Ecosystem-sensitive approaches to fishing: reconciling fisheries with conservation through improvements in fishing technology
1 School of Ocean Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, University of Wales-Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, UK
2 Marine Institute Headquarters, Rinville, Oranmore, County Galway, Ireland
3 Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA 98115, USA
4 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA
Correspondence to M. J. Kaiser: tel: +44 1248 383751; fax: +44 1248 716367; e-mail: michel.kaiser{at}bangor.ac.uk
This session focused on the role of gear technology in the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and other marine resources, and how it has contributed to more ecosystem-based approaches to fishery management that strive to fulfil the commitments of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Within this context, Session II benefited from a keynote presentation by Simon Jennings and Andrew Revill (Jennings and Revill, 2007) that addressed precisely these issues. They highlighted the need for a decision-support framework or "toolbox" that would allow managers to determine when it was appropriate or cost-effective to seek a solution to a particular environmental problem through technological solutions to gear design, or its use with other possible mitigation measures, such as effort reduction or area closures. Examples are well documented of gear technology providing rapid and relatively simple solutions that mitigate ecosystem effects of fisheries on non-target species. Excellent examples of simple and effective mitigating technologies include bird-scaring devices deployed from longliners that effectively reduce incidental takes of scavenging seabird species (Løkkeborg, 1998), and the Nordmøre excluder grid that greatly reduces bycatch of juvenile fish in temperate shrimp fisheries (Vold-Soldal and Engas, 1997). These achieve an easily defined goal (i.e. reduce the number of incidental seabird mortalities), with a measurable outcome (i.e. a smaller number of incidentally killed seabirds) that is technologically simple to implement without significant financial loss or interference with profitable fishing operations. Together with the keynote presentation, the papers presented in this session provided an ideal backdrop for the discussion that followed.
A key theme that emerged was that stakeholders were often the first to identify conservation/sustainability issues that could be resolved through technological developments in fishing gear design. An obvious example of such mitigation is the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs), which led to similar devices in other unrelated fisheries (e.g. the Nordmøre excluder grid). It is clear that governmental agencies, in particular managers and assessment scientists, need to be receptive to environmental concerns raised by stakeholders, particularly when it is clear how gear technology can mitigate the undesirable outcome that has been identified. In this respect, rigid funding frameworks that constrain the time-scale over which such funds can be accessed or applied for may delay rapid and responsive gear innovation. Hence, funding mechanisms should remain as flexible as possible by responding at appropriate time-scales to requests for scientifically credible research into technological solutions.
Nevertheless, it was clear that a framework providing a "toolbox" for the assessment of how best to mitigate particular environmental issues would be the most effective way to judge when research into technological solutions was the most cost-effective way forward. Often, it was clear that reducing fishing effort or removing activity from the area of concern would be more cost-effective than the delay and expense of technological solutions (Jennings and Revill, 2007). Such a framework might centre on bioeconomic modelling techniques that identify and compare the economic, biological, and ecological impacts of each mitigation "tool", or use the approach offered by life cycle analysis (LCA) associated with each part of the harvesting and production process. These approaches would permit assessment of alternative scenarios and outcomes in terms of the overall costs of taking different approaches to mitigating environmental impacts of fisheries. Such an approach is extremely valuable because it allows managers to avoid measures that incur unforeseen costs.
The discipline of gear technology has a long history, with millions of dollars spent on innovative science that improves harvesting efficiency and mitigates undesirable environmental impacts. Despite this investment of time and money, many have questioned the extent to which innovations in gear design have been implemented in commercial fisheries. This raises serious questions about the willingness of funding agencies and governmental bodies to follow through with implementation and the eagerness of the commercial sector to adopt more selective fishing techniques. Once again, the best examples of innovative implementation were associated with gear modifications and the concerns expressed primarily by stakeholders and developed in partnership with scientists. To date, most of the initiatives described earlier have not involved environmentalist organizations. In this respect, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Smart Gear competition is an exemplary proactive initiative. The incentives offered to fishers to experiment with or adopt such measures were crucial to the successful uptake of gear innovations. This may be particularly important if the gear modifications result in reduced catches, and hence profitability, compared with normal fishing operations. Incentives may include access to more lucrative markets, additional catching opportunities (increased quotas), and higher effort allocations, but often this is not the case.
