[This background document is intended to be further developed during the workshop and form the basis for a workshop report]

Joint OSPAR-HELCOM workshop to examine possibilities for developing indicators for incidental bycatch of birds and marine mammals

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1

2. Species vulnerable to bycatch..................................................................................................................2

3. Existing legal framework for bycatch assessment and data collection...................................................16

4. Overview of nationally available data.....................................................................................................22

5. Overview of nationally available monitoring programs..........................................................................23

6. Assessing vulnerability and risk to bycatch – case studies on seabirds..................................................23

Baltic Sea................................................................................................................................................24

UK waters...............................................................................................................................................26

7. Information on already existing data sources related to by-catch numbers and fishing effort..............31

8. Obstacles................................................................................................................................................35

9. Possible ways forward............................................................................................................................38

10. Threshold setting methods.................................................................................................................39

11. References..........................................................................................................................................47

1. IntroductionThe Joint OSPAR-HELCOM workshop to examine possibilities for developing indicators for incidental bycatch of birds and marine mammals is aimed at progressing work on assessing the pressure from incidental bycatch and developing regional indicators. The objective of the workshop is to develop methods to assess, for conservation purposes, the pressure of bycatch of birds and marine mammals. The focus is on the identification of cost-effective assessment- and data collection approaches.

Incidental bycatch has been identified as a serious pressure on several species in OSPAR’s North East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2010-2020. Operational common indicators assessing the impact of this pressure have yet to be developed. As part of the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 (OSPAR 2017) an assessment of bycatch of harbour porpoise (common indicator M6) was presented based on estimates of bycatch published by ICES. Due to concerns over the accuracy and reliability of the available bycatch estimates, it was not deemed appropriate to present an assessment against any threshold value. OSPAR is going to further develop their Candidate Indicator for bird bycatch to a Common Indicator which at the moment could not be be operationalised due to a scarcity in monitoring data. Further, an agreed assessment method

1 of 59

within OSPAR does not exist and there is no objective relating to the impacts and management of bycatch in the current North East Atlantic Strategy (2011-2020). The OSPAR Biodiversity Committee (BDC) meeting in 2018 identified and agreed upon the need to develop a process for improving the capacity to assess bycatch of protected species. This included a clearer identification of the data needs for the assessments, and identifying how those data can be accessed. BDC identified the need to cooperate with other regional bodies on the issue.

HELCOM specifically addresses the matter of bycatch in the context of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) (HELCOM 2007). This has been agreed at Ministerial level in the Ministerial Declarations 2010 and 2013. In the HELCOM State of the Baltic Sea report (HELCOM 2018a), bycatch was addressed descriptively, using estimates of numbers of by-caught animals. The HELCOM core indicator Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear is to be further developed and the underlying data need to be collected. This indicator is intended to provide an evaluation of whether the numbers of bycaught marine mammals and waterbirds are below mortality levels that enable good environmental status to be reached. Currently, no quantitative threshold values have been defined for the core indicator, but the concepts for determining the threshold values based on removal and conservation targets have been described and are proposed to form the basis of future threshold setting activities (HELCOM 2018b). HELCOM is in the process of reviewing indicators against relevant policy documents such as the BSAP, the MSFD and EU Commission Decision (2017/848/EU). This process will address the indicator related data needs, and assign priority for future development work, to operationalise the bycatch indicator. The HELCOM ACTION project (2019-2020) is currently examining bycatch issues in a designated work package, focusing on creating high-risk maps for bycatch of harbor porpoise and birds, estimating bycatch rates of birds and marine mammals with the aim of developing a cost effective monitoring and mitigation strategy.

In order to estimate by-catch numbers of a bird or mammal species, the number of individuals per unit effort must be collected and then extrapolated to total effort. There are certain ways of describing effort (see section 8).

2. Species vulnerable to bycatchA supplementary table on bycatch of bird and mammal species in various fishing gears in the OSPAR and HELCOM regions is provided to the workshop.

2.1. Birds

Pott and Wiedenfeld (2017) reviewed the global literature for seabird-fisheries interactions during 1974–2015. They found that 228 species of seabird and other marine bird have been recorded caught by fisheries, worldwide. The most susceptible families are Gaviidae (divers/loons), Podicipedidae (grebes), Diomedeidae (albatrosses) and Sulidae (gannets and boobies). Pott and Wiedenfeld (2017) also found that set and drift gillnets had the greatest number of documented cases of marine bird bycatch, with set and drifting longlines and handlines a close second.

2 of 59

Table 1 lists the families found in the North Atlantic, for which Pott and Wiedenfeld (2017) found references to bycatch globally.

Very limited monitoring of marine bird bycatch has been done in European waters. ICES (2013) reviewed the documented risks of seabird bycatch to identify monitoring priorities (see Table 1), while Žydelis et al. (2009) focused on gillnet fisheries and highlighted that Anatidae (ducks) and Alcidae (auks–e.g. common guillemot, razorbill) were of most concern in northern Europe. Overall, the risk of being taken as bycatch for different groups of seabirds depends on various factors, including the presence of a fishery, properties of the gear or setting operation, the presence and the behaviour of the birds. For instance, surface-feeding seabirds such as gulls, gannets, shearwaters and fulmars are more susceptible to bycatch in longline fisheries, whereas diving species are mostly affected by gillnets and pots/traps (see Table 1). However, Bradbury et al. (2017) pointed out that surface-feeding seabirds are susceptible to being caught in any type of gears during the deployment phase. Recent research has shown that fulmars, for example, are caught in high numbers in Norwegian gillnet fisheries, likely during setting and hauling (Bærum et al. 2019). Given the limited evidence of bycatch in UK and European waters, Bradbury et al. (2017) used the behaviour traits of each bird species to predict where in the water column the risk of encountering fishing gears is the highest. From this, they inferred the entrapment risk for each species in each gear type (see Table 1).

Bærum et al. (2019) showed that coastal fisheries might represent a more general threat to a wider range of seabird species, as opposed to longline fisheries (e.g. Fangel et al. 2017). Gillnets, entangling nets (including trammel nets) and/or hook gears (hand- and longlines) are reported to be the deadliest fishing gears for seabirds. Nevertheless, the authors emphasize that important gaps remain in the understanding of seabird bycatch, and that some fisheries, such as industrially deployed seines or artisanal fisheries, and some geographical areas, such as Arctic waters and the Canary Current, in the NE Atlantic remain poorly studied.

3 of 59

Table 1. Summary of evidence of the sensitivity/vulnerability of marine bird species and families to bycatch.

Gear type

Section of water-column where gear is most likely to catch seabirds (Bradbury et al. 2017)

Species/families known to be bycaught in NE Atlantic European waters (ICES 2013)

Species groups globally reported as bycatch in the respective gear type (number of publications in parentheses) (Pott and Wiedenfeld 2017)

Metier Level 2/3 Metier level 3 Surface Pelagic BenthicSeines/surrounding nets

Purse Seine (PS) X X Balearic shearwater, Cory’s shearwater, northern gannet, gulls, auks

Shearwaters (5) Sulids (4) Cormorants (5) Gulls (3) Ducks (1) Auks (4)

Trawls/Pelagic Trawl

Midwater otter trawl (OTM)Midwater pair trawl (PTM)

X X OTM – northern gannet OTM: Petrels (8) Shearwaters (4) Storm petrels (3) Sulids (1) Auks (1)PTM: Sulids (1)

Trawls/Bottom trawls

Beam trawl (TBB)Bottom otter trawl (OTB)Multi-rig otter trawl (OTT)Bottom pair trawl (PTB)

X X OTB: northern gannet, shearwaters, great cormorant, European shag, gulls, guillemots,

OTB & TBB: Petrels and fulmars (7) Shearwaters (6) Storm petrels (2) Sulids (2) Cormorants (4) Gulls (4) Auks (1)PTB: Storm petrels (1)

Dredges Bottom Dredge (DRB) None Divers (1) Shearwaters (1) Gulls (2)Nets Trammel net (GTR)

Set gillnet (GNS)Driftnet (GND)

X X X GTR, GNS - shearwaters, northern gannet, great cormorant, European shag, common scoter and other diving ducks, divers, grebes, auks

GNS: Ducks (16) Divers (5) Petrels and fulmars (6) Shearwaters (10) Storm petrels (2) Grebes (4) Sulids (2) Cormorants (14) Gulls (5) Auks (15)GND: Ducks (9) Divers (4) Petrels and fulmars (7) Shearwaters (11) Storm petrels (3) Grebes (3) Sulids (3) Cormorants (4) Phalaropes (1) Terns (1) Gulls (7) Skuas (3) Auks (21)

Hooks and Lines/Longlines

Set longlines (LLS)Drifting longlines (LLD)

X X X LLD, LLS: Northern fulmar, Balearic shearwater, Cory’s

Longlines set on or near the seafloor: Petrels and fulmars (11) Shearwaters

4 of 59

Gear type

Section of water-column where gear is most likely to catch seabirds (Bradbury et al. 2017)

Species/families known to be bycaught in NE Atlantic European waters (ICES 2013)

Species groups globally reported as bycatch in the respective gear type (number of publications in parentheses) (Pott and Wiedenfeld 2017)

Metier Level 2/3 Metier level 3 Surface Pelagic Benthic

shearwater, northern gannet, great cormorant, European shag, great skua, gulls, terns, auks

(10) Storm petrels (2) Sulids (4) Cormorants (3) Gulls (17) Skuas (2) Auks (2)Longlines set near surface: petrels & fulmars (13) Shearwaters (11) Storm petrels (1) Sulids (7) Cormorants (1) Gulls (7) Skuas (5) Auks(2)

Traps Pots and Traps (FPO) X X X European shag Petrels and fulmars (1)Shearwaters (2)Cormorants (10)Auks (1)

Most sensitive species to bycatch in UK waters (Bradbury et al. 2017)

Northern gannetNorthern fulmarCommon guillemotRazorbillBlack guillemotAtlantic puffin

Northern gannetCommon guillemotRazorbillBlack guillemotAtlantic puffinEuropean shagGreat northern

Common guillemotEuropean shagGreat northern diverGreater scaupCommon eiderCommon scoter

5 of 59

Gear type

Section of water-column where gear is most likely to catch seabirds (Bradbury et al. 2017)

Species/families known to be bycaught in NE Atlantic European waters (ICES 2013)

Species groups globally reported as bycatch in the respective gear type (number of publications in parentheses) (Pott and Wiedenfeld 2017)

Metier Level 2/3 Metier level 3 Surface Pelagic Benthic

diver Great cormorant

6 of 59

2.2. Mammals

Thirty-six cetacean species and eight pinniped species have been recorded within the OSPAR/HELCOM areas. Table 2 and Table 3 list all marine mammal species that have been found in the region, together with a summary of their overall status. Seventeen cetacean and eight pinniped species occur regularly in at least one of the OSPAR or HELCOM sub-regions.

All marine mammal species may suffer entanglement in fishing gear, but greatest concerns have been expressed for bycatch of harbour porpoise (Tregenza et al., 1997a; Northridge & Hammond, 1999; Kaschner, 2003; Vinther & Larsen 2004; Bjørge et al., 2013; ICES 2018a; NAMMCO/IMR, 2019), common dolphin (Goujon et al., 1993; Goujon, 1996; Tregenza et al., 1997b; Fernández-Contreras et al., 2007; ICES 2018a), minke whale (Northridge et al., 2010), and humpback whale (Ryan et al., 2016).

In Europe, five types of fishing gear are particularly identified as having a cetacean by-catch associated with them (Table 4). These are midwater or pelagic trawls that are towed along either by one or a pair of vessels, static fishing gear such as bottom set gillnets, driftnets, seine nets, and pot lines (see Northridge & Hofman, 1999; Kaschner, 2003; Read et al., 2006, Reeves et al., 2013; Dolman et al., 2016, for reviews).

Gear types of particular concern for small cetaceans are bottom-set gill nets everywhere and semi-drift nets in the Baltic (harbour porpoise), pelagic or midwater trawls in the Celtic Seas and Bay of Biscay (common and striped dolphin), and creel lines in the Celtic Seas and northern part of the Greater North Sea (minke whale and humpback whale) (Read et al. 2006, Reeves et al. 2013, Dolman et al. 2016;). Risso’s dolphins may be prone to bycatch from long-line fisheries (as reported from the Mediterranean - Macías et al., 2012), with long-lining occurring primarily in the Celtic Seas west of Ireland south to the Bay of Biscay. Table 5 summarises some of the published bycatch estimates available.

Seals also suffer bycatch in all regions where species occur although there is rather less information on these than on cetacean bycatch. However, seals have been widely reported entangled, particularly in set gillnets, demersal and midwater trawls, pots and traps, and ghost netting, but also fyke nets and longlines (see, for example, Northridge & Hofmann, 1999; Lunneryd et al., 2004, 2005; Hale et al., 2011; Allen et al., 2012; Vanhatalo et al., 2014; Cosgrove et al., 2016; Bjørge et al., 2017). Some bycatches can be considerable and involve a number of pinniped species. In Icelandic gillnet and demersal trawl fisheries (ICES Division 27.5.a), reported bycatch estimates for 2015 consisted of 1,216 grey seals, 1,417 harbour seals, 284 harp seals, 46 hooded seals, and 143 ringed seals (ICES 2017). Extrapolated estimates are available for the Icelandic lumpsucker fishery based on observations from 2014-2017. These estimates are per year and are stratified by management area, consisting of 1,255 (728-1,782) harbour seals, 1,091 (502-1,680) grey seals, 132 (15-249) harp seals, 33 (1-65) ringed seals, and 42 (12-72) bearded seals (ICES 2018a). A study in Norway revealed the annual bycatch to be about 550 harbour seals and 460 grey seals (Bjørge et al., 2017; ICES 2018a).

Table 2. List of 36 Cetacean Species and their overall status in the OSPAR/HELCOM Areas (COM = Common; REG = Regular; RAR = Rare; VAG = Vagrant; where two assessments are given, the second refers to the inner Baltic Sea). In bold are the regular species.

