Date post: | 13-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | truongkhue |
View: | 222 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Written by: Chris Williams and Griffin Carpenter New Economics Foundation www.neweconomics.org [email protected] +44 (0)20 7820 6300 @NEF Registered charity number 1055254 © 2015 The New Economics Foundation
NEF working paper European Seabass in the UK: A test case for implementing Article 17 of the reformed CFP
2 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
2
Contents
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7
A stock in decline ............................................................................................. 7
The fishery ....................................................................................................... 8
EU emergency measures ................................................................................ 8
Scientific Advice .............................................................................................. 9
ICES Advice for 2016 .................................................................................... 10
Best value criteria for access to the remaining bass fishery ...................................... 11
UK Commercial fishing .................................................................................. 11
Recreational fishing ....................................................................................... 12
Criteria by which to determine best value according to Article 17 ............................. 14
Description of each indicator .................................................................................... 16
Profits ................................................................................................................ 16
Employment ....................................................................................................... 17
Greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................................... 18
Subsidies ........................................................................................................... 18
Economic value chain ........................................................................................ 19
Bass discards .................................................................................................... 20
Other discards ................................................................................................... 22
Spawning season mortality ................................................................................ 22
Bycatch .............................................................................................................. 24
Ecosystem damage ........................................................................................... 25
Ghost fishing ...................................................................................................... 26
Fleet dependency .............................................................................................. 26
UK results .................................................................................................................. 31
Gear performance ......................................................................................... 31
Multi-criteria decision analysis ....................................................................... 32
3 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
3
Indicator weightings ....................................................................................... 32
Results .......................................................................................................... 33
Average versus marginal analysis ................................................................. 34
Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35
Geography ..................................................................................................... 35
Recommendations .................................................................................................... 37
Reduce fishing mortality in 2016 .................................................................... 37
Ensure that those fleets that deliver best value to society have preferential
access to the remaining fishery ..................................................................... 38
Address the unselective bass fisheries – a ‘bycatch only’ fishery for bass will
be rewarding unselective fishing .................................................................... 38
Close the bass fishery during spawning season ............................................ 40
Regulate netting for bass ............................................................................... 40
Use the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF): ............................. 41
Compensation and gear modification ......................................................... 41
Enforcement of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing ............ 42
Data collection ............................................................................................ 42
Discussion ................................................................................................................. 44
From Emergency Measures to long-term management ................................ 44
Article 17 of the reformed CFP .......................................................................... 44
Fishing opportunities and quota for bass (Article 17) ..................................... 44
However, allocation of fishing opportunities/quota under Article 17 shall be
allocated along transparent, objective criteria, rather than track record
(‘relative stability’). ......................................................................................... 46
Appendix ................................................................................................................... 47
Annex 1: EU Emergency measures ......................................................................... 47
Measure one: A short-term ban on pelagic trawling ........................................... 47
Measure two: A three-fish bag limit for recreational fishermen .......................... 47
Measure three: A monthly catch limit and a closed area ................................... 47
Measure four: An increase in the minimum size of northern sea bass ............... 47
Annex 2: Northern Sea bass stock component vessel limits .................................... 48
4 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
4
Vessel catch limits ............................................................................................. 48
Southern sea bass stock component ................................................................. 49
Annex 3: Total commercial and recreational landings of bass ................................. 49
Annex 4: Map of EU bass catch using MMO data (2012) ......................................... 50
Annex 5: Commercial EU landings over time by member state (1985-2014) ........... 51
Annex 6: Increased regulation of recreational fisheries ............................................ 51
Annex 7: UK Otter trawl and gill net discards (2002-2011) ....................................... 52
Annex 8 – Comparison of mobile/static gear in terms of bycatch of target/non-target
species: impact on marine mammals and seabed habitats ...................................... 54
Further reading .............................................................................................. 55
CFP basic regulation ......................................................................................... 55
IIEP and RSPB report on Art 17 ........................................................................ 55
CEFAS C-Bass project ...................................................................................... 55
Endnotes ................................................................................................................... 56
5 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
5
Summary
In this working paper we propose 13 indicators, relevant to bass fishing, which can
be used to allocate fishing opportunities in line with Article 17 of the reformed
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
In our analysis we demonstrate that mobile gear such as demersal/otter trawls were
the most profitable fishing fleet which catch bass, however they supported the fewest
jobs per tonne of bass landed, have a lower average price (£6.50-£7 per kg) as well
as the highest discard rates, highest spawning season mortality, highest marine
mammal bycatch and wider ecosystem damage.
In comparison, drift and fixed nets performed better on the environmental criteria
than mobile gear (except for ghost fishing) and had a lower impact on spawning
season mortality. While also being 20% dependent on bass for their income, netters
also comprised the most bass dependent ports (where over 10% of its annual landed
value comes from bass) although this is similar to their overall share of the bass
landings.
These ports which depend on netting are to a large extent concentrated along the
Eastern extent of the English Channel from The Isle of Wight to Essex. Drift and
fixed nets also provide a higher number of jobs per kg of bass than mobile gear,
while receiving the lowest subsidy per kilogram in the form of fuel tax exemption.
The most jobs per kg of bass were supported by hook and line fishing. The price per
kg was also highest (£9.50 per kg in the UK – a lower average than the equivalent
line caught bass in France), while having the lowest discard rates and least impact
on spawning season mortality. In terms of their dependence on bass, hook and line
fishers were by far the most dependent gear type (55%).
The hook and line vessels also landed a higher proportion of their landings into bass
dependent ports, and are geographically more concentrated towards the Western
Channel, starting at the Isle of Wight and moving West through Dorset to Cornwall.
From the research presented here it is clear that applying Article 17 prompts
decision makers to look at the wider social, environmental and economic value of
bass. The results of our 13 proposed indicators suggest that allocating any bass
fishing opportunities according to socio-economic and environmental criteria would
produce a very different fishery from the existing fleet or what would come about
through market forces alone.
Our analysis provides economic evidence to consider in forming the UK position for
December 2015 council negotiations.
6 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
6
We present criteria and indicators as well as analysis to help objective, transparent
decision-making.
The paper provides recommendations to UK decision makers, both for national level
management and to inform the UK position with regards to the CFP implementation:
The urgent priority is to further reduce fishing mortality in 2016. This must
come in the form of lower vessel catch limits for all fleets targeting bass.
However, decision-makers must ensure that those fleets that deliver best
value to society have preferential access to the remaining fishery, as per
Article 17.
The UK must also address the unselective bass fisheries – a ‘bycatch only’
fishery for bass will be rewarding unselective fishing and runs counter to
Article 17. These vessels should be spatially and temporally excluded from
the bass fishery.
The UK position in December Council should be to close the bass fishery
during spawning season to all vessels and gear types to let stocks recover.
Nationally, the UK must take the lead in regulating netting for bass.
The UK should use the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to
help fund compensation and gear modification for fishers affected, for
furthering enforcement related to bass fishing, and for data collection with
regards to bass landings and the impacts of recreational fishing.
7 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
7
Introduction
A stock in decline
Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), an important and valuable stock for commercial
and recreational fishers, have seen a severe decline in northern Europe in recent
years.
The spawning stock biomass (SSB) in Figure 1 below, i.e. the biomass of all sexually
mature fish in the stock that ensures future reproduction, has declined markedly
since 2009 and is now rapidly declining towards the biomass limit reference point
(Blim in Figure 1 below).
Blim is a key indicator for the stock size, below which there is an increasing risk of
stock collapse. Bass numbers had, until a recent spell of cold winters, been
increasing,1 growing rapidly from the mid-1990s and reaching a high point in 2010.2
This drove increased exploitation as the availability of the resource increased, but
harvesting has now surpassed a sustainable level for a slow growing, late maturing
species such as bass.
Figure 1: European sea bass biomass
Source: ICES advice for 2016
8 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
8
The fishery
The commercial fishery is split between an offshore fishery on the spawning bass,
mainly using pelagic trawls, and an inshore fishery targeting bass using a variety of
gears (e.g. trawl, hand line, longline, nets, rod and line) as they return to coastal
areas after spawning (as well as juvenile bass that have not yet spawned).3
Increased pressure on bass has also resulted from many small-scale fishers, due to
a lack of access to quota for commercial quota species, shifting their effort to bass,
for which there is no quota.4
Figure 2: EU Commercial bass landings (1985 – 2014)
Source: ICES advice for 2016 (note: French data for 1999 was not submitted but is estimated for the
figure)
In 2014 EU Landings declined by over 1,000 tonnes. This is likely to be the result of
the decline in stock. So the impacts of overfishing are now being seen in landings,
which alongside reduced fishing effort due to bad weather means EU bass landings
are now comparable to 2002/03 levels (around 3,000 tonnes).
EU emergency measures
In light of this alarming decline, in 2015 the European Commission agreed
emergency measures (under Article 12 of the reformed CFP, see Annex 1 for more
details) to halt the severe decline of bass stocks.
Emergency measures for northern sea bass stock component (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea,
English Channel, and southern North Sea) include:
9 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
9
a short-term ban on pelagic trawling until 30 April 5 (announced in January
2015)
a recreational fishing bass bag limit of three bass per person per day until the
end of 20156 (announced in March 2015)
commercial fishing catch limits until the end of 20157 including monthly catch
limits (for details see Annex 2), and a closed area around Ireland (announced
in June 2015)
the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) increased from 36cm to
42cm (a 42cm fish is thought to be roughly six to seven years old8)
announced in July 2015 and effective from 1 September 2015
The southern stock (Bay of Biscay and Iberian Waters) has insufficient
information about its stock for the European Commission to propose
emergency measures.
The Commission is currently considering how to protect the sea bass stock in 2016
and will draft a proposal for adoption at Fisheries Council in December 2015.
The Commission is also working on a proposal for a long term management plan,
expected to be published at some point in 2016.
Scientific Advice
For the entire 28-year record available from the International Council for the
Exploration of Sea (ICES), we have been fishing the bass stock above levels that
would lead to a stock size with maximum sustainable catch levels (Fmsy on the
graph below).
ICES advised a reduction of (F) to 0.13, a level we have not seen since before
1985.9 Mortality as a result of fishing (F) on the figure below indicates harvesting
pressure on the bass stock and is likely to continue as demand outstrips supply.
