zf0926 s08 seabirds final report v13 - european commission · seabirds primarily interact with...

European Commission

Contribution to the preparation of a Plan of Action for Seabirds

Final Report

Submitted by

June 2011

Contribution to the preparation of a Plan of Action for Seabirds MRAG Ltd, Poseidon & Lamans s.a.

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

In 1999, the FAO Committee on Fisheries adopted an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing the Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries and called for States to begin its implementation no later than 2001. The European Commission, in fulfilment of its responsibilities as a contracting party of international organisations acting in the context of the IPOA, is committed to developing a plan of action to reduce the incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gear.

This report presents the findings of research carried out by MRAG Ltd and its partners, Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd and Lamans Management Services s.a., to contribute to the development of a European Community Plan of Action for Seabirds.

Objectives & Methodology

The main aim of this study was to assess existing mitigation measures and their effectiveness in key areas where incidental catches of seabirds have been identified as occurring, based on a study by the Working Group on Seabird Ecology of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Six case study fisheries were used to explore the scale and extent of seabird bycatch, assess fishers’ perception of the issue, identify existing and potential mitigation measures, and assess their cost‐effectiveness.

The following case studies were covered:

For longline fisheries: o the Gran Sol (demersal) (ICES area VIIj); o the western Mediterranean (pelagic and demersal) (Spain) (GSA 5 & 6); o Maltese and Greek waters (pelagic and demersal) (GSA 15, 20, 21, 22, 23);

For gillnet fisheries: o the ‘eastern’ Baltic Sea (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) (ICES area IIId); o The ‘western’ Baltic Sea (Germany, Denmark, Sweden) (ICES area IIIb, c, d); and o The eastern North Sea (Netherlands) (ICES area IV).

The study was based on direct consultation with the fleets operating in the case study areas, as well as data and information from fisheries departments, researchers and NGOs working in related fields.

Existing information on the case study fisheries, seabird populations in the case study areas, fishery‐seabird interactions and mitigation measures were compiled. A questionnaire was developed and implemented as a small scale survey of between 10‐52 respondents per case study fishery in order to explore fishers’ usual gear deployment and fishing patterns, experiences of interactions with seabirds, their use of and opinions on a selection of mitigation measures, the costs and benefits associated with different mitigation measures, and their general opinions on fishery‐seabird interactions.

A cost‐effectiveness score and ranking for the various mitigation measures was estimated for each case study, based on cost impact scores and estimates of effectiveness (based on fisher perception) as well as across fleets incorporating estimates of public sector costs.

The potential impacts of bycatch levels reported by fishers interviewed for the case study fisheries on seabird populations were explored by comparing estimates of total annual bycatch across fleets and regions with estimates of Potential Biological Removal (PBR) where possible.

Seabird‐fishery interactions

Seabirds primarily interact with fisheries as they forage, and therefore foraging behaviour often determines their vulnerability to being caught in fishing gear. In the case of longline fisheries, species that plunge dive or pursuit dive are particularly vulnerable to being caught during setting or hauling of longlines (both demersal and pelagic) as they are able to access bait even at substantial depths under the surface. This behaviour is exhibited in particular by


ii

shearwaters, gannets and auks. Surface‐seizing birds such as gulls and fulmars are also vulnerable, as the baited hooks can take a while to sink below the surface when setting.

In gillnet fisheries birds that are likely to get entangled in nets are mostly birds that dive from the surface near to the coast to either forage on the bottom or pursue prey through the water column. This foraging behaviour is common amongst species such as sea ducks, diving ducks, divers/loons, grebes, cormorants and auks.

A number of the seabird species that are vulnerable to bycatch in the Mediterranean, Gran Sol, Baltic and the North Sea case study fisheries are of global or European conservation concern. Five species have a global IUCN redlist status of ‘Near Threatened’ or higher: Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) (Critically Endangered), Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) (Vulnerable), Audouin’s gull (Larus audouinii), Sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), and Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) (Near Threatened). An additional four species have a Species of European Concern (SPEC) status of ‘2’ (global population is concentrated in Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status): the Common pochard (Aythya farina), Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus).

Case study results ‐ Longline fisheries

The Mediterranean demersal longline fisheries operate using small vessels (under 12m), close to the coast, targeting predominantly hake and breams, and often use longlining as one of a number of different fishing methods. The Mediterranean pelagic longline fisheries target swordfish and mainly albacore as well as other tuna species and use larger vessels, ranging more widely, but the vessels are still relatively small compared to other longline fleets, generally under 24m in length.

The key seabird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas are Cory’s shearwater, Yelkouan shearwater, Balearic shearwater, Audouin’s gull and Yellow‐legged gull. These species are present in the Mediterranean predominantly in the breeding season, but many individual birds also winter in the area. Previously reported bycatch rates have generally been higher for these species in the demersal longline fishery than in the pelagic longline fisheries. Some factors considered to influence bycatch in Mediterranean longline fisheries include fleet type, season, setting time, geographical location and presence or absence of trawlers.

Pelagic longline fishers interviewed in Spain suggested that the albacore fishery had more significant interactions with seabirds than the swordfish fishery, as the lines are set closer to the surface of the water and smaller hooks are used.

In general the longline fishers surveyed in the Mediterranean did not view seabird bycatch as a problem, as individual experiences of bycatches of seabirds were rare occurrences (e.g. around 5 birds per fisher per year).

The potential mitigation measures that were considered acceptable by the fishers in the Mediterranean longline fisheries, and that were most cost‐effective, were the use of offal/excess bait management, ensuring bait is thawed before use, and the use of streamer lines. Setting lines at night is potentially one of the most effective mitigation measures for avoiding seabird interactions, but, many of the fishers expected this to have significant negative impacts on their catches and revenue. However, some demersal fishers in Spain, Greece and Malta, and some pelagic fishers in Greece and Malta, already practise night‐setting and the potential for implementing this across the fleets as a requirement should be explored.

The Gran Sol demersal longline fleet operates in Gran Sol and the Porcupine Bank, moving further north in summer to the fishing grounds West of Scotland, and then move further south in winter. The vessels are 24–40m in length and stay at sea for 2–3 weeks at a time. The key seabird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly or are species of particular conservation concern with important breeding or non‐breeding areas include Northern fulmar, Nothern gannet, Great shearwater, Sooty shearwater, Manx shearwater, Cory’s shearwater and Black‐legged kittiwake. The Gran Sol fleet has previously been identified as having significant seabird bycatches. However, fishers interviewed for this study suggest that since these previous studies were carried out, the fleet has adopted night‐setting with reduced deck lighting, and use of streamer lines, as general practice, which has reportedly reduced seabird bycatches significantly. There is a need, however for the lower bycatch rates reported by Gran Sol fishers in this study to be verified, and for potential interactions with seabirds in the northern part of their area of operation to be further explored.

iii

Case study results ‐ gillnet fisheries

For the gillnet fisheries studied, the recent ban on driftnet fishing in the Baltic due to potential interactions with harbour porpoise has caused some suspicion amongst the fishing community and some were reluctant to take part in the current study as a result.

In the eastern Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) large numbers of small‐scale coastal gillnetters operate throughout the coastal area and often in shallow water, targeting cod, flounder, bream, herring and smelt, and sometimes turbot. The Baltic is generally more important for wintering birds than breeding birds in terms of numbers. Birds in the eastern Baltic that interact with fisheries commonly or are species of conservation concern with important wintering areas in the region are Black guillemot, Black‐throated and Red‐throated divers, Velvet scoter, Steller’s eider and Long‐tailed duck. Based on the latest published population estimates, the greatest proportion of wintering populations of seabirds in the eastern Baltic occurs in the Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait (Estonia and Latvia) and Saaremaa and Hiirumaa west coasts (Estonia). Seabird bycatch rates estimated from fisher questionnaires were similar to previous studies in Estonia, but significantly lower in Latvia and Lithuania. Most fishers interviewed did not consider seabird bycatch to be a problem in the region and did not believe it impacts on bird populations, particularly as some seabird species are hunted. As a result many of the potential mitigation measures were not considered to be acceptable or necessary; those considered acceptable to some fishers included spatial and temporal closure of which they already have experience and setting nets deeper where practical.

In the western Baltic countries covered (Denmark and Sweden), the gillnet fisheries are in decline due to lower cod quotas in recent years and the increasing age of gillnet fishers. Seabird species that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas in this case study region include Tufted duck, Common scoter, Common pochard, Greater scaup, Red‐breasted merganser, Slavonian grebe, Velvet scoter, Common eider, Black guillemot, Long‐tailed duck, Common guillemot. Based on the latest published population estimates, the greatest proportions of wintering populations for these species occur in the Szczecin and Vorpommen lagoons and Pomeranian Bay (Germany/Poland), north‐west Kattegat (Denmark/Sweden) and Hoburgs Bank (Sweden). In Denmark, questionnaire responses indicated that the lower number of fishers has reduced competition for space and facilitated voluntary avoidance of areas with high concentrations of seabirds by fishers. In Sweden, bycatch rates are relatively low because the nets are set in much deeper waters. Part of the Swedish gillnet fleet has also switched to longlines for cod in the winter months, but unfortunately assessing the implications of this with respect to seabird bycatch was not within the scope of this study. As with the eastern Baltic, potential mitigation measures such as spatial and temporal closures were not considered to be acceptable to the majority of fishers interviewed.

Seabird species in Dutch waters of the Eastern North Sea that are reported to interact with fisheries and/or are of conservation concern include the Red‐throated diver, Tufted duck, Greater scaup, Goosander, Great‐crested grebe, Red‐breasted merganser, Great cormorant and Common eider. Additionally, the Common guillemot was a key species in the designation of the Natura 2000 site Frisian Front under the EU Birds Directive. The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality recently signed an agreement with Dutch environmental NGOs and the Dutch industry to work together to achieve sustainable fishing with the framework of the Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (FIMPAS) project, through which fisheries measures are currently being developed for Natura 2000 sites including the Frisian Front. In the Frisian Front, the main objective is to maintain current population sizes of key seabird species, such as the Common guillemot, and despite lack of hard evidence of bycatch of seabirds in this area fisheries measures will be implemented based on the precautionary approach. In the wider Dutch gillnet fisheries, a reduction in effort, coupled with voluntary avoidance measures and visual deterrents (bird‐scaring ribbons), appear to have been effective at reducing seabird bycatch.

Cost and effectiveness of mitigation measures

All mitigation measures were assessed by fishers as resulting in a negative economic impact or at best neutral; there was no consideration by fishers of the potential economic benefits some of the mitigation measures might elicit. The latest AER data at the time of the report shows that gill netters make a loss of 13% and long lines a profit of 4.3%; therefore mitigation measures mainly increase fleet losses and for a few reduce profits. Fishers primary concern was of loss to catch caused by use of mitigation measures rather than increased operating costs.

Estimated cost effectiveness ranks for mitigation measures were highly fishery specific. Therefore when cost effectiveness rankings were pooled and assessed across fleets, economic impacts were likely to have been overestimated. However, the results were sufficient for broadscale comparative analysis. Cost‐effectiveness of


iv

spatial and temporal restrictions could not be estimated as they depend greatly on specific cases so fisher estimates were worst case.

Generally fisher preference was for practical, low‐tech measures i.e offal discharge, streamers, thawing bait for longlines and buoys with bird scarers and other visual deterrents for gillnets. Least cost‐effective measures were estimated to be circle hooks and bird‐scaring curtains for longlines and setting nets deeper and acoustic pingers for gillnets.

Potential impacts of bycatch on seabird populations

Annual estimates of seabird bycatch across fleets and regions illustrate a different outlook to individual fishers’ opinions on the significance of seabird bycatch due to cumulative effects of low levels of bycatch experienced locally. Scaled up to take account of the total effort in the fishery, bycatch estimates from the surveys indicated that substantial numbers of seabirds are potentially being caught annually in some of these fisheries. Comparison of annual estimates by species groups with species specific estimates of incidental take that would not pose a threat to populations involved (PBR), suggest that the levels of bycatch reported by Spanish demersal longline fleets (in the Mediterranean and the Gran Sol) and Greek demersal and pelagic longline fishers interviewed, have the potential to influence population status of at least two seabird species that occur in the Mediterranean. These include the threatened Balearic shearwater and the more abundant Cory’s shearwater which also occurs more widely throughout the Mediterranean and the Atlantic and is therefore likely to be impacted by fisheries elsewhere (e.g. Gran Sol). Relating bycatch estimates of seabirds from the surveys in the Baltic to species specific PBR estimates published previously, was not possible due to the number of different species involved and the non‐species specific resolution of bycatch estimates generated by the questionnaire.

Bycatch estimates generated from the fisher surveys varied greatly for both gillnets and longlines and highlight the urgent need for data collection to enable impacts to be assessed more accurately than was possible in this study.

Conclusions

Scientific literature indicate levels of seabird bycatch are significant within case study regions with the potential to impact bird populations; bycatch levels reported by fishers surveyed were broadly similar. Both vulnerable and common bird species are impacted in all case study regions and results from this study suggest that at least two shearwater species in the Mediterranean are potentially impacted at unsustainable levels by longline fisheries in the region.

Published results for longline bycatch mitigation trials illustrate that simple measures can greatly reduce seabird bycatch (up to 100% when a combination of measures is applied) but results do vary greatly between fisheries, regions and bird species. Potential mitigation measures (based on fishery characteristics and bird species present) were broadly similar across longline case studies and included those that have been proven to be effective, such as offal management, thawing bait prior to use, streamer lines, night‐setting with reduced deck lighting and increasing line weight. Application of some or all of these measures should be implemented in fisheries where problems have been highlighted. However some flexibility in the selection of measures might be warranted, as fishery specific characteristics (e.g. most vulnerable species present and gear configuration and deployment patterns) suggest that practicalities or refinements of measures need to be assessed or developed on a case‐by‐case basis.

In general, there has been much less research carried out on seabird bycatch mitigation measures for gillnet fisheries than for longline fisheries. Visual cues and deterrents may be cost‐effective, but pilot studies in the region are required to test their effectiveness. This would also help raise the awareness of the fishing community about the potential for their application, as many fishers were not aware of many of the potential mitigation measures, or did not believe they would be effective, particularly in the Baltic Sea. Spatial and temporal restrictions may be the only possible way of ensuring no seabird bycatch in certain important areas and times, but would encounter strong resistance from the fishers.

Recommendations

In European fisheries for which there is a likelihood that seabird populations, particularly threatened species, are currently being affected by incidental catches at unsustainable levels, mitigation measures should be introduced and enforced as soon as possible. Management measures should also be developed for fisheries within Natura 2000 sites. In order to balance conservation concerns with the needs of fishers in these areas, consideration of incentive‐based implementation and adaptive management frameworks should be considered to increase levels of compliance

v

over the longterm. In line with the precautionary approach, measures might also be warranted in fisheries for which the extent of seabird bycatch is currently unknown.

Ideally, a results based management approach is recommended, whereby fisheries in general should reduce their seabird bycatch by, or to, a specified level. Currently, however, the data available do not easily allow for bycatch limits or thresholds to be set; therefore there is an urgent need to develop effective data collection methods for seabird bycatch data across all EU fisheries to enable cumulative bycatch estimates to be assessed. There is also currently no means by which bycatch levels could be monitored against management thresholds and this needs to be addressed.

Further research is required to assist the process of determining acceptable levels of additional mortality that populations can withstand, from fisheries and other human‐induced mortalities such as hunting that are under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Additional research testing, of both established and new mitigation measures should also be prioritized and may provide a means of engaging industry in the management process as well as contributing information for setting bycatch reduction targets.

The fact that most of the fishers interviewed in all case studies did not consider seabird bycatch to be a problem, indicates that further outreach work with the fishing community is necessary in order to build their understanding and support for the need for mitigation measures, if implementation of a Community Plan of Action for Seabirds is to be successful.

i

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ I

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... VI

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2

2 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 CASE STUDY SELECTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 COMPILATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 SURVEY ON INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SEABIRDS AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 4 2.4 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MINIMISING SEABIRD BYCATCH: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL .................. 7

3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR INCIDENTAL SEABIRD MORTALITY IN LONGLINE AND GILLNET FISHERIES .......... 9

3.1 DEVELOPING BEST PRACTICE ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 APPLICABLE TO ALL FISHERIES ............................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 LONGLINE FISHERIES ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 GILLNET FISHERIES .............................................................................................................................................. 14 3.5 COMBINED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................................................... 14

4 SEABIRD POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 MEDITERRANEAN SEA ......................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 GRAN SOL ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.3 BALTIC SEA ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.4 EASTERN NORTH SEA — DUTCH TERRITORIAL WATERS .............................................................................................. 24

5 CASE STUDY FISHERIES ................................................................................................................................ 27

5.1 WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN LONGLINE FISHERY ........................................................................................................ 27 5.2 MALTESE AND GREEK LONGLINE FISHERY ................................................................................................................ 45 5.3 GRAN SOL LONGLINE FISHERY ............................................................................................................................... 61 5.4 EASTERN BALTIC SEA GILLNET FISHERY – ESTONIA, LITHUANIA & LATVIA ....................................................................... 72 5.5 WESTERN BALTIC SEA GILLNET FISHERY – GERMANY, DENMARK & SWEDEN .................................................................. 89 5.6 EASTERN NORTH SEA GILLNET FISHERY (NETHERLANDS)........................................................................................... 105

6 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 119

6.1 ECONOMICS OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................. 119 6.2 IMPACTS ON SEABIRD POPULATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 129

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 140

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 140 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 142

8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 145

ANNEX 1: SEABIRD DISTRIBUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA: WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN & GREEK AND MALTESE WATERS (REQUENA, S. & CARBONERAS, C., 2011) ............................................................................... 157

ANNEX 2: FLYER ................................................................................................................................................. 183

ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 185

LONGLINE QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................................................................. 185 GILLNET QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................................................ 208

ANNEX 4: RESEARCH‐AT‐SEA .............................................................................................................................. 225


ii

ANNEX 4: RESEARCH‐AT‐SEA .............................................................................................................................. 225

METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................... 225 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 226

ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF SEABIRD SPECIES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS IN CASE STUDY LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 231

8.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 231 8.2 MEDITERRANEAN SEA ....................................................................................................................................... 231 8.3 GRAN SOL ...................................................................................................................................................... 245 8.4 BALTIC SEA ..................................................................................................................................................... 250 8.5 DUTCH TERRITORIAL WATERS ............................................................................................................................. 263 8.6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 270

ANNEX 6: CODE OF CONDUCT FOR IJSSELMEER AND MARKERMEER LAKES ......................................................... 277

ANNEX 7: COST‐EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR CASE STUDY FISHERIES ............................................................... 281

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Dates of questionnaire survey implementation and number of interviews carried out .................................... 6

Table 2: Conservation status of species of conservation concern and vulnerable to bycatch in case study fisheries ... 16

Table 3: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species known to be caught in Mediterranean fisheries ................... 17

Table 4: Temporal/Spatial hotspots in Mediterranean for species of conservation concern known to be caught in fisheries .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 5: Main threats to species of conservation concern ............................................................................................. 19

Table 6: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species of conservation concern that could be vulnerable to bycatch and/or species that have been observed as bycatch in this fishery ............................................................................... 19

Table 7: Main threats to species of conservation concern and/or caught in fishery ..................................................... 21

Table 8: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to gillnet bycatch and/or high conservation status in the Baltic Sea .................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 9: Ten most important bird areas for wintering birds in the Baltic ...................................................................... 23

Table 10: Threats to species of conservation concern ................................................................................................... 23

Table 11: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to gillnet bycatch and/or of conservation concern in the Dutch EEZ ................................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 12: Main countries and fleet segments in the western Mediterranean longline fishery ..................................... 28

Table 13: Number of Spanish pelagic and demersal longliners by Mediterranean port ................................................ 28

Table 14: Average fishing pattern for the Spanish pelagic longline vessels surveyed .................................................... 30

Table 15: Average vessel characteristics, gear configuration and fishing pattern for the Spanish demersal longline vessels surveyed ............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Table 16: Review of studies estimating seabird bycatch by longlines in western Mediterranean ................................. 35

Table 17: Summary of key bird species found in Western Mediterranean, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc). .................................................................... 36

Table 18: Number of questionnaire respondents by gear type in the western Mediterranean longline fishery .......... 37

Table 19: Summary of annual seabird bycatch rates in the western Mediterranean estimated from questionnaire responses ........................................................................................................................................................................ 39

Table 20: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the western Mediterranean longline fishery ............................................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 21: Main countries and fleet segments in the Maltese and Greek longline fishery ............................................. 45

Table 22: Effort and catches for the Maltese longline fleet (2008–2009) ...................................................................... 47

Table 23: Greek pelagic and demersal longline fishery effort, landings and value (2008) ............................................. 48

Table 24: Average fishing pattern of Greek and Maltese longline vessels surveyed ..................................................... 50

Table 25: Review of estimated bycatch in Maltese and Greek longline fisheries .......................................................... 52

Table 26: Summary of key bird species found in Maltese waters, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc). .................................................................................... 53

Table 27: Summary of key bird species found in Greek waters, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc). .................................................................................... 54

Table 28: Number of questionnaire respondents by gear type in Greece and Malta .................................................... 55

Table 29: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Greece and Malta from questionnaire responses ............................ 57

Table 30: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the Maltese and Greek longline fishery ............................................................................................................................................................................. 60

Table 31: Main countries and fleet involved in the Gran Sol longline fishery ................................................................ 61

Table 32: Number of Spanish Mediterranean demersal longline vessels by port .......................................................... 62

Table 33: Average fishing pattern for Gran Sol demersal longline vessels surveyed ..................................................... 64

Table 34: Estimated seabird bycatch rates in the Gran Sol longline fishery, 2006‐2007 ............................................... 65


iv

Table 35: Summary of key bird species found in Gran Sol, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc). .................................................................................... 66

Table 36: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Gran Sol region from questionnaire responses ................................ 68

Table 37: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the Gran Sol longline fishery ....... 71

Table 38: Main countries and fleet segments in the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery ........................................................ 73

Table 39: Mesh size and fishing season for the three main gillnet fisheries in the eastern Baltic ................................. 73

Table 40: Number of gillnetters by port or region in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia ....................................................... 74

Table 41: Average fishing pattern for the eastern Baltic coastal gillnet fishers surveyed.............................................. 77

Table 42: Review of estimated bycatch in eastern Baltic ............................................................................................... 80

Table 43: Summary of key bird species found in Eastern Baltic countries, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc.) ............................................................................................... 81

Table 44: Number of fishers interviewed by country and dates of interviews .............................................................. 82

Table 45: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from questionnaire responses ........... 84

Table 46: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery .. 87

Table 47: Main countries and fleet segments in the western Baltic gillnet fishery ........................................................ 90

Table 48: Average fishing pattern for the western Baltic gillnet fishers surveyed ......................................................... 93

Table 49: Mean bycatch rates recording number of by‐caught birds per 1000 metres of net length per day (NMD) by German fishers from Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern.......................................................................................................... 96

Table 50: Summary of seabird bycatch studies in the western and central Baltic Sea .................................................. 98

Table 51: Summary of key bird species found in Western (and southern) Baltic countries, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc.) .................................................................................... 99

Table 52: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Sweden and Denmark from questionnaire responses ................... 101

Table 53: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery 102

Table 54: Potential mitigation measures to reduce incidental capture of seabirds in German Baltic EEZ .................. 104

Table 55: Main countries and fleet segments in the eastern North Sea gillnet fishery ............................................... 105

Table 56: Average fishing pattern for the Dutch gillnet fishers surveyed .................................................................... 109

Table 57: Review of estimated bycatch in Dutch fisheries ........................................................................................... 110

Table 58: Summary of key bird species found in eastern North Sea (Netherlands), conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures .................................... 111

Table 59: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in gillnets in the Netherlands from questionnaire responses ............ 114

Table 60: Summary of mean annual seabird bycatch rates by gillnet fishery from questionnaire responses ............ 114

Table 61: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the eastern North Sea gillnet fishery ........................................................................................................................................................................... 117

Table 62: Summary of longline mitigation measure costs ........................................................................................... 122

Table 63: Summary of gillnet mitigation measure costs .............................................................................................. 124

Table 64: Estimation of public sector costs incurred for longline mitigation measures .............................................. 125

Table 65: Estimation of public sector costs incurred for gillnet mitigation measures ................................................. 126

Table 66: Summary of opinions on cost‐effectiveness of longline mitigation measures ............................................. 127

Table 67: Summary of opinions on cost‐effectiveness of gillnet mitigation measures ................................................ 128

Table 68: Estimates for total annual seabird (and separate species or species groups) bycatch for case study longline fleets (based on bycatch rates estimated from fisher questionnaires, scaled up by average hooks set per vessel and total number of vessels ................................................................................................................................................ 131

Table 69: Estimates for total annual seabird (and separate species or species groups) bycatch for case study longline fleets (based on bycatch rates estimated from fisher questionnaires, scaled up by average annual NMD per vessel and total numbers of vessels ........................................................................................................................................ 132

Table 70: Potential Biological Removal (PBR) estimates for two species of shearwaters which interact with longline gear in the Mediterranean and the Gran Sol. ............................................................................................................... 135

v

Table 71: Top five target species and vessel numbers for hook and line fleet segments for each Member State. ..... 136

Table 72: Vessel numbers by Member State for drifting and fixed nets, and passive gears, under 12m .................... 137

Table 73: Gear configuration of demersal longlines observed during the research at sea in the western Mediterranean ............................................................................................................................................................. 226

Table 74: Setting details for two demersal longlines observed during the research at sea in the western Mediterranean ............................................................................................................................................................. 226

Table 75: Hauling details for two demersal longlines observed during the research at sea in the western Mediterranean ............................................................................................................................................................. 227

Table 76: (a) Percentage and number of intervals observed for research at sea during setting and hauling with different levels of interactions by all species ............................................................................................................... 228

Table 77: Breakdown of interaction type by bird species ............................................................................................ 229

Table 78: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to bycatch in longline fisheries in the Mediterranean ............................................................................................................................................................. 232

Table 79: Conservation status of seabird species in Mediterranean case study waters vulnerable to bycatch in fisheries ........................................................................................................................................................................ 243

Table 80: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to bycatch in longline fisheries in the Gran Sol ................................................................................................................................................................................. 245

Table 81: Conservation status of seabird species in Gran Sol region known to be caught in fisheries ........................ 249

Table 82: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to bycatch in gillnet fisheries in the Baltic Sea ................................................................................................................................................................................ 250

Table 83: Ten most important bird areas for wintering birds in the Baltic .................................................................. 251

Table 84: Conservation status of seabird species in Baltic case study countries vulnerable to bycatch in fisheries ... 261

Table 85: Breeding population sizes of seabird (no. of pairs) in the Southern Bight and Eastern North Sea (Dunnet et al., 1990), South and Eastern North Sea (JNCC, 1995) and ICES area IVc (ICES, 2004). ............................................... 266

Table 86: Summary of trends of breeding birds in the Wadden Sea in 1991‐2006 ...................................................... 267

Table 87: Populations of Important Bird Area trigger species in Lake IJsselmeer ........................................................ 270


vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Incidental mortality of seabirds in the demersal longline fishery in CCAMLR fisheries for toothfish (Dissostichus spp), between the period when management interventions commenced (1996/97) ............................. 15

Figure 2: Main fishing areas of the Spanish pelagic longline vessels surveyed .............................................................. 29

Figure 3: Average gear configuration for the Spanish pelagic longline vessels targeting swordfish surveyed ............. 30

Figure 4: Main fishing area of the Spanish demersal longline vessels surveyed ............................................................ 31

Figure 5: Average gear configuration for the demersal longline vessels surveyed (small‐scale demersal longline configuration in brackets) ............................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 6: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the western Mediterranean pelagic and demersal longline fleets ................................................................................. 38

Figure 7: Percentage of fishers that felt seabirds disrupted their fishing activity, in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the Western Mediterranean ........................................................................................................................ 39

Figure 8: Seabird disturbances by type from the sub‐sample of fishers who responded that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity in the western Mediterranean ............................................................................................................... 39

Figure 9: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in the western Mediterranean a) pelagic longline fishery and b) demersal longline fishery ........................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 10: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the western Mediterranean pelagic (left‐hand side) and demersal (right‐hand side) longline fisheries .......................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 11: Main fishing areas of the Maltese longline vessels surveyed (a) pelagic vessels; (b) demersal vessels........ 47

Figure 12: Main fishing areas of the Greek longline vessels surveyed (a) pelagic vessels; (b) demersal vessels ........... 47

Figure 13: Average gear configuration for the Greek (GR) and Maltese (MT) pelagic longline vessels surveyed .......... 49

Figure 14: Average gear configuration for the Greek (GR) and Maltese (MT) demersal longline vessels surveyed ...... 49

Figure 15: Percentage of fishers that felt seabirds disrupted their fishing activity, in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in Greece and Malta ......................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 16: Fishers’ responses regarding (a) whether they are aware of a problem with seabirds; and (b) whether they think the available information is sufficient; and (c) whether they think anything needs to be done .......................... 56

Figure 17: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the a) Maltese and b) Greek pelagic and demersal longline fleets. ............................................................................... 57

Figure 18: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in by the Greek longline respondents ................................ 58

Figure 19: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the Maltese pelagic (left‐hand side) and demersal (right‐hand side) longline fisheries .......... 59

Figure 20: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the Greek pelagic (left‐hand side) and demersal (right‐hand side) longline fisheries ............. 59

Figure 21: ICES areas in the North‐east Atlantic, showing Gran Sol (VIIj) ...................................................................... 62

Figure 22: Main fishing areas for the Gran Sol bottom demersal longline vessels surveyed ......................................... 63

Figure 23: Average gear configuration for the Gran Sol demersal longline vessels surveyed ........................................ 64

Figure 24: Seabird disturbances by type from the fishers who responded that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity in Gran Sol ...................................................................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 25: Numbers of seabirds reportedly caught by season in the Gran Sol demersal longline fishery ..................... 68

Figure 26: Main fishing areas of Gran Sol demersal longline fishers interviewed (grey) and areas where observations of key seabird species highlighted in Table 35 have been reported (red) in the European Seabirds at Sea database in ICES areas VII b,c,j,k ........................................................................................................................................................ 68

Figure 27: Main fishing areas of Gran Sol demersal longline fishers interviewed (red) by quarter and areas where observations of Northern fulmar have been reported (green) in ICES areas VII b,c,j,k ................................................. 69

Figure 28: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the Gran Sol longline fishery .................................................................................................... 70

Figure 29: Main ports in Estonia for the coastal gillnet fishery, based on landings ....................................................... 74

Figure 30: Average gillnet dimensions in the eastern Baltic coastal gillnet fishery for fish ........................................... 76

Figure 31: Average gillnet dimensions in the eastern Baltic coastal herring and smelt fishery ..................................... 77

vii

Figure 32: Percent seabird bycatch by species for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuanian gillnet fisheries during Life Nature study ............................................................................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 33: Percentage of fishers that felt seabirds disrupted their fishing activity, in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the eastern Baltic region .............................................................................................................................. 83

Figure 34: Seabird disturbances by type from the sub‐sample of fishers who responded that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity ................................................................................................................................................................. 83

Figure 35: Fishers’ responses regarding (a) whether they are aware of a problem with seabirds; and (b) whether they think the available information is sufficient; and (c) whether they think anything needs to be done (n=53) ............... 84

Figure 36: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the eastern Baltic case study countries .......................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 37: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in the a) Estonian; b) Latvian; and c) Lithuanian gillnet fisheries .......................................................................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 38: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery ............................................................................................... 86

Figure 39: Location of gillnet case studies in the western Baltic Sea ............................................................................. 90

Figure 40: Typical small bottom gillnetter based in Marstal, Denmark.......................................................................... 91

Figure 41: Photograph of a gillnet from the Danish Fyn small‐scale gillnet fishery ....................................................... 91

Figure 42: Average gear configuration for the eastern Baltic gillnet fishers surveyed .................................................. 93

Figure 43: Gillnet effort in the German EEZ Baltic Sea ................................................................................................... 94

Figure 44: Risk maps: Distribution of birds sensitive to set nets .................................................................................... 95

Figure 45: Conflict analysis between bird distribution and bottom set gillnet fishing activity in the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea ........................................................................................................................................................................ 95

Figure 46: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the Fyn gillnet fishery (DK) and southern Öland gillnet fishery (SE) ............................................................................. 101

Figure 47: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in Swedish and Danish gillnet fisheries ............................ 101

Figure 48: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the western Baltic gillnet fishery ............................................................................................ 102

Figure 49: Main fishing areas of the Dutch gillnet vessels surveyed in the North Sea, Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes ........................................................................................................................................................ 107

Figure 50: Proportion of Dutch gillnet vessels and the volume and value they landed into the Netherlands in 2009 by vessel length category .................................................................................................................................................. 107

Figure 51: Gillnet being hauled with catch of sole ....................................................................................................... 108

Figure 52: Average gear configuration of the Dutch cod, sole, mullet and seabass bottom gillnet fishers surveyed . 109

Figure 53: Fishers’ responses regarding (a) whether they are aware of a problem with seabirds; and (b) whether they think the available information is sufficient; and (c) whether they think anything needs to be done (n=12) ............. 113

Figure 54: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the Eastern North Sea Dutch gillnet fishery ................................................................................................................. 115

Figure 55: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in Dutch North Sea gillnet fisheries ................................. 115

Figure 56: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the eastern North Sea (Netherlands) ..................................................................................... 116

Figure 57: Bird observation area used in the research at sea ...................................................................................... 225

Figure 58: Percentage of ten‐minute intervals in which the four types of interactions with birds occurred during setting, hauling, and during the day (setting and hauling) ........................................................................................... 229

Figure 59: Percentage of all birds observed interacting in different ways with fishing activity ................................... 229

Figure 60: Number of birds by species interacting in different ways with fishing activity during the two demersal longline deployments in the western Mediterranean research at sea (a) by species; (b) by interaction type ............ 230

Figure 61: Marine IBAs and MPAs in Mediterranean Spain ......................................................................................... 233

Figure 62: Marine IBAs and MPAs in Greece ................................................................................................................ 234

Figure 63: Important Bird Areas in Malta ..................................................................................................................... 234


viii

Figure 64: Proposed and existing Natura 2000 protection areas in the coastal waters of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 252

Figure 65: Marine IBAs and MPAs in Denmark ............................................................................................................. 253

Figure 66: Marine IBAs in southeastern Sweden .......................................................................................................... 253

Figure 67: Special Protected Areas (SPAs) designated within the German EEZ ........................................................... 254

Figure 68: Dutch marine Natura 2000 designated areas a) Northern coastal zone ‘Noordzeekustzone’ (light green) and Wadden Sea (dark green) and b) Voordelta .......................................................................................................... 263

Figure 69: Annual mean bird values in the Dutch EEZ .................................................................................................. 264

Figure 70: Calculated bird values for the months February‐March (left) and October‐November (right) ................... 265

Figure 71: Trends in breeding birds 1991‐2006, expressed as the rate of annual population change (in %). Non‐significant changes are marked light‐blue .................................................................................................................... 268

ix

ACRONYMS

ACOM Advisory Committee of ICESAER Annual Economic ReportBCM Bait‐casting machine b.p. Breeding pairs BPTG Best Practice Technical GuidelinesBTO British Trust for OrnithologyCCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CFR Community Fleet RegisterDOF Dansk Ornitologisk ForeningEC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneEFF European Fisheries FundEMPAS Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Protected Areas project ESAS European Seabirds at SeaEU European Union FAME Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment projectFAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United NationsFIMPAS Fisheries Measures in Protected AreasFTE Full‐time Equivalent GIS Geographical information systemGT Gross tonnage HCMR Hellenic Centre for Marine ResearchHELCOM Helsinki Commission HOS Hellenic Ornithological SocietyIBA Important Bird Area ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic TunasICES International Council for the Exploration of the SeaIEO Instituto Espanol OceanograficoIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureJNCC Joint Nature Conservation CommitteeLPO Ligue pour la Protection des OiseauxMCS Monitoring, control and surveillanceMOm Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Mediterranean monk seal MPA Marine Protected Area NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries OrganisationNMD Net‐metre‐days OSPAR Oslo and Paris CommissionsPBR Potential Biological RemovalRAC Regional Advisory CouncilRSPB Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsSAC Special Area of ConservationSEO Sociedad Española de OrnitologíaSPA Special Protection Area SPEA Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das AvesSPEC Species of European ConcernVMS Vessel Monitoring SystemWGSE Working Group on Seabird Ecology (ICES)

Introduction

1

1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of research by MRAG and its partners, Poseidon and Lamans, to contribute to the development of a European Community Plan of Action for Seabirds. The work is not a formal impact assessment; it contributes to delivery of the Fields of Action as stated in the 2009 EC consultation paper, “EU Action Plan for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Fishing Gears” (EC, 2009a).

Field of Action 1 is to “(Re) Assess the interactions between seabirds and fishing gears in EU waters” with the objective of assessing the existence of a relevant problem of seabird incidental catches in fisheries in EU waters.

Field of Action 2 is the “Identification and implementation of mitigation measures in EU waters”.

The consultation paper recognises that “the adoption of mitigation measures should follow a step by step approach coincident with the progressive increase in knowledge and taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the fisheries in the different regions and seabird behaviour.” This research is consistent with this approach, using case study fisheries to explore the scale and extent of the seabird bycatch problem and then identifying existing and potential mitigation measures and their impacts. The following report goes on make recommendations on the development of an EU‐POA in light of these findings.

1.1 Background to the study In 1999, the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) adopted an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing the Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longlining and called for States to begin its implementation no later than 2001. This plan applies “to States in the waters of which longline fisheries are being conducted by their own or foreign vessels and to States that conduct fisheries on the high seas and in the exclusive economic zones of other States” (point 9 of the FAO Plan). More recently, FAO presented the "Best Practice Technical Guidelines for IPOA/NPOA‐Seabirds", extending the scope of actions beyond longline fisheries (FAO, 2008).

The European Commission (EC), in fulfilment of its responsibilities as a contracting party of international organisations acting in the context of FAO's IPOA, is committed to develop a plan of action to reduce the incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gear. As a first step, the EC requested to International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to provide a general assessment of the situation in EU waters, identifying the main areas affected, as well as the main type of fisheries responsible for seabirds' mortality.

The ICES Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE) reported in 2008 that, “Although there are few data to indicate the true extent of the bycatch problem, enough information exists to recognise that there is indeed a problem, and that the EU should develop and implement a Community Plan of Action aimed at investigating the issue further and at reducing this bycatch” (ICES, 2008a). The report identified a number of EU fisheries where information suggests seabird bycatch is an issue; long line fisheries in the Mediterranean and Gran Sol; Baltic and North Sea gillnet fisheries. The EC, based on the scientific advice delivered by ICES on interactions between fisheries and seabirds in EU waters and on the outcomes of other sources of scientific information, is aware:

That substantial incidental catches of seabirds is occurring in EC longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean and at the Grand Sol fishing grounds southwest of Ireland.

According to recent estimates, the Balearic shearwater, Yelkouan shearwater and Cory's shearwater may be under severe threat as a result of their interaction with fishing operations in the Mediterranean. These species have been classified as, respectively, Critically Endangered, Near Threatened and Least concerned in Annex I of the Birds Directive, meaning that these species are subject to special conservation measures concerning their habitat, especially through the establishment of a coherent network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) (EU Birds Directive, 2009).

Diving seabirds are abundant in coastal waters and shallow offshore banks of the Baltic and the North Sea in Northern Europe. These are the most common species caught in gillnets. The actual magnitude and significance of the mortality caused by entanglement in nets remains largely unknown but recent data points to a substantial rate of incidental catches. This fishing method is widely used in small‐scale coastal fisheries in the Baltic Sea and eastern North Sea, but is poorly monitored.


2

Lack of information is a major constraint to a clear understanding of the effects that fishing mortality has on seabird populations. Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty, and applying the precautionary principle, available information identifies critical areas were management action must be developed.

In September 2009 BirdLife International provided DG Mare with a European Community Plan of Action (ECPOA) for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries (Birdlife International, 2009b). This represented a ‘shadow plan’ based on the FAO Best Practice Technical Guidelines (agreed by FAO‐COFI in March 2009, FAO 2009) (ICES, 2010). The Commission then developed the terms of reference for this research, exploring impacts of mitigation measures in those fleets that had been identified by WGSE as having bird bycatch problems.

1.2 Objectives and scope The main aim of this study was to assess existing mitigation measures and their effectiveness in key areas where incidental catches of seabirds have been identified as occurring. Following the advice from ICES WGSE, the following case studies were selected:

Longline fisheries of the Gran Sol (ICES area VIIj), western Mediterranean (GSA 5 & 6), Maltese and Greek

waters (GSA 15, 20, 21, 22, 23); and

Gillnet fisheries in the Baltic (ICES area IIIb, c, d) and eastern North Sea (ICES area IV).

The study was based on direct consultation with the fleets operating in those areas as well as fisheries departments, researchers and NGOs working in related fields. Collection and analysis of existing information focused on the identified "hot spots". The study also assessed the cost associated with the use of potential mitigation measures and the socio‐economic and environmental impacts of their use in the specific fisheries with the aim of assisting decision making.

Each case study aimed to address the following:

Overall description and, where appropriate, assessment of the magnitude of the problem, as defined in FAO’s Best Practice Technical Guidelines;

Assess the existence and combination of mitigation measures in place and other measures likely to be effective;

Description of how the problem is perceived by the fishing industry;

Assessment of the cost associated with available mitigation measures taking into account other relevant studies from outside EU waters;

Assessment of the readiness of fishing industry to introduce new mitigation measures and effectiveness of existing incentives (e.g. eligibility of EFF);

Provision of recommendations.

1.3 Structure of the report Section 2 provides details of the methods and approach used for this study. The results of the literature review into existing mitigation measures for gillnet and longline fisheries are presented in Section 3. Section 4 provides background to the seabird populations in the study regions, based on existing literature and data. Section 5 provides background to the case study fisheries, information on fishery‐seabird interactions, and the results of the questionnaire surveys with fishers. Section 6 details the preliminary impact assessments, on the cost‐effectiveness of various mitigation measures, and the potential impact of seabird bycatch rates reported in this study case studies on seabird population status. Conclusions and recommendations are provided in Section 7.

The report also contains a number of annexes which provide further detail on the methods and data used for the study. Annex 1 provides details of the methodology for obtaining estimates of seabird distribution in the Mediterranean Sea; Annex 2 contains the flyer that was prepared to raise awareness amongst industry and stakeholders of the study. Annex 3 provides examples of the longline and gillnet questionnaires that were used. Annex 4 details the research‐at‐sea that was carried out in support of the questionnaire survey. Annex 5 provides further details and background on the seabird populations in the study regions. Annex 6 provides a Code of Conduct that relates to the eastern North Sea case study. Finally, Annex 7 provides the case study‐specific analysis of cost‐effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Methods

3

2 METHODS

2.1 Case study selection Case studies were selected base on the recommendations of the ICES WGSE (2008) report, which highlighted a number of key fisheries where seabird interactions were an issue. The case studies covered both longline and gillnet fisheries in the Mediterranean, Baltic and North Seas, and the Gran Sol area. Specifically, they were:

Western Mediterranean longline (pelagic and demersal) fisheries (Spain);

Greek and Maltese waters longline (pelagic and demersal) fisheries;

Gran Sol demersal longline fishery (Spain);

Eastern Baltic gillnet fishery (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania);

Western Baltic gillnet fishery (Germany, Denmark, Sweden); and

Eastern North Sea gillnet fishery (Netherlands).

2.2 Compilation of existing information Existing information on the case study fisheries, seabird populations in the case study areas, fishery‐seabird interactions and mitigation measures was compiled from a range of sources: peer‐reviewed literature; grey literature; fisheries departments in the relevant Member States; research institutes; and NGOs.

Maps on seabird populations for the Mediterranean were created by Carles Carboneras and Susana Requena based on data compiled from published sources, consultation with experts, breeding data in BirdLife IBA database and results of tracking studies. A report outlining how these maps were created is provided in Annex 1. Additional maps showing seabird distribution in Spanish Mediterranean waters were provided by Pep Arcos at SEO/Birdlife from Arcos et al., 2009 and Arcos, 2011.

Data on seabird populations (abundance and distribution) in the ICES area VII and the North Sea were obtained from the European Seabirds at Sea (ESAS) dataset, courtesy of Tim Dunn at JNCC and the ESAS partners contributing data on these regions, including: JNCC; Dr Rob Ronconi (University of Dalhousie/ Halifax/ Canada), Marie C Martin and Dr Richard R. Veit (College of Staten Island/ City University of New York/ USA) supported by US Wildlife Fisheries Service, as well as a David and Lucile Packard Grant (Birdlife International / Agreement for Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels); and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

The Baltic Sea data was taken from the report Durinck et al. (1994) ‘Important Marine Areas for Wintering Birds in the Baltic Sea’. These data were then used to map the distribution of populations of key seabird species in the case study regions.

Summary tables were created for bird species and potential application of mitigation measures for each case study region. Key bird species were highlighted according to conservation status within Europe and/or prevalence in the case study countries/sites, including whether key breeding or wintering populations existed in the areas of fishing. For the Baltic case studies, key wintering areas were considered of greater importance than the breeding areas and were based on information provided in Durinck et al. (1994). This data is currently being updated; therefore there may be scope to update the associated information at a later date. Information on the foraging behaviours of seabird species, including diving depth max and mean, were provided by Ben Lascelles from the BirdLife International seabird foraging range database (internal analysis) as well as Mendel (2008).

A review of existing published literature on mitigation measures applied to reduce seabird bycatch in longline and gillnet fisheries globally was carried out and is documented in section 3. This information was used in developing the fisher questionnaires, specifically to determine which mitigation measures would be selected for the questionnaire (see section 2.3.1).


4

2.3 Survey on interactions between seabirds and operations 2.3.1 Industry sensitisation As an initial step, a one‐page A4 flyer was developed as a sensitisation document to inform industry about the study and facilitate contact with fisher associations when setting up meetings for the questionnaire survey (see Annex 2: Flyer). The flyer was presented at the Baltic Sea RAC meeting that was attended by the project team in October 2010, and was circulated to fisher associations by email, as well as printed in hard copy for distribution.

2.3.2 Questionnaire survey

2.3.2.1 Development A questionnaire survey was developed to explore fishers’ usual gear deployment and fishing patterns in the case study fisheries, experiences of interactions with seabirds, their use of and opinions on a selection of mitigation measures, the costs and benefits associated with different mitigation measures, and their general opinions on fishery‐seabird interactions. The questionnaire took the form of a semi‐structured interview, with some structured questions, and other open‐ended questions to allow interviewees to express their opinions and explore the issues in more depth.

Two separate surveys were developed, tailored to (i) longline fisheries (for the Western Mediterranean, Maltese and Greek waters longline, and Gran Sol case studies), and (ii) gillnet fisheries (Baltic Sea and Eastern North Sea case studies). Within those two survey types, the questions were kept as similar as possible in relation to the questions on gear configuration and mitigation measures explored, although they were tailored to specific case studies with the use of maps for the specific fishing areas involved in each case.

The fishery‐seabird interactions were explored through questions asking whether seabirds disrupt fishing activity, and if so what type of disturbances they cause. The options for longline fisheries were:

Steal bait from the lines;

Reduce time fishing due to slowing of hauling procedures;

Reduced catch due to bait damaged by birds;

Lost catching opportunities due to birds on hooks rather than fish;

Damage fish on the line;

Damage fishing gear;

Other. For gillnet fisheries, the options were:

Reduces time fishing due to slowing of hauling procedures;

Lost catching opportunities due to birds scaring away fish;

Damage or steal fish in the net;

Damage fishing gear;

Other.

A set of mitigation measures was established in order to explore fishers’ opinions on their effectiveness at reducing seabird bycatch, their acceptability to industry, and the costs and benefits involved in their implementation. These mitigation measures were selected based on the literature review (see section 2.2).

For longline fisheries, the mitigation measures were:

Increase weight of the line

Circle hooks

Make bait sink quicker (thaw bait, puncture swim bladders)

Dyed bait

Streamer line

Side‐setting

Bird scaring curtain (use during haul)

Night‐setting with reduced deck lighting

Offal discharged from opposite side of vessel from setting area

Methods

5

Offal not discharged at same time as setting/hauling

Closed areas or seasons

Other (specify)

For gillnet fisheries, the mitigation measures were:

Multifilament coloured twine (white or blue) in top 20 meshes

Buoys with visual bird‐scaring deterrents

Red corks spaced throughout netting

Acoustic ‘pingers’

Increase the depth at which net is set

Set nets only in water greater than 20m depth

Spatial fishing restrictions in areas of high seabird abundance

Restricting fishing season to avoid periods of high seabird abundance (could focus on period of maximum fish abundance)

Use of alternative gear e.g. baited pots for cod fishery, longlines, fish traps (pound nets)

Other (specify)

Fishers were asked to estimate the percentage change in catch (income) and fishing costs expected with implementation of each mitigation measure. They were also asked to score how effective they thought each mitigation measure would be at reducing bird interactions, and how acceptable each mitigation measure would be to industry, using the following scales:

Effectiveness: 1 = not at all effective (no reduction in bird bycatch); 2 = slightly effective (0‐25% reduction in bird bycatch); 3 = moderately effective (25‐50% reduction in bird bycatch); 4 = effective (50‐75% reduction in bird bycatch); 5 = very effective (75‐100% reduction in bird bycatch);

Acceptability: 1 = not at all acceptable in any circumstances; 2 = not acceptable, except for specific cases; 3 = acceptable, with reservations; 4 = acceptable, with slight reservations; 5 = very acceptable.

Seabird identification guides were prepared for each case study, showing the main seabird species found in the area, with photographs, common name, scientific name, and local names (in local language) for each species. These guides were used to discuss and identify with fishers which seabird species were encountered and with which species interactions occurred.

2.3.2.2 Testing The longline questionnaire survey was tested in the Western Mediterranean fishery between the 21st and 29th October 2010 in five Mediterranean ports in Spain (Grao de Gandia, Denia, Santa Pola, Castellon and Burriana). Eleven fishers or organisations were interviewed — six fishers, four fisher associations, and one relative of a fisher. Other fishers and fisher associations were contacted to develop a broader picture of the Spanish Mediterranean longline fishery and help prepare for the implementation phase of the questionnaire.

The gillnet questionnaire survey was tested in the Netherlands on the 18th November 2010 in Ijmuiden. Two fishers and one Producers’ Organisation were interviewed.

Modifications to the questionnaire were made based on the outcome of the testing phase, including: changing the format for recording fishing areas and areas of bird interactions, simplification of the table on mitigation measures’ costs and impacts; providing the opportunity to define more than one gear/fishery type; updating grid areas on the maps and for the Baltic changing the grid to match the ICES Statistical rectangles; changing the way questions about gear and operating costs were asked; and restructuring the order of the questionnaire, so that seabird interactions were asked prior to mitigation measures.

The final longline and gillnet questionnaires are provided in Annex 3: Questionnaire survey.

2.3.2.3 Implementation The questionnaire surveys were predominantly implemented through face‐to‐face interviews with fishers in port or in their homes; although where a meeting in person was not possible some interviews were carried out over the telephone.

The main ports of the fleets of interest were established, and contact with the industry was established initially through the fishers’ associations. Some meetings were set up with fishers in advance in order to conduct the


6

interviews. However, in many cases the most effective means of establishing contact with fishers involved travelling from port to port and meeting with the fishers upon their return from a fishing trip, during market auctions, when they were working near or on their vessels or in their workshops. Often a contact made in one port would lead to contacts in other nearby ports. In other cases, contact was made through fisher associations and arrangements made to meet at a suitable time and place.

The questionnaires were conducted in the local language, and answers recorded on the interview forms in the local language. The number of questionnaires and the dates of the survey implementation for each case study are shown in Table 1.

The data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet template and then transferred to an Access database for analysis.

Table 1: Dates of questionnaire survey implementation and number of interviews carried out Case study Dates of questionnaire survey implementation Number of interviews carried out

Western Mediterranean longline 4–30 Nov 2010 25

Gran Sol longline Nov 2010 12

Greek and Maltese waters longline Malta: 9–30 Nov 2010 Greece: 12 Nov – 10 Dec 2010

Malta: 20 Greece: 27

Baltic Sea gillnet (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)

Estonia: 11 Dec 2010 – 05 Jan 2011 Latvia: 21–29 Dec 2010 Lithuania: 21–31 Dec 2010

Estonia: 16 Lithuania: 21 Latvia: 16

Baltic Sea gillnet (Sweden, Denmark, Germany)

Sweden: 17 Dec 2010 Denmark: 13–15 Dec 2010 Germany: ‐‐

Sweden: 2 (groups) Denmark: 10 Germany: 0

Eastern North Sea gillnet 18 Nov–18 Dec 2010 12

Due to very bad weather during the field visit to Sweden, it was not possible to implement questionnaires in various ports as access and travel was restricted. The questionnaire was implemented with two groups of fishers within the South Öland fishery. Although there are only two ‘responses’ to the questionnaire for data analysis purposes, each response represents the consensus view of a group of fishers.

While open and responsive, the leading German industry representative respectfully declined further consultation until it can be demonstrated that the German Baltic gillnet fishing industry have a significant probability of impacting the development of specific seabird populations for species that do not have a favourable conservation status. Further information is requested from the industry on reference points in terms of numbers of individuals (minimum population size) or mortality rates to classify the conservation status and establish the level of acceptable anthropogenic removals specific to seabird species and population.

In Estonia, the questionnaires were all done with coastal fishers who use either gillnets or/and fyke nets, the main gear that causes bird bycatch. The fishers questioned in this survey were from the north and western coast, including the western islands. 16 fishers were interviewed, most of whom were not full‐time fishers, which is common in the Estonian coastal fishery.

2.3.3 At‐sea research

2.3.3.1 Objectives

The aim of this field work was to gain practical experience at sea in one of the longline case study fisheries and in one of the gillnet case study fisheries. By implementing this field work, we wished to gain further insight into the gears used, the problems fishers have with birds, the likely efficacy of potential mitigation measures and the difficulties these create for fishers than was expected to result solely from the questionnaires. Another objective of the research was to set up a practical liaison with participants of the questionnaire in the respective case studies, and to build confidence with the industry during the questionnaire process for added value.

To minimise the additional cost to the project of the at‐sea research the field trips were planned to be undertaken at the same time as the in‐country interviews and also within countries in which questionnaires were tested: the western Mediterranean Spanish longline fishery and the western Baltic Swedish gillnet fishery.

Unfortunately due to very bad weather experienced during the field visit to Sweden to implement the research at sea and the questionnaires the trip to sea had to be cancelled.

Methods

7

The aims of the research that was carried out on a longline vessel were specifically to:

• Gain first‐hand understanding of the fishing process in order to describe accurately how gear is deployed and retrieved as well as the time periods involved.

• Examine specific aspects of gear setting and hauling that may affect seabird interactions such as:

1. Number and duration of and reasons for cessation in gear setting and hauling.

2. Amount and frequency of discarded bait and bycatch or offal during setting and hauling.

3. Type of gear used, particularly the type of hook bait, and weights (e.g. for longlines).

4. Sink rate of the hooks (for longlines)

5. Mitigation measures, if any that are used during setting and hauling.

• Observe and identify seabirds associated with and nearby the vessel.

• Quantify the levels of interactions observed between the seabirds and the vessel, particularly during setting and hauling.

Full details of the methodology and results are provided in Annex 4.

2.4 Preliminary impact assessment of minimising seabird bycatch: social, economic and environmental

The preliminary impact assessment took two separate approaches – one explored social and economic impacts for fishers of implementing mitigation measures in the case study regions; the other explored the potential impacts of bycatch on seabird populations in these regions.

Both approaches used information collected through the questionnaire surveys, combined with additional published data in order to estimate impacts.

For the social and economic impact assessment, fishers were asked to consider the cost implications of a range of mitigation measures in terms of impact on catch and therefore income, and in terms of fishing costs. For each mitigation measure the average impact on income, costs and profit was compared to the status quo using AER data. These estimates were also compared with the fishers estimates of the effectiveness of each measure in order to generate a ranking of cost versus effectiveness. A detailed methodology is provided in 6.1.

To explore the impact of not taking action to minimise seabird bycatch in the case study fisheries, estimates of total annual bycatch were calculated from bycatch levels reported in the questionnaire survey and compared with estimates of Potential Biological Removal (PBR) generated from this study or from previously published estimates. PBR represents an estimate of additional mortality a population can sustain, and in this sense provides a means of placing bycatch levels reported by fishers into context. Details of how PBR is estimated are provided in 6.2.2.

6.2.3 also provides information of reports of seabird bycatch in fisheries other than those considered in the case studies, highlighting additional fisheries in which bycatch management requires consideration.

Mitigation measures for incidental seabird mortality in longline and gillnet fisheries

9

3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR INCIDENTAL SEABIRD MORTALITY IN LONGLINE AND GILLNET FISHERIES

A range of possible mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch are available for different fisheries depending on the gears used. Here, we review these mitigation measures, according to whether they are applicable to all fisheries independent of gear type, or whether they are applicable to gillnet or to longline fisheries specifically. This review draws on available literature, in particular the global review of seabird bycatch mitigation measures currently in place or proposed by FAO (2008) and practical research to test the effectiveness of different mitigation measures.

3.1 Developing best practice Incidental capture of seabirds and its potential negative impact on seabird populations has been recognised as a high priority by the FAO who has developed guidelines leading to a Plan of Action. The International Plan of Action on Seabirds (IPOA‐Seabirds) was adopted by the 23rd session of Committee on Fisheries in 1999 (FAO, 1999).

In 2007, the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) identified that ‘Best Practice Technical Guidelines’ (BPTG) could assist countries in implementing the IPOA‐Seabirds for longline and other relevant fisheries (BirdLife International, 2009b). It was also agreed that Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) would benefit from the provision of information on the implementation on IPOA‐Seabirds on a regional scale. In response, in 2008 a FAO Expert Consultation (Bergen, Norway) elaborated a detailed draft of BPTG based on six fundamental principles:

1. Broadening the scope and effectiveness of IPOA‐Seabirds by developing NPOA‐Seabirds that reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in relevant fisheries.

2. Ensuring the effective application by RFMOs of IPOA‐Seabirds within a regional framework, including the adoption of technical and institutional measures required to adopt effective mitigation measures by RFMOs to provide consistent implementation through a regional plan.

3. Adopting scientifically proven, practical and cost‐effective mitigation measures, or combinations of mitigation measures.

4. Conducting collaborative research into the development and testing of mitigation measures. 5. Designing and implementing education, training and outreach programmes to reduce the incidental catch of

seabirds 6. Using data collection programmes (including observer programmes) and reporting frameworks designed

and implemented to provide representative data on the incidental catch of seabirds.

These principles formed the basis of a 10‐point approach to achieving best practice plans of action to reduce seabird bycatch, as follows (FAO 2009):

1. Extend the IPOA‐Seabirds to other relevant fishing gear including trawls and gillnets 2. Uptake of seabird measures by RFMOs/RFMAs 3. Defining an incidental catch problem 4. Mitigation measures and related standards 5. Mitigation research 6. Education, training and outreach 7. Observer programmes 8. Seabird incidental catch reduction objectives 9. Monitoring and reporting framework for NPOA‐Seabirds and regional plans 10. Periodic performance review

Within the Mediterranean region, UNEP provided draft guidelines for reducing catch of seabirds as part of the Mediterranean Action Plan (Carboneras, 2009). The report recognises that it is not always possible to eliminate bird bycatch. Under these circumstances, Best Practice is to minimise the impact of the fishery and reducing incidental mortalities to levels that bird populations can sustain. The report indicates that “no single mitigation method is effective and that a combination of methods is used simultaneously”. Furthermore, “the specific combination will depend on such factors as the target fishery, gear used, location and suite of seabird species encountered, and sea conditions”. An example of developing best practices for combined mitigation measures is given in section 1.3.

In assisting the Commission to develop a European Community Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds, BirdLife International provided a critical review of current mitigation measures for available longline


10

(pelagic and demersal) and gillnets (BirdLife International, 2009b). Interestingly, their review of the NE Atlantic Gran Sol demersal longline fishery (Box 1) suggests that a single, highly targeted mitigation measure can be highly effective in reducing the level of incidental bird mortality. This strongly indicates that cost‐effective measures can only be developed through research conducted for each fishery‐type and fine tuned on an individual basis. The following sections outline a range of individual mitigation measures available to longline and gillnet fisheries. To date, very little information is available on the gillnet fisheries.

3.2 Applicable to all fisheries There exist several seabird mitigation measures with broad applicability across multiple fisheries, and which can be used either in isolation or alongside additional mitigation measures. Examples of three such measures have been reasonably well documented, mainly from outside Europe, and have shown substantial reductions in seabird bycatch.

Offal and discard management

Offal discarded from the rear of fishing vessels is a major factor in attracting seabirds to fishing gear (Weimerskirch et al., 2000). Thus, managing offal discards through retention or strategic dumping (e.g. in the form of frozen block or homogenized) may decrease incentives for birds to associate with fishing vessels. Two published examples come from the Hawaiian bigeye tuna and swordfish longline fishery where vessels retained offal during setting, and the New Zealand squid trawl fishery where there was complete retention of offal during all fishing operations. In both cases there was a demonstrable reduction in seabird bycatch rates, which was largely due to birds interacting less with gears (McNamara et al., 1999; Bull, 2007). One constraint to retaining offal onboard is vessel storage capacity, which varies between vessels.

Area/seasonal closures

The seasonal, periodic or full closure of areas to fishing effort where bird bycatch has been recorded, or where the range of a protected species overlaps with fishery operations, can lead to reduced interaction between seabirds and fishing vessels. The closing of fishing areas is generally considered as a precautionary approach as it has obvious impacts on fishing operations, although it has broad application potential and the concept can be relatively simple to monitor and enforce. The CCAMLR toothfish longline fisheries provide an example of a temporal closure directly aimed at reducing seabird bycatch, with summer restrictions meaning vessels can only operate in the winter months. This has led to a reduction in birds per thousand hooks; from 0.2 in 1995 to <0.025 in 1997, although this result is compounded by simultaneous uptake of other avoidance measures (SC‐CCAMLR, 1998). In another example the drift gillnet fishery for salmon in Puget Sound, USA, was limited to periods of peak salmon abundance. The reduction in the total number of gill net sets required to meet quota led to 43% decline in bird bycatch (Melvin et al., 1999).

Management interventions

Fishing activities may be stopped once bycatch volume or catch rate exceeds a pre‐defined trigger, as is used for other bycatch species (Bull, 2007). An example from the UK is the inshore sea bass fishery which mandates an annual seabird catch trigger which, if exceeded, automatically prompts the closure of the fishery. This precautionary measure has the potential to cap incidental seabird mortality at a predefined level, although closure of the fishery will result in socio‐economic consequences and requires a high level of compliance with reporting and enforcement (Sewell et al., 2007).

3.3 Longline fisheries There are three situations where baited hooks on longline gears pose a risk to seabirds: (i) as the hooks are cast into the water and before sinking; (ii) if the hooks float at or near the surface during their soak time because of currents or tide action, and; (iii) when hooks with unused bait are hauled back onboard the vessel. A number of mitigation measures have been designed and trialled to reduce interactions in all three of these situations, most, but not all, of which are applicable to surface and demersal longline fisheries alike. In the following examples, where a mitigation measure is applicable only to one or other fishery this is stated.


11

Underwater setting devices (e.g., chute, capsule or funnel)

During setting, these stern mounted devices deliver baited hooks below the water surface. Effectiveness of the different devices is influenced by sea conditions, vessel load distribution and propeller turbulence (on bait retention).

Chute: Only the branch line and baited hooks are fed through the chute. The concept and early development

happened in New Zealand (Barnes & Walshe, 1997), and trials have also been undertaken in Hawaiian tuna

and swordfish longline fisheries where results were mixed (Bull, 2007; Gilman et al., 2007). In these trials

chutes reduced contact rate per albatross to <0.03 per thousand hooks, and were 95% effective at reducing

albatross contact compared with business‐as‐usual. However, chutes performed inconsistently and were

inconvenient to use because of manufacturing flaws and design problems. Furthermore, hook setting rate

was slower than conventional setting (Gilman et al., 2003a), modifications were relatively expensive (e.g.

US$5,000+), cutes led to fouled hooks and tangled gear when used in large swells and require a large amount

of deck space to stow (Gilman et al., 2003a; Bull, 2007).

Capsule: Baited hooks are ‘delivered’ to a pre‐selected depth via capsule, which then returns onboard. Cycle

time is dependent on delivery depth. Development trials were undertaken on pelagic longliners in New

Zealand and Australian waters (Brothers et al., 2000). During trials, the capsule lowered bird activity in the

area directly astern (compared to conventional setting), and no seabird diving attempts were recorded by

onboard fisheries observers. However, design flaws were identified during trials; primarily that returning

capsules occasionally caught and tangled branchlines (Brothers et al., 2000).

Funnel (demersal longline only): The entire mainline (including branch lines and hooks) is fed through the

funnel and as such baited hooks are delivered underwater. The funnel has been trailed in South Africa, Alaska

and Norway, and had resulted in significant reduction in bird bycatch (Løkkeborg, 2001; Melvin et al., 2001;

Ryan & Watkins, 2002). However, despite the reduction, bycatch remained relatively high, especially in the

Norwegian example (Løkkeborg, 2001) and overall, results have been mixed (Bull, 2007). Funnel performance

has been inconsistent, and in some trials led to an increase in bait loss (Løkkeborg, 1998), can be expensive to

fit (e.g. £40,000; Brooke, 2004) and are vulnerable to technical difficulties (Melvin et al., 2001).

Bait‐casting/throwing machine (pelagic longline only)

BCMs are used in pelagic fisheries to mechanically cast baited branchlines, placing them at a distance from the mainline to avoid tangles. Observer data from Japanese longline vessels showed reduced bird bycatch (Duckworth, 1995; Klaer and Polacheck, 1997), and in addition, less bait was lost from hooks during machine throwing compared to manual setting (Brothers, 1993). The original BCM (Gyrocast) were designed to mitigate seabird bycatch as well as to be labour saving, but were expensive ($A20,000). Subsequent cheaper models have only labour saving function, and consequently BCM now appear to be an out‐dated mitigation measure (Brothers et al, 1999).

Blue‐dyed bait

Thawing and dyeing bait blue is thought to reduce bait visibility to seabirds (Gilman et al., 2007) although it has also been proposed that seabirds actively avoid blue bait (Lydon & Starr, 2005). Blue‐dyed bait has been trialled in the Hawaiian bigeye tuna and swordfish longline alongside underwater setting devices and side setting. Although contact rates for two albatross species were significantly lower using blue‐dyed bait, this measure was comparatively less effective than the other mitigation methods trialled (Gilman et al., 2007). Blue‐dyed bait is relatively inexpensive (e.g. US$1 per 100 squid) but is inconvenient for crew to use because thawing and dyeing, which is not currently sold commercially, is time consuming (Bull, 2007; Gilman et al., 2007). Lack of trials in demersal longline fisheries may be due to use of considerably more bait used, making this mitigation measure even less practical (Bull, 2007). Furthermore, birds may habituate to blue dyed bait, reducing its efficacy as a mitigation measure over time (Lydon & Starr, 2005).


12

Side‐setting

By setting fishing gear from the side of the vessel the bait is thought to be sufficiently deep (i.e. out of seabird diving range) by the time it reaches the stern. During Hawaiian at‐sea trials on a mid‐sized (25m) pelagic longline vessel, side‐setting (which used additional netting to further reduce contacts) was more effective at reducing seabird bycatch than blue dyes bait and underwater setting chutes (Gilman et al., 2003b; Gilman et al., 2007). Based on the trials, side‐setting was estimated to produce a 52.7% gain in efficiency due to greater bait retention and fewer gear tangles (Gilman et al., 2007). Side‐setting was also trailed on a large‐sized (54m) pelagic longline research vessel in the North Pacific, where the preliminary results indicated that side‐setting was a practically feasible way to improve sink rates of baited hooks (Yokota & Kiyota, 2006).

Side‐setting as a mitigation measure has not been widely tested in demersal longline fisheries. Reports from some Falklands demersal longline fleets (e.g. shark fisheries) which use side‐setting (a.k.a. mid‐ship setting) showed negligible seabird interactions (Sullivan, 2004). In contrast, seabirds were caught when side‐setting was used in Alaskan demersal fisheries (Bull, 2007 citing E. Melvin, pers.comm.). When tested in the New Zealand demersal longline fishery for ling, seabird bycatch appeared to be reduced but there were operational difficulties as the line became entangled in the propeller on one trial (Bull, 2007). A slight gear modification alleviated this problem (Bull, 2007).

Side setting is easy for crew to employ at nominal cost and with no additional effort (Gilman et al., 2003b). It has not been widely tested in demersal fisheries, and there may be some operational difficulties with implementing side‐setting in these fisheries. Side‐setting appears to be effective in some fisheries, but further experimental trials are required to establish whether side‐setting is feasible for all size classes of both pelagic and demersal longline vessels, under a range of sea conditions, and across diverse seabird assemblages (BirdLife International, 2009a). Potential may be limited to larger vessels, given the distance it takes bait to sink (Bull, 2007).

Night setting

Night‐setting may reduce seabird interaction and mortality either because fewer birds are active at night, or because birds have more difficulty seeing the baited hooks (Bull, 2007). Examples from the western Mediterranean demersal and longline fisheries, Japanese pelagic longline fishing within Australian and New Zealand waters and both the Kerguelen and Falklands Patagonian toothfish fisheries. In the Mediterranean, significant differences were found in the number of birds caught at different hours (Belda & Sanchez, 2001), and Japanese longline observer data showed reduced seabird bycatch during night setting (Duckworth, 1995; Klaer & Polacheck, 1997). Similarly in the toothfish fisheries night‐setting significantly reduced the overall number of birds caught (Weimerskirch et al., 2000; Reid & Sullivan, 2004). However, crew safety may be compromised when operating in low light, and night setting has the potential to shift any bycatch problem from diurnal feeding seabird species to crepuscular/nocturnal species (Brothers et al., 1999). As another constraint, night setting has only limited effectiveness at high latitudes in summer, and during the full moon (Brothers et al., 1999).

During 2006/07 fishing season a survey was conducted by an independent observer on the Galician Gran Sol demersal longline fleet, which operate on average 165 days a year targeting hake and black bream (BirdLife International, 2009b). The Spanish vessels set mostly at night and at dawn with deck lights on, although effort may be extended during daylight hours if catches remain high. Three surveys were conducted to cover the major seasons of the fishery with a total of 238,205 hooks observed. The results obtained for a bycatch rate, per 1,000 hooks obtained for six species of seabird was extrapolated to provide a total annual bycatch of 56,307 birds (see Section 5.3.2 for further details).

These figures were reported when deck lights were on. On days when the observer requested that deck lights were switched off at night (with exception for position lights) the level of bycatch was negligible. The use of deck lighting was therefore identified as a major cause of bird mortality in the Grand Sol fishery. This however, could be practically eliminated simply by switching off the lights, which was also very cost‐effective. It is interesting to note that no other mitigation measures were employed, since fishers claimed other bird‐scarring devices often got entangled with the fishing gear and were particularly difficult to use in bad weather conditions.

The results of this study led to the following recommendations:

Continue assessment of the interaction through observer coverage (at least 20%) working to an agreed data collection protocol;


13

Strengthen Spanish regulation to make night‐setting a requirement rather than a preferred option, and ensure enforcement of the requirement to minimise deck‐lighting;

Assess compliance with an amendment of the existing mitigation measures for offal management (as also required by the 2006 Spanish regulation);

Promote trials of other mitigation measures (bird‐scaring line, integrated line weighting) which may, in combination, assist the reduction of deck‐lighting and offal management in mitigating bycatch;

Establish a programme of awareness‐raising and training of skippers and crews to these ends.

Bird scaring lines (BSLs)

A BSL is any device which, when deployed astern, deters birds from taking baited hooks as they are being set into the water (also known as streamers, tori lines, tori pole streamers and bird lines). BSLs have been trialled and successfully introduced into both pelagic and demersal longline fisheries, including the Japanese southern bluefin tuna longline fishery, New Zealand tuna longline, the Norwegian commercial demersal longline, Chilean Patagonian toothfish longline fishery and the Alaskan demersal longline fishery. In most situations BSLs have been shown to reduce bird interactions with fishing gear, and so reduce mortality (Bull, 2007). The method is relatively cheap (e.g. $A200‐300; Brothers et al., 1999), and can lead to reduced bait loss, which may in turn result in increased target species catch rate (Løkkeborg, 2001). The design of the BSL must be tailored to individual vessels (i.e. mounting height) to achieve maximum effectiveness (Brothers, 1995).

Brickle curtain

A protective curtain hung around the hauling bay, deterring foraging birds from approaching too close to the hauling bay. The curtain consists of a series of lines hanging seaward from a rope positioned around the hauling bay (Sullivan, 2004). Anecdotal evidence from the Falklands demersal longline fisheries suggests that Brickle curtains effective discourage birds from seizing baits in the hauling area. The curtains are suitable for pelagic and demersal fisheries, are low cost and safe to use, and have no negative impacts on catch rate. However, birds may become habituated to curtain; as such, it should be used strategically only in times of high bird abundance (Brothers et al., 1999).

Fish oil

Oil is extracted from fish bycatch is dispensed over the stern, creating a slick in the water over the longline thus creating both a visual and olfactory deterrent to birds diving for bait (Pierre & Norton, 2006). Trials from the New Zealand snapper longline fishery (using school shark oil) show a reduction in seabird dives for bait when using fish oil when compared to using either no oil or canola (non‐fish) oil. However, there remain unknown ecosystem effects of using large amounts of fish oil and unknown effects of fish oil on bird’s feathers, as well as uncertainty regarding the potential of habituation over time (Pierre & Norton, 2006). Furthermore, the use of vulnerable bycatch species, especially sharks, in such a way is questionable (Bull, 2007).

Integrated and external line weights

Increasing the rate at which the line sinks is likely to decrease the chance of interaction between seabirds and baited hooks. Adding weights may achieve faster sink‐rates for both pelagic and demersal longline fisheries. In the Australian pelagic longline fishery, gear with weighted line (20, 40 and 80g swivels) sunk faster and was associated with reduced seabird bycatch (Brothers et al., 2001). Similarly, in the Hawaiian pelagic longline fishery, seabird contacts were significantly lower weighted lines (additional 60 g swivel pinned on along with the bait) (Boggs, 2001).

In demersal fisheries, vessels using the Spanish system use line weights to sink gear and vessels using the autoline system typically use unweighted gear, which sinks slowly and increases risk to seabirds (Robertson et al., 2006). Adding external weights to the latter system can be problematic, so lines with integrated weights are generally used instead to make weights sink faster (BirdLife International, 2009a). A comparison of unweighted lines and integrated weighted lines (50 g/m beaded lead core) were investigated in the New Zealand ling demersal fishery on a vessel using autolining. Compared to the unweighted lines, use of integrated weighted lines showed reduced mortality of seabird species (Robertson et al., 2006). Integrated weight longlines used on demersal autoline vessels in the Alaskan cod fishery were found to reduce seabird mortality, particularly if used in combination with paired streamer lines (Dietrich et al., 2008).

Adding weights (4.25, 8.5 and 12.75 kg attached at 40m intervals) to the lines on vessels using the Spanish system in the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) demersal longline toothfish fishery showed a


14

significant reduction in seabird mortality when 8.5 kg weights were used compared with the 4.25 kg weights (Agnew et al., 2000). No further significant reduction was apparent when 12.75 kg weights were used (Agnew et al., 2000).

As an additional benefit, appropriate weighting can keep hooks at optimum depth for longer improving catch potential (Brothers et al., 2001; Bull, 2007). However, there is also increased concern for crew safety with heavier gears, as well as increased costs for necessary swivels/weights (Brothers et al., 2001).

Line shooter

A line shooter sets the longline without tension, allowing the line to set closer to the vessel and potentially increase the sink rate (Sullivan, 2004). The device consists of a pair of hydraulically operated wheels which draws the line through the auto‐baiter, delivering the line slack into the water. In the Norwegian demersal longline however, a study showed no significant difference in bird bycatch rates (Melvin et al., 2001), an Alaskan cod study actually shows significant increase in seabird bycatch (Løkkeborg & Robertson, 2002).

Bait condition

The condition of bait (e.g. frozen/thawed, swim bladder inflated/deflated) can influence its buoyancy and therefore its sink rate and availability to foraging sea birds (Bull, 2007). A reduction in seabird bycatch has been recorded in New Zealand and Japanese pelagic longline fisheries operating in New Zealand waters (Brothers et al., 1995; Duckworth, 1995; Klaer & Polacheck, 1997). Thawed bait are easier to apply to hooks, but by the same measure they also pull off hooks more readily. Applicability is restricted as many vessels have inadequate thawing facilities (Brothers et al., 1999).

3.4 Gillnet fisheries Although the issue of seabird bycatch in gillnet fisheries has been recognised, the range of bycatch mitigation measures which have been developed, trialled and introduced is limited, especially when compared to the range of measures available to longline fisheries. In addition to the generic mitigation measures described earlier (e.g. area closures), the following measures which can be applied gill net fisheries have been reported in the literature.

Visual and acoustic alerts

Nets can be modified to incorporate visual and/or acoustic alerts in order to decrease the change of entanglement of seabirds. In the Puget Sound coastal salmon driftnet fishery, USA, traditional monofilament nets with visual alerts were trialled under two combinations: modifications to the upper 20 or upper 50 meshes. Acoustic alerts were also trialled in the same study (Melvin et al., 1999). Trials with upper 20 mesh visual alerts reduced bycatch of certain seabird species without affecting catch rate of target sockeye salmon. However, upper 50 mesh alerts negatively impact sockeye catch rate. Acoustic pingers reduced Common guillemot Uria aalge bycatch by 50% (Melvin et al., 1999). However, acoustic pingers have only been trialled on seabirds in this one isolated study, so further investigation is required on this measure. In the commercial gillnet fishery in eastern Canada, blue netting was used concert with barium sulphate to increase acoustic reflectance, and significantly reduced seabird bycatch (Trippel et al., 2003).

Sub‐surface drift gillnet

Increasing the depth at which the net is set could potentially reduce bycatch and interactions between seabirds and fishing gear. In the North Pacific Japanese flying squid fishery drift nets were suspended 2m below surface, significantly reducing seabird bycatch. However, catch efficiency of the target species was reduced by up to 95%, and bycatch of other non‐bird species was not significantly reduced (Hayase & Yatsu, 1993).

3.5 Combined mitigation measures The sections above describe a suite of individual mitigation measures that have been developed and tested for a range of longline and gillnet fisheries. It is often found however, that a combination of different mitigation measures is used simultaneously to provide the most effective method of reducing bird bycatch. In particular, the Commission for the CCAMLR has developed a range of very successful mitigation measures for the demersal longline fishery. Within the Southern Ocean, CCAMLR has developed and implemented a suite of mitigation measures to reduce the bycatch of birds within the demersal longline fisheries for toothfish (Dissostichus spp). These include streamer‐lines, prohibition of discharge of waste during setting and hauling operations, specified line‐sink rates (e.g. using


15

external/integrated line weights depending on the type of longline system used i.e. Spanish system or autoline system) and seasonal closure of high risk areas. Recording bird bycatch is closely monitored on each participating vessel by an independent fisheries observer and reviewed on an annual basis through the CCAMLR Working Group for Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing (WG‐IMAF). As a direct result of implementing these measures, the number of incidental mortality of seabirds with demersal longline vessels declined dramatically at Prince Edward Is. and South Georgia from approximately 6,500 in 1996 to less than 100 in 2002 and zero in 2007 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Incidental mortality of seabirds in the demersal longline fishery in CCAMLR fisheries for toothfish (Dissostichus spp), between the period when management interventions commenced (1996/97)

To help determine which combination of measures work best, it is necessary to conduct pilot studies for each particular vessel type/ fishery with further opportunities to monitor and optimize performance (Bull, 2007).

Within the Mediterranean, a set of guidelines have been developed by UNEP to provide best practice for a range of fisheries including longline, trawl and gillnet vessels (Carboneras, 2009). The report recommends that each longline vessel should select at least 2 mitigation measures from the following combination:

At least one measure from column A and at least one from column B, or

At least two measures from column A.

Column A Column B

Night setting

Bird‐scaring lines

Line weighting

Under‐water setting

Offal and discard management

Area/seasonal closures

Bait condition (inc. blue‐dyed)

Line shooter


16

4 SEABIRD POPULATIONS This section introduces the seabird populations in European case study areas that are either known to be caught in fishing gear or are predicted to be vulnerable to bycatch due to their feeding behaviours. A more in‐depth overview of seabird species, including marine Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified in individual Member States is provided in Annex 5. ‘Seabirds’ is a term adopted in this report to cover all species that primarily use intertidal (e.g. shorebirds), littoral (e.g. sea ducks) and offshore areas (e.g. traditional ‘seabirds’). Seabirds that are of particular conservation concern and vulnerable to bycatch in European fisheries are shown in Table 2. This includes five species of global concern (with an IUCN redlist status of ‘Near Threatened’ or higher). The Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus is the only Critically Endangered species, meaning it has been evaluated to have a very high risk of extinction in the wild. Steller’s eider Polysticta stelleri has a global status of ‘Vulnerable’, meaning it has been evaluated to have a high risk of extinction in the wild.

BirdLife International publish periodic reviews of the conservation status of all wild birds in Europe – the latest being Birds in Europe (2004) (BirdLife International, 2004). Every ten years this review identifies Species of European Conservation Concern (SPECs). Species given a status of ‘SPEC 1’ are of global conservation concern; ‘SPEC 2’ are species with the global population is concentrated in Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status; ‘SPEC 3’ are species with the global population not concentrated in Europe, but that face unfavourable conservation status within Europe (BirdLife International, 2004). Fourteen species have a status of SPEC 1, 2 or 3 and are potentially subject to bycatch in European fisheries.