ORDER ODONTOCETI, the Toothed WhalesFamily PhocoenidaePhocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise COM/RAR

Family DelphinidaeSteno bredanesis Rough-toothed dolphin VAGTursiops truncatus Common bottlenose dolphin COM/RARStenella frontalis Atlantic spotted dolphin VAG

7 of 59

Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin COM/VAGDelphinus delphis Common dolphin COM/VAGLagenodelphis hosei Fraser’s dolphin VAGLagenorhynchus albirostris White-beaked dolphin COM/VAGLagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic white-sided dolphin COM/VAGGrampus griseus Risso’s dolphin REG/VAGPeponocephala electra Melon-headed whale VAGFeresa attenuata Pygmy killer whale VAGPseudorca crassidens False killer whale RAR/VAGOrcinus orca Killer whale REG/VAGGlobicephala melas Long-finned pilot whale COM/VAGGlobicephala macrorhynchus Short-finned pilot whale VAG

Family MonodontidaeMonodon Monoceros Narwhal VAG (RAR, OSPAR I)Delphinapterus leucas Beluga VAG (REG, OSPAR I)

Family ZiphiidaeZiphius cavirostris Cuvier’s beaked whale REG/VAGHyperoodon ampullatus Northern bottlenose whale REG/VAGMesoplodon mirus True’s beaked whale VAGMesoplodon europaeus Gervais’ beaked whale VAGMesoplodon bidens Sowerby’s beaked whale RAR/VAG (REG, OSPAR V)Mesoplodon grayi Gray’s beaked whale VAGMesoplodon densirostris Blainville’s beaked whale VAG

Family KogiidaeKogia breviceps Pygmy sperm whale VAG (RAR, OSPAR V)Kogia sima Dwarf sperm whale VAG

Family PhyseteridaePhyseter macrocephalus Sperm whale REG/RAR

ORDER MYSTICETI, the Baleen WhalesFamily Balaenidae (right whales)Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale VAGBalaenidae mysticetus Bowhead whale VAG (RAR OSPAR I)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale REG/VAGBalaenoptera acutorostrata Common minke whale COMVAGBalaenoptera borealis Sei whale RAR/VAGBalaenoptera brydei Bryde’s whale VAGBalaenoptera physalus Fin whale REG/VAGBalaenoptera musculus Blue whale RAR/VAG

Table 3. List of 8 Pinniped Species and their overall status in the OSPAR/HELCOM Areas (COM = Common; REG = Regular; RAR = Rare; VAG = Vagrant

ORDER PINNIPEDIA, sealsFamily OdobenidaeOdobenus rosmarus Walrus REG

Family PhocidaeCystophora cristata Hooded seal REGErignathus barbatus Bearded seal REGHalichoerus grypus Grey seal COMMonachus monachus Mediterranean monk seal VAGPagophilus groenlandicus Harp seal REGPhoca vitulina Harbour seal COMPusa hispida Ringed seal REG

8 of 59

Table 4. Species / Gear Interactions - fishing gear known to cause accidental entanglement for major European cetacean species (adapted from Northridge, 2009)

Species/Gear category

Gill nets

Pelagic

trawls

Demersal

trawls

Long lines

Drift

nets

Seine

nets

Pot

lines

Harbour porpoise √ √ √

Bottlenose dolphin √ √ √ √

Atlantic white-sided dolphin

√ √ √

White-beaked dolphin

√ √

Short-beaked common dolphin

√ √ √ √ √

Striped dolphin √ √ √ √ √

Risso’s dolphin √

Killer whale √

Long-finned pilot whale

√ √ √ √

Minke whale √ √ √

Fin whale √

Humpback whale √

NOTE: Current sampling based on frequency of records, not necessarily the significance of possible impact

9 of 59

Table 5. Summary of Fisheries and By-catch Information for Cetaceans in North West Europe

Area (and ICES area if known)

Gear type Target species Year Species By-catch levels

Estimated Mean

Annual By-catch

Source By-catch Investigation approach and

Comments

Irish SeaVIIIa-e, VIIh,j,k

Driftnet Albacore Tuna 1995 CD, SD Medium Low 100s CEC, 2002b Monitoring scheme

By-catch decline with low effort, fishery terminated by EC regs. in 2002

North Sea (offshore)IIa,Iva,Ivb,IVc

Static Cod, skate, turbot, sole, monkfish, dogfish

1995-1999 HP High 100s CEC 2002a,b: Defra, 2001; Northridge & Hammond, 1999; SFPA / SFI, 2001

Monitoring scheme

By catch estimate without freezer-netter fleet

North Sea (inshore)Iia,Iva,Ivb,IVc

Static Cod 1995-1999 HP Medium 100s CEC, 2002a, b; Defra, 2001; Northridge & Hammond, 1999; SFPA/SFI, 2001

Monitoring scheme

Bycatch estimate without freezer-netter fleet

West of ScotlandVia

Static Dogfish, crayfish, skate

1995-1999 HP, CD Medium Low 100s Northridge, in CEC, 2002a

Monitoring scheme

Drastic decline due to collapse of crayfish fishery

ChannelVIId,e

Static Cod, monkfish, flatfish

- HP Low? - ASCOBANS, 2003a; CEC,

Opportunistic records

10 of 59

2002a,b

Celtic SeaVIIf-j

Static Hake, cod, pollack, saithe, ling

1992-1994 HP, CD Medium-high

100s CEC 2002a,b: Tregenza et al., 1997; Tregenza & Collet, 1998

Monitoring scheme

Bay of Biscay, Celtic ShelfVIIg-k

Pelagic pair trawl

Albacore tuna 2000-2010 Mainly CD, also SD, AWSD,WBD, LFPW

High? 10s to 100s CEC, 2002b; ICES, 2008; Y. Morizur pers. comm.

Monitoring scheme

North Sea and West of IrelandIVa-c, Via,b

Pelagic

trawl

Herring, mackerel 1995-1996and2000-2001

LFPW, potentially other species

Low? - ASCOBANS, 2003a;CEC, 2002a,b; Morizur et al., 1999

Monitoring scheme

Western ChannelVIId,e

Pelagic pair trawl

Mackerel, bass, pilchard, blue whiting, and anchovy

1995-1996and2000-2001

CD, SD, AWSD,WBD, LFPW

High, mainly CD

- CEC, 2002b; Morizur et al., 1999

Monitoring scheme

North Sea and ?IVb,c and others?

Demersal trawl

Cod and others? - HP Very low? - CEC, 2002b NONE

Northern North SeaIIa, Iva (parts)

Purse seine

Herring, mackerel - Small cetaceans

Low? - CEC, 2002b Opportunistic records

North SeaIVa, IVb, IVc

Fish trap Salmonids - HP Low? - CEC, 2002b NONE

North SeaIV

Set nets Cod, skate, turbot, sole, monkfish

1995-2002 HP Medium 439 [371-640]

ASCOBANS, 2004

NONE

North Sea Set nets Cod, turbot, sole, 2002-2003 HP 25-30 Flores & Kock, Independent

11 of 59

IV other demersal fish 2003 observer scheme

North SeaIV, VIID, IIIA

Set nets 2012-2014 HP 27-29/1000 days at sea

ICES WGBYC, 2015

Remote Electronic Monitoring

North Sea including VIId and IIIa

Set nets 2013-2014 HP High 1235-1990 ICES WGBYC, 2015

Independent observer scheme

English Channel, Celtic Sea and North Sea

Gill nets and trammel nets

2013 HP High 1600-1900 ICES WGBYC, 2015

Independent observer scheme

English Channel, Celtic Sea and North Sea

Gill nets andtrammel nets

2014 HP High 1400-1700 ICES WGBYC, 2016

Independent observer scheme

Channel and Bay of BiscayVIId,e,f, VIIIa,b and some in IVc

Fixed Sole, anglerfish, cod, hake, turbot

1995-1996 HP Low? <1 ASCOBANS, 2003c; Morizur et al., 1996; CEC, 2002b

ChannelVIId,e

Fixed ? - HP Medium? >10 Morizur et al., 1996; Swarbrick et al., 1994

1 HP per boat per year (potentially up to 30 boats)

Celtic SeaVIIe-j

Fixed Hake and anglerfish ? HP and other species

High? - Morizur pers. comm., in CEC, 2002b

North SeaVIa,b

Pelagic single or pair trawl

Herring, mackerel and horse mackerel

- HP, LFPW and small cetaceans

Very low? - ASCOBANS, 2003c; CEC, 2002b

NONE

12 of 59

Celtic and Irish Seas

2012-2014 HP High 1137-1472 ICES WGBYC, 2015

Independent Observer Scheme

Western Channel (and Celtic Shelf?)

Pelagic single or pair trawl

Blue whiting, mackerel and horse mackerel, herring, sea bass, black sea bream

1994-1995 CD, AWSD, and other species

High for all species but mainly CD

100s ASCOBANS, 2003c; CEC, 2002a,b; Morizur et al., 1996, 1999

Independent Observer Scheme

Celtic Shelf and Bay of BiscayVIIIa, b, d

Pelagic single or pair trawl

Hake, tuna, sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel, sea bass

1994-1995 CD, BND High for all species but mainly CD

100s ASCOBANS, 2003c; CEC, 2002a,b; Morizur et al., 1996, 1999

Independent Observer Scheme

Celtic Shelf and Bay of BiscayVIIIa, b, d

Pelagic single or pair trawl

Manly sea bass 2000-2010 Mainly CD High Up to 1,000 (2009)

ICES, 2008; Y. Moriizur pers. comm..

Independent Observer Scheme

English Channel and Bay of Biscay

Set nets, mainly trammel nets

Monkfish, turbot and sole

2008-2013 HP High 600 Morizur et al., 2014; ICES WGBYC, 2015

Independent Observer Scheme

Celtic Shelf and Bay of BiscayVIIIa, b, d

Pelagic single or pair trawl, set net, and purse seine

2008-2013 CD High 2509 ICES WGBYC, 2015, ICES, 2016

Independent Observer Scheme

13 of 59

Notes:

Key to species

Harbour porpoise HP

Common dolphin CD

Bottlenose dolphin BND

Striped dolphin SD

Atlantic white-sided dolphin AWSD

Minke whale MW

White-beaked dolphin WBD

Long-finned pilot whale LFPW

14 of 59

Annual By-catch levels

Rare Very low

<10/year Low

10-500 animals/year Medium

>500 animals/year High

Several 1000 animals/year Very high

Potential by-catch levels for fisheries not yet

monitored using independent observer programs but

alternative sources of information available.

?

Additional bycatch information for cetaceans

Trawls appear to catch dolphins in particular, such as common and striped dolphin. It is probable that dolphins come into contact with trawls in their pursuit of prey and find themselves engulfed by the gear. During the 1990s, the winter pair trawl fishery, targeting bass in the Celtic Sea off south-west England and south of Ireland, was catching the common and striped dolphins in the low hundreds to low thousands every year (Tregenza et al. 1997a), as well as smaller numbers of bottlenose dolphin and long-finned pilot whale. The summer trawl fisheries targeting tuna west of Ireland and in the southern Bay of Biscay have caught mainly common dolphin but also striped dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, and pilot whale. Some bottom trawls are operated with very high opening nets and these can also catch numbers of common dolphins, as has occurred particularly in and around the Bay of Biscay.

There are many variations of set nets. Bottom-set gillnets are fixed to the seabed by means of anchors, and are generally used to catch fish that swim close to the bottom such as cod, turbot, lumpfish, plaice, sole and ray. When very loosely set, these nets are termed tangle nets. They tend to be set in deep water and wrap themselves around the fish. Gillnets may be set over shipwrecks (‘wreck net fishery’). A further variation of the gillnet is the trammel net which comprises three layers and operate by trapping fish in a pocket of the inner mesh as they swim through from one side of the outer mesh to the other. It is thought that cetaceans do not notice the nylon mesh in their pursuit of prey, and become entangled. Juveniles seem to be particularly vulnerable, and the main species caught in NW Europe are harbour porpoise and common dolphin. Both species suffer bycatch in the hake and pollack fisheries in the Celtic Sea and western English Channel, with the harbour porpoise also in the central and southern North Sea where gillnets targeted cod, hake, turbot, plaice and sole. By-catch in large-mesh nets and nets having a long soak time seem to be of special relevance for harbour porpoises (Vinther 1999). Annual bycatches of porpoises in the early 1990s were estimated to average 2,200 in the Celtic Sea (Tregenza et al. 1997b) and 8,000 in the North Sea (Northridge & Hammond 1999, Vinther 1999, Vinther & Larsen 2004), in both cases levels that were considered unsustainable. In the southernmost North Sea, the number of bycaught porpoises recorded has increased since 2000, possibly reflecting the southward shift in porpoises, with catches highest during late winter and spring. Gillnets are also responsible for bycatches of mainly common dolphin off the coast of Portugal.

Norway has a very large number of commercial small vessels (<15m length), which operate a variety of gear types in coastal fisheries. These include a gillnet fishery for lumpsucker, a large-mesh net fishery for anglerfish, and in the north off the Lofoten Islands, a gillnet fishery for spawning cod. In the case of the latter two, these are believed to cause an annual bycatch numbering some thousands of porpoises (c. 21,000 over the three years, 2006-2008) (Bjørge et al. 2013).

Bycatches of porpoises have been reported also from gillnet, trammel net, and pound net fisheries operating in the Skagerrak and Kattegat as well as in the Belt Seas. In the inner Baltic Sea, porpoises have long experienced bycatch from set gillnets, mainly in the western part, in Swedish, German and Polish waters. Some of these are set as semi-driftnets (i. e., anchored to one side only) to catch salmon and sea trout (as in Polish waters).

During the 1980s, the use of large-scale driftnets was established in most oceans of the world, with nets up to 50km in length regularly deployed in the Pacific. They resulted in very sizeable bycatches in many regions (IWC 1994), including not only cetaceans but also seabirds, turtles, sharks and other non-target fish species. In Western Europe, there were major driftnet fisheries in the eastern North Atlantic for tuna (French and

15 of 59

Spanish fisheries) and along the Atlantic coasts of Norway and Ireland for salmon (IWC, 1994). Harbour porpoises were the species mainly caught near-shore, and common, striped and Atlantic white-sided dolphins offshore. The French tuna driftnet fisheries in the Celtic Shelf and Bay of Biscay during 1992-93 had an estimated by-catch of mainly striped dolphins of between one and two thousand per year (Goujon et al. 1993, Goujon 1996). The Irish tuna driftnet fishery between 1990 and 2000 was estimated to have killed nearly 12,000 common dolphins (Rogan & Mackey 2007).

In response to widespread concerns, the United Nations imposed a moratorium on the use of all large-scale driftnets in the open ocean in 1992, and the European Commission responded with a series of resolutions leading to a total ban in European Atlantic waters in 2002 and in the Baltic Sea in 2008.

In the 1980s and 1990s, purse seine nets were set around pods of dolphins associating with tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific and this became a serious conservation problem (Hall 1998, Northridge & Hofman 1999, Hall & Donovan 2001). Fortunately, this particular mode of fishing has now ceased , and the most common form of interaction with purse seining in the North Atlantic is with killer whales taking herring or mackerel from the nets as they are being hauled in (Couperus 1994).

The setting of pots or traps for fish and crustaceans can inadvertently catch cetaceans, particularly baleen whales such as humpback and minke whale (Northridge et al. 2010, Ryan et al. 2016). They often become caught in the leader ropes rather than the traps themselves. The problem seems to be greatest in north and west Scotland, involving minke whales and humpback whales (Northridge et al. 2010, Ryan et al. 2016).

Fishing nets and lines that are cut loose and discarded (i.e. ghost netting) can also entangle cetaceans, affecting a wide variety of cetacean species ranging from minke whale to harbour porpoise. Also these net debris are often swallowed by cetaceans.

3. Existing legal framework for bycatch assessment and data collectionThe legal obligation to monitor and assess bycatch of mammals and birds is contained within areas of fisheries and environmental European legislation. National legislation and international advice processes (particularly through ICES) support effective implementation of EU legislation (Fig. 1).