Mortality has been rising since 2000 and even more steeply since 2011, which is a
major problem, as achieving Fmsy (i.e. the rate of fishing mortality that ensures the
maximum sustainable yield – MSY) is a condition of fishing at sustainable levels (see
Figure 3).10
10 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
10
Figure 3: Bass fishing mortality (F) (1985-2014)
Source: ICES advice for 2016
ICES advice for 2015 was that total EU commercial + recreational landings should
be no more than 1,155 tonnes.11 Expected 2015 commercial landings alone are
thought to be around 3,000 tonnes, representing a reduction of 40% from the 2009 to
2012 average (5,561 tonnes).
ICES Advice for 2016
ICES advice for 2016 recommends no more than 541 tonnes of sea bass to be
caught. With this small amount of total landings for both commercial and recreational
fishermen, there is not enough bass to go around.
For this reason decision makers need to prioritise who creates best value to society
from the resource (in terms of jobs among a number of other indicators) and allocate
fishing opportunities to those fleets in accordance with Article 17 of the reformed
Common Fisheries Policy.12
Here we present a framework for a ‘best value’ approach, providing suitable
economic, social and environmental criteria (as well as the relevant indictors)
alongside a decision making tool to help objectively and transparently compare
priorities, to enable decision making regarding the allocation of the remaining fishing
opportunities for bass.
11 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
11
Best value criteria for access to the
remaining bass fishery
NEF’s “best value” approach was advocated during the reform of the CFP in Value
Slipping through the Net – a study comparing trawling and gill-netting for cod in the
North Sea using social, economic and environmental criteria.
This showed that fishing using gill nets had a lower environmental impact and
employed more people per tonne of cod landed, but was disadvantaged both in
terms of cod quota and direct subsidies.
Following Article 17 of the reformed CFP, Member States shall use objective and
transparent criteria to allocate resources in the public interest. In the case of bass,
this could be to the highest value fleets and to sectors with the lowest environmental
costs.
UK Commercial fishing
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) produced a
detailed report outlining the value of the bass fishery to the UK fleet. In 2012, the
total landed weight of bass by UK vessels comprised 719 tonnes with a first sale
value just over £5 million.
The majority of the catch (over 70%) is taken by vessels of under ten metres (under-
10m), following the return inshore after spawning.13 Many of the under-10m vessels
catch bass using fixed or driftnets, and hand-lines or longlines, whereas most of the
over-10m use otter trawls or midwater pair trawls.14
It is clear from Cefas work and from reports produced by Inshore Fisheries and
Conservation Authorities (IFCAs)15 around the UK that the highest socio-economic
value for bass accrues inshore.
For the purposes of this report we focus on the commercial fishing metiers targeting
bass based on the Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO’s) vessel catch limits
by gear type:16
mid water or pelagic trawls, including OTM and PTM
all types of demersal trawls including Danish and Scottish seines, including
OTB, OTT, PTB, TBB, SSC, SDN, SPR, SV, SB, SX, TBN, TBS, TB
all GN, all drift net and fixed (trammel) net fisheries, including GTR, GNS,
GND, FYK, FPN, FIX
12 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
12
all longlines or pole and line, or rod and line fisheries, including LHP, LHM,
LLD, LL, LTL, LX LLS
Purse seines, gear codes PS, LA.
BOX 1
In France, for comparison, “Sea bass fished by small-scale fishermen who use
lines/hooks is a high value product (‘bar à la ligne’). Bass caught in that way has a
much higher sales value (16.67 euros per kg in France 2013), approximately twice
the value than bass caught by trawlers. Pelagic trawls on spawning aggregations
yield the lowest prices (7.37 euros per kg in France 2013). Pelagic trawling may also
be responsible for pressure on overall prices: during the first quarter of the year,
when pelagic trawlers target sea bass on spawning grounds, average prices are half
as low as during the rest of the year.”17
The Bar-a-la-ligne fishermen from Brittany had implemented a voluntary two-month
closed season during spawning. This precautionary behaviour and example of self-
regulation however, had no impact at stock level due to the other fleets targeting
bass. They have currently reduced the closed season to only one month. The
association of French line fishermen have also stated that line fishermen have lost
50% of their income from the sea bass fishery, due to a lack of measures to protect
sea bass and the resulting stock depletion.18
Recreational fishing
ICES (2014) estimated the total recreational removals of sea bass for France,
Netherlands and England in Subareas IV and VII at 1,300–1,500 tonnes (See Annex
3).19
Recreational fishery harvests could amount to 20% of total fishery removals, but
there are no data on long-term trends in such catches and no procedure to include
the recent data in the assessment.
As ICES states: “In the longer term, management of sea bass fisheries could take
into account the objectives and the economic and social value of the commercial and
recreational fisheries that share the resource, adopting a common methodological
approach to estimate the value of each fishery.”20
Bass is one of the most prized species for recreational sea angling in the UK, with
specific associations, such as B.A.S.S., dedicated solely to bass fishing. Sea Angling
2012 “estimated that recreational angling in England supported 10,400 full-time
equivalent jobs.”21
13 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
13
A 2014 MRAG report showed the value of recreational bass fisheries in Sussex to be
three times higher than commercial fisheries, while also employing more people
suggesting “fish should only be caught with hooks”22 (generating a higher economic
return for a lower impact on the stock and marine environment).
Although we do not analyse recreational angling in this paper, Eftec (2015) have
developed an approach for comparing values for commercial and recreational fishing
which provides a framework for doing so.23
14 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
14
Criteria by which to determine best value
according to Article 17
Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy states that:
Here we propose 13 indicators that are of relevance for allocating fishing
opportunities for bass when applying Article 17.
Table 1: Proposed indicators for the allocation of bass fishing opportunities under Article 17
Criteria Measure Importance
Profits £/kg of bass
landed
Profits are important to generate economic
activity while minimising costs and ensure a
financially sustainable industry.
Employment jobs/kg of bass
landed
Fishing creates jobs by providing a viable
economic opportunity. Often these jobs are
created in marginal coastal communities with
high unemployment.
Greenhouse
gas emissions
kgs of CO2/kg
of bass landed
Fuel use from fishing generates greenhouse
gas emissions which contribute to climate
change.
Subsidies £/kg of bass
landed
The fishing industry receives subsidies in
different forms. This masks true performance
and deprives governments of funds for other
purposes.
Economic price/kg of The impact of fishing does not stop when a fish
15 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
15
value chain bass landed is caught. Economic impacts continue through
processing, transport and other secondary
industries generating economic activity and
employment.
Bass discards kgs of bass/kg
of bass landed
Bass discards result from undersized fish being
caught. Depending on survivability when
discarded this can increase fishing mortality.
Other discards kgs of
discards/kg of
bass landed
Discards from other species result from
undersized or non-commercial fish being
caught. Depending on survivability when
discarded this can increase fishing mortality.
Spawning
season
mortality
spawning
stock
damage/kg
bass landed
Fishing during particular seasons and in
particular areas can damage a fish stock when
it is reproducing. This leads to lower fish
populations than would result from the fishing
activity itself.
Bycatch descriptive Bycatch is the unintended capture of marine
wildlife such as dolphins, birds, turtles or seals.
This can damage or kill the captured wildlife.
Ecosystem
damage
descriptive Fishing activity can harm the marine
environment and destroy habitats. This can
lead to lower populations and a loss of
biodiversity.
Ghost fishing descriptive Ghost fishing occurs when fishing gear is lost in
the water. This entangles fish and causes
fishing mortality.
Fleet
dependency
percentage Some fishing fleets heavily rely on certain types
of fishing for their economic activity. Any policy
change should ensure limited impacts where
dependency is high.
Port
dependency
percentage Some ports heavily rely on certain types of
fishing for their economic activity. Any policy
change should ensure limited impacts where
dependency is high.
16 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
16
The current distribution of bass fishing in the UK falls across four gears according to
the MMO port landings data.24 Here we compare the weight of landings in tonnes for
all four gear types in 2014.
Table 2: Current bass landings in the UK by gear
Gear Weight of landings
(2014)
Weight of
landings (%)
Drift and fixed
nets
647.5 62.5
Gears using
hooks
235.9 22.8
Demersal
trawl/seine
145.4 14.0
Beam trawl 7.6 0.7
Source: MMO – Landings by port
Description of each indicator
Profits
To calculate profit intensity, measured as gross profits per kilogram of bass landings,
data was gathered on fleets from the European Commission’s Annual Economic
Report of the European Fishing Fleet (AER).
This publication and accompanying database is the most comprehensive source of
information across EU fishing fleets and includes information on fishing effort (e.g.
days at sea, fuel use), economic measures (e.g. wages, capital costs) and landings
(of every fish species in both weight and value). The most recent release includes
data until 2013.
Fishing vessels are clustered by segment to avoid publishing confidential information
and to allow for analysis at the fleet-level. In the AER database there are four main
fleets that fish for bass in the UK that can roughly be categorised (using the MMO
classification) as drift/fixed nets, gears using hooks, demersal trawl/seine and beam
trawlers.
Profit intensity is calculated using a three year average from 2011 to 2013 of annual
gross profits (all income after subtracting all costs) and dividing this by kilogram of
bass landed. A difficulty with this analysis is that profits specifically from bass cannot
be calculated separately from other species, rather the profit intensity is a measure
17 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
17
of the entire operation. For a more accurate calculation of profits from bass fishing,
all effort and economic data would need to be reported by species caught – an
impossibility in mixed fisheries where fishing effort takes place across a number of
species simultaneously.
Clustering in the annual economic review (AER) database does take into account the
length of vessels but for this analysis only gear is considered so estimates are
calculated by combining all length classes for a gear type and taking a weighted
average based on the amount of landings in each length class.
Table 3: Profit intensity by gear
Gear Profit intensity (gross
profit/kg)
Drift/fixed nets 0.20
Gears using hooks -0.43
Demersal trawl/seine 0.28
Beam trawlers 0.02
Source: European Commission – Annual Economic Report
The estimates show that demersal trawlers are the most profitable operations per
kilogram of fish (including bass) landed followed closely by drift/fixed nets. Gears
using hooks were not profitable over the period analysed.
Employment
Employment intensity was also calculated using the AER database. Jobs are
calculated as full-time equivalents (FTE). The same difficulties with the data as
described in relation to profit intensity also apply here.
Table 4: Employment intensity by gear
Gear Employment intensity
(FTE/t)
Drift/fixed nets 0.045
Gears using hooks 0.071
Demersal trawl/seine 0.032
Beam trawlers 0.065
Source: European Commission – Annual Economic Report
18 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
18
The results show that gears with hooks create the most jobs per tonne of landings
while the trawling fleets generate the least.