Other motivations to promote changes in fishers' behaviour or to improve fishing practice (e.g. through the self-implementation of constructive gear modifications) include requiring environmental education for entry to a career in fishing or through sustainability accreditation that leads to ecolabelling. The latter spawned considerable discussion, and it was clear that ecolabelling, although ethically sound in principal, needs to be less onerous than the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation that has the most stringent criteria for qualification. Other schemes, such as the Responsible Fishing Scheme implemented by Seafish in the UK, were seen as attainable for a large part of the industry. Interestingly, it has been proposed that the Seafish scheme involve an "educational" component for which fishers must demonstrate an awareness of the consequences of their actions on the marine environment and how the effects might be mitigated.
Further discussion on the second day recognized that providing alternatives to management actions that the fishers consider onerous, such as closures and other fishing restrictions, is a common incentive for technological development and uptake. The importance of effectively communicating critical design and operation features, as well as the benefits of using new gear, was emphasized, citing the example of training workshops. This is especially important in developing countries, where direct incentives based on monitoring and enforcement may not be available. Finally, fish pots were cited as an example of a low-impact technology whose development and use has been limited by relatively low production rates. Improving very low (1–2%) encounter- to-capture rates was considered necessary for wider use.
It was clear from the presentations and discussions that considerable practical research is being done on more environmentally friendly fishing gear. Although many generic problems exist (e.g. habitat impact, individual species quotas in multispecies fisheries, unwanted bycatch in shrimp fisheries), it was apparent that the solutions need to be tailored to individual fisheries. Technical solutions need to be viewed within a "toolbox" framework, where they are evaluated against other management options for biological effectiveness, socio-economic cost, and ease of implementation. Particularly in mixed-species fisheries, effective technical solutions are likely to be more complicated to use and will result in the loss of target species. Therefore, appropriate measures to promote their commercial use need to be applied.
It was noted that several problems occur because many, if not most, technology development programmes have been initiated only after problems have had time to become urgent issues. Because effective development programmes cannot be completed quickly, forcing early implementation greatly increases the probability of failure and can exacerbate the original problem. Urgency can also promote adversarial thinking in the parties whose cooperation would best achieve both development and implementation. Early identification of emerging problems and better planning and identification of information gaps could improve the use of the limited resources available for technology development.
The continued accumulation of information on fish sensory systems and life history, as well as the direct application of behaviour research, is important to improving capture technologies that create more sustainable fisheries. These have been promoted during previous symposia, and the advances reported here were welcomed. Another notable advance was the presentation of more general tools for predicting codend selectivity, based on net and fish characteristics, synthesizing past research. Finally, cooperative research was recognized as an increasingly useful way to develop practical technologies that mitigate the ecosystem effects of fishing. Combining the tools, knowledge, and skills of both fishing and scientific communities has yielded results that could not have been achieved by either alone. However, the success of such projects depends on mutual commitment and the ability to learn from each other.
Gear technology development and improvement play important roles in sustainable harvesting of the marine ecosystem. The future challenges are to see their effective, widespread implementation in commercial fisheries and to develop the tools to evaluate their performance in comparison with other techniques.
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
-
Jennings S., Revill A. S. The role of gear technologists in supporting an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2007) 64:1525–1534.
Løkkeborg S. Seabird by-catch and bait loss in long-lining using different setting methods. ICES Journal of Marine Science (1998) 55:145–149.
Vold-Soldal A., Engas A. Survival of young gadoids excluded from a shrimp trawl by a rigid deflecting grid. ICES Journal of Marine Science (1997) 54:117–124.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||