Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme - GOV.UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=14330_MB...Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme ... Hetherington, S. J. 26th July 2016 Final

MB0142 Final Report

Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme

Aligning spurdog with the Common Fisheries Policy landing obligation by

reducing spurdog by-catch and subsequent dead discards, whilst minimising the

risk of creating a ‘choke’ species.

Stuart J Hetherington, Rose E Nicholson and Carl M O’Brien

27th July 2016

Project Title: Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme.

Defra Contract Managers: Rebecca Lowe, Kirsty McGregor and Jamie Rendell.

Funded by: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Marine Science and Evidence Unit

Marine Directorate

Nobel House

17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

Authorship: Stuart J Hetherington, Rose E Nicholson, and Carl M O’Brien

Cefas, Lowestoft.

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable

for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the report’s content.

This report can be cited as:

Hetherington, S. J., Nicholson, R. E., & O’Brien, C.M. 2016. Spurdog By-Catch Avoidance Programme.

Final report. 52 pp.

C6689

Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme Page 1 of 52

Cefas Document Control

Submitted to: Kirsty McGregor, Jamie Rendell and Rebecca Lowe

Date submitted: 27th July 2016

Project Manager: Stuart Hetherington

Report compiled by: Hetherington et al.

Quality control by: Carl O’Brien

Approved by & date: Carl O’Brien – 20th July 2016

Version: 7

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Hetherington, S. J. 18th April 2016 First draft V1

Nicholson, R. E. 27th June 2016 Second draft V2

Hetherington, S. J. 6th July 2016 Editing & third draft V3

Nicholson, R. E. 13th July 2016 Final draft V4

O’Brien, C.M.3 20th July 2016 Editing & comments V6

Hetherington, S. J. 26th July 2016 Final version V7

C6689


Contents Page

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. 3

1. Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

2. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

2.1. Informing policy………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

2.2. Overview of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme………………………………………… 6

3. Outcome of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme pilot project…………………………. 7

3.1. To form collaborative working partnerships with the fishing industry, and engage with key

stakeholder groups in the delivery of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme……………..

7

3.2. Select up to 10 suitable commercial fishing vessels operating in the Celtic Sea Fisheries to

participate in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme…………………………………………

9

3.3. Investigate, develop, source and implement a real-time by-catch avoidance tool………………… 10

3.3.1. Reporting grid…………………………………………………………………………………... 12

3.3.2. Spurdog by-catch allowance allocation……………………………………………………… 12

3.3.3. Traffic light system thresholds………………………………………………………………… 12

3.3.4. Baseline reporting of voluntary avoidance behaviour……………………………………… 14

3.4. Record the activity of up to 10 fishing vessels participating in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme in the Celtic Sea…………………………………………………………………………...

14

3.5. Evaluate the outcomes and success of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme…………. 15

3.5.1. Engagement…………………………………………………………………………………… 15

3.5.2. Data quality……………………......................................................................................... 15

3.5.3. Uptake of a hypothetical by-catch allowance for dead spurdog………………………….. 16

3.5.4. Analysis and evaluation of voluntary avoidance behaviour……………………………….. 19

3.5.5. Comparison of e-logbook catch data………………………………………………………… 32

3.5.6. Comparison to spurdog by-catch and discards from the southwest fleet in 2013………. 33

3.5.7. Fishing activity compared to prior behaviour………………………………………………... 34

3.5.8. Comparison of fishing activity of non-participating vessels……………………………….. 36

4. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39

5. Concluding remarks………………………………………………………………………………………… 40

6. Next steps…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40

7. Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ 41

8. References……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

Annex 1: Press release by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO)……………………………. 43

Annex 2: Fishing News article on Shark By-Watch UK 2, including the Spurdog By- catch

Avoidance Programme………………………………………………………………………………..

45

Annex 3: Letter from the North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) High-Level Group in

relation to the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme…………………………………………

47

Annex 4: The ArcGIS on-line reporting portal…………………………………………………………………. 48

Annex 5: Background project information for fishing skippers………………………………………………. 50

Annex 6: 24 hour reporting template for skippers…………………………………………………………….. 51

Annex 7: Reporting grid reference booklet for skippers……………………………………………………… 52

C6689


Executive Summary

Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) is currently managed by a zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC).

However, incidental by-catch of spurdog in mixed fisheries in the North-east Atlantic (NEA) can be

high. Consequently, under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) landing obligation, spurdog has the

potential to become a ‘choke’ species whereby it forces fishermen to stop fishing in areas where

spurdog is caught as a by-catch species.

One option for preventing spurdog from becoming a choke species would be to add it to the

Prohibited Species list, thereby ensuring no retention and continued discarding. However, this is

not an ideal solution for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is not in the spirit of implementing a landing

obligation, does not recognise the need for regional solutions to fisheries management, and lastly,

does not address the continued issue of wasteful dead discarding.

For this reason, the UK undertook a pilot project under Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013

of the European Parliament and of the Council to demonstrate how industry participants may adapt

their fishing behaviour to avoid significant spurdog by-catch. The UK pilot project was

undertaken in the Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VIIe-j) and involved close collaboration between policy

makers, scientists, the fishing industry and eNGOs.

This report outlines the progress made to implement the pilot project for fishing vessels to report

spurdog by-catch in real-time, reduce spurdog by-catch and discards, aiding in its conservation and

so speed stock recovery in the NEA, contributing to the development of a rebuilding and

management plan for spurdog.

The Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme pilot project has successfully (i) developed and put

in place a functional, low-cost, real-time spurdog by-catch reporting tool, allowing a commercial

fishing vessel skipper to report spurdog by-catch in real-time; and (ii) demonstrated and proven the

approach of using historic fishery-dependant spurdog by-catch and discards data, VMS data and

e-logbook data, at both an individual vessel and fleet level to evaluate spurdog by-catch avoidance

behaviour.

The real-time spurdog by-catch reporting tool, together with a small dead spurdog by-catch

allowance, offers a real and viable alternative to an immediate ‘Prohibited Species listing’ for

spurdog, providing a pragmatic solution to align spurdog with the CFP landing obligation, reducing

spurdog by-catch and subsequent dead discarding, reducing overall fishing mortality, without

creating a ‘choke’ species.

Without the appropriate incentive, the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme is neither viable in

the long-term nor self-financing. For a continuation of this pilot project to be trialled successfully,

provision of a small spurdog by-catch allowance is required.

With single spurdog by-catch events of 1 – 2.5 tonnes, the hypothetical dead spurdog by-catch

allowance of 5 tonnes per vessel per annum was insufficient, therefore an increase to any such by-

catch allowance would be required for a continuation of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme pilot project.

C6689


1. Background

In the North-east Atlantic (NEA) spurdog is found from Iceland and the Barents Sea southwards to the

coast of Northwest Africa. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Working

Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) considers that there is a single NEA stock ranging from the

Barents Sea (ICES Subarea I) to the Bay of Biscay (ICES Subarea VIII), and that this is the most

appropriate unit for assessment and management (ICES WGEF report 2015). Although spurdog were

considered nuisance fish in the 1800s, commercial landings increased during the first half of the 20th

century with the UK, France, Ireland and Norway being the main exploiters of spurdog through large

targeted fisheries in the NEA. Their life-history traits (slow to reach maturity, long gestations and few

young) make them slow to recover from depletion, following significant fishing pressure (over-

exploitation). Consequently, commercial landings of spurdog have declined steadily since the peak of

the commercial fishery in the 1960s.

Spurdog was traditionally an important international fishery around the UK (Vince, 1991) but with an

initial assessment of a >90% reduction of the stock size in three generations, the International Union

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listed the NEA stock as ‘Critically Endangered’. This has been

subsequently reviewed and revised in 2015 by the IUCN to ‘Endangered’ (Nieto et al., 2015).

The European Commission (EC) first implemented management measures in 2000. However, it was

only after ICES advised in 2006 that “Targeted fisheries should not be permitted to continue, and by-

catch in mixed fisheries should be reduced to the lowest possible level …” that EC measures to control

fishing on spurdog became restrictive from 2007. ICES also advised that ‘…it is recommended that

exploitation of this species should only be allowed when indicators and reference points for stock status

and future harvest have been identified and a management strategy, including appropriate monitoring

requirements, has been decided upon and is implemented”. ICES reiterated the advice in 2008 and

recommended a “maximum landing length of 100 cm”. Since 2010 there has been a zero TAC, which

has ecological, environmental and economic implications for fisheries throughout the NEA (ICES WGEF

report 2015). Since then (2011), ICES has advised that “catches in mixed fisheries should be reduced

to the lowest possible level … a rebuilding plan should be developed for this stock but, given the

longevity of spurdog, stock recovery will be slow”. In 2014 ICES advised for 2015 and 2016 that “there

should be no target fishery and that by-catch should be minimized. Any possible provision for by-catch

to be landed should be part of a rebuilding plan, including close monitoring of the stock and fishery”.