Table 2: Conservation status of species of conservation concern and vulnerable to bycatch in case study fisheries Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Redlist

status SPEC Status Birds Directive listing

Common pochard Aythya ferina LC SPEC 2 Annex II

Tufted duck Aythya fuligula LC SPEC 3 Annex II

Greater scaup Aythya marila LC SPEC 3W Annex II

Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea LC SPEC 2 Annex I

Black guillemot Cepphus grylle LC SPEC 2 ‐

Black‐throated diver Gavia arctica LC SPEC 3 Annex I

Red‐throated diver Gavia stellata LC SPEC 3 Annex I

Audouin's gull Larus audouinii NT SPEC 1 Annex I

Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus LC non SPEC_E Annex I

Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca LC SPEC 3 Annex II

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis LC non SPEC_E Annex I (Med ssp)

Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus LC SPEC 3 Annex I

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri VU SPEC 3W Annex I

Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus NT SPEC 1 Not evaluated

Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus CE SPEC 1 Annex I

Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus LC SPEC 2 Not evaluated

Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan NT non SPEC_E Annex I

Black‐legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla LC non SPEC ‐

Sources: BirdLife International, 2004; BirdLife International, 2011a; EU Birds Directive, 2009 Notes: IUCN Status: CE – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; NT – Near Threatened; LC‐Least Concern SPEC Status: SPEC 1 – Global conservation concern; SPEC 2 – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status; SPEC 3 – Global population not concentrated in Europe, but unfavourable conservation status in Europe; Non‐Spec_E – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces favourable conservation status; Non‐Spec_ ‐ Global population not concentrated in Europe; favourable conservation status in Europe. Species highlighted in blue are of global conservation concern (IUCN status of NT or higher)

Within Europe, directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 30 November 2009 (hereafter the ‘Birds Directive’) was adopted in 1979 to cover the protection, management and control of all species of wild birds in the European Union (EU Birds Directive, 2009). It therefore places emphasis on the protection of habitats for endangered as well as migratory species (listed in Annex I), especially through the establishment of a coherent network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – an integral part of the Natura 2000 ecological network ‐ comprising all the most suitable territories for these species (EU Birds Directive, 2009).

Seabird populations

17

4.1 Mediterranean Sea The Mediterranean Sea contains a number of breeding and wintering seabird populations. A risk assessment undertaken by Carboneras (2009) found that for key Mediterranean Action Plan species there was a very high or high risk known, or predicted risk of capture according to the feeding habits and the gear characteristics of pelagic or demersal longlines for the following species: Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) and Audouin's gull (Larus audouinii). Three additional species had a moderate risk: Northern gannet (Morus bassanus), Great skua (Catharacta skua) and Yellow‐legged gull (Larus michahellis). The Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus) has an unknown level of interaction with longlines. Although not much research has been undertaken, some studies have shown that gillnets may be a problem in the Mediterranean, especially to populations of Mediterranean shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), so this species is also included below. Table 3 shows the common and scientific names, feeding behaviour and diving depth of these species. More detailed descriptions for all of these species can be found in Annex 5.

The geographic focus when describing the breeding, wintering and foraging areas for these species will correspond with the case studies. For the Mediterranean, the focus is on the Western Mediterranean (primarily Spain) and Malta and Greece.

Table 3: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species known to be caught in Mediterranean fisheries Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max

(mean) in metres Feeding behaviour

Cory's shearwater (Med subspecies)

Calonectris diomedea diomedea

14 (1.4) Plunge diving

Great skua Catharacta skua UNK Splash diving; Surface seizing; Kleptoparasitism

Audouin's gull Larus audouinii UNK Surface seizing

Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus UNK Surface seizing

Yellow‐legged gull Larus michahellis UNK Surface seizing

Northern gannet Morus bassanus 34 (8.8) Plunge diving

Shag (Med subspecies) Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii

80 (33.43) Pursuit diving

Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus 26 (15.5) Plunge diving; Pursuit diving

Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan UNK Plunge diving; Pursuit diving

Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis. Notes: UNK = Unknown. Species highlighted in blue are of particular conservation concern (See Table 2).

The Mediterranean seabird community is characterised by low diversity and abundance but high degree of endemism (Zotier et al., 1999). A recent study on the biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea found that seabirds from this area typically have a low level of diversity and small population densities, which is consistent with a relatively low‐productivity ecosystem (Coll et al., 2010). This study indicated that five of fifteen species or subspecies of seabird in the Mediterranean are endemics (Coll et al., 2010). Seven of the fifteen resident bird species, including four of the endemic species or subspecies, are known to be caught in fishing gear.

The Mediterranean is quite heterogeneous in terms of seabird distribution; in a recent exercise mapping seabird distribution in the Mediterranean using studies on seabird populations, priority bird species were found in only one‐third of the total 10x10km cells covering the region (Carboneras & Requena, 2010). The area with the highest diversity index in the Mediterranean is the sea surrounding the Balearic Islands (Zotier et al., 1999). Two of the three Procellariform species (the shearwaters) breed in this area – Balearic Shearwater and Cory’s shearwater. In fact, the Balearic Islands are home to the only breeding colony of Balearic shearwaters worldwide (Arcos et al., 2009). There are also important breeding colonies of Audouin’s gulls in the Balearics (Arcos et al., 2009).

The Northeast coast of Spain also has important foraging areas for seabirds in the Western Mediterranean. Seabird distribution is linked to productivity of the sea, with some of the largest populations and greatest diversity of seabirds and breeding colonies occuring near the Ebro Delta and Columbretes Islands (Abello et al., 2003; Arcos et al, 2009).


18

Thousands of migratory birds pass through the strait of Gibraltar, the gateway between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. This is one of the most important migration hotspots for marine birds of the Western Palearctic region. Almost all the world population of Balearic Shearwater and most of that of Audouin´s Gull pass through during their migrations, as well as all the birds of the Mediterranean subspecies of Cory´s Shearwater. Significant numbers of Northern Gannet and Great Skua also occur (Arcos et al., 2009).

At least two studies have shown that the distribution of fishing vessels, particularly the trawl fleet in Spanish waters, have an effect on seabird distribution as trawler discards can be an important resource for seabirds, particularly Yellow‐legged, Lesser black‐backed and Audouin’s gulls, and Cory’s and Balearic shearwaters (Arcos & Oro, 1996; Bartemeus et al., 2010)). These interactions are particularly apparent during the breeding seasons (Arcos, 2001). Whether the distribution of seabirds is linked to trawler distribution or is a result of both exploiting an area of high productivity is unclear (Abello et al., 2003).

Important areas for birds identified or in the process of identification by Spanish, Greek and Maltese are described in more detail in Annex 5.

The shearwater species and gull species all breed in the Mediterranean. The Great Skua and Northern Gannet are winter visitors. The spatial and temporal ‘hotspots’ for breeding, foraging and wintering birds of highest conservation concern and regularly caught in longlines are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Temporal/Spatial hotspots in Mediterranean for species of conservation concern known to be caught in fisheries Scientific Name

When Where ‐ breeding Where ‐ foraging Where – non‐breeding

Cory’s shearwater

All year (Mar‐Oct)

Linosa (Italy), Zembra (Tunisia), Gozo (Malta), Balearic Islands (Spain), Chafarinas Islands (Spain) To lesser extent Colombretes Islands (Spain), Greek Islands

Greece, Malta Spain: Gulf of Lions; Cape Creus‐Barcelona‐Ebro Delta, Cape la Nao‐Cape Palos (Spain)

Atlantic – South America, southern Africa

Audouin’s Gull All year (Mar‐Oct)

Spain: Ebro Delta, Chafarinas Islands, Alboran Island, Tabarca‐Cabo de Palos, Balearic Islands Greek islands: Fournoi, Amorgos, Paros, Sporades island complex, Lesvos, Lemnos, Chios and Crete Sardinia, Tuscan Archipelago, Algeria

Spain: Ebro Delta, Colombretes Islands Alboran Sea

North and West Africa from Libya west to Morocco and south to Mauritania, Gambia, Senegal and Gabon Some remain in Mediterranean

Mediterranean shag

All year eastern coast of Spain, Baleares, Corsica, Sardinia, Tuscan archipelago, Lampedusa, Crete, Ionian Sea islets

coastal areas up to 60m depth

sedentary, partially dispersive – Mediterranean and Black Seas

Balearic shearwater

Sept‐Jul (Oct‐Jun)

Balearic Islands (Spain) Spain: Ebro Delta, Cap La Nao, wider east Iberian coast Algerian coast

Atlantic, Mediterranean

Yelkouan shearwater

All year (Oct‐Jul)

Maltese coastal cliffs; Greek islands; Italian islands (particularly Tavolara, Moalra, Figarolo); Hyères archipelago (France); Corsica (France)

Gulf of Lions (France), Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy), west of Sicily (Italy), Algerian‐Tunisian coast, Mar del Emporada (Spain)

Mediterranean (Aegean, Adriatic, Alboran Seas, north African coast), Black Sea

Sources: Arcos et al. 2009; Madroño et al., 2004; Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008; BirdLife Malta, 2010a,b; Birdlife International, 2002; BirdLife International, 2011a; HOS et al., pers.comm.

The specific threats to species of conservation concern subject to bycatch in the Mediterranean are shown in Table

5.

Seabird populations

19

Table 5: Main threats to species of conservation concern

Scientific Name Bycatch in longline

fisheries

Bycatch in

other fishery

gears

Hab

itat destruction/

degrad

ation

Availability of food

resources

Pollu

tion/ contamination

Interactions with other

species (e.g. p

redation,

competition)

Harvesting (eggs, chicks,

adults)

Clim

ate chan

ge

Disturban

ce (e.g. lights,

tourism

)

Cory’s shearwater ? small

Audouin’s gull ? small

Mediterranean gull ?

Mediterranean shag

Balearic shearwater small

Yelkouan shearwater small

Sources: Madroño et al., 2004 (Cory’s, Audouin’s, Balearic, Med shag), Arcos, 2011 (Balearic), Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008 (Yelkouan), BirdLife International, 2011a (Med gull). Notes: Bycatch in fisheries includes Mediterranean and global fisheries Harvesting was a historic problem for many of these species, but is anecdotic nowadays (Madroño et al., 2004; Arcos, 2011)

4.2 Gran Sol The Gran Sol (Great Sole) is an ICES fishing area (VIIj) in the North‐east Atlantic. The Great Sole Bank is one of the largest sandbanks located on the Celtic Sea continental shelf (Scourse et al., 2009). This area also straddles OSPAR Regions III and V (ICES, 2008b). The Gran Sol ICES fishing area includes the coast of SW Ireland, including both County Kerry and County Cork.

A study was carried out for SEO/BirdLife between 2006 and 2007 that showed that the Galician demersal longline fleet targeting hake and black bream had a high level of seabird bycatch (BirdLife International, 2009b). Seabirds caught in the Gran Sol fishery were predominantly observed attempting to capture bait at the surface. Therefore seabirds that plunge, dive and surface‐seize are most susceptible to bycatch in this fishery. The following section focuses on seabirds that have been subject to bycatch in this fishery or are susceptible to being caught in this fishery and/or are of conservation concern. Table 6 shows the common and scientific names, feeding behaviour and diving depth of these species. More detailed accounts of each species can be found in Annex 5.

Table 6: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species of conservation concern that could be vulnerable to bycatch and/or species that have been observed as bycatch in this fishery Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max


Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea 14 (1.4) Plunge diving

Black guillemot Cepphus grylle 50 (30) Pursuit diving

Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 2.6 Surface seizing

Great black‐backed gull Larus marinus 1 Surface seizing

Northern gannet Morus bassanus 34 (8.8) Plunging

Great shearwater Puffinus gravis UNK Pursuit diving

Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus 67 (39) Pursuit diving

Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus UNK Pursuit diving

Black‐legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla NA Pelagic surface feeding, dipping or plunge‐diving

Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis; Mendel et al., 2008 (Northern fulmar and Great black‐backed gull diving depths). Notes: UNK = Unknown; NA=not applicable. Species highlighted in blue are of particular conservation concern (See Table 2).

Within the North‐east Atlantic as a whole, little is known about actual numbers of the different species in the various areas (even on a larger scale than ICES sub‐divisions) during a given period (Barrett et al., 2006). However, seabird distribution at sea is largely determined by prey distribution (Roycroft et al., 2007). When comparing


20

species present in the North‐west and North‐east Atlantic, the latter area tends to contain piscivorous species such as large alcids feeding on small schooling fish (e.g. sandeels, capelin, herring, young gadoids) (Barrett et al., 2006). These fish are found in shallow shelf waters (<200m), so dominance of piscivorous birds in this region could be due to the high proportion of shelf waters (Barrett et al., 2006).

On an annual basis, many species spend varying amounts of time in different oceanographic regions and areas. The relative abundance of all seabird species is highly variable from season to season and site to site in Southwest Irish waters (Roycroft et al., 2007). For example, shearwater species that breed in the South Atlantic also pass through both the North‐west and North‐east Atlantic, although the high numbers and greater biomass of these are centred in the North‐west (Barrett et al., 2006).

The North Atlantic is highly productive and able to support large numbers of breeding seabirds, but the presence of suitable nesting sites may limit population size (Barrett et al., 2006). The Southwest coast of Ireland, the Irish Sea and West Scotland colonies are the main sources of seabirds in the areas where the Galician longliners operate. The archipelago of St Kilda, northwest of Scotland, is the most important seabird breeding station in north‐west Europe, with 350,000 breeding pairs of 17 species (UNEP‐WCMC, 2005). It includes the world’s largest colony of Northern gannets, as well as the largest British colony of Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis (UNEP‐WCMC, 2005).

Approximate numbers of seabirds breeding in each of the ICES areas were estimated at the ICES WGSE in 2002. In the Grand Sol (ICES VIIj), the majority of breeding birds are petrels (78.9% by number), followed by auks (3.1%) (ICES, 2002). The most numerous breeding species that are potentially vulnerable to bycatch in this fishery are the Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus and the Northern gannet.

Within the wider Northeast Atlantic, the Faroes and Western UK (ICES areas Vb, VI and VII) have about 3.8 million breeding seabirds, of which 39% are auk species (Barrett et al., 2006). The total biomass of seabirds in the Faroes and Western UK, as with the wider ICES and NAFO areas in the north Atlantic, varies little between seasons (Barrett et al., 2006). This low variability is due to the large influx of non‐breeding birds from the southern Atlantic compensating form large numbers of birds returning to their breeding colonies further north (Barrett et al., 2006). Actual numbers of different species in these regions over time is not known.

Autumn is one of the most important seasons for many species, with high numbers of auks, shearwaters, gannets and kittiwakes occurring at this time. All of these species breed on the islands off southwest Ireland and leave the colonies in large numbers in late summer to forage before dispersing in late autumn (Roycroft et al., 2007).

To address the lack of data on seabirds in the Atlantic region, a coalition of BirdLife International partners (SeaWatch Ireland, LPO, SPEA, SEO, RSPB) have commenced the project Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment (FAME) to identify seaward extensions to existing Special Protection Areas and Important Bird Areas at seabird colonies (BirdWatch Ireland, 2010). In addition to colony and tracking work, the project will look at important areas for non‐breeding seabirds using Irish waters, using ‘seabirds at sea’ monitoring and co‐ordinated sea‐watching to identify hotspots and timing of movements. These latter elements focus on the globally endangered Balearic Shearwater and southern hemisphere visitors including Great Shearwaters Puffinus gravis and Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus (BirdWatch Ireland, 2010).

The specific threats to species of conservation concern and/or caught in the Gran Sol fishery are shown in Table 7. Further information on the seabird‐fishery interactions in the Gran Sol fishery can be found in Section 5.2.2.

Seabird populations

21

Table 7: Main threats to species of conservation concern and/or caught in fishery

Common Name Bycatch in longline fisheries

Bycatch in

other fisheries

Hab

itat destruction/

degrad

ation

Availability of food resources

Pollu

tion/ contamination

Interactions with other species

(e.g. p

redation, competition)

Direct persecution (eggs,

chicks, adults)

Disturban

ce/ Obstacles (e.g.

lights, tourism

, shipping,

structures)

Entanglement in/ Ingestion of

discarded waste

Clim

ate chan

ge

Cory’s shearwater ? small

Black guillemot ?

Northern fulmar

Great black‐backed gull

Northern gannet *

Great shearwater

Sooty shearwater

Manx shearwater ?

Black‐legged kittiwake

Sources: BirdLife International 2011a; ICES, 2008a; Mendel et al., 2008; Hamer et al., 2007; Riou et al., 2011; OSPAR, 2009 Notes: Threats include both those in EU waters and globally; *Northern gannet persecution limited to Iceland and Faroe Islands; Species highlighted in blue are of particular conservation concern (see Table 2).

4.3 Baltic Sea Seabirds in the Baltic Sea comprise pelagic‐feeding species like divers, gulls, and auks, and benthic‐feeding species like dabbling ducks, sea ducks, mergansers, and coots (ICES, 2008a). One of the threats to seabird populations in the Baltic is mortality due to entanglement in gillnet fisheries. The main species that are liable to get entangled in gillnets are diving seabirds: sea ducks, diving ducks, loons/ divers, grebes, cormorants and auks (Žydelis et al., 2009). Therefore, this study concentrates predominately on these species. Table 8 shows the common and scientific names, feeding behaviour, diving depth and preferred depth of water in winter of these species.

More detailed descriptions for all of these species can be found in Annex 5. The species of particular conservation concern or that are frequently caught in gillnet fisheries are presented below.

The geographic focus when describing the breeding, wintering and foraging areas for these species will correspond with the case studies. For the Baltic, the focus is on the eastern region of the Baltic (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuanian) and western region of the Baltic (Denmark, Sweden and Germany).

There are seasonal differences in the occurrences of seabird populations in the Baltic – breeding and resident birds, and wintering birds. The Baltic Sea is more important for wintering (c. 10 million) than for breeding (c. 0.5 million) seabirds and sea ducks (ICES, 2008a). Only auks, cormorants and some local sea duck populations are present year‐round (Žydelis et al., 2009).

The 10 million wintering seabirds are not uniformly distributed through the Baltic. In mild winters, coastal and offshore zones (out to 50m) were preferred by sea ducks and several fish‐eating species while species that fed on pelagic schooling fishes showed no water depth preference and gulls and auks used the deep areas in the Baltic proper (Durinck et al., 1994). In more severe winters, the distribution changes as birds are forced out of near‐coastal zones into open water (Durinck et al., 1994).


22

Table 8: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to gillnet bycatch and/or high conservation status in the Baltic Sea Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max

(mean) in metres Feeding behaviour Preferred depth of

water in winter (m) Common pochard Aythya ferina 1‐3 Diving; Bottom feeding 0‐6

Tufted duck Aythya fuligula UNK Diving 0‐10

Greater scaup Aythya marila 10 (2) Pursuit diving 0‐10

Black guillemot Cepphus grylle grylle 50 (30) Pursuit diving 20‐40

Long‐tailed duck Clangula hyemalis 60 (20) Pursuit diving 6‐22

Black‐throated diver Gavia arctica 30 (9) Pursuit diving 0‐22

Red‐throated diver Gavia stellata 9 (7.5) Pursuit diving 0‐22

Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca 65 (13) Surface diving 10‐30

Common scoter Melanitta nigra 20 (9) Diving 2‐15

Red‐breasted merganser Mergus serrator UNK Pursuit diving 0‐10

Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 35 (12) Surface diving 0‐18

Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus 4 Pursuit diving 10‐15

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri 10 (5) Pursuit diving 0‐5

Common eider Somateria mollissima 42 (11) Diving, Head‐dipping 0‐15

Common guillemot Uria aalge 200 (90) Pursuit diving 18‐36

Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis; BirdLife International, 2011a (dive depth‐ Common Pochard); Petersen et al., 2010 (depth in winter); Durinck et al., 1994 (depth in winter – Steller’s eider). Notes: UNK = Unknown; Species highlighted in blue are of particular conservation concern (see Table 2).

A 1994 study mapping waterbirds in the Baltic in order to determine the most important areas for wintering species found that the ten most important areas covered less than 5% of the Baltic Sea, but contained about 90% of the total estimated number of seabirds wintering there (Durinck et al., 1994). All of these ten occur, at least partially, in case study countries (Table 9).

Several of the favoured areas for wintering seabirds are designated as Important Birds Areas or Natura 2000 areas (BirdLife International, 2011a). However, within most of these protected areas in the Baltic Sea there are no regulations imposed on fisheries active within them. Important areas for birds and SPAs identified or in the process of identification by Member States are described in more detail in Annex 5.

The specific threats to species of conservation concern subject to bycatch in the Baltic are shown in Table 10.

Further information on the seabird‐fishery interactions in Baltic gillnet fisheries can be found in Section 5.4.2 (Eastern Baltic) and Section 0 (Western Baltic).

Seabird populations

23

Table 9: Ten most important bird areas for wintering birds in the Baltic Important bird area Countries with continental

shelf zone in this area Selected species (% of NW European winter population)

Szczecin & Vorpommern Lagoons Germany, Poland Smew (55.7%); Greater Scaup (23%); Tufted Duck (15.2%), Velvet Scoter (4.4%)

Pomeranian Bay Germany, Poland, Denmark Velvet scoter (38.4%); Slavonian Grebe (34%); Long‐tailed duck (17%); Black Guillemot (12%)

Gulf of Riga Latvia, Estonia Velvet scoter (36.1%); Red‐throated Diver (24.2%); Long‐tailed duck (23.3%); Black Guillemot (15%)

Northern Kattegat Sweden, Denmark Red‐necked Grebe (15.7%), Common Eider (13.3%), Razorbill (10.8%); Velvet scoter (8.2%)

Saaremaa and Hiiumaa west coasts

Estonia Steller’s eider (39.3%); Goldeneye (1.5%); Goosander (1.8%)

Smålandsfarvandet Denmark Red‐breasted Merganser (3.7%); Divers (2.6%); Tufted Duck (2.3%)

Hoburgs Bank Sweden Long‐tailed duck (19.6%); Black Guillemot (1.3%)

Kiel Bay and adjacent waters Germany, Denmark Common Eider (9.3%); Great‐crested Grebe (2.1%); Long‐tailed duck (1.9%)

South‐west Kattegat Denmark Common Eider (6.4%); Goldeneye (2.7%); Greater Scaup (1.9%)

Gotland east and north coasts Sweden Long‐tailed duck (5%); Red‐breasted Merganser (2.4%); Black Guillemot (1.9%); Greater Scaup (1.2%)

Source: Durinck et al., 1994

Table 10: Threats to species of conservation concern

Sources: BirdLife International 2011a; Mendel et al., 2008; European Commission 2009b (Greater scaup); European Commission, 2007 (Velvet scoter); Žydelis et al., 2009 (Steller’s eider). Notes: Threats include both those in EU waters and globally; *Steller’s eider not hunted in EU waters.

Scientific Name Bycatch in gillnet fisheries

Hab

itat destruction/

degrad

ation

Availability of food resources

Pollu

tion/ contamination

Interactions with other species

(e.g. p

redation, competition)

Direct persecution (eggs, chicks,

adults)

Disturban

ce (e.g. lights,

tourism

, shipping, obstacles)

Entanglement in discarded

waste

Common pochard

Tufted duck

Greater scaup

Black guillemot

Long‐tailed duck

Black‐throated diver

Red‐throated diver

Velvet scoter small

Common scoter

Red‐breasted merganser

Great cormorant

Slavonian grebe

Steller’s eider *

Common eider

Common guillemot


24

4.4 Eastern North Sea — Dutch territorial waters The Dutch EEZ is particularly important for breeding seabirds as well as providing key foraging areas in the winter and staging areas during migration. As in the Baltic, the main species that become entangled in gillnet fisheries in this areas are diving seabirds (Žydelis et al., 2009).

Table 11 shows the common and scientific names, feeding behaviour, diving depth and preferred depth of water in winter of these species. More detailed descriptions for these species can be found in Annex 5. The geographic scope of this case study fishery is limited to Dutch waters, including the North Sea, Wadden Sea and Lakes IJsselmeer and Markermeer.

Table 11: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to gillnet bycatch and/or of conservation concern in the Dutch EEZ Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max

(mean) in metres Feeding behaviour Preferred depth of

water in winter (m) Common pochard Aythya ferina 1‐3 Diving; Bottom feeding 0‐6



Goldeneye Bucephela clangula 10 Pursuit diving 0‐12



Smew Mergellus albellus 4 Diving ‐

Goosander Mergus merganser UNK Pursuit diving ‐



Great‐crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 8 Pursuit diving 10‐20

Common eider Somateria mollissima 42 (11) Diving, Head‐dipping 0‐15


Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis; BirdLife International, 2011a (dive depth‐ Common Pochard); Petersen et al., 2010 (depth in winter); Durinck et al., 1994 (depth in winter – Steller’s eider). Notes: UNK = Unknown. Species highlighted in blue are of particular conservation concern (See Table 2). Common guillemot is additionally highlighted as a species of conservation concern in this case study area due to its selection as species of importance in the Frisian Front SPA, with the conservation objective of maintaining numbers in the area.

The Frisian Front, designated as an SPA under the EU Birds Directive, is an offshore site forming a transition zone between the shallow southern and deep central North Sea. This area’s elevated biological production makes it an important foraging site for seabirds. Of particular relevance for this study is its importance for non‐breeding Common guillemots. After the breeding season, Common guillemot males swim with their young from their breeding colonies in the northern North Sea (e.g. Scotland) to foraging areas such as the Frisian Front (Jak et al., 2009). The conservation objectives for this SPA are to maintain populations of the four species selected for the site designation. For Common guillemots, this is about 20,000 birds from the period July to November (with Jul‐Aug being the period when the birds are particularly vulnerable) (Deerenberg et al., 2010).

The Northern Coastal Zone, part of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive, provides important sources of food to a number of bird species. In this area clams Spisula and razor clams Ensis directus are the main food source for the foraging Common scoter Melanitta nigra and Common eider Somateria mollissima. In winter, these food supplies attract up to 10,000 Common scoter (10% of the Northwest European population) and ‐ in years of food shortages in the Wadden Sea – up to 50,000 Common eiders. Both types find their food at the bottom and are thus limited to the shallow coastal zone of the North Sea (to about 20 metres depth).

The most important concentration areas (for the larger part already protected under the Birds Directive) for the Common scoter and Common eider are situated north off the Wadden Islands and off the Noord‐Holland coast

Seabird populations

25

north of Egmond aan Zee. However, concentrations of Common scoters are also frequently found in the Voordelta (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

During the breeding season (spring and summer) large numbers of piscivorous birds forage in the entire Northern Coastal Zone, namely gulls and terns. During the migratory season (autumn and spring) very large numbers of sea birds temporarily stay in the area and can forage there on route to breeding grounds.

The Northern Coastal Zone SAC is also important to Red‐throated divers Gavia stellata with up to several thousands of individuals found in this area during winter and spring. The total population of Red‐throated diver is estimated at 110,000, nearly half of which winters along the eastern North Sea coast, the others migrating to the Baltic and Black Sea. Red‐throated divers and Black‐throated divers Gavia arctica also occur in the offshore zone of the Dutch EEZ, almost exclusively in spring (April) and particularly in a zone of 25 km width immediately bordering the Northern Coastal Zone (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

In addition, the Northern Coastal Zone is also thought to act as a refuge area for large numbers of grebes and other water birds during severe winters. The Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, which is found to be breeding along the coast in increasing numbers, also feeds in the North Sea Northern Coastal Zone.

Lindeboom et al (2005) mapped bird values to represent the sum of occurrence and importance for all species together in the Dutch EEZ, showing that the Northern Coastal Zone is the most important continuous bird area within the Dutch EEZ. Clusters of relatively high bird values are also seen at the Frisian Front and in the area of the Cleaverbank / Botney Cut, but not to values for individual species that would qualify for protection under the Birds Directive. Seasonal maps showed that in winter the southern half of the Dutch EEZ is more important to birds, with minimal presence in the northern Dutch EEZ. In autumn, the Frisian Front and the Cleaver bank become relatively more important, perhaps due to discards from fisheries operating in these areas (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

The Dutch Wadden sea is considered one of the most important areas for migratory birds in the world, and is connected to a network of other key sites for migratory birds. Its importance is not only in the context of the East Atlantic Flyway but also in the critical role it plays in the conservation of African‐Eurasian migratory waterbirds. In the Wadden Sea up to 6.1 million birds can be present at the same time, and an average of 10‐12 million pass through it each year. The Wadden Sea is important to Common eiders for breeding and moulting and is a key area for wintering. The Common eiders within the Wadden Sea are part of the Baltic Sea/Wadden Sea biogeographic population, which is estimated at 760,000 individuals (Mendel et al., 2008).

Previously the Zuiderzee, a saltwater inlet of the North Sea, Lakes IJsselmeer and Markermeer were dammed off by the Afsluitdijk (Closure Dike) in 1932 to become shallow freshwater lakes.

Large concentrations of Greater scaup winter in the Ijsselmeer/Markermeer area where they feed at night on zebra mussels. Other seabirds relevant to our study that spend winter/non‐breeding periods in the Lakes include Common Pochard Aythya ferina, Tufted Duck A. fuligula, Smew Mergellus albellus, Great‐crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus and Goosander Mergus merganser. A number of studies have estimated bird bycatch rates in gillnets in these areas (see Seabird Fisheries Interactions, section 5.6.2) and for this reason a Code of Conduct is in place to manage the interaction (see Current Mitigation Measures, section 5.6.3).

Further information on Important Bird Areas and populations of seabirds in the Dutch EEZ can found in Annex 5. The specific threats to species of conservation concern subject to bycatch in these areas are as in the Baltic (Table 10 in Section 4.3).

Case studies: Western Mediterranean longline fishery

27

5 CASE STUDY FISHERIES

5.1 Western Mediterranean longline fishery Summary

Main fishery characteristics: pelagic longline fishery for swordfish, and also for bonito and albacore, predominantly setting during the day. The fishery operates in a wide area, but mainly between the Spanish coast and the Balearic Islands, and operates all year except for a swordfish closure during October and November. The demersal longline fishery operates from small boats closer to the coast.

The key bird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas, are Cory’s shearwater, Balearic shearwater and Audouin’s gull (conservation status concern), and the yellow‐legged gull (commonly caught).

Mitigation measures that would be expected to address seabird bycatch, based on the birds’ behaviour, are: closed areas, night‐setting, streamer lines, increased weight of line, and secondarily, offal management, bird‐scaring curtains and side‐setting. All mitigation measures that were considered could be effective for Auduin’s gull and yellow‐legged gulls.

The questionnaires indicated:

Seabird bycatch rates for pelagic longline fisheries were comparable to those in previous studies, and demersal bycatch rates were lower than previous studies. This may be due to an increase in night‐setting reported by the demersal fishers interviewed, but the sample size was small and the validity of this finding with respect to the entire demersal fleet should be verified.

Fishers do not view bird bycatch as a problem in the region. In the pelagic fishery, the bonito and albacore fishery was thought to have more of a bycatch problem than the swordfish fishery, as it is set close to the surface and with smaller hooks.

Fishers’ views on mitigation measures: Closed areas/seasons are generally unacceptable — some closures already exist and any additional ones would have to be traded with those; night‐setting is already employed in parts of the demersal fishery, and would not be acceptable in the pelagic fishery, due to swordfish hunting patterns and market demand issues; offal management is not much of a concern because fishers do not discharge offal during setting/hauling, as fish are not gutted, but any discarding of excess bait could easily be done at a different time from setting/hauling; the small size of the vessels means some measures such as side‐setting and possibly streamer lines may not be practical. Fishers thought streamer lines would be difficult to deploy, but have little experience of them. Some fishers use a variation, comprising towing a buoy or plastic bottle behind the boat, which could be tested and disseminated throughout the region.

5.1.1 Fisheries background The Western Mediterranean longline fishery operates with both pelagic and demersal longlines, targeting tuna and swordfish, and demersals, respectively. The key country involved is Spain, although France also has demersal and longline vessels that fish in the Gulf of Lyons, and Italy has longlining vessels that fish in the Tyrrhenian Sea (as well as the Ionian Sea and the Strait of Sicily in the eastern Mediterranean (Table 12) (SEC, 2004). The focus of this case study is the Spanish longlining fleet, since it is the most significant in the Western Mediterranean.

The Spanish longline fishery is administratively and technically divided into three classes, each with distinct gear types, target species and associated regulations. These are pelagic longlining (which itself breaks down into a fishery targeting swordfish, and another targeting tuna), demersal longlining, and small‐scale demeral longlining, which is employed part‐time by some elements of the small‐scale fishery. Fishers typically fish part‐time, whilst deriving all of their income from fishing. For this case study, we split the fleet and its activities into the pelagic longline and demersal longline fisheries.


28

Table 12: Main countries and fleet segments in the western Mediterranean longline fishery Country Fleet segment Target species Main fishing area Number of

vessels Vessel size

Spain Pelagic longline Swordfish Balearics (GSA 5) 85 11–20m Pelagic longline Tuna Balearics (GSA 5) Demersal longline Bream, hake Spanish coast (GSA 6), Gulf

of Lyons (GSA 7) c. 70 11–20m

Small‐scale demersal longline

Bream Spanish coast (GSA6) c. 1076 7–12m

France Demersal longline Conger, seabass, hake, bream Gulf of Lyons (GSA 7) 144 4–12m Pelagic longline Swordfish, tuna Gulf of Lyons (GSA 7) 10

Italy Pelagic longline Swordfish, tuna Strait of Sicily (GSA 16), Tyrrhenian Sea (GSA 10), Ionian Sea (GSA 19), Adriatic (GSA 18)

c. 1200 5–30m

Demersal longline Hake Adriatic (GSA 18) 20‐30

Source: SEC (2004); BOE (2009); Questionnaire survey. Note: The Italian vessels include those that fish in the eastern Mediterranean (Strait of Sicily and Ionian Sea).

5.1.1.1 Pelagic longline fishery

Numbers of vessels and main ports

There were 168 pelagic longline vessels registered on the Spanish fleet census from 2006–2008 (APA/2521/2006), with 85 of them registered in Mediterranean ports (Table 13). The most important ports are (from north to south) Blanes, Vilanova i la Geltru, Castellón, Cartagena, Carboneras, Roquetas del Mar and Motril, shown on the map in Figure 2. It is assumed that those vessels not registered in Mediterranean ports are only occasional visitors to the Mediterranean, possibly to target bluefin tuna, and that these visits will be even less frequent due to the decreased quotas for bluefin tuna available to longline vessels (Reglamento (CE) n°43/2009).

The pelagic longline fleet north of Torrevieja (which lies just south of Alicante) is represented by relatively small vessels, averaging 20 GT, which usually operate with 4–5 crew members, including the captain. These vessels tend to fish within four hours of their base port, corresponding to the area between the Balearic Islands and the mainland. The vessels often go to sea for 4–5 days, in order to maximise fishing potential and minimise economic outlay.

The majority of the fleet (70%) is based south of Torrevieja, and mainly in Carboneras port, where the vessels tend to be larger, averaging 60 GT. These vessels tend to travel further from their base port, exploiting a wider area including around the Balearic Islands, the Alboran Sea and the Gulf of Lyons. These vessels have a crew of 7–10 and may stay away from port for weeks at a time, often selling direct to distributers instead of to the port market.

Table 13: Number of Spanish pelagic and demersal longliners by Mediterranean port Pelagic longliners Demersal longliners

Province Port Number Average GT

Number Number of small‐scale

Observations

Girona Blanes 4 39.81 39 192 Possibly fewer demersal longliners as reports from associations (e.g. Palamos) suggest a decrease in numbers over the last few years

Palamos 1 11.85

San Feliu de Guixols 2 39.05

Barcelona San Pol de Mar 1 17.25 8 205

Vilanova i la Geltru 3 15.22

Tarragona Tarragona 1 22.69 6 140 Vessel is registered in Benicarló

Torredembarra 1 11.11

Castellón Benicarló 1 24.72 5 86 Noted as 5 demersal vessels in www.agricultura.gva.es, but known from personal observations to be 2

Burriana 1 7.43

Castellón 3 12.83

Valencia Valencia 1 10.63 2 159

Alicante Denia 2 17.16 0 123

Altea 1 19.73 According to Altea Fishers’ Association, vessel does not use Altea as base port

Santa Pola 2 16.76 One Vessel is registered in Isla de Tabarca

Torrevieja 2 32.68 One vessel is registered in Garrucha, the


29

other is registered in San Pedro del Pinatar

Murcia Cartagena 5 63.08 1 171 Census lists 6 vessels, but 1 has retired

Águilas 2 12.61 No demersal longliner understood to be operative in Águilas

Almería Garrucha 1 14.78 No info available

No info available

Carboneras 38 74.75

Almería 2 39.01

Roquetas del Mar 3 9.59

Adra 1 9.82

Granada Motril 3 34.77

Mallorca Alcudia 2 15.97 10 Demersal information based on Laneri et al. (2010). No information on numbers of small scale vessels.

Palma de Mallorca 1 4,5

Total no vessels and average tonnage

85 47.62 c. 71 c. 1,076

Source: BOE (2009) and www.mapa.es/es/pesca/pags/flota/censo.htm, personal observations and contact with Cofradias. Demersal vessel numbers are compiled from fisher associations and personal observations. Note: Demersal longliners reported at provincial level rather than by port. Vessels based in Algeciras are excluded as this is considered an Atlantic port.

Fishing area

The main fishing areas for the pelagic longline fleet that was surveyed are shown in Figure 4, based on the responses from the questionnaire survey. Areas reported to be of particular importance are the areas offshore between Carboneras and Alicante, and the areas near the coast between Valencia and Barcelona.

Target species and seasonality

The pelagic longline fishery in the Mediterranean targets a variety of species throughout the year depending on seasonal migrations and available stocks of target species, market prices and activity patterns of other fishing vessels. It is currently dominated by swordfish, which is targeted from December to September (there is a two‐month closure during October and November (ARM/143/2010 and ARM/817/2009)), supplemented by shorter periods for bonito and albacore, and occasionally demersal longlinling in the winter months when the pelagic fishery is closed. Albacore is usually targeted from April to May, bonito from July to September, and bluefin tuna during June and July. The most important times for the pelagic longline fishery are from July to November, but since the swordfish closed season has been introduced, December has increased in importance.

Markets

Generally, vessels land in their base ports, although the larger vessels from Carboneras and Cartagena may land elsewhere, typically in the Balearics. Fish are usually sold through auction, the only significant exception being in Carboneras where a cooperative set itself up in competition with the association that runs the market. Swordfish is generally for the Spanish market, sold mainly through supermarkets, although some is exported to Italy.

Gear configuration and fishing pattern

The maximum length and number of hooks permitted in the pelagic longline fishery is 60,000 m and 2,000 hooks (Orden APA/2521/2006). The minimum permitted size of hook is 7cm long and 2.9cm wide for swordfish and bluefin

Figure 2: Main fishing areas of the Spanish pelagic longline vessels surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey (n=19).


30

tuna (corresponding approximately to Type/size 2), and 3.7cm long and 1.7cm wide for bonito and albacore (Orden APA/254/2008) (corresponding approximately to size 5). The average gear configurations for the pelagic (swordfish) longline fishery from the questionnaire respondents is shown in Figure 3. Bait used is generally whole mackerel, sardinella or shortfin squid. Bait is used fresh or thawed, and is not usually dyed. When targeting bonito and albacore, lines are set shallower (10–80 m depth), size 5 hooks are used, and sardines and sardinella are used as bait. For the mid‐water pelagic longlines (set at 150–500m depth), battery lights are often used as attractants, but not on the surface longlines (set at 10–150m depth).

Figure 3: Average gear configuration for the Spanish pelagic longline vessels targeting swordfish surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey (n=19) (vessels with swordfish as their primary target species).

The average fishing pattern (steaming time, trip length, soak time etc) is shown in Table 14. Fishers tend to set one line for each day of their fishing trip (i.e. 4 lines on a 4‐day trip). Swordfish fishers set their lines in the afternoon, between midday and sunset, and haul them in after midnight. Bonito and albacore fishers tend to set their lines on a regular 10‐hour cycle, regardless of time of day.

Table 14: Average fishing pattern for the Spanish pelagic longline vessels surveyed Swordfish (n=19) Bonito and albacore (n=3)

Average steaming time (hrs) 3.1 5.7

Average trip length (days) 4.2 3.3

Average number of gear units? 1 1

Average duration of deployment (hrs) 3.1 2.3

Average duration of hauling (hrs) 8.8 6.7

Average soak time (hrs) 7.9 6.3

Average sink rate (m/s) 2.9 0.8

Average speed at deployment (kn) 7.1 6.3

Source: Questionnaire survey.

5.1.1.2 Demersal longline fishery Numbers of vessels and main ports

There is no registry or census of demersal longliners and demersal longlining may be conducted by pelagic longliners or small‐scale fishing vessels (changing the licence from small‐scale fishery, including small‐scale longline, to demersal longline). This makes estimating the number of demersal longliners difficult. Individual fishing associations sometimes indicate the number of demersal fishing vessels, and the available information is summarised by province in Table 13.


31

The demersal fleet is distributed along the eastern coast of Spain, mainly north of Alicante, particularly around the Ebro delta and the Columbretes islands where the continental shelf is extended and the demersal zone has greater productivity. There are not many demersal longliners along the south coast, where larger pelagic longliners dominate.

Since 2009, demersal longliners have not been permitted to target swordfish. This has reduced their economic flexibility, as swordfish supplemented demersal longlining earnings (pers. comm. Castellón fishers). As a result, the demersal longline fishery is now dominanted by smaller vessels, which often fish part‐time.

Fishing area

The vessels operate with 2–4 crew members, and fish 1–2 hours from their base port (Table 15), thus fishing takes place close to the coast (Figure 4). The small‐scale vessels return to port daily, whereas the larger vessels may stay out for 2 days or more.


The main target species are reef fish, sea bream, sea perch, grouper, dentex and hake. The fishery takes place year‐round, although fishing is restricted to only 5 days per week, with an obligatory break of 41 consecutive hours when gear must be removed from the water and taken to port1. While most demersal longlines are deployed in waters up to 50–70 m depth, some small‐scale demersal longlines are deployed at up to 150 m depth, and the normal demersal longlines at up to 1,000 m depth.

Markets

Small‐scale demersal longlines are usually used in response to market demand, fish stocks’ availability and competition from other fishers. Personal observations and communication with various Cofradias (Alicante, Castellon, Tarragona and Valencia) imply that on average only 20% of small‐scale fishing vessels undertake small‐scale demersal longlining and will usually only employ this fishery for 1‐2 months of the year.


The maximum length of line and number of hooks is permitted 7,000m and 3,000 hooks (Orden APA/37/2007). However, the number of hooks is usually much less due to the difficulty of deploying so many hooks within the length, and 800‐1200 hooks are more common with a maximum of 2,000 being reported (Figure 5). The minimum permitted hook size for the reef fish fishery (the most common) is 3.55cm length and 1.30cm width (Real Decreto 1724/1990). Bait used is usually octopus, and sometimes sardine or sardinella, usually thawed (cooked in the case of octopus) and in pieces.

Some fishers indicated that demersal longlines for reef fish are usually deployed at night, in order to minimise seabird interactions. However, this may also be in response to fish feeding and activity patterns, and how widespread this practice is throughout the fishery should be confirmed.

1 Real Decreto 395/2006, de 31 de marzo, por el que se establecen medidas de ordenación de la flota pesquera que opera con artes fijos y artes menores en el Medtarráneo.

Figure 4: Main fishing area of the Spanish demersal longline vessels surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey (n=5).


32

Figure 5: Average gear configuration for the demersal longline vessels surveyed (small‐scale demersal longline configuration in brackets) Source: Questionnaire survey (n=7 (4)).

Table 15: Average vessel characteristics, gear configuration and fishing pattern for the Spanish demersal longline vessels surveyed Demersal longline (n=7) Small‐scale demersal longline (n=4)

Average vessel length (m) 13.8 9.9

Average vessel tonnage (GT) 21.1 5.3

Average no crew 3.8 2.0

Min depth (m) 10 10

Max depth (m) 70 (but up to 1,000 in one case) 20 (but up to 150 in one case)

Average steaming time (hrs) 1.8 1.3

Average trip length (days) 1.9 1.0



Average soak time (hrs) 5.2 5.0

Average number of hooks set per day 1,150 550


5.1.2 Interactions between the fishery and seabird populations

Interactions between longline vessels and seabirds in the Mediterranean have not been as intensively studied as in

other regions worldwide (Cooper et al., 2003). However, some recent studies, particularly of the Spanish longlining

fleet have attempted to address this situation. While no formal programme exists, a number of organisations have

funded projects to study interactions, including the National Ministério de Agricultura y Pesca, Regional Consellaría

de Médio Ambiente de la Generalitat Valenciana, Governo de les Illes Balears, Instituto Espanol Oceanográfico (IEO),

SEO/BirdLife International (Cooper et al., 2003; Guallart, 2004; Laneri et al., 2010; Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010a)

Interactions with longlines can negatively affect seabirds due to injuries sustained and/or fatalities arising from

entanglement in the gear or from being hooked. Of the studies conducted on longlining in the western

Mediterranean, Cory’s shearwater and Yellow‐legged gulls are the species most often affected (Belda & Sanchez,

2001, Valeiras & Caminas, 2003; ICES, 2008a; Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010a; Laneri et al., 2010). Other species

involved to a lesser extent include Audouin’s gull, Northern gannet, Great skua and Balearic shearwater (Belda &

Sanchez, 2001; Aguilar, 1998; Sanchez &Belda 2000 and 2003) (Table 16).


33

As indicated in Section 4, the three shearwater species found in the Western Mediterranean — Balearic, Yelkouan

and Cory’s — are of particular conservation concern. The Cory’s, Balearic and Yelkouan shearwater species endemic

to the Mediterranean are long‐lived, slow‐reproducing birds that are particularly vulnerable to high incidences of

adult mortality (Igual et al., 2009; Oro et al., 2004). They also have a limited breeding range (Randi et al., 1989).

Mortality due to entanglement or hooking in fishing gear is considered to be one of the major at‐sea threats to the

shearwaters populations in the Mediterranean.

Shearwaters may be particularly susceptible to longline bycatch due to their foraging strategies, in particular the

Balearic shearwater, which can dive to depths of 30m (Mayol et al., 2000) (see Annex 5, Table 78). The shearwaters’

ability to dive for food means that they are able to attempt to take bait from a longline for a longer time than other

birds and are more effective at pursuing baited hooks. They also predominantly feed at dawn and dusk (Arcos & Oro,

2002; Sanchez & Belda, 2003), which is a time when longline gear, particularly that of hake and bonito, is deployed

(Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010a; Guallart, 2004). Balearic shearwaters are caught less frequently than Cory’s

shearwaters, but there have been reports of irregular events of massive captures, affecting over 100s of birds on a

single line (Arcos, 2011). The relatively unstudied small‐scale demersal longline fishery for hake may be responsible

for significant amounts of bycatch of Balearic shearwaters (Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010a, Garcia‐Barcelona pers.

comm.). Yelkouan shearwaters are also caught on longlines throughout the Mediterranean.

Other seabird populations that may be adversely affected by longline are those of the Audouin’s gull, also a species

of conservation concern and endemic to the Mediterranean (Oro, 1998). Other fisheries, particularly the recreational

and trolling fishery may also have bycatch of this species (Oro, pers. comm.).

A number of other factors also influence the probability of seabird bycatch. A recent study by Garcia‐Barcelona et al.

(2010b) used a logistic regression model to estimate if factors such as technical characteristics of the fishery,

interactions with other fisheries, geographical location and month had a significant impact on seabird bycatch. This

model showed that factors such as the interaction of non‐longline fishing had a significant impact on seabird longline

bycatch – likely due to the fact that when trawlers and purse‐seiners are not working seabirds must seek alternative

food sources and only longliners can operate during non‐working days (Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010b). Another

recent study also used a model to show that bycatch of shearwaters was increased in the Spanish artisanal demersal

fishery when trawlers are absent (Laneri et al., 2010).

Other factors that influence bycatch include fleet type, season, setting times, and geographical location. In the

Garcia‐Barcelona et al. studies, two types of pelagic longline fleet were responsible for most of the seabird bycatch

— the traditional longline targeting swordfish and the albacore longline, the shallowest longline gear (Garcia‐

Barcelona et al., 2010a; Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010b). The albacore longline fishery was responsible for 85% of the

observed seabird bycatch (Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010a).

The month of October was the only month with explanatory value in the Garcia‐Barcelona et al. model. This

corresponds to the end of the breeding season of Cory’s shearwater, when adults and juveniles gather before

migrating out of the Mediterranean for winter (Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010b). However, the Laneri et al. model

showed that shearwater bycatch was increased in both the pre‐breeding (March to mid‐May) and chick‐rearing

periods (mid‐July to mid‐October) (Laneri et al., 2010).

Time of day of setting was not significant in the Garcia‐Barcelona et al. model. However, the Laneri et al. model

showed an increase in shearwater bycatch when longlines were set during sunrise. This is corrobated by Belda &

Sanchez (2001), who also found a higher rate of bycatch at sunrise in demersal longline fisheries, corresponding with

a higher observation of birds attempting to take baits during sunrise, predominantly Cory’s shearwaters (Belda &

Sanchez 2001).

Two geographical variables were also highlighted in the Garcia‐Barcelona et al. (2010b) study. The latitude where

setting started and fishing over the continental shelf both had explanatory power in the model. The significance of

latitude in setting could be because the high number of seabird colonies in parts of the Spanish coast, including the

Balearic Islands, Cabrera Island, Columbretes Islands, and the Ebro Delta. Setting over the continental shelf is


34

important for seabird interactions because this area is a suitable bird foraging habitat where birds are more likely to

exhibit ‘intensive search’ behaviour during foraging (Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010b).

Table 17 summarises the key bird species likely to interact with longline fisheries in the western Mediteranean and

potential mitigation measures based on their foraging, breeding and migratory behaviour.


35

Table 16: Review of studies estimating seabird bycatch by longlines in western Mediterranean Country Study Year (s) Gear Average birds/ unit effort Estimated

annual bycatch

Main species (% of catch, if known)

Spain Laneri et al. 2010 1998‐2005 Demersal longline For Cory’s shearwater only: Avg rate over period: 0.39 birds/1000 hooks

n/a Cory’s shearwater (74%), Audouins gull (13%), Yellow‐legged gull (6.5%), Balearic Shearwater (6.5%)

Spain Garcia‐Barcelona et al 2010b

2000‐2009 Pelagic longline (various) 0.0483 birds/1000 hooks 261 birds Cory’s shearwater (31%), Yellow‐legged gull (30%), Audouin’s Gull (20%), Northern gannet (11%)

Spain Belda & Sanchez 2001 1998 Pelagic longline 0.25 birds/1000 hooks n/a Cory's shearwater, Audouin's gull, Yellow‐legged gull, Common tern

Spain Valerias & Caminas 2003

1999‐2000 Drifting longline (semi‐pelagic) targeting swordfish

0.0076 birds/1000 hooks n/a Yellow‐legged gull (80%), Cory's shearwater (20%)


1999‐2000 Drifting longline targeting albacore

0.0234 birds/1000 hooks n/a Cory's shearwater (64%), Yellow legged gull (27%), Northern gannet (9%)


1999‐2000 Drifting longline targeting bluefin tuna

0 n/a None

Spain Belda & Sanchez 2001 1998‐1999 Demersal longline 1998: 0.69 birds/1000 hooks; 1999: 0.16 birds/1000 hooks

656‐2829 birds

Cory's shearwater (20‐77%), Audouin's gull, Yellow‐legged gull, Common tern

Sources: Laneri et al, 2010; Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010b; Belda & Sanchez, 2001; Valerias & Caminas, 2003.


36

Table 17: Summary of key bird species found in Western Mediterranean, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc).

Case study fishery

Bird species C

onservation concern

foraging behaviour and periods spatial hotspots relevant to case study fleet temporal hotspots C

losed areas

Night setting

Offal discharge

Diff Time

Offal discharged from op

Side‐setting

Stream

er lin

e

Increase weight of lin

e

Bird scaring curtain

Make bait sink quicker (thaw

ing bait)

Dyed bait

Circle hooks

Chan

ge bait type

Western Mediterranean – Spain; Pelagic longline Demersal longline

Cory's shearwater

Yes Plunge diving, crepuscular

Breeding: Balearic Islands (Spain), Chafarinas Islands (Spain). Foraging: Cape Creus‐Barcelona‐Ebro Delta (Spain), Cape la Nao‐Cape Palos (Spain)

Present all year, peak numbers in March‐ Oct

Balearic shearwater

Yes Plunge and pursuit diving, crepuscular

Breeding: Balearic Islands; Foraging: NE and E Iberian coast, particularly Ebro Delta and Cap La Nao; Migrating: Straits of Gibraltar

Breeding: Mar‐Jun;Foraging: all year excl August

B

Yelkouan shearwater

Yes Plunge and pursuit diving; gregarious

Breeding: Hyeres archipelago, Corsica (France), Foraging: Gulf of Lion (France), Mar del Emporada (Spain) Non‐breeding: wider Mediterranean and Black Seas

Breeding: Feb‐MarForaging: all year (peak Oct‐Jul)

Audouin's gull

Yes Surface seizing

Breeding: Ebro Delta, Chafarinas Island, Alboran Island, Tabarca‐Cabo de Palos, Balearic Islands (Spain); Corsica (France) Foraging: Ebro Delta, Colombretes Islands, Alboran Sea (Spain) Migrating: Straits of Gibraltar;

Breeding: Mid‐April‐mid‐July Foraging/non‐breeding: All year (peak Mar‐Oct)

B

Northern gannet

No Plunge diving

Migrating: offshore aggregations Migrating: winter months

Great skua No Splash diving, surface seizing and stealing

Breeding: Hyeres archipelago, Corsica (France), Foraging: Gulf of Lion (France), Mar del Emporada (Spain), Non‐breeding: wider Mediterranean

Migrating: winter months

Yellow legged gull

No surface seizing

No, widespread All year

Key Species Measures highly likely or proven to be effective

Potentially effective measures

Sources: Arcos et al. 2009, Madroño et al., 2004, Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008, Birdlife International, 2002, BirdLife International, 2011a (seabird hotspots); BirdLife International 2010a (foraging behaviours);


37

5.1.3 Current mitigation measures

There are no mandatory mitigation measures known to reduce seabird interactions in the western Mediterranean longline fishery and no funding is available for seabird mitigation. The closed season for the pelagic longline swordfish fishery (October‐November), although this is not related to seabird bycatch mitigation, will inevitably have an impact on potential bycatch during this period. In particular, this coincides with the period when the Balearic shearwaters return to the Mediterranean (September–December), after having left in August, congregating off the northeast and east Iberian coast in winter. There are also some closed areas (marine reserves around key breeding colonies (see 5.1.4.3)

The questionnaires indicated that some vessels use a number of mitigation measures voluntarily, which tend to be cheap to deploy, involving cheap materials or a change in behaviour (see 5.1.4.3). For example, night deployment, reducing the visual cue of the hand‐thrown bait (i.e., discrete throwing action, throwing directly into the ships wake), the use of a simple bird‐scaring line (towing a buoy or plastic bottle behind the vessel, often with items attached to the rope) or on occasion fireworks. These measures are a response to unwanted interactions with seabirds and appear to be more common north of Alicante, and in the demersal longline fishery.

Other methods are inadvertently used by fishers as a result of their fishing practice rather than a conscious attempt to reduce seabird interactions. These include not discarding offal at sea, as fish is landed and sold whole at the market (although fishers may discard unwanted bait or fish during deployment or retrieval), and the thawing of fish prior to hooking as this allows easier hooking and manipulation of the bait. Furthermore, several mid‐water pelagic longline fishers from Carboneras, Águilas and Cartagena use battery‐powered light attractants which add considerable weight the overall longline, increasing the sink rate. Pelagic longline fishers also state that the size 2 hook used for swordfish is too large to be swallowed by a bird and this is a mitigation measure in itself. However, birds can get entangled with the lines or snagged on the hooks regardless of the hook type or size used.

5.1.4 Views of the industry

5.1.4.1 Fishers interviewed A total of 25 individual longline fishers or longline fishing vessel owners were interviewed between the 4th and the 30th November 2010 from eight different ports along the western Mediterranean coastline. In some cases, a phone interview was carried out when a physical visit was not possible.

Nineteen of those interviewed fish primarily with pelagic longlines mostly targeting swordfish (60‐100% fishing days) from December through September, but 15 of these also target bonito 10‐30% days fishing in March‐April or September.

Only five fishers interviewed used demersal longlines as their main gear (representing about 70‐80% of their fishing days) targeting grouper, dentex or sea perch; this gear represented a secondary fishery activity for four other questionnaire respondents interviewed about this gear type.

Table 18: Number of questionnaire respondents by gear type in the western Mediterranean longline fishery Fishery Primary fishery

(>50% of fishing days) Secondary fishery

(<50% of fishing days) Swordfish Bonito/Albacore Demersal

Pelagic longline – Swordfish 19 n/a 15 4

Pelagic longline – Albacore & Bonito

1 1 n/a 0

Demersal longline – Grouper, dentex, sea perch

5 0 0 n/a

Total 25 1 5 4

The following sections summarise views by gear type when this gear represented the primary fishing activity. Note the small sample size for those targeting bonito and those fishing with demersal lines; therefore caution must be exercised in drawing general conclusions from the questionnaire survey for these gear types.


38

5.1.4.2 Seabird‐fishery interactions Fishers reported interactions with seabirds mainly around the Balearic islands, the coastal area north of Valencia and around Cartagena (Figure 6). Demersal longline fishers considered seabirds to cause more disruption than pelagic longline fishers did. Only 27% of the pelagic longline fishery respondents felt that seabirds caused a disruption, whereas four out of five demersal fishers felt seabirds caused disruption (Figure 7). Demersal fishers that considered bycatch a disruption cited stealing and damaging bait (causing reduced catches), reducing their fishing time, and damaging or stealing fish on the line as the main problems. In the pelagic fishery, the main disruption related to bycatch was the reduction of fishing time (e.g. due to slowing of the hauling process), and reducing the catches because seabirds damaged the bait (Figure 8).

In general, the fishers surveyed did not have a great deal of interest in the seabirds associating with the vessels. They were able to determine between the major classes of birds, but usually were not able to recognise separate species within a class, i.e., different types of terns, gulls, shearwaters. Three fishers surveyed considered all seabirds to be the same and made no distinction between species. No fishers were aware of the conservation status of the Balearic shearwater and the Mediterranean subspecies of the Cory’s shearwater. While they were able to make some comment on seabird spatial and temporal association with the vessel, the accuracy of these observations are questionable, as obviously at the time of the most important seabird interactions (during deployment) the fishers’ attention is engaged in intensive onboard activities.

Of the 25 fishers surveyed overall 92% were not aware of a problem with seabirds, and 96% of them also felt that not enough information was available on the issue. Because they saw no significant problem with seabirds, the majority (96 %) consequently did not believe that anything needed to be done. The reasons given by the questionnaire respondents were that bird interactions are rare, those birds usually interacting with the fishery are common gulls such as the yellow‐legged gull, which are very abundant and often treated as a pest (e.g. Bosch et al., 2000), and when birds do become entangled they are reported to be released alive. Furthermore, fishers already employ some measures which are effective at reducing seabird interactions (see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4.3). The five respondents from the demersal longline fishery reported that seabird bycatch had been reduced since they started setting their lines at night.

Overall, responses of fishers interviewed in the western Mediterranean longline fishery suggested that they experience seabird bycatch very rarely, and those that did occur involved mostly seagulls which were often released alive. However, one fisher reported catching a much greater number of birds, 10‐12 (and sometimes up to 20) Yellow‐legged gulls over a 45 day period; with 2‐4 Cory’s shearwater caught in late winter and early spring. This figure included those birds that would temporarily get entangled in the line and if they did not free themselves, were then freed (reportedly alive) by the crew. All of the bird interactions reported always occurred during deployment, never during retrieval.

Figure 6: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the western Mediterranean pelagic and demersal longline fleets Source: Questionnaire survey.


39

Figure 7: Percentage of fishers that felt seabirds disrupted their fishing activity, in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the Western Mediterranean Source: Questionnaire survey.

Figure 8: Seabird disturbances by type from the sub‐sample of fishers who responded that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity in the western Mediterranean Source: Questionnaire survey. Notes: Demersal, n=4; Pelagic, n=6.

The average annual seabird bycatch was slightly higher in the pelagic fishery (0.066 birds/1000 hooks) compared to the demersal fishery (0.0596 birds/1000 hooks) (Table 19). Our data were based on questionnaire responses rather than observed rates, but are comparable to previous studies. The pelagic bycatch rate was similar to rates found in previous studies (see section 5.1.2), slightly higher than Garcia‐Barcelona et al. (2010b) (0.0483 birds/1000 hooks) but lower than Belda & Sanchez (2001) (0.25 birds/1000 hooks). The interviews also showed that mid‐water pelagic longlining was thought to have little or no interaction with seabirds, corrobating studies by Valeiras and Caminas (2003) and Garcia et al (2010), although Garcia et al (2010) notes this is the least‐studied longline fishery.

The rate of bycatch found in our questionnaire responses for the demersal fishery was lower than that found in the Belda & Sanchez (2001) study, where the rate of bycatch ranged from 0.16–0.69 birds/1000 hooks. Bycatch composition results from our questionnaire in both the demersal and pelagic longline fleets showed greater numbers of gulls than shearwaters being caught (Table 19).

Table 19: Summary of annual seabird bycatch rates in the western Mediterranean estimated from questionnaire responses Country Gear Average

Hooks/year (1000s) [Number of respondents]

Number of birds caught/year

Annual Average birds/ unit effort

Main species (% of catch)

Spain Demersal longline 80.4 [5] 24 0.0596 birds/1000 hooks

Gull spp (71%), Shearwater spp (29%)

Spain Pelagic longline 55 [18] 65 0.066 birds/1000 hooks

Gull spp. (75%), Shearwater spp (23%), Gannet (2%)


In the swordfish and bluefin surface pelagic fishery, it was thought by the fishers that the bait and hook are too large for the birds to take. The bonito and albacore fishery, alternatively, use smaller hooks and bait is seen as more desirable to seabirds (sardines), also the lines are also set much shallower. Consequently, pelagic longliners

n=5

n=22

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Demersal longline Pelagic longline

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Demersal

Pelagic


40

interviewed stated that bycatch is more frequent with the albacore fishery. This fishery also coincides with the period of greatest seabird‐fishing vessel interactions. These observations are supported by Garcia et al (2010).

The questionnaire respondents from the demersal longline fishery indicated that lines are usually deployed at night, and interactions are reported to be minimal, although four out of five demersal fishers reported seabirds as a problem, and the bycatch rates are similar to in the pelagic fishery. Bycatch in the demersal fishery was reportedly much higher 10 years ago (when gear was deployed during the day), with one fisher reporting an occasion of up to 400 Balearic shearwaters being caught in one deployment. However, incidences such as these are said to not occur now with various reasons given such as adoption of night deployment, change of fishery (significant reduction in the ‘piedra bola’ demersal longline fishery for hake due to swordfish bycatch which is now illegal), change of gear (larger hooks required) and change of bait (sardine has become too expensive and octopus is now used by demersal fishers instead). However, it should be noted that the small sample size for the demersal longline fishery means their responses may not be representative of the entire demersal fleet. Information from an observer working on both pelagic and demersal longliners indicates that the demersal vessels set both at night and during the day, and may use sardine bait from late spring onwards (Cortés, V. pers. comm.). Further investigation into the demersal fishery is required to verify how widespread night setting is, and to what extent seabird bycatch in this fishery is still an issue.

Gannets were occassionally observed by fishers interviewed, but mid‐water pelagic longlining interactions with these birds (and captures) are rare. With surface pelagic longlining, gannets were occassionally caught. These are later reportedly released alive, although often with the hook attached. Releasing these birds with the hooks attached often leads to the bird’s mortality (Guallart pers com; Gullart 2004).

Several fishers commented that there are often no seabirds present throughout the entire deployment. This is supported by Guallart (2004), who noted absence of seabirds on 50% of the occassions.

In both the pelagic and demersal longline fisheries, gull species were caught fairly evenly throughout the year. In contrast, the shearwater species were caught primarily between January and June, and gannets were caught in only in the pelagic fishery from October–December (Figure 9).

(a) Pelagic fishery

(b) Demersal fishery

Key:

Figure 9: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in the western Mediterranean a) pelagic longline fishery and b) demersal longline fishery Source: Questionnaire survey.

The fishers interviewed in the western Mediterranean most often observed shearwaters in late winter, spring and early summer, and in winter closer to the coast (most likely the Balearic shearwater). Those that recognised the Balearic shearwater said it occurred rarely and never attempted to interfere with the bait. However, the Balearic shearwater may forage for fishery discards at a greater distance behind a fishing vessel to avoid conflict with other birds (as is the case with a study on trawler discards, Arcos and Oro, 2002) and therefore may not be seen by fishers. Fishers that operate closer to the coast, particularly near the Ebro Delta, noted greater occurrence of the Balearic shearwater, particularly in winter. Gulls were observed year‐round. Those fishers that claimed to recognise the Audouin’s gull stated that this bird was only seen in the winter months and rarely if ever interacted with the fishing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun Jul‐Sep Oct‐Dec

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



41

equipment, being much more timid. However, this bird is actually much more common in the spring and summer, so it is likely that they were confused with another gull species (e.g. Mediterranean or Black‐headed gull).

Fishers interviewed reported that seabird interactions were greater when there were trawlers nearby, in contrast to the observations of Lanieri et al. (2010) and Garcia‐Barcelona et al. (2010a,b), which found that seabird associations with longlining vessels were higher during trawler moratoria. Guallart (2004) was unable to find a relationship between trawler activity and incidents of seabird interactions with seabirds.

Economic loss to the fishers was estimated by one study during 2000 to be between € 1,200 and € 2,100 per year in bait loss alone (Guallart, 2001). Apart from the obvious effect on bait loss, seabirds can also cause significant delays to, and sometimes stop altogether, the fishing activity and may also damage the line (Guallart, 2001, 2004; Sanchez & Belda, 2003). Thus, there is an incentive for fishers to employ mitigation methods or change activity to reduce the level of these interactions provided the reduction in losses caused by birds is not offset by a greater reduction in catch through a less efficient fishing pattern. However, fishers did not seem to take this potential benefit into account when assessing the potential costs and benefits of implementing mitigation measures.

5.1.4.3 Mitigation measures A number of mitigation measures are already used by some of the fishers interviewed (Figure 10), such as increasing the line weight, thawing bait before deployment so that it sinks more quickly than when frozen, not discharging offal during setting/hauling (no offal is discharged by the fleet, although they may discard unwanted bait or fish), night‐setting and spatial/temporal restrictions.

Table 20 provides a summary of fishers’ opinions on the various measures. Side‐setting and the use of a bird‐scaring curtain were considered to be the least effective measures, and a number of measures scored very low for acceptability in both the pelagic and demersal fisheries — changing the bait type, using circle hooks, dyed bait, side‐setting, bird‐scaring curtains and further spatial/temporal closures.

Night setting was considered to be most the most effective measure at reducing seabird interactions. This is already used by parts of the demersal fleet and is reported to have reduced seabird interactions greatly compared to ten years ago when gear was deployed during the day. Other changes that may have contributed to this include the use of larger hooks, and a change of bait (from sardine to octopus, at least during part of the year).

The use of streamer lines scored fairly low for acceptability and effectiveness, because they were seen to be difficult and potentially dangerous to deploy on the smaller vessels. However, a number of fishers reported using their own home‐made types of bird‐scaring lines, such as towing a line with a buoy or plastic bottles behind the vessel during deployment, which was considered to be cheap, effective and practical. This is a measure that could be supported with further testing to verify and improve its effectiveness, and disseminated throughout the region.

Night‐setting is already used by part of both the pelagic (45% of respondents) and demersal fleets (100% of respondents, but this may not be representative of the whole fleet). However, the reason for night‐setting for most of the pelagic fishers was not to reduce seabird interactions, but was for operational reasons. Three out of five of the demersal fishers indicated that night setting was a response to seabird interactions and considered it to be highly effective at reducing these interactions. However, deployment may overrun on occasions, or the boat may be late leaving port, and a complete ban, or removal of the flexibility of the deployment time, would not be welcomed. Fishers, being aware of the time of year when greatest interactions occur, reportedly make a special effort to deploy during the night, for example from May to July.


42

Figure 10: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the western Mediterranean pelagic (left‐hand side) and demersal (right‐hand side) longline fisheries Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: For pelagic fishery, n>18 except for dyed bait (n=3), side‐setting (n=11), bird‐scaring curtain (n=14) and offal discharged from opposite side (n=3). For demersal fishery, n=5 except for circle hooks, side‐setting and bird‐scaring curtain where n=3, and offal discharge from opposite side, where n=2.


43

Table 20: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the western Mediterranean longline fishery Mitigation measures

Effective for birds Acceptable to industry Comments

Change bait type Low (2–3), some fishers thought birds would eat anything if they were hungry, others said birds did not like octopus as much as sardines

Low (1), octopus is not effective for catching swordfish, and is already used in the demersal fishery.

Bait decisions are based on availability, price and perceived effectiveness for target species. An enforced bait change would not be well received.

Increase line weight

Low‐medium (2–3), fishers already think the line sinks quickly, therefore increasing the weight would not increase effectiveness much.

Low (2), as it will affect the gear configuration and therefore fishing effectiveness in the pelagic fishery.

Concerns that increased weight will cause slower deployment and retrieval. May be viable for semi‐pelagic longlining (already use attractant lights which increase the weight). May be possible to increase hook weight, but implies extra costs.

Circle hooks Low–med (2–3), it might prevent some birds getting caught in the mouth, but birds predominantly get tangled in the line.

Low (1) as they are seen to negatively impact on target species catch rates.

Some fishers had experience of circle hooks through turtle bycatch studies, others had no idea. Those involved in the studies reported that they hooks were not as ineffective as expected (for target sp) but still catch less.

Make bait sink quicker

Medium (3), some recognised that frozen bait sinks more slowly, others thought there was no difference.

High (4–5), as most fishers already do this.

Fishers prefer fresh bait and usually thaw frozen bait first anyway (for demersal and swordfish fisheries). However, frozen sardines are used in the bonito fishery, but this is habit rather than preference.

Dyed bait Low (1–2), some felt birds rely on smell as well as sight, and when deploying at night (demersal fishery) it would have no effect.

Low (1–2), depending on whether dyed bait would cost more, and concern over effectiveness at catching target species.

Many did not respond to this question, as they had no experience or opinion on the measure. Some salt bait to aid the thawing process, and believe this also makes it less attractive to birds.

Streamer line Low‐medium (2–3) as it was thought birds would get used to it

Low (2), concern over entanglement during deployment and installation and maintenance cost.

Many fishers use a variation, towing a buoy or plastic bottles behind the boat to distract the birds from the bait.

Side‐setting Low (1), not thought to increase sink rate of bait.

Low (1–2), would require major change in the vessels.

Fishers currently throw bait into vessel’s wake to help bait sink quickly. Change to side‐setting may create less working space (vessels are small) and may cause line to tangle with propellors.

Bird‐scaring curtain

Low (1), bird bycatch is not a problem during hauling.

Low (1), as birds not a problem during hauling.

Offal discharge from opp. side

Medium (2–3) as birds are attracted to any waste.

High (5), since they do not discharge offal.

Most did not answer this question as they did not feel it was relevant to them.

Offal discharge another time

Med‐high (3–4) as birds are attracted to waste.

High (5), since fish are landed whole, so no offal is discarded.

However, some unused bait may be discarded during setting/hauling. Interactions with birds are very low during hauling. Change would be simple to implement.

Night setting High (5) as there are no birds at night.

Low (1–2) for pelagic, as swordfish lines need to be deployed during the day. Med‐high (3–4) for demersal, as they already deploy at night.

Small vessels work on a daily cycle, deployment times also depend on markets so they arrive at port in time to sell their catch. Night‐setting could be used for mid‐water pelagic longlining (in summer) and bonito, although it would restrict the available fishing time.

Closed areas/seasons

Medium (2–4), since if there is no fishing, there can be no seabird bycatch. However, it would only be effective in those areas and times.

Low (1), as they would have to travel further or would be unable to fish

Acceptability depends on the location, extent and duration of any closed area. There are already closed seasons and marine reserves, so any new closures should be traded with the current ones.


44

Closed areas (marine reserves) already exist around the areas most populated by breeding colonies —Columbretes Islands, the Ebro delta, and the Balearic Islands. Indeed, Spain has 14 marine protected areas representing 772 km2 and 2,580 km of coastline (Abdulla et al., 2008), and fishers were greatly opposed to further spatial closures for the obvious reason of reduction in available fishing ground. Fishers note that birds have a broad foraging range and for this reason the effectiveness of such closures would be limited in reducing seabird interactions; for example, Cory’s and Balearic shearwaters, most affected by longline interactions, often forage for food far from their breeding colonies.

Temporal closures could involve closure during the times that seabird interactions are higher, such as during the breeding season (Belda & Sanchez, 2001), or closure of the longline fishery during trawler moratoria2 and at weekends when the Mediterranean trawler fleet does not operate.

The adoption of first option would be likely to evoke widespread and intense disapproval with the industry as this period is considered to be lucrative for the fishery. Even if not the most lucrative period, closure would involve at least two months to ensure that interactions do not occur during the breeding season, which would have a devastating effect on the fishery. The bonito, albacore and hake fisheries, which are believed to have the highest levels of interactions, are active during this time, with bonito in particular only available during these months.

Seabird association with trawlers is well documented and it is believed that in the absence of this food source sea birds seek out other fishing boats (Lanieri et al., in publ.). A multi‐fishery plan across several fisheries is considered imperative in reducing seabird bycatch (Oro, pers. comm.) and may involve restricting longliners from working during trawler inactivity (weekends and moratoria). However, longline fishers are obliged to avoid coinciding with trawlers due to the risk trawlers pose to the fishing gear. Subsequently, during trawler inactivity, longliners are able to exploit areas not normally able to be exploited, meaning potential higher catch. Furthermore, during these times, fish prices are greater due to less competition. For this reason, this measure would be greatly opposed.

Longline fishers are already restricted in the number of days they are able to be active in a month. Demersal longliners can only work five days in a week, and pelagic longliners 24 days per month. In preventing fishing further (e.g. during weekends), the ability to respond to poor weather is greatly reduced. Furthermore, pelagic longliners often go further, for longer duration, and avoiding weekend fishing may be impossible. Additional closures would not at all be acceptable unless there was a trade with current closures, but given the most likely period for closure would also be a lucrative period for the fishers, this is unlikely to be approved.

The trawler moratorium occurs at different times depending on the location (Orden APA/254/2008). Perhaps, the most logical step is to ensure good cross management strategies across fisheries. For example, Arcos and Oro (2002) suggest that trawler moratoria should not occur during the breeding season. If weekend longline fishery is prohibited, perhaps this should only be considered at times of high seabird interactions, and also a concession in fishing times made available as a compromise, such as greater fishing ability outside of the fishing season, or ability to use other fishing methods during these times.

In considering any temporal or spatial closures of the fishery, it would be important to consider the spatial and temporal distribution of the longline fishing fleet and activity and relate this to current knowledge on the spatial and temporal distribution of seabirds and levels of interactions with fishing vessels on a detailed scale to avoid unnecessary closure and restrictions. Oro (pers. comm.) considers such a map imperative in determining the key areas and times when interactions are most likely to occur and to be able to develop a strategy to reduce them which would involve a cross fisheries management plan.

2 Seabird foraging is displaced from trawlers to the longline fishery when trawlers do not operate.

Case studies: Maltese and Greek longline fishery

45

5.2 Maltese and Greek longline fishery Summary

Main fishery characteristics: pelagic longline fishery for swordfish and tuna, mainly during the summer months, setting during the day and at night, and ranging widely throughout the region. Demersal longline fishery, operating from small boats closer to the coast, setting in the early morning, predominantly during summer.

The key bird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas, are, for Malta: Cory’s shearwater, Yelkouan shearwater (conservation status concern), and the yellow‐legged gull (commonly caught, breeding colonies in Malta); and for Greece: as for Malta, plus Auduin’s gull. Both surface and deeper water foraging behaviours are exhibited by these species.

As for the western Mediterranean, mitigation measures that would be expected to address seabird bycatch based on the birds’ behaviour, are spatial closures (for breeding populations) in combination with other measures, night‐setting, streamer lines, increased weight of line, and secondarily, offal management, bird‐scaring curtains and side‐setting.


Maltese pelagic bycatch rate was about ten times greater than previously reported, although rates are still low (as previous studies showed close to zero bycatch); Maltese demersal bycatch was lower (zero) than in previous studies. There are no previous published estimates of Greek pelagic or demersal bycatch rates, but our Greek pelagic bycatch rate was greater than some Western Mediterranean reported levels, and the demersal bycatch rate was lower than Western Mediterranean reported levels.

Fishers in general do not view bird bycatch as a problem in the region. In Malta, very few birds were reportedly caught. Greek demersal fishers interviewed considered bycatch to be slightly more of an issue than pelagic fishers.

Fishers’ views on mitigation measures: Closed areas/seasons are generally unacceptable, as it would imply increased fishing costs, and the fishers believe the seabird problem is not of a sufficient magnitude to warrant closing areas; night‐setting is already employed by some of the fleet, but not all, in both the pelagic and demersal fisheries; offal management is not much of a concern because fishers do not discharge offal during setting/hauling, as fish are not gutted, but any discarding of excess bait could easily be done at a different time from setting/hauling; the small size of the vessels means that some measures may not be practical and need further investigation; although some Maltese vessels already use side‐setting. Fishers thought streamer lines would be difficult to deploy and birds may become accustomed to them, but have little experience of them. As in Spain, some Greek fishers use a variation, comprising towing a rope with floats behind the boat, which could be tested and disseminated throughout the region.

5.2.1 Fisheries background The Greek and Maltese longline fishery in the central and eastern Mediterranean are divided administratively and technically into three classes, each with distinct gear types, target species and associated regulations. These are: pelagic longlining (which itself breaks down into a fishery targeting swordfish, and another targeting tuna) and demersal longlining. Table 21 summarises the fleet segments involved in Malta and Greece. Italy also has around 1,200 longliners targeting swordfish and tuna, operating in the Strait of Sicily, Tyrrhenian Sea and Ionian Sea, although they are not the subject of this case study.

Table 21: Main countries and fleet segments in the Maltese and Greek longline fishery Country Fleet segment Target species Main fishing area Number of

vessels Vessel size

Malta Pelagic longline Swordfish and tuna GSA 15, 16, 19, 14, 21

493 4–33m

Demersal longline Breams, dogfish, rays, other GSA 14, 15, 19, 21 2,253 2.5–25m

Greece Pelagic longline Swordfish and tuna GSA 20, 22,23 1,122 Avg 10–15 m

Demersal longline Breams, hake and groupers GSA 20, 22,23 c. 3,100 Avg 6–7 m

Pelagic longlining is a single sector in each Member State, while bottom longlining is mainly part of the small‐scale fishery sector. There is a quota restriction for the tuna fishery, which is agreed through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and a quota restriction for swordfish, agreed by the EU and ICCAT.


46


In the Maltese Fleet Register of 2010, there were 493 vessels licensed to carry out pelagic longlining, and 2,253 vessels licensed to carry out demersal longlining. 54% of pelagic longline vessels are part‐time, and 87% of the demersal longliners are either part‐time or recreational. The demersal longliners, which form part of the small‐scale fleet, use multiple gear types, and longlining is often not their major activity.

The most important ports in Malta are Marsaxlokk (main), Msida, St. Paul’s Bay and Mgarr (Gozo) for the pelagic longlines, while for the demersal longlines, the main ports are Birzebbugia, Gnejna, Marsaxlokk, Marsascala, Msida, St. Paul’s Bay and Mgarr (Gozo).

In Greece, there are 1,122 registered pelagic longline vessels, predominantly based in ports in the Southern Aegean and Ionian Seas. The main port is on Kalymnos Island. There is also an important part of the fleet based in Sporades Island and also in the ports of Hania and Kissamos.

There are approximately 3,100 demersal longliners in Greece. Some vessels exclusively use demersal longlines, but the majority use a variety of gears, switching gears according to the abundance of target species. As a result, the demersal longline sector is very dynamic. The demersal longliners are part of the small‐scale fleet segment, which comprises 15,581 vessels. The most common gear in this segment is gillnets, followed by longlines. Other gears used are pots, traps and lines. Several pelagic longline vessels also use demersal longlines in the period when pelagic longlines are prohibited.

The Greek demersal longline fleet is distributed throughout the country — there are no specific ports that have a large concentration of demersal longliners. The fleet often moves between ports and landing sites during the year, depending on the availability of fish and the demand for their products. There are 488 registered locations (219 ports and 269 landing sites) where the fleet is based. Additionally, there are a large number of unregistered sites that are temporarily used by the vessels.

The Maltese pelagic longline vessels range from 4–32.6 metres overall length, with larger vessels usually employing some crew members. The demersal longline vessels range from 3–25 metres length, the majority being owner‐operated, although one or two crew members may be employed in rare cases.

The Greek pelagic longline fishing vessels are between 9 and 20 metres in length. Larger vessels tend to be found in the North Aegean Sea, where the continental shelf area is wider, resulting in greater productivity. The Southern Aegean area has the most vessels by number, but individual vessels are smaller. The demersal vessels are 6.6 m overall length on average, and 1–2.5 GT. Overall employment on Greek pelagic longlines is approximately 1,765 persons while on the demersal longlines is 3,890 persons.

