.

UnGa (2007) Resolution 61/105 Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United nations Convention on the law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and management of Straddling fish Stocks and highly migratory fish Stocks, and related instruments. UnGa a/RES/61/105 available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_reports.htm, 21pp.

UnGa (2009) Resolution 64/72 Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United nations Convention on the law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and management of Straddling fish Stocks and highly migratory fish Stocks, and related instruments. UnGa a/RES/64/72 not yet issued (as of 10 January 2010); available as General assembly document a/64/l.29 at: http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=a/64/l.29http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_reports.htm, 27pp.

Un SG (2006) Report of the Secretary-General Impacts of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems: actions taken by States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements to give effect to paragraphs 66 to 69 of General assembly resolution 59/25 on sustainable fisheries, regarding the impacts of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems. a/61/154. 14 July 2006, 46pp.

Vanreusel. a., anderson, a.C., Boetius, a., Connelly, D., Cunha, m.R., Decker, C., hilario, a., Kormas, K.a., maignien, l., Olu, K., Pachiadaki, m., Ritt, B., Rodrigues, C., Sarrazin, J., Tyler, P., Van Gaever, S., Vanneste, h. (2009) Biodiversity of cold-seep ecosystems along the European margins. Oceanography 22: 110–127.

Verrill, a.E. (1922) The alcyonaria of the Canadian arctic Expedition, 1913–1918, with a revision of some other Canadian genera and species. Report of the Canadian arctic Expedition 1913–18, vol VIII: molluscs, Echinoderms, Coelenterates, etc., Part G: alcyonaria and actinaria.

Waller, R., Watling, l., auster, P., et al. (2007) anthropogenic impacts on the Corner Rise Seamounts, north-west atlantic Ocean. Journal of the marine Biological association of the UK 87: 1075–1076.

Warén, a., Klitgaard, a.B. (1991) hanleya nagelfar, a sponge-feeding ecotype of h hanleyi or a distinct species of chiton? Ophelia 34: 51-70.

WGDEC (2005) Report of the Working Group on Deep-Water Ecology (WGDEC), 8–11 march 2005 ICES headquarters, Copenhagen, ICES Cm 2005/aCE:02 Ref. E,G. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 72pp.

WGDEC (2006) Report of the Working Group on Deep-Water Ecology (WGDEC), 4–7 December 2005, miami, U.S.a, ICES Cm 2006/aCE:04. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 79pp.

WGDEC (2007) Report of the Working Group on Deep-Water Ecology (WGDEC), 26–28 february 2007, ICES Cm 2007/aCE:01 Ref lRC. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 57pp.

WGDEC (2008) Report of the ICES-nafO Joint Working Group on Deep-Water Ecology (WGDEC) 10–14 march 2008, ICES Cm2008/aCOm: 45, Ref. WGECO, WGDEC, nafO. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 124pp.

WGDEC (2009) Report of the ICES-nafO Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 9–13 march 2009. ICES Cm 2009/aCOm: 23. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 92pp.

WGDEEP (2009) Report of the Working Group on the Biology and assessment of Deep-Sea fisheries Resources (WGDEEP) 9–16 march 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES WGDEEP Report 2009, ICES advisory Committee, ICES Cm 2009/aCOm: 14, 503pp.

WGEafm (2008a) Report of the nafO SC Working Group on Ecosystem approach to fisheries management (WGEafm) nafO Scientific Council meeting June 2008. Serial number 5511, nafO SCS Doc. 08/10, 70pp.

WGEafm (2008b) Report of the nafO SC Working Group on Ecosystem approach to fisheries management (WGEafm) Response to fisheries Commission Request 9.a. nafO Scientific Council meeting October 2008, Serial number 5592, nafO SCS Doc. 08/24, 19pp.

WGEafm (2009) Report of the nafO Scientific Council Working Group on Ecosystem approach to fisheries management (WGEafm). northwest atlantic fisheries Organisation Scientific Council meeting – June 2008 Ser. no. n5511 nafO SCS Doc 08/10, 70pp.