16 of 59

Fig. 1. Interrelation between nature conservation and fisheries legislation at various levels including relevant documents the role of conventions, fishery and conservation bodies witrh respect to PETS bycatch monitoring and its mitigation (Koschinski et al. 2017, updated).

3.1. Legal framework in fisheries policy

The main EU fisheries legislation with respect to bycatch monitoring and assessment is the Basic Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation 1380/2013). Most relevant with respect to details of monitoring and reporting of bycatch and fishing effort are:

the Data Collection Framework (DCF) Regulation 2017/1004 of 17 May 2017 on the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008;

the European Commission Implementing Decision 2016/1251 of 12 July 2016 adopting a multiannual Union programme for the collection, Management and use of data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors for the period 2017-2019 (DC-MAP);

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1701 of 19 August 2016 laying down rules on the format for the submission of work plans for data collection in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors (notified under document C(2016) 5304)

the Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (“Technical Measures Regulation”),

Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (Control Regulation).

17 of 59

Art. 25 (1) of the Basic Regulation (1380/2013) rules that Member States shall collect i.a. biological, and environmental data necessary for fisheries management. The acquisition and management of such data shall be eligible for funding through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Those data shall i. a. enable the assessment of (b) the level of fishing and the impact that fishing activities have on the marine biological resources and on the marine ecosystems.

The Data Collection Multiannual Programme (DC-MAP) for the period 2017-2019 includes a table which specifies which bird species and marine mammal species (also other groups of protected species such as fish and reptiles) have to be monitored as bycatch in fishing gears. Data collection methods and quality shall be appropriate for the intended purposes defined in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (see above) and shall follow the best practices and relevant methodologies advised by the relevant scientific bodies. Further, the appropriateness of methods shall independently be verified at regular intervals (Chapter II). Those data shall consist of: (a) For all types of fisheries, incidental bycatch of all birds [and] mammals […], including the species listed in Table 1D, including absence in the catch, during scientific observer trips […] or by the fishers themselves through logbooks. Where data collected during observer trips are not considered providing sufficient data on incidental bycatch for end-user needs, other methodologies, shall be implemented by Member States (Chapter III.3. (a)). National Work Plans are submitted by Member States to specify their monitoring programmes under DC-MAP and approved by DG Mare. The present EU-MAP (three-year period 2017-2019) has been rolled over for the period 2020-2021.

The Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures repeals Regulation 812/2004 (concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries). Annex XIII sets out measures for sensitive species and requires Member States to take the necessary steps to collect scientific data on incidental catches. Part A [2.1] of the Annex sets out the monitoring schemes to be established by Member States on an annual basis for vessels flying their flag and with an overall length of 15m or over to monitor cetacean bycatch, on the specific fisheries listed. With regards to seabird bycatch, Part B states that where the [scientific] data (..) indicates a level of by-catches of seabirds in specific fisheries which constitutes a serious threat to the conservation status of those seabirds, Member States shall use bird scaring lines and/or weighted lines, if it is scientifically proven that such use has a conservation benefit in that area, and where practical and beneficial shall set longline gear during the hours of darkness with the minimum of deck lighting necessary for safety. It also puts more emphasis on regional cooperation (under the Common Fisheries Policy regionalisation). That allows the development of specific solutions (e. g., for the Baltic Sea under the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum BALTFISH), which can also include optimising bycatch monitoring of marine mammals and waterbirds. Importantly, the Regulation requires the use of targets (Article 4) for the management of bycatch of protected species; it states that bycatches of marine mammals, marine reptiles, seabirds and other non-commercially exploited species do not exceed levels provided for in Union legislation and international agreements that are binding on the Union.

18 of 59

The EU Control Regulation (1224/2009) and its Implementing Regulation (404/2011) rule i.a. which type of tracking system is mandatory and how fishing effort shall be reported. Vessels ≥ 12 m in length must have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and an electronic logbook. Vessels > 10 m in length (> 8 m in the Baltic Sea when they have a cod quota1) must have a logbook. Smaller vessels are not required to carry a logbook or fill out a landing declaration. For smaller vessels estimates of effort are derived by individual EU Member States in a variety of ways, such as monthly journals (Sweden), sales records (Denmark) or extrapolated sampling data. The Control regulation is currently under revision.

In addition, vessels ≥ 15 m in length must carry Automated Identification System (AIS)2. VMS signals including a vessel’s position, speed and course are transmitted once every 2 hrs3. This allows assessing whether a trawler is engaged in transiting or trawling.

3.2. Legal framework in environmental policy

Monitoring and assessment obligations with respect to bycatch are also explicitly in European nature conservation legislation, mainly the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive:

Due to Art. 12 (4) Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IVa. In the light of the information gathered, Member States shall take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned. Further, the system of protection set out in Article 5 of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) requires prohibition of “deliberate4 killing or capture of birds, by any method”. This applies to the whole territory of a Member State and additional rules apply in all registered protected areas under the Birds Directive which are subject to the Natura 2000 protection regime under the Habitats Directive (Art. 7) and thus prohibition of deterioration (Art. 6 (2)) as well as to the Impact Assessment.

According to Art. 8 of the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), EU Member States are required to assess progress towards achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) for each of the 11 qualitative ‘Descriptors’, as defined by each Member State under Art. 9.

The Commission Decision COM 2017/848/EU describes how Member States should assess the achievement of GES for each functional species group of marine mammals and birds under Descriptor 1 (biodiversity). GES for each species group is assessed by integrating the results of status assessments of individual species. The status of each species is assessed using a number of

1 According to Reg. 2016/11392 According to Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC.3 According to Implementing Regulation (404/2011)4 It will be argued that bycaught protected species are not killed "intentionally". According to a court ruling of the ECJ, "intention" is not a special form of intent, but it is sufficient that certain actions are taken in the knowledge of an existing prohibition under species protection law, which compromises the protection of a species (30.1.2002 – Rs. C-103/00 (Commission ./. Hellenic Republic „Caretta caretta“).

19 of 59

‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’5 Criteria (Art. 3 of the Commission Decision). One of the Primary Criteria for birds and mammals is D1C1 bycatch mortality, defined as: “The mortality rate per species from incidental bycatch is below levels which threaten the species, such that its long-term viability is ensured.” (See the specifications and standardized methods for monitoring and assessment in the Annex of the Commission Decision). Member States are required (Art. 4 Commission Decision) to establish threshold values for primary criteria in order to assess “the quality level achieved for a particular criterion”. According to the COM 2017/848/EU […] the extent to which GES has been achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as follows: - the mortality rate per species and whether this has achieved the threshold values set. In the specifications and standardized methods for monitoring and assessment it is also stated that: “[…] data shall be provided per species per fishing métier for each ICES area (…) to enable its aggregation to the relevant scale for the species concerned, and to identify the particular fisheries and fishing gear most contributing to incidental catches for each species” (Part II, 1). The bycatch criterion (D1C1) contributes to the assessment of the abundance criterion (D1C2) for the corresponding species (Walmsley et al. 2017).

As with all aspects of the MSFD, reporting under Art. 8 and 9 is achieved through co-operation within each European Regional Sea via the relevant Region Sea Convention (e.g. OSPAR, HELCOM), as required under Art. 6 of MSFD (reiterated in COM 2017/848/EU). So it is highly appropriate that OSPAR and HELCOM facilitate the development of methods for assessing bycatch mortality in marine birds and mammals in the NE Atlantic and Baltic Sea, respectively.

The European Commission’s Plan of Action for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears (European Commission, 2012 – EU-POA) aims ‘to minimise and, where possible, eliminate the incidental catches of seabirds, with priority action focussing on individuals belonging to at least 49 threatened seabird populations by EU vessels operating in EU and non-EU waters, as well as by non-EU vessels operating in EU waters. For other species where the populations are stable but bycatch are[sic] at levels that are cause for concern, bycatch should be reduced as a first step towards elimination’. The EU-POA is the EU’s response to the FAO International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (IPOA-Seabirds) adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries (FAO-COFI, 1999). The EU-POA addresses all fisheries and gears relevant to seabird bycatch and includes both binding and non-binding measures; there are 30 separate actions addressing five specific objectives:

1 ) identifying and addressing weaknesses and incoherencies in current management measures (seven actions);

2 ) data collection to establish the extent of seabird bycatch (six actions);

3 ) implementation of mitigation measures (eight actions);

4 ) providing education and training to fishermen in the use and benefit of mitigation measures and identification of seabirds for reporting purposes (five actions); and

5 “Secondary criteria and associated methodological standards, specifications and standardised methods laid down in the Annex shall be used to complement a primary criterion or when the marine environment is at risk of not achieving or not maintaining good environmental status for that particular criterion. The use of a secondary criterion shall be decided by each Member State, except where otherwise specified in the Annex.” Art. 3(2) Commission Decision COM 2017/848/EU.

20 of 59

5 ) instigating research into effective mitigation measures (four actions).

The adoption of the EU-POA by member states is voluntary but implementation is likely to be done at least in part, in response to the legislative drivers described above. The OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWGBIRD) conducted a review of implementation of the actions in the EU-POA and suggested ways in which implementation could be improved (ICES 2016b).

3.3. Commitments from conventions

Several additional commitments to monitor and assess bycatch are within various conventions. For example, the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and HELCOM Ministerial Declarations from 2010 and 2013 include commitments related to assessing different pressures on the marine environment, including fisheries, within the context of HELCOM’s role as the coordinating platform for the regional implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea. Specifically, the Baltic Sea Action Plan provides for co-operation with ASCOBANS6 on the promotion of research aiming at developing additional methods for the assessment of, and reporting on, the impacts of fisheries on biodiversity and the development and implementation of effective monitoring and reporting systems for by-caught birds and mammals by 2010.

The HELCOM Ministerial Declaration 2010 also addresses the issue of monitoring with respect to indicator based assessments in the frame of the regional implementation of the MSFD and the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The Ministerial Declaration 2013 is more specific with respect to monitoring and assessment of bird and harbour porpoise bycatch.

OSPAR’s current North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy for 2010-2020 (OSPAR Agreement 2010-3)7 does not explicitly mention any objectives relating to bycatch mortality. But the OSPAR Recommendations for the following Threatened and Declining Species of bird and cetacean contain reference to bycatch in the programmes of measures, which Contracting Parties are required to implement: Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) (OSPAR Recommendations 2011/4), Thick-billed Murre (Uria Lomvia) (2011/07) and Iberian guillemot (Uria aalge ibericus) (2014/16) and harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (2013/11). There is also reference to threats from entanglement in fishing gear in the Recommendations for bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) (2013/8) and North Atlantic blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (2013/9).

The objectives of ASCOBANS are implemented through its Conservation and Management Plan, the delivery of which is mandated through Resolutions agreed by Parties. Most relevant is Resolution No. 5 (ASCOBANS 2016) Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch which sets out the general aim to minimize (i.e. ultimately to reduce to zero) anthropogenic removals (i.e. mortality), and in the short term, to restore and/or maintain biological or management units to/at 80 per cent or more of the carrying capacity; in order to reach this objective, the intermediate precautionary aim is to reduce bycatch to less than 1 per cent of the best available population estimate; (c) a total anthropogenic removal (e.g. mortality from bycatch and vessel strikes) above 1.7 per cent of the best available estimate of abundance is to be considered unacceptable in the case of the harbour porpoise. To achieve these aims, it requests parties to put in place monitoring programmes to enable robust estimates of bycatch and to implement (develop) and evaluate mitigation.

6 https://www.ascobans.org/7 https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1200/ospar_strategy.pdf#page=7

21 of 59

The CMS Resolution 10.14 on bycatch of CMS listed species in gillnet fisheries (CMS 2011) i. a. urges Parties to assess the risk of bycatch arising from their gillnet fisheries, as it relates to migratory species, encourages Parties to conduct research on mitigation measures and encourages Parties and invites other governments, fisheries and fisheriesrelated organizations and the private sector to facilitate collection of species-specific bycatch data and to share such data wherever possible.

The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) recently adopted Priorities for the Conservation of Seabirds in the African-Eurasian Flyways (AEWA Resolution 7.6, MOP 7 Durban, 20188), which contained the action on seabird bycatch: “Address bycatch in fishing gear by filling seabird bycatch data gaps throughout the AEWA range, through existing regional frameworks and projects; assess the extent and impact of bycatch by artisanal fisheries to AEWA-listed seabirds; and by feeding bycatch data into a flyway assessment of the cumulative impact of seabird mortality (e.g. from harvesting, illegal killing and taking and bycatch) to inform national and regional decision-making on the sustainable use of seabirds.” The AEWA resolution is not legally binding but provides a useful framework for different countries to work together on impacts from bycatch throughout the range of seabirds which may extend beyond the areas covered by OSPAR and HELCOM.

4. Overview of nationally available dataThe work of ICES WGBYC on bycatch of protected species (including mammals and birds which are topic of the workshop) is primarily driven by the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 of 26 April 2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries. MS are required to report annually to the EC on their monitoring effort, fisheries effort, number of incidental catches of cetaceans and the use of pingers. Very few Member States have established dedicated cetacean bycatch monitoring programmes, either through the use of observers or Remote Electronic Monitoring. Most countries rely on non-dedicated cetacean bycatch monitoring as part of their at-sea observations carried out for the purposes of fisheries monitoring in accordance with the EU Data Collection Framework Regulation 2017/1004 (DCF), see Table 10. The annual reviews of the Member States reports are central to the work of ICES WGBYC. The revised Technical Measures Regulation 2019/12419 repeals i.a. EU Reg. 812/2004. After 2019, there is no reporting or data collection obligation for Member States under this Regulation. Data collection will be driven by DC-MAP and the Technical Regulation. With regards to reporting, the Technical Measures Regulation (Article 34) states by the end of 2020 and every third year thereafter, and on the basis of information suppliedby Member States and the relevant Advisory Councils and following evaluation by the STECF, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Regulation. Member

8 https://www.unep-aewa.org/sites/default/files/document/aewa_mop7_6_seabirds_en.docx9 REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 2019/1241 on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005

22 of 59

States also report “status” of species under the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, of which consideration of impacts of bycatch are a component.

Other data on cetacean bycatch may also be submitted through Reg. 812/2004 reporting. In Article 4, it states that it “shall establish a multiannual Union programme for the collection and management of data”. Article 4 is realised through Implementing Decisions (e.g. (EU) 2016/1251 of 12 July 2016). This implementing decision states that data collected by Member States should include ‘incidental bycatch of all birds, mammals and reptiles and fish protected under Union legislation and international agreements, including the species listed in Table 1D, and if the species is absent in the catch during scientific observer trips on fishing vessels or by the fishers themselves through logbooks’.

All bycatch data need to be effort related in order to make extrapolations from rates to total bycatch numbers. Thus, it is important that effort data are available for the relevant fisheries. Depending on the size of the vessel, AIS/VMS data and logbook entries are the main sources of such data. However, effort data are often not fully available or not comparable between vessels of different size classes (see chapter 8)

WGBYC compiles effort related bycatch data which are being provided through an annual data call. Much effort is put in harmonizing data provided and to improve data quality.