Fishing area

In Malta, the longliners tend to fish within one to five hours from their base port, and usually on day trips. The main fishing areas for the pelagic and demersal fleets are shown in Figure 11.

In Greece, the smaller pelagic vessels operate close to the coast and close to their home ports, while the larger pelagic longliners operate in the open sea, crossing the entire Aegean and Ionian Sea, and also operating in the East Mediterranean (Figure 12(a)), depending on the distribution of their target species. The main fishing areas however, are the passages between the islands; the most important are located between Crete and Peloponissos, between the Cyclades islands and between Rhodes Island and Cyprus.

The Greek demersal longline vessels operate close to their base ports, along the continental shelf (Figure 12(b)), and most vessels return to port daily. Only some larger vessels stay out for longer periods.


47

(a)

(b)

Figure 11: Main fishing areas of the Maltese longline vessels surveyed (a) pelagic vessels; (b) demersal vessels Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: pelagic n=8; demersal n=12.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12: Main fishing areas of the Greek longline vessels surveyed (a) pelagic vessels; (b) demersal vessels Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: pelagic n=9; demersal n=18.


As with elsewhere in the Mediterranean, the Maltese pelagic longliners target bluefin tuna and swordfish, whereas the demersal longlines target demersal species such as demersal sharks (Squalus spp, Mustelus spp.) and breams (Sparus pagrus, Diplodus sargus and Pagellus spp). In 2009, the Maltese pelagic and demersal longliners caught 560 tonnes of fish, worth € 3.97 million (Table 22).

Table 22: Effort and catches for the Maltese longline fleet (2008–2009) Effort (Days at sea) Catches (tonnes) Value (€ million)

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009

Bottom longlines 16,993 3,808 109.3 70.1 0.80 0.57

Pelagic longlines 8,312 4,344 443.1 489.6 2.94 3.40

Total 25,305 8,152 552.4 559.7 3.74 3.97

Source: National data collection system.


48

The Maltese pelagic longline fishery’s season is determined by regulations which specify closed seasons. For bluefin tuna, the fishing season is from mid‐April until June; it is prohibited for the rest of the year. The swordfish fishery is permitted all year with the exception of October and November; the highest intensity of fishing is during the summer months. The Maltese demersal longline activity is permitted all‐year round. However, longlining for selachian species is concentrated mainly from September to March while longlining for other species such as breams happens all‐year round with higher intensities during the summer months.

Most Maltese fishers typically fish part‐time, and their income is not derived wholly from fishing. Demersal longlining is mainly a small‐scale activity and includes full‐time, part‐time and recreational vessels (only 13% are full‐time). Pelagic longlining vessels also use other gears and for a significant number of them, longlining is not the major activity (only 46% of vessels fish full‐time with pelagic longline).

In Greece, the pelagic longline fishery is permitted from February to September, although the actual fishing season starts in May and ends in September. There is some limited activity from March while in February the activity is even lower because most of the vessels are small and they cannot operate in open seas under rough sea conditions. Their target species are large pelagic species, predominantly swordfish, and also tuna. The licence to operate pelagic longlines must be requested every year and as such the fishing fleet changes dynamically. In 2008, the pelagic longline fleet landed over 14,000 tonnes of fish, worth € 92.8 million.

For the Greek demersal fishery, fishing is allowed the entire year, but the vessels are practically inactive during the winter months. There is some limited activity from March, but the peak season is during the summer months from June to September. The smaller vessels target breams, while the larger vessels target hake in deeper waters, and secondarily targets groupers. The demersal longliners landed almost 8,500 tonnes of fish, worth € 96 million in 2008 (Table 23).

Table 23: Greek pelagic and demersal longline fishery effort, landings and value (2008) Pelagic longlines Demersal longlines

Area Length class No vessels

Effort (days)

Effort (days*GRT)

Landings (Tonnes)

Value (€ million)

No vessels

Landings (Tonnes)

Value (€ million)

Aegean Sea

<12 m 602 64,992 564,718 4,883 30.7 2,158 5,503.1 65

12‐24 m 190 17,303 581,810 3,464 21.9 45 886.7 8.7

Ionian Sea

<12 m 295 11,645 66,884 5,724 38.3 889 2,036.8 22

12‐24 m 31 1,227 17,806 290 1.9 5 32.5 0.2

Total 1,118 95,167 1,231,218 14,362 92.8 3,097 8,459.1 95.9

Source: National data collection system.

Markets

The main landing ports in Malta are Marsaxlokk, Marsascala, Marfa (Cirkewwa), Gozo, St. Paul’s Bay and also Valletta since it is the only fish market in Malta and a lot of vessels land their catch there. Catches from the pelagic longlines are mostly exported. There is a local market for both swordfish and tuna, but it represents only a small percentage of landings. Swordfish is exported to neighbouring countries such as Italy, whereas bluefin tuna is mainly exported to Japan, and to other European countries. The main market for the Maltese demersal longline fleet is local; catches are mostly sold fresh, locally, and are highly sought‐after by restaurants. Both fisheries are profitable; the pelagic longlining due to the fact that tuna is highly prized by the Asian market. The profitability is however declining due to the decreasing quotas for bluefin tuna catch for the Maltese fishers.

The Greek demersal longline vessels also fish mainly for the local market, targeting high‐value fish. They fish predominantly during the peak tourism months of June to September, which is also when the trawlers do not fish so there is lower availability of fish on the market, coupled with high demand.


In Malta, the number of hooks varies from 180–1,200 hooks per line for the pelagic fleet (Figure 13) and 100–3,000 for the demersal fleet (Figure 14), and both fleets use J‐hooks. The lengths of the lines vary greatly depending on factors such as the size of vessels and targeted species. For pelagic longlines the depth set ranges from 5.5–30 metres and generally no weights are used. The depth set for demersal longlines is more variable, ranging from 14–400 metres, and most often lead and stone weights are used. The most popular bait type is mackerel for both fishing gears. The pelagic longline fishers use almost exclusively mackerel and squid, whereas the demersal longlines


49

are more variable, using mackerel and cephalopods, in addition to other species such as alice shad and bogue. Bait is either used fresh, frozen or thawed and is never dyed.

In Greece, on average 350 hooks per line are used (Figure 13) and the pelagic longlines are kept fishing in the desired depth using floats. Between one and three branch lines are used between floats. There are two main types of pelagic longline: a traditional (unmechanised) basket line (used by the majority of vessels); and more modern, mechanised drum (used by a few, larger, vessels as this type requires a hydraulic winch to operate). The drum lines are deployed at a relatively high speed (7 kn), while the traditional lines are deployed at 4 kn. The pelagic fleet use size 2 J‐hooks. The main bait used is frozen horse mackerel which is baited as whole fish. The results of the analysis of the questionnaire data are very close to the results of a European study into the pelagic longline fishery (EC, 2001), where the sample size was much larger (120 vessels) — this found the average number of hooks and length of the main line to be 400 and 20 km respectively for vessels under 15m, and 650 and 45 km for vessels over 15 m, and average fishing depth to be 30 m.

The Greek demersal longliners (Figure 14) use the traditional basket longline. Some larger vessels use a hydraulic winch when they fish deep. They use J‐hooks in various sizes (from no 5 to no 14). The average length of the main line is 1.5 km. A large variety of baits are used, mainly cephalopods and fish. The bait is cut in most of the cases. Only the vessels targeting hake fish in deeper waters, at depths between 400 m and 700 m.

Figure 13: Average gear configuration for the Greek (GR) and Maltese (MT) pelagic longline vessels surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: GR n=9; MT n=8.

Figure 14: Average gear configuration for the Greek (GR) and Maltese (MT) demersal longline vessels surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: GR n=18; MT n=12.


50

In Malta, setting and hauling times are very variable, with different vessels using different times for these processes. The average fishing pattern (steaming time, trip length, soak time etc) is shown in Table 24. Maltese pelagic longline vessels set their lines both at night and during the day. The demersal longliners tend to set at night, or at dawn or dusk.

In the Greek pelagic longline fishery, fishing pattern is fairly homogenous. Vessels start to set their gear so that deployment is finished by sunset. Most of the vessels operate far from their home ports, with trips lasting on average four days. Hauling the gear starts before sunrise. However, sometimes hauling is delayed because of the search time to find the gears — the vessels use radar beacon buoys which are located with radar detection finders. The lines which are left drifting depending on the wind. Therefore, the soak time is variable, but is typically approximately 15 hours. Hauling takes approximately six hours. The average number of hooks set in a day is 700.

The Greek demersal longlines display more variable fishing behaviour. This variability is due to the wide range of fishing depths, the variety of fishing areas (muddy bottom on the north Aegean, rocky bottom on the islands), target species, bait type (very often live bait), fishing vessel types and the differences in fishing habits between different geographic areas. In general the deployment takes place in the early morning following the feeding behaviour of the fish and hauling follows two hours later, taking 4–5 hours. The average number of hooks set per day is 1,430.

The average fishing patterns for Maltese and Greek pelagic and demersal longliners is shown in Table 24.

Table 24: Average fishing pattern of Greek and Maltese longline vessels surveyed Malta Greece

Pelagic longlines (n=8)

Demersal longlines (n=12)

Pelagic longlines (n=13)

Demersal longlines (n=23)

Average steaming time (hrs) 1.5 2.25 7 (avg) Min=1, Max=48

2 (avg)Min=1, Max=48

Average trip length (days) 1 1 4 1.3

Average number of gear units 1 2.27 2.5 5.3

Time of setting Night and day At night, or at dawn or dusk

Day Variable, generally early morning

Average duration of deployment (hrs)

unk unk 3 1.9

Average duration of hauling (hrs) unk unk 5.6 5

Average soak time (hrs) 6.4 (avg)min=1, max=12

3 (avg)min=2, max=6

15 (avg) Min=12, Max=20

5 (avg)Min=1, Max=24

Average number of hooks per day 700 1,430

Average sink rate (m/s) 0.76 1.6 1.5 1.5

Average speed at deployment unk unk 5.3 2.8


5.2.2 Interactions between the fishery and seabird populations As mentioned in Section 5.1.2, interactions between longline vessels and seabirds in the Mediterranean have not been looked at in as much detail as elsewhere in the world (Cooper et al., 2003). However, throughout the Mediterranean a number of initiatives have sought to address this situation. An EU LIFE project in Malta was recently completed (LIFE/06/NAT/MT/000097 ‘SPA site and sea actions saving Puffinus yelkouan in Malta’) that included a component to assess the perceptions of fishers on seabird bycatch and a preliminary evaluation of the impact of the Maltese fishing fleet on incidental bycatch of seabirds. In Greece, the 2009‐2012 EU LIFE project LIFE/07/NAT/GR/00285 ‘Concrete conservation actions for the Mediterranean Shag and Audouin’s Gull in Greece, including the inventory of relevant marine IBAs’ also includes a component to assess the extent and characteristics of seabird bycatch in Greek fisheries. This project is being undertaken by the ongoing partners: Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS), the Greek Centre for Marine Research (HCMR), the Technological Institute of Ionian Islands and the NGO for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal (MOm) (hereafter HOS et al.)

5.2.2.1 Malta Prior to the EU LIFE projects, Cooper et al (2003) reviewed seabird mortality from longline fishing country‐by‐country throughout the Mediterranean. In Malta, they cited an investigation undertaken by the Seabird Research Group of BirdLife Malta on bycatch in the pelagic longline fleet targeting swordfish and bluefin tuna. This investigation was undertaken using questionnaires in June–August 2000. The results showed that Cory’s shearwater had the highest


51

mortality from longlining (36 of 63 birds) followed by Yelkouan shearwaters (8), Yellow‐legged gulls (6), Black‐headed gulls Larus ridibundus (6), Mediterranean gulls Larus melanocephalus (4), Great cormorant (2) and Northern gannet (1) (Cooper et al., 2003). In addition, small vessels trolling for tuna, bream and other fish reported 35 birds killed – Cory’s Shearwater (25), Yelkouan shearwaters (2), Yellow‐legged gulls (2), Mediterranean gull (1), Sandwich terns Sterna sandvicensis (3), Black terns Chlidonias niger (2) (Cooper et al., 2003).

The EU LIFE project in Malta used preliminary interviews and a questionnaire to survey fishers on bycatch. The interviews were undertaken between October and December 2007 and included both full‐time and part‐time fishers (Dimech et al., 2009). The demersal longline fishery caught most seabirds, of which the majority were Cory’s shearwater (Table 25). Most respondents found that seabirds were caught at dawn and dusk (Dimech et al., 2009). Occasional Cory’s shearwaters were also caught with trolling lines (2 individuals), but no catches were reported with other gears including trawling, trammel nets and gillnets (Dimech et al., 2009).

Further investigations of seabird bycatch in Malta were also undertaken under the EU LIFE project. The initial questionnaires and surveys were complemented by onboard observations by scientist and self‐sampling by fishers (Darmanin et al., 2010). The self‐sampling was carried out from May 2008 to April 2010 on pelagic longlines targeting swordfish and tuna and demersal longlines targeting high‐value demersal fish. There were a total of nine vessels sampled operated by seven fisheries. Only one seabird was caught on the pelagic longline (Cory’s shearwater) and two were caught with the demersal longline (Cory’s shearwater and Black‐legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla) (Darmanin et al., 2010).

The field observations were made on board six different longline vessels targeting bluefin tuna between April and June 2008, a total of 85 fishing days. No seabirds were caught during these trips (Darmanin et al., 2010).

5.2.2.2 Greece Previous studies in Greece have reported mortality for Cory’s and Yelkouan shearwaters and gull species in demersal longline fisheries. A ten‐year study on the demersal longline fleet targeting breams reported bycatch of primarily Cory’s shearwater (up to five birds on one line and 30 in one year were reported by one fishing vessel). Audouin’s gull and Yellow‐legged gull were also reported to be caught (Cooper et al., 2003).

More recently, a questionnaire survey was undertaken with fishers in Greece as part of the EU LIFE project. Preliminary data from this survey showed that Cory’s and Yelkouan shearwaters, in addition to Yellow‐legged gulls, were caught in demersal longlines (HOS et al. pers. comm.). It was not clear from this survey how many Audouin’s gulls were caught because the fishers were often unable to differentiate between this species and the Yellow‐legged gull (HOS et al. pers comm.). The questionnaires were implemented with fishers using both demersal longlines and nets (gillnets or trammel nets) in Crete, the Dodecanese, the Cyclades, the North Aegean Sea and the South Ionian Sea (HOS et al. pers. comm.).

In contrast to the demersal fisheries, no seabird mortality was reported during 240 pelagic longline sets for tuna and swordfish in the Aegean Sea during a turtle bycatch monitoring programme (Cooper et al., 2003). The EU LIFE project in Greece used systematic sampling with observers onboard vessels in the pelagic longline fleet in the Aegean and Ionian Seas, but preliminary data showed no seabird bycatch in these fisheries (HOS et al. pers comm.).

Only preliminary data on seabird bycatch in the Greek longline and gillnets has been available from the EU LIFE project, as the project is still ongoing. Since the overall analysis of the collected data has not yet finished, it cannot be confirmed whether the bycatch recorded or reported cause significant impacts on the local and national populations of these species. However, the data obtained for the Cory’s shearwater bycatch in the wider sea area of Zante Island and the inventory of species breeding population in Strofadia (which represent almost the entire species population in the Ionian Sea) shows that approximately 2–4% of the population has bycatch‐related mortality annually (Karris et al., 2009; Karris et al., 2010). Capture was more frequent in the morning hours (from 7am to midday) (HOS et al. pers comm.). Season also seemed to be a factor in determining bycatch, with both Yelkouan and Cory’s shearwaters being caught more in the spring. This corresponds with the timing of the Yelkouan shearwater spring migration when there are large groups of birds (up to several thousand) and the breeding period when energy needs are highest (HOS et al. pers comm.). Because Yelkouan shearwaters are gregarious, irregular events of captures of more than one individual can occur if a flock encounters a fishing boat (HOS et al. pers comm.). Cory’s shearwaters also arrive from their wintering grounds in spring, making this a time of increased vulnerability to bycatch for them as well. Unlike the Yelkouan shearwater, this species follows fishing vessels to find food and can be caught as they try to steal bait from the demersal longline vessels (HOS et al. pers comm.).


52

Audouin’s gulls also follow fishing vessels to find food, but the preliminary data do not show that this corresponds with a particular period or season (HOS et al. pers comm.).

Although this case study is for the longline gears, it is interesting to note that the preliminary data from the Greek EU LIFE project shows that Yelkouan shearwater bycatch was reported in nets in the Aegean, with more than 100 birds caught at the same time (HOS et al. pers comm.). In addition, the bycatch of Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) was usually made in nets with individual birds becoming entangled (HOS et al. pers comm.). The Shag feeds in the coastal zone up to 60m depth, so incidental bycatch is limited to this area (HOS et al. pers comm.)

Table 26 and Table 27 summarise the key bird species likely to interact with longline fisheries in the Maltese and Greek waters respectively and potential mitigation measures based on their foraging, breeding and migratory behaviours in the region.

Table 25: Review of estimated bycatch in Maltese and Greek longline fisheries Location Source Study Period Gear Average

birds/ unit effort

Observed or reported bycatch

Estimated annual bycatch

Main species and their share in bycatch composition

Greece Cooper et al., 2003

Reports from fishers: last 10 years (as of 2003)

Demersal longline (breams)

n/a n/a n/a Cory’s Shearwater, Audouin’s Gull, Yellow legged gull

Greece Cooper et al., 2003

Observers: 199‐2000 (240 longline sets)

Pelagic longline (swordfish and tuna)

n/a 0 n/a none

Malta Dimech et al., 2009

Questionnaire: Oct‐Dec 2007

Demersal longline

n/a 129 Cory’s shearwater: est. 1220 for demersal and pelagic combined

Cory’s shearwater (98%); Yelkouan shearwater (2%)

Malta Dimech et al., 2009

Questionnaire: Oct‐Dec 2007

Pelagic longline

n/a 2 Cory’s shearwater (100%)

Malta Darmanin et al., 2010

Fisher self‐sampling, 2008‐2010

Demersal longline

0.00050/1000 hooks per hour

2 n/a Cory’s shearwater (50%), Kittiwake (50%)

3)

Malta Darmanin et al., 2010

Fisher self‐sampling, 2008‐2010

Pelagic longline

0.00074/1000 hooks per hour

1 n/a Cory’s shearwater (100%)

Sources: Dimech et al., 2009; Darmanin et al., 2010; Cooper et al., 2003.

3 Kittiwakes are only found sporadically in Maltese waters, so this single bird was likely a unique event


53

Table 26: Summary of key bird species found in Maltese waters, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc).

Case study fishery

Bird species C

onservation concern

Foraging behaviour and periods Spatial hotspots relevant to case study fleet Temporal hotspots C

losed areas

Night setting

Offal discharge

Diff Time


Side‐setting

Stream

er lin

e


e



ing bait)

Dyed bait

Circle hooks

Chan

ge bait type

Maltese waters longline Pelagic longline Demersal longline

Cory's shearwater Yes

Plunge diving, crepuscular

Breeding: Gozo (Malta); Greek Islands, Zembra (Tunisia); Foraging: offshore aggregations, Siculo‐Melitensis basin (Italy‐Malta),


B

Balearic shearwater


No No

Yelkouan shearwater Yes

Plunge and pursuit diving; gregarious

Breeding: Maltese coastal cliffs (esp. Rhum tal Madonna);Foraging: west of Siciliy, Algerian‐Tunisian coast

Arrive: October; Breeding: Feb‐Mar; Chick rearing: May‐July B

Audouin's gull

Yes Surface seizing Foraging: Italian waters All year (peak in Mar‐Oct)

Northern gannet

No plunge diving Migrating: offshore aggregations Migrating: winter months

Great skuaNo

Splash diving, surface seizing and stealing

Unknown, Migrating Migrating: winter months

Yellow legged gull

No surface seizing A few breeding colonies on Malta and Gozo All year



Sources: Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008; BirdLife Malta, 2010a,b; Birdlife International, 2002; BirdLife International, 2011a; HOS et al., pers.comm. (seabird hotspots); BirdLife International 2010a (foraging behaviours);


54

Table 27: Summary of key bird species found in Greek waters, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc).

Case study fishery

Bird species C

onservation concern

Foraging behaviour and periods Spatial hotspots relevant to case study fleet Temporal hotspots C

losed areas

Night setting

offal discharge

Diff Time

offal discharged from op

side‐setting

Stream

er lin

e

increase weight of lin

e

bird scaring curtain

make bait sink quicker (thaw

ing bait)

Dyed bait

Circle hooks

chan

ge bait type

Greek waters longline Pelagic longline Demersal longline

Cory's shearwater Yes

Plunge diving, crepuscular

Breeding: Greek Islands, Zembra Foraging: offshore aggregations, Siculo‐Melitensis basin (Italy‐Malta), Greek waters


Balearic shearwater


No No

Yelkouan shearwater

Yes Plunge and pursuit diving; gregarious

Breeding: Greek islandsForaging: west of Siciliy

Arrive: October; Breeding: Feb‐Mar; Chick rearing: May‐July

Audouin's gull

Yes

Surface seizing Breeding: Greek islands (Fournoi, Amorgos, Paros, Sporades island complex, Lesvos, Lemnos, Chios and crete); Foraging: Greek/Italian waters

All year (peak in Mar‐Oct)

Northern gannet

No plunge diving Migrating: offshore aggregations Migrating: winter months

Great skuaNo

Splash diving, surface seizing and stealing

Unknown, Migrating Migrating: winter months

Yellow legged gull

No surface seizing Numerous on Greek islands All year



Sources: Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008; BirdLife Malta, 2010a,b; Birdlife International, 2002; BirdLife International, 2011a; HOS et al., pers.comm. (seabird hotspots); BirdLife International 2010a (foraging behaviours);


55

5.2.3 Current mitigation measures There are currently no mandatory mitigation measures in place to reduce seabird bycatch for the Maltese or Greek longline fisheries.

However, through the questionnaire, some fishers reported that they already use measures which have the effect of reducing seabird interactions, although they are used for operational reasons and not in response to seabird bycatch: deploying at night (for most of the Greek and Maltese demersal fishery, and some of the Maltese pelagic fishery), side‐setting (some Maltese pelagic vessels), using weight on the snood (Malta) and by using defrosted bait (Malta). This is consistent with findings in Darmanin et al., 2010.

During the questionnaires, fishers reported there was no financial support available for the implementation of mitigation measures. The fisheries department confirmed that no local funding or subsidies are currently available for adoption of mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch.


5.2.4.1 Fishers interviewed In Greece, 27 longline fishers were interviewed, and 20 in Malta (Table 28). Both pelagic and demersal longline fishers were interviewed, including fishers that target swordfish, bluefin tuna, dolphinfish, breams and selachians. The selection of fishers was made according to the geographic areas where fishing activity is important for the local economy, and most fishers were full‐time fishers.

Table 28: Number of questionnaire respondents by gear type in Greece and Malta Fishery Primary fishery

(>65% of fishing days) Secondary fishery

(<65% of fishing days)

GREECE

Pelagic longline 9 4

Demersal longline 18 5

Sub‐total 27 9

MALTA

Pelagic longline 8

Demersal longline 12

Sub‐total 20

5.2.4.2 Seabird‐fishery interactions In both Greece and Malta, the fishers interviewed generally did not think that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity (Figure 15). In Malta, the pelagic longline fishery was felt to have more disruption caused by seabirds than the demersal fishery. Disruption involved mostly seagulls. In Greece, the opposite was true, and fishers felt that there

was slightly more disruption caused in the demersal longline fishery than the pelagic longline fishery. In both areas, fishers commented that seabirds caused disruption, although they also stated that this happened very rarely. Also, all fishers stated that even though seabirds may cause disruption, it is not always associated with seabirds being caught.

In Malta, of the four fishers (two demersal and two pelagic) that commented that seabirds caused disruption, the disruption primarily consisted of stealing bait (in both pelagic and demersal fisheries), and also some cases of reduction in fishing time due to slowing of hauling procedures (in pelagic fishery).

In Greece, the types of interactions reported by the four fisher respondents (3 demersal and one pelagic) were more diverse. The one pelagic fisher,

Figure 15: Percentage of fishers that felt seabirds disrupted their fishing activity, in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in Greece and Malta Source: Questionnaire survey.

n=20n=11n=9

n=8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Greece Malta

Demersal

Pelagic


56

respondent said that disturbances included stealing bait, reduction of fishing time, reduction of catch because of damaged bait and lost catching opportunities due to birds being caught on the line instead of fish. The three demersal fishers said that the main disturbances caused by seabirds included reduction of time fishing and reduced catch because of damage to bait. To a lesser extent, stealing bait and lost catching opportunities were also experienced.

The fishers surveyed were predominantly not aware of a problem with seabirds or declined to answer the question (Figure 16 (a)). In Malta, the fishers replied that there is no problem with bird bycatch in the longline fishery. For the fishers themselves, they also do not see it as a problem even though the seabirds cause disruption. This happens in rare cases and the fishers voluntarily employ several methods to prevent seabirds from interacting with the fishing activities. The large proportion of respondents (92%) that felt that nothing needed to be done about seabird bycatch reflects this opinion in both Malta and Greece (Figure 16(c)).

Figure 16: Fishers’ responses regarding (a) whether they are aware of a problem with seabirds; and (b) whether they think the available information is sufficient; and (c) whether they think anything needs to be done Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: n=47.

In the Greek demersal longline fishery, a high number of birds caught were reported, although most of these were from a single fisher (500 out of 532) targeting dentex and porgy. The remaining bycatch came from the demersal fishery targeting hake. All birds caught in the demersal fishery were shearwater species. If the dentex and porgy fisher’s response is included, the Greek demersal fishery would be estimated to catch 0.27 birds/1000 hooks (Table 29). Without this response, a much lower annual average of 0.016 birds/1000 hooks is estimated.

The Greek pelagic longline fishery had an estimated annual average of 0.12 birds/1000 hooks. These were also mostly shearwater species (Table 29). This result for the pelagic fishery is interesting as previous studies have not shown any bycatch in this fishery (See Section 5.2.2). The estimates here must be considered as provisional, since they are based on interview responses rather than direct data.

In the Maltese fisheries actual seabird bycatch was reported to be practically nonexistent. The demersal fishers reported no birds caught in a year. The pelagic fisheries reported only two shearwaters caught in a year (Table 29). This is consistent with findings from Darmanin et al. (2010).

As with some of the fishers in the western Mediterranean, one fisher commented that in the pelagic swordfish and bluefin tuna fishery, it is almost impossible to catch seabirds as the hooks are too large. The less‐common surface longlines that target smaller fish, on the other hand, would have more chance of catching seabirds as the hooks are smaller. However, the birds can get snagged on the hooks and entangled in the line.


57

Table 29: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Greece and Malta from questionnaire responses Country Gear Average




Main species (%)

Greece Demersal longline 138 [14] 5324 0.27 birds/1000 hooks Excluding incident of 500 birds: 0.016 birds/1000 hooks

Shearwater spp (100%)

Greece Pelagic longline 29 [9] 32 0.12 birds/1000 hooks Shearwater spp (97%); Gull spp (3%)

Malta Demersal longline 22.5 [11] 0 0 birds/1000 hooks None

Malta Pelagic longline 32 [8] 2 0.008 birds/1000 hooks Shearwater spp. (100%)

Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: Greece, demersal n=18; pelagic n=9. Malta, demersal n=12; pelagic n=8.

In Malta, the main area where interactions with seabirds (mainly gull interactions) reportedly occurred, was to the north and and north‐east of the main island (Figure 17(a)). The fishers commented that there is no particular season when this occurs more but from the information obtained from the interview with the fishers’ association, it was stated that interaction, although always very low, is more concentrated during the summer months, possibly because fishing intensity is also higher. Also, since deployment generally does not occur during the day, bycatch is decreased further.

In Greece, the areas of interactions are more dispersed, with potential hotspots around the central and southern Aegaen Sea — Rhodes, Karpathos, Crete and the Dodecanese Islands (Figure 17(b)). All the birds reportedly caught in the Greek fisheries were caught in the period from April to June (Figure 18). This period is also when the two birds caught in the Maltese pelagic fishery were caught. This corresponds with the period that Yelkouan shearwaters are hatching and rearing their chicks (Borg et al., 2010).

a)

b)

Figure 17: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the a) Maltese and b) Greek pelagic and demersal longline fleets. Source: Questionnaire survey.

4 This number includes 500 shearwaters caught by a single fisher.


58

5.2.4.3 Mitigation measures A number of mitigation measures are already in use by a small proportion of the Maltese longlining fleet — making the bait sink more quickly and night setting, and some pelagic vessels also increase the line weight and use side‐setting (Figure 19). A smaller proportion of Greek vessels are already using mitigation measures – only night‐setting and making the bait sink more quickly, and only in the demersal fishery (Figure 20).

In Malta, the most effective measures were considered to be increasing the line weight, night‐setting and closed seasons or areas. However, closed seasons or areas were not considered acceptable, and increasing the line

weight was not acceptable for the pelagic fishery. Bird‐scaring curtains and dyed bait were thought to be neither very effective nor acceptable in either fishery. The most acceptable measures generally reflect practices that are already in place in some of the vessels, such as night‐setting (for the demersal fishery) and side‐setting. Also, the majority of fishers do not gut the fish onboard and thus the offal is neither discarded from the same side of hauling, nor at the same time.

In Greece, very few responses were received on the potential mitigation measures. From those that did reply, streamer lines were expected to be quite effective, although not acceptable, but night‐setting for the demersal fishery was thought to be effective and was also acceptable (Figure 20).

Mitigation measures that involve changing parts of the gear or bait may be accepted by fishers if they do not come at any extra costs or if subsidies are provided for doing so (including compensation for any closure of areas or seasons), provided that the catch rates are not affected.

Figure 18: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in by the Greek longline respondents Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: demersal n=18; pelagic n=9.


59

Figure 19: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the Maltese pelagic (left‐hand side) and demersal (right‐hand side) longline fisheries Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: For pelagic fishery, n=8; for demersal fishery, n=8.

Figure 20: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the Greek pelagic (left‐hand side) and demersal (right‐hand side) longline fisheries Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: For pelagic fishery, change bait type n=6; increase line weight, n=8; streamer line, n=4; all others, n=0. For demersal fishery, change bait type, n=13; increase line weight, n=12; streamer line, n=3; night setting, n=4; all others, n=0.


60

Overall in Greece and Malta, fishers think that mitigation measures are not necessary as they reportedly catch very few or no seabirds, and already use some mitigation measures voluntarily, which they deem to be sufficient. The very low bycatch rates are borne out by other studies on seabird bycatch in the region (although the implications of the size of the fleet should also be taken into account — see section 6.2). The closure of areas and/or seasons will have a direct effect on the fishers and their fishing activities and was the mitigation measure that was least acceptable to the fishers. Some mitigation measures such as using circle hooks, making the bait sink quicker, using streamer lines and side‐setting were not discounted by the fishers, but would require further research to test the possible impacts on their fishing activities, before they would be accepted.

Table 30: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the Maltese and Greek longline fishery Mitigation measures


Change bait type

Low (1), fishers have not observed any difference with different bait types.

Low (1), bait used depends on availability and is selected according to target species.

Some commented that seabirds prefer fish (to e.g. squid). Fishers tend to use the baits that they know the effectiveness of.


Low (1) in Greece, med‐high (3–4) in Malta, as the line would sink quicker, giving less time for birds to get the bait.

Low (1) in Greece, low‐med (2–3) in Malta. Concern over higher cost to construct gears, and effect on setting depth for pelagic fishery.

Concern that it would reduce fish catch. Acceptable to demersal fishers, but not to pelagic fishers. Current sink rate is believed to be sufficient.

Circle hooks Low‐med (2–3), disagreement amongst fishers as to whether it reduces bird catch or not.

Low‐med (2–3), circle hooks are expensive and may reduce fish catch.


Low‐med (2–3) overall, but fishers either thought it would be ineffective (1) or very effective (5).

Low‐med (2–3), not expected to have any impact on their fish catch.

Thawed bait is already used, sometimes in pieces.

Dyed bait Low (1–2), some thought birds would be less attracted to it, others thought there would be no difference.

Low (1–2), increased cost and expected to negatively affect fish catch.

Also expected to be time‐consuming to implement.

Streamer line Low (1–2), medium (3) in Greece. Expected to distract the birds, but thought birds may become accustomed to it.

Low (1–2), as deployment expected to be time‐consuming and require extra crew.

Some Greek (demersal) fishers reported towing a rope with floats as a bird deterrent.

Side‐setting Low‐med (2–3), some thought it would be effective, others not.

Low (2), difficult or impossible for fishers to work from the side.

Some Maltese pelagic longline vessels already use side‐setting, although not as a bird mitigation measure. For small vessels, it would be impossible to reconfigure.


Low (1), no comments. Low (1), no comments. Generally unknown by fishers.


Low (1), no comments. Low (1–2). Fish are landed whole therefore this was not considered to be an issue.


Low (1), no comments. Low (1–2). Fish are landed whole therefore this was not considered to be an issue.

Night setting Med‐high (3–4 in Malta, 5 in Greek demersal), as there are no seabirds at night.

Low (2) in Malta, high (5) in Greek demersal fishery, which already predominantly set lines at night as it is the most effective time for the fishery.

Pelagic longlines are always set in the afternoon, so night‐setting is unlikely to be acceptable.


Med‐high (3–4), as less fishing will mean there will be less bycatch, although seabirds are found throughout the (Maltese) islands so a single area cannot be identified.

Low (1), as it would mean less fishing, or increased steaming times and increased costs.

Some closed seasons already in place, but not due to seabirds. Greek industry said that bird bycatch was not of a sufficient magnitude to warrant closing areas or seasons.

Case studies: Gran Sol longline fishery

61

5.3 Gran Sol longline fishery Summary

Main fishery characteristics: demersal longline fishery for hake, mainly during spring and autumn and moving further north in summer and south in winter. Setting at night or a few hours before dawn and haul during the day.

The key bird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas nearby, are Cory’s shearwater, Black guillemot, Northern fulmar, Northern gannet, Great shearwater, Sooty shearwater, Manx shearwater, Black‐legged kittiwake.

Mitigation measures that would be expected to address seabird bycatch based on the birds’ behaviour are offal management, side setting, streamer lines, bird scaring devices, increased line weight and night setting. For hauling, bird‐scaring curtains would also be appropriate.


Seabird bycatch occurs mainly during the summer months when the fleet moves north from Gran Sol to west of Scotland, and when the migrating Great shearwaters and Sooty shearwaters are in the area.

Bycatch rate was three times lower than previous studies indicate but included a similar compliment of species, with shearwaters spp. comprising the greatest proportion. However the rate reported by fishers was relatively high, similar to levels reported in the Western Mediterranean.

Fishers in general were aware of a problem with seabirds and reported that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity. However they did not feel that anything needed to be done, as they are already implementing night‐setting with reduced deck lighting across, which they suggest has reduced seabird bycatch rates.

Fishers’ views on mitigation measures: according to those interviewed the fleet already uses a number of mitigation measures — night‐setting with reduced deck lighting is already employed by the fleet except in very bad weather conditions, dyed bait, streamer lines and offal management (verification of use of these measures across the fleet requireds verification); closed areas/seasons are generally unacceptable, as the fleet often exhausts its fishing rights in particular areas before the end of the year and closed areas might make their activity unviable; most respondents felt that side‐setting would reduce fishing capacity.

5.3.1 Fishery background The Gran Sol (Great Sole) is in ICES fishing area (VIIj) in the North‐east Atlantic (Figure 21). However the Gran Sol fleet operates not only in Gran Sol, but also Southwest of Ireland, and the Porcupine Bank (ICES subareas VIIb,c,h, k). Mainly between June and August the fleet moves further north to fish West of Scotland (ICES area VI).

Spain accounts for the main part of the landings in the Northern hake fishery with around 60% of the total catches. France takes 25% of the total, UK 6%, Denmark 3%, Ireland 3% and other countries (Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden) taking small amounts. However, only Spain and France deploy bottom longliners in Gran Sol (in addition to other fishing gears). The other national fleets involved in this fishery operate with other gears such as gillnets and bottom trawls. In this context, Spain accounts for over 90% of the bottom longliners operating in Gran Sol.

Table 31: Main countries and fleet involved in the Gran Sol longline fishery Country Fleet segment Target species Main fishing area Number of vessels Vessel size

Spain Demersal longline Hake ICES VIIj, 70 24‐40 metres

France Demersal longline Hake ICES VIIj, VIIc 4 24‐40 metres


62


The Spanish Gran Sol fleet is commonly known as the 300 fleet, because this was the number of Spanish vessels that the Community recognised the right to fish in its waters through the Adhesion Treaty in 1986. Nowadays, there are 169 vessels, the reduction having been achieved through the transfer of fishing rights between vessels. Out of these 169 vessels, 70 are bottom longliners, which are the focus of this study. The remainder are bottom trawlers and a few gillnetters.

The Gran Sol longline fleet is based in the north of Spain, mainly in Galicia and some in the Basque country, Asturias and Cantabria. Two Galician ports, Celeiro and Burela, account for around 75% of the Gran Sol bottom longliners in number. The dependency of the local communities on this segment is high from a social and economic point of view, with employment estimated at 1,260 FTE.

The vessels are large, between 100–350 GRT, and operate with around 18‐20 crew members.

Fishing area

The vessels operate far from their base ports (1–2 days’ steaming time), and stay at sea for periods of 2–3 weeks. The main fishing areas are shown in Figure 22, based on the responses from the questionnaire survey. This shows the seasonal

distribution of fishing effort, with the vessels fishing in the Gran Sol area mainly during spring and autumn, moving further north in summer and south in winter.

Table 32: Number of Spanish Mediterranean demersal longline vessels by port Region/ Province

Port Size category Number of vessels

Total GT Total kW Average GT Average kW

Galicia Celeiro >100 GRT 22 6192.78 9272.66 281 421

<100 GRT 1 160.30 202.24 160 202

Burela >100 GRT 18 4883.65 7642.28 271 425

<100 GRT 2 333.72 586.85 167 293

Ribeira >100 GRT 5 1672.00 246653 334 493

Carino <100 GRT 5 653.67 1199.44 131 240

Coruna >100 GRT 1 344.00 419.18 344 419

Cedeira <100 GRT 1 122.76 330.93 123 331

Other 15

Total no vessels, average tonnage and power 70 261 402

Source: Conselleria de Pesca, Xunta de Galicia, updated January 2011. Note: ‘Other’ ports include Ondarroa, Pasajes, Aviles, Santander, Gijón, Santoña.

Figure 21: ICES areas in the North‐east Atlantic, showing Gran Sol (VIIj)


63


The Gran Sol longliners predominantly target hake (Northern hake stock), accounting for nearly 90% of the total catch value and 70% of volume. Hake is targeted all year round with a one‐month closure during summer. The estimated landings of hake by Spanish bottom longliners was about 12,400 tonnes5 for 2009

Hake is caught as part of a multispecies and multigear fishery. The Northern hake stock is an important resource for many European fishing fleets, involving a large number of vessels from several European countries. The Hake fishery is a very economically important fishery to Spain, France, UK and Ireland. In fact, four main countries accounted for 98 % of Northern Hake quotas (ICES areas Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV) in 2011: France (45%), Spain (30%), United Kingdom (18 %), and Ireland (5%). After hake, other species targeted by Spanish bottom longliners in Gran Sol are mainly deep‐sea species such as ling; the landings for ling were around 2,000 tonnes in 2009.

Jan‐Mar

Apr‐Jun

Jul‐Sep

Oct‐Dec

Figure 22: Main fishing areas for the Gran Sol bottom demersal longline vessels surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey. Note: n=12.

5 Total landings (2009) 59 kt (33 % trawl, 23% gillnet, 21% longline, and 23% mixed gears); discards 2.0 kt (underestimated, only estimates from 1 trawl fleet available). Source ICES advice 2010 on Northern hake stock, www.ices.dk.


64

Markets

Hake is landed and sold through local auctions (mainly in Burela and Celeiro ports) and is marketed chilled, mainly in Spain, where it is a highly prized species. Hake caught by the Gran Sol bottom longliners receives a quality label, ‘Merluza do Pincho’, that differentiates it from imported hake or hake caught by bottom trawlers.


The Gran Sol fleet is vey homogeneous regarding fishing gear, fleet dynamics and activity. On average each bottom longline vessel in Gran sol fleet sets between 80–100 lines per day (usually around 100 lines in summer and 80 in winter, depending on the weather conditions). Each line is 150 metres long and made of transparent monofilament. There are around 80–85 hooks per line, making a total of 6,400–8,500 hooks set per day. J‐hooks are usually used. The bait used is generally whole mackerel or sardine, always frozen. The lines are set at 150–500 m depth and one or three concrete or stone weights are used to help set the fishing gear on the seabed.

Figure 23: Average gear configuration for the Gran Sol demersal longline vessels surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey (n=12).

The average fishing pattern (steaming time, trip length, soak time etc) is shown in Table 33. The lines are usually deployed at night or a few hours before dawn and hauled during the day. While this is stated as a means to minimise seabird interactions (see section 5.3.4), it is also likely to be in response to fish feeding and activity patterns and is the optimal time for this type of fishery.

Table 33: Average fishing pattern for Gran Sol demersal longline vessels surveyed Detail Average

Average steaming time (hrs) 24–36

Average trip length (days) 17

Average number of gear units 100

Time of deployment At night or before dawn

Average duration of deployment (hrs) 0.17

Average duration of hauling (hrs) 0.33 per line; 3.5 for all the lines set in a day

Average soak time (hrs) 5

Average number of hooks per day 6,000–8,000

Average sink rate (m/s) 0.25

Average speed at deployment (kn) 7–9

Source: Questionnaire survey (n=12).


65

5.3.2 Interactions between the fishery and seabird populations A study for SEO/BirdLife was carried out by an observer, Álvaro Barros, in 2006‐2007 on seabird‐fishery interactions in the Gran Sol region (ICES area VIIj). The study focused on the Galician demersal longline fleet targeting hake and black bream, and consisted of about 35 vessels operating an average of 165 days per year in the area (BirdLife International, 2009b). Three surveys were undertaken, representing the entire seasonal spread for the fishery. Seabird bycatch was recorded, in addition to the number of hooks set, proportion monitored and the influencing conditions (e.g. deck lighting when setting at night) (BirdLife International, 2009b).

Longline setting occurred at night and at dawn, usually between 5 and 8 am and hauling occurred during the day and evening from 12noon to 11pm (Barros, 2009). Occasional daylight setting did occur, often resulting in higher seabird bycatch numbers (BirdLife International, 2009b citing Barros pers. comm.). Seabirds were generally caught during setting attempting to capture bait (sardines) at the surface before the longline sunk. It was observed that the bait remained near the surface for some time before sinking, although in the darkness it was only possible to see birds up to a 30 metre radius from the boat when deck lighting was on (Barros, 2009). Occasional birds were also caught during hauling if small bait remained on the hooks, but were mainly brought on board alive as they hadn’t had time to drown (Barros, 2009). In one instance during October 2006, 15 birds were caught during hauling (all Great shearwaters) in one hour as a sudden feeding frenzy of hundreds of birds occurred (Barros, 2009). All birds caught alive were released after hooks and lines were removed.

Overall, an annual bycatch of 56,307 seabirds from six species was estimated, based on the extrapolations from the observer data collected during the three surveys (BirdLife International, 2009b) (Table 34). The interactions predominantly took place when deck lighting was being used (in contravention of the Spanish Regulation of 2006 on pelagic longline mitigation measures6) and the observer noted that bycatch was virtually eliminated when he asked that deck lighting be switched off as an experiment (BirdLife International, 2009b; Barros, 2009).

Table 35 summarises the key bird species likely to interact with demersal longline fisheries in the Gran Sol and potential mitigation measures based on their foraging, breeding and migratory behaviours in the region.

Table 34: Estimated seabird bycatch rates in the Gran Sol longline fishery, 2006‐2007

Scientific name Common name Birds/1000 hooks Estimated bycatch per year

Puffinus gravis Great shearwater 0.546 39,908

Fulmarus glacialis Northern fulmar 0.277 9,493

Rissa tridactyla Black‐legged kittiwake 0.109 4,114

Morus bassanus Northern gannet 0.038 1,331

Puffinus griseus Sooty shearwater 0.034 1,303

Larus marinus Great black‐backed gull 0.004 158

TOTAL 1.008 56,307

Source: BirdLife International, 2009b.

6 Orden APA/2521/2006, de 27 de Julio, por la que se regula la pesca con el arte de palangre de superficie para la captura de species altamente migratorias y por la que se crea el censo unificado de palangre de superficie. BOE núm. 183, de 2 agosto de 2006, págs. 28896‐28901, specifies that setting shall be done preferably between dusk and dawn; vessel external lights must be reduced to those strictly necessary for navigation and fishing purposes.


66

Table 35: Summary of key bird species found in Gran Sol, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Birdlife, 2009 and Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc).

Case study fishery Bird species C

onservation concern

foraging behaviour and periods temporal hotspots Closed areas

Night setting

Offal discharge

Diff Time


Side‐setting

Stream

er lin

e


e



ing bait)

Dyed bait

Circle hooks

Chan

ge bait type

Gran Sol Demersal longlines

Cory’s shearwater Yes Plunge diving, shallow, crepuscular Jul‐Nov

Great skua No Splash diving (shallow), surface seizing, stealing, diurnal

Apr‐Jun; Nov‐Mar

Northern fulmar Possibly Surface seizing, stealing, nocturnal, follow vessels Mar‐Apr; Dec‐Feb

Lesser black‐backed gull

No Surface seizing, diurnal, follow vessels Nov‐Mar

Great black‐backed gull

No Surface seizing, diurnal and nocturnal, follow vessels: May‐Jul; Nov‐Feb

Northern gannet No Plunging (shallow), diurnal (morning), gregarious, follow vessels, associates with Black‐legged kittiwake

Mar‐Aug

Great shearwater No Pursuit diving (unknown) Aug‐Sep

Sooty shearwater Yes Pursuit diving (mid‐depth) Aug‐Oct

Manx shearwater Yes Pursuit diving (unknown), diurnal, gregarious Mar‐Oct


Yes Pelagic surface feeding, dipping or plunge‐diving(shallow), diurnal, associates with northern gannet

Nov‐May

Key bird species Measures highly likely or proven to be effective


Sources: ICES, 2002, Barret et al., 2006; Roycroft et al., 2007, BirdLife Internatinal 2011a, Ices, 2008a (seabirds hotspots); BirdLife International 2010a, Mendel et al., 2008 (foraging behaviours


67

5.3.3 Current mitigation measures There are no mandatory mitigation measures currently in force in Gran Sol. However, bottom longliners of the Gran Sol fleet have been implementing several measures voluntarily to reduce interactions with seabirds.

The Gran Sol fleet sets its lines at night time with reduced‐intensity deck lighting. This is perceived by those interviewed as the most effective measure to reduce seabird interactions. Previously lines were set at night for operational reasons, but full deck lighting was used, which illuminated a radius of about 30m from the deck, making the bait and hooks visible to seabirds in the illuminated area, and caused significant interactions with seabirds. The fishers interviewed suggested that following pilot studies in 2006 and 2007, which demonstrated that reduced lighting is effective at reducing seabird interactions, most of the fleet has now adopted the use of reduced deck lighting when setting at night with the aim of reducing interactions with seabirds. This reduced deck lighting has a smaller radius of illumination outside the vessel deck. According to the ship‐owners, this system is used currently in all Spanish bottom longliners in Gran Sol. The reduced deck lighting is normally used from 05:00h until 08:00h during the setting of the lines. The recovery of the lines is from 12:00h to 23:00h, and the reduced lighting is again used from dusk until the end of operations around 23:00h.

Additionally, most of the vessels reportedly use systems of streamer lines or scaring devices to keep seabirds out of the area of operations, and use blue‐dyed bait.


5.3.4.1 Fishers interviewed Interviews were conducted with 12 ship‐owners and captains in the Gran Sol fleet with bottom longliners. All of them had deep knowledge of the activity on board and interaction with seabirds. Furthermore, as they are the ship‐owners, they could give answers to the questions regarding costs and income.

5.3.4.2 Seabird‐fishery interactions All fishers interviewed found that seabirds caused disruption. The most common disturbances fishers cited were damaging gear, stealing bait and damaging fish on the line (Figure 24).

From the questionnaires carried out fishers considered the problem of seabird bycatch to be relatively small. Ship‐owners declared individual vessel annual bycatches of between 20 and 45 seabirds — mainly shearwaters. All twelve respondents were aware of the seabird bycatch problem, and also all thought that sufficient information on the issue was available. Most (83%) did not think that anything needed to be done about seabird bycatch; this is probably because according to those interviewed, mitigation measures (night setting and reduced deck lighting) have already been implemented across the fleet and fishery‐seabird interactions have been reduced. Fishers that felt something needed to be done cited specific measures that should be taken in the event of catching a seabird, such as untangling the bird from the line.

Across all fishers interviewed, the average annual seabird bycatch in the fishery was 0.34 birds/1000 hooks and consisted mainly of shearwater species (Table 36). This bycatch rate is

about a third of that observed by Barros (2009) (see Section 5.3.2), and may reflect the fact that the fleet now routinely uses reduced deck lighting whilst setting at night. However, the Barros data were a result of direct observation as opposed to our questionnaire responses, which were retrospective estimates, and there is a need to corroborate the questionnaire results with observer data, to verify the ship owners’ claims that seabird bycatches have been reduced since the 2000s.

Figure 24: Seabird disturbances by type from the fishers who responded that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity in Gran Sol Source: Questionnaire survey (n=12).


68

Table 36: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Gran Sol region from questionnaire responses Region Gear Average




Main species (%)

Spain Demersal longline 110 [12] 447 0.34 birds/1000 hooks

Shearwater spp (86%); Gannets (9%); Fulmars (5%)

Source: Questionnaire survey (n=12).

According to the interviews, the interaction with seabirds is strongly determined by the fleet dynamics. In winter, most of the Gran Sol fleet operates in more fishing grounds further south (ICES area VIII), where the interaction with seabirds is very low. As spring arrives, the fleet progressively deploys fishing effort northwards, operating mainly in VIIk. In summer they reach the northern limit of their fishing grounds, between VII and VI, in fishing grounds to the west of Scotland. During this summer period the interaction is more pronounced and the incidental catches of seabirds are higher (Figure 25). The summer months are also when migrating Great shearwaters and Sooty shearwaters are in the area. Usually the larger vessels move further northwards than the other smaller units, and thus have more seabird interactions. The European Seabirds at Sea database indicates that observations of the key bird species occur throughout Gran Sol and the Porcupine Bank (see Figure 26). Figure 27 provides an example of the overlap between fishing vessels and Northern fulmars in the Gran Sol region on a quarterly basis (the Northern fulmar spatial data is limited to the Gran Sol region, but they are also abundant in the surrounding ICES areas, including West of Scotland). As the vessels leave the Gran Sol and head northwards, there is also potential for bycatch of Northern fulmars in the West of Scotland fishing grounds in the summer months (E.Dunn, pers. comm.; Dunn & Steel, 2001).

The rest of the year the interactions with seabirds is much lower. In the autumn, the fleets start to move southwards again, to ICES areas VII and VIII. During the winter period in this area, the interaction is low or null. However, this pattern is also influenced by the availability of fishing permits, as when a vessel runs out of quota in one area, it must move to another. The seabirds were mainly caught on longline hooks during setting; it was rare for them to be caught when the lines were soaking or during hauling.

Figure 25: Numbers of seabirds reportedly caughtby season in the Gran Sol demersal longline fishery Source: Questionnaire survey (n=12).

Figure 26: Main fishing areas of Gran Sol demersal longline fishers interviewed (grey) and areas where observations of key seabird species highlighted in Table 35 have been reported (red) in the European Seabirds at Sea database in ICES areas VII b,c,j,k Source: European Seabirds at Sea data (JNCC, Dr Rob Ronconi, Marie Martin & Richard R Viet, Canadian wildlife service); Questionnaire survey


69

Jan‐Mar

Apr‐Jun

Jul‐Sep

Oct‐Dec

Figure 27: Main fishing areas of Gran Sol demersal longline fishers interviewed (red) by quarter and areas where observations of Northern fulmar have been reported (green) in ICES areas VII b,c,j,k Source: European Seabirds at Sea data (JNCC, Dr Rob Ronconi, Marie Martin & Richard R Viet, Canadian wildlife service) Note: The Northern fulmar data is only for ICES areas VII b,c,j,k, but the Norhtern fulmar range also includes surrounding ICES areas


70

5.3.4.3 Mitigation measures The fishers interviewed from the Gran Sol longline fleet already employ a number of mitigation measures for reducing seabird bycatch: dyed bait, streamer lines, discharging offal at a different time from setting/hauling, and setting lines at night with reduced deck lighting (Figure 28). These measures consequently have high acceptability amongst respondents, who also consider them to be effective.

From the information provided in the questionnaires, it is possible to identify a group of mitigation measures that could be used by the fleet, and others which are neither acceptable, effective or practical.

In the first group are night‐setting with reduced‐intensity lighting, streamer lines, dyed bait and discharging offal at a different time from setting/hauling, which are already used. Night‐setting is perceived as the most effective measure, and is always implemented except in very bad weather conditions due to crew safety when operating on deck.

Closed areas are considered unacceptable by the respondents. The problem lies in the fact that the Gran Sol fleet exhausts its fishing effort allocation in VIII‐VII‐V, sometimes running out of fishing rights before end of the fishing year. If areas where seabird interaction are high were to be closed (mainly VI), they would have to concentrate their activity in less fishing areas (VIII‐VII), and would run out of quota or effort rights earlier in the year, which could make their activity unviable.

Some of the respondents indicated that they have completed a pilot project (first phase) testing different sound wave‐length and frequencies to deter seabirds. The details are in an internal report that has not yet been made public.

Given the fact that seabird interaction is not perceived to be an issue by the respondents, they could not always provide a very structured answer about the potential impact and costs of all mitigation measures.

The ship‐owners understood that there is funding available for the adoption of mitigation measures through the EFF. However, the current situation of low economic performance makes it difficult for them to co‐finance the private contribution required. If these measures did not imply a private contribution or their economic performance was stronger, the readiness to test new measures would be higher. Nevertheless, the ship‐owners are open to pilot projects and testing new measures to reduce seabird bycatch, as long as this testing does not interfere with their normal fishing operations or compensation is provided.

Figure 28: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the Gran Sol longline fishery Source: Questionnaire survey (n=12).


71

Table 37: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the Gran Sol longline fishery Mitigation measures


Change bait type Low (1), other baits such as mackerel do not reduce bird interactions

Medium (3), alternative (mackerel) is a similar price to current bait (sardine).

Can be accepted by industry, but effectiveness considered to be low


Low (1) Not acceptable (1) as line weighting is optimally configured for fishing effectiveness

Increasing weight would reduce fishing capacity, although lines are weighted (sink rate 0.25m/s).

Circle hooks Low (1). Low (1–2), would significantly reduce catch of target species.

seabirds get tangled in the lines more than caught on hooks


Medium (2–3) Medium (3)

Dyed bait High (4), it is thought it helps reduce seabird interactions

High (5) Fishers already use dyed bait

Streamer line High (4–5), considered to be effective

High (5), already in use by the fleet Low cost, they use a line of plastics for the lines.

Side‐setting Low (1) Low (1) Thought to reduce fishing capacity of the vessel.


Low (1) Low (1) Concerns over installation and negative interaction with safety and working conditions onboard


Low (1), as it attracts more seabirds to the vessel

Low (2) as discharging offal at the same time as setting would distract crew from setting

Setting requires a lot of concentration to avoid accidents of the crew on deck with the hooks as the fishing gears are set partially manually


Medium (3) High (4–5) Respondents commented that offal should not be discharged at the same time as setting/hauling.

Night setting High (5), interaction with seabirds lower at night

High (5), already used by the fleet Considered to be the most effective measure


High (4) Low (1) because fishing activity would have to be concentrated in a smaller area, exhausting fishing rights sooner.

Incidental catches higher north of Ireland, west of Scotland, area VI.


72

5.4 Eastern Baltic Sea gillnet fishery – Estonia, Lithuania & Latvia

The Baltic Sea gillnet fishery involves all the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. For the purposes of this report, we have split them into two: the ‘eastern’ Baltic countries, covering Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, and the ‘western’ Baltic countries, covering Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Whilst it is recognised that this is essentially an artificial split, the fisheries in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, and those in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia show greater similarity to one another and therefore it is convenient to treat them together.

Summary

Main fishery characteristics: small‐scale, coastal gillnet fishery, operates in the coastal area up to the 20m isobath, often in shallow water. Large number of fishers/gillnets, targeting fish (cod, flounder, bream), smaller mesh gillnets for herring and smelt (particularly in Latvia and Lithuania), and larger mesh sizes for turbot.

The key bird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important wintering areas in the region, are Black guillemot, Black‐throated and Red‐throated divers and Velvet scoter, Steller’s eider (of conservation concern), and Long‐tailed duck (commonly caught). The greatest proportion of their wintering populations in the Baltic occurs in the Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait (Estonia and Latvia) and Saaremaa and Hiirumaa west coasts (Estonia). Shallow and deep diving foraging behaviour are exhibited by these species.

Mitigation measures that would be expected to address seabird bycatch based on the birds’ behaviour include measures to make the nets more visible (multifilament coloured twine in the top meshes, and red corks throughout the netting). Also for shallow‐diving species (Red‐throated diver and Steller’s eider, using alternative gear or increasing the setting depth may work. Acoustic pingers may work for deeper diving species, but require further testing. Spatial and temporal measures may work in conjunction with other methods (i.e. gear restrictions rather than fishery closures) but would need to be tested and carefully implemented.


Estonian seabird bycatch rates corresponded with previously reported levels. However, Latvian and Lithuanian bycatch rates were 2‐4 and 25 times lower, respectively, than previous studies.

Almost half of fishers were aware of a problem with seabirds. However, the majority do not consider bird bycatch to be a problem in the region, believing that it does not have an impact on the overall bird populations, and they do not feel seabirds disrupt their fishing activity. Higher bycatch rates are reported in Estonia, within the main migration (arrival/departure) periods of October‐December and April‐June, which coincide with the main fishing periods. Western Estonia is a very important area for breeding and wintering birds, but gillnets represent a very small proportion of the fishing effort in this area (fyke nets and pots being more common). Questionnaires indicated that fisheries on the north coast of Estonia experience more bycatch than those in the west, perhaps because stronger and larger mesh nets are used, and the area is important for migrating birds.

Fishers’ views on mitigation measures: closed areas/seasons are generally unacceptable; the fisheries are very local and small boats are used, so spatial closures may make fishing impossible for some fishers. However, some experience in Estonia of spatial and temporal closures (for fish spawning grounds as well as bird areas) has been effective and may have some acceptability. Some fishers reportedly already try to avoid areas of high bird concentrations voluntarily. Restricting the gillnet fishery to waters over 20m depth is not feasible in the eastern Baltic as this would effectively close the fishery, as it is defined spatially, up to 20m depth. Setting nets in deeper water may be possible for certain areas, such as the north coast of Estonia, but would not be practical in other areas (e.g. west coast of Estonia). Visual cues and deterrents were generally not expected to be effective, but little research has been carried out on these in the Baltic.

5.4.1 Fisheries background The coastal gillnet fishery in the eastern Baltic Sea involves Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. The coastline of these four countries is about 2,150 km, representing 25% of the total Baltic Sea coast. The gillnet fishery involves small‐scale vessels (generally under 12m length) operating close to the shore and larger vessels that target cod, salmon and herring further offshore (Table 38). This case study focuses on the coastal gillnet fleets, since it is in the coastal area that most interactions with seabirds occur.

Case studies – Eastern Baltic Sea gillnet fishery — Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia

73

This case study focuses on Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Poland was not included in the field work due to budget constraints; effort was instead focussed on Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The coastal fisheries are defined spatially, and operate out to the 20m isobath, or 12nm limit. A wide range of species are targeted, including cod, salmon, herring, smelt, pike‐perch, perch, turbot, sea trout, vimba and bream. There are a large number of small‐scale fishers, who predominantly fish part‐time to supplement their incomes or for personal consumption. Fishing areas are close to the coast and in coastal lagoons.

The salmon driftnet fishery has recently been banned in the region, because of concerns over bycatch of harbour porpoise. As a result, some parts of the industry were reluctant to engage with the current study over fears that similar drastic measures may be taken for the remaining gillnet fisheries.

Table 38: Main countries and fleet segments in the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery Country Fleet segment Target species Main fishing area Number of vessels Vessel size

Estonia Coastal small‐scale fishery (gillnet and trap nets)

perch, herring, pikeperch, flatfish, salmon, cod

Coastal area, up to 20m isobath

800–1,000

Lithuania Drift and fixed nets <12m

Cod, flounder, turbot, pike‐perch, herring, smelt, vimba

ICES Subdivision 26. Coastal area, up to 20m isobaths, also Curonian lagoon

127 (DoF) 174 (in 2009, LIFE) (201 in 2008 AER)

77% <8m, remainder <15m. 2 GT.

Drift and fixed nets 24‐40m

Cod Baltic Sea – offshore. ICES Subdivision 26.

3 >12m

Latvia Coastal, Gulf of Riga

Herring, flounder, cod, perch, bream, vimba

Coastal area in the Gulf of Riga (ICES 28.1), up to 20m isobath

563 (13% professional) (Dagys et al., 2009)

Coastal, Baltic Sea Coastal area of Baltic Sea coast (ICES 26; 28.2), up to 20m isobath

144–274 (7% professional)

Poland Passive gear <12m Cod and flatfish 622 (2008 AER)

Drift and fixed nets 12‐24m

Cod, salmon and sea trout

103 (2008 AER)

Sources: Estonia: Zydelis et al (2009); Latvia: 2008 data, Latvian fisheries department. All coastal vessels (includes gillnets, trapnets, longlines); Dagys et al., 2009; AER, 2008.

The gillnet specifications vary according to target species, and are set out in fisheries legislation in each country, although the requirements vary between countries (Table 39). Smelt and herring gillnets have the smallest mesh size; fish gillnets (e.g. for cod) have a medium mesh size; and turbot gillnets have the largest mesh size.

Table 39: Mesh size and fishing season for the three main gillnet fisheries in the eastern Baltic Gear type Net specification:

length of 1 gear unit & maximum length of 1 net set (LV)

Mesh size Season Notes

Herring, smelt gillnets

100m/300m in the Riga Gulf 100m/800m in the Baltic Sea

EE: >28mm LV: 28–50mm LT: 18–24mm

LV: spring and autumn for herring, winter for smelt LT: winter and early spring

Fish gillnets 100m/300m in the Riga Gulf 100m/800m in the Baltic Sea

EE: 100–110mm (cod and flounder); 157mm (salmon) LV: 80–180mm LT: 45–120mm

LV: spring–autumn LT: spring and autumn

Turbot gillnets 70m/800m EE: LV: 240mm LT: >80mm

LV: May and June LT: April and May

LV – turbot fishery was closed from 2005–2010

Note: Net specification according to national legislation in Latvia.


The coastal fishery is the largest fleet segment in terms of number of fishers and number of vessels in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.


74

In Estonia, there are about 800–1,000 vessels, which mainly use gillnets and trap nets. However, the exact number is difficult to estimate as not all vessels are entered on the fishing vessel register. Coastal gillnet fishers in Estonia are dispersed along the coast, but the most important fishing areas are the Gulf of Pärnu and Väinameri in the west, and

the Gulf of Finland in the north. The most important ports are shown in Table 40 and Figure 29. Two‐thirds of fishers are based in the western counties of Pärnumaa (e.g. Pärnu on the map), Hiiumaa (e.g. Letma on the map) and Saaremaa (e.g. Veere, Mõntu on the map), with fewer based on the northern coast.

In Latvia, there are over 800 vessels in the coastal fishery, mainly fishing in the Gulf of Riga. Most of the vessels are very small and do not use fishing ports; vessels are located on the shore close to the homes of the fishers, or are transported to the shore on a trailer. Thus the fishery and fishing effort is dispersed throughout whole coastline with greater density around coastal cities and villages. As a result, there are no distinct landings ports in the coastal fishery, and fish are landed in the same location from where the fishers go in the sea. Fishing effort is limited by total allowed number of fishing gears

per coastal municipality and gear type. The number of vessels is not a good indicator of coastal fishing effort, because there is no direct connection between a vessel and gear — each vessel can be used with different gears depending on what kind of licences the fisher buys. Therefore it is more appropriate to consider the total number of fishers, fishing gear limits per municipalities and number of fishing days.

In Lithuania, there were 57 small fishing companies and 127 vessels operating in the coastal zone along Lithuania’s short coastline (less than 100 km) at the end of 2010. Gillnet catches represent 90–95% of the coastal fishery’s total catch. Trapnets are also used, and longlines are becoming more popular. The fishery is dominated by many small fishing companies and family operations, with a low level of mechanisation.

Table 40: Number of gillnetters by port or region in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia Country / Region

Main ports No fishers Number of gillnets

Annual landings from gillnets

Observations/ Comments

Estonia – Pärnumaa

Pärnu ~360 1,000–10,000

Hiiumaa Lehtma, Kõrgessaare ~330 1,000–20,000

Saaremaa Veere, Roomassaare Mõntu ~290 Up to 30,000t

Harjumaa Miiduranna, Meeruse, Leppneeme ~190 Up to 30,000t

Läänemaa Dirhami ~130 10,000t

Other ~700

Subtotal EE ~2,000

Latvia – Gulf of Riga

Engure 174 460

Salacgrīva 85 222

Jūrmala 67 190

Other 240 656

Latvia – Baltic Sea

Ventspils 165 875

Nīca 26 425

Pāvilosta 41 594

Other 90 596

Subtotal LV 888 2,490

Lithuania ‐ Klaipėda and 29 state certified places along the coast

Subtotal LT 127 2010 data

Total no fishers and gillnets ~ 3,000 ~ 3,500

Source: EE: Vetemaa et al., 2009; Kangur & Hämmal, 2005; LT: case study research; LV: Fisheries Department.

The vessels used in the coastal gillnet fishery are small, from 3–6m rowing boats with optional low‐power outboard engine, to slightly larger vessels, up to 12m in length with onboard diesel engines. These are used by fishers with larger quantities of gillnets or who use trapnets and herring poundnets.

Figure 29: Main ports in Estonia for the coastal gillnet fishery, based on landings Source: Dagys et al., 2009a


75

Most vessels do not have a paid crew; for example in Latvia, the fishing is done by the fishers themselves with the help of family members or other fishers from the same area. When fishing close to the shore, there are typically 1–2 people on board, or 3 people on larger vessels in the specialised cod fishery.

Fishing area

In all three countries, the coastal fishery is very local and fishing grounds are located close to the shore (see Figure 36). For example, in Latvia, the fishing grounds are rarely more than few kilometres away, taking 10–15 minutes to reach, and in depths of less than 10m. The exception is when the boat is located in a larger port like Rīga, Ventspils, Liepāja or Pāvilosta, where it takes time to leave the port, or in the case of the specialised cod fishery, in which fishing usually takes place in deeper waters (15m) further from the shore.


In all three countries, the coastal gillnet fishery is seasonal, dependent on fish migrations and weather conditions, and people tend to fish in the coastal gillnet fisheries only part‐time, relying on it for between 10% and 30% of their income on average, although there are some full‐time fishers that are completely dependent on fishing. Many of the coastal fishers are senior citizens that have had fishing as a main occupation in their family line for many generations, and they continue to fish less for profit but more as a hobby and to keep the old traditions alive.

In Estonia, the main target species are marine species such as flounder, whitefish, garfish, trout, salmon and Baltic herring, and freshwater species such as perch and pike. There are no specific areas where fishers target individual species, but rather fishers catch various species. However, the Gulf of Finland is an important area for catching salmon and trout, with stronger nets used, with a larger mesh size, compared to the western coast, where traps and fyke nets are more common.

Fishing seasons in Estonia vary according to individual fishers, but spring and autumn tend to be the most important periods, particularly in the north. In the shallower western waters, the peak of the fishing season tends to shift towards the summer. Fishing in winter depends on the gear and method used, as well as location. On the northern coast, where ice‐free winters occur, fishing in winter is more frequent than on the western coast, where ice‐cover usually restricts fishing (except for those fishers that catch fish under the ice, although in these cases, no bird bycatch occurs). Several interviewees mentioned that nets are set into deeper places in summer and shallower in winter.

In Latvia, the herring (Clupea harengus membras) fishery takes place during spring and autumn, and the smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) fishery in winter, although this is strongly affected by sea‐ice conditions. Medium‐mesh gillnets are used mainly during spring and autumn to target flounder (Platychthys flesus), cod (Gadus morhua callarias), sea trout (Salmo trutta) and salmon (Salmo salar). During the summer, the most important fish species are perch (Perca fluviatilis) and vimba (Vimba vimba). The turbot fishery occurs only on the Baltic Sea coast during May and early June, when turbot aggregate in shallow coastal waters prior to spawning. However, turbot stocks were depleted during the 1990s and the fishery was closed from 2005 until 2010.

In Lithuania, smelt and herring are usually caught during the winter and early spring, when smelt migrates to the Curonian lagoon for spawning. The cod fishery operates mainly during spring and autumn when the cod comes to feed in the coastal area and can be caught in the upper layer of the water column. The turbot fishery usually takes place during April and May.

Markets

The catches from the coastal gillnet fishery in the region are generally sold locally. In Estonia the catch is sold either at local markets or not sold at all, being caught for personal consumption. In Latvia, fish are landed in the same location from where the fishers go in the sea, which is often from the coast rather than a formal port. Catches may be processed by fishers themselves or gathered by the processing industry.


Average gillnet configurations for the fish gillnets and herring/smelt gillnets from the fishers interviewed in the questionnaire survey are shown in Figure 30 and Figure 31.

In all three countries, gillnets are usually bottom‐set. Fishing often takes place in shallow waters, so gillnets can sometimes fill the entire water column, causing a greater threat to birds, than when they are set in deeper waters.


76

In Väinameri (western Estonia), the nets used are generally lower than those used on the north coast, but due to the shallow water they can fill almost the whole water column. Several interviewees mentioned that nets are set in deeper water in summer and shallower water in winter. This means that in winter, diving birds may be more affected than in summer, as the entire water column may be filled with the gillnet. In the Gulf of Finland on the north coast, higher nets are used. The nets are also stronger, with larger meshes, and as a result are believed to cause more bycatch, which may explain why north Estonian fishers’ bird bycatch is comparably higher than on the west coast, as such nets are used more frequently.

Most of the fishers in Estonia mentioned that fishing is not profitable, and for one of them, fishing costs exceeded profit. Costs accounted for 60–90 % of total fishing income for most of the interviewees. This is reflected in the constantly declining number of coastal fishers in Estonia.

Latvian legislation determines that the maximum length of a gillnet is 300 m in the Gulf of Riga and 800m in the Baltic Sea. Mostly only bottom nets are used, however also floating nets can be used especially when targeting herring or salmon. There are strict rules on how the nets need to be marked and fixed in place. All nets are anchored on both ends to the bottom and a spar buoy with a flag attached to each end.

In Lithuania, traditional nets are usually used, as well as those produced from nylon. The colour of the nets varies, depending on the producer and material used for production. Most of the fishers use a leadline to set the net under the water, with headline ropes on the top of the net to raise it.

Table 41 shows the average fishing pattern in each country. In Estonia, the soak time depends on day length — usually the nets are left in overnight, so in summer, soak time is around 6 hours, while in winter they can be left in for several days.

Figure 30: Average gillnet dimensions in the eastern Baltic coastal gillnet fishery for fish Source: Questionnaire survey.


77

Figure 31: Average gillnet dimensions in the eastern Baltic coastal herring and smelt fishery Source: Questionnaire survey.

Table 41: Average fishing pattern for the eastern Baltic coastal gillnet fishers surveyed Estonia Latvia Lithuania

Average steaming time (hrs) 1 hr 0.5 (min=0.2, max=1) 1 (min=0.17, max=4)

Average number of gear units 12.6 large fish: 9.25 herring/smelt: 7.8

large fish: 50.6 herring/smelt:37.5

Average duration of deployment (hrs) 0.17‐0.25 (avg), min=0.08, max=0.33

0.5 avg (min=0.2, max=1) 1‐2 (avg), min=0.33, max=4

Average duration of hauling (hrs) 0.33‐0.5 (avg), min=0.17, max=1

1 avg, (min=0.2, max=4) 4‐5 (avg), min=1, max=12

Average soak time (hrs) 9‐38 (avg), min=5, max=120. Generally a few hours in summer up to a few days in winter

large fish:12‐24 avg (min=7, max=48)

herring/smelt: 10‐14 avg (min=6, max=24)

large fish: 18 avg (min= 10,max=24)

herring/smelt: 15.5 avg (min=12, max=24)

Time when setting Noon or sunset most common

Day or sunset most common

Day, sunrise, sunset, all 24 hours

Time when hauling Sunrise or day most common

Sunrise or day most common

Day, sunrise, sunset, all 24 hours

Source: Questionnaire survey. Notes: Estonia n=16; Latvia n=16; Lithuania n=21.

5.4.2 Interactions between the fishery and seabird populations In 2009, a review was undertaken to assess the magnitude of the problem of bird bycatch in Baltic and North Sea fisheries. Although there was no comprehensive dataset for these regions, there have been a number of studies undertaken using different designs and methodologies in specific study areas. Žydelis et al. (2009) reviewed 30 studies reporting bird mortality in the Baltic and North Sea gillnet fisheries, selected for their robustness and containing bycatch rates, bycatch estimates or both. Using these studies, they came up with a conservative estimate that at least 90,000 birds are entangled in fishing nets each year (Žydelis et al., 2009).

Four of the studies reviewed are from the eastern Baltic (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). These four studies show birds most often caught are Long‐tailed duck (throughout study area); Divers (Latvian and Lithuanian waters) and Velvet scoter (Lithuanian waters) (Table 42). The Zydelis et al. review demonstrated that bycatch numbers were associated with bird abundance in the region — least frequent among bycatch were rare species such as Steller’s eider. Combining available bycatch estimates from different studies in the eastern Baltic, Žydelis et al. (2009) estimated that 13,000 birds are caught annually in gillnets in this region.


78

Certain species are more vulnerable to being caught than others. Dagys and Žydelis (2002) prepared a ‘relative vulnerability index’ for birds to being caught in gillnets. The index was highest for Divers (1.33), followed by Long‐tailed duck (0.11) then Steller’s eider (0.07). In general, piscivorous birds, which pursue their prey underwater are more susceptible than benthivorous ducks that dive straight to the bottom rather than pursue prey in a horizontal plane (Žydelis et al., 2009). Surface‐feeding birds such as gulls and fulmars rarely become entangled in gillnets (Žydelis et al., 2009) (also see Section 4.1, Table 8 for feeding behaviours of individual species).

Another recent study undertaken as part of the Life Nature project ‘Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ also provided information on the magnitude of bird bycatch in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Dagys et al. (2009a) collected seabird bycatch data from cooperating fishers and from experimental fishing trials over the course of a number of years and seasons. As in the Žydelis study, the majority of birds caught in the Eastern Baltic were Long‐tailed ducks (54%) (Figure 32). Other species or groups of species that were frequently caught include Alcids (primarily in Latvian waters); Velvet scoter (Latvian and Lithuanian waters only); and Divers (throughout the study area). The rare Steller’s eider made up 1% of total species caught, and was caught in Estonia and Lithuania only.

Figure 32: Percent seabird bycatch by species for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuanian gillnet fisheries during Life Nature study Source: Dagys et al., 2009a.

Both the Žydelis et al. (2009) and the Dagys et al. (2009a) studies showed that there is variability in the rates of seabirds caught, both within and between countries (Table 42).

Gillnet mesh size played a part in determining levels of bycatch — with use of larger mesh sizes (>60mm) targeting species like salmon more frequently resulting in bycatch (Dagys et al., 2009a). Also, monofilament nylon gillnets resulted in greater bycatch than nets constructed of traditional materials (Žydelis et al., 2009). Fishing intensity and depth of setting also influence bycatch rates — with more birds caught in seasons when fishing effort is highest and in shallower waters (<20m) (Dagys et al., 2009a). The latter point is also highlighted in the Žydelis article, where this increase in catch in shallower waters also corresponds with the depths that wintering seabirds prefer (Žydelis et al., 2009).

Climate fluctuations can play an important role in determining where and when seabirds and fishers overlap. For example, the Gulf of Finland is generally ice‐free, but in some years, becomes completely ice‐covered and no fishing occurs. In other years, seabirds in the Gulf of Finland are vulnerable to bycatch as the fishery targeting salmonids


79

(and therefore using larger mesh sizes) takes place in the colder months (Dagys et al., 2009a). Water clarity is also a factor, as turbid conditions also increase bycatch rate (Žydelis et al., 2009).

Bird species abundance and composition are also factors. In Latvia, highest bird catches occurred in April and May when bird numbers increased during migration (Dagys et al., 2009a).

Table 43 summarises the key bird species likely to interact with gillnet fisheries in the Eastern Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and potential mitigation measures based on their foraging, wintering and migratory behaviours in the region.


80

Table 42: Review of estimated bycatch in eastern Baltic Country Study Year (s) Gear Average birds/ unit effort Estimated annual

bycatch Main species

Estonia Zydelis et al citing Vetemaa unpub data

2005‐2008 Gillnets 0.59 birds/1000 NMD ~5000 Long tailed duck (78%)

Estonia Dagys et al 2005‐2009 Gillnets & Fykenets n/a 2154 Long tailed duck (60%), Tufted duck (10%), Cormorant (5.5%)

Latvia Zydelis et al citing Urtans and Priednieks

1995‐1999 Gillnets n/a 2500‐6500 Long tailed duck (38%), Divers (16%)

Latvia Zydelis et al citing Stipniece & Utrans, Stipniece & Vaiders unpub data

2000/01‐2002/03 and 2006/07‐2007/08

Gillnets 0.37‐0.66 birds/1000 NMD n/a Long tailed duck (65%), Divers (18%)

Latvia Dagys et al 2002‐2006 Gillnets, <30mm to >60mm

0.00 – 0.39 birds/ 1000 NMD, range across all mesh sizes

n/a Long‐tailed duck (45%), Alcids (15%), Velvet scoter (11%), Divers (11%)

Lithuania Zydelis et al citing Dagys and Zydelis plus unpublished data

1997/98 ‐ 2001/03 Gillnets 0.97 birds/1000 NMD ~10% of all birds present (2500‐5000)

Long‐tailed ducks (56%), Velvet scoter (16%), Divers (7%), Steller’s eider (6%)

Lithuania Dagys et al 2002‐2008 Gillnets, 16‐>60mm mesh sizes

1.36 birds/1000 NMD average across all net sizes (range is 0.42 – 5.10 birds/1000 NMD)

~3000‐5000 Long tailed duck (57%), Velvet scoter (13%), Divers (10%), Alcids (8%)

Sources: Žydelis et al., 2009; Dagys et al., 2009a.


81

Table 43: Summary of key bird species found in Eastern Baltic countries, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc.)

Case Study Eastern Baltic gilln

et countries Es

tonia

Latvia

Lithuania Bird species

Conservation

concern

Foraging behaviour and times Spatial hotspot ‐ wintering Temporal hotspots

Acoustic Ping

Alternative Gear

Buoys with visual

increase netting depth

Set nets Deep

Multifilament

Red corks

Season Restriction

Spatial R

estriction

Black guillemot Possibly Pursuit diving (mid depth) Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait Wintering: Oct‐Mar

Long‐tailed duck No Pursuit diving (mid‐depth), diurnal, gregarious

Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait Wintering: Nov‐Dec; Migration: Aug‐Spe/Feb‐Mar

Black‐throated diver Yes Pursuit diving (mid depth) Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait; Lithuanian coast

Wintering: Oct‐Feb

Red‐throated diver Yes Pursuit diving (shallow) Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait; Lithuanian coast

Wintering: Oct‐Feb

Steller's eider Yes Pursuit diving (shallow), diurnal and nocturnal, gregarious, inshore

Saaremaa and Hiiumaa west coasts; Palanga adjacent waters

Wintering

Velvet scoter Yes Surface diving (mid depth), diurnal Gulf of Riga‐Irbe Strait Wintering: Sept‐Mar; Migration: Mar‐May/Sept

sites exist in country where >10% of wintering population occur Potentially effective measures (need further testing

most important bird area for this species *most important bird arealisted first

Measures highly likely/proven to be effective

Could be combined with other measures

Sources: Durinck et al., 1994 (seabird hotspots); Mendel et al., 2008a (foraging behaviours)


82

5.4.3 Current mitigation measures In most of the region, no mitigation measures are currently mandatory, although the fishing effort is limited by licences that controlling the number of gillnets, issued by the governments. In some regions, there are areas with fishing restrictions, which have the effect of limiting bird bycatch.

In Estonia, there are numerous important fish spawning areas, where fishing is restricted either for a certain period or all year round. Restriction areas are often in river estuaries, which are sometimes part of natural parks or important nature protection areas.

At least two of Estonia’s national parks (Matsalu and Vilsandi) have fishing regulations in certain areas or times. Both were established, at least in part, for protection of bird populations. The parks have zones with different levels of protection. Matsalu, for example, has a protection area ‘Salmi sopi’, where occupational fishing is only allowed with gillnets and trapnets from 16 November to 1 March (Government of Estonia, 2006). More information can be found in Annex 5. Some fishers interviewed from the Matsalu Bay area reported that their bycatch has reduced since fishery restrictions were introduced in this area.

In Lithuania, a State Reserve was created in the Baltic Sea area in 20057 with a purpose to safeguard Red‐throated divers, Steller’s eider, Goldeneye and Goosander in their wintering and migratory aggregations. In the coastal zone of this area, fishers are prohibited from using gillnets with a mesh size greater than 55 mm from 16 November – 15 April. There are no other special measures foreseen in Lithuanian coastal area at the moment. However, some aspects of the gears used by fishers may reduce bycatch, such as different coloured nets and floats with flags.