Greenhouse gas emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel use were calculated using the same AER
database. An emissions intensity factor 3.0595 kilograms of CO2e per litre of fuel25
was used and applied to all fuel used across the different fleets.
This means that the greenhouse gas emission intensity scales proportionately to fuel
intensity. The same difficulties with the data as described in relation to profit intensity
also apply here.
Table 5: Greenhouse gas emissions intensity by gear
Gear Fuel intensity (l/kg) GHG intensity (kg
CO2/kg)
Drift/fixed nets 0.50 1.52
Gears using hooks 0.92 2.82
Demersal trawl/seine 0.79 2.42
Beam trawlers 1.45 4.42
kg GHGs per litre of
fuel
3.0595
Sources: European Commission – Annual Economic Report; Defra – Emission factors for carbon
reporting
The results show that drift/fixed nets emit the least amount of greenhouse gas
emissions per kilogram of bass landings while beam trawlers emit the most. Of the
two trawling fleets beam trawlers fish far less bass than the demersal trawling fleet.
Subsidies
According to the AER database none of the fleets analysed here receive direct
subsidies, or at least none that are formally reported according to the European
Commission’s reporting requirements on this indicator. However there are indirect
subsidies to the UK fleet in the form of a fuel tax exemption.
Using the AER data on fuel use and landings combined with the UK fuel tax
exemption as reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD),26 an indirect fuel subsidy per kilogram of bass landed is
estimated.
19 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
19
Table 6: Subsidy intensity by gear
Gear Fuel use (l/kg) Indirect fuel subsidy
(£/kg)
Drift/fixed nets 0.50 0.06
Gears using
hooks
0.92 0.11
Demersal
trawl/seine
0.79 0.09
Beam trawlers 1.45 0.17
Sources: European Commission – Annual Economic Report; OECD – Fuel tax exemptions in
the fisheries sector
The results, understandably, are the same as the greenhouse gas emission indicator
with drift/fixed nets using the least amount of fuel and therefore fuel subsidy per
kilogram of bass landing. This overlap is not problematic for the analysis because
although both related to fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions and public subsidies
are two separate problems in their own right.
Economic value chain
There is surprisingly little difference between the three main gear type from their
direct economic contribution, measured as gross value added (Table 7).
Table 7: Economic intensity by gear
Gear GVA intensity
(GVA/kg)
Drift/fixed nets 1.17
Gears using hooks 1.01
Demersal
trawl/seine
0.91
Beam trawlers 0.58
Sources: European Commission – Annual Economic Report; OECD – Fuel tax
exemptions in the fisheries sector
Indirect impacts including indirect employment are often calculated per currency unit,
for example by £ million of landings. This is likely to be a consequence of input-
20 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
20
output tables and government statistical reporting. Still, a higher landing value for
different gears will certainly generate higher economic activity through the value
chain, if not employment as well.
Bass is a high value species and prices are high across gear categories. Gear using
hooks – most likely due to higher selectivity, better quality and size of fish – have a
much higher price per kilogram of landing.
In 2014 gears using hooks received an average price per kilo of £9.50 compared to
an average of £7.34, a premium of 29%. While beam trawlers received a high price
for their landings, since they only represent 5% of the trawling category the price for
trawlers and netters is roughly equivalent at £6.50 to £7.00 per kilogram.
These prices were calculated using an average of MMO data on port landings from
2012 to 2014.
Figure 4: Bass price per kilogram by gear type
Sources: MMO – Landings by port
Bass discards
Discarding undersized bass is a significant issue for some fleets fishing bass and is
set to become much more of a problem with recent changes to the Minimum
Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) to 42cm for bass.
21 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
21
Current levels of discards come from ICES data27 and show a pattern noted
elsewhere28 although the data collected may underestimate discards from all fishing
gears.
Survival rates are poorly understood (ICES advice file). Estimates of survivability for
this analysis are inferred from the low survivability of trawl-caught bass in Cefas
tagging programmes,29 high survivability from bass caught with hooks as evidenced
in French and Dutch studies,30 and an assumption of fairly low survivability for bass
from drift and fixed nets.
An 80% size adjustment was used to account for the fact that it is smaller fish that
are being discarded. While these fish could grow to larger sizes if not for mortality
due to discarding there is also the possibility of natural mortality.
As data exists on current landings by length the new policy increasing the MLS from
36 to 42cm can be analysed for its likely impacts on discards. It is unclear how
efficacy and gear modifications will reduce discards.
Taking a fairly conservative approach, it is assumed here that 50% of the discards
will be avoided and 50% will not be avoided, and that these percentages apply
across all gears.
Table 8: Historic and projected bass discard rates by gear type
Gear Historic
discard
rate
Discard
rate
including
50% of 36-
42cm
Survivability Size
adjustment
kg bass lost
through
discards/kg
bass landed
Drift/fixed
net
2% 11% 20% 80% 0.07
Hooks 0% 1% 80% 80% 0.00
Mid water
trawl
0% 2% 10% 80% 0.01
Otter trawl 8% 31% 10% 80% 0.23
Beam trawl 2% 9% 10% 80% 0.07
Source: ICES – IBP Bass Report 2014; Cefas - Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl;
ICES - Report on the inter-benchmark protocol on new species
22 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
22
Taking into account historic discard rates, the likely impacts of the increased MCRS
as well as estimates of survivability, a survivability-adjusted discard intensity is
estimated for five gear types. While gears using hooks have the lowest bass discard
rate, trawlers show a wide degree of variance with a very high bass discard rate for
otter trawls.
Other discards
Bass fishing not only creates discards of undersized bass but discards of other
species as well. Using data from the Discard Atlas published by Cefas, estimates are
provided on discard rates for the four UK bass fishing gears according to the MMO.31
No information was provided for gears with hooks as it is not a fishery studied for
discards because of very low rates. Due to a lack of data on survivability the same
rates were taken as for bass discards.
Table 9: Discard rates of all species by gear type
Gear Discard rate all
species
Survivability kg fish lost through
discards/kg bass
landed
Drift/fixed nets 4% 20% 0.03
Gears using
hooks
N/a 80% N/a
Demeral
trawl/seine
11% 10% 0.10
Beam trawls 22% 10% 0.19
Source: Cefas - Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries
Similar to bass discards, gears with hooks are estimated to have the lowest discard
intensity, although with regard to other species beam trawls are estimated to be the
trawling fleet with the highest discard intensity.
Spawning season mortality
With biomass at extremely low levels and weak recruitment, the impacts different
gears have on the spawning stock by fishing in different seasons is an important
consideration.
23 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
23
In general, gears using hooks fish bass mostly in the summer season, while trawlers
fish bass mostly in the winter. Netting is the major gear type fishing for bass overall
and remains fairly high throughout the year.
The following graph using MMO port landings data illustrates the composition of
bass landings by month across the gear types.
Figure 5: Composition of monthly bass landings by gear type
Source: MMO – Landings by port
This fishing effort can be combined with information on the spawning season of bass
which occurs most heavily in April, with some in March and May, minimal spawning
in January, February and June and no spawning for July to December.32
Applying damage weights by month based on this spawning activity, and applying
this to the monthly landing data by gear, gives a level of spawning stock damage per
kilogram of bass landed.
Note that the final figure does not have a unit for interpretation as the damage
coefficients are not biologically specified.
When considering damage to the spawning stock the area of fishing is often an
important consideration, but this matters less for UK bass fishing as the spawning
area is not very concentrated.
And because spawning occurs mid-water and is triggered by temperature changes,
there is notable variation from year to year.33
24 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
24
Table 10: Bass fishing during the spawning season by gear type
Gear/period High
spawning (%)
Medium
spawning (%)
Low
spawning (%)
No spawning
(%)
Drift and fixed
nets
6 12 15 67
Gears using
hooks
2 8 18 71
Demersal
trawl/seine
8 21 27 44
Beam trawl 21 21 25 33
Damage
coefficient
High
spawning
Medium
spawning
Low
spawning
No spawning
Damage 0.5 0.25 0.1 0
Gear/period spawning stock damage/kg of bass landed
Drift and fixed
nets
7.4
Gears using
hooks
5.0
Demersal
trawl/seine
12.1
Beam trawl 18.0
Sources: MMO – Landings by port; Seafish - Responsible Sourcing Guide Seabass 2013
The results show that due to the summer/winter split between gears with hooks and
trawlers (especially beam trawlers) there is a lot less impact on the spawning stock
from hooks than from trawlers, with netters falling in between.
Bycatch
Bycatch of other non-fish marine species including cetaceans is included, as many of
the species have high economic and non-economic values attributed them.34,35,36
Bycatch is included in Seafish’s Responsible Assessment for Sourcing Seafood
(RASS)37 with the rating listed below and the main bycatch issues as described from
multiple sources.38,39,40,41
25 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
25
Table 11: Bycatch impacts by gear type
Gear RASS rating (1 low
impact, 5 high
impact)
Main bycatch issue
Set gill nets 3 Seals, dolphins, harbour
porpoises
Drift nets 3 Seals, dolphins, harbour
porpoises
Handlines 1 Birds
Otter trawls 4 Dolphins
Pelagic pair trawls 3 Dolphins, seals
Source: Seafish – Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood
The results show that hooks have the least associated bycatch, followed by both
types of nets and pelagic pair trawls and the most bycatch from otter trawls. While
these results are specific to bass fishing they also align with sources looking at
similar gear, fishing for other species and in other areas.42,43
Ecosystem damage
Ecosystem damage refers to the impact of different fishing gears on the marine
environment. By far the largest marine impact is on the seabed. For most gears
fishing bass there is little impact with the seabed. Ecosystem damage is included in
Seafish’s Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood (RASS) as “habitat” impacts44 with
the rating listed below.
Table 12: Ecosystem damage rating by gear
Gear RASS rating (1 low
impact, 5 high impact)
Set gill nets 1
Drift nets 1
Handlines 1
Otter trawls 4
Pelagic pair trawls 1
Source: Seafish – Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood
26 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
26
According to the Seafish ratings all gears fishing bass except otter trawls have
minimal impact on the ecosystem.
While these results are specific to bass fishing they also align with sources looking at
similar gear fishing for other species and in other areas.45,46
Ghost fishing
A recent report on ghost fishing from the Institute for European Environmental Policy
(IEEP) singles out bass fishing as a particularly damaging for ghost fishing.
Estimated losses in nets per boat per year are just over 2%, one of the highest levels
for any species.
According to the report there is little ghost fishing associated with hooks due to the
small amount of gear that is involved.