5. Overview of nationally available monitoring programsCatch sampling programmes and dedicated bycatch monitoring studies tend, due to budgetary constraints, to have relatively low sampling effort in relation to the total effort within a monitored fishery. This has direct implications on the precision that can be expected in the results from sampling programmes. ICES WKPETSAMP compiled an inventory of the various sampling programmes that provide information on bycatch of PETS at the national level, and their sampling intensity (Table 10). It contains information on at-sea data collection programmes from Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain (Basque county), Sweden and the United Kingdom (ICES 2018b).

6. Assessing vulnerability and risk to bycatch – case studies on seabirdsIn large areas of the ocean and for large fishing fleets some prioritisation of bycatch monitoring and of the deployment of mitigation measures may be required. Idientfcation of areas where mammals or birds are potentially at a high risk of being killed by bycatch will greatly help this prioritisation of resources.

OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES JWGBIRD (ICES 2018c) summarised recent spatial assessments performed in Northern Europe, in the Baltic Sea (Sonntag et al. 2012) and in UK waters (Bradbury et al. 2017). Both studies employed similar mapping approaches that assessed the vulnerability of seabirds to bycatch. They firstly developed a sensitivity index for each species. Areas of vulnerability were then identified by incorporating the species-specific sensitivity indices into maps of seabird density (i.e. numbers of each species per unit area):

23 of 59

Vulnerability to bycatch = Sensitivity x Seabird Density

Both studies then combined the vulnerability mapping with maps of the exposure to fisheries that are likely to cause bycatch, in order to identify those areas where seabirds are at the greatest risk from bycatch:

Bycatch Risk = Vulnerability to bycatch x Fishing effort

Each study calculated bycatch risk slightly differently – see below.

Baltic SeaSonntag et al. (2012) addressed diving bird bycatch in set-nets in the Baltic Sea. They looked at seasonal overlap between set-net fishing activities (based on VMS and ship-based counts of set-net flags) and vulnerability of seabirds for the 2000-2008 period, taking into account species-specific sensitivity to bycatch in set-nets. The vulnerability index was based on weighted bird abundance derived from ship-based and aerial surveys. The sensitivity to bycatch of each species i was estimated by qualitatively ranking biological traits related to life history (adult survival rate, c; biogeographic population size, d), behaviour (diving behaviour, a; aggregation behaviour, b) and European conservation status (Species of European Conservation Concern, SPEC, e). Based on literature review or expert judgment, each trait was given a score reflecting its importance with regards to bycatch. The scores of all traits were then combined to a weighting factor WFi, giving the overall sensitivity as:

WFi = ai+bi

2∗c i+d i+e i

3

For each species, the vulnerability was obtained by multiplying its abundance (per 2x3 km grid cell) by the weighting factor, and for each grid cell, the total vulnerability was expressed as the sum of vulnerabilities of all diving species (Figure 1).

Finally, the bycatch risk in each grid cell was expressed in terms of “potential for conflict” ( PC) as the product of total vulnerability and fishing effort and classified into five discrete categories (Figure 2).

This study highlighted that the spatial and temporal distribution patterns of birds and fisheries were overlapping. The potential conflict was higher during specific seasons (winter and spring) in coastal waters and around shallow offshore grounds. The vulnerability index identified important areas and seasons based on bird abundance, independent of the fishing effort that could be the target of appropriate conservation and management actions. Sonntag et al. (2012) emphasise the relevance of this approach in identifying the potential impact of seabird bycatch in fisheries that are difficult to monitor.

24 of 59

Figure 1. Vulnerability of birds to bycatch mortality in set-net fisheries in the German sector of the Baltic Sea (data from 2000–2008). A 5-point scale vulnerability index was calculated based on the weighted abundance of 17 species of diving birds: none (green), 0; low (yellow), 0–14.81; moderate (orange), 14.81–65.19; high (red), 65.19–274.95; very high (dark red), >274.95. Source: Sonntag et al. 2012.

25 of 59

Figure 2 Potential for conflict (data from 2000–2008), showing the seasonal overlap of set-net fisheries and of diving seabirds in the Southern Baltic Sea area. A 5-point scale of potential conflict for 2000–2008 was calculated for each quartile: none (green), 0; low (yellow), .0–1.41; moderate (orange), .1.41–7.69; high (red), .7.69–38.64; very high (dark red), .38.64. NB: very shallow waters have not been surveyed by ship. Source: Sonntag et al. 2012.

UK watersThe objective of the study by Bradbury et al. (2017) was to estimate the relative risk of UK seabird species to bycatch from fisheries operating in UK waters (within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone, but extended to the boundary of the Continental Shelf).

Seabird density was mapped by modelling two main datasets: the EuropeanSeabirds at Sea (ESAS) database (1979-2011) and WWT Consulting’s visual aerial survey database (2001-2011). Additional datasets were included to increase the sampling coverage.

The sensitivity of each species was estimated by scoring known traits of conservation status, demography/ecology and behaviour (see Table 6, and compare to the similar approach of Sonntag et al. (2012) described above). The traits were selected from a review of previous studies that measured sensitivity of seabirds to bycatch in the southern hemisphere (Small et al. 2013; Tuck et al. 2011; Waugh et al. 2012), and other impacts in European waters, such as from oil and gas (e.g. Tasker et al. 1990) and impacts from marine renewable developments (e.g. Garthe and Hüppop 2004; Furness et al. 2012).

Table 6. Attributes used by Bradbury et al. (2017) to score the sensitivity to fisheries bycatch in UK EEZ for each seabird species in the study. The Seabird Sensitivity Index SSI was calculated as SSI = (a + b + c + d) * (e * f).

Conservation status Demographic/ecological factors Behaviour factors

a) % of biogeographic population in the UK c) Adult survival rate e) Entrapment risk

b) UK threat status d) Habitat specialisation f) Response to fishing activity

Each trait was scored and weighted, depending on the trait importance related to bycatch. A panel of nine experts scored each species against each attribute. The ‘triangular fuzzy numbers’ approach of McBride et al. (2012) was used to obtain a median score across experts and to record the variation in expert opinion and thereby quantify the confidence in the scores.

A Seabird Sensitivity Index (SSI) was calculated for each species by first summing the median scores for conservation status and demography/ecology and multiplying them by the scores for behaviour (see Table 6). The behavioural scores (i.e. entrapment risk and response to fishing activity) describe the likelihood of a species being caught if it is in the vicinity of fishing vessels. Species that actively pursue fishing vessels in search of food (e.g. Northern fulmar) are more likely to be caught than species that fly away from vessels (e.g. red-throated diver) during active fishing (not applicable to static gears). The entrapment risk scoring described how likely the species

26 of 59

would be caught based on its foraging behaviour around a fishing vessel. Bradbury et al. (2017) felt there was too little evidence of bycatch in UK or European waters to be able to score entrapment risk for each species in each gear type. Thus, they used the behaviour of each species to predict where in the water column they were most likely to encounter fishing gear. From this, they inferred which gears are most likely to catch seabirds. All gears were likely to catch some species at the surface when they are being deployed. Of the species with the highest SSI, most were sensitive to being caught in more than one section of the water column and by more than one gear type.

Vulnerability to bycatch for each species was mapped by combining the species’ SSI with maps of their density distribution at sea during summer (April to September) and winter (October to March), using the equation:

Bycatchvulnerability=∑ ¿¿

The seasonal seabird density predictions, and the associated Coefficients of Variations (CVs), were mapped on a 3km x 3km grid covering UK territorial waters. For each grid cell, the resulting vulnerability scores were summed across species. This resulted in total seabird vulnerability maps for each season and gear category. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show respectively the relative vulnerability of seabird populations to bycatch in surface gears and in pelagic gears.

27 of 59

Figure 3 Relative vulnerability of seabird populations to bycatch in fishing gears at the sea surface in summer and winter. Values are the sums of the products of seabird species densities and their SSIs. The ‘0 / Data Deficient’ category denotes grid cells which have no positive value, but a mix of scores for individual species of zero and more than zero but with low confidence in the density data (CVs >0.5). Source: Bradbury et al. (2017).

28 of 59

Seabird bycatch risk was then mapped by overlaying these vulnerability maps with fishing effort (exposure):

Bycatchrisk=Fishingeffort∗Bycatch vulnerability

Fishing effort (in hours) was derived from Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data from the UK fishing fleet between 2009 and 2013 for different gear classes (Figures 3 and 4). However, it is worth noting that VMS data from non-UK-registered vessels were omitted despite being available. This is because the UK had limited access to daily logbooks from foreign vessels, so that it was not possible to identify, with any degree of certainty, which gear type was being used at a particular time. Still, effort from non-UK-registered vessels was significant: non-UK-registered EU fishing boats landed on average 58% of the total catch by weight and 61% of pelagic fish by weight in the UK Exclusive Economic Zone during the period 2012-2014 (Napier, 2016). Additionally, Bradbury et al. (2017) noted that the distribution of non-UK vessels might potentially differ from that of UK vessels. There may thus be significant additional risk (i.e. risk not incorporated into the assessment of Bradbury et al. (2017)), e.g. from demersal longline and deep-water gillnets from non-UK-registered vessels in the area west of Scotland (Dan Edwards, pers. comm.). Moreover, the information on effort from smaller inshore vessels was either inconsistent or incomplete spatially and temporally. The relative VMS coverage represented only a small fraction of the gillnet effort (40% of the landings by weight) and of the trap fisheries (23% of the landings by weight). Estimating the fishing effort as the vessels’ time presence is probably adequate for active mobile gears, but it is not so for passive non-mobile gears such as static nets, pots and traps. For these fisheries, VMS data is not able to give a reliable estimate of the effort, but instead provides an insight of the areas where these gears are employed. Yet, the vulnerability maps show that coastal areas are potentially highly impacted by fishing activities.

29 of 59

Figure 4 Relative vulnerability of seabird populations to bycatch in fishing gears in the pelagic zone in summer and winter. Values are the sums of the products of seabird species densities and their SSIs. The ‘0 / Data Deficient’ category denotes grid cells which have no positive value, but a mix of scores for individual species of zero and more than zero but with low confidence in the density data (CVs >0.5). Source: Bradbury et al. (2017).

The workflow of the approach used by Bradbury et al. (2017) is illustrated in Figure 5.

30 of 59

Figure 5 Methodological approach used by Bradbury et al. (2017) to obtain seabird bycatch risk maps in UK waters. Figure from Bradbury et al. (2017).

7. Information on already existing data sources related to by-catch numbers and fishing effort

To assess the conservation threat posed by fishery bycatch to a particular protected species three bits of information are required, these are:

the susceptibility of that population to bycatch in particular fisheries (based on sufficient observed effort data and recording of bycatch incidents for each fishing gear);

the spatiotemporal scale of the fisheries concerned (based on total fishing effort for each fishing gear including VMS, AIS, logbook data and vessel register data);

the resilience of the population to bycatch (based on population abundance and recovery potential and other pressures).

Since 2018, the ICES Working Group on bycatch of protected species (WGBYC) issues an annual data call on total fishing effort, monitoring/sampling effort and protected species bycatch incidents. The data supports ICES annual advice on the impact of bycatch on small cetaceans and other marine animals to answer a standing request from the European Commission for advice on the impacts of fisheries on the marine environment. Most of the countries submit data but the quality and quantity of the data provided varies widely among nations. There are also difficulties in estimating the total effort of all vessel segments (different size classes) as their effort is reported in

31 of 59

different metrics. The WGBYC data call gathers information to estimate the susceptibility of a population to bycatch in particular fisheries and the spatiotemporal scale of the fisheries concerned. The WGBYC data call does not provide data to estimate the resilience of the population to bycatch, since resilience depends on the population abundance and its ability to grow and recover and on further pressures. The ICES/OSPAR/HELCOM JWGBIRD has initiated work to enable assessment of the resilience of waterbirds to bycatch. The basis for the ICES advice on “Bycatch of cetaceans and other marine animals” is available online10

Data on bycatch ICES collects effort related information on bycatch of protected species from monitoring under Reg. 812/2004 and other monitoring programmes (currently mainly DCF). The annual ICES Advice on bycatch of small cetaceans and other marine animals evaluates the bycatch of cetaceans in selected sea areas using a bycatch risk assessment approach (BRA). In their impact assessments, data from the ICES WGBYC database is pooled over many years. E.g., the bycatch of harbour porpoises in static nets in the Kattegat and the Belt Sea has been evaluated in 2015 and 2016 based on bycatch data pooled for the years 2006-2013 and 2006-2014, respectively (ICES 2015a, 2016a). This is due to a very low observed effort in national bycatch monitoring programs. Observed effort could be significantly increased using Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) (ICES 2015b).

The BRA approach explicitly recognizes the uncertainty in the overall bycatch rate estimate (its precision) by presenting estimates as 95% confidence intervals. This would result in a very wide range of annual bycatch totals where data are scarce (ICES 2015b). This limits the possibility to make precise statements about possible population consequences11.

Sampling under the current DCF can contribute to the assessment of bycatch of Protected, Endangered and Threatened Species (PETS), but is largely insufficient on its own as currently implemented by Member States. Assessments carried out by WKBYC (2013) and WGBYC (2018) showed that bottom trawling is generally relatively oversampled with respect to monitoring of protected species bycatch, while in the Baltic Sea gears subject to under sampling include fyke nets (FYK), trammel nets (GTR), set gillnets (GNS), set longlines (LLS), pots and traps (FPO) (ICES 2015b, 2018a, 2019).

There are currently important gaps in the understanding of seabird bycatch in European waters because of a relative scarcity of reliable data on scale, spatial distribution and importance of incidental catch in EU fisheries (Pott and Wiedenfeld 2017; James 2016). Although the EU Data Collection Framework Regulation 2017/1004 (DCF) establishes the need to assess the impact of Union fisheries on protected, endangered and threatened species (PETS), and the Commission implementing decision 2016/1251 (DC-MAP: Data Collection Multiannual Plan) even obliges to collect bycatch data of certain bird, mammal and fish species from a table of species to be monitored under protection programmes in the Union or under international obligations, the extent of seabird bycatch in particular remains essentially unknown.

10

11 Further uncertainties are on the side of the population model which is not the focus of this document.32 of 59

Historically, bycatch data collection has largely focused on cetaceans, notably to comply with the obligation to report to the European Commission following the Regulation 812/2004 (EC 2004). In recent years, to comply with the Common Fisheries Policy (EC 2009) and the revised Commission Decision on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EU 2017), according to which the assessment of the primary criterion D1C1 (“mortality rate from bycatch”) is mandatory, an emphasis was also put on collecting data on bycatch of other protected species, including seabirds (EC 2008a). The ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) identified a number of data sources related to bycatch numbers and fishing effort, but these are often incomplete with regards to seabird bycatch. Bycatch data are only valuable if they contain information about observer effort that can be attributed to fishing effort. Apart from the UK, no member state has yet implemented a dedicated PETS observer programme. This is raising concerns about the under-reporting of seabird bycatch in countries where non-dedicated observers are collecting bycatch data (ICES 2015b). Besides, fisheries effort is usually reported as days-at-sea, whereas in order to assess the scale and magnitude of seabird as well as marine mammal bycatch, more robust metrics would be more appropriate (e.g. for gillnet fishing: length x soak time; for longlines: length of longlines (in km) and number of hooks per km).