There is no funding available in Lithuania or Estonia for bycatch mitigation measures. In Latvia, fishers are aware that there is funding available for increasing selectivity of fishing gears that could involve also decreasing bird bycatch, through the National Action Programme for implementation of support from the European Fisheries Fund for 2007–2013. However, almost all funding from this source goes to offshore fisheries; coastal fishers do not have sufficient information on how to apply for such support and what the requirements are for getting it. Fishers would, however, like to use this support to try to solve the problem of bycatch of grey seals in gillnets, which cause more damage to their gear than seabirds.


5.4.4.1 Fishers interviewed Fifty‐three fishers were interviewed in the eastern Baltic, in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Table 44). The majority tended to use a variety of gillnets, including small‐mesh gillnets to target herring and smelt, and larger‐mesh gillnets to target cod, other demersals, and turbot.

As a result of the ban on driftnets in the Baltic Sea, some fishers, particularly fisher associations, viewed this study on seabird bycatch with some suspicion and did not respond to communications. However, it was possible to contact individual fishers and carry out the questionnaires on an individual basis.

Table 44: Number of fishers interviewed by country and dates of interviews Number of fishers interviewed Dates of interviews

Estonia 16 11 Dec 2010 – 5 Jan 2011

Latvia 16 21–29 Dec 2010

Lithuania 21 21–30 Dec 2010

Total 53

5.4.4.2 Seabird‐fishery interactions Fishers interviewed in Estonia saw seabirds as more disruptive to fishing activities than those in Latvia and Lithuania, corresponding with the level of bycatch observed in each of these fisheries (Figure 33, Table 45). In Latvia and Lithuania the amount of bycatch is smaller than in Estonia and does not exceed 2–3 birds per fisher in a year. This is probably the main reason why most fishers who filled the questionnaires in these countries stated that birds are not

7 Decision of the Government of Lithuanian Republic No. 561 (2005), “Concerning the establishment of State Talasological reserve in the Baltic Sea, its provisions and range plan validation”


83

disrupting their fishing activities. It was also noted that birds are not always dead when nets are hauled in and all participants stated that if alive, these birds were released from the nets.

Of the fishers who did think that seabirds caused disruption, most responded that the birds interfered with fishing or damaged gear (Figure 34). In Lithuania, more fishers responded that seabirds damaged or stole fish than damaged gear. This may be due to disruption caused by cormorants, as fishers noted that there is growing colony of cormorants in the Curonian split. In Estonia as well, most fishers cited cormorants, as well as gulls, as causing most disruption to fishing activities by damaging gear and stealing fish from the nets.

Figure 33: Percentage of fishers that felt seabirds disrupted their fishing activity, in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the eastern Baltic region Source: Questionnaire survey.

Figure 34: Seabird disturbances by type from the sub‐sample of fishers who responded that seabirds disrupted their fishing activity Source: Questionnaire survey. Notes: Estonia n=10; Latvia n=6; Lithuania n=6.

Because of low bird bycatch rates fishers do not see bird bycatch as a problem in Latvia. Generally it does not create any significant inconveniences during fishing and fishers themselves do not feel it creates any substantial loss for bird populations (as one fisher expressed – “eagle eats more ducks than I catch in my nets”). Another quite popular view is why the fishers are made out as the ‘bad guys’ because of unintentionally killing a few seabirds during a year, when legal and widespread hunting of ducks takes place at the same time.

Almost half of respondents were aware of a problem with seabird bycatch (Figure 35(a)). Many fishers did not consider it to be a problem, saying that few birds are caught in gillnets, or that the numbers of birds that are caught has declined over the last decade. All of the respondents from Latvia were aware of a problem with seabird bycatch, and all felt that information was sufficient. Most respondents (52%) did not think that anything needed to be done ((c)), since few birds are caught and fishers already try to avoid areas where there are high concentrations of birds. Some respondents felt it was a problem, but was only seasonal. Others were not bothered by any birds caught in their nets and therefore did not see it as a problem. However, others felt that removing the birds was time‐consuming and damaged their nets.

According to unofficial reports, in the Latvian cod gillnet fishery where more nets are deployed than normal in the coastal fishery, on rare occasions significant bird bycatch can occur. It can significantly increase hauling time and create damage to gears, because each bird needs to be cut out of the nets. Therefore fishers involved in the specialised cod fishery claim to avoid areas of high bird abundance if it is possible. However, there are only 10–15 such cod gillnet vessels in the coastal fishery and their numbers are declining each year.

The annual seabird bycatch rate reported by fishers in the Estonian gillnet fishery was much higher than for the Latvian and Lithuanian gillnet fisheries (Table 45). This bycatch rate similar to the one found by the Vetemaa study cited by Žydelis et al. (2009) (see Table 42 in section 5.4.2). The bycatch rate from the Latvian and Lithuanian fisheries in our study was much lower than in previous studies. As our analysis is based on a limited number of questionnaire responses rather than direct observation, these results must be treated with some caution.

n=15

n=16

n=21

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Estonia


84

Figure 35: Fishers’ responses regarding (a) whether they are aware of a problem with seabirds; and (b) whether they think the available information is sufficient; and (c) whether they think anything needs to be done (n=53) Source: Questionnaire survey.

As most of the fishers interviewed did not know the different species of bird, we grouped the species by category, consisting of Sea ducks, Diving ducks, Divers, Grebes and Auks (see Note to Table 45 for list of species in each category). Sea ducks were the category caught most often in the Estonian and Lithuanian gillnet fisheries. This corresponds with previous studies, where Sea duck species such as Long‐tailed duck and Velvet Scoter were amongst the species most frequently caught (see Table 42 in Section 5.4.4.2). The Latvian fishers we questioned, on the other hand, said that category of bird most often caught were Diving ducks. This does not correspond with earlier studies, where Sea ducks, Divers and Auks were the most frequently caught.

Table 45: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from questionnaire responses Country Gear Average Net

metre days (1000s) [Number of respondents]



Main species (%)

Estonia Gillnets (all sizes)

50.4 [15] 488 0.64 birds/1000 NMD

Sea ducks (56%), Diving Ducks (37%), Cormorants (4%), Divers (1%), Other

8 (1%), Grebes (0.4%), Auks (0.2%)

Latvia Gillnets (all sizes)

35.2 [16] 84 0.15 birds/1000 NMD

Diving ducks (65%), Sea Ducks (21%), Cormorants (10%), Divers (4%)

Lithuania Gillnets (all sizes)

141.6 [21] 127 0.04 birds/1000 NMD

Sea ducks (60%), Diving ducks (31%), Grebes (6%), Cormorants (3%)

Source: Questionnaire survey. Notes: Sea ducks include: Common Eider, Common Scoter, Velvet Scoter, Long‐tailed duck, Goosander, Red‐breasted merganser Diving ducks include: Common Pochard, Greater Scaup, Tufted Duck, Goldeneye, Smew Divers include: Red‐throated Diver, Black‐throated Diver Grebes include: Great‐crested grebe, Slavonian grebe, Red‐necked grebe Auks include: Common Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Razorbill.

Interview responses indicated that bird bycatch was more of a problem in northern Estonia than in western Estonia. Although western Estonia is known for its large breeding and migrating bird colonies, it is possible that existing fishery restrictions in the most important bird areas decrease bird interactions so that bycatch rarely occurs. Another explanation may be that gillnets are not used as often in western Estonia, where most fishers interviewed used fykenets and traps more often. The gear used also differs from the northern coast, where large mesh nets are used to catch salmonids in colder periods and may cause bigger bycatch. The nets are usually set quite high in winter, up to 6 m from bottom to the upper layer, which may also be a factor that increases bycatch.

8 Includes 4 swans, 1 Canada goose, 1 unknown


85

Sea‐ice formation takes place earlier on the western coast than on the northern coast, so interactions between seabirds and fisheries are less likely to occur in the western areas during icy winters. Estonian fishers interviewed reported that the most birds were caught in October–December and April–June and fewest in January–March (Figure 37). The most important seasons for fishers on the northern coast of Estonia are spring and autumn, and the western Estonia fishers also fish in warm periods of summer. As spring and autumn are also migrating periods for birds, these seasons usually result in larger numbers of birds in Estonian coastal waters as well as more interactions with fisheries.

Areas in the case study countries where bycatch was reported are shown in Figure 36. In Latvia and Lithuania, most birds were caught October–June, with very little catch in July–September (Figure 37). The questionnaire results showed that the peak season of bycatch in Latvia is from April to June. An increase of seabirds in Latvian waters due to migration occurs in spring (April‐May) (Dagys et al., 2009a), so a corresponding increase in bycatch during this period is consistent with this.

a) Estonia b) Latvia

c) Lithuania Legend

Figure 37: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in the a) Estonian; b) Latvian; and c) Lithuanian gillnet fisheries Source: Questionnaire survey.

5.4.4.3 Mitigation measures Very few mitigation measures are currently being used by the gillnet fishers in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Figure 38(a)). A number reported that spatial and temporal restrictions were already in place. 37% reported using alternative gears, the majority from Lithuania — a number of them use longlines or trap nets in addition to gillnets.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Figure 36: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the eastern Baltic case study countries Source: Questionnaire survey.


86

The expected effectiveness of mitigation measures, and fishers’ opinions on their perceived acceptability, were generally low across the Eastern Baltic countries, with very few measures scoring above 3 out of 5 for either effectiveness or acceptability (Figure 38(b)).

The respondents felt that spatial and temporal restrictions, and the use of alternative gear, would be the most effective measures, but not the most acceptable. If periods or areas of high seabird concentrations are avoided by fishers, either voluntarily or through regulations, then this would obviously be effective at reducing seabird bycatch. However, these measures scored low on acceptability because they may deprive fishers of earning a living in many cases.

The mitigation measure that was considered to be least effective, was the use of red corks spaced throughout the netting. It also scored low on acceptability. Only setting nets in water that is over 20 m deep scored similarly low, because in the eastern Baltic countries, the coastal fisheries are defined spatially, out to the 20 m isobath. Therefore, only allowing gillnets to be set beyond 20 m depth, would effectively close the coastal fishery. In western Estonia, for example, the water depth in coastal areas does not exceed 2–3 m.

In Estonia, opinions on mitigation measures were variable, and in general fairly negative. However, they may be willing to use specific, and in some cases more expensive gear and other mitigation measures, if all the related costs are compensated. Seasonal and spatial restrictions, which would decrease bird‐fishery interactions, are probably the most effective, but difficult to introduce, as the catch, which fishers lose by these measures, should be compensated. Depth alteration would probably work, as well, but again, this would be difficult to introduce, as it is expensive and impossible to adopt in shallow sea areas.

In Latvia, fishers found it hard to evaluate effects of possible mitigation measures due to the fact that most mitigation measures were unknown to them. The most positive response was in relation to multifilament gillnets with coloured upper section, and nets equipped with buoys with visual bird‐scaring deterrents. However, some were sceptical about the performance and effectiveness of such gears in Latvian waters because of low underwater visibility and light penetration especially in the Gulf of Riga.

They also expressed their fears that such modified gillnets (multifilament twine) are most probably much more

expensive than standard ones and they would need to buy large quantities of them at once if such measures become mandatory. Spatial and temporal fishing restrictions also were unacceptable in Latvia; most of the fishery is very local, and in the case of spatial restrictions, fishers would not be able to travel far to bird‐free areas in order to fish. Furthermore, fishing rights exist only within the borders of each and respective coastal municipalities according to Latvian fishery legislation.

Figure 38: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery Source: Questionnaire survey.

(a)

(b)


87

In Latvia, alternative gears are trapnets and herring poundnets, but these are large stationary gears that take considerably more time and manpower to deploy and require larger vessels than gillnets. The gear is also very specialised and expensive to replace if damaged or lost. A recent study undertaken in the fisheries‐dependent community in Kolka found that there is a decreasing trend in the use of trapnets in the fishery due to the expense of using this gear in the current economic climate (Kruze et al., 2010). They also found evidence that fishers in this community are switching from trapnets to the less expensive gillnets (Kruze et al., 2010).

Theoretically, the small‐scale fishery in Latvia could, to some extent, adopt alternative fishing gears such as longlines for short periods during the year. However, it would be difficult or nearly impossible for the small segment of professional fishers (especially in the cod fishery), as they would need huge investments to change fishing gears, equipment on their vessels or even the vessels themselves, just for a couple of months each year. This does not seem economically viable, especially because the amounts of bird bycatch in Latvian waters even when deploying many gillnets at once are rather small. In Estonia, alternative gears may be possible (e.g. pots and traps); this would require trials at a local scale to demonstrate the effectiveness of the alternative gear, both at reducing seabird bycatch, and at maintaining fish catches. Overall the coastal fisheries sector in Latvia does not recognise seabird bycatch being a major problem either for fishers or for the bird populations. Questionnaire data suggest that the amount of seabird bycatch is rather small in Latvian coastal waters. Therefore fishers do not see the need for implementation of any bycatch mitigation measures and there are no incentives for adopting any.

Lithuanian fishers were rather sceptical about any seabird bycatch mitigation measures. This could be the result of increased fishery controls and fear of more measures, which would negatively affect the fishery. Most of the fishers noted the decrease of income due to reduction of catch opportunities (e.g. in the case of restriction of fishing opportunities during certain periods and in certain areas). Increase of costs is also expected because of the new devices needed or increase of fishing depths and fuel costs while sailing to the fishing ground.

Table 46: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery

Mitigation measures


Multifilament coloured twine in top 20 meshes

EE Score 1–3; may increase visibility to birds, but not effective in turbid water

Expected to reduce catch (score 2)

Did not believe this would stop birds from getting caught in the nets

LV Low (1–2) due to low visibility of water

Variable Concern about cost

LT Not considered effective (score 1), because the birds would get used to the colour.

Not acceptable (score 1)


EE Score 1–3; most respondents thought birds would get used to them, or may even be attracted by them

Only measure that would not affect catch rates (score 2–4)

Any positive effect would be short‐term

LV Not known Variable (1–5)

LT Some had no experience, others thought the birds would get used to it (score 1–2)

Generally low acceptability (1) although some respondents scored it highly (5)

Red corks throughout netting

EE Score 1–2, did not think it would be effective

Score 1–2 Most were unsure or unable to respond

LV Low (1) Low (1) Concern that it will reduce fish catch and may cause deployment problems.

LT Most thought it would not be effective (score 1–2)

Generally low acceptability (1)

Most felt it would not be effective at night

Acoustic 'pingers' EE Most did not believe in long‐term effectiveness (score 2–3).

Score 1–3, may affect fish catch, or no opinion.

High purchase and maintenance costs were mentioned

LV Not known Low (1) Not feasible due to cost, several pingers needed per net.

LT Medium effectiveness (2–3) Medium acceptability (2–3) Most had no experience of this

Increase depth at which net is set

EE Score ~4, considered effective as birds do not dive that deep.

Very variable, from 1–5, although would probably result in decreased catches and increased fuel costs.

Fishing in deeper waters impossible for some fishers, particularly on the west coast.


88

Mitigation measures


LV No responses No responses (not acceptable)

Most felt there were no fish further out, and seabirds were generally further out than the areas they fish.

LT Low (1) as some felt that seabirds also dive deep, but some thought it could be more effective,

Low (1–2)


EE Considered effective (4.25) as there are fewer birds in deeper areas

Low acceptability due to impossibility for some fishers.

Fishing in deeper waters impossible for some fishers, particularly on the west coast.

LV No responses Not acceptable (1) Coastal fishery is defined as depth <20m

LT Low (1) Not acceptable because coastal fishery defined as out to 20m and most fish caught in shallower waters

Only cod is caught at depths >20m


EE Seasonal and spatial restrictions were considered most effective (score 4–5)

Varying acceptability, between 2 and 5 (average 3.6)

Some experience of this, both voluntarily and mandatory

LV No responses Low (1) Fishery very local, unable to travel large distances to avoid spatial restrictions.

LT Medium (1–3) Low (1–2) Fishers try to avoid areas of high bird concentration

Restricting fishing season to avoid periods of high seabird abundance

EE Considered most effective (score 4–5)

Varying acceptability, between 2 and 5 (average 3.9)

Some experience of this, both voluntary and mandatory, although any enforced closures should be compensated

LV No responses Low (1) Most felt this would spell the end of their fishery — too many restrictions already, high fishery season coincides with peak seabird abundance

LT Medium (1–3) Low (1–2) Some thought it could work, but others thought birds were always coming and going.

Use of alternative gears

EE Fairly effective (3–4), depending on gear

Not considered viable by most respondents, partly because they did not have any experience of possible alternatives.

Gear type depends on target species and region, may be difficult to change.

LV No responses Low (1) Effort is limited by numbers of gears per municipality, difficult to switch between gears

LT Considered most effective measure

Most acceptable measure Some fishers currently using pots and traps and have no bycatch

Case studies: Western Baltic Sea gillnet fishery — Germany, Denmark and Sweden

89

5.5 Western Baltic Sea gillnet fishery – Germany, Denmark & Sweden

Summary

Main fishery characteristics: small‐scale gillnet fishery, operates in the coastal area, targeting cod, flounder, plaice and herring. In Sweden, the cod fishery operates in deeper waters than in Denmark (up to 40–50m) and the fleet is switching to longlines.

The key bird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas in the region, are Tufted duck, Common scoter, Common pochard, Greater scaup, Red‐breasted merganser, Slavonian grebe and Velvet scoter (of conservation concern), Common eider and Black guillemot (possibly of conservation concern), and Long‐tailed duck and Common guillemot (commonly caught). The greatest proportion of wintering populations in the Baltic for these species occur in the Szczecin and Vorpommen lagoons and Pomeranian Bay (Germany/Poland), north‐west Kattegat (Denmark/Sweden), and Hoburgs Bank (Sweden).

As in the eastern Baltic, mitigation measures that would be expected to address seabird bycatch based on the birds’ behaviour include measures to make the nets more visible (multifilament coloured twine in the top meshes, and red corks throughout the netting). Also for shallow‐diving species (Tufted duck, Common scoter, Slavonian grebe), using alternative gear or increasing the setting depth may work. Acoustic pingers may work but require further testing. Spatial and temporal measures may work in conjunction with other methods (i.e. gear restrictions rather than fishery closures) but would need to be tested and carefully implemented.

The German industry declined to take part in the study. Considering the fact that several key areas for bird species of conservation concern are within German waters, further effort is required to engage with German fishers in assessing the problem and developing and implementing potential mitigation measures.


Compared to previous studies, Danish bycatch rates were similar, and Swedish bycatch rates were lower.

Most fishers were aware of a problem with seabirds, but did not think that anything needs to be done. The decline in the gillnet fishery in Denmark and Sweden over the last decade has reduced overall seabird bycatch, and made it easier for fishers to voluntarily avoid areas of high seabird abundance, since there is less competition for space amongst the fishers. The Swedish cod gillnet fishery operates in deeper waters and appears to cause less of a bird bycatch problem.

Fishers’ views on mitigation measures: closed seasons are generally unacceptable, since the main period of seabird abundance coincides with the most important fishery period. However, spatial restrictions were met more favourably, since Danish fishers already voluntarily avoid large concentrations of sea ducks. However, mandatory or permanent closures would not be welcomed; the flexibility of the voluntary approach is preferred. Increasing the setting depth would be unpopular in Denmark as fishers would have to travel further. However, in Sweden, fishers already set cod gillnets in deeper water. Visual cues and deterrents were generally not expected to be effective, due to the turbidity of Baltic waters, but little research has been carried out on these in the Baltic. Acoustic pingers were not acceptable, as they were expected to make setting and hauling nets more difficult, and would be expensive.

Some fishers already use alternative gears (predominantly longlines, especially in Sweden), however these have their own implications for seabird bycatch.

5.5.1 Fisheries background There are two main types of gillnet fishery in the western Baltic: (i) the bottom gillnet fisheries for cod, flounder, plaice, turbot and pikeperch; and (ii) the pelagic herring directed fishery (Table 47). The bottom gillnet fisheries have different mesh sizes depending on the target species.


90

Table 47: Main countries and fleet segments in the western Baltic gillnet fishery Country Fleet segment Target species Main fishing area Number of

vessels Vessel size

Germany Gillnetters Herring Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern (37G3)

673 <2GT, 4–6m

Cod, flounder, plaice, dab, bream,

Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern (37G3), Baltic Sea coast (37G1, 38G4, 38G0, 38G3)

Turbot

Pikeperch, pike, perch, roach

Denmark Gillnetters Cod, plaice, hake, sole, flounder 6–10m

Sweden Gillnetters Cod, flounder ~ 450 8–12m Herring

Source: DE: Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 2010; SE: Fiskeriverket / Swedish Board of Fisheries.

In Germany, the bottom gillnet fishery further breaks down into a fishery for cod (Gadus morhua), flounder (Platichthys flesus), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), dab (Limanda limanda) and bream (Abramis brama) (mesh size >110 mm); a fishery for turbot (Psetta maxima) (mesh size >120 mm); and a fishery for pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca), pike (Esox lucius), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) (mesh size 20–120 mm) (Bellebaum,

2009).

The Danish and Swedish studies focussed on small case study areas for the purposes of implementing the questionnaires. The Danish case study focussed on the Fyn small‐scale bottom‐set gillnet fishery, based from the islands of Fyn, Langeland and Ærø in south‐east Denmark. The Swedish case study focussed on the South Öland small‐scale gillnet fishery in southern Sweden, which takes place off the coast from the Karlskrona Archipelago northwards to the island of Öland.


The gillnetters in the western Baltic are predominantly small vessels. In Germany, the majority (92 %) of the fleet are less than 10m, with the highest proportion between 4‐6 m in length. Most of the vessels (75%) have a gross tonnage of 2 GT or under.

In Germany, there are 673 vessels operating gillnets that are registered at 100 ports on the German Baltic coastline. These represent 95 % of

the German gillnet fleet, with the remaining 5 % at small ports bordering the North Sea. Most Baltic ports have a small number of vessels (one or two), with the main ports for the gillnetting fleet being Ueckermuende (23 vessels), Thiessow (20 vessels), Burgstaaken (19 vessels), Flensburg (19 vessels), Freest (19 vessels), Maasholm (18 vessels), Gager (16 vessels), Heilignenhafen (16 vessels) and Sassnitz (16 vessels).

Overall, Sweden has about 450 gillnetters, representing about a third of Sweden’s 1,359 fishing vessels. 96 % of these are under 12m in length, most being 8–12m.

The Fyn small‐scale bottom‐set gillnet fishery in Denmark is made up of mainly small (6–10 m), single‐handed gillnetters (Figure 40) operating from small ports such as Marstal, Faaborg and Bagenkop. In the Swedish South Öland gillnet fishery, due to more extreme operating conditions (fishing further offshore and in deeper water), the vessels usually carry two crew.

Figure 39: Location of gillnet case studies in the western Baltic Sea


91

In both Sweden and Denmark, the average age of fishers is increasing; there are very few younger people joining the fishery, and it is widely considered that it will die out over the next decade.

Figure 40: Typical small bottom gillnetter based in Marstal, Denmark

Figure 41: Photograph of a gillnet from the Danish Fyn small‐scale gillnet fishery

Fishing area

Fishing areas are predominantly close to the coast (Figure 39, Figure 46). The Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern area (ICES Statistical rectangle 37G3) is one of the most important areas for German gillnetters with 56% by volume of all species landed from this location. It is particularly important for herring, but significant catches of cod and flounder are also taken from this area. The coast between Lübeck and Rostock (ICES Statistical rectangle 37G1) is the next most important area for targeted cod and flounder gillnet fisheries.

The Danish vessels from Fyn operate close to their home ports (within 30 minutes to 1.5 hours’ steaming). The South Öland gillnet fishery operates in the areas shown in Figure 46, and the vessels operate in deeper waters than the Danish case study vessels (see Table 59).


The German fleet targets herring, cod, flounder, plaice, dab and bream, turbot, and freshwater/brackish water fish such as pikeperch, pike, perch and roach. The gillnet fleet landed 12,000 tonnes of fish, worth € 8 million in 2009, down from 21,500 tonnes worth € 17.8 million in 2007 (Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 2010). The top three species landed are herring (47 % by volume), cod (28 %) and flounder (12 %). Cod is the most economically important species (43 % of value) and is the only species landed in significant quantities by the over 15m vessels. Landings of cod have reduced since 2007 and while herring remained fairly consistent from 2007 to 2008, it also reduced in 2009. The German cod fishery is targeted during the winter months, from October to March with a peak in January. The pikeperch fishery operates over a similar period, peaking in November. Herring is a spring fishery with a marked peak in March. Flounder is landed throughout the year, although a drop in landings is seen from March to June.

German gillnetting vessels less than 12m in length land approximately 80% of the catch by volume (equally proportionate between the under 10m and 10‐12m vessels) and 75% of the value. These proportions have remained consistent from 2007 to 2009, although the total volume and value has substantially reduced over this period.

The Danish gillnet fishery is targeted mainly at cod and plaice (which account for 50% and 25% of all gillnet landings respectively) as well as hake, sole and other demersal species. Landings were 2,923 tonnes in 2008, down from 3,999 tonnes in 2004 (Danish Directorate of Fisheries). Catches from the Fyn gillnet fishery (ICES Statistical rectangle G038) are less than 100 tonnes per annum, mostly cod (86%) with some dab, flounder and plaice. Similar to the


92

German fishery, the Fyn gillnet boats also target cod in the winter months (October to March) and then flatfish such as turbot and brill over the summer (May to September). Fishing occurs all year round (apart from April), with fishers spending between 180 to 200 days at sea.

The Swedish gillnet fishery is targeted mainly at cod and herring, which account for 62% and 25% of total gillnet catches respectively (average for 2004–2009) (Fiskeriverket / Swedish Board of Fisheries), although the proportion of cod in relation to total landings has declined recently. The remainder of the catch is a mixture of flounder, whitefish, lumpfish, perch, plaice and others. The Swedish gillnet fishery landed 5,474 tonnes of fish in 2009. The pelagic herring fishery is mainly limited to the Gulf of Bothnia and the Oresund Strait / Koge Bay between Denmark and Sweden.

In the South Öland gillnet fishery, the catch is nearly all cod (96.9 %), with a little flounder and pike. The catches have declined dramatically since 2004 (1,012 tonnes), to stabilise at around 400 tonnes per year. It is similar to the Danish Fyn gillnet fishery in that it is also targeted at cod, but it is essentially a summer fishery only (longline are now increasingly used during the majority of the year, including during the key bird over‐wintering period). Most fishers only operate gillnets over a two‐month period (May to June). Also, due to the characteristics of the coast and more offshore distribution of cod, it mainly takes place in deeper waters some 20–30 nm offshore. The nets are heavily weighted to improve performance and to reduce setting times.

Markets

In Germany, cod from the Baltic Sea is mainly processed by processors in Poland and sold to a variety of European markets as fresh and frozen fillets, loins etc, as well as battered/breaded products. The herring is mainly destined for European markets in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands and also enters the industrial fish meal market.

In the Sweden and Denmark case study fisheries, fish are usually gutted on board and landed fresh in the late afternoon or early evening (depending on the end of fishing at dusk). They are iced upon landing and a relatively small volume is sold to local fishmongers and restaurants. The majority is sent to processing plants in Jutland and Zealand, for the Danish fishery, and in France for the Swedish fishery.


Cod is predominately landed by gillnets with a mesh size of 110 or 120 mm, but is also taken by nets up to 150 mm mesh size. The majority of herring is landed by gillnets with mesh size 56 or 58 mm.

The gears used are light, bottom‐set gillnets (Figure 42). The individual gillnet sheets in the Swedish South Öland fishery are considerably larger than those in the Danish Fyn fishery, being 100 m in length and 4.5 m high — as a result the overall gillnet area deployed is about double that of the Danish fleet.


93

Figure 42: Average gear configuration for the eastern Baltic gillnet fishers surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey (DK n=10; SE n=2).

The Danish nets are set in deeper water for cod (10–30m) than for flatfish (5–15m). In the Swedish South Öland fishery, they set their nets predominantly in water 40–50 m deep (for cod), although some operate in shallower water (10–15m).

Average fishing patterns are shown in Table 48. The Danish Fyn vessels deploy around 3,500m of nets each. These are lifted, cleared of fish, and re‐set immediately on a constant basis during daylight. Setting and hauling times are very quick – less than a minute per net sheet, depending on the level of catch and net contamination (e.g. with seaweed).

Table 48: Average fishing pattern for the western Baltic gillnet fishers surveyed

Sweden Denmark

Average steaming time (hrs) no info 1.5

Average number of gear units 70 65



Average soak time (hrs) 24 24

Time when setting 9‐10am Mostly set and retrieve simultaneously between

0430 and 1430

Time when hauling 7am‐1pm Mostly set and retrieve simultaneously between

0430 and 1430



94

5.5.2 Interactions between the fishery and seabird populations

5.5.2.1 Germany The German Baltic EEZ forms important overwintering grounds for the majority of bird species presented in Section 4.1. In addition the German waters hold summer moulting concentrations of common scoter at the Oderbank and common eider in Wismar Bay (Bellebaum, 2009). The Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern area, which includes the Pomeranian Bay SPA, appears to be the most important in terms of bird numbers for the majority of these species.

A number of studies have been undertaken in the German Baltic EEZ waters to assess the interaction between fisheries and seabird populations including Bellebaum (2009), ICES (2008), Pedersen et al. (2009) and Pusch (2009).

The ICES project Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Protected Areas (EMPAS) aims to answer two questions (ICES, 2008a): (i) To what extent do specific fishing activities significantly threaten attainment of the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites? (ii) What management measures would reduce these conflicts and how effective would they be at helping to ensure the favourable condition of these sites? (ICES, 2009a).

In relation to the German Natura sites research under the EMPAS project focused on analysing fishing effort; identifying conflicts between nature conservation and fishing activities and developing management options.

As part of this the effort of gillnetters within the German Baltic EEZ was assessed and mapped based on number of hours fished (Figure 43). These data show high levels of activity across the northern section of Pomeranian Bay SPA. Notably effort does not appear in the ICES Statistical rectangle where the majority of herring gillnetting takes place, this is because Figure 43 focuses on bottom‐set gillnets for cod, flounder, plaice and turbot and not the pelagic gillnets set for herring.

Figure 43: Gillnet effort in the German EEZ Baltic Sea Source: Fock, von Thünen Institute, 2008 as cited in Pusch, 2009.

The risk intensity based on the distribution of birds sensitive to set nets has been mapped for the Pomeranian Bay SPA for two month periods throughout the year (Figure 44). This highlights the presence of at‐risk birds throughout the year, with clear peaks from November to April. Figure 45 cross references the effort of bottom‐set nets and the bird risk intensity to illustrate conflict intensity. Overall, the highest risk occurs in the northern part of the SPA (Adler ground area) during winter and in the Odra Bank area in late spring/early summer (ICES, 2009a).


95

Figure 44: Risk maps: Distribution of birds sensitive to set nets Source: Garthe, FTZ, 2008 as cited in Pusch, 2009.

Figure 45: Conflict analysis between bird distribution and bottom set gillnet fishing activity in the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea Source: Garthe, FTZ, 2008 as cited in Pusch, 2009.


96

Bellebaum (2009) recently published a report on bycatch of seabirds in gillnet and longline fisheries in the German Baltic Sea. All of the gillnet fisheries described earlier targeting cod, flounder and plaice; herring and garfish; pike, pikeperch and roach; and turbot were analysed, as was the small eel longline fishery. The report analysed voluntary reports of fishing effort and bird bycatch by 17 fishers and on‐board observation of 60 hauls during 2006‐2009. Results were validated against the findings of continuous monitoring of by‐caught birds on Usedom Island during 1989‐2009.

A total of 526 by‐caught birds were recorded in the study by Bellebaum (2009). Sea ducks and diving ducks feeding on benthic invertebrates accounted for more than 50% of by‐caught birds in all types of gear and during catches of all target species. Diving ducks (e.g. Greater scaup, Tufted duck, Common pochard) formed 65% of bycatches in costal lagoons, while sea ducks (e.g. Common eider, Long‐tailed duck Clangula hyemalis, Common scoter) dominated the bycatch in waters of the outer coast and EEZ (47%). A similar species composition of by‐caught seabirds was found in gillnets off Usedom and is considered by Bellebaum (2009) to be representative for bird bycatches in Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern during 2006–2009.

Bycatch rates were found to be dependent on target species, season and fishing area. The highest average bycatch rate was 0.61 birds per 1000 metres of net length per day (NMD) in the gillnet fishery targeting pikeperch, pike and perch (Table 49). The lowest bycatch rate occurred in the turbot gillnet fishery with 0.01 birds/ 1000 NMD. The average bycatch rate in the longline fishery targeting eel was 0.031 birds / 1000 hooks*day.

Table 49: Mean bycatch rates recording number of by‐caught birds per 1000 metres of net length per day (NMD) by German fishers from Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern Fishery Average bycatch rate Highest seasonal bycatch

Pikeperch, pike and perch gillnet fishery 0.61 birds / 1000 NMD December to April

Cod, flounder and plaice gillnet fishery 0.1 birds / 1000 NMD December to April

Turbot gillnet fishery 0.01 birds / 1000 NMD December to April

Herring gillnet fishery 0.17 birds / 1000 NMD January to May

Eel longline fishery 0.031 birds / 1000 hooks*day December to April

Source: Bellebaum, 2009.

Based on conservative assumptions the total bycatch rates in gillnets set by fishers from Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern is estimated to be 17,345 to 19,841 birds per winter season (November–May). This is based on an assumption of 39.6–45.3 birds per fisher. The total seabirds caught in the spring (February–May) herring fishery in Greifswald lagoon was estimated at 918–2,259 birds.

The mean bycatch rates estimated by Bellebaum (2009) are slightly below those recorded previously in the Baltic Sea and this decrease is likely to be due to a decline in wintering sea duck numbers.

Bellebaum (2009) considers management measures to reduce seabird bycatch mortality in the Baltic gillnet fisheries to be imperative. Particular concern is raised for the Long‐tailed duck.

5.5.2.2 Denmark The bycatch of seabirds in the Fyn gillnet fishery was investigated in the period December 2001 to May 2003 but the results have only been published recently (Degel et al., 2010). The Fyn area is annually an important resting and foraging area for wintering and migrating seabirds. Twelve gillnet fishers (around two thirds of fishers in that area) kept extended logbooks of 3,106 gillnet sets and recorded all relevant information about catches of fish and seabirds and these were compared to parallel fishery independent investigations that were carried out over the same period. Aerial surveys were also made in order to estimate the numbers and distribution of seabirds present in the area. The investigation demonstrates that Common eider is the most common seabird species with an estimated concentration of between 12,000 and 142,000 individuals at the same time in the area and the most common seabird species in the bycatch constituting 72% of the seabird bycatch. The estimated number of eider caught by gillnet in the area around Ærø in the investigation period is 598 individuals. This is equal to 0.275 individuals per 1,000 NMD (Table 50). The total mortality of eider in the investigation period was estimated to be around 25,000 individuals. However it is important to note that, according to Degel et al. (2010), 2.3% died in the gillnet fishery whilst 97.7% were killed by sport hunters.

In their recent review of bycatch in gillnet fisheries, Žydelis et al. (2009) cite two studies in this region of the Baltic (Table 50). Kirchhoff (1982) looked at bird bycatch from gillnet fisheries off the Baltic coast of Schleswig–Holstein in


97

Germany and estimated a bycatch of 15,800 birds (or 17% of all birds present, mainly being Common eider (64%) or Common scoter (18%) (Table 50). Mentjes and Gabriel (1999) examined bird bycatch on the Baltic coast around Fehmarn and recorded 1.23 birds per 1,000 NMD, mostly Common eider (Table 50).

5.5.2.3 Sweden Österbom et al. (2002) reported that out of 1,952 ringed Common guillemots found between 1972 and 1999 in the Baltic Sea, 980 (50.2%) were caught in fishing gear (Table 50). The bycatch in set gillnets for cod constituted 22.3%, drift gillnets for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 65.5%, and other fishing gear 12.2%. The proportion of recoveries in cod gillnets significantly increased during the study period as fishing effort increased. However, the bycatch rate for cod gillnets is not known. Results from an observer programme performed by the National Board of Fisheries show only small number of bycatches in the Swedish cod gillnet fishery between 1995 and 2000.

A study on the turbot gillnet fishery on Gotland reported a total of 40 birds caught in this fishery in 2005, consisting of eight species. The most frequent species caught was Common eider (23), followed by Cormorant (7) and Black guillemot (5) (Bardtrum et al., 2010). The absence of Long‐tailed ducks and divers in this study was thought to be due to the poor overlap in time between fishing season and presence of these species in the waters around Gotland (Bardtrum et al., 2010). The bird bycatch rate (number of birds caught per net km hour) for the northern part of Gotland was highest during May and June, and showed a decreasing trend with increasing depth of setting (Bardtrum et al., 2010).

Table 51 summarises the key bird species likely to interact with gillnet fisheries in the western (and southern) Baltic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Poland) and potential mitigation measures based on their foraging, wintering and migratory behaviours in the region.


98

Table 50: Summary of seabird bycatch studies in the western and central Baltic Sea Source

Location Study period

Bycatch rate

Observed or reported bycatch

Estimated annual bycatch

Affected bird species and their share in bycatch composition

Kowalski & Manikowski, 1982

Dziwnow Port, Pomeranian Bay, Poland

1977/78 2.4 birds / boat/day

581 n/a Long‐tailed duck 41% Velvet scoter 22% Common guillemot 21%

Schirmeister (2003), unpublished

Usedom Island, Germany

1989–2005

38.4 (8–186) birds / fisher / winter

11,258 3000 Long‐tailed duck 74% Common scoter 7% Red‐throated diver 7%

J. Bellebaum, F. Erdmann, V. Rohrbein, N. Schulz unpublished data

Mecklenburg–W Pomerania coast and lagoons, Germany

2006–2009

n/a 352 n/a Common eider 14% Tufted duck 14% Pochard 12% Greater scaup 11% Red‐breasted merganser 10%

Kirchhoff (1982) Baltic coast of Schleswig–Holstein, Germany

1977/78–1980/81

5.2 birds / study site / day

2839 15,800 or 17% of all birds present

Common eider 64% Common scoter 18%

Grimm (1985) Wismar Bay, Germany

1982–1985

n/a 2,800 Scaup or 8% of the birds present

Greater scaup Common eider

Mentjes & Gabriel (1999)

Baltic coast around Fehmarn, Germany

1996/97–1997/98

1.2 birds /1,000 NMD

n/a Common eider

Christensen (1995)

South central Baltic

1994–1995

n/a 52 n/a Common guillemot

Bregnballe & Frederiksen (2006)

Denmark 1972–2002

n/a 24–66% of ringed birds

Great cormorant

Degel, Petersen, Holm & Kahlert (2010)

Denmark Fyn area around Ærø Island

2001 ‐ 2003

0.275 birds / 1,000 NMD

598 2.3 per cent of total mortality

Common eider (72%)

Österblom et al. (2002); Fransson & Pettersson (2001) and Fransson et al.,(2008)

Sweden 1972‐1999

n/a 1500 Common guillemot

Common guillemot, Black guillemot, Red‐throated diver, Great cormorant

Sources: Adapted from Žydelis et al. (2009); Degel et al., 2010.


99

Table 51: Summary of key bird species found in Western (and southern) Baltic countries, conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures (based on Bull, 2007 and report contributors interpretation of foraging behaviours etc.)

Case Study Western Baltic gilln

et countries

Poland

Germ

any

Denmark

Sweden

Bird species

Conservation

concern

Foraging behaviour and times Spatial hotspot ‐ wintering Temporal hotspots

Acoustic Ping

Alternative Gear

Buoys with visual

Increase netting depth

Set nets Deep

Multifilament

Red corks

Season Restriction

Spatial R

estriction

Tufted duck Yes Diving Szczecin and Vorpommern lagoons;

Common scoter Yes Diving (Shallow), diurnal, gregarious, inshore/offshore

North‐west Kattegat;

Smew No? Diving (Shallow) Szczecin and Vorpommern lagoons; Danish waters in very cold winters

Razorbill No Surface diving (Deep), diurnal and dusk, inshore/offshore

Middlegrundene; Northern Kattergat; Djursland coast

Wintering: Oct‐Mar

Common eider Possibly Diving (mid depth), Head‐dipping, diurnal and tidal

North‐west Kattegat; south‐west Kattegat; Kiel Bay and adjacent waters

Wintering: Nov‐Mar

Common pochard Yes Diving; Bottom feeding (shallow), inshore Szczecin and Vorpommern lagoons;

Greater scaup Yes Pursuit diving (shallow), nocturnal, offshore Szczecin and Vorpommern lagoons; Wismar and Lübeck Bay

Wintering: Sept‐Feb; Migration: Oct‐Nov;

Goldeneye No Pursuit diving (shallow) South‐west Kattegat

Black guillemot Possibly Pursuit diving (mid depth), diurnal Pomeranian Bay; Wintering: Oct‐Mar

Long‐tailed duck No Pursuit diving (mid‐depth), diurnal, gregarious

Pomeranian Bay; Hoburgs Bank; Wintering: Nov‐Dec; Migration: Aug‐Spe/Feb‐Mar

Goosander No Pursuit diving (unknown) Szczecin and Vorpommern lagoons;

Red‐breasted merganser Yes Pursuit diving (unknown), diurnal, gregarious

Fehrman belt; Pomeranian Bay; Griefswalder Lagoo & Oie

Wintering: Nov‐Mar; Migration: Oct‐Nov/Feb; Breeding: April

Slavonian grebe Yes ? Pursuit diving (shallow), diurnal Pomeranian Bay

Wintering: Oct‐Mar

Great‐crested grebe No Pursuit diving (shallow), diurnal, inshore Pomeranian Bay; Eckenforder and Kieler Forde

Common guillemot No Pursuit diving (deep), diurnal, offshore, net feeding

Middlegrundene; Northern Kattergat Offshore aggregations in winter

Velvet scoter Yes Surface diving (mid depth), diurnal Pomeranian Bay; Wintering: Sept‐Mar; Migration: Mar‐May/Sept

Great cormorant No Surface diving (mid depth), inshore South‐west Kattegat

sites exist in country where >10% of wintering population occur

*1st/2

ndmost important bird area listed first

most important bird area for this species occurs in country

Sources: Durinck et al., 1994 (seabird hotspots); Mendel et al., 2008a, BirdLIfe International 2010a (foraging behaviours


100

5.5.3 Current mitigation measures In Denmark, Sweden and Germany, there are currently no known mitigation measures in place to manage interactions of gillnet fleets with seabirds. At present, none of the gillnetters interviewed in Denmark and Sweden use any proactive voluntary mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch.

In Germany, the EMPAS project (2006‐2008) provided the first steps toward developing management solutions in Natura2000 sites (Fock, 2011). One of the Natura2000 sites that the EMPAS project suggested fisheries management options for is the Pomeranian Bay SPA. These management options included full spatial year‐round exclusion of static gear from the SPA; temporal closures for static gear in the part of the SPA with highest conflicts between set net fisheries and seabirds (e.g. from November to April); use of alternative gears, such as fish traps; regulation of fishing effort to limit bycatch to less than 1% of the numbers of every bird species; implementation of an effective monitoring scheme to get better background data about the spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort and bycatch mortality rates; and Environment Impact Assessment before introducing new fishing methods/gears (ICES, 2009a). Each of these options has implications for the fisheries and differing likelihoods of achieving the conservation objectives. For example, spatial or temporal closures could have significant socio‐economic effects on the fishing industry and might cause effort to increase in areas just outside the SPA. Switching gear types to traps required more investigation regarding reduced catch efficiency and investment cost before being undertaken. And setting a maximum allowable bycatch mortality is not suitable as the phrasing of the Birds Directive does not allow any ‘deliberate killing’ (ICES, 2009a).

Although no management measures have been implemented yet in the SPA Pomeranian Bay, BfN are currently working on their development in collaboration with the German fisheries research institute (vTI) with the aim of finalising them by the end of May, 2011 (C. Pusch, pers.comm.).

In Denmark, declining gillnet fishing effort and resultant lowering in the frequency of seabird interactions was cited by the fishers as sufficient at reducing seabird interactions, especially given the low levels involved. It has also made it easier for fishers to avoid areas where there are high concentrations of seabirds. This has not always been the case — they recognise that 10–15 years ago when the coastal cod gillnet fishery was thriving, there was much more competition for fishing area with sea ducks.

In Sweden the coastal gillnet fishery has turned to longlines over the winter months and thus reduced the potential for gillnet interaction with seabirds over the critical non‐breeding season. Therefore due to the stated low levels of interaction, no mitigation methods were considered effective or necessary, although there is of course the potential for displacement of problems to the longline fishery.

In neither Denmark nor Sweden were there any specific financial support mechanisms for purchasing or covering the extra costs involved in deploying mitigation measures to reduce seabird interactions.


5.5.4.1 Fishers interviewed In Denmark, ten fishers were interviewed between the 12th and 15th of December 2010, and two groups of fishers were interviewed in Sweden on the 17th December 2010). Bad weather in the Baltic hampered the implementation of questionnaires with more fishers or from a wider area.

5.5.4.2 Seabird‐fishery interactions Only two of twelve fishers surveyed in Sweden and Denmark felt that seabirds caused disruption. Both of them said the disturbance was that the birds damaged or stole fish. However, most respondents (92%) were aware of a problem with seabird bycatch, but also felt that information was sufficient. 91% of respondents did not feel that anything needed to be done to tackle the issue because areas with large numbers of seabirds can be voluntarily avoided by fishers. Since there are fewer gillnet fishers these days than in the past and vessels are smaller, this is easier to achieve.

Interviews undertaken with fishers in Denmark indicated that seabird bycatch interactions are about 0.078 birds/1000 NMD) (Table 52). 80% of this bycatch were Sea ducks, mostly Common eider and Common scoter, with the remaining interactions being with cormorants and small numbers of auks and grebes. These are again substantially lower than that found by Degel et al. (2010) during 2001–2003. In the Swedish fishery, only 2 seabirds were reported to be caught in a year from the two groups of fishers interviewed (Table 52). This led to a very low estimated bycatch rate of 0.007 birds/1000 NMD. Both birds caught were Diving ducks.


101

Whilst there may be an element of under‐reporting, we consider that the strong decline in fishing effort over the last decade has resulted in much lower levels of interactions. This is supported by interviews with fishers who state that, due to the lack of competition for sea area, they are now able to pick and chose their fishing ground and thus can actively avoid fishing where there are high numbers of sea ducks. As the fleet continues to decline, the levels of interaction are likely to fall as well.

Table 52: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in Sweden and Denmark from questionnaire responses Country Gear Average Net




Main species (%)

Denmark Gillnets (all sizes)

552 [10] 430 0.078 birds/1000 NMD Sea Ducks (80%), Cormorants (19%), Auks (1%); Grebes (0.4%)

Sweden Gillnets (all sizes)

280 [2] 2 0.007 birds/1000 NMD Diving Ducks (100%)

Source: Questionnaire survey. Notes: Sea ducks include: Common Eider, Common Scoter, Velvet Scoter, Long‐tailed duck, Goosander, Red‐breasted merganser Diving ducks include: Common Pochard, Greater Scaup, Tufted Duck, Goldeneye, Smew Divers include: Red‐throated Diver, Black‐throated Diver Grebes include: Great‐crested grebe, Slavonian grebe, Red‐necked grebe Auks include: Common Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Razorbill

Areas where seabird interactions occurred within the Fyn gillnet fishery in Denmark and the southern Öland gillnet fishery are shown in Figure 46. All of the bycatch reported in the questionnaire occurred in the autumn and winter months (Figure 47).

Figure 46: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the Fyn gillnet fishery (DK) and southern Öland gillnet fishery (SE) Source: Questionnaire survey.

Figure 47: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in Swedish and Danish gillnet fisheries Source: Questionnaire survey.


102

5.5.4.3 Mitigation measures Discussions were held with fishers from both Denmark and Sweden over the most effective mitigation mechanisms to reduce seabird bycatch in the coastal gillnet fisheries. A series of technical measures that have been used with

some success elsewhere were described and discussions held as to their potential effectiveness in these waters as well as the implications on the cost and effort of fishing operations. A summary of the current use of these measures, and fishers’ opinions on their effectiveness and acceptability is shown in Figure 48.

A number of measures are already in use that act as mitigation measures, although the reason for their use is not necessarily as seabird bycatch mitigation measures — increasing the depth of setting and setting nets in waters over 20m deep (e.g. in Sweden the gillnet fishery for cod occurs in waters up to 30m depth), spatial restrictions and the use of alternative gear. These measures, together with temporal restrictions, also corresponded to the measures that respondents felt would be most effective at reducing seabird bycatch. However, only the use of spatial restrictions and use of alternative gear scored an average of 2 or more (out of 5) for acceptability. There were some differences between the two countries: setting nets deep and the use of visual deterrents were the most acceptable measures in Sweden, whereas spatial restrictions were the most acceptable measure in Denmark. Opinions on effectiveness and acceptability are summarised in Table 53.

Formal spatial restrictions might be effective, but only if set in careful consultation with the fishing industry and probably limited to certain times of the year when sea bird aggregations are highest and most likely to conflict with fishing operations. Given the low levels of gillnetting, especially in south‐east Denmark, there is some question as to the cost‐benefit of imposing such restrictions when most fishers already avoid bird aggregations as a matter of course. Indeed, in Denmark, fishers would be very reluctant to see formal spatial fishing restrictions as the bird foraging areas are patchy and highly dispersed, and the current system of working around sea bird aggregations appears to work well.

Table 53: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the eastern Baltic gillnet fishery Mitigation measures Effective for birds Acceptable to industry Comments Multifilament coloured twine in top 20 meshes

Low (1) because most coastal fishing takes place over night (the gear is set and hauled during the daylight hours) and in turbid, murky waters, so the coloured twine would not make the gears any more noticeable in these conditions.

Low (1); thought the coloured twine might reduce catches (up to 25%, but difficult to quantify) and would increase the cost of the gear

Most of the gears are hand‐made and integrating coloured twine would substantially increase the time involved. They thought the birds could see the current multifilament nets in clear waters during daylight hours anyway.


Low (1), did not think it would scare seabirds such as eiders and scoters ‐ these birds are not normally scared by large avian predators and would soon ignore an inactive ‘predator’ (i.e. deterrent).

Low (1–2), as relatively cheap to buy and deploy (but might complicate mechanical net hauling).

Should not impact the catching effectiveness of the gear, however, most felt it was a pointless measure.

Figure 48: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the western Baltic gillnet fishery Source: Questionnaire survey. Notes: n=12 for all, except for effectiveness and acceptability scores for Acoustic ‘pingers’ and use, effectiveness and acceptability for increasing the depth of setting, for which n=8.


103

Mitigation measures Effective for birds Acceptable to industry Comments


Low (1–2), some thought this might have some deterrent effect, especially in clear waters and during daylight, but would not work in turbid waters or at night.

Medium (1–3), expected to have a detrimental effect on catches.

Would increase the time and cost of preparing new gear.

Acoustic 'pingers' Low (1), as birds are often committed to their feeding move once they have their head in the water (esp. diving birds and ducks) and thus would not hear the pinger until it was too late

Low (1), as considered to be very expensive, and pingers may get jammed in the net hauler.

Probably need one pinger per 50 m of nets and thus the net capital cost would be considerable (fishers use 3,500 m of nets). Health and safety issues regarding the weight and momentum during gear hauling and deployment on small, single‐handed vessel. No responses from Sweden.


High (4) in Denmark in particular this was thought to be a potentially effective as most of the vulnerable birds (eiders and scoters), whilst capable of diving to considerable depths, usually forage in shallow waters.

Low (1), as they would have to travel further for deeper waters, increasing fuel costs, and would preclude the inshore summer fishery.

No responses from Sweden. In Denmark, and they presume it would have a negative impact on both catches as well as increasing steaming times and costs. To be effective, nets would have to be in waters greater than 20 m depth.


High (4), as it puts the nets out‐of‐reach of birds, although it might not be so effective in reducing the bycatch of guillemots which are a more common bycatch in the southern Baltic waters of Sweden.

Low (1–2), in Denmark, preventing fishing in waters <20 m would be extremely unpopular as it would prevent the profitable inshore summer fishery from operating

Higher acceptability in Sweden (2) than Denmark (1) because part of the fleet already set their nets in deep water, but they would not want to see further restrictions.


High (4), as avoiding concentrations of seabirds avoids interactions.

Medium (3–4) in Denmark, low (1) in Sweden, because the latter say there are negligible interactions with seabirds anyway, so they do not want formal zoning restrictions

Danish gillnetters already voluntarily avoid dense concentrations of sea ducks as a matter of course to minimise interactions. Given the low and declining level of fishing effort this represents an easy and low cost approach. No impact on the catch and only a small extra amount of steaming time / fuel to work around sea duck aggregations


High (4–5), would be effective at avoiding high concentrations of birds

Low (1), would be extremely unpopular as it would coincide with the main winter fishing period

High effectiveness expected for Denmark, low for Sweden (since there are negligible interactions anyway). Unless enacted as time‐restricted spatial restrictions, this would have a major impact on the commercial viability of the Danish gillnet fishery.

Use alternative gear High (5), may be effective, especially in Denmark where gillnets are used more or less year round.

Med‐Low (2), concern raised over the commercial impact of deploying different gear — vessels are mainly small, single‐hand operations and re‐gearing would have considerable cost and logistical implications

No real alternative target species to cod, and moving over to other gears such as longlines or trawls would simply displace the issue and raise a whole new range of bycatch problems (in Sweden they report the bycatch in longlines is higher than gillnets). Traps and fyke nets are already used for species like eel, but there is little confidence that they could be deployed for commercial cod fishery.



104

Establishing minimum depths at which fishing operations are permitted to put gillnets beyond the reach of most surface diving birds is a potentially practical and effective measure, especially in Denmark. However it is important that implications for commercial fishing patterns and behaviour are recognised and the impact on costs and earnings and their economic viability is fully assessed. In Sweden, where much of the cod gillnetting takes place in deeper water anyway this might be an acceptable option, although it might not be so effective for deep‐diving birds such as guillemots.

Use of alternative gears may be possible, and indeed in Sweden many gillnet fishers are already using longlines during winter. However, this has implications for potential bird bycatch in longlines instead of gillnets.

Spatial and temporal restrictions are potentially effective measures, although they must be established in close consultation with the fishing industry to ensure fishing operations remain viable. Germany has engaged with ICES through the EMPAS project (2006–2008) to develop recommendations for fisheries management measures in marine Natura2000 areas in the Baltic Sea SPA Pomeranian Bay (see section 5.5.3).

Potential mitigation measures for Germany have been reviewed and discussed in a number of papers, summarised in Table 54.

Table 54: Potential mitigation measures to reduce incidental capture of seabirds in German Baltic EEZ Source Suggested mitigation measures

ICES, 2008 (EMPAS project)

Full year‐round exclusion of static gear from the SPA Pomeranian Bay Closures for static gear in subareas of the SPA Pomeranian Bay at seasons with the highest overlap between set net fisheries and seabirds Use of alternative fishing gears e.g. fish traps

Bellebaum, 2009 Alternative fishing gear Modified gillnets with different net material to enhance visibility, or nets with visible alerts. Move to longlining, set in deeper waters to minimize impact. Move to fish traps including one developed for cod and one developed for herring – the latter is reported to be developing in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania fisheries. Closures Area closures either year round or during seasons with high abundance of birds Temporal limits restricting set net fishing activities to times of day when feeding and diving activity is lowest. This is considered to be appropriate for inland waters where bird eating habits are better understood to occur around duck and dawn. Catch and effort limits Compensatory mitigation Fishing industry pays for species conservation measures outside the fishing sector in order to compensate for bycatch losses which cannot be avoided.

Pedersen et al., 2009

Gear substitution; Gear modifications Temporal and spatial zoning in Natura 2000 sites

Case studies: Eastern North Sea gillnet fishery

105

5.6 Eastern North Sea gillnet fishery (Netherlands) Summary

Main fishery characteristics: small‐scale gillnet fishery, operates in the coastal area of the North Sea, targeting sole, cod, seabass, mullet. Gillnets also operate in inland waters of the Wadden Sea, Ijsselmeer and Markermeer lakes.

The key bird species in the region that either interact with fisheries commonly, or are species of conservation concern with important breeding or wintering areas, are Red‐throated Diver, Tufted duck, Greater scaup, Goosander, Great crested grebe, Red‐breasted merganser, Great cormorant and Common eider. Key areas include the northern coastal zone, Voordelta, Wadden Sea and Lake IJsselmeer.

As in the Baltic, mitigation measures that would be expected to address seabird bycatch based on the birds’ behaviour include measures to make the nets more visible (multifilament coloured twine in the top meshes, and red corks throughout the netting). Also for shallow‐diving species, using alternative gear or increasing the setting depth may work. Acoustic pingers may work fir deeper diving species, but require further testing. Spatial and temporal measures may work in conjunction with other methods (i.e. gear restrictions rather than fishery closures) but would need to be tested and carefully implemented.


Bycatch rates were lower than previous studies. This may be a result of lower gillnet effort, increased use of mitigation measures and voluntary codes of conduct, and geographical variability in overwintering grounds of the seabirds.

One third of fishers were aware of a problem with seabirds, but did not think that anything needs to be done, as they believe few birds are caught, and bird‐scaring devices such as ribbons, are used in some cases. The Dutch Fisheries organisation (DFO) gillnet sole fishery is certified by the MSC. Closed areas exist, and the net height and setting depth minimise the potential for seabird bycatch. Fisheries in the Wadden Sea and Markermeer and Ijsselmeer Lakes have greater potential for seabird bycatch, but co‐management schemes and voluntary codes of conduct help to minimise interactions.

Fishers’ views on mitigation measures: closed seasons are generally unacceptable, since it would disrupt the steady supply of fish and affect the market; closed areas may be acceptable, but would be highly dependent on the area chosen. Increasing the setting depth would be impossible in the Wadden Sea and Markermeer and IJsselmeer Lakes, and the North Sea cod and sole fishery already sets in deeper waters. Visual deterrents (ribbons) are already used in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes, but were felt to be unnecessary in the North Sea as there is very little bird bycatch. Acoustic pingers were not acceptable, as they were expected to make setting and hauling nets more difficult, and would be expensive.

5.6.1 Fisheries background The Eastern North Sea gillnet fishery comprises gillnetters from the Netherlands and from Germany (Table 55). However, only 5% of the German gillnetters are based in North Sea ports. Therefore, this case study focuses on the Dutch fleet.

Table 55: Main countries and fleet segments in the eastern North Sea gillnet fishery Country Fleet segment Target species Main fishing area Number

of vessels Vessel size

Netherlands Gillnetters Sole, cod, dab, North Sea 122 <3GT 70% <10m 18% 10–15m

Mullet, seabass Wadden Sea Germany Gillnetters Source: EC Fleet Register, 2011.


In total 122 Dutch vessels operating gillnets are registered at 25 ports on the North Sea coastline, with 90 % primarily using set gillnets and small numbers deploying drift nets and/or trammel nets. Approximately 60 % of the fleet are based at five ports. The top ten ports are listed below with vessel numbers in brackets:


106

Velsen‐Ijmuiden (23)

Den Haag‐Scheveningen (15)

Wieringen (12)

Reimerswaal‐Yerseke (11)

Urk (10)

Katwijk (8)

Tholen (7)

Den Helder (5)

Goedereede (5)

Harlingen (4)

The majority (70 %) of the fleet are less than 10m, although there is a significant portion of 10‐15 m vessels (18 %). Most of the vessels (60 %) have a gross tonnage of 3 GT or under, and most go out with 2 crew members.

The under 10 m fleet are responsible for catching 25 % of all fish and shellfish landed into Dutch ports by volume and 21 % by value (Figure 50). While the 10–12 m and over‐15 m vessels represent a smaller proportion of the fleet by number (10 % and 12 % respectively), they are responsible for the majority of landings with 32 % by volume for the 10–12 m fleet and 38 % for the over‐15 m fleet (Figure 50). In total the over‐10 m vessels are responsible for 79 % of the value landed by Dutch gillnetters into Dutch ports.

Fishing area

The sole and cod gillnetters fish 1–3 hours from port and go out on daily trips, leaving their gears to soak for between 1 and 24 hours (although occasionally up to 72 hours).

Approximately 58% of the volume and value of Dutch gillnet fisheries is landed from areas close to the coast (ICES Statistical rectangles 33F4 and 34F4). This area is particularly important for the sole, cod, seabass, dab and turbot fisheries, and is also important for mullet and seabass, as well as sole. The majority of plaice landed is from fishing grounds further offshore (ICES Statistical rectangles 39F6 and 37F3), although some is also taken from coastal areas (33F4).


107

Figure 50: Proportion of Dutch gillnet vessels and the volume and value they landed into the Netherlands in 2009 by vessel length category

Jan‐Mar

Apr‐Jun

Jul‐Sep

Oct‐Dec

Figure 49: Main fishing areas of the Dutch gillnet vessels surveyed in the North Sea, Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes Source: Questionnaire survey.


108


The most important species landed by the Dutch gillnetters from the North Sea is sole, which makes up 42 % by volume and 68 % by value of all species landed into Dutch ports. It is also the most valuable in terms of price per kg (at first point of sale). The next most important species are cod (25% of landings by volume) and dab and mullet (10% and 9% of landings by volume, respectively).

There is seasonal variation to the Dutch North Sea gillnet fisheries. Sole fishing takes place between the months of March and October targeting the larger sole fish that come inshore at this time of year. Cod is very much a winter and early spring fishery targeted from November to April. Mullet and seabass are targeted from late spring, throughout summer and into early autumn, with peaks in September.

During the consultation undertaken for this case study it became evident that there were five main gillnet fisheries operated in distinct areas during specific seasons and with distinct gear:

1. North Sea sole spring and summer fishery with 92‐1049mm mesh gillnets set on the bottom most commonly in 20 m depth (Figure 51);

2. North Sea cod winter fishery with 1409–184 mm mesh gillnets set on the bottom most commonly in 20 m depth;

3. Wadden Sea mullet and seabass summer and autumn fishery with 100–110 mm mesh gillnets set on the bottom most commonly in 2 m depth;

4. IJsselmeer and Markermeer lakes perch, bream, roach and pikeperch fishery 100–140 mm mesh gillnets set on the bottom in shallow waters down to 2 m depth;

5. North Sea lobster spring and summer and crab (all year) fishery with 360 mm mesh gillnets set on the bottom most commonly in 20–40 m depth.


The average gillnet configuration for the Dutch sole, cod and mullet and seabass fisheries are shown in Figure 52. The gear configuration for perch, bream and roach is very similar to the configuration for mullet and seabass. Cod gillnets tend to be higher than sole gillnets, and with a larger mesh size. However, in both fisheries, nets are set in between 3 and 30m of water, and left to soak for 8–24 hours (Table 56). The gillnets for mullet and seabass (and perch, bream and roach) are set in shallower water, from 0.15m in the case of mullet and seabass, to 20m. This may make them more susceptible to catching seabirds which forage in shallower waters, and when set in shallow waters, the net may occupy the whole water column. Whilst the mullet and seabass nets are left in to soak for 1–8 hours, the perch, bream and roach nets are left to soak for 24–72 hours. Float lines are used on the nets, and between 7–10 kg of weight per 100m of net are used (up to 14 kg for the mullet and seabass fishery).

9 as per Annex VI of the amended Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms

Figure 51: Gillnet being hauled with catch of sole Source: Rems Cramer, vessel KW2.


109

Figure 52: Average gear configuration of the Dutch cod, sole, mullet and seabass bottom gillnet fishers surveyed Source: Questionnaire survey and fisher consultations. Notes: ‘Mullet’ refers to the mullet and seabass fishery. Gear configurations for the perch, bream and roach fishery are within those parameters for the mullet and seabass fishery, although the mesh size may be up to 140mm.

The average fishing patterns for Dutch gillnet fisheries are shown in Table 56. Fishing areas are quite close to the shore, a maximum of 3 hours steaming time from port in all cases. Up to 240 nets are set in the case of the sole and cod fisheries, but only up to 100 nets for the mullet, seabass and perch fisheries. Nets are set and hauled at all times of day, but for the sole fishery they tend to be set mainly at dusk, and hauled at dawn.

Table 56: Average fishing pattern for the Dutch gillnet fishers surveyed Sole Cod Mullet &

Seabass Perch,

bream & roach

Lobster & crab

Average steaming time (hrs) 1–3 hrs 1–3 hrs 0.5–2 hrs 1hr 0.5 hr

Average number of gear units 12–240 nets 12–240 nets 10–100 nets 100 nets 7 nets

Time when setting All times, mainly dusk/ sunset

All times of day

All times of day

Day Sunset/ dusk

Time when hauling All times, mainly dawn/ sunrise

All times of day

All times of day

Day Dawn/ sunrise

Average duration of deployment (hrs) 1–7 hrs 1–7 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 0.5 hr

Average duration of hauling (hrs) 4–7 hrs 4–7 hrs 1–3 hrs 2–4 hrs 2 hrs

Average soak time (hrs) 8–24 hrs 1–24 hrs 1–8 hrs 24–72 hrs 8–10 hrs

Source: Questionnaire survey and fisher consultations.

5.6.2 Interactions between the fishery and seabird populations Žydelis et al. (2009) provides a comprehensive review of seabird bycatch studies undertaken in the Baltic and North Sea. The study by Žydelis et al. (2009) focused on seabird bycatch in the Baltic and North Sea regions providing overall estimates of between 100,000 to 200,000 waterbirds killed by incidental capture in gillnets in the Baltic and North Sea region per year.

In the Netherlands, seabird bycatch studies that Žydelis et al. reviewed were undertaken in the coastal lakes of IJsselmeer and Markermeer across the periods of 1978–1990 (van Eerden et al., 1999) and 2000–2003 (Witteveen &


110

Bos, 2003) (Table 57). Both studies found a bycatch rate of 0.64 birds/ 1000 net metres per day (NMD). Van Eerden et al. (1999) estimated total annual bycatch in IJsselmeer and Markermeer to be 50,000 seabirds, including the following species where more than 5% of their local numbers were annually trapped in the nets: Red‐breasted merganser, Tufted duck, Greater scaup, Common pochard, Common goldeneye, Smew, and Goosander. The more recent study, conducted using on‐board observers by Witteveen & Bos (2003) estimated annual bycatch to be 12,000 in IJsselmeer and Markermeer.

The lower estimated bycatch rate from this more recent study can be explained by lower numbers of birds present in the area in combination with fewer gillnets in use (Wittveen & Bos, 2003). In both studies, the research was undertaken before the implementation of the PO‐IJsselmeer 2008 Fishing Plan and Code of Conduct which is applicable to both the IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes, and has reportedly reduced bycatch rates significantly (Pondera Consult, 2010).

Both studies found the highest proportion of bycatch to comprise diving ducks (Tufted duck and Greater scaup), followed by Red‐breasted merganser, Great‐crested grebe and Goldeneye.

Klinge (2008) examined the potential for bird bycatch in sole gillnets deployed in the Dutch North Sea and concluded that these nets are relatively low (less than 1m above the seafloor) and the current pushes them down to a height of only 10‐30 cm with the result that the bycatch of birds is unlikely. Also the fact that these nets are generally set in deeper water means that only deep diving birds could, in theory, be caught (Southall et al., 2009).

As part of the ‘Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas’ (FIMPAS) project, the effects of fisheries on seabirds in the Frisian Front SPA were evaluated. The effects of gillnets were evaluated to have a medium to high impact on Common guillemots due to the potential for bycatch (Deerenberg et al., 2010).

Table 58 summarises the key bird species likely to interact with gillnet fisheries in the Netherlands in the eastern North Sea and potential mitigation measures based on their foraging, wintering and migratory behaviours in the region.

Table 57: Review of estimated bycatch in Dutch fisheries Country Study Year (s) Gear Average birds/

unit effort Estimated annual bycatch

Main species

Netherlands (Ijsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes)

van Eerden et al, 1999

1978‐1990 Gillnets 0.64 birds/1000 NMD (Nov‐Mar)

50,000 Tufted duck (25%), Greater scaup (23%), Red‐breasted merganser (17%), Great‐crested grebe (14%)

Netherlands (Ijsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes)

Witteveen & Bos, 2003

2002‐2003 Gillnets 0.64 birds/1000 NMD

12,000 Tufted duck (53%), Greater scaup (17%), Great‐crested grebe (14%), Goldeneye (11%)

Sources: Žydelis et al., 2009


111

Table 58: Summary of key bird species found in eastern North Sea (Netherlands), conservation status, feeding behaviour, spatial and temporal hotspots and potential application of mitigation measures

Case study fishery Bird species C

onservation concern

foraging behaviour and periods Spatial hotspots temporal hotspots A

coustic Ping

Alternative Gear

buoys with visual

increase netting depth

set nets Deep

multifilament

red corks

Season Restriction

Spatial R

estriction

Eastern North Sea ‐ Netherlands Gillnet

Red‐throated diver Yes Pursuit diving (shallow) Dutch coastal sea Non‐breeding: Nov‐May

Tufted duck Yes Diving Lake IJsselmeer, Lake Markermeer

Non‐breeding

Common scoter Yes Diving (Shallow), gregarious, inshore/offshore

Wadden Sea, particularly near Wadden Islands and off the Noord‐Holland coast; Voordelta, Dutch coastal sea

Non‐breeding

Smew No Diving (Shallow) Lake IJsselmeer, Lake Markermeer

Non‐breeding

Common eider Possibly Diving (mid depth), Head‐dipping, diurnal Wadden Sea, particularly near Wadden Islands and off the Noord‐Holland coast , Dutch coastal sea

Non‐breeding

Common pochard Yes Diving; Bottom feeding (shallow), inshore Lake IJsselmeer, Lake Markermeer

Non‐breeding

Greater scaup Yes Pursuit diving (shallow), nocturnal, offshore

Voordelta and Northern coastal areas; Wadden Sea; Lake IJsselmeer; Lake Markermeer

Non‐breeding

Goldeneye No Pursuit diving (shallow) Voordelta Non‐breeding

Common guillemot No Pursuit diving (mid depth) Frisian Front Non‐breeding

Goosander No Pursuit diving (unknown) Lake Ijsselmeer Non‐breeding

Red‐breasted merganser Yes Pursuit diving (unknown), diurnal, gregarious

Voordelta Non‐breeding

Great crested grebe No Pursuit diving (shallow), diurnal, inshore Dutch mainland coast; Lake Ijsselmeer; Voordelta

Non‐breeding

Great cormorant No Surface diving (mid depth), inshore Wadden Sea; Lake Ijsselmeer Non‐breeding

Key bird species Measures highly likely/proven to be effective


Sources: Durinck et al., 1994 (seabird hotspots); Mendel et al., 2008a, BirdLife International 2010a (foraging behaviours)


112

5.6.3 Current mitigation measures

The North Sea

The FIMPAS project is currently underway to provide a process that will lead to the development of an ICES proposal for fisheries management measures in Natura 2000 sites in Dutch waters (Deerenberg et al., 2010). The projected management measures will consider the interaction of all current and future activities (including commercial fisheries) that may affect the qualifying features of the designations. The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality signed an agreement with Dutch environmental NGOs and the Dutch fishing industry to work together to achieve sustainable fishing within the FIMPAS framework (Fock, 2011). The only SPA addressed by FIMPAS (the other Natura 2000 sites are SACs) is the Frisian Front, where the conservation objective is to maintain the numbers of Great skua, Common guillemot and Greater and Lesser Black‐backed gulls (Deerenberg et al., 2010).Of these, the Common guillemot is most vulnerable to fisheries induced mortality – primarily in gillnets, but also potentially in trawls (Deerenberg et al., 2010). Potential management options in the Frisian Front SPA discussed at the second FIMPAS workshop include: banning specific fishing gear for critical period (June–November) when Common guillemots are moulting and fledglings are incapable of flight; ban fisheries entirely; freeze of specific fishing gear to current level (ICES, 2011). Advice from the third FIMPAS workshop was that, despite that there is no hard evidence for bycatch in gillnets in the Frisian Front, that the precautionary principle should be invoked and gillnetting should be banned from June to November (IJlstra, 2011). In addition, all vessels need to register VMS data (including those below 15m in length) and other fishing effort should be frozen at 2006–2008 levels (IJlstra, 2011). A monitoring methodology for seabird numbers at sea is also needed to feed into the six‐year assessment, and it was noted that such monitoring is challenging when the Data Collection Regulation does not require Member States to collect and report data on seabird bycatch (Dunn, 2011).

The management plan for the SAC Northern Coastal Zone ‘Noordzeekustzone’ is also being developed during 2010–2013. A management plan is in place for the SAC Voordelta with measures for limiting the gillnet and entangling nets in this Natura 2000 site. These fishing gears are allowed throughout the site, however subject to existing permission at the time of this decree being enacted (Rijkswaterstaat, 2009). This in fact only concerns one enterprise, namely vessel Goeree 47 whose continued effort is permitted subject to the following conditions:

A distance of at least 150 m must be kept from tidal plains. Before, during and after the common seal’s suckling period (01 May to 01 September), a distance of at least 250 m must be kept from tidal plains;

The maximum speed permitted is 7 knots (13 km/h); and

The fishing vessel must be equipped with serviceable tracking equipment for enforcement purposes.

No other known mitigation measures are currently in place in the Dutch North Sea EEZ, although some MSC‐certified vessels have closed areas for habitat protection.

The Wadden Sea

In the Wadden Sea there are management measures to limit effort of both those fisheries that compete with the food resources of the seabirds and the gillnets that may incidentally bycatch seabirds. Considerable parts of the Wadden Sea Area have been closed for blue mussel fisheries, to protect intertidal mussel beds (Nehls et al. 2009). Furthermore the cockle fishery has been limited by the permanent closure of considerable areas of the Wadden Sea and there are possibilities for additional restrictions to safeguard food for birds.

A co‐management scheme with the fishing industry in the Wadden Sea is in operation, in which the protection and enhancement of the growth of wild mussel beds and Zostera fields are central elements. The gillnet fleet in the Wadden Sea (targeting mainly bass and mullet from May to November) is restricted through a permitting scheme; there are 13 Dutch gillnet permits for the Wadden Sea of which 5–6 are actively used (Nehls et al., 2009).

The IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes

The Dutch Fishers’ Producer Organisation for IJsselmeer (PO‐IJsselmeer) established a Code of Conduct for net fisheries operating in the IJsselmeer and the Markermeer Lakes. This Code of Conduct was approved through a consultation with the industry in spring 2006 and forms part of the PO‐IJsselmeer 2008 Fishing Plan which is approved by the Minister of Agriculture. This Code of Conduct was instigated partly in response to the scientific papers about seabird bycatch (see section 5.6.2) published in 1999 and 2003. The Code of Conduct (provided in Annex 6) includes the following measures specific to minimising or eliminating interaction with birds:


113

Where possible choose fishing methods that promote responsible environmental behaviour in particular to avoid bycatches of birds.

Voluntarily leave the fishing grounds when the risk of bird bycatch is in unacceptable quantities. Encourage colleagues to do the same and report such instances to the secretariat.

Improve, where appropriate, the visibility of the net through to use the 100 m reflective strips (available from the secretariat) and flags on the marker buoys. This applies to nets with mesh smaller than 160 mm, since those greater than 160 mm do not have such a problem and do not require deterrents.

Deploying fishing nets is prohibited within the area 25 m from the shore.

Consultation with the industry via the questionnaires undertaken as part of this case study confirm that scaring ribbons, to scare off seabirds, are used on the marker buoys which are in place every 300 m along the net length.

The measures in the PO‐Ijsselmeer 2008 Fishing Plan including the Code of Conduct appear to have been effective at reducing seabird bycatch. A study by Pondera Consult (2010) reports a 57% reduction in seabird bycatch by the Ijsselmeer gillnet fisheries, predominantly due to effort restrictions introduced as part of the licensing system. Furthermore, the use of reflective strips and flags on the gillnets as required by the Code of Conduct was estimated to reduce seabird bycatch by 70% compared to normal fishing practices (Pondera Consult, 2010). Cumulatively this represents an overall reduction in bird bycatch of 87%. Although, as noted earlier, there are fewer birds present in the area which may have also contributed to the reduction in bycatch (Wittveen & Bos, 2003).

Other management measures have been put in place in IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes as a result of declining eel stocks. These have reduced the number of gillnets in operation and therefore also work towards mitigating bird bycatch rates (de Leeuwa et al., 2008).


5.6.4.1 Fishers interviewed Twelve fishers were interviewed in the Dutch North Sea gillnet fishery, between the 13th and 18th December 2010, at Leiden and Ijmuiden ports. All respondents use gillnets to target a variety of species (cod, sole, mullet, seabass, pikeperch, bream, roach, brill, lobster and North Sea crab).

5.6.4.2 Seabird‐fishery interactions Eleven out of the twelve fishers interviewed in the Dutch case study felt that seabirds do not cause disruption in the fishery. The only fisher who thought that seabirds caused a disruption stated that he does not fish in areas with high bird abundance in order to avoid eider duck bycatch as it would take too much time to release all of the birds before they drowned.

One‐third of the fishers surveyed were aware of a problem with seabirds (Figure 53(a)). Most thought that information was sufficient or was not necessary because they did not believe there was a problem with seabirds (Figure 53Error! Reference source not found. (b)). However, most believed that nothing needed to be done (Figure 53 (c)) because they did not perceive there to be a problem currently with the gillnet fishery. The reasons given were that very few birds were caught, bird scaring ribbons were used in some cases, and as an example, the North Sea cod and sole gillnet fishery is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council as a sustainable fishery, indicating that bycatch is not a major problem.

Figure 53: Fishers’ responses regarding (a) whether they are aware of a problem with seabirds; and (b) whether they think the available information is sufficient; and (c) whether they think anything needs to be done (n=12) Source: Questionnaire survey.


114

Note: n=12.

The questionnaire results found overall that an average of 0.023 birds/1000 NMD are caught in Dutch gillnet fisheries (Table 59). This is much lower than previous studies based on direct observations, but also subsequent to the implementation of voluntary codes of conduct and mitigation measures, which may have reduced bycatch rates.

Table 59: Summary of annual seabird bycatch in gillnets in the Netherlands from questionnaire responses Country Gear Average Net




Main species (%)

Netherlands Gillnets (all sizes)

527 [10] 121 0.023birds/1000 NMD

Grebes (32%), Cormorants (30%), Diving Ducks (22%), Sea Ducks (16%)


Only three fishers were interviewed from the IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes, as they are not technically the North Sea, and the focus of the questionnaires was placed on the Dutch North Sea sole and cod fisheries. The questionnaires found an average of 34 birds to be by‐caught per year per fishing vessel operating in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes including 10.6 cormorants, 8.6 diving ducks (Greater Scaup), 2 sea ducks (Goosander, Red‐breasted merganser) and 13 grebes (Great‐crested grebe). This equates to an average of 0.0331 birds per 1000 net metres per day (NMD) (Table 60). Consultation with the industry via the questionnaires for this case study indicates that the level of bird bycatch has substantially reduced since the implementation of the Code of Conduct. However, fewer birds present in the area might also have contributed to the reduction in bycatch (Witteveen & Bos, 2003).

A similar level of interaction was found for the gillnet fisheries in the Wadden Sea. In this area two gillnet fishers were interviewed (note that there are 13 permits to fish gillnets in the Wadden Sea; 5‐6 of which are active). On average, these fishers by‐caught seven eider ducks per vessel per year, which equates to a rate of 0.0364 birds per NMD (Table 60).

The findings of the Dutch case study industry questionnaires corroborate this very low level of interaction with seabirds in the North Sea Dutch gillnet fishery. Indeed, of the seven fishers interviewed that operate in the North Sea, only two had by‐caught any seabirds in the past year. One fisher by‐caught one single cormorant in ICES Statistical rectangle 33F4 (where the majority of sole landings occur) during April‐July; another by‐caught three cormorants from April to December, but did not specify the area. Overall a rate of 0.0029 birds per NMD were caught per gillnet vessel per year and no birds were by‐caught in the lobster and crab gillnet fishery (Table 60).

Table 60: Summary of mean annual seabird bycatch rates by gillnet fishery from questionnaire responses Number of interviews

Gillnet fishery (location) Number of by‐caught birds per 1000 net metres per day

TOTAL Cormorants Diving ducks Sea ducks Grebes

6 Cod & sole (NS) 0.0029 0.0029 (100%)

0 0 0

1 Lobster & crab (NS) 0 0 0 0 0

2 Sea bass and mullet (WS) 0.0364 0 0.0039 (11%)

0.0325 (89%)

0

3 Pike perch, perch, bream, roach (IM)

0.0331 0.0105 (31%)

0.0076 (23%)

0.002 (6%)

0.013 (39%)

The periods resulting in the most bycatch of seabirds in the Dutch North Sea are the autumn and winter months (October–March) (Figure 55). This corresponds to higher numbers of wintering birds in this area.


115

Figure 54: Main fishing areas (grey) and areas of interaction with seabirds (red) experienced by fishers interviewed in the Eastern North Sea Dutch gillnet fishery Source: Questionnaire survey.

Figure 55: Periods when seabirds were reportedly caught in Dutch North Sea gillnet fisheries Source: Questionnaire survey.

5.6.4.3 Mitigation measures Some mitigation measures are already in place in Dutch gillnet fisheries, principally the use of bird‐scaring deterrents and spatial restrictions (Figure 56). The use of bird‐scaring deterrents was felt to be the most effective measure, and since most of them already use them, it was also the most acceptable measure. The use of multi‐coloured twine in the top meshes also scored high for acceptability, since most fishers already use a variety of different coloured nets, but they did not feel it had any impact on seabird bycatch.