Compared to drift and fixed nets, trawlers have larger nets that fish are likely to see
and avoid.
In additional, trawling gear is likely to sink to the seabed, decreasing the likelihood of
ghost fishing, although nets may become detached.
The impacts of ghost fishing will vary significantly by area fished, as tidal movements
can quickly cover ghost fishing gear.
Fleet dependency
While multiple fleets in the UK fish for bass, the importance of the species for the
different fleets varies widely.
Calculating the bass share of total value landed by each fleet shows that gears using
hooks are much more dependent on bass (55%) than drift and fixed nets (20%) and
that trawlers (5%), in particularly beam trawlers (0%), are hardly dependent at all on
bass for their landing value.
The importance of bass has been increasing in previous years for both gears with
hooks and drift/fixed nets.
27 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
27
Figure 6: Bass dependency by gear type (2010-2014)
Source: MMO – Landings by port
These dependency measures do vary month by month but a 2012-2014 average
shows that the relative ranking of fleets on bass dependency remains the same
throughout the year.
This monthly dependency was suggested as an important dimension to the bass
fishing industry in the European Commission’s Staff Working Document Explanatory
Note on emergency measures for sea bass.47
Figure 7: Bass dependency by month and gear type
Source: MMO – Landings by port
28 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
28
One significant issue with this analysis is that these figures were estimated using the
MMO port landings data.
Ideally estimates should be for the subset of each fleet that is targeting bass to a
significant degree, but this is not possible with the level of fleet aggregation in the
database.
In an effort to compensate for some of this aggregation, any landings to ports in
Scotland and Northern Ireland were excluded from the fleet dependency calculation
(leaving England, Wales and the Channel Islands) as fleets landing in ports so far
north will not be targeting bass.
Port dependency
Measured in a similar manner to fleet dependency, port dependency is the reliance
of ports around the UK on the value of bass landings. As some ports in the MMO’s
port landings database are extremely small, only ports with at least £10,000 in bass
landings were included in the analysis.
Ports with bass dependency issues were defined as those ports where at least 10%
of the landing value comes from bass. These 30 ports were then coded by the main
gear landing in each port. Where no gear represents 60% of the landings value, the
port was coded as “mixed”.
Table 13: Port dependence on bass and main gear type
British ports
landings bass
Total landings Bass
dependence
Main gear to port
calculated by value value % list
Walton-On-Naze 119,312 76% Drift and fixed nets
Wivenhoe 19,226 76% Demersal
trawl/seine
Portland 282,301 56% Gears using hooks
West Mersea 415,899 55% Drift and fixed nets
Axmouth 61,576 48% Drift and fixed nets
Lytham St Annes 54,502 42% Drift and fixed nets
Southampton 124,420 41% Drift and fixed nets
Littlehampton 247,683 39% Drift and fixed nets
29 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
29
Canvey Island 31,711 37% Drift and fixed nets
Felixstowe 125,778 35% Mixed
Harwich 164,490 34% Drift and fixed nets
Brighton 595,460 31% Mixed
Cowes 204,948 29% Drift and fixed nets
Southwold 162,927 25% Gears using hooks
Dungeness 271,252 24% Drift and fixed nets
Hastings 920,623 23% Drift and fixed nets
Christchurch 276,321 23% Mixed
Weymouth 3,594,079 20% Gears using hooks
Eastbourne 3,073,897 19% Drift and fixed nets
Portsmouth 2,621,106 18% Mixed
Ramsgate 837,556 17% Drift and fixed nets
Beer 77,129 15% Drift and fixed nets
Rye 1,341,727 15% Drift and fixed nets
Sennen 95,116 13% Gears using hooks
Aldeburgh and Orford 158,849 12% Drift and fixed nets
Selsey 1,154,099 11% Drift and fixed nets
Bideford 549,293 10% Mixed
Lymington and
Keyhaven
706,077 10% Mixed
Lowestoft 741,538 10% Gears using hooks
Newhaven 5,536,687 10% Drift and fixed nets
Source: MMO – Landings by port
The results show that the 30 ports with high bass dependence tend to be ports
where the main gear is drift and fixed nets (18). There are a number of ports with a
high bass dependence being landed by a mix of gears (6) and gears using hooks (5)
but only one port with bass dependence where the main fishing gear was trawlers
(Wivenhoe).
30 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
30
These results are not too surprising given that some gears land more bass in total. In
fact, the proportion of bass landings of different gears to the 30 bass dependent
ports are almost identical to the entire UK landings.
This means that although a change in allocation to drift and fixed nets may impact
the most bass dependent ports, it may also impact the non-dependent ports as well,
so the proportional impact is nearly identical across gear types.
Gears using hooks land a higher proportion of their landings to bass dependent
ports, while trawlers land a lower proportion.
Table 14: Landings of bass by gear type to both bass dependent ports and all ports for comparison
Gear Landed value
of bass to all
ports (%)
Landed value of
bass to bass
dependent ports
(%)
Share of bass
landings to bass
dependent ports
(%)
Drift and fixed
nets
62.5 62.5 4.3
Gears using
hooks
22.8 30.1 5.7
Demersal
trawl/seine
14.0 7.4 2.3
Beam trawl 0.7 0.1 0.7
Source: MMO – Landings by port
Finally, the last column in Table 13 shows the percentage of each gear’s bass
landings that go to bass dependent ports. This can be interpreted as the probability
that a bass dependent port will be impacted by a change to the bass allocation for
each gear type.
31 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
31
UK results
Gear performance
The table below (Table 15) summarises fleet reporting by key data sources and how
they were merged for the MCDA calculations.
Table 15: Gear concordance for all major data sources
Final MMO AER Seafish Cefas ICES
Drift/fixed
nets
Drift/fixed
nets
Drift and/or fixed
netters
Set gill
nets
Gillnets Drift nets
Gears with
hooks
Gears with
hooks
Vessels using
hooks
Drift nets Trammel
nets
Nets
Demersal
trawl/seine
Demersal
trawl/seine
Demersal
trawlers and/or
demersal
seiners
Handlines Lines Lines
Beam
trawlers
Beam trawlers Otter
trawls
Otter
trawl
Otter
trawl
Pelagic
pair trawls
Beam
trawls
Beam
trawls
Based on the information gathered on the 13 indicators described above, a 1-5 point
rating system was applied to the three major gear types.
In some instances this involved combining performance from multiple gears into one,
more aggregated, MMO fleet type.
32 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
32
Table 16: Performance score by gear for all indicators
Multi-criteria decision analysis
This information on gear performance is combined here in an illustrative multi-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) framework48 to display the trade-offs between different
gears and different criteria.
𝑀𝐶𝐷𝐴 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = ∑ 𝑃𝑖𝑊𝑖
∑ 𝑃𝑚𝑊𝑖
Where:
P represents the performance score
W represents the weighting applied
i represents an indicator
m represents the maximum performance score of 5
Indicator weightings
All 13 indicators may not be equal in their performance. To account for this, 7
experts on bass fishing (commercial fishers, IFCA managers, recreational fishers,
researchers) and 10 non-experts were asked to weight the 13 indicators from 1 (low)
to 5 (high) for their importance.
Criteria Measure Drift/fixed nets Demersal trawl/seine Gears with hooks
Profits £/kg of bass landed 4 4 1
Employment jobs/kg of bass landed 3 2 5
Greenhouse gas emissions kgs of CO2/kg of bass landed 5 3 3
Subsidies £/kg of bass landed 5 3 3
Economic value chain price/kg of bass landed 3 3 5
Bass discards kgs of bass/kg of bass landed 4 2 5
Other discards kgs of discards/kg of bass landed 4 2 5
Spawning season mortality
spawning stock damage/kg bass
landed 2 1 4
Bycatch descriptive 3 2 5
Ecosystem damage descriptive 5 2 5
Ghost fishing descriptive 2 4 5
Fleet dependency percentage 3 1 5
Port dependency percentage 3 2 4
Total 46 31 55
33 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
33
The graph below shows the results from the weighting exercise. Interestingly only
four indicators have a difference between the expert and non-expert weightings by
more than one point on the five point scale: gross profits, economic value chain, and
greenhouse gas emissions. These expert and non-expert weightings, along with an
unweighted (equal) scenario are presented with the results for sensitivity analysis.
Figure 8: Indicator weightings by experts and non-experts
Source: NEF survey: 21 October 2015 – 26 October 2015
Results
The results of the multi criteria decision making analysis (MCDA), using the gear
performance scores and different weighting scenarios, are illustrated below.
Figure 9: MCDA scores by gear from different weighting scenarios
Source: NEF calculations
34 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
34
There is little difference in the results using the expert, non-expert and equal
weightings. In all three scenarios, gears with hooks have the highest MCDA score,
followed by drift/fixed nets, followed by demersal trawl/seine.
A further sensitivity analysis was conducted using Excel’s solver tool to find the
indicator weightings that result in the maximum and minimum MCDA scores for each
gear type. Using these maximum and minimum scores for each gear type the MCDA
ranges move much closer together, although the three gears still remain in fairly
distinct positions.
It is important to note that the maximum score from one gear and the minimum score
from another gear are unlikely to be achieved using the same weighting scenario.
For example, the score of 59% for drift/fixed nets and 60% for demersal trawlers
were reached with different weightings. There is no one set of weightings that can be
applied across all three gears that will move the demersal trawlers out of the third
position.
Average versus marginal analysis
This MCDA uses information on the historic performance of different gear types to
illustrate how Article 17 could be applied to UK bass fishing. The gear performance
per tonne of landing is taken as an average due to the data available.
As alternative allocations of bass fishing opportunities for different gears would
involve a marginal change, with more data it would be important to analyse how one
specific tonne could have different impacts. It is possible that the costs and benefits
of each additional tonne of quota and non-linear for the fleets.
This point is sometimes raised when fishing opportunities for choke species are
discussed, although for the time being the landing obligation is not being applied to
bass and so this issue is less pressing.
35 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
35
Analysis
Geography
The analysis also reveals a distinct geographical split between UK gears targeting
bass, with a higher prevalence of hook and line fisheries from the Isle of Wight
westwards through Dorset, Devon and Cornwall (Portland, Southwold, Weymouth
and Sennen) and a higher prevalence of drift nets to the east of the Isle Of Wight
through Hampshire, West and East Sussex to Kent and Essex (Cowes, Lymington,
Southampton, Littlehampton, Eastbourne, Hastings, Rye, Canvey Island, West
Mersea and Walton on Naze).
