provision of sustainable access to inshore fisheries

Provision of Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries Research Gap Analysis –Final Report

Provision of Sustainable Access to

Inshore Fisheries Research Gap Analysis

Final Report

Submitted to

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

06 January 2010

eftec

73-75 Mortimer Street

London W1W 7SQ

tel: 44(0)2075805383

Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

by:

Economics for the Environment Consultancy (eftec)

73 – 75 Mortimer St, London, W1W 7SQ

Tel: 020 7580 5383

Fax: 020 7580 5385

www.eftec.co.uk

Main contributors:

Stephanie Hime

Zara Phang

Chelsea Thomson

Reviewer:

Rob Tinch

Acknowledgements

The research team wishes to acknowledge the guidance and help with all aspects

of the research provided by the following:

• The SAIF team for reviewing the review framework & steering group

• Respondents to questionnaires and interviews

• Workshop participants

As ever, any remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors.

eftec offsets its carbon emissions through a biodiversity-friendly voluntary offset

purchased from the World Land Trust (http://www.carbonbalanced.org) and only

prints on 100% recycled paper.


eftec 2 March 2010

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 4

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 7

1.1 Management of UK Inshore Fisheries ............................................ 7

1.2 Data needs .......................................................................... 8

1.3 Outline of report ................................................................... 8

2 IDENTIFYING AND OBTAINING LITERATURE .................................................... 10

2.1 Defra literature ................................................................... 10

2.2 Additional Literature sources ................................................... 10

2.2.1 Stakeholder research questionnaire ........................................ 15

2.2.2 Format and structure of interviews ........................................ 15

3 REVIEW FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 21

3.1 Framework Design ................................................................ 21

4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ........................................................................ 25

5 IDENTIFYING DATA GAPS ...................................................................... 27

5.1 Simple assessment ............................................................... 33

5.2 Cross-tabulations of basic data by fishing gear type ........................ 43

5.3 Cross-tabulations of basic data by location .................................. 47

5.4 Cross-tabulations of functional groups by data types ....................... 54

5.5 Further development ............................................................ 56

5.6 Examples of research containing key data ................................... 57

5.6.1 Sources covered in review ................................................... 57

5.6.2 General Overview ............................................................. 59


eftec 3 March 2010

5.6.3 Data gathering ................................................................. 60

5.6.4 Evaluating policy options ..................................................... 61

5.6.5 Uncertainty in fisheries management ...................................... 63

5.6.6 Detailed studies of specific resources and issues ......................... 66

5.6.7 Data collection and analysis for social aspects ........................... 68

5.6.8 Overall summary of extended reviews ..................................... 71

5.7 Ongoing studies ................................................................... 71

6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 75

REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 78

ANNEX A – INITIALLY IDENTIFIED PROJECTS AND RESEARCH OF INTEREST ........................ 112

ANNEX B – RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................ 122

ANNEX C - ADDITIONAL REFERENCES IDENTIFIED BY THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ............... 124


eftec 4 March 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this project is to analyse the availability of data relating to UK inshore fisheries and their management, identifying gaps and drawing conclusions for future research needs. Necessary steps include:

• analysing Defra’s existing evidence base and providing key conclusions arising from this;

• identifying external research projects that might usefully contribute to the evidence base for inshore fisheries;

• identifying gaps in the evidence base; and,

• identifying options for priority areas for further research needed for the development of a long term strategy for a sustainable inshore fleet.

STUDY CONTEXT

Fisheries need to be managed sustainably, both to maintain a healthy marine environment and to ensure that future generations can benefit from fishery resources. The Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) team launched this gap analysis to determine the type and relevance of information available to support the development, implementation and evaluation of inshore fisheries policy.

Obtaining literature:

Information was obtained from several sources including online resources, specialist databases, specific industry knowledge bases, published literature and Defra. In addition, a stakeholder consultation was carried out to identify further evidence and tap into the knowledge of the inshore fisheries community.

Review of evidence:

A review framework was developed within Microsoft Excel to summarise each piece of information obtained and form the basis for the gap analysis. This framework included several fields relating to the referencing of the information, a summary or abstract field, and a number of categorical fields to mark whether specific types of economic, social or environmental information were present.

A further area within the workbook was used to assess the relevance of each piece of information reviewed. The relevance assessment related to overall relevance for the inshore fishing fleet, information contained, its robustness in terms of the methodology used to collect it, and overall general quality. Each article was evaluated under the following headings: year published; study location; fishing type; sample size; and policy context. These categories were each assigned values


eftec 5 March 2010

of high, medium or low, which were then evaluated together to determine the final overall relevance of the article.

Following the review, classification and initial relevance assessment of each piece of evidence, the review framework has been used to determine the gaps within the current inshore fisheries evidence base.

For greater flexibility, an extension to the project is now converting the MS Excel spreadsheet to MS Access format. This will enable those familiar with MS Access and SQL to write additional queries to supplement those standard searches provided by the database and gap analysis spreadsheet. The MS Access database will also display information and enable the standard gap analysis to be conducted in a more user friendly manner, although the MS Excel version will also remain available. The database will be identical to the spreadsheet in content and can be updated as required in future through the addition of records directly into MS Access tables. The identity between these two media for data storage will only be maintained if new additions are placed separately in both the MS Access database and the MS Excel spreadsheet.

Further evidence on data gaps and research was derived from a consultation with key stakeholders, and via a more detailed review of selected references.

CONCLUSIONS

The review of over 500 pieces of research has not revealed any ‘absolute’ gaps, in the sense of data types or policy areas for which there is no research available. There are however many relative gaps where the evidence base is thin. This is particularly the case for inshore fisheries specifically, and for particular inshore fisheries management options. Evidence on key reference points such as stock carrying capacities seems to be sparse, and in many cases social and economic data are lacking, in the sense of being considered only in a handful of studies. Going to more specific levels (individual stocks, or individual ports) would be likely to reveal deeper gaps in the evidence base. It should be noted however that the gap analysis results derive from a meta-level assessment of what is covered in research papers, not on a detailed review of the specific data and results.

The stakeholder consultation identified several areas for which participants felt data were lacking. These included information relating to the geographical location of inshore fishing activity, notably the lack of VMS data for the under 10-m vessels forming the inshore fleet. Stakeholders generally wanted more information on the impacts of fishing on the environment. Information on catch per unit effort of inshore fishers, and general information relating to socio-economic factors, were also in demand. Stakeholders wanted standard formats for data to allow them to be integrated and compared. In general, most respondents felt that the key data gaps for the inshore fisheries sector related to social and economic data.

Overall, the following areas have been identified for enhanced research effort:


eftec 6 March 2010

• community and social cohesion;

• changing tourism patterns and implications for angling, local food and coastal communities;

• cross-impacts with the energy sector;

• the impact climate change will have on economic and social dynamics in inshore fisheries;

• further work on methods for including the local economy, environmental and social factors into bioeconomic modelling; and

• further work on how inshore fishers respond to changing fishing opportunities, costs and policy instruments.

There is also a need for better tools for appraising management options for inshore fisheries, taking uncertainty into account, and fisher behaviour, and integrating management with ecosystem models. However work on these and other key topics is already underway, notably in studies being carried out by CEFAS, including “A Risk Analysis Framework For Fisheries Management” and other projects as detailed in section 5.7. There will of course be ongoing research needs in these areas, but these will be better defined via those specific projects than through this general overview.


eftec 7 March 2010

1 Introduction

It is widely accepted that fisheries need to be managed sustainably, both to sustain a healthy, diverse marine environment, and to ensure that future benefits of fish resources can be secured for later generations (see e.g. Defra, 2008). At present, however, many European fish stocks are seriously over fished, and fleet capacity significantly exceeds available quotas while industry costs are rising.

These problems all apply to the particular case of the English inshore fishing fleet. Indeed, smaller vessels are most affected, as larger vessels with greater capacities catch a disproportionate quantity of the available quota relative to their numbers. This can lead to severe social and economic problems in fishing communities. The situation is unsustainable, and policy changes are required in the short and longer term to ensure a sustainable future for the UK inshore fleet.

The UK inshore fleet is important; however, in many cases it could be more economically efficient to catch these fish using larger vessels. Fisheries 2027 argues that inshore fishing vessels should continue to have access to fisheries resources, “even if in some cases that is not the most economically efficient way

of harvesting the resource”. This is because (PMSU, 2004) the sector is recognised as an important source of employment in some coastal areas, and also as providing social cohesion, cultural heritage and tourism values, although relatively little is known about the importance of these often intangible values.

1.1 Management of UK Inshore Fisheries

Since 1st January 1999 UK fisheries have been managed through a system of fixed quota allocations (FQAs). However, the inshore fleet quota units are not associated with vessel licences but are grouped in ‘the Pool’, managed by UK fisheries departments, and based on fishing by the inshore fleet as a whole for the period 1994-1996. The uptake of quota from the Pool has been increasingly regulated, via measures such as early fishery closures or monthly limits. However there is insufficient quota for the number of vessels and it has been widely recognised that there is an imbalance between quota and fishing opportunity, leading to policies of decommissioning, licence capping and quota leasing.