Although the TAC for spurdog is set at zero, and there have been no targeted fisheries in EC or

Norwegian waters since 2011, spurdog are still caught incidentally during fishing operations in gillnet

and demersal trawl fisheries within European waters. Consequently, spurdog are discarded; a wasteful

practice impacting on stock status, with the extent of the problem unquantified. Some individuals do

survive after discarding although the proportion surviving varies considerably depending on a number

of factors (e.g. size in catch, gear type, volume of catch, time on deck, etc; ICES Advice 2014).

C6689


2. Introduction

2.1 Informing policy

The immediate and important policy relevance of this project, the Spurdog By-Catch Avoidance

Programme, comes with Article 15 of the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Basic Regulation,

introducing a discard ban or landing obligation, with a phased implementation from 2015 (pelagics) and

demersals from 2016-2019. The current level of dead discards of spurdog reported by the fishing

industry is neither in-line with the spirit of CFP reform or Defra’s sustainable use of the marine

environment; e.g. opposing wasteful discarding when supported by scientific evidence. Under a zero

TAC, incidental by-catch of spurdog in mixed fisheries in the NEA has been reported to be high.

Consequently, under the CFP’s new landing obligation, species for which there is minimal or zero TAC

have the potential to become ‘choke’ species in mixed fisheries, whereby it forces fishermen to stop

fishing altogether and tie-up their vessels in areas where spurdog is caught as by-catch. As a zero TAC

species, spurdog does not align with the principles of CFP reform and the new landing obligation.

Due to the imminent introduction of the landing obligation, a UK policy driver is how to align

fisheries management of spurdog in the immediate term to ensure compliance with the landing

obligation, whilst reducing spurdog by-catch and subsequent dead discards, without creating a

‘choke’ species.

One option for preventing spurdog from becoming a ‘choke’ species would be to add it to the Prohibited

Species list, in effect opting out of fisheries legislation and therefore ensuring continued discarding.

However, this is not an ideal solution. It is not in the spirit of implementing the landing obligation, would

not contribute to reduction in fishing pressure on the stock, does not recognise the need for regional

solutions to fisheries management, and does not address the continued issue of wasteful dead

discarding.

Alternatively, Article 14.1 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the

Council allows for “… pilot projects, based on the best available scientific advice and taking into account

the opinions of the relevant Advisory Councils, with the aim of fully exploring all practicable methods for

the avoidance, minimisation and elimination of unwanted catches in a fishery”.

Defra used this provision to initiate a pilot project to assess the feasibility of a real-time Spurdog By-

catch Avoidance Programme (Bendall et al., 2014) with the purpose of:

(i) Reducing the number of significant spurdog by-catch events in order to reduce wasteful dead

discarding and overall fishing induced mortality of spurdog;

(ii) promoting best practice in the return of live spurdog to the sea for the benefit of the stock;

(iii) minimising the risk of spurdog becoming a ‘choke’ species by accounting for unpredictable and

unavoidable by-catches within the future landing obligation through the provision of a by-catch

allowance for dead spurdog (at a level that allows for continued stock recovery and is within

safe biological limits); and

(iv) not incentivising any targeting of the stock.

C6689


The aim of this project was to conduct a pilot project to assess the feasibility of a real-time

Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme as an alternative to a ‘Prohibited Species listing’ to

meet the Defra policy need to align spurdog with the landing obligation by 2019, reducing overall

fishing mortality, speeding stock recovery and significantly reducing wasteful dead discards.

2.2. Overview of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme

The Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme (hereafter referred to as the pilot project) allows industry

participants to avoid significant spurdog by-catch by adapting their behaviour and fishing patterns.

The pilot project has adapted a previously used format of Real-Time Closures (RTCs) for cod in the

North Sea (Defra 2012) and the highly successful real-time by-catch avoidance system in the US scallop

fishery (O'Keefe and DeCelles, 2013). The pilot project is undertaken through a real-time self-reporting

scheme that relies upon participating fishing vessel skippers to collect and provide daily information

(over a 24-hour period) before midnight, on spurdog by-catch within pre-defined reporting grids. This

information is compiled for the participating vessels, and the amount of spurdog by-catch in each grid

cell classified to predetermined thresholds, using a traffic light system. The cells of the reporting grid

are coloured to the level of spurdog by-catch (Figure 1), green (low risk of significant by-catch), amber

(medium risk of significant by-catch) and red (high risk of spurdog by-catch), which is sent back in near

real-time (within 12 hours) to those vessels actively taking part, in the form of an advisory notice. This

advises fishermen of the by-catch “hotspots”, enabling them to make informed decisions on their fishing

behaviours, reducing spurdog by-catch, reducing fishing mortality and prevent choking the fishery.

Figure 1: An illustrative example of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme ‘traffic light’ system.

The plot includes 2013 UK VMS data and shows UK, Guernsey and Jersey EEZ boundary lines.

C6689


3. Outcome of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme pilot project.

The project had 5 key objectives:

i) To form collaborative working partnerships with the fishing industry, and engage with key

stakeholder groups in the delivery of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme.

ii) Select up to 10 suitable commercial fishing vessels operating in the Celtic Sea fisheries to

participate in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme.

iii) Investigate, develop, source and implement a real-time by-catch avoidance tool.

iv) Record the activity of up to 10 fishing vessels participating in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme in the Celtic sea.

v) Evaluate the outcomes and success of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme.

The extent to which these have been met are as follows:

3.1. To form collaborative working partnerships with the fishing industry, and engage with key

stakeholder groups in the delivery of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme

A strong science-industry collaboration has underpinned this project, as well as engaging with other

key stakeholders during the implementation of the pilot project. The implementation of the real-time

reporting of spurdog by-catch in the Celtic Sea offshore gill-net fishery by vessels operating from Newlyn

in the south-west of the UK, was conducted in consultation with, and support by the Cornish Fish

Producers organisation (CFPO). The CFPO have been actively and positively engaged with the pilot

project from the project outset.

During a significant spurdog by-catch event in August 2015, the project proactively worked with

commercial fishermen and fishing industry representatives when a Newlyn based trawler accidently

caught approximately 10 tonnes of spurdog while fishing for John Dory around the Isles of Scilly. Due

to the large quantity, the vessel was unable to lift the gear onto the deck, therefore unable to clear all

of the spurdog by-catch from its trawl at sea. Coordinated by the Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs (Defra), an incidence response began, with Defra, Cefas, CFPO, Shark Trust and the

Marine Management Organisation (MMO) working together to achieve the best possible outcome from

the situation. The vessel was given permission to enter Newlyn harbour, still with its trawl in the water,

containing approximately 5 tonnes of spurdog (Figure 2a). The dead spurdog was cleared from the

vessel’s net by its crew, assisted by Cefas and MMO staff (Figure 2b). As a zero TAC species, it could

not be marketed and sold. A proportion of the by-catch was taken (approximately 1 tonne) for scientific

purposes and is currently in cold store awaiting sampling to gather biological data of spurdog from this

significant by-catch event. Although frustrating for the fishermen involved with damaged fishing gear

and lost fishing time, the project’s collaborative working partnerships achieved the best outcome

possible. The CFPO issued a Press Release, referring to the incident and the ongoing science-industry

collaboration in this pilot project http://www.cfpo.org.uk/blog/news/cornish-fishermen-leading-the-way-

to-change-nonsensical-eu-spurdog (Annex 1).

http://www.cfpo.org.uk/blog/news/cornish-fishermen-leading-the-way-to-change-nonsensical-eu-spurdog

http://www.cfpo.org.uk/blog/news/cornish-fishermen-leading-the-way-to-change-nonsensical-eu-spurdog

C6689


(a) (b)

Figure 2: (a) Fishing vessel returning to Newlyn harbour with its fishing gear disabled by a spurdog by-

catch event and (b) the fishing gear lifted onto the quayside for the spurdog to be removed.

We engaged with, and formed collaborative working partnerships with south-west fishing skippers who

regularly encounter spurdog by-catch, training them to record and report their spurdog by-catch, whilst

undertaking normal fishing practices. Collaboration with the commercial fishing industry has been

essential to (i) obtain buy-in for the pilot project, (ii) gain rapid collection of data on spurdog by-catch,

and (iii) promote avoidance of areas with high levels of spurdog by-catch.