The geographical extent of the main trawl fishery for bass is also more towards the
east and further offshore than either of the other two gears and the most reliant port
on trawls is Wivenhoe in Essex.
A note on selectivity regarding trawls and nets: “An empirical analysis of the UK
fishery age compositions shows that the landings-at-age for UK trawls and nets are
more heavily weighted towards younger bass than in the lines and midwater pair
trawl fishery.” (ICES 2014)
This geographical split within the bass fishery is important when it comes to UK
management measures, especially at IFCA district level.
36 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
36
Figure 10: UK spatial analysis of gear prevalence in terms of bass landings by ICES sub rectangle
using MMO data (2014).
Total Nets
Hooks Trawls
37 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
37
Recommendations
Reduce fishing mortality in 2016
We need to get to Bmsy for bass as soon as possible. Any resistance to change
based on the concern that any change will reduce the future economic benefits of
those who currently fish for bass (who have cumulatively caused the decline in bass
stocks) is misguided.
Any future benefits are illusory if we continue with a fishing mortality higher than the
stock can sustain and the stock collapses. We are currently fishing for bass at a very
economically inefficient stock level.
Actually, the time to transition into a high value fishery for bass only (and support
those fleets and ports that are most reliant on bass) is now – as the costs of doing so
are lowest due to the low stock abundance.
If landings were reduced to 541 tonnes across Europe by 2017 or 2018 that would
represent 10% of the average 2010-2013 landings.
For the UK that means landings with first sale value falling from approximately £5m
to £500,000 (split evenly among 100 vessels, this would be £5,000 per vessel).
Clearly, anyone who is currently dependent on bass is going to have to find an
alternative income and diversify away from bass by that point.
Possibly the government announcement that it will be allocating the first 100 tonnes
of any additional quota received – and 10% of anything received on top of this 100
tonnes – to the English inshore fleet49 will mean that opportunities for local quota
species will be available again, thereby decreasing the reliance on bass.
It makes sense to switch to sustainable fishing now because the costs of making this
switch are at their lowest.
Furthermore, this is the opportune moment to ensure that that highly bass reliant,
selective fishers, generating high employment / high value per tonne of bass can
remain in the fishery albeit with lower monthly vessel catch limits.
The costs associated with new regulations may be badly received by some of the
fishers affected. But the reality is that if effective regulation and management do not
begin imminently, there won’t be a bass stock big enough to sustain the expected
level of production to derive any future benefits from.
After years of environmental and human pressures on the stock, we can’t afford to
take a short-term view.
38 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
38
Ensure that those fleets that deliver best value to society have preferential
access to the remaining fishery
If current cumulative trends continue there won’t be a bass fishery left in the channel
for which to determine fishing opportunities.
Further reducing catch limits for all fleets targeting bass, must however give
preferential treatment (in terms of vessel catch limits, flexibility to spread those limits
over periods longer than one month to allow for weather etc, and
subsidies/compensation) to those that fish selectively and have high survivability of
fish which are not landed, smaller ranges from port, and are heavily reliant on bass.
Not following Article17 (and following 2015 vessel catch limits) would mean demersal
trawlers get 1.8 tonnes per month; purse seiners 1.5 tonnes per month, whereas
hand-liners would only get access to 1.3 tonnes per month.
This would disproportionately reward those fleets that have had the worst impact on
the stock for the lowest value generated.
This is in line with the intent of the reformed CFP to encourage mobile gear
operators to fish more selectively.
Following CFP Article 17, we should be allocating commercial fishing
opportunities only to those fleets that are selective, high value and highly
dependent on bass, for example the bass hand-liners and highly dependent
ports using nets.
As ICES and indeed the Advisory Councils (ACs) have suggested, a
comparison of the socio-economic benefits of recreational fishing versus wild
capture, using the same criteria, should be considered by the Commission.
Address the unselective bass fisheries – a ‘bycatch only’ fishery for bass will
be rewarding unselective fishing
According to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF), bass catches “can be broadly split into three categories: (i) recreational; (ii)
commercial fisheries targeting sea bass, and; (iii) fisheries where sea bass are taken
as a commercial bycatch in mixed demersal fisheries. Based on 2010-2013 data
…other commercial fisheries where sea bass are taken as bycatch account for 41%
of the overall catch”.50
There has been substantial criticism of this assessment regarding what comprises a
“mixed demersal’’ fishery and what comprises a “targeted’’ bass fishery.51
39 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
39
It will be critical to define the difference between a targeted and a bycatch fishery for
bass, as the examples of the Bristol Channel trawl fishery and the Sussex pair-trawl
and demersal stern trawl fisheries make clear.
Effectively, in the UK this technique is used inshore to target black bream52 and bass
in a mid-water fishery.53
Given the ongoing crisis, all fisheries which land bass should be considered as
‘‘targeted / directed’’ bass fisheries.54
Clearly, there are gear selectivity issues (see our analysis section and Annex 7 for a
discards comparison of otter trawls and gill nets)55 but as this is predominantly a
seasonal issue, spatial or temporal measures could be the most appropriate means
of addressing this.
For example, lessons learned from the South West Mackerel box – hand-lining
mackerel or spatially managed gill-netting and hand-lining56 – could be used for bass.
Spatial restrictions: Spatial avoidance requirements, similar to the moving
on approach used in other fisheries should be implemented following scientific
guidance on the bass migration routes and inshore feeding grounds/nursery
areas. Even if mobile gears are not given any access to bass vessel limits,
they would still catch and discard them, which would continue the impact on
the stock for no socio-economic gain! For this reason, unselective mobile gear
should be excluded from areas where bass congregate as well as their
migration routes.57
The presence of some of the largest EU fishing vessels (with an engine power
>10k Hp) in the English Channel, where bass following migratory routes are
particularly vulnerable to capture, should be reviewed without delay. These
vessels may be responsible for a substantial bycatch of bass. An effective
inspection of landings could provide evidence of their impact. Reports from
fishers and research bodies indicate that there is extensive mortality of small
bass in some mobile gear fisheries.58 The selectivity work supporting the
landings obligation should be considered with regard to bass as well as
current quota species.59
Temporal restrictions for components of the fishery that take out large
quantities of fish in the first and second quarters of the year during spawning
season, should be covered by the closed season (see recommendation
below). The closures should be supported by the best biological information
available.
The risk of a ‘bycatch only’ fishery is perverse and would reward those who
fish unselectively.
40 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
40
Close the bass fishery during spawning season
Bass spawn around England and Wales from February to July. Spawning takes
place from the Celtic Sea to the Eastern English Channel in ICES areas: VIIf – Celtic
Sea; VIIg and VIIh and in the Western VIId; and Eastern Channel VIIe. 60 Bass
spawn in mid water, so spawning areas are not as clearly defined as for other
species e.g. herring which deposit eggs on the seabed.
The spawning activity moves east as the season advances up until late June. Up to
500g of eggs per kg of female bodyweight are produced. (See Further reading
section at the end of the report).
As landings data show, the spawning stock fishery catches are mainly individuals
with a high spawning potential (most landings are above 43 cm in length).
The closure of fishing on spawning aggregations must be made permanent
and should extend to all gear types fishing for bass at this time (15 December
to 15 April) to allow a significant number of multi-season-spawners to
reproduce uninterrupted. There is evidence that any disturbance of the
spawning aggregation during fishing operations may have a further adverse
effect on recruitment success, so this measure must be continue and
expanded to cover all metiers61 i.e. mid-water (pelagic) trawls on spawning
grounds and demersal trawls in the same areas (otter and beam trawls).62
Fisheries that catch their main amounts during the second half of the year as
the bass return from spawning (lines and hooks and gill nets), should be
treated favourably although a reduction in the cumulative landings from the
offshore drift net fishery needs to be addressed via further reducing vessel
catch limits.
The emergency measures make it clear that further fishing of bass during
spawning season, and in the spawning aggregations in the Western and
Eastern Channel, is no longer acceptable due to its impact on the spawning
stock. The emergency measures63 should be carried forward in the form of a
permanent ban on pelagic trawling for bass and should include the closure of
main bass spawning areas – that is, the known main spawning areas of the
Southwestern Approaches, Western Channel, North Devon and Bay of Biscay
to all metiers from 15 December to 15 April.
Regulate netting for bass
Both inshore and offshore netting (drift and static ‘entangling’ nets) take place for
bass, and all forms of netting have an impact at stock level.
41 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
41
For all forms of netting – static, drift, inshore, and offshore – new restrictions and
regulations are needed. Netting is currently unregulated to a large degree.
The length and number of nets (fleets - which run for many miles at a time
and are shot simultaneously) need to be brought under management and
prohibited in spawning season. There is an EU-wide length restriction of
2.5km of drift nets, which could be reduced.
Constant attending of the drift nets should be mandatory to avoid loss of gear,
sea mammal and seabird bycatch as well as the risks of lost gear (especially
while fishing at night) and ghost fishing. According to a Defra report from
2011, seals have been observed bycaught in a drift net targeting bass and in
gill nets targeting bass. Bird bycatch is thought to be significant (in particular
guillemots) and cetacean bycatch has also been observed.64
Increasing the mesh size to 105mm for all ‘entangling’ net fisheries between
0-12nM (and beyond 12nM requiring EU regulation) to complement the
increase in the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS). Mesh sizes for
nets need to increase to allow smaller bass to slip through and help stock
recruitment and year class diversity.65 Selectivity is affected by two issues
beyond mesh size: hanging ratio and twine thickness. Both of these issues
must also be covered by regulation. Scientific research should determine the
regulation for hang ratios which range between 50% (standard) and 66%.66
Use the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF):
Compensation and gear modification
Gear modification funding to adapt to the new regulations could be covered in part
by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
This will require bids written by regulators and fishermen in partnership with research
bodies such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquacultural Science
(Cefas) and the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER).
Furthermore, “temporary cessation of fishing activities would seem available, both
under the EFF and under the EMFF.
Both the EFF and the EMFF envisage temporary cessation aid precisely in order to
bridge temporary emergency measures; this is one of the purposes of this financing
instrument”.67
These funds should be used to compensate those fishers that are seasonally and
spatially excluded from the bass fishery. Compensation should consider their
respective impact at stock level, reliance on bass and alternative sources of income.
42 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
42
Enforcement of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing
The issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a serious problem
for bass (as it is a non-quota, high value species with a substantial targeted
recreational fishery) for both data reliability and illegality.