In an effort to relieve pressure on the inshore fishing fleet, a package of measures was introduced in December 2008 as part of the Fisheries 2027 vision of long-term sustainability for the UK fishing industry. The short-term priority is to reduce fleet capacity, and measures put in place to achieve this include schemes for voluntary decommissioning of vessels under 10m, and the capping of licences for vessels that have not been fully active in quota fisheries in recent years.

These short-term measures secure time to develop longer-term policy options. Policy objectives are not limited to the economic efficiency of UK fishing, but also consider social and environmental impacts, and in particular the aim of maintaining


eftec 8 March 2010

healthy fishing and coastal communities, so all these factors must be considered in evaluating policy options.

1.2 Data needs

Historically there has been a serious lack of data on the UK inshore fleet, its activities and its impacts. Some vessels voluntarily kept logbooks, but otherwise data came only from sampling programmes. The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers Regulations (2005) mean we now have much better knowledge of inshore fleet landings. Indeed, the sales notes revealed a true level of fishing activity by the inshore fleet was higher than originally thought, leading to lower monthly catch limits. However beyond this basic knowledge rather little is known.

In order to inform and assess policies for inshore fisheries, good quality information is essential. This can be split broadly into three subject categories (environmental, economic and social) and three basic types (understanding, measurements and ideas).

• Understanding of important relationships between variables comes from research and analysis. Research into the UK inshore industry and sectors impacting on or affected by it is most valuable; but transfer of knowledge from elsewhere may also be useful.

• Measurements of key variables and parameters are the functions of data collection and analysis. Generally, this must be specific to the UK inshore industry, its constituent parts, and communities.

• Ideas about policy options and performance indicators, at different scales, are an important consideration, because they determine what the needs are for the above two categories.

This project, the Provision of Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) Research Gap Analysis, aims to assess the current evidence available from data, reports and research findings across these subject areas and knowledge types. The aim is not to review in detail the knowledge and its implications, but rather to assess at a meta-data level what is, and what is not, present in the evidence base, and to draw conclusions on data gaps and research needs.

1.3 Outline of report

The main requirements for this project are:

• To analyse Defra’s existing evidence base and key conclusions arising from it.

• To identify external research projects that might usefully contribute to the SAIF evidence base. This will include a review of relevant literature, identifying key projects, a summary of the gaps and any conclusions arising from this.


eftec 9 March 2010

• To identify gaps in the evidence base and recommend areas in which further research is needed for the development of a long term strategy for a sustainable inshore fleet.

Therefore the outputs of this project assess and evaluate information, in terms of its potential to contribute to the evidence base used to define a broad set of policies. The scope includes information that is currently available or under development from a number of different sources, including online databases, journals, and expert knowledge. Drawing on this assessment, the project identifies the main knowledge gaps, and provides guidance on the priority areas for future research and data collection.

The report is structured in the following sections:

• Section 2 Obtaining Literature: describes the processes used to find and obtain data of relevance to the review.

• Section 3 The Review Framework: describes the design of the information review framework, providing details of all fields used and the data they contain.

• Section 4 Relevance Assessment: describes how each piece of information was assessed in terms of its relevance.

• Section 5 Identifying the Gaps: describes how the information within the review framework is used to identify gaps in the current evidence base.

• Section 6 Conclusions: summarises findings and sets out options for research priorities on the basis of the gap analysis.


eftec 10 March 2010

2 Identifying and Obtaining Literature

The knowledge and data required for developing, implementing and evaluating inshore fisheries policy cover a wide range of fields, including (but not limited to):

• the economic relationships in the fishing industry: supply and demand conditions, incentives faced, behavioural responses, and the direct and indirect economic impacts of different policy options;

• the social aspects of inshore fishing and policy, including employment, social cohesion and community identity in coastal communities;

• the environmental impacts and dependencies of inshore fishing, including factors such as the habitat impacts of different "metiers", the role of inter-tidal habitats and other fish nursery areas, and impacts of water quality;

• geographically-referenced data on fishing: where, when, what effort, what catch; now, and also in the past;

• management practices, including both "official" management rules, and local customs, traditions or other institutions for controlling and allocating access to and distribution of resources; and

• the likely impacts of climate change on key relationships, most notably on fish productivity and geographical ranges, and the likely implications for the fishing industry.

To achieve the aims outlined above in Section 1 all relevant literature and datasets relating specifically to inshore fisheries and to the fishing industry had to be identified. The identification and retrieval of documents and data relied on a combination of approaches. First, Defra provided an initial list of all research projects relevant to the gap analysis (see Section 2.1). Second, further databases and published literature were searched for information and a conference attended to introduce ‘stakeholders’ to the aims of the gap analysis (see Section 2.2); finally, a stakeholder survey was conducted to gather further information relating the inshore fisheries (see Section 2.3).

2.1 Defra literature

Defra provided a list of current research projects1 along with completion dates at the outset of the project. For each of these projects, either a summary or the full report was obtained through a combination of web searches and input from Defra.

2.2 Additional Literature sources

Further research and data were identified and accessed through extensive literature reviews. Literature searches were for the most part limited to studies within the UK and Europe, as these are most relevant, but a number of studies

1 Approximately 240 projects: see Annex A for a full list.


eftec 11 March 2010

from North America or presenting fisheries information in a global context were also included. Several websites were searched and reports, articles, datasets and models were identified (see Table 2.2.1 for a summary of resources searched). The published literature on the economics, ecology, and sociological aspects of fishing was also searched for references relating to inshore fishing, shell fishing, recreational fishing, coastal fisheries, and small-scale fisheries. Freshwater fishing and aquaculture were excluded, as were studies relating purely to detailed aspects of fish genetics, biochemistry and diseases. Finally, individual stakeholders were approached during a conference2 on the Common Fisheries Policy, to introduce the SAIF gap analysis to the wider fisheries community.

Approximately 194 further reports were identified as a result of this searching, and were included within the information review process (see Section 3 and 4). The full reports of interest were downloaded or obtained by contacting organisations/authors directly. Annex B provides details of a number of online resources that were searched but that did not yield further information for this analysis.

Table 2.2.1 A list of websites and information resources searched for the SAIF

gap analysis

Source Link No. reports obtained

Description

Baltic Sea 2020 www.balticsea2020.com 4 Reports on the Baltic sea fishing industry

Cefas Technical Reports www.cefas.co.uk 6

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Technical Reports

Coast Web Library library.coastweb.info 8

A coastal and marine portal site managed by CoastNet, an international networking organisation, and partially funded through Corepoint, an EU funded project for Coastal Research and Policy Integration.

Environmental Defense Fund – Oceans ww.edf.org 2

An environmental charity aimed at tackling environmental problems.

European Commission Fisheries Publications ec.europa.eu 28

The European Commission publications on fisheries

2 Held in June 2009 in London, by the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management.


eftec 12 March 2010


gap analysis


Description

EVRI www.evri.ca 2

The EVRI database specialising in documents and research relating to economic valuation literature.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department www.fao.org 5

Publications from the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department at the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

Finding Sanctuary www.finding-

sanctuary.org 1

A partnership project which aims to secure a healthy and protective future for the coasts and seas of South West England

Fisheries Research Services

www.frs-

scotland.gov.uk 22

A Directorate of the Scottish Government, integrating core marine functions involving scientific research, compliance monitoring, policy and management of Scotland’s seas

Fisheries Science Partnership (NFFO and Cefas) www.cefas.co.uk 63

Scientific research carried out by Cefas and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation

ICES Journal of Marine Science

icesjms.oxfordjournals.o

rg 16

The Journal of Marine Science from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

Ifremer www.ifremer.fr 6 French Research Institute for the Exploitation of the Sea

Institute for European Environmental Policy www.ieep.eu 6

Institute for European Environmental Policy publications

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee www.neseafish.gov.uk 2

The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee publications

Scottish Natural Heritage www.snh.gov.uk 1

Scottish Natural Heritage publications

Seafish www.seafish.org 3 Seafish publications

Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee www.sussex-sfc.gov.uk 2

Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee publications


eftec 13 March 2010


gap analysis


Description

The Fisheries Society of the British Isles www.fsbi.org.uk 2

The Fisheries Society of the British Isles

The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee www.nsfc.co.uk 3

The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee publications

Online Databases:

In addition to websites, specific databases and journal searches, a number of online databases were included within the review. While each piece of literature within these resources is not included within the SAIF gap analysis, a summary of the information available from four well known well used databases is included below.

Biological databases:

A number of online databases provide information relating to the biological data of fish species and the marine environment. Examples include Fishbase, MarLIN and the MarBEF database.

Fishbase: Fishbase contains information on 31,200 species of fish including 277,500 common names, 48,400 pictures, and 43,200 references in over 200 languages. The objective of Fishbase 2000 was to provide key biological data for all fish species known to science3, the project and was completed and published in 2000. Although the official project has been concluded, the online database is continually updated and improved by both the Fishbase Team and external collaborators. The live Fish Forum allows users to exchange information, classify unidentified fish and raise specific questions.

