‘Solway Cockle Fishery Study’

A review of management options

Thursday 22nd May at the Selkirk Arms in Kirkcudbright

Project Background

• The Review was commissioned, coordinated and supported by:– The Solway Firth Partnership.

• The review was carried out by: – Tristan Southall & Dr Oliver Tully

• The Review was Funded by:

Dumfries & Galloway Fisheries Local Action Group

(FLAG)

Project Aims:

• Review:– Existing information on stock status– Existing management measures– Past management experience

• Explore:– Possible future management scenarios– Other relevant fishery examples

• Recommend– Key considerations for future management

Project Sources:

• A largely desk-based review. – No primary research was undertaken – it draws on

past work (in particular past stock surveys).• Meetings were held with the Solway Firth

Partnership and Marine Scotland.• Telephone consultations were held with:

– former SSMA committee members – including Councillors, Industry Representatives, SNH and RSPB.

Solw

ay C

ockl

e Fi

sher

y Ti

mel

ine

Stock Management Considerations

• A 20 year cockle survey time series is available for the Solway. The survey data provides:– estimates of total biomass, – commercial biomass, – non-commercial biomass, – age structure – maps the patterns and trends of these variables.

• A valuable resource to inform discussions of future management.

What does this tell us?

Landings & biomass of cockles in Solway during the period 1987-2007.

19871988

19891990

19911992

19931994

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

20090

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Landings

Commercial biomass

Non commercial biomass

Total biomass

Tonn

es

Life History of Cockles• Fishery potential

Spawning (stock)SettlementGrowth V Mortality

• Balance of these rates determines how best to exploit the stock

• Fast growth & low mortality = high MLS & frequent fisheries

• Slow growth & high mortality = low MLS & probably infrequent fisheries

• 1 winter, 2 winters or 3 winters ?Commercial biomassFisherySpawning stock

Spawning potential and recruitment

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.00.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.02 yr lag

Commercial biomass (tonnes.km2)

Non

-com

mer

cial

bio

mas

s (t

onne

s pe

r sq

km)

Maintaining a given level of spawning stock tends to result in better recruitment

100 150 200 250 3000

10

20

30

40

50

Wind direction (true degrees) Jan-Mar

Spat

den

sity

Jun

e

Dundalk: Environmental effects on recruitment

y=0.000529*x^3.032

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Shell height (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Conversion of non-commercial to commercial biomass

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.00

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lag 1+2 years

Non commercial biomass y(n) (tonnes.km2)

Com

mer

cial

bio

mas

s y(

n+2)

(ton

nes.

km2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Ratio of Commercial / Non-commercial biomass

Perc

enta

ge

Conversion ratios

Weight at harvest size is >9 times higher than in first few months post settlement

Harvest Rules & exploitation rates

Two questions to consider:1. How to manage spawning potential

Spatial reserves (in sensitive habitats) Size refugia (below the minimum size) Unexploited cockles above the MLS in the fishery area Limit reference point: is it 100 tonnes per square km? Develop a spatial index of spawning potential

2. How to optimise yields from a given recruitment Depends on the balance of growth and mortality Ecosystem requirements And how spawning potential is to be managed

In previous management plan

Harvest rules and exploitation rates - Recommendations

Review the 20 years of survey data estimate age specific mortality rates include space (habitat) and density (of cockles) in this

assessment

‘Characterise’ Solway cockles winters to reach minimum size does mortality show pattern or is it highly variable do cockles in certain habitats do better than others what is the relationship with birds get new data on meat yields (seasonality, size)

Develop the harvest strategy based on above

What size of fishery can we expect?