The significant illegal fishing effort by individuals and groups “fishing at commercial
levels under the guise of RSA [recreational sea angling] and selling the fish to a
variety of outlets, [shows] there is an immediate need for much improved
enforcement throughout the supply chain”.68
This issue could be tackled by legislating mandatory fin clipping or carcass tagging
for any retained bass (up to a maximum of three per day).
As Cefas have pointed out, the UK’s Salmon Act 1986 relating to the possession of
fish could be reviewed and similar legislation applied to bass as well.
Starting a reporting requirement for recreational angling (as exists for migratory
species such as salmon and sea trout in the UK) may be a first step which anglers
and subsidised citizen science programs can take towards better data.
Resources to run public awareness campaigns on “clipping” for anglers are also
necessary to combat IUU fishing of bass.
Bass landings far eclipse those of salmon or sea trout, so in simple terms of volume
this will require more effort. But tackling IUU is major issue for bass, and carcass
tags have proven effective in the US striped bass fishery on the East Coast.
Transhipment of bass requires transport documents for movement of fish.
Resourcing enforcement officers adequately to ensure they can control this activity is
equally important. 69
Adequate resourcing to investigate IUU fishing, that enables managing authorities to
mount legal cases when commercial activity is being conducted in an unlicensed
manner, is crucial.
We have discussed the need for good data, good management, proper funding for
enforcement, the need for EU-wide measures that will impact the whole stock.
What is certainly needed in order to advance the ‘best value criteria’ approach is
better data.
Data collection
There is a lack of dedicated funding in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
(EMFF) for data collection on bass.
43 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
43
All affected member states without a signed off operational plan (OP) should include
funding for bass research in their OP for the EMFF.70
Data-reporting requirements should be extended into the bass fishery,
alongside resources to collect and analyse data in a meaningful way.71
Collecting data on the full impact of recreational fishing and the survival rates
of fish that have been released, is a key priority to ensure that recreational
angling for bass can be a high-income, low-impact part of the fishery. This will
only be possible when the wider impact of recreational fishing practises can
be quantified and regulated accordingly.
44 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
44
Discussion
From Emergency Measures to long-term management
Before the management plan called for by ICES is written and implemented, the
emergency measures need to be extended and enforced to halt the significant
reduction of spawning stock biomass.
The development of a management plan will require compromise with different
sectors and could set an example to other Member States to follow. If the entire
decision-making process is left to EU level discussions and Advisory Councils (ACs),
it will take years to formulate and agree.
The consistently most effective means of reducing (F) is through limiting catch via
quotas. When quotas are in line with scientific advice, these have been shown to be
the most effective means of reducing fish mortality and increasing stock biomass
Article 17 of the reformed CFP
Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities by member states “When allocating
the fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to in Article 16, member states
shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental,
social and economic nature.”72
Fishing opportunities and quota for bass (Article 17)
Bass is not a total allowable catches (TAC) or quota species at present, but the
monthly catch limits suggests looking at how some species have fared as a result of
TACs being introduced for them.
Maybe bass quota, determined transparently using objective criteria such as those
outlined above, is a necessary part of the long-term management plan.
Looking at Figure 11 we can see that EU quota and fisheries management measures
have had a positive impact on fish stock biomass overall: fishing pressure has been
reduced and the average stock biomass has increased.
This has not happened for bass due to a lack of management as new regulation,
enforcement and adequate resourcing of regulators has been lacking.
This is also a result of fishing pressure combined with the environmental factors
described above.
Just a brief glance at the average stock biomass graph for 85 major fish stocks could
have on bass stocks.
45 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
45
Figure 11 compared to the downward trajectory for bass surely makes the case to
start discussing the impact a quota system, following Article 17 and ensuring that
fishing opportunities or quota go to those who demonstrate best value to society and
the environment.
Figure 11: Comparison of bass trends with other major North East Atlantic fish stocks.73,74,75
Bass fishing mortality/pressure (left) and stock biomass (right)
The main obstacle regarding a quota for bass was explained by UK Fisheries
Minister, George Eustice: “Initially, the European Commission suggested a total
allowable catch for bass, but we firmly believe that that is not appropriate because a
new TAC is established on track records of catches, so there is a real danger that
that would simply lock in a continuation of the current exploitation pattern, which now
needs to change radically.
A further disadvantage of setting a TAC for bass is that it would take no account of
the efforts a number of member states have already unilaterally taken to limit
commercial catches, which would be unfair to those countries.”76
46 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
46
However, allocation of fishing opportunities/quota under Article 17 shall be
allocated along transparent, objective criteria, rather than track record
(‘relative stability’).77
Bass should be the test case for Article 17 in practice, i.e. a quota not based
on relative stability. Article 17 now provides member states with a great
opportunity to allocate quota or fishing opportunities in a way that is aligned
with the public interest. Under Article 17,78 member states shall provide
incentives to vessels to use more selective gear or gear with a generally lower
environmental impact.
Our results demonstrate that:
Demersal/otter trawls were the most profitable fleets fishing for bass, however
they supported the fewest jobs per tonne of bass landed, had a lower average
price (£6.50-£7 per kg) as well as the highest discard rates, impact on
spawning stock mortality, marine mammal bycatch and ecosystem damage.
Drift and fixed nets performed better on the environmental criteria (except for
ghost fishing) than mobile gear and have a lower impact on spawning stock
mortality, while overall also being 20% dependent on bass for their income.
Netters also comprised the most bass dependent ports (62.5% of landings
value of bass went to bass dependent ports) and provided a higher number of
jobs per kg of bass than mobile gear, while receiving the lowest subsidy per
kg.
Most jobs per kg of bass were supported by hook and line fishing. The price
per kg was also highest (£9.50 per kg), while also having the lowest discard
rates and impact on spawning stock mortality. In terms of their dependence
on bass, hook and line were the most (55%) dependent on bass and landed
into five ports, for which bass comprised a higher proportion (30%) of
landings, and can be considered significantly dependent on bass.
Impacts on unwanted bycatch species are reduced in the static gear and hook and
line fisheries, and there are limited or reduced impacts on the seabed compared to
mobile gear.79 Any more selective gear, with a higher social value (more jobs with a
lower environmental impact), should be favoured according to the reformed CFP as
part of addressing transparent economic, social and environmental criteria.80
From the results it is clear that applying Article 17 criteria and the indicators
presented would enable decision makers to look at the wider social, environmental
and economic value of bass and allocate any remaining fishing opportunities for
bass according to them, thus meeting their legal obligations under the reformed
CFP.
47 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
47
Appendix
Annex 1: EU Emergency measures
Measure one: A short-term ban on pelagic trawling
On 19 January 2015 the EU imposed a pelagic trawling ban until the end of April
2015 – a critical first step in this package of measures. The ban protected the stock
from being targeted when at its most vulnerable, when the fish are coming together
in shoals during the spawning season to reproduce. It applied to the Channel, Celtic
Sea, Irish Sea and southern North Sea.
Measure two: A three-fish bag limit for recreational fishermen
On 25 March 2015 the EU set a catch limit of three fish per day per
angler. Recreational fishing accounts for 25% of sea bass catches.
Measure three: A monthly catch limit and a closed area
On 19 June 2015 the EU set catch limits for particular fishing gears in order to
protect sea bass for the remainder of 2015. The decision also comprises an area
closure around Ireland for commercial fishing, namely the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea,
south of Ireland and west of Ireland (ICES areas VIIa,b,c,g,j,k outside the UK 12 mile
zone), thereby extending a national measure, that Ireland has had in place for Irish
vessels only, to protect sea bass since 1990 to cover all EU vessels active in the
area.
Measure four: An increase in the minimum size of northern sea bass
On 2 July 2015 the EU increased the minimum size for northern sea bass from 36 to
42 cm. The new rule applies to both commercial and recreational fishermen. This will
further improve the protection of this valuable stock and give it more chance to
reproduce young fish before it is caught.
The Commission had also proposed to increase the minimum size for the two
southern stocks of sea bass in Iberian waters and the Bay of Biscay. Member states
however pointed to the lack of data available on these stocks, which does not
support the use of emergency measures. The Commission will therefore ask for
renewed scientific advice on the southern stocks, which will feed into new proposals
on sea bass from 2016 onwards.
48 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
48
Annex 2: Northern Sea bass stock component vessel limits
Vessel catch limits
From 1 July 2015, in the following areas a monthly catch limit will apply depending
on the gear(s) a vessel uses:
ICES divisions IVb, IVc, VIId, VIIe VIIf and VIIh
waters within 12 nautical miles from baseline under the soverignity of the
United Kingdom in ICES divisions VIIa and VIIg.
The limits for each gear type are as in the table below:
Gear category and code Maximum catch of sea
bass permitted per vessel
per calendar month (in kg)
Mid water or pelagic trawls, including OTM
and PTM
1,500
All types of demersal trawls including Danish
and Scottish seines, including OTB, OTT,
PTB, TBB, SSC, SDN, SPR, SV, SB, SX,
TBN, TBS, TB
1,800
All GN, all drift net and fixed (trammel) net
fisheries, including GTR, GNS, GND, FYK,
FPN, FIX
1,000
All longlines or pole and line, or rod and line,
fisheries, including LHP, LHM, LLD, LL, LTL,
LX LLS
1,300
Purse seines, gear codes PS, LA 3,000
The limits apply to all vessel lengths and apply to the combined catches from any of
the relevant ICES areas during a calendar month. For vessels which use multiple
gear types during a calendar month the lowest catch limit for any of those gears
used will apply.
49 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
49
Southern sea bass stock component
Currently no emergency measures have been implemented for the southern bass
stock. “The Commission had also proposed to increase the minimum size for the two
southern stocks of sea bass in Iberian waters and the Bay of Biscay.
Member states however pointed to the less robust data available on these stocks.
The Commission will therefore ask for renewed scientific advice on the southern
stocks, which will feed into new proposals on sea bass from 2016 onwards.”
Annex 3: Total commercial and recreational landings of bass
Source: ICES, 2014
This figure provides an illustration of potential recreational fishery removals
compared with landings of commercial fishery métiers from UK and France, based
on a fixed recreational F vector (F(5–11)= 0.07) included in the Final Run 22.
Note that these figures are intended to illustrate the potential magnitude of
recreational catches based on the recreational fishing mortality needed to generate
1500 tonnes of recreational fishery removals in 2012, and are completely conditional
on an assumed constant recreational F which is unlikely to be true.