The Fishbase database provides extensive information on each fish species, including family, order, age/size/weight, AquaMaps, ICUN status, climate/range, distribution, biology, human uses, prices category, synonyms, classification, descriptions, environment, importance, and threat to humans. The database does not include information on fish behaviour and traditional distribution maps, and complete references for every species within the database.

3 The information was extracted from 20,000 references and follows the November 2000 version of Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes.


eftec 14 March 2010

MarLIN: The Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) is an initiative of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) of the UK. The objective of MarLIN is to “Provide information and resources to support marine environmental management,

conservation and education”.

In the context of this project, two sections of the MarLIN website are particularly useful:

• The Biodiversity and Conservation Science (BACS) programme; and

• The Marine Data section.

BACS provides information relating to the “effective management and

conservation” of marine resources, including information on the marine biodiversity of Britain and Ireland. There are data on 129 habitats4, ecology, species distribution, and life histories for 855 marine species. In addition, BACS also provides information relating to the effects of marine activities and natural events, marine life protection, ecosystem structure and function, the Nationally Important Marine Feature (NIMF) database, and the Seabed Indicator Species database. Tools for analysing data are also available under the Biological Traits Information Catalogue (BIOTIC).

BIOTIC5 contains information contains information on over 40 biological trait categories of selected benthic species, together with additional supporting information, including the references. However, the emphasis of this database is on benthic invertebrates and plants, limiting its direct applicability to inshore fisheries management, however, it can be useful in combination with several biological databases, for example the Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats website (DASSH).

Marine data: provides access to the (DASSH) website <www.dassh.ac.uk> which provides digital archive facilities for marine biological data6 and information relating to fish biology via the Searchable Benthic Data (SEABED) database.

MarBEF: The Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem functioning (MarBEF) data system <www.marbef.org> is a network of 94 marine institutes. The current MarBEF

4 Habitats are listed according to the National Habitat Classification scheme. The habitats can be browsed by the 1997 and 2004 versions of the classification.

5 An initiative run by the MBA and MarLIN, in collaboration with MBA scientists (Drs Hilmar Hinz and Stuart Jenkins) and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (Dr Paul Somerfield).

6 DASSH is built on the existing MarLIN and National Marine Biological Library (NMBL) databases and l links to external databases such as the National Biodiversity Network and the World Register of Marine Species.


eftec 15 March 2010

database includes information on various European Marine Biodiversity datasets and links to the European Register of Marine Species (ERMS) and the European division of the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (EurOBIS).

The European Marine Biodiversity Datasets is an inventory of existing biodiversity monitoring datasets. The information includes meta-data about the location, the sampling strategy, and biological parameters of datasets, along with details of how to obtain the information.

The ERMS is a complete taxonomic list of species occurring in the European marine environment, which can be searched by taxon. The ERMS provides information on the environment, distribution and life history of different marine species.

The EurOBIS is a distributed system that provides a searchable biogeographic database on marine organisms. The three main parameters of a record are taxonomy, temporal and geographical cover. The EurOBIS database holds 6.8 million distribution records for 15,000 species.

Economic databases:

The main online database relating to economic data is the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA) website <www.mfa.gov.uk>, which hosts comprehensive statistics on sea fisheries, in some cases dating back to the late 19th century. A number of annual reports exist providing a summary of the statistics; recent annual reports (2005 to 2007) are accompanied by spreadsheets. The most recent report and spreadsheet can be accessed directly from the ‘Statistics’ section of the website; older reports are located under the archive page of the ‘Statistics’ section.

2.2.1 Stakeholder research questionnaire

This section provides a summary of responses and findings from interviews with stakeholders within the inshore fishery community, focusing on the availability of fisheries research and data gaps. The interviews were a key task within the review and were used to establish not only what current research was most useful but also to identify future research projects of note for the inshore fisheries industry.

In Section 2.3.2 the format and administration of the interviews are described along with the background/role of, and organisations represented by, interviewees. Following this a summary of responses is provided. The full questionnaire is reproduced in Annex C.

2.2.2 Format and structure of interviews

Interviews were undertaken in August and September 2009 with a sample of stakeholders representing both the inshore and general fisheries community. A list of individuals to contact was provided by Defra covering a range of organisations (including consultancies, research institutes, non-governmental organisations and the fishing industry). Initially effort focused on interviewing individuals included


eftec 16 March 2010

on this list, then as the consultation progressed further contacts were established and potential interviewees contacted.

Potential respondents indicated their willingness to take part in the survey by responding to an initial email invitation. Interviews were conducted by telephone and typically lasted 20 minutes. Given the differing range of experience and roles of the individuals interviewed, a semi-structured approach with prompts for particular issues was adopted, with a view to eliciting discursive feedback from interviewees.

In total 18 interviews were undertaken with the following organisations: Deloitte Consulting; World Wildlife Fund; Seafish; Fishing for Answers; West Cornwall Luggar Industry Trust; Southern Sea Fisheries Committee; Cornish Sardine Management Association; Anglo North Irish Fish Producers Organisation; Cornish Fish Producers; Shellfish Association of Great Britain; Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee; New Under-Ten Fishermen’s Association; National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; University of Central London; University of Bangor; and Seafood Cornwall. A broad range of roles within the inshore fisheries sector were thereby represented, including:

• Heads of organisations;

• Fishers;

• Economists;

• Fisheries Policy Officers;

• Researchers; and

• Consultants.

In requesting additional references, contact was also made with the following organisations: Federation of Welsh Anglers, Welsh Federation of Fishermen's Associations Ltd., European Common Fisheries – Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Ocean 2012, The Angling Trust, Hastings Fisherman's Protection Society, Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, North Western & North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, Seas at Risk, Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements, The Fisheries Secretariat Stockholm, PEW Environment Group, North Sea Regional Advisory Council, The Scottish Government, NFFO, WWF Research Centre, Fish News EU, Natural England, OneFish, Shellfish, JNCC – Coastal and The Wildlife Trust.

Overall a good coverage of organisations interested in fisheries research was achieved. Cefas provided input via the SAIF Workshop held on the 29th October 2009, to discuss the gap analysis. Unfortunately due to the limited time and resources available for this consultation there were some omissions, including in particular: Cemare; University of Plymouth Marine Institute; University of Hull’s Estuarine and Coastal Studies Department,


eftec 17 March 2010

A. Current and previous research

The purpose of discussion under this topic was to gauge knowledge of current and recent fisheries research and to determine whether this information could be obtained for the SAIF gap analysis. The questions under this section were specifically split into subject areas to help determine whether information in certain areas was less available or less known to respondents.

Environment: Respondents identified research relating to: wave height; fish (including shellfish) tagging; surveys and mapping; sea bed habitat identification and the biomass and production evaluation of different habitats and the potential effects of climate change; Cefas’s fisheries science partnership work; the effect of climate change on water pollution; the benefits of ‘no trawl areas’ and ‘no take zones’ to the environment; and the environmental effects of fishing activities on the seabed.

Economics: Respondents identified research relating to: fish markets in fishing ports; ecosystem services of shellfish; work done by various Sea Fisheries committees; basic economic value of fisheries; cost and earnings of fishermen; and the annual Seafish reports.

Social: Respondents identified research relating to: the fishermen’s Dreadnought medical services; WWF’s Invest in Fish; and the spatial distribution and zone of influences of fisheries.

A full list of the additional research articles and datasets identified as part of the consultation process is included in Annex D. The subject area with the least information was social research, where the amount of information identified by respondents was much less than for the environmental and economic aspects of inshore fisheries.

B. Using available research

Here the focus of questions was to determine the most widely used pieces of research and their usefulness to different organisations/individuals within different roles. The questionnaire tried to elicit respondents’ experience with different types of information (reports, datasets) to help identify how different types of information helped or hindered their work within the fisheries sector. In addition, questions relating to data reliability were also asked. These specifically tackled the reliability of research, the perception of it within the stakeholder community, and which individuals or organisations were considered to be authorities and/or “trusted” on fisheries information. Respondents were also asked to identify information that would be useful within their work, and about current data/resource gaps.

Datasets, resources and expert knowledge: Table 2.3.1 shows the main sources of information currently used by respondents. Interviewees did not tend to use models provided by organisations other than their own within their work.


eftec 18 March 2010

However, many used data sets from either the MFA or Seafish within their own models. Sea fisheries committees tended to use data from landing statistics, or collected by fishers under their jurisdiction to aid planning management strategies.

Other organisations used data to create graphs and charts to illustrate the current status of the market and landings by fishermen. These were then used to simplify data for decision makers within the supply chain. Research and non-governmental organisations used data to support their research and to develop policy papers on management in the industry.

Table 2.3.1: Sources of information and data used in respondents’ own research

Environmental Economic Social

Local knowledge from fishers*;

Cefas reports*;

Sea shelf, tidal mixing models and wave models from the Hadley Centre;

The British Geographical Survey data maps of seabed types;

Satellite imaging data for primary production and temperature;

European data sets;

Impact assessments.