In Norway, the Norwegian Reference Fleet (NRF), a group of about twenty Norwegian fishing vessels contracted by the Institute of Marine Research (IMR), provides detailed information on their fishing activity, to improve stock assessments and fisheries management (www.imr.no/temasider/referanseflaten/en). The self-reported data collected by the NRF include bycatch of marine mammals and seabirds. This has resulted in a 10-year long time series of seabird bycatch data related to the fishery data from a large fleet of small-scale vessels fishing with gillnets along the Norwegian coast, and enabled estimation of the total bycatch of seabirds (Bærum et al. 2019) and harbour porpoises (Bjørge et al. 2013) in the Norwegian small-vessel gillnet fishery. The NRF has proven an effective way of collecting seabird bycatch data, yet caution is required when interpreting self-reported fisheries information.

Furthermore, the coverage of small-scale fisheries, which represent 83% of the European fleet, is very limited (Natale et al. 2015). Under the Common Fisheries Policy, only fishing vessels above 12 meters are required to use an electronic logbook; vessels above 10 meters length overall have to keep a logbook and need to submit landing and transhipment declarations (EC 2009). For vessels below 10 meters, no logbook is required, except for fisheries with a quota targeting Baltic Sea cod (EC 2016); below 8 meters, no logbook is required anymore, which is the case for many recreational and part-time fishing vessels. Many of these vessels use passive gears such as gillnets which are associated with high risks of bycatch for diving birds, including seaducks and divers and marine mammals. As a result, there is likely a significant under-estimation of the overall extent of bird and mammal bycatch in coastal and inshore waters, in particular in Northern Europe, where gillnet fishing is very common both for commercial and recreational fishermen (Žydelis et al. 2009). For instance, lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus) is targeted mostly by North-Atlantic small-scale gillnetters. These vessels use bottom-set nets with large meshes (usually more than 200mm), which, associated with long soak times in relatively shallow waters, often result in very high number of seabird bycatch (Petersen 2002; Merkel 2011; Fangel et al. 2015). Large meshed

33 of 59

gillnets (targeting e.g., lumpsucker, turbot and cod) and trammel nets using three net panels of which the outer ones have very large meshes (targeting flatfish) are also of special concern for harbour porpoises (Vinther 1999).

Over the last decade, bycatch in gillnet fisheries has been identified as the principal source of seabird mortality in European waters (Bradbury et al. 2017; Žydelis et al. 2009). However, gillnetters remain mostly under-monitored since fishermen are not required to report their bycatch of seabirds or marine mammals. Further, it is often argued that gillnet vessels are too small to accommodate an on-board observer in charge of data collection on fishing activities. In such cases, the use of electronic monitoring (REM) and on-board CCTV cameras provide the opportunity of increasing the coverage of small-scale gillnet fisheries in some areas. REM systems improve both the quality and the quantity of the data collected in these metiers, and are a cost-effective solution to estimate fishing effort and bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals (among other PETS) in gillnet fisheries (Kindt-Larsen et al. 2012; ASCOBANS 2015c, Bartholomew et al. 2018).

In addition to direct at-sea observations, indirect observation methods can also give an overview of potential high-risk areas (e.g. using strandings, fishermen interviews). These methods are low-cost but usually only provide low-resolution and/or low-quality data (see e.g. Bellebaum et al. 2013).

Regional, temporal and spatial overview of fishingThis text is for the Baltic Sea and may be adapted to the OSPAR area at a later stage.

Currently, no comparable effort data from all vessels of different sizes is available (VMS: hours fished, logbook: days at sea). In reporting total effort of static nets to ICES, Member States choose between five different metrics (ICES 2018a). “Days at sea” (DaS) is the only aggregated unit of fishing effort that is consistently reported among Member States (mandatory for vessels >15 m but often provided also for some smaller vessels) and hence, ICES WGBYC is reporting bycatch rate estimates in units associated with DaS. For describing bycatch risk, however DaS is only a very rough proxy for the dimensions of nets and thus a very inaccurate variable. ICES (2019) concluded that due to inconsistencies the 2017 fishing effort data from the ICES Regional DataBase and Estimation System (RDBES) could not be used for their PETS bycatch estimates. RDBES is intended to be the data basis for future advice on bycatch of cetaceans and other marine vertebrates.

Additionally, the current obligations for the recording rate of fishing positioning systems give a limited view of where the fisheries takes place and with what effort. Furthermore, small vessels are not obliged to carry VMS equipment. These currently only report effort at the resolution of Baltic Squares (1/9 of the basic Baltic Sea ICES statistical rectangle). The positioning of fishing effort is especially important in relation to a hotspot approach to by-catch mitigation fisheries management measures.

Data aggregated on a monthly basis would enable extrapolations from observed bycatch rate per effort on total effort during months in which a species occurs in the area (especially important for

34 of 59

overwintering birds) as an extrapolation to yearly effort could result in an overestimation of bycatch numbers (ICES 2019).

8. Obstacles Although there are clear legal obligations for monitoring and assessment of bycatch a number of obstacles to their (full) implementation have been identified.

8.1. Bycatch monitoring

The requirements for monitoring under EU Reg. 812/2004 have been scrutinised in several fora (e.g ICES WGBYC; ASCOBANS) ASCOBANS reviewed the Regulation and concluded there were several shortcomings (ASCOBANS 2015a):

Requirements for mitigation and monitoring were established according to an arbitrary vessel length and not according to the level of bycatch risk,

the limitation of the required observer programme to vessels larger than 15 m in length leading to underrepresentation of metiérs with likely high bycatch rates,

unclear objectives of ‘scientific studies’ and ‘pilot projects’ (for vessels ≤ 15 m), the lack of reporting obligations of fishing effort in a meaningful way and the lack of enforcement and control in some Member States,

the unspecific definition of gear types (e.g., some Member States claimed that it was unclear if trammel nets were covered; definition of semi-drift nets in the Batic),

a lack of incentives and penalties, although these existed in other data collection regulations (DCF monitoring is eligible for funding through the EMFF).

No exhaustive report of fishing effort was requested in the actual regulation and a standard format had only been defined later and was not complied with by all Member States.

In most Member States, the monitoring of cetacean bycatch under EU Reg. 812/2004 has been performed under the DCF at-sea catch sampling programme which by nature has a different focus than collecting bycatch data of protected species (ICES 2018b). Only the UK operates a dedicated monitoring programme using at-sea observers on bycatch of protected species alongside the DCF catch sampling programme. A number of Member States performed bycatch studies limited in time and area (ICES 2018b). Denmark has been conducting a REM study dedicated to bycatch for a number of years.

ICES WGBYC has raised concerns about the effectiveness of using fisheries observers, sampling to meet the requirements of the DCF, to monitor cetacean bycatch. In a comparison of bycatch rates reported by dedicated observers vs. non-dedicated (DCF) observers, rates were orders of magnitude higher in the dedicated reports (ICES 2015).

35 of 59

Current monitoring within DCF observer programmes mainly focuses on the state of fish stocks and as a consequence, the fleet segments which contribute most to the landings of commercial species receive the largest coverage. This is mainly the trawl fishery, with gillnet fisheries being undersampled although representing the larger part of the fleet and in many species such as the harbour porpoise and diving birds, contributing most to the bycatch. If adding bycatch monitoring to DCF monitoring, the DCF requirements would need to be significantly revised in order to take full account of bird and cetacean bycatch assessment needs in terms of target fleets and monitoring methods. This approach has a number of problems but also some benefits:

Funding: Monitoring under the DCF is eligible for EMFF funding. However, this funding source is not sufficient for additional monitoring obligations such as those from the species list to be monitored for bycatch given in the DC-MAP. As DCF has originally been designed for the purpose of assessments of fish stocks and discards but DC-MAP now also clearly specifies the requirements with respect to bycatch monitoring it is still to be agreed how sampling will be apportioned with respect to these competing objectives. Member States are not restricted to collecting data only through the DC-MAP – they can also put in place pilot/research projects. But this often appears to be a matter of funding.

Randomness in sampling effort: There is no true randomness in sampling in DCF monitoring. The sampling is not designed for estimating bycatch of protected species. This might introduce some bias which could lead to significant estimation error, and may have consequences for data quality assurance and management advice. However, there may be ways to improve sampling designs and reduce bias.

Methods: The at-sea sampling programme under DCF is based on onboard observers. It is often argued that this is only possible on larger vessels. There are, however, examples of observer programmes abord small vessels. Other methods such as Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) using cameras are definitely suited for smaller vessels and can be even more cost-effective; however, their use would require acceptance by fishermen or a legal obligation that cameras must be installed. Also it is limited by the availability of daylight or artificial light during hauling. A wide use of REM would better allow for randomised sampling (Kindt-Larsen et al. 2012, ASCOBANS 2015c).

Métiers: DCF is a well established monitoring programme aimed at stock and selectivity assessment and as such has its main focus on those fisheries which represent a large fraction of landings and on fisheries known to have a low selectivity such as mixed species fisheries. Few of the metiers relevant for bycatch of protected species receive sufficient coverage. Increasing the sampling of so far underrepresented set-net fisheries to give a representative coverage could improve bycatch monitoring in relevant métiers. It is a matter of effort allocation and would not mean shifting the focus of the program.

Sampling procedures: The onboard sampling procedures for observers in non-dedicated surveys such as DCF are not ideal with regards to bycatch of birds and mammals (ICES 2018b). The observers have a large number of duties which do not always allow paying full attention to by-

36 of 59

catch during hauling and sorting. Especially, megafauna dropping out of the net during hauling can be missed when distracted by other work (ICES 2018a).

If data are to be acquired by dedicated scientific sudies, those cannot be used for extrapolation beyond the immediate area of interest due to the typical limitation of such studies in time or space. Since by-catches are rare events, the coverage must be sufficiently large in order to derive robust by-catch numbers. Since the animal density and the use of fishing gears varies a lot within an ecoregion or the area of a Regional Seas Convention, such studies can only deliver estimates for a small fraction of the area.

Other means of (complementory) monitoring of bycatch may have to be explored. These are e.g., interviews of fishermen at the harbour, declarations on logbooks, and stranding data. However, it is difficult to relate those data to effort in order to extrapolate to total fishing effort. The Control Regulation (1224/2009) does not even require that fishermen report a bycatch of PETS in their logbook. Also it would be difficult to obtain bycatch data by species as this would require training of fishermen to identify their bycatch.

Funding levels have direct implications on the resolution at which estimates can be generated. Increasing precision or higher spatial resolution generally requires increased funding to support increased monitoring effort. The sampling rate necessary for a specific task (e. g., determining the by-catch rate per ICES square) can be simulated (ICES 2018b).

8.2. Effort monitoring

Currently, not only in the case of small vessels, there are different ways of collecting fishing effort data related to vessel size, as regulated in the EU Control Regulation (1224/2009) and its Implementing Regulation (404/2011). Unfortunately, the information content of the data collected varies between vessel size groups and thus is difficult to compare (Table 7).

Table 7. Different ways of collecting fishing effort data of certain populations of the EU fishing fleet (WGBYC = Data base of the ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species; From ICES 2018a)

DATA SOURCE EFFORT RECORDED AS VESSEL POPULATION

ICES WGBYC database Days at-sea >15 m mandatory, <15 m often provided

VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) Hours fished >12 m only

Logbook Days fished >10 m all areas, >8 m in Baltic

ICES Regional Database Fishing trips All vessels

VMS provides a method to monitor trawl fisheries’ effort. However, for passive gears such as set nets, the ping rate is too low to assess the fishing effort. Even with a higher ping rate, neither the dimensions of the gear nor the soak time can be collected. The dimensions however, should be entered in the logbook.

37 of 59

In the proposal for the revised control regulation12 a ruling has been suggested that all vessels including those below 12 metres' length must have a tracking system. Among tracking systems other than VMS and AIS are smartphone apps such as the German Mobile Fisheries Log (MoFi). These are however, not automated and require acceptance by the fishermen.

9. Possible ways forwardThere are various ways of acquiring the necessary bycatch data, all of which have their strengths and limitations (Table 8):

catch sampling at sea observer programs (under DC-MAP)

dedicated bycatch monitoring programmes (observers or REM)

directed bycatch studies.

ICES WKPETSAMP (ICES 2018b) made a comparison of at-sea catch sampling programmes vs. dedicated bycatch monitoring programmes and directed bycatch studies. Their strengths and limitations are described in Table 8. In this table, only the bullet points applicable to bird and mammal bycatch were taken from the ICES WKPETSAMP report.

Table 8. Strengths and limitations of catch sampling programmes, dedicated bycatch monitoring programmes and directed studies in the collection of bycatch data (from: ICES 2018b, modified).

Strengths Limitations

Catch sampling programmes Already being conducted in all coastal EU

member states.

Large spatial and temporal scale.

Well-funded through established mechanisms.

Sampling design may omit or undersample gears of high importance to some protected species bycatch.

Sampling protocols optimized for fish species are suboptimal for quantifying some protected species bycatch (e.g. mammals, birds)

Sampling intensity sometimes low, unlikely to observe rare event bycatches.

Observers not always trained in alternative sampling methodologies and species identification for protected species.

Sometimes difficult for observer to monitor bycatch in surveys with multiple objectives (i.e. the observer might be occupied with other duties when gear is being hauled)

Data recording practices and database storage facilities may not be able to deal with incidences of protected species bycatch

Dedicated bycatch monitoring programmes Large spatial and temporal scale.

Generally target gear types with higher perceived risk of protected species bycatch (e.g. static nets/ midwater trawls for mammals, longlines for seabirds).

Observers are trained in sampling techniques

Sampling protocols normally do not provide detailed information on commercial fish catch. Normally an estimate of retained and discarded catch is recorded but no fish measuring takes place

12 COM(2018) 368 final, 2018/0193 (COD) (dated: 30.5.2018)- Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008, and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control

38 of 59

and species identification of protected species.

Directed bycatch studies Small spatial and temporal scale –strength if

this is the scale of interest

Generally target gear types / fisheries with known risk of protected species bycatch.

Observers are trained in sampling techniques and species identification of protected species

Small spatial and temporal scale – results should not be extrapolated to a wider scale

Usually limited studies/projects difficult to follow development over time

Sampling design may not be optimized for quantifying bycatch of some protected species (e.g. fish and elasmobranchs in demersal trawls).

Sampling protocols normally do not provide detailed information on commercial fish catch. Normally an estimate of retained and discarded catch is recorded but no fish measuring takes place.