50 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
50
Annex 4: Map of EU bass catch using MMO data (2012)
Source: European Commission – Fishing effort part 181
The rectangles on this ‘heat map’ correspond to ICES rectangles.82
Bass spawning areas in the English Channel, Pickett and Pawson, 1994; 'Sea
bass: biology, exploitation and conservation' and corresponding ICES areas.
51 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
51
Annex 5: Commercial EU landings over time by member state (1985-2014)
Source: ICES advice for 2016
Annex 6: Increased regulation of recreational fisheries
An alternative/additional idea is for carcass tagging to be introduced for commercial
landings. There are salmon fisheries in the UK and striped bass fisheries in USA
where mandatory carcass tagging exists.
No doubt much could be learnt from these experiences. The Handline Association83
are already voluntarily fitting carcass tags so the practicalities of fishermen fitting
them are not an issue.
The problem of bass being sold both illegally and legally where the landings data is
not collected is serious and complex.
Bass sold from an unlicensed motorised vessel however captured – rod and
line, nets, long line – are sold illegally.
Bass sold from a vessel without an engine – sail boat, row boat, kayak –] may
be sold legally providing they are not purchased by a registered buyer.
Bass captured from the shore – stake nets, spilter lines, seined, rod and line –
may be sold legally to anyone including a registered buyer.
Bass captured and sold from a licensed vessel directly to consumers for
personal consumption – i.e. not for re-sale as in restaurant or fish trader – is
legal providing each transaction does not exceed 30 kilos. There is no limit on
the number of transactions daily.
Bass captured and sold from a licensed vessel to restaurants, pubs, and fish
traders that are not registered buyers, are sold illegally.
52 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
52
The cumulative weight of bass landings from the above scenarios across the UK is
likely to be very significant but apart from c) the landings data is being missed. Since
the paper work for registered buyers is designed to record data for vessels, it is
highly likely that landings from scenario c) are also not being collected.
Summary, courtesy of Malcolm Gilbert, January 2015: “The official reported landings
of sea bass in the UK are known to underestimate the true total landings, particularly
for small-scale inshore fisheries where there has been no requirement to submit EC
logbooks.
However, for small-scale fisheries where there are very large numbers of small
vessels often catching small quantities, the cumulative catch of unrecorded small
landings can be relatively high.
This is likely to be an issue over the full time-series. Due to the known inaccuracies
in reported landings of such vessels, Cefas (UK) implemented an independent
logbook scheme and port survey in England and Wales in 1985 to estimate mean
CPUE [catch per unit effort] (annual landings per vessel, based on a logbook kept by
selected skippers) and total number of vessels catching sea bass (from an annual
port survey covering different stretches of coastline in successive years).
Total bass landings were estimated as the product of CPUE and vessel numbers.
The scheme was stratified by area, gear and vessel characteristics.
Annex 7: UK Otter trawl and gill net discards (2002-2011)
Source: ICES – IBP Bass Report 2014
Discarding by otter trawls is largest near important nursery grounds e.g. in VIId,
which could be improved by more selective gears and spatial management
measures.
53 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
53
Source: ICES – IBP Bass Report 201484
54 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
54
Annex 8 – Comparison of mobile/static gear in terms of bycatch of target/non-
target species: impact on marine mammals and seabed habitats
Source: Brown et al – Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear
85
55 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
55
Further reading
CFP basic regulation
http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-
14_Basic_regulation_on_the_CFP_final_compromise_text.pdf
IIEP and RSPB report on Art 17
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/IEEP_2014_Practical_implementation_of_CFP_Art_17_tcm9-
385886.pdf
CEFAS C-Bass project
https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/06/16/conservation-seabass/
Defra have responded with a desire to fill as many of these outstanding knowledge
gaps as possible and have funded C-Bass, a four-year bass research programme,
‘Population studies in support of the Conservation of the European sea
bass’. Cefas are leading this project, working with stakeholders from the commercial
and recreational fishery sectors.
The C-Bass project is co-ordinating scientific research and data collection in several
different areas. “By going back and analysing growth and distribution patterns in
previous years, and applying sophisticated computer models to predict the dispersal
of eggs and larvae from spawning grounds, C-Bass scientists hope to better
understand how bass respond to a range of environmental factors.
As a result, we can better predict how bass stocks will behave in the future, for
example, in relation to rising sea temperatures.”86
Reproductive potential of larger bass: Bass size and production of offspring
(Image credit: PISCO, 2011)87.
56 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
56
Endnotes
1 Cefas. (16 June 2014). Marine Science blog: C-Bass: Putting the “Conservation” into Seabass
[webpage]. Retrieved from https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/06/16/conservation-seabass/
2 Cefas. (19 December 2014). Marine Science blog: C-Bass in Action [webpage]. Retrieved from
https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/12/19/c-bass-in-action/ Cefas (2015)
3 ICES Advisory Committee. (1 January–30 April 2014). ICES IBP Bass Reoprt 2014: Report of the
Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Sea Bass in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel and Southern
North Sea (IBP Bass). Retrieved from
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20
Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf
4 Fish for Thought. (n.d.) Buy Bass [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.martins-seafresh.co.uk/buy-
bass.html
5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/111. (26 January 2015). Establishing measures to
alleviate a serious threat to the conservation of the sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax ) stock in the
Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.020.01.0031.01.ENG
6 Council Regulation (EU). (25 March 2015). Amending Regulations (EU) No 43/2014 and (EU)
2015/104 as regards certain fishing opportunities [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0523
7 Council Regulation (EU). (19 June 2015). Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 as regards certain
fishing opportunities [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.157.01.0001.01.ENG
8 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU). (30 July 2015). Derogating from Council Regulation
(EC) No 850/98, as regards the minimum conservation reference size for sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1438338913075&uri=OJ%3AJOL_2015_203_R_0006
9 ICES. (June 2014). Advice Ecoregion stock: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea European
sea bass in Divisions IVbc, VIIa, and VIId–h (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel, and southern
North Sea [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/bss-47.pdf
10 Rossettoa, M., Bitettoc, I., Spedicatoc, M.T., Lemboc, G., Gambinod, M., Accadiad, P. & Meliàa, P.,
(March 2015). Multi-criteria decision-making for fisheries management: A case study of
Mediterranean demersal fisheries [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1400298X
11 ICES. (June 2014). Advice Ecoregion stock: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea
European
57 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
57
sea bass in Divisions IVbc, VIIa, and VIId–h (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel, and southern
North Sea [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/bss-47.pdf
12 European Parliament and European Council. (11 December 2013). Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013
on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No
1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council
Decision 2004/585/EC [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF
13 Walmsley, S. & Armstrong, M. ( March 2012). The UK commercial bass fishery in 2010. UK. Cefas.
14 ICES Advisory Committee. (1 January–30 April 2014). ICES IBP Bass Report 2014: Report of the
Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Sea Bass in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel and Southern
North Sea (IBP Bass). Retrieved from
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20
Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf
15 Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. (2014). Sea Bass Management
[webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.kentandessex-ifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/B4.pdf
16 Marine Management Organisation (24 June 2015). New fishing restrictions issued for bass
(Dicentrarchus labrax) [webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fishing-
restrictions-issued-for-bass-dicentrarchus-labrax
17 Council of the European Union. (28 January 2015). Commission staff working document:
Emergency measures for sea bass [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/41/EU_54117/imfname_10526448.pdf
18 Council of the European Union. (28 January 2015). Commission staff working document:
Emergency measures for sea bass [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/41/EU_54117/imfname_10526448.pdf
19 “Combining the catch estimates for charter boats, private boats and shore angling, the point
estimates of annual kept weights of sea bass ranged from 230 t–440 t, compared with total UK
commercial landings of almost 900 t in 2012. The recent estimates of total recreational removals of
sea bass for France, Netherlands and England in Subareas IV and VII amount to 1300–1500 t.” CES
Advisory Committee. (1 January–30 April 2014). ICES IBP Bass Reprrt 2014: Report of the Inter-
Benchmark Protocol for Sea Bass in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel and Southern North
Sea (IBP Bass). Retrieved from http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf
20 ICES. (June 2014). Advice Ecoregion stock: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea
European
sea bass in Divisions IVbc, VIIa, and VIId–h (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel, and southern
North Sea [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/bss-47.pdf
21 Angling Trust. (27 November 2013). Two billion pound spend highlights huge value of recreational
sea angling [webpage]. Retrieved from http://anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=1929
58 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
58
22 Blue Marine Foundation. (11 February 2015). Emergency action announced to prevent the collapse
of bass stocks [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/blog/bass-should-
slip-through-the-net/ Defining the Economic and Environmental Values of Sea Bass (MRAG, 2014)
23 Eftec. (2015). Comparing Industry Sector Values, With a Case Study of Commercial Fishing and
Recreational Sea Angling [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/eftec_comparing_industry_sector_values_FINAL_Aug_201
5.pdf
24 MMO. (2015). Landings by port [webpage] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sea-
fisheries-annual-statistics [webpage].
25 Defra. (2015). Emission factors for carbon reporting
http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/ [webpage].
26 OECD – Fuel tax concessions in the fisheries sector http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-
food/fuel-tax-concessions-in-the-fisheries-sector_5k9bdccqft30-en?crawler=true [webpage].
27 ICES - Report on the inter-benchmark protocol on new species (2012) [webpage].
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/IBP%20
New/ibpNew_2012.pdf
28 Cefas - Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl fishery
http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/bass-trawl-discards.pdf [webpage].
29 Cefas - Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl fishery
http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/bass-trawl-discards.pdf [webpage].
30 ICES - Report on the inter-benchmark protocol on new species (2012) [webpage].
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/IBP%20
New/ibpNew_2012.pdf
31 Cefas - Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries
http://www.nwwac.org/publications/cefas-discard-atlas-of-the-north-western-waters-demersal-
fisheries.1849.html [webpage].
32 Seafish – Responsible Sourcing Guide Sea Bass 2013 [webpage].
http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SeafishResponsibleSourcingGuide_Seabass_201309.pdf
33 Pickett & Pawson – Sea Bass: Biology, exploitation and conservation (1994)
34 Martin-Lopez - Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation [webpage].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410400 (2008)
35 Kaiser et al - Different cultures different values [webpage].
https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:9464 (2012)
36 Jobstvogt et al - Looking below the surface [webpage].
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001089 (2014)
37 Seafish – RASS http://www.seafish.org/rass/ [webpage].
59 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
59
38 Northridge, S., Kingston, A., Mackay, A. and Lonergan, M. (2011). Bycatch of Vulnerable Species:
Understanding the Process and Mitigating the Impacts. Final Report to Defra Marine and Fisheries
Science Unit, Project no MF1003. University of St Andrews. Defra, London, 99pp.