Wheeler, a.J., Bett, B.J., Billett, D.S., et al. (2005) The impact of demersal trawling on northeast atlantic coral habitats: The case of the Darwin mounds, United Kingdom. In: Barnes, P.W., Thomas, J.P. (eds) Benthic habitats and the Effects of fishing, american fisheries Society Symposium 41, Bethesda, maryland, USa, pp. 807–817.

Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, m-l., hureau, J-C., nielsen, J., Tortonese, E. (1986) fishes of the northeastern atlantic and mediterranean, Vols. 1,2,3. UnESCO, Paris, france.

Wisshak, m., lópez-Correa, m., Gofas, S., Salas, C., Taviani, m., Jakobsen, J., freiwald, a. (2009) Shell architecture, element composition, and stable isotope signature of the giant deep-sea oyster neopycnodonte zibrowii sp. n. from the nE atlantic. Deep-Sea Research I 56: 374–407.

ANNEX 1: UNGA RESOLUTION 61/105, PARAGRAPHS 83–87

The General Assembly

83. Calls upon regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries to adopt and implement measures, in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystem approaches and international law, for their respective regulatory areas as a matter of priority, but not later than 31 December 2008:

(a) To assess, on the basis of the best available scientific information, whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, and to ensure that if it is assessed that these activities would have significant adverse impacts, they are managed to prevent such impacts, or not authorized to proceed;

(b) To identify vulnerable marine ecosystems and determine whether bottom fishing activities would cause significant adverse impacts to such ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks, inter alia, by improving scientific research and data collection and sharing, and through new and exploratory fisheries;

(c) In respect of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals, are known to occur or are likely to occur based on the best available scientific information, to close such areas to bottom fishing and ensure that such activities do not proceed unless conservation and management measures have been established to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems;

(d) To require members of the regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements to require vessels flying their flag to cease bottom fishing activities in areas where, in the course of fishing operations, vulnerable marine

ecosystems are encountered, and to report the encounter so that appropriate measures can be adopted in respect of the relevant site;

84. also calls upon regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries to make the measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 83 of the present resolution publicly available;

85. Calls upon those States participating in negotiations to establish a regional fisheries management organization or arrangement competent to regulate bottom fisheries to expedite such negotiations and, by no later than 31 December 2007, to adopt and implement interim measures consistent with paragraph 83 of the present resolution and make these measures publicly available;

86. Calls upon flag States to either adopt and implement measures in accordance with paragraph 83 of the present resolution, mutatis mutandis, or cease to authorize fishing vessels flying their flag to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction where there is no regional fisheries management organization or arrangement with the competence to regulate such fisheries or interim measures in accordance with paragraph 85 of the present resolution, until measures are taken in accordance with paragraph 83 or 85 of the present resolution;

87. further calls upon States to make publicly available through the food and agriculture Organization of the United nations a list of those vessels flying their flag authorized to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the measures they have adopted pursuant to paragraph 86 of the present resolution;

Annexes


ANNEX II: UN FAO GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DEEP-SEA FISHERIES IN THE HIGH SEAS

Paragraph 47: Impact Assessments

47. flag States and RfmO/as should conduct assessments to establish if deep-sea fishing activities are likely to produce significant adverse impacts in a given area. Such an impact assessment should address, inter alia:i. type(s) of fishing conducted or contemplated,

including vessels and gear-types, fishing areas, target and potential bycatch species, fishing effort levels and duration of fishing (harvesting plan);

ii. best available scientific and technical information on the current state of fishery resources and baseline information on the ecosystems, habitats and communities in the fishing area, against which future changes are to be compared;

iii. identification, description and mapping of VmEs known or likely to occur in the fishing area;

iv. data and methods used to identify, describe and assess the impacts of the activity, the identification of gaps in knowledge, and an evaluation of uncertainties in the information presented in the assessment;

v. identification, description and evaluation of the occurrence, scale and duration of likely impacts, including cumulative impacts of activities covered by the assessment on VmEs and low-productivity fishery resources in the fishing area;

vi. risk assessment of likely impacts by the fishing operations to determine which impacts are likely to be significant adverse impacts, particularly impacts on VmEs and low productivity fishery resources; and

vii. the proposed mitigation and management measures to be used to prevent significant adverse impacts on VmEs and ensure long-term conservation and sustainable utilization of low-productivity fishery resources, and the measures to be used to monitor effects of the fishing operations.