Importantly, as a collaborative process, all those involved in the pilot project - scientists, fishermen,

fishery representatives, policy advisors and eNGOs, have been encouraged to discuss this project in a

variety of fora. The project has been presented and discussed at six events:

- UK regional stakeholder meeting. Shark, Skate & Ray By-catch and Discards, Cornwall, 20th

February 2015.

- UK regional stakeholder meeting. Shark, Skate & Rays. Devon, 6th May 2015.

- International Workshop. Innovative solutions to reduce by-catch & dead discards of threatened

sharks, skates & rays. London, 1st September 2015.

- European Expert Meeting. Distribution, by-catch and survival of elasmobranchs. Amsterdam,

8th December 2015.

- UK national meeting. Shark By-Watch UK 2 Showcase event. London, 17th December 2015.

- UK regional stakeholder meeting. Shark, Skate & Ray By-catch and Discards, Cornwall, 26th

January 2016.

These events have provided an excellent opportunity to further engage with existing collaborative

partners, as well as identify new support for the pilot project. These include the MMO, National

Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, Shark Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage, Marine Conservation

Society, North Devon Fisherman Association, Falfish, Scottish Association of Marine Science, Sea

Mammal Research Unit, Zoological Society of London, New England Aquarium and Seafish.

In addition to meetings and workshops, the fishing industry have been engaged through one-to-one

meetings, and articles in the fishing press. The article in the Fishing News on 11th February 2016 http://fishingnews.co.uk/2016/02/fishermen-buy-in-to-shark-by-watch/ (Annex 2) was used to raise

awareness and provide a progress update of the Defra-led initiative to the fishing industry.

http://fishingnews.co.uk/2016/02/fishermen-buy-in-to-shark-by-watch/

C6689


Defra has undertaken engagement with other EU Member States through the North Western Waters,

and North Sea, Advisory Councils, Technical Groups and High Level Groups. The pilot project has also

been shared directly with EU Member States to encourage discussion on the approach. Cefas and

Defra have presented the project to:

- the North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) in Edinburgh on 7th July 2015 and

subsequently received strong endorsement (Annex 3).

- The European Commission at the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,

Brussels on 29th February 2016 to present the UK proposal for establishing a precautionary by-

catch allowance for spurdog to enable a more comprehensive trial of the pilot project in the

NEA.

The stakeholder engagement and outreach programme for this pilot project has been extensive and far

reaching, yet targeted to the project’s objective of forming working partnerships to deliver the Spurdog

By-catch Avoidance Programme by keeping all partners engaged, both for this pilot project, and for a

potential follow-on.

3.2. Select up to 10 suitable commercial fishing vessels operating in the Celtic Sea fisheries to participate in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme

The pilot project relies on participating fishing vessel skippers to self-report their spurdog by-catch and

make informed decisions to avoid ‘hot spot’ areas to reduce spurdog by-catch, reducing fishing mortality

and prevent ‘choking’ the fishery. Simply put, to avoid areas of high incidence of spurdog by-catch,

possibly moving to less productive fishing grounds.

This additional requirement of ‘avoidance’ by the fishing vessel skippers is seen as an additional burden,

both in time and loss of earnings (if displaced to less productive grounds). To offset this burden to

fishing vessel skippers, an incentive is required. This was identified in the original proposal to STECF

and the EC for a UK Pilot Project to develop a real-time Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme

(Bendall et al., 2014). This proposed a provision of a small (50 tonnes) marketable dead spurdog by-

catch allowance to account for unavoidable by-catch and to incentivise participation in the pilot project.

Before initiating this pilot project in 2015, a dead spurdog by-catch allowance was sought at the

December Fisheries Council 2014, so as to incentivise participation in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme. Unfortunately, the dead spurdog by-catch allowance was not secured before the

commencement of this pilot project. As a result, an alternative incentive was offered, limited additional

quota for commercial species to the equivalent value of a hypothetical spurdog by-catch allowance of

50 tonnes.

Dispensation from the Provision of Council Regulation 2007/41 (Article 2) quota restrictions allowed

vessels in the pilot project to be allocated limited additional quota if the fishing vessel skipper adhered

to the pilot projects requirements of reporting their spurdog by-catch in real-time.

The incentive of additional quota was insufficient to obtain the necessary ‘buy-in’ of fishermen at the

level first envisaged of up to 10 vessels. The incentive for participation is not an economic one (i.e. the

provision of additional quota), but a moral principle of reducing spurdog by-catch and subsequent dead

discards. Many fishermen were unwilling to voluntarily participate in the pilot project, reporting in real-

time, avoiding spurdog to potentially fish less productive grounds, yet continue discarding dead

spurdog. That said, through support of the CFPO, 3 commercial offshore netting vessels were

identified. Two of the three vessels provided limited, ad hoc reports of spurdog by-catch for a limited

number of fishing trips at project start-up, but not to the standard required. The limited reports of

spurdog by-catch from these vessels have not been included in this report. The third vessel provided

C6689


real-time reports of spurdog by-catch to the standard and frequency required. The vessel was a 22.65

m offshore netter operating from a port in the south-west of England.

3.3. Investigate, develop, source and implement a real-time by-catch avoidance tool

A desk based review of real-time reporting systems for reporting elasmobranch by-catch was

undertaken (Hunter et al., 2016). Following the example of the US scallop fishery (O'Keefe and

DeCelles, 2013), a relatively low tech option involving email and fax, as opposed to the more high-tech

options using e-logbook, was chosen, principally as a low-cost, reliable option for a short-term pilot

project, with many offshore vessels having these systems in place already. The real-time channels of

communication are schematised in Figure 3.

The CFPO took a proactive role in the pilot project. Using email, the participating skipper reported his

spurdog by-catch by total approximate weight per grid cell (see section 3.3.1 and Annex 7) to the CFPO

by midnight for that days fishing activity (Figure 4).

Figure 3: Schematic of the real-time spurdog by-catch reporting tool.

The following morning, the CFPO entered the data into the real-time spurdog reporting tool via the Defra

ArcGIS on-line reporting portal (Annex 4). The data were transferred to the Cefas network where the

automated advisory tool that runs within ArcGIS for Desktop 10.1 (ESRI, Redlands) processed the data

(Figure 5). The weight of spurdog by-catch in each grid cell was classified to predetermined thresholds

(see section 3.3.3), using a traffic light system. The cells of the reporting grid are coloured to the level

of spurdog by-catch, green (low risk of significant by-catch), amber (medium risk of significant by-catch)

and red (high risk of spurdog by-catch) to produce an advisory notice that can be sent back in near real-

time (before mid-day) to the CFPO. These can be forwarded by the CFPO to the participating vessel.

This advises fishermen of the by-catch “hotspots”, enabling them to make informed decisions on their

fishing behaviours, reducing spurdog by-catch, reducing fishing mortality and prevent ‘choking’ the

fishery. All spatial data and advisory maps generated by the real-time reporting tool are accessible for

further analysis within the Cefas network.

C6689


Figure 4: Example of 24 hour spurdog by-catch real-time report. Personal data anonymised.

Figure 5: The advisory tool in ArcGIS for Desktop 10.1.

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]

Date: 20 October 2015 18:49:20 BST

To: [email protected]

Subject: Message from Inmarsat-C Mobile

from xxxxxxxx,skipper of xxxxxxxxxxxx PZ xxxxxx,

date 19/10/15

hauled 7 mile of 125mm gill nets .14-24 hr soak

29e1, p 13. 66kgs mixed size spurdogs

29e2, g,13 33kgs mixed size spurdogs

29e2, f,12, 50kgs mixed size spurdogs

thank you,rgds phil..

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

C6689


3.3.1. Reporting grid

The size of the reporting grid cells must be of a spatial resolution to allow participating fishermen in the

pilot project to accurately report the spurdog by-catch from a days fishing activity, and should it be

necessary, avoid by-catch “hotspots” for relatively small areas, rather than curtail fishing activity over

large areas. For this reason, the size of an ICES statistical rectangle (approximately 30 nautical miles

by 30 nautical miles, dependent on the curvature of the Earth) is too great for an amalgamation of ICES

statistical rectangles be an effective reporting grid. Instead, daily movements of 12 electronically tagged

spurdog were used to inform the appropriate size of the reporting grid cell in relation to the spatial extent

for a grid-based 'move on' rule (Bendall et al., 2014). Based on that data, ‘128th’ of an ICES rectangle

(approximately 4.5 km by 3.5 km) was deemed an appropriate size for each cell within the reporting

grid (Annex 7).