The least acceptable measures were setting nets in water deeper than 20m (since the mullet, seabass, perch and bream fisheries only take place in water up to 20m depth). Increasing the depth of setting and using alternative gear also scored very low, and most fishers were unable to provide an opinion on either effectiveness or acceptability.

A summary of opinions on the different types of mitigation measure are summarised in Table 61.

Management measures are currently being discussed for marine Natura 2000 areas as part of the FIMPAS project (see section 5.6.3).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sea ducks

Grebes

Diving ducks

Cormorants


116

Figure 56: Percentage of respondents that use each mitigation measure currently, and the average effectiveness and acceptability scores for the eastern North Sea (Netherlands) Source: Questionnaire survey.


117

Table 61: Summary of respondents’ opinions on potential mitigation measures in the eastern North Sea gillnet fishery Mitigation measures


Multifilament coloured twine in top 20 meshes

Low (1) it is considered that nets are already visible to seabirds.

Approximately half of the fishers believe this measure to be acceptable (3‐5), while the remainder have a preference for a certain colour of net for targeting specific species and found it unacceptable (1‐2)

The effectiveness of this measure is believed to be dependent on the visibility of the water which varies with tide and season.


The vessel operating in the North Sea scored this low (1‐2), while those in the Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes scored it highly effective (5)

It was highly acceptable to those in the Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes (the latter already use this mitigation), but more varying in the North Sea (three scored 3, one scored 1 and one scored 5)

In the North Sea there was no specific objection, but it was felt unnecessary since there is no problem with bird bycatch. Those in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes stated that it was successful and relatively cheap to implement.


Low (1) since the float lines are already considered visible to the birds and this measure is expected to possibly also deter fish.

Low acceptability (1) with estimated impact on catch of ‐40 to ‐50 %.

Expected to impact fish also and will increase drag on net which will result in nets being pushed down or drifting.

Acoustic 'pingers' Low to medium (1‐3) some fishers make considerable noise when setting and hauling nets to deter birds and others do not know how effective it might be.

Low acceptability (1‐2) due to high cost and impracticality of setting and hauling nets.

Pingers also increase net resistance in the water.


Low (1) considered not possible in the shallow coastal fisheries (namely Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes). This was not answered by those in the North Sea that normally operate at depths of 20 m

Not answered


Low (1) as per above High (5) due to longer steaming times with an estimated impact on catch of ‐70 %

May result in the majority of the 6 mile zone being closed.


Low (1‐2) in the North Sea fisheries it is felt that there are not specific concentrations of birds and so identifying an area would be difficult.

The majority scored low (1) with two scoring medium‐high (3‐4). This is highly dependent on the area chosen.

Feeding grounds may be different from where high concentrations of birds occur.


Low (1‐2) since the fisheries are highly seasonal and fishers move from target species depending on season.

Low (1) high impact since seasons can be short. An estimated impact on catch of ‐50 % for pikeperch fishers.

Considered that this would affect the steady supply of fish and therefore disrupt the market

In summary the fishers operating in the Dutch North Sea gillnet fishery do not perceive there to be any problem with bird bycatch. This is primarily due to the depth that the nets are set and their height from the seabed. The fishers operating in both the Wadden Sea and the IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes believe that the current mitigation measures have been effective in solving the bird bycatch issue.

Preliminary impact assessment

119

6 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Economics of current and proposed mitigation measures 6.1.1 Methodology The impact assessment was primarily based on findings from the case studies carried out. Through the questionnaire survey, respondents identified the estimated costs and benefits of the mitigation measures described in section 3 that were included in the questionnaire in terms of changes in catch and therefore income or changes in costs.

The social impacts can be inferred from these cost estimates. As evidenced in the German gillnet fleet (see section 6.1.5) significant losses will result in vessels leaving the fleet and a proportional reduction in employment levels. Co‐operation was not forthcoming to enable interviews in Germany; therefore the responses from fishers operating in the same metiers in other Member States are applied to German fleet data.

The following process was carried out to determine costs and then compare these with effectiveness:

1. The appropriate sector type from the Annual Economic Report (AER) data was identified for each Member State fleet in the case studies. For gillnets these were DFN (Drift nets and fixed nets) with two length ranges of vessel (0‐12m, 12‐24m); for longlines these were HOK (gears using hooks), again with these two length ranges plus 24‐40m for the Gran Sol fleet.

2. For each Member State fleet the most recent AER data (2007 data from the 2009 report) was used to establish the Status Quo situation in relation to a range of indicators including income, total costs and profit.

3. A set of 12 separate mitigation measures for longline and 9 separate mitigation measures for gillnet fisheries were presented to fishers in each case study.

4. Fishers were asked to estimate the impact of each mitigation measures in terms of how they expected them to impact on catch levels and total costs (e.g. a 5% increase in total costs). They were also asked to explain how they thought these changes in cost would occur (e.g. increased gear costs). In some instances fishers gave estimated changes to specific cost categories. Interviewers then derived the % impact on total costs following the interview based on responses to earlier questions on proportion of cost categories making up total costs.

5. Estimates of percentage impacts of mitigation measures on income and total cost were averaged for each fleet and applied to the AER data for that fleet, i.e. extrapolated to the entire Member State fleet operating in that metier, to derive the impact on income, costs and the resulting impact on profitability.

Note: Given the small sample sizes in relation to numbers of vessels within these fleets, the financial impacts reported must be treated with caution. Therefore the analysis focused on a comparative analysis of measures resulting in a ranking rather than on the specific costs calculated.

6. The impacts per Member State, per metier were then aggregated, for longlines and for gillnets, to enable a separate ranking of longline and gillnet mitigation measures, with those ranking first showing the greatest impact on profit.

7. In addition to an estimate of costs, the interviews sought the fishers’ opinions on the effectiveness and acceptability of each mitigation measure. Fishers were asked to score the mitigation measures out of 5 (with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest) with their estimates of effectiveness in reducing seabird bycatch and acceptability to the industry. Reasons for this score were also sought (see further discussion in section 6).

8. Average scores out of 5 (e.g. 5 being very effective and 1 being not at all effective) for each mitigation measure were calculated. It is to be expected that fishers’ responses on acceptability will relate to the estimated costs incurred and this can also affect a fishers’ scoring on effectiveness. Therefore effectiveness was also considered from previous research and experiences focused on the impact of mitigation measures on bird bycatch, using the same scale from 1–5 as was used in the questionnaire.

9. Costs to the public sector were estimated by the team (not respondents). These considered the comparative costs of management, enforcement and science of the proposed mitigation measures, assuming that the more complex or difficult the task, the greater the cost.

10. Finally the cost impact scores were then considered against the estimates of effectiveness to derive a cost‐effectiveness score and ranking.


120

6.1.2 Impact assessment results A summary of fisher‐derived estimates for impacts of mitigation measures associated with longline vessels and gillnet vessels are presented in Table 62 and Table 63 respectively (full tables for each case study are presented in Annex 7). For each mitigation measure, the average impact on income, costs and profit in relation to the status quo is presented (A), along with the impact on all case study fleets combined (column B) and the difference between these impacts and the status quo (column C). The ranking presented specifies the relative impact on profit in relation to the status quo with measures ranked highest having the greatest impact. The ranking in relation to average impact (column A) is discussed unless otherwise stated.

6.1.3 General findings For both the gillnet and longline case studies, the fishers suggested that the impact of every mitigation measure would be negative. No positive impact in the form of cost reductions (e.g. reduced time spent disentangling birds from gear, or reduced fishing costs from seasonal closure) were identified by the respondents.

The status quo situation for longlines is an operating profit of just 4.3%, while gillnets fleets have an average operating loss of 13%. Therefore in most cases, the mitigation measures result in higher operating losses for the fleets.

The estimates of impact on fishing income via reduced catches were far higher than increased costs. This is to be expected as the impact on catch is less readily defined than an increased cost if associated with the purchase of additional or more expensive gear.

For a number of case studies fishers felt unable to respond with an estimate of impact as they had not had direct experience of the mitigation measures proposed. This indicates that there may be benefit in introducing pilot schemes where knowledge of mitigation measures is lacking. This would help to raise awareness of the measures and provide more detail on the effective implementation of measures as well as providing more objective evidence of impact on catches and costs.

Another clear result in both longline and gillnet fisheries is that the largest expected negative impacts are associated with spatial (or temporal) measures, i.e. closed areas or seasons. This is in part due to the difficulty in estimating the generic impact of such measures as the scale of impact is dependent on the extent to which fishing opportunities are restricted. The technical measures proposed tend not to restrict fishing opportunities to such an extent, but instead may hamper the effectiveness of gear.

6.1.4 Longline mitigation measures With 2007 AER data showing highly variable profitability across the case study longline fleets, from operating losses in the major Gran Sol fleet to good profitability in the Greek inshore fleet, the overall result is a status quo situation of marginal profitability.

Only three of the proposed mitigation measures minimally impact on costs to the extent that marginal profitability is maintained: ‘making bait sink quicker’, ‘streamer lines’ and ‘offal discharge another time’. For this latter measure, many fisheries reported that with bait in pieces, no waste was produced and in the large scale Gran Sol fishery, the gutting of catch did not take place at the same time as hauling or setting therefore for these reasons offal disposal was a non‐issue in the case study fisheries.

‘Making bait sink quicker’ was reported as having little impact on costs other than a marginal increase in labour as this can be achieved through the thawing of frozen bait (frozen bait is more buoyant) and setting lines into the wake of the vessel where water turbulence will push the lines down more quickly. The Spanish longline fleet in the Western Mediterranean report that they already implement these measures.

‘Streamer lines’ were identified as resulting in minimal additional cost and could be effective without reducing catches. There was resistance to their use in the small‐scale Mediterranean longline fleets due to concerns that these could get tangled with the main line causing problems while setting and where streamer lines would be rigged from could pose problems for small vessels without masts. However, in Gran Sol, they are already used.

The mitigation measure with the most significant cost impact was ‘circle hooks’, this is primarily due to the major catch reductions estimated in the Spanish longline fleets averaging 70% reductions in fish catch. In Malta a more


121

modest catch reduction was estimated, while in Greece impact estimates only related to the additional cost of the hooks.

‘Side‐setting’ was ranked 7th for impact on profit. For the small‐scale fleets this was estimated to result in marginal reductions in fishing capacity and increased costs through vessel adaptation. However for the large scale fleet in the Gran Sol fishery, it was thought to have significant impacts on fishing capacity, hence the overall impact on profits being greater (17% overall rather than 10% on average).

In all longline case studies other than the Gran Sol fishery and the Greek demersal longline fishery, ‘night‐setting’ is identified as having major impacts on catch as the target species are associated with daytime gear setting. Respondents in the Gran Sol and Greek demersal fisheries indicate that night‐setting is already practised, with the gear being set before dawn (4a.m.) and this is highly effective in avoiding bird interactions. As a result, the interactions in these fisheries now tend to occur during hauling rather than setting.

As mentioned above, the impact of ‘closed areas and seasons’ proved the most difficult to estimate as this is dependent upon the spatial and temporal extent of any closure. In most instances fishers estimated that closures to avoid seabirds would result in significant losses in income as both are targeting fish and therefore the highest seabird numbers tend to coincide with the best fishing periods. There was therefore a concern from most respondents that closures would be extensive: “Closed areas would not be good in Malta since the Maltese islands are small and seabirds are found everywhere.”


122

Table 62: Summary of longline mitigation measure costs

Longline mitigation measures Average change Rank Total (millions of Euro) Difference to Status Quo

Rank (change in profit)

income costs profit (change in profit)

income costs profit income costs profit

Status Quo 0 0 0 € 322 € 308 € 14 0 0 0

Technical measures

1 Change bait type ‐16% 3%

‐19% 5 € 283 € 311 ‐€ 28 ‐12% 1% ‐13% 6

2 Increase weight of line ‐15% 5%

‐19% 4 € 187 € 315 ‐€ 129 ‐42% 2% ‐44% 2

3 Circle hooks ‐40% 4%

‐43% 1 € 172 € 312 ‐€ 140 ‐46% 1% ‐48% 1

4 Make bait sink quicker 0% 1%

‐1% 11 € 322 € 310 € 12 0% 0% 0% 11

5 Dyed bait ‐8% 4% ‐12% 6 € 309 € 315 ‐€ 6 ‐4% 2% ‐6% 9

6 Streamer line ‐2% 2%

‐5% 9 € 315 € 313 € 2 ‐2% 1% ‐4% 10

7 Side‐setting ‐5% 5%

‐10% 7 € 270 € 312 ‐€ 42 ‐16% 1% ‐17% 5

8 Bird scaring curtain ‐3% 2%

‐6% 8 € 287 € 311 ‐€ 24 ‐11% 1% ‐12% 7

10 Offal discharge opposite side ‐3% 0%

‐3% 10 € 287 € 308 ‐€ 21 ‐11% 0% ‐11% 8

11 Offal discharge another time 0% 0%

0% 12 € 322 € 308 € 14 0% 0% 0% 12

Spatial measures

9 Night setting ‐35% 0%

‐35% 2 € 251 € 309 ‐€ 58 ‐22% 0% ‐22% 3

12 Closed areas/seasons ‐28% ‐8%

‐20% 3 € 242 € 293 ‐€ 51 ‐25% ‐5% ‐20% 4


123

6.1.5 Gillnet mitigation measures The 2007 AER data shows Danish gillnetters were operating at a loss of 7%, but German gillnetters (0‐12m) showed substantial losses with costs more than double income levels. With a high dependence on Baltic cod, the catch income for German gillnetters has decreased substantially in recent years and the numbers of vessels operating in this fishery has reduced from over 1,000 in 2007 (report in AER) to less than 700 in 2010 based on the Community Fleet Register (CFR). Many of these vessels are operated on a part‐time basis and the majority of costs result from crew‐share, which as owner/operator businesses means than owners are receiving an income, explaining why these continue to be operated despite being loss‐making. The other gillnet fleets in the case studies showed good levels of profitability in 2007 that ranged from 12% (Estonia) and 54% (Latvia), with many showing an operating profit of around 30%.

There is a clear difference between the estimated impact of technical measures compared to the estimated impact of spatial and temporal measures. Technical measures were estimated to reduce profitability by 10‐20%, while spatial measures were estimated to reduce this by between 35–73%. Taking into account the difficulty in estimating the impact of non‐specific spatial measures, the characteristics of these fisheries make significant negative impacts of spatial mitigation measures appear inevitable.

The largest estimated impact is from a requirement to ‘set in water >20m’. For inshore fisheries, particularly in the Baltic this effectively prevents access to the fishery. Fishing substantially further offshore increases fuel costs and reduces catch as fishers report that fish populations are more dispersed offshore. Similar impacts are also reflected in the less specific, ‘increase depth at which net is set’, which ranked second.

The ‘avoidance of areas of high bird concentrations’ showed the smallest estimates of negative impacts of all the spatial and temporal measures proposed. A number of vessels already avoid certain areas, for example Danish and Swedish fishers report that they avoid areas with larger eider duck concentrations as this reduces hauling time.

‘Restricting fishing in important seasons’ would in some circumstances effectively close the fishery, for example the Dutch pike and perch fishery is a winter fishery when birds are most abundant. Therefore estimates of losses to income are large.

The smallest negative impact was estimated for ‘buoys with visual deterrents’. Any additional cost would be dependent on the method/materials selected, but overall this was viewed as a cheap option. However, for some fisheries, the current practice of setting nets at night limited the benefit of such a measure. This was followed by the use of ‘red corks spaced throughout the net’; a low cost measure that was only thought to impact the fishing efficiency of the gear in some instances, for example in the Netherlands it was commented that “corks would cause too much resistance in the strong currents and block hauling device”. For those fishing at night and/or in murky water, the efficacy of visual measures is limited.

‘Acoustic pingers’ were identified as resulting in the highest additional cost (estimated to be 10% on average), but having no or minimal impact on fish catch. As with introducing red corks into the nets, some fishers suggested pingers could be a hindrance to net haulers.

The use of ‘alternative gear’ produced mixed responses and high estimated impacts resulting from reduced catch as gear is less effective and/or fishers are not experienced with it as well as the need to purchase this new gear. It was commented that many of the Swedish gillnet fishers have switched to longlining, which can have even more of a bird bycatch issue than their current deep‐set gillnets for cod.


124

Table 63: Summary of gillnet mitigation measure costs

Gillnet mitigation measures Average change

Rank (change in profit)

Total (millions of Euro)

Difference to Status Quo Rank (change in profit)

income costs profit income costs profit income costs profit

0 Status Quo 0 0 0 € 99 € 111 ‐€ 13 0 0 0

Technical measures

1 Multi‐coloured twine in top meshes ‐16% 5% ‐20% 7 € 87 € 119 ‐€ 32 ‐12% 7% ‐19% 5

2 Buoys with visual deterrents ‐6% 3% ‐9% 9 € 91 € 117 ‐€ 26 ‐7% 5% ‐13% 7

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting ‐14% 5% ‐19% 8 € 93 € 116 ‐€ 22 ‐5% 4% ‐9% 9

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ ‐10% 10% ‐21% 6 € 97 € 121 ‐€ 25 ‐2% 9% ‐11% 8

Spatial measures

5 Increase the depth at which net is set ‐40% 4% ‐44% 2 € 60 € 119 ‐€ 60 ‐39% 7% ‐47% 3

6 Set nets only in water > 20m depth ‐67% 6% ‐73% 1 € 42 € 121 ‐€ 78 ‐57% 8% ‐65% 1

7 Spatial restrictions in areas of high seabird abundance ‐29% 6% ‐35% 5 € 89 € 121 ‐€ 32 ‐10% 8% ‐19% 6

8 Restricting fishing season to avoid periods of high seabird abundance ‐49% ‐11% ‐38% 4 € 41 € 86 ‐€ 45 ‐58% ‐23% ‐35% 4

9 Use of alternative gear ‐26% 18% ‐43% 3 € 75 € 149 ‐€ 74 ‐24% 34% ‐57% 2


125

6.1.6 Public sector costs The previous section considered the costs to industry of introducing various mitigation measures. There is also a cost to the public sector in implementing such measures. Public sector costs may include the ongoing management of a scheme; set‐up costs such as legislative change; science to inform and monitor a measure; and enforcement costs to ensure a measure is being applied.

The industry questionnaire did not ask fishers to consider costs to the public sector. Assuming any measure being introduced is a change to the status quo and results in some cost, the tables below (Table 64 and Table 65)) present a comparative estimation of these public costs from minimal cost (1) up to significant costs (3). There is the potential for some measures to result in cost savings, for example seasonal closures could result in reduced monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) costs if the fleet is tied up. However, it is assumed that the industry response would be to switch to alternative areas or gears to be able to keep fishing and therefore MCS costs would remain constant.

Some technical measures proposed, such as a bird‐scaring curtain or making bait sink quicker may be difficult to define in legislation to ensure vessels implement the measure in an effective manner; for these examples defining the appropriate size of curtain or the sinking rate of bait may prove problematic. Measures such as streamer lines, dyed bait and offal discharge, are simpler to define but more difficult to enforce as observation at sea would be required. Some of these measures lend themselves to a code of conduct that can be reinforced by peer pressure rather than agency enforcement.

Some technical measures, such as circle hooks and weight of line, would be comparatively simple to define, introduce and enforce if these were the only permitted gears as possession of other gears would be deemed non‐compliance. However, this may imply public sector costs to subsidise the switch‐over to new gear types or configurations.

The highest costs identified are for closed areas as management and scientific resources would be required to determine the extent of the closed area in the first instance, which would have to be followed up by significant MCS resources. This is assuming that, as at present these small‐scale vessels under 12m do not have vessel monitoring systems (VMS) to permit remote observation.

Table 64: Estimation of public sector costs incurred for longline mitigation measures

Measure Public sector costs incurred Score

Technical measures

1 Change bait type Simple to introduce, difficult to enforce 2

2 Increase weight of line Simple to define and enforce if only permitted gear 1

3 Circle hooks Simple to define and enforce if only permitted gear 1

4 Make bait sink quicker Difficult to define in legislation and to ensure effective 2

5 Dyed bait Simple to introduce, difficult to enforce 2

6 Streamer line Simple to introduce, difficult to ensure effective operation 2

7 Side‐setting Deck set‐up should easily identify compliance 1

8 Bird scaring curtain Difficult to define in legislation and to ensure effective operation 2

Spatial/temporal measures

9 Night setting Simple to introduce and enforce 1

10 Offal discharged from op Simple to introduce, difficult to enforce 2

11 Offal discharge Diff Time Simple to introduce, difficult to enforce 2

12 Closed areas Significant science and enforcement resources 3


126

Table 65: Estimation of public sector costs incurred for gillnet mitigation measures

Measure Public sector costs incurred Score

Technical measures

1 Multifilament Simple to define and enforce if only permitted gear 1

2 Buoys with visual Simple to introduce and enforce 1

3 Red corks Simple to introduce and enforce 1

4 Acoustic Ping Simple to introduce and enforce 1


5 Increase depth Difficult to enforce for small boat fleet without VMS 2

6 Set nets Deep Difficult to enforce for small boat fleet without VMS 2

7 Spatial Restrict Significant science and enforcement resources 3

8 Season Restrict Simple to introduce and enforce 1

9 Alternative Gear Simple to define and enforce if only permitted gear 1

6.1.7 Cost‐effectiveness of measures

Fishers were asked to score the effectiveness of measures and their acceptability to the industry. Table 66 and Table 67 summarise the results of this questioning for longline and gillnet case studies with 0 being 100% effective and 5 being 0% effective (i.e. ineffective). This inverse scoring, where a higher score is negative, enables aggregation with cost scoring to give a total score. The higher the total score, the less effective, less acceptable and more costly to industry and the public sector the measure is estimated to be.

It should be noted that as with costs, effectiveness and acceptability scores differ between case study fisheries as some measures are already implemented (e.g. Estonia already implements some spatial restrictions) and are therefore deemed to be more acceptable than other measures. Case study‐specific rankings are provided in Annex 7.

The results present a far more mixed picture in relation to the ranking of technical and spatial measures than the assessment of private sector costs alone. Cost‐effectiveness is ranked, with 1 being the most cost‐effective (least costly and most effective). This illustrates that a blanket application of some of measures such as night‐setting are likely to be highly effective, but are also expected to result in substantial costs to industry. Similarly closed areas are expected to be relatively effective, but not acceptable to industry.

For longline fisheries the most cost‐effective measures were judged to be: discharging offal discharge at different times; making bait sink quicker, night setting, streamer lines and dyed bait. Opinions on night setting differ markedly by fishery. The Greek fishery reports that bottom set longlines are more effective when set at night and pelagic longlines set in the day time. Offal discharge is also a non‐issue for some fisheries such as in Malta, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, where offal is not produced, but would be sensible in the Gran Sol fishery and is already implemented by some. In the case of offal discharged at another time (i.e. not when setting or hauling), the introduction of this measure would not adversely impact those fisheries where it is less applicable.

The least cost‐effective measures as identified by respondents were: closed areas, circle hooks and bird‐scaring curtains. All scored poorly on acceptability to industry; closed areas due to the loss of fishing opportunities, circle hooks due to the additional costs and the bird scaring curtain due to concerns with operational efficiency and safety. While the industry recognised that closing areas could be effective, its concerns over the extent of the closures led to low acceptability and high estimated costs. The public sector costs of introducing closed areas are also estimated to be high, as determining closed areas and then enforcing these for small‐scale fleets can be costly.


127

Table 66: Summary of opinions on cost‐effectiveness of longline mitigation measures

Industry opinion on

Mitigation Type Effectiveness Acceptability Industry costs

Public costs

Total score Rank*

Technical measures

1 Change bait type 3.5 3.2 2 2 10.7 9

2 Increase weight of line 2.9 3.2 2 1 9.2 7

3 Circle hooks 3.0 3.4 4 1 11.3 11

4 Make bait sink quicker 2.4 1.4 1 2 6.8 2

5 Dyed bait 2.6 2.5 2 2 9.1 5

6 Streamer line 2.3 2.5 1 2 7.8 4

7 Side‐setting 3.4 3.5 2 1 9.9 8

8 Bird scaring curtain 3.9 3.9 1 2 10.8 10


9 Night setting 0.4 2.1 4 1 7.6 3

10 offal discharged from op 3.5 2.6 1 2 9.1 6

11 offal discharge Diff Time 2.2 1.0 1 2 6.3 1

12 Closed areas 2.1 4.0 3 3 12.1 12

Note: * 1 = most cost‐effective (i.e. lowest total score).

For gillnet mitigation measures the most cost‐effective measures primarily based on the judgement of respondents were: buoys with visual deterrents, use of alternative gear, and coloured multifilament nets. Of these, buoys with visual deterrents are a simple measure that is low cost to industry and the public sector. However the efficacy of these may be highly species‐specific and habituation may occur. Moving to alternative gears from gillnets was logically identified as having the potential to be highly effective in reducing the bycatch associated with gillnet fisheries. However in the Swedish case study it was evident that a change to longlining had changed and possibly increased bird bycatch rather than removing it.

The least cost‐effective measures were variations on spatial restrictions; setting the net in deeper water or more specifically below 20m. This is because the Baltic Sea respondents operate in a shallow water fishery and would deem this move to result in unacceptable costs to industry. Policing a depth contour could also be costly without remote sensing technology such as VMS aboard vessels. The purchasing cost of Acoustic pingers was the main reason for industry deeming this to be the least cost‐effective technical measure proposed despite some recognition that they may be comparatively effective at reducing bird bycatch.

The acceptability to industry is related to the estimated costs incurred and in many instances the industry’s score for effectiveness is also likely to be biased against measures that would result in higher costs. Existing literature on the efficacy of measures to reduce bird bycatch is reviewed in Section 3 and this is taken into account in the following section on conclusions and recommendations.


128

Table 67: Summary of opinions on cost‐effectiveness of gillnet mitigation measures

Industry opinion on

Total score Rank* Mitigation Type Effectiveness Acceptability

Industry costs

Public costs

Technical measures

1 Multifilament 3.6 3.2 2 1 9.7 3 3

2 Buoys with visual 3.2 2.5 1 1 7.7 1

3 Red corks 3.7 3.7 2 1 10.4 5

4 Acoustic Ping 3.1 3.4 3 1 10.4 6


5 Increase depth 2.4 3.4 4 2 11.7 7

6 Set nets Deep 2.3 3.7 5 2 13.0 9

7 Spatial Restrict 2.0 3.0 4 3 12.0 8

8 Season Restrict 2.0 3.3 4 1 10.3 4

9 Alternative Gear 1.3 3.0 4 1 9.3 2

Note: * 1 = most cost‐effective (i.e. lowest total score).


129

6.2 Impacts on seabird populations 6.2.1 Bycatch levels and vulnerability Bycatch rates generated from questionnaire survey responses on the numbers of birds caught by fishers by quarter throughout a typical year are mostly comparative to those reported in literature (see details in sections 5.1.4.2, 5.2.4.2, 5.3.4.2). The representativeness of survey bycatch rates across fleets requires verification due to the low sample sizes realised for this study. However, to provide additional insight into similarities/differences between survey bycatch results and those previously reported, annual estimates of seabird bycatch were calculated from survey results. Annual estimates may also provide an insight into the potential scale of the impacts relative to seabird populations in the areas concerned.

6.2.1.1 Longline fisheries Estimates of total annual bycatch for case study fleets were based on survey bycatch rates generated from fishers who reported both bycatch and effort, scaled up by average numbers of hooks set by these fishers and the total number of vessels active for the fleets concerned. Table 68 details survey annual bycatch estimates for the longline case study fisheries, alongside some of the corresponding estimates available in published literature.

Annual seabird bycatch estimates generated from the survey for the western Mediterranean Spanish pelagic longline fleet were lower than those published in Garcia‐Barcelona (2010a), which were based on observer data from approximately three times the effort associated with survey estimates, but can generally be considered to be on the same scale (i.e. within the hundreds rather than within thousands of birds). Estimates from the Spanish demersal longline fishers surveyed in the western Mediterranean, however, were more than three times higher than those published for estimates from observer data for similar gear in Belda & Sanchez (2001), and although bycatch rates were only slightly lower than for the pelagic longlines, total annual demersal longline estimates are substantially higher than for pelagic longlines for both gull and shearwater species due to the larger numbers of vessels involved (Table 68).

In Greek waters, information on bird bycatch has been mostly anecdotal (see Section 5.2.2). References have been made to sporadic large catches, particularly of shearwaters, but published estimates for total annual bycatch for this region do not currently exist. Bycatch rates reported by both demersal and pelagic longline fishers interviewed in Greece were lower than those reported by fishers using the same gears in the Spanish Western Mediterranean. However, as a result of the larger numbers of small scale vessels comprising Greek pelagic fleets, corresponding total annual estimates were greater than the Spanish pelagic estimates and comprised substantial numbers of birds of which a large proportion were shearwaters (Table 68). Greek demersal catch estimates were also large, even when a one‐off catch of 500 shearwaters reported by one fisher interviewed were not included in the estimates.

Bycatch rates and total annual bycatch estimates from the pelagic longline survey in Malta were similar to published estimates. No bycatch was reported by demersal fishers surveyed, whilst low bycatch rates estimated from published questionnaire data amounted to over a thousand shearwaters species being impacted annually by this gear in Malta (Darmanin et al., 2010).

Bycatch rates and total annual estimates generated from the case study survey in the Gran Sol were lower than those that have been reported previously (BirdLife International, 2009b). However bycatch estimates included the same complement of species to Birdlife estimates including shearwaters, Northern fulmars and Northern gannets. Shearwaters comprised the largest proportion of the bycatch in both estimates (86% in this study and 73% in Birdlife International (2009b)), but Northern fulmars comprised a greater proportion of the total bycatch than Northern gannets in Birdlife International (2009b) estimates (17% and 2% respectively (BirdLife International (2009b) compared to 5% and 9% in this study).

The variation in bycatch rates and annual bycatch estimates within case study fisheries and between these and published studies, highlights the paucity of accurate bycatch data available for these fleets. The variability in the data currently available clearly demonstrates a need for increased data collection across all fisheries, in order to quantify and understand regularly‐occurring bycatch events occurring throughout these fleets as well sporadic mass bycatch events.

Annual estimates of seabird bycatch based on the fisher survey results amount to 44,700 ± 19,373 seabirds for demersal and 9231 ± 4029 seabirds for pelagic Spanish, Greek and Maltese fleets fishing in the Mediterranean.


130

Interpretation of these estimates should always consider the low sample sizes and restricted geographical ranges of the bycatch rate estimates from which they were generated.

6.2.1.2 Gillnet fisheries Annual bycatch estimates from the fisher surveys in the Baltic and eastern North Sea should also be considered with some caution. Aside from the low sample sizes of fishers interviewed from which estimates have been generated, many of the fishers who provided estimates of seabird bycatch did not provide information on either Net Metres per Day (NMD) or the number of days fished per year. Therefore, in order to utilise as much of the bycatch information gathered, missing effort data was applied to fishers lacking this information based on the corresponding scale of effort that was reported by other fishers in the region. The number of vessels used to scale up bycatch rates for fleets were those in AER data as used in Section 6.1. Table 69 details survey annual bycatch estimates for the gillnet case study fisheries, alongside some of the corresponding estimates available in published literature.

Total annual estimates from the Netherlands survey were much lower than those published, but this is likely due to the fishing locality of those surveyed. Previous estimates have come from the inland lakes, whilst the case study fisher survey predominantly included responses from North Sea coastal fishers (see section 5.6.4.2). In the eastern Baltic Estonian case study, although bycatch rates estimated from the surveys were comparable to published rate estimates (see section 5.4.2)the total annual survey estimates were some six times higher, comprising mostly sea ducks, diving ducks and cormorants (Table 69). A similar pattern in bycatch composition occurred with annual estimates from the Latvian fisher survey, although cormorant bycatch was reported to a lesser extent, but total seabird bycatch estimates corresponded more closely to published estimates. Total annual estimates for Lithuania were minimal and thus considerably lower than published seabird estimates for this coastline. In the western Baltic Danish case study, annual estimates from the survey suggest that considerable numbers of sea ducks and cormorants might be being caught in gillnet fisheries in the region. Estimates from the survey were much greater than previously published, and in this case it may not be appropriate to scale bycatch rates from one section for the coastline across the entire Danish fleet. The species groups implicated do correspond with those reported in published reports. Estimates of total seabird bycatch for the Baltic based on the estimates from fleets covered by the surveys are similar to those given in Žydelis et al. (2009). However, the case study surveys did not incorporate any estimation of bycatch from Poland nor Germany, both of which are included in the Žydelis estimates (which indicated that bycatch from these countries contributed a large proportion of total bycatch in the region).


131

Table 68: Estimates for total annual seabird (and separate species or species groups) bycatch for case study longline fleets (based on bycatch rates estimated from fisher questionnaires, scaled up by average hooks set per vessel and total number of vessels Case study fishery Fisher survey Published data

No. of vessels annual

estimates based on

Estimates of total annual bycatch ± S.E.

All seabirds Gull spp Shearwater spp

Northern fulmar

Northern gannet

Published estimate of total annual seabird bycatch

Species annual estimates

Source

Western Mediterranean Spanish

Pelagic longlines 85 329 ± 176 263 ± 145 64 ± 32 0 2 ± 2 ~506.1 ± 203.4

~239.3 ± 169.7 Cory’s shearwater

Garcia‐Barcelona (2010)

Demersal longlines 1076 8620 ± 4579 6289 ± 3410 2332 ± 1219 0 0 656‐2829 Belda and Sanchez (2001)

Greek waters

Pelagic longlines 1122 4398 ± 3659 268 ± 268 4130 ± 3687 0 0 n/a n/a n/a

Demersal longlines 3100 6846 ± 4006 0 6450 ± 3686 0 0 n/a n/a n/a

Maltese waters

Pelagic longlines 493 217 ± 217 0 0 0 217 ± 217 6 6 Cory’s shearwaters Darmanin et al (2010) (estimates based on questionnaire data as reported in Dimech et al., 2009)

Demersal longlines 2253 0 0 0 0 0 1231 1214 Cory’s and 17 Yelkouan shearwaters

Darmanin et al (2010) (estimates based on questionnaire data as reported in Dimech et al., 2009)

Gran Sol

Demersal longlines

70 2620 ±139 0 2254 ± 104 137 ± 33 227 ± 41 56,307 Including: 41211 shearwaters, 9493 Northern fulmars, 1331 Northern gannets

Birdlife (2009)

Note: ± S.E. is ± standard errors


132

Table 69: Estimates for total annual seabird (and separate species or species groups) bycatch for case study longline fleets (based on bycatch rates estimated from fisher questionnaires, scaled up by average annual NMD per vessel and total numbers of vessels

Case study fishery

Fisher survey Published data

No. of vessels annual

estimates based on

Estimates of total annual bycatch ± S.E.

All seabirds

Auks Cormorants Diving ducks

grebes Loons/ divers

Sea ducks

Other spp.

Published estimate of total annual seabird bycatch

Species and area Source

Eastern North Sea gillnets

Netherlands 71 611 ± 239 0 148 ± 71 100 ± 58

129 ± 100

0 234 ± 213

0 12,000 53% Tufted duck, 17% Greater scaup, 14% Great‐crested grebe; Ijsselmeer and Markermeer

Witteveen and Bos (2003 in Zydelis et al. (2009)

Eastern Baltic

Estonia 879 29,616 ± 8,648

41 ± 41 4,410 ± 3,235

8,647 ± 4,052

83 ± 83

334 ± 236

15,150 ± 4,422

952 ± 538

~ 5,000 78% Long‐tailed ducks, Gulf of Finland Estonian coast

Vetemaa unpublished data in Zydelis et al., 2009

Latvia 748 5,674 ± 1,353

0 566 ± 355 3,080 ± 882

0 149 ± 149

1,879 ± 716

0 2,500‐6,500

38% Long‐tailed ducks, 16% divers; Latvian coastal waters

Urtans and Priednieks (2000) in Zydelis et al., (2009)

Lithuania 204 110 ± 62 0 0 7 ± 7 7 ± 7 0 95 ± 58 0 ~2,500‐5,000

56% Long‐tailed ducks, 16% Velvet scoter, 7% divers, 6% Steller’s eider; Lithuanian coastal waters

Dagys and Zydelis (2002) in Zydelis et al., (2009)

Western Baltic

Denmark 1271 59,148 ± 7,883

432 ± 286

12,656 ± 3,565

0 0 0 46,060 ± 4,878

0 598 72% Common eider; Fyn area around Ærø Island

Degel, Petersen, Holm & Kahlert (2010)

Sweden 891 891 ± 891 0 0 891 ± 891

0 0 0 0 500‐6,500 18,000

90% Common guillemot; South Sweden 54% Great Cormorant, 14% common eider, 11% common guillemot

Olden et al., (1988) Lunneryd et al., (2004) In Zydelis et al. 2009

Baltic Total 95,440 ± 19,076

474 ± 327

17,779 ± 7, 227

12,726 ± 5,891

219 ± 190

483 ± 385

63,418 ±

10,075

952 ±538

~90,000 Zydelis et al., (2009)

Note: ± S.E. is ± standard errors


133

6.2.2 Sustainability of bycatch and population assessment methods Generating estimates of bycatch has limited application unless some inference can be made about the impact of this bycatch on the seabird populations involved. Currently there are no guidelines defining bird bycatch limits or other mortality levels that could be deemed as sustainable at either population of geographic scale in Europe (Žydelis et al., 2009). Many of the seabird species which interact with fisheries are long‐lived species with low reproductive success. Therefore, from a conservation perspective, a reasonable objective might be to reduce their bycatch to zero, but this does not take into account the economic and social importance of many coastal fisheries, particularly small scale fisheries implicated in the case studies explored here. However, given that the EU Birds Directive principle requires that the survival and reproduction of migratory bird species is ensured (Council of the European Communities, 1979), human‐induced bird mortality occurring at levels which exceed intrinsic population growth rates ought to be addressed (Žydelis et al., 2009).

Full assessment of populations impacted by fisheries requires detailed demographic and life history information of the affected species, as well as accurate bycatch estimates at an appropriate scale. As we have highlighted in section 6.2.1, information available on bycatch rates, particularly at species level, is sparse. Estimates that are available have been generated from a variety of data collection methods (questionnaires, direct observation) and are often estimated from small sample sizes or restricted geographical or temporal ranges, which can make them difficult to compare due to non‐standardised reporting of catch rates. Additionally, population trends are not well established for many of the seabird species impacted by fisheries and current population estimates have limited precision for most species (BirdLife International, 2004). Information on demographic parameters such as survival rates and reproduction population segment delineation are also limited or unavailable for some species. However, a relatively new approach that has been developed primarily to address marine mammal bycatch management in the US (Watts, 2010) represents a new application of harvest theory and is referred to as Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (Wade, 1998). The objective of PBR is to determine levels of incidental take (or deaths not resulting from natural mortality) that will not jeopardize the population concerned and represents a potential standard for a threshold of additional annual mortality sustainable to a population. As a method for establishing limits on incidental take for species of conservation concern, PBR is considered to have particular appeal because:

1. It is based on data that can be collected (e.g. capture‐recapture data), 2. It incorporates safeguards against uncertainties in the data, 3. It is compatible with performance criteria needed to evaluate the success of management schemes, 4. It utilises an approach that can be easily explained to stakeholders (Watts, 2010).

It has been used to set bycatch limits for marine mammals in US fisheries under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, but it has also been suggested as being applicable to bird species both of conservation concern as well as those considered to be nuisance species (Watts, 2010). PBR is estimated as follows:

12

where:

= is a recovery factor between 0.1 and 1.0

= minimum estimate of the current population size

= the maximum annual recruitment rate calculated as:

1

Where = maximum annual population growth rate

can be estimated for long‐lived bird species using only annual adult survival probability (s) and the age of first reproduction (α) based on a method provided by Niel and Lebreton (2005):

1 1 4

2


134

PBR is then estimated as follows:

Niel & Lebreton (2005) also provide a means of approximating hen population variance estimates are not available:

.

This method has been applied to a number of seabird species vulnerable to bycatch in fisheries, including white‐chinned petrels (Dillingham & Fletcher, 2008); short‐tailed albatross (Zador et al., 2008) and highly relevant to this study, three species impacted within the Baltic including the Long‐tailed duck, Greater scaup and the Common guillemot (Žydelis et al., 2009). Žydelis et al. (2009) estimated PBR for regional (western Paleartic) populations of the Long‐tailed duck (which are considered to have a stable population) as 189,000 birds. Even though the Žydelis et al. (2009) estimate of bycatch for this species in the Baltic of 22,000 birds was considered to be a minimum estimate, it was still considered that bycatch levels were well below the PBR level using a recovery factor of 0.5. However, the authors also recognised that these birds face threats from other sources of mortality, such as hunting and oil pollution, in the region and that recent reports have suggested that the populations of Long‐tailed ducks have declined in the Baltic. Application of a lower recovery rate resulted in a more conservative estimate of 113,000 PBR.

PBR estimates for Greater scaup were more conclusive in suggesting that the current levels of mortality combined from fisheries bycatch and hunting in the region are close to the PBR threshold of between 8900‐13,100 (Žydelis et al.,2009).

Estimates of PBR for the Common guillemot in Žydelis et al. (2009) indicated that additional demographic data is required to determine the significance of fisheries bycatch, due to problems in population segment delineations and differential mortality on different life‐stages of this species.

Annual estimates of gillnet bycatch from the fisher surveys were not by species, but some estimates were available for species groups including auks, cormorants, diving ducks, grebes, loons/divers, sea ducks and other unidentified species. The greatest annual estimates from the surveys were for sea ducks (~63,000), cormorants (~18,000) and diving ducks (13,000) (Table 69). However, as these estimates are likely to include several other species, (i.e. Common eider, Common scoter, Velvet scoter, Long‐tailed duck, Goosander, Red‐breasted mergansers for sea ducks and Common pochard, Greater scaup, Tufted duck, Goldeneye, Smew for diving ducks), and result from small sample sizes and limited geographic coverage it is difficult to draw conclusions in relation to the species specific PBR estimates for Long‐tailed ducks or Greater scaup given in Žydelis et al. (2009).

Extinction risk has been assessed for the Balearic shearwater by other means (Oro et al., 2004), but we were unable to find PBR estimates for this and other seabird species currently known to interact with the Mediterranean longline fisheries. Therefore, estimated were generated of PBR for two of the shearwaters species present in the Mediterranean, selected on the basis of their conservation status, vulnerability to bycatch and likely interactions across case study fleets. The Balearic shearwater was selected due to its ‘critically endangered’ IUCN status, localised breeding populations and high vulnerability to small scale demersal longline fisheries in the Spanish Mediterranean fleet. Cory’s shearwater was selected due to its unfavourable European conservation status (SPEC 2), potential vulnerability to bycatch in all of the case study longline fisheries in the Mediterranean, being one of the species most often cited in previous reports of bycatch in the region, as well as its possible interaction at certain times of the year with the Gran Sol fleet.

Table 70 details the population parameters used to estimate PBR for Balearic shearwaters and the European population of Cory’s shearwaters. Recovery factors (FR) were assigned to species based on guidelines given in Žydelis et al. (2009) and Dillingham & Fletcher (2008), where FR is set to 0.5 for stable populations/or those considered to be of ’least concern’ (IUCN population status for birds); FR = 0.3 for declining populations/ ‘near threatened’ and FR = 0.1 for rapidly declining populations/threatened status. Due to the uncertainty in some of the demographic parameters used for these species, we provide sensitivity analysis on PBR estimates using minimum and maximum total population estimates and 95% confidence limits around the adult survival estimates available for Balearic shearwaters. To give a range of plausible PBR estimates for Cory’s shearwater, minimum and maximum total population estimates were used and two different recovery factors were applied due to the declining trends


135

reported for European populations, whilst still considering the IUCN status for the global population which remains as ‘least concern’.

The PBR estimates for Balearic shearwaters were very low, ranging from 244 to 465 birds; PBR estimated for the European population of Cory’s shearwaters ranged from 10,897 (for lower population estimates combined with lower recovery rates) to 31,855 (for higher population estimates combined with the higher recovery rate of 0.5).

Comparing these PBR estimates for Balearic and Cory’s shearwaters with annual bycatch estimates generated from the survey illustrates the vulnerability of these species to additional human‐induced mortality, particularly in the case of the Balearic shearwater, and the significance of even very low levels of bycatch as a potential threat to their populations. Although bycatch estimates in the survey were grouped as ‘shearwaters’, and came from small sample sizes and restricted geographical coverage, even if only 5% of the estimated annual bycatch for the Spanish demersal fleets corresponded to bycatch of Balearic shearwaters, this would represent 50% of the minimum estimate of PBR for this species. Estimates of PBR for Cory’s shearwater were considerably larger, and although this species is considered to be more abundant, it is likely to be impacted across a much wider geographical range than the Balearic shearwater, and is therefore likely to be vulnerable to all case study longline fisheries (including the Gran Sol fleet). Both species additionally migrate to other areas in Europe, inhabiting coastal regions were other fisheries are also reported to interact with shearwater species (see Section 5.3.2). If 50% of the total Mediterranean bycatch estimate for shearwater spp. (28,400/2 = 14,200 birds) corresponds with Cory’s shearwater bycatch, this level of bycatch corresponds with the lower PBR estimate range given in Table 70. Given that this species is reported to suffer additional mortality from land‐based human‐induced mortality (such as predation by rats (Igual et al., 2009)), it would suggest that at the very least there is considerable potential for bycatch from the demersal longline fisheries in Spain and Greece and from pelagic longline fisheries in Greece and possibly the Gran Sol to represent a threat to Cory’s shearwater populations.

Table 70: Potential Biological Removal (PBR) estimates for two species of shearwaters which interact with longline gear in the Mediterranean and the Gran Sol.

Species Total

population estimate

Min population

size

Age of first reproduction

α

Adult Survival

s

Maximum population growth rate

Recovery factor

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Balearic shearwater

15,000 25,000

10 12680.31 21133.85

6 0.78 ± 0.04 95% CL

11

1.20722 1.20722

0.1 263(244‐279 95% CL) 438 (406‐465 95% CL)

Cory’s shearwater

810,000 870,00012

684736.6 735457.8

9

0.9613

1.05305

0.3 0.5

10,897 19,507

810,000 870,00014

684736.6 735457.8

9

0.78

1.08665

0.3 0.5

17,795 31,855

Unfortunately there was not the capacity within this study to fully explore estimation of PBR for all species considered to be of conservation concern that are implicated in the bycatch reported from case study fisher surveys and in previous studies. Species for which such work should be set as a priority include:

Species Relevant case study regionYelkouan shearwater ‐ Western Mediterranean, Greek and Maltese waters Audouin’s gull ‐ Western Mediterranean, Greek and Maltese waters Sooty shearwater ‐ Gran SolManx shearwater ‐ Gran SolBlack legged kittiwake ‐ Gran SolBlack guillemot ‐ Eastern & Western BalticNorthern fulmar ‐ Gran SolTufted duck ‐ Western Baltic, E North SeaBlack throated diver ‐ Eastern Baltic

10 Based on population estimates in Birdlife (2004) 11 Taken from Oro et al. (2004) 12 European population estimates in Birdlife (2004) 13 Taken from Jenouvrier et al (2008) and Igual et al. (2009) 14 European population estimates in Birdlife (2004)


136

Species Relevant case study regionRed throated diver ‐ Eastern Baltic, E North SeaSteller’s eider ‐ Eastern BalticCommon eider ‐ Western Baltic, E North SeaCommon pochard ‐ Western Baltic, E North SeaVelvet scoter ‐ Eastern & Western BalticCommon scoter ‐ Western BalticRed breasted merganser ‐ Western Baltic, E North Sea

What must also be considered is that this study has only estimated bycatch rates for a small number of case study fisheries. Further studies into the bycatch in trawl, purse seine and other gillnet fisheries also need to be considered for the above‐listed species. Additional bycatch are also likely for other areas in Europe not considered in this study (e.g. shearwaters migrate to Portugal, northern Spain) as well as other areas in the Atlantic. On this basis, cumulative impacts need to be considered across gear types, location and for different seabird life stages. The following section details an insight into other fisheries impacts.

6.2.3 Bycatch in non‐case study fisheries In addition to the ‘hotspot’ fisheries covered in this report, there are studies suggesting that seabird bycatch could be a problem beyond the study areas. In particular, trawl and gillnet fisheries, which are currently data poor in terms of seabird bycatch, need further investigation (ICES, 2010).

6.2.3.1 Longlines The longline case studies in this report have covered both pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the Mediterranean, and large‐scale demersal longliners in Gran Sol. Table 71 shows the number of vessels using hook (HOK) gear types, by vessel length class and by Member State, with the main target species for each. This indicates that the case studies in this report probably cover the most significant longline fisheries, although recognising that there are other significant demersal longline fisheries in the Mediterranean in France and Italy, and in Portugal (Atlantic). There are also significant pelagic longline fisheries in the Mediterranean in Italy, and outside the Mediterranean in Portugal and Spain.

Table 71: Top five target species and vessel numbers for hook and line fleet segments for each Member State. Member State

Vessel Length (m)

No. of vessels

Top 5 target species

Spain 00‐12 1091 hake, mackerel, albacore, bigeye tuna, blue whiting(=poutassou)

12‐24 261 atlantic bluefin tuna, albacore, swordfish, mackerel, hake

24‐40 245 hake, swordfish, albacore, bigeye tuna, ling

40+ 34 swordfish, albacore, bigeye tuna

France 00‐12 370 seabass, conger, pollack, whiting, river eels nei

12‐24 12 conger, common sole, porbeagle, albacore, seabass

United Kingdom

00‐12 373 european lobster, edible crab, great Atlantic scallop, velvet swimcrab, seabass

24‐40 17 hake, ling, picked dogfish, conger, various sharks nei

Greece 00‐12 549 finfishes nei, hake, common pandora, swordfish, tunas nei

12‐24 156 swordfish, albacore, hake, finfishes nei, mediterranean spearfish

Italy 00‐12 34 finfishes nei, hake, common pandora, swordfish, tunas nei

12‐24 238 swordfish, albacore, hake, finfishes nei, mediterranean spearfish

Malta 00‐12 412 swordfish, Atlantic bluefin tuna, common dolphinfish, red porgy, red scorpionfish

12‐24 38 swordfish, Atlantic bluefin tuna, common dolphinfish, red scorpionfish, groupers nei

Poland 12‐24 0 cod, flounder, European eel, turbot, pike‐perch

Portugal 00‐12 286 seabass, common cuttlefish, common octopus, conger, red porgy

12‐24 46 black scabbardfish, wreckfish, shortfin mako, swordfish, blue shark

24‐40 35 swordfish, blue shark, shortfin mako, bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna

Madeira (PT) 00‐12 67 black scabbardfish, limpets nei, bigeye tuna, wreckfish, skipjack tuna

12‐24 29 black scabbardfish, bigeye tuna, leafscale gulper shark, skipjack tuna, swordfish

Sweden 12‐24 13 cod, Atlantic salmon, Norway lobster, haddock, ling

Source: AER, 2009

Individual studies also highlight potential problem areas. Within longline fisheries, Cooper et al (2003) highlights several places in Mediterranean waters where bycatch has been reported. For example, mortality of Cory’s and


137

Balearic/Yelkouan shearwaters has been reported in the longline fisheries in the straits of Bonifacio between Corsica (FR) and Sardinia (IT) and in Sicilian waters (Cooper et al., 2003 citing Thibault, 1993, Thibault in press). In addition, seabird corpses with fishing lines emerging from their bills or entangled in lines have been found in Italian waters (Cooper et al., 2003).

In the Azores (PT) a single Cory’s shearwater and three gulls were caught from 150 sets (about half a million hooks) on a demersal research longline vessel during the period 1993‐1997 (Cooper et al., 2003 citing Brothers et al., 1999, A. Silva, in litt.). However, more recently, a monitoring programme which placed three observers on board demersal longline vessels in the Azores between 2005 and 2007 did not report any seabirds caught on hooks during fishing (ICES, 2008a). A separate study on pelagic longline interactions showed one yellow‐legged gull was caught during five fishing experiments (353 longline sets) from 2000‐2004. However, these latter studies are very small‐scale, so larger scale studies covering the fleets fishing in Azorean EEZ are required (ICES, 2008a). Although these studies indicate low levels of bycatch, they may have significant impacts on birds on a fleet‐wide level.

A survey undertaken by SPEA with Portuguese fishers using different gear types showed that Balearic shearwaters are subject to bycatch in the Portuguese demersal longline fishery.

Both the North Sea and North Atlantic contain longline fisheries where seabird bycatch has been recorded. An estimated 20,000 Northern fulmars are taken annually by the Norwegian offshore autolining fleet (Dunn & Steel, 2001). In the UK, a four‐hour watch by an observer in April 1992 aboard a longline vessel fishing for dogfish and rays off the south coast of Wales resulted in 10 seabirds caught during the line setting – including Northern fulmar, Northern gannet, Lesser & Greater black‐backed gulls and unidentified gulls (Dunn & Steel, 2001). The few studies undertaken in ICES areas other than those covered by this study need to be supplemented by further research (ICES, 2008a).

6.2.3.2 Gillnets Table 75 shows the number of vessels less than 12 m by Member State, operating drifting or fixed nets, passive gears or polyvalent passive gears, and the main target species for those fleet segments. This can be used as an indication of the extent of coastal gillnet use across Member States (although PG and PGP may include other gears in addition to gillnets, such as pots and traps, so the numbers most likely overestimate the total number of vessels involved).

This indicates that our Baltic Sea gillnet case studies cover a large proportion of the coastal gillnet fleets in the region, although there are also other similar fisheries in Finland and Poland. It also highlights the potentially substantial gillnet fleet operating in the Mediterranean (France, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Spain), although many of these Member States appear to classify gillnets under ‘Passive gears’ or ‘Polyvalent passive gears’, which include other gear types as well, thus making it difficult to obtain accurate data on the extent of these fleets and gear types. There are also gillnet fisheries in the North Sea (United Kingdom), and Atlantic (Ireland, Portugal (including Madeira) and France.

Table 72: Vessel numbers by Member State for drifting and fixed nets, and passive gears, under 12m Member State Gear Type Number of

vessels Top five target species

Bulgaria DFN 465 n/a

Cyprus PG 499 bogue, spinefeet(=rabbitfishes) nei, surmullet, octopuses, etc. nei, sargo breams nei

Denmark PGP 1107 cod, European eel, plaice, common sole, marine molluscs nei

Estonia PG 878 perch, herring, pike‐perch, flounder, pike‐perch

Finland PGP 1482 whitefish, pike‐perch, Atlantic salmon, herring

France DFN 1072 common sole, anglerfishes nei, seabass, surmullet, turbot

PGP 227 seabass, lobster, common sole, common prawn, spinous spider crab

Germany PG 960 cod, herring, pike‐perch, European eel

Greece PG 11359 hake, surmullet, red mullet, common octopus,

Ireland DFN 10 oriental river prawn, pollack, cod, edible crab, turbot

PGP 31 oriental river prawn, edible crab, lobster, turbot, pollack

Italy PGP 8872 finfishes nei, common cuttlefish, marine molluscs nei, common sole, hake

Latvia PG 748 herring, cod, Atlantic salmon, sprat

PGP 736 herring, cod, flounder, Atlantic salmon

Lithuania DFN 85 cod, smelt, pike‐perch, turbot, vimba bream

Malta DFN 65 marine fishes nei, white seabream, surmullets(=red mullets) nei, greater amberjack, squid


138

Member State Gear Type Number of vessels

Top five target species

PGP 578 white seabream, swordfish, common octopus, red scorpionfish, red porgy

Netherlands DFN 18 common sole, cod, brill, common dab, turbot

PGP 1 common sole, seabass, mullets nei, cod, common shrimp

Poland PG 576 cod, flounder, pike‐perch, herring

Portugal DFN 267 common cuttlefish, common sole, octopuses, etc. nei, thickback soles, surmullet

PGP 2015 common octopus, octopuses, etc. nei, common cuttlefish, seabass, common sole

Madeira (PT) PGP 28 limpets nei, skipjack tuna, red porgy, wreckfish, chub mackerel

Slovenia DFN 52 common sole, gilthead seabream, common pandora, flounder, common cuttlefish

PGP 1 warty venus, noah's ark, common sole, spottail mantis squillid, common cuttlefish

Spain PG 8598 mackerel, hake, horse mackerel, Atlantic bluefin tuna, albacore

United Kingdom

DFN 665 lobster, common sole, edible crab, seabass, whelk

PGP 89 raja rays nei, common sole, cod, seabass, herring

Source: AER, 2009 Notes: DFN = Drifting and fixed nets; PG = Passive gears; PGP = Polyvalent passive gears. Where N/A is indicated for top 5 target species, this indicates that the Member State did not report any catches against that fleet segment from 2002–2008.

There are also specific studies that indicate seabird bycatch may be an issue in gillnets in some Member States. In UK waters, there have been some studies indicating that seabird bycatch occurs in localised gillnet fisheries. Gillnets set in late winter for bass in St Ives Bay, Cornwall have taken an annual bycatch of hundreds of razorbills and guillemots, possibly reaching thousands (Tasker et al., 2000 citing Robins, 1991). St Ives Bay is an important wintering site for auk species as well as divers (Frid et al., 2005). Due to the bycatch that was estimated in this fishery in the 1990s (estimated to be around 10,000 seabirds during the period), the local inshore fisheries regulatory body, Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, introduced a bye‐law that the gillnet fishery would be closed temporarily if the numbers of seabirds caught exceeded a limit value (Frid et al., 2005).

In Wales and Scotland, some bycatch ‘hotspots’ were found when nets were set near breeding colonies (Tasker et al., 2000). Murray et al (1994) looked at fixed gillnets for salmon in NE Scotland in 1992 and estimated that 1.4 birds were caught per net per day, making an estimated annual 2400 birds caught annually. The species caught were predominantly Common guillemots (71%) and the rest were Razorbills (29%).

Seabird mortality in gillnets has also been reported from northwest Spain (ICES Region IX), where birds most affected are European shags and auks (ICES, 2010). About 3000 shags and 2000 guillemots were estimated to be caught annually (Arcos et al., 1996). Common guillemots were formerly the species with the largest breeding population in Atlantic Iberia, but a population crash occurred between 1960 and 1974 – attributed to human related factors, particularly a large increase in number of synthetic fishing nets (Munilla et al., 2007).

In the Mediterranean Sea, studies have also shown that gillnetting results in seabird bycatch. Gillnets were estimated to kill several hundred ‘Yelkouan’ shearwaters per year in the French Mediterranean in the 1970s (Besson, 1973). These shearwaters could also have been Balearic shearwaters as they were only recently identified as separate species. There is no information available on bycatch in gillnets in this region for recent years (Arcos, 2011).

A questionnaire study was undertaken on the four main Balearic Islands (Mallorca, Menorca, Ibiza, Formentera) between May and June 2003. Twenty‐eight of 120 respondents indicated that seabirds were caught in their gear; 75% of which were in ‘artes menores’, or small‐scale, artisanal fisheries. The remaining bycatch occurred in the demersal longline (10.7%) or unknown (14.3%) fisheries (Louzao & Oro, 2004). The species most often caught in gillnets and trammel nets was Mediterranean Shag (Louzao & Oro, 2004).

Preliminary results from a study being undertaken by the Hellenic Ornithological Society and partners (see Section 5.2.2) in Greek waters includes bycatch reported in gillnet fisheries. Yelkouan Shearwater bycatch was recorded in nets in the Aegean, where more than 100 birds were caught at the same time (HOS et al. pers.comm.) However, is believed that these large catches are incidental rather than systematic and may relate to specific areas, periods or times of day, which will be explored further in the upcoming analysis (HOS et al. pers.comm.). Bycatch of individual Mediterranean Shags was also reported in Greek gillnet fisheries.


139

6.2.3.3 Other Gear Data for trawlers and purse seiners is even more sparse and localised than for the gillnet and longline fisheries, although there is some information on bycatches in European waters.

Common guillemots have been recorded caught in sandeel trawls in the North Sea – a minimum of 22 birds were caught in five hauls (Tasker et al., 2000). Observers placed on Scottish pelagic trawl vessels targeting herring, mackerel and argentines between January and August 2001 (67 days at sea) reported catches of gannets in the trawls (Pierce et al., 2002). In two hauls in the herring fishery near Shetland, 21 gannets were caught and an additional 20 were caught in the argentine fishery (Pierce et al., 2002). At least two of the birds caught in the herring fishery were released alive. Predicted catch rates are 33 gannets per 100 hours fished in herring fisheries and 19 per 100 hours fished in the argentine fishery, leading to an estimated total catch of 620 and 160 gannets respectively (Pierce et al., 2002).

Occasional bycatch of Balearic shearwaters by trawlers could occur; an incidence of 50 dead shearwaters in Spain was attributed to mortality caused by a trawler (Arcos, 2011; Ruiz & Marti, 2004). Between November 2008 and May 2009, SPEA carried out surveys in several ports asking questions about bycatch issues to fishers utilising a variety of gear types, focusing particularly on seabirds. A total of 235 surveys were undertaken spanning 7 fishing ports (SPEA unpublished data). About 74% (n=173) of the respondents across all gear types said that they had experienced seabird bycatch events. Of the 197 birds reported captured, 129 were alive at the time of capture, although 63 of the birds caught alive did not survive (SPEA unpublished data). The species most frequently caught, across all gear types, was the Northern gannet, with about 62% of the total captures. Other species caught included: Yellow‐legged gull (~46%), Balearic shearwater (~14%), Common guillemot (7.5%), Common scoter (~6%), Cory’s shearwater (~6%), Razorbill (3.5%), Cormorant/Shag (3.5%) (SPEA unpublished data). Birds with about 1% catch or less included Sandwich/Common terns, Storm‐petrels and Atlantic puffins (SPEA unpublished data). Further analysis was undertaken by SPEA on the Balearic shearwater bycatch data. A total of 24 Balearic shearwaters were reported as bycatch, with purse seine gear catching the most (12 birds). Demersal longlines caught 8 birds and trawls, gillnets and pelagic longlines each caught 2 birds or less (SPEA unpublished data). Most Balearic shearwaters caught were alive when caught (21 birds), and of these birds, most were reported to survive (17 birds) (SPEA unpublished data). SPEA are currently developing two further projects on seabird bycatch (one under FAME and the other under LIFE MarPro), and will be undertaking more surveys on a larger scale and carrying out monitoring activities on board fishing vessels (Andrade, pers.comm).


140

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions Previous studies have indicated that seabird populations are currently being affected by incidental catches in European fisheries at unsustainable levels. The results from this study indicate that this is highly likely to be the case at the very least for the Greek pelagic and demersal longline fisheries and in the Spanish demersal longline fisheries in the Mediterranean and in the Gran Sol. High bycatch levels were also flagged for Estonian gillnet fisheries, but due to the large numbers of bird species implicated in bycatch reported by fishers, it is not possible to draw conclusions on the sustainability of incidental catches in this and other fisheries in the Baltic for particular bird species.

Our case study research indicated broadly similar bycatch rates for seabirds compared to previous studies. In longline fisheries surveyed, bycatch rates varied between 0 and 0.13 seabirds per 1000 hooks (in Maltese demersal longlines and Spanish pelagic longlines respectively). In gillnet fisheries surveyed, bycatch rates varied between 0.004 and 0.697seabirds per 1000 NMDs (in Swedish and Estonian gillnet fisheries respectively).

The bycatch rates estimated from questionnaire results from the Gran Sol demersal longline fishery were lower than previously published rates. This was suggested by fishers interviewed to be a result of mitigation measures being more widely and consistently used by the fleet — such as night‐setting with reduced deck lighting and streamer lines during deployment. However, estimates of total annual bycatch generated from questionnaire results in this study were not insubstantial and included a number of bird species for which there is conservation concern. There is therefore a need for the lower bycatch rates reported in this study to be verified, and for potential interactions with seabirds in the northern parts of the fishing area to be further explored and quantified.

This study has confirmed that there is a lack of data in general on seabird bycatch in European fisheries. This is a situation that should be remedied as it appears to be a widespread problem. A recent review of fisheries assessed for sustainability by the Marine Stewardship Council confirms this. The majority of fisheries that have been certified (12 of which are European), have used a risk assessment approach to determine impacts on seabirds, as bycatch data were often lacking, and as a result established conditions requiring data to be collected in order to better assess seabird bycatches during the period of certification (see box below).

Addressing seabird bycatch in MSC‐certified fisheries

The review of Marine Stewardship Council‐certified fisheries, found that there was generally little known about the ecosystem impacts of the fisheries. In these situations, impacts, including those on seabirds, were either assumed to be low where applicable (e.g. nets set under ice during winter) or were allocated low Performance Indicator scores based on risk and due to the lack of data, rather than on demonstrably high negative impacts. In this way, fisheries were scored using the precautionary approach to fisheries management.

Conditions often were raised in the certification process and during subsequent reassessments, requiring action to be taken in the form of data collection, monitoring and improved assessments of environmental impacts. Environmental risk assessments as a requirement of MSC conditions often resulted in awareness and attention being focused on issues which had not previously been considered as being of potential concern, and in other cases simply increased awareness of issues that were already known.

Closure (fulfillment) of these conditions resulted in improved knowledge about the ecosystem impacts of the fishery (including impacts on seabird populations) and often provided evidence of a low impact such that a higher Performance Indicator score could be given. In other cases, improved information led to changes in management through the implementation of various mitigation measures, which ultimately resulted in an improvement in the ecosystem indicator, albeit over a longer timeframe than the duration of the condition itself.

Out of the 27 fisheries reviewed (12 European, 7 US, 8 other regions), only three non‐european fisheries (one demersal longline and two demersal trawl fisheries) documented trends of reduced bird mortality since certification.

Source: MRAG, 2011.

Conclusions and recommendations

141

The analysis of fishers perception of the cost‐effectiveness of mitigation measures demonstrated that fishery‐specific characteristics should be taken into account when introducing mitigation measures, as the expected costs and acceptability vary from fishery to fishery depending on their operating modes, vessel types, gear configurations etc.

However, for longline fisheries the analysis suggests a number of low‐cost mitigation measures that would be relatively easy to implement and would provide some benefits with respect to reducing seabird interactions. They are:

Offal management (not discharging offal or excess bait at the same time as setting or hauling); and,

Thawing bait before use (in order to ensure it sinks quickly).

These measures are already carried out by some of the vessels in the case study fisheries, but they should be implemented as standard practice and fishers should be made aware of the potential for bycatch mitigation of these simple measures.

There are several other mitigation measures which have been proven to be effective at reducing seabird bycatches in longline fisheries:

Streamer lines;

Night‐setting with reduced deck lighting;

Increasing line weight. These measures, particularly in combination, have been proved to significantly reduce seabird interactions in a number of fisheries. However, night‐setting and increased line weight were expected by the fishers in the Mediterranean to have significant costs associated with them due to loss of catch. Some fishers interviewed in the Mediterranean already use a modified form of streamer line, and some fishers set their lines at night in both the demersal and pelagic fisheries. The modified bird‐scaring line used by some Spanish and Greek longline fishers in the Mediterranean should be tested for effectiveness, modified where necessary to improve application, and disseminated throughout the region as a mitigation measure that is appropriate for the small vessels found in the region. Out of the above three mitigation measures, a modified streamer line is likely to be the cheapest to implement. Night setting is already used by parts of the demersal and pelagic longline fleets in the Mediterranean, and the potential for applying this across both fleets should be explored, as this would be a very effective way of significantly reducing seabird bycatch, particularly for the shearwaters.

For gillnet fisheries, much less evidence exists on the effectiveness of proposed or potential mitigation measures. The measures that were expected to be most cost‐effective were visual deterrents that would be relatively easy to install, such as buoys with visual deterrents, red corks spaced throughout the netter, and multifilament coloured twine in the top 20 meshes. The precise measures that were most and least acceptable varied from case study fishery to fishery.

In most gillnet fisheries, spatial and temporal restrictions were assessed to be the least cost‐effective measure, particularly because for many of the fisheries, the main fishery seasons and areas coincide with peak bird abundance. In the eastern Baltic gillnet fisheries, setting nets in deeper water or in water over 20m deep were highly unacceptable, because the fishery is defined spatially to the 20m isobath and this would effectively close the fishery. However, in Denmark (voluntary) spatial restrictions were relatively more acceptable, as this is something they already practice.

Other EU fisheries

This research as focussed on a number of pre‐determined case study fisheries, where seabird bycatch had been identified as being a problem. However, it should be noted that there is evidence of bycatch in other fisheries in EU waters, and for EU fleets operating in distant waters and these should also be addressed.


142

Limitations of the study

There was not the capacity within this study to implement the questionnaire surveys at the scales required for statistical analysis, and this was not a requirement of the Terms of Reference. The reluctance of some fishers to be involved in the study also contributed to the limited sample sizes of the questionnaire survey. The assessments made of the social and economic impacts of introducing mitigation measures and the impacts of not introducing measures on sea bird populations were based primarily on information gathered from the small scale questionnaire surveys, which can only provide information on opinion rather than independent observations. As a result, the outcomes are considered preliminary assessments of potential social and environmental impacts. Despite these limitations, the study has been able to provide additional insight and has been able to make some broad recommendations for the development of a Community Plan of Action for birds.

7.2 Recommendations 7.2.1 Implementation of mitigation measures Mitigation measures should be introduced and enforced as soon as possible in fisheries in which there is a likelihood that incidental catches of seabird populations are at unsustainable levels, particularly when the species caught are threatened or are being impacted by a number of different fisheries.

A number of marine Natura2000 sites exist in the case study fisheries and throughout the EU. However, fishery management measures have not yet been adopted for all sites. The introduction of mitigation measures, gear restrictions, seasonal and temporal closures, should also concentrate on these sites. Implementation of measures within Important Bird Areas should also be considered.

Some flexibility in the selection of measures might be warranted due to differing fishery‐specific characteristics. Selection of which measures should be introduced in these areas could be based on a combination of those which have been proven to be most effective elsewhere with measures assessed by the fishers as likely to be most cost‐effective. In the long‐term, the requirement for mitigation measures could be waived if the industry can prove that seabird bycatch is not a problem, either through the collection of independent bycatch data, or on onboard monitoring such as camera systems.

A ‘softer’ approach than enforced mitigation, could be to provide positive incentives for the use of mitigation measures and monitoring, such as additional quota, more fishing days, or cheaper licences. However, in order for fishing effort not to increase as a result, the introduction of quota restrictions, effort restrictions and more expensive licences for those vessels that choose not to implement mitigation measures would be required.

In other fisheries, where the existence or extent of seabird bycatch is unclear or unknown, data collection and monitoring must be introduced to remedy this situation (see section 7.2.3). In addition, the ‘softer’ approach described above might also be introduced in line with the precautionary approach.

7.2.2 Results‐based management

Whilst there are some similarities across regions, such as the small‐scale longline fisheries in the Mediterranean, and the coastal gillnet fisheries in the Baltic, each fishery has its own specificities, and measures would be best adapted for each.

In order to avoid top‐down definition of detailed and specific mitigation measures for individual fisheries, a results‐based approach is recommended, that can be implemented on a case‐by‐case basis. This would require fisheries to reduce their seabird bycatch to a specified level, and each fishery would operationalise this in the most appropriate way. This would have to be a longer‐term adaptive process and would require the collection of data on current bycatch rates and therefore might not be appropriate for fisheries requiring immediate action. This approach could be taken forward through the Regional Advisory Councils, although adequate representation of the sectors involved should be ensured in the process. It should be noted, however, that implementing this approach in SACs is not suitable as the phrasing of the Birds Directive does not allow for any ‘deliberate killing’ (ICES, 2009a).

The results‐based mananagement approach would enable individual fisheries to assess and test the available mitigation measures and determine the combination that is most appropriate, cost‐effective and acceptable. The cost‐effectiveness analysis and recommended mitigation measures presented in this study provide a starting point

Conclusions and recommendations

143

for this. However, as it is based on a small sample size, the cost‐effectiveness analysis is provisional, and further research is recommended in order to provide more robust estimates of cost‐effectiveness of the various measures.

The specified level of bycatch that fisheries should achieve would have to be identified through further research by ornithological specialists to determine acceptable levels of mortality from fisheries for different species of seabird. Whichever method is used, cumulative impacts of all fisheries need to be accounted for in setting of bycatch limits.

7.2.3 Monitoring of seabird bycatches In order to implement the results‐based management recommendation above, monitoring of seabird bycatch in all fisheries will be required. This is necessary to assess more accurately what the current levels of seabird bycatch are in European fisheries, and will also be necessary for determining when an acceptable level of bycatch has been reached or if thresholds are exceeded in the future.

Along with this, fishing areas need to be better defined, for example though use of VMS on vessels <15 m, to determine where effort is concentrated.

The Data Collection Framework does not currently require Member States to collect data on seabird bycatch. Therefore, this would either have to be introduced to the Data Collection Framework, or be addressed through an alternative instrument.

7.2.4 Further research

7.2.4.1 Pilot studies to identify, test and implement mitigation measures While this research indicates a number of candidate mitigation measures for the case study fisheries in question, these are suggested as a starting point for further work, as the cost‐benefit analysis is preliminary and based on questionnaire data rather than direct observation and small sample sizes within the case studes covered here. Furthermore, there are other fisheries in addition to the case study fisheries where seabird bycatch is likely to be an issue.

Further research and testing of mitigation measures is required in at least three different areas:

Firstly, in order to test the effectiveness of already‐established mitigation measures in specific areas, which have proved effective elsewhere but not in the particular conditions of EU fisheries (e.g. the effectiveness of underwater visual deterrents such as red corks or multifilament coloured twine in the Baltic).

Secondly, in order to verify the effectiveness of mitigation measures that fishers interviewed in this study claim are being used by some fleet sectors (e.g. bird‐scaring lines consisting of a rope and buoys or bottles towed behind the vessels used by the small‐scale Mediterranean longline fleets or side setting vessel set up used in Maltese pelagic longline fleets), and to further develop these measures and explore options for extending implementation of them across the fleet and to other similar fleet segments.

Thirdly, in order to develop new mitigation measures that are appropriate to specific fleets, such as underwater setting devices that are appropriate for small vessels such as those in the Mediterranean, since these have until now only been developed for large‐scale vessels.

The following process is recommended for future pilot studies on the selection, testing and implementation of mitigation measures, or any combination of mitigation measures, in a fishery.

‐ Determine the most vulnerable and most commonly‐caught seabird species in the fishery, and identify their feeding behaviours. This can be achieved through a consultation process with industry, scientists and relevant NGOs.

‐ Select one or two mitigation measures to trial which are expected to address the bycatch problem for each seabird species based on their ecology (e.g. foraging behaviour, migratory patterns) that would be appropriate for the fleet and fishery concerned in consultation with the fishers. (Birdlife mitigation measure factsheets would provide a useful source of information here.)

‐ Roll out mitigation trials across various fleet sectors, e.g. <12m, >12m, across the fishing season but particularly during the period of maximum seabird bycatch.

‐ Collect bycatch data throughout the period of the trials, including on vessels on which no mitigation measures are in place, and gather effort data effectively across the fleet.

‐ Carry out an impact assessment specific to the combination of mitigation measures tested, to evaluate potential reduction in seabird bycatch. If data are not sufficient to assess potential reduction in seabird


144

bycatch (e.g. low bycatch rates during course of trials), the most appropriate measures could be selected based on practicality.

7.2.4.2 Sustainability of incidental seabird mortality and cumulative impacts Further research is required to assist the process of determining acceptable levels of additional mortality that seabird populations can withstand, from all fisheries and other human‐induced mortalities such as hunting that are under the jurisdiction of the Commission. This research should focus on the most vulnerable species in the first instance. Pilot studies testing measures will also contribute to development of bycatch reduction targets.

7.2.5 Awareness‐raising and outreach The questionnaires with fishers clearly indicated there was a lack of recognition of a potential problem with seabird bycatch in the studied fisheries. This is likely to be due to the fact that on a individual level, bycatches are small on an annual basis, and therefore do not appear to be threatening the bird populations. However, when the total effort in the fishery is taken into consideration, the cumulative effect of a large number of fishers each catching a small number of birds each year, can have significant impacts on bird populations.

It is therefore recommended that awareness‐raising amongst the fishing industry is carried out, both to provide more information about seabirds and the threats to their populations, as well as to promote a number of simple and low‐cost mitigation measures that can be easily adopted by the industry.

Furthermore, the involvement of the industry in data collection, pilot studies and the identification and selection of mitigation measures is important to ensure that measures are appropriate, acceptable and practical for the industry and adopted in the long term.

References

145

8 REFERENCES

Abdulla, A., Gomei, M., Hyrenbach, D., Notarbartolo‐di‐Sciara G.and Agardy, T. (2008). Challenges facing a network of representative marine protected areas in the Mediterranean: prioritizing the protection of underrepresented habitats. ICES Journal of Marine Science Advance Access published October 28, 2008

Abello, P., Arcos, J.M., Gil de Sola, L. (2003) Geographical patterns of seabird attendance to a research trawler along the Iberian Mediterranean coast. Scienta Marina 67: 69‐75.

AER (2008) The 2008 Annual Economic Report of the European Fishing Fleet

AER (2009) The 2009 Annual Economic Report of the European Fishing Fleet

Agnew, D.J., Black, A.D., Croxall, J.P., Parkes, G.B. (2000) Experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of weighting regimes in reducing seabird bycatch in the longline toothfish fishery around South Georgia. CCAMLR Science 7: 119‐131.

Aguilar, J.S. (1998) Biología y conservación de la pardela balear Puffinus mauritanicus. Docs. Tècnics de Conservació (II). Mallorca.

Arcos, J.M. and Oro, D. (1996) Changes in foraging of Audouin’s gulls Larus audouinii in relation to a trawler moratorium in the western Mediterranean. Colonial Waterbirds 19: 128‐131.

Arcos, F., Velando, A, and Moriño, J. (1996) Seabirds mortality in fishing gear in Galicia (NW Spain). Poster – Seabird Group Conference, Glasgow

Arcos, J.M. (2001) Foraging Ecology of Seabirds at Sea: Significance of Commercial Fisheries in the NW Mediterranean. PhD thesis. Departament de Biologia Animal. Universitat de Barcelona.

Arcos, J.M. and Oro, D. (2002) Significance of fisheries discards for a threatened Mediterranean seabird, the Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 239:209‐220.

Arcos, J.M., Bécares, J., Rodríguez, A., Ruiz, A. (2009) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves marinas en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049‐Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife). Madrid

Arcos, J.M. (compiler) (2011) International species action plan for the Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus. SEO/BirdLife & BirdLife International.

Ashford, J.R. and Croxall, J.P. (1998) An assessment of CCAMLR measures employed to mitigate seabird mortality in longlining operations for Dissostichus eleginoides around South Georgia. CCAMLR Science 5, 217–230.

Baltic Sea Portal (2010) Waterbird inventory. Downloaded from: http://www.balticseaportal.net/bsp_section/web/?id=684 on 5 January 2010 on 12/12/2010.

Bardtrum, J. A. Nissling, Gydemo, R. (2010). Bycatches of birds in waters off Gotland, Central Baltic Sea and potential effects on population levels. Online contribution to the EU Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/seabirds/contributions/ gotland_report2_en.pdf

Barnes, P. and Walshe, K.A.R. (1997) Underwater Setting Methods to Minimise the Accidental and Incidental Capture of Seabirds by Surface Longliners: Report on a Prototype Device Developed by Akroyd Walshe Ltd. Science for Conservation 66. Department of Conservation, Wellington, 19 pp.

Barrett, R.T., Chapdelaine, G., Anker‐Nilssen, T., Mosbech, A., Montevecchi, W.A., Reid, J.B., Veit, R.R. (2006)Seabird numbers and prey consumption in the North Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 1145‐1158.

Barros, A. (2009) Evaluación de la incidencia de la pesca con palangre sobre las aves marinas en la flota de Gran Sol. Unpublished report. SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Bartumeus, F., Giuggioli, L, Louzao, M., Bretagnolle, V., Oro, D. and Levin, S. (2010) Fishery discards impact on seabird movement patterns at regional scales. Current Biology, 20: 215‐222.


146

Belda, E.J. and Sanchez, A. (2001) Seabird mortality on longline fisheries in the Western Mediterranean: factors affecting bycatch and proposed mitigating measures. Biological Conservation 98:357‐363.

Bellebaum, J. (2009) Bycatch of seabirds in gillnet and longline fisheries in the German Baltic Sea. Commissioned by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)

Besson, J. (1973) Remarques sur la mort accidentelle de Puffinus yelkouans. Alauda 41: 165‐167BirdLife International (2002) Species Action Plan for the Mediterranean Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Standing Committee 22nd Meeting, Strasbourg, 2‐5 December 2002

BirdLife International (2002) Species Action Plan for the Mediterranean Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Standing Committee Document T‐PVS/Inf (2002) 21

BirdLife International (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. BirdLife Conservation Series No.12.

BirdLife International (2009a) Bycatch Mitigation Fact‐sheets (Version 1). Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org/seabirds/bycatch/albatross.html on 13 April, 2011.

BirdLife International (2009b) European Community Plan of Action (ECPOA) for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries. Proposal by BirdLife International.

BirdLife International (2010a) The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis

BirdLife International (2010b) Marine IBAs in the European Union. BirdLife International, Brussels, Belgium. Version 1.1: June 2010.

BirdLife International (2011a) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 18/02/2011.

BirdLife International (2011b) Important Bird Areas factsheets. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 10 January 2011.

BirdLife International (2011c) BirdLife Seabird Wikispaces. Downloaded from http://seabird.wikispaces.com/ on 16 January 2011.