Paragraph 42: VMEs

42. a marine ecosystem should be classified as vulnerable based on the characteristics that it possesses. The following list of characteristics should be used as criteria in the identification of VmEs.

i. Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas. These include:● habitats that contain endemic species;● habitats of rare, threatened or endangered

species that occur only in discrete areas; or● nurseries or discrete feeding, breeding, or

spawning areas.

ii. functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for the survival, function, spawning/reproduction or recovery of fish stocks, particular life-history stages (e.g. nursery grounds or rearing areas), or of rare, threatened or endangered marine species.

iii. fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities.

iv. life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterized by populations or assemblages of species with one or more of the following characteristics:● slow growth rates;● late age of maturity;● low or unpredictable recruitment; or● long-lived. v. Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterized by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features. In these ecosystems, ecological processes are usually highly dependent on these structured systems. further, such ecosystems often have high diversity, which is dependent on the structuring organisms.

Examples of potentially vulnerable species groups, communities, and habitats, as well as features that potentially support them are contained in annex 1.

Paragraphs 17–20: Significant Adverse Impacts

17. Significant adverse impacts are those that compromise ecosystem integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that: (i) impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves; (ii) degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats; or (iii) causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types.

Impacts should be evaluated individually, in combination and cumulatively.

18. When determining the scale and significance of an impact, the following six factors should be considered:

i. the intensity or severity of the impact at the specific site being affected;

ii. the spatial extent of the impact relative to the availability of the habitat type affected;

iii. the sensitivity/vulnerability of the ecosystem to the impact;

iv. the ability of an ecosystem to recover from harm, and the rate of such recovery;

v. the extent to which ecosystem functions may be altered by the impact; and

vi. the timing and duration of the impact relative to the period in which a species needs the habitat during one or more life-history stages.

19. Temporary impacts are those that are limited in duration and that allow the particular ecosystem to recover over an acceptable time frame. Such time frames should be decided on a case-by-case basis and should be in the order of 5–20 years, taking into account the specific features of the populations and ecosystems.

20. In determining whether an impact is temporary, both the duration and the frequency at which an impact is repeated should be considered. If the interval between the expected disturbance of a habitat is shorter than the recovery time, the impact should be considered more than temporary. In circumstances of limited information, States and RfmO/as should apply the precautionary approach in their determinations regarding the nature and duration of impacts.

ANNEX III: UNGA RESOLUTION 64/72, DECEMBER 2009 – BOTTOM FISHERIES ON THE HIGH SEAS; KEY PARAGRAPHS

113. Calls upon States to take action immediately, individually and through regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements, and consistent with the precautionary approach and ecosystem approaches, to implement the 2008 International Guidelines for the management of Deep-sea fisheries in the high Seas of the food and agriculture Organization of the United nations (“the Guidelines”) in order to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect

vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals, from destructive fishing practices, recognizing the immense importance and value of deep sea ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain;

114. Reaffirms the importance of paragraphs 80 to 91 of its resolution 61/105 addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks and the actions called for in that resolution, and emphasizes the need for full implementation by all States and relevant regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements of their commitments under those paragraphs on an urgent basis;

119. Considers that, on the basis of the review carried out in accordance with paragraph 91 of its resolution 61/105, further actions in accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystem approaches and international law, are needed to strengthen the implementation of paragraphs 80 and 83 to 87 of its resolution 61/105 and, in this regard, calls on regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries, States participating in negotiations to establish such organizations or arrangements, and flag States to take the following urgent actions in areas beyond national jurisdiction:

(a) Conduct the assessments called for in paragraph 83 (a) of its resolution 61/105, consistent with the Guidelines, and to ensure that vessels do not engage in bottom fishing until such assessments have been carried out;

