helcom core indicator report structure - pressure ii-34/share… · web viewit is to be hoped...

Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear

InhaltKey message .................................................................................................................................................2

Relevance of the core indicator ....................................................................................................................3

Policy relevance of the core indicator ..........................................................................................................3

Authors .........................................................................................................................................................3

Cite this indicator .........................................................................................................................................3

Indicator concept .............................................................................................................................................4

Environmental Target ...................................................................................................................................4

Relevance of the indicator ............................................................................................................................8

Policy Relevance .......................................................................................................................................8

Role of the pressure exerted though by-catch on the ecosystem ............................................................8

Assessment protocol ....................................................................................................................................9

Results ............................................................................................................................................................10

Monitoring requirements ...............................................................................................................................12

Monitoring methodology ...........................................................................................................................12

Description of optimal monitoring, ............................................................................................................13

Current monitoring .....................................................................................................................................14

Description of data and confidence ................................................................................................................17

Metadata ....................................................................................................................................................17

Confidence of indicator status ....................................................................................................................17

Arrangements for up-dating the indicator ..................................................................................................17

Publications and archive .................................................................................................................................19

Printable version of the core indicator .......................................................................................................19

Archive ........................................................................................................................................................19

Publications used in the indicator ..............................................................................................................19

Additional relevant publications .................................................................................................................20

Key message .................................................................................................................................................1

Relevance of the core indicator ....................................................................................................................3

Policy relevance of the core indicator ..........................................................................................................3

Authors .........................................................................................................................................................4

Reference to this indicator ...........................................................................................................................4

Results ..............................................................................................................................................................5

Indicator concept .............................................................................................................................................6

Relevance of indicator ..................................................................................................................................6

Policy Relevance .......................................................................................................................................6

Role of XX to the ecosystem .....................................................................................................................6

Environmental Target ...................................................................................................................................7

Assessment protocol ....................................................................................................................................7

Monitoring requirements .................................................................................................................................9

Monitoring methodology .............................................................................................................................9

Description of optimal monitoring, ..............................................................................................................9

Current monitoring .......................................................................................................................................9

Description of data and confidence ................................................................................................................10

Metadata ....................................................................................................................................................10

Confidence of indicator status ....................................................................................................................10

Arrangements for up-dating the indicator ..................................................................................................10

Publications and archive .................................................................................................................................11

Printable version of the core indicator .......................................................................................................11

Archive ........................................................................................................................................................11

Publications used in the indicator ..............................................................................................................11

Additional relevant publications .................................................................................................................11

Key message

Bothnian Sea

Eastern Gotland Basin

Kattegat

Bornholm Basin

Bothnian Bay

Gulf of Finland

Åland Sea

Northern Baltic Proper

Gulf of Riga

Arkona Basin

Great Belt

Western Gotland Basin

The Quark

Gdansk Basin

Kiel BayBay of Mecklenburg

The Sound

±0 200 400100 Kilometers

HELCOM 2015

HELCOM Assessment units - Scale 2below Environmental Target

above Environmental Target

Indicator applicable

Indicator not applicable

The pressure core indicator is applicable in the whole Baltic Sea as it is known that birds and mammals are by-caught in the whole area. The indicator is relevant in all open water and in nearshore areas of the Baltic Sea.However no targeted monitoring is currently carried out and due to the resulting lack in monitoring data, it has not been possible to set an Environmental Target (ET) for the indicator and it is not possible to determine if the current rate of by-catch is within limits that enable reaching good environmental status (GES).

The core indicator follows the number of drowned marine mammals (cetaceans, seals and otters) and waterbirds (divers, grebes, cormorants, seaducks, auks) in fishing gears. The indicator is relevant in all open water and in nearshore areas of the Baltic Sea. Bycatch of harbour porpoises and seals is difficult to estimate and reliable studies are scarce,The increased mortality due to drowning in fishing gears but for harbour porpoise the bycatch in fishing gears is estimated to be the greatest source of mortality to the populations in the Baltic Sea and the number of drowned animals is believed to be above the

environmental targets of the allowable mortality for this species. Drowning in fishing gear is also believed to be a primary pressure on the populations

Fishery bycatch is a high pressure to of long-tailed duck, scoters and some other waterbird species in wintering areas of high densities of waterfowl, and although a declining trend in numbers of by-caught birds has been detected in the . The bycatch rate has decreased during the last two decades this , but that is likely a result of declininged abundance of wintering waterbirds and not improved fishing practices.

However, current national discard/bycatch monitoring programmes carried out under the EU data collection framework are not targeted towards marine mammal and bird bycatches. Monitoring under the EU council regulation 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries mainly covers trawl gear due to a size limitation in vessels subject to monitoring obligations. Thus, at this point GES cannot be determined.

Relevance of the core indicator aimed at a general public

o 1-2 sentences, what is the “role” of the assessed element in the ecosystem (e.g. what role does a seal have in the environment – top predator)?

o 1-2 sentences, what information of the environment does the parameters in indicator describe/estimate (e.g. what does pregnancy rate of mammals tell the reader about the state of the environment) ?

Thise pressure core indicator follows the number of drowned marine mammals (cetaceans, seals and otters and seals) and diving waterbirds in fishing gears. The populations of these animals are sensitive to added mortality caused by fishing gear, as the animals have characteristics of reproducing slowly Marine mammals are the top predators in the Baltic Sea ecosystem.. Marine mammal Their population distribution and abundance is closely linked to healthy fish stocks and influenced by many anthropogenic activities. For harbour porpoises, by-catch has been identified as one of the main causes of mortality which may inhibit population recovery.All waterbirds breeding and wintering in the Baltic are characterized by high longevity, low annual reproduction and often a high age of first breeding, making them vulnerable to additive mortality (e.g. Dierschke & Bernotat 2012). As the estimated number of waterbirds drowning in fishing gear represents high proportions of the total population sizes, by-catch is a significant pressure on population trends and demography

This pressure core indicator reflects the sustainability of fishing practices though the effect they have on populations of highly mobile species. The indicator is important to detect intolerable mortality in these key populations. The recent increase in use of anchored gill nets has substantially increased the risk of drowning for the indicator species in the last decades.

In Baltic Sea fisheries, the use of anchored gill nets has substantially increased since 1990s (ICES 2007), increasing the conflict between certain fisheries and bird and mammal species as integral parts of the Baltic ecosystem. It has been estimated that a minimum of 300 grey seals, 80 ringed seals and 7–8 harbour seals are captured as by-catch annually in the Baltic Sea (ICES 1995). Several studies have shown that the gillnet fishery in the Baltic Sea can in certain places cause high bird mortality, with a rough estimate of 100,000-200,000 waterbirds drowing annually (Zydelis et al. 2009, 2013, Bellebaum et al. 2012). The by-catch problem is of special relevance where gillnet fishery is exercised in the areas with high concentrations of

Lena Avellan, 13/11/14,

this level of detail to be described udner ”results”

Sven, 13/11/14,

are there more recent data? BALTFIMPA?, ICES 1995 not in Korppinen & Bräger reference listCheck ICES WGMME und WGBYC

resting, moulting or wintering waterbirds. Fishing mortality may be especially severe for bird species with low reproductive rates and high natural survival rates such as divers and alcids.

Marine mammals are the top predators in the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Their distribution and abundance is closely linked to healthy fish stocks and influenced by many anthropogenic activities. For harbour porpoises, by-catch has been identified as one of the main causes of mortality which may inhibit population recovery. Also for harbour, grey and ringed seals and eurasian otters, drowning in fishing gear is a common cause of death. Thus, the indicator is important to describe the status of the stocks with respect to fishery interaction.

As predators, which are often located at high levels in the food web, waterbirds are an integral part of the Baltic marine ecosystem. A global view on the state of marine birds in the Baltic is given by two indicators observing population sizes of breeding and wintering birds. Since they respond to numerous pressures, many of them owing to anthropogenic impact, key waterbird species can be seen as indicator species. All waterbirds breeding and wintering in the Baltic are characterized by high longevity, low annual reproduction and often a high age of first breeding, making them vulnerable to additive mortality (e.g. Dierschke & Bernotat 2012). As the estimated number of waterbirds drowing in fishing gear represents high proportions of the total population sizes, by-catch has a high impact on population trends and demography. Therefore, the indicator is important to detect intolerable mortality regarding healthy waterbird populations.