3.3.2. Spurdog by-catch allowance allocation

The pilot project is designed around the provision of a hypothetical dead spurdog by-catch allowance

of 5 tonnes per vessel. This was considered a sufficient allocation for a continuation of this pilot project

in the future but not substantial enough to incentivise any targeting of spurdog or the retention of live

specimens. Survivability of spurdog caught by the UK netting fleet in the Celtic Sea region (ICES

Divisions VIIe-j) is estimated to be around 60% (Bendall et al., 2014), therefore the spurdog catch

allowance per vessel is set at 12.5 tonnes, with an expected 7.5 tonnes to be returned alive. The

hypothetical allowance is distributed across a 12-month period as follows: 80% between October to

April, where spurdog is a frequent by-catch species, and 20% between May to September where

spurdog by-catch is less frequent in the Celtic Sea gill-net fishery (Ellis et al., 2014).

3.3.3. Traffic light system thresholds

Using a traffic light system, the amount of spurdog by-catch in each grid cell, reported by the vessel, is

set to predetermined thresholds and coloured to the level of spurdog by-catch, as follows:

Green: low risk of significant spurdog by-catch

Amber: medium risk of significant spurdog by-catch

Red: high risk of significant spurdog by-catch and choking the fishery

To identify the thresholds, firstly for the participating vessel, generalised fishing grounds were identified

based on Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data for the 2-year period from 1st January 2013 to 31st

December 2014. Ping locations for the vessel were processed as described in Lee et al. (2010) using

a simple speed rule whereby vessels travelling at 1-6 knots were assumed to be fishing, and allocated

to the grid cells used for real-time reporting. This rule works less well for fishing vessels fishing static

gear, as during hauling operations that often last >10 hours in every 24-hour period, they travel at <1

knot. That said the participating fishing vessel steams to and from the fishing grounds at 8 knots,

therefore speeds <6 knots indicate that the vessel is operating on the fishing ground, moving between,

and hauling static gear.

The commercial fishing vessel involved in this pilot project also participated in the Defra funded, fishery-

dependent programme; NEPTUNE Shark, Skate and Ray Scientific By-Catch Fishery (NEPTUNE) (Ellis

et al., 2015), providing self-sampling data on levels of spurdog by-catch during typical commercial

fishing activity. Historic spurdog by-catch “hotspots” have been identified from this data. Fishing events

C6689


where spurdog by-catch accounted for over 95% of the total spurdog by-catch reported were allocated

to the reporting grid cells. 8 grid cells were identified as historic “hotspots” (Figure 6).

For the gill-net fishery in the Celtic Sea, thresholds for medium risk of spurdog by-catch (designated

amber) have been determined by assigning 80% of the hypothetical spurdog by-catch allowance

allocated to the 7 months from October to April and the remaining 20% to the 5 months from May to

September. The monthly allocated hypothetical spurdog by-catch allowance is split between the

average number of grid cells fished over one month from January 2013 to December 2014. Thus the

threshold for medium risk of spurdog by-catch at grid cell level for October is:

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑄𝑢𝑜𝑡𝑎 ×

80100

×17

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠

Cells are assigned low risk status (designated green) where spurdog by-catch is reported, but the total

weight of by-catch over the month remains below the medium risk threshold (designated amber). Based

on the distribution of the spurdog by-catch weights and numbers reported by this vessel in NEPTUNE,

the threshold for high risk of spurdog by-catch (designated red) is set to the same as the threshold for

medium risk for historic hotspots and 5 times the threshold for medium risk for other cells. Additionally,

historic “hotspots” are given an influence over the 24 neighbouring cells, so that spurdog by-catch within

these cells results in high risk being attributed to neighbouring cells as shown below:

Illustration: The dark red cell in the centre is a historic “hotspot”. It has an influence over the neighbouring grid cells, shown in light red. High spurdog by-catch events in the dark red grid cell results in an advisory notice of high risk status (red: high risk of significant spurdog by-catch and choking the fishery) being issued for this cell and all adjacent light red grid cells.

Figure 6: Vessel specific, historic spurdog by-catch “hotspots”, derived from fishery-dependent data.

C6689


For cells where the risk is not influenced by the proximity of hotspots from the same month in a previous

year, the baseline risk of spurdog by-catch on the first day of the month is determined by reducing the

risk from the previous month by one level. Thus, high risk cells become medium risk the following month,

medium risk cells become low risk, and low risk cells remain low risk.

Outside the main fishing grounds, a threshold of zero is applied for medium risk of spurdog by-catch.

This is to alert the fact that the fishing vessel is fishing outside its typical ground, for which we have little

spurdog by-catch data. The threshold for high-risk of spurdog by-catch is unchanged from the threshold

within the main fishing grounds.

3.3.4. Baseline reporting of voluntary avoidance behaviour

Real-time reporting began in October 2015 following the initial identification of 3 potential vessels.

Advisory notices consisting of the level of spurdog by-catch, green (low risk of significant by-catch),

amber (medium risk of significant by-catch) and red (high risk of spurdog by-catch), for each reporting

grid cell were not issued to the fishing vessel. This was a deliberate action to collate three months of

baseline data of voluntary avoidance. Due to the limited nature of this pilot project (one vessel reporting

over 3 months), evaluation of avoidance behaviour by one vessel resulting from the advisory notice

would have been inconclusive. Instead, should a spurdog by-catch allowance be secured for a more

comprehensive future project, including more vessels, then the baseline data collected in this pilot

project will be of more value in the evaluation process of any follow-on project.

3.4. Record the activity of up to 10 fishing vessels participating in the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme in the Celtic sea

The pilot project was undertaken in the commercial fixed net fishery in the Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions

VIIe-h). The participating vessel fishes predominately with gill-nets, typically 120 – 150 mm mesh size,

ranging from 7.5 – 10.5 nm in length, soaked for 16 – 34 hours, targeting hake (Merluccius merluccius)

and pollack (Pollachius pollachius), between October- April, where spurdog is a frequent by-catch

species (Ellis et al., 2014). For the summer months, May – September, tangle nets of 250-300 mm

mesh size are more typically used, targeting larger commercial species such as anglerfish and turbot.

Spurdog are only an occasional by-catch in this gear type. This seasonal fishing pattern of gear use is

typical of the majority of UK offshore gill-netters fishing in the Celtic sea, therefore spurdog is a frequent

by-catch species for the UK offshore gill-net fleet from October – April.

The real-time by-catch avoidance tool was developed, tested and in-place by the end of July 2015.

However, due to the seasonality of spurdog by-catch in this fishery, real-time reporting did not begin

until October 2015.

Working in partnership with the CFPO, the 3 vessels identified at the outset of the project were engaged

with on a one-to-one basis. The skippers were supplied with (i) Background information to skippers

(Annex 5), (ii) 24-h reporting sheet template (Annex 6), and (iii) Reporting Grid Reference Booklet

(Annex 7). A member of the Cefas project team met with the fishing vessel skipper to provide further

background to the project and explain what was required from them in terms of their real-time reports

of spurdog by-catch. As mentioned in section 3.2, only one of the vessels provided real-time reports of

spurdog by-catch to the standard and frequency required and only these data are included in this report.

Given other national priorities, a UK proposal for establishing a precautionary by-catch allowance for

spurdog to enable a more comprehensive trial of the pilot project in 2016 was not sought at the

December Fisheries Council 2015. As a result, the support of the participating fishing vessel waned.

Due to a lack of incentive to participate, real-time reports of spurdog by-catch by the participating vessel

stopped in January 2016.

C6689


3.5. Evaluate the outcomes and success of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme.

The pilot project has been evaluated against clearly measurable objectives: (i) engagement, (ii) data

quality, and (iii) the uptake of a hypothetical by-catch allowance for dead spurdog. In addition, historic

baseline fishery dependant spurdog by-catch and discard data, e-logbook data and VMS data, at vessel

and fleet level, have been used to evaluate voluntary avoidance of spurdog by-catch by the participating

vessel.

3.5.1. Engagement

There was a baseline level of engagement from the participating vessel, providing 17 daily spurdog by-

catch reports, for the 33 days that the vessel was at sea in the same period. The measure of

engagement was the timely provision of data. Spurdog by-catch was reported on 9 days in October-

November 2015, the lag time between emails from the skipper of the participating vessel and data entry

onto the on-line reporting tool ranged from 4 days to 22 days. The mean lag time was 11 days; the

median 9 days.