BirdLife Malta (2010a) The Cory’s Shearwater. The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project website. Downlaoded from: http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/en/species/corysshearwater.aspx on 6 Nov 2010

BirdLife Malta (2010b) Gulls and others. The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project website. Downloaded from: http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/en/species/corysshearwater.aspx on 6 Nov 2010

BirdWatch Ireland (2010) ‘FAME’ for our seabirds. Wings 57 (summer 2010): 12

BOE (2009) Resolución de 12 de febrero de 2009, de la Secretaría General del Mar, por la que se publica la actualización del censo unificado de palangre de superficie creado por Orden APA/2521/2006, de 27 de julio, por la que se regula la pesca con el arte de palangre de superficie para la captura de especies altamente migratorias. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Núm 48. Miércoles 25 de febrero de 2009. Sec III, Pág. 19840, #3228.

Boggs, C.H. (2001) Deterring albatrosses from contacting baits during swordfish longline sets. In: Seabird Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks and Solutions (eds E. Melvin and J.K. Parrish). University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, AK, pp. 79–94.

Borg, J.J., Raine, H., Raine, A.F., Barbara, N. (2010) Protecting Malta’s wind chaser: The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project Report. Matala; EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project.

Borg, J.J., Sultana, J. (2002) Status and distribution of the Breeding Procellariiformes in Malta. il‐Merill 30: 10‐15.

Bosch, M., Oro, D., Cantos, F.J., Zabala, M. (2000) Short‐term effects of culling on the ecology and population dynamics of the yellow‐legged gull. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(2): 369‐385.

References

147

Bourgeois, K. and E. Vidal (2008) The endemic Mediterranean yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan: distribution, threats and a plea for more data. Oryx, 42(2): 187‐194.

Bregnballe, T and Frederiksen, M. (2006) Net‐entrapment of great cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis in relation to individual age and population size. Wildlife Biology 12, 143–150

British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) (2011) Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus. Downloaded from http://blx1.bto.org/birdfacts/results/bob460.htm on 25 February 2011.

Brooke, M. (2004) Albatrosses and Petrels Across the World. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Brothers, N. (1993) A mechanised bait throwing device for longline fisheries. Unpublished Technical Report to Munro Engineers.

Brothers, N. (1995) Principles of Birdline Construction and Use to Reduce Bait Loss and Bird Deaths During Longline Setting. CCAMLR Working Paper WG‐IMALF‐94. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia, 19 pp.

Brothers, N. and Foster, A.B. (1997) Seabird catch rates: an assessment of causes and solutions in Australia’s domestic tuna longline fishery. Marine Ornithology 25, 37–42.

Brothers, N., Chaffey, D. and Reid, T. (2000) PerformanceAssessment and Performance Improvement of Two UnderwaterLine Setting Devices for Avoidance of Seabird Interactionsin Pelagic Longline Fisheries. CCAMLR WG‐FSA 00/64, Hobart, Australia, 32 pp.

Brothers, N., Cooper, J. and Løkkeborg, S. (1999) The incidental catch of seabirds by longline fisheries: worldwide review and technical guidelines for mitigation. FAO Fisheries Circular 937, 101.

Brothers, N., Foster, A.B. and Robertson, G. (1995) The influence of bait quality on the sink rate of bait used in the Japanese longline tuna fishing industry: an experimental approach. CCAMLR Science 2, 123–129.

Brothers, N., Gales, R. and Reid, T. (2001) The Effect of Line Weighting on the Sink Rate of Pelagic Tuna Longline Hooks, and It’s Potential for Minimising Seabird Mortalities. CCSBT‐ERS/0111/53. CCSBT, Canberra, 23 pp.

Bull, L.S. (2007) Reducing seabird bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 8, 31‐56.

Carboneras, C. (2009) Guidelines for reducing bycatch of seabirds in the Mediterranean region. Contract RAC/SPA, N.42_2008: 54pp. RAC/SPA, Tunis.

Carboneras, C. and Requena, S. (2010) GIS mapping of seabird distribution – a pan‐Mediterreanean perspective. Proceedings of the CIESM 38 Congress, 10‐14 May 2010, Venice, Italy.

Christensen, O. (1995) Registration of bycatches in the offshore salmon fishery in the Baltic Sea by observers on commercial vessels. Unpublished working paper for the ICES Baltic Salmon and Trout assessment working group.

Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Ben Rais Lasram, F. et al. (2010) The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates, patterns and threats. PLoS One, available: http://www.plosone.org/article/ info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011842#pone.0011842.s002

Cooper, J., Baccetti, N., Belda, E.J., Borg, J.J., Oro, D., Papaconstantinou, C., Sanchez, A. (2003) Seabird mortality from longline fishing in the Mediterranean Sea and Macaronesian waters: a review and a way forward. Scienta Marina 67 (Suppl. 2): 57‐64.

Dagys, M. and Žydelis, R. (2002) Bird bycatch in Fishing Nets in Lithuanian Coastal Waters in Wintering Season 2001‐2002. Acta Zoologica Lithuanica 12(3): 276‐282

Dagys, M., Ložys, L., Žydelis, R., Stīpniece, A., Minde, A., Vetemaa, M. (2009a) Action C1 – Assessing and reducing impact of fishery bycatch on species of community interest. Final Report. LIFE Nature project ‘Marine Protected Ares in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ (LIFE 05 NAT/LV/000100).

Dagys, M., Stīpniece, A., Kalamees, A., Kuresoo, A., Kuus, A., Luigujõe, L. (2009b) Action A1 ‐ Waterbird Inventory. Final Report. LIFE Nature project ‘Marine Protected Ares in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ (LIFE 05 NAT/LV/000100).


148

Darmanin, M., Caruana, R. and Dimech M. (2010) Report on studies to investigate seabird bycatch by Maltese fishers for the EU Life Yelkouan Shearwater project LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097. Action C1: Evaluate impact of the Maltese fishing fleet on targeted birds and influence fishing practices. Downloaded from: http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/publications/?lang=en on 10th January 2011.

de Leeuwa, J.J , W. Dekkera and A.D. Buijseb. 2008. Aiming at a moving target, a slow hand fails! 75 years of fisheries management in Lake IJsselmeer (the Netherlands) Journal of Sea Research Volume 60, Issues 1‐2, Pages 21‐31

Deerenberg, C., Teal, L.R., Beare, D., vn der Wal, J.T. (2010) FIMPAS project – Pre‐assessment of the impact of fisheries on the conservation objectives of Dutch marine protected areas. IMARES Wageningen UR, Report No. C071/10

DeGange, A.R., Day, R.H., Takekawa, J.E., Mendenhall, V.M. (1993) Losses of seabirds in gill nets in the North Pacific. in Vermeer, K., Briggs, K.T., Morgan, K.H., Siegel‐Causey, D. (eds) The status, ecology and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific. Special Publication. Canadian Wildlife Service, Victoria, Canada.

Degel, H., Petersen, I.K., Holm, T.E., Kahlert, J. (2010). Fugle som bifangst i garnfiskeriet. Estimat af utilsigtet bifangst af havfugle i garnfiskeriet i området omkring Ærø. DTU Aqua‐rapport nr. 227‐2010. Charlottenlund. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 56 p.

Dietrich, K.S., Melvin, E.F., Conquest, L. (2008) Integrated weight longlines with paired streamer lines – Best practice to prevent seabird bycatch in demersal longline fisheries. Biological conservation 141: 1793‐1805.

Dillingham, P.W. and Fletcher, D. (2008) Estimating the ability of birds to sustain additional human‐caused mortalities using a simple decision rule and allometric relationships. Biological Conservation 141: 1783‐1792

Dimech, M., Darmanin, M., Caruana, R., and Raine, H. (2009) Preliminary data on seabird bycatch from the Maltese longline fishery (Central Mediterranean). Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 64(7): 2335‐2341.

Duckworth, K. (1995) Analysis of factors which influenceseabird bycatch in the Japanese southern bluefin tunalongline fishery in New Zealand waters, 1989–1993.New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Research Document 95/ 26, 62 pp.

Dunn, E. (2007) The case for a Community Plan of Action for reducting incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. A report from BirdLife International’s Global Seabird Programme. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Dunn, E. (2011) Breakout group – Frisian Front – Birds Directive. Presentation from FIMPAS WK 3, Den Helder, NL, 25 Jan 2011.

Dunn, E. and Steel, C. (2001) The impact of longline fishing on seabirds in the north‐east Atlantic: recommendations for reducing mortality. Report to RSBP, NOF, JNCC, BirdLife International. 112p.

Durinck, J., Skov, H., Jensen, F.P. & Pihl, S. (1994). Important marine areas for wintering birds in the Baltic Sea. EU DG XI research contract no. 2242/90‐09‐01. Ornis Consult report, 110 pp.

European Commission (EC) (2001) Assessing marine turtle bycatch in European drifting longline fishery. EU DG Mare study project 98/008.

European Commission (EC) (2007) European Union Management Plan for Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca 2007‐2009. 47pp.

European Commission (EC) (2009a) Consultation paper EU Action Plan for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Fishing Gears

European Commission (EC) (2009b) European Union management plan for scaup Aythya marila 2009‐2011, 42 pp.

European Commission (EC) (2011) EC Fleet Register on the NeT. Downloaded from: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=Search.menu on 12 January 2011

References

149

EU Birds Directive (2009) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, 19 pp.

Fammler, H. (2009) Layman’s Report: Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea (2005‐2009). Riga: Baltic Environmental Forum.

FAO (1999) International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks. International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity. Rome, FAO. 1999. 26p.

FAO (2008) Review and assessment of mitigation measures to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1040. Rome, FAO.

Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (2010)

Fock, H.O. (2011) Natura 2000 and the European Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 35: 181‐188.

Fransson, T. and Pettersson, J. (2001) Swedish Bird Ringing Atlas, vol.1. Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm.

Fransson, T., Osterbom, H., Hall‐Karlsson, S. (2008) Swedish Bird Ringing Atlas, vol.2. Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm.

Frid, C., Paramor, O., Scott, C. (2005) Ecosystem‐based fisheries management: progress in the NE Atlantic. Marine Policy 29: 461‐469.

Garcia Barcelona, S., Ortiz de Urbina, J.M., de la Serna, J.M., Alot, E. and Macías, D. (2010a) Seabird bycatch in Spanish Mediterranean large pelagic longline fisheries, 2000‐2008. Aquatic Living Resources DOI: 10.1051/alr/2010022

Garcia‐Barcelona, S., Macías, D., Ortiz de Urbina, J.M., Estrada, A., Real, R., Báez, J.C. (2010b) Modelling abundance and distribution of seabird bycatch in the Spanish Mediterranean longline fishery. Ardeola 57(Especial): 65‐78.

Garthe, S. (2003) Distribution patterns and numbers of seabirds in the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of North Sea and Baltic Sea and proposals for EU Special Protection Areas. Ber. Vogelschutz 40: 15‐56.

Gilman, E., Boggs, C. and Brothers, N. (2003a) Performance assessment of an underwater setting chute to mitigate seabird bycatch in the Hawaii pelagic longline tuna fishery. Ocean and Coastal Management 46, 985– 1010.

Gilman, E., Brothers, N. and Kobayashi, D.R. (2007) Comparison of three seabird bycatch avoidance methods in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries. Fisheries Science 73(1), 208‐210.

Gilman, E., Brothers, N., Kobayashi, D.R. et al. (2003b) Performance Assessment of Underwater Setting Chutes, Side Setting, and Blue‐dyed Bait to Minimize Seabird Mortality in Hawaii Longline Tuna and Swordfish Fisheries. Final Report. National Audubon Society, Hawaii Longline Association, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Islands Science Center, U.S. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI, 42 pp.

Government of Estonia (2006) Matsalu rahvuspargi kaitse‐eeskirja ja välispiiri kirjelduse kinnitamine (RT I 1997, 36, 546 – entered into force 01.01.2006)

Government of Estonia (2009) Vilsandi rahvuspargi kaitse‐eeskirja ning välispiiri kirjelduse kinnitamine (RT I 1996, 37, 745 – entered into force 01.02.2009)

Grimm, P. (1985) Die Stellnetzfischerei als eine wichtige Form nicht nur der ornithofaunistischen Nachweisführung. Naturschutzarbeit in Mecklenburg 28, 104–106.

Guallart, J. (2001) Análisis de factores limitantes de la rentabilidad de la flota palangera en el área de influencia de la reserva marina de las Islas Columbretes. Madrid: SEO/BirdLife


150

Guallart, J. (2004) Análisis del conflicto entre las aves ictiófagas y la pesca de palangre en la comunidad valenciana. Madrid: SEO/BirdLife.

Hamer, K.C., Humphreys, E.M., Garthe, S., Hennicke, J., Peters, G., Grémillet, D., Phillips, R.A., Harris, M.P., Wanless, S. (2007) Annual variation in diets, feeding locations and foraging behaviour of gannets in the North Sea: flexibility, consistency and constraint. Marine Ecology Progress Series 338: 295‐305.

Hayase, S. and Yatsu, A. (1993) Preliminary report of a squid subsurface driftnet experiment in the North Pacific during 1991. North Pacific Commission Bulletin 53, 557– 576.

Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) (2011a) Audouin's Gull & Mediterranean Shag. Life Project for the Seabirds of Greece. Downloaded from http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page_cn.php?tID=2577&aID=1049 on 08/02/2011

Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) (2011b) Control of populations of seabird predators. Life Project for the Seabirds of Greece. Downloaded from http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page_cn.php?tID=2928 on 08/02/2011

Huppop, O. (1996) Causes and trends of the mortality of Guillmots (Uria aalge) ringed on the island of Helgoland, German Bight. Vogelwarte 38: 217‐224.

ICES (2002) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), ICES Headquarters, 8‐11 March 2002. ICES CM 2002/C:04

ICES (2004) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 29 March – 2 April 2004, Aberdeen, UK. ICES CM 2004/C:05

ICES (2008a) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 10‐14 March 2008, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2008/LRC:05.

ICES (2008b) Advisory Committee (ACOM) 5 Celtic Sea and West of Scotland. Downloaded from http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp on 14 December 2010.

ICES (2009a) Report of the EMPAS (Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas) project, 2006‐2008, an ICES‐BfN project. 123 pp

ICES (2009b) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 23‐27 March 2009, Bruges, Belgium. ICES CM 2009/LRC:05

ICES (2010) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 15‐19 March 2010. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF: 10

ICES (2011) Report of the FIMPAS Workshop 2 Fishery Impact and Conflicts with Conservation Objectives, 20 June‐2 July 2010, Neufchatel‐Hardelot, France.

Igual,J.M., Tavecchia, G., Jenouvrier, S., Forero, M.G., Oro, D. (2009) Buying Years to Extinction: Is Compenstaory Mitigation for Marine Bycatch a Sufficient Conservation Measure for Long‐Lived Seabirds? PLoS One 4(3): e4826. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004826

IJlstra, T. (2011) FIMPAS WK 3 Conclusions. Presentation from FIMPAS WK 3, Den Helder, NL, 26 Jan 2011.

Jak, R.G., Bos, O.G., Witbaard, R., Lindeboom, H.J. (2009) Conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) in the Dutch sector of the North Sea. IMARES Wageningen UR, Report No. C065/09

Jenouvrier S, Thibault J‐C, Viallefont A, Vidal P, Ristow D, et al. (2008) Global climate patterns explain range‐wide synchronicity in survival of a migratory seabird. Global Change Biology 15: 268–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‐2486.2008.01715.x.

JNCC (1995) European seabirds at sea database: seabird and cetacean UKDMAP datasets version 2.1. JNCC, Peterborough.

Kangur & Hämmal (2005) Economical and social condition in coastal fishing regions. Majanduslik ja sotsiaalne olukord kalandusega seotud rannapiirkondades.

References

151

Karris G., Poirazidis K., Tziertzidis D., Voulgaris M.D.., Fric J., Portolou D. and Sfenthourakis S., (2010) First data on seabird bycatch from the Greek gillnet and long‐line fishery (Ionian Sea, western Greece). In: Akriotis T., Albayrak T., Kiziroglu I., Erdogan A. and Turan L. (Eds). 2010. 3rd International Eurasian Ornithology Congress. Mytilene, Greece, 8‐11 April 2010

Karris G., Fraguedakis‐Tsolis S., Giokas S., Sfenthourakis S., Xirouchakis S. and Fric J. (2009) Breeding performance and population size of the Cory’s Shearwater colony on Strofades Island complex (Ionian Sea, Western Greece). In: Poulakakis N. & Vardinoyannis K. (Eds). Abstracts of the International Congress on the Zoography, Ecology and Evolution of Eastern Mediterranean, 11th ICZEGAR, 21‐25 September 2009, Herakleion, Crete, Greece. Hellenic Zoological Society, 218 pages.

Kirchhoff, K. (1982) Wasservogelverluste durch die Fischerei an der schleswig–holsteinischen Ostseeküste. Vogelwelt 103, 81–89.

Klaer, N. and Polacheck, T. (1998) The influence of environmental factors and mitigation measures on bycatchrates of seabirds by Japanese longline fishing vessels in the Australian region. Emu 98, 305–316.

Klinge, M. (2008) Ecologische inpasbaarheid staand want visserij kustwateren (exclusief Noordzeekustzone) _ Onderzoek naar bijvangst watervogels en zeezoogdieren DDT124_1/rijm3/026, Witteveen & Bos/Aquaterra_Kuiperburger, Rotterdam.

Kowalski, W., Manikowski, S. (1982) Liczebnos´c´ ptaków gina˛cych w sieciach rybackich na Bałtyku (Numbers of birds found dead tangled in fishing ground nets in the Baltic Sea). Ochrona Przyrody 44, 245–248.

Kruze, E., Plikshs, M., and Arthur, R. (2010) Assessment of the status, development and diversification of fisheries‐dependent communities: Kolka Case Study Report.

Lanieri et al., (in press) Trawling regime influences longline seabird bycatch in the Mediterranean: new insights from a small scale fishery.

Lindeboom, H., van Kessel,J.G., Berkenbosch, L. (2005) Areas with special ecological values on the Dutch Continental Shelf

Løkkeborg, S. (1998) Seabird bycatch and bait loss in long‐lining using different setting methods. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55, 145–149.

Løkkeborg, S. (2001) Reducing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries by means of bird‐scaring lines and underwater setting. In: Seabird Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks and Solutions (eds E. Melvin and J.K. Parrish). University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, AK, pp. 33–41.

Løkkeborg, S. and Robertson, G. (2002) Seabird and longline interactions: effects of a bird‐scaring streamer line and line shooter on the incidental capture of northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis. Biological Conservation 106, 359–364.

Louzao, M. and Oro, D. (2004) Resultados preliminaries sobre la captura accidental de aves marinas en las Islas Baleares. IMEDEA‐ Conselleria Medi Ambient (Illes Balears). Technical Report.

Lydon, G. and Starr, P. (2005) Effect of Blue Dyed Bait on Incidental Seabird Mortalities and Fish Catch Rates on a Commercial Longliner Fishing Off East Cape, New Zealand. Unpublished Conservation Services Programme Report. Department of Conservation, Wellington, 12 pp.

Madroño, A., González, C., Atienza, J.C., eds. (2004) Libro Rojo de las Aves de España. Madrid: Dirección General para la Biodiversidad – SEO/BirdLife

Martínez‐Abraín, A., Maestre, R. and Oro, D. (2002) Demersal trawling waste as a food source for western Mediterranean seabirds during the summer. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences, 59: 529‐537.

Mayol, J., Aguilar, J.S., Yesou, P. (2000) The Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus: status and threats. In P. Yesou and J. Sultana (eds.): Monitoring and conservation of birds, mammals and sea turtles of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, p.133‐134. Environment Protection Department. Floriana, Malta.


152

McNamara, B., Torre, L. and Kaaialii, G. (1999) Hawaii Longline Seabird Mortality Mitigation Project. U.S. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI, 108 pp.

Melvin, E., Parrish, J.K. and Conquest, L.L. (1999) Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology 13, 1386–1397.

Melvin, E., Parrish, J.K., Dietrich, K.S. and Hamel, O.S. (2001) Solutions to Seabird Bycatch in Alaska’s Demersal Longline Fisheries. Washington Sea Grant Programme A/ FP7. University of Washington, Seattle, 52 pp.

Mendel, B., Sonntag, N.,Wahl, J., Schwemmer, P., Dries, H., Guse, N., Műller, S., Garthe, S. (2008) Profiles of seabirds and waterbirds of the German North and Baltic Seas. Distribution, ecology and sensitivities to human activities within the marine environment. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Hefte 61. 427 pp

Mentjes, T. and Gabriel, O. (1999) Fangtechnische Möglichkeiten zur Reduzierung des Beifangs von Meeresenten in der Dorschfischerei mit stationären Fanggeräten (Technical possibilities to reduce duck bycatches in winter cod fishery with static gear). Informationen für die Fischwirtschaft aus der Fischereiforschung 46, 36–41.

Minami, H. and Kiyota, M. (2004) Effect of Blue‐dyed Bait and Tori‐pole Streamer on Reduction of Incidental Take of Seabirds in the Japanese Southern Bluefin Tuna Longline Fisheries. CCSBT‐ERS/0402/08 CCSBT, Canberra.

MRAG (2011) Researching the environmental impacts of the MSC certification programme. London: MRAG Ltd.

Munilla, I., Diez, C, Velando, A. (2007) Are edge bird populations doomed to extinction: A retrospective analysis of the common guillemot collapse in Iberia. Biological Conservation 137: 359‐371

Navarro, J., Louzao, M., Igual, J.M., Oro, D., Delgado, A., Arcos, J.M., Genovart, M., Hobson, K.A., Forero, M.G. (2009) Seasonal changes in the diet of a critically endangered seabird and the importance of trawling discards. Marine Biology 156(12): 2571‐2578.

Nehls, G., S. Witte, N. Dankers, J. de Vlas, F. Quirijns, P. S. Kristensen, 2009. Wadden Sea Ecosystem No. 25, Quality Status Report 2009, Thematic Report No. 3.3, Fisheries. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Group. http://www.waddensea‐secretariat.org/QSR‐2009/03.3‐Fishery‐(10‐03‐14).pdf

Niel, C., Lebreton, J.‐D., (2005) Using demographic invariants to detect overharvested bird populations from incomplete data. Conservation Biology 19, 826–835

Oro, D. and Ruiz, X. (1997) Exploitation of trawler discards by breeding seabirds in the north‐western Mediterranean: Differences between the Ebro Delta and the Balearic Islands areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 695‐707.

Oro, D. (1998) Audouin’s gull. Larus audouinii, BWP Update (The Journal of the Birds of the Western Palearctic) 2: 47‐61.

Oro, D., J.S. Aguilar, J.M. Igual and M. Louzao (2004) Modelling demography and extinction risk in the endangered Balearic shearwater. Biological Conservation, 116: 93‐102.

OSPAR (2009) Background document for Black‐legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla tridactyla. 28pp.

Österblom, H., Fransson, T., Olsson, O. (2002) Bycatches of common guillemot (Uria aalge) in the Baltic Sea gillnet fishery. Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 309–319.

Pedersen, S.A., Fock, H., Krause, J., Pusch, C., Sell, A.L., Böttcher, U., Rogers, S.I., Sköld, M., Skov, H., Podolska, M., Piet, G.J., Rice, J.C. (2009) Natura 2000 sites and fisheries in German offshore waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 155–169

Petersen, I.K., Fox, A.D., Clausager, I. (2003) Distribution and numbers of birds in Kattegat in relation to the proposed offshore wind farm south of Læsø ‐ Ornithological impact assessment. Commissioned by Elsam Engineering A/S, National Environmental Research Institute

References

153

Petersen, I.K., Nielsen, R.D., Pihl, S., Clausen, P., Therkildsen, O., Christensen, T.K., Kahlert, J. & Hounisen, J.P. (2010) National count of waterbirds in Denmark, winter 2007/2008. In Danish: Landsdækkende optælling af vandfugle i Danmark, vinteren 2007/2008. National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus, 78 pp.

Pierce, G.J., Dyson, J, Kelly, E., Eggleton, J.D., Whomersley, P., Young, I.A.G., Santos, M.B., Wang, J., Spencer, N.J. (2002) Results of a short study on by‐catches and discards in pelagic fisheries in Scotland. Aquatic Living Resources 15(6): 327‐334

Pierre, J.P. and Norden, W.S. (2006) Reducing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries using a natural olfactory deterrent. Biological Conservation 130, 406–415.

Pondera Consult (2010) Passende beoordeling Windpark Noordoostpolder. Definitief rapport, Koepel Windenergie Noordoostpolder. 3 March 2010. Hengelo: Pondera Consult. 105 pages. Available online at http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/2%20Bijlage%201%20PB%20Windpark%20NOP_tcm24‐329900.pdf. Accessed 31.03.11.

Pusch, C. (2009) Natura 2000 sites and ecological sound fisheries management in the German EEZ.

Randi, E., Spina, F., and Massa, B. (1989) Genetic variability in Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea). The Auk 106(3): 411‐417

Reid, T. and Sullivan, B.J. (2004) Longliners, black‐browed albatross mortality and bait scavenging in Falkland Island waters: what is the relationship? Polar Biology 27, 131–139

Rijksoverheid Dutch Government (2011) Natura 2000 sites. Downloaded from: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl /onderwerpen/natuur/natura‐2000?#ref‐minlnv on 25/01/2011.

Rijkswaterstaat (2009) Commercial and Leisure Navigation: summary of acces restrictions for the Voordelta Natura 2000 area. Rijkswaterstaat March 2009. http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/images/Summary%20 of%20access%20restrictions%20for%20the%20Voordelta%20Natura%202000%20area_tcm174‐237611.pdf

Riou S, Gray CM, Brooke MdL, Quillfeldt P, Masello JF, Perrins C, Hamer KC (2011) Recent impacts of anthropogenic climate change on a higher marine predator in western Britain. Marine Ecology Progress Series 422:105‐112

Robins, M. (1991) Synthetic gill nets and seabirds. Worldwide Fund for Nature/Royal Society for hte Protection of Birds, Godalming. 68p.

Robertson, G., McNeill, M., Smith, N., Wienecke, B., Candy, S., Olivier, F. (2006) Fast –sinking (integrated weight) longlines reduce mortality of white‐chinned petrels (Procellaria aequinoctialis) and sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) in demersal longline fisheries. Biological Conservation 132: 458‐471.

Ronconi, R.A., Ryan, P.G., Ropert‐Coudert, Y. (2010) Diving of Great Shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) in Cold and Warm Water Regions of the South Atlantic Ocean. PLoS ONE 5(11): e15508.

Roycroft, D., Cronin, M., Mackey, M., Ingram, S.N., O’Cadhla, O. (2007) Risk Assessment for Marine Mammal and Seabird Populations in South‐western Irish Waters (R.A.M.S.S.I.). Coastal and Marine Research Centre, University College Cork. 205pp.

Ruiz, A. and Marti, R. (2004) La Pardela Balear. SEO/BirdLife‐Conselleria de Medi Ambient del Govern de les Illes Balears. Madrid, Spain.

Ryan, P.G., Watkins, B.P. (2002) Seabird mortality in the Patagonian toothfish longline fishery around the Prince Edward Islands, 1996‐2000. Antarctic Science 14: 151‐161

Sanchez, A. and Belda, E.J. (2000) Incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries around Columbretes Islands, Mediterranean Sea (Spain). In P. Yesou and J. Sultana (eds): Monitoring and conservation of birds, mammals and sea turtles of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, p.133‐134. Environment Protection Department. Floriana, Malta.


154

Sanchez, A. and Belda, E.J. (2003) Bait loss caused by seabirds on longline fisheries in the north western Mediterranean: Is night setting an effective mitigation measure? Fisheries Research 60: 99‐106.

SC‐CCAMLR (1998) Report on the working group on fish stock assessment. In: Report of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Scientific Committee (SC‐CAMLR‐XVII), Annex 5. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia, pp. 301–495.

Scourse, J., Uehara, K., Wainwright (2009) Celtic Sea linear tidal sand ridges, the Irish Sea Ice Stream and the Fleuve Manche: Palaeotidal modeling of a transitional passive margin depositional system. Marine Geology 259: 102‐111.

SEC (2004) Mediterranean Fisheries and exploited resources. Report of the Sub‐Group on the Mediterranean Sea (SGMED) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) European Union. Commission Staff Working Paper. SEC (2004) 772. Brussels, 11.6.2004. Commission of the European Communities.

Sewell, J., Harris, R., Hinz, H., Votier, S. and Hiscock, K. (2007) An assessment of the impact of selected fishing activities on European Marine Sites and a review of mitigation measures, SR591. A report by prepared for SeaFish (UK) by the Marine Biological Association and the University of Plymouth. ISBN‐0 903941 69 4, p.219

Skov et al. (2000) Inventory of coastal and marine Important Bird Areas in the Baltic Sea. BirdLife Denmark, Danish Ornithological Society, Copenhagen.

Skov, H., Heinanen, S. Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Bzoma, S., Dagys, M., Durinck, J., Garthe, S., Grishanov, G., Hario, M., Kieckbusch, J.J, Kube, J., Kuresoo, A., Larsson, K., Luigujoe, L., Meissner, W., Nehls, H.W., Nilsson, L., Petersen, I.K., Mikkola Roos, M., Pihl, S., Sonntag, N., Stock, A. And Stipniece, A. (2010) Water‐bird populations and pressures in the Baltic Sea.

Southhall, T., Medley, P., Keus, B., Gill, M., McFadden, M. (2009) MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification. Public Certification Report for the Dutch Fisheries Organisation (DFO) Gillnet Sole Fishery

Sullivan, B.J. (2004) Falkland Islands FAO National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Falklands Conservation, Falkland Islands,54pp.

Tasker, M.L., Camphuysen, C.J., Cooper, J., Garthe, S., Montevecchi, W.A., Blaber, S.J.M. (2000) The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 531‐547.

Trippel, E., Holy, N.L., Palka, D.L., Shepherd, T.D., Melvin, G.D. and Terhune, J.M. (2003) Nylon barium sulphate gillnet reduces porpoise and seabird mortality. Marine Mammal Science 19, 240–243.

Uhlmann, S. (2003) Fisheires bycatch mortalities of sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) and short‐tailed shearwaters (P. tenuirostris). DOC Science Internal Series 92. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

United National Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) The Wadden Sea Germany and the Netherlands. Downloaded from http://www.unep‐wcmc.org/sites/wh/pdf/Wadden_Sea.pdf on 25/01/2011.

UNEP‐WCMC (2005) World Heritage Sites: St Kilda, Scotland, United Kingdom. Downloaded from http://www.unep‐wcmc.org/sites/wh/pdf/ST.KILDA%20.pdf on 20/03/2011

Valeiras, J. and Camiñas, J.A. (2003) The incidental capture of seabirds by Spanish drifting longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea. Scienta Marina 67 (Suppl 2): 65‐68.

van Eerden, M.R., Dubbeldam, W., Muller, J. (1999) Sterfte van watervogels door visserij met staande netten in het IJsselmeer en Markermeer. RIZA rapport nr. 99.060, Lelystad, The Netherlands.

von Nordheim, H., T. Packeiser, Hauswirth, M. (2010) OSPAR Commission. 2009/10 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas

Wade, P. R. (2008) Calculating limits to the allowable human‐caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnepeds. Marine Mammal Science 14:1‐37

References

155

Watts, B. D. (2010) Wind and waterbirds: Establishing sustainable mortality limits within the Atlantic Flyway. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR‐10‐05. College of William and Mary/Virginia Commonwealth University, Williamsburg, VA. 43 pp.

Weimerskirch, H., Capdeville, D. and Duhamel, G. (2000) Factors affecting the number and mortality of seabirds attending trawlers and long‐liners in the Kerguelen area. Polar Biology 23, 236–249.

Wetlands International Cormorant Research Group (2008) Cormorants in the western Palearctic. Distribution and numbers on a wider European scale. Downloaded from http://www.intercafeproject.net/pdf/Cormorant_folder.pdf on 20 January 2011.

Witteveen and Bos, (2003) Voor vogels en vissen. Bepaling van de omvang van de vogelsterfte in de staande nettenvisserij in 2002–2003, uitvoering van experimenten met alternatieve visserijtechnieken en evaluatie van maatregelen voor het seizoen 2003–2004. Deventer, the Netherlands.

Wynn, R.B., Josey, S.A., Martin, A.P., Johns, D.G., Yesou, P. (2007) Climate‐driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters. Biology Letters 3: 529‐532.

Yésou, P. (2003) Recent changes in the summer distribution of the Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauritanicus off Western France. Scienta marina 67 (Supp 2): 143‐148.

Yokota, K. and M. Kiyota (2006) Preliminary report of side‐setting experiments in a large sized longline vessel. WCPFC‐SC‐2‐2006/ EB WP‐15

Zador, S.G., Punt, A.E., Parrish, J.K. (2008) Population impacts of endangered sort‐tailed albatross bycatch in the Alaskan trawl fishery. Biological Conservation 141, 872–882.

Zotier, R., Bretagnolle, V., Thibault, J‐C (1999) Biogeography of the Marine Birds of a Confined Sea, the Mediterranean. Journal of Biogeography, 26(2): 297‐313.

Žydelis, R., Dagys, M., Vaitkus, G. (2006) Beached bird surveys in Lithuania reflect marine oil pollution and bird mortality in fishing nets. Marine Ornithology 34: 161‐166.

Žydelis, R., J. Bellebaum, H. Österblom, M. Vetemaa, B. Schirmeister, A. Stipniece, M. Dagys, M. van Eerden, S. Garthe (2009) Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation 142: 1269‐1281.

Annex 1:Seabird distribution in the Mediterranean Sea, Western Mediterranean and Greek & Maltese waters (Requena, S. & Carboneras, C., 2011)

157

ANNEX 1: SEABIRD DISTRIBUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA: WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN & GREEK AND MALTESE WATERS (REQUENA, S. & CARBONERAS, C., 2011)


158

159

Contribution to the preparation of a Plan of Action for Seabirds

SEABIRD DISTRIBUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA: WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN & GREEK AND MALTESE WATERS

Carles Carboneras University of Barcelona, Spain

Susana Requena

Marine Sciences Institute, Barcelona, Spain

February 2011


160

INTRODUCTION

Mediterranean seabirds in context – the importance of endemic taxa

The Mediterranean region is widely recognised as a source area for endemism at several biological levels, from plants to mammals (Margalef, 1985). Seabirds in particular are a good example of the region’s richness and diversity in biota – eight of the nine breeding taxa of exclusively marine birds are either endemic species or subspecies (Zotier, 1999). The Mediterranean is only a small but important sea in the context of global biodiversity; a relatively poor environment with comparatively harsh conditions and that has been in isolation long enough to force the development of new forms of life.

Mediterranean seabirds have a long history of coexistence with man and its consumption of natural resources (Oro, 2003). This is reflected in the current distribution of species and their numbers. The Mediterranean seabird community is exposed to a variety of threats, ranging from industrial fisheries (causing disruptions in the availability of food, and incidental mortality) to pollution (discharge from industry and agriculture, oil, heavy metals) in the open sea (Coll et al., 2010; Mínguez et al., 2003). These may cause mortality of adult birds, with important consequences on the demography of long-lived birds, and are additive to land-based factors impacting on the same species: predation (by alien species) on nesting islands, habitat deterioration and destruction, large-scale development, disturbance, etc.

Priority species for conservation

Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea.

The subspecies C. d. diomedea is endemic, as a breeding bird, to the Mediterranean sea. The species is not considered to be threatened globally (IUCN: Least Concern, BirdLife International 2011a) although several of its populations are known to be in decline. Cory’s shearwater is protected by national legislation, is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention); it has also been proposed as candidate for listing in the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ACAP (Cooper & Baker, 2008).

Cory’s shearwater suffers considerable mortality from longline fisheries (demersal as well as pelagic) in the Mediterranean (Carboneras, 2009; García-Barcelona et al., 2010) and this currently constitutes a serious threat to its long-term survival. Several studies show this species to be a particularly frequent victim of bycatch (Belda & Sánchez, 2001; Cooper et al., 2003). The fact that most of the individuals caught in

Contribution to the preparation of a Plan of Action for SeabirdsMRAG Ltd, Poseidon & Lamans s.a.

161

longline gear are adults of breeding age has important implications for the population (Arcos et al., 2008).

Population size is 300,000-400,000 breeding pairs (BirdLife International 2011a), of which only a fraction (50,000-100,000 bp) correspond to the Mediterranean subspecies. Nearly all of these birds spend in the winter months in the Atlantic Ocean (González-Solís et al., 2007), aggregating in areas where the risk of bycatch from longlining is also high, and may be additive on the individuals.

Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus.

The Balearic shearwater is endemic to the western Mediterranean. Its small population size (<10,000 mature individuals) and extremely rapid decline (ca. 7.4% annually) justify its IUCN Red List status as Critically Endangered (BirdLife International 2011b). Mean extinction time for the world population has been estimated at 40.4 years (Oro et al. 2004), with adult survival being unusually low for a Procellariiform. Main identified threats are predation at breeding colonies (adults as well as young) and interactions with fisheries. Mortality from pelagic longlining is perhaps only sporadic, but demersal longlining is probably a more severe threat (Carboneras, 2009). Recorded episodes include maxima of 72 birds (>0.5% of the global population) in a single longline (CRAM, 2008).

The Balearic shearwater is legally protected both nationally and internationally. It is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention). It is listed under Annex I of the UNEP Convention on Migratory Species and it has also been proposed as candidate for listing in the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ACAP (Cooper & Baker, 2008).

Outside of the breeding season, most Balearic shearwaters leave the Mediterranean through the Strait of Gibraltar and engage in a long migration round Iberia and into the Bay of Biscay (Birdlife International, 2011b). In recent years, their presence has extended northwards to include the British isles, possibly as a result of global warming or as a consequence of changes in fishing practices (Wynn & Yésou, 2007).

Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan.

The Yelkouan shearwater was recently split taxonomically from the similar Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus (Brooke, 2004). Its global population is thought to be <100,000 mature individuals but has probably gone through a prolonged decline that is projected to continue (BirdLife International 2011c). It is currently listed as Near Threatened (NT) under IUCN Red List status in view of its extremely low breeding success that will probably have population consequences in the future. Its main threats are mortality of adults and chicks at the breeding colony, particularly from predation by rats Rattus rattus and cats Felis catus, and adult mortality at sea,


162

as a result of bycatch and pollution (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008). Habitat deterioration, both at sea and for breeding, may also be contributing to the decline.

The Yelkouan shearwater is endemic to the waters of the Mediterranean and Black Seas. It is legally protected at national level and has been proposed, together with the other two Mediterranean shearwaters, as candidate for listing in the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ACAP (Cooper & Baker, 2008). It is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention).

An EU Life/BirdLife Malta project aimed at conserving a colony of c. 500 pairs at Rdum tal-Madonna, Malta, was run from 2007-2010. The project included tracking of several individual shearwaters with geolocators, data loggers and satellite tags and yielded valuable information on their use of space, both during and after the breeding season (BirdLife Malta 2010). As shown in that report, adult and young Yelkouan shearwaters from Malta travel extensively outside of the breeding season, and show a tendency to move towards the E and NE. Adult birds spent a portion of their time in the Black sea, Aegean sea and Adriatic, as well as frequenting the coast of northern Africa. Most juveniles headed toward the Aegean, where they spent several months feeding in the rich seas off the coasts of Greece and Turkey. A smaller fraction of birds travelled to the south of Cyprus and into the eastern Mediterranean.

Audouin’s gull Larus audouinii

Audouin’s is a mid-sized gull species endemic to the Mediterranean basin. It is currently listed as Near Threatened (NT) according to IUCN Red List criteria because it is thought that it may undergo a moderately rapid population decline in future if current fishery practices change (BirdLife International 2011d). Its global population is made of 58,000 mature individuals and is currently thought to be decreasing, despite regional XX-century expansions owing to an increased availability of fisheries discards close to some key breeding colonies. Current fishery practices are unsustainable and may result in collapse in the fishery in the future (BirdLife International 2011d), leading to population declines in Audouin's Gull.

The species is legally protected at national level and, internationally, it is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) and in Annex I of the UNEP Convention on Migratory Species. A European action plan on the species was published in 1996. Several LIFE Nature projects have been implemented between 1992 and 2006 in Spain and Italy, contributing to the successful recolonisation of breeding islands and to the development of safer fishing techniques.


163

METHODOLOGY Design of 1º-cell grid

Following the INSPIRE Directive (Infrastructure for spatial information in Europe (http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) and the European Environmental Agency guidelines (EEA, 2008) where possible, the European Terrestrial Reference System 1989 (ETRS89) is recommended as the geodetic datum for pan-European spatial data collection, storage and analysis. Also, following the European Commission recommendation the Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area (ETRS89-LAEA) projection was selected due to its suitability for storing raster data, for statistical analysis and for map display purposes. More over, this is the EEA projection recommended for spatial analysis, e.g. grid analysis, as this is an area-true projection and it is recommended for use when combining layers, measuring areas and distances, and in sampling processes for statistical purposes (EEA, 2008). However, due to the specific request, the ETRS89 Geographic Coordinate System was used for this project.

Another recommended method to optimise data for visualisation, analyses and to fine-tune the spatial indexes in the data repository is to resort to using spatial fishnets or grids. This procedure not only ensures that each feature enclosed in the cell will be processed for statistical purposes once but also improves the performance of complex processes like table querying, joining attributes, etc. The use of spatial fishnets has another advantage for the purpose of this study as grids omit direct spatial reference and average the qualitative properties of the different objects collected from the variety of information sources used. Grids are, thus, powerful tools for harmonisation and reduction of the complexity of spatial datasets (EEA, 2008). In the last years, many of the projects pursuing the identification of marine protected areas (MPA) in open seas have chosen this methodological approach as the EU “Empafish: Marine protected areas as tools for fisheries”, the “MESH: mapping European seabed habitats” (http://www.searchmesh.net) or the JNCC “Identification of nationally important marine areas in the Irish Sea”, among others.

Seabird distribution

The known distribution (breeding and wintering seasons, as well as migration period) and ranges of the four seabird species were obtained from a wide variety of internationally recognized sources: consultation to experts, published references, data from censuses at sea and satellite telemetry and own data (see bibliography).

Information processing

The original European grid was re-scaled to the Mediterranean basin extension excluding inland cells, resulting in 360 cells. Each of the cells has a unique cellcode that identifies resolution, row and column following the EEA operational guide to geographic data and maps, but adapted to the case, using the coordinate references of the lower left corner of each cell. Thus, e.g., 1dgrE3N39, corresponds to the western Majorca island waters (see Figure 1).


164

Figure 1. Every cell in the grid has an identification label that is linked to its geographical location.

The process followed to obtain the georeferenced layers is shown in Figure 2. To prepare the coverage of each of the seabird species considered and depending on the initial format -an existing shapefile or other GIS format, a Google Earth drawing, point fixes from electronic devices, etc)-, a similar process was applied in a first step. In many cases it was necessary to combine different plates illustrating the distribution range of a given species. Initially, except for the case of dots, all the areas were georeferenced by way of a polyline feature. Finally the information was reduced to the fishnet. Cells with an occupancy corresponding to less than 10% were discarded. A metadata file following the ISO 19115 protocols was added.


165

Figure 2. For each species all the information was compiled in a georeferenced format and assembled in a unique layer. The table of contents of these layers –with the same structure for all the species- was filled in considering the different fields. These fields are the basis to perform queries, selections and to identify each of the features. In the last step of this process, all the individual shapes were compiled into a unique shapefile with all the species and features.

Areas of yelkouan shearwater concentration at sea. From Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008.The endemic Mediterranean yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan: Distribution, threats and a plea for more data. Oryx, 42(2), 187-194.


167

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overlap of seabird distribution data

In common with other similar studies (e.g. Requena, 2009), our work shows that at-sea distribution of seabirds in the Mediterranean reflects the patterns of productivity and is therefore heterogeneous. There are several areas of high diversity but no subregion can be singled out as containing all of the natural values, so conservation should be attempted on a site-based approach. However, there is a big difference between the two areas under study in terms of seabird presence: whereas the ‘western Mediterranean’ is rich, diverse and contains several areas of high significance for the four species considered, the ‘Greek and Maltese waters’ region is less diverse, contains fewer species and is important mainly as accessory to neighbouring areas where the population strongholds reside. This difference in terms of importance for seabirds corresponds to differences in oceanography and overall productivity (Coll et al., 2010), so is probably intrinsic rather than human-caused.

The general map (Figure 3) shows that the areas with most diversity are in the Alborán Sea (with the only two cells where all four species occur), the E coast of Spain and Gulf du Lion, the waters around the main central islands (Balearics, Corsica, Sardinia), the coast of N Tunisia – Strait of Sicily and the Aegean Sea. Some of these areas are important as support for breeding activities, particularly around the islands. Foraging grounds are mostly associated with the discharges of rivers and relevant oceanographic features, such as the Ebro and Rhône, the Gulf of Liguria, the Strait of Sicily or the Aegean.


168

Figure 3. Overlap of seabird distribution data.

At-sea distribution of Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea

The map in Figure 4 shows the distribution at sea of Cory’s shearwater for the period March – October when the species is present in the Mediterranean in good numbers. A small fraction of the population overwinters in the warmer southern waters (notably off Tunisia) but the species is otherwise absent from the Mediterranean in the non-breeding season.


169

Figure 4. At-sea distribution of Cory’s shearwater.

In the western Mediterranean, the following marine areas are most important for Cory’s shearwater:

a) Alborán Sea – The marine area between the Strait of Gibraltar and the Almería-Orán front is important for migrating, feeding and breeding Cory’s shearwaters, which concentrate in the area in good numbers. Birds from all other populations must pass through this area on their way to and from the wintering grounds in the Atlantic ocean. This area is thus of critical importance for the maintenance of all Mediterranean populations of the species.

a) East coast of Spain & France – These are important feeding grounds for the birds breeding on islands offshore (islands off Marseille, Balearics, Columbretes, etc.). Important interactions with fisheries occur in this area, where Cory’s shearwaters attend trawlers, longliners and purse-seiners. The species has been shown to adapt its foraging behaviour to the presence of fishing vessels (Bartumeus et al., 2010), shifting to less favourable fisheries when their first choice is not available (García-Barcelona et al., 2010). This increases the risk of interactions with longline fisheries.

b) Waters around central Mediterranean islands – Such waters are important as support for the breeding activity, as well as for short-distance foraging trips


170

from the colonies. Fishing activity in these areas is generally limited, but their impact on local populations –in the event of negative interactions- may be severe.

c) Strait of Sicily – Tunisia – The triangle-shaped area that includes northern Tunisia (Zembra Is.), Sicily and Malta, as well as several island groups, hosts the largest colonies and most of the breeding population of Cory’s shearwater in the Mediterranean. Only part of it is included in the western Mediterranean as defined in this report, but is naturally connected to the neighbouring ‘Greek and Maltese waters’ area. Industrial fisheries are not as well developed here as in waters off Spain and France, but they might be in the future. so any planning should incorporate measures to prevent

In the Greek and Maltese waters region, the following areas are important for the species:

d) Malta – Tunisia – In a continuation of the same triangle-shaped area as above, the warm but productive shelf waters of the outer Gulf of Gabès provide rich feeding grounds for birds from nearby breeding colonies but also from more distant areas. Fisheries here may be causing high levels of bycatch, as known to occur in other top predators such as marine turtles (Jribi et al., 2008) and sharks.

e) Coastal waters of Ionian Sea – The waters surrounding the breeding colonies in the Greek Ionian Sea are important as support of their associated activities. It is not known whether any foraging takes place in the offshore, much deeper waters. Telemetry indicates that they are not among the most productive waters.

At-sea distribution of Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus

The at-sea distribution of Balearic shearwater is typically associated with cold, productive waters (Louzao et al., 2006). Small numbers may occur in the Gulf du Lion (irregular presence not shown in the species map in Figure 5), but otherwise the species is restricted to the eastern coast of Spain and the waters surrounding their nesting grounds in the Balearic archipelago. The species is gregarious and highly mobile, so any site at any time within this general area may contain a significant part of the global population. Nevertheless, the following areas in the western Mediterranean stand out as particularly important for the Balearic shearwater:


171

Figure 5. At-sea distribution of Balearic shearwater.

a) Ebro delta & river system – This highly productive system of shallow shelf waters is fundamental for foraging Balearic shearwaters for most of the year. The area is large and extends between the coasts of Barcelona and the Gulf of Valencia. Here, Balearic shearwaters interact with commercial, mostly trawl, fisheries. Bycatch episodes occur only sporadically, but may involve significant numbers. Birds in this area are also under threat from oil extraction, chemical pollution and offshore wind farm development (Arcos et al., 2009).

b) Waters around the Balearic islands – Balearic shearwaters frequent the waters around the breeding islands where they form rafts prior to visiting the colonies at night. These waters are also important for newly-fledged juveniles and for social activities. Industrial fishing is less developed than on continental waters, but there is a long tradition of artisanal fishing that is the cause of some interaction.

c) Cap de la Nau – The area around this calcareous massif marks the S limit of the Balearic Sea. Strong marine currents generate eddies and areas of high productivity, that extend S to Murcia and Cape Palos. Shearwaters use these waters extensively for feeding, where they co-occur with a large fishing fleet.


172

d) Gulf of Almería – Puffinus mauretanicus concentrate in these waters for feeding in winter and spring. The area is also frequented by feeding rafts of dolphins and tuna, which lure prey to the surface and make them available for the shearwaters.

e) Strait of Gibraltar – Nearly 100% of the global population of Balearic shearwater flies through the Strait of Gibraltar at least twice a year, on their way to and from ‘summering’ grounds in the Atlantic ocean. Much feeding takes place in this area of productive waters, large fishing fleet and heavy maritime traffic.

At-sea distribution of Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan

Yelkouan shearwater is the Puffinus species of the central and eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Much like Balearic, it shows a preference for areas of high productivity and relatively cold waters, although in the case of Yelkouan with perhaps a greater tolerance. Yelkouan shearwaters associate with tuna and dolphins, and also co-occur with fishing vessels in areas with large concentrations of prey. The following areas are most important for the species, as shown by Figure 6:

Figure 6. At-sea distribution of Yelkouan shearwater.


173

a) Alborán Sea – Although generally considered an eastern Mediterranean species and not known to migrate out of the Mediterranean to spend the non-breeding season, Yelkouan shearwaters make extensive use of this area, from the Strait of Gibraltar in the W to the Almería-Orán front in the E (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008). Here they mix with other species and have to face the same threats, including the risk of interaction with commercial fisheries.

b) Gulf du Lion – Ligurian Sea – N Tyrrhenian Sea – The rich, cold waters of the northern shores of the western Mediterranean serve as feeding grounds for Yelkouan shearwaters that breed on offshore islands, close to the continent as well as further out. Several commercial fisheries occur in this area, causing interactions and mortality events.

c) Waters off Algeria & Tunisia – Deep waters are found relatively close to the shore in this area, where there is vertical mixing and therefore higher productivity, particularly in the winter and early spring. A few hundred Yelkouan shearwaters use this area for feeding at the beginning of the breeding season (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008).

d) Waters around Malta – The marine area situated to the E of Malta and S of Sicily is an important feeding area for Yelkouan shearwaters, most notably for the local population nesting in Malta (BirdLife Malta, 2010). Nearer to land, shearwaters make an intensive use of the waters around the colonies. Trawl and longline fisheries also occur over the continental shelf.

e) Aegean Sea & adjacent waters – Yelkouan shearwater colonies occur throughout the Aegean Sea and on some neighbouring islands. Birds from those colonies make use of the adjacent waters, at the E limit of the Ionian Sea. The area also serves as an entry to the rich feeding grounds in the Black Sea, where Yelkouan shearwaters from different breeding areas gather to spend the non-breeding season.

At-sea distribution of Audouin’s gull Larus audouinii

The distribution of the Audouin’s gull has changed little in the last few decades, despite a dramatic increase in breeding numbers in the westernmost Mediterranean. Currently, its distribution is concentrated in four subregions that combine appropriate breeding habitat and productive waters where fish, mostly anchovies and sardines, are found in good numbers. The species interacts with several fisheries (purse-seining, trawling, longlining), particularly around the E coast of Spain. The four main areas are (Figure 7):

a) Alborán Sea, including the Strait of Gibraltar – The area is important for migrating Audouin’s gulls (the majority of the population winter on the Atlantic coast S to Senegal and must travel through the Strait of Gibraltar), but also for breeding and feeding. The area holds several large colonies, whose birds forage locally and as far E as the Almería-Orán front.


174

b) E coast of Spain & Balearic Is. – This area is currently the stronghold of the species, after a substantial population increase that has been linked to the availability of trawler discards and the protection of breeding habitat (Oro 1998, Oro et al., 2004). The species is much dependent on present fishery practices and its population may see rapid decline if such practices change substantially in the future (BirdLife International, 2011d). The dynamics of Audouin’s gulls in this area are complex, with alternating periods of growth and stabilization of numbers, the establishment of new breeding sites and the disappearance of others, etc. It is assumed that much of the dynamics is linked to the availability of food, either natural or fisheries-related.

c) Corsica, Sardinia & Tunisian coast – These waters constitute a stable, unaltered environment that may have dominated in the Mediterranean for a long time. Numbers of Audouin’s gulls in this area are not large, but it is known to have acted as a refuge for the species in times of predation, habitat alteration, etc. Fisheries in this area are mostly artisanal; they may impact on Audouin’s gulls mainly through longlining.

d) Aegean Sea & adjacent waters – As with Yelkouan shearwaters, Audouin’s gull colonies in this subregion are mainly found scattered on multiple islands in the Aegean Sea. The feeding range of those birds may extend to deeper waters of the Ionian Sea, particularly in association with trawl and purse-seine fisheries.


175

Figure 7. At-sea distribution of Audouin’s gull.


176

CONCLUSIONS The heterogeneity and singularity of the Mediterranean environment are reflected in their seabird populations. These include several endemic forms, whose long-term preservation depends on appropriate human use of the marine ecosystem.

The distribution of seabirds in the Mediterranean region is not uniform. Higher diversity is to be found in the western Mediterranean, particularly between the Gulf du Lion and Strait of Gibraltar in the Alborán Sea. This is an area where commercial fisheries are well developed, and negative interactions, leading to unsustainable mortality, have been reported for several species and areas. The still abundant Cory’s shearwater is probably the worst hit species.

Further east, hotspots of seabird diversity occur more dispersedly and usually in association with specific oceanographic features and a well-preserved environment. Evidence suggests, however, that Mediterranean seabirds travel long distances and feed in areas that are distant from their nesting colonies. The intermixing of populations at certain feeding areas implies that management of human activities such as fishing and interactions with seabirds can have effects over a large geographical scale and that they should not be regarded as merely local events.

Information on seabird distribution is still insufficient and should be completed and updated with the best available knowledge on seabird use of Mediterranean waters. Data obtained from monitoring with remote telemetry devices (PTTs, GPSs, GLSs, etc.) should be used, as they become available, to complement such information and to provide quantitative evidence of use.


177

BIBLIOGRAPHY Selected references on seabird ecology, distribution and conservation in the Mediterranean

Aguilar, J.S. 1999 Species Action Plan for the Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus in Europe. European Commission.

Arcos, J. M. 2001. Foraging ecology of seabirds at sea: Significance of commercial fisheries in the NW Mediterranean. Ph.D. thesis, Barcelona University.

Arcos, J.M., Bécares, J., Rodríguez, B., Ruiz, A., 2009. Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves marinas en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049-Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife), Madrid. Arcos, J.M., Louzao, M. & Oro, D. 2008. Fisheries Ecosystem Impacts and Management in the Mediterranean: Seabirds Point of View. Pp. 587-596. In: J. Nielsen, J. Dodson, K. Friedland, T. Hamon, N. Hughes, J. Musick, and E. Verspoor Eds. Proceedings of the Fourth World Fisheries Congress: Reconciling Fisheries with Conservation. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 49, Bethesda, Maryland.

Arcos, J. M., & Oro, D. 2002. Significance of fisheries discards for a threatened mediterranean seabird, the Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 239, 209-220.

Baduini, C.L., and Hyrenbach, K.D. 2003. Biogeography of Procellariiform foraging strategies: does ocean productivity influence provisioning? Marine Ornithology, 31: 101-112.

Baccetti, N. & Smart, M. 1999. On the midwinter population size and distribution of Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus in Italy and Tunisia. Pp. 91-96 in:Meininger, P.L., Hoogendoorn, W., Flamant, R. & Raevel, P. eds. Proceedings of the 1st International Mediterranean Gull Meeting, Le Portel, Pas-de-Calais, France, 4-7 September 1998. EcoNum, Bailleul.

Bartumeus, F., Giuggioli, L., Louzao, M., Bretagnolle, V., Oro, D., Levin, S.A. 2010. Fishery discards impact on seabird movement patterns at regional scales. Current Biology 20, 215-222.

Belda, E. J., & Sánchez, A. 2001. Seabird mortality on longline fisheries in the western mediterranean: Factors affecting bycatch and proposed mitigating measures. Biological Conservation, 983, 357-363.

BirdLife International 2004 Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLife International BirdLife Conservation Series 12.

BirdLife International. 2011a. Species factsheet: Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org.


178

BirdLife International. 2011b. Species factsheet: Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org.

BirdLife International. 2011c. Species factsheet: Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org.

BirdLife International. 2011d. Species factsheet: Audouin’s gull Larus audouinii. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org.

BirdLife Malta 2010. Protecting Malta’s wind chaser. The EU Life Yelkouan Shearwater Project Report LIFE06/NAT/MT/000097 Layman’s Report. Available from http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt.

Bonnaud, E., Bourgeois, K. Vidal, E. Legrand, J. & LeCorre M. 2009. How can the Yelkouan shearwater survive feral cat predation? A meta-population structure as a solution? Population Ecology, 51 2: 261-270. doi: 10.1007/s10144-008-0134-0

Borg, J.J. & Cachia-Zammit, R. 1998. Monitoring Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea populations in a hostile environment. In: Ecologie des oiseaux marins et gestion intégrée du littoral en Méditerranée eds. Walmsley, J., Goutner, V., El Hili, A. & Sultana, J. IV Symposium Méditerranée des Oiseaux Marins, Hammamet, Tunisia.

Bourgeois, K. & Vidal, E. 2008. The endemic Mediterranean yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan: Distribution, threats and a plea for more data. Oryx, 422, 187-194.

Bourgeois, K., Vidal, E., Comor, V., Legrand, J. & Dromzee, S. 2008. Colony-site selection drives management priorities for Yelkouan shearwater populations. J Wildl Manage 72:1188–1193. doi: 10.2193/2007-052

Carboneras, C. 2008. Marine birds. In: Hoyt, E. & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. Species information for managing marine protected areas: improving access and integration. Proceedings of the IUCN World Congress, Barcelona 5-14 October 2008.

Carboneras, C. 2009. Guidelines for reducing bycatch of seabirds in the Mediterranean region. Contract RAC/SPA, N° 42_2008. UNEP MAP & RAC/SPA, Tunis. 52 pp.

Carboneras, C. & Requena, S. 2006. Important Bird Areas at sea marine IBAs – where we are & next steps. In: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine and Coastal Birds. Aransay, N. ed., Vilanova i la Geltrú Spain, 17-19 November 2005, RAC/SPA pub. Tunis: 103 p.

Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Ben Rais Lasram, F., et al., 2010. The Biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, Patterns, and Threats. PLoS ONE 5(8), e11842 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011842). Cooper, J., Baccetti, N., Belda, E.J., Borg, J.J., Oro, D., Papaconstantinou, C., Sanchez, A. 2003. Seabird mortality from longline fishing in the Mediterranean sea and Macaronesian waters: A review and a way forward. Scientia Marina, 67S2, 57-64.

Cooper, J., & Baker, G. B. 2008. Identifying candidate species for inclusion within the agreement on the conservation of albatrosses and petrels. Marine Ornithology, 361, 1-5.

http://www.birdlife.org/�


179

CRAM. 2008. Episodio de captura incidental de 72 Puffinus spp. en una ZEPA marina por un palangre de superficie ilegal: recuperación clínica y reintroducción de 20 individuos. Unpublished report. CRAM - Fundació per a la Conservació i Recuperació d’Animals Marins, Premià de Mar.

Culioli, J. M. 2006. The Mediterranean shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii in the Mediterranean sea. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine and Coastal Birds, Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain. 49-51.

Dimech, M., Darmanin, M., Caruana, R., & Raine, H. 2008. Preliminary data on seabird by-catch from the Maltese long line fishery central Mediterranean. ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics,, SCRS/2008/027 .

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 14.03.2007

Dunn, E. 2007. The case for a community plan of action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

EEA operational guidelines. Guide to geographic data and map December 2008, version 3.

García-Barcelona, S., Macías, D., Ortiz de Urbina, J.M., Estrada, A., Real, R., Báez, J.C. 2010. Modelling abundance and distribution of seabird by-catch in the Spanish Mediterranean longline fishery. Ardeola 57(Especial), 65-78.

Guyot, I. 1990. Le cormoran huppé en Corse: Biologie et interactions avec la pêche professionnelle. Parc Naturel Regional et des Reserves Naturelles de Corse, Travaux Scientifiques 1, 28-40.

Heath, M.F., Evans, M.I., Hoccom, D.G., Payne, A.J. & Peet, N.B. 2000. Important Bird Areas in Europe. Priority Sites for Conservation. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 8. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K. 2 vols.

Gómez-Díaz, E., J. González-Solís, M.A. Peinado & R.M. Page 2006. Phylogeography of the Calonectris shearwaters using molecular and morphometric data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41: 322-332.

Gómez-Díaz E., & González-Solís J. 2007. Geographic assignment of seabirds to their origin: combining morphologic, genetic, and biochemical analyses. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1484–1498.

González-Solís, J., J.P.Croxall, D.Oro, & X.Ruiz 2007. Trans-equatorial migration and mixing in the wintering areas of a pelagic seabird. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:297-301.

Igual, J.M., Tavecchia, G., Jenouvrier, S., Forero, M.G. & Oro, D. 2009. Buying Years to Extinction: Is Compensatory Mitigation for Marine Bycatch a Sufficient Conservation Measure for Long-Lived Seabirds? PLoS ONE 43: e4826. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004826


180

Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Map Projections for Europe. Edited by: A. Annoni, C. Luzet, E. Gublet and J.Ihde. European Commission Joint Research Centre. EuroGeographics. European Communities, 2003.

Issa, N. 2008. Les oiseaux marins en Méditerranée française. Ornithos.

Jribi, I., Echwikhi, K., Bradai, M.N., Bouain, A. 2008. Incidental capture of sea turtles by longlines in the Gulf of Gabès (South Tunisia): A comparative study between bottom and surface longlines. Scientia Marina 72(2), 337-342.

Lieberknecht, L.M., Carwardine, J., Connor, D., Vincent, M.A., Atkins, S.M., & Lumb, C.M., 2004, The Irish Sea Pilot - Report on the identification of nationally important marine areas in the Irish Sea, JNCC Report 347

LIPU. 2008. Dalla terra al mare. Un progetto per l’individuazione delle aree importanti per la tutela degli ucelli che vivono nei mari italiani. ALI speciale IBA marine. Lega Italiana Protezione Ucelli & Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare. 24 pp.

Longhurst, Alan R. Ecological Geography of the Sea. 2nd. Edition 2006. Academic Press.

Louzao, M, Igual, J.M., McMinn, M., Aguilar, J.S., Triay, R. & Oro, D. 2006. Small pelagic fish, trawling discards and breeding performance of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater: Improving conservation diagnosis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 318, 247-254.

Mañosa, S., Oro, D., & Ruiz, X. 2004. Activity patterns and foraging behaviour of Audouin's gulls at the Ebro delta, NW Mediterranean. Scientia Marina, 684, 605-614.

Margalef, R. Ed.. 1985. Key environments: Western Mediterranean. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Martinez-Abrain, A., Maestre, R. & Oro, D. 2002. Demersal trawling waste as a food source for western mediterranean seabirds during the summer. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 593, 529-537.

Mínguez, E., Oro, D., De Juana, E., Martinez-Abrain, A. 2003. Mediterranean seabird conservation: What can we do? Scientia Marina, 67Suppl.2, 3-6.

Morato, T., D.A.Varkey, C.Damaso, M.Machete, M.Santos, R.Prieto, R.S.Santos, T.J. Pitcher. 2008. Evidence of a seamount effect on aggregating visitors. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 357: 23–32.

Navarro, J. & J.González-Solís. 2009. Environmental determinants of foraging strategies in Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea breeding on the Canary Islands, NE Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 378: 259–267.

Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Hyrenbach D, Scovazzi T., Van Klaveren P. 2008. The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh Water Ecosystems.

Oro, D. 1998. Audouin's gull Larus audouinii. Pp. 47-61 in: The Birds of Western Palearctic M. A. Ogilvie, ed.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.


181

Oro, D. 2003. Managing seabird metapopulations in the Mediterranean: Constraints and challenges. Scientia Marina, 67, 13-22.

Oro, D., Baccetti, N., Boukhalfa, D., Eken, G., El Hili, A., Goutner, V., Karauz, S., Papaconstantinou, C., Recorbet, B. & Ruiz, X. 2000. Current breeding distribution and status of Audouin's gulls Larus audouinii in the Mediterranean. In: Sultana, J. & Yésou, P. eds. Monitoring and Conservation of Birds, Mammals and Sea Turtles of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, pp. 69-80. BirdLife Malta, Malta

Oro, D., Cam, E., Pradel, R. & Martinez-Abrain, A. 2004. Influence of food availability on demography and local population dynamics in a long-lived seabird. Proceedings - Royal Society. Biological Sciences, 2711537, 387-396.

Oro, D. & Ruiz, X. 1997. Exploitation of trawler discards by breeding seabirds in the north-western Mediterranean: Differences between the Ebro delta and the Balearic islands areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 544, 695-707.

Pedrocchi, V., Oro, D., Gonzalez-Solis, J., Ruiz, X. & Jover, L. 2002. Differences in diet between the two largest breeding colonies of Audouin's gulls: The effects of fishery activities. Scientia Marina, 663, 313-320.

Quantum GIS Development Team, 2009. Quantum GIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org

Ramírez I., P. Geraldes, A. Meirinho, P. Amorim & V. Paiva. 2008. Áreas Marinhas Importantes para as Aves em Portugal. Projecto LIFE04NAT/PT/000213. Sociedade Portuguesa Para o Estudo das Aves, Lisboa. 260 pp.

Requena, S. 2009. Georeferenced compilation on bird important areas in open seas in the Mediterranean region / Contract N° 33/2009 Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA). 49 pages. Ristow, D., Berthold, .P, Hashmi, D. & Querner, U. 2000. Satellite tracking of Cory’s shearwater migration. Condor, 102, 696–699.

Sarà, M. 1993. Feeding habits of Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea in the Central Mediterranean Sea. In: Status and Conservation of Seabirds eds. Aguilar, J.S., Monbailliu, X. & Paterson, A.M., pp. 213–220. Proceedings of the 2nd Mediterranean Seabird Symposium MEDMARAVIS/SEO, Madrid, Spain.

Sultana, J. & Borg, J. J. 2006a. Population ecology and conservation of the Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea. Pp. 37-39 in: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine and Coastal Birds. Aransay, N. ed., Vilanova i la Geltrú Spain, 17-19 November 2005, RAC/SPA pub. Tunis: 103 p.

Sultana, J. & Borg, J. J. 2006b. Population ecology and conservation of the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan. Pp. 40-42 in: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine and Coastal Birds. Aransay, N. ed., Vilanova i la Geltrú Spain, 17-19 November 2005, RAC/SPA pub. Tunis: 103 p.

Sultana, J. & Borg, J. J. 2006c. Population ecology and conservation of the European Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. Pp. 43-45 in: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine


182

and Coastal Birds. Aransay, N. ed., Vilanova i la Geltrú Spain, 17-19 November 2005, RAC/SPA pub. Tunis: 103 p.

UNEP - MAP - RAC/SPA. 2003. Action plan for the conservation of bird species listed in annex II of the protocol concerning specially protected areas SPAs, and biological diversity in the mediterranean. Tunis: RAC/SPA.

UNEP - MAP - RAC/SPA. 2006. Proceedings of the first symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the conservation of marine and coastal birds. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Mediterranean Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine and Coastal Birds, Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain.

Wynn, R.B. & Yésou, P. 2007. The changing status of Balearic Shearwater in northwest European waters. British Birds 100, 392 – 406.

Zotier, R., Bretagnolle, V. & Thibault, J.C. 1999. Biogeography of the marine birds of a confined sea, the Mediterranean. Journal of Biogeography, 262, 297-313.

Annex 3: Questionnaire survey

183

ANNEX 2: FLYER


184


185

ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Longline questionnaire Structured interview on seabird bycatch mitigation measures

Explain up front that this is about a specific fishery (Western Mediterranean longline) and its interactions with seabirds. Could elaborate that there are EC plans to develop a plan of action for seabirds, and we want to obtain industry’s views on the extent of the problem, how it affects the industry and the cost, feasibility and effectiveness of mitigation options.

General information

1. Date:.......................................................................................................................................... 2. Location: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3. Interviewer: .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

4. Interviewee Name (optional):.......................................................................................................................................... 5. Contact details (optional – in case we need to follow up with any questions afterwards):

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

6. Vessel details: Name of vessel..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Home port.......................................................................................................................... Registration number..........................................................................................

Vessel length: ...............................................................................................................m Tonnage: ..................................................................................................................GT

7. Which fisheries do you operate in?

Gear method Target species Period (season) % of days fished represented by this gear

Surface/pelagic Longline

Demersal Longline

Other (specify)

8. How much of your income is from fishing? ...............................................................................................................%

9. On average how many days per year do you fish? ...........................................................................................days

Current fishing practice (specific to the longline fishery)

(NB the rest of the questionnaire should be completed for either the surface or the demersal longline fishery. If the interviewee takes part in both, they should select their main fishery. Or, if they want to provide answers for both, please record them on a separate interview sheet).

Specify which fishery the rest of the questionnaire applies to: Pelagic Demersal


186

10. In which areas does this fishery operate in? Please answer for the fishery in general rather than your personal fishing areas. Indicate which grid areas are fished in each month in the table below. Specify for areas that are most important, areas of secondary importance and areas occasionally fished with this gear. [If the interviewee wants to specify differences for individual fisheries, use the second line in the table]

Alternatively, you can use the maps on page 203.

Fishery Imp Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1

2

3

1

2

3


187

11. Are there particular times and areas of importance to this fishery?

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The following questions relate to your individual circumstances.

Gear

12. Please provide the following details about the gear that you use: COMPONENT DETAIL EXAMPLE OR UNITS

GEAR

Hook type e.g. Circle, J‐hook or other

Length of main line

Length in metres


188

Number of hooks per line

Number of hooks

Colour of line

Range of depth set Depth in metres that the hooks sit in the water

Type of weight used e.g. integrated weighted line, additional weights

Number of weights per line

Gear markers or attractant devices

e.g. lightsticks, colour

Sink rate Sink rate of hooks in metres per second

BAIT

Kind of bait e.g. fish (and type e.g. mackerel), squid, other

Fresh, frozen, or thawed bait?

Whole or pieces?

Dyed?

Yes/No and colour if yes

Fishing pattern

13. Please provide the following details about your fishing pattern: COMPONENT DETAIL EXAMPLE OF UNITS

Average steaming time to reach your key fishing grounds

Steaming time in hours (this question not essential)

Average trip length

Number of days

Total amount of gear units operated per trip

Number of lines set per trip

Speed of boat at deployment


189

Time of day when gear is set

At sunrise/dawn

Day

At sunset/dusk

Night

Other (specify):......................................

Specify according to sunrise/sunset

Duration of deployment

Time of day when gear is hauled

At sunrise/dawn

Day

At sunset/dusk

Night

Other (specify):......................................

Specify according to sunrise/sunset

Duration of retrieval

Soak time

Soak time in hours

Number of crew

Costs

14. Please provide the following information about your fishing costs for this fishery and gear: [We need to obtain the costs below on an annual basis. You may need to work through this with the interviewee e.g. how much is spent on bait per trip, average number of trips per year (sum over different seasons if fishing pattern varies by season). For gear costs, you will need to estimate the cost per unit (e.g. cost per hook) and the replacement frequency i.e. how much gear gets damaged or lost in an ‘average’ year (even though ‘it depends’…)]

UNIT COSTS COST PER YEAR

% OF TOTAL OPERATING COSTS

Gear

Bait

Fuel

Subsistence


190

Crew

(inc payment basis e.g. share/salary)

Other

15. What percentage of your overall fishing income does this gear represent? ...............................%


191

Seabirds

16. Do seabirds disrupt your fishing activity? Yes No If yes, what disturbance do they cause? (tick all that apply)

Steal bait from the lines Reduce time fishing due to slowing of hauling procedures Reduced catch due to bait damaged by birds Lost catching opportunities due to birds on hooks rather than fish Damage fish on the line Damage fishing gear Other, please detail.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ……………………………....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

....

17. Which bird species associate with the boat? ................................................................................................................................................................................ .……………………………...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

....

18. Over the last 12 months, roughly how many seabirds became accidentally caught in your gear? Please indicate

approximate numbers each quarter: If possible provide a breakdown by type

Seabird group Number Comments (specify which species if possible) Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun Jul‐Sep Oct‐Dec

Shearwaters

Petrels

Gulls

Shags/Cormorants

Cormorants

Gannets

Skuas

Other

TOTAL

Note: Shearwaters: Cory’s shearwater, Balearic shearwater, Yelkouan (Mediterranean) shearwater

Petrels: European storm‐petrel

Gulls: Yellow‐legged gull, Mediterranean gull, Audouin’s gull

Shags/Cormorants: Mediterranean shag, Pygmy cormorant

Gannets: Northern gannet

Skuas: Great skua

19. Where do these interactions most commonly occur? Indicate which grid areas in the table below (refer to map on page 186). Alternatively, use the maps at the end.

Seabird group Area Comments (specify which species if possible) Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun Jul‐Sep Oct‐Dec

Shearwaters


192

Seabird group Area Comments (specify which species if possible) Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun Jul‐Sep Oct‐Dec

Petrels

Gulls

Shags/Cormorants

Cormorants

Gannets

Skuas

Other

20. Are the birds generally alive or dead when brought on board? Alive Dead 21. If they are alive, what do you do? .............................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

22. Do you think anything should be/needs to be done to reduce the number of seabirds caught? Yes No

23. Why? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

24. If yes (to Q22), how could this be achieved?..................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Mitigation measures 25.a. Is seabird bycatch mitigation mandatory in your fishery? If yes, please describe....................................

............................................................................................................................................................................. 25.b. Are you aware of seabird bycatch problem and do you feel that information is sufficient on this topic?

.............................................................................................................................................................................


193

25. c. How much, if anything, have you already invested in mitigation measures to reduce seabird interactions? €............................................................

26. Is there any support available to help with the implementation of mitigation measures? (e.g. local or national

government funding or EFF funding). Yes No Please describe: .................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27. If yes (to Q26), have you taken up this support? Yes No 28. If no (to Q27), why not? ................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29. What support would be needed to help industry implement mitigation measures in this fishery? ............................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................


194

Notes for interviewers to complete mitigation measures table (overleaf) Highlighted mitigation measures are considered the key ones that we need all answers for. If the interviewees are unable/unwilling to answer the others, leave them blank, just obtain answers for highlighted ones (line weighting, streamer line and night setting). Questions v and vi: Eventually, we need an estimate of increase/decrease in costs and revenue as a percentage of TOTAL costs or revenue. For example, mitigation measure A: 5% increase in total fishing costs, due to additional weights being required. This is likely to require a bit of discussion to get the information needed to calculate impact on total costs (which can be done after the interview). For example, you might need to get cost of individual weights needed, if you can calculate a percentage increase in a particular type of cost (e.g. gear, fuel, crew cost), and you know what percentage of total costs are represented by that type of costs (from question 14), you can calculate impact on total costs. For example, mitigation measure B: 20% increase in crew costs, due to additional crew member being required. Crew cost is 50% of total costs, so a 20% increase in crew costs represents a 10% increase in total costs (0.2 x 0.5).

For question ii in the table, ‘how effective do you think it would be in reducing bird interactions’, this scale can be used as a guide:

1 = not at all effective (no reduction in bird bycatch); 2 = slightly effective (0‐25% reduction in bycatch); 3 = moderately effective (25‐50% reduction in bird bycatch); 4 = effective (50‐75% reduction in bird bycatch); 5 = very effective (over 75% reduction in bird bycatch) Likewise, for question iv, ‘How acceptable would this measure be to industry’, there are two scale options: Either, where 1 represents ‘not at all acceptable in any circumstances’ and 5 represents ‘very acceptable’ Or, 1 = not at all acceptable in any circumstances; 2 = not acceptable, except for specific cases; 3 = acceptable, with reservations; 4 = acceptable, with slight reservations; 5 = very acceptable


195

30. The following are possible mitigation measures that have been used or proposed in longline fisheries to reduce interactions with seabirds. Please indicate if any of them are used in this fishery now, how effective you think each one might be in reducing seabird interactions, how acceptable each one would be to industry, and what effect each one may have on your costs and income.

Measure i. Used now? (y/n)

ii.

How effective in reducing bird interaction (1‐5)

iii.

Why?

iv.

How acceptable to industry (1‐5)

v.

Expected impact on catch (income) (%)

vi.

Expected impact on fishing costs (explain how and why)

Further comments/notes

Example: change bait type N 3 seabirds are less attracted to alternative bait type

2 – 10% Alternative bait is more expensive. Current bait = €7/kg. Alt bait = € 8.75/kg therefore + 25% bait costs

Bait costs are 10% total costs, so 2.5% inc. in total costs

Not acceptable because expected to negatively affect target sp catch

To increase the sink rate of bait, or make baited hooks less available to birds

Increase weight of line15

Circle hooks

15 Line weight may be increased by: integrated weighted line, weights added to main line or weights added to branch lines


196


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.




Dyed bait

Streamer line


197


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



Side‐setting


To minimise interactions with seabirds during setting

Night setting with reduced deck lighting


198


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



Offal discharged from opp. side of vessel from setting area


Other



199


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



Other (specify)

Other (specify)

Other (specify)


200


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



Other (specify)


201

Opinions

Open‐ended questions to allow interviewee to give opinions and suggestions on the following:

i. How big and how widespread to you think the issue of seabird‐longline interactions is, if at all

ii. Do you think the industry is receptive to address this issue? Are you?

iii. How do you rate the importance of this issue in relation to other issues you encounter?

iv. Incentives for uptake/compliance with measures – level of success (this question may not be necessary as it is covered in Q16‐19. Feedback welcome please)

v. Are there any industry‐led initiatives to reduce seabird bycatch (e.g. industry working groups on gear modifications)

vi. Do you have any other suggestions or comments you would like to make?


202

Explanation of proposed mitigation measures

Measure

To increase the sink rate of bait, or make baited hooks less available to birds

Increase weight of line

Increasing the weight of the line, either through an integrated weighted line, weighted branch lines or weights attached to the main line, increases the speed at which baited hooks sink, therefore leaving less time for seabirds to target the bait and get caught on hooks.

Circle hooks As with turtles, there is some evidence that circle hooks may reduce bycatch of seabirds.


Frozen bait, or fresh bait with swim bladders intact, are more buoyant. Therefore, thawing frozen bait, and puncturing swim bladders, can reduce buoyancy and make the bait sink more quickly, therefore leaving less time for seabirds to target the bait and get caught on hooks.

Dyed bait There is some evidence that blue‐dyed bait reduces bait visibility to seabirds, or possibly that seabirds actively avoid blue‐dyed bait.

Streamer line A line or device carrying coloured streamers, deployed during setting, which deters birds from taking baited hooks as they are set in the water.

Side‐setting Setting the line from the side of the vessel may help increase the sink rate of bait so that it is sufficiently deep by the time it reaches the stern. Trials have shown it to be effective, and also resulted in greater bait retention and fewer gear tangles. Its effectiveness may be limited to larger vessels.


A protective curtain hung around the hauling bay, which deters birds from approaching the hauling area.

To minimise interactions with seabirds during setting

Night setting with reduced deck lighting

Night‐setting reduces seabird interactions, which may be because fewer birds are actively foraging at night, or because they have difficulty seeing the baited hooks. Reduced deck lighting is also needed to prevent birds that are active at night being attracted to the fishing vessel.

Offal discharged from opp. side of vessel from setting area

Offal attracts seabirds to fishing vessels, so ensuring hooks are not set in the same area where offal is discharged can reduce seabirds becoming caught on hooks.


As above, discharging offal at a different time from setting/hauling can reduce seabird interactions.

Other


Restricting fishing activity in areas or during times of peak seabird abundance can reduce the potential for seabird‐fishery interactions to occur.

Other Space for fishers to elaborate on any other mitigation measures not included in the table.


203

Alternative recording sheets for question 10

10. In which areas does this fishery operate in? Please answer for the fishery in general rather than your personal fishing areas. Indicate on the maps below. Use more than one map if fishing area varies over the year — indicate in the boxes J–D (January to December) for which months each map applies. Mark a ‘1’ in boxes that are most important, ‘2’ for areas of secondary importance and ‘3’ for areas that are occasionally fished with this gear in those months. Use the ‘Comments/description’ box to make a note of any other important distinctions e.g. coastal, on continental shelf, etc.

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Comments/description:


204






205

Alternative recording sheets for question 19 19. Please mark the boxes on the maps below where interactions with seabirds occur. Mark a ‘1’ in boxes where interactions are most frequent; ‘2’ where they are less frequent; and ‘3’ where they are occasional. Use one map for each species group. Please specify the species if possible. Indicate in the boxes J–D (Jan to December) for which months each map applies.

Shearwaters


Species:

Petrels


Species:

Gulls


Terns



206

Species:

Species:


207

Shags


Species:

Others


Species:


208

Gillnet questionnaire Structured interview on seabird bycatch mitigation measures

This questionnaire explores the Dutch Eastern North Sea gillnet fishery and its interactions with seabirds. This study is being undertaken in response to EC plans to develop a plan of action for seabirds. The aim is to obtain industry’s views on the extent of the problem, how it affects the industry and the cost, feasibility and effectiveness of mitigation options.