Policy relevance of the core indicatorPrimary importance Secondary importance

BSAPSegment and Objective

Viable populations of species Natural Distribution and occurrence of plants and animals

1.1 Species distribution (range, pattern, covered area)4.1 Productivity of key species or trophic groups (productivity)

MSFDDescriptors and Criteria

1.2 Population size (abundance, biomass)1.3. Population condition (demography, genetic structure)4.3 Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups and species

Other relevant legislation: EU birds directive, EU habitats directive, Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA)

Authors Sven Koschinski, Volker Dierschke [institutes]

Other recognized contributors: HELCOM SEAL EG, Lena Avellan (project manager)

Cite this indicatorKoschinski, S. and Dierschke, V., [2015]. Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM core indicator report. Online. [Date Viewed], [Web link].


if circulated and commented, improved etc.

Indicator conceptEnvironmental TargetNo Environmental Ttargets has yet been defined for the indicator have not yet been agreed upon for all species and management areas. However, the concept of the Environmental Target has been developed and is based on an ‘acceptable mortality level’ for the indicator species. To sustain populations in the long term the mortality in a population must not exceed the birth rate (natality). The indicator species have a slow reproductive rate (K-strategists), and thus the acceptable additional mortality stemming from drowning in fishing gear is low.

When setting the Environmental Target values for the indicator species, Where available,other available different types of targets can be used as support, including , defined conservation- targets and removal targets have been defined. Conservation targets are environmental targets focused on the state of a stock or population. Removal targets define either the acceptable anthropogenic mortality (including by-catch) or a maximum by-catch limit. A target for a safe by-catch limit is usually the result of a population dynamic model simulation over a certain time frame within which the target for the stock size is to be reached. In order to set a safe by-catch limit, it has to be agreed upon the time scale of simulations, i.e., the period in which the conservation target should be reached (ICES 2014).

ICES (2013a) concluded that such limits or threshold reference points should take account of uncertainty in existing by-catch estimates into account of, and should allow current conservation goals to be met, and in order to should enable managers to identify fisheries that require further monitoring, and those where mitigation measures are most urgently required (ICES 2013a).

At present, management objectives for all protected species are unclear at the EU level (ICES 2013a). While broad commitments have been made to ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and to ‘fFavourable Cconservation Sstatus’ (FCS) under the Habitats Directive, how these objectives may be translated into by-catch limits is as yet unspecified by the European Union. It is to be hoped that the ongoing development of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will help to address this concern. A therefore preliminary suggestion is that GES will be reached if mammal and waterbird by-catch is below the removal targets and at the same time a trend towards the conservation targets is seen in the population monitoring data.

Alternative methods for setting the Environmental Target

For determining the environmental target that will allow reaching describing GES, a By-catch Risk Approach as outlined in ICES 2013a can be used (ICES 2013a). A By-catch Risk Approach (BRA) was developed initially for cetaceans at the ICES Workshop WKRev812 (ICES 2010) in order to identify areas and fisheries posing the greatest likely conservation threat to by-caught cetacean species. This approach can easily be used for protected species other than cetaceans. The approach splits the population numbers of each protected species into different Management Areas (MA) and calculates take limits of species by area for any by-catch threshold level used. By using an expected by-catch rate (numbers per day or per unit of catch) multiplied by the total fishing effort, an approximate total number of by-caught animals can be estimated for each

Sven, 13/11/14,

maybe this can be done on the basis of the 17 HELCOM sub-basins? Also important for CLA approach which can be done for MAs (Lonergan)


thought. relevant to elaborate on the basic population ecology to support the target setting and indicator relevance?


I hope I've gotten this right?

fishery and compared with any proposed take limit, such as the 1.7% limit for cetaceans (ASCOBANS, 2000). During WKREV812 this approach enabled fisheries with levels of fishing effort that could pose a potential threat to cetacean species at a regional level to be identified. The approach is summarized below. This approach was adopted in the current Workshop to try to identify fisheries that are most in need of further by-catch monitoring for all protected species. The BRA highlights areas of greatest problem and enables fisheries management decisions.

Another approach is the potential biological removal (PBR) which is used to set a removal target in the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. Rather than using a mean value, as a best estimate for the population size, the lower 20% percentile of the most recent abundance estimate is used as a basis. The conservation goal is the ‘optimum sustainable population’ defined as being at or above the population level that will result in maximum productivity (ICES 2014). The population growth rate and a recovery factor between 0.1 and 1 to introduce an extra level of precaution into the results (usually set to 0.5, in a depleted population 0.1). However, this ’tuning parameter’ could be affected by political horse-trading (Lonergan 2011). The advantage of using the lower 20% percentile of the abundance estimate is that a higher coefficient of variation (synonymous with a higher uncertainty of data) results in lower numbers for the removal target (Orphanides & Palka 2013).

Currently, a project is underway to develop a safe by-catch limit using the catch limit algorithm (CLA) based on the IWC's revised management procedure (RMP) for commercial whaling (ICES 2014). The time span for simulations was set to 100 years and the conservation objective was taken from the ASCOBANS targets of 80% of the carrying capacity (whereas the original catch control law of the RMP is ’tuned’ to achieve a population level of 72% of the historic abundance in the long term, 100 years). The difference between CLA and the fixed percentage limit for the Western Baltic Sea population is that CLA accounts for the quality of data (as the PBR does) and further uses a time series of abundance estimates. CLA additionally considers the ratio of the actual abundance estimate and the historic abundance („depletion level“). If this is smaller than 0.54 then the acceptable anthropogenic mortality is set to zero. Whereas the fixed percentage of abundance and PBR approach use only single estimates for bycatch and abundance, CLA fits a population dynamics model to a time-series of abundance estimates and removals data. The advantage is that the accuracy of the CLA approach gets better with increasing data. However, all approaches rely on a suitable monitoring programme as a prerequisite.

CLA is the preferred method in the current discussion since simulations using CLA instead of a fixed percentage of abundance result in shorter recovery time for depleted populations (ICES 2013b, c).

Marine Mammal By-catch. Reference Points. Modelling "safe" by-catch limits such as potential biological removal (PBR) and catch limit algorithm (CLA) for harbour porpoises and various seabird species is necessary for their management in different regions of the Western Baltic, Belt Sea and Kattegat area.

Harbour porpoise

Agreed conservation targets for the population size are available for harbour porpoises in the frame of ASCOBANS for the two management units (1) the Kattegat, Belt Sea and Western Baltic population and (2) the Baltic Proper population. ASCOBANS (2002, 2009, 2012) has adopted an interim goal of restoring (and maintaining) the populations of harbour porpoises to at least 80% of their carrying capacity. The


in this section I’ve re arranged the sections a little bit (forgot to track change)


is this the 80% target schedule?


commercially utilized populations are probably at a more sustainable level than the baltic harbour porpoise. Would it be more relevant to consider this method for target setting for seals?


name?

ASCOBANS Conservation Plan for the Harbour Porpoise Population in the Western Baltic, the Belt Sea and the Kattegat (ASCOBANS 2012) states that ASCOBANS has advised that, to be sustainable, the maximum annual anthropogenic induced mortality (including by-catch) for harbour porpoises should not exceed 1.7% of the best estimate of the population size (Resolution No. 3, Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans, Bristol 2000). Scientific analyses indicate that for the critically endangered (2) Baltic Proper population, recovery towards this goal could only be achieved if the by-catch were reduced to two or fewer porpoises per year. This resulted in the objective (i.e. a removal target) of the ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises (Jastarnia Plan) to reduce the number of by-caught porpoises in the Baltic Proper towards zero (ASCOBANS 2002, 2009).

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) stated that the flag of concern should be raised if the number of small cetaceans captured is greater than 1% of their total population size (Bjørge & Donovan 1995). The 1% limit can also be found in the Resolution No. 3, Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans (Bristol 2000) as an intermediate precautionary objective. The resolution states that where there is significant uncertainty in parameters such as population size or by-catch levels, then ‘unacceptable interaction’ may involve an anthropogenic removal of much less than 1.7 %. To date, the level of by-catch is of unknown magnitude for both management units. Thus, from this perspective the removal target should be less than 1% (Czybulka et al. in prep). For the Baltic Proper population, even the size of the population is unknown. In December 2014, the result of the SAMBAH project assessing the abundance in the Baltic Proper by means of 300 acoustic data loggers is expected. The estimated size of the Western Baltic Sea population is 18,495 animals (CV = 0.27, 95% CI: 10,892-31,406) (Sveegaard et al. 2013).

