Paper 8.1 European Seabass in the UK (For Info)

Written by: Chris Williams and Griffin Carpenter New Economics Foundation www.neweconomics.org [email protected] +44 (0)20 7820 6300 @NEF Registered charity number 1055254 © 2015 The New Economics Foundation

NEF working paper European Seabass in the UK: A test case for implementing Article 17 of the reformed CFP

http://www.neweconomics.org/

mailto:[email protected]

2 New Economics Foundation (NEF) working paper on Article 17 of the CFP

2

Contents

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7

A stock in decline ............................................................................................. 7

The fishery ....................................................................................................... 8

EU emergency measures ................................................................................ 8

Scientific Advice .............................................................................................. 9

ICES Advice for 2016 .................................................................................... 10

Best value criteria for access to the remaining bass fishery ...................................... 11

UK Commercial fishing .................................................................................. 11

Recreational fishing ....................................................................................... 12

Criteria by which to determine best value according to Article 17 ............................. 14

Description of each indicator .................................................................................... 16

Profits ................................................................................................................ 16

Employment ....................................................................................................... 17

Greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................................... 18

Subsidies ........................................................................................................... 18

Economic value chain ........................................................................................ 19

Bass discards .................................................................................................... 20

Other discards ................................................................................................... 22

Spawning season mortality ................................................................................ 22

Bycatch .............................................................................................................. 24

Ecosystem damage ........................................................................................... 25

Ghost fishing ...................................................................................................... 26

Fleet dependency .............................................................................................. 26

UK results .................................................................................................................. 31

Gear performance ......................................................................................... 31

Multi-criteria decision analysis ....................................................................... 32


3

Indicator weightings ....................................................................................... 32

Results .......................................................................................................... 33

Average versus marginal analysis ................................................................. 34

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35

Geography ..................................................................................................... 35

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 37

Reduce fishing mortality in 2016 .................................................................... 37

Ensure that those fleets that deliver best value to society have preferential

access to the remaining fishery ..................................................................... 38

Address the unselective bass fisheries – a ‘bycatch only’ fishery for bass will

be rewarding unselective fishing .................................................................... 38

Close the bass fishery during spawning season ............................................ 40

Regulate netting for bass ............................................................................... 40

Use the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF): ............................. 41

Compensation and gear modification ......................................................... 41

Enforcement of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing ............ 42

Data collection ............................................................................................ 42

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 44

From Emergency Measures to long-term management ................................ 44

Article 17 of the reformed CFP .......................................................................... 44

Fishing opportunities and quota for bass (Article 17) ..................................... 44

However, allocation of fishing opportunities/quota under Article 17 shall be

allocated along transparent, objective criteria, rather than track record

(‘relative stability’). ......................................................................................... 46

Appendix ................................................................................................................... 47

Annex 1: EU Emergency measures ......................................................................... 47

Measure one: A short-term ban on pelagic trawling ........................................... 47

Measure two: A three-fish bag limit for recreational fishermen .......................... 47

Measure three: A monthly catch limit and a closed area ................................... 47

Measure four: An increase in the minimum size of northern sea bass ............... 47

Annex 2: Northern Sea bass stock component vessel limits .................................... 48


4

Vessel catch limits ............................................................................................. 48

Southern sea bass stock component ................................................................. 49

Annex 3: Total commercial and recreational landings of bass ................................. 49

Annex 4: Map of EU bass catch using MMO data (2012) ......................................... 50

Annex 5: Commercial EU landings over time by member state (1985-2014) ........... 51

Annex 6: Increased regulation of recreational fisheries ............................................ 51

Annex 7: UK Otter trawl and gill net discards (2002-2011) ....................................... 52

Annex 8 – Comparison of mobile/static gear in terms of bycatch of target/non-target

species: impact on marine mammals and seabed habitats ...................................... 54

Further reading .............................................................................................. 55

CFP basic regulation ......................................................................................... 55

IIEP and RSPB report on Art 17 ........................................................................ 55

CEFAS C-Bass project ...................................................................................... 55

Endnotes ................................................................................................................... 56


5

Summary

In this working paper we propose 13 indicators, relevant to bass fishing, which can

be used to allocate fishing opportunities in line with Article 17 of the reformed

Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

In our analysis we demonstrate that mobile gear such as demersal/otter trawls were

the most profitable fishing fleet which catch bass, however they supported the fewest

jobs per tonne of bass landed, have a lower average price (£6.50-£7 per kg) as well

as the highest discard rates, highest spawning season mortality, highest marine

mammal bycatch and wider ecosystem damage.

In comparison, drift and fixed nets performed better on the environmental criteria

than mobile gear (except for ghost fishing) and had a lower impact on spawning

season mortality. While also being 20% dependent on bass for their income, netters

also comprised the most bass dependent ports (where over 10% of its annual landed

value comes from bass) although this is similar to their overall share of the bass

landings.

These ports which depend on netting are to a large extent concentrated along the

Eastern extent of the English Channel from The Isle of Wight to Essex. Drift and

fixed nets also provide a higher number of jobs per kg of bass than mobile gear,

while receiving the lowest subsidy per kilogram in the form of fuel tax exemption.

The most jobs per kg of bass were supported by hook and line fishing. The price per

kg was also highest (£9.50 per kg in the UK – a lower average than the equivalent

line caught bass in France), while having the lowest discard rates and least impact

on spawning season mortality. In terms of their dependence on bass, hook and line

fishers were by far the most dependent gear type (55%).

The hook and line vessels also landed a higher proportion of their landings into bass

dependent ports, and are geographically more concentrated towards the Western

Channel, starting at the Isle of Wight and moving West through Dorset to Cornwall.

From the research presented here it is clear that applying Article 17 prompts

decision makers to look at the wider social, environmental and economic value of

bass. The results of our 13 proposed indicators suggest that allocating any bass

fishing opportunities according to socio-economic and environmental criteria would

produce a very different fishery from the existing fleet or what would come about

through market forces alone.

Our analysis provides economic evidence to consider in forming the UK position for

December 2015 council negotiations.


6

We present criteria and indicators as well as analysis to help objective, transparent

decision-making.

The paper provides recommendations to UK decision makers, both for national level

management and to inform the UK position with regards to the CFP implementation:

The urgent priority is to further reduce fishing mortality in 2016. This must

come in the form of lower vessel catch limits for all fleets targeting bass.

However, decision-makers must ensure that those fleets that deliver best

value to society have preferential access to the remaining fishery, as per

Article 17.

The UK must also address the unselective bass fisheries – a ‘bycatch only’

fishery for bass will be rewarding unselective fishing and runs counter to

Article 17. These vessels should be spatially and temporally excluded from

the bass fishery.

The UK position in December Council should be to close the bass fishery

during spawning season to all vessels and gear types to let stocks recover.

Nationally, the UK must take the lead in regulating netting for bass.

The UK should use the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to

help fund compensation and gear modification for fishers affected, for

furthering enforcement related to bass fishing, and for data collection with

regards to bass landings and the impacts of recreational fishing.


7

Introduction

A stock in decline

Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), an important and valuable stock for commercial

and recreational fishers, have seen a severe decline in northern Europe in recent

years.

The spawning stock biomass (SSB) in Figure 1 below, i.e. the biomass of all sexually

mature fish in the stock that ensures future reproduction, has declined markedly

since 2009 and is now rapidly declining towards the biomass limit reference point

(Blim in Figure 1 below).

Blim is a key indicator for the stock size, below which there is an increasing risk of

stock collapse. Bass numbers had, until a recent spell of cold winters, been

increasing,1 growing rapidly from the mid-1990s and reaching a high point in 2010.2

This drove increased exploitation as the availability of the resource increased, but

harvesting has now surpassed a sustainable level for a slow growing, late maturing

species such as bass.

Figure 1: European sea bass biomass

Source: ICES advice for 2016


8

The fishery

The commercial fishery is split between an offshore fishery on the spawning bass,

mainly using pelagic trawls, and an inshore fishery targeting bass using a variety of

gears (e.g. trawl, hand line, longline, nets, rod and line) as they return to coastal

areas after spawning (as well as juvenile bass that have not yet spawned).3

Increased pressure on bass has also resulted from many small-scale fishers, due to

a lack of access to quota for commercial quota species, shifting their effort to bass,

for which there is no quota.4

Figure 2: EU Commercial bass landings (1985 – 2014)

Source: ICES advice for 2016 (note: French data for 1999 was not submitted but is estimated for the

figure)

In 2014 EU Landings declined by over 1,000 tonnes. This is likely to be the result of

the decline in stock. So the impacts of overfishing are now being seen in landings,

which alongside reduced fishing effort due to bad weather means EU bass landings

are now comparable to 2002/03 levels (around 3,000 tonnes).

EU emergency measures

In light of this alarming decline, in 2015 the European Commission agreed

emergency measures (under Article 12 of the reformed CFP, see Annex 1 for more

details) to halt the severe decline of bass stocks.

Emergency measures for northern sea bass stock component (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea,

English Channel, and southern North Sea) include:


9

a short-term ban on pelagic trawling until 30 April 5 (announced in January

2015)

a recreational fishing bass bag limit of three bass per person per day until the

end of 20156 (announced in March 2015)

commercial fishing catch limits until the end of 20157 including monthly catch

limits (for details see Annex 2), and a closed area around Ireland (announced

in June 2015)

the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) increased from 36cm to

42cm (a 42cm fish is thought to be roughly six to seven years old8)

announced in July 2015 and effective from 1 September 2015

The southern stock (Bay of Biscay and Iberian Waters) has insufficient

information about its stock for the European Commission to propose

emergency measures.

The Commission is currently considering how to protect the sea bass stock in 2016

and will draft a proposal for adoption at Fisheries Council in December 2015.

The Commission is also working on a proposal for a long term management plan,

expected to be published at some point in 2016.

Scientific Advice

For the entire 28-year record available from the International Council for the

Exploration of Sea (ICES), we have been fishing the bass stock above levels that

would lead to a stock size with maximum sustainable catch levels (Fmsy on the

graph below).

ICES advised a reduction of (F) to 0.13, a level we have not seen since before

1985.9 Mortality as a result of fishing (F) on the figure below indicates harvesting

pressure on the bass stock and is likely to continue as demand outstrips supply.

Mortality has been rising since 2000 and even more steeply since 2011, which is a

major problem, as achieving Fmsy (i.e. the rate of fishing mortality that ensures the

maximum sustainable yield – MSY) is a condition of fishing at sustainable levels (see

Figure 3).10


10

Figure 3: Bass fishing mortality (F) (1985-2014)


ICES advice for 2015 was that total EU commercial + recreational landings should

be no more than 1,155 tonnes.11 Expected 2015 commercial landings alone are

thought to be around 3,000 tonnes, representing a reduction of 40% from the 2009 to

2012 average (5,561 tonnes).

