WHAT’S tReducing Bycatch in EU

Distant Water Fisheries

¿ i t , report by tt

Environmental

JusticeFoundation

m E JF5 S t P e te r ’s S t, London N1 8JD, UK

Tel 44 (0 ) 20 7359 0440

Fax 44 (0 ) 20 7359 7123

in fo @ ejfo u n d a tio n .o rg

w w w .e jfo u n d a tio n .o rg

The Environmental Justice Foundation is a UK-based non-govem m ental organisation. More inform ation about EJF’s w ork and pdf versions o f this report can be found at www.ejfoundation.org. Com m ents on the report, requests for further copies o r specific queries about EJF should be directed to info@ ejfoundation.org.

This docum ent should be cited as: EJF. 2005. W hat’s the Catch?: Reducing Bytcatch in EU Distant Water Fisheries. Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK.

ISBN No. 1-904523-07-2

ln 200B, th e Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) began an international campaign on Bycatch Reduction. This campaign grew from exten sive research on th e wider ecosystem e ffe c ts o f tropical shrimp trawl fisheries.

EJF's approach is to make practical recom m endations and highlight successfu l technical and operational m ethods to reduce bycatch.

AcknowledgementsThis report was researched, w ritten and produced by the Environmental Justice Foundation Charitable Trust (Annabelle Aish, Louis Buckley, Steve Trent and Juliette Williams).

Design Dan Brown (dan.brown@ ukf.net)

Cover photo © FAO/M. M arzot

Printed on 100% post-consumer waste paper.

Thanks to Brian Emmerson and all at Emmerson Press for continued support. www.emmersonpress.co.uk

EJF would like to thank the following people and the ir organisations for the invaluable tim e and assistance w ith information, ideas and visual materials used in this report:

Helene Bours, Dr. Matt Broadhurst, James Brown, Dr. Frank Chopin, Alistair Dillon, Marydele Donnelly, Michael Earle, M atthew Gianni,Beatrice Gorez, Dr. Martin Haii, Pavel Klinckhamers, Dr. Rebecca Lewis on, Dr. Andrew Smith.

In thanking these individuals, we in no w ay imply tha t they o r the ir organisations endorse the report’s content.

EJF’s marine campaign is generously supported by the Ruffo rd Maurice Laing Foundation

C O N T E N T SIntroduction i

EU bycatch regulations 4

EU distant water fisheries o f concern 6

T r a w l f i s he r i e s 6

P u r s e se i ne f i s he r i e s 8

L o ng l i n e f i s he r i e s 9

Conclusion n

By catch reduction priorities for the EU’s distant water fleet 12

References 13

GlossaryA rtis a n a l f is h e r ie s : Typically inshore fisheries w ith small-scale vessels using traditional or basic methods. These fisheries usually involve households (as opposed to companies) but can be subsistence or commercial in nature.

B y ca tch R e d u c tio n D ev ic e (BRD): A device fitted into a fishing gear (usually trawl) to allow the escape o f non-target organisms. M ost BRDs w ork by exploiting behavioural differences between target and non-target organisms. Comm only used BRDs include: square m esh codends, square m esh panels or windows, fisheyes, bigeyes and radial escape sections.

B y ca tch : The incidental catch o f non-target species and undersized individuals o f the target species. N on­target commercial species may be retained or discarded along w ith unw anted bycatch.

C e p h a lo p o d : Animals (molluscs) w ith tentacle s converging at the head, around the mouth.(Examples: squid, cuttlefish, and octopus).

C o d e n d : The end section o f a traw l net which retains the catch. Codend mesh sizes and structure are usually regulated, as it is in this part o f the net tha t most ‘size-selection takes place. The codend may be preceded by a device to reduce bycatch (e.g. BRD or TED).

D e m e rsa l: a habitat or fishing range on o r near the bottom o f the ocean. Demersal species live in close relation w ith the seabed and depend on it. (Examples: cod, grouper and lobster).

D isca rd s : any marine organism caught w hen fishing tha t is n o t retained but returned to the sea (usually dead o r dying).

E c o sy s te m -B a se d M a n a g e m e n t (EBM ):A napproach tha t takes major ecosystem components and services into account in m anaging fisheries, rather than focusing on individual parts o f the ecosystem (such as target species). It explicitly deals w ith issues such as resources conservation, habitat protection, fishery and non-fishery impacts.

E x c lu s iv e E co n o m ic Z o n e (EEZ): A zone under national jurisdiction (up to 200-nautical miles wide) declared in line w ith the provisions o f 1982 United Nations Convention o f the Law o f the Sea. W ithin this zone, the coastal State has the right to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, bo th living and non-living resources.

F ish A g g re g a t in g D ev ice (FAD): Artificial or natural floating objects placed on the ocean surface to attract schooling fish species (e.g. tuna), thus increasing their catchability.

Longline: A fishing gear in which short lines carrying hooks are attached to a longer m ain line at regular intervals. The m ain lines can be as long as 150 km, w ith several thousand hooks. Longline fisheries can target either pelagic o r demersal species.

M esh size : The size o f holes in a fishing net. M inimum mesh sizes are often set to avoid the capture o f juvenile fish before they have reached their optim al size for capture.

F ish e ry o b s e rv e r : A certified person onboard a fishing vessel w ho collects scientific and technical information for a management authority This information may include: areas fished, fishing effort, gear characteristics, and levels and composition o f target catch, bycatch and discards.

P elag ic: A habitat or fishing range in the water column, at anywhere betw een 50 and 1500 metres depth. Pelagic species spend most of their life swimming in open w ater w ith little contact w ith or dependency on the seabed. (Examples: tuna and billfish)

P u rse se in e : A deep curtain o f netting that is maneuvered to form an enclosing cylinder around shoals o f pelagic fish (e.g. tuna). Industrial purse seine nets can be 1500 to 2000 m long and 120 to 250 m deep.

T u rtle E x c lu d e r D ev ice (TED): a grid-like structure fitted w ithin traw l nets to prevent sea turtles from entering the codend. Instead, they are forced out through an escape opening in the net, just forward o f the grid. These devices can also exclude sharks and rays, as w ell as jellyfish, sponges and certain larger fish.

Traw l: A eone or funnel-shaped net that is towed through the w ater by one o r more vessels. Trawlers can target pelagic or dem ersal species, and range in size from small undecked boats powered by outboard engines to large factory trawlers o f up to 45m in length.

T a rg e t c a tc h : Those species tha t are primarily sought by fishermen in a particular fishery and are the subject of directed fishing effort. There may be more than one target species, particularly in demersal fisheries.

(Sources: FAO, 2005b; NMFS, 2005; Lewison, et a l, 2004b; Anon, 2001; Robins et al., 2000; Broadhurst, 2000)

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ?

I N T R O D U C T I O N

I t is estim ated th a t 7.3 m illion tonnes o f non-target catch (bycatch) are discarded annually by the w orld’s fisheries (Kelleher, 2004). This has considerable econom ic, ecological and developm ental im pacts

(see Impacts c f bycatch right).In som e cases, bycatch reduction is already technically feasible and

econom ically advantageous (V aldem arsen & Suuronen 2003) - w hat is needed n o w is th e political will to im plem en t and enforce solutions. In p articu lar the E u ropean U nion (EU) has clear m oral, econom ic and env ironm ental im peratives to address b o th bycatch and discard issues associated w ith its distant w ater fishing fleets, currently operating in the w aters o f 17 developing countries (CEC, 2005). EU traw l, longline and p u rse seine fisheries o p e ra tin g in th e A tlan tic , Pacific and Indian O ceans are o f special concern.

Bycatch reduction in these fisheries w ould be in direct accord w ith in ternational com m itm en ts th e EU has m ade by adopting the U nited N ations Food and A griculture O rganisation’s (FAO) Code o f Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and in ratifying th e 1995 UN Agreement on the Con­servation and Management o f Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (see page 5). Reducing bycatch w ould also be consistent w ith the recen t refo rm o f E urope’s C o m m o n Fisheries Policy (see page 4).

EJF has evaluated w hich in te rna tiona l policy initiatives could best address bycatch globally. T here is m u ch value in tak ing an in teg ra ted approach to bycatch reduction , ra th e r th an focusing o n specific fish­eries o r specific bycatch species. As such, EJF is calling for a U N FAO International Plan o f Action (IPOA) on Bycatch Reduction (see page 11) and considers th a t th e EU has b o th th e ability and a responsibility to take the lead in p roposing this initiative at th e FAO. W e believe th a t such ac tion cou ld co m p lem en t and re in fo rce existing FAO initiatives designed to help individual species, such as th e v o lun ta ry guidelines being d rafted to reduce fishery-sea tu rtle in teractions, and the Interna­tional Plan o f Action on Sharks and th a t on Seabirds (FAO, 2003; FAO, 2005a).