The Oother above listed approaches, than setting a fixed percentage of abundance taking the uncertainty of data into account, have already been developed. Using these other methods and should replace the abovementioned targets for the different species and management units should be replaced as soon as simulations are available.

One such approach is the potential biological removal (PBR) which is a removal target by the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. Rather than using a mean value as best estimate for the population size, the lower 20% percentile of the most recent abundance estimate is used as a basis. The conservation goal is the "optimum sustainable population" defined as being at or above the population level that will result in maximum productivity (ICES 2014). The population growth rate and a recovery factor between 0.1 and 1 to introduce an extra level of precaution into the results (usually set to 0.5, in a depleted population 0.1). However, this "tuning parameter" could be affected by political horse-trading (Lonergan 2011). The advantage of using the lower 20% percentile of the abundance estimate is that a higher coefficient of variation (synonymous with a higher uncertainty of data) results in lower numbers for the removal target (Orphanides & Palka 2013).

Currently, a project is underway to develop a safe bycatch limit using the catch limit algorithm (CLA) based on the IWC's revised management procedure (RMP) for commercial whaling (ICES 2014). The time span for simulations was set to 100 years and the conservation objective was taken from the ASCOBANS targets of 80 % of the carrying capacity (whereas the original catch control law of the RMP is “tuned” to achieve a population level of 72% of the historic abundance in the long term, 100 years). The difference between CLA and the fixed percentage limit for the Western Baltic Sea population is that CLA accounts for the quality of data (as the PBR does) and further uses a time series of abundance estimates. CLA additionally considers the ratio of the actual abundance estimate and the historic abundance („depletion level“). If this is smaller


is this the 80% target schedule?


commercially utilized populations are probably at a more sustainable level than the baltic harbour porpoise. Would it be more relevant to consider this method for target setting for seals?


name?


I’m not sure if I got the original meaning of the sentence right. To clarify, should we use different methods for target setting? as it says now?

than 0.54 then the acceptable anthropogenic mortality is set to zero. Whereas the fixed percentage of abundance and PBR approach use only single estimates for bycatch and abundance, CLA fits a population dynamics model to a time-series of abundance estimates and removals data. The advantage is that the accuracy of the CLA approach gets better with increasing data. However, all approaches rely on a suitable monitoring programme as a prerequisite.

CLA is the preferred method in the current discussion since simulations using CLA instead of a fixed percentage of abundance result in shorter recovery time for depleted populations (ICES 2013b, c).

Seals

No specific removal targets for seal by-catch have been formulated to date that could directly be applied as an Environmental Target for this group of mammals in the indicator. The HELCOM Seal Expert Group has formulated a recommendation adopted by HELCOM (recommendation 27-28/2) to reduce incidental by-catches to a minimum level and if possible to a level close to zero and to develop efficient mitigation measures.

The conservation target for seals within the HELCOM area is that the populations grow until limited by the environmental carrying capacity, towards which recovery towards this target will be allowed as a long-term objective. A lower reference limit below which the survival of the population is at risk and a middle reference limit are used for anthropogenic removal licenses. The overall target is to continually improve the situation of the seal species but no timescale for its achievement is given (Lonergan 2011).

No specific removal targets for seal by-catch have been formulated to date. HELCOM Seal Expert Group recommends (recommendation 27-28/2) to reduce incidental bycatches to a minimum level and if possible to a level close to zero and to develop efficient mitigation measures.

Grey seals form a discrete stock in the Baltic Sea and thus can be regarded as a single management unit with a single environmental target (Reijnders et al. 1997, HELCOM 2009). In 2013 nearly 30,.000 grey seals werehave been counted (Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute 2014). The main distribution in the Baltic Sea is north of 58o N. Haul-out sites in the southern Baltic are currently being recolonized as the population expands and grows (Hermann 2012, DCE 2013).

Two populations of harbour seals occur in the HELCOM area (Goodman 1998). The population size in the Kattegat, Belt Sea and Western Baltic is about 15,000 animals (Härkönen et al. 2008). A separate Kalmarsund subpopulation consisting of 425 mature animals has a very limited distribution area with three colonies within an area of 20 km². The distribution range may be limited to 1500 km² (SLU 2010).

The Baltic ringed seal is recognizsed as a separate subspecies (Kovacs et al. 2008). Positive trends in the Bothnian Bay and declines in other parts of its distributional range have been observed.

The conservation target for seals within the HELCOM area is the environmental carrying capacity towards which recovery will be allowed as a long-term objective. A lower reference limit below which the survival of the population is at risk and a middle reference limit are used for anthropogenic removal licenses. The overall target is to continually improve the situation of the seal species but no timescale for its achievement is given (Lonergan 2011).

Sven, 13/11/14,

more recent numbers? ask Härkönen or Anders Galatius


/natural?

http://helcom.fi/Recommendations/Rec%2027-28-2.pdf#search=recommendation%2027-28%2F2

No specific removal targets for seal by-catch have been formulated to date. HELCOM Seal Expert Group recommends (recommendation 27-28/2) to reduce incidental bycatches to a minimum level and if possible to a level close to zero and to develop efficient mitigation measures.

Otters

HELCOM (2013) lists, -among others,- by-catch in fishing gear as a major threat to Eurasian otters. However, the extent of the problem is not known. No aims for by-catch reduction have been formulated yet.

Waterbirds

Based on a number of case studies, Zydelis et al. (2009) estimate that a minimum of 90,000 waterbirds is drowning in gillnets annually, but argue that 100,000-200,000 birds per year would be a more realistic number. Locally, losses may comprise 8-17% of the wintering waterbird individuals (Zydelis et al. 2009).

For the otherwaterbird species concerned, analyses of thresholds for acceptable losses of individuals are lacking, but are urgently desired as data from by-catch monitoring allowing to do these analyses becomes available. Some initial studies using the PBR concept, suggests environmental targets that could be provisionally considered. However, as the PBR concept does not account for age-related differences in the probability of being by-caught (Zydelis et al. 2009), assessment methods regarding the environmental target setting for reaching GES needrequires further development.

In order to approach or maintain viable waterbird populations in the Baltic, the loss of individuals due to anthropogenic pressures has to be reduced. In the Baltic, additive mortality is mainly caused by drowning in fishing gears (e.g. Zydelis et al. 2009), hunting (e.g. Mooij 2005) and plumage oiling (e.g. Larsson & Tydén 2005), and in some species these pressures act cumulatively. The reduction of waterbirds by-caught certainly helps to reach any conservation goals. However, the impact of by-catch on population dynamics has been estimated for only three species so far. Zydelis et al (2009) applied the PBR approach (see above) to long-tailed duck, greater scaup (including wintering birds in the Netherlands) and common guillemot. While hunting and by-catch together caused mortality close to or above the limit of acceptable losses in the latter two species. , lLosses of long-tailed ducks were below the limit, but the recently noticed decline of that species (Skov et al. 2011) was not accounted for (Skov et al. 2011). Cumulative impacts including losses from by-catch were found to reach critical limits also for red-throated divers (Dierschke et al. 2012). Red-throated divers, a species suffering severely from drowning in gill nets in other parts of its distributional range (Warden 2010).

For the other species concerned, analyses of thresholds for acceptable losses of individuals are lacking, but are urgently desired as data from by-catch monitoring allowing to do these analyses. However, as the PBR concept does not account for age-related differences in the probability of being by-caught (Zydelis et al. 2009), assessment methods regarding GES need further development.