General information

Date:..........................................................................................................................................

Location: ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Name (optional):…………………………...............................................................................……..………………....

Contact details (optional): …………………………...............................................................................……..…..

Vessel details: Name of vessel……….........…...........................…….............................................................

Vessel length:..................................................m Tonnage:..............................................................GT

Home port:...........…..................…...........…….….. Registration number:………................…….............…

Which fisheries do you operate in?

Gear method Target species Period (season)

Gillnet

Other (specify)

How much of your income is from fishing? .................................................%

On average how many days per year do you fish? ......................................days


209

Current fishing practice (specific to the gillnet fishery)

In which areas does this fishery operate? Please answer for the fishery in general rather than your personal fishing areas. Indicate which grid areas are fished in each month in the table below. Specify for areas that are most important (1), areas of secondary importance (2) and areas occasionally fished with this gear (3).

[If the interviewee wants to specify differences for individual fisheries, use the second line in the table]

Fishery Imp Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1

2

3

1


210

2

3

Are there particular times and areas of importance to this fishery?

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................


211

The following questions relate to your individual circumstances.

Gear: Please provide the following details about the gear that you use:

COMPONENT DETAIL EXAMPLE OR UNITS

GEAR

Mesh size

Knot‐to‐knot mesh size in mm

Net height

Height in metres

Net length

Length in metres

Type of twine

e.g. nylon, traditional

Type of filament e.g. multifilament, monofilament

Colour of twine

Depth set Depth that the top of the net sits in the water

Type of weights used

Number of weights per net

Type of floats used

Number of floats per net

Gear markers or attractant devices

Fishing pattern: Please provide the following details about your fishing pattern:

COMPONENT DETAIL EXAMPLE OF UNITS

Average steaming time to reach your key fishing grounds

Steaming time in hours (this question not essential)

Total amount of gear units operated per

Number of nets set per trip


212

trip

Depth of water in which nets are set

Total depth of water in metres

Time of day when gear is set

At sunrise/dawn

Day

At sunset/dusk

Night

Other (specify):......................................

Specify according to sunrise/sunset if possible

Duration of deployment

Time of day when gear is hauled

At sunrise/dawn

Day

At sunset/dusk

Night

Other (specify):......................................

Specify according to sunrise/sunset if possible

Duration of retrieval

Soak time

Soak time in hours

Number of crew

Costs: Please provide the following information about your fishing costs for this fishery and gear:

[We need to obtain the costs below on an annual basis. You may need to work through this with the interviewee e.g. how much is spent per trip, average number of trips per year (sum over different seasons if fishing pattern varies by season). For gear costs, you will need to estimate the cost per unit (e.g. cost per metre) and the replacement frequency i.e. how much gear gets damaged or lost in an ‘average’ year]

UNIT COSTS COST PER YEAR

% OF TOTAL OPERATING COSTS

Gear

Fuel

Subsistence

Crew


213

(inc payment basis e.g. share/salary)

Other

What percentage of your overall fishing income does this gear represent? ...................................%


214

Seabirds

Do seabirds disrupt your fishing activity? Yes / No

If yes, what disturbance do they cause? (tick all that apply)

Reduces time fishing due to slowing of hauling procedures

Lost catching opportunities due to birds scaring away fish

Damage or steal fish in the net

Damage fishing gear

Other, please detail……………………………………………………………………………………….........................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….........................

Which bird species associate with the boat/gear? ................................................................................................................................................................

.........................……………………………...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

....

Over the last 12 months, roughly how many seabirds became accidentally caught in your gear? Please indicate approximate numbers each quarter: If possible provide a breakdown by type

Seabird group Number Where (general area – could use maps below)


Cormorants

Diving ducks

Sea ducks

Loons/divers

Grebes

Auks

Other

TOTAL

Note: Cormorants: Great cormorant Diving ducks: Common Pochard, Greater Scaup, Tufted Duck, Goldeneye, Smew Sea ducks: Common Eider, Common Scoter, Velvet Scoter, Long‐tailed duck, Goosander, Red‐breasted mergansers Loons/divers: red‐throated diver; black‐throated diver Grebes: Great crested grebe; Slovonian grebe Auks: Common Guillemot; Black Guillemot; Brunnich’s Guillemot; Razorbill


215

Where do these interactions most commonly occur? Indicate which grid areas in the table below

Seabird group Area Comments (specify species if possible)


Cormorants

Diving ducks

Sea ducks

Loons/divers

Grebes

Auks

Other

Are the birds generally alive or dead when brought on board? Alive Dead

If they are alive, what do you do? .............................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Do you think anything should be/needs to be done to reduce the number of seabirds caught?

Yes No

Why?…………………………………………….…………………………………………………….………………………………………………….

..…..………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….….........…......

If yes (to Q21), how could this be achieved?

.…………………………………………………….…………………………………………………….………………………………………………..……...

……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………….................….......


216

Mitigation measures

How much, if anything, have you already invested in mitigation measures to reduce seabird interactions? €............................................................

Is there any support available to help with the implementation of mitigation measures? (e.g. local or national government funding or EFF funding). Yes No

Please describe: ..................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................

If yes (to Q26), have you taken up this support? Yes No

If no (to Q27), why not? ................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................

What support would be needed to help industry implement mitigation measures in this fishery?

.............................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................


217

Notes for interviewers to complete mitigation measures table (overleaf)

Highlighted mitigation measures are considered the key ones that we need all answers for. If the interviewees are unable/unwilling to answer the others, leave them blank, just obtain answers for highlighted ones (line weighting, streamer line and night setting).

Questions v and vi: Eventually, we need an estimate of increase/decrease in costs and revenue as a percentage of TOTAL costs or revenue. For example, mitigation measure A: 5% increase in total fishing costs, due to additional weights being required.

This is likely to require a bit of discussion to get the information needed to calculate impact on total costs (which can be done after the interview). For example, you might need to get cost of individual weights needed,

if you can calculate a percentage increase in a particular type of cost (e.g. gear, fuel, crew cost), and you know what percentage of total costs are represented by that type of costs (from question 14), you can calculate impact on total costs.

For example, mitigation measure B: 20% increase in crew costs, due to additional crew member being required. Crew cost is 50% of total costs, so a 20% increase in crew costs represents a 10% increase in total costs (0.2 x 0.5).

For question ii in the table, ‘how effective do you think it would be in reducing bird interactions’, this scale can be used as a guide:

1 = not at all effective (no reduction in bird bycatch); 2 = slightly effective (0‐25% reduction in bycatch); 3 = moderately effective (25‐50% reduction in bird bycatch); 4 = effective (50‐75% reduction in bird bycatch); 5 = very effective (over 75% reduction in bird bycatch) Likewise, for question iii, ‘How acceptable would this measure be to industry’, there are two scale options: Either, where 1 represents ‘not at all acceptable in any circumstances’ and 5 represents ‘very acceptable’ Or, 1 = not at all acceptable in any circumstances; 2 = not acceptable, except for specific cases; 3 = acceptable, with reservations; 4 = acceptable, with slight reservations; 5 = very acceptable


218

The following are possible mitigation measures that have been used or proposed in gillnet fisheries to reduce interactions with seabirds. Please indicate if any of them are used in this fishery now, how effective you think each one might be in reducing seabird interactions, how acceptable each one would be to industry, and what effect each one may have on your costs and income.


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.

Expected impact on fish catch (income) (%)

vi.

Expected impact on fishing costs (quantify how and explain why


Example: increase setting depth

N 3 seabirds tend to be caught in top section of net

1 – 50% + 10% gear costs

Gear costs are 40% total costs, so 8% inc. in total costs. Because would need to buy extra weights

Not acceptable because expected to negatively affect target sp catch

To make the net more visible to seabirds

Multifilament coloured twine (white or blue) in top 20 meshes




219


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



Acoustic ‘pingers’

To make the net less accessible to seabirds



220


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



To minimise interactions with seabirds


Restricting fishing season to avoid periods of high seabird abundance (could focus on period of maximum fish abundance)


Use of alternative gear e.g. baited pots for cod fishery

Other (specify)


221


ii.


iii.

Why?

iv.


v.


vi.



Other (specify)

Annex 4:Flyer

223

Opinions

Open‐ended questions to allow interviewee to give opinions and suggestions on the following:

i. How big and how widespread to you think the issue of seabird‐gillnet interactions is, if at all

ii. Do you think the industry is receptive to address this issue? Are you?

iii. How do you rate the importance of this issue in relation to other issues you encounter?

iv. Would incentives for uptake/compliance with measures be required and how successful are these likely to be?

v. Are there any industry‐led initiatives to reduce seabird bycatch (e.g. industry working groups on gear modifications)

vi. Do you have any other suggestions or comments you would like to make?


224

Explanation of proposed mitigation measures

Measure

To make the net more visible to seabirds

Use multifilament coloured twine (white or blue) in top 20 meshes

Use of monofilament nets has increased bird bycatch. Using multifilament (and therefore more visible) netting may reduce seabird bycatch. This could be particularly effective in larger mesh nets (which seabirds are more likely to be caught in), whose fishing power would be less affected by an increase in twine thickness than smaller mesh nets. Some gillnet fisheries already use multifilament coloured twine e.g. in Alaska, netting must be between 6‐30 strands. A trial in Canada which used blue netting reduced seabird bycatch


Experiments using buoys with visual bird deterrents in Dutch gillnet fisheries reduced seabird bycatch.


Red corks spaced throughout the netting, combined with multifilament nets are used in Canadian gillnets

Acoustic ‘pingers’ Acoustic pingers were developed as a warning device to reduce marine mammal bycatch, and may have an effect on seabirds if set to the correct frequency. However, they must be durable, with longlife batteries and be able to be firmly attached to gear.

Making net less accessible to seabirds


Nets set at 2m or more below the surface of the water can reduce bycatch of plunge divers and surface feeding birds.

Minimising interactions with seabirds


Most diving birds prefer shallow waters, and the majority of observed seabird bycatch from a number of studies in the Baltic and North Sea occurred at depths less than 20m. This could be applied only in particular spatial areas, such as near seabird colonies.


Protected areas or no‐take zones can have a positive impact on seabird populations. However, due to the temporal variability of seabird populations’ distributions, a similar benefit may be achieved with only specific seasonal restrictions. Also, closed areas may displace fishing effort to other areas, creating unintended consequences for those ‘new’ areas.

Restricting fishing season to period of maximum fish abundance

When high fishing intensity overlaps with high seabird abundance (due to migrating, wintering or breeding behaviour), seabird bycatch rates increase. Restricting the fishing season to the period of highest abundance of the target species, can reduce seabird bycatch whilst maintaining a good fish catch.

Use of alternative gear e.g. baited pots for cod fishery

Baited pots are being tested as an alternative gear for cod fisheries in North American waters and in the Baltic Sea.

Annex 5:Research‐at‐Sea

225

ANNEX 4: RESEARCH‐AT‐SEA

Methods At‐sea research was conducted on a demersal longlining vessel, over a period of three days between 23rd and 25th November 2010 on board the vessel Panollo 2° from Castellon, Spain. Two longline deployments were observed and seabirds associating with the vessel and interacting with the gear were recorded. Observations covered the entire setting and hauling periods of both deployments and the following data were recorded:

• Set and haul start and end times

• Set and haul start and end locations

• Environmental/sea conditions, particularly with respect to light levels.

• Bottom depth.

• Gear configuration including:

Length of overall longline

Number of hooks

Type of bait and whether it is frozen, thawed or fresh

Gauge of longline and hook line

Type of hook

The number of brief stoppages (less than 10 seconds) and the reason for the stoppage

The number and duration of significant stoppages (more than 10 seconds) and the reason

was recorded.

The type and quantity of seabirds present and the levels of association with the vessel were also recorded in the following two ways:

1. During the entire trip, all species observed were identified in an attempt to catalogue the species present in

the area, regardless of whether they were interacting with the boat or not.

2. During setting and hauling, observations were made at 10 minute intervals (starting when the first marker

buoy was deployed) and the number of birds observed within 100m of the side and 150m to the stern of the

vessel was recorded within one of the following interaction categories:

a. present but no interaction with the vessel or gear were observed (i.e. birds passing near or over

the vessel on route to another place)

b. associating with the vessel (i.e. circling or following behind the vessel)

c. attempting to take bait/discards (it was not possible to assess if a bird had successfully taken bait

due to the distances involved)

d. becoming entangled in the line or becoming hooked

Figure 57: Bird observation area used in the research at sea


226

Results Setting and hauling details Gear configurations details for both of the observed demersal longlines are provided in Table 73. The first of the two longlines was set at night, in two sections of line, one of 5,750 m and one of 1,750 m, separated by a few hundred metres. Deployment of this line followed the coastline to avoid a main shipping lane in and out of Castellón harbour. Cooked unfrozen octopus was used as bait. Setting took 1.5 hours, not including the five minute break between setting the two sections of line (see Table 74). Interruptions in setting generally took place to allow time to bait hooks and to unravel minor line entanglements. One significant setting interruption of five minutes occurred when the main line was tangled. No bait or offal was discarded from the vessel during deployment. Hauling commenced after sunrise and took about five hours. Hauling interruptions were due to the main line breaking; in these circumstances the vessel steamed to the next marker buoy to haul the remainder of the line. A small amount of badly damaged catch (fish damaged by predation during soak time) or unwanted catch (small conger eels) were discarded during hauling (see Table 75).

The second demersal longline was set after sunrise in just under an hour, again following the coastline. A mixture of prawns and cooked octopus was used as bait (see Table 73). Brief setting interruptions took place to allow hooks to be baited and to deal with minor line entanglements. Approximately 100g of unsuitable prawn bait was discarded during setting (see Table 74). Hauling of the second line began at mid‐morning and took 3.5 hours. Hauling interruptions resulted due to breaks in the mainline. A very small amount of badly damaged catch (one fish) was discarded during hauling (see Table 75).

Table 73: Gear configuration of demersal longlines observed during the research at sea in the western Mediterranean Gear details Deployment 1 Deployment 2

Total length of longline 7,000m; 1 line of 5,250m (3 x 1750m length magazines) and 1 of 1750m

5,250m (3 x 1750m magazines)

Gauge of mainline 1mm 1 mm

Total number of hooks 1200 900

Type of hook Size 12 Size 12

Bait type Cooked octopus. 90% thawed prawns, 10 % cooked octopus.

Length of hook line 2 m 2m

Gauge of hook line 0.45 mm 0.45 mm

Distance between hook lines 7m 7 m

Estimated sink rate 0.03m/second 0.03m/second

Weight and floats locating float and weight every 500m locating float and weight every 500m.

Table 74: Setting details for two demersal longlines observed during the research at sea in the western Mediterranean Setting details Deployment 1: 24/11/10 Deployment 2: 25/11/10

Port departure time 23:50 02:15

Travel time from base port 45 mins 50 mins (plus spent 5 hrs 45 mins retrieving and redeploying octopus pots)

Set 1 start time 00:35 08:00

Set 1 Start location 39°53’N 00°00’W 39°53’N 00°05’W

Setting Speed 4.5 knots 4.5 knots

Set 1 Start Depth 18.3m 39.5m

Set 1 End Time 01:30 08:55

Set 1 End Location 39°52’N 00°02’W 39°52’N 00°04’W

Set duration 55 mins 55 minutes

Set 2 start time 01:35 N/A

Set 2 Start location 39°53’N 00°02’W N/A

Set 2 End Time 02:05 (35 minutes) N/A

Set 2 End Location 39° 58’ N 00° 03’ W N/A


227

Setting interruptions (<10 seconds) 7 4

Setting interruptions (>10 seconds) 1 for 5 minutes to untangle main line 0

Discards during deployment None 100 g unsuitable bait (once)

Conditions Slight sea, clear sky, moonlit night Slight sea, clear sky, after sunrise.

Table 75: Hauling details for two demersal longlines observed during the research at sea in the western Mediterranean Hauling details Deployment 1: 24/11/10 Deployment 2: 25/11/10

Haul 2 start time 08:45 09:45

Soak time 6hrs and 40min 1 hour and 45 minutes

Haul 2 end time 10:15 13:15

Hauling interruptions (<10 seconds) 0 0

Hauling interruptions (>10 seconds) 0 2 x 3‐4 minute periods due to main line breakages.

Discards during hauling Uneaten bait; 2 discarded damaged fish; 1 discarded small conger eels

Uneaten bait; 1 discarded damaged fish.

Hauling duration 1hr and 30 mins 3 hrs and 30 mins

Haul 1 start time 10:30 N/A

Soak time 8hrs and 55min N/A

Haul 1 end time 13:55 (3 hrs and 25 minutes) N/A

Hauling interruptions (<10 seconds) 0 N/A

Hauling interruptions (>10 seconds) Two 3‐4 minute pauses due to main line breakages. Vessel proceeds to next marker buoy to retrieve longline.

N/A

Discards during retrieval Uneaten bait; 1 discarded damaged fish; 3 discarded small conger eels

N/A

Total amount of longline lost due to breakages over both longlines.

150m (20 hooks). 0

Seabird observations During the course of the entire research at sea trip the following species were observed:

Audouin’s gull, Larus audouinii

Yellow‐legged gull, Larus michahellis

Black‐headed gull, Chroicocephalus ridibundus

Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus

Northern gannet, Morus bassanus

Cormorants, Phalacrocorax carbo

Common tern, Sterna hirundo

A total of 70 ten‐minute intervals were observed across both demersal longline deployments (setting and hauling). Table 76 provides the details of the percentage and number of intervals observed with birds present, birds associating with the vessel, birds attempting to take the bait, and birds hooked/entangled. Table 76(b) shows the number and percentage of birds involved in these interactions. During both deployments a total of 201 birds were observed during 70 intervals.

No birds were observed at any time when the first line was set during the night. During hauling of this line however, a large number of birds were present (128 in total) but were not observed interacting with the vessel or lines and consisted mostly of large flocks (114 birds in total) of Balearic shearwaters. Other species present included two Audouin’s, two yellow legged and six black headed gulls, three common terns, and one cormorant. During the hauling process a number of gulls (mostly Audouin’s) followed the vessel, but no birds were observed attempting to feed from the longline or vessel discards.

The second line was set in the morning and several bird species were present during most of the observation periods including 8 Audoin’s, 4 black‐headed, and 1 yellow‐legged gull, 1 northern gannet and 6 Balearic shearwaters). During four of these observations periods, 5 gulls and 1 Balearic shearwater were observed associating with the boat


228

and during two observation periods 3 Audouin’s gulls were observed attempting to take bait or discards. A total of 22 observation periods were made during hauling of this line, and 32 birds (including 22 Balearic shearwaters, 1 northern gannet, 3 Audouin’s, 2 black‐headed and 4 yellow‐legged gulls) were present for 50% of these periods but no seabirds were observed following the vessel or attempting to take bait or discards.

Table 76: (a) Percentage and number of intervals observed for research at sea during setting and hauling with different levels of interactions by all species

Activity

Present Associating with

vessels Attempting to take

bait/ discards Hooked/ entangled

Total number of intervals observed

% of intervals

Number of

intervals

% of intervals

Number of

intervals

% of intervals

Number of

intervals

% of intervals

Number of

intervals

Set 1 (night) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Set 2 (day) 83 5 6 4 33 2 0 0 6

Haul 1 (day) 38 12 19 6 0 0 0 0 32

Haul 2 (day) 45 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

Set total 31 5 25 4 13 2 0 0 16

Haul total 41 22 11 6 0 0 0 0 54

Night total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Day total 45 27 17 10 3 2 0 0 60

Source: Research at sea.

(b) Percentage and number of all birds involved in these interactions.

Activity

Present Associating with

vessels Attempting to take

bait/ discards Hooked/ entangled

Total number of birds observed

% of birds

Number of birds

% of birds

Number of birds

% of birds

Number of birds

% of birds

Number of birds

Set 1 (night) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Set 2 (day) 69 20 21 6 10 3 0 0 29

Haul 1 (day) 91 128 9 12 0 0 0 0 140

Haul 2 (day) 100 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

Set total 69 20 21 6 10 3 0 0 29

Haul total 93 160 7 12 0 0 0 0 172

Night total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Day total 90 180 9 18 1 3 0 0 201

Source: Research at sea.

Figure 58 and Figure 59 illustrate patterns of interactions across setting (both night and day), hauling (during the day) and during the daytime (both setting and hauling). All attempts to take bait occurred only during setting and all of these incidents involved Audouin’s gull. Hauling of the line from the vessel used for this study occurs from directly below the boat, thus allowing seabirds very little opportunity to interact with the longline during hauling. No birds were observed during the setting of one of the lines at night.


229

Figure 58: Percentage of ten‐minute intervals in which the four types of interactions with birds occurred during setting, hauling, and during the day (setting and hauling) Source: Research at sea.

Figure 59: Percentage of all birds observed interacting in different ways with fishing activity Source: Research at sea.

Audouin’s gull was observed on three occasions during two intervals attempting to take the bait from the line or bait discards during setting of the second line. No other species were observed attempting to take bait (Figure 60). Data on observations of Balearic shearwaters have been removed in Figure 60as the large numbers present masked interactions by species observed in smaller numbers. Almost all (99% of 143 individuals) Balearic shearwaters were observed as being present but not interacting with the vessel, the remaining bird was observed associating with the vessel but not attempting to take bait or discards (see Table 77).

Table 77: Breakdown of interaction type by bird species Bird species % of birds present % of birds associating

with vessels % of birds

attempting to take bait/ discards

Total Numbers

Audouin’s gull 46 43 11 28

Balearic shearwater 99 1 0 143

Black headed gull 75 25 0 16

Common tern 100 0 0 3

Cormorant 100 0 0 1

Northern gannet 100 0 0 2

Yellow legged gull 88 13 0 8

Total 90 9 1 201

Setting

Present

Associating with vessels

Attempting to take bait/ discards

Hauling

Present



DaytimePresent

Associating with

vessels

Attempting to

take bait/ discards

Hooked/

entangled

Setting

Present



Hauling

Present



Day time

Present

Associating

with vessels

Attempting to

take bait/ discards

Hooked/

entangled


230

(a)

(b)

Figure 60: Number of birds by species interacting in different ways with fishing activity during the two demersal longline deployments in the western Mediterranean research at sea (a) by species; (b) by interaction type Note: Observations of Balearic shearwaters have been removed from the graphs, as the large numbers present masked interactions by species observed in smaller numbers.

Although this research at sea encompassed observations made across deployments of only two demersal longlines which were set and hauled at different times and with different bait types, it highlights the importance of at‐sea data in determining the nature of interactions and which species are most likely to be involved in different areas and at different times of day. This brief insight illustrates that simple measures such as managing when or preventing the discharge of any discards during setting or hauling has the potential to reduce attraction of birds into the vicinity of the fishing activity.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Audouin's

gull

Black

headed gull

Common

tern

Cormorant Northern

gannet

Yellow

legged gull

Number of birds

present associating with vessels attempting to take bait/ discards

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

present associating with vessels

attempting to take bait/ discards

Number of birds

Audouin's gull Black headed gull Common tern

Cormorant Northern gannet Yellow legged gull

Annex 6:Characteristics of seabird species and descriptions of important bird areas in case study locaitons

231

ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF SEABIRD SPECIES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS IN CASE STUDY LOCATIONS

8.1 Introduction The Important Bird Areas (IBAs) programme of BirdLife International is a global initiative seeking to identify, document and conserve sites that are key for the long‐term viability of bird populations (BirdLife International, 2010b). The IBA approach has been successful in both the terrestrial and freshwater environments, and with the development of new monitoring techniques that favour a better understanding of the marine environment, BirdLife International is now actively compiling the seabird information available in Europe and elsewhere to enlarge the IBA network into the Marine Environment (BirdLife International, 2010b).

To be selected, IBAs must have one (or more) of the following three things:

Hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species;

Are one of a set of sites that together hold a suite of restricted‐range species or biome‐restricted species;

and/or

Have exceptionally large numbers of migratory or congregatory species (BirdLife International 2011b).

Within Europe, directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 30 November 2009 (hereafter the ‘Birds Directive’) was adopted in 1979 to cover the protection, management and control of all species of wild birds in the European Union (EU Birds Directive, 2009). It therefore places emphasis on the protection of habitats for endangered as well as migratory species (listed in Annex I), especially through the establishment of a coherent network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – an integral part of the Natura 2000 ecological network ‐ comprising all the most suitable territories for these species (EU Birds Directive, 2009).

The network of IBAs in Europe has provided an important scientific reference for the designation of SPAs. Because of their selection according to solid scientific criteria, BirdLife promotes the classification of all IBAs as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to implement the Birds Directive (BirdLife International, 2010b).

8.2 Mediterranean Sea The Mediterranean Sea contains a number of breeding and wintering seabird populations, but only species that have been shown to interact with longline fisheries are relevant for this report. A risk assessment undertaken by Carboneras (2009) found that for key Mediterranean Action Plan species there was a very high or high risk known, or predicted risk of capture according to the feeding habits and the gear characteristics of pelagic or demersal longlines for the following species: Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) and Audouin's gull (Larus audouinii). Three additional species had a moderate risk: Northern gannet (Morus bassanus), Great skua (Catharacta skua) and Yellow‐legged gull (Larus michahellis). The Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus) has an unknown level of interaction with longlines. Therefore, the following sections focus primarily on these eight species. Table 78 shows the common names, feeding behaviour and diving depth of these species.

Likewise, the geographic focus when describing the breeding, wintering and foraging areas for these species will correspond with the case studies. For the Mediterranean, the focus is on the Western Mediterranean (primarily Spain) and Malta and Greece.


232

Table 78: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to bycatch in longline fisheries in the Mediterranean Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max


Cory's shearwater (Med subspecies)


14 (1.4) Plunge diving

Great skua Catharacta skua UNK Splash diving; Surface seizing; Kleptoparasitism

Audouin's gull Larus audouinii UNK Surface seizing

Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus UNK Surface seizing

Yellow‐legged gull Larus michahellis UNK Surface seizing

Northern gannet Morus bassanus 34 (8.8) Plunge diving

Shag (Med subspecies) Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii

80 (33.43) Pursuit diving

Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus 26 (15.5) Plunge diving; Pursuit diving

Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan UNK Plunge diving; Pursuit diving

Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis. Notes: UNK = Unknown.

8.2.1 Important bird Areas The Mediterranean seabird community is characterised by low diversity and abundance but high degree of endemism (Zotier et al., 1999). A recent study on the biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea found that seabirds from this area typically have a low level of diversity and small population densities, which is consistent with a relatively low‐productivity ecosystem (Coll et al., 2010). This study indicated that five of fifteen species or subspecies of seabird in the Mediterranean are endemics (Coll et al., 2010). Seven of the fifteen resident bird species, including four of the endemic species or subspecies, are known to be caught in fishing gear.

The Mediterranean is quite heterogeneous in terms of seabird distribution; in a recent exercise mapping seabird distribution in the Mediterranean using GIS, priority bird species were found in only one‐third of the total 10x10km cells covering the region (Carboneras & Requena, 2010). The area with the highest diversity index in the Mediterranean is the sea surrounding the Balearic Islands (Zotier, 1999). Two of the three Procellariform species (the shearwaters) breed in this area – Balearic Shearwater and Cory’s shearwater. In fact, the Balearic Islands are home to the only breeding colony of Balearic shearwaters worldwide (Arcos et al., 2009). There are also important breeding colonies of Audouin’s gulls in the Balearics (Arcos et al., 2009).

The Northeast coast of Spain also has important foraging areas for seabirds in the Western Mediterranean. Seabird distribution is linked to productivity of the sea, with some of the largest populations and greatest diversity of seabirds and breeding colonies occuring near the Ebro Delta and Columbretes Islands (Abello et al., 2003; Arcos et al, 2009).

Thousands of migratory birds pass through the strait of Gibraltar, the gateway between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. This is one of the most important migration hotspots for marine birds of the Western Palaearctic region. Almost all the world population of Balearic Shearwater and most of that of Audouin´s Gull pass through during their migrations, as well as all the birds of the Mediterranean subspecies of Cory´s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea diomedea). Significant numbers of Northern Gannet and Great Skua also occur (Arcos et al., 2009).

As part of the LIFE Nature project ‘Areas Importantes para las Aves (IBA) marinas en Espana’, Spain identified a total of 42 marine Important Bird Areas (IBAs) (Arcos et al., 2009; BirdLife International, 2010b). SIxteen of these IBAs are in the Mediterranean (northeast Spain) and and eight were in the Alboran Sea and Gulf of Cadiz (Arcos et al., 2009) (Figure 61).


233

Figure 61: Marine IBAs and MPAs in Mediterranean Spain Source: BirdLife International, 2010b

At least two studies have shown that the distribution of fishing vessels, particularly the trawl fleet in Spanish waters, have an effect on seabird distribution as trawler discards can be an important resource for seabirds, particularly Yellow‐legged, Lesser black‐backed and Audouin’s gulls, and Cory’s and Balearic shearwaters (Arcos & Oro, 1996; Bartemeus et al., 2010)). These interactions are particularly apparent during the breeding seasons (Arcos, 2001). Whether the distribution of seabirds is linked to trawler distribution or is a result of both exploiting an area of high productivity is unclear (Abello et al., 2003).

Greece and Malta are both undertaking LIFE Nature projects to identify IBAs for breeding seabirds in their respective waters. Greece is identifying IBAs for nationally‐important species, including Audouin’s Gull, Mediterranean shag, Cory’s shearwater and Yelkouan shearwater (Figure 62).

Malta is in the process of identifying IBAs under the LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project. Malta has also recently incorporated 4‐km seaward extensions to current shearwater breeding site IBAs in order to cover offshore foraging activity (although recognition of these boundaries by relevant authorities is still pending) (BirdLife International, 2010). A total of ten terrestrial Special Protection Areas16 (SPAs) have been designated in Malta for breeding Cory’s shearwater, Yelkouan shearwater and European storm‐petrels (Figure 63) (Raine et al., 2008). As yet, no sites have been designated as marine SPAs (Raine et al., 2008).

16 Established under the Birds’ Directive (2009/147/EC).


234

Figure 62: Marine IBAs and MPAs in Greece Source: BirdLife International, 2010b

Figure 63: Important Bird Areas in Malta Source: Raine et al., 2008

8.2.2 Seabird populations

More detail is provided below for a number of seabird species in the Mediterranean that are vulnerable to bycatch. Conservation status and population estimates for these species in the case study areas are presented in Table 79.

Cory’s Shearwater

Cory’s shearwater is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and is also classed as being a European species with an unfavourable conservation status (SPEC2) under the Species of European Concern (SPEC) due to population declines (BirdLife International, 2004) and is on the Red list of Spanish Birds in Spain (Madroño et al., 2004 ). An estimated 50,000 to 60,000 b.p. of the Mediterranean sub‐species, Calonectris diomedea diomedea, are distributed throughout the Mediterranean basin (Madroño et al., 2004). Colonies of breeding Cory’s shearwaters range in size from a few pairs up to the thousands. The largest concentrations are found in the Siculo‐Melitensis basin with over 10,000 breeding pairs (b.p.) on Linosa (Italy), 30,000 b.p. on Zembra (Tunisia), and around 7,000 b.p. on the Maltese islands.


235

Smaller colonies are found in the western Mediterranean, Adriatic Sea and Aegean Sea (BirdLife Malta, 2010a). An estimated 10,000 b.p. are found in the Spanish Mediterranean, particularly on the Balearic Islands and Chafarinas Islands, and to a lesser extent on the Colombretes Islands (Madroño et al., 2004).

The main breeding site in Malta is Ta’ Cenc Cliffs on Gozo Island, which holds about 1000 pairs (Borg & Sultana, 2002). This site is one of the international Important Bird Area (IBA) sites proposed by Malta. Recent surveys have estimated 45 colony sites of Cory’s shearwater in Greece, distributed throughout the islands (Fric, 2010). The marine IBA consisting of seaward extensions to the islands of Terrors and Las Palomas in Spain together host the unique breeding population of Cory’s Shearwater of the Iberian Mediterranean (Arcos et al., 2009). A tracking study revealed that three of the most important feeding areas for Cory’s shearwater in Spanish waters were: Gulf of Lions; Cape Creus‐Barcelona‐Ebro Delta; and Cape la Nao‐Cape Palos (Louzao et al., 2009).

Distribution of the Cory’s shearwater in the western Mediterranean, based on literature review including historic data, is shown in Map 1. Map 3 shows a modelled distribution (using MAXENT) of Cory’s shearwater in Spanish waters, based on data from boat surveys and habitat variables (Arcos et al., 2009).

Throughout the Mediterranean, the Cory's Shearwater is a breeding visitor from late February to November, with some regional variation. In Malta, an increase in numbers offshore has been noted to occur in mid‐November, with a continuous north‐westerly movement, it is possible that these latter birds may be juvenile birds departing from eastern Mediterranean populations and moving west towards the Atlantic. Single birds are observed during the winter months of December and January (BirdLife Malta, 2010a).

Cory’s shearwater is the species most often implicated in bycatch events in Mediterranean longline fisheries. Considering that this species has a long life cycle and slow reproductive cycle (Igual et al., 2009), and the subspecies that breeds in the Mediterranean has a limited breeding range (Randi et al., 1989) it is particularly vulnerable to high incidences of adult mortality (Oro et al., 2004; Oro pers. comm.). The bycatch rates observed of the Mediterranean Cory’s shearwater around the Balearic Islands and Colombretes Islands (including foraging birds from other colonies) represent approximately 4‐6% of these populations (Madroño et al., 2004). The bycatch rates are considered unsustainable in Spain given the population size (Garcia‐Barcelona et al., 2010a). However, other factors that cause

adult mortality during migration and dispersal occur and should also be considered (Oro et al., 2004).

Map 1 Distribution of Cory’s Shearwater in the Western Mediterranean and Greek and Maltese areas Source: Carboneras & Requena (see Annex 2).


236

Map 2 Habitat suitability models for the distribution of Cory’s Shearwater in Spanish waters during the breeding period Source: Arcos et al., 2009

Balearic Shearwater

The Balearic shearwater has an IUCN status of Critically Endangered, as the species exhibits a severe decreasing trend and has a high risk of extinction in the next three generations (ICES, 2008a). Estimating actual population size of the Balearic shearwater is difficult due to inaccessibility of breeding areas (Oro et al., 2004, Oro pers. comm.). Those studies that have been conducted estimate that there are 2,400 breeding pairs (Arcos & Oro, 2002; Rodriguez‐Molina & McMinn‐Grive, 2005; BirdLife International, 2011a).

Balearic shearwaters breed exclusively on the Balearic Islands and forage off of Eastern Iberia and, most likely, off Algeria (Ruiz & Marti, 2004; Louzao et al., 2006a; Arcos, 2011). Oceanographic conditions have been shown to be major determinant for Balearic shearwater distribution, with shallow shelf and coastal waters characterized by frontal systems in areas close to breeding colonies being preferred by birds during chick‐rearing stages (Louzao et al., 2006b). Within their wider foraging range, they are most numerous around the Ebro Delta and Cap La Nao (Louzao et al., 2006b). The breeding season runs from March–June and after that the majority of the population migrates to the Atlantic waters of Western Europe (Arcos, 2011). The species returns to Mediterranean waters from September–December and congregates off of the Northeast and Eastern Iberian coast in the winter (Arcos, 2011).

Distribution of the Balearic shearwater in the western Mediterranean, based on literature review including historic data, is shown in Map 3. The wider distribution of the Balearic shearwater, including the non‐breeding season is shown in Map 4.

As with Cory’s shearwater, this species has a long life cycle and slow reproductive cycle (Louzao et al., 2006; Oro et al., 2004). As it has a small population size to begin with, this species is considered particularly vulnerable to any incidences of adult mortality. The main threats to adult Balearic shearwaters, in addition to fishing mortality, include predation by carnivores and acute pollution (Arcos, 2011).


237

Map 3 Distribution of Balearic Shearwater in the Western Mediterranean Source: Carboneras & Raquena (see Annex 2).

Map 4: Balearic shearwater European distribution in breeding and non‐breeding seasons Source: Arcos, 2011


238

Yelkouan shearwater

The Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) is endemic to the Mediterranean, yet has a patchy distribution across the basin (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008). It is estimated that there are seventy‐five sites distributed among ten countries that either certainly or possibly have Yelkouan shearwater colonies (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008). The Yelkouan shearwater has recently been upgraded by IUCN to a status of Near Threatened. Studies suggest that the population has decreased by 12–15% during the last 60 years in Italy, France and Malta, but the causes of this decline have not been fully identified (BirdLife International, 2011a; Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008). A recent survey of Yelkouan shearwaters on Italian islands suggests an even greater decrease (‐54%) for the local population since estimates were undertaken in 1978–1985 (Baccetti et al., 2009). It is also listed in Appendix II of the Bern Convention, Annex II of the Barcelona Convention and listed in Schedule 1 of the Maltese Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations of 2006.

With an estimated 1,660–1,980 breeding pairs breeding in burrows in the Maltese coastal cliffs, Malta hosts approximately 10% of the world’s breeding population of this species (Borg et al., 2010). The largest population is resident at Rdum tal‐Madonna, situated in the North of Malta and designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU’s Natura 2000 network. BirdLife International (2004) estimates a further 4,000 to 7,000 breeding pairs of Yelkouan shearwaters in Greece. So combined, Greece and Malta hold a significant proportion of the breeding population of this species.

In Western Mediterranean waters, an important breeding population of Yelkouan shearwaters occurs on the Hyères archipelago near Marseille (LPO PACA, 2008). Other Western Mediterranean breeding sites for Yelkouan shearwater include the islands of Corsica, Sardinia, Tavolara, Elba and Sicily (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2008; Zotier et al., 1999). A recent study undertaken on Italian islands showed that 64 islands out of 308 host or hosted at least one of either Yelkouan or Cory’s shearwater species (Baccetti et al., 2009). The largest Yelkouan shearwater population was on the Tavolara‐Moalra‐Figarolo island complex (48% of national population) and the largest Cory’s shearwater population was on Linosa Island (63% of national population) (Baccetti et al., 2009).

Distribution of the Yelkouan shearwater in the western Mediterranean, based on literature review including historic data, is shown in Map 5. Map 6 a) and b) shows a modelled distribution (using MAXENT) of Yelkouan shearwater in Spanish waters during breeding and non‐breeding seasons, based on data from boat surveys and habitat variables (Arcos et al., 2009).

The Yelkouan Shearwater is a gregarious seabird that can be encountered in flocks numbering thousands of birds. Tracks from adult birds with data loggers during the breeding season showed Yelkouan shearwaters from the Rdum tal‐Madonna colony foraged over a wide area, including an area of sea up to 285 km to the south‐east of the colony, some areas closer to shore, and areas to the north near the Sicilian coast (Borg et al., 2010).

The Yelkouan shearwater breeds early in the season (February–March), and rear their young from May–July. Post‐fledging, many remain in the Mediterranean year‐round. Geolocators on adult birds from the Maltese breeding colonies showed that they ranged from the Black Sea, Aegean and Adriatic to the coast of northern Africa between July and October (Borg et al., 2010). From October to January, birds returned to their nesting sites on Malta to prepare nest sites for breeding (Borg et al., 2010).

Threats to this species are similar to those of the other shearwater species described above.


239

Map 5 Distribution of Yelkouan Shearwater in the Western Mediterranean and Greek and Maltese areas Source: Carboneras & Raquena (see Annex 2).

a)

b)


240

Map 6 Habitat suitability models for the distribution of Cory’s Shearwater in Spanish waters during the a) breeding period and b) non‐breeding period Source: Arcos et al., 2009 Audouin’s Gull

The Audouin’s gull (Larus audouinii) has recently been upgraded by IUCN to a status of Near Threatened. Although the Audouin’s gull population has increased during recent decades, it is heavily reliant on discards from trawl vessels as a food source, and it could undergo a rapid decline in the future if fishing practices change (BirdLife International, 2011a). It is included in Annex I of the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC, in Annex II of the Bern Convention, and in Annex I of the Bonn Convention. In addition, it is classified as ’Vulnerable’ in the new Red Data Book of Endangered Animals of Greece (Handrinos & Kastritis, 2009).

The Audouin’s gull breeds locally in coastal areas and on islands of the Mediterranean. The largest colonies are in Spain. In particular, Alboran Island holds the fifth‐largest breeding colony of Audouin’s gulls in the world (Arcos et al., 2009). This species also breeds on Greek islands. They are present in Greece only during the breeding season, and breeding birds do not seem to return to the same locations to breed from year to year (Hellenic Ornithological Society, 2011a). Birds are settled in their colonies by mid‐April and from mid‐July onwards, adults and juveniles start to disperse to surrounding areas (Hellenic Ornithological Society, 2011a). The wintering routes of the Greek population are largely unknown — sightings of ringed individuals have occurred in Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Lebanon, Tunisia and Spain. The Ebro Delta and Columbretes Islands are important for coastal species such as gulls and terns due to the abundance of food in the area (Arcos et al., 2009).

Distribution of the Audouin’s gulls in the western Mediterranean, based on literature review including historic data, is shown in Map 1. Map 3 shows a modelled distribution (using MAXENT) of Audouin’s gulls in Spanish waters, based on data from boat surveys and habitat variables (Arcos et al., 2009).

Map 7 Distribution of Audouin’s Gull in the Western Mediterranean and Greek and Maltese areas Source: Carboneras & Raquena (see Annex 2)


241

a)

b)

Map 8 Habitat suitability models for the distribution of Audouin’s gulls in Spanish waters during the a) breeding period and b) non‐breeding period Source: Arcos et al., 2009

Other species

Of the less‐threatened species subject to bycatch, the one most often caught is the Yellow‐legged gull (Larus michahellis). The Yellow‐legged gull is a widespread breeder in coastal areas of southern and eastern Europe, constituting over 50% of its global breeding range (BirdLife International, 2004). The species breeds from mid‐March to mid‐April and post‐breeding movements to wintering areas occur from July to November (BirdLife International, 2011a). During the last decades, the species populations of this species in Greece have increased significantly, mainly due to the increase of food sources related to human activities (e.g. rubbish dumps, fishing discards) (Hellenic Ornithological Society, 2011b). The unnaturally‐large population of Yellow‐legged gulls has a negative impact on other seabird species, triggering problems such as competition for food and nesting sites, or predation of nests. Audouin’s Gull (Larus audouinii) is especially vulnerable as both gull species share nesting and feeding sites (Hellenic Ornithological Society, 2011b). The Yellow‐legged gull is the only gull species breeding in Malta, with a population of 250 pairs on Filfla Island and small scattered colonies on Malta and Gozo (BirdLife Malta, 2010b). This species is also increasing in numbers in Malta (BirdLife International, 2004).


242

The Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus) breeds almost entirely in Europe, mainly on the Black Sea coast but also in scattered colonies in the Mediterranean, including in Spain and Greece (BirdLife International, 2011a). The western Mediterranean is particularly important for this species in the winter, as more than 50% of the global population winters there (Cama et al., 2011). Most of the rest of the global population winters in the wider Mediterranean, and some are also found in the Black Sea, north‐west Europe and north‐west Africa (Cama et al., 2011; BirdLife International, 2011a). This species is on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive.

The Mediterranean Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii) is a subspecies endemic to the Mediterranean and Black Seas (BirdLife International, 2002). It is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and is also classified as ‘Nearly Threatened’ in the Red Data Book of Endangered Animals of Greece (HOS, 2011a). The total population is estimated at less than 10,000 pairs, half of which breed in EU member states – including eastern Spain, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, Tuscan archipelago, Lampedusa, Crete and islands of the Ionian Sea (BirdLife International, 2002). The breeding season for this species varies from year to year, but generally ranges from November to March (BirdLife International, 2002). Mediterranean shags have been reported to be caught in gillnet fishing gear in both Greece and Spain (BirdLife International, 2002; HOS pers.comm). Other threats to the population include disturbance of breeding colonies, decrease of food supply, pollution, predation of eggs and competition with Yellow‐legged gulls for nesting sites (HOS, 2011a).

It is estimated that about 4% of gannets from the Northeast Atlantic population winter in the Mediterranean, predominantly juvenile gannets in their first year (Finlayson & Cortes, 1984). A more recent study using geolocation data loggers on 22 breeding adults from the Bass Rock, UK population of northern gannets showed that 9% wintered in the Mediterranean basin (Kubetzki et al., 2009).

Malta and Greece are on one of the three main migratory flyways used by birds to travel between their African wintering grounds and European breeding grounds. During spring, those birds which have survived the previous migration and the wintering period in Africa travel thousands of kilometres to return to breed in Europe. Regular winter visitors are the Black‐headed (Larus ridibundus) and Mediterranean (L. melanocephalus) gull which flock in their hundreds on stormy days (BirdLife Malta, 2010b). Other gull species, terns and skuas also occur. Great Cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) are also regular offshore visitors during the winter months (BirdLife Malta, 2010b).


243

Table 79: Conservation status of seabird species in Mediterranean case study waters vulnerable to bycatch in fisheries Bird Species IUCN

Status*

Birds Directive

SPEC status**

Occurrence – months (peak in brackets)

Breeding Population (pairs) Wintering population (individuals) Population trend

Scientific Name Region Spain Greece Malta Spain Greece Malta Region, unless stated otherwise


LC Annex I SPEC 2 All year (Mar‐Oct)

2500‐10000+

5000 6090‐7130

UNK UNK UNK Decline – according to limited population figures

Catharacta skua LC ‐ Non‐SPEC_E Oct‐May ‐ ‐ ‐ Ca.900 UNK UNK Unknown

Larus audouinii NT Annex I SPEC 1 All year (Mar‐Oct)

19461 300‐500 ‐ 1000‐3000

200‐1000

‐ Decline (EL); Stable (ES)

Larus melanocephalus

LC Annex I Non‐SPEC_E All year (Nov‐Mar)

54 1000‐1350

‐ 41501 (22435‐61297)

1000‐5000

300‐1000 Breeding: Decline (EL); Increase (ES) Wintering: stable (MT); fluctuating (EL); Unknown (ES)

Larus michahellis LC ‐ Non‐SPEC_E All year 30534‐63080

>50,000

150‐180 >90000 UNK UNK Increase/stable

Morus bassanus LC ‐ Non‐SPEC_E Sept‐May (Oct‐April)

‐ ‐ ‐ 8000 (3000‐17000)

UNK UNK Unknown

Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii

LC Annex I Non‐SPEC_E All year 2087‐2087

1000‐2000

‐ UNK 1500‐3000

‐ Decline

Puffinus mauretanicus

CE Annex I SPEC 1 Sep‐Jul (Oct‐Jun)

3193 ‐ ‐ 15000‐25000+

‐ ‐ Decline (ES)

Puffinus yelkouan NT Annex I Non‐SPEC_E All year (Oct – Jul)

50‐25017 4000‐7000

1660‐1980

>7000 UNK UNK Decline

Sources: ICES, 2008a; Arcos pers. comm. (ES); Arcos et al., 2009; Arcos, 2011; Oro et al., 2004 (Balearic shearwater‐ES); Herrando et al., in press; Genovart et al., 2007 (Yelkouan shearwater‐ES); Alverez & Velando, 2007 (Shag‐ES); Bertolero et al., 2009; Cama et al., 2011 (Mediterranean gull‐ES); Molina et al., 2009 (Yellow‐legged gull‐ES); Arcos, 2005 (Northern gannet; Great skua‐ES); BirdLife International 2004 (EL/MT); HOS et al. pers comm.18 (Audouin’s gull‐ breeding pop and trend; Yellow‐legged gull breeding pop‐EL); Borg & Sultana, 2002 (MT); Borg et al., 2010 (MT). Notes: *IUCN Status: CE‐ Critically Endangered; LC – Least Concern; NT‐Near Threatened. These are assessed at species level.

17 The taxonomic status of these birds is uncertain (Genovart et al., 2007) 18 Data provided from a questionnaire completed jointly by the Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS), the Greek Centre for Marine Research (HCMR), the Technological Institute of the Ionian

Islands and the NGO for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal (Mom) – partners in the ongoing LIFE‐Project LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285. The data provided here were collected by partners in the past two years, but also include older data that each partner had in its archive. It should be noted that the data collection and analysis is still ongoing, so the presented data are preliminary results only.


244

**SPEC Status: SPEC 1 – Global conservation concern; SPEC 2 – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status; SPEC 3 – Global population not concentrated in Europe, but unfavourable conservation status in Europe; Non‐Spec_E – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces favourable conservation status; Non‐Spec_ ‐ Global population not concentrated in Europe; favourable conservation status in Europe. UNK = Unknown.


245

8.3 Gran Sol The Gran Sol (Great Sole) is an ICES fishing area (VIIj) in the North‐east Atlantic. The Great Sole Bank is one of the largest sandbanks located on the Celtic Sea continental shelf (Scourse et al., 2009). This area also straddles OSPAR Regions III and V (ICES, 2008b). ICES Area VIIj includes the coast of SW Ireland, including both County Kerry and County Cork.

Seabirds caught in the Gran Sol fishery were predominantly observed attempting to capture bait at the surface. Therefore seabirds that plunge, dive and surface‐seize are most susceptible to bycatch in this fishery and the following sections will focus primarily on seabirds that feed in this way in the case study area. Table 6 shows the common names, feeding behaviour and diving depth of these species.

Table 80: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to bycatch in longline fisheries in the Gran Sol Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max


Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea 14 (1.4) Plunge diving

Great skua Catharacta skua NA Splash diving, surface seizing, kleptoparasitism

Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 2.6 Surface seizing

Lesser black‐backed gull Larus fuscus NA Surface seizing

Great black‐backed gull Larus marinus 1 Surface seizing

Northern gannet Morus bassanus 34 (8.8) Plunging

Great shearwater Puffinus gravis UNK Pursuit diving

Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus 67 (39) Pursuit diving

Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus UNK Pursuit diving

Black‐legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla NA Pelagic surface feeding, dipping or plunge‐diving

Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis; Mendel et al., 2008 (Northern fulmar and Great black‐backed gull diving depths) Notes: UNK = Unknown; NA=not applicable

8.3.1 Seabird distribution Within the North‐east Atlantic as a whole, little is known about the seasonal numbers and distribution of seabirds in ICES areas (Barrett et al., 2006). However, in general, seabird distribution at sea is largely determined by prey distribution (Roycroft et al., 2007). When comparing species present in the North‐west and North‐east Atlantic, the latter area tends to contain piscivorous species such as large alcids feeding on small schooling fish (e.g. sandeels, capelin, herring, young gadoids) (Barrett et al., 2006). These fish are found in shallow shelf waters (<200m), so dominance of piscivorous birds in this region could be due to the high proportion of shelf waters (Barrett et al., 2006).

On an annual basis, many species spend varying amounts of time in different oceanographic regions and areas. The relative abundance of all seabird species is highly variable from season to season and site to site in Southwest Irish waters (Roycroft et al., 2007). For example, shearwater species that breed in the South Atlantic also pass through both the North‐west and North‐east Atlantic, although the high numbers and greater biomass of these are centred in the North‐west (Barrett et al., 2006).

The North Atlantic is highly productive and able to support large numbers of breeding seabirds, but the presence of suitable nesting sites may limit population size (Barrett et al., 2006). The Southwest coast of Ireland has the largest concentration of breeding seabirds in the country (Roycroft et al., 2007).

Approximate numbers of seabirds breeding in each of the ICES areas were estimated at the ICES WGSE in 2002. In the Grand Sol (ICES VIIj), the majority of breeding birds are petrels (78.9% by number), followed by auks (3.1%) (ICES,


246

2002). The most numerous breeding species that are potentially vulnerable to bycatch in this fishery are the Manx shearwater and the Northern gannet.

Within the wider Northeast Atlantic, the ICES areas Vb, VI and VII (Faroes and Western UK) have about 3.8million breeding seabirds, of which 39% are auk species (Barrett et al., 2006). The total biomass of seabirds in the Faroes and Western UK, as with the wider ICES and NAFO areas in the north Atlantic, varies little between seasons (Barrett et al., 2006). This low variability is due to the large influx of non‐breeding birds from the southern Atlantic compensating form large numbers of birds returning to their breeding colonies further north (Barrett et al., 2006). Actual numbers of different species in these regions over time is not known.

Autumn is one of the most important seasons for many species, with high numbers of auks, shearwaters, gannets and kittiwakes occurring at this time. All of these species breed on the islands off southwest Ireland and leave the colonies in large numbers in late summer to forage before dispersing in late autumn (Roycroft et al., 2007).

To address the lack of data on seabirds in the Atlantic region, a coalition of BirdLife International partners (SeaWatch Ireland, LPO, SPEA, SEO, RSPB) have commenced the project Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment (FAME) to identify seaward extensions to existing Special Protection Areas and Important Bird Areas at seabird colonies (BirdWatch Ireland, 2010). In addition to colony and tracking work, the project will look at important areas for non‐breeding seabirds using Irish waters, using ‘seabirds at sea’ monitoring and co‐ordinated seawatching to identify hotspots and timing of movements. These latter elements focus on the globally endangered Balearic Shearwater and southern hemisphere visitors including Great and Sooty Shearwaters (BirdWatch Ireland, 2010).

8.3.2 Seabird populations Additional details on the species particularly vulnerable to bycatch in this fishery are provided below. Details on conservation status, occurrence in the region by month, and population sizes are provided in Table 81.

Northern Fulmar

The European and world populations of Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis are not of particular conservation concern, but the UK populatin is as there has been a decline in breeding birds in Scotland over the past two decades (ICES, 2008a; Mendel et al., 2008). However, this decline has not affected the global population size as there has been an increase in breeding birds in Iceland and Spitsbergen (Mendel et al., 2008 citing BirdLife International, 2004).

There is a breeding population of about 45,000 pairs of Fulmars in ICES Area VII (Celtic Seas, English Channel), with about 5700 pairs breeding in ICES Area VIIj (ICES, 2008a; ICES, 2002). This species spends most of its year on open seas, only coming to shore for breeding (Mendel et al., 2008). It lays eggs in mid‐May to June and, in the Northern hemisphere, often disperses in the vicinity of the colonies in the non‐breeding season (Mendel et al., 2008). Its peak times in the Gran Sol area are March‐April and Dec‐Feb (Stone et al., 1995).

An analysis of Fulmar distribution in north‐west European waters indicated that densities were highest at the shelf edge (201‐1000m deep) and lowest in shallow waters throughout the year (BirdLife International, 2011c). It ranges widely for feeding, even during the breeding season, and feeds during both day and night (Mendel et al., 2008). Night feeding, however, is especially important at lower latitudes where they often depart colonies in the evening and return in the morning (BirdLife International, 2011c). The Fulmar diet is made up predominantly of small fish (sandeels and gadids) foraged mainly from the water surface, but occasionally from dives up to 2.6m (Mendel et al., 2008).

Apart from bycatch in longline operations, threats to Fulmars include: pollution, ingestion of debris, entanglement in waste and obstacles in form of technical structures (Mendel et al., 2008).

Northern gannet

The Northern Gannet Morus bassanus has a large European breeding population, which contains over 75% of the global breeding population (BirdLife International, 2004). From 1970 to 2000 it increased across most of its European range, so is not of particular conservation concern (BirdLife International, 2004).


247

Gannets are strictly marine, with movements largely confined to the continental shelf (BirdLife International, 2011c). Individuals nest on cliffs and offshore islands and occasionally on the mainland (BirdLife International, 2011c). The breeding period is from April/May to June.

During the non‐breeding period, birds inhabit Atlantic areas from the North Sea to West Africa (including the Mediterranean) (Mendel et al., 2008). Young birds tend to migrate south, but adults disperse less extensively (BirdLife International, 2011c).

The Northern Gannet’s diet consists primarily of shoaling pelagic fish, mostly caught by plunge diving (BirdLife International, 2011c). It dives in daylight, mostly during morning hours, from 10‐40m above the sea (Mendel et al., 2008). Gannets have been shown to ship‐following seabirds (Mendel)

Threats to gannets aside from bycatch include pollution, entanglement in waste, direct persecution (now limited to Faroes and Iceland) and collision with obstacles (Mendel et al., 2008).


The Black‐legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla was added to the OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitats in 2008 due to decline at the time of listing, in particular in Greenland, Norway and the UK (OSPAR,2009).

Over 1.25million kittiwakes breed in the NE Atlantic (ICES areas III‐X) including 2200 breeding pairs in ICES Area VIIj. Kittiwakes only come to shore for breeding and spend the rest of the time on the open sea, ranging widely in the North Atlantic (Mendel et al., 2008). Kittiwakes do not perform regular seasonal migrations, but do show dispersal movements (Mendel et al., 2008). They lay eggs from May to June and depart the breeding colonies in late July to mid August, returning in October and November (Mendel et al., 2008). Kittiwakes forage over large distances, and their range is usually linked to food availability (Mendel et al., 2008). They forage by picking up items from the surface or plunging for prey just below the surface, and can also forage whilst swimming (Mendel et al., 2008). Their main prey is small shoaling pelagic fish and planktonic crustaceans, but also associate with fishing vessels for discards (Mendel et al., 2008). Kittiwakes are mostly active during the day, especially at early morning and late evening and are usually inactive during darkest hours of night (Mendel et al., 2008).

Other than bycatch in fishing gear, threats to this species include pollution, changes in availability of prey species (possibly linked to climate change factors and over‐fishing in parts of its range) and predation in parts of its range (OSPAR, 2009).

Greater black backed Gull

The Greater Black‐backed Gull Larus marinus has increased in its European breeding and wintering populations and is therefore not of particular conservation concern (BirdLife International, 2004). Its breeding population in ICES Area VII (Irish Sea/English Channel) is about 8000 breeding pairs (ICES, 2008a).

The Greater Black‐backed gull is the biggest gull in coastal Northern Europe. It lays eggs in April and May and departs its breeding grounds from August onwards, to return in February (Mendel et al., 2008). It often only migrates short distances, wintering from the pack ice boundary to the North and Baltic Seas and through the Atlantic into the Bay of Biscay (Mendel et al., 2008).

The Greater Black‐backed gull is a versatile forager ‐ it can catch prey from surface, plunge dive up to 1 m, steal from other birds, and take advantage of food scraps etc (Mendel et al., 2008). It is generally active during day and at dusk and may also attend vessels at night (Mendel et al., 2008).

Apart from bycatch, threats to this species include oil pollution, reduction of the food supply and direct persecution (as a control measure for other species of coastal birds) (Mendel et al., 2008).

Shearwaters

The Great Shearwater Puffinus gravis breeds in Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands from November to April and then migrates around the Atlantic clockwise, appearing in Celtic Sea areas from August‐September (BirdLife International, 2011a).


248

Similarly, Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus breed in the Southern hemisphere (NZ, AUS, Chile, and Falkland Islands) and appear in Celtic Seas in August‐October (BirdLife International, 2011a; BirdLife International, 2004). The Sooty shearwater has an IUCN status of Near Threatened due to a ‘moderately rapid’ global decline. It also has a BirdLife ‘SPEC 1’ species of global concern status. Threats to the population include harvesting young birds, bycatch longline‐fishing gear, climate change and predation by introduced species such as rats (BirdLife International, 2011a). Before the ban on drift‐netting on the high seas, worst‐case scenario estimates of 1.2million annual catches of Sooty shearwaters in this fishery occurred (Uhlmann, 2003 citing DeGange et al, 1993). Large scale driftnetting still occurs in Russian and non‐EU Mediterranean waters, and there are gaps in knowledge on whether these pose a significant threat to Sooty shearwater populations (Uhlmann, 2003)

Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea breeds in the Mediterranean on outposts in the Atlantic (e.g. Canary Islands, Azores, Berlengas Islands) and migrates to the Atlantic as far as the southwest coasts of Ireland and the UK. It winters in the Atlantic off North and South America and South Africa. The Cory’s shearwater is listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive.

The Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus lives predominantly at sea, only returning to land to breed (Dunn et al., 2004). Most of the estimated world population of between 340,000 – 410,000 pairs of Manx shearwaters that breed in Britain and Ireland (Dunn et al., 2004). It winters in the South Atlantic, leaving in August and returning in February and March. It faces an unfavourable conservation status in Europe (SPEC 2) (BirdLife International, 2004). This species nests in burrows and comes ashore only under the hours darkness in order to evade predators such as Great skuas and Great black‐backed gulls (Dunn et al., 2004). This marine species is mainly found on waters over the continental shelf, feeding mainly on small shoaling fish but also on some squid, crustaceans and offal (BirdLife International, 2011a). Prey is caught mainly by pursuit‐plunging and pursuit‐diving, either alone or in small flocks (BirdLife International, 2011a).

The non‐breeding population of the globally‐endangered Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauritanicus might pass through the case study area. A major part of the Balearic shearwater population leaves its breeding sites on the Balearic Islands for the Atlantic each year in June to October. Historically, they were found in the Bay of Biscay region, but there has been a northward shift in distribution into the Western Channel (Yesou, 2003). The distribution shift of Balearic shearwaters to UK and Irish waters has recently been attributed to global climate change and associated plankton movements (Wynn et al., 2007). Balearic Shearwaters and other priority species often pass through Irish inshore waters in late summer and autumn, though their movement patterns are poorly understood (BirdWatch Ireland, 2010).


249

Table 81: Conservation status of seabird species in Gran Sol region known to be caught in fisheries Bird Species IUCN

Status*

Birds Directive SPEC status** Occurrence – months

Breeding Population (pairs)

Wintering population (individuals)

Population trend

Scientific Name Common name Region Area VIIj European population

Region, unless stated otherwise

Calonectris diomedea Cory’s shearwater LC Annex I non spec_E Jul‐Nov ‐ UNK Unknown

Catharacta skua Great skua LC ‐ non spec_E Apr‐Jun, Nov‐Mar ‐ UNK Increase – Europe (breeding0

Fulmarus glacialis Northern fulmar LC ‐ non spec Peak Mar‐Apr, Dec‐Feb

5700 >1,500,000 Decline

Larus fuscus Lesser black‐backed gull LC Annex II non spec_E Peak Nov‐Mar 800 >130,000 Increase ‐ Europe

Larus marinus Greater black‐backed gull

LC Annex II non spec_E Peak May‐Jul, Nov‐Feb

350 >150,000 Increase ‐ Europe

Morus bassanus Northern gannet LC ‐ non spec_E Peak Mar‐Aug 28300 UNK Increase – Europe (breeding)

Puffinus gravis Great shearwater LC migratory (non evaluated)

Not evaluated Jul‐Nov ‐ ‐ Unknown

Puffinus griseus Sooty shearwater NT migratory (not evaluated)

SPEC 1 Jul‐Nov ‐ ‐ Decline ‐ global

Puffinus puffinus Manx shearwater LC ‐ SPEC 2 Mar‐Oct 60000 ‐ Decline – N America

Rissa tridactyla Black‐legged kittiwake LC ‐ non spec Peak Nov‐Mar, Apr‐May

2200 >200,000 Decline ‐ Europe

Sources: ICES, 2008a; ICES, 2002; BirdLife International, 2011a; BirdLife International, 2004; Stone et al., 1995 Notes: *SPEC Status: SPEC 1 – Global conservation concern; SPEC 2 – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status; SPEC 3 – Global population not concentrated in Europe, but unfavourable conservation status in Europe; Non‐Spec_E – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces favourable conservation status; Non‐Spec_ ‐ Global population not concentrated in Europe; favourable conservation status in Europe.


250

8.4 Baltic Sea Seabirds in the Baltic Sea comprise pelagic‐feeding species like divers, gulls, and auks, and benthic‐feeding species like dabbling ducks, sea ducks, mergansers, and coots (ICES, 2008a). The main species that are liable to get entangled in gillnets are diving seabirds: sea ducks, diving ducks, loons/ divers, grebes, cormorants and auks (Žydelis et al.,

2009). Table 82 shows the common names, feeding behaviour, diving depth and preferred depth of water in winter of these species.

There are seasonal differences in the occurrences of seabird populations in this region – breeding and resident birds, and wintering birds. The Baltic Sea is more important for wintering (c. 10 million) than for breeding (c. 0.5 million) seabirds and sea ducks (ICES, 2008a). Only auks, cormorants and some local sea duck populations are present year‐round (Žydelis, 2009). Likewise, the geographic focus when describing the breeding, wintering and foraging areas for these species will correspond with the case studies. For the Baltic, the focus is on the eastern region of the Baltic (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuanian) and western region of the Baltic (Denmark, Sweden and Germany). Areas of particular importance for seabirds are described in Section Error! Reference source not found. Seabird species that tend to drown in fishing nets in larger numbers, or that have particular conservation concern are described in 8.4.2.

Table 82: Diving depth and feeding behaviour of species most vulnerable to bycatch in gillnet fisheries in the

Baltic Sea

Common Name Scientific Name Diving Depth max (mean) in metres

Feeding behaviour Preferred depth of water in winter (m)

Razorbill Alca torda 140 (41) Surface diving 18‐36

Common pochard Aythya ferina 1‐3 Diving; Bottom feeding

0‐6



Goldeneye Bucephela clangula 10 Pursuit diving 0‐12

Black guillemot Cephus grylle grylle 50 (30) Pursuit diving 20‐40

Long‐tailed duck Clangula hyemalis 60 (20) Pursuit diving 6‐22

Black‐throated diver Gavia arctica 30 (9) Pursuit diving 0‐22


Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca 65 (13) Surface diving 10‐30


Smew Mergellus albellus 4 Diving ‐

Goosander Mergus merganser UNK Pursuit diving ‐



Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus 4 Pursuit diving 10‐15

Great‐crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 8 Pursuit diving 10‐20

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri 10 (5) Pursuit diving 0‐5

Common eider Somateria mollissima 42 (11) Diving, Head‐dipping

0‐15


Source: BirdLife International, 2010a ‐ The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis; BirdLife International, 2011a (dive depth‐ Common Pochard); Petersen et al., 2010 (depth in winter); Durinck et al., 1994 (depth in winter – Steller’s eider). Notes: UNK = Unknown.


251

8.4.1 Important bird areas Approximately 10 million diving waterbirds winter in the Baltic Sea (ICES, 2008a). However, these birds are not uniformly distributed through the Baltic. In mild winters, coastal and offshore zones (out to 50m) were preferred by seaducks and several fish‐eating species while species that fed on pelagic schooling fishes showed no water depth preference and gulls and auks used the deep areas in the Baltic proper (Durinck et al., 1994). In more severe winters, the distribution changes as birds are forced out of near‐coastal zones into open water (Durinck et al., 1994). A 1994 study mapping waterbirds in the Baltic in order to determine the most important areas for wintering species found that the ten most important areas covered less than 5% of the Baltic Sea, but contained about 90% of the total estimated number of seabirds wintering there (Durinck et al., 1994). All of these ten occur, at least partially, in our case study countries (Table 9)

Table 83: Ten most important bird areas for wintering birds in the Baltic

Important bird area Countries with continental shelf zone in this area

Selected species (% of NW European winter population)

Szczecin & Vorpommern Lagoons

Germany, Poland Smew (55.7%); Greater Scaup (23%); Tufted Duck (15.2%), Velvet Scoter (4.4%)

Pomeranian Bay Germany, Poland, Denmark Velvet scoter (38.4%); Slavonian Grebe (34%); Long‐tailed duck (17%); Black Guillemot (12%)

Gulf of Riga Latvia, Estonia Velvet scoter (36.1%); Red‐throated Diver (24.2%); Long‐tailed duck (23.3%); Black Guillemot (15%)

Northern Kattegat Sweden, Denmark Red‐necked Grebe (15.7%), Common Eider (13.3%), Razorbill (10.8%); Velvet scoter (8.2%)

Saaremaa and Hiiumaa west coasts

Estonia Steller’s eider (39.3%); Goldeneye (1.5%); Goosander (1.8%)

Smålandsfarvandet Denmark Red‐breasted Merganser (3.7%); Divers (2.6%); Tufted Duck (2.3%)

Hoburgs Bank Sweden Long‐tailed duck (19.6%); Black Guillemot (1.3%)

Kiel Bay and adjacent waters

Germany, Denmark Common Eider (9.3%); Great‐crested Grebe (2.1%); Long‐tailed duck (1.9%)

South‐west Kattegat Denmark Common Eider (6.4%); Goldeneye (2.7%); Greater Scaup (1.9%)

Gotland east and north coasts

Sweden Long‐tailed duck (5%); Red‐breasted Merganser (2.4%); Black Giullemot (1.9%); Greater Scaup (1.2%)

Source: Durinck et al., 1994

Several of the favoured areas for wintering seabirds are designated as Important Birds Areas or Natura 2000 areas (BirdLife International, 2011a). However, within most of these protected areas in the Baltic Sea there are no regulations imposed on fisheries active within them.

Further inventories of waterbirds in the Eastern Baltic Sea were undertaken as part of the Life Nature project ‘Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ were undertaken between 2006 and 2009 in order to identify further important bird areas and revise the boundaries of proposed SPAs and delineate new SPAs (Dagys et al., 2009b). Especially valuable areas for waterbirds were identified in the Estonian Archipelago, the Väinameri Sea, the Gulf of Riga, the Irbe Strait and the coastal waters off the Curonian Spit (Fammler, 2009). As a result of these surveys and those for other species and habitats, new Natura 2000 areas were proposed in both Lithuania and Latvia (Figure 64). There are several protected areas in Western Estonia that include important breeding areas for waterbirds. Vilsandi, Matsalu and Lahemaa national parks have individual government protection‐regulations identifiying three types of areas with different use restrictions with the parks: protection areas, where fishing is usually permitted; restriction areas, where fishing is prohibited; and reservation areas, where people are not allowed at all. These regulations determine in detail what kinds of actions are allowed in park territories – including fishing. Matsalu National Park was established in 1957 for for protection of migratory, staging, breeding ,and feeding areas for birds of international importance, as well as preservation of specific habitat types. The Matsalu National Park Protection‐Regulation contains very specific fishing regulations which concern gear that can be used, as well as seasonal closures. For example, the ‘Salmi sopi’ protection area within Matsalu allows occupational fishers to fish with gillnets and trapnets from 16th November to 1st March, but not during other periods (Government of Estonia,


252

2006). Recreational fishers, however, are allowed to fish with other gears in addition to gillnets and trapnets from 16 November to 15 February (Government of Estonia, 2006). Vilsandi National Park was established by the Government of Estonia in 1993 for protection of coastal and marine sites with high bird abundance. Fishing with gillnets is prohibited in certain areas and during certain times in Vilsandi National Park: from 1 Nov‐1 March in Vesiloo madalal and from 1 Jan to 31 May on Kiipsaare Island (Government of Estonia, 2009). The national park Protection‐Regulation Laws are also in accordance with the Fishing Law 1995 (with the aim of ensuring that fishing is sustainable in accordance with principles of responsible fishing); Fishing Regulation 1995 (determines taxes to be paid for using environmental resources and assesses fines for environmental damage); and Fishing Regulation 2003(a decree regulating fishing the sea and inner waterbodies of Estonia). These laws are composed by the legislative council of Estonia (Riigikogu) and confirmed by the government.

Figure 64: Proposed and existing Natura 2000 protection areas in the coastal waters of Estonia, Latvia and

Lithuania

Source: Tamre, 2010

According to BirdLife International Danish partner DOF, 57 IBAs in Denmark have a marine component, although only 8 are truly marine (BirdLife International, 2010). A total of 51 of the 57 IBAs are also classified as SPAs (BirdLife International, 2010). Durinck et al. (1994) identified all of the Danish Marine IBAs in the Baltic Sea (including those in Table 9). National monitoring is undertaken for those species for which SPAs have been classified (BirdLife International, 2010b).

In Sweden, there are at least 30 areas classified as candidate Important Bird Areas, covering almost 1million ha of which 34% are legally protected within the framework of Natura 2000 (BirdLife International, 2010b). Almost all of the IBAs are found in the coastal region, including the archipelagos and include habitats for breeding, migratory and wintering populations of birds (BirdLife International, 2010b). In the Swedish Baltic, important areas for breeding birds include from Gotland northwards for the Greater Scaup, the outer Stockholm Archipelago for the Velvet Scoter


253

and the island of Stora Karlsö, a nature reserve in Sweden, for Common Guillemots and Razorbills. The latter two Auk species also breed on the island of Græsholm, a Danish nature reserve, in Denmark. Other species, such as the Common Eider, breed around islands, coastal shores and lagoons throughout Sweden and Denmark. The IBAs and MPAs in Danish Baltic waters are shown in Figure 65 and in Swedish Baltic waters in Figure 66.

Figure 65: Marine IBAs and MPAs in Denmark Source: BirdLife International, 2010b

Figure 66: Marine IBAs in southeastern Sweden Source: BirdLife International, 2010b

There are 12 Special Protected Areas (SPAs) which are fully marine or have marine and terrestrial elements within German EEZ (Figure 67) (BfN, 2010). In total these SPAs cover an area of 7,207 km2 (including both marine and terrestrial areas). The Pomeranian Bay SPA has a high concentration of divers, auks and sea ducks, who mainly use the site for resting and feeding during winter and spring (ICES, 2009). Concentration hotspots include the Adler


254

Ground in the north and the Odra Bank in the south, the latter of which is also used in summer by Common and Velvet scoters for moulting (ICES, 2009).

Figure 67: Special Protected Areas (SPAs) designated within the German EEZ Source: BfN, 2010.

8.4.2 Seabird populations The following section provides more detail about the species that are vulnerable to bycatch in this region. Table 84 contains conservation status and breeding and wintering population estimates for these species. Great cormorant

The global population of Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo is secure and it is not considered a species of European conservation concern. The Great cormorant is protected by the provisions of the EU Bird Directive (Directve 2009/147/EC), but the species is not listed on Annex I or Annex II of this Directive (Herrmann et al., 2010). This means that there is no obligation for Member States to establish Special Protected Areas (SPAs) (Annex I), but that Member States are not allowed to give this species an open hunting season (Annex II). However, as this species is considered to cause damage to fisheries, several Member States make use of Article 9(1) of the Directive and allow derogations with the aim ‘to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’ (Herrmann et al., 2010). Actions taken include destruction of nests, oiling of eggs and shooting. Shooting of cormorants occurs in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Estonia and Lithuania (Herrmann et al., 2010). Due to persecution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the breeding population of Great Cormorants in Europe had declined to 4000 breeding pairs of the of the continental subspecies sinensis by the early 1960s, of which Germany and Poland hosted more than the half (Herrmann et al., 2010). As a result of protection measures, during the 1970s and 1980s breeding pair numbers started to increase and the range expanded to the northern and eastern Baltic (Herrmann et al., 2010). Currently, the species is present in the whole Baltic Sea area, including the northern parts of the Gulf of Bothnia (Herrmann et al, 2010). The highest population densities are found around the highly eutrophic estuaries of the southern Baltic (Odra‐, Vistula‐, and Curonian lagoon) (Herrmann et al, 2010). The biggest colony of cormorants in Lithuania is near the Juodkrante on the Curonian split. In 2000, there were more than 1300 pairs living in the colony (Gražulevičius & Elertas, 2002). In 2006, the total number of breeding pairs of Great Cormorants in the Baltic Sea states amounted to about 157,000 found in 410 colonies, with almost 80% of the birds breeding in Denmark, Germany, Poland and Sweden (Herrmann et al., 2010). The great cormorant breeds in colonies in lakes and coastal areas foraging within 10 km from the colony, rarely moving far from the coast (Grémillet, 1997; Petersen et al., 2003). The peak breeding period in the temperate Northern hemisphere is from April to June (BirdLife International, 2011a). Great cormorants usually forage along the seabed in ca. 10 m water depth, with maximum dive depths of 35 m (Grémillet et al., 1999). Breeding cormorants are thus mainly at risk of getting entangled in gillnets set near the coast at depths below 10 m.

1649‐401

1552‐401

1747‐402

1343‐401

1542‐401

1934‐4011931‐301

1633‐491

1530‐491

1525‐491

1423‐491

1123‐491


255

The great cormorant is present in the winter in the Baltic to a lesser degree than in the breeding season. Although there is less information on wintering numbers of cormorants, it is generally known that compared to the breeding distribution, the wintering distribution covers a much wider area (Wetlands International Cormorant Research Group, 2008). January counts of cormorants undertaken in 2003 found approximately 214,000 cormorants in the Baltic and Central European areas (Wetlands International Cormorant Research Group, 2008). Within the Baltic region, the great cormorant mainly winters in Danish waters (Durinck et al., 1994), where areas like Kattegat, Roskilde Fjord and Saltholm are important wintering grounds (Petersen et al., 2010). Since the review of important wintering areas for seabirds in the Baltic Sea in 1994 (Durinck et al., 1994), the wintering population of cormorants has increased in the Baltic Sea. During the last national winter counts in Denmark, more than 24,000 individuals where thus counted during the survey in 2008 (Petersen et al., 2010). The current wintering population of great cormorant is therefore considerably larger than the 19,400 individuals estimated by Durinck et al. (1994). Divers (Loons)

The Red‐throated Diver Gavia stellata and Black‐throated Diver Gavia arctica are difficult to distinguish in water bird counts (especially during aerial surveys), and have therefore been grouped into diver spp. here. Both species have a SPEC 3 (unfavourable in Europe) conservation status. The Black‐throated Diver also has a European IUCN Red List category of VU; although both are Least Concern on the global IUCN Red List. Both species are also on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive. The divers are thus of special conservation concern in the Baltic Sea. Both Divers breed in Scandinavia and Russia, with the Red‐throated Diver generally distributed more northerly than the Black‐throated Diver (Durinck et al., 1994). About 52% of the northwest European population of Divers winter in the Baltic Sea (Durinck et al., 1994). The Gulf of Riga and Irbe Strait contain over half of the Divers wintering in the Baltic. Other important areas include the shallow waters off the Lithuanian coast, Pomeranian Bay, north‐west Kattegat, and Smålandsfarvandet, while Halland and the east coast of Gotland are the main wintering areas in Sweden (Durinck et al., 1994). Most of the divers wintering in the northern Baltic were Red‐throated Divers, and those in the central Baltic are predominantly Black‐throated divers (Durinck et al., 1994). The divers typically winter at 0‐ 30m depth but may be found far at sea (Durinck et al., 1994, Petersen et al., 2010), where they forage for fish. Divers are either partially‐migratory or short‐distance migratory birds (Mendel et al., 2008). They start to leave their breeding grounds in August and September and return between February and April, although migration patterns may differ between populations (Mendel et al., 2008). Threats to divers include drowning in fishing nets, oil pollution, disturbance due to shipping, obstacles in the form of technical structures and reduction of food supply (Mendel et al., 2008). Diving Ducks:

Greater scaup

Although the global population of Greater scaup Aythya marila is of ‘Least Concern’, the European population has an unfavourable conservation status (SPEC 3) and is considered Endangered in Europe (BirdLife International, 2004; Bellebaum, 2009). This contradicts the stable population trend of the Western Europe biogeographic population as reported by Mendel et al., 2008). It is on Annex II/2 of the EU Birds Directive, meaning that it can be hunted in a limited number in some EU Member States (BE, DK, DE, EL, FR, IE, LV, NL, RO, UK) (European Commission, 2009b). An EU management plan for the period 2009‐2011 was finalized in 2009 with the purpose of restoring the Scaup to a favourable conservation status in the EU.

The Greater scaup has a small breeding population in the Baltic; however, a larger proportion of the population winters in the Baltic having migrated from high Arctic breeding sites. Less than 200‐300 pairs breed along the Baltic coast of Sweden from Gotland northwards and the population has been declining over the last 100 years (European Commission, 2009b). A few pairs (1‐10) also breed in Estonia (Elts, pers comm.). This species prefers water less than 6m deep (usually 2 m) for diving (Kear, 2005) and is thus most vulnerable to gillnet fisheries at shallow waters near its few breeding sites on the Baltic coast. Because of its relatively small Baltic population size and the declining breeding population trend, all additional mortality due to entanglement in gillnets may be critical.


256

Greater Scaup are migratory and leave breeding areas from mid‐August onwards to arrive at wintering locations in the Baltic (and elsewhere) from September onwards. They begin to return to breeding sites from February until April. Some immature non‐breeders do not return to breeding sites but remain in wintering areas. Birds wintering in North European regions, including the Baltic, feed mostly at night, commuting from their inshore day‐time roosting sites to offshore night‐time feeding grounds. However, in its southern wintering locations tends to feed during the day. The shallow lagoons and bays along the German and Polish coasts are the main wintering areas for this species in the Baltic Sea (Durinck et al., 1994). This includes sheltered bays in Germany such as the Geifswald Bodden, Wismar Bay, Lake Dassow and Trave River. Geifswald Bodden is the most important resting site, containing approximately 36% of the German population. Only low numbers occur in offshore areas. This species is nomadic during non‐breeding season and wintering numbers fluctuate markedly between the years. Large numbers have also been recorded wintering in Danish waters (Durinck et al., 1994). Apart from bycatch in gillnets, other threats that Greater scaup face includes degradation of wintering habitat, oxygen deficiencies in wintering areas affecting prey populations, pollution and disturbance in wintering and breeding areas (European Commission, 2009b). The hunting take is relatively small (European Commission, 2009b). Red‐breasted merganser

The Red‐breasted merganser Mergus serrator has a relatively small breeding population in Europe, consisting of less than 120,000 pairs (BirdLife International, 2004). A major portion of this population breeds in Finland, Norway and Sweden (BirdLife International, 2004). The Baltic population of Red‐breasted merganser breeds at sheltered shallow bays, inlets, straits and estuaries, and its breeding populations are estimated at 2,000‐3,000 and 14,000‐18,000 pairs in Denmark and Sweden, respectively. Small numbers of this species breed in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well. The Baltic breeding populations of this species may be vulnerable to bycatch in gillnets in areas where this fishery occur in shallow waters near local breeding grounds. Although the Red‐breasted merganser is a rare breeding bird or summer visitor in Central Europe, it is a regular winter visitor with important overwintering sites located in Western Baltic Sea, along German and West Polish coasts (Durinck et al., 1994). A major concentration is found in the vicinity of Rügen Island and Greifswald Bodden. Birds occurring in the German coastal areas peak in early winter (November) and again during migration in April. Other wintering areas for this species include southern Denmark, the east coast of Gotland (Sweden), the Gulf of Riga (Latvia, Estonia) and the coasts of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa (Estonia) (Durinck et al., 1994). Departure of Red‐breasted mergansers to their wintering grounds begins in September, and migration over the Baltic Sea peaks in October and November (Mendel et al., 2008). The return migration begins in February, and those birds breeding in the Baltic arrive at their breeding grounds in April (Mendel et al., 2008). Red‐breasted mergansers are mostly active during the day and feed predominately on small fish, but also polychaetes and crustaceans. They frequently hunt in flocks and are excellent swimmers and divers. Main threats to Red‐breasted mergansers include: entanglement and drowning in fishing nets, oil pollution, disturbance due to shipping, obstacles in the form of technical structures, reduction of food supply, accumulation of contaminants in the body and entanglement in discarded waste (Mendel et al., 2008). Sea Ducks:

Velvet scoter

The Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca has a European breeding population of less than 100,000 pairs (BirdLife International, 2004). It has declined recently in Europe, and the European population has an unfavourable status (SPEC 3). It is listed on Annex II/2 of the EU Birds Directive as a species for which hunting is permitted in some countries (DK, DE, FR, IE, LV, FI, SE, UK) (European Commission, 2007). An EU management plan for Velvet Scoterwas created for the period 2007‐2009 with long‐term objective of restoring the Velvet Scoter to a favourable conservation status in the EU (European Commission, 2007). The Velvet Scoter breeds along the Baltic coast in Sweden through to Finland and Estonia. One of the main Swedish breeding areas is Outer Stockholm Archipelago (ca. 4,000 pairs, BirdLife International, 2011b), but the breeding population in Sweden declined 20‐29% during 1990‐2000 (BirdLife International, 2004).


