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)

knutm@sv.uit.no

Management strategies

Chris Frid & Tim Gray (UK)

C.L.J. Frid@ncl.ac.ukT.S.gray@ncl.ac.uk

Modelling Bill Silvert (Portugal) wsilvert@milpah.com

Metrics Stefan Aki Ragnarsson (Iceland)

steara@hafro.is

Food web Catherine Scott (UK) C.L.Scott@ncl.ac.uk

Habitat effects Odette Paramor (UK) O.A.L.Paramor@ncl.ac.uk

Benthic-pelagic coupling

Removals Gerjan Piet (Netherlands)

G.J.Piet@rivo.dlo.nl

EFEP activities and contacts

Odette Paramor (UK) O.A.L.Paramor@ncl.ac.uk