Tropical shrimp trawl fisheriesAccording to the FAO's most recent global estimates, tropical shrimp trawl fisheries account for over 27% of total discarded bycatch (Kelleher,2004). Shrimp trawl fisheries have become the leading case study for EJF's Bycatch

Reduction campaign, and the focus of our management recommendations on bycatch. These recommendations were most recently presented at the Fourth World Fisheries Congress in 2004, and are also outlined in EJF's campaign report Squandering the Seas (EJF, 2003).

a b o v e : Poorly-selective fish in g in developing countries can have significant impacts on food security and employment.(Cl FA O / P. C e n i n i ( t o p ) (& FAO / P. J o h n s o n

It is estimated that 7.3 million tonnes o f non-target organisms are discarded annually by the world’s

fisheries.K e l l e h e r ( 2 0 0 4 )

Impacts of bycatch• FHigh levels of bycatch can cause reductions

in biomass, and may alter the ecological structure and diversity of the oceans (Flail et al., 2000). Populations of marine mammals, sea turtles, sharks, seabirds and commercial fish species have been impacted by poorly- selective fishing gears (Flail et at, 2000), and for some endangered species this represents a leading cause of mortality (Gilman and Freifeld, 2003; Lewison eta!., 2004b).

• The econom ic costs of discarding bycatch are considerable. The incidental capture, sorting, and eventual discarding of non­target catches takes time and yields few financial rewards. In addition, the bycatch of commercially valuable species (particularly at juvenile stages) can lead to reduced profits, declining yields and premature closures of fisheries (Flail et a t, 2000; Kelleher, 2004; Revill et al., 1999).

• Poorly-selective fishing in developing countries can impact food security and employment, by undermining the productivity of traditional fishing grounds (FAO, 2001 ). This can directly affect artisanal fisheries and the local communities they support.

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ? I

A small price to pay for environmental justice

-£S / 4 ^ vuoutVi c-ow-ld Vißtp telds act out o f t Vie Gottoi fie ld s,Late f U H ' ^ 0 , ?«*«* frTdeadly pesticide exposée, g^ara^tee a plaoe for o l ív a te refugees

This report has b een researched , written and published by th e Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), a UK Registered charity working internationally to protect th e natural environm ent and hum an rights.

Our cam paigns include action to resolve ab uses and create ethical practice and environm ental sustainability in cotton production, shrimp farming & aquaculture. W e work to stop th e devastating im pacts o f pirate fishing operators, prevent th e u se of u nn ecessary and d angerous pesticides and to secure vital international support for climate refugees.

EJF have provided training to grassroots groups in Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia and Brazil to help th e m stop th e exploitation of their natural environm ent. Through our work EJF has learnt that even a small am oun t of training can make a m assive difference to th e capacity and attitudes o f local cam paigners and thus th e e f fec tiveness of their cam paigns for change.

If you have found this free report valuable w e ask you to make a donation to support our work. For less than th e price of a cup of coffee you can make a real difference helping us to continue our work investigating, d ocu m entin g and peacefully exposing environm ental injustices and d eveloping real so lutions to th e problems.

It's sim ple to make your donation today:

www.ejfoundation.org/donateand w e and our partners around th e world will be very grateful.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

FOUNDATIONEjFProtec.ti.kvg People flkvot P la c e t

What is bycatch?Most fisheries are unselective to some degree, in that they incidentally catch unwanted organisms along with their target catch during the process of fishing. This non-target catch is known as 'bycatch' (Cook, 2003). The diversity and quantity of non-target catches can vary significantly over space and time (Haii eta/.,2000). Bycatch is therefore dynamic, reflecting variations in marine communities, fishing methods used, and changes in the target catch of fisheries. In some cases bycatch is predictable and straightforward to manage, in other cases it is unpredictable and more difficult to control (Haii eta/., 2000).

If bycatch is minimal, does not deplete populations of vulnerable species or undermine the productivity of fish stocks, it doesn 't necessarily cause ecological harm (Garcia, 2002). Unfortunately, on a global scale, bycatch is significantly exacerbating the threats posed by the commercial over-exploitation of the oceans: around 7.3 million tonnes of bycatch are discarded every year (Kelleher, 2004). This was not always the case; the trem endous growth of the fishing industry in the last few decades has meant not only expanding fishing fleets, but the developm ent of vessels which are larger, faster and able to cover greater areas of ocean (Haii eta/., 2000). Unfortunately, these vessels are often less selective than their predecessors. And as fisheries are rapidly reaching their limits of exploitation, wastage of marine life is coming under greater scrutiny (Haii eta/., 2000).

Why is bycatch discarded?Bycatch may be kept, if it can be eaten, used or sold. However, much bycatch is disposed of (Cook, 2003), and this unwanted portion of the catch is known as the 'discards' or 'discarded catch'. Survival rates of discarded organisms are generally low. Fish and other bycatch species are usually killed during the process of capture or are so dam aged/traum atized they are unlikely to survive once returned to the sea (Haii eta/., 2000 ).

In some cases, bycatch is discarded because fishing regulations prevent it from being landed. This may be due to imposed quotas for certain commercial species, or outright bans for prohibited species (Cook, 2003). Alternatively, there may be insufficient mechanisms in place to process, store and transport non-target species to market (Haii eta/., 2000). Yet, in m osteases, discarding takes place because bycatch has:i) no economic value, being the wrong species,

small/immature, inedible or damagedii) a much lower economic value than the target catch,

so fishermen prefer to retain only the high value target species. This is known as 'high grading'. (Haii e ta/., 2000)

In general, discarding should be discouraged where bycatch can provide a sustainable source of protein, particularly in the developing world. However, in some cases discarding may be inevitable and then efforts should focus on increasing the survival rates of discarded species (Haii e ta/., 2000).

How can bycatch be minimised?Bycatch can be reduced by decreasing overall fishing effort and /or by reducing bycatch per unit of effort (BPUE) (Haii eta/., 2000). Key methods to reduce BPUE include:• Technological changes (e.g. the use of Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) in

trawl fisheries).• Operational changes (e.g. avoiding areas w here bycatch tends to be high).• Training (e.g. training in the application of the 'backdown procedure' to release

dolphins from purse seine nets).• M anagem ent actions (e.g. setting bycatch limits for individual vessels and

rewarding fishers who succeed in reducing bycatch).

One way to reduce bycatch is to transfer responsibility for bycatch reduction to the individual fisher/vessel, within an appropriate management framework. This provides fishers with motivation to modify their gears and change their fishing practices. Often they, more than anyone, know how this can best be done (Parish cited in Norris, 2002). As part of such a scheme, those fishers who are successful should be appropriately rewarded. In turn, penalties should be issued to those who are not. This process has been described by Haii (cited in Norris, 2002) as a 'Darwinian selection' of fishermen, eventually leading to the evolution of more sustainable fisheries.

This approach was used to reduce dolphin bycatch associated with tuna purse seine fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Norris, 2002). As part of the region's International Dolphin Conservation Program, an acceptable total dolphin mortality limit was set and then divided by the num ber of boats in the fishery. This resulted in a dolphin mortality limit for individual vessels. W ell-equipped boats with well-trained, motivated crews are able to stay below the individual limit and keep fishing; vessels exceeding the limit are forced out of the fishery. 'As a result, boat owners w eed out bad operators and seek captains that are highly skilled in dolphin avoidance and rescue techniques' (Norris, 2002). Mortality levels for all dolphin populations in the region have been lowered to less than 0.1% (from an estimated 133, 000 mortalities in 1986 to around 1,877 in 1998) (Haii etal., 2000). This schem e's success is notable; however, some scientists remain concerned that i) dolphin populations have yet to fully recover ii) the sub-lethal impacts of any dolphin interactions with the fishery may be significant and iii) bycatch of immature tuna and other species has increased as a result of alternative fishing practices, particularly the use of Fish Aggregating Devices (see page 8) (Lewison etal., 2004b). This case study highlights both the success of a strategy that gives fishermen responsibility for reducing non-target catches, but also the inevitable limitations of a single-species approach to bycatch management (Lewison etal., 2004b).

b e l o w : Dolphin bycatch associated w ith tuna purse seine fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean has been significantly reduced: m ortality levels fo r all dolphin populations are now less than o. i%.(Cl N O A A

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H !

