Search

While the open oceans are well covered by automated ocean measurement instruments, there is a lack of sub-surface oceanographic observation in coastal and shelf seas. Commercial fishing gear such as bottom trawls, pots, traps and long lines can act as a platform for sensors, which collect physical oceanographic data concurrently with normal fishing operations. The lack of observed in-situ ocean data in coastal and shelf seas limits operational oceanography, weather forecasting, maritime industries, and climate change monitoring. In addition, using fishing gear as an ocean observation platform has auxiliary benefits for fisheries management including stakeholder involvement. This study quantifies and compares the existing sub-surface in-situ data coverage with the spatial distribution of fishing activities. The results show that integration with fishing could contribute to filling some of the most pressing gaps in existing ocean observation systems in coastal and shelf seas. There are limitations inherent to opportunistic data collection, mainly related to spatial and temporal heterogeneity of fishing activities. However, we make the case that fishery-based observations have the potential to complement existing ocean observing systems in areas where oceanographic data are lacking and needed most in order to ensure long term sustainability of oceanographic monitoring.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, electronic monitoring (EM) has emerged as a cost-efficient supplement to existing catch monitoring programmes in fisheries. An EM system consists of various activity sensors and cameras positioned on vessels to remotely record fishing activity and catches. The first objective of this review was to describe the state of play of EM in fisheries worldwide and to present the insights gained on this technology based on 100 EM trials and 12 fully implemented programmes. Despite its advantages, and its global use for monitoring, progresses in implementation in some important fishing regions are slow. Within this context, the second objective was to discuss more specifically the European experiences gained through 16 trials. Findings show that the three major benefits of EM were as follows: (a) cost-efficiency, (b) the potential to provide more representative coverage of the fleet than any observer programme and (c) the enhanced registration of fishing activity and location. Electronic monitoring can incentivize better compliance and discard reduction, but the fishing managers and industry are often reluctant to its uptake. Improved understanding of the fisher's concerns, for example intrusion of privacy, liability and costs, and better exploration of EM benefits, for example increased traceability, sustainability claims and market access, may enhance implementation on a larger scale. In conclusion, EM as a monitoring tool embodies various solid strengths that are not diminished by its weaknesses. Electronic monitoring has the opportunity to be a powerful tool in the future monitoring of fisheries, particularly when integrated within existing monitoring programmes.

With the introduction of the Landing Obligation (LO) in EU fisheries, there is an increasing need for fishers to avoid unwanted catches while maximizing revenues. Improving understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of unwanted catches could assist the fishing industry optimize catches by altering where they fish. How following such advice relates to revenues and fishery dynamics requires more consideration. We take an existing hotspot mapping methodology and examine how it could be used to identify fishing opportunities under the LO in Irish (Celtic Sea) and Danish (North Sea and Skagerrak) demersal fisheries. We consider if fishing effort can be relocated to avoid unwanted catches while maintaining revenues. The value per unit effort of fishing activity in both areas was often linked to high catch rates of key demersal species (cod, haddock, hake, and whiting). Our analyses indicated, however, that there are options to fish in areas that could provide higher revenues while avoiding below minimum conservation reference size catches and choke species. This was evident across both case study areas demonstrating that hotspot mapping tools could have wide applicability. There does, however, remain a need to explore how the displacement of vessels may further alter species distributions and fleet economics.

Under the Landing Obligation (LO) fishers will need to reduce or land fish that were previously discarded. In this chapter we look at how they might be able to do that by summarising a number of studies conducted in various European regions. We start by describing a series of “challenge” trials where fishers tried to reduce their discards by whatever (legal) means they thought best. In some cases, they were able to reduce unwanted catches, in others they were less successful. We also interviewed fishers not involved in the trials to ask them what they thought they could do. We explore their approaches which generally fell into three categories: more selective gear; tactical and strategic changes; and management changes. Scientific data (surveys, landings, and observers data) can also be valuable to help fishers to decide where and when to fish to best avoid unwanted catches and maximise opportunities to catch their quotas. We provide some examples of this type of approach, and also how these can be adapted for use as interactive online apps that fishers can use in planning or whilst at sea.

20 pages, 2 tables.-- This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, A key requirement for the successful implementation of the Landing Obligation is the need to monitor and regulate unwanted catches at sea. This issue is particularly challenging because of the large number of vessels and trips that need to be monitored and the remoteness of vessels at sea. Several options exist in theory, ranging from patrol vessels to onboard observers and self-sampling. Increasingly though, technology is developing to provide remote Electronic Monitoring (EM) with cameras at lower costs. This chapter first provides an overall synthesis of the pro’s and con’s of several monitoring tools and technologies. Four EM technologies already trialled in EU fisheries are then summarised. We conclude that it is now possible to conduct reliable and cost-effective monitoring of unwanted catches at sea, especially if various options are used in combination. However, effective monitoring is a necessary condition for the successful implementation of the Landing Obligation but insufficient unless it is implemented with a high level of coverage and with the support of the fishing industry, This chapter is largely based on work carried out in the DiscardLess project and the Life iSEAS project. The DiscardLess project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement DiscardLess No 633680. The Life iSEAS project has been co-funded under the LIFE+Environment Program of the European Union (LIFE13 ENV/ES/000131). This support is gratefully acknowledged

The European fisheries management is currently undergoing a fundamental change in the handling of catches of commercial fisheries with the implementation of the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy. One of the main objectives of the policy is to end the practice of discarding in the EU by 2019. However, for such changes to be successful, it is vital to ensure stakeholders acceptance, and it is prudent to consider possible means to verify compliance with the new regulation. Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) has been tested in a variety of fisheries worldwide for different purposes and is currently considered as one possible tool to ensure compliance with a European ban on discards. This study focuses on Danish fishery inspectors and on fishers with REM experience, whose opinions are less well known. Their views on the landing obligation and on the use of REM were investigated using interviews and questionnaires, and contrasted to some fishers without REM experience. 80% of fishery inspectors and 58% of REM-experienced fishers expressed positive views on REM. 9 out of 10 interviewed fishers without REM experience were against REM. Participation in a REM trial has not led to antipathy towards REM. Fishery inspectors saw on-board observers, at-sea control and REM as the three best solutions to control the landing obligation but shared the general belief that the landing obligation cannot be enforced properly and will be difficult for fishers to comply with. The strengths and weaknesses of REM in this context are discussed.