Using the 33% ‘rule of thumb’ and looking at previous survey data

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

TAC (33% of commercial biomass)

Year

Tonn

es

11 consecutive years when TAC could have been >1,500 tonnes

Managing a fishery of variable size

The Variables

TAC

Season Length

Licence Number

Type of licence

The Constraints

Daily fishing time

Limited Catch capacity (hand)

Seasonal Yields

Bird Predation & disturbance

TAC Uptake

Licence number

Season Length

Managing a fishery of variable sizeSources Variable Licenc type OutcomesMarket £ per tonne €1,500Survey and Strategy TAC 2000Policy Days in season 90Policy Ratio Hand/Dredge 0.18Policy Total number of licences 50Policy Number of licences Hand 41Policy Dredge 9

Constraint Daily catch potential per licence Hand 0.25Policy Dredge 1.30

Total catch potential Hand 922.5Dredge 1053Total 1976

Value per licence Hand €33,750.00Dredge €175,500.00

Total value Hand €1,383,750.00Dredge €1,579,500.00

Ecosystem Considerations

• Solway is internationally important ecosystem, reflected in a number of designations. – Overwintering birds.

• Safeguarding the ecosystem is important objective of sustainable fisheries management.– No obvious adverse effect from existing fishery, but this has

been restricted in scale and range.• Important to retain ecosystem considerations from

previous management plan.– Potential impacts well understood– Undertake Appropriate Assessment on harvest strategy in

relation to conservation objectives.

Enforcement Considerations

• The scale of the Solway, with ease of access mean enforcement is a challenge. IUU has historically been a problem:– Depletes available resource– Undermines faith in management (Incentivises non-compliance)

• Reason for some optimism that scale of IUU reduced in the last decade.– Legislative changes (i.e. equipped to fish). – Focus on Food Safety / transport.

• Informal approaches to enforcement are possible by designing ‘stewardship’ into the management system. – But given history and physical characteristics of the fishery this is

unlikely to be sufficient.

Market Considerations

• Price is dependent on market factors. Some of which are predictable.• Manage the fishery to sustainably maximise income, without additional

environmental burden.• Price is dependent on yield. Yields are higher in the late summer months

and fall off significantly into the autumn and winter months. • A delay in opening the fishery causes:

– fewer market opportunities – considerably reduced incomes – Reduced potential for any management cost recovery.

Irregular Supply

Harder to develop market / investment opportunities

Stable Fishery

Easier to develop reliable market

Income Potential Fixed Costs

£ Management administration

£ Appropriate Assessments &

modelling

£ Annual Stock Assessment

£ enforcement of large coastline with easy access

High variability

Small scale

Seasonal fishery

How will costs be

met?

Future Options - Legislation• Management needs to be designed around the available legislative tools:

– Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967– Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 – the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010

• Each option has limitations and strong implications in terms of who will be responsible for (and pay for) management.

• A Regulating or Hybrid Order: – restricted licencing clearly defined fishery boundaries, flexible licence

conditions potential for cost recovery. – considerable (financial) responsibility on management grantee, which must

first be identified . Difficult approval process • A Fishing Order:

– Strong statutory & administrative backing Inflexible (prohibit within a defined area (and if necessary a defined period) either all fishing or fishing for a particular species with a particular gear)

Future Options - Responsibility

• IFGs are not IFCAs. – Budgets, capacity, legislative power, property &

equipment.• Marine Scotland

– Have more legislative power (albeit inflexible), but limited local presence and limited engagement in inshore adaptive stock management.

• Local Grantee– Regulating Order would require this – but who?

Who will lead on

management?

Management Recommendations (1)

• Developing the Harvest Strategy– Review and further analyse the 20 year survey data– Propose reference points and harvest rules (inc. environmental elements.)– Agree management objectives and resource allocation policy with all

stakeholders– Develop a multi-annual approach; management plan, – Undertake AA (& bird model) of the scenarios within the multi-annual plan

• Routine Monitoring and Assessment– Licence holders should participate in provision of scientific data– Surveys and TAC advice should be delivered in later summer– TAC advice should be based upon agreed management plan – Fishers should be made aware of where to fish– Fishery dependent reporting may also supplement survey

Management Recommendations (2)

• Probable Design Fishery should be in autumn The season should be fixed and limited A combination of dredge and hand gathering licences will allow

for TAC take up Very clear entry and exit rules for licence holders should be

defined Avoid taking high TACs from bumper recruitments; these events

could de-stabilise management and more likely create adverse environmental impacts.