Period:0 1 /01 /2004-31 /12 /2008

2,500 gross registered tonnage/m onth forfish and

1,500 gross registered tonnage/m onth for shrimps

CAPE VERDE

SENEGAL^!GUINEA B ISSA U ^

GUINEAMICRONESIA COTE D'IVOIRE

SAO TOME & PRINCIPESOLOMONISLANDS

ANGOLA* COMOROS

MAURITIUS

m o zam biq ue!MADAGASCAR

Country: Guinea

Fishing opportunities:

cephalopods

34 seiners14 pole-and-line vessels9 surface longlinersTotal EuropeanCommunity FinancialContribution: €17,000,000(€3,400,000/year). Thisamount may gradually beincreased to €19,975,000(€3,995,000/year)depending on increases infishing possibilities.Percentage sp en t on‘Targeted Actions' (toprom ote the conservation o fresources and sustainabledevelopment): 41 % in the firstyear with the possibility of agradual increase to 44% in thelast year.

Fishing Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Guinea: A case study (CEC, 2005)

EU Fishing Agreements with developing countriesThe EU currently has Fishing Agreements with 17 developing countries: Angola, Cape Verde, the Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea,Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati,Madagascar, Mauritania,Mauritius, the Federated States o f Micronesia,Mozambique, Sao Tomé and Principe, Senegal, the Seychelles and the Solomon Islands (see map below) (CEC,2005). An example agreem ent with Guinea is outlined on the right.

Fishing Agreements are intended to give the EU rights to the 'surplus' marine resources of these countries, in return for financial compensation (which ranges from around €400,000 to €86,000,000 per country per year) (CEC, 2005). These arrangements benefit the EU by helping to fulfil domestic demand for seafood (many EU stocks are over-exploited) as well as by providing employment (IFREMER, 1999). One study estimated that these agreem ents generate value- added of € 6 9 4 million in mem ber states through the processing and marketing offish caught in developing country waters (IFREMER, 1999). This essentially means that for every euro of EU public spending, a turnover of roughly € 3 is created.

However, there are serious concerns about the sustainability of these agreem ents (Gorez and O'Riordan, 2003). Almost 70% of African fisheries

between Morocco and the Congo are fully developed or in decline (Alder and Sumaila, 2004). As developing countries rely on Fishing Agreements as a source of much-needed foreign currency, at times access has been given to fish stocks that are already fully exploited or over- exploited (Agritrade, 2004). For many of the agreements, no catch limits are specified. In addition, fishing access is subsidised, so EU fleets can often out-compete domestic fisheries (Agritrade, 2004). As a consequence of these agreements, developing countries are losing their natural capital and jeopardising future opportunities to make the most of their fisheries (Agritrade,2004). Indeed, the United Nations Environment Programme has warned that by opening their waters to foreign fishing fleets, these countries may lose billions of dollars more than they gain due to environmental over-exploitation (UNEP, 2001).

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ! 3

EU BYCATCH R E G U L A T I O N S

a b o v e : Bycatch limits are specified in a m inority o f EU fish in g agreements w ith developing countries.(& FAO / M . M a r z c i t

Fisheries Partnership Agreements: A new approach?As part of the recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the European Commission released a Communication on an Integrated Framework for Fisheries Partnership Agreem ents with Third Countries (CEC, 2002a). This Communication set out a new approach for negotiating and implementing EU fishing agreements. Above all, it represented a move away from the traditional 'cash for access' arrangements towards a new 'partnership' approach with afocus on developmental and environmental concerns (IEEP, 2003). The Communication outlines the need to improve the sustainability of EU fisheries in developing country waters, for example by conducting a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) for each agreem ent (IEEP, 2003). Flowever, the Communication's ambiguity on some key issues will potentially make it a less effective framework for change than anticipated (Agritrade, 2004). Moreover, within the Communication, the EU's intention to maintain afishing presence abroad, and to protect European fisheries sector interests is clearly reiterated. This perhaps indicates that a transformation in the nature of these arrangements is unlikely in the shortterm (IEEP, 2003).

A t presen t, bycatch regulations u n d e r EU Fishing A greem ents w ith developing countries are inadequate and less rigorous than those regulations govern ing dom estic E u ropean w aters. T he

disparity be tw een fishing selectivity standards for EU vessels opera t­ing in dom estic w aters, and for those opera ting in developing coun­tries has b een h ighlighted by researchers at the FAO.

T he researchers specifically com pared dom estic and d istan t w ater EU traw lers, focusing o n th e selectiv ity o f traw l n e ts (C hop in and Smith, unpublished). A com m on m easure to reduce catches o f juvenile fish is to increase the m esh size o f the end p a rt o f the n e t (know n as the ‘codend’). However, regulating m esh size alone is insufficient to reduce th e cap ture o f juvenile fish (e.g. Reeves et a l, 1992; B roadhurst et a l,2004). For exam ple, if regulations specify a m in im um m esh size only, fishers m ay use ‘codends’ m ade from extrem ely rig id n e tting (Broad­h u rs t et a l, 2004). A lthough this is essentially legal, it defeats the m an ­agem ent objective, by low ering selectivity.

W h en a range o f these selectivity factors is com pared, it is found th a t in alm ost all EU Fishing A greem ents only m esh size is specified for traw l fisheries; o th er factors th a t are set o u t for m any dom estic E uro ­p ean traw l fisheries rem ain absent. M oreover, w hile several dom estic fisheries are obliged to use Bycatch R eduction Devices (for example, ce rta in cod fisheries in th e Baltic Sea (CEC, 2001)), th e ir u se is n o t requ ired u n d e r any ag reem en ts . T h e researchers conclude th a t EU Fishing A greem en t regulations rem ain vague and sim plistic’, thereby allow ing considerable o p p o rtu n ity for fleets to fish unselectively (F. C hopin and A. Sm ith 2004, pers. com m .).

D om estic EU bycatch legislation is very varied and is by no m eans always exemplary. H owever, bycatch issues are at least beg inn ing to be addressed in dom estic w aters, as p a rt o f the refo rm o f th e EU’s C om ­m o n Fisheries Policy (CEC, 2oo2d). It is essential th a t such develop­m ents be m irro red in E uropean Fishing A greem ents, especially given th a t the EU has a p rio r com m itm en t to the sustainable developm ent o f A frican, C aribbean and Pacific (ACP) coun tries (CEC, 2004c; ADE,2002). A lthough these responsibilities w ere acknow ledged in th e E uro ­p ean C om m ission ’s recen t C o m m u n ica tio n o n Fisheries Partnership Agreements (CEC, 2002a) (and subsequent C ouncil C onclusions), from this C om m unication alone it is difficult to gauge h o w and w hen con­crete im provem ents in sustainability can be expected (IEEP, 2003). For exam ple, u n d e r th e EU ’s F ishing A g reem en t w ith th e R epublic o f G uinea (2004-2008) - w hich was negotia ted after the release o f th e Fish­eries Partnership Agreeement C om m unication - for certa in fisheries, the level o f bycatch au thorised for EU traw lers is alm ost five tim es h igher than the level authorised for the national traw ler fleet (CEC, 2004b). For cephalopod traw ling, a 35% fish bycatch level is p e rm itted for EU ves­sels, co m p ared to a 7.5% fish bycatch level p e rm itte d fo r th e local G u inean fleet (M inistère de la Pêche & A quaculture, R épublique de G uinée, 2000). Essentially, this m eans th a t EU vessels are allowed to fish less selectively th an th e local fleet.

F u rtherm ore , if this fish bycatch represen ts m ore th an a round h a lf the ir to ta l catch (52.5%), EU cephalopod traw lers can discard it, w ith perm ission from the G uinean authorities, unless it can be collected and delivered to local com m unities (CEC, 2004b). It is unclear as to w hat facilities and m an ag em en t system s exist to d istribu te this non-target

4 W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ?

catch. A nd although discarding should always be avoided if possible, it is inadvisable for artisanal fishers to becom e dependen t on th e discards o f foreign traw lers, particularly w here th e sustainability o f the ir oper­ations is in doubt.

Bycatch lim its are only specified in a m ino rity o f EU Fishing A gree­m ents w ith developing counties. M oreover, no penalties for exceeding these lim its are stated in th e agreem ents, w ith th e exception o f agree­m en ts w ith M auritan ia (2001-2006) (CEC, 2002c) and Senegal (2002- 2006) (CEC, 2002b). In m any cases there are no set lim its for bycatch or discards for EU vessels at all. M ore specifically, there are no references to the capture o f vulnerable m arine species by EU vessels, except, once again, in th e ag reem en ts w ith M auritania and Senegal (CEC, 2002b; CEC, 2002c). T he EU should w ork to reduce its im pact on vulnerable species abroad, as it is try ing to do w ith in its ow n w aters (CEC, 2004a).