EMFF funds for years 2014-2020 have been already allocated for data collection under the DCF/DC-MAP. Some Member States have cited the lack of funds as the reason for not implementing a dedicated monitoring programme for protected species (ICES 2018a). Thus, in the new EMFF financial perspective for years 2021-2027, higher emphasis is put on data collection and control activities and the perspectives are such that 15% of the future EMFF will be allocated to these priorities. Therefore, this new financial perspective should give additional monitoring opportunities for Member States.

10. Threshold setting methodsIn order to operationalise indicators under the MSFD, thresholds need to be defined. Several methods are available to set thresholds for cetacean bycatch and have been reviewed (ICES 2014, STECF 2019). Threshold setting approaches can be simple “rules of thumb” or underpinned by population models but the resulting threshold sets the limit to removals and ensures overarching conservation objectives are met. Without specifying an objective, the threshold becomes arbitrary and would not necessarily achieve desired outcomes (presumably sustained populations).

Conservation objectives are identified in multiple European instruments and some also describe management objectives (or targets) that should enable the Conservation Objective to be met. Implicit in reaching the target, however, is a threshold which sets the limit to bycatch removals. Examples are given in Table 9 taken from STECF (2019): currently only ASCOBANS has identified conservation objectives, target and threshold values for bycatch in European waters.

39 of 59

Table 9. Summary of objectives given in European and international instruments with relevance to cetacean conservation (taken from STECF 2019).

Legislation / Convention

Aim / Strategic Objective Conservation Objective Management objective (target) of relevance to bycatch

Threshold Approach to set threshold

Environmental

Council Directive 92/43/EEC Habitats Directive

To contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.

Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest.

Ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned.

None None

Directive 2008/56/EC Marine Strategy Framework Directive13

Establishes a thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment with the overall aim of promoting sustainable use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystems.

Achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest

The mortality rate per species from incidental bycatch is below levels which threaten the species, such that its long-term viability is ensured14

None None

OSPAR North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (2010-2020) (Biological diversity and Ecosystems)15

Halt and prevent by 202 further loss of biodiversity in the OSPAR maritime area, to protect and conserve ecosystems and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected

AIm to ensure that the effects of human activities and pressures on the marine environment, individually or cumulatively, do not adversely affect species, habitats and ecosystems, in particular those on the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats

None None None

13file:///T:/Programme%20074%20Marine%20Species%20Advice/0241%20Marine%20species%20advice/Committees_WorkingGroups_Meetings/MSFD/MSFD_CELEX_32008L0056_EN_TXT.pdf

14file:///T:/Programme%20074%20Marine%20Species%20Advice/0241%20Marine%20species%20advice/Committees_WorkingGroups_Meetings/MSFD/CommissionDecisions_EU2017_848.pdf

15https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1200/ospar_strategy.pdf#page=7

40 of 59

Legislation / Convention

Aim / Strategic Objective Conservation Objective Management objective (target) of relevance to bycatch

Threshold Approach to set threshold

ASCOBANS16 Parties undertake to cooperate closely in order to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans

To restore and/or maintain stocks/populations to 80% or more of the carrying capacity in the long-term (‘infinite’ time).

Minimise and ultimately reduce to zero total anthropogenic removals within an unspecified time frame. Intermediate target levels should be set.

Short term: 1.7 % N

Medium term: 1% N

Modified PBR

International Whaling Commission

Conservation of whales and management of whaling

To restore and/or maintain stocks/populations to 72% or more of the carrying capacity in 100 years

CLA

Fisheries

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)

Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources

1. The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term [..]

2. apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield [...].

3. shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised [...]

None None

16 https://www.ascobans.org/fr/species/threats/bycatch

41 of 59

Legislation / Convention

Aim / Strategic Objective Conservation Objective Management objective (target) of relevance to bycatch

Threshold Approach to set threshold

Proposal on the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures17 (COM (2016) 134)

Contribute to achieving the CFP objectives to fish at maximum sustainable yield levels, reduce unwanted catches and eliminate discards and to contribute to the achievement of good environmental status (GES) as set out in Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council4

Technical measures should [also] minimise impacts of fishing gears on sensitive species and habitats [..] contribute to having in place management measures for the purposes of complying with obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC [Habitats Directive) [..] and Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD)

Technical measures shall aim to ensure that: [...] (b) incidental catches of marine mammals, marine reptiles, seabirds and other non-commercially exploited species do not exceed levels provided for in Union legislation and international agreements that are binding on the Union

To afford strict protection for sensitive marine species such as marine mammals [...] provided for in Directives 92/43/EEC [..] Member states should put in place mitigation measures to minimise and where possible eliminate the catches of those species from fishing gears

None None

Key: PBR=Potential Biological Removal; CLA = Catch Limit Algorithm; N=abundance estimate.

17 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0134

42 of 59

.

ASCOBANS has used a simple population model to set a threshold for total anthropogenic removal (e.g. mortality from bycatch and vessel strikes) of 1.7% of the best available estimate of abundance, levels above which are to be considered unacceptable in the case of the harbour porpoise (ASCOBANS, 2000; ANON, 2000). The intermediate precautionary aim is to reduce bycatch to less than 1% of the best available population estimate (Resolution No. 5 ASCOBANS 2016).

Potential Biological Removal (PBR) is a simple algorithm, first developed by Wade (1998) for use with marine mammal populations, that needs only information on adult survival, age at first breeding and population size to provide a value for a theoretically sustainable level of additional mortality. Therefore, it can be used when the availability of demographic information is minimal.

In the frame of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, the PBR approach is used to set bycatch thresholds for harbour porpoises. Density dependence is included in the underlying population model. PBR is based on the optimum sustainable population, the population level with maximum productivity. If the human-caused mortalities are less than the PBR, then a depleted population will be able to recover (given sufficient time) to over 50 % of the carrying capacity with a 95% probability (Richard & Abraham 2013). This objective is lower than e.g., the ASCOBANS conservation objective of achieving/maintaining populations at 80 % of the carrying capacity.

The PBR approach was also used at the IMR-NAMMCO Workshop on harbour porpoise in Tromsø (NAMMCO & IMR 2019). The report details assessments for the various management units identified in the North Atlantic and updates information provided in earlier documents.

PBR has been used in a number of instances in marine bird bycatch assessments to assess thresholds of additional annual mortality, which could be sustained by a population (Zador et al. 2008, Žydelis et al. 2009). Niel and Lebreton (2005) and Dillingham and Fletcher (2008) demonstrated its use to assess the significance of bycatch in longline fisheries on marine bird populations, by comparing mortality estimates to PBR levels (Žydelis et al. 2009). Additive mortality exceeding PBR could indicate potentially overexploited populations and the need for more detailed analysis (i.e. population modelling) or management action (i.e. mitigation measures) (Žydelis et al. 2009). However, by necessity, “additive mortality” would be additive mortality from any source (not just bycatch) as PBR was not designed to look at the population level effect of individual sources of mortality (e.g. that of bycatch alone). As it is very difficult to account for all sources of additive mortality (given existing data gaps) this must be recognised as a serious limitation of the method.

PBR also incorporates a recovery factor (f), which can be adjusted depending on the level of precaution deemed appropriate. Potential factors that might influence the use of more precautionary f values might be species conservation status, a declining population trend, uncertainty in parameter estimates, etc. Dillingham and Fletcher (2008) used an f = 0.5 for stable populations, f = 0.3 for declining populations, and f = 0.1 for rapidly declining populations. It should be noted that PBR is particularly sensitive to the f value selected, and therefore decisions regarding the recovery factor should be taken with care.

43 of 59

O’Brien et al. (2017) recently tested the use of PBR to examine the acceptability of potential impacts of offshore wind farms on marine bird populations. They used PBR to estimate the number of additional mortalities that a ‘typical seabird population’ could theoretically sustain. They found that in some cases the sustainable levels of mortality predicted by PBR in fact led to declines in the modelled population. O’Brien et al. (2017) concluded that unless the implicit assumptions underlying PBR are met, it is an inappropriate tool for assessing the impact of additional mortality on a population.

PBR should not be used as a threshold-setting tool, against which bycatch ‘allowable take’ may be set (O’Brien et al 2017). However, in some instances it is a useful tool for identifying those marine bird populations that may be impacted by bycatch, which have hitherto been overlooked, and for which possible mitigation should be considered.

Another modelling approach to assessing the impact of bycatch mortality on marine mammal and seabird populations is to use Population Viability Analysis (PVA), commonly implemented using Leslie matrix models (Caswell, 2001). PVA is based on simulated time-series of population growth or decline using extensive demographic data or demographic models of a population. The reliability of a PVA increases with the knowledge of specific demographic parameters such as the distribution of vital rates between individuals of different life history stages and between years. It is thus very data demanding.

For example, Genovart et al. (2017) used matrix models to assess population-level effects of bycatch in the Mediterranean Sea on three species of seabird. PVA is a quantitative risk-assessment approach that assesses the viability of a population, usually in terms of extinction risk dependent on different management scenarios (Akçakaya & Sjörgren-Gulve, 2000; Beissinger & McCullough, 2002). PVA offers a useful modelling framework for better understanding how a population is likely to respond to different management scenario, i.e. to assess relative changes in a population under two or more scenarios, rather than to make absolute predictions of future population size or growth rate. PVA does require more demographic information than PBR, e.g. annual survival rate of different age classes, productivity rate, age at first breeding and, in some models, information on how these rates change with population size (density-dependent regulation) (Genovart et al. 2016). However, where demographic parameters are unknown, users can make an explicit informed decision on what proxy value to select, rather than allowing a tool, such as PBR, to assign values according to implicit assumptions that may not be upheld. Consequently, PVA is generally recommended over PBR for investigating population response to anthropogenic mortality (O’Brien et al. 2017).

As with all other population models that incorporate a density dependent growth function, there is often insufficient information to determine the strength and form of density dependence for marine bird populations. For example, in a review of density dependence in seabirds, Horswill et al. (2017) found depensatory density dependence to be present in some tern and gull populations i.e. that as population size declined, so did population growth rate, unlike the more common compensatory density dependence where population growth rate generally increases at lower

44 of 59

population sizes. Misspecifying the form of density dependence can lead to erroneous predictions about a population’s response to anthropogenic mortality (O’Brien et al. 2017).

Other possible methods that have so far not been used to assess seabird bycatch mortality are Removal Limits Algorithm (RLA) and Integrated Population Models (IPM).

Within a similar framework, a Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) has been developed. It is based on the principles of the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) revised management procedure (RMP) for commercial whaling and has been used to calculate anthropogenic mortality limits for harbour porpoises in the North Sea (Winship 2009). The next step should be to expand the capability of the model by incorporating multiple areas in the model. A clear definition of the conservation objective and target (e.g. 80 % of habitat capacity) and simulation time is required.

The Removals Limit Algorithm Approach (RLA; Hammond et al. 2019) is similar in concept to the CLA approach developed under the Revised Management Procedure of the International Whaling Commission to set limits to baleen whale catches (IWC, 2012). Hammond et al. (2019) build on previous work based on a CLA type approach (Winship 2009) to determine limits of anthropogenic removal of small cetaceans. The RLA is a simple population model describing a population with density dependent growth and subject to anthropogenic removals. A population model is developed for simulation testing of the ability of the RLA to achieve pre-defined conservation/management objectives under a variety of removal and uncertainty scenarios. During simulations, the population model is used to generate survey estimates of population size, with a given level of uncertainty, that are used in the fitting of the RLA. The fitted RLA is then used to calculate the limit to the number of animals that could be removed as a result of human activities (from any source) in subsequent years. Estimates of the number of animals actually removed are subtracted from the population each year. Simulations are used to tune the parameters of the RLA until the conservation objectives are met, at which point the limit to removals can be determined. Such an approach has, to our knowledge, not been applied to marine bird populations.

Integrated Population Models (IPM) permit the estimation of abundance and demographic parameters simultaneously from a single model fitted to data from multiple sources, typically some or all of the following: annual counts (indices of abundance), mark-recapture data (from which mortality can be estimated) and counts of breeding success or numbers of fledged young.

Freeman et al (2014) used Integrated Population Models to assess the potential impacts of planned offshore wind developments in the Forth & Tay region of Scotland on four seabird species. Whilst this modelling approach was found to be extremely powerful at predicting population size a substantial amount of population-specific demographic and census/count data is required for this approach, and thus, IPMs would not be feasible for data-poor populations. They are also computationally intensive to run, and so may not always be practical to use.

During the MSFD D1 Species workshop on methods for setting threshold values (16-17 January 2019 in Varano Borghi, Italy), another approach has been discussed. For instance in line with the

45 of 59

EU PoA, zero bycatch is to be aspired. As zero bycatch is hard to achieve, “small numbers” can be seen as an equivalent. Based on judicial view18 (in relation to derogation of wild birds according to Birds Directive), 1 % of the natural annual mortality of a species could be used as an approximation of “small numbers” and thus to zero bycatch (EC 2008b).

Setting threshold values for seabird bycatch under MSFD

The revised Commission Decision (EC 2017/878) on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires that species-specific threshold values are set at regional level for all descriptors and criteria, including D1C1 (incidental bycatch rates). Methods for setting these threshold values were discussed at a workshop convened by the Joint Research Centre in Varano Borghi, 16-17 January 2019. Six members of JWGBIRD attended the workshop and discussed thresholds for birds in a subgroup with four additional attendees. The subgroup felt that setting threshold values could be premature, given that no conservation objectives for bycatch had been agreed. If these conservation objectives required thresholds to be set, the most appropriate method would vary between groups of species depending on the availability of demographic data. Alternatively, the group agreed on the following suggested approach:

1) Set regionally agreed conservation objectives, based on existing agreements and legislation. Examples include:

a. The EU Birds Directive, which states that it is illegal to kill wild birds except under a derogation.

b. The EU Plan of Action on Seabird Bycatch, which aims to minimise or eliminate where possible seabird bycatch.

c. The MSFD, which puts an obligation on the EU Member States to establish threshold values for mortality from incidental bycatch and apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, ensuring that the collective pressure of such activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of good environmental status.

2) Monitor bycatch in fisheries to estimate levels of bycatch.3) Use demographic modelling to report on the biological significance of the estimated

levels of bycatch in relation to the conservation objectives and the populations of species affected - based on either existing data from bycatch monitoring or on hypothetical bycatch rates. Modelling could show how much population growth rate would be affected by estimated levels of bycatch mortality (e.g. using stochastic population models or Population Viability Analysis). If the objective of minimising or eliminating bycatch is adopted, a potential threshold value could be 1% of all mortality of the species, as an approximation of zero bycatch while assuming that some birds will still be caught, even with effective measures in place. This threshold is taken from the definition of ‘small numbers’ of birds that could be taken as part of derogations under the Birds Directive (EC 2008b). The mortality rate should relate to the population assessed, i.e. include hunting pressure etc. acting on that population

4) Use the predicted biological significance of bycatch mortality to advise on the level of mitigation measures required. This could incorporate the setting of ‘triggers’ and ‘limits’ (ASCOBANS 2015b). ‘Triggers’ could sit below environmental limits and be used to signal the need for certain kinds of management action, such as:

18 This concerns the ruling of the European Court of Justice (judgment C-344/03 of 15.12.2005) for the annual total

mortality rate used to determine a 'small quantity' withdrawal. This was for hunting eider ducks, red-breasted merganser, goosander and velvet scoters.