Landing statistics from the MFA and Sea Fisheries committees*;

Market information from Plymouth Trawler Agents;

Seafish data*;

Fishermen’s logbooks.

Seafish data;

South West Regional socio-economic studies;

EKOS socio-economic studies*.

* denotes sources mentioned more than once by different respondents

Overall, respondents believed the data they used to be quite reliable, especially where it concerned landings. However, concern was expressed about the paucity of certain data and the sample sizes of scientific and economic studies.

Respondents spoke about difficulties with existing data, including:

• how to use them;

• lack of information about data collection, storage and research methods;

• problems combining data from different sea fisheries committees, since data are not available within a standard format; and

• lack of repeat studies - for example, while information on shellfish was available, studies were often one-off, making it difficult to see changes over time.


eftec 19 March 2010

Respondents tended to name experts within a small group of organisations that they approached for information on inshore fisheries. These organisations were: Cefas, Seafish, Cemare, the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, various sea fisheries committees, and particular fishermen.

Data gaps: When asked about potentially useful information currently missing within the inshore fisheries sector, several types of data were mentioned a number of times. This included information relating to inshore fishing activity, such as geographical locations of inshore fishing activities. Respondents stated that due to the absence of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data for the inshore fleet was a key gap. It was also noted that the low frequency of VMS reporting (currently once every 2 hours) would limit the value of extending VMS in its current form to the inshore fleet. Respondents also felt that logbooks lacked sufficient resolution, that economic data were not collected in an adequate format for the inshore fisheries fleet (<10m) and that there was little socio-economic information on inshore fisheries available.

Respondents wanted more information on the impacts of fishing on the environment and were interested in the catch per unit effort of inshore fishers, the social value of the industry, the allocation of quota, and comparisons of quota management systems employed in UK and Europe. Other specific information gaps mentioned included: levels of bycatch and discarding with different fishing gear, and its impact on the seabed; environmental information on the seabed habitat types; economic data relating to the steps between landing a fish and its being sold in a supermarket or served in a restaurant; and historic landings data relating to inshore fisheries7. Further comments were made about the lack of publicly available GIS information, data on non-quota species and issues relating to the comparability of existing studies. Finally, respondents wanted more information on how fish stocks varied naturally, to help them to identify the impact of fishing on stocks.

C. Additional contacts and overall comments

Before concluding the interviews, respondents were asked whether they could provide any additional contacts relating to research work of relevance to the inshore fisheries community and their overall opinions of the SAIF gap analysis. A number of additional contacts within the inshore fisheries community were identified by respondents and a summary of the organisations these contacts represent is shown in Table 2.3.2.

7 Respondents mentioned that these data were available in logbooks, but needed to be collated and made publically available.


eftec 20 March 2010

Table 2.3.2: A list of the organisations represented by additional contacts

Marine Departments at Educational Institutions

Consultancies Other Organisations

University of Bangor McAllister Elliott

Marine Stewardship Council

University of Plymouth Poseidon Marine Scotland

North Atlantic Fisheries College EKOS Marine Biological Association

University of Hull, Nautilius Medin

Scottish Agricultural College Fish producer organisations

University of Newcastle

Institute of Fisheries Management

Overall, many respondents felt that there were large gaps in socio-economic data within the inshore fisheries sector and that socio-economic data should be used more in fishing policies. Various comments were made in relation to the quota system and its problems and the need for fisheries committees to have a better definition of fishers under their jurisdiction. Respondents also mentioned the need for an ecosystems based approach rather than strategies that focused on headline species.

All respondents asked to be kept informed of the progress of the gap analysis, either via the opportunity of attending a workshop or by receiving copy of the final report.


eftec 21 March 2010

3 Review Framework

The purpose of this section is to detail the structure for summarising the currently available information of relevance to inshore fisheries as identified in Section 2. A review spreadsheet was designed in Microsoft Excel to categorise the information available into the subject areas of interest for the SAIF gap analysis (social, economic and environmental). The section 3.1 includes a description of each of the fields included within the review spreadsheet.

3.1 Framework Design

Data relating to each piece of information reviewed for the SAIF gap analysis were split across several tabs within the review spreadsheet. This allowed us to generate a more user friendly review framework and to cut down data repetition.

Main tab – REF_List

The first tab within the review spreadsheet contains fields detailing information references, a summary of each piece of information, and fields identifying the type of information reviewed, its subject category (SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, or any combination), the location referred to, and fields relating to the fish species considered (see Table 3.1.1. for a detailed list of all fields within the REF_List tab). The RefID acts as a point of reference to the other tabs within the spreadsheet in which further information about a particular reference is stored. Where a piece of information is out of scope the ‘Scope’ field is set to ‘Yes’ and a fourth tab (SCOPE) includes the reason for this classification.

There are several types of information that are considered to be out of scope for this review. These include research relating to aquaculture, relating to biological protocols, relating to fish genetics or biochemistry, relating to the treatment of fish diseases or relating to freshwater fisheries. The full review spreadsheet will be sent following this report.


eftec 22 March 2010

Table 3.1: Description of each field within the REF_List table of the database

Field Name Description

RefID

This is a unique identifier for the piece of information reviewed -this number links to each of the other tabs within the review framework.

Relevance

Overall relevance of the information LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH: see Section 4 for further details.

RefTitle The title of the information reviewed.

RefAuthors

The authors of the information, where individual authors are not identified the organisation that carried out/collect the information are reported.

RefYear The year the information was produced.

RefAbs

A summary of the information reviewed (this is either the abstract or the first few paragraphs of the executive summary, etc.)

Article Type

This shows the category of the type of information being reviewed, i.e., original research, advisory note, review article.

Evidence of

Peer Review

Is there evidence of the information being peer reviewed? (Yes/No). This is assumed for journal articles and for reports completed within Defra, any other report summaries that specifically mention peer review are also set to yes.

Scope

This field indicates whether or not the article fits within the scope of the review.

Data

This field describes the types of data used within the reviewed information, categories include: Modelling measured data, one-off data collection, regular data collection, theoretical model, or N/A.

MA

Is there any information on management alternatives that have been detailed within the information reviewed? Categories include: quota, effort, community quota, community effort and N/A.

Psp

The primary species covered within the information reviewed, these are defined by the following functional group categories: Cetacean, Demersal, Lobsters & Crabs, Pelagic, Shellfish, Sandeel, Shark, or Squid

specieso

A free text field which allows further details relating to the species covered within a piece of information to be described.

Location

This describes the primary locations the information relates to, including each of the ICES areas relevant to the UK inshore fleet, plus other broader-scale categories.

o optional field

The Subject tab – SUB


eftec 23 March 2010

This tab describes further information relating to the relevance of each piece of information being reviewed to inshore fisheries in terms of broad policy options (quota and effort) and information relating to recreation, given the shared nature of the resource, along with a series of fields relating to specific measures within the information reviewed. Table 3.2 gives a list of each of the fields included within the subject tab.

Table 3.2. Description of each generic field within the subject tab of the review

spreadsheet

Field Name* Description

RefID

This is a unique identifier for the piece of literature reviewed - this links to the REF_List (see above), Relevance tabs (see section 4).

Measured

This field details what is being measured or described i.e. a description of the main objective of the piece of information reviewed, or main variable that is being researched.

ResMethod

This field details the methods, i.e., how information was obtained, for example, by biological survey, lab. based research, observation of fisher behaviour, and so on.

SmplSize

Describes the sample size for example, number of fish observed, number of sites visited, number of fishing vessels observed, and so on.

Loc

A free text field to allow more information on the geographical reference of data: e.g. name of country, port, and fishing area and so on.

Scale

International

International scale: is the study conducted at International scale? 1/0.

Scale Europe European scale: is the study conducted at European scale? 1/0.

Scale National National scale: is the study conducted at National scale? 1/0.

Scale Regional Regional scale: is the study conducted at regional scale? 1/0.

Scale Local Local scale: is the study conducted at local scale? 1/0.

Prot Level of protection of the study area, i.e., MPA; SAC; NONE.

MACons The marine area considered - : Inshore, Offshore or General..

PolCont

Policy context - whether the information was collected in response to a particular policy need – if yes, details are added here for example, review of common fisheries policy, review of local management of crab fishing and so on.

Angling

Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if angling is covered.

Potting

Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if potting is covered.

Netting

Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if netting is covered.

Trawling

Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if trawling is covered.

Line fishing

Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if line fishing is covered.


eftec 24 March 2010

Table 3.2. Description of each generic field within the subject tab of the review

spreadsheet

Field Name* Description

Eff

Policy group field 1 - effort based, could the research contribute to policies concerned with fishing effort? (Yes/No).

Quota

Policy group field 2 - quota based, could the research contribute to policies concerned with fishing quotas? (Yes/No).

Rec

Policy group field 3 - recreational fisheries, could the research contribute to policies concerned with recreational fishing? (Yes/No).

Comment Any other comments relating to this information.

StockCC stock carrying capacity: does the information address stock carrying capacity(ies)? 1/0 - this is set to one if the research actually uses data to address this or references the ICES fish stock assessments the field is set to one otherwise zero.