Timeliness of data entry into the online reporting tool, therefore engagement, improved markedly in

December 2015, with 6 out of 9 reports entered within 1 day of the email from the skipper. The remaining

3 reports were entered within 3-5 days and were emailed on a Thursday or a Friday. The additional

delay over weekends highlights the need for more streamlined reporting systems in order for the tool to

be effective. This increase in engagement during December 2015 appears directly related to increased

levels of spurdog by-catch in that month, with 9 daily spurdog by-catch reports, including 3 reports of

very high weights of by-catch, for 15 days at sea.

To promote good working practice as part of the pilot project, the fishing vessel’s skipper and crew

engaged with a voluntary Code of Conduct for zero TAC, and prohibited species of sharks and skates

within Celtic Sea fisheries. Previously developed between Cefas and fishermen, the Code of Conduct

promotes good practical handling and discard practices, to further aid the long-term survival of live

spurdog, post discard (Figure 7).

3.5.2. Data quality

To evaluate the spatial and temporal accuracy of the reports of spurdog by-catch submitted during the

pilot project, reports were cross-checked against one another, and also against VMS and e-logbook

catch and landings data for the participating vessel. Dates in VMS and logbooks have been observed

to fluctuate by +/- 1 day when coupling VMS and logbook data (Bastardie et al., 2010). This problem is

likely to be particularly significant for gill-netters due to the long soak times of their fishing gear, often

hauled at least 1 day after shooting. Therefore, reports of spurdog by-catch for a given date were

mapped against VMS data and logbook data for the day before, the same day and the day after. UK

vessels over 12 m in length (over 15 m prior to 2015) are required to submit their location to VMS at 2

hourly intervals, from which shoot and haul locations cannot be reliably identified. Probable shoot or

haul locations were identified based on speeds of <1 knot (see section 3.3.3).

Reports entered in October 2015 included two suspected duplicates. For two grid cells, identical weights

of spurdog by-catch were entered on 8th October and 13th October 2015. The weights entered

correspond to 6 and 7 boxes of dead spurdog. Whilst it cannot be ruled out that the identical reports 5

days apart are coincidental, this seems unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, whereas weights of 0.5, 1, 2,

or 3 boxes per grid cell were reported frequently throughout the pilot project, specific larger weights

were only reported once or twice. There was one other report of 7 boxes in one grid cell on 3rd December

2015 and no other reports of 6 boxes in one grid cell. Secondly, VMS locations for the participating

vessel for 7th – 9th October 2015 indicate that the vessel was fishing to the South or South-West of the

cells where by-catch was reported (Figure 8a). In contrast, VMS data for 12th – 14th October 2015 are

C6689


consistent with reports of spurdog by-catch (Figure 8b). There was no duplication of reporting in

November or December 2015.

Reports for November and December 2015 were consistent with VMS locations, with the exception of

one grid cell, where relatively low spurdog by-catch was reported on 10th December (Figure 8c). It is

assumed that an erroneous grid cell reference was entered. Occasional errors of this type were to be

expected under the reporting set-up used in the pilot project. However, such errors were easily

traceable, primarily through cross-checking with other grid cells with reports from the same vessel on

the same day.

VMS data provided a secondary form of validation, as long as a tolerance of +/- 1 day is allowed.

Because of the low spatial resolution of e-logbook data (i.e. ICES rectangle), it could not be used to

reliably validate the higher resolution spurdog by-catch reports from the reporting tool.

Figure 7: Voluntary Code of Conduct

3.5.3. Uptake of a hypothetical by-catch allowance for dead spurdog With a hypothetical annual dead spurdog by-catch allowance of 5 tonnes, equating to a spurdog catch allowance of 12.5 tonnes for the one participating vessel, the monthly allowance in October-April was 1,428.5 kg. Figure 9 shows the weight of spurdog by-catch reported by the participating vessel each day in relation to this monthly allowance, hereafter referred to as threshold weight of spurdog by-catch. Figure 10 shows the cumulative spurdog by-catch for each month during the pilot project. The weight of spurdog by-catch reported exceeded the threshold in a single day on four occasions during the pilot project: on 9th October 2015, 9th December 2015, 14th December 2015 and 17th

C6689


December 2015. Additionally, the weight of spurdog by-catch reported on 8th October was marginally below the threshold.

Figure 8: Location of reported spurdog by-catch by the participating vessel in relation to its VMS

location and landing on the day before, the same day, and day after the report date. (a) Inconsistency

with VMS suggests that either the date or the grid cell references were incorrect for the report dated 8th

October 2015. (b) Consistency with VMS confirms the accuracy of the date and the grid cell references

for the report dated 13th October 2015. (c) Comparison with VMS suggests that two grid cell references

from 10th December 2015 are correct, while the third, located approximately 50 km to the south of the

other two cells and the VMS locations is erroneous.

C6689


Figure 9: Daily reports of spurdog by-catch from one vessel from October-December 2015, in relation to a threshold weight of spurdog by-catch based on a hypothetical allowance.

Figure 10: Monthly cumulative Spurdog by-catch from October-December 2015, in relation to a threshold weight of spurdog by-catch based on a hypothetical allowance.

C6689


3.5.4. Analysis and evaluation of voluntary avoidance behaviour

Using a sub-set of the real-time spurdog by-catch data provided by the participating vessel, an analysis

and evaluation of the vessels voluntary avoidance of spurdog by-catch has been conducted. The

analysis focussed on two fishing trips in December 2015. Reports for October 2015 were not included

due to concerns over spatial and temporal accuracy. In November 2015, the participating vessel was

fishing in different areas to the other two months and reporting very low by-catch of spurdog, meaning

avoidance would not have been necessary.

The series of maps in Figure 11 shows reported spurdog by-catch, the risk of spurdog by-catch, and

probable fishing activity by the participating vessel and by 7 similar vessels not involved in the pilot

project. Maps for the first and last days of October and November 2015 are included to provide context

to the risk of spurdog by-catch status attributed to cells in December 2015 (Figures 11a-d), in addition

to a time series from 1st December to 18th December 2015, covering 3 fishing trips by the participating

vessel (Figures 11e-v).

C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


C6689


Figure 11: Risk of spurdog by-catch, fishing activity (gill-nets) and actual spurdog by-catch during the

pilot project.

C6689


Limited information on the location of areas at high risk of spurdog by-catch were built into the spurdog

by-catch reporting tool at the start of the pilot project. One or two historic “spurdog” by-catch hotspots

in each month were attributed a high risk of by-catch status at the start of each month (Figures 11a, c

and e). These “hotspots” were identified from data provided by the participating vessel during the

NEPTUNE project (see section 3.3.3). During this pilot project, 5 additional “hotspots” were incorporated

into the tool for October 2015, and 13 for December 2015. These “hotspots” would theoretically be

attributed a high risk of by-catch status at the start of the same month, the following year. Spatial

clustering of “hotspot”s could also be used to identify larger high risk areas, by grouping grid cells

together, whilst maintaining a much finer spatial resolution than that of an entire ICES rectangle.

The advisory information on maps towards the end of the month (Figures 11b, d and v) is more

comprehensive. The advisory information on the maps in Figure 11 is reactive rather than preventative:

areas are flagged as high risk of spurdog by-catch only after spurdog by-catch is recorded. The

effectiveness of the advisory tool during the pilot project was limited by the fact that (i) only one vessel

was involved in the pilot project, (ii) the lack of historic information on spurdog by-catch location at a

fine spatial resolution, and (ii) the lack of evidence-based predictions based within the tool.

From 1st – 4th December 2015, on the first of 3 fishing trips during the month, the participating vessel

fished in an area where it had also fished in October 2015, resulting in relatively very low spurdog by-

catch (1 x 33 kg box or less per grid cell). This area was located to the North-east of all areas where

high levels of spurdog by-catch were reported in the previous two months, adjacent to the nearest of

those areas. Despite unresolved questions relating to the accuracy of the some of the data submitted

in October 2015, it could be put that the participating vessel was avoiding the areas where it had caught

high weights of spurdog in October 2015 and December 2013. The tool attributed a status of low risk

of spurdog by-catch or unknown risk to all cells fished by the participating vessel during this fishing trip.

Following reports of 429 kg of spurdog by-catch across 3 cells over 2 days, 1 of those cells was turned

amber (medium risk of significant spurdog by-catch) and the other 2 cells turned red (high risk of

significant spurdog by-catch).