257

The Velvet Scoter winters in the Baltic in large numbers, mainly in Danish waters and the south‐east Baltic including the coasts of Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Germany – with high numbers off Estonia in mild winters (European Commission, 2007). Large numbers of migrating Velvet scoter concentrate in Livonian Bay, Estonia in May during the spring migration (European Commission, 2007).The overall trend of wintering Velvet Scoters is unknown, but the Latvian wintering population has suffered a large decline of 50‐79%, as did the Danish population (European Commission, 2007). Velvet Scoters are mainly short‐distance migrants, with birds breeding in Sweden, for example, wintering in Denmark (Mendel et al., 2008). Birds leave for wintering grounds in September and return migration occurs between March and May (Mendel et al., 2008). During non‐breeding periods, Velvet Scoters prefer shallow coastal zones and offshore shallows – birds in the Pomeranian Bay showed a strong preference for water depths less than 20m (Mendel et al., 2008). They feed mostly during the day, predominantly on molluscs (Mendel et al., 2008). The main threats to Velvet Scoter in the EU are identified as loss of breeding and wintering habitat, drowning in fishing nets, pollution – especially oil spills and disturbance; hunting is a local problem only as the take is small (European Commission, 2007). Common eider

The Common eider Somateria mollissima breeds in coastal areas of north‐west and northern Europe, which contains more than half of its global population (BirdLife International, 2004). Common eiders are listed on Annex II/2 of the EU Birds Directive, meaning they can be hunted only in certain EU Member States (DK, EE, FR, IE, FI, SE). In the Baltic, the common eider breeds on offshore islands, on coastal shores and on islets in brackish and freshwater lagoons. Common Eiders are partial migrants, and some winter in or near their breeding areas, with birds breeding in the Baltic Sea wintering mostly in the western Baltic (Mendel et al., 2008). Approximately 1 million Common eiders are estimated to winter in the Baltic Sea, mostly within the south‐west Baltic – including the north‐west Kattegat and Kiel Bay (Durinck et al., 1994; Mendel et al., 2008). Peak populations of Common Eiders occur in the German Baltic Sea between November and March (Mendel et al., 2008). This species of sea duck prefers areas of water between 6‐10 m deep, mostly above gravel and stone substrates. Mass mortality events have been reported in the Wadden Sea during winter 1999/2000, with overfishing of food resources (mussels, cockles and Spisula) thought to be one of the responsible factors. Other threats to Common Eiders include drowning in fishing nets, oil pollution, disturbance due to shipping, obstacles in the form of technical structures, pollutants in food supply and hunting (Mendel et al., 2008). Steller’s Eider

Of the wintering populations of seabirds in the Eastern Baltic, Steller’s Eider is of particular interest as it has a small population size, restricted wintering distribution, tendency to feed in dense flocks and an especially high conservation priority (Dagys & Žydelis, 2002). It has an IUCN status of ‘Vulnerable’ and is listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive (Table 84). The Estonian coastal waters support the highest numbers of Steller’s Eiders wintering in the Baltic Sea, but surveys have also shown that there Steller’s eiders also regularly winter on a 24km stretch of Lithuanian coastline (Žydelis et al., 2006). Wintering Steller’s Eiders often form dense flocks consisting of several hundred birds, and they stay close to the coast in areas of less than 5m water depth (Durinck et al., 1994). One possible cause of the decline of Steller’s Eiders worldwide is increased adult mortality. Survival on the wintering grounds could be affected by factors such as habitat loss and industrial development, hunting (although not hunted in European waters), fishing activity causing direct mortality through bycatch and indirect through disturbance, and contamination and pollution (Žydelis et al., 2006). Long‐tailed duck

The Long‐tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis breeds in large numbers in Russia, North America and Greenland, as well as in Iceland, northern Finland and mountainous regions of Norway and Sweden (Durinck et al., 1994). The Fenno‐Scandinavian and western Siberian populations winter in the Baltic Sea (Durinck et al., 1994). The species’ global and


258

European status is stable. The number of wintering Long‐tailed duck has, however, been reported to have declined throughout the entire Baltic Sea (Skov et al., 2010). In addition to this, Bellebaum (2009) presents data to illustrate the decline in estimated numbers of long‐tailed duck (reduced by 63%) in the Pomeranian Bay SPA, although it is unclear whether this relates to population trends since comparison to entire German Baltic population sizes were not possible. Long‐tailed ducks are the most numerous of the species wintering in the Baltic Sea, and the Gulf of Riga and Irbe Strait are the most important areas for it (Durinck et al., 1994). Other important areas include the Pomeranian Bay and Hoburgs Bank (Durinck et al., 1994). In some areas, Long‐tailed Ducks form large flocks that can number several hundred thousand individuals (Durinck et al., 1994). This species depart from their breeding grounds in August and September, with peak numbers of wintering birds occurring in the Baltic in November and December (Mendel et al., 2008). Birds depart the wintering grounds again in February or March (Mendel et al., 2008). Threats to this species include entanglement and drowning in fishing nets, disturbance due to shipping, reduction of food supply and obstacles in the form of technical structures (Mendel et al., 2008). Grebes

Slavonian grebe

The Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus is on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and has an unfavourable population status in Europe (SPEC 3). Although there are breeding populations of Slavonian grebes Podiceps auritus in many of the Baltic states, most of these birds favour breeding inland on shallow, eutrophic ponds rather than on the Baltic coast (Mendel et al., 2008).

In mild winters, about 40% of the North‐west European population of Slavonian grebe may winter in the Baltic Sea (Durinck et al., 1994). The Pomeranian Bay is by far the most important wintering area for this grebe (Durinck et al., 1994), and the species is only recorded in small numbers in other parts of the Baltic Sea during winter (Nilsson, 2009, Petersen et al., 2010).

The birds arrive in the Pomeranian Bay from October onwards to build up a dense population. Numbers peak in autumn and mostly remain high into winter, declining rapidly from March onwards. Slavonian grebes roost and sleep on the water. They fly more often and dive less often than other grebes, but like other grebes, they predominately feed on fish such as gobies.

Main threats to Slavonian Grebes include entanglement and drowning in fishing nets, oil pollution, disturbance due to shipping and obstacles in the form of technical structures (Mendel et al., 2008).

Great‐crested grebe The Great‐crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus is a widespread breeder across Europe, with a large European breeding population (BirdLife International, 2004). It favours large, shallow waters – and predominantly occurs on freshwater, but also on some brackish waters and coastal lagoons in eastern and southern Europe (Mendel et al., 2008). The breeding range around the Baltic includes most of the coastline and adjacent inlands (Durinck et al., 1994).

The great‐crested grebe is the most common wintering grebe in the Baltic, with the majority of the wintering population being found in German waters (Durinck et al., 1994). It is mostly distributed in the shallow coastal waters and rarely encountered in offshore waters. Population numbers peak in winter with important concentration found in the Greifswald Bodden, Strelasund Sound, Mecklenburg Bight and Strelasund Bight. The great‐crested grebe is found in the Pomeranian Bay SPA all year round, except for the summer months. The majority of the Danish wintering population of great‐crested grebe winters in larger freshwater lakes (Petersen et al., 2010), but move out to sea in hard winters when the lakes freeze up. The number of wintering great‐crested grebes in the Baltic Sea is thus higher in severe winters (Durinck et al., 1994). The great‐crested grebe also winters along the Swedish coast, where 3,146 individuals were counted in January 2009 (Nilsson, 2009). The wintering population of great‐crested grebe has shown an increasing trend in recent years in both Denmark and Sweden (Nilsson, 2009; Petersen et al., 2010).


259

The great‐crested grebe feeds predominately on fish, such as roach and perch. They generally dive to depths of 2‐3 m to forage, but are able to reach 5 m depth. Aside from gear entanglement, other main threats to Great‐crested Grebes oil pollution, disturbance due to shipping, and obstacles in the form of technical structures (Mendel et al., 2008). Auks

Common Guillemot

The Common Guillemot Uria aalge is a widespread, patchy breeder on western and northern European coasts (BirdLife International, 2004). It has a large European breeding population of over 2million pairs, only a small proportion of which breed in the Baltic (BirdLife International, 2004). The Common Guillemot breeding colonies are very heterogeneously distributed within the Baltic region, since they only breed in a few suitable habitats (e.g. Græsholm in Denmark and Store Karlsö in Sweden); the areas in the Western Baltic are designated as SPAs (BirdLife International, 2011b; BirdLife International, 2010b). The auks that breed in the Baltic Sea (Razorbill, Common Guillemot and Black Guillemot) usually also winter in the Baltic Sea, and often close to their breeding site (Durinck et al., 1994, Olsson et al., 1999). The guillemot is a passage migrant, and occasional summer visitor and regular winter visitor in the German Baltic Sea. In spring, summer and autumn they are found scattered throughout Pomeranian Bay in low numbers. Peak numbers occur in winter with major concentrations in the offshore areas of Pomeranian Bay, particularly in the deep waters from Odrabank and Adlergrund. Feeding on sprats, herring and sandeels these birds forage by pursuit diving (Gaston & Jones, 1998, as cited in Mendel et al., 2008). The guillemots are active during the day and at dusk. They are susceptible to becoming entangled in set nets both during pursuit of prey and by feeding directly from the nets. Drowning in set nets has been reported as the most important mortality factor for this species. During a study from 1989 to 1994 Huppop (1996, as cited in Mendel et al., 2008) estimated the mortality of guillemots due to fishing nets was 42 % over this period. Before 1970, the mortality rate was less than 5 %. Razorbill

Like the Common Guillemot, the Razorbill Alca torda has a large, widespread breeding population in northern and western Europe (BirdLife International, 2004). Two distinct populations of Razorbill winter in the Baltic Sea – one group from the North Atlantic that winters in the Kattegat and another that breed locally and remain in the greater Baltic (Durinck et al., 1994). Breeding populations concentrate on suitable cliffs on Græsholm in Denmark and Stora Karlsö in Sweden, and a few pairs also breed in Estonia (BirdLife International, 2004). Razorbills wintering in the Kattegat move into this area at the end of October/early November and most have left by the beginning of March (Durinck et al., 1994). Movements of the Razorbill population breeding and wintering in the Baltic are less known, but adults leave the colonies in July and August and return in late February or early March (Durinck et al., 1994). The Razorbill is a passage migrant and winter visitor to the German Baltic Sea. It occurs in large parts of the coastal and offshore waters of the Pomeranian Bay, and in small densities further west near the Zingst Peninsula. Larger numbers are found in the Mecklenburg Bight and around Cape Arcona. Towards spring numbers decline rapidly and only small flocks occur, scattered over the eastern part of the German Baltic. Summer and autumn sightings are infrequently reported. The Pomeranian Bay SPA supports a large overwintering population. The Razorbill’s diet primarily consists of herring, sprats, capelin and sandeels which are foraged by pursuit diving (Table 8).


260

Black guillemot

The Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle population is concentrated in Europe and has an unfavourable conservation status (SPEC 2) (BirdLife International, 2004). Bellebaum (2009) presents data to illustrate a decline in estimated numbers (reduced by 71%) in the Pomeranian Bay SPA, although it is unclear whether this relates to population trends since comparison to entire German Baltic population sizes were not possible. The Black Guillemot breeding in the Baltic consists of two populations. The largest population (the nominate form Cepphus grylle grylle) breeds along the east coast of Sweden and along the coasts of Finland and north‐east Estonia (cliff‐coasts near Paldiski Bay). A small population (subspecies Cepphus grylle atlantis) breeds along the Swedish west coast and on islands and coastal sites in Danish Kattegat (Nettleship & Birkhead, 1985). The Danish Black Guillemot breeding population has been increasing in recent years (BirdLife International, 2004), but the breeding population in Swedish part of the Baltic Sea has been declining (Hedgren & Kolehmainen, 2006). In general, Black Guillemots winter near to their breeding grounds, but in ice‐covered areas of the Baltic they may be forced further south (Durinck et al., 1994). Black Guillemots do not breed in Germany, but during the passage period and in winter they regularly occur in the Baltic Sea (Mendel et al., 2008). They are predominately found in the vicinity of the Adlerground from autumn to spring, where numbers, although relatively small, are considered internationally important (Mendel et al., 2008). Peak numbers occur in winter when the birds occur scattered in the Pomeranian Bay and along the coasts of Rügen and further west to Plantagenetground (Mendel et al., 2008). Black Guillemots are mostly active during the day and dive close to the sea floor while foraging for food, including fish and crustaceans. Mortality estimates have been conducted off Iceland during the breeding season, where 1.3% of the breeding birds, equating to 50% of the total mortality, died in set net fishing gear. Other threats to Black Guillemots in the Baltic Sea include oil pollution, disturbance due to shipping, reduction of food supply, obstacles in the form of technical structures, and entanglement in waste (Mendel et al., 2008).


261

Table 84: Conservation status of seabird species in Baltic case study countries vulnerable to bycatch in fisheries

Bird Species IUCN Status

Birds Directive

SPEC status*

Breeding Population (pairs) Wintering population (individuals) Population trend

Scientific Name Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Sweden

Denmark

Germany***

Estonia

Latvia Lithuania

Sweden

Denmark

Germany ***

Europe

Alca torda LC ‐ NON SPEC_E

1‐10 ‐ ‐ 9000‐11000

650‐750

11‐11 300‐1000

300‐500

0‐50 90000‐110000

120000‐400000

3600 b:unk w:unk

Aythya ferina LC Annex 2 SPEC 2 1000‐2000

1500‐2000

3000‐4000

1000‐1700

400‐600

4500‐7500

UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK 98,000 b:d w:d

Aythya fuligula LC Annex 2 SPEC 3 4000‐6000

700‐800

4000‐6000

20000‐50000

1000‐2000

11000‐16000

200‐2000

10‐400 3 UNK UNK 158,000

b:d w:d

Aythya marila LC Annex 2 SPEC 3W 1‐10 ‐ ‐ 250‐1000

‐ ‐ 100‐2000

0‐100 0‐10 1000‐1500

9000‐11000

111,000

b:s w:d

Bucephala clangula

LC Annex 2 NON SPEC 1000‐15000

300‐600

1500‐2000

75000‐100000

63‐76 1720‐3050

10000‐20000

UNK 1000 25000‐40000

60000‐70000

UNK b:i w:i

Cephus grylle grylle

LC ‐ SPEC 2 20‐40 ‐ ‐ 6000‐8000

950‐1150

‐ 1000‐3000

500‐2000

0‐50 ‐ 5000‐7000

700 b:s w:unk

Clangula hyemalis

LC Annex 2 NON SPEC ‐ ‐ ‐ 1000‐2000

‐ ‐ 100000‐500000

80000‐100000x

2500 800000‐130000

2000‐3000

315000‐596000

b:s w:s

Gavia arctica LC Annex 1 SPEC 3 3‐10 0‐5 3‐8 5500‐7000

‐ ‐ 200‐1000

200‐600

200‐500

UNK 500 3250‐3250 (all)

b: d w:unk

Gavia stellata LC Annex 1 SPEC 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1200‐1400

‐ ‐ 5000‐20000

1500‐5400

300 UNK 5000‐50000

2400 b: s w:s

Melanitta fusca LC Annex 2 SPEC 3 400‐700

‐ ‐ 10000‐14000

‐ ‐ 20000‐200000

25000‐150000x

9000 1000‐2500

1700‐2000

38000‐51200

b:d w:d

Melanitta nigra LC Annex 2 NON SPEC ‐ ‐ ‐ 1500‐3000

‐ ‐ 100‐1000

500‐2000x

130 1000‐5000

240000‐240000

230000 b:s w:d


262

Mergellus albellus

LC Annex 1 SPEC 3 ‐ 300‐600

1500‐2000

75000‐100000

63‐76 ‐ 500‐2000

20‐200 51 25000‐40000

60000‐70000

b:d w:i

Mergus merganser


100‐150

700‐1000

10000‐20000

30‐36 490‐640 4000‐8000

1500‐12000

8000 8000‐14000

13000‐17000

b:d w:i

Mergus serrator LC Annex 2 NON SPEC 800‐1200

10‐20

1‐10 2000‐3000

14000‐18000

340‐410 300‐1000

50‐600 50 3000‐6000

10000‐15000

b:d w:d

Phalacrocorax carbo


1000 2000‐3000

36,000‐41,000

25,000‐26,000

16800‐16800

100‐300

50‐200 2 UNK 24000 105,000

b:i w:i

Podiceps auritus LC Annex 1 SPEC 3 200‐400

20‐50

1‐10 900‐1200

0‐2 2‐2 0‐10 0‐5 UNK UNK UNK 1000 b:d w:s

Podiceps cristatus LC ‐ NON SPEC 2000‐3000

5000‐8000

15000‐20000

15000‐25000

3500‐4500

16000‐26000

30‐300

0‐1000 2100 UNK UNK 8500 b:d w:i

Polysticta stelleri VU Annex 1 SPEC 3W ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1500‐2500

0‐10 250 5‐20 ‐ w:f

Somateria mollissima

LC Annex 2 NON SPEC_E

3000‐7000

‐ ‐ 270000‐360000

25000‐25000

1400‐1500

20‐100

0‐20 UNK 70000‐30000

320000‐370000

b:i w:d

Uria aalge LC ‐ NON SPEC ‐ ‐ ‐ 11000‐12000

2500‐2500

2600‐2600

0‐25 0‐10 0‐50 100000‐110000

170000‐300000

1500 b:i w:unk

Sources: ICES, 2008a; BirdLife International, 2004; Elts, Janus pers comm. (Estonia); Stīpniece, Antra pers. comm. (Latvia); Lietuvos ornitologų draugijos, 2006 (Lithuania); Bellebaum, 2009; Garthe, 2003; Bellebaum et al., 2006; Pedersen et al., 2009; Mendel et al.; 2008 (Germany‐wintering); Durinck et al., 1994; Petersen et al., 2010 (Denmark)) Notes: Species on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive are highlighted in blue. UNK: unknown Status in Europe (from BirdLife International 2004): b‐breeding; w‐wintering; d‐decline; f‐fluctuating; i‐increase; s‐stable; unk‐unknown All species population information is for the whole countries, not just the Baltic Sea unless indicated otherwise (see note *** below)

*IUCN Status: CE‐ Critically Endangered; LC – Least Concern; NT‐Near Threatened **SPEC Status: SPEC 1 – Global conservation concern; SPEC 2 – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status; SPEC 3 – Global population not concentrated in Europe, but unfavourable conservation status in Europe; Non‐Spec_E – Global population concentrated in Europe, where it faces favourable conservation status; Non‐Spec_ ‐ Global population not concentrated in Europe; favourable conservation status in Europe. ***German breeding population data is for the all areas – including inland and North Sea and wintering population data is for the Baltic Sea only


263

8.5 Dutch Territorial Waters 8.5.1 North Sea The Dutch North Sea EEZ is particularly important for breeding seabirds as well providing key foraging areas in the winter, especially the Frisian Front, an area north of the Wadden Islands and the Northern Coastal Zone designated as an SPA under the EU Birds Directive. It is an offshore site (approximately 80 km from the coast) forming a transition zone between the shallow southern and deep central North Sea, and as such has elevated biological production making it an important foraging site for birds. Of particular relevance for this study is its importance for

wintering common guillemots. After the breeding season, common guillemot males swim with their young from their breeding colonies in the northern North Sea (e.g. Scotland) to foraging areas such as the Frisian Front (Jak et al., 2009).

The Netherlands has nominated five Natura 2000 sites as components of the OSPAR Network of MPAs, together covering approximately 8 400 km² in the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). Three of these sites are situated in the Dutch territorial waters (Figure 68), namely the Noordzeekustzone (Northern Coastal Zone) (ca. 1400 km²), the Voordelta (ca. 900 km²), and the Vlakte van de Raan (226 km²). Two sites have been designated in the Dutch Exclusive Economic Zone, namely the Doggerbank (4718 km²), and the Klaverbank (1 238 km²). All these areas have been designated according to Dutch legislation of the Nature Conservation Act and the Flora and Fauna Act in 2010 and have a number of bird species as qualifying features. The management plan for the Voordelta has been finalised and is currently being implemented (see Current Mitigation Measures). Management plans for the other MPAs are being developed across the period 2010‐2013 (von Nordheim et al., 2010).

Figure 68: Dutch marine Natura 2000 designated areas a) Northern coastal zone ‘Noordzeekustzone’ (light green) and Wadden Sea (dark green) and b) Voordelta Source: Rijksoverheid Dutch Government, 2011

The Northern Coastal Zone provides important sources of food to a number of bird species. In this area clams Spisula and razor clams Ensis directus are the main food source for the foraging Common scoter and eider duck. In winter, these food supplies attract up to 10,000 Common scoter (10% of the Northwest European population) and ‐ in years of food shortages in the Wadden Sea – up to 50,000 eider ducks. Both types find their food at the bottom and are thus limited to the shallow coastal zone of the North Sea (to about 20 metres depth).

The most important concentration areas (for the larger part already protected under the Birds Directive) for the Common scoter and eider duck are situated north off the Wadden Islands and off the Noord‐Holland coast north of Egmond aan Zee. However, concentrations of common scoters are also frequently found in the Voordelta (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

During the breeding season (spring and summer) large numbers of piscivorous birds forage in the entire Northern Coastal Zone, namely gulls and terns including little gull, herring gull, great tern, arctic tern, little tern and common tern. During the migratory season (autumn and spring) very large numbers of sea birds temporarily stay in the area and can forage there on route to breeding grounds. As a consequence over 1% of the entire population of little gulls


264

may stay off the Dutch Coast at certain times and considerable numbers of Arctic skuas and great skuas migrate through this zone (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

The Northern Coastal Zone Natura 2000 site is also important to red‐throated divers with up to several thousands of individuals found in this area during winter and spring. The total population of red‐throated diver is estimated at 110,000, nearly half of which winters along the eastern North Sea coast, the others migrating to the Baltic and Black Sea. Red‐throated divers, black‐throated divers and sandwich and Arctic terns occur in the offshore zone of the Dutch EEZ, almost exclusively in spring (April) and particularly in a zone of 25 km width immediately bordering the Northern Coastal Zone (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

The Northern Coastal Zone is also thought to act as a refuge area for large numbers of grebes and other water birds during severe winters. The cormorant, which is found to be breeding along the coast in increasing numbers, also feeds in the North Sea Northern Coastal Zone.

Lindeboom et al (2005) mapped bird values to represent the sum of occurrence and importance for all species together in the Dutch EEZ (Figure 69). This shows the Northern Coastal Zone to be the most important continuous bird area within the Dutch EEZ. Clusters of relatively high bird values are also seen at the Frisian Front and in the area of the Cleaverbank / Botney Cut, but not to values for individual species that would qualify for protection under the Birds Directive. Winter (Feb/Mar) and autumn (Oct/Nov) maps were also produced (Figure 70). In winter the southern half of the Dutch EEZ is shown to be more important to birds, with minimal presence in the northern Dutch EEZ. In autumn the Frisian Front and the Cleaverbank become relatively more important and Lindeboom et al (2005) hypothesis that this is perhaps due to discards from fisheries operating in these areas.

Figure 69: Annual mean bird values in the Dutch EEZ Source: Lindeboom et al., 2005; based on data from 1991‐2002


265

Figure 70: Calculated bird values for the months February‐March (left) and October‐November (right) Source: Lindeboom et al., 2005; based on data from 1991‐2002

Annual population data for colonies of gulls and the great cormorant exist for the Netherlands since ca. 1900. Over the same period decadal count data are available for terns. The data available on seabird breeding population sizes are presented in Table 85.

8.5.2 The Dutch Wadden Sea The Wadden Sea is the largest unbroken system of intertidal sand and mud flats in the world. It is considered one of the most important areas for migratory birds in the world, and is connected to a network of other key sites for migratory birds. Its importance is not only in the context of the East Atlantic Flyway but also in the critical role it plays in the conservation of African‐Eurasian migratory waterbirds. In the Wadden Sea up to 6.1 million birds can be present at the same time, and an average of 10‐12 million pass through it each year

The area is therefore of outstanding international importance as a breeding, staging, moulting and wintering area for birds. For 43 bird species the Wadden Sea supports more than one percent of the entire East Atlantic flyway population, which is the criterion used by the Ramsar Convention for identifying wetlands of international importance. Of these species, four visit for the breeding season, 24 are breeding as well as migratory species and 15 use the Wadden Sea only during their seasonal migrations. 29 species of migratory birds occur with more than 10% of their flyway population in the Wadden Sea. For five species, at least 25% of north‐western European populations breed in the Wadden Sea. For 21 out of 31 species, the population accounts for more than 1% of the NW‐European population (UNEP, 2009).

The Wadden Sea is important to common eiders for breeding and moulting and is a key area for wintering. The common eiders within the Wadden Sea are part of the Baltic Sea, Wadden Sea biogeographic population which is estimated at 760,000 individuals (Mendel et al., 2008). In winter 1999/2000 common eiders experienced a mass mortality with 21,000 birds starving to death in the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea (Mendel et al., 2008). One possible reason for this mass mortality and general decline in breeding numbers was a decrease in food resources, thought to have been caused by the intensive mussel fishery (Mendel et al., 2008).


266

Table 85: Breeding population sizes of seabird (no. of pairs) in the Southern Bight and Eastern North Sea (Dunnet et al., 1990), South and Eastern North Sea (JNCC, 1995) and ICES area IVc (ICES, 2004).

SOURCE Dunnet et al. 1990 JNCC, 1995 ICES, 2004

AREA Southern Bight (3)

Eastern North Sea

(4)

South & Eastern North Sea (6)

ICES area IVc

YEAR 1987 1987 1994 1997 2002 +/‐ %

SPECIES Breeding population size (no. of pairs)

Great cormorant 18 0 18,900 17,409 22,000 5 %

Mediterranean gull 110 376 230 ‐9 %

Little gull 2 3 2 0 %

Black‐headed gull 19,272 53,781 374,000 140,000 135,500 ‐1 %

Mew gull 6,200 6,000 0 %

Lesser black‐backed gull 3,255 15,791 37,200 57,200 90,000 9 %

Herring gull 24,512 96,293 217,000 67,000 76,500 3 %

Yellow‐legged gull 5 15 25 %

Great black‐backed gull 0 1 6600 8 20 20 %

Sandwich tern 7,644 14,687 27,600 11,913 17,300 8 %

Common tern 4,378 14,407 23,200 18,000 17,700 ‐1 %

Arctic tern 83 4,712 11,400 17,063 15,500 ‐2 %

Little tern 1,070 912 1,900 515 450 ‐3 %

Eider 39,600

Arctic skua 0 0 50

Common gull 7,790 6,452 58,700

Kittiwake 2,571 3,310 400

Roseate tern 1

Black tern 1,600

Guillemot 0 4,900 4,010

Razorbill 0 16 290

Black guillemot 0 0 1,300

Sources: Dunnet et al., 1990; JNCC, 1995; ICES, 2004

Koffijberg et al., 2009 provide an overview of the status of breeding birds in the Wadden Sea, summarised in Table 86 and Figure 71. They found that between 1991 and 2006 nearly half of the monitored species (13) have declined in breeding population size. Eight species have increased and seven species have remained stable. Figure 71 indicates that the strongest declines have been observed in waders.

However, management and conservation measures recommended by Koffijberg et al. (2009) are focused on prevention of disturbance from outdoor recreation, improved marshland management, prevention of increased predation risk, ensure conservation objectives of EU Birds and Habitats Directives are reflected in targets, data collection in dune areas and data collection in monitoring changes in shellfish fisheries.


267

In relation to commercial fisheries the competition for or availability of food resources (mussels, cockles etc) therefore appears to be of more concern than incidental capture by gillnetters in this area, likely due to the management already in place for these fisheries (see Current Mitigation Measures).

Table 86: Summary of trends of breeding birds in the Wadden Sea in 1991‐2006 Species DK SH NI NL Wadden Sea

1991‐2006 Wadden Sea 2001‐2006

Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo + ++ ++ INC

Eurasian spoonbill Platalea leucorodia ++ ++ ++ INC

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna + + ‐ ‐ + INC

Common eider Somateria mollissima + ‐ + ‐ ‐ DEC

Red‐breasted merganser Mergus serrator ++ DEC

Hen harrier Circus cyaneus + ‐ ‐ DEC

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ STA

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta F + ‐ ‐ ‐ STA

Great ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus + ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ DEC

Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus F ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Dunlin Calidris alpina schinzii ‐ DEC

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ‐‐ DEC

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago ‐ DEC

Black‐tailed godwit Limosa limosa ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata F ‐ ‐ DEC

Common redshank Tringa totanus + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Turnstone Arenaria interpres Too rare to allow trend classification

Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus + ++ INC

Little gull Larus minutus Too rare to allow trend classification

Black‐headed gull Larus ridibundus F ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Common gull Larus canus + + ++ ‐ ++ STA

Lesser black‐backed gull Larus fuscus ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ STA

Herring gull Larus argentatus + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Great black‐backed gull Larus marinus F ++ + DEC

Gull‐billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica ‐ + ‐ F DEC

Sandwich tern Sterna sandvichensis F ‐ F + ‐ INC

Common tern Sterna hirundo ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DEC

Little tern Sterna albifrons + ‐ ‐ + ‐ DEC

Source: Koffijbert et al., 2009. Notes: Denmark: DK, Schleswig‐Holstein: SH, Niedersachsen: NI and Netherlands: NL. Trend classification of significant trends is expressed as moderate increase (+), strong increase (++), stable (=), moderate decline (‐) or strong decline (‐‐). Non‐significant trends are indicated by F (‘fluctuating’). For 2001‐2006 trends have been classified as increasing (INC) or declining (DEC= when difference in indices between 2001 and 2006 were >10%; changes of <10% have been classified as stable (STA) ‐ this classification provides an indication on recent developments.


268

Figure 71: Trends in breeding birds 1991‐2006, expressed as the rate of annual population change (in %). Non‐significant changes are marked light‐blue Source: Koffijberg et al., 2009.

8.5.3 IJsselmeer and Markermeer Lakes Previously the Zuiderzee, a saltwater inlet of the North Sea, Lakes IJsselmeer and Markermeer were dammed off by the Afsluitdijk (Closure Dike) in 1932 to become shallow freshwater lakes.

Very large concentrations of greater scaup winter in the Ijsselmeer/Markermeer area where they feed at night on zebra mussels. Population numbers of key species that have triggered the classifications of Important Bird Areas are presented in


269

Table 87. In these freshwater environments the greater scaup is often associated with pochard and tufted duck. A number of studies have estimated bird bycatch rates in gillnets in these areas (see Seabird Fisheries Interactions, section 5.6.2) and for this reason a Code of Conduct is in place to manage the interaction (see Current Mitigation Measures, section 5.6.3).


270

Table 87: Populations of Important Bird Area trigger species in Lake IJsselmeer Species Season Period Population

estimate Quality of estimate

Gadwall Anas strepera non‐breeding 1991 480 good

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope winter 1991 14,040 good

Common Pochard Aythya ferina non‐breeding 1991 6,038 good

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula non‐breeding 1990 28,842 good

Greater Scaup Aythya marila winter 1991 134,121 good

Smew Mergellus albellus winter 1990 361 good

Common Merganser Mergus merganser winter 1991 5,524 good

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus non‐breeding 1990 8,669 good

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo non‐breeding 1990 10,438 good

Common Coot Fulica atra non‐breeding 1991 15,378 good

Black Tern Chlidonias niger passage 1991 90,367 medium

Source: Birdlife International, 2011b.

8.6 References

Abello, P., Arcos, J.M., Gil de Sola, L. (2003) Geographical pattersn of seabird attendance to a research trawler along the Iberian Mediterranean coast. Scienta Marina 67: 69‐75.

Álvarez, D. and A. Velando (2007) El cormorán moñudo en España. Población en 2006‐2007 y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Arcos, J.M. (2005) Distribución de aves marinas en la costa mediterránea ibérica durante la época otoñal/invernal: resultados preliminares de las campañas ECOMED 2003 y Ecomed 2004. University of Glasgow‐IMEDEA(CSIC/UIB). Informe inédito para el IEO.

Arcos, J.M. (compiler) (2011) International species action plan for the Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus. SEO/BirdLife & BirdLife International.

Arcos, J.M. and Oro, D. (1996) Changes in foraging of Audouin’s gulls Larus audouinii in relation to a trawler moratorium in the western Mediterranean. Colonial Waterbirds 19: 128‐131.

Arcos, J.M. and Oro, D. (2002) Significance of fisheries discards for a threatened Mediterranean seabird, the balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 239:209‐220.

Arcos, J.M., Bécares, J., Rodríguez, A., Ruiz, A. (2009) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves marinas en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049‐Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife). Madrid

Baccetti, N., Capizzi, D., Corbi, F., Massa, B., Nissardi, S., Spano, G., Sposimo, P. (2009) Breeding shearwater on Italian islands: population size, island selection and coexistence with their main alien predator. Riv. Ital. Orn. 78, 83–99

Barrett, R.T., Chapdelaine, G., Anker‐Nilssen, T., Mosbech, A., Montevecchi, W.A., Reid, J.B., Veit, R.R. (2006) Seabird numbers and prey consumption in the North Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 1145‐1158.

Bartumeus, F., Giuggioli, L, Louzao, M., Bretagnolle, V., Oro, D. and Levin, S. (2010) Fishery discards impact on seabird movement patterns at regional scales. Current Biology, 20: 215‐222.

Bellebaum, J. (2009) Bycatch of seabirds in gillnet and longline fisheries in the German Baltic Sea. Commissioned by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)

Bellebaum J., Garthe S., Kube J., Nehls H. W., Schulz A., Skov H. (2006) Wasservögel im Küstenmeer Mecklenburg‐Vorpommerns: ein Überblick zu Bestandssituation, Gefährdungen und Abgrenzungen neuer Vogelschutzgebiete. Berichte zum Vogelschutz 43: 31‐47

Bertolero, A., Genovart, M., Martínez‐Abraín, A., Molina, B., Mouriño, J., Oro, D. i Tavecchia, G. (2009) Gaviota cabecinegra, picofina, de Audouin, tridáctila y gavión atlántico en España. Población en 2007 y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.


271

BirdLife International (2002) Species Action Plan for the Mediterranean Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Standing Committee Document T‐PVS/Inf (2002) 21

BirdLife International (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. BirdLife Conservation Series No.12.

BirdLife International (2010a) The BirdLife seabird foraging range database. Internal analysis

BirdLife International (2010b) Marine IBAs in the European Union. BirdLife International, Brussels, Belgium. Version 1.1: June 2010.

BirdLife International (2011a) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 18/02/2011.

BirdLife International (2011b) Important Bird Areas factsheets. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 10 January 2011.

BirdLife International (2011c) BirdLife Seabird Wikispaces. Downloaded from http://seabird.wikispaces.com/ on 16 January 2011.

BirdLife Malta (2010a) The Cory’s Shearwater. The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project website. Downlaoded from: http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/en/species/corysshearwater.aspx on 6 Nov 2010

BirdLife Malta (2010b) Gulls and others. The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project website. Downloaded from: http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/en/species/corysshearwater.aspx on 6 Nov 2010

BirdWatch Ireland (2010) ‘FAME’ for our seabirds. Wings 57 (summer 2010): 12

Borg, J.J., Raine, H., Raine, A.F., Barbara, N. (2010) Protecting Malta’s wind chaser: The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project Report. Matala; EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project.

Borg, J.J., Sultana, J. (2002) Status and distribution of the Breeding Procellariiformes in Malta. il‐Merill 30: 10‐15.

Bourgeois, K. and E. Vidal (2008) The endemic Mediterranean yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan: distribution, threats and a plea for more data. Oryx, 42(2): 187‐194.

Bundesant fur Naturfscutz (BfN) (2010) Natura 2000 areas and the habitat types and species. Downloaded from: http://www.bfn.de/0316_natura2000.html on 15/12/2010.

Cama, A., Josa, P., Ferrer‐Obiol, J. i Arcos, J.M. (2011) Mediterranean Gulls Larus melanocephalus wintering along the Mediterranean Iberian coast: numbers and activity rhythms in the species' main winter quarters. Journal of Ornithology

Carboneras, C. (2009) Guidelines for reducing bycatch of seabirds in the Mediterranean region. Contract RAC/SPA, N.42_2008: 54pp. RAC/SPA, Tunis.

Carboneras, C. and Requena, S. (2010) GIS mapping of seabird distribution – a pan‐Mediterreanean perspective. Proceedings of the CIESM 38 Congress, 10‐14 May 2010, Venice, Italy.

Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Ben Rais Lasram, F. et al. (2010) The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates, patterns and threats. PLoS One, available: http://www.plosone.org/article/ info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011842#pone.0011842.s002

Dagys, M. and Žydelis, R. (2002) Bird bycatch in Fishing Nets in Lithuanian Coastal Waters in Wintering Season 2001‐2002. Acta Zoologica Lithuanica 12(3): 276‐282

Dagys, M., Stīpniece, A., Kalamees, A., Kuresoo, A., Kuus, A., Luigujõe, L. (2009b) Action A1 ‐ Waterbird Inventory. Final Report. LIFE Nature project ‘Marine Protected Ares in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ (LIFE 05 NAT/LV/000100).

DeGange, A.R., Day, R.H., Takekawa, J.E., Mendenhall, V.M. (1993) Losses of seabirds in gill nets in the North Pacific. in Vermeer, K., Briggs, K.T., Morgan, K.H., Siegel‐Causey, D. (eds) The status, ecology and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific. Special Publication. Canadian Wildlife Service, Victoria, Canada.


272

Dunn, T.E., Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S., Radcliffe, N. (2004) Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland. 511pp.

Dunnet, G.M., Furness, R.W., Tasker, M.L. and Becker, P.H., 1990. Seabird ecology in the North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research. Volume 26 (2‐4):387‐425

Durinck, J., Skov, H., Jensen, F.P. & Pihl, S. (1994). Important marine areas for wintering birds in the Baltic Sea. EU DG XI research contract no. 2242/90‐09‐01. Ornis Consult report, 110 pp.

European Commission (EC) (2007) European Union Management Plan for Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca 2007‐2009. 47pp.

European Commission (EC) (2009b) European Union management plan for scaup Aythya marila 2009‐2011, 42 pp.

EU Birds Directive (2009) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, 19 pp.

Finlayson, J.C. and J.E. Cortes (1984) The migration of Gannets Sula bassana past Gibraltar in the spring. Seabird Group, no 7: 19‐22.

Fric, J. (2010) Review of current seabird survey and conservation in Greece. Presentation for the Workshop for the study and conservation of seabirds, Feb 2010, Istanbul. Downloaded from http://files.ornithologiki.gr/images/seabirds/Publications/10_Review%20of%20seabird%20conservation%20in%20Greece_Jakob%20Fric_HOS.pdf

Garcia Barcelona, S., Ortiz de Urbina, J.M., de la Serna, J.M., Alot, E. and Macías, D. (2010a) Seabird bycatch in Spanish Mediterranean large pelagic longline fisheries, 2000‐2008. Aquatic Living Resources DOI: 10.1051/alr/2010022

Garthe, S. (2003) Distribution patterns and numbers of seabirds in the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of North Sea and Baltic Sea and proposals for EU Special Protection Areas. Ber. Vogelschutz 40: 15‐56.

Gaston, A.J., Jones, I.L. (1998) The Auks. Alcidae. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Genovart, M., Oro, D., Juste, J., Bertorelle, G. (2007) What genetics tell us about the conservation of the critically endangered Balearic Shearwater? Biological Conservation 137:283‐293

Government of Estonia (2006) Matsalu rahvuspargi kaitse‐eeskirja ja välispiiri kirjelduse kinnitamine (RT I 1997, 36, 546 – entered into force 01.01.2006)

Government of Estonia (2009) Vilsandi rahvuspargi kaitse‐eeskirja ning välispiiri kirjelduse kinnitamine (RT I 1996, 37, 745 – entered into force 01.02.2009)

Gražulevičius G. and Elertas D. (2002) Didysis kormoranas Kuršių nerijoje. Žaliasis pasaulis 40 (410)

Grémillet, D. (1997) Catch per unit effort, foraging efficiency, and parental investment in breeding Great Cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo carbo). ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 635‐644.

Grémillet, D., Wilson, R.P., Gary, Y., Storch, S. (1999) Three‐dimensional space utilization by a marine predator. Marine Ecology Progress Series 183: 263‐273.

Handrinos, K. and Kastritis, T. (2009) Birds, in: Legakis, A. & Maragou, P. (eds). The Red Data Book of Threatened Animals of Greece. Hellenic Zoological Society, Athens

Hedgren, S. and Kolehmainen, T. (2006) Breeding birds on Stora Karlsö 2005 ‐ and comparison with censues during 1984‐85 and 1998. In Swedish: Häckande fåglar på Stora Karlsö 2005 ‐ samt jämförelser med inventeringar gjorda 1984‐85 och 1998. Länsstyrelsen på Gotland. Visby.

Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) (2011a) Audouin's Gull & Mediterranean Shag. Life Project for the Seabirds of Greece. Downloaded from http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page_cn.php?tID=2577&aID=1049 on 08/02/2011

Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) (2011b) Control of populations of seabird predators. Life Project for the Seabirds of Greece. Downloaded from http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page_cn.php?tID=2928 on 08/02/2011


273

Herrmann, C., Bregnballe, T., Larsson, K., Ojaste, I., Lilleleht, V. (2010) Population Development of Baltic Bird Species: Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis). HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets 2009. Online. [14/02/2011], http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/en_GB/cover/

Herrando, S.; S. Guallar; R. Gutiérrez; P. Arcos; J. Bécares; M. Anton (in press) Atles desl ocells de Catalunya a l’hivern 2006‐2009. Barcelona: Institut Català d’Ornitologia

ICES (2002) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), ICES Headquarters, 8‐11 March 2002. ICES CM 2002/C:04

ICES (2004) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 29 March – 2 April 2004, Aberdeen, UK. ICES CM 2004/C:05

ICES (2008a) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 10‐14 March 2008, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2008/LRC:05.

ICES (2008b) Advisory Committee (ACOM) 5 Celtic Sea and West of Scotland. Downloaded from http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp on 14 December 2010.

ICES (2009) Report of the EMPAS (Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas) project, 2006‐2008, an ICES‐BfN project. 123 pp

Igual,J.M., Tavecchia, G., Jenouvrier, S., Forero, M.G., Oro, D. (2009) Buying Years to Extinction: Is Compenstaory Mitigation for Marine Bycatch a Sufficient Conservation Measure for Long‐Lived Seabirds? PLoS One 4(3): e4826. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004826

Jak, R.G., Bos, O.G., Witbaard, R., Lindeboom, H.J. (2009) Conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) in the Dutch sector of the North Sea. IMARES Wageningen UR, Report No. C065/09

JNCC (1995) European seabirds at sea database: seabird and cetacean UKDMAP datasets version 2.1. JNCC, Peterborough.

Kear, J. (2005) Ducks, geese and swans. Oxford University Press

Koffijberg, K., Dijksen, L., Halterlein,B., Laursen,K., Potel, P., Schrader, S. (2009) Breeding Birds. Thematic Report No. 18. In: Marencic, H. & Vlas, J. de (Eds), 2009. Quality Status Report 2009. WaddenSea Ecosystem No. 26. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Group, Wilhelmshaven, Germany

Kubetzki et al (2009) Individual migratory schedules and wintering areas of northern gannets. Marine Ecology Progress Series 391: 257‐265.

Lietuvos ornitologų draugijos (2006) Lietuvos perinčių paukščių atlasas. Lutute

Lindeboom, H., van Kessel,J.G., Berkenbosch, L. (2005) Areas with special ecological values on the Dutch Continental Shelf

Louzao, M., Igual, J.M., McMinn, M., Aguilar, J.S., Triay, R., Oro, D. (2006a) Small pelagic fish, trawling discards and breeding performance of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater: improving conservation diagnosis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318: 247‐254.

Louzao, M., Hyrenbach, K.D., Arcos, J.M., Abello, P., Gil de Sola, L., Oro, D. (2006b) Oceanographic habitat of a critically endangered Mediterranean Procellariiform: implications for the design of Marine Protected Areas. Ecological Applications 16 (5): 1683‐1695.

Louzao, M., Bécares, J., Rodríguez, B., Hyenbach, K.D., Ruiz, A., Arcos, J.M. (2009) Combining vessel‐based surveys and tracking data to identify key marine areas for seabirds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 391: 183‐197.

LPO PACA (2008) Conservation of shearwaters on the Hyeres islands. Layman’s report. LIFE03 NAT/F/000105

Madroño, A., González, C., Atienza, J.C., eds. (2004) Libro Rojo de las Aves de España. Madrid: Dirección General para la Biodiversidad – SEO/BirdLife


274

Mendel, B., Sonntag, N.,Wahl, J., Schwemmer, P., Dries, H., Guse, N., Műller, S., Garthe, S. (2008) Profiles of seabirds and waterbirds of the German North and Baltic Seas. Distribution, ecology and sensitivities to human activities within the marine environment. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Hefte 61. 427 pp

Molina, B. & Bermejo, A. (2009) La gaviota patiamarilla. In: Molina, B. (Ed.) Gaviotas reidora, sombría y patiamarilla en España. Población en 2007‐2009 y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife, Madrid.

Nettleship, D.N. and Birkhead, T.R. (1985) The Atlantic Alcidae. Academic Press, 547 pp.

Nilsson, L. (2009) International waterfowl and goose counts in Sweden. Annual report 2008/09. Department of Ecology, Lund University, 69 pp.

Olsson, O., Fransson, T., Larsson, K. (1999) Post‐fledging migration of common murrre Uria aalge in the Baltic Sea: management implications. Ecography 22: 233‐239.

Oro, D., J.S. Aguilar, J.M. Igual and M. Louzao (2004) Modelling demography and extinction risk in the endangered Balearic shearwater. Biological Conservation, 116: 93‐102.

OSPAR (2009) Background document for Black‐legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla tridactyla. 28pp.

Pedersen, S.A., Fock, H., Krause, J., Pusch, C., Sell, A.L., Böttcher, U., Rogers, S.I., Sköld, M., Skov, H., Podolska, M., Piet, G.J., Rice, J.C. (2009) Natura 2000 sites and fisheries in German offshore waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 155–169

Petersen, I.K., Fox, A.D., Clausager, I. (2003) Distribution and numbers of birds in Kattegat in relation to the proposed offshore wind farm south of Læsø ‐ Ornithological impact assessment. Commissioned by Elsam Engineering A/S, National Environmental Research Institute

Petersen, I.K., Nielsen, R.D., Pihl, S., Clausen, P., Therkildsen, O., Christensen, T.K., Kahlert, J. & Hounisen, J.P. (2010) National count of waterbirds in Denmark, winter 2007/2008. In Danish: Landsdækkende optælling af vandfugle i Danmark, vinteren 2007/2008. National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus, 78 pp.

Raine H., Borg J.J., Raine A. (2008) Marine Special Protection Areas: A report outlining national mechanisms being used to develop the marine IBA/SPA programmes across Europe with recommendations for Malta. BirdLife Malta & Heritage Malta, Malta.

Randi, E., Spina, F., and Massa, B. (1989) Genetic variability in Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea). The Auk 106(3): 411‐417

Rodríguez‐Molina, A. & McMinn‐Grivé, M. (2005) Population and distribution of the breeding colonies of Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus Lowe 1921. Poster presentation, 2nd International Manx Shearwater workshop, Belfast, UK

Roycroft, D., Cronin, M., Mackey, M., Ingram, S.N., O’Cadhla, O. (2007) Risk Assessment for Marine Mammal and Seabird Populations in South‐western Irish Waters (R.A.M.S.S.I.). Coastal and Marine Research Centre, University College Cork. 205pp.

Ruiz, A. and Marti, R. (2004) La Pardela Balear. SEO/BirdLife‐Conselleria de Medi Ambient del Govern de les Illes Balears. Madrid, Spain.

Scourse, J., Uehara, K., Wainwright (2009) Celtic Sea linear tidal sand ridges, the Irish Sea Ice Stream and the Fleuve Manche: Palaeotidal modeling of a transitional passive margin depositional system. Marine Geology 259: 102‐111.

Skov, H., Heinanen, S. Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Bzoma, S., Dagys, M., Durinck, J., Garthe, S., Grishanov, G., Hario, M., Kieckbusch, J.J, Kube, J., Kuresoo, A., Larsson, K., Luigujoe, L., Meissner, W., Nehls, H.W., Nilsson, L., Petersen, I.K., Mikkola Roos, M., Pihl, S., Sonntag, N., Stock, A. And Stipniece, A. (2010) Water‐bird populations and pressures in the Baltic Sea.

Stone, C.J., Webb, A., Barton, C., Ratcliffe, N., Reed, T.C., Tasker, M.L., Camphuysen, C.J., Pienkowski, M.W. (1995) An atlas of seabird distribution in north‐west European waters, 326 pages


275

Tamre, R. (2010) Maps of Natura 2000 areas. Downloaded from http://www.visitbalticsea.net/protected_areas.html on 5 January 2011.

Uhlmann, S. (2003) Fisheires bycatch mortalities of sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) and short‐tailed shearwaters (P. tenuirostris). DOC Science Internal Series 92. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

United National Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) The Wadden Sea Germany and the Netherlands. Downloaded from http://www.unep‐wcmc.org/sites/wh/pdf/Wadden_Sea.pdf on 25/01/2011.

UNEP‐WCMC (2005) World Heritage Sites: St Kilda, Scotland, United Kingdom. Downloaded from http://www.unep‐wcmc.org/sites/wh/pdf/ST.KILDA%20.pdf on 20/03/2011

von Nordheim, H., T. Packeiser, Hauswirth, M. (2010) OSPAR Commission. 2009/10 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas

Wetlands International Cormorant Research Group (2008) Cormorants in the western Palearctic. Distribution and numbers on a wider European scale. Downloaded from http://www.intercafeproject.net/pdf/Cormorant_folder.pdf on 20 January 2011.

Wynn, R.B., Josey, S.A., Martin, A.P., Johns, D.G., Yesou, P. (2007) Climate‐driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters. Biology Letters 3: 529‐532.

Yésou, P. (2003) Recent changes in the summer distribution of the Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauritanicus off Western France. Scienta marina 67 (Supp 2): 143‐148.

Zotier, R., Bretagnolle, V., Thibault, J‐C (1999) Biogeography of the Marine Birds of a Confined Sea, the Mediterranean. Journal of Biogeography, 26(2): 297‐313.

Žydelis, R., Dagys, M., Vaitkus, G. (2006) Beached bird surveys in Lithuania reflect marine oil pollution and bird mortality in fishing nets. Marine Ornithology 34: 161‐166.

Žydelis, R., J. Bellebaum, H. Österblom, M. Vetemaa, B. Schirmeister, A. Stipniece, M. Dagys, M. van Eerden, S. Garthe (2009) Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation 142: 1269‐1281.

Annex 7: Code of Conduct for Ijsselmer and Markermeer Lakes

277

ANNEX 6: CODE OF CONDUCT FOR IJSSELMEER AND MARKERMEER LAKES

GEDRAGSCODE NETTENVISSERIJ/VOGELS

Inmiddels is er een gedragscode nettenvisserij en vogels opgesteld.

'Vogelbescherming Nederland ziet het in gebruik nemen van een gedragscode als een zeer nuttig en doeltreffend instrument om bij te dragen aan een ecologisch verantwoorde nettenvisserij in het

IJsselmeergebied.'

Integrale gedragscode nettenvisserij en natuur: goede praktijken voor een duurzame en verantwoorde nettenvisserij op het IJsselmeer en het Markermeer.

Inleiding.

De PO Nederlandse Vissersbond IJsselmeer heeft in het kader van het visserijbeleid en haar mededeling betreffende het tijdschema voor de tenuitvoerlegging van het convenant nettenvisserij en vogels een gedragscode opgesteld.

Een gedragscode geeft duidelijkheid voor de toekomst; van tevoren is vastgelegd wat wel en wat niet kan.

Deze gedragscode heeft een verantwoorde beoefening van de visserij in zich middels de actieve participatie van de IJsselmeervissers en andere belanghebbende partijen. De beroepsvissers hebben zich ertoe verbonden actief deel te nemen aan de opstelling van deze gedragscode van de PO Nederlandse Vissersbond IJsselmeer (hierna PO‐IJsselmeer).

Deze gedragscode beschrijft hoe vissers in hun werk de schade aan natuur, waaronder de vogels, voorkomen of tot een absoluut minimum weten te beperken. De gedragscode geeft aan hoe de leden van de PO‐IJsselmeer zorgvuldig handelen. Het zorgvuldig handelen gaat verder dan een algemene zorgplicht (houdt een algemeen beschaafd en fatsoenlijk handelen in). Bij zorgvuldig handelen moeten de vissers actief optreden om alle mogelijke schade aan de natuur te voorkomen.

De code is goedgekeurd middels een consultatieronde in het voorjaar 2006. De gedragscode is onderdeel van het visplan van de PO‐IJsselmeer.

De gedragscode is voldoende concreet. De gedragscode waarborgt dat schade aan de natuur (i.c. vogels) door visserijwerkzaamheden zoveel mogelijk wordt voorkomen.

Uit het voorgaande volgt dat nogal wat kennis van natuur en vogels nodig is om te kunnen bepalen of sprake is van ‘wezenlijke invloed’ en welke voorzorgmaatregelen getroffen moeten worden. Hoewel het niet verplicht is overweegt de PO‐IJsselmeer bij moeilijkheden omtrent de gedragscode deskundig ecologisch advies in te winnen. Conclusies en acties die daaruit voortvloeien zullen worden voorgelegd aan Vogelbescherming Nederland en andere belanghebbenden.

Uitgangspunten voor een gedragscode voor goede praktijken van een duurzame en verantwoorde visserij.

De visserij is van vitaal belang voor de lokale werkgelegenheid, de recreatie, de handel en de lokale economie rondom het IJsselmeer en het Markermeer.

De PO‐IJsselmeer verbindt zich er dan ook toe bij te dragen aan een verantwoorde en duurzame visserij. Deze gedragscode is een verzameling van waarden en normen die de visserijsector in staat moet stellen een gezond aquatisch ecosysteem te bevorderen en in stand te houden, en op een verantwoorde manier de visserij in het IJsselmeergebied uit te oefenen.


278

De gedragscode geldt voor alle leden vissers van de PO‐IJsselmeer voor zover zij de nettenvisserij beoefenen. Voortbouwende op het convenant met Vogelbescherming Nederland, dat ten behoeve van de visserij is gemaakt, is deze code gericht op de praktische visserijactiviteiten en in eerste instantie bedoeld voor de vissers zelf. De gedragscode is opgezet als aanvulling op (maar ook een invulling van) de bestaande internationale, Europese en nationale regelgeving en het beleid, teneinde bij te dragen tot een duurzame ontwikkeling van de visserijsector.

Het spreekt voor zich dat het voor de visserijsector van belang is de visserij bedrijven rendabel te kunnen houden. Hier dient rekening mee te worden gehouden, aangezien de uitvoering van deze gedragscode voor een deel op vrijwilligheid berust. Daarom is een goede samenwerking tussen de betrokken partijen noodzakelijk en dient de gedragscode internationaal ook te worden toegepast om concurrentieverstoring te voorkomen.

Anderzijds dient het vissersberoep te worden beschouwd als een van de mooiste beroepen ter wereld. Dientengevolge is het van wezenlijk belang te waarborgen dat de bemanningen voldoende zijn opgeleid en geschoold. De vaartuigen dienen goed te zijn onderhouden, volledig veilig te zijn en voorzien te zijn van voor de bemanning adequate apparatuur naar gelang van de reisduur en de visgrond.

Hoewel deze gedragscode bovenal op de vissers en hun bedrijven is gericht, is voor de verwezenlijking van een verantwoorde visserij de betrokkenheid van andere actoren vereist, zoals bijvoorbeeld Vogelbescherming Nederland, de sportvisserijsector, de recreatiesector, de IJsselmeervereniging, de overheden, de inspectiediensten en de wetenschappelijke wereld (Beheercommissie IJsselmeer i.o.).

De PO‐IJsselmeer die deze gedragscode vrijwillig naleeft, zal hun leden aanmoedigen deze correct toe te passen.

Het is eveneens noodzakelijk dat in het kader van andere activiteiten die van invloed zijn op het aquatische milieu de nodige maatregelen worden genomen om een negatieve uitwerking op het milieu te voorkomen.

Doelstellingen

Bijdragen aan de instandhouding van ecologisch gezonde visbestanden en tegelijk de continuïteit van visserijactiviteiten op het IJsselmeer en het Markermeer bevorderen.

Bijdragen aan het op een duurzame wijze scheppen van welvaart en werkgelegenheid in van de visserij ‘afhankelijke’ regio's (‘couleur locale’).

De bijdragen van de visserijsector aan de voedselveiligheid en de voorziening met hoogwaardige visserijproducten bevorderen.

Een cultuur van goede visserijpraktijken ontwikkelen en waarden en normen voor gedragspraktijken invoeren voor alle in de visserijsector werkzame personen, ongeacht waar ze vissen, handelen en/of vis verwerken.

De deelname en de samenwerking van belanghebbenden bij de uitvoering van het nationale visserijbeleid bevorderen.

Billijke, veilige en aangepaste voorwaarden en levensomstandigheden aan boord van de vaartuigen garanderen.

Richtsnoeren van de gedragscode

Ongeacht waar zij vissen, op het IJsselmeer of het Markermeer, zullen de leden van de PO‐IJsselmeer het volgende trachten na te streven.

Respect voor de visserijhulpbronnen en hun natuurlijke omgeving.

Geef, met het oog op de verantwoorde visserijpraktijken, voorkeur aan kwaliteit in plaats van kwantiteit.

Plan en beoefen de visserij zo, dat schadelijke interactie met natuur en milieu en de hulpbronnen wordt voorkomen.

Zorg ervoor dat, wanneer de mogelijkheid bestaat uit meerdere visserijmethoden te kiezen, de bepalingen voor verantwoord natuur‐ en milieugedrag meedoen (vermijden bijvangst vogels) om de selectiecriteria vast te stellen.

Annex 7: Code of Conduct for Ijsselmer and Markermeer Lakes

279

Bevorder de ontwikkeling van het bewustwordingsproces inzake milieubescherming. Stimuleer de bemanningsleden om deel te nemen aan opleidings‐ en trainingsprogramma's (kadertrainingen) die gericht zijn op verantwoorde visserij en praktijken voor een duurzame ontwikkeling. De PO‐IJsselmeer maakt een strategie om tot een gecertificeerde visserij te komen als einddoel van deze ontwikkeling van het bewustwordingsproces.

Tref de nodige maatregelen om de kans op het verlies van vistuig te minimaliseren. Indien mogelijk moet worden getracht verloren vistuig zo spoedig mogelijk te bergen. Indien onmiddellijke berging niet mogelijk is moet de verantwoordelijke schipper de positie van het verloren vistuig noteren, het aan de bevoegde autoriteiten melden en het in een later stadium trachten te bergen.

Stem, ter voorkoming van overlast (vogelbijvangst), het vistuig dat wordt uitgezet (hoeveelheid, een lengte enzovoort) af op de reële behoeften van de visserijsector, zeker in perioden en op plaatsen met een verhoogde kans op vogelbijvangst en zorg ervoor dat het correct is gemerkt met de identiteit van het vaartuig.

Zorg ervoor dat, in het kader van een billijke een verantwoorde samenwerking, het vistuig op zodanige wijze is uitgezet dat het andere vissers of mede gebruikers niet worden gehinderd en tref passende voorzorgsmaatregelen wanneer wordt gevist in gebieden met een druk scheepvaartverkeer (bijvoorbeeld door ervoor te zorgen dat het vaartuig en het vistuig goed zichtbaar zijn).

Verlaat vrijwillig de visgronden waar grote hoeveelheden vis voorkomen die gezien de aard, grote of conditie, toch niet aan boord kunnen worden gehouden, teneinde te voorkomen dat vis overboord moet worden gezet. Volg naar eigen inzicht, eventueel in overleg met de PO‐IJsselmeer, de aanbeveling om de maaswijdte van de netten te vergroten.

Verlaat vrijwillig de visgronden waar de kans bestaat dat vogels in ontoelaatbare hoeveelheden worden bijgevangen. Stimuleer de collega’s dit ook te doen en maak melding bij het secretariaat van de PO‐IJsselmeer.

Verbeter, wanneer nodig, de zichtbaarheid van het netwerk. Gebruik bij voorkeur om de 100 meter reflecterende strips (beschikbaar bij het secretariaat van de PO‐IJsselmeer) en vlaggen op de jonen om de vogels te weren en op afstand te houden van het netwerk. Dit geldt voor netten met een maaswijdte kleiner dan 160 mm. Voor netten met een maaswijdte van 160 mm en meer is het gebruik van dergelijke afschrikmiddelen niet nodig omdat hierin geen bijvangst van vogels plaatsvindt.

In samenwerking met de bevoegde autoriteiten, met name de havenautoriteiten en de visserijorganisatie, moeten installaties worden vervaardigd voor de tenuitvoerlegging van afvalinzamelprojecten.

Gebruik en onderhoud het vistuig overeenkomstig de kenmerken en het doel ervan, teneinde beter te voldoen aan de bepalingen inzake minimummaten bij aanvoer, zodat een voldoende groot aantal van het bestand de paairijpe leeftijd bereikt.

Gebruik, waar mogelijk, selectiever vistuig, waardoor de vangst van jonge vissen en ongewenste soorten wordt vermeden.

Beoefen de nettenvisserij niet in een strook van 25 meter vanaf de oever. Blijf verder vanaf de kant wanneer plaatselijk duidelijk blijkt dat hiermee de bijvangst van vogels in zijn geheel kan worden vermeden.

Een groot positief effect, op het vermijden van de bijvangst van vogels, is te verwachten bij verantwoordelijk gedrag van de vissers zelf. Gebruik dit verantwoordelijk gedrag en overleg in bijzondere situaties met de collega’s en het Dagelijks Bestuur van de PO‐IJsselmeer. Met een verantwoorde houding is veel winst te behalen en oogst u waardering van de maatschappij.

Maak optimaal gebruik van hulpbronnen (energie en water) aan boord. Gebruik brandstoffen van goede kwaliteit met laag zwavelgehalte. Zorg ook bij het gebruik van de scheepsmotoren dat de uitstoot van gevaarlijke stoffen wordt geminimaliseerd.

Controleer dat het vistuig overeenkomstig de eisen wordt vervaardigd en uitgezet.

Alle informatie over risico’s en ervaringen inzake de naleving van deze gedragscode moet worden bijgewerkt en nieuwe bevindingen moeten aan collega's en bij de PO‐IJsselmeer worden gemeld.


280

Zorg voor een goede werksfeer. Leidinggevenden moeten teamgeest en onderlinge samenwerking bevorderen en regels opstellen om eventuele conflicten op een vriendschappelijke manier op te lossen.

Samenwerking.

Werk op het water op een billijke en verantwoorde wijze samen met de verschillende vaartuigen en respecteer elkaar. Erken het recht van andere medegebruikers op het water en respecteer met elkaar het ecosysteem.

Wanneer dit mogelijk is moeten meer gedetailleerd samenwerkingsbeleid worden ontwikkeld middels een werkplan op het niveau van netwerken tussen overheden en private organisaties die te maken hebben met het beleid voor het IJsselmeer en het Markermeer.

Werk samen met inspecteurs en andere autoriteiten om te zorgen voor veilige een billijke controles.

Zorg voor een goede samenwerking en een goed partnerschap met wetenschappers wier deskundigheid om bij te dragen aan een verantwoorde visserij een essentieel onderdeel van deze gedragscode uitmaakt. Eigenaren van vergunningen trachten tijd vrij te maken om vragen te beantwoorden die door of voor rekening van de overheid of bevoegde onderzoeksinstituten zijn opgesteld, in het besef dat deze inspanning op lange termijn de IJsselmeervisserij voordeel zal opleveren in de vorm van een goede wetenschappelijke basis voor het visserijbeheer.

Stimuleer bij elkaar het gebruik van maatschappelijk verantwoorde en duurzame visserij methoden. Aanmerkelijk strengere maatregelen volgen voor de gehele groep wanneer slechts enkele leden van de PO‐IJsselmeer deze verantwoordelijkheid niet tonen in hun gedrag. ‘De ketting is zo sterk als haar zwakste schakel’.

Het sluiten van overeenkomsten tussen vissers moet worden gestimuleerd ten behoeve van de tenuitvoerlegging van deze gedragscode en om dezelfde reden dient hetzelfde te geschieden tussen de andere partijen uit de sector en verwante mede gebruikers van het viswater.

Houdt de bevoegde (lokale) overheden op de hoogte van eventuele tijdelijke of aanhoudende afwijkende toestand van het milieu en de natuur in het gebied waar wordt gevist, en wijs indien mogelijk de oorzaak van deze afwijking aan middels een melding aan het secretariaat van de PO‐IJsselmeer.

Informatie en transparantie.

Zorg voor de traceerbaarheid van de vis overeenkomstig de regelgeving en in lijn met het belang van deze gedragscode.

Het regelmatig en nauwkeurig bijwerken van visserijgegevens moet worden bevorderd, teneinde precieze statistische basisgegevens te verkrijgen en te verwerken.

Bewaar de gegevens en de bijbehorende relevante data of geef ze in bewaring bij de PO‐IJsselmeer.

Afzetvoorwaarden.

Bewaar de vis aan boord in goede omstandigheden, teneinde de marktwaarde daarvan te verhogen. Tevens moeten de strategieën inzake valorisatie van visserijproducten worden gestimuleerd door kwaliteit voorop te stellen.

Verstrek van tevoren de gegevens over de aanvoer van vis ter bevordering en ter verbetering van de potentiële afzetmogelijkheden, en bevorder tevens de aanvoer van vis in havens die geschikte afzetmarkten vormen.

Zorg ervoor dat de vangst, de behandeling, de verwerking en distributie van vis en de visserij producten zodanig gebeuren dat de voedingswaarde en kwaliteit van de producten gewaarborgd zijn.

Werk samen met andere belanghebbenden om meer bekendheid te geven aan de voordelen van visconsumptie.

Vereenvoudig adequate inspecties en hanteer kwaliteitsvoorwaarden voor de visserijproducten; leden zijn verplicht waar mogelijk allereerst de verkoop of de registratie van de verkoop bij afslag te organiseren (administratie/veilplicht).

Annex 8: Cost‐effectiveness analysis for case study fisheries

281

ANNEX 7: COST‐EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR CASE STUDY FISHERIES

Gillnet Case Studies

Eastern North Sea, Netherlands 0‐12m Total

(millions of Euro)

Difference with Status Quo Rank

income costs profit income costs profit (profit)

measure Status Quo € 4.0 € 3.3 € 0.7

Technical measures

Used already Effective Acceptable

1 Multifilament coloured twine n 4 2.1

€ 4.0 € 3.3 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

2 Buoys with visual deterrents y/n 2.2 1.4

€ 4.0 € 3.4 € 0.6 0% 2% ‐2% 3

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting n 3.8 4

€ 3.2 € 3.7 ‐€0.4 ‐20% 10% ‐30% 6

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ n 3.3 3.5

€ 4.0 € 3.6 € 0.4 0% 8% ‐8% 4

Spatial measures

5 Increase the setting depth n 5 4

€ 4.0 € 3.3 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

6 Set nets > 20m depth n 3.5 4

€ 0.8 € 3.5 ‐€2.7 ‐80% 5% ‐85% 8

7 Spatial fishing restrictions y/n 3.2 3.4

€ 2.8 € 3.5 ‐€0.7 ‐30% 5% ‐35% 7

8 Restricting fishing season n 3.4 4

€ 3.2 € 3.0 € 0.2 ‐20% ‐10% ‐10% 5

9 use of alternative gear 5 5

€ 3.2 € 3.0 € 0.2 ‐20% ‐10% ‐10% 5


282

Western Baltic, Denmark 0‐12m

Total

(millions of Euro)



measure Status Quo €32.1 €34.4 ‐€2.4

Technical measures


1 Multifilament coloured twine n 4 3.9

€27.9 €37.8 ‐€ 10.0 ‐13% 10% ‐23% 4

2 Buoys with visual bird‐scaring deterrents

n 4 3.8 €27.9 €37.8

‐€ 10.0 ‐13% 10% ‐23% 4

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting n 3.75 3.5 €32.1 €34.6 ‐€2.5 0% 0% 0% 1

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ n 4 3.6 €32.1 €36.1 ‐€4.1 0% 5% ‐5% 2

Spatial measures

5 Increase the setting depth y 1 4

€16.3 €37.8 ‐€ 21.5 ‐49% 10% ‐59% 8

6 Set nets > 20m depth y/n 0.8 3.8

€16.7 €37.8 ‐€ 21.2 ‐48% 10% ‐58% 7

7 Spatial fishing restrictions n 0.7 1.8 €32.1 €37.8 ‐€5.8 0% 10% ‐10% 3

8 Restricting fishing season n 0.5 4

€ 9.6 €24.1 ‐€ 14.5 ‐70% ‐30% ‐40% 6

9 use of alternative gear n 0 3

€24.0 €51.6 ‐€ 27.6 ‐25% 50% ‐75% 9


283

Western Baltic Sweden Total

(millions of Euro)




Technical measures


1 Multifilament coloured twine n 4 3.9 € 3.4 € 3.0 € 0.4 ‐13% 10% ‐23% 5


n 4 3.8 € 3.9 € 2.8 € 1.1 0% 0% 0% 1

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting n 3.75 3.5 € 3.9 € 2.9 € 1.0 0% 5% ‐5% 2

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ n 4 3.6 € 3.9 € 3.3 € 0.6 0% 20% ‐20% 4

Spatial measures n

5 Increase the setting depth y 1 4 € 1.9 € 3.0 ‐€1.1 ‐51% 10% ‐61% 7

6 Set nets > 20m depth y/n 0.8 3.8 € 2.0 € 3.0 ‐€1.0 ‐48% 10% ‐58% 6

7 Spatial fishing restrictions n 0.7 1.8 € 3.9 € 3.0 € 0.9 0% 10% ‐10% 3

8 Restricting fishing season n 0.5 4 € 1.2 € 3.6 ‐€2.4 ‐70% 30% ‐100% 9

9 use of alternative gear n 0 3 € 2.9 € 4.1 ‐€1.2 ‐25% 50% ‐75% 8


284

Eastern Baltic, Estonia Total

(millions of Euro)




Technical measures


1 Multifilament coloured twine n 2.9 2.8 € 1.3 € 3.0 ‐€1.6 ‐60% 0% ‐60% 5


n 3 2.3 € 3.0 € 3.0 € 0.1 ‐10% 0% ‐10% 1

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting n 3.3 3 € 2.7 € 3.0 ‐€0.3 ‐20% 0% ‐20% 2

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ n 2.7 3 € 1.9 € 3.0 ‐€1.1 ‐45% 0% ‐45% 3

Spatial measures

5 Increase the setting depth n 1.3 2 € 0.7 € 3.0 ‐€2.3 ‐80% 0% ‐80% 7

6 Set nets > 20m depth n 0.8 3 € 0.1 € 3.0 ‐€2.8 ‐96% 0% ‐96% 9

7 Spatial fishing restrictions y 1.2 1.6 € 0.6 € 3.0 ‐€2.3 ‐82% 0% ‐82% 8

8 Restricting fishing season n 0.5 1.1 € 0.9 € 3.0 ‐€2.0 ‐73% 0% ‐73% 6

9 use of alternative gear n 1.6 2.7 € 1.7 € 3.0 ‐€1.3 ‐50% 0% ‐50% 4


285

Eastern Baltic, Latvia

Total

(millions of Euro)




Technical measures


1 Multifilament coloured twine n 3.6 3 € 0.5 € 0.3 € 0.2 ‐22% 6% ‐28% 4


n 4 2 € 0.5 € 0.3 € 0.2 ‐15% 8% ‐23% 3

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting n 4 4 € 0.5 € 0.3 € 0.2 ‐25% 3% ‐28% 5

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ n 5 4 € 0.6 € 0.3 € 0.3 0% 20% ‐20% 2

Spatial measures

5 Increase the setting depth n 5 4 € 0.3 € 0.3 € 0.0 ‐50% 0% ‐50% 6

6 Set nets > 20m depth n 5 4 € 0.3 € 0.3 € 0.0 ‐50% 0% ‐50% 6

7 Spatial fishing restrictions n 5 4 € 0.3 € 0.3 € 0.0 ‐50% 0% ‐50% 6

8 Restricting fishing season n 5 4 € 0.3 € 0.3 € 0.0 ‐50% 0% ‐50% 6

9 use of alternative gear 5 4 € 0.6 € 0.3 € 0.3 0% 0% 0% 1


286

Eastern Baltic, Lithuania Total

(millions of Euro)




Technical measures


1 Multifilament coloured twine n 3.7 3.8 € 0.2 € 0.2 € 0.0 ‐40% 0% ‐40% 2


n 3.3 3.4 € 0.3 € 0.2 € 0.1 ‐20% 0% ‐20% 1

3 Red corks spaced throughout netting n 3.7 3.7 € 0.2 € 0.2 € 0.0 ‐40% 0% ‐40% 2

4 Acoustic ‘pingers’ n 2.9 2.6 € 0.1 € 0.2 ‐€0.1 ‐80% 0% ‐80% 6

Spatial measures

5 Increase the setting depth n 4 4 € 0.0 € 0.2 ‐€0.2 ‐99% 0% ‐99% 8

6 Set nets > 20m depth n 3.2 3.7 € 0.0 € 0.2 ‐€0.2 ‐99% 0% ‐99% 8

7 Spatial fishing restrictions n 3.5 3.7 € 0.0 € 0.2 ‐€0.2 ‐98% 0% ‐98% 7

8 Restricting fishing season y/n 2 2.2 € 0.2 € 0.2 € 0.0 ‐40% 0% ‐40% 2

9 use of alternative gear € 0.1 € 0.2 ‐€0.1 ‐65% 0% ‐65% 5


287

Longline case studies

Total

(millions of Euro)

Gran Sol, Spain income costs profit Difference with Status Quo Rank

measure Status Quo € 174.1 € 201.0 ‐€ 26.9 income costs profit (profit)

Technical measures Used Effective Acceptable

1 change bait type n 4 1.75

€ 165.3 € 201.0 ‐€ 35.6 ‐5% 0% ‐5% 6

2 increase weight of line n 4 4

€ 43.5 € 201.0 ‐€157.4 ‐75% 0% ‐75% 12

3 circle hooks n 3.75 4

€ 76.6 € 201.0 ‐€124.4 ‐56% 0% ‐56% 11

4 make bait sink quicker n 2.5 2.1

€ 174.1 € 201.0 ‐€ 26.9 0% 0% 0% 1

5 dyed bait y 0.7 0 € 174.1 € 201.0 ‐€ 26.9 0% 0% 0% 1

6 streamer line y 0.5 0

€ 174.1 € 201.0 ‐€ 26.9 0% 0% 0% 1

7 side‐setting n 4 4

€ 121.8 € 201.0 ‐€ 79.1 ‐30% 0% ‐30% 10

8 bird scaring curtain n 3.75 3.75

€ 174.1 € 241.2 ‐€ 67.1 0% 20% ‐20% 9

Spatial measures

9 night setting y 0 0

€ 174.1 € 201.0 ‐€ 26.9 0% 0% 0% 1

10 offal discharge opposite side

n 3.75 3 € 139.2 € 201.0 ‐€ 61.7 ‐20% 0% ‐20% 7

11 offal discharge another time

y 2 0.25 € 174.1 € 201.0 ‐€ 26.9 0% 0% 0% 1

12 closed areas/seasons n 1 4

€ 139.2 € 201.0 ‐€ 61.7 ‐20% 0% ‐20% 7


288

Total

(millions of Euro)

Greek longline income costs profit Difference with Status Quo Rank

measure Status Quo € 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 income costs profit (profit)


1 change bait type n 3.7 3.8 € 85.2 € 46.8 € 38.4 ‐1% 3% ‐4% 8

2 increase weight of line n 3.3 3.9 € 85.0 € 47.3 € 37.7 ‐1% 4% ‐6% 10

3 circle hooks n 5 5 € 86.2 € 48.2 € 38.0 0% 6% ‐6% 9

4 make bait sink quicker n 1 1 € 86.2 € 46.8 € 39.4 0% 3% ‐3% 7

5 dyed bait n 5 5 € 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 0% 0% 0% 1

6 streamer line y/n 2.2 4 € 80.1 € 45.4 € 34.7 ‐7% 0% ‐7% 11

7 side‐setting n 5 5 € 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 0% 0% 0% 1

8 bird scaring curtain n 5 5 € 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 0% 0% 0% 1

Spatial measures

9 night setting y/n 0 3 € 64.7 € 45.4 € 19.3 ‐25% 0% ‐50% 12

10

offal discharge opposite side

n 5 5

€ 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 0% 0% 0% 1


n 5 5 € 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 0% 0% 0% 1

12 closed areas/seasons n 5 5 € 86.2 € 45.4 € 40.8 0% 0% 0% 1


289

Total

(millions of Euro)

Maltese Longline income costs profit Difference with Status Quo Rank

measure Status Quo € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 income costs profit (profit)


1 change bait type n 5 5 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

2 increase weight of line n 1.6 2.6 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.6 0% 4% ‐4% 8

3 circle hooks n 2.5 2.7 € 1.1 € 0.6 € 0.5 ‐10% 10% ‐20% 11

4 make bait sink quicker n 2.8 2.3 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

5 dyed bait n 3.4 3.7 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.6 ‐5% 2% ‐7% 10

6 streamer line n 3.25 2.75 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

7 side‐setting n 2.7 3 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

8 bird scaring curtain n 3.8 3.9 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.6 0% 5% ‐5% 9

Spatial measures

5 5

9 night setting n 1.1 2.7 € 1.0 € 0.6 € 0.4 ‐20% 0% ‐20% 12

10


n 3.6 3

€ 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1


n 3.6 2.8 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1

12 closed areas/seasons n 1.6 3.9 € 1.2 € 0.6 € 0.7 0% 0% 0% 1


290

Total (millions of Euro)

Western Med Longline, Spain income costs profit Difference with Status Quo Rank

measure Status Quo € 53.9 € 56.5 ‐€ 2.7 income costs profit (profit)


1 change bait type n 2.9 3.9 € 26.9 € 56.5 ‐€ 29.6 ‐50% 0% ‐50% 10

2 increase weight of line n 2.8 2.8 € 50.6 € 61.1 ‐€ 10.4 ‐6% 8% ‐14% 7

3 circle hooks n 2.9 3.9 € 7.5 € 57.1 ‐€ 49.6 ‐86% 1% ‐87% 12

4 make bait sink quicker y 2 0.2 € 53.9 € 56.5 ‐€ 2.7 0% 0% 0% 1

5 dyed bait n 3 3.4 € 42.0 € 62.2 ‐€ 20.2 ‐22% 10% ‐32% 8

6 streamer line n 2.8 2.8 € 52.8 € 60.5 ‐€ 7.7 ‐2% 7% ‐9% 6

7 side‐setting n 4 3.8 € 53.9 € 58.2 ‐€ 4.4 0% 3% ‐3% 4

8 bird scaring curtain n 4 4 € 53.9 € 59.4 ‐€ 5.5 0% 5% ‐5% 5

Spatial measures

9 night setting y/n 0.2 2.8 € 29.6 € 57.1 ‐€ 27.5 ‐45% 1% ‐46% 9

10


y 2.6 0

€ 53.9 € 56.5 ‐€ 2.7 0% 0% 0% 1


y 1.4 0 € 53.9 € 56.5 ‐€ 2.7 0% 0% 0% 1

12 closed areas/seasons n 2.7 4 € 13.5 € 42.4 ‐€ 28.9 ‐75% ‐25% ‐50% 10

zf0926 s08 seabirds final report v13 - european commission · seabirds primarily interact with...

Documents