(b) Conduct further marine scientific research and use the best scientific and technical information available to identify where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur and adopt conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems consistent with the Guidelines, or close such areas to bottom fishing until conservation and management measures have been established, as called for in paragraph 83 (c) of its resolution 61/105;

(c) Establish and implement appropriate protocols for the implementation of paragraph 83 (d) of its resolution 61/105, including definitions of what constitutes evidence of an encounter with a vulnerable marine ecosystem, in particular threshold levels and


indicator species, based on the best available scientific information and consistent with the Guidelines, and taking into account any other conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, including those based on the results of assessments carried out pursuant to paragraph 83 (a) of its resolution 61/105 and paragraph 119 (a) of the present resolution;

(d) adopt conservation and management measures, including monitoring, control and surveillance measures, on the basis of stock assessments and the best available scientific information, to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks and non-target species, and the rebuilding of depleted stocks, consistent with the Guidelines; and, where scientific information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate, ensure that conservation and management measures be established consistent with the precautionary approach, including measures to ensure that fishing effort, fishing capacity and catch limits, as appropriate, are at levels commensurate with the long-term sustainability of such stocks;

120. Calls upon flag States, members of regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries and States participating in negotiations to establish such organizations or arrangements to adopt and implement measures in accordance with paragraphs 83, 85 and 86 of its resolution 61/105, paragraph 119 of the present resolution, and international law, and consistent with the Guidelines, and not to authorize bottom fishing activities until such measures have been adopted and implemented;

121. Recognizes the special circumstances and requirements of developing States and the specific challenges they may face in giving full effect to certain technical aspects of the Guidelines, and that implementation by such States of paragraphs 83 to 87 of its resolution 61/105, paragraph 119 of the present resolution and the Guidelines should proceed in a manner that gives full consideration to the section of the Guidelines on “Special Requirements of Developing Countries”;

122. Calls upon States and regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements to enhance efforts to cooperate to collect and

129. Decides to conduct a further review in 2011 of the actions taken by States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements in response to paragraphs 80 and 83 to 87 of its resolution 61/105 and paragraphs 117 and 119 to 127 of the present resolution, with a view to ensure effective implementation of the measures and to make further recommendations, where necessary; and taking into account the discussions occurring during the workshop described in paragraph 128 of the present resolution.

Acknowledgements

The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (http://www.stateoftheocean.org) would like to thank the following for their support: The Pew Environment Group; the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition; The Jm Kaplan fund; The Oakdale Trust; and The John S Cohen foundation. Dr alex Rogers would like to thank Dr Christopher Yesson, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of london and Roxane Brown, Communications InC, london, U.K. for their assistance in the preparation of the report.

exchange scientific and technical data and information related to the implementation of the measures called for in the relevant paragraphs of its resolution 61/105 and the present resolution to manage deep sea fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction and to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing by, inter alia:

(a) Exchanging best practices and developing, where appropriate, regional standards for use by States engaged in bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction and regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements with a view to examining current scientific and technical protocols and promoting consistent implementation of best practices across fisheries and regions, including assistance to developing States in accomplishing these objectives;

(b) making publicly available, consistent with domestic law, assessments of whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the measures adopted in accordance with paragraphs 83, 85 and 86, as appropriate, of its resolution 61/105, and promoting the inclusion of this information on the websites of regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements;

(c) Submission by flag States to the food and agriculture Organization of the United nations of a list of those vessels flying their flag authorized to conduct bottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the measures they have adopted to give effect to the relevant paragraphs of its resolution 61/105 and the present resolution;

(d) Sharing information on vessels that are engaged in bottom fishing operations in areas beyond national jurisdiction where the flag State responsible for such vessels cannot be determined;

123. Encourages States and regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements to develop or strengthen data collection standards, procedures and protocols and research programmes for identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, assessment of impacts on such ecosystems, and assessment of fishing activities on target and non-target species, consistent with the Guidelines and in accordance with the Convention, including Part xIII;

61105 Implement Ion Final Report

Documents

Transcript of 61105 Implement Ion Final Report