StockDist stock geographical distribution: does the information address a particular stock distribution? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the research actually uses data to address this rather than references distribution from elsewhere.

StockTV stock trends and/or variability: does the information address stock trends? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the research actually uses data to address this rather than references trends from elsewhere.

StockRec stock recruitment: does the information address stock recruitmentrelationships? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the research actually uses data to address this rather than references trends from elsewhere.

FC Fleet capacity: are there any figures for fleet capacity within the information? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

DS Days at sea: are there figures for days at sea within the information? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

IC Industry costs: are there any figures for costs within the information? 1/0 – this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

IR Industry revenues: are there figures for revenues within the information? this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

PDem Fish price/demand: does the information address fish price/demand? 1=yes; 0=no.

Emp Employment: does the information address employment in the fisheries sector? 1=yes; 0=No.

SUB Subject ECON, ENV, SOC - field indicates the relevant subject area. Some articles may be applicable to multiple areas.


eftec 25 March 2010

4 Assessment criteria

Following an initial summary (see Section 3), each of the piece of information was assessed in terms of its relevance, and recorded on the Relevance tab within the review spreadsheet. The relevance of information was judged according to several criteria including the age of the information, its relevance to inshore fisheries and details of the research methodology used to collect it. Table 4.1 gives a full list of the fields within the Relevance tab.

It must be noted that the assessment of relevance is based on a set of rules drawing on the summary information for each piece of research, and not on a detailed analysis of the data and results. The assessment is intended as an indication of the likely relevance to inshore fisheries policy generally. On balance, it is more likely that research identified as ‘high’ relevance will be useful, and that research identified as ‘low’ relevance will not be, than the reverse. However for any specific application it is likely that only some of the ‘high’ relevance projects will in fact be useful, and it remains possible that a ‘low’ relevance project could be important.

Relevance Assessment

All fields apart from Data Sources and Comments within the Relevance tab were categorical fields. The fields could be set to LOW, MEDIUM or HIGH, depending on how the information reviewed met the relevance criteria of each field. The following paragraphs detail the relevance criteria used for each of the fields described in Table 4.1, with the exception of the Data sources and Comments fields.

Where the information being reviewed was more than 15 years old the Year field was set to LOW, in the information was between 7-14 years old the field was set to MEDIUM, if the research was less than 7 years old Year was set to HIGH. If a date was not specified and could not be determined the field was set to N/A.

Where the information being reviewed related to countries outside of northern Europe the Location field was set to LOW, if information related to countries within northern Europe the Location field was set to MEDIUM and finally HIGH if the information related to the UK or Ireland.

If the information being reviewed related to fisheries in general the Fishing type field was set to MEDIUM while information relating to netting, potting & inshore fisheries specifically was classed as HIGH. For information in which small sizes were used the SmpleSize field was set to low with average and large sample sizes classified as MEDIUM and HIGH respectively (the precise size categories differ according to the type of information being evaluated).


eftec 26 March 2010

Where the information reviewed related to fishing in general the Policy Context was set to MEDIUM, however, if the focus was on inshore fisheries the field was set to HIGH. Where the information reviewed used a known method that was considered to be replicable the Methodology field was set to HIGH. If, however, the information used a new method that was replicable or a known method that is not replicable the field was set to MEDIUM. Finally, if the information reviewed used an unknown method that was not replicable the Methodology field was set to LOW.

Overall Relevance

The free text fields within the Relevance tab were used to provide additional details relating to the research reviewed for example, if the overall relevance mark had to be changed for a reason not captured within the fields considered. Each Relevance field was deemed to carry equal weight, thus if the majority of relevance fields were marked as High, High became the overall mark given for the information reviewed. If a Low classification appeared within any of the relevance fields listed, the highest mark that could be attained by a piece of information was Medium. Finally, if the number of relevance marks was tied the lower of the two marks was taken as the overall relevance mark for the piece of information reviewed (Refer to full workbook).

Table 4.1 Description of each field relating to the relevance classification of

each research report/article reviewed within the review framework database

Field Name Description

RefID

Unique identifier for the piece of literature reviewed - this links to the REF_List Tab (see Section 3)

Year Relevance classification relating to the age of the research

Location

Relevance classification relating to location a particular piece of research was carried out in.

Fishing type

Relevance classification relating to the vessels covered by the research

SmpleSize

Relevance classification relating to the sample size used in the reviewed research

Policy Context

Relevance classification relating to the research mentioning policies in relation to specific fishing groups, i.e., the fishing fleet in general or the inshore fishing fleet.

Methodology

Relevance classification relating to the methodology applied within a particular piece of research.

Data Sources

Field listing the data sources used within the report/article being reviewed; filled as original research in the case where new data is collected

Comments

Any additional comments relating to the research/article being reviewed including any reasons as to the particular overall relevance mark given (optional field)

Relevance mark

The overall relevance mark given for a report/article; classified as low, medium or high.


eftec 27 March 2010

5 Identifying data gaps

This section explains how the database has been used to evaluate the data gaps that currently exist in terms of the evidence needed for policy formulation relating to inshore fisheries. A summary of the fields described in Sections 3 and 4 above is presented in the final tab of the review spreadsheet called ‘GAPS’. This sheet covers only those studies that have been assessed and found relevant to inshore fishing policy: there are 362 of these8.

The fields within this tab are split into three categories of field; the first group includes the fields that can be used to filter the information. The auto-filter options within Excel can be used to find out the data gaps relating to a variety of filter categories, for example species, location, article type, data, management alternatives, scale and fishing type. It is also possible to filter for combinations of fields. The second field grouping shows the overall relevance of the piece of research reviewed and the third and final grouping summarises the coverage of key variables (see Table 5.1 for full list of fields).

8 A further 120 references were found to be out of scope, listed on the “Scope” tab.


eftec March 2010 28

Table 5.1. Description of each field within the GAPS tab of the review spreadsheet

Field groupings Field Name* Description

N/A REfID

This is a unique identifier for the piece of literature reviewed - this links to the REF_List (see above), Relevance tabs (see section 4).

Filters

Article Type This shows the category of the type of information being reviewed, i.e., original research, advisory note, review article.

Data This field describes the types of data used within the reviewed information, categories include: one-off data collected, regular data collection, modelling with simulated data, modelling with original data and N/A.

Community Does the reference relate to community management, 1 = yes, 0 = no

Effort Does the reference relate to effort management, 1 = yes, 0 = no

Quota Does the reference relate to quota management, 1 = yes, 0 = no

demersal Does the reference cover demersal species 1 – yes, 0 – no

lobsters & crabs Does the reference cover lobsters and crabs species 1 – yes, 0 – no

shark Does the reference cover sharks species 1 – yes, 0 – no

sandeel Does the reference cover sandeels species 1 – yes, 0 – no

shellfish Does the reference cover shellfish species 1 – yes, 0 – no

cetacean Does the reference cover cetacean species 1 – yes, 0 – no

pelagic Does the reference cover pelagic species 1 – yes, 0 – no

squid Does the reference cover squid species 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location IVa Does the reference cover ICES area IVa 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location IVb Does the reference cover ICES area IVb 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location IVc Does the reference cover ICES area IVc 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location VIa Does the reference cover ICES area VIa 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location VIIa Does the reference cover ICES area VIIa 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location VIId Does the reference cover ICES area VIId – yes, 0 – no

Location VIIe Does the reference cover ICES area VIIe 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location VIIf Does the reference cover ICES area VIIf 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location Other ICES Does the reference cover other ICES areas 1 – yes, 0 – no


eftec March 2010 29



Location UK Does the reference cover a UK area 1 – yes, 0 - no

Location EU Does the reference cover a European location 1 – yes, 0 – no

Location International Does the reference cover an International location 1 – yes, 0 – no

Scale International International scale: is the study conducted at International scale? 1/0.

Scale Europe European scale: is the study conducted at European scale? 1/0.

Scale National National scale: is the study conducted at National scale? 1/0.

Scale Regional Regional scale: is the study conducted at regional scale? 1/0.

Scale Local Local scale: is the study conducted at local scale? 1/0.

Prot Level of protection of the study area, i.e., MPA; SAC; NONE.

MACons The marine area considered - up to 3 nautical miles, up to 6 nautical miles, up to 12 nautical miles, outside 12 nautical miles and not available.

Angling Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if angling is covered.

Potting Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if potting is covered.

Netting Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if netting is covered.

Trawling Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if trawling is covered.

Line fishing Gives details on the type of fishing considered in the article set to 1 if line fishing is covered.

Eff Policy group field 1 - effort based, could the research contribute to policies concerned with fishing effort? (Yes/No).

Quota Policy group field 2 - quota based, could the research contribute to policies concerned with fishing quotas? (Yes/No).

Rec Policy group field 3 - recreational fisheries, could the research contribute to policies concerned with recreational fishing?


eftec March 2010 30



(Yes/No).

Relevance The overall relevance mark given for a report/article; classified as low, medium or high.