On its second fishing trip of the month, from 8th – 10th December 2015, the participating vessel fished

grounds located over 35 nautical miles away from any known areas of high-risk of spurdog by-catch.

Based on the data available within the tool at the time, this is assumed to be voluntary avoidance

behaviour. However, the participating vessel reported very high spurdog by-catch in this area on 9th

December 2015. It appears that voluntary avoidance behaviour was, in this instance, unsuccessful.

From 9th – 11th December 2015, there was fishing activity by one or more non-participating vessels in

the area where cells had acquired high risk status following reports from the participating vessel on 3rd

and 4th December 2015. Had other vessels been involved in the pilot, they would have been expected

to avoid the high risk or red cells. As none of the non-participating vessels were reporting spurdog by-

catch via e-logbook catch data, there is no means of knowing how much spurdog by-catch (if any)

resulted from fishing in the high risk area.

On its third fishing trip of the month, from 11th and 16th December 2015, the participating vessel returned

to the grounds where it had fished at the beginning of the month. It fished mainly to the North-west of

the cells where it had reported 100 – 200 kg of spurdog by-catch, although it also appears that fishing

in one cell with high ris’ status resulted in low spurdog by-catch (1 x 33 kg box) on 11th – 12th December

2015.

On 14th December 2015, the participating vessel caught 2.5 tonnes of spurdog whilst fishing 10 nautical

miles or more to the North-west of the nearest cells attributed high risk of spurdog by-catch by the tool.

The skipper on the participating vessel provided an additional comment on his daily spurdog by-catch

C6689


report, stating that two other fishing vessels were East-north-east of them and also caught large

amounts of spurdog on the same day. Fishing activity derived from VMS is consistent with the

information provided by the skipper.

The following day, 15th December 2015, the participating vessel moved 10 miles south, resulting in low

spurdog by-catch (1 x 33 kg box or less per grid cell). The vessel then moved 10 miles or more East-

south-east, resulting in high spurdog by-catch on 16th – 17th December 2015.

3.5.5. Comparison of e-logbook catch data

The participating vessel’s e-logbook catch data reports have been used to evaluate whether the vessels

avoidance of an area of high spurdog by-catch, was the sole motivation or whether catch rates of the

vessel’s target species was an influencing factor.

The vessel reported weight of spurdog by-catch on its e-logbook along with the weight of other species

caught. A lag of 1-2 days between the dates on the two systems was common. This is similar to the

difference of +/- 1 day between VMS and e-logbook data that has been observed previously in the

context of coupling datasets. Reports entered on the online reporting tool were consistent with probable

haul locations identified from VMS (with the exception of the report dated 17th December 2015, for which

the correct date is believed to be 16th December 2015). It seems likely that the dates on the e-logbook

may correspond to the date the net was set, whereas the dates on the online portal correspond to the

haul date. If this is taken into account, the weights of spurdog by-catch recorded on the two systems

are broadly consistent, as shown in Figure 12. However, the disparity between dates on the two systems

presents a challenge in terms of allocating catch of target species to location.

Figure 12: Spurdog by-catch reported via two systems by the participating vessel in December 2015.

C6689


Within the e-logbook, spurdog by-catch is reliably linked to catch of target species. The e-logbook

weights are compared for spurdog, hake, pollack, saithe (Pollachius virens), cod (Gadus morhua) and

haddock (Melanograminus aeglefinus). It is important to be cautious about drawing conclusions from

such a small dataset, but Figure 13 indicates that immediately following a high by-catch event the weight

of spurdog by-catch deceases in subsequent fishing operations. Generally, the catch of other target

species (e.g. hake, the main target species) also appears to decrease. The limited data available

support the suggestion that any altered activity by the participating vessel is aimed to reduce spurdog

by-catch, rather than increase the catch of target species, where high levels of spurdog by-catch will be

tolerated for increased financial gain from the commercial species.

Figure 13: Spurdog by-catch and catch of target species by the participating vessel in December 2015.

3.5.6. Comparison to spurdog by-catch and discards from the southwest fleet in 2013

Between October 2013 – December 2014, the NEPTUNE project involved three UK offshore

commercial netting vessels collecting self-sampling data on shark, skate and ray by-catch and discards

in the Celtic Sea, in effect acting as a ‘reference fleet’ to this pilot project.

The NEPTUNE project dataset has provided a baseline of the level of spurdog by-catch within the fixed

net commercial fishery in the Celtic Sea, prior to the implementation of the pilot project. The fishing

vessel participating in this pilot project, also took part in the NEPTUNE project. For the period October

2013 – May 2014 the vessel self-reported levels of spurdog by-catch during 14 fishing trips.

For this exercise, the reported levels of spurdog by-catch in relation to the reported retained catch of

the main target species (hake and pollack) for the period October to December 2015 for this pilot project

have been compared to those in the NEPTUNE project, for the same vessel, for the period October –

December 2013.

C6689


Table 1 shows the reported levels of spurdog by-catch, catch of hake and pollack and the ratio of

spurdog by-catch to the two main target species (kg of by-catch / tonnes of target catch) for 7 fishing

trips by the participating vessel in October – December 2013 and October – December 2015. In both

years, there is considerable variability between trips. There are no notable differences between the two

years.

Project Year Trip Month Hake Pollack Spurdog

Kg Kg Kg Kg/t

NEPTUNE 2013 1 Oct 8976 214.5 23.9

2 Oct 1056 429 1914 1288.9

3 Nov 11121 99 8.9

4 Nov 11022 3348 303.8

5 Nov 6072 1848 396 50.0

6 Dec 3201 198 1980 582.5

7 Dec 165 1782 709.5 364.4

Pilot

project

2015 1 Oct 5932 1004 3003 433.0

2 Oct 4830 485 578 108.8

3 Oct 5282 516 381 65.7

4 Nov 278 99 356.1

5 Dec 4572 1502 495 81.5

6 Dec 2887 134 2013 666.3

7 Dec 6075 1673 4818 621.3

Table 1: Weight of spurdog, hake and pollack caught per trip by the participating vessel. 2013 data

from Ellis et al., 2015.

3.5.7. Fishing activity compared to prior behaviour

The participating fishing vessels VMS data prior to, and during the pilot project has been used as a

baseline to compare their fishing activity prior to, and during their involvement with the pilot project. For

the same 3-month period of the pilot project (October - December) in 2015, the distribution of fishing

activity has been compared to the same period in 2013 (when the vessel was reporting spurdog by-

catch levels for the NEPTUNE project). Equivalent information for 2014 were not included as the vessel

was fishing a different gear type (trammel nets) for a part of the 3-month period.

Fishing activity and spurdog by-catch are shown in Figures 14 and 15, by month and year. Patterns of

fishing activity commonly vary considerably year on year for a variety of reasons, including economics,

quota, weather and, at individual vessel level, behaviour of other vessels. The main grounds fished in

October – December by the participating vessel were similar in 2013 and 2015, although some grounds

were not fished in the same months. Also, the vessel fished more in October and December and less

in November in 2015, compared to 2013.

In November and December 2015, the participating vessel did not fish grounds in and around the South-

east quarter of ICES rectangle 29E1 (including around the boundary with 29E2), where it had reported

high weights of spurdog by-catch in the same months in 2013. In November 2015, the vessel remained

around the 12 nautical miles fishing limit to the South of Lizard, in the North-east quarter of ICES

rectangle 28E4. In December 2015, the participating vessel fished around 50°N, 7°W, where it had not

fished in October – December 2013, and to the North and to the East of grounds where fishing in 2013

had resulted in high spurdog by-catch.

C6689


VMS data for the participating vessel in November and December 2015 suggest that the vessel may

have been voluntarily avoiding areas where it had reported high spurdog by-catch previously, although

there may also have been other reasons for differences in fishing activity. Assuming voluntary

avoidance did occur, spurdog by-catch remained well below the hypothetical monthly allowance in

November, although the catch of target species was also low (see Table 1). In December 2015, spurdog

by-catch was high despite of possible voluntary avoidance.

Figure 14: Probable fishing activity by the participating vessel in October, November and December

2013, prior to its involvement in the pilot project.

C6689



2015, during its involvement in the pilot project.

3.5.8. Comparison of fishing activity of non-participating vessels

Commercial offshore netting vessels from the UK southwest fleet operating during, but not involved in

the pilot project can in effect act as a ‘control’ to the participating vessel. VMS data from 7 similar

regional vessels not involved in the pilot project, of a similar size, operating the same gear type (gill-

nets) during the period October to December 2015, have been used to compare their spatial activity

with the fishing vessel directly involved in the pilot project.