Volker, bitte ergänzen

conservation targets

Volker Dierschke, 13/11/14,

Wo findet man denn sowas?


please include the provisional numbers determined for the species.


stated in the results section

describe concept e.g. trend or target(a core indicator can be operational even if preliminary, in most cases meaning that the GES is a trend, and requires more work and maybe an update in 5 years’ time)

describe how reaching the environmental target will lead to reaching a Good Environmental State (GES)

target setting method (is it based on actual reference state data, or modelling etc.) confidence of target, applying the method developed in CORE-EUTRO: The target confidence is

rated based on the uncertainty of the target setting procedure; Target score is determined

o high if the target is based on numerous observations made earlier than the 1950’s possibly in combination with hindcast modeling

o moderate if the target is based on observations made earlier than the 1980’s and/or hindcast modelling and

o low if the target is set through expert judgement and/or information from reference sites and/or observations made during or after the 1980’s.

show applicability of GES-value with a case study example for a selected area where the conditions are above/below GES

At present, management objectives for all protected species are unclear at the EU level (ICES 2013a). While broad commitments have been made to ‘Good Environmental Status’ under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and to ‘favourable conservation status’ under the Habitats Directive, how these objectives may be translated into by-catch limits is as yet unspecified by the European Union. It is to be hoped that the ongoing development of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will help to address this concern. A therefore preliminary suggestion is that GES will be reached if mammal and waterbird by-catch is below the removal targets and at the same time a trend towards the conservation targets is seen in the population monitoring data.

For describing GES, a By-catch Risk Approach as outlined in ICES 2013a can be used.

A By-catch Risk Approach (BRA) was developed initially for cetaceans at the ICES Workshop WKRev812 (ICES 2010) in order to identify areas and fisheries posing the greatest likely conservation threat to by-caught cetacean species. This approach can easily be used for protected species other than cetaceans. The approach splits the population numbers of each protected species into different Management Areas (MA) and calculates take limits of species by area for any by-catch threshold level used. By using an expected by-catch rate (numbers per day or per unit of catch) multiplied by the total fishing effort, an approximate total number of by-caught animals can be estimated for each fishery and compared with any proposed take limit, such as the 1.7% limit for cetaceans (ASCOBANS, 2000). During WKREV812 this approach enabled fisheries with levels of fishing effort that could pose a potential threat to cetacean species at a regional level to be identified. The approach is summarized below. This approach was adopted in the current Workshop to try to identify fisheries that are most in need of further by-catch monitoring for all protected species. The BRA highlights areas of greatest problem and enables fisheries management decisions.

Sven, 13/11/14,

maybe this can be done on the basis of the 17 HELCOM sub-basins? Also important for CLA approach which can be done for MAs (Lonergan)

Relevance of the indicator

Policy RelevanceThe Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) aims to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status of small cetaceans which still awaits refinement regarding recovery targets. ASCOBANS has the interim goal of restoring the populations of harbour porpoises to at least 80 % of the carrying capacity. Six of the nine Baltic Sea countries are Parties to the Convention.

The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) gives places a special emphasis on by-catch of harbour porpoise, seals and waterbirds. A target for the ecological objective ‘Viable populations of species’ is that by 2015 by-catch of harbour porpoise, seals, waterbirds and non-target fish species has been significantly reduced with the aim to reach by-catch rates close to zero. This aim has not yet been reached yet. In the BSAP, it was further agreed to set up a reporting system and database for harbour porpoise by-catch, and competent fisheries authorities were urged to minimize the by-catch of harbour porpoise.

For the three seal species occurring in the Baltic Sea, the HELCOM (2006) seal recommendation (27-28/2) recommends:

• to take effective measures for all populations in order to prevent illegal killing, and to reduce incidental by-catches to a minimum level and if possible to a level close to zero;

• to develop and to apply where possible non-lethal mitigation measures for seals to reduce by-catch and damage to fishing gear, as well as to support and coordinate the development of efficient mitigation measures.

In the HELCOM 2013 Ministerial Declaration, the HELCOM community decided to take action to reduce the negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem and to this end, SUPPORT the development of fisheries management and technical measures to minimize unwanted by-catch of fish, birds and mammals in order to achieve the close to zero target for by-catch rates of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and minimize damage to sea bed habitats (15 (B)).

The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) aims to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status (FCS) of small cetaceans which still awaits refinement regarding recovery targets. ASCOBANS has the interim goal of restoring the populations of harbour porpoises to at least 80 % of the carrying capacity. Six of the nine Baltic Sea countries are Parties to the Convention.

The EU Habitats Directive lists harbour porpoise as a strictly protected species (Annex IV), meaning that the species requires strict protection. The harbour porpoise and the three seal species are listed in Annex II, meaning that they are to be protected by the means of the Natura 2000 network.

The EU Birds Directive aims to protect, inter alia, habitats of endangered and migratory birds to ensure their conservation in the Europe. This not only refers to birds needing special conservation measures (Article 4 (1)) and listed in Annex I, but also to all migratory species (Article 4 (2)). Therefore, all waterbird species breeding, wintering and staging during migration in the Baltic are covered by this directive. Moreover, all waterbird species occurring in the Baltic are subject of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA).


by when? 100 year mentioned in ET harbour porpoise discussion in other context...


Is this based on the criteria in the Habitats Directive? If yes, then the elaboration in the sections on HD should be linked


moved down

Current national discard/by-catch monitoring programmes carried out under the EU data collection framework are not targeted towards marine mammal and bird by-catches. Monitoring under the EU council regulation 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries mainly covers trawl gear due to a size limitation in vessels subject to monitoring obligations.

Role of the pressure exerted though by-catch ton the ecosystemIn order to approach or maintain viable waterbird populations in the Baltic, the loss of individuals due to anthropogenic pressures has to be reduced. In the Baltic, additive mortality is mainly caused by drowning in fishing gears (e.g. Zydelis et al. 2009), hunting (e.g. Mooij 2005) and plumage oiling (e.g. Larsson & Tydén 2005), and in some species these pressures act cumulatively.

The general results (e.g. the number of drowned animals compared to model approaches such as potential biological removal PBR, catch limit algorithm CLA, or (in case of harbour porpoises) 1 % or 1.7 % as proposed by ASCOBANS) will allow to assess the state of the populations compared to GES, to identify the pressure in more detail and to propose relevant management measures.

The core indicator follows the number of drowned mammals (cetaceans, seals and otters) and waterbirds in fishing gears. It has been estimated that a minimum of 300 grey seals, 80 ringed seals and 7–8 harbour seals are captured as by-catch annually in the Baltic Sea (ICES 1995). The severity of the bycatch problem for harbour porpoises is not exactly known which requires a useful monitoring approach.

Several studies have shown that the gillnet and entangling net fishery in the Baltic Sea can in certain places cause high bird mortality, resulting in an estimate of 100,000-200,000 waterbirds drowing annually (Zydelis et al. 2009, 2013, Bellebaum et al. 2012). The bycatch problem is of special relevance where gillnet fishery is exercised in the areas with high concentrations of resting, moulting or wintering waterbirds. Fishing mortality may be especially severe for bird species with low reproduction such as alcids.

In Baltic Sea fisheries, the use of anchored gill nets has substantially increased since the 1990s (ICES 2007).

detailed description and background information on the scientific concept/design of the indicator which is summarized on the first page for a non-expert audience, here going into detail

o what is the “role” of the assessed element in the ecosystem (e.g. what role does a seal have in the environment – top predator)?

o what information of the environment does the parameters in indicator describe/estimate (e.g. what does pregnancy rate of mammals tell the reader about the state of the environment) ?

o what element of eutrophication/hazardous substances/biodiversity does the indicator describe and how is this relevant in the perspective of the whole Baltic Sea environment?

Assessment protocol detailing how the data is processed against to determine if the environmental target is reached or

not, needs to be detailed enough so that any expert can replicate the analysis statistical-processing (how-to-)

Sven, 13/11/14,

more recent data available? BALTFIMPA?


moved here from ET discussion on waterbirds


In this section the influence of by-catch shuold be explained, as detailed as relevant with research backing it up etc.I propose that this section should include discussions on population dynamics of mammals and birds, to explain in more detail the cause of them being sensitive, so that the "acceptable mortality" numbers that are the basis (eventually) for the Environmental Target is supported. So a discussion on the role of the extra mortality caused by by-catch to the populations. not the role of the species in the ecosys

Sven, 13/11/14,

@LenaIs this what is meant or the role of the various species?