Key data

fields

(results)

StockCC stock carrying capacity: does the information address stock carrying capacity(ies)? 1/0 - this is set to one if the research actually uses data to address this or references the ICES fish stock assessments the field is set to one otherwise zero.

StockDist stock geographical distribution: does the information address a particular stock distribution? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the research actually uses data to address this rather than references distribution from elsewhere.

StockTV stock trends and/or variability: does the information address stock trends? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the research actuallyuses data to address this rather than references trends from elsewhere.

StockRec stock recruitment: does the information address stock recruitment relationships? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the research actually uses data to address this rather than references trends from elsewhere.

FC Fleet capacity: are there any figures for fleet capacity within the information? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

DS Days at sea: are there figures for days at sea within the information? 1/0 - this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

IC Industry costs: are there any figures for costs within the information? 1/0 – this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

IR Industry revenues: are there figures for revenues within the information? this is only set to one if the figures are used within the article rather than references elsewhere.

Price Demand Fish price/demand: does the information address fish price/demand? 1=yes; 0=no.

Emp Employment: does the information address employment in the fisheries sector? 1=yes; 0=No.


eftec March 2010 31

As shown by Table 5.1 there are a very large number of possible filters within the spreadsheet, and it is neither feasible nor desirable to attempt to present results for all possible combinations. For any specific policy application, a bespoke filter can be applied to the spreadsheet. For general reporting and the identification of general data gaps, in the context of this project, attention must be restricted to the main variables of interest.

In addition to the spreadsheet that is sent alongside this report an MS Access database will be built to allow for a more user friendly user display and searching.

Records display: All records will be displayed within forms (a mock up of a form is shown below). Records returned from searches will not be colour coded.

User Searching: The end user of the database will be able to search the information through a search form (see example below, Form 1); this will enable the user to select the categories to be searched on.

Comparison to spreadsheet: Data will be available within a database; data records will be shown in summary screens instead of tabular format. The key subjects for searches available will remain the same, i.e., functional group, ICES area, research scale and fishing gear however, searching and finding gaps within the available data will become much more user friendly.


eftec March 2010 32

Search Criteria ICES Area ICES I Yes ICES Other No ICES II Yes UK No ICES III Any Europe No ICES IV No International No ICES V No FAO No ICES VI No ICES VII No Functional Group Demersal Yes Shell fish No Lobsters and crabs Yes Cetaceans No Shark No Pelagic No Sand eel No Study Scale International No Regional – UK Yes Europe No Local - UK No UK No Fishing Gear Angling Any Trawling Any Potting Any Line Any Netting Any SEARCH

Results Summary CC D TV R FC DS IC IR P

E

Relevance: High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Relevance: Medium 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1

Relevance: Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Records List

ID

Env P

MACons Eff Quota Rec Rel. CC D TV R FC DS IC IR P

E

1 No Offshore Yes Yes No Medium 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 No Offshore Yes Yes No Medium 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

3 No General Yes Yes Yes Medium 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Form 1: Mock up of the search form and results

The search criteria within MS Access will be set at the top of the form (see Form 1), with a set of summary results and main records displayed below.


eftec March 2010 33

The graphs presented in this section of the report illustrate the numbers of studies identified in the ‘high’ and ‘medium’ relevance categories for various variables of interest (see specific details for each graph). The graphs distinguish between research that is specifically relevant to inshore fisheries, and that which is more general. The bars headed “All” report the total number of studies, while those headed “IS” report the number of inshore-specific studies.

5.1 Simple assessment

The first and simplest step in the gap analysis is to assess the basic frequencies in the database of each data type. Several such assessments are presented below.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Occurrence

Evidence

Fishing Type

Medium

High

Figure 1: Relevance of studies to Inshore Fishing

Figure 1 shows that the bulk of studies identified as relevant do not focus specifically on inshore fishing, but rather consider fishing more generally. A small number of studies focusing on offshore fisheries were nevertheless considered relevant to inshore data and management. A good proportion of the studies focusing on inshore were considered ‘high’ relevance, but it must be noted that the scoring was biased towards these studies (specifically ‘inshore’ gave high score for the fishing type category).


eftec March 2010 34

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Occurrence

Data type

Medium

High

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS All

IS

Figure 2: Main methods of study covered in database

Figure 2 shows the main types of study covered in the database. Mostly these are reports of one-off or regular data collection. A rather smaller number of references involved modelling based on collected data, while few theoretical models were considered. It is worth noting that the ‘relevance’ assessment for the theoretical models may sometimes be too harsh, in the sense that the theory may remain valid while data rapidly become dated, hence it may not be appropriate to mark these studies down merely for their age.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Occurrence

Article type

Medium

High

All

IS

All

IS

All ISAll

IS

Figure 3: Types of publication included in the database


eftec March 2010 35

Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of references in the database relate to original research or data collection. There are relatively few advisory notes, i.e., articles giving guidance to the reader, policy reviews, i.e., articles specifically reviewing a management/policy question and review articles, i.e., articles ‘reviewing’ other pieces of work. This is not necessarily a ‘gap’ (in general a preponderance of primary data collection and analysis might be both expected and welcome) however further analysis of data topics covered within reviews/advice is presented below.

Key meta-data

0

40

80

120

160

Sto

ckCC

Stock

Dist

Stock

TV

Stock

Rec

FC DS IC IR

Price

Dem

and

Emp

Evidence

Occ

urr

en

ce

Medium

High

All

All All

All

All All

All AllAll

All

IS

ISIS IS

IS ISIS IS

IS IS

Figure 4: Numbers of studies covering key data types

The categories of data reported or used in the reference studies are covered in Figure 4. Aspects relating to the growth, distribution and trends of fish stocks are the most covered; aspects relating to fishing effort are somewhat less common, while aspects relating to the economics of fishing, and fisheries employment, are the least covered. Nonetheless, there are several studies within each of the categories considered.

Key Indicators StockCC - Stock carrying capacity StockDist - Stock Distribution StockTV - Stock Trends and variability StockRec - stock Recruitment FC - Fleet capacity DS - Days at sea IC - Industry costs IR - Industry revenue PriceDemand - fish price/demand Emp - Employment All - All fisheries data IS - Inshore fisheries data


eftec March 2010 36

0

50

100

150

200

Occurrence

Fishing gear

Medium

High

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

IS

Figure 5: Fishing methods in database

Most sources identified consider fishing in quite a general sense (Figure 5), though in many cases different fishing methods are separately identified within the reports. But there are relatively few studies focusing on specific fishing methods, with the exception of trawling.

Incidentally, Figure 5 also illustrates the care required in interpreting results from a gap analysis such as this one. Over half of the studies identified as relating to potting are not identified as relating specifically to inshore fisheries: this does not imply the existence of numerous references dealing with potting other than in inshore fisheries, but rather that potting is one among several methods discussed in several references with general applicability.

Location

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ICES IV

a IC

ES IV

b IC

ES IV

c IC

ES V

Ia

ICES V

IIa

ICES V

IIdIC

ES V

IIeIC

ES V

IIfIC

ES O

ther

UK

EU

FAO/In

tern

atio

nal

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

Medium

High

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

All

IS AllIS

Figure 6: Jurisdictional area covered by studies in database

Key Data type All - All fisheries data IS - Inshore fisheries data


eftec March 2010 37

There are large numbers of studies referencing each of the ICES areas contiguous with the UK coast (Figure 6), though in each case only a small proportion focus on inshore fisheries specifically. Several studies are identified as relating to UK or EU fisheries; few have been included with an international focus. This is largely a reflection of the search criteria and scope decisions that have limited the inclusion of studies with international and European focus.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Occurrence

Functional group

Medium

High

All

IS

All

ISAll

IS

All

IS

All

IS All

IS

All

IS

All

IS

Figure 7: Main fishery group covered by studies in database

Figure 7 illustrates the main fishery groups covered in the reference sources. Most studies cover either a single specific stock, or a wide range of fish stocks. There are several studies with specific focus on demersal stocks, and to a lesser extent on pelagics and shellfish.

Key Data type All - All fisheries data IS - Inshore fisheries data


eftec March 2010 38

Management alternatives

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Community: all Community:

inshore

Effort: all Effort: inshore Quota: all Quota: inshore

Evidence

Occ

urr

en

ce

Medium

High

Figure 8: Management approaches by references in database

Similarly, Figure 8 shows references identified as relevant to the three broad families of management approaches covered in the database. Most of these studies consider management in a rather broad sense and these are marked as relevant to all three categories (93 studies). There are rather few studies that focus specifically on single forms of management or on community participation in management (27 studies).


eftec March 2010 39

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

Occurrence

Evidence

Community

Medium

High

Figure 9a: Reference specific to community management by key data types

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

Occurrence

Evidence

Effort

Medium

High

Figure 9b: References specific to effort management by key data types



eftec March 2010 40

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

Occurrence

Evidence

Quota

Medium

High

Figure 9c: Reference specific to quota management by key data types

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

Occurrence

Evidence

Quota and Effort

Medium

High

Figure 9d; References specific to quota and effort management by key data types



eftec March 2010 41

Figures 8, 9a-d show that although there are a number of general articles relating to management strategies (Figure 8), articles that specifically address management strategies are limited, i.e., 27 articles available on community management; 35 articles available on effort based policy; 6 articles available on quota based policy; 13 articles available on both quota based and effort base policy (in addition to those listed above); and one article available on community and quota based policy. As shown by Figures 9a-d most gaps in the literature are seen across key data for inshore fisheries rather than general fisheries information. Furthermore a number of gaps exist relating to socio-economic data are seen across documents relating to quota and community management strategies.