A lthough EU vessels are obliged to adhere to the coastal legislation o f the co u n try in w hich they operate , m any developing countries do n o t have th e resources to enforce bycatch regulations. Equally, in m any cases, appropriate and detailed coastal state legislation on bycatch does n o t exist, o r m ay be applied differentially u n d e r Fishing A greem ents. T here is no d o u b t th a t this issue requires fu r th e r a tten tio n from the coastal s ta tes in question ; how ever, g iven existing lim ita tions, it is im perative th a t the EU shares responsibility to ensure th a t its vessels fish in a sustainable and selective m an n er abroad. This w as recognized in the recen t C om m unication from the E uropean C om m ission on Pro­moting more environmentally-friendly fish ing methods: the role o f technical conservation measures, in w hich it is stated that, ‘th e (E uropean) C om ­m un ity should aim at a consistently h igh level o f env ironm ental p ro ­te c tio n and co n se rv a tio n o f fisheries resources in all C o m m u n ity w aters, as w ell as in o th er w aters fished by C om m un ity vessels’(CEC, 2004a). All EU -flagged vessels shou ld be sub ject to a sim ilar set o f legally-binding bycatch provisions: there can be little justification for the EU to accept different bycatch standards for fisheries in th e N o rth Sea, for exam ple, th an for E uropean vessels fishing off Senegal, o r in the H igh Seas (Gianni, 2003).

Technical and ope ra tio n a l m eth o d s to reduce bycatch can n o t be simplistically transferred from one fishing reg ion to another, yet sim i­lar standards o f precau tion can be achieved. T hese standards could be d raw n from th e 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management o f Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN, 1995) as w ell as from the FAO Code o f Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) (see right).

The 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish StocksThis is one of the most important agreem ents on the conservation and management of fisheries, as it outlines a straightforward framework for the application of an ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach to fisheries (Gianni, 2003). The EU has ratified this agreement, legally binding the European Community and M em ber States to abide by its regulations. Echoing the voluntary FAO Code o f Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995), this UN Agreement sets out clear obligations to minimise bycatch in fisheries to the greatest extent practicable (UN, 1995). Under this agreement, states have to collect data on the total catch of non­target species by num ber and /o r by weight; discard statistics; and the location, date and time of fishing. States must also continually review the efficacy of fisheries conservation and management measures. It further calls on states to establish mechanisms for verifying the accuracy of fishery data on target and non-target catches. But where this data do not yet exist, states are required to adopt a precautionary approach and, ‘the absence o f adequate scientific information shall no t be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and m anagem ent measures' (UN, 1995).

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ! 5

EU D I S T A N T WATER FI SHERI ES OF C O N C E R N

V.

T r a w l f i s h e r i e s

Shrim p, finfish and cephalopods are ta rgeted by EU traw lers opera ting in 8 developing countries un d er Fishing A greem ents (Angola, C ôte d’Ivoire, G abon, G uinea, Guinea-Bissau, M auritania, M ozam bique, Senegal) (CEC,

2005). Traw l fisheries ten d to cap ture h igh levels o f non-target organism s. In a recen t study by th e FAO, traw l fisheries for shrim p and dem ersal finfish w ere found to account for over 50% o f to ta l estim ated discards globally (Kelleher, 2004). To h ighlight a few examples, th e discard ra te for th e foreign deepw ater shrim p fishery in Senegal is 63%, w hilst th e discard ra te for th e cephalopod traw l fishery in M auritania is 45% (the top o f th e range for this type o f fishery) (Kelleher, 2004).

In th e tropics, traw lers’ bycatch can com prise hundreds o f v erteb ra te and in v e rteb ra te species (S tobu tzk i et a l , 2000) and surv ival ra te s o f d iscarded o rgan ism s are low (H ill and W assenberg , 2000). P opu la tions o f vu lnerab le species, such as sea turtles, can be rapid ly reduced by trawling; globally, shrim p traw l fisheries are responsible for around 150,000 sea tu rtle m ortalities annually (O ravetz, 1999). M oreover, traw ling frequently takes place in shallow coastal w aters, w hich can act as n u rse ry g rounds for m any m arine species. Traw lers m ay dam age these sensitive habitats, and incidentally catch juven ile fish; in som e areas, this has led to declines in fish stocks (FAO, 2001).

As already outlined , m any factors influence th e selectivity o f traw ling gear. M esh size is an im p o rtan t elem ent, b u t in th e absence o f fu r th e r regulations specifying, for exam ple, tw ine thickness and m aterial, its selective effects can easily be nullified (B roadhurst et a l , in press; FRS, 1999). T he EU needs to address th is issue in re la tion to its d is tan t w a te r fleets. In addition , th e EU should p e rfo rm trials to exam ine th e efficacy o f fu r th e r techno log ical m od i­fications to reduce bycatch. M odifications ten d to fall in to tw o categories: 1) those th a t m echanically exclude u n w an ted organism s according to th e ir size; and 2) those th a t separa te o rganism s accord ing to differences in behav iou r (B roadhurst, 2000).

b e l o w : A Turtle Excluder Device (TED). I f properly installed and used, TEDs work very effectively, excluding up to 97% o f sea turtles from shrimp trawl nets.

, N M F S / N O A A

W/M6 W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ?

o p p o s i t e : Setl turtle byeatch is often associated w ith shrimp trawl fisheries in the tropics. Shrimp trawling alone is responsible fo r around 150,000 sea turtle mortalities annually.

b e l o w : Trawl fisheries fo r shrimp and demersal f in fish account fo r over 50 percent o f total global estimated discards.

M ost m odifications th a t exclude non-target species according to the ir size are grid-like s tru c tu res fitted w ith in traw l nets. Such devices p reven t larger organism s from being caught, by forcing th em o u t th ro u g h an escape opening positioned forw ard o f th e grid. T hese grids are w idely used to preven t th e cap­tu re o f sea tu rtles in shrim p traw l fisheries, and as such are know n as T urtle Excluder D evices o r TED s. If p roperly installed and used, T ED s w ork very effectively, excluding a ro u n d 97% o f sea tu rtles from traw lers’ ne ts (NMFS, 2004). T ED s can also exclude sharks and rays, as w ell as jellyfish, sponges and certa in larger fish (Robins et a l, 2000). T ED s are n o t as effective at excluding sm aller organism s (e.g. juvenile fish).

O ther devices w ork by exploiting behavioural differences be tw een bycatch species and target species. A lthough varied in size and design, these Bycatch R eduction D evices (BRDs) all depend o n th e so-called ‘escape response’ o f sw im m ing species once in the n e t (W atson, 1989; W ardle, 1983). T hese species locate and pass th ro u g h th e strategically placed devices, and therefore avoid be in g cap tu red (B roadhurst, 2000). C om m on ly u sed BRDs include: square- m esh panels o r w indow s, fisheyes, bigeyes and radial escape sections (Broad­hurst, 2000). As w ith TED s, efficacy depends on p ro p e r construction , install­m en t and use, as well as choosing th e righ t BRD for th e fishery in question. H owever, pe rfo rm ance o f BRDs varies greatly; in a recen t study on tropical shrim p traw l fisheries, designs tested only excluded abou t a th ird o f non-target species, the m ajo rity o f w hich w ere fish (S tobutzki et a l, 2001). Bycatch reduc­tion in tropical shrim p traw l fisheries is m ost successfully achieved by using a com bination o f m echanical (e.g. TED s) and behavioural-type BRDs (Brewer et a l, 1998). T he m ost effective com bination o f exclusion devices in o ther traw l fisheries w ill depend o n factors such as ta rg e t/n o n -ta rg e t species, location o f fish ing g rounds , w a te r tem p e ra tu re s , fish ing tim e s /c o n d itio n s and tow ing speeds.

M ore research is needed to ensure th a t BRDs fulfill th e ir po ten tia l in te rm s o f excluding a g rea ter range o f non-target organism s in a varie ty o f traw l fish­eries. In th e m eantim e, technologies th a t have show n greatest p rom ise should be trialled and in troduced in to EU distant w ate r traw l fisheries.

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ? 7

P u r s e s e i n e f i s h e r i e s

In 2005, EU purse seiners w ill opera te u n d e r all o f th e 17 Fishing A greem ents w ith developing countries, largely in p u rsu it o f tu n a (CEC, 2005). T una seining is con­ducted in th ree different w ays th a t correspond to th ree m eans o f de tec ting tuna

schools (H aii et a l, 2000; Hall, 1998): i) on free-sw im m ing schools o f tuna; ii) on tunas associated w ith floating objects (naturally occurring or artificial); iii) on dolphins (this techn ique is m ostly em ployed in th e E astern Pacific Ocean).