HELCOM assessment units used;o which units where used on which level and why (ecological relevance)o if applicable which units does the indicator not apply to on the chosen Level and why (e.g.

indicator species not present in whole Baltic Sea)o if different environmental targets have been set for different assessment units then also

describe the reason for this e.g. differences in biogeography

Results detailed description on how the “key message map” was arrived at expert target audience all relevant more detailed graphs and maps, e.g. temporal trend graphs for different sub-basins,

separate state maps for all the various species used in the indicator since all indicators are so different, there are no common sub-headings for this section, this section

will often be the longest of any sub-section of the indicator report

In Baltic Sea fisheries, the use of anchored gill nets has substantially increased since the 1990s, increasing the conflict between certain fisheries and bird and mammal species as integral parts of the Baltic ecosystem (ICES 2007). It has been estimated that a minimum of 300 grey seals, 80 ringed seals and 7–8 harbour seals are captured as by-catch annually in the Baltic Sea (ICES 1995). Several studies have shown that the gillnet fishery in the Baltic Sea can in certain places cause high bird mortality, with a rough estimate of 100,000-200,000 waterbirds drowning annually (Zydelis et al. 2009, 2013, Bellebaum et al. 2012).

Unfortunately current national discard/by-catch monitoring programmes carried out under the EU data collection framework, do not target marine mammal and bird by-catches. Monitoring under the EU council regulation 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries using onboard observers is limited to larger vessels resulting in the lowest observer coverage of fisheries posing the greatest threat (ICES 2013a). Only rough estimates of mammals and birds drowning in fishing gears could be calculated based on case studies, which have been summarized by Korpinen & Bräger (2013). Thus the results related to this pressure core indicator do not allow for estimates in relation to an environmental target with any confidence.The by-catch problem is of special relevance where gillnet fishery is exercised in the areas with high concentrations of resting, moulting or wintering waterbirds. Fishing mortality may be especially severe for bird species with low reproductive rates and high natural survival rates such as divers and alcids

Marine mammals

The core indicator follows the number of drowned marine mammals (cetaceans, seals and otters) and waterbirds in fishing gears.For harbour porpoise the Bby-catch risk of harbour porpoises is highest in set gill nets (code: GNS), entangling nets (trammel nets, GTR) and driftnets (GND) (ICES 2013a). The latter are banned in the Baltic Sea, but some hybrid nets such as ’semi-driftnets’ which are fixed on one end of the net with the other end drifting around this anchor are of special concern (Skora & Kuklik 2003). These are nets with which the European driftnet ban has been circumvented (Caddell 2010). For seals, additionally to these above mentioned gears, fykenets (FYK) are of special concern (ICES 2013a). These might also pose the greatest threat for Eurasian otters (Raby et al. 2011). By-catch of harbour porpoises and seals is difficult to estimate and reliable studies are scarce, but for harbour porpoise the drowning though by-catch in fishing gears is estimated to be the greatest source of mortality and above the targets.

Waterbirds

Diving Wwaterbirds are especially vulnerable to set gill nets (GNS), entangling nets (trammel nets, GTR) and and driftnets (GND), but by-catch also occurs in other static fishing gears such as longlines (ICES 2013a,b).

Sven, 13/11/14,

are used to circumvent... check original paper for wording

Sven, 13/11/14,

are there more recent data? BALTFIMPA?, ICES 1995 not in Korppinen & Bräger reference listCheck ICES WGMME und WGBYC


drown?

High by-catch numbers are reported from regions of high bird concentrations (e.g. wintering birds in coastal areas, Zydelis et al. 2009, 2013, Bellebaum et al. 2012). , as often aAreas whereof waterbirds aggregateions are often overlapping with gill net fishery (Sonntag et al. 2012). The by-catch problem is of special relevance where gillnet fishery is exercised in the areas with high concentrations of resting, moulting or wintering waterbirds. Mortality due to drowning in fishing gear may be especially severe for bird species with low reproductive rates and high natural survival rates such as divers and alcids.

The indicator is relevant in all open water and in nearshore areas of the Baltic Sea. Bycatch of harbour porpoises and seals is difficult to estimate and reliable studies are scarce, but for harbour porpoise the bycatch in fishing gears is estimated to be the greatest source of mortality and above the targets.

Fishery bBy-catch in fisheries is a high pressure to long-tailed duck, scoters, divers and some other waterbird species in wintering areas of high densities of waterfowl. The by-catch rate has decreased during the last two decades, but that is likely a result of declined abundance of wintering waterbirds (Bellebaum et al. 2012).

However, current national discard/bycatch monitoring programmes carried out under the EU data collection framework are not targeted towards marine mammal and bird bycatches. Monitoring under the EU council regulation 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries using onboard observers is limited to larger vessels resulting in the lowest observer coverage of fisheries posing the greatest threat (ICES 2013a). Only rough estimates of mammals and birds drowing in fishing gears could be calculated based on case studies, which have been summarized by Korpinen & Bräger (2013). Thus, at this point GES cannot be determined due to a lack of bycatch data.

Sven, 13/11/14,

@Lenawe think that it is not necessary to copy/paste the whole part of Korpinen & Bräger into our report. What do you think?

Monitoring requirementsMonitoring methodology

showing relevant sections from Monitoring Manual Guidelines once the whole manual is online description of monitoring methods, sampling frequency, spatial resolution etc.

Monitoring relevant to the indicator is described in the HELCOM Monitoring Manual:

http://helcom.fi/action-areas/monitoring-and-assessment/monitoring-manual/fish-fisheries-and-shellfish/fisheries-bycatch

The sub-programme 5 (fisheries by-catch) of the HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic fish, shellfish and fisheries deals with monitoring related to this indicator. So far, there are no agreed numbers of waterbird and marine mammals by-caught in fishing metiérs in the Baltic Sea because no adequate observer coverage is achieved with the existing monitoring programmes such as DCF and 812/2004 (as most vessels are small and do not allow to carry observers on a regular basis). Especially in metiérs which have been identified as fisheries with a high risk for mammal or bird by-catch, monitoring is absolutely inadequate and a revision of monitoring programmes is necessary. Also effort data is not available in meaningful parameters. Such data is not registered in logbooks but only in observer reports.

In order to provide representative data on the fisheries concerned, other than provisions in EU Regulation 812/2004 a representative number of all vessels (regardless of size) must be included in the sampling programme. For example, in Germany by far the majority of harbour porpoises by-caught occur in the coastal fishery with small vessels <15 m which are exempted from the observer programme. Vessels > 12 m are allowed to set 9 km of gillnets, larger vessels even 21 km (EU Regulation 2187/2005) which illustrates that the risk of by-catch exists regardless of vessel size. In case vessels are too small to carry observers, onboard cameras can provide the information required (Kindt-Larsen et al. 2012). As a complementary measure, other methods such as beached bird surveys or interviews of trustful fishermen are needed in case very small boats are used for fishing, e.g. in Lithuania (M. Dagys pers. comm.).

A prerequisite for the identification of fisheries associated with a high risk for mammals or birds is information on the fishing effort in meaningful parameters. Effort data is needed in e. g., net length * hours soaked instead of kW * days at sea. Additional logbook data (not required by law) must be collected in order to provide useful information on fishing effort and gear used. Instead of only providing the type of gear (e.g., GNS) and mesh size, days at sea and ICES rectangle it is important to collect data on the length and drop of the net as well as position and soak time in logbooks.

Variability in by-catch depends on seasonal spatial distribution parameters in relation to effort. It strongly depends on specific properties of the fishing gear used and on fishing effort. It could further be behaviour specific with respect to certain life phases such as migrating, mating or reproduction or with respect to certain prey species exploited seasonally or regionally.


I’m unfamiliar with this term.Is it some kind of net or other gear type??



A regionally and fishing method differentiated metier approach that considers fishing activity per spatial unit rather than spatial coverage alone is recommended for the future. In the case of the harbour porpoise which has two sub-populations within the Baltic Sea, it must be possible to differentiate between areas which are inhabited by the Baltic Proper subpopulation and the Inner Danish Waters (Western Baltic) subpopulation, respectively.

Marine Mammal and Seabird By-catch. Specific monitoring covering an adequate fishing effort in various gillnet and entangling net fisheries. So far, there are no agreed numbers of seabird and marine mammals by-caught in certain types of fishing gear (mainly gill nets and entangling nets) in the Baltic Sea because no adequate observer coverage could be achieved with the existing monitoring programmes such as DCF and 812/2004 (as most vessels are small and do not allow to carry observers on a regular basis). On the other hand, the results of pilot studies such as interviews are frequently questioned by fishermen and fisheries authorities.