46 of 59

a. Low predicted impact – bycatch prevention measures (e.g. weighted lines, streamers).

b. High predicted impact – fishery closure.

11. ReferencesAkçakaya H.R.; Sjörgren-Gulve P. 2000. Population viability analysis in conservation planning: an overview. Ecological Bulletins, 48, pp. 9–21.

Allen, R., Jarvis, D., Sayer, S. and Mills, C. 2012. Entanglement of grey seals Halichoerus grypus at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(12): 2815-2819.

Anon 2000. Report of the IWC ASCOBANS Working Group on Harbour Porpoises. J. Cetacean Research and‐ Management, 2, 297–305.

ASCOBANS 2000. Resolution on Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans. ASCOBANS Meeting of Parties 3, Bristol, 2000.

ASCOBANS 2015a. Report of the ASCOBANS Expert Workshop on the Requirements of Legislation to Address Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch, Bonn, Germany, 21-23 January 2015. ASCOBANS Secretariat, Bonn. 37 pp.

ASCOBANS 2015b. Report from the ASCOBANS Workshop on the Further Development of Management Procedures for Defining the Threshold of ‘Unacceptable Interactions’; London, United Kingdom, 10 July 2015.

ASCOBANS 2015c. Report of the Workshop on Remote Electronic Monitoring with Regards to Bycatch of Small Cetaceans. The Hague, Netherlands, 2 October2015. 13 pp. https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/ASCOBANS_WS_REM_2015_Report.pdf

ASCOBANS 2016. Resolution No.5. Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch. https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/MOP8_2016-5_Bycatch.pdf

Bartholomew, D.C., Mangel, J.C., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Pingo, S., Jimenez, A. and Godley, B.J., 2018. Remote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheries. Biological Conservation, 219, pp. 35-45.

Beissenger S.R.; McCullough D.R., eds. 2002. Population Viability Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bellebaum, J., Schirmeister, B., Sonntag, N. and Garthe, S. 2013. Decreasing but still high: bycatch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries along the German Baltic coast. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23(2), pp. 210-221.

Bjørge, A., Skern-Mauritzen, M., and Rossman, M.C. 2013. Estimated bycatch of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in two coastal gillnet fisheries in Norway, 2006–2008. Mitigation and implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 161: 164-173.

Bjørge, A., Moan, A., Nilssen, K.T., and Øigård, T.A. 2017. Bycatch of harbor and grey seals in Norway. NAMMCO SC/24/BYCWG/07. 15pp.

Bradbury, G., Shackshaft, M., Scott-Hayward, L., Rexstad, E., Miller, D. and Edwards, D. 2017. Risk assessment of seabird bycatch in UK waters. Report to Defra. Defra Project: MB0126.

47 of 59

Bærum, K.M., Anker-Nilssen, T., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Fangel, K., Williams, T. & Vølstad, J.H. 2019. Spatial and temporal variations in seabird bycatch: incidental bycatch in the Norwegian coastal gillnet-fishery, 9 PLoS One 14(3): e0212786.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212786. 17 pp.

Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix population models. Wiley Online Library.

CMS (2011) Resolution 10.14 on Bycatch of CMS-Listed Species in Gillnet Fisheries. Adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its Tenth Meeting (Bergen, 20-25 November 2011). https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/10_14_bycatch_e_0_0.pdf

Cosgrove, R., Gosch, M., Reid, D., Sheridan, M., Chopin, N., Jessopp, M., and Cronin, M. 2016. Seal bycatch in gillnet and entangling net fisheries in Irish waters. Fisheries Research, 183: 192-199.

Couperus, A.S. 1994. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) scavenging on discards of freezer trawlers north-east of the Shetland islands. Aquatic Mammals, 20: 47-51.

Croxall, J.P., Butchart, S.H., Lascelles, B.E.N., Stattersfield, A.J., Sullivan, B.E.N., Symes, A. and Taylor, P.H.I.L., 2012. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International, 22(1), pp.1-34.

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(7), pp.1783-1792.

Dolman, S., Baulch, S., Evans, P.G.H., Read, F., and Ritter, F. 2016. Towards an EU Action Plan on Cetacean Bycatch. Marine Policy, 72: 67-75.

EC (European Commission) 2004. Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 of 26 April 2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries. Official Journal of the European Union, 150, pp.12-31.

EC (European Commission) 2008a. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, 164, pp.19-40.

EC (European Commission) 2008b. Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds “The Birds Directive”. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/hunting_guide_en.pdf

EC (European Commission) 2009. Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy. Official Journal of the European Union, 343, pp.1-50.

EC (European Commission) 2012. Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. COM(2012)665final.

EC (European Commission) 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. Official Journal of the European Union, 191, pp.1-15.

EC (European Commission) 2017. Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment. Official Journal of the European Union, 125, pp.43-74.

48 of 59

Fangel, K., Aas, Ø., Vølstad, J.H., Bærum, K.M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Nedreaas, K., Overvik, M., Wold, L.C. and Anker-Nilssen, T. 2015. Assessing incidental bycatch of seabirds in Norwegian coastal commercial fisheries: Empirical and methodological lessons. Global Ecology and Conservation, 4, pp.127-136.

Fangel, K., Bærum, K.M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Aas, Ø. and Anker-Nilssen, T. 2017. Incidental bycatch of northern fulmars in the small-vessel demersal longline fishery for Greenland halibut in coastal Norway 2012–2014. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(1), pp.332-342.

FAO-COFI (FAO Committee on Fisheries) 2009. Fishing Operations: 2) Best practices to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in capture fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 1: Suppl. 2. FAO, Rome.

Fernándes-Contreras, M.M., Cardona, L., Lockyer, C.H., and Aguilar, A. 2010. Incidental bycatch of short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) by pairtrawlers off northwestern Spain. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1732–1738.

Fischer-Hüftle, P. 2005. Zur „absichtlichen“ Beeinträchtigung europarechtlich geschützter Arten. Anmerkung zum Beschluss des BVerwG vom 12.4.2005 – Ortsumgehung Grimma (NuR 2005, 538). Natur und Recht 27 (12), 768-770.

Freeman, S., Searle, K., Bogdanova, M., Wanless, S. & Daunt, F. 2014. Population dynamics of Forth & Tay breeding seabirds: review of available models and modelling of key breeding populations (MSQ – 0006). Report to Scottish Government. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00449072.pdf

Furness, R.W., Wade, H.M., Robbins, A.M. and Masden, E.A. 2012. Assessing the sensitivity of seabird populations to adverse effects from tidal stream turbines and wave energy devices. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(8), pp.1466-1479.

Garthe, S. and Hüppop, O. 2004. Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41(4), pp.724-734.

Genovart, M., Arcos, J.M., Álvarez, D., McMinn, M., Meier, R., Wynn, R.B., Guilford, T. and Oro, D. 2016. Demography of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater: the impact of fisheries and time to extinction. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(4), pp.1158-1168.

Genovart M, Doak DF, Igual J M, Sponza S, Kralj J, Oro D. 2017. Varying demographic impacts of different‐ fisheries on three Mediterranean seabird species. Glob Change Biol. 2017;23:3012–3029. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13670

Goujon, M. 1996. Captures accidentelles du filet maillant derivant et dynamique des populations de dauphins au large du Golfe de Gascogne. PhD thesis, École Nationale Superieure Agronomique de Rennes, France.

Goujon, M., Antoine, L., Collet, A., and Fifas S. 1993. Approche de l'mpact de la ecologique de la pecherie thoniere au filet maillant derivant en Atlantique nord-est. Rapport internese al Direction des Resources Vivantes de I'IFREMER., Ifremer, Centre de Brest, BP 70, 29280 Plouzane, France.

Hale, R., Pires, R. Santos, P., and Karamanlidis, A.A. 2011. Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus): Fishery interactions in the Archipelago of Madeira. Aquatic Mammals, 37(3): 298-304, DOI 10.1578/AM.37.3.2011.298

Hall, M.A. 1998. An ecological view of the tuna-dolphin problem: Impacts and trade-offs. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8: 1-34.

49 of 59

Hall, M.A. and Donovan, G.P. 2001. Environmentalists, fishermen, cetaceans and fish: Is there a balance and can science help to find it? Pp. 491-520. In: Marine Mammals: Biology and Conservation (P.G.H. Evans and J.A. Raga, eds.). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, London. 630pp.

Hammond, P.S., Paradinas, I. & Smout, S.C. 2019. Development of a Removals Limit Algorithm (RLA) to set limits to anthropogenic mortality of small cetaceans to meet specified conservation objectives, JNCC Report 628, ISSN 0963-8091

HELCOM 2007. Baltic Sea Action Plan: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Baltic%20sea%20action%20plan/BSAP_Final.pdf

HELCOM 2018a. State of the Baltic Sea Report. http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/

HELCOM 2018b. Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. Indicator report 2018. http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/number-of-drowned-mammals-and-waterbirds-in-fishing-gear/

Horswill, C., O'Brien, S. H. and Robinson, R. A. 2017. Density dependence and marine bird populations: are wind farm assessments precautionary? Journal of Applied Ecology, 54: 1406–1414. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12841

ICES 2013. Report of the Workshop to Review and Advise on Seabird Bycatch (WKBYCS), 14–18 October 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:77. 79pp.

ICES 2014. WGMME REPORT 2014, ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ICES CM 2014/ACOM:27, Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). 10–13 March 2014, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA. 232 pp.

ICES 2015a. ICES Advice (Ecoregions in the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent seas Published 15 April 2015). 1.6.1.1 Bycatch of small cetaceans and other marine animals – Review of national reports under Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 and other published documents. 5 pp.

ICES 2015b. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 2-6 February 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:26. 82 pp.

ICES 2016a. ICES Advice (Ecoregions in the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent seas Published 15 April 2016). 1.6.1.1 Bycatch of small cetaceans and other marine animals – review of national reports under Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 and other information. 6 pp.

ICES. 20236b. Background document to the workshop, , . Lena Avellan. 120 pp.

ICES 2017. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 12-15 June 2017, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA. ICES CM 2018/ACOM: 25. 80pp.

ICES 2018a. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 1-4 May 2018, Reykjavik, Iceland. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:25. 128 pp.

ICES 2018b. WKPETSAMP REPORT 2018, ICES ECOSYSTEM OBSERVATION STEERING GROUP, ICES CM 2018/ EOSG: 35, REF ACOM, SCICOM, WGBYC & WGCATCH, Joint WGBYC-WGCATCH Workshop on sampling of bycatch and PET species (WKPETSAMP), 24–26 April 2018, SLU Aqua, Lysekil, Sweden. 73 pp.

ICES 2018c. JWGBIRD REPORT 2018. Report of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWGBIRD). 1-5 October 2018, Ostende, Belgium. ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:24. REF. ACOM, SCICOM, OSPAR, HELCOM. 75 pp.

50 of 59

ICES WGBYC 2019. ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ICES CM 2019/ACOM:xx. Report from the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). 5-8 March 2019. Faro, Portugal. xxpp.

IWC (International Whaling Commission) 1994. Report of the Workshop on Mortality of Cetaceans in Passive Fishing Nets and Traps. Pp. 1-71. In: International Whaling Commission, Special Issue, 15: Gillnets and Cetaceans. (W.F. Perrin, G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow, eds). International Whaling Commission, Cambridge.

IWC (International Whaling Commission) 2012. Report of the Scientific Committee, 2012. PanamaCity, Panama.

James, M. A. (ed.) 2016. fishPi - strengthening regional co-operation in fisheries data collection. Report of the Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland. Available from: https://www.masts.ac.uk/media/36266/fishpi-final-report.pdf

Kaschner, K. 2003. Review of small cetacean by-catch in the ASCOBANS area and adjacent waters – current status and suggested future actions. ASCOBANS Report MOP4/Doc22(s) presented at the 4th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS, Esbjerg, Denmark. 122pp.

Kindt-Larsen, L., Dalskov, J., Stage, B. and Larsen, F. 2012. Observing incidental harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena bycatch by remote electronic monitoring. Endangered Species Research, 19(1), pp.75-83.

Kindt-Larsen, L., Berg, C.W., Tougaard, J., Sørensen, T.K., Geitner, K., Northridge, S., Sveegaard, S. and Larsen, F. 2016. Identification of high-risk areas for harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena bycatch using remote electronic monitoring and satellite telemetry data. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 555, pp.261-271.

Koschinski, S., Dierschke, V. & Kreutle, A. 2017. The ??? of European fisheries policies. Poster presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society, Middelfart, Denmark.

Le Bot, T., Lescroël, A. and Grémillet, D. 2018. A toolkit to study seabird–fishery interactions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(5), pp.1513-1525.

Lunneryd, S.G., Königson, S., and Sjögerg, N.B. 2004. Bifångst av säl, tumlare och fåglar i det svenska Yrkesfisket (Bycatch of seals, harbour porpoises and birds in Swedish commercial fisheries). Fiskeriverket Göteborg. 20 pp.

Lunneryd S.G., Hemingsson M., Tärnlund S., and Fjälling A. 2005. A voluntary logbook scheme as a method of monitoring the by-catch of seals in Swedish coastal fisheries. ICES CM 2005/X: 04, 5 pp.

Macías, D., García-Barcelona, S., Báez, J.C., de la Serna, J.M., and Ortíz de Urbina, J.M. 2012. Marine mammal bycatch in Spanish Mediterranean large pelagic longline fisheries, with a focus on Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus). Aquatic Living Resources, 25: 321-331.

McBride, M.F., Garnett, S.T., Szabo, J.K., Burbidge, A.H., Butchart, S.H., Christidis, L., Dutson, G., Ford, H.A., Loyn, R.H., Watson, D.M. and Burgman, M.A. 2012. Structured elicitation of expert judgments for threatened species assessment: a case study on a continental scale using email. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3(5), pp.906-920.

Merkel, F.R. 2011. Gillnet bycatch of seabirds in Southwest Greenland, 2003–2008. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Technical Report, (85).

51 of 59

NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) and IMR (Norwegian Institute of Marine Research) 2019. Report of Joint IMR/NAMMCO International Workshop on the Status of Harbour Porpoises in the North Atlantic. Tromsø, Norway. 235pp.

Natale, F., Carvalho, N. and Paulrud, A. 2015. Defining small-scale fisheries in the EU on the basis of their operational range of activity The Swedish fleet as a case study. Fisheries Research, 164, pp.286-292.

Napier, I. 2016. Fish Landings from the United Kingdom’s Exclusive Economic Zone: by area, nationality & species. NAFC Marine Centre Report.

Niel, C. and Lebreton, J.D. 2005. Using demographic invariants to detect overharvested bird populations from incomplete data. Conservation Biology, 19(3), pp.826-835.

Northridge, S.P. 2009. North Sea and 812. Implementation of Regulation 812/2004 in the North Sea. Paper presented at EC DG MARE Workshop on the Implementation of Certain Provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 and on a scientific assessment of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans in the Baltic Sea. European Commission, Brussels. 17pp.