Fish A ggregating Devices (FADs) are floating structures th a t a ttrac t pelagic species, including tuna. T he te rm FAD usually refers to artificial structures, built specifically for this p u rp o se (FADIO, 2004). T hese devices are n o w w idely d istribu ted in tropical and subtropical w aters globally (B rom head et a l, 2003). Indeed, m ore th an h a lf o f the w orld­w ide tu n a catch (estim ated at a round 3.5 m illion tons a year) com es from schools asso­ciated w ith floating objects (FADIO, 2004). T his tren d is increasing, w ith th e use o f FADs be in g particu la rly p revalen t in th e Ind ian O cean (F on teneau & H allier, 2003; FADIO, 2004). EU p u rse seiners fish for tu n a using FADs in th e Indian, Pacific and A tlantic O ceans (FAO, 2005c; B rom head et ill., 2003).

O f th e th ree m ethods listed above, catching tu n a using floating objects leads to the h ighest bycatch levels (Haii, 1998). Globally, FAD fishing has b een conservatively esti­m ated as be ing responsible for over 100, 000 tonnes o f bycatch annually (B rom head et a l, 2003). Bycatch o n FAD sets typically m akes u p 10% o f th e catch (com pared to 1-2% o n free-sw im m ing schools) and com prises b o th undersized tuna and a w ide varie ty o f o th e r pelagic species. T hese non-target species include do lph in fish, billfish, w ahoo, triggerfish, barracuda, ra inbow runners, sharks and sea tu rtles (B rom head et a l, 2003; N orris, 2002). T here is even anecdotal evidence th a t fleets operating in th e Indian O cean m a y b e catching certa in w hale species (including m inke and hum pback) (Clover, 2005).

T he m ain tu n a species ta rgeted un d er FADs is skipjack tuna, b u t FAD-related purse seine fisheries are increasingly catching large quantities o f juvenile yellow fm and big- eye tu n a (the la tte r is classed as a ‘vu lnerab le’ species by th e IUCN) (B rom head et a l,2003). Indeed, th e vast m ajo rity o f tunas associated w ith floating objects are less th an 100 cm in leng th , and th e re fo re m o s tly sexually im m a tu re (H aii, 1998). O ne study rep o rted th a t alm ost 20% o f th e tu n a catch can be discarded in these types o f fisheries because it is below the m arket m in im um requ irem en t for size o r condition (Haii, 1998).

For m any areas there is little data on th e levels and com position o f bycatch associ­a ted w ith these fisheries, o r on the status o f non-target species’ populations (Few ison et a l, 2004b). In general, th e use o f FADs is regarded as a non-sustainable p ractice for w hich solutions are u rgen tly needed (B rom head et a l, 2003); at p resen t there are few w ell-established technical o r operational m eans to reduce bycatch in these fisheries (M. H aii 2004, pers. com m .). Innovative bycatch reduc tion m easures n eed to be devised, and th e EU should take a principal ro le in funding and directing this research.

b e l o w : A m anta ray and leatherback sea turtle caught incidentally by tuna purse seiners operating in the Atlantic.

5 N O A A C o u r t e s y o f S o u t h Pa. :o m m i s s io n (S P C ); © N O A A

8 W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ?

a b o V e : A leatherback sea turtle and a loggerhead sea turtle caught on longlínes. A recent ¿obai study estimated that more than 200,000 loggerheads and30,000 leatherbacks were taken its pelagic longline bycatch in 2000.(& N O A A ( l e f t ) (& H e c t o r E a r r i o t - G a r r i d o G r u p o d e T r a b a jo e n T o r t u g a s M a r in a s d e l G o lf o d e V e n e z u e la

L o n g l i n e f i s h e r i e s

In 2005, EU longliners w ill have access to th e w aters o f all 17 developing countries w ith w hich th e EU has Fishing A greem ents (CEC, 2005). Longlines are used by the EU to catch pelagic species, such as swordfish and tuna, w ith vessels operating th o u ­

sands o f hooks p e r day (V aldem arsen, 2004). Sea tu rtle , m arine m am m al, shark and seabird bycatches associated w ith rapid ly expanding pelagic longlining are o f particu ­lar concern to th e in ternational com m un ity (Baum et a l, 2003; Lew ison et a l, 2004b; G ilm an and Freifeld, 2003; C row der & Myers, 2001; Ovetz, 2004). Som e pelagic longline fisheries are also rep o rted to catch undersize individuals o f th e target species and o ther non-target fish (C row der & Myers, 2001).

Sea tu rtles are caught in pelagic longlines i) w hen try ing to take th e bait, ii) w hen externally h ooked on a flipper o r exposed skin, o r iii) w hen entangled in fishing lines (H aii et a l, 2000; M. D onnelly 2005, pers. com m .). A global assessm ent o f th e im pact o f pelagic longlining on loggerhead and leatherback sea tu rtles estim ated th a t m ore th an 200,000 loggerheads and 50,000 leatherbacks w ere incidentally caught by longlin­ers in 2000 (Lew ison et a l, 2004a). O f these, thousands die each year from in teractions w ith longline gear in th e Pacific O cean alone. Given the 80-95% declines in Pacific log­gerhead and leatherback populations over the last 20 years, this bycatch level is unlikely to be sustainable (Lew ison et a l , 2004a).

Practical field experim ents carried o u t in th e sw ordfish longline fishery o f th e N W A tlan tic have show n th a t h o o k and ba it types are tw o o f th e m o s t im p o rta n t gear param eters affecting catch rates o f sea tu rtles (W atson et a l, 2004). T he use o f (larger) circle hooks and fish bait (such as m ackerel in lieu o f squid) significantly reduced log­gerhead and leatherback in teractions w ith longline gear in this fishery. A lthough the results o f these experim ents rem ain prelim inary, th ey suggest p o ten tia l catch reduc­tions o f 90% for loggerhead tu rtles and 75% for lea therback tu rtles m ay be possible (W atson et ul., 2004).

H ow ever, th e experim ents u n d ertak en to date have focused on sw ordfish fishing and there rem ain significant know ledge gaps in te rm s o f h o w these m odifications p e r­fo rm in o ther regions and fisheries (for example, in tu n a longline fisheries) (M. D onnelly 2005, pers. com m .). A dditional research is needed to d eterm ine w h eth er fu r th e r m o d ­ifications (such as day versus n igh t-tim e haul-backs), and evolving gear techno logy (such as very large hooks), m igh t prove to be effective in all longline fisheries. For these reasons, sea tu rtle scientists are n o t convinced th a t th e use o f circle hooks and fish bait is the final solution for reducing sea tu rtle capture and m ortality in longline fisheries (M. D onnelly 2005, pers. com m .). In addition, th e use o f circle hooks m ay cause possible increases in the bycatch o f o th er m arine species, such as sharks (O vetz & Steiner, 2004). M inim ising sea tu r tle bycatch is n o t yet a clear-cut task and m uch m ore investm ent is requ ired in researching and trialling po ten tia l m ethods. As a consequence, som e envi-

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ? 9

1

- ' g

ro n m en ta l organisations have called for closures o f these fisheries in th e Pacific to p re ­ven t fu r th e r sea tu rtle popu la tion declines (STRP, 2000; STRP, 2003).

Longline fisheries are also th o u g h t to be one o f th e g reatest threats to seabirds in ter­nationally, possibly driving several species o f A lbatross tow ards extinction (G ilm an and Freifeld, 2003; BirdLife In ternational, 2004). A lthough data on the incidental catch o f seabirds are lacking for m any longline fisheries, particularly in the tropics (Valdemarsen,2004), it is estim ated th a t hundreds o f thousands o f seabirds, including tens o f th o u ­sands o f albatrosses, are caught annually in longline fisheries w orldw ide (G ilm an and Freifeld, 2003; BirdLife In ternational, 2004). Aside from the im pact on seabird popu la­tions, birds can rem ove up to 70% o f th e bait from longlines, w hich can be very costly for th e industry (JN CC, 2004).

R educing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries is a relatively straightforw ard process. Several m ethods alm ost entirely elim inate seabird captures w hen effectively em ployed. Technical changes include w eighting th e longline gear, w hich can achieve a 90% reduc­tio n in con tac t w ith hooks and a 90-95% d rop in m o rta lity o f seabirds (C row der & Myers, 2001). O perational changes can also be sim ple and effective. ‘Side setting’, w hich entails setting gear from the side o f the vessel (ra ther th an th e stern), had th e low est m ean seabird contac t and cap ture rates o f all th e seabird avoidance trea tm en ts tested in th e H aw aiian longline tuna and sw ordfish fisheries (G ilm an et a l, 2003).