Description of optimal monitoring, given the resources, a description of the monitoring strategy that would make the certainty for the

assessment given by the indicator high identify possible gaps: current vs. optimal monitoring

Current monitoring practice led to the unsatisfactory situation that the extent of the by-catch problem is not known and as a consequence no conservation measures are implemented. A focused by-catch monitoring programme needs to be installed immediately. Only adding opportunistic by-catch data to monitoring programmes focusing at size and (fish-)species selectivity of certain fishing gears is not sufficient and does not provide the needed data to enhance the confidence of the indicator

Monitoring of by-caught marine mammals and seabirds needs an approach allowing to estimate annual (seasonal) mortality from all kinds of specific fisheries to be compared to the population dynamics of the respective species. Besides effort and by-catch data, data on population size and distribution of species is also needed in order to relate by-catch numbers to the population.

Due to the high mobility of the species involved, monitoring should be implemented for the whole Baltic Sea region, considering that fishing methods causing drowning of mammals and birds differ between sub-regions or even on a local level. Also different species may be affected in various sub-regions. Effort monitoring as well as by-catch monitoring has to be carried out on a fine spatial scale in order to relate by-catch to both fishing effort and abundance of mammals and birds. Monitoring results should not only address the problem of by-catch in general, but should allow to quantify impacts in order to propose management measures such as (temporary) closures of specific fisheries or fishing areas. A mix of suitable monitoring methods with subsequent aggregation of results may be more promising than relying on only one method (such as on-board observers whose capacity is limited). Human observers are still needed to sample by-catch and collect information on composition and number of by-catch and to deliver specimen to the relevant authorities in order to conduct further examinations regarding age, sex, nutritional state, injuries. Stranding networks can provide further by-catch information if collected specimen are examined for net marks and previous injury which could have caused by-catch.


waterbirds?

ICES (2013a) addressed the question if it is possible to combine monitoring of protected and endangered species and discard sampling (which will be the main focus of fishery monitoring due to the discard ban) in the same sampling scheme. The Data Collection Framework (DCF) is currently under revision by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STCEF) and will then be named Data Collection Multi-Annual Programme (DCMAP). The DCMAP will guide future fishery monitoring and data collection within the EU covering a broad range of objectives including the discard ban. It is important that DCMAP develops adequate sampling coverage plans including mammal and bird by-catch in gillnet and entangling (trammel-) net fisheries in the Baltic Sea. Carrying on board and landing of by-caught specimen could infringe existing national legislation of numerous Member States (ICES 2013a).

Required actions to be completed for optimal monitoring to become operational

Marine Mammal and Seabird By-catch. Development of automated recognition systems for onboard camera systems. A main drawback of the onboard camera monitoring of bird and mammal by-catch is that a large footage has to be viewed to verify the data from fishermen's protocols. In order to reduce costs of such a monitoring programme it may be helpful to computerize the work and view only preselected footage.

Marine Mammal By-catch. How can personal reservations of fishermen against onboard camera systems be overcome? Pilot studies using cameras for monitoring harbour porpoise and bird by-catch have shown that these have the potential to become a practical and economic tool to get reliable by-catch data. However, fishermen reject these systems for personal reasons. Research is needed on how to create a trustful attitude.

EU Regulation 812/2004 states that "independent observations of fishing activities are essential to provide reliable estimates of the incidental catch of cetaceans. It is therefore necessary for monitoring schemes with independent on-board observers to be set up ". Further, it states that “monitoring schemes shall be designed on an annual basis and established to monitor cetacean by-catch, in a representative manner…”. As a general rule 812/2004 defines a variation coefficient of less than 0.3 to be reached by the sampling strategy. This would mean a high observer coverage which is impossible in fisheries in which mostly small vessels are involved. Innovative monitoring approaches such as onboard cameras may be needed to get data sufficient to answer the open questions in a cost-effective manner. Similar considerations apply to bird by-catch.

In order to provide representative data on the fisheries concerned, other than provisions in EU Regulation 812/2004 a representative number of all vessels (regardless of the size) must be included in the sampling programme. For example, in Germany by far the most harbour porpoise by-catch occurs in the coastal fishery with small vessels <15 m which are exempted from the observer programme. Vessels > 12 m are allowed to set 9 km of gillnets, larger vessels even 21 km (EU Regulation 2187/2005) which illustrates that the risk of by-catch exists regardless of vessel size. In case that vessels are too small to carry observers, onboard cameras can provide the information required (Kindt-Larsen et al. 2012). As a complementary measure, other methods such as beached bird surveys or interviews of trustful fishermen are needed in case very small boats are used for fishing, e.g. in Lithuania (M. Dagys pers. comm.).

A prerequisite for the identification of fisheries associated with a high risk for mammals or birds is information on the fishing effort in meaningful parameters. Effort data is needed in e. g., net length * hours soaked instead of kW * days at sea. Additional logbook data (not required by law) must be collected in


...or something similar, avoid ”recommendation”

order to provide useful information on fishing effort and gear used. Instead of only providing the type of gear (e.g., GNS) and mesh size, days at sea and ICES rectangle it is important to collect data on the length and drop of the net as well as position and soak time in logbooks.

Variability in by-catch depends on seasonal spatial distribution parameters in relation to effort. It strongly depends on specific properties of the fishing gear used and on fishing effort. It could further be behaviour specific with respect to certain life phases such as migrating, mating or reproduction or with respect to certain prey species exploited seasonally or regionally.

A regionally and fishing method differentiated metier approach that considers fishing activity per spatial unit rather than spatial coverage alone is recommended for the future. In the case of the harbour porpoise which has two sub-populations within the Baltic Sea, it must be possible to differentiate between areas which are inhabited by the Baltic Proper subpopulation and the Inner Danish Waters (Western Baltic) subpopulation, respectively.

Monitoring of by-caught marine mammals and seabirds needs an approach allowing to estimate annual (seasonal) mortality from all kinds of specific fisheries to be compared to the population dynamics of the respective species. Due to the high mobility of the species involved, monitoring should be implemented for the whole Baltic Sea region, considering that fishing methods causing drowning of mammals and birds differ between sub-regions or even on a local level. Also different species may be affected in various sub-regions. Effort monitoring as well as by-catch monitoring has to be carried out on a fine spatial scale in order to relate by-catch to both fishing effort and abundance of mammals and birds. Monitoring results should not only address the problem of by-catch in general, but should allow to quantify impacts in order to propose management measures such as (temporary) closures of specific fisheries or fishing areas. A mix of suitable monitoring methods with subsequent aggregation of results may be more promising than relying on only one method (such as on-board observers whose capacity is limited). Human observers are still needed to sample by-catch and collect information on composition and number of by-catch and to deliver specimen to the relevant authorities in order to conduct further examinations regarding age, sex, nutritional state, injuries. Stranding networks can provide further by-catch information if collected specimen are examined for net marks and previous injury which could have caused by-catch.

ICES (2013a) addressed the question if it is possible to combine monitoring of protected and endangered species and discard sampling (which will be the main focus of fishery monitoring due to the discard ban) in the same sampling scheme. The Data Collection Framework (DCF) is currently under revision by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STCEF) and will then be named Data Collection Multi-Annual Programme (DCMAP). The DCMAP will guide future fishery monitoring and data collection within the EU covering a broad range of objectives including the discard ban. It is important that DCMAP develops adequate sampling coverage plans including mammal and bird by-catch in gillnet and entangling (trammel-) net fisheries in the Baltic Sea. Carrying on board and landing of by-caught specimen could infringe existing national legislation of numerous Member States (ICES 2013a).

Besides effort and by-catch data, also data on population size and distribution of species is needed in order to relate by-catch numbers to the population. Monitoring requirements of the habitats directive involve annex II, IV and V species and thus relate to harbour porpoises, seals and Eurasian otters. Monitoring required by the EU birds directive and the Marine Strategy Frame Direction yield results appropriate for comparing losses from by-catch with seabird population sizes (also on a local scale), with the HELCOM indicators on waterbird abundance well serving these demands.


waterbirds?

The general results (e.g. the number of drowned animals compared to model approaches such as potential biological removal PBR, catch limit algorithm CLA, or (in case of harbour porpoises) 1 % or 1.7 % as proposed by ASCOBANS) will allow to assess the state of the populations compared to GES, to identify the pressure in more detail and to propose relevant management measures.