Northridge, S.P. and Hammond, P.S. 1999. Estimation of Porpoise Mortality in UK Gill and Tangle Net Fisheries in the North Sea and west of Scotland. Document SCl51lSM42. The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK.

Northridge. S.P. and Hofman. R.J. 1999. Marine Mammal Interactions with Fisheries. Pp. 99-119. In: Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals (Eds J.R Twiss and R.R Reeves.) Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.

Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coran, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, S., and Reid, R.J. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters: an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation. Sea Mammal Research Unit, Final Report to Scottish Government CR/2007/49. 57pp.

Northridge, S., Coram, A., Kingston, A. and Crawford, R. 2017. Disentangling the causes of protected‐species bycatch in gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology, 31(3), pp.686-695.

O'Brien, S.H., Cook, A.S. and Robinson, R.A. 2017. Implicit assumptions underlying simple harvest models of marine bird populations can mislead environmental management decisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 201, pp.163-171.

OSPAR 2017. Intermediate assessment. https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/

Petersen, Æ. 2002. Fugladauði í veiðarfærum í sjó við Ísland [Seabird bycatch in fishing gear in Iceland]. Náttúrufræðingurinn, 71(1-2), pp.52-61.

Pott, C. and Wiedenfeld, D.A. 2017. Information gaps limit our understanding of seabird bycatch in global fisheries. Biological Conservation, 210, pp.192-204.

Read, A.J., Dinker, P., and Northridge, S. 2006. Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries. Conservation Biology, 20: 163-169.

Reeves, R.R., McClellan, K. and Werner, T.B. 2013. Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other entangling net fisheries, 1990 to 2011. Endangered Species Research, 20(1), pp.71-97.

Richard, Y. & Abraham, E.R. 2013: Application of Potential Biological Removal methods to seabird populations. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 108. 34 pp.

52 of 59

Rogan, E. and Mackey, M. 2007. Megafauna bycatch in drift-nets for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) in the NE Atlantic. Fisheries Research, 86: 6–14.

Ryan, C., Leaper, R., Evans, P.G.H., Robinson, K.P., Haskins, G.N., Calderan, S., Harries, O., Froud, K., Brownlow, A., and Jack, A. 2016. Entanglement: an emerging threat to humpback whales in Scottish waters. Presented to the Scientific Committee Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 2016, SC/66b/HIM/01.

Small, C., Waugh, S.M. and Phillips, R.A. 2013. The justification, design and implementation of Ecological Risk Assessments of the effects of fishing on seabirds. Marine Policy, 37, pp.192-199.

Sonntag, N., Schwemmer, H., Fock, H.O., Bellebaum, J. and Garthe, S. 2012. Seabirds, set-nets, and conservation management: assessment of conflict potential and vulnerability of birds to bycatch in gillnets. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(4), pp.578-589.

STECF 2019. Review of the implementation of the EU regulation on the incidental catches of cetaceans (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, STECF-19-07). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN XXXXXX, doi:XXXXXXXX, PUBSY No. https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg1907

Tasker, M.L., Webb, A., Harrison, N.M. and Pienkowski, M.W. 1990. Vulnerable concentrations of marine birds west of Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, pp.1-45.

Tregenza, N.J.C., Berrow, S.D., Hammond, P.S. and Leaper, R. 1997a. Common Dolphin, Delphinus delphis L., by-catch in bottom set gillnets in the Celtic Sea. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 47: 835-839.

Tregenza, N.J.C., Berrow, S.D., Hammond, P.S. and Leaper, R. 1997b. Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena L.) by-catch in set gillnets in the Celtic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54: 896-904.

Tuck, G.N., Phillips, R.A., Small, C., Thomson, R.B., Klaer, N.L., Taylor, F., Wanless, R.M. and Arrizabalaga, H. 2011. An assessment of seabird–fishery interactions in the Atlantic Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68(8), pp.1628-1637.

Vanhatalo, J., Vetemaa, M., Herrero, A., Aho, T., and Tiilikainen, R. 2014. Bycatch of Grey Seals (Ha- lichoerus grypus) in Baltic Fisheries—A Bayesian Analysis of Interview Survey. PloS ONE 9(11): e113836. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113836.

Vinther, M. 1999. Bycatches of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena (L.) in Danish set-net fisheries. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 1: 123 -1 35.

Vinther, M. and Larsen, F. 2004. Updated estimates of harbour porpoise by-catch in the Danish bottom set gillnet fishery. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 6(1): 19-24.

Wade, P.R. 1998. Calculating limits to the allowable human caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds.‐ Marine Mammal Science, 14(1), pp.1-37.

Walmsley, S.F., Weiss, A., Claussen, U., Connor, D., (2017) Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Integration of assessment results. ABPmer Report No R.2733, produced for the European Commission, DG Environment, February 2017

Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham, E. and Walker, N. 2012. Ecological Risk Assessment for seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Policy, 36(4), pp.933-946.

53 of 59

Winship, A.J. 2009. Estimating the impact of bycatch and calculating bycatch limits to achieve conservation objectives as applied to harbour porpoise in the North Sea. Doctoral dissertation, University of St Andrews, UK. Available from: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/715 . 243 pp.

WWT Consulting 2012. Demographic Data, Population Model and Outputs. SOSS-04 Gannet Population Viability Analysis. Report to The Crown Estate. Available from: https://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u28/downloads/Projects/Final_Report_SOSS04_GannetPVA.pdf

Zador, S.G., Punt, A.E., Parrish, J.K. 2008. Population impacts of endangered short-tailed albatross bycatch in the Alaskan trawl fishery. Biological Conservation, 141, 872–882.

Žydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., Dagys, M., van Eerden, M. and Garthe, S. 2009. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – an overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation, 142(7), pp.1269-1281.

Žydelis, R., Small, C. and French, G. 2013. The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation, 162, pp.76-88.

54 of 59

Annex

Table 10 Inventory of sampling programmes where bycatches of birds and mammals are recorded (from: ICES 2018b) (Countries: DE=Germany, GR=Greece, IS= Iceland, IR= Ireland, NL= the Netherlands, ES= Spain, SE=Sweden, UK=United Kingdom)

Nr Country Year Start year

Type of monitoring Main objective of monitoring scheme Study area / ICES area code

Ecoregion Target

1 DE 2017 2009 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

German coastal area North Sea Beam trawl targeting brown shrimp in the German coastal area

2 DE 2017 1995 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

4, 7d North Sea Trawlers targeting mackerel, herring in 4, 7d

3 DE 2017 1995 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

4, 3a North Sea Trawlers targeting gadoids in 4, 3a

4 DE 2017 1998 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

4 North Sea Beam trawl targeting flat fish in 4

5 DE 2017 1998 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

4 North Sea OTB targeting plaice in 4

6 DE 2017 1980 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

NAFO SA1-2 North Atlantic OTB targeting Greenland halibut In NAFO SA1-2

7 DE 2017 1995 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

6, 7bcjk, 7e, 7fgh, 8, 5-14, (4a)

North Atlantic OTM targeting small pelagic species in 6, 7bcjk, 7e, 7fgh, 8, 5-14, (4a)

8 DE 2017 1980 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

12,14 North Atlantic OTB targeting Greenland halibut in 12, 14, 5a

9 DE 2017 1995 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

12,14 North Atlantic OTM targeting redfish in 12, 14, 5a

10 DE 2017 1998 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

1,2 North Atlantic Trawlers targeting cod,

saithe in 1,2

11 DE 2017 1998 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

1,2 North Atlantic Trawlers targeting herring in 2 (ASH)

12 DE 2017 2009 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

German coastal area Baltic Sea demersal trawlers

13 DE 2017 2009 DCF-sea sampling programme

catch composition fish/crustacean species, bycatch of birds and mammals

German coastal area Baltic Sea demersal gillnetters and longliners

14 DE 2009 2006 Directed study catch composition bycatch of birds German coastal area Baltic Sea pelagic gillnetters

15 DE 2009 2006 Directed study catch composition bycatch of birds German coastal area Baltic Sea demersal gillnetters

55 of 59

16 DE 2009 2006 Directed study catch composition bycatch of birds German coastal area Baltic Sea longliners

17 DE 2012 2011 Directed study catch composition bycatch of birds German coastal area Baltic Sea demersal gillnetters

18 DE 2012 2011 Directed study catch composition bycatch of birds German coastal area Baltic Sea longliners

19 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22, GSA23

Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of all Bottom otter trawls (OTB_DES_>=40_0_0) per GSA

20 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22, GSA23

Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of all Purse seines (PS_SPF_>=14_0_0) per GSA

21 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA22 Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of Pots and Traps (FPO_DEF_0_0_0), only in GSA 22

22 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22, GSA23

Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of all Set gillnet (GNS_DEF_>=16_0_0) per GSA

23 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22, GSA23

Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of all Trammel net (GTR_DEF_>=16_0_0) per GSA

24 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22, GSA23

Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of Drifting longlines (LLD_LPF_0_0_0) per GSA

25 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22, GSA23

Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of Set longlines (LLS_DEF_0_0_0) per GSA

26 GR 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches/ discards of fish species/ Since 2017: Bycatch of birds, sea turtles and mammals

GSA20, GSA22 Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea)

Trips of Beach and boat seine (SB_SV_DEF_0_0_0) in GSAs 20 and 22

27 IS 2017 2014 Icelandic fisheries monitoring program

Catch/Discards/gear regulations 5a Iceland sea Lumpsucker gillnet fishery

28 IS 2017 2013 Directed study Spawning stock of cod 5a Iceland sea Cod gillnet fishery in April

29 IS 2017 2014 Icelandic fisheries monitoring program

Catch/Discards/gear regulations 5a Iceland sea Longline fishery

30 IS 2017 2014 Icelandic fisheries monitoring program

Catch/Discards/gear regulations 5a Iceland sea Demersal trawl fishery

31 IS 2017 2014 Icelandic fisheries monitoring program

Catch/Discards/gear regulations 5a Iceland sea Pelagic trawl/seine fishery

56 of 59

32 IS 2017 2014 Icelandic fisheries monitoring program

Catch/Discards/gear regulations 5a Iceland sea Demersal gillnets

33 IS 2017 2014 Icelandic fisheries monitoring program

Catch/Discards/gear regulations 5a Iceland sea Demersal seine

34 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

6a North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal/nephrops trawlers

35 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7a North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal/nephrops trawlers

36 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7f,g,h North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal/nephrops trawlers

37 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7f,g,h North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal static gears, Gillnets/trammel

38 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7b,c,j,k North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

39 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7b,c,j,k North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal static gears, Gillnets/trammel

40 IR 2017 2017 EMFF Enhanced ByCatch sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7b,c,j,k North Atlantic Trips carried out by demersal static gears, Gillnets/trammel

41 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

6a North Atlantic Trips carried out by Pelagic trawlers

42 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7a North Atlantic Trips carried out by Pelagic trawlers

43 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7f,g,h North Atlantic Trips carried out by Pelagic trawlers

44 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7b,c,j,k North Atlantic Trips carried out by Pelagic trawlers

45 IR 2017 2017 EMFF Enhanced ByCatch sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

6a, 7b,c,j,k, 7f,g,h. 7a

North Atlantic Trips carried out by Pelagic trawlers

46 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

6a North Atlantic Trips carried out by Potters

47 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7a North Atlantic Trips carried out by Potters

48 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish 7f,g,h North Atlantic Trips carried out by Potters

57 of 59

programme species

49 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

7b,c,j,k North Atlantic Trips carried out by Potters

50 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

4, 7d, North Sea, 1,2 Eastern Arctic

North Sea, Eastern Arctic

Trips carried out by Pelagic trawlers

51 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of Whelks 7a North Atlantic Potters targeting Molluscs

52 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of scallops, razors, cockles and fish species

7a North Atlantic Scallop dredgers

53 IR 2017 2013 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of scallops and fish species

7f,g,h North Atlantic Scallop dredgers

54 NL 2017 2004 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

1-12 NE Atlantic Trips carried out by Pelagic Trawlers

55 NL 2017 2016 self sampling Discards of fish species 4 North Sea Trips carried out by Demersal trawlers

56 NL 2017 2016 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

4 North Sea Trips carried out by vessels using passive gear

57 NL 2017 2016 DCF-sea sampling programme

Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

4 North Sea Trips carried out by shrimp(crangon) beam trawlers

58 NL 2017 2008 Directed study Bycatch of mammals 4 North Sea Trips carried uit by gilland trammel net fishers

59 NL 2017 2013 Directed study, Electronic Monitoring

Bycatch of harbour porpoises 4 North Sea Trips carried uit by gilland trammel net fishers

60 ES (Basque county)

2017 2017 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 2 Norwegian and Barents seas

Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

61 ES (Basque county)

2017 2017 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 6 Celtic seas Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

62 ES (Basque county)

2017 2017 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 8a,b,d Bay of Biscay Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

63 ES (Basque county)

2017 2017 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 8a,b,d,c Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast

Trips carried out by purse seiners

64 ES (Basque county)

2017 2017 Pilot study / question-naires to skippers

Seabirds bycatch 8a,b,d,c Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast

Trips carried out by the artisanal fleet

65 ES (Basque county)

2017 2017 Pilot study using new technologies

Catches / discards of fish species and PETS species 8a,b,d,c Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast

Trips carried out by the artisanal fleet

58 of 59

66 SE 2017 1997 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 3aS North Sea Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

67 SE 2017 2008 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 3aS North Sea Trips carried out by demersal trawlers using sorting grids

68 SE 2017 2002 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 3aN North Sea Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

69 SE 2017 2005 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 3aN North Sea Trips carried out by demersal trawlers using sorting grids

70 SE 2017 2008 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 3a,4 North Sea Trips carried out by trawlers targeting Pandalus

71 SE 2017 2008 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species 3a North Sea Trips carried out by trawlers using sorting grids targeting Pandalus

72 SE 2017 1996 DCF-sea sampling programme

Catches / discards of fish species SD 24-26 Baltic sea Trips carried out by demersal trawlers

73 SE 2017 2017 Directed study Bycatch of birds and mammals, catches/discards of fish species

SD 23-25 Baltic sea Trips carried out by gillnetters/longliners targeting primarely cod

74 UK 2016 1996 Habitats directive Protected species bycatch 4,6,7 North Sea, Celtic Seas

Gillnetters

75 UK 2016 2013 812/2004 pilot studies Cetacean bycatch 4,7d-j North Sea, Celtic Seas

Vessels requiring the use of ADDs under 812/2004

76 UK 2016 2005 812/2004 mandatory monitoring

Cetacean bycatch 6,7,8 Celtic Seas , Biscay Midwater trawlers

77 UK 2016 2005 812/2004 mandatory monitoring

Cetacean bycatch 6a,7a,b,8a,b,c Celtic Seas , Biscay Gillnetters

78 UK 2016 2005 812/2004 pilot studies Cetacean bycatch 6,7,8 Celtic Seas , Biscay Midwater trawlers

59 of 59