Dear all,

The 2023 Report of the Workshop on Assessing the Impact of Fishing on Oceanic Carbon (WKFISHCARBON; outputs from 2023 meeting) is now available on the ICES online library.

The citation for this report is:

ICES, 2024. Workshop on Assessing the Impact of Fishing on Oceanic Carbon (WKFISHCARBON; outputs from 2023 meeting). ICES Scientific Reports. 6:12. 63 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.24949122

A new FAO-IMO report calls for systemic approaches to fishing gear recycling: building it into design and manufacturing through to end-of-life management.

Cite this content as:

Report ICES WKING2 Released

The report is available at: https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Workshop_2_on_Innovative_Fishing_Gear_WKING2_/24299146

Reference: ICES (2023). Workshop 2 on Innovative Fishing Gear​ (WKING2). ICES Scientific Reports Vol. 5(97), Eds. A. Sala, J. Calderwood, S. Eayrs, K. Hamon, N. Steins. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.24299146.v2

===========================================

In this report we convey on additional performance criteria that were included in the factsheets, based on review of the WKING report and discussions arising from WKING2. These include the perceived level of “Complexity”, “Capital cost”, and “Return on Investment”. Questions were also included that sought information related to operational and health and safety considerations, while others were based on the PESTEL framework, designed to evaluate the political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors that may play a role in the uptake of innovative gear. Collectively, these additional performance criteria were an attempt to better understand main drivers that may influence the uptake of the innovative gear. We contacted members of the Joint ICES/FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) and other relevant individuals seeking advice on innovative fishing gears. These individuals were invited to complete a revised factsheet with details describing an innovative gear they had developed and/or tested, including performance details.

The WKING2 report is based on the innovative gear catalogue containing an additional 75 factsheets which includes two updated innovations of gears (e.g. shrimp pulse trawl and Flemish panel) present in the previous WKING report.

The EU projects, Discardless, Minouw, SmartFish, GearingUp, and EveryFish were also reviewed to identify innovative gear, and to the extent practicable a factsheet was produced. Limited STECF (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries) plenary meeting and EWG reports were also consulted.

Based on information provided in the factsheets, it was found that:

• Almost 80% of innovations were categorized as having a high level of technological readiness and only 4% were categorized as having a low level of technological readiness. Almost half (47%) the innovations were perceived to have a minimal level of complexity, and most (80%) of those gears were also deemed to have a high level of technological readiness. Almost one-third of the remaining innovations were perceived to have a medium level of complexity and moderate or high technological readiness level.
• Most (80%) innovative fishing gears were considered to result in a positive effect (incremental, transformative, or disruptive improvement) in catch efficiency, and most (80%) of these were also considered to have a high level of technological readiness. Those gears considered to result in a negative improvement in catch efficiency require further development, and despite their medium to high level of technological readiness it is unlikely fishers will adopt these gears unless they provide substantial improvement elsewhere, i.e. reduce fuel costs.
• When considering gear selectivity, most (80%) innovative fishing gears were deemed to result in a positive effect (incremental, transformative, or disruptive). Most (78%) of these innovations were also considered to have a high level of technological readiness. Five gears were considered to result in a negative improvement in selectivity and require further development or discarding, despite their high level of technological readiness.
• Most (64%) innovative fishing gears were considered to result in a reduction (incremental, transformative, or disruptive) of the impact on the marine ecosystem. Most (77%) of these innovations were also considered to have a high level of technological readiness. There were zero innovations with an increased impact compared to the baseline gear, and 27 with no effect.
• The PESTEL framework, based on six factors (e.g. political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal), was used to provide additional performance criteria to better understand the main drivers that influence the uptake of innovative gear.
• Initial use of PESTEL questions in the factsheets, and feedback received during the workshop, indicate that numerous, and often combined, factors are likely to influence gear uptake. More thorough and systematic collection of these data, based on an improved framework as developed in the workshop, is required before any conclusions can be drawn as to what factors encourage or impede uptake of innovative gears.
• Most factsheet responses (53%) indicated that deployment and retrieval of the innovative gear was not expected to be any different from the baseline gear, while 28% of innovative gears were considered to make deployment and retrieval of the gear more difficult. Less than 10% of innovative gears were thought to be easier to deploy and retrieve.
• Most (44%) innovative gears were likely to be more difficult for fishers to maintain and repair compared to the baseline gear while one-third were thought to make no difference, and 12% to be easier to maintain and repair.
• Almost three-quarters (72%) of innovative gears were thought to have similar impact on fisher health and safety as the baseline gears and only 1% to present a higher risk to health and safety.
• Reference to the innovative gear reducing fuel consumption and or greenhouse gas emissions was apparent in 19 (25%) factsheets.

The report concludes that most innovations reported in the factsheets were deemed to be ready for adoption by industry, subject to minor alteration to suit operational and design differences between vessels.WKING2 attempted to understand where impediments may be delaying the uptake of these gears by industry, although the data only permits identification and analysis of trends and indications. Some recommendations to improve data collection in future are also included.

The public page is here: https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WKING2.aspx

Anto (on behalf of the Core Group Steve, Katell, Nathalie, and the co-chair Julia)

Dear ICES/FAO WGFTFB members

One of the objectives of our ICES/FAO working group is to provide ICES with expertise on fishing gear. Therefore, ICES contacts our working group on a regular basis to contribute this expertise for specific technical input that ACOM requires to draft advice upon request from various management organizations. This time, ICES is searching YOUR/our technical input on the following topic related to a review on the current and potential commercial deep sea (>1000m) fishing practices worldwide:

Terms of reference for WGFTFB (and WGSFD)

Working with WGFTFB/WGSFD, provide a commentary based on expert judgement as well as NEAFC VMS and catch report data analysis on maximum depth on the use of mobile bottom contacting gear (trawls) and bottom contacting static gear in the NEAFC regulatory area.

Scientific justifications

In the context of setting up OECMs, NEAFC will require information on areas that may be fished in the future. As such, an analysis of current NEAFC fishing practices in terms of maximum depth and in terms of general bathymetric features is required to inform the likely future extent by the depth of fishing. This commentary by WGFTFB/WGSFD will serve as input to an ICES workshop on 7-11 August that will also look at the long-term biodiversity/ ecosystem benefits of 1) areas restricted to bottom fishing, and 2) closed areas according to the VME Recommendation (19:2014).

Note: WGSFD are analysing NEAFC VMS and catch report data and will also input towards the general commentary.

Background/deliverable

NEAFC (Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission) will require information on areas that are at suitable depths for fishing and on areas that could in the future also be suitable. This information is required by NEAFC in the process of designating areas as OECMs (“Other effective area-based conservation measures”) that have strict criteria. The criteria state that the management measures (i.e. restrict bottom fishing activity) are realistic and that by putting this in place it will have a long-term to biodiversity.

As such, an analysis of current NEAFC fishing practices in terms of maximum depth and in terms of general bathymetric features is required to inform the likely future extent by depth of fishing. This commentary by WGFTFB/WGSFD will serve as input to an ICES workshop, 7-11 August 2023, that will also look at the long-term biodiversity/ ecosystem benefits of 1) areas restricted to bottom fishing, and 2) closed areas according to the VME Recommendation (19:2014). The workshop will 1) evaluation of the biodiversity attributes of the areas concerned, 2) list potential threats resulting from pressures, and specifically evaluate the pressures and likely threats from fishing activities affecting or expected to affect the areas and the biodiversity attributes, and 3) evaluation of the NEAFC management measures as to whether they achieve, or are expected to achieve, positive and sustained outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity. This should also include the likely or potential effectiveness in mitigating the threats to the biodiversity attributes.

Additional ToR for WGFTFB/ WGSFD

Working with WGFTFB/WGSFD, provide a commentary based on expert judgement (WGFTFB) as well as NEAFC VMS and catch report data analysis (WGSFD) on current and potential maximum depth on the use of mobile bottom contacting gear (trawls) and bottom contacting static gear (e.g. longlines) in the NEAFC regulatory area.

=====

Task of WGFTFB

As the focus of this advice is “what might be future depth limits of deep sea fishing” in the North East Atlantic region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_Atlantic_Fisheries_Commission ), the question is directed to all WGFTFB members  to provide expertise / knowledge on deep sea fishing (>1000m) worldwide to include expertise and current and past practise from around the globe.

Please provide your technical input (in a review type of format) on the below questions:

1. Current and past deep-sea fishing: Do you have any knowledge about deep sea fishing (>1000) in any area of the world. Please, provide details if possible (areas, depth range, type of fishery, target species, countries involved, when this fishery was conducted).
2. Future deep-sea fishing: Do you see a further expansion of deep-sea fishing in the future (e.g. do you see any technical reason not to fish there)? What is your expectation?
3. Do you know/have literature about deep sea fishing (>1000m)?

We require your input no later than by Friday the 21 July, so that it can be compiled into a coherent commentary.

A critical element in the ICES advisory service quality programme is the review of analysis provided by the expert groups. The review is required to assure a sound scientific basis for the advice. ICES depends on the willingness of experts that have not been involved with the work in the expert groups to provide such reviews. The task is absolute vital to assure that ICES advice remains based on best science.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Best regards

The ICES/FAO WGFTFB chairs