0

35

70

105

140

Occurrence

Evidence

One-off Data Collection

Medium

High

Figure 10a: References relating to one-off data collection studies by key data type



eftec March 2010 42

0

35

70

105

140

Occurrence

Evidence

Modelling, Measured Data

Medium

High

Figure 10b: References relating to modelling measured data studies by key data type

0

35

70

105

140

Occurrence

Evidence

Regular Data Collection

Medium

High

Figure 10c: References relating to regular data collection studies by key data type



eftec March 2010 43

0

35

70

105

140

Occurrence

Evidence

Theoretical Model

Medium

High

Figure 10d: References relating to theoretical models by key data type

Figures 10a-d report the coverage in references classed high or medium of key data types cross tabulated against the different data collection types, i.e., inshore fisheries or all fisheries related and the types of research carried out. None of these figures reveals any very obvious gaps beyond the general tendencies noted above: that is, there are relatively few studies that contain information relating to socio-economic characteristics and as with the initial graphs shown in this section the number of studies relating to inshore fisheries is a relatively low in comparison to the general information available.

5.2 Cross-tabulations of basic data by fishing gear type

Figure 11 to Figure 15 show the cross-tabulations of numbers of studies covering the various key data types within each fishing method. The vertical scales run to 30 studies, except for Figure 11 (trawling) which runs to 90, trawling being by far the most discussed fishing method.

The patterns are broadly similar. Across the board, there are few studies covering stock carrying capacity, although generally several cover other aspects of stocks including distribution, trends and variability, and stock-recruitment relationships.



eftec March 2010 44

There is generally some coverage of the economic and social data types. At the level of general (i.e. not inshore specific) studies, there are no clear overall data gaps, except that few studies focus on stock carrying capacity and it is likely that for a large number of individual species in particular areas this key reference point is lacking.

However, as noted previously, there are relatively few studies with a specifically inshore focus. A higher proportion of studies noting potting or angling (and to an extent line fishing) have a specific inshore focus. Nevertheless, if we look just at studies with a specific relevance to inshore fishing, most of the data types are represented by only a handful of studies.

For angling, few studies examine stock dynamics. It is likely however that the evidence may exist in other studies looking at commercial harvesting of stocks that are also caught for recreation, so this finding may suggest not an absolute data gap, but rather that studies of angling tend not to examine relationships with stocks in detail.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Occurence

Evidence

Trawling

Medium

High

All

All

All

All

All All

All All All All

IS

IS IS ISIS IS

ISIS

IS IS

Figure 11: Cross-tabulation of basic data and trawling



eftec March 2010 45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Occurence

Evidence

Netting

Medium

High

All

All All All

AllAll

AllAll All All

ISIS

IS ISIS IS

IS IS IS IS

Figure 12: Cross-tabulation of basic data and netting

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Occurence

Evidence

Line Fishing

Medium

High

All

AllAll All

AllAll

AllAll

All All

IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS

IS IS

Figure 13: Cross-tabulation of basic data and line fishing



eftec March 2010 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Occurence

Evidence

Potting

Medium

High

All

All All All

All All

AllAll

AllAll

IS

IS ISIS

IS

IS ISIS

IS IS

Figure 14: Cross-tabulation of basic data and potting

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Occurence

Evidence

Angling

Medium

High

AllAll

All AllAll

All All All AllAll

IS IS IS IS IS ISIS

IS IS IS

Figure 15: Cross-tabulation of basic data and angling



eftec March 2010 47

5.3 Cross-tabulations of basic data by location

Figure 17 to Figure 28 report the basic data availability by location, broken down by the 8 ICES areas contiguous with the UK coast (see Figure 16), with additional categories of ‘UK’, ‘Other ICES’, ‘EU’ and ‘International’.

Figure 16: Map of ICES areas contiguous with the UK coast

(source: part of www.ices.dk/aboutus/icesareas/ICES_areas_Arc9_Weuro_300.pdf)

The basic pattern of data types covered is similar to that already described above, but at this more spatially disaggregated level there are some gaps emerging in relation to specific areas. Several areas, in particular the west coast of Scotland (Figure 20) and the Bristol Channel area (Figure 24), have very few studies relating to both stock characteristics and inshore fisheries. Across the board, there are only a handful of studies examining the economic and social aspects.


eftec March 2010 48

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES IVa

Medium

High

All

All

AllAll

All AllAll

All AllAll

ISIS

ISIS

IS IS ISIS IS

IS

Figure 17: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES Iva

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES IVb

Medium

High

All

All

All

AllAll All

All

AllAll All

IS

IS

IS

IS

IS

ISIS IS IS IS

Figure 18: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES IVb



eftec March 2010 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES IVc

Medium

High

All

All

All

All

All

All

All

All All All

ISIS IS IS

IS IS ISIS IS

IS

Figure 19: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES IVc

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES VIa

Medium

High

All

All

All All

All

AllAll

All AllAll

ISIS

ISIS IS IS IS

IS ISIS

Figure 20: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES VIa



eftec March 2010 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES VIIa

Medium

High

All

All All

All

All All

AllAll All

All

IS

ISIS

ISIS IS IS IS IS

IS

Figure 21: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES VIIa

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES VIId

Medium

High

All

AllAll All

AllAll

All

AllAll

All

IS

IS

IS ISIS IS

IS ISIS

IS

Figure 22: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES VIId



eftec March 2010 51

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES VIIe

Medium

High

All

AllAll

All

AllAll

All

All

All

All

ISIS IS

ISIS IS IS

IS

ISIS

Figure 23: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES VIIe

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

ICES VIIf

Medium

High

All

All

All

All

AllAll

All

AllAll

All

IS

IS IS ISIS IS IS

ISIS IS

Figure 24: Cross-tabulation of basic data and ICES VIIf



eftec March 2010 52

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

UK

Medium

High

All All

All All All AllAll All

All

All

ISIS

IS

ISIS IS

IS ISIS IS

Figure 25: Cross-tabulation of basic data and UK location

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Occurence

Evidence

Other

Medium

High

All

All

All

All

AllAll

All All

All All

ISIS

ISIS

IS ISIS IS IS IS

Figure 26: Cross-tabulation of basic data and Other ICES location



eftec March 2010 53

EU

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Stock

CC

Stock

Dist

Stock

TV

Stock

Rec

FC DS IC IR

Price

Dem

and

Emp

Evidence

Oc

cu

ren

ce

Medium

High

All

All

AllAll All

All

All All

All

All

ISIS IS

ISIS

ISIS IS IS

IS

Figure 27: Cross-tabulation of basic data and EU location

International

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Sto

ckCC

Stock

Dist

Sto

ckTV

Stock

Rec FCDS IC IR

Pric

e Dem

and

Em

p

Evidence

Occu

ren

ce

Medium

High

Figure 28: Cross-tabulation of basic data and International location

Key Indicators StockCC - Stock carrying capacity StockDist - Stock Distribution StockTV - Stock Trends and variability StockRec - stock Recruitment FC - Fleet capacity DS - Days at sea IC - Industry costs IR - Industry revenue PriceDemand - fish price/demand Emp - Employment


eftec March 2010 54

5.4 Cross-tabulations of functional groups by data types

Figure 29 to Figure 33 show the cross-tabulation of data types with functional groups. Again, the same basic pattern is repeated in each case, with the slight differences that might be expected – a higher proportion of studies noting lobsters/crabs or shellfish are specific to inshore fisheries; the pattern for “pelagics” resembles that for “netting” while that for “demersals” resembles that for “trawling”. Overall there is no clear evidence here of specific data gaps beyond the general observations so far made.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Occurrence

Evidence

Demersals

Medium

High

All

All

All

All

All All

All All All All

ISIS

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

Figure 29: Cross-tabulation of basic data and demersals



eftec March 2010 55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Occurrence

Evidence

Pelagic

Medium

High

All

All All AllAll

AllAll All

All All

ISIS

ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

Figure 30: Cross-tabulation of basic data and pelagics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Occurrence

Evidence

Lobsters & Crabs

Medium

High

All

All

All

All AllAll

AllAll

AllAll

IS

IS ISIS IS IS

ISIS

ISIS

Figure 31: Cross-tabulation of basic data and lobsters/crabs



eftec March 2010 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Occurrence

Evidence

Shellfish

Medium

High

All

All All All

AllAll

All All AllAll

IS

ISIS IS

IS IS IS IS IS IS

Figure 32: Cross-tabulation of basic data and shellfish

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Occurrence

Evidence

Sandeels

Medium

High

All

AllAll All

All AllAll All All All

ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

Figure 33: Cross-tabulation of basic data and sandeels

5.5 Further development

It is possible to use the MS Excel spreadsheet to make much more specific searches (see Table 5.1 for a list of the possible filters), although great care is required with this due to the implementation in MS Excel as it is not particularly suited to this

Key Indicators StockCC - Stock carrying capacity StockDist - Stock Distribution StockTV - Stock Trends and variability StockRec - Stock Recruitment FC - Fleet capacity DS - Days at sea IC - Industry costs IR - Industry revenue PriceDemand - fish price/demand Emp - Employment All - All fisheries data IS - Inshore fisheries data


eftec March 2010 57

application. Therefore the spreadsheet has been converted into MS Access format to allow for greater ease in terms of searching and displaying results. In addition,

• The SAIF team will be able to extend the database with bespoke searches in the future as the querying of the data is more flexible with the use of SQL (Structured Query Language).