T he EU needs to com m it to a bycatch reduction research p ro g ram m e for its distant w ater longline fisheries. T he m ost prom ising m odifications should be trialled by EU ves­sels w ith o u t delay M ultilateral initiatives are also required to successfully tackle bycatch o f these m ig ra to ry species, w hich transverse m ultip le n a tions’ Exclusive E conom ic Z ones and th e H igh Seas. T he EU could provide suppo rt for the developm ent o f a set o f in ternational o r regional ru les governing pelagic longlining practices.

a b o v e l e f t : Seabird bycatch reduction techniques being trialled on a longline fish in g vessel. Longline fisheries are thotight to be one o f the greatest threats to seabirds internationally possibly driving several species o f Albatross towards extinction.

t a b l e i : Key technical and operational methods to reduce bycatch in trawl, longline and purse seine fisheries* (adapted from Lewison e t al., 2004b)

Technical/operational fix How it works Fishery

Turtle Excluder D evices Grid-like structures that physically exclude turtles (and other large organisms) from nets

Trawl

Bycatch Reduction D evices (e.g. square-mesh windows, fisheyes and radial escape sections)

A range of devices that separate species by differences in behaviour and allow unwanted organisms to escape

Trawl

Bird scaring lines Keep seabirds from baited hooks Pelagic longline

W eighted lines Quickly sink hooks out of reach of seabirds Pelagic longline

Side-setting Reduces the 'scavenging area' of seabirds by half Pelagic longline

Line-setting devices Place baited hooks immediately underwater out of reach of seabirds Pelagic longline

Circle hooks Reduce the frequency of deeply ingested hooks and limit gut perforation of non-target organisms

Pelagic longline

Medina panels Fine-mesh net aprons that reduce the probability of dolphin entanglem ent during net retrieval

Purse seine

The 'Backdown procedure' Reversing a fishing vessel along a curved path, causing the top part of the n e tto sink, thereby releasing dolphins

Purse seine

*None o f these methods eliminate bycatch entirely Further development, testing, and im plem entation o f bycatch reduction techniques is required across ocean areas and fisheries.

I O W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ?

A UN FAO International Plan of Action on Bycatch ReductionResearch institutions, NGOs, inter­governmental organisations and Governments are undertaking important work to reduce bycatch globally. Some focus on the incidental capture of endangered and vulnerable species, others address declines in food security linked to high bycatch levels in the developing world. Others still work to mitigate the impacts of bycatch on the commercial fishing industry.

However, there is much value in taking an integrated approach to bycatch reduction, rather than relying on a piecemeal focus on specific fisheries or specific bycatch species. An International Plan of Action (IPOA), under the auspices of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), would help to support current bycatch reduction schem es and extend their scope and success. Lessons learnt in one context can be applied to others. Effective bycatch reduction technology and techniques can be transferred between countries and regions. More crucially, an overarching approach would help avoid the substitution of one bycatch problem with another, when alternative fishing methods are introduced in new areas. Finally, an IPOA could push forward research on bycatch reduction, giving this field the injection of innovation it urgently needs.

As with the four other IPOAs in existence, an IPOA on Bycatch Reduction would be a voluntary instrument, existing in parallel with legally-binding measures (for example, the bycatch provisions of the 7995 UN A greem ent on the Conservation and M anagem ent o f Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks).

EJF would like the EU to take the lead in calling for this International Plan of Action at the next viable opportunity at the FAO. Given that the EU has recently reformed the Common Fisheries Policy to prioritise the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, such a proposal would be in line with current European concerns (CEC, 2002d). An IPOA would not only assist the EU in addressing its own bycatch issues (including those associated with distant water fleets), but would also advance international policy in terms of reducing wastage from fisheries.

C O N C L U S I O N

Many fishers, scientists, governm ents and non-govern­m en ta l organisations agree th a t reducing non-target catches should be one o f the first steps in addressing

the g lobal p ro b lem o f overfishing. T his b rie fing d o cu m en t highlights th e m ost pressing bycatch issues associated w ith the EU’s distant w ater fleets, and provides a p relim inary guide as to h o w these can beg in to be resolved.

H ow ever, bycatch red u c tio n solu tions are rarely instan ta­n eo u s o r com p le te . As H aii et a l , (2000) explain, ‘N o t all bycatch problem s yet have a satisfactory solution, and it is nec­essary to th ink o f fisheries as dynam ic systems, w here evolu­tio n is tak in g place, and changes shou ld be expected ’. As a m ajo r fishing pow er, th e EU should be at the forefront o f this evolution. E urope needs to take a lead in p ro m o tin g responsi­ble fisheries m anagem en t abroad, thereby fulfilling th e in te r­national com m itm en ts it has m ade to th e sustainable use o f m arine resources.

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ! I I

BYCATCH R E D U C T I O N P R I O R I T I E S F OR T H E E U ’S

D I S T A N T WATER FLEETEJF recom m ends th a t th e E uropean U nion should:

• Assess th e levels and com position o f bycatch and discards in each distant w ate r fishery, recording location, date and tim e o f fishing.

• Identify any risks th a t bycatch m igh t be posing to the sustain­ability o f ta rget fisheries, and to the b roader hea lth o f m arine ecosystem s. Even a low ra te o f bycatch can have an ecological im pact if fishing effort is h igh and bycatch species are vu lner­able to over-fishing. W h ere data are incom plete, a precau tion ­ary approach should be taken.

• In itia te bycatch red u c tio n research p ro g ram m e s. Bycatch reduction techno logy is continually evolving and im proving, th o u g h progress w ill require sufficient investm ent in research (K ennelly and B roadhurst, 2002). T he success o f any n ew gear depends n o t only on h o w m uch bycatch it excludes, b u t also h o w easy it is to construct, install, use and regulate; re ten tion o f th e target catch is also critical (B roadhurst, 2000). Similar conditions apply to opera tional changes. Finally, estim ates o f survival ra tes for organism s released from fishing gear w ill be vital for any quantification o f the long-term benefits o f bycatch reduction techniques (Broadhurst, 2000; S uuronen e ta l, 1996).

• P ro m o te tra in ing , capacity-build ing, aw areness-raising and stakeho lder invo lvem ent in bycatch reduc tion p rog ram m es. Reducing non-target catches w ill only be successful if all stake­ho lders are involved in the process (K ennelly and B roadhurst, 1996). Fishers, in particular, n eed to be engaged in developing and tes ting bycatch red u c tio n strategies. T h e ir a ttitudes are crucial and d e te rm in e th e efficacy o f bycatch red u c tio n schem es (B roadhurst, 2000; N orris , 2002; H aii et a l , 2000; Haflinger, 2001).

• In tro d u ce m a n d a to ry o p e ra tio n a l and techn ica l changes to reduce non-target catches w here necessary. Bycatch reduction p ro g ram m e s should b eg in by focusing on fish ing gears and techn iques th a t are hav ing a severe ecological o r socio-eco­nom ic im pact. W here bycatch reduction techniques are inad­equate , it m ay be necessary to reduce overall fish ing effort (H a iie ta l , 2000).

• C onsider m ak ing bycatch reduction th e responsibility o f indi­v idual vessels/fishers, w here appropriate. W h en supported by su itab le incen tives/d isincen tives , th is can be a particu la rly effective s tra teg y to reduce bycatch p e r u n it effort (N orris, 2002; H aii et ul., 2000).

• Increase observer coverage on vessels to i) guaran tee bycatch reduction m ethods are being used, and ii) m o n ito r the ir p e r­form ance. E nforcem ent is key: research in th e G u lf o f Mexico ind icates th a t desp ite m a n d a to ry use o f T u rtle E xcluder Devices (TEDs) in shrim p traw l fisheries, sea tu rtle strandings due to non-com pliance continue to occur (Lewison et a l, 2003).

1 2 W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ?