Current monitoring stations displayed through MORE map service

(displayed with Map-Viewer web-part, example http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/data-maps/biodiversity/baltic-sea-protected-areas/)

description of which countries are currently monitoring

Despite existing legal obligations to date, there is no monitoring in place that gives information that serves the target that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species.

All HELCOM CPs also EU Member States currently carry out monitoring to provide estimates of population sizes in accordance with the requirements from the Habitats- and Birds Directives. Monitoring requirements of the habitats directive involve annex II, IV and V species and thus relate to harbour porpoises, seals and Eurasian otters. Monitoring required by the EU birds directive and the Marine Strategy Frame Direction yield results appropriate for comparing losses from by-catch with seabird population sizes (also on a local scale), with the HELCOM indicators on waterbird abundance well serving these demands.

Article 12, para 4. Habitats Directive (COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) states that "Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IV (a). In the light of the information gathered, Member States shall take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned." Member States of the EU are further obliged to develop national programmes for monitoring fisheries, including on board monitoring, under Article 3 of Council Regulation 199/2008, Commission Regulation 665/2008 and the Annex of Commission Decision 2010/93/EU (ICES 2013a). These plans include detailed data on fleet capacity and fishing effort by métier and fishing area.

A current monitoring programme is carried out under the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF). Fishing metiers under DCF have been selected with respect to fishery data needs rather than bird and mammal by-catch data needs. It is aimed at monitoring the selectivity of gears with respect to fish discarded and thus by-catch of marine mammals and birds is not even specifically addressed but rather recorded opportunistically at best.

EU Regulation 812/2004 obliges member states to monitor cetacean by-catch in gillnets. It has been debated what gears are covered by 812/2004 as gear definitions were formulated not formulated clearly enough for fisheries managers of some Member States (ICES 2010). This is why e.g. some Member States left monitoring of trammel nets completely undone. Further, monitoring under Regulation 812/2004 is not suited to data needs with respect to this indicator and the original idea behind the regulation because only vessels >15 m are covered by the observer programme. Thus, observer coverage focuses on larger vessels although the majority in Baltic gillnet fisheries is carried out by small vessels. Another major drawback is that no monitoring is required in areas in which vessels (of an overall length >12 m) are obliged to use


this could be moved to the policy-relevance section and then only referred to and say under current monitoring that CPs do currently not comply with art12 HD monitoring


Not sure if this is true but ought to be...

http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/data-maps/biodiversity/baltic-sea-protected-areas/

pingers, i. e. ICES Division IIIa, Subdivision 24 and a small area in the NW corner of Subdivision 25 (Hanö Bay). Thus, there is no legal obligation to monitor the effectiveness of pinger use. The Regulation requires further that Member States should design and implement appropriate monitoring programmes for vessels. For small sized fishing vessels, data on incidental catches of cetaceans should be collected through scientific studies or pilot projects. These can give some indication on by-catch numbers and provide information what monitoring method might be suitable to sample small vessels, but cannot replace monitoring. Currently, the few available results of pilot studies such as interviews are frequently questioned by fishermen and fisheries authorities.

In Germany, only 0.01 % of effort of static gillnet vessels <15 m were monitored in 2013 (ICES 2014) whereas only 7 out of 1200 vessels in the Baltic Sea which fish with passive gears are longer than 15 m and thus covered by regular monitoring procedures using on-board observers. Minor gillnet effort was monitored in Latvia, Poland (ICES 2014). No gillnet monitoring is operated under 812/2004 in Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Sweden (ICES 2014). As alternatives to onboard observers, interviews with fishermen and onboard cameras (e.g. Germany, Denmark) have been used in research projects only. Under DCF bird by-catch was monitored in Denmark, Germany, Poland and Sweden. Under DCF cetacean by-catch was monitored in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden (ICES 2013). To sum this up, currently, only very limited data are collected for protected waterbird taxa under DCF, and it is not possible to give an estimate concerning effort or coverage. The coverage with respect to 812/2004 obligations is 0.1 to 9 % of national fleets concerned (Korpinen & Bräger 2014). Besides national differences there are large differences between coverage in fishing metiers favouring larger vessels and mainly trawlers.

RecommendationsCurrent monitoring practice led to the unsatisfactory situation that the extent of the by-catch problem is not known and as a consequence no conservation measures are implemented. A well focused by-catch monitoring programme needs to be installed immediately. It does not make sense to add only opportunistic by-catch data to monitoring programmes focusing at size and (fish-)species selectivity of certain fishing gears.

Marine Mammal and Seabird By-catch. Specific monitoring covering an adequate fishing effort in various gillnet and entangling net fisheries. So far, there are no agreed numbers of seabird and marine mammals by-caught in certain types of fishing gear (mainly gill nets and entangling nets) in the Baltic Sea because no adequate observer coverage could be achieved with the existing monitoring programmes such as DCF and 812/2004 (as most vessels are small and do not allow to carry observers on a regular basis). On the other hand, the results of pilot studies such as interviews are frequently questioned by fishermen and fisheries authorities. So the unsatisfactory situation is that the extent of the by-catch problem is not known and as a consequence no conservation measures are implemented. A well focused by-catch monitoring programme needs to be installed immediately. It does not make sense to add only opportunistic by-catch data to monitoring programmes focusing at size and (fish-)species selectivity of certain fishing gears.

Marine Mammal and Seabird By-catch. Development of automated recognition systems for onboard camera systems. A main drawback of the onboard camera monitoring of bird and mammal by-catch is that a large footage has to be viewed to verify the data from fishermen's protocols. In order to reduce costs of such a monitoring programme it may be helpful to computerize the work and view only preselected footage.


The word ”recommendation” has a very distinct meaning in HELCOM and should not be used here. I propose to re-structure the text and highlight the needs under ”Optimal Monitoring”

Sven, 13/11/14,

this is a new chapter. For now, only text fragments have been filled in which we used for other documents/presentations

Marine Mammal By-catch. How can personal reservations of fishermen against onboard camera systems be overcome? Pilot studies using cameras for monitoring harbour porpoise and bird by-catch have shown that these have the potential to become a practical and economic tool to get reliable by-catch data. However, fishermen reject these systems for personal reasons. Research is needed on how to create a trustful attitude.

Marine Mammal By-catch. Reference Points. Modelling "safe" by-catch limits such as potential biological removal (PBR) and catch limit algorithm (CLA) for harbour porpoises and various seabird species is necessary for their management in different regions of the Western Baltic, Belt Sea and Kattegat area.

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator

Describe what is hindering solving the issue

Filling of by-catch data gaps Data collection methods need to be elaborated for different fisheriy metiers (many small boats!). Self reporting has resulted in inappropriate data quality. Possible methods (human observers or cameras) are expensive.

Funding for data collection and analysis is still unsecure and the amount of data needed for the analysis has not yet been met.

Filling of abundance data gaps Population trend in Western Baltic harbour porpoise needs to be determined. A high coefficient of variance in survey data makes this a difficult task.

Need for seabird data from offshore areas.

Specify maximum by-catch numbers for each mammalian and bird species

Models need to be developed for seals and seabirds to estimate take limit values (by Ecological Management Units) based on population-specific demographic parameters, funding needed.

Catch limit algorithm (CLA) need to be developed for harbour porpoises to improve widely agreed (but simplistic) interim limits (OSPAR, ASCOBANS, IWC: 1.7% of best abundance estimate, 1 % if population is severely reduced , 0% in Baltic Proper population), funding needed.

Specify reference points allowing immediate fishery management action

Funding needed to improve models. Fishery management actions not possible on national level. Must be agreed on EU level (plus Russia in HELCOM area) – political negotiation needed.

Description of data and confidenceMetadata

data source (link to potential excel and underlying database of e.g. COMBINE) description of data (coverage spatial & temporal, methodology e.g. in-situ/remote-sensing) quality assurance routines

No available source of monitoring data specific for the numbers of by-caught waterbirds and marine mammals.

Temporal coverage of monitoring data is poor. Some studies can be used for historical sporadic information on numbers of by-caught waterbirds and mammals. These sporadic data have a very poor spatial coverage.

Confidence of indicator status spatial/temporal cover of data available compared to what is needed for a high confidence

assessment confidence rating of status data, applying the method from CORE-EUTRO

The confidence of the indicator status for each indicator in all Baltic Sea sub-basins according to the availability and temporal distribution of data during the assessment period. [select one of the three]

Data availability Confidence (EUT_S-score)During one or several years, no more than 5 status observations are found annually.

