EFEP European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan: Northern Seas
description
Transcript of EFEP European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan: Northern Seas
EFEP European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan:
Northern Seas
EC Study contract Q5RS-2001-01685
Partners
Partner 2: Instituto Português de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar - Portugal
Partner 3: University of Tromsø - Norway
Partner 4: Marine Research Institute - Iceland
Partner 5: Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research – the Netherlands
Partner 1: University of Newcastle - UK School of Marine Science and Technology School of Geography, Politics and Sociology
Overall aim :
To provide a management plan which will take account of the ecosystem effects of fishing, provide adequate controls on exploitation and ensure the viability of the European fishing industry.
To develop a FEP we need to:
Better understand how fishing affects the ecosystem.
Understand how management regimes may be used to limit these effects.
Understand stakeholders’
wishes.
Communicate and listen.
WP1
Review stakeholders’ preferences for marine ecosystem-based
management techniques.
WP2
Characterise the physical and biological environment of the North Sea and investigate
existing ecological models.
WP3
Parameterise and review conceptual models of the
North Sea ecosystem. Examine ecosystem
metrics.
WP4
Assess the mortality of North Sea ecosystem
components.
WP5
Examine uncertainty in models. Simulate
management schemes.
WP6
Formulate and apply models to provide quantitative forecasts for management scenarios. Re-assess stakeholders’ preferences for
management techniques.
WP7
Draft a European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan: A case study of the North Sea.
The EFEP’s work packages.
WP1
Consult and develop links with fishers and other stakeholders in fisheries communities/industry.
Review management regimes which protect ecosystem functioning.
Ask the stakeholders about their preferred management regimes.
Led by the University of Newcastle, UK(School of Geography, Politics and Sociology)
Ends June 2003
WP1
Questions:● Are you optimistic/pessimistic about particular North Sea fish stocks and the health of the North Sea ecosystem?● What do you regard as the main threat(s) to the ecosystem?● How could management policies and management structure be improved?
Interview stakeholders from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.
Semi-structured, qualitative interviews (30-60 minutes long) to maximise the scope of the information collected.
The % of stakeholders interviewed in each stakeholder category (UK, Norway & Netherlands)
43%
20%
17%
7%
6%
4% 3% Fishers & Fishers' Representatives
Fishing-Related Industries
Regulators
Scientists
Social Scientists
ENGOs
Local Government
Widespread acknowledgement that the status of the North Sea fish stocks is poor.● Over-fishing is a key contributor to the situation.
● Environmental factors such as global warming and increased UV light are equally as important.
Most fishers were unfamiliar with the term ecosystem and unwilling to comment on its status.
Most fishers were optimistic about the
long-term future of fish stocks and the
resilience of the North Sea, whilst
scientists were much more pessimistic.
“Canada closed the Grand Banks in 1992. A survey was carried out last year and the stocks were actually worse than when they closed it. It’s not fishermen because no one has fished it.”
0
5
10
15
20
25
Quotas
ITQs
Mult
i-Spe
cies
Decom
miss
ionin
g
Days A
t Sea
Technic
al Mea
sure
s
Discar
d Ban
Closed
Are
as
no
. U.K
. sta
keh
old
ers
In Favour
Against
The management preferences of UK stakeholders
Universal rejection of the CFP. • “…you can go to sea as much as you want, catch as much as you want. The only
restriction is on what you land is obviously no good for conservation at all.”
Regulations too complicated and uneven.
Irregular enforcement of regulations across Europe.
Management needs to be more responsive to local needs. • Many stakeholders would like to be included in management and stock assessment. • Feel current management is too distant.
Poor relationship between the players.
• A lack of trust and respect between fishermen, scientists, legislators and managers makes dialogue and communication difficult.
WP2
Characterise the biological and physico-chemical environment of the North Sea which supports the fishery.
Develop a conceptual model of the North Sea food web.
Led by the University of Newcastle, UK(Dove Marine Laboratory)
Completed September 2002 • report available on the EFEP website
The North Sea is a semi-enclosed, highly productive (>300 g C m-2 yr-1), relatively shallow, temperate sea.
A variety of human activities affect the marine ecosystem:
• nutrient enrichment,• coastal developments,• the fisheries.
WP2 Characterise the biological and physico-chemical
environment of the North Sea.
Fisheries Fishing activity represents the largest human impact on
the ecosystem of the North Sea.
Direct effects:
Those which are caused as an immediate effect of fishing.
e.g. removal of target and non-target species, suspension of sediment, direct injury to epifauna and benthos.