R E F E R E N C E S

A D E (2002) E valuation o f the Relationship between Country Programmes and Fisheries Agreements. Final R eport. Brussels: European C om m ission .A gritrade (2004) ACP-EUfisheries telations: Executive brief. T echnical C entre for A gricultural and Rural C ooperation ACP-EU. http:/ / agritrad e .cta .in t/fish eries/agreem en ts/executive_brief.htm

Alder, J. and Sum aila , U. R . (2004) W estern Africa: a fish basket o f Europe past and present. Journal o f Environment and Development 13(2): 156-178.A non . (2001) A glossary o f M arine N ature Conservation and Fisheries. C ountryside C ouncil for W ales,

Baum , J. K ., R . A. M yers, D. G. K ehler, B. W orm , S. J. Harley, and P. A. D oherty . (2003) C ollapse and conservation o f shark populations in th e N orth w est A tlantic. Science 299: 389-392.BirdLife In tern a tion a l (2004) The Global Seabird Conservation Programme: Seabird Conservation andProject Objectives. BirdLife International, UK.http:/ / w w w .b ird life .n e t/ac tion /cam p aigns/save_th e_aIb atross/Brew er, D. et al. (1998) A n assessm ent o f Bycatch R eduction D evices in a trop ical Australian shrimp trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 36:195-215.B roadh urst, M . K. (2000) M odifications to reduce bycatch in shrim p trawls: A review and fram ew ork for developm ent. R eviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries io: 27-60.B roadh urst, M . K., M cS hane, P. E., L arsen, R . B. (2000) Effects o f tw in e d iam eter and m esh size in the b od y o f praw n traw ls on bycatch reduction in G u lf St. V incent, Australia. Fishery Bulletin 98: 463- 473-B roadh urst, M . K,, M illar, R . B., K ennelly, S. J., M acb eth , W G., Y oung, D. J., Gray, C. A. (2004) Selectivity o f conventional diam ond- and novel square-m esh codends in an Australian estuarine penaeid-trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 67:183-194.B roadh urst, M . K., M acb eth , W G . and W o o d en , M . E. L. (in press) Reducing the discarding o f praw ns in N S W ’s commercial and recreational fisheries. F inal R eport to F R D C , N S W Fisheries Final R eport Series. T h e Fisheries R esearch and D eve lop m en t C orporation , Australia.B rom head D. e t al. (2003) A review o f the im pact o f f i s h aggregating devices (FADs) on tuna fisheries: fin a l report to Fisheries Resources Research Fund. F isheries and M arine Sciences Program , Bureau o f Rural Sciences (BRS), C om m on w ealth D ep artm en t o f A griculture, F isheries and Forestry - Australia. C hop in , F. an d Sm ith , A. (unpublished) E xploiting deficiencies in conventional fis h in g gear regulations and reducing the selectivity o f demersal f i s h trawls. FAO M anuscript. F ood and Agriculture Organisation o f th e U nited N ations, R om e.C row der, L. B. and M yers, R . A . (2001) A C om prehensive Study o f th e E colog ica l Im pacts o f the W orldw ide Pelag ic Longline Industry. First A nnual Report to The Pew Charitable Trusts. P ew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia.C lover, C . (2005) The End o f the Line: Flow overfishing is changing the world and w h a t w e eat. Edbury Press, L ondon.

C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2001) Increasing selectivity in codfisheries in the Baltic Sea. D irectorate-G eneral for F isheries and M aritim e Affairs, http:/ / e u r o p a .e u .in t/co m m /fish ­erie s/ n e w s_ co r n e r /p r ess /inf01_17_en.htm

C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2002a) Final Communication fro m the Commission on an Integrated Framework fo r Fisheries Partnership Agreements w ith third Countries. C O M (2002) 637. C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2002b) P rotoco l settin g ou t th e fish ing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the A greem en t be tw e en th e European E conom ic C om m u nity and th e G overnm ent o f th e Republic o f Senegal on fish in g o f f th e coast o f Senegal for th e period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2006. O fficialJournal o f the European Communities L349.

C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2002c) P rotocol settin g ou t th e fishing opportunities and financial com p en sation provided for in the A greem en t on cooperation in th e sea fisheries sector b e tw e en th e European C om m u nity and th e Islam ic Republic o f M auritania for the period i A ugust 2001 to 31 July 2006. O fficialJournal o f the European Com m unities L 341.

C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2002d) C ouncil R egulation N o 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation o f fisheries resources under th e C o m m o n Fisheries Policy. Official Journal o f the European Com m unities L 358.C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2004a) Final Communication fro m the Commission on Promoting more environmentally fr iend ly fis h in g methods: the role o f technical conservation measures.C O M (2004) 438.C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2004b) P ro toco l defining, for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 D ecem b er 2008, the fish ing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in th e A greem en t b e tw e en the European E con om ic C om m u nity and th e Republic o f G uinea on fish ing o f f th e coast o f Guinea. Official Journal trf the European Com m unities L 99.C o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2004c) The Cotonou Agreement. D irectorate- General for D evelop m ent.http:/ / europa, e u .in t/c o m m /d e v e lo p m e n t /b o d y /c o to n o u /agreem ent_en .htmC o m m iss io n o f th e E u rop ean C o m m u n ity (CEC) (2005) Bilateral agreements. D irectorate-G eneralfor F isheries and M aritim e Affairs.http:/ / europa, e u .in t/co m m /fis h e r ie s /d o c_ e t_ p u b l/fa c tsh ee ts /fa c ts /e n /pcp4_2.htmC ook, R . (2003) ‘T h e M agnitude and Im pact o f Bycatch M ortality b y Fish ing Gear' in Sinclair, M . andValdimarsson, G. (eds) Responsible Fisheries in the M arine Ecosystem, FAO, CABI Publishing.EJF (2003) Squandering the Seas: H ow shrim p trawling is threatening ecological integrity and food security around the world. E nvironm ental Justice Foundation, L on don , UK.FADIO (2004) Fish Aggregating Devices. FA DIO /IR D -Ifrem er Project (Fish A ggregating D evices as Instrum ented O bservatories o f pelag ic ecosystem s), http:/ / w w w .fadio .ird .fr/index .htm FAO (1995) Code o f Conduct fo r Responsible Fisheries. Food and A griculture O rganisation o f th e U nited N ations, R om e.FAO (2001) Report trf the workshop o f national co-ordinators r f the U NEP/G EF/FAO project on reducing the im pact o f tropical shrim p traw lingfisheries on living m arine resources through the adoption o f environmentally fr iend ly techniques and practices. F isheries report no. 605, F ood and A griculture O rganisation o f the U nited N ations, R om e.FAO (2003) International Plans o f Action. Food and Agriculture O rganisation o f the U nited N ations, R om e, h ttp : //w w w .fa o .o r g /fig is/serv let/sta tic?d om = org& xm l= ip oas_p rog .xm l& xp _ lan g= en FAO (2005a) Report o f the Technical Consultation on Sea Turtles Conservation and Fisheries. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 N ovem b er-2 D ecem b er 2004. FAO F isheries R eport N o . 765. Food and Agriculture O rganisation o f th e U nited N ations, R om e.FAO (2005b) FAO Fisheries Glossary. F ood and Agricu lture O rganisation o f th e U nited N ations, R om e, h ttp : //w w w .fa o .o r g /f i/g lo s sa r y /FAO (2005c) Fishing Technique Fact Sheet: Tuna purse seining. FIGIS. F ood and A griculture O rganisation o f th e U nited N ations, R om e, http:/ / w w w .fa o .o rg /fig is /serv let/f ish tech ? fid = 40 F isheries R esearch S erv ices (1999) Codend Selectivity. C apture A nd C onservation 3, In form ation Leaflet. A berdeen, Scotland.F onteneau , A. and H allier, J. P. (2003) Indian O cean FAD Fishery: A n E ndeavour for Tuna Research and M anagem ent. Proceedings o f the34th A nnual Tuna Conference, Lake A rrow head, California, M ay 13- 16 2003. sw fsc.n m fs.n oaa .gov/tu naconf/54thP roceed in gs.pd f

G ian ni, M . (2003) Recent Developments in International Fisheries Law and Policy: Bycatch and the Obligation r f States to M in im ize the Im pact o f Fisheries on the M arine Environm ent. Paper prepared for the European U n ion O ffice International Fund for A nim al W elfare, Brussels.

G ilm an , E., B rothers, N ., K obayashi, D. R ., M artin , S., C ook , J., Ray, J., C hin g , G. and W ood s , B.(2003) Performance assessment o f underwater setting chutes, side setting, and blue-dyed bait to m in im ize seabird m orta lity in H aw aii longline tuna and sw ordfish fisheries. Final R eport prepared for th e W estern