• The SAIF team will not have to manually apply filters for standard searches, which can be difficult to keep track of within the current spreadsheet.

• Results for standard searches will be displayed in a more user friendly manner.

5.6 Examples of research containing key data

The steering group suggested that in addition to the analysis of meta-data for the main project a sub-group of the research work available should be reviewed in greater detail in terms of their usefulness to inshore fishing policy. We developed a shortlist of papers from the database based on the type of key information contained within each piece of research. Documents were chosen to provide a broad coverage of information over the biological indicators, i.e., stock carrying capacity, stock distribution, stock trends and variability, and stock recruitment; and socio-economic indicators, i.e., fleet capacity, days at sea, industry costs and revenues, the price and demand for fish and employment. The following sections list the research covered by this additional review, following this list the documents are divided amongst the following topic areas and reviewed:

• General overview - documents considering inshore fisheries in general;

• Data gathering - documents modelling various data;

• Evaluating policy - documents evaluating specific policy options;

• Uncertainty in fisheries management - documents covering the development of specific policy tools under uncertainty;

• Detailed studies of specific resources and issues - documents covering specific fish species, or issues with particular management options, e.g., management based on quotas, and so on; and

• Data collection and analysis for social aspects - documents focusing on the social aspects of inshore fisheries.

5.6.1 Sources covered in review

Walmsley S.A. and Pawson, M.G., (2007) The coastal fisheries of England and

Wales, Part V: a review of their status 2005–6. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas

Lowestoft, 140: 83pp.

CEFAS (2007) Development of integrated systems for shellfish data collection,

assessment and management. Final report to Defra, project MF0229.

CEFAS (2007b) Fisheries Interactions. Final report to Defra, project MF0322.


eftec March 2010 58

CEFAS on behalf of Defra “A Risk Analysis Framework for Fisheries Management” (ongoing)

Pascoe, S, Tingley, D and Mardle, S (2002) “Appraisal of Alternative Policy

Instruments to Regulate Fishing Capacity” Final report to Defra (project ER0102/6)

Hatcher, A, Pascoe, S, Banks, R and Arnason, R (2002) Future options for UK fish

quota management, CEMARE Report 58

Costello, C., Gaines, S.D. and Lynham, J. (2008) Can Catch Shares Prevent

Fisheries Collapse? Science 321, 1678

Richardson, EA, Kaiser, MJ and Edwards-Jones, G (2005) “Variation in fishers’

attitudes within an inshore fishery: implications for management” Environmental

Conservation 32 (3): 213–225

Blyth, R.E., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards-Jones, G. and Hart, P.J.B. (2002) Voluntary

management in an inshore fishery has conservation benefits Environmental

Conservation 29 (4): 493–508

Pawson, M. G., Kupschus, S., and Pickett, G. D. 2007. The status of sea bass

(Dicentrarchus labrax) stocks around England and Wales, derived using a separable

catch-at-age model, and implications for fisheries management. – ICES Journal of

Marine Science, 64: 346–356.

Drew Associates Ltd (2004) Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea

Angling, Report to Defra

North Sea Women’s Network (2007) Developing a Socio-Economic Dataframe.

Report to Defra.

Pollard, V (no date) Fishing Communities and Regional Development: Analytical

paper produced to support the report Net Benefits – a sustainable and profitable

future for UK fishing. PMSU

Vaze, P and Tingley, D (no date) Fishermen’s incentives and policy: Analytical

paper produced to support the report Net Benefits. PMSU.

The Sustainable Access for Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) programme suite of three projects:

• Economic aspects: “An Economic approach to long term reform of the English inshore fleet” (Vivid Economics and Poseidon)

• Social aspects: “Fishing Industry Typologies research” (Creative Research)

• Environmental aspects: “Inshore fishing’s interactions with the environment” (Cefas with Seafish)


eftec March 2010 59

5.6.2 General Overview

Walmsley et al. (2007) updates the description of the inshore fisheries around England and Wales provided in Pawson et al. (2002), which in turn succeeded Gray (1995), Pawson and Rogers (1989) and Pawson and Benford (1983).

The structure for all these reviews is the same: a general overview of each fishery sector (for demersal and pelagic fish, shellfish, and migratory species) within each of the twelve Sea Fishery Committee (SFC) Districts, including a description of the fishing activity undertaken from each port or landing place. There is a brief discussion of the management framework. General trends in the fisheries are noted: in the 2007 report, this includes a general downturn compared with 1995, and instances of closures due to lack of resource (eel trawl fishery in Thames estuary) or for resource protection (phasing out of coastal net fisheries for salmon), but inshore fisheries for sea bass and shellfish have been maintained.

The report notes that inshore fisheries “are the backbone of many fishing communities, playing an important socio-economic role in coastal areas”. This is seen as particularly important:

o where remote communities have few alternative activities; o where there is high unemployment; o where local tourism make high use of fresh, locally caught fish; o where the nature of the coastline and waters favours small inshore boats,

e.g., in many bays and estuaries.

The inshore fishing fleet in England and Wales remains very diverse and dynamic, with many types of fishermen (full-time, part-time or hobby and recreational) utilising and competing for many resources, and a large number of small vessels capable of operating a wide range of fishing gears in seasonal and opportunistic fisheries close to their home ports. The authors note that the importance of part-time fishers should not be underestimated, but also stress that there are no accurate data on their numbers and behaviour. Their presence adds to versatility, and the flexibility of the inshore fishing industry is important, allowing commercial fishermen to adapt fishing behaviour to seasonal and longer-term variations and fluctuations in availability of target species, in marketing opportunities and in management controls. On the other hand, this has also led fishers to respond to rising costs and falling stocks by:

o increasing fishing effort, often by moving towards more static gear and smaller, more efficient vessels, in preference to towed gears with higher fuel costs; and

o re-directing effort towards non-quota species (e.g. bass, cuttlefish, prawns, rays and red mullet).

‘Opportunistic’ fishing can lead to intense effort on seasonal or fluctuating fisheries, and the authors note that this can reduce the length of time a fishery remains profitable. The growing importance of angling – both as a direct use of


eftec March 2010 60

resources, and as a source of income for boat owners – is noted, but again quantitative data are missing.

The report notes the increasing awareness of conservation issues, and the association of the conservation needs of marine resources and of more general environmental issues as our knowledge of marine ecosystems and the interactions with man’s activities improves. As a result, fisheries are no longer viewed in isolation and we are moving towards a more integrated management in the coastal zone, in which considerations of the impact of anthropogenic activity on ecosystems play an increasingly important part. In addition, there is an increasing trend of stakeholder inclusion, where all interested parties are able to have a say in management decisions. Finally, the last 5 years has seen the development of new tools such as GIS that enable us to model the effects of natural and anthropogenic processes on the marine environment. In this way the impacts and risks of management scenarios on ecosystems can be assessed.

Key data covered and applications to inshore fishery policy: This research contains information that is of interest for those considering any inshore fisheries management policy, the research contains important background information on the industry, with a focus on the catch and economic aspects.

5.6.3 Data gathering

CEFAS (2007) aimed to develop modelling frameworks that integrate processes of data collection, stock assessment and fishery management, in the context of scallop fishing. This included identification and quantification of uncertainties, evaluation of sampling, monitoring and assessment programmes, and their integration within a spatially structured modelling framework. A spatial model using an individual approach for vessels and a matrix approach for scallop population dynamics was applied to assess some spatial management strategies for scallop fisheries, including rotational closures, permanently closed areas and a non-restrictive TAC constraint. Results suggested that rotational harvesting management for all areas led to higher long-term yields and higher standing biomass than TAC management. When rotational and TAC management were operated together results were more complex, depending on the specific locations of the different management areas in relation to vessels’ home ports and operational ranges. Permanent closure led to substantially increased biomass in the closed area, while biomass in the open areas was reduced due to increased effort, but again the details depend on specific locations. The authors note the scope for future more complex and realistic modelling drawing on information from the research, and also the potential for adapting the framework for work on other species and fisheries, with modifications for different fleet behaviour and biological factors.

Key data covered and