Figures 16 and 17 provide a direct comparison between the spatial distribution of probable fishing

activity by the participating vessel and by the 7 vessels selected for comparison, for each month of the

C6689


pilot project. The main areas fished by the participating vessel were broadly similar or near to areas

targeted by other vessels.


2015.

C6689


Figure 17: Probable fishing activity by 7 regional vessels not involved in the pilot project in October,

November and December 2015.

C6689


4. Discussion

The pilot project has successfully demonstrated that a simple, low-cost, functioning, real-time

spurdog by-catch reporting tool is in place, allowing a commercial fishing vessel skipper to report

spurdog by-catch in real-time.

The real-time spurdog by-catch data can be successfully collated with the amount of spurdog by-

catch in each grid cell classified to predetermined thresholds, using a traffic light system. The cells

of the reporting grid can be coloured to denote the level of spurdog by-catch thresholds, green (low

risk of significant spurdog by-catch), amber (medium risk of significant spurdog by-catch) and red

(high risk of significant spurdog by-catch). There is the capability to send an advisory notice in near

real-time to the vessel, alerting fishermen of spurdog aggregations to avoid, potentially reducing

wasteful dead discarding and overall fishing induced mortality of spurdog.

The pilot project relies on fishing vessel skippers to participate voluntarily, avoiding spurdog

aggregations, possibly moving to less productive fishing grounds. This additional requirement by

the fishing vessel skippers is seen as an additional burden, both in time and loss of earnings (if

displaced to less productive grounds). To offset this burden to fishing vessel skippers, an incentive

is required.

The provision of a small (50 tonnes) marketable dead spurdog by-catch allowance to account for

unavoidable by-catch to incentivise participation in the pilot project was not secured at December

Fisheries Council 2014. Instead, to incentivise participation in the pilot project, limited additional

quota for commercial species to the equivalent value of the spurdog by-catch allowance was

offered. This was not sufficient to obtain the necessary ‘buy-in’ of fishermen at the level first

envisaged (up to 10 vessels) as the incentive for participation is not an economic one (i.e. the

provision of additional quota), but a moral principle of reducing spurdog by-catch and subsequent

dead discards. Fishermen are unwilling to voluntarily participate in the pilot project, reporting in

real-time, adhering to move-on rules, yet continue discarding dead spurdog.

Real-time reporting by one participating vessel began in October 2015. Due to the limited

participation in the pilot project, advisory notices consisting of the level of spurdog by-catch, using

the ‘traffic-light’ system were not issued as an evaluation of avoidance behaviour by one vessel

resulting from the advisory notice would have been inconclusive. Instead, the baseline data

collected in this pilot project will be of more value in the evaluation of a more comprehensive pilot

project, including more vessels, should there be a follow-on study.

The pilot project has begun to provide real-time mapping of seasonal spurdog by-catch. Such data

on seasonal distribution and abundance of spurdog are currently lacking and will help underpin

future decisions on avoiding by-catches in key “hotspot” areas.

The pilot project has been evaluated against the level of engagement and data quality by those

involved and the uptake of a hypothetical by-catch allowance for dead spurdog. Engagement by

the participating fishing skipper improved markedly with increased levels of spurdog by-catch. Data

quality improved with timely data entry, reducing error through duplication or omission.

The pilot project has demonstrated that a dead spurdog by-catch allowance of 5 tonnes per annum

per vessel (1.43 tonnes per month, October – April) can be exceeded by high by-catch events

(approx. 1-2.5 tonnes within 24 hours), before an advisory notice can be sent. To allow advisories

notices to be effective, it will be necessary to increase the annual dead spurdog by-catch allowance

C6689


beyond 5 tonnes per annum, per vessel in order to ensure that single fishing events do not exceed

the thresholds derived for the spurdog by-catch allowance. Although the spurdog by-catch

allowance needs to be increased to allow the traffic light system to be fully effective, it is anticipated

that the increase would not be directly proportional to the number of participating vessels. The

increase in spurdog by-catch reports associated with increased participation is expected to improve

the accuracy of advisory notices, better informing avoidance.

Analysis of three fishing trips by the participating vessel in December 2015 demonstrates the

analytical methods that can be undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of spurdog by-catch

avoidance behaviour, using historic baseline fishery dependant spurdog by-catch and discard data,

e-logbook data and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data.

The pilot project has shown that albeit with limited data, the participating vessel does appear to

demonstrate voluntary spurdog by-catch avoidance, sometimes unsuccessfully. A follow-on pilot

project, with more participating vessels and advisory notices being issued, could potentially improve

this uninformed voluntary avoidance to informed more effective voluntary avoidance.

Without the appropriate incentive, the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme is neither viable in

the long-term nor self-financing.

5. Concluding remarks

As a small allowance to land dead spurdog was not available to the pilot project, there was a low uptake

by vessels to participate, which limited implementation and complete evaluation of the pilot project, in

particular the real-time spurdog by-catch reporting tool. However, the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme pilot project has successfully:

i) developed and put in place a functional, low-cost, real-time spurdog by-catch reporting tool,

allowing a commercial fishing vessel skipper to report spurdog by-catch in real-time.

ii) demonstrated and proven the approach of using historic fishery-dependant spurdog by-catch

and discards data, VMS data and e-logbook data, at both an individual vessel and fleet level to

evaluate spurdog by-catch avoidance behaviour from using the real-time reporting tool.

The findings from this pilot project demonstrate the real-time spurdog by-catch reporting tool, together

with a small dead spurdog by-catch allowance, offers a real and probable alternative to an immediate

‘Prohibited Species listing’ for spurdog, providing a pragmatic solution to align spurdog with the CFP

landing obligation, reducing spurdog by-catch and subsequent dead, reducing overall fishing mortality,

without creating a ‘choke’ species.

6. Next steps

For this pilot project to be continued, developed and for its full potential to be realised, a small dead

spurdog by-catch allowance must be provided to incentivise greater participation by the fishing

industry.

A continuation to this pilot project, with a small dead spurdog by-catch allowance, and a greater

number of fishing vessels will allow for the full implementation of the real-time spurdog by-catch

reporting tool and complete evaluation of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme. This is of

C6689


particular relevance in the evaluation of advisory notices, sent in near real-time to the fishing vessel,

to reduce significant spurdog by-catch events, whilst remaining within the vessels hypothetical dead

spurdog by-catch allowance and not ‘choking’ the fishery.

Whilst increased participation is expected to improve the advisory notices and by-catch avoidance

to some degree, the computation of advisory information may benefit from the incorporation of

predictive modelling approaches.

7. Acknowledgements

Our sincere thanks go to Paul Trebilcock of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO) for his

support of the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme and his leadership and guidance with engaging

with the fishing industry of Newlyn. We’re very grateful to Andy Wheeler of the CFPO for his

administration of the real-time reporting tool, entering the fishermen’s reports into the on-line portal. We

are grateful to the efforts of Samantha Smith of Cefas and unknown individuals from the Marine

Management Organisation (MMO) for helping the crew of the Newlyn based trawler to clear their

disabled trawl of spurdog by-catch on Newlyn quayside in August 2015. Finally, we especially thank

the skipper of the participating fishing vessel for his engagement, understanding and determination with

the project, without whom this project would not have been possible.

C6689


8. References

Bastardie, F., Nielsen, J.R., Ulrich, C., Egekvist, J., Degel, H. (2010). Detailed mapping of fishing effort

and landings by coupling fishing logbooks with satellite-recorded vessel geo-location. Fisheries

Research 106:41-53.

Bendall, V.A., Carson, N., Cragg, A., Hetherington, S.J., McGregor, K., O’Brien, C., Riley, A. & Rendell,

J. 2014. Proposal for a UK Pilot Project to develop a real-time Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme

to mitigate a choke species and so minimise fishing induced mortality. Working document submitted to

the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 47th Plenary Meeting.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Evidence Project Final Report.

Developing the scientific basis for using real-time closures as a fishery management measure. 2012.

Ellis, J. R., Bendall, V. A., Hetherington, S. J., Silva, J. F. and McCully Phillips, S. R. (2015). National

Evaluation of Populations of Threatened and Uncertain Elasmobranchs (NEPTUNE). Project Report

(Cefas), pp 103.