Indirect effects:
Those which occur secondary to the direct effects.
e.g. trophic effects, provision of food to
scavengers, changes to the nutrient flux.
The effect of fishing
on target
species
Direct effects Indirect effects
Size-selective removal of fish
change population structure
recruitment
genetics
Removal of fish
food web implications
species replacement
change species assemblage
extinction
By-catch and discarding
reduced adult abundance
change species assemblage / dominance
Ghost fishing
The effect of fishing on non- target
species
Direct effects Indirect effects
Size-selective removal
change population structure
recruitment implications
genetic
change species assemblage
By-catch removal
change species assemblage
genetic
food-web implications
Discarding change species assemblage
Ghost fishing
Fatal encounters with gears
change species assemblageFishing disturbance
(non-fatal injury)
Disturbance (no injury)
Direct effects Indirect effects
Structural simplification
hydrological changes
reduced refugia value
destruction/damage to biogenic structures
Resuspension of sediment
smothering of adjacent areas
removal of fresh detritus
Disturbance tosub-surface
layers
Alteration of benthic-pelagic nutrient flux
Release sediment-bound toxins
The effect of fishing
on habitats
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE
Effects on target
population
Effects on non-target population
Habitat modification
(direct)
Habitat modification
(nutrient flux)
TECHNICAL
● mesh size 0.5 0.5 0 0
● grid panels 0.5 0.5 0 0
● reduced penetration 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
● gear types 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
EFFORT 1 0.5 0 0
QUOTA 1 0.5 0 0
DISCARD MANAGEMENT 0.5 0.5 0 0
CLOSED AREAS (0.5) 1* (0.5) 1* 1 1
KEY: 0 = no protection, 0.5 = some protection, 1 = fully protected (1* = fully protected in closed areas)
WP3
Rationalise the food web into the ‘significant web’.
Review and compare metrics which have been used to measure the state/health of the ecosystem, and if necessary, develop new metrics and/or modify existing ones.
Led by the Marine Research Institute, Iceland
Ends June 2003
WP3
Economic value • Assess in terms of monetary value to human
society.
Functional value• The provision of goods and services to the
ecosystem.
Ecological value• Examine linkages within the ecosystem.
Societal value• Those protected by conservation and
harvesting legislation.
The significant food web:
WP3
To assess the sensitivity of specific ecosystem components to alterations in food web structure and whether and how these metrics may detect alterations in community/ecosystem dynamics.
To determine the nature and strength of the ecological linkages and the relative influence of fishing effects compared to other physical and abiotic factors
Metrics:
WP4
To calculate the total removals from the ecosystem, including incidental mortality, and show how they relate to standing biomass, production, optimum yields, natural mortality and trophic structure.
Led by RIVO, Netherlands
Ends June 2003
WP5 To assess the degree of uncertainty in work
packages 3 and 4 and consider buffers against uncertainty in models.
Review the input from stakeholders and develop a set of possible management regimes for later testing on the ‘significant web model’.
Led by IPIMAR, Portugal
Ends Sept 2003
WP6 Assess the evidence for the effects of fishing on
the ecosystem and match management responses, which are acceptable to stakeholders, against them.
• Develop key metrics of ecosystem health and food-web functions which can be used as management targets.
• Use models of food-web dynamics and fishing scenarios to investigate the response of metrics to various management schemes and fisher behaviour scenarios.
Led by the University of Tromsø, Norway (Institute of Social Science)
Runs Sept 2003 - June 2004.
WP7 Feedback the results of management scenarios
to stakeholders to elicit views.
Develop a draft Fisheries Ecosystem Plan for the North Sea.
• To provide a rational basis for the development of policy to protect ecosystem function, fish stock integrity, biological diversity and economic activity.
Led by the University of Newcastle, UK
(School of Marine Science and Technology)
Runs July - Dec 2004
Summary
Understand how fishing affects the ecosystem.
Understand how management regimes may be used to limit these effects.
Understand stakeholders’ wishes.
Communicate and listen.
Area of investigation
Leader Contact details
Stakeholder opinions
Knut Mikalsen (Norway)
Management strategies
Chris Frid & Tim Gray (UK)
C.L.J. [email protected]@ncl.ac.uk
Modelling Bill Silvert (Portugal) [email protected]
Metrics Stefan Aki Ragnarsson (Iceland)
Food web Catherine Scott (UK) [email protected]
Habitat effects Odette Paramor (UK) [email protected]
Benthic-pelagic coupling
Removals Gerjan Piet (Netherlands)
EFEP activities and contacts
Odette Paramor (UK) [email protected]