Pacific R egional Fishery M anagem ent Council. sw r.n m fs.n oaa .gov/p ir/ hi_sbrd_deter_final_report.pdfG ilm an , E. & F reifield , H . (2003) Seabird M ortality in N orth Pacific Longline Fisheries. Endangered Species Update. V olum e 20, N o . 2.G orez , B. and O ’R iordan, B. (2003) A n E xam ination o f Fisheries Relations between the European Union and ACP Countries. Subm itted to the Joint COM SEC - CTA M eetin g on ACP-EU Fisheries A greem ent: Towards a Greater Sustainability 7-9 April 2003, A CP H o u se Brussels. T echnical C entre for Agricultural and Rural C o-operation ACP-EU, http: / / agritrade.cta .in t/.H aflinger , K. (2001). Bycatch reduction through avoidance: Traw lfleets u tilize NM FS-supplied observer data to see bycatch trends in season and distribute fis h in g effort to avoid areas o f high bycatch. ICES W orking Group on Fisheries T e ch nology and Fish Behaviour, 23-27 April 2001, Seattle, USA.H aii, M . (1998) A n eco log ica l v ie w o f th e tu n a-d o lp h in problem . R eviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries8:1-34.H aii, M . e t a l , (2000) Bycatch: P roblem s and Solutions. M arine Pollution Bulletin 41: 204-219.H ill, B. and W assenb erg , T. (2000) T h e probable fate o f discards from praw n traw lers fish ing near coral reefs: A study in th e northern Great Barrier R eef, Australia. Fisheries Research 48 (3): 277-286.IEEP (2003) CPF Rrform 2002: Integrated fram ew ork fo r fisheries partnership agreements w i th th ird countries (COM(2002)6yj). B riefing N u m b er 11. T h e Institute for European E nvironm ental P olicy (IEEP), L ondon, UK.IFREM ER (1999) A n Evaluation r f the FisJieries Agreements Concluded by the European Community. Sum m ary R eport. C om m u nity Contract N o . 9 7 /S 240-152919 o f io D ecem b er 1997, IFREMER, France Join t N atu re C o n se rv a tio n C o m m ittee (JN C C ) (2004) Seabird Bycatch. Joint N ature C onservation C om m ittee , UK. h ttp :/ /w w w jn cc .g o v .u k /K elleher, K. (2004) Discards in the w orld 's m arinefisheries. FAO F isheries T echnical Paper 470. Food and A griculture O rganisation o f th e U nited N ations, R om e.Kennelly, S. J. and B roadh urst, M . K. (1996) F ish erm en and scientists so lv ing by-catch problem s: exam ples from Australia and possibilities for N e w England. Solving By-catch - Considerations fo r today and tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant C ollege P rogram R eport N o . 96-03, U niversity o f A laska Fairbanks,pp. 121-i 28.Kennelly, S. J. and B roadh urst, M . K. (2002) B ycatch begone: changes in th e ph ilosoph y o f fishing technology. Fish and Fisheries 3: 340-355.L ew iso n , R . L., C row der, L. B. an d D. J. Shaver. (2003) Search ing for th e T E D effect: T h e im pact o f Turtle Excluder D ev ices on loggerhead and K em p's ridley strandings in the w estern G u lf o f M exico. Conservation Biology 17 (4).L ew iso n , R . L., F reem an, S. A. and C row der, L. B. (2004a) Q uantifying th e effects o f fisheries on threatened species: the im pact o f pelag ic lon glin es o n loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7: 221-231.

L ew iso n , R . L., C row der, L. B ., R ead , A . J. and F reem an , S. A. (2004b) U nderstanding im pacts o f fisheries bycatch o n m arine m egafauna. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19(11).

M in is tère d e la P êc h e & A qu acu lture, R ép ub liq ue de G u in ée (2000) Plan dePeche20oo, République de G uinée, http:/ / w w w .f is .c o m /g u in e a /plan2000.htm lN atio n a l M arine F ish eries S erv ice (2004) T urtle Excluder Devices (TEDS) N ational M arine Fisheries Service, US. h ttp ://w w w .n m fs .n oaa .gov /p ro t_res/P R 3 /T u rtle s/T E D S .h tm l N orris, S. (w ith M artin H aii, Edward M elvin and Julia Parrish) (2002) Th in kin g like an Ocean: Ecologica l L esson from M arine Bycatch. Conservation in Practice 3:10-19.O ravetz, C. (1999) ‘R ed ucing Incidental C atch in Fisheries'. In Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F. A. A breu-G robois, and M . D on n elly (eds). Research and M anagem ent Techniques fo r the Conservation o f Sea Turtles. IU C N /SS C M arine Turtle Specialist G roup P ublication N o . 4. IU C N , Sw itzerland.O v etz , R . (2004) Pillaging the Pacific. Sea Turtle R estoration Project, USA.O v etz , R . and Steiner, T. (2004) Techno-Fixing Sea Turtles.' Flow the Bush A dm inistration’s M anipulation o f Science is D riving the Leatherback Sea Turtle Towards Extinction. Sea Turtle R estoration Project, USA. R eeves, S. A ., A rm stron g, D. W , Fryer, R . J. and C oull, K, A. (1992) T h e effects o f m esh size, cod­end extension length and cod-end d iam eter o n the selectivity o f Scottish traw ls and seines. ICES

Journal o f M arine Science 49: 279-288.R ev ill, A ., P ascoe , S ., R adcliffe, C ., R iem an n , S., R ed ant, F., P o le t, H ., D a m m , U ,N eu d eck e, T., K risten sen , P. S. and Jensen , D . (1999) E con om ic consequ en ces o f discarding in the European b row n shrim p (Crangon crangon) fisheries o n recruitm ent and potential y ie ld o f round- and flatfish stocks in th e southern N o rth Sea (E conom ic Study - 97 /S E /025). T h eE C O D ISC Project, European U nion .R obin s, J. et al. (2000) Commercialisation o f bycatch reduction strategies and devices w ith in northern Australian shrim p trawl fisheries. FR DC Project N o . 96 /254 jo in tly published b y Q ueensland G overnm ent D epartm en t o f Prim ary Industries, CSIRO, Australian M aritim e C ollege, Fisheries R esearch and D eve lop m ent C ooperation , Australia.Sea T u rtle R esto r a tio n P ro je ct (STR P) (2000) Longline Fishing: Pushing Sea Turtles One Step Closer toExtinction. STRP, U SA . http:/ / w w w .seaturtles.o ig /pd f/L L F actS heetv2000 .pd fSea T u rtle R esto r a tio n P ro je ct (STR P) (2003) A n International Call fo r a M oratorium in the PacificOcean on Pelagic Longline and G illnet Fishing. STRP, USA. h ttp ://w w w .sea tu r tles .0 r g /p d f/U N N G O le t-ter.pdfStob u tzk i, I. e ta l . (2000) Ecological sustainability r f bycatch and biodiversity in praw n traw l fisheries. FR DC Final report 96/257. F isheries Research and D eve lop m en t C orporation , Australia.S tob u tzk i, I. e t al. (2001) Bycatch diversity and variation in a trop ical Australian penaeid fishery: the im plications for m onitoring. Fisheries Research 53: 283-301.

Su uronen , P., P erez -C om as, J. A ., L eh ton en , E. & Tschernij, V. (1996). Size-related m ortality o f herring (Clupea harengus L.) escap ing through a rigid sorting grid and traw l codend m esh es. ICES

Journal o f M arine Science 53: 691-700.

U N (1995) Agreem entfor the Implem entation o f the Provisions o f the United Nations Convention on the Law o f the Sea o f 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and M anagem ent o f Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly M igratory Fish Stocks. U nited N ations, N e w York.U N E P (2001) Economic Reforms, Trade Liberalization and the Environment: A Synthesis o f UNEP Country Projects. D iv ision o f T ech n o logy Industry and Econom ics. E conom ics and Trade U nit, U nited N ations Environm ent P rogram m e. G eneva, Sw itzerland.[w w w .u n e p .c h /e tu /d o h a /p d fs /p a p e r s /synthesisr0und2.pdf]V aldem arsen , J .W (2004) Incidental catch r f seabirds - problem identification and m itigation measures. U nited N ations Atlas o f th e O ceans, v iew ed D ecem b er 2004.http:/ / w w w .ocean sa tla s.com /w orld _ fish er ies_an d _aq u acu ltu re /h tm l/issu es/ecosys/se lectgear/in c i dental_catch.htmV aldem arsen , J .W an d Su uronen , P. (2003) ‘M odify in gF ish ing G ea rto A chieve Ecosystem O bjectives'. In Sinclair, M . and V aldim arsson, G. (eds) (2003) Responsible Fisheries in the M arine Ecosystem, FAO and CABI International Publishing. 426 p.W ardle , C . S. (1983) ‘F ish reactions to tow ed fish in g gears'. In M acD onald, A . and Priede, I.G ., (eds). Experim ental biology a t sea. N e w York: A cadem ic Press, pp. 167-195.W atson , J. W (1989) ‘F ish b eh aviour and traw l design: P otential for selective traw l developm en t'. In C am pbell, C.M ., (ed). Proceedings o f the w orld sym posium on fis h in g gear and fis h in g vessels. St Johns, Canada: M arine Institute, pp. 25-29.W atson , J. W , Foster, D . G ., E pperly S. and Shah, A. (2004) E xperim ents in the w estern Atlantic northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle m itigation measures in the pelagic longline fishery. R eport on experim ents condu cted in 2001-2003. U.S. D epartm en t o f C om m erce, N ational O ceanic and A tm osp heric A dm inistration, N O A A Fisheries, USA.

W H A T ’ S T H E C A T C H ? I 3

5 S t P e te r ’s S t, London N1 8JD, UK

Tel 44 (0 ) 20 7359 0440

Fax 44 (0 ) 20 7359 7123

in fo @ ejfo u n d a tio n .o rg

w w w .e jfo u n d a tio n .o rg