Hunter, E., Hetherington, S., Ross, E., Scutt Phillips, J., Nicholson, R., Borrow, K., Rutland, L., Donnan,

D., Wiggins, J., Righton, D. and Bendall, V. 2016. Shark By-watch UK 2. Understanding by-catch of

elasmobranchs in UK waters: A nationwide programme, a regional approach. Final project report.

ICES. 2015. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), 17–23 June 2015, Lisbon,

Portugal. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:19. 711 pp.

Nieto, A., Ralph, G.M., Comeros-Raynal, M.T., Kemp, J., García Criado, M., Allen, D.J., Dulvy, N.K.,

Walls, R.H.L., Russell, B., Pollard, D., García, S., Craig, M., Collette, B.B., Pollom, R., Biscoito, M.,

Labbish Chao, N., Abella, A., Afonso, P., Álvarez, H., Carpenter, K.E., Clò, S., Cook, R., Costa, M.J.,

Delgado, J., Dureuil, M., Ellis, J.R., Farrell, E.D., Fernandes, P., Florin, A-B., Fordham, S., Fowler, S.,

Gil de Sola, L., Gil Herrera, J., Goodpaster, A., Harvey, M., Heessen, H., Herler, J., Jung, A.,

Karmovskaya, E., Keskin, C., Knudsen, S.W., Kobyliansky, S., Kovačić, M., Lawson, J.M., Lorance, P.,

McCully Phillips, S., Munroe, T., Nedreaas, K., Nielsen, J., Papaconstantinou, C., Polidoro, B., Pollock,

C.M., Rijnsdorp, A.D., Sayer, C., Scott, J., Serena, F., Smith-Vaniz, W.F., Soldo, A., Stump, E. and

Williams, J.T. 2015. European Red List of marine fishes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union.

Lee, J., South, A. B., and Jennings, S. 2010. Developing reliable, repeatable, and accessible methods

to provide high-resolution estimates of fishing-effort distributions from vessel monitoring system (VMS)

data. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1260–1271.

O'Keefe C. E and DeCelles G. R. 2013. Forming a partnership to avoid by-catch. American Fisheries

Society. Vol 38 No 10: 434- 444.

Vince, M. R. (1991). Stock identity in spurdog (Squalus acanthias L.) around the British Isles. Fisheries

Research, 12: 341–354

C6689


Annex 1: Press release by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO).

News & Updates

Cornish Fishermen Leading the Way to Change Nonsensical EU Spurdog Management

There have been an increasing number of sporadic but significant hauls of spurdog (Squalus acanthias) encountered by Cornish fishermen in recent months. Just last week a Newlyn based trawler accidently caught over 10 tonnes of spurdog while fishing for John Dory around the Isles of Scilly. This meant damaged fishing gear, lost fishing time and a great deal of frustration for the skipper involved. To make it even worse under current EU fishing rules not one of the spurdog could be landed for human consumption or sold.

Cornish fishermen are no longer able to land spurdog because of stock status fears that led to a zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) being introduced in 2010, since when no landings of spurdog have been allowed in the European Union (EU). It would be logical to think that a zero TAC for spurdog means a zero take or zero fishing mortality on the stock, but as spurdog are widespread and locally abundant throughout the Western Approaches and other areas of the North East Atlantic this is

simply not the case.

The reality is that there are accidental by-catches of spurdog in many mixed-fisheries not just in Cornwall but around the UK, this inevitably leads to a level of fishing mortality of spurdog. Under the current EU management regime these perfectly good fish must be discarded whether they are dead or alive. There is no real benefit for the stock, fishermen or wider society under the current regime of discarding dead spurdog. This is a waste of a perfectly good food resource and is clearly not in line with the principles of the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and in particular the much heralded Landings Obligation (“discard ban”). In an effort to end this madness Cornish fishermen have been at the forefront of working in partnership with scientists from CEFAS and policy makers from DEFRA since 2010 in a genuine effort to assist scientists, managers and policy makers to better understand that the current management measures for spurdog are not in tune with what they encounter on a daily basis at sea, as well as giving a valuable insight into spurdog behaviour and interactions with fishing gears in the South West. At the heart of this ongoing working relationship is a desire to improve genuine, rather than cosmetic, management of spurdog whilst providing legitimate flexibility within the future landings obligation to account for unpredictable and unavoidable spurdog catches, i.e. allowing the landing of dead spurdog.

The Cornish Fish Producer’s Organisation (CFPO) is now taking part in an important part of the ongoing work. In conjunction with CEFAS and DEFRA it is developing a pilot project using a real time reporting system, similar to that used for the cod recovery programme in the North Sea. The project will be carried out in the Western Approaches/Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VIIe-j). Fishermen are asked to report any spurdog catches within pre-defined reporting grids and that information can then be fed back

C6689


to other skippers. It is envisaged that the project will assist skippers by giving them up-to-date information on spurdog movements and allow skippers to make informed decisions about potential interactions. This will hopefully reduce the occurrence of significant spurdog catch events and contribute to the perceived stock improvement being witnessed by fishermen. It will not result in a complete avoidance of spurdog catches. The CFPO is therefore calling for an ability to land a marketable dead spurdog bycatch with a nominal landing allowance that does not incentivise targeting of the stock.

This proposed solution allows for the ongoing recovery of spurdog in the North East Atlantic by reducing fishing induced mortality, further improving scientific understanding of spurdog and its interactions with fishermen, whilst allowing incidental dead spurdog by-catch to be landed and marketed. This would appear be the most logical option for a way forward and of course would be in the interests of fishermen, scientists, managers and conservation. International support for this initiative was clearly given at the most recent North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWW AC) in July, with backing from all present at the meeting and a willingness from other member states to be actively involved. For the project to work effectively, there needs to be a high level of industry-science collaboration and cooperation. Paul Trebilcock Chief Executive of the CFPO said “Progress has been frustratingly slow on this issue. But credit must go to the skippers and crews who have remained engaged and continue to work with scientists and policy makers. There is no question in my mind that spurdog populations are increasing throughout the Western Approaches and beyond. This perception is being echoed by fishermen across Europe. I genuinely believe that DEFRA and CEFAS understand that the current EU management regime for spurdog isn’t compatible with the Landing Obligation and are committed to changing it. George Eustice and his DEFRA team have clearly stated that the UK position will be to seek a landing allowance to stop the unnecessary waste of dead by-caught spurdog as part of the pilot project we are involved in.”

C6689


Annex 2: Fishing News article on Shark By-Watch UK 2, including the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance

Programme

C6689


C6689


Annex 3: Letter from the North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) High-Level Group in

relation to the Spurdog By-catch Avoidance programme

C6689


Annex 4: The ArcGIS on-line reporting portal

C6689


C6689


Annex 5: Background project information for fishing skippers

C6689


Annex 6: 24 hour reporting sheet template for skippers

C6689


Annex 7: Reporting grid reference booklet for skippers

© Crown copyright 2015 Printed on paper made from a minimum 75% de-inked post-consumer waste

About us

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is the UK’s leading and most diverse centre for applied marine and freshwater science. We advise UK government and private sector customers on the environmental impact of their policies, programmes and activities through our scientific evidence and impartial expert advice. Our environmental monitoring and assessment programmes are fundamental to the sustainable development of marine and freshwater industries. Through the application of our science and technology, we play a major role in growing the marine and freshwater economy, creating jobs, and safeguarding public health and the health of our seas and aquatic resources Head office

Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0HT Tel: +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 Weymouth office

Barrack Road The Nothe Weymouth DT4 8UB Tel: +44 (0) 1305 206600 Fax: +44 (0) 1305 206601

Customer focus

We offer a range of multidisciplinary bespoke scientific programmes covering a range of sectors, both public and private. Our broad capability covers shelf sea dynamics, climate effects on the aquatic environment, ecosystems and food security. We are growing our business in overseas markets, with a particular emphasis on Kuwait and the Middle East. Our customer base and partnerships are broad, spanning Government, public and private sectors, academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), at home and internationally. We work with:

a wide range of UK Government departments and agencies, including Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Department for Energy and Climate and Change (DECC), Natural Resources Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and governments overseas.

industries across a range of sectors including offshore renewable energy, oil and gas emergency response, marine surveying, fishing and aquaculture.

other scientists from research councils, universities and EU research programmes.

NGOs interested in marine and freshwater.

local communities and voluntary groups, active in

protecting the coastal, marine and freshwater

environments.

www.cefas.co.uk

Documents

Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme - GOV.UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=14330_MB...Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme ... Hetherington, S. J. 26th July 2016 Final