LOW

During one or several years, more than 5 but no more than 15 assessment observations are found annually.

MODERATE

During all years, more than 15 assessment observations are found, and their spatial distribution is not clearly biased.

HIGH

Monitoring data on numbers of drowned waterbirds and mammals due to by-catch does not exist. The confidence in any estimates of the pressure exerted by by-catch of the relevant populations is very low.

Arrangements for up-dating the indicator description of data-flow (sampling > analyzing > hosting) description of long-term updating arrangements

o how and when is monitored data collected and reported and to what responsible body (e.g. HELCOM group?)

o what responsible body carries out the analyses required (described above in assessment protocol) in the indicator for updating

As there is no current ongoing mammal and waterbird specific monitoring on-going, data-arrangements for long-term updating of the indicator can only be planned and not implemented.


the studies referred to in the section discussing Environmental Target, are they focussed to some areas of the Baltic Sea? Northern/Southwestern? Can we say anything more about the spatial cover?

Monitoring data should be reported annually and stored centrally. Data from fisheries used in HELCOM is currently mainly hosted by ICES. Data flow for by-catch data on waterbirds and mammals could potentially be set up through ICES. Monitoring data should be collated and analyzed annually for the purposes of up-dating the indicator.

A HELCOM group should annually agree to up-date to include the new data. The HELCOM SEAL EG has the responsibility to annually carry out this process for the marine mammal status core indicators, and could potentially be tasked to up-date this indicator annually as the indicator regards by-caught mammals.

Publications and archive Printable version of the core indicator

pdf of this indicator (contains info on how to cite)

Archive pdf:s of older versions of this indicator

Korpinen, S & Bräger, S. (2013): Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. Online [9.11.2014], http://helcom.fi/Core%20Indicators/HELCOM-CoreIndicator-Number_of_drowned_mammals_and_waterbirds_in_fishing_gear.pdf

Publications used in the indicatorASCOBANS 2002. Recovery plan for Baltic harbour porpoises (Jastarnia Plan). ASCOBANS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

22 pp.ASCOBANS 2009. ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises Jastarnia Plan (2009 Revision) as adopted at

the 6 th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS (2009). ASCOBANS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 48 pp.ASCOBANS 2012. ASCOBANS conservation plan for the harbour porpoise population in the Western Baltic, the Belt Sea

and the Kattegat. ASCOBANS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 40 pp.Bellebaum J, Schirmeister B, Sonntag N & Garthe S (2012) Decreasing but still high: bycatch of seabirds in

gillnet fisheries along the German Baltic coast. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2285.

Caddell, R. 2014 Caught in the Net: Driftnet Fishing Restrictions and the European Court of Justice. Journal of Environmental Law 22, 301-314.

Czybulka et al. in prep. Artmanagementplan (AMP) für den Schweinswal (Phocoena phocoena) in der deutschen AWZ der Ostsee - Entwurf.

DCE 2013. Gråsæler trækker mod danske Østersø-kyster. Aarhus Universitet, DCE - Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi. http://dce.au.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/nyhed/artikel/graasaeler-traekker-mod-danske-oestersoe-kyster/

Dierschke, V. & D. Bernotat (2012): Übergeordnete Kriterien zur Bewertung der Mortalität wildlebender Tiere im Rahmen von Projekten und Eingriffen – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen Brutvogelarten – Stand 01.12.2012. http://www.bfn.de/0306_eingriffe-toetungsverbot.html

Dierschke, V., Exo, K.-M., Mendel, B. & Garthe, S. (2012): Gefährdung von Sterntaucher Gavia stellata und Prachttaucher G. arctica in Brut-, Zug- und Überwinterungsgebieten – eine Übersicht mit Schwerpunkt auf den deutschen Meeresgebieten. Vogelwelt 133: 163-194.

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (2014): Seal numbers. http://www.rktl.fi/english/game/seals/ (2.11.2014)

Goodman, S. J. 1998 Patterns of extensive genetic differentiation and variation among European harbour seals (Phoca vitulina vitulina) revealed using microsatellite DNA polymorphisms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 104-118.

HELCOM 2009 Reference population levels in Baltic seals. HELCOM SEAL 3/2009, HELCOM, Helsinki. 31 pp.HELCOM 2013. HELCOM Red List. Marine Mammal Expert Group. www.helcom.fi > Baltic Sea trends > Biodiversity >

Red List of speciesHerrmann,C. 2012. Robbenmonitoring in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 1-16. Landesamt für Umwelt, Natur

und Geologie, Güstrow. ICES (2007): Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group. ICES Doc. 729 CM 2007/ACFM:15. ICES 2013a. Report of the Workshop on Bycatch of Cetaceans and other Protected Species (WKBYC). 53 pp.ICES 2013b. Report of the Workshop to Review and Advise on Seabird Bycatch (WKBYCS). 77 pp.

http://www.bfn.de/0306_eingriffe-toetungsverbot.html

http://dce.au.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/nyhed/artikel/graasaeler-traekker-mod-danske-oestersoe-kyster/

http://dce.au.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/nyhed/artikel/graasaeler-traekker-mod-danske-oestersoe-kyster/

Kovacs, K., Lowry, L. & Härkönen, T. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Pusa hispida. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 04 November 2014.

Larsson, K. & Tydén, L. (2005): Effekter av oleutsläpp på övervintrande alfågel Clangula hyemalis vid Hoburgs bank I centrala Östersjön mellan 1996/97 och 2003/04. Ornis Svecica 15: 161-171.

Lonergan, M. 2011 Potential biological removal and other currently used management rules for marine mammal populations: A comparison. Marine Policy 35, 584-589.

Mooij, J.H. (2005): Protection and use of waterbirds in the European Union. Beitr. Jagd- Wildforsch. 30: 49-76.

Orphanides, C. D. and Palka, D. 2013. Analysis of harbor porpoise gillnet bycatch, compliance, and enforcement trends in the US northwestern Atlantic, January 1999 to May 2010. Endang. Species Res. 20, 251-269.

Raby, G. D., Colotelo, A. H., Blouin-Demers, G., and Cooke, S. J. 2011 Freshwater Commercial Bycatch: An Understated Conservation Problem. Bioscience 61, 271-280.

Skora, K. E. & Kuklik, I. 2003. Bycatch as a potential threat to harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Polish Baltic waters. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 5, 303-315.

Skov, H., S. Heinänen, R. Žydelis, J. Bellebaum, S. Bzoma, M. Dagys, J. Durinck, S. Garthe, G. Grishanov, M. Hario, J.J. Kieckbusch, J. Kube, A. Kuresoo, K. Larsson, L. Luigujoe, W. Meissner, H.W. Nehls, L. Nilsson, I.K. Petersen, M. Mikkola Roos, S. Pihl, N. Sonntag, A. Stock & A.Stipniece (2011): Waterbird populations and pressures in the Baltic Sea. TemaNord 2011:550. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.

SLU 2010. Knubbsäl (östersjöbestånd) - Phoca vitulina (östersjöpopulationen). ArtDatabanken-Swedish Species Information Center. http://www.artfakta.se/SpeciesFact.aspx?TaxonId=100105 -Downloaded on 04 November 2014.

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

Sveegaard, S., Teilmann, J., and Galatius, A. 2013 Abundance survey of harbour porpoises in Kattegat, Belt Sea, and the western Baltic, July 2012. Note from DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 12 pp.

Sveegaard, S., Teilmann, J., Tougaard, J., Dietz, R., Mouritsen, K. M., Desportes, G., and Siebert, U. 2011 High-density areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 27, 230-246.

Thompson, D. & Härkönen, T. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Phoca vitulina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 04 November 2014.

Warden, M.L. (2010): Bycatch of wintering common and red-throated loons in gillnets off the USA Atlantic coast, 1996-2007. Aquatic Biol. 10: 167-180.

Zydelis R, Bellebaum J, Österblom H, Vetemaa M, Schirmeister B, Stipniece A, Dagys M, van Eerden M & Garthe S (2009): Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation 142: 1269–1281.

Zydelis, R., Small, C. & French, G. (2013): The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation 162: 76–88.

Additional relevant publications can be general publications related to the parameter etc.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

helcom core indicator report structure - pressure ii-34/share… · web viewit is to be hoped...

Documents