Harvest rules should facilitate control and enforcement (Stewardship)

Outstanding Questions

• Legislative structure • Management & Administrative Structure

(including service provision).• Operational economics:

• Scope for cost recovery (licence fee structure)• How fixed costs will be met

A viable fishery is achievable, but the

development process is likely to need

commitment and patience.

Thank you

Tristan Southalltristan@tdsouthall.co.uk

www.tdsouthall.co.uk+44 (0)1599 544244+44 (0)7815 053237

Appendix 1

Characteristics of Good Management

Characteristics of Good Management (P1)

• Clear management units – clearly defined stock definition (and underlying rationale / assumptions)

• Collection of appropriate information (computerised, time series tailored to HCR)

• Understanding of stock status – appropriate to life history / exploitation rate

• Adaptive management response (HCR)• Transparent (stakeholder buy-in) decision rules.• Timely Review & Evaluation

Characteristics of Good Management (P2)

• Data – discards, ETP interactions and ecosystem impacts - based on direct observation / independent verification / risk assessment.

• Information of ecosystem characteristics / distribution & changes over time.

• Understanding of spatial distribution of fleet activity (appropriate to scale of potential impact).

• A management review mechanism which allows for management action in event of ecosystem impacts or risk caused by fishing (ideally supported by decision rules where appropriate defining potential management action - spatial, temporal, technical etc).

• Codes of Conduct – industry led.

Characteristics of Good Management (P3)

• Good match between management jurisdiction & stock management scale.

• Limited entry / ring fencing / community ownership / stewardship of resource (allowing fair, non-discriminatory and equitable access e.g. to new entrants). TEST: what would happen if price doubled overnight? Displacement from other fisheries.

• Stakeholder engagement in management process – and feedback of management performance.

• Research and information collection tailored to the needs of management.• Management & enforcement appropriate to the scale (and risk) of the

fishery – and stakeholder understanding of the reason for this.• Defined fishery specific objectives and decision-making processes

(transparent & understood – simple & clear).• Timely Review and Evaluation – ideally holistically as well as component

parts.

Appendix 2

Dundalk Cockle Fishery

Dundalk Bay: Cockle fishery plan 2011-2016

Dundalk Bay: Cockle fishery plan 2011-2016

Low density High Growth rate Annual settlement Variable mortality

Dundalk Bay: Cockle fishery

1. Fishing area potentially = 60km2 (annually 10-20km2)2. Minimum size = 22mm shell width (national legislation is

17mm)3. Harvest rules

Minimum size = 22mm shell width 750 tonnes total biomass AND density <4 = no fishery

(limit reference point) 750-3000 tonnes biomass harvest ratio is 33% >3000 tonnes biomass harvest ratio is 50%

4. Closure conditions Kgs per day <250kg November 1st

TAC is taken5. Operational restrictions

Fishing during 4.2m tides or higher Dredge width 0.75m suction, 1.0m non-suction

6. Resource allocation Daily maximum catch = 1 tonne 33 dredge (transferable capacity) 20 hand gathering

Dundalk Bay: Cockle fishery 1. Annual sequence of events

Survey end of June TAC advice first week of July IF biomass >750 tonnes

• Licence applications• Licences issued• Fishery opens (August)

Monitoring Daily landings (gatherers dockets, logbooks) Daily catch rate (for catch rate closure rule) Cumulative landings in relation to TAC

Environmental monitoring Bird counts during and after fishery Feeding behaviour oystercatcher Benthic data polychaete:bivalve ratio

Closure Nov 1st if TAC not taken and if CPUE>250kg

Appendix 3

Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Structure