39 Nunny – The price of fish: A review of cetacean bycatch in fisheries in the north-east Atlantic
http://uk.whales.org/sites/default/files/price-of-fish.pdf [webpage].
40 ICES – Report of the Workshop to Review and Advise on Seabird Bycatch (2013) [webpage].
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WKBY
CS/wkbycs_final_2013.pdf
41 Andersen et al – Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries http://www.int-
res.com/articles/esr_oa/n014p091.pdf (2011)
42 Marine Conservation Society – Fishonline http://www.fishonline.org/ [webpage].
43 Fuller et al – How we fish matters: Addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear
[webpage]. https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2274911 (2008)
44 Seafish – RASS http://www.seafish.org/rass/ [webpage].
45 Marine Conservation Society – Fishonline http://www.fishonline.org/ [webpage].
46 Fuller et al – How we fish matters: Addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear
[webpage]. https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2274911 (2008)
47 Commission Staff Working Document Explanatory note Emergency measures for sea bass
[webpage].
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&Ize8zkry/OLo2
MnRtUOxJiN4UyMRXKFd5YcKWEVatdTVqHZGdIwy2rS97ztb5t8b (February 2015)
48 Saarikoski, H., Barton, D.N., Mustajoki, J., Keune. H., Gomez-Baggethun, E. & J. Langemeyer.
(2015). Multicriteria
decision analysis (MCDA) in ecosystem service valuation. Potschin, M. & K. Jax (eds). OpenNESS
Ecosystem Service
Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Retrieved from
http://www.opennessproject.eu/sites/default/files/SP_MCDA.pdf
49 Defra. (19 October 2015). Defra frees up flexibilities for fishermen [webpage]. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defra-frees-up-flexibilities-for-fishermen
50 STECF. (2014). Plenary report [webpage]. Retrieved from
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-07_STECF+PLEN+14-
02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf
51 The Bristol Channel trawl fishery must be considered a directed bass fishery with discards of bass
less than 36cm as high as 90% and averaging 30%. The description of gear used in this fishery within
the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation report (http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-
the-program/exiting-the-program/withdrawn/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads-
1/17.02.2011-Bass_Assessment_PCDR_140211_FINAL.pdf it failed to achieve MSC accreditation)
draws attention to the uniqueness of the gear that is designed specifically for bass. Likewise the trawl
bass fishery that takes place off Sussex close to shore is a directed fishery. That a proportion of all
60 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
60
bass landings from trawls do consist of fish taken whilst trawling for other species is not questioned,
but to simply state that all trawl catches of bass derive from a mixed demersal fishery must be
considered incorrect. http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141128-
Final-Bass-Report-BMF-MRAG.pdf
52 Sussex IFCA http://www.sussex-
ifca.gov.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=159 [webpage]. (2011)
53 Available literature states that stern trawling and pair trawling are responsible for the majority of
catches (SxIFCA, 2011)
54Marine Stewardship Council [webpage]. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-
program/exiting-the-program/withdrawn/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads-
1/17.02.2011-Bass_Assessment_PCDR_140211_FINAL.pdf Chapter 4, page 17.
55 ‘During the 45 hauls from which fish samples were taken, in additional to bass, 43 species were
caught. There were 24 other commercial species and 19 non-commercial species… Excluding bass,
the mean weight of total catch per haul from the control trawl was 57kg of which 38kg was discarded
(68%). The corresponding values for the experimental trawl was 63kg caught of which 43kg were
discarded (66%).’ http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf
[webpage].
56 RSPB Practical implementation of CFP Art 17 [webpage].
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/IEEP_2014_Practical_implementation_of_CFP_Art_17_tcm9-
385886.pdf (2014)
57 IMARES (2010) [webpage]. http://edepot.wur.nl/107776
58 ‘During the 45 hauls from which fish samples were taken, in additional to bass, 43 species were
caught. There were 24 other commercial species and 19 non-commercial species… Excluding bass,
the mean weight of total catch per haul from the control trawl was 57kg of which 38kg was discarded
(68%). The corresponding values for the experimental trawl was 63kg caught of which 43kg were
discarded (66%).’ http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf
[webpage].
59 Bass Management considerations - joint comments from the Low Impact Fishers of Europe [LIFE] &
the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association [NUTFA]. 2014.
60 Pickett and Pawson (1994) 'Sea bass: biology, exploitation and conservation'
61 Effects of fishing during the spawning period: implications for sustainable management Harrie¨t M.
J. van Overzee, Adriaan D. Rijnsdorp http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1944153 (2014) Reviews in
Fish Biology and Fisheries. Volume 25, Issue 1 , pp 65-83
62 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Emergency measures for sea bass [webpage].
(2015) http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/41/EU_54117/imfname_10526448.pdf
63 ‘In order to provide effective protection to spawning aggregations, which are highly variable in
location, the emergency measures should cover the entire distribution area of the stock, i.e. the Celtic
Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea (ICES divisions IVb,c and VIIa,d-h) and include
fisheries using pelagic trawls. In addition ICES areas VIIj,k are included to prevent displacement in
fishing activity as stock distribution is not fully determined.’ European Commission (2015)
61 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
61
64 Northridge, S., Kingston, A., Mackay, A. and Lonergan, M. (2011). Bycatch of Vulnerable Species:
Understanding the Process and Mitigating the Impacts. Final Report to Defra Marine and Fisheries
Science Unit, Project no MF1003. University of St Andrews. Defra, London, 99pp.
65 'The analysis of catch data indicated that bass selectivity peaked at 41–44 cm in gillnets with a
mesh size of 90 cm. This peak increased with larger mesh sizes, reaching 54–58 cm with 120 mm
gillnets.'65
(Cefas , 2008) [webpage]
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.5896&rep=rep1&type=pdf
66 Hanging ratios: ‘When a mono net is purchased it arrives rolled up with all meshes horizontally
stretched closed and generally measures 100 metres. This is then attached to a headline and footline
measuring less than the fully stretched netting to allow the meshes to hang open vertically.
Traditionally, 100 metres of stretched netting would be hung on 66 metres of headline/footline – set by
66%. More recently, setting ratios appear to be nearer 50% with a lot more slack in the netting and
far less selectivity.’ (NEF, 2015)
http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/9e98a3d20e2b904409_w1m6bs1pl.pdf [webpage]
67 Commission Staff Working Document Explanatory note Emergency Measures for sea bass
[webpage] (2015)
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/41/EU_54117/imfname_10526448.pdf
68 STECF final report (2014) http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-
07_STECF+PLEN+14-02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf [webpage]
69 EMFF on control and enforcement ‘enforcement and control of the catch certification scheme for
the importation and exportation of fishery products as provided for in Chapter III of Regulation (EC)
No 1005/2008; The implementation of the catch certification scheme is the cornerstone of the fight
against the IUU activity,’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0464&from=EN [webpage]
70 Some European countries are now conducting recreational fishery surveys to meet the
requirements of the EU Data Collection Framework, and the design and accuracy of these surveys
will be reviewed by the ICES Planning Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys. (CEFAS, 2012) e.g.
DCR bass was excluded from the compulsory stock in the Netherlands. Need to spend money to
bring these figures into the DCF.
71 Armstrong and Drogou, 2014 [report No. SI2.680348 in STECF (2014)
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-07_STECF+PLEN+14-
02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf [webpage]
72 European Commission (2013) http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF [webpage]
73Most major fish stocks included in this assessment by Cefas are under CFP quota management
(Cefas data)
74 Seafish http://www.seafish.org/media/1327189/clg_nov2014_cefas_stockstatus2.pdf (2014)
[webpage]
75 ICES advice http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/bss-47.pdf
(2014) [webpage]
62 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
62
76 ICES has previously identified that a TAC may not be the most suitable means to effectively control
mortality for this stock. Some Member States have also mentioned the CFP reform (landing
obligation) as an argument against the introduction of a new TAC.
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-07_STECF+PLEN+14-
02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf
77 RSPB Practical implementation of CFP Art 17 [webpage]
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/IEEP_2014_Practical_implementation_of_CFP_Art_17_tcm9-
385886.pdf (2014)
78 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/proposals/index_en.htm European Commission (2013)
[webpage]
79 ICES http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/08/icesjms.fsv099.abstract (2015)
[webpage]
''Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and
dimensions''
‘Mobile bottom contacting fishing gears have impacts on benthic ecosystems..includ[ing] mortality of
benthic invertebrates, resuspension of and physical disturbance of biogenic habitats whereas long-
term impacts may include changes in species composition (Kaiseret al., 2006) and reduction in
habitat complexity (Kaiser et al., 2002).... the benthic impacts of otter trawlers, demersal seiners,
beam trawlers, and dredgers were identified as the most significant in the European and Black Sea
fisheries. For these four gear groups, the major effects and mechanisms of impact were assessed to
be: (i) mortality of benthic organism from direct gear– seabed gear contact during fishing, (ii) food
subsidies from discards and gear track mortality, (iii) habitat alterations through disturbance of
sediments and effects on seabed habitats, and (iv) change to geochemical processes (release of
nutrients and chemical substances) from disturbance of sediment.’
80 For more information on recreational bass angling in the UK see B.A.S.S. [webpage]
http://www.ukbass.com/bmp/bmpdraft.pdf
81 European Commission (2013) Fishing effort part one. Retrieved from:
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg1306
82 ICES [webpage] http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/maps/Pages/ICES-statistical-rectangles.aspx
(2014)
83 Line Caught [webpage] http://www.linecaught.org.uk/
84ICES (2014). IBP Bass Report 2014 [webpage]
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20
Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf
85 Brown, J, G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, J. Magnus and J. Tumilty (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost
Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission.
Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management
Ltd joint report. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/ghostfishing_en.pdf [webpage]
86 Cefas https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/06/16/conservation-seabass/ [webpage] (2014)
63 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP
63
87 PISCO ‘Science of Marine Reserves’ accessed December 2014. Partnership for Interdisciplinary
Studies of Coastal Oceans. 2011. The Science of Marine Reserves (2nd Edition, Europe).
www.piscoweb.org. 22 pages. [webpage]
http://www.piscoweb.org/files/file/science_of_marine_reserves/SMR_EU-HR.pdf PISCO ‘Science of
Marine Reserves’ accessed December 2014. Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal
Oceans. 2011. The Science of Marine Reserves (2nd Edition, Europe). www.piscoweb.org. 22 pages.