ICES Advice for 2016

ICES advice for 2016 recommends no more than 541 tonnes of sea bass to be

caught. With this small amount of total landings for both commercial and recreational

fishermen, there is not enough bass to go around.

For this reason decision makers need to prioritise who creates best value to society

from the resource (in terms of jobs among a number of other indicators) and allocate

fishing opportunities to those fleets in accordance with Article 17 of the reformed

Common Fisheries Policy.12

Here we present a framework for a ‘best value’ approach, providing suitable

economic, social and environmental criteria (as well as the relevant indictors)

alongside a decision making tool to help objectively and transparently compare

priorities, to enable decision making regarding the allocation of the remaining fishing

opportunities for bass.


11

Best value criteria for access to the

remaining bass fishery

NEF’s “best value” approach was advocated during the reform of the CFP in Value

Slipping through the Net – a study comparing trawling and gill-netting for cod in the

North Sea using social, economic and environmental criteria.

This showed that fishing using gill nets had a lower environmental impact and

employed more people per tonne of cod landed, but was disadvantaged both in

terms of cod quota and direct subsidies.

Following Article 17 of the reformed CFP, Member States shall use objective and

transparent criteria to allocate resources in the public interest. In the case of bass,

this could be to the highest value fleets and to sectors with the lowest environmental

costs.

UK Commercial fishing

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) produced a

detailed report outlining the value of the bass fishery to the UK fleet. In 2012, the

total landed weight of bass by UK vessels comprised 719 tonnes with a first sale

value just over £5 million.

The majority of the catch (over 70%) is taken by vessels of under ten metres (under-

10m), following the return inshore after spawning.13 Many of the under-10m vessels

catch bass using fixed or driftnets, and hand-lines or longlines, whereas most of the

over-10m use otter trawls or midwater pair trawls.14

It is clear from Cefas work and from reports produced by Inshore Fisheries and

Conservation Authorities (IFCAs)15 around the UK that the highest socio-economic

value for bass accrues inshore.

For the purposes of this report we focus on the commercial fishing metiers targeting

bass based on the Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO’s) vessel catch limits

by gear type:16

mid water or pelagic trawls, including OTM and PTM

all types of demersal trawls including Danish and Scottish seines, including

OTB, OTT, PTB, TBB, SSC, SDN, SPR, SV, SB, SX, TBN, TBS, TB

all GN, all drift net and fixed (trammel) net fisheries, including GTR, GNS,

GND, FYK, FPN, FIX


12

all longlines or pole and line, or rod and line fisheries, including LHP, LHM,

LLD, LL, LTL, LX LLS

Purse seines, gear codes PS, LA.

BOX 1

In France, for comparison, “Sea bass fished by small-scale fishermen who use

lines/hooks is a high value product (‘bar à la ligne’). Bass caught in that way has a

much higher sales value (16.67 euros per kg in France 2013), approximately twice

the value than bass caught by trawlers. Pelagic trawls on spawning aggregations

yield the lowest prices (7.37 euros per kg in France 2013). Pelagic trawling may also

be responsible for pressure on overall prices: during the first quarter of the year,

when pelagic trawlers target sea bass on spawning grounds, average prices are half

as low as during the rest of the year.”17

The Bar-a-la-ligne fishermen from Brittany had implemented a voluntary two-month

closed season during spawning. This precautionary behaviour and example of self-

regulation however, had no impact at stock level due to the other fleets targeting

bass. They have currently reduced the closed season to only one month. The

association of French line fishermen have also stated that line fishermen have lost

50% of their income from the sea bass fishery, due to a lack of measures to protect

sea bass and the resulting stock depletion.18

Recreational fishing

ICES (2014) estimated the total recreational removals of sea bass for France,

Netherlands and England in Subareas IV and VII at 1,300–1,500 tonnes (See Annex

3).19

Recreational fishery harvests could amount to 20% of total fishery removals, but

there are no data on long-term trends in such catches and no procedure to include

the recent data in the assessment.

As ICES states: “In the longer term, management of sea bass fisheries could take

into account the objectives and the economic and social value of the commercial and

recreational fisheries that share the resource, adopting a common methodological

approach to estimate the value of each fishery.”20

Bass is one of the most prized species for recreational sea angling in the UK, with

specific associations, such as B.A.S.S., dedicated solely to bass fishing. Sea Angling

2012 “estimated that recreational angling in England supported 10,400 full-time

equivalent jobs.”21


13

A 2014 MRAG report showed the value of recreational bass fisheries in Sussex to be

three times higher than commercial fisheries, while also employing more people

suggesting “fish should only be caught with hooks”22 (generating a higher economic

return for a lower impact on the stock and marine environment).

Although we do not analyse recreational angling in this paper, Eftec (2015) have

developed an approach for comparing values for commercial and recreational fishing

which provides a framework for doing so.23


14

Criteria by which to determine best value

according to Article 17

Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy states that:

Here we propose 13 indicators that are of relevance for allocating fishing

opportunities for bass when applying Article 17.

Table 1: Proposed indicators for the allocation of bass fishing opportunities under Article 17

Criteria Measure Importance

Profits £/kg of bass

landed

Profits are important to generate economic

activity while minimising costs and ensure a

financially sustainable industry.

Employment jobs/kg of bass

landed

Fishing creates jobs by providing a viable

economic opportunity. Often these jobs are

created in marginal coastal communities with

high unemployment.

Greenhouse

gas emissions

kgs of CO2/kg

of bass landed

Fuel use from fishing generates greenhouse

gas emissions which contribute to climate

change.

Subsidies £/kg of bass

landed

The fishing industry receives subsidies in

different forms. This masks true performance

and deprives governments of funds for other

purposes.

Economic price/kg of The impact of fishing does not stop when a fish


15

value chain bass landed is caught. Economic impacts continue through

processing, transport and other secondary

industries generating economic activity and

employment.

Bass discards kgs of bass/kg

of bass landed

Bass discards result from undersized fish being

caught. Depending on survivability when

discarded this can increase fishing mortality.

Other discards kgs of

discards/kg of

bass landed

Discards from other species result from

undersized or non-commercial fish being

caught. Depending on survivability when

discarded this can increase fishing mortality.

Spawning

season

mortality

spawning

stock

damage/kg

bass landed

Fishing during particular seasons and in

particular areas can damage a fish stock when

it is reproducing. This leads to lower fish

populations than would result from the fishing

activity itself.

Bycatch descriptive Bycatch is the unintended capture of marine

wildlife such as dolphins, birds, turtles or seals.

This can damage or kill the captured wildlife.

Ecosystem

damage

descriptive Fishing activity can harm the marine

environment and destroy habitats. This can

lead to lower populations and a loss of

biodiversity.

Ghost fishing descriptive Ghost fishing occurs when fishing gear is lost in

the water. This entangles fish and causes

fishing mortality.

Fleet

dependency

percentage Some fishing fleets heavily rely on certain types

of fishing for their economic activity. Any policy

change should ensure limited impacts where

dependency is high.

Port

dependency

percentage Some ports heavily rely on certain types of

fishing for their economic activity. Any policy

change should ensure limited impacts where

dependency is high.


16

The current distribution of bass fishing in the UK falls across four gears according to

the MMO port landings data.24 Here we compare the weight of landings in tonnes for

all four gear types in 2014.

Table 2: Current bass landings in the UK by gear

Gear Weight of landings

(2014)

Weight of

landings (%)

Drift and fixed

nets

647.5 62.5

Gears using

hooks

235.9 22.8

Demersal

trawl/seine

145.4 14.0

Beam trawl 7.6 0.7

Source: MMO – Landings by port

Description of each indicator

Profits

To calculate profit intensity, measured as gross profits per kilogram of bass landings,

data was gathered on fleets from the European Commission’s Annual Economic

Report of the European Fishing Fleet (AER).

This publication and accompanying database is the most comprehensive source of

information across EU fishing fleets and includes information on fishing effort (e.g.

days at sea, fuel use), economic measures (e.g. wages, capital costs) and landings

(of every fish species in both weight and value). The most recent release includes

data until 2013.

Fishing vessels are clustered by segment to avoid publishing confidential information

and to allow for analysis at the fleet-level. In the AER database there are four main

fleets that fish for bass in the UK that can roughly be categorised (using the MMO

classification) as drift/fixed nets, gears using hooks, demersal trawl/seine and beam

trawlers.

Profit intensity is calculated using a three year average from 2011 to 2013 of annual

gross profits (all income after subtracting all costs) and dividing this by kilogram of

bass landed. A difficulty with this analysis is that profits specifically from bass cannot

be calculated separately from other species, rather the profit intensity is a measure


17

of the entire operation. For a more accurate calculation of profits from bass fishing,

all effort and economic data would need to be reported by species caught – an

impossibility in mixed fisheries where fishing effort takes place across a number of

species simultaneously.

Clustering in the annual economic review (AER) database does take into account the

length of vessels but for this analysis only gear is considered so estimates are

calculated by combining all length classes for a gear type and taking a weighted

average based on the amount of landings in each length class.

Table 3: Profit intensity by gear

Gear Profit intensity (gross

profit/kg)

Drift/fixed nets 0.20

Gears using hooks -0.43

Demersal trawl/seine 0.28

Beam trawlers 0.02

Source: European Commission – Annual Economic Report

The estimates show that demersal trawlers are the most profitable operations per

kilogram of fish (including bass) landed followed closely by drift/fixed nets. Gears

using hooks were not profitable over the period analysed.

Employment

Employment intensity was also calculated using the AER database. Jobs are

calculated as full-time equivalents (FTE). The same difficulties with the data as

described in relation to profit intensity also apply here.

Table 4: Employment intensity by gear

Gear Employment intensity

(FTE/t)


Gears using hooks 0.071

Demersal trawl/seine 0.032

Beam trawlers 0.065

Source: European Commission – Annual Economic Report


18

The results show that gears with hooks create the most jobs per tonne of landings

while the trawling fleets generate the least.

Greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel use were calculated using the same AER

database. An emissions intensity factor 3.0595 kilograms of CO2e per litre of fuel25

was used and applied to all fuel used across the different fleets.

This means that the greenhouse gas emission intensity scales proportionately to fuel

intensity. The same difficulties with the data as described in relation to profit intensity

also apply here.

Table 5: Greenhouse gas emissions intensity by gear

Gear Fuel intensity (l/kg) GHG intensity (kg

CO2/kg)

Drift/fixed nets 0.50 1.52

Gears using hooks 0.92 2.82

Demersal trawl/seine 0.79 2.42

Beam trawlers 1.45 4.42

kg GHGs per litre of

fuel

3.0595

Sources: European Commission – Annual Economic Report; Defra – Emission factors for carbon

reporting

The results show that drift/fixed nets emit the least amount of greenhouse gas

emissions per kilogram of bass landings while beam trawlers emit the most. Of the

two trawling fleets beam trawlers fish far less bass than the demersal trawling fleet.

Subsidies

According to the AER database none of the fleets analysed here receive direct

subsidies, or at least none that are formally reported according to the European

Commission’s reporting requirements on this indicator. However there are indirect

subsidies to the UK fleet in the form of a fuel tax exemption.

Using the AER data on fuel use and landings combined with the UK fuel tax

exemption as reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD),26 an indirect fuel subsidy per kilogram of bass landed is

estimated.


19

Table 6: Subsidy intensity by gear

Gear Fuel use (l/kg) Indirect fuel subsidy

(£/kg)

Drift/fixed nets 0.50 0.06

Gears using

hooks

0.92 0.11

Demersal

trawl/seine

0.79 0.09

Beam trawlers 1.45 0.17

Sources: European Commission – Annual Economic Report; OECD – Fuel tax exemptions in

the fisheries sector

The results, understandably, are the same as the greenhouse gas emission indicator

with drift/fixed nets using the least amount of fuel and therefore fuel subsidy per

kilogram of bass landing. This overlap is not problematic for the analysis because

although both related to fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions and public subsidies

are two separate problems in their own right.

Economic value chain

There is surprisingly little difference between the three main gear type from their

direct economic contribution, measured as gross value added (Table 7).

Table 7: Economic intensity by gear

Gear GVA intensity

(GVA/kg)


Gears using hooks 1.01

Demersal

trawl/seine

0.91

Beam trawlers 0.58

Sources: European Commission – Annual Economic Report; OECD – Fuel tax

exemptions in the fisheries sector

Indirect impacts including indirect employment are often calculated per currency unit,

for example by £ million of landings. This is likely to be a consequence of input-


20

output tables and government statistical reporting. Still, a higher landing value for

different gears will certainly generate higher economic activity through the value

chain, if not employment as well.

Bass is a high value species and prices are high across gear categories. Gear using

hooks – most likely due to higher selectivity, better quality and size of fish – have a

much higher price per kilogram of landing.

In 2014 gears using hooks received an average price per kilo of £9.50 compared to

an average of £7.34, a premium of 29%. While beam trawlers received a high price

for their landings, since they only represent 5% of the trawling category the price for

trawlers and netters is roughly equivalent at £6.50 to £7.00 per kilogram.

These prices were calculated using an average of MMO data on port landings from

2012 to 2014.

Figure 4: Bass price per kilogram by gear type

Sources: MMO – Landings by port

Bass discards

Discarding undersized bass is a significant issue for some fleets fishing bass and is

set to become much more of a problem with recent changes to the Minimum

Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) to 42cm for bass.


21

Current levels of discards come from ICES data27 and show a pattern noted

elsewhere28 although the data collected may underestimate discards from all fishing

gears.

Survival rates are poorly understood (ICES advice file). Estimates of survivability for

this analysis are inferred from the low survivability of trawl-caught bass in Cefas

tagging programmes,29 high survivability from bass caught with hooks as evidenced

in French and Dutch studies,30 and an assumption of fairly low survivability for bass

from drift and fixed nets.

An 80% size adjustment was used to account for the fact that it is smaller fish that

are being discarded. While these fish could grow to larger sizes if not for mortality

due to discarding there is also the possibility of natural mortality.

As data exists on current landings by length the new policy increasing the MLS from

36 to 42cm can be analysed for its likely impacts on discards. It is unclear how

efficacy and gear modifications will reduce discards.

Taking a fairly conservative approach, it is assumed here that 50% of the discards

will be avoided and 50% will not be avoided, and that these percentages apply

across all gears.

Table 8: Historic and projected bass discard rates by gear type

Gear Historic

discard

rate

Discard

rate

including

50% of 36-

42cm

Survivability Size

adjustment

kg bass lost

through

discards/kg

bass landed

Drift/fixed

net

2% 11% 20% 80% 0.07

Hooks 0% 1% 80% 80% 0.00

Mid water

trawl

0% 2% 10% 80% 0.01

Otter trawl 8% 31% 10% 80% 0.23

Beam trawl 2% 9% 10% 80% 0.07

Source: ICES – IBP Bass Report 2014; Cefas - Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl;

ICES - Report on the inter-benchmark protocol on new species


22

Taking into account historic discard rates, the likely impacts of the increased MCRS

as well as estimates of survivability, a survivability-adjusted discard intensity is

estimated for five gear types. While gears using hooks have the lowest bass discard

rate, trawlers show a wide degree of variance with a very high bass discard rate for

otter trawls.

Other discards

Bass fishing not only creates discards of undersized bass but discards of other

species as well. Using data from the Discard Atlas published by Cefas, estimates are

provided on discard rates for the four UK bass fishing gears according to the MMO.31

No information was provided for gears with hooks as it is not a fishery studied for

discards because of very low rates. Due to a lack of data on survivability the same

rates were taken as for bass discards.

Table 9: Discard rates of all species by gear type

Gear Discard rate all

species

Survivability kg fish lost through

discards/kg bass

landed

Drift/fixed nets 4% 20% 0.03

Gears using

hooks

N/a 80% N/a

Demeral

trawl/seine

11% 10% 0.10

Beam trawls 22% 10% 0.19

Source: Cefas - Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries

Similar to bass discards, gears with hooks are estimated to have the lowest discard

intensity, although with regard to other species beam trawls are estimated to be the

trawling fleet with the highest discard intensity.

Spawning season mortality

With biomass at extremely low levels and weak recruitment, the impacts different

gears have on the spawning stock by fishing in different seasons is an important

consideration.


23

In general, gears using hooks fish bass mostly in the summer season, while trawlers

fish bass mostly in the winter. Netting is the major gear type fishing for bass overall

and remains fairly high throughout the year.

The following graph using MMO port landings data illustrates the composition of

bass landings by month across the gear types.

Figure 5: Composition of monthly bass landings by gear type


This fishing effort can be combined with information on the spawning season of bass

which occurs most heavily in April, with some in March and May, minimal spawning

in January, February and June and no spawning for July to December.32

Applying damage weights by month based on this spawning activity, and applying

this to the monthly landing data by gear, gives a level of spawning stock damage per

kilogram of bass landed.

Note that the final figure does not have a unit for interpretation as the damage

coefficients are not biologically specified.

When considering damage to the spawning stock the area of fishing is often an

important consideration, but this matters less for UK bass fishing as the spawning

area is not very concentrated.

And because spawning occurs mid-water and is triggered by temperature changes,

there is notable variation from year to year.33


24

Table 10: Bass fishing during the spawning season by gear type

Gear/period High

spawning (%)

Medium

spawning (%)

Low

spawning (%)

No spawning

(%)

Drift and fixed

nets

6 12 15 67

Gears using

hooks

2 8 18 71

Demersal

trawl/seine

8 21 27 44

Beam trawl 21 21 25 33

Damage

coefficient

High

spawning

Medium

spawning

Low

spawning

No spawning

Damage 0.5 0.25 0.1 0

Gear/period spawning stock damage/kg of bass landed

Drift and fixed

nets

7.4

Gears using

hooks

5.0

Demersal

trawl/seine

12.1

Beam trawl 18.0

Sources: MMO – Landings by port; Seafish - Responsible Sourcing Guide Seabass 2013

The results show that due to the summer/winter split between gears with hooks and

trawlers (especially beam trawlers) there is a lot less impact on the spawning stock

from hooks than from trawlers, with netters falling in between.

Bycatch

Bycatch of other non-fish marine species including cetaceans is included, as many of

the species have high economic and non-economic values attributed them.34,35,36

Bycatch is included in Seafish’s Responsible Assessment for Sourcing Seafood

(RASS)37 with the rating listed below and the main bycatch issues as described from

multiple sources.38,39,40,41


25

Table 11: Bycatch impacts by gear type

Gear RASS rating (1 low

impact, 5 high

impact)

Main bycatch issue

Set gill nets 3 Seals, dolphins, harbour

porpoises

Drift nets 3 Seals, dolphins, harbour

porpoises

Handlines 1 Birds

Otter trawls 4 Dolphins

Pelagic pair trawls 3 Dolphins, seals

Source: Seafish – Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood

The results show that hooks have the least associated bycatch, followed by both

types of nets and pelagic pair trawls and the most bycatch from otter trawls. While

these results are specific to bass fishing they also align with sources looking at

similar gear, fishing for other species and in other areas.42,43

Ecosystem damage

Ecosystem damage refers to the impact of different fishing gears on the marine

environment. By far the largest marine impact is on the seabed. For most gears

fishing bass there is little impact with the seabed. Ecosystem damage is included in

Seafish’s Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood (RASS) as “habitat” impacts44 with

the rating listed below.

Table 12: Ecosystem damage rating by gear

Gear RASS rating (1 low

impact, 5 high impact)

Set gill nets 1

Drift nets 1

Handlines 1

Otter trawls 4

Pelagic pair trawls 1

Source: Seafish – Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood


26

According to the Seafish ratings all gears fishing bass except otter trawls have

minimal impact on the ecosystem.

While these results are specific to bass fishing they also align with sources looking at

similar gear fishing for other species and in other areas.45,46

Ghost fishing

A recent report on ghost fishing from the Institute for European Environmental Policy

(IEEP) singles out bass fishing as a particularly damaging for ghost fishing.

Estimated losses in nets per boat per year are just over 2%, one of the highest levels

for any species.

According to the report there is little ghost fishing associated with hooks due to the

small amount of gear that is involved.

Compared to drift and fixed nets, trawlers have larger nets that fish are likely to see

and avoid.

In additional, trawling gear is likely to sink to the seabed, decreasing the likelihood of

ghost fishing, although nets may become detached.

The impacts of ghost fishing will vary significantly by area fished, as tidal movements

can quickly cover ghost fishing gear.

Fleet dependency

While multiple fleets in the UK fish for bass, the importance of the species for the

different fleets varies widely.

Calculating the bass share of total value landed by each fleet shows that gears using

hooks are much more dependent on bass (55%) than drift and fixed nets (20%) and

that trawlers (5%), in particularly beam trawlers (0%), are hardly dependent at all on

bass for their landing value.

The importance of bass has been increasing in previous years for both gears with

hooks and drift/fixed nets.


27

Figure 6: Bass dependency by gear type (2010-2014)


These dependency measures do vary month by month but a 2012-2014 average

shows that the relative ranking of fleets on bass dependency remains the same

throughout the year.

This monthly dependency was suggested as an important dimension to the bass

fishing industry in the European Commission’s Staff Working Document Explanatory

Note on emergency measures for sea bass.47

Figure 7: Bass dependency by month and gear type



28

One significant issue with this analysis is that these figures were estimated using the

MMO port landings data.

Ideally estimates should be for the subset of each fleet that is targeting bass to a

significant degree, but this is not possible with the level of fleet aggregation in the

database.

In an effort to compensate for some of this aggregation, any landings to ports in

Scotland and Northern Ireland were excluded from the fleet dependency calculation

(leaving England, Wales and the Channel Islands) as fleets landing in ports so far

north will not be targeting bass.

Port dependency

Measured in a similar manner to fleet dependency, port dependency is the reliance

of ports around the UK on the value of bass landings. As some ports in the MMO’s

port landings database are extremely small, only ports with at least £10,000 in bass

landings were included in the analysis.

Ports with bass dependency issues were defined as those ports where at least 10%

of the landing value comes from bass. These 30 ports were then coded by the main

gear landing in each port. Where no gear represents 60% of the landings value, the

port was coded as “mixed”.

Table 13: Port dependence on bass and main gear type

British ports

landings bass

Total landings Bass

dependence

Main gear to port

calculated by value value % list

Walton-On-Naze 119,312 76% Drift and fixed nets

Wivenhoe 19,226 76% Demersal

trawl/seine

Portland 282,301 56% Gears using hooks

West Mersea 415,899 55% Drift and fixed nets

Axmouth 61,576 48% Drift and fixed nets

Lytham St Annes 54,502 42% Drift and fixed nets

Southampton 124,420 41% Drift and fixed nets

Littlehampton 247,683 39% Drift and fixed nets


29

Canvey Island 31,711 37% Drift and fixed nets

Felixstowe 125,778 35% Mixed

Harwich 164,490 34% Drift and fixed nets

Brighton 595,460 31% Mixed

Cowes 204,948 29% Drift and fixed nets

Southwold 162,927 25% Gears using hooks

Dungeness 271,252 24% Drift and fixed nets

Hastings 920,623 23% Drift and fixed nets

Christchurch 276,321 23% Mixed

Weymouth 3,594,079 20% Gears using hooks

Eastbourne 3,073,897 19% Drift and fixed nets

Portsmouth 2,621,106 18% Mixed

Ramsgate 837,556 17% Drift and fixed nets

Beer 77,129 15% Drift and fixed nets

Rye 1,341,727 15% Drift and fixed nets

Sennen 95,116 13% Gears using hooks

Aldeburgh and Orford 158,849 12% Drift and fixed nets

Selsey 1,154,099 11% Drift and fixed nets

Bideford 549,293 10% Mixed

Lymington and

Keyhaven

706,077 10% Mixed

Lowestoft 741,538 10% Gears using hooks

Newhaven 5,536,687 10% Drift and fixed nets


The results show that the 30 ports with high bass dependence tend to be ports

where the main gear is drift and fixed nets (18). There are a number of ports with a

high bass dependence being landed by a mix of gears (6) and gears using hooks (5)

but only one port with bass dependence where the main fishing gear was trawlers

(Wivenhoe).


30

These results are not too surprising given that some gears land more bass in total. In

fact, the proportion of bass landings of different gears to the 30 bass dependent

ports are almost identical to the entire UK landings.

This means that although a change in allocation to drift and fixed nets may impact

the most bass dependent ports, it may also impact the non-dependent ports as well,

so the proportional impact is nearly identical across gear types.

Gears using hooks land a higher proportion of their landings to bass dependent

ports, while trawlers land a lower proportion.

Table 14: Landings of bass by gear type to both bass dependent ports and all ports for comparison

Gear Landed value

of bass to all

ports (%)

Landed value of

bass to bass

dependent ports

(%)

Share of bass

landings to bass

dependent ports

(%)

Drift and fixed

nets

62.5 62.5 4.3

Gears using

hooks

22.8 30.1 5.7

Demersal

trawl/seine

14.0 7.4 2.3

Beam trawl 0.7 0.1 0.7


Finally, the last column in Table 13 shows the percentage of each gear’s bass

landings that go to bass dependent ports. This can be interpreted as the probability

that a bass dependent port will be impacted by a change to the bass allocation for

each gear type.


31

UK results

Gear performance

The table below (Table 15) summarises fleet reporting by key data sources and how

they were merged for the MCDA calculations.

Table 15: Gear concordance for all major data sources

Final MMO AER Seafish Cefas ICES

Drift/fixed

nets

Drift/fixed

nets

Drift and/or fixed

netters

Set gill

nets

Gillnets Drift nets

Gears with

hooks

Gears with

hooks

Vessels using

hooks

Drift nets Trammel

nets

Nets

Demersal

trawl/seine

Demersal

trawl/seine

Demersal

trawlers and/or

demersal

seiners

Handlines Lines Lines

Beam

trawlers

Beam trawlers Otter

trawls

Otter

trawl

Otter

trawl

Pelagic

pair trawls

Beam

trawls

Beam

trawls

Based on the information gathered on the 13 indicators described above, a 1-5 point

rating system was applied to the three major gear types.

In some instances this involved combining performance from multiple gears into one,

more aggregated, MMO fleet type.


32

Table 16: Performance score by gear for all indicators

Multi-criteria decision analysis

This information on gear performance is combined here in an illustrative multi-criteria

decision analysis (MCDA) framework48 to display the trade-offs between different

gears and different criteria.

𝑀𝐶𝐷𝐴 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = ∑ 𝑃𝑖𝑊𝑖

∑ 𝑃𝑚𝑊𝑖

Where:

P represents the performance score

W represents the weighting applied

i represents an indicator

m represents the maximum performance score of 5

Indicator weightings

All 13 indicators may not be equal in their performance. To account for this, 7

experts on bass fishing (commercial fishers, IFCA managers, recreational fishers,

researchers) and 10 non-experts were asked to weight the 13 indicators from 1 (low)

to 5 (high) for their importance.

Criteria Measure Drift/fixed nets Demersal trawl/seine Gears with hooks

Profits £/kg of bass landed 4 4 1

Employment jobs/kg of bass landed 3 2 5

Greenhouse gas emissions kgs of CO2/kg of bass landed 5 3 3

Subsidies £/kg of bass landed 5 3 3

Economic value chain price/kg of bass landed 3 3 5

Bass discards kgs of bass/kg of bass landed 4 2 5

Other discards kgs of discards/kg of bass landed 4 2 5

Spawning season mortality

spawning stock damage/kg bass

landed 2 1 4

Bycatch descriptive 3 2 5

Ecosystem damage descriptive 5 2 5

Ghost fishing descriptive 2 4 5

Fleet dependency percentage 3 1 5

Port dependency percentage 3 2 4

Total 46 31 55


33

The graph below shows the results from the weighting exercise. Interestingly only

four indicators have a difference between the expert and non-expert weightings by

more than one point on the five point scale: gross profits, economic value chain, and

greenhouse gas emissions. These expert and non-expert weightings, along with an

unweighted (equal) scenario are presented with the results for sensitivity analysis.

Figure 8: Indicator weightings by experts and non-experts

Source: NEF survey: 21 October 2015 – 26 October 2015

Results

The results of the multi criteria decision making analysis (MCDA), using the gear

performance scores and different weighting scenarios, are illustrated below.

Figure 9: MCDA scores by gear from different weighting scenarios

Source: NEF calculations


34

There is little difference in the results using the expert, non-expert and equal

weightings. In all three scenarios, gears with hooks have the highest MCDA score,

followed by drift/fixed nets, followed by demersal trawl/seine.

A further sensitivity analysis was conducted using Excel’s solver tool to find the

indicator weightings that result in the maximum and minimum MCDA scores for each

gear type. Using these maximum and minimum scores for each gear type the MCDA

ranges move much closer together, although the three gears still remain in fairly

distinct positions.

It is important to note that the maximum score from one gear and the minimum score

from another gear are unlikely to be achieved using the same weighting scenario.

For example, the score of 59% for drift/fixed nets and 60% for demersal trawlers

were reached with different weightings. There is no one set of weightings that can be

applied across all three gears that will move the demersal trawlers out of the third

position.

Average versus marginal analysis

This MCDA uses information on the historic performance of different gear types to

illustrate how Article 17 could be applied to UK bass fishing. The gear performance

per tonne of landing is taken as an average due to the data available.

As alternative allocations of bass fishing opportunities for different gears would

involve a marginal change, with more data it would be important to analyse how one

specific tonne could have different impacts. It is possible that the costs and benefits

of each additional tonne of quota and non-linear for the fleets.

This point is sometimes raised when fishing opportunities for choke species are

discussed, although for the time being the landing obligation is not being applied to

bass and so this issue is less pressing.


35

Analysis

Geography

The analysis also reveals a distinct geographical split between UK gears targeting

bass, with a higher prevalence of hook and line fisheries from the Isle of Wight

westwards through Dorset, Devon and Cornwall (Portland, Southwold, Weymouth

and Sennen) and a higher prevalence of drift nets to the east of the Isle Of Wight

through Hampshire, West and East Sussex to Kent and Essex (Cowes, Lymington,

Southampton, Littlehampton, Eastbourne, Hastings, Rye, Canvey Island, West

Mersea and Walton on Naze).

The geographical extent of the main trawl fishery for bass is also more towards the

east and further offshore than either of the other two gears and the most reliant port

on trawls is Wivenhoe in Essex.

A note on selectivity regarding trawls and nets: “An empirical analysis of the UK

fishery age compositions shows that the landings-at-age for UK trawls and nets are

more heavily weighted towards younger bass than in the lines and midwater pair

trawl fishery.” (ICES 2014)

This geographical split within the bass fishery is important when it comes to UK

management measures, especially at IFCA district level.


36

Figure 10: UK spatial analysis of gear prevalence in terms of bass landings by ICES sub rectangle

using MMO data (2014).

Total Nets

Hooks Trawls


37

Recommendations

Reduce fishing mortality in 2016

We need to get to Bmsy for bass as soon as possible. Any resistance to change

based on the concern that any change will reduce the future economic benefits of

those who currently fish for bass (who have cumulatively caused the decline in bass

stocks) is misguided.

Any future benefits are illusory if we continue with a fishing mortality higher than the

stock can sustain and the stock collapses. We are currently fishing for bass at a very

economically inefficient stock level.

Actually, the time to transition into a high value fishery for bass only (and support

those fleets and ports that are most reliant on bass) is now – as the costs of doing so

are lowest due to the low stock abundance.

If landings were reduced to 541 tonnes across Europe by 2017 or 2018 that would

represent 10% of the average 2010-2013 landings.

For the UK that means landings with first sale value falling from approximately £5m

to £500,000 (split evenly among 100 vessels, this would be £5,000 per vessel).

Clearly, anyone who is currently dependent on bass is going to have to find an

alternative income and diversify away from bass by that point.

Possibly the government announcement that it will be allocating the first 100 tonnes

of any additional quota received – and 10% of anything received on top of this 100

tonnes – to the English inshore fleet49 will mean that opportunities for local quota

species will be available again, thereby decreasing the reliance on bass.

It makes sense to switch to sustainable fishing now because the costs of making this

switch are at their lowest.

Furthermore, this is the opportune moment to ensure that that highly bass reliant,

selective fishers, generating high employment / high value per tonne of bass can

remain in the fishery albeit with lower monthly vessel catch limits.

The costs associated with new regulations may be badly received by some of the

fishers affected. But the reality is that if effective regulation and management do not

begin imminently, there won’t be a bass stock big enough to sustain the expected

level of production to derive any future benefits from.

After years of environmental and human pressures on the stock, we can’t afford to

take a short-term view.


38

Ensure that those fleets that deliver best value to society have preferential

access to the remaining fishery

If current cumulative trends continue there won’t be a bass fishery left in the channel

for which to determine fishing opportunities.

Further reducing catch limits for all fleets targeting bass, must however give

preferential treatment (in terms of vessel catch limits, flexibility to spread those limits

over periods longer than one month to allow for weather etc, and

subsidies/compensation) to those that fish selectively and have high survivability of

fish which are not landed, smaller ranges from port, and are heavily reliant on bass.

Not following Article17 (and following 2015 vessel catch limits) would mean demersal

trawlers get 1.8 tonnes per month; purse seiners 1.5 tonnes per month, whereas

hand-liners would only get access to 1.3 tonnes per month.

This would disproportionately reward those fleets that have had the worst impact on

the stock for the lowest value generated.

This is in line with the intent of the reformed CFP to encourage mobile gear

operators to fish more selectively.

Following CFP Article 17, we should be allocating commercial fishing

opportunities only to those fleets that are selective, high value and highly

dependent on bass, for example the bass hand-liners and highly dependent

ports using nets.

As ICES and indeed the Advisory Councils (ACs) have suggested, a

comparison of the socio-economic benefits of recreational fishing versus wild

capture, using the same criteria, should be considered by the Commission.

Address the unselective bass fisheries – a ‘bycatch only’ fishery for bass will

be rewarding unselective fishing

According to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries

(STECF), bass catches “can be broadly split into three categories: (i) recreational; (ii)

commercial fisheries targeting sea bass, and; (iii) fisheries where sea bass are taken

as a commercial bycatch in mixed demersal fisheries. Based on 2010-2013 data

…other commercial fisheries where sea bass are taken as bycatch account for 41%

of the overall catch”.50

There has been substantial criticism of this assessment regarding what comprises a

“mixed demersal’’ fishery and what comprises a “targeted’’ bass fishery.51


39

It will be critical to define the difference between a targeted and a bycatch fishery for

bass, as the examples of the Bristol Channel trawl fishery and the Sussex pair-trawl

and demersal stern trawl fisheries make clear.

Effectively, in the UK this technique is used inshore to target black bream52 and bass

in a mid-water fishery.53

Given the ongoing crisis, all fisheries which land bass should be considered as

‘‘targeted / directed’’ bass fisheries.54

Clearly, there are gear selectivity issues (see our analysis section and Annex 7 for a

discards comparison of otter trawls and gill nets)55 but as this is predominantly a

seasonal issue, spatial or temporal measures could be the most appropriate means

of addressing this.

For example, lessons learned from the South West Mackerel box – hand-lining

mackerel or spatially managed gill-netting and hand-lining56 – could be used for bass.

Spatial restrictions: Spatial avoidance requirements, similar to the moving

on approach used in other fisheries should be implemented following scientific

guidance on the bass migration routes and inshore feeding grounds/nursery

areas. Even if mobile gears are not given any access to bass vessel limits,

they would still catch and discard them, which would continue the impact on

the stock for no socio-economic gain! For this reason, unselective mobile gear

should be excluded from areas where bass congregate as well as their

migration routes.57

The presence of some of the largest EU fishing vessels (with an engine power

>10k Hp) in the English Channel, where bass following migratory routes are

particularly vulnerable to capture, should be reviewed without delay. These

vessels may be responsible for a substantial bycatch of bass. An effective

inspection of landings could provide evidence of their impact. Reports from

fishers and research bodies indicate that there is extensive mortality of small

bass in some mobile gear fisheries.58 The selectivity work supporting the

landings obligation should be considered with regard to bass as well as

current quota species.59

Temporal restrictions for components of the fishery that take out large

quantities of fish in the first and second quarters of the year during spawning

season, should be covered by the closed season (see recommendation

below). The closures should be supported by the best biological information

available.

The risk of a ‘bycatch only’ fishery is perverse and would reward those who

fish unselectively.


40

Close the bass fishery during spawning season

Bass spawn around England and Wales from February to July. Spawning takes

place from the Celtic Sea to the Eastern English Channel in ICES areas: VIIf – Celtic

Sea; VIIg and VIIh and in the Western VIId; and Eastern Channel VIIe. 60 Bass

spawn in mid water, so spawning areas are not as clearly defined as for other

species e.g. herring which deposit eggs on the seabed.

The spawning activity moves east as the season advances up until late June. Up to

500g of eggs per kg of female bodyweight are produced. (See Further reading

section at the end of the report).

As landings data show, the spawning stock fishery catches are mainly individuals

with a high spawning potential (most landings are above 43 cm in length).

The closure of fishing on spawning aggregations must be made permanent

and should extend to all gear types fishing for bass at this time (15 December

to 15 April) to allow a significant number of multi-season-spawners to

reproduce uninterrupted. There is evidence that any disturbance of the

spawning aggregation during fishing operations may have a further adverse

effect on recruitment success, so this measure must be continue and

expanded to cover all metiers61 i.e. mid-water (pelagic) trawls on spawning

grounds and demersal trawls in the same areas (otter and beam trawls).62

Fisheries that catch their main amounts during the second half of the year as

the bass return from spawning (lines and hooks and gill nets), should be

treated favourably although a reduction in the cumulative landings from the

offshore drift net fishery needs to be addressed via further reducing vessel

catch limits.

The emergency measures make it clear that further fishing of bass during

spawning season, and in the spawning aggregations in the Western and

Eastern Channel, is no longer acceptable due to its impact on the spawning

stock. The emergency measures63 should be carried forward in the form of a

permanent ban on pelagic trawling for bass and should include the closure of

main bass spawning areas – that is, the known main spawning areas of the

Southwestern Approaches, Western Channel, North Devon and Bay of Biscay

to all metiers from 15 December to 15 April.

Regulate netting for bass

Both inshore and offshore netting (drift and static ‘entangling’ nets) take place for

bass, and all forms of netting have an impact at stock level.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0111&from=EN


41

For all forms of netting – static, drift, inshore, and offshore – new restrictions and

regulations are needed. Netting is currently unregulated to a large degree.

The length and number of nets (fleets - which run for many miles at a time

and are shot simultaneously) need to be brought under management and

prohibited in spawning season. There is an EU-wide length restriction of

2.5km of drift nets, which could be reduced.

Constant attending of the drift nets should be mandatory to avoid loss of gear,

sea mammal and seabird bycatch as well as the risks of lost gear (especially

while fishing at night) and ghost fishing. According to a Defra report from

2011, seals have been observed bycaught in a drift net targeting bass and in

gill nets targeting bass. Bird bycatch is thought to be significant (in particular

guillemots) and cetacean bycatch has also been observed.64

Increasing the mesh size to 105mm for all ‘entangling’ net fisheries between

0-12nM (and beyond 12nM requiring EU regulation) to complement the

increase in the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS). Mesh sizes for

nets need to increase to allow smaller bass to slip through and help stock

recruitment and year class diversity.65 Selectivity is affected by two issues

beyond mesh size: hanging ratio and twine thickness. Both of these issues

must also be covered by regulation. Scientific research should determine the

regulation for hang ratios which range between 50% (standard) and 66%.66

Use the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF):

Compensation and gear modification

Gear modification funding to adapt to the new regulations could be covered in part

by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

This will require bids written by regulators and fishermen in partnership with research

bodies such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquacultural Science

(Cefas) and the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER).

Furthermore, “temporary cessation of fishing activities would seem available, both

under the EFF and under the EMFF.

Both the EFF and the EMFF envisage temporary cessation aid precisely in order to

bridge temporary emergency measures; this is one of the purposes of this financing

instrument”.67

These funds should be used to compensate those fishers that are seasonally and

spatially excluded from the bass fishery. Compensation should consider their

respective impact at stock level, reliance on bass and alternative sources of income.


42

Enforcement of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing

The issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a serious problem

for bass (as it is a non-quota, high value species with a substantial targeted

recreational fishery) for both data reliability and illegality.

The significant illegal fishing effort by individuals and groups “fishing at commercial

levels under the guise of RSA [recreational sea angling] and selling the fish to a

variety of outlets, [shows] there is an immediate need for much improved

enforcement throughout the supply chain”.68

This issue could be tackled by legislating mandatory fin clipping or carcass tagging

for any retained bass (up to a maximum of three per day).

As Cefas have pointed out, the UK’s Salmon Act 1986 relating to the possession of

fish could be reviewed and similar legislation applied to bass as well.

Starting a reporting requirement for recreational angling (as exists for migratory

species such as salmon and sea trout in the UK) may be a first step which anglers

and subsidised citizen science programs can take towards better data.

Resources to run public awareness campaigns on “clipping” for anglers are also

necessary to combat IUU fishing of bass.

Bass landings far eclipse those of salmon or sea trout, so in simple terms of volume

this will require more effort. But tackling IUU is major issue for bass, and carcass

tags have proven effective in the US striped bass fishery on the East Coast.

Transhipment of bass requires transport documents for movement of fish.

Resourcing enforcement officers adequately to ensure they can control this activity is

equally important. 69

Adequate resourcing to investigate IUU fishing, that enables managing authorities to

mount legal cases when commercial activity is being conducted in an unlicensed

manner, is crucial.

We have discussed the need for good data, good management, proper funding for

enforcement, the need for EU-wide measures that will impact the whole stock.

What is certainly needed in order to advance the ‘best value criteria’ approach is

better data.

Data collection

There is a lack of dedicated funding in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

(EMFF) for data collection on bass.


43

All affected member states without a signed off operational plan (OP) should include

funding for bass research in their OP for the EMFF.70

Data-reporting requirements should be extended into the bass fishery,

alongside resources to collect and analyse data in a meaningful way.71

Collecting data on the full impact of recreational fishing and the survival rates

of fish that have been released, is a key priority to ensure that recreational

angling for bass can be a high-income, low-impact part of the fishery. This will

only be possible when the wider impact of recreational fishing practises can

be quantified and regulated accordingly.


44

Discussion

From Emergency Measures to long-term management

Before the management plan called for by ICES is written and implemented, the

emergency measures need to be extended and enforced to halt the significant

reduction of spawning stock biomass.

The development of a management plan will require compromise with different

sectors and could set an example to other Member States to follow. If the entire

decision-making process is left to EU level discussions and Advisory Councils (ACs),

it will take years to formulate and agree.

The consistently most effective means of reducing (F) is through limiting catch via

quotas. When quotas are in line with scientific advice, these have been shown to be

the most effective means of reducing fish mortality and increasing stock biomass

Article 17 of the reformed CFP

Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities by member states “When allocating

the fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to in Article 16, member states

shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental,

social and economic nature.”72

Fishing opportunities and quota for bass (Article 17)

Bass is not a total allowable catches (TAC) or quota species at present, but the

monthly catch limits suggests looking at how some species have fared as a result of

TACs being introduced for them.

Maybe bass quota, determined transparently using objective criteria such as those

outlined above, is a necessary part of the long-term management plan.

Looking at Figure 11 we can see that EU quota and fisheries management measures

have had a positive impact on fish stock biomass overall: fishing pressure has been

reduced and the average stock biomass has increased.

This has not happened for bass due to a lack of management as new regulation,

enforcement and adequate resourcing of regulators has been lacking.

This is also a result of fishing pressure combined with the environmental factors

described above.

Just a brief glance at the average stock biomass graph for 85 major fish stocks could

have on bass stocks.


45

Figure 11 compared to the downward trajectory for bass surely makes the case to

start discussing the impact a quota system, following Article 17 and ensuring that

fishing opportunities or quota go to those who demonstrate best value to society and

the environment.

Figure 11: Comparison of bass trends with other major North East Atlantic fish stocks.73,74,75

Bass fishing mortality/pressure (left) and stock biomass (right)

The main obstacle regarding a quota for bass was explained by UK Fisheries

Minister, George Eustice: “Initially, the European Commission suggested a total

allowable catch for bass, but we firmly believe that that is not appropriate because a

new TAC is established on track records of catches, so there is a real danger that

that would simply lock in a continuation of the current exploitation pattern, which now

needs to change radically.

A further disadvantage of setting a TAC for bass is that it would take no account of

the efforts a number of member states have already unilaterally taken to limit

commercial catches, which would be unfair to those countries.”76


46

However, allocation of fishing opportunities/quota under Article 17 shall be

allocated along transparent, objective criteria, rather than track record

(‘relative stability’).77

Bass should be the test case for Article 17 in practice, i.e. a quota not based

on relative stability. Article 17 now provides member states with a great

opportunity to allocate quota or fishing opportunities in a way that is aligned

with the public interest. Under Article 17,78 member states shall provide

incentives to vessels to use more selective gear or gear with a generally lower

environmental impact.

Our results demonstrate that:

Demersal/otter trawls were the most profitable fleets fishing for bass, however

they supported the fewest jobs per tonne of bass landed, had a lower average

price (£6.50-£7 per kg) as well as the highest discard rates, impact on

spawning stock mortality, marine mammal bycatch and ecosystem damage.

Drift and fixed nets performed better on the environmental criteria (except for

ghost fishing) than mobile gear and have a lower impact on spawning stock

mortality, while overall also being 20% dependent on bass for their income.

Netters also comprised the most bass dependent ports (62.5% of landings

value of bass went to bass dependent ports) and provided a higher number of

jobs per kg of bass than mobile gear, while receiving the lowest subsidy per

kg.

Most jobs per kg of bass were supported by hook and line fishing. The price

per kg was also highest (£9.50 per kg), while also having the lowest discard

rates and impact on spawning stock mortality. In terms of their dependence

on bass, hook and line were the most (55%) dependent on bass and landed

into five ports, for which bass comprised a higher proportion (30%) of

landings, and can be considered significantly dependent on bass.

Impacts on unwanted bycatch species are reduced in the static gear and hook and

line fisheries, and there are limited or reduced impacts on the seabed compared to

mobile gear.79 Any more selective gear, with a higher social value (more jobs with a

lower environmental impact), should be favoured according to the reformed CFP as

part of addressing transparent economic, social and environmental criteria.80

From the results it is clear that applying Article 17 criteria and the indicators

presented would enable decision makers to look at the wider social, environmental

and economic value of bass and allocate any remaining fishing opportunities for

bass according to them, thus meeting their legal obligations under the reformed

CFP.


47

Appendix

Annex 1: EU Emergency measures

Measure one: A short-term ban on pelagic trawling

On 19 January 2015 the EU imposed a pelagic trawling ban until the end of April

2015 – a critical first step in this package of measures. The ban protected the stock

from being targeted when at its most vulnerable, when the fish are coming together

in shoals during the spawning season to reproduce. It applied to the Channel, Celtic

Sea, Irish Sea and southern North Sea.

Measure two: A three-fish bag limit for recreational fishermen

On 25 March 2015 the EU set a catch limit of three fish per day per

angler. Recreational fishing accounts for 25% of sea bass catches.

Measure three: A monthly catch limit and a closed area

On 19 June 2015 the EU set catch limits for particular fishing gears in order to

protect sea bass for the remainder of 2015. The decision also comprises an area

closure around Ireland for commercial fishing, namely the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea,

south of Ireland and west of Ireland (ICES areas VIIa,b,c,g,j,k outside the UK 12 mile

zone), thereby extending a national measure, that Ireland has had in place for Irish

vessels only, to protect sea bass since 1990 to cover all EU vessels active in the

area.

Measure four: An increase in the minimum size of northern sea bass

On 2 July 2015 the EU increased the minimum size for northern sea bass from 36 to

42 cm. The new rule applies to both commercial and recreational fishermen. This will

further improve the protection of this valuable stock and give it more chance to

reproduce young fish before it is caught.

The Commission had also proposed to increase the minimum size for the two

southern stocks of sea bass in Iberian waters and the Bay of Biscay. Member states

however pointed to the lack of data available on these stocks, which does not

support the use of emergency measures. The Commission will therefore ask for

renewed scientific advice on the southern stocks, which will feed into new proposals

on sea bass from 2016 onwards.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.022.01.0001.01.ENG


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0523&qid=1434714073389

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0523&qid=1434714073389



http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1440763073745&uri=CELEX:32015R1316

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1440763073745&uri=CELEX:32015R1316


48

Annex 2: Northern Sea bass stock component vessel limits

Vessel catch limits

From 1 July 2015, in the following areas a monthly catch limit will apply depending

on the gear(s) a vessel uses:

ICES divisions IVb, IVc, VIId, VIIe VIIf and VIIh

waters within 12 nautical miles from baseline under the soverignity of the

United Kingdom in ICES divisions VIIa and VIIg.

The limits for each gear type are as in the table below:

Gear category and code Maximum catch of sea

bass permitted per vessel

per calendar month (in kg)

Mid water or pelagic trawls, including OTM

and PTM

1,500

All types of demersal trawls including Danish

and Scottish seines, including OTB, OTT,

PTB, TBB, SSC, SDN, SPR, SV, SB, SX,

TBN, TBS, TB

1,800

All GN, all drift net and fixed (trammel) net

fisheries, including GTR, GNS, GND, FYK,

FPN, FIX

1,000

All longlines or pole and line, or rod and line,

fisheries, including LHP, LHM, LLD, LL, LTL,

LX LLS

1,300

Purse seines, gear codes PS, LA 3,000

The limits apply to all vessel lengths and apply to the combined catches from any of

the relevant ICES areas during a calendar month. For vessels which use multiple

gear types during a calendar month the lowest catch limit for any of those gears

used will apply.


49

Southern sea bass stock component

Currently no emergency measures have been implemented for the southern bass

stock. “The Commission had also proposed to increase the minimum size for the two

southern stocks of sea bass in Iberian waters and the Bay of Biscay.

Member states however pointed to the less robust data available on these stocks.

The Commission will therefore ask for renewed scientific advice on the southern

stocks, which will feed into new proposals on sea bass from 2016 onwards.”

Annex 3: Total commercial and recreational landings of bass

Source: ICES, 2014

This figure provides an illustration of potential recreational fishery removals

compared with landings of commercial fishery métiers from UK and France, based

on a fixed recreational F vector (F(5–11)= 0.07) included in the Final Run 22.

Note that these figures are intended to illustrate the potential magnitude of

recreational catches based on the recreational fishing mortality needed to generate

1500 tonnes of recreational fishery removals in 2012, and are completely conditional

on an assumed constant recreational F which is unlikely to be true.


50

Annex 4: Map of EU bass catch using MMO data (2012)

Source: European Commission – Fishing effort part 181

The rectangles on this ‘heat map’ correspond to ICES rectangles.82

Bass spawning areas in the English Channel, Pickett and Pawson, 1994; 'Sea

bass: biology, exploitation and conservation' and corresponding ICES areas.


51

Annex 5: Commercial EU landings over time by member state (1985-2014)


Annex 6: Increased regulation of recreational fisheries

An alternative/additional idea is for carcass tagging to be introduced for commercial

landings. There are salmon fisheries in the UK and striped bass fisheries in USA

where mandatory carcass tagging exists.

No doubt much could be learnt from these experiences. The Handline Association83

are already voluntarily fitting carcass tags so the practicalities of fishermen fitting

them are not an issue.

The problem of bass being sold both illegally and legally where the landings data is

not collected is serious and complex.

Bass sold from an unlicensed motorised vessel however captured – rod and

line, nets, long line – are sold illegally.

Bass sold from a vessel without an engine – sail boat, row boat, kayak –] may

be sold legally providing they are not purchased by a registered buyer.

Bass captured from the shore – stake nets, spilter lines, seined, rod and line –

may be sold legally to anyone including a registered buyer.

Bass captured and sold from a licensed vessel directly to consumers for

personal consumption – i.e. not for re-sale as in restaurant or fish trader – is

legal providing each transaction does not exceed 30 kilos. There is no limit on

the number of transactions daily.

Bass captured and sold from a licensed vessel to restaurants, pubs, and fish

traders that are not registered buyers, are sold illegally.


52

The cumulative weight of bass landings from the above scenarios across the UK is

likely to be very significant but apart from c) the landings data is being missed. Since

the paper work for registered buyers is designed to record data for vessels, it is

highly likely that landings from scenario c) are also not being collected.

Summary, courtesy of Malcolm Gilbert, January 2015: “The official reported landings

of sea bass in the UK are known to underestimate the true total landings, particularly

for small-scale inshore fisheries where there has been no requirement to submit EC

logbooks.

However, for small-scale fisheries where there are very large numbers of small

vessels often catching small quantities, the cumulative catch of unrecorded small

landings can be relatively high.

This is likely to be an issue over the full time-series. Due to the known inaccuracies

in reported landings of such vessels, Cefas (UK) implemented an independent

logbook scheme and port survey in England and Wales in 1985 to estimate mean

CPUE [catch per unit effort] (annual landings per vessel, based on a logbook kept by

selected skippers) and total number of vessels catching sea bass (from an annual

port survey covering different stretches of coastline in successive years).

Total bass landings were estimated as the product of CPUE and vessel numbers.

The scheme was stratified by area, gear and vessel characteristics.

Annex 7: UK Otter trawl and gill net discards (2002-2011)

Source: ICES – IBP Bass Report 2014

Discarding by otter trawls is largest near important nursery grounds e.g. in VIId,

which could be improved by more selective gears and spatial management

measures.


53

Source: ICES – IBP Bass Report 201484


54

Annex 8 – Comparison of mobile/static gear in terms of bycatch of target/non-

target species: impact on marine mammals and seabed habitats

Source: Brown et al – Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear

85


55

Further reading

CFP basic regulation

http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-

14_Basic_regulation_on_the_CFP_final_compromise_text.pdf

IIEP and RSPB report on Art 17

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/IEEP_2014_Practical_implementation_of_CFP_Art_17_tcm9-

385886.pdf

CEFAS C-Bass project

https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/06/16/conservation-seabass/

Defra have responded with a desire to fill as many of these outstanding knowledge

gaps as possible and have funded C-Bass, a four-year bass research programme,

‘Population studies in support of the Conservation of the European sea

bass’. Cefas are leading this project, working with stakeholders from the commercial

and recreational fishery sectors.

The C-Bass project is co-ordinating scientific research and data collection in several

different areas. “By going back and analysing growth and distribution patterns in

previous years, and applying sophisticated computer models to predict the dispersal

of eggs and larvae from spawning grounds, C-Bass scientists hope to better

understand how bass respond to a range of environmental factors.

As a result, we can better predict how bass stocks will behave in the future, for

example, in relation to rising sea temperatures.”86

Reproductive potential of larger bass: Bass size and production of offspring

(Image credit: PISCO, 2011)87.

http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-14_Basic_regulation_on_the_CFP_final_compromise_text.pdf

http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-14_Basic_regulation_on_the_CFP_final_compromise_text.pdf

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/IEEP_2014_Practical_implementation_of_CFP_Art_17_tcm9-385886.pdf



http://www.defra.gov.uk/

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=18963

http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/


56

Endnotes

1 Cefas. (16 June 2014). Marine Science blog: C-Bass: Putting the “Conservation” into Seabass

[webpage]. Retrieved from https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/06/16/conservation-seabass/

2 Cefas. (19 December 2014). Marine Science blog: C-Bass in Action [webpage]. Retrieved from

https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/12/19/c-bass-in-action/ Cefas (2015)

3 ICES Advisory Committee. (1 January–30 April 2014). ICES IBP Bass Reoprt 2014: Report of the

Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Sea Bass in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel and Southern

North Sea (IBP Bass). Retrieved from

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20

Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf

4 Fish for Thought. (n.d.) Buy Bass [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.martins-seafresh.co.uk/buy-

bass.html

5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/111. (26 January 2015). Establishing measures to

alleviate a serious threat to the conservation of the sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax ) stock in the

Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.020.01.0031.01.ENG

6 Council Regulation (EU). (25 March 2015). Amending Regulations (EU) No 43/2014 and (EU)

2015/104 as regards certain fishing opportunities [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0523

7 Council Regulation (EU). (19 June 2015). Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 as regards certain

fishing opportunities [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.157.01.0001.01.ENG

8 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU). (30 July 2015). Derogating from Council Regulation

(EC) No 850/98, as regards the minimum conservation reference size for sea bass (Dicentrarchus

labrax) [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1438338913075&uri=OJ%3AJOL_2015_203_R_0006

9 ICES. (June 2014). Advice Ecoregion stock: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea European

sea bass in Divisions IVbc, VIIa, and VIId–h (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel, and southern

North Sea [webpage]. Retrieved from

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/bss-47.pdf

10 Rossettoa, M., Bitettoc, I., Spedicatoc, M.T., Lemboc, G., Gambinod, M., Accadiad, P. & Meliàa, P.,

(March 2015). Multi-criteria decision-making for fisheries management: A case study of

Mediterranean demersal fisheries [webpage]. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1400298X

11 ICES. (June 2014). Advice Ecoregion stock: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea

European


https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/12/19/c-bass-in-action/

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf


http://www.martins-seafresh.co.uk/buy-bass.html

http://www.martins-seafresh.co.uk/buy-bass.html


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1400298X


57




12 European Parliament and European Council. (11 December 2013). Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013

on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No

1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council

Decision 2004/585/EC [webpage]. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF

13 Walmsley, S. & Armstrong, M. ( March 2012). The UK commercial bass fishery in 2010. UK. Cefas.

14 ICES Advisory Committee. (1 January–30 April 2014). ICES IBP Bass Report 2014: Report of the

Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Sea Bass in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel and Southern

North Sea (IBP Bass). Retrieved from



15 Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. (2014). Sea Bass Management

[webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.kentandessex-ifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/B4.pdf

16 Marine Management Organisation (24 June 2015). New fishing restrictions issued for bass

(Dicentrarchus labrax) [webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fishing-

restrictions-issued-for-bass-dicentrarchus-labrax

17 Council of the European Union. (28 January 2015). Commission staff working document:

Emergency measures for sea bass [webpage]. Retrieved from

http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/41/EU_54117/imfname_10526448.pdf

18 Council of the European Union. (28 January 2015). Commission staff working document:

Emergency measures for sea bass [webpage]. Retrieved from


19 “Combining the catch estimates for charter boats, private boats and shore angling, the point

estimates of annual kept weights of sea bass ranged from 230 t–440 t, compared with total UK

commercial landings of almost 900 t in 2012. The recent estimates of total recreational removals of

sea bass for France, Netherlands and England in Subareas IV and VII amount to 1300–1500 t.” CES

Advisory Committee. (1 January–30 April 2014). ICES IBP Bass Reprrt 2014: Report of the Inter-

Benchmark Protocol for Sea Bass in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, English Channel and Southern North

Sea (IBP Bass). Retrieved from http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20Bass%202014/ibpBass_report_2014.pdf

20 ICES. (June 2014). Advice Ecoregion stock: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea

European




21 Angling Trust. (27 November 2013). Two billion pound spend highlights huge value of recreational

sea angling [webpage]. Retrieved from http://anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=1929


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF




http://www.kentandessex-ifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/B4.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fishing-restrictions-issued-for-bass-dicentrarchus-labrax

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fishing-restrictions-issued-for-bass-dicentrarchus-labrax





http://anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=1929


58

22 Blue Marine Foundation. (11 February 2015). Emergency action announced to prevent the collapse

of bass stocks [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/blog/bass-should-

slip-through-the-net/ Defining the Economic and Environmental Values of Sea Bass (MRAG, 2014)

23 Eftec. (2015). Comparing Industry Sector Values, With a Case Study of Commercial Fishing and

Recreational Sea Angling [webpage]. Retrieved from

http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/eftec_comparing_industry_sector_values_FINAL_Aug_201

5.pdf

24 MMO. (2015). Landings by port [webpage] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sea-

fisheries-annual-statistics [webpage].

25 Defra. (2015). Emission factors for carbon reporting

http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/ [webpage].

26 OECD – Fuel tax concessions in the fisheries sector http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-

food/fuel-tax-concessions-in-the-fisheries-sector_5k9bdccqft30-en?crawler=true [webpage].

27 ICES - Report on the inter-benchmark protocol on new species (2012) [webpage].


New/ibpNew_2012.pdf

28 Cefas - Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl fishery

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/bass-trawl-discards.pdf [webpage].

29 Cefas - Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl fishery

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/bass-trawl-discards.pdf [webpage].

30 ICES - Report on the inter-benchmark protocol on new species (2012) [webpage].


New/ibpNew_2012.pdf

31 Cefas - Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries

http://www.nwwac.org/publications/cefas-discard-atlas-of-the-north-western-waters-demersal-

fisheries.1849.html [webpage].

32 Seafish – Responsible Sourcing Guide Sea Bass 2013 [webpage].

http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SeafishResponsibleSourcingGuide_Seabass_201309.pdf

33 Pickett & Pawson – Sea Bass: Biology, exploitation and conservation (1994)

34 Martin-Lopez - Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation [webpage].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410400 (2008)

35 Kaiser et al - Different cultures different values [webpage].

https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:9464 (2012)

36 Jobstvogt et al - Looking below the surface [webpage].

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001089 (2014)

37 Seafish – RASS http://www.seafish.org/rass/ [webpage].

http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/blog/bass-should-slip-through-the-net/

http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/blog/bass-should-slip-through-the-net/

http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/eftec_comparing_industry_sector_values_FINAL_Aug_2015.pdf

http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/eftec_comparing_industry_sector_values_FINAL_Aug_2015.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sea-fisheries-annual-statistics

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sea-fisheries-annual-statistics

http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/fuel-tax-concessions-in-the-fisheries-sector_5k9bdccqft30-en?crawler=true

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/fuel-tax-concessions-in-the-fisheries-sector_5k9bdccqft30-en?crawler=true

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/IBP%20New/ibpNew_2012.pdf


http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/bass-trawl-discards.pdf

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/bass-trawl-discards.pdf



http://www.nwwac.org/publications/cefas-discard-atlas-of-the-north-western-waters-demersal-fisheries.1849.html

http://www.nwwac.org/publications/cefas-discard-atlas-of-the-north-western-waters-demersal-fisheries.1849.html

http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SeafishResponsibleSourcingGuide_Seabass_201309.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410400

https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:9464

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001089

http://www.seafish.org/rass/


59

38 Northridge, S., Kingston, A., Mackay, A. and Lonergan, M. (2011). Bycatch of Vulnerable Species:

Understanding the Process and Mitigating the Impacts. Final Report to Defra Marine and Fisheries

Science Unit, Project no MF1003. University of St Andrews. Defra, London, 99pp.

39 Nunny – The price of fish: A review of cetacean bycatch in fisheries in the north-east Atlantic

http://uk.whales.org/sites/default/files/price-of-fish.pdf [webpage].

40 ICES – Report of the Workshop to Review and Advise on Seabird Bycatch (2013) [webpage].

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WKBY

CS/wkbycs_final_2013.pdf

41 Andersen et al – Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries http://www.int-

res.com/articles/esr_oa/n014p091.pdf (2011)

42 Marine Conservation Society – Fishonline http://www.fishonline.org/ [webpage].

43 Fuller et al – How we fish matters: Addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear

[webpage]. https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2274911 (2008)

44 Seafish – RASS http://www.seafish.org/rass/ [webpage].

45 Marine Conservation Society – Fishonline http://www.fishonline.org/ [webpage].

46 Fuller et al – How we fish matters: Addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear

[webpage]. https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2274911 (2008)

47 Commission Staff Working Document Explanatory note Emergency measures for sea bass

[webpage].

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&Ize8zkry/OLo2

MnRtUOxJiN4UyMRXKFd5YcKWEVatdTVqHZGdIwy2rS97ztb5t8b (February 2015)

48 Saarikoski, H., Barton, D.N., Mustajoki, J., Keune. H., Gomez-Baggethun, E. & J. Langemeyer.

(2015). Multicriteria

decision analysis (MCDA) in ecosystem service valuation. Potschin, M. & K. Jax (eds). OpenNESS

Ecosystem Service

Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Retrieved from

http://www.opennessproject.eu/sites/default/files/SP_MCDA.pdf

49 Defra. (19 October 2015). Defra frees up flexibilities for fishermen [webpage]. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defra-frees-up-flexibilities-for-fishermen

50 STECF. (2014). Plenary report [webpage]. Retrieved from

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-07_STECF+PLEN+14-

02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf

51 The Bristol Channel trawl fishery must be considered a directed bass fishery with discards of bass

less than 36cm as high as 90% and averaging 30%. The description of gear used in this fishery within

the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation report (http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-

the-program/exiting-the-program/withdrawn/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads-

1/17.02.2011-Bass_Assessment_PCDR_140211_FINAL.pdf it failed to achieve MSC accreditation)

draws attention to the uniqueness of the gear that is designed specifically for bass. Likewise the trawl

bass fishery that takes place off Sussex close to shore is a directed fishery. That a proportion of all

http://uk.whales.org/sites/default/files/price-of-fish.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WKBYCS/wkbycs_final_2013.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WKBYCS/wkbycs_final_2013.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr_oa/n014p091.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr_oa/n014p091.pdf

http://www.fishonline.org/

https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2274911

http://www.seafish.org/rass/

http://www.fishonline.org/

https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2274911

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&Ize8zkry/OLo2MnRtUOxJiN4UyMRXKFd5YcKWEVatdTVqHZGdIwy2rS97ztb5t8b

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&Ize8zkry/OLo2MnRtUOxJiN4UyMRXKFd5YcKWEVatdTVqHZGdIwy2rS97ztb5t8b

http://www.opennessproject.eu/sites/default/files/SP_MCDA.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defra-frees-up-flexibilities-for-fishermen

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-07_STECF+PLEN+14-02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf


http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/exiting-the-program/withdrawn/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads-1/17.02.2011-Bass_Assessment_PCDR_140211_FINAL.pdf




60

bass landings from trawls do consist of fish taken whilst trawling for other species is not questioned,

but to simply state that all trawl catches of bass derive from a mixed demersal fishery must be

considered incorrect. http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141128-

Final-Bass-Report-BMF-MRAG.pdf

52 Sussex IFCA http://www.sussex-

ifca.gov.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=159 [webpage]. (2011)

53 Available literature states that stern trawling and pair trawling are responsible for the majority of

catches (SxIFCA, 2011)

54Marine Stewardship Council [webpage]. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-

program/exiting-the-program/withdrawn/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads-

1/17.02.2011-Bass_Assessment_PCDR_140211_FINAL.pdf Chapter 4, page 17.

55 ‘During the 45 hauls from which fish samples were taken, in additional to bass, 43 species were

caught. There were 24 other commercial species and 19 non-commercial species… Excluding bass,

the mean weight of total catch per haul from the control trawl was 57kg of which 38kg was discarded

(68%). The corresponding values for the experimental trawl was 63kg caught of which 43kg were

discarded (66%).’ http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf

[webpage].

56 RSPB Practical implementation of CFP Art 17 [webpage].


385886.pdf (2014)

57 IMARES (2010) [webpage]. http://edepot.wur.nl/107776

58 ‘During the 45 hauls from which fish samples were taken, in additional to bass, 43 species were

caught. There were 24 other commercial species and 19 non-commercial species… Excluding bass,

the mean weight of total catch per haul from the control trawl was 57kg of which 38kg was discarded

(68%). The corresponding values for the experimental trawl was 63kg caught of which 43kg were

discarded (66%).’ http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf

[webpage].

59 Bass Management considerations - joint comments from the Low Impact Fishers of Europe [LIFE] &

the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association [NUTFA]. 2014.

60 Pickett and Pawson (1994) 'Sea bass: biology, exploitation and conservation'

61 Effects of fishing during the spawning period: implications for sustainable management Harrie¨t M.

J. van Overzee, Adriaan D. Rijnsdorp http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1944153 (2014) Reviews in

Fish Biology and Fisheries. Volume 25, Issue 1 , pp 65-83

62 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Emergency measures for sea bass [webpage].

(2015) http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/41/EU_54117/imfname_10526448.pdf

63 ‘In order to provide effective protection to spawning aggregations, which are highly variable in

location, the emergency measures should cover the entire distribution area of the stock, i.e. the Celtic

Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea (ICES divisions IVb,c and VIIa,d-h) and include

fisheries using pelagic trawls. In addition ICES areas VIIj,k are included to prevent displacement in

fishing activity as stock distribution is not fully determined.’ European Commission (2015)

http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141128-Final-Bass-Report-BMF-MRAG.pdf

http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141128-Final-Bass-Report-BMF-MRAG.pdf

http://www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=159

http://www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=159




http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf



http://edepot.wur.nl/107776

http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1944153



61

64 Northridge, S., Kingston, A., Mackay, A. and Lonergan, M. (2011). Bycatch of Vulnerable Species:

Understanding the Process and Mitigating the Impacts. Final Report to Defra Marine and Fisheries

Science Unit, Project no MF1003. University of St Andrews. Defra, London, 99pp.

65 'The analysis of catch data indicated that bass selectivity peaked at 41–44 cm in gillnets with a

mesh size of 90 cm. This peak increased with larger mesh sizes, reaching 54–58 cm with 120 mm

gillnets.'65

(Cefas , 2008) [webpage]

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.5896&rep=rep1&type=pdf

66 Hanging ratios: ‘When a mono net is purchased it arrives rolled up with all meshes horizontally

stretched closed and generally measures 100 metres. This is then attached to a headline and footline

measuring less than the fully stretched netting to allow the meshes to hang open vertically.

Traditionally, 100 metres of stretched netting would be hung on 66 metres of headline/footline – set by

66%. More recently, setting ratios appear to be nearer 50% with a lot more slack in the netting and

far less selectivity.’ (NEF, 2015)

http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/9e98a3d20e2b904409_w1m6bs1pl.pdf [webpage]

67 Commission Staff Working Document Explanatory note Emergency Measures for sea bass

[webpage] (2015)


68 STECF final report (2014) http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/812327/2014-

07_STECF+PLEN+14-02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf [webpage]

69 EMFF on control and enforcement ‘enforcement and control of the catch certification scheme for

the importation and exportation of fishery products as provided for in Chapter III of Regulation (EC)

No 1005/2008; The implementation of the catch certification scheme is the cornerstone of the fight

against the IUU activity,’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0464&from=EN [webpage]

70 Some European countries are now conducting recreational fishery surveys to meet the

requirements of the EU Data Collection Framework, and the design and accuracy of these surveys

will be reviewed by the ICES Planning Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys. (CEFAS, 2012) e.g.

DCR bass was excluded from the compulsory stock in the Netherlands. Need to spend money to

bring these figures into the DCF.

71 Armstrong and Drogou, 2014 [report No. SI2.680348 in STECF (2014)


02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf [webpage]

72 European Commission (2013) http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF [webpage]

73Most major fish stocks included in this assessment by Cefas are under CFP quota management

(Cefas data)

74 Seafish http://www.seafish.org/media/1327189/clg_nov2014_cefas_stockstatus2.pdf (2014)

[webpage]

75 ICES advice http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/bss-47.pdf

(2014) [webpage]

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.5896&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/9e98a3d20e2b904409_w1m6bs1pl.pdf




http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0464&from=ENw

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0464&from=ENw





http://www.seafish.org/media/1327189/clg_nov2014_cefas_stockstatus2.pdf



62

76 ICES has previously identified that a TAC may not be the most suitable means to effectively control

mortality for this stock. Some Member States have also mentioned the CFP reform (landing

obligation) as an argument against the introduction of a new TAC.


02_Final+Report_JRCxxx.pdf

77 RSPB Practical implementation of CFP Art 17 [webpage]


385886.pdf (2014)

78 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/proposals/index_en.htm European Commission (2013)

[webpage]

79 ICES http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/08/icesjms.fsv099.abstract (2015)

[webpage]

''Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and

dimensions''

‘Mobile bottom contacting fishing gears have impacts on benthic ecosystems..includ[ing] mortality of

benthic invertebrates, resuspension of and physical disturbance of biogenic habitats whereas long-

term impacts may include changes in species composition (Kaiseret al., 2006) and reduction in

habitat complexity (Kaiser et al., 2002).... the benthic impacts of otter trawlers, demersal seiners,

beam trawlers, and dredgers were identified as the most significant in the European and Black Sea

fisheries. For these four gear groups, the major effects and mechanisms of impact were assessed to

be: (i) mortality of benthic organism from direct gear– seabed gear contact during fishing, (ii) food

subsidies from discards and gear track mortality, (iii) habitat alterations through disturbance of

sediments and effects on seabed habitats, and (iv) change to geochemical processes (release of

nutrients and chemical substances) from disturbance of sediment.’

80 For more information on recreational bass angling in the UK see B.A.S.S. [webpage]

http://www.ukbass.com/bmp/bmpdraft.pdf

81 European Commission (2013) Fishing effort part one. Retrieved from:

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg1306

82 ICES [webpage] http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/maps/Pages/ICES-statistical-rectangles.aspx

(2014)

83 Line Caught [webpage] http://www.linecaught.org.uk/

84ICES (2014). IBP Bass Report 2014 [webpage]



85 Brown, J, G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, J. Magnus and J. Tumilty (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost

Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission.

Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management

Ltd joint report. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/ghostfishing_en.pdf [webpage]

86 Cefas https://marinescience.blog.gov.uk/2014/06/16/conservation-seabass/ [webpage] (2014)





http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/proposals/index_en.htm

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/08/icesjms.fsv099.abstract

http://www.ukbass.com/bmp/bmpdraft.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/maps/Pages/ICES-statistical-rectangles.aspx

http://www.linecaught.org.uk/



http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/ghostfishing_en.pdf



63

87 PISCO ‘Science of Marine Reserves’ accessed December 2014. Partnership for Interdisciplinary

Studies of Coastal Oceans. 2011. The Science of Marine Reserves (2nd Edition, Europe).

www.piscoweb.org. 22 pages. [webpage]

http://www.piscoweb.org/files/file/science_of_marine_reserves/SMR_EU-HR.pdf PISCO ‘Science of

Marine Reserves’ accessed December 2014. Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal

Oceans. 2011. The Science of Marine Reserves (2nd Edition, Europe). www.piscoweb.org. 22 pages.

http://www.piscoweb.org/

http://www.piscoweb.org/files/file/science_of_marine_reserves/SMR_EU-HR.pdf

http://www.piscoweb.org/

Paper 8.1 European Seabass in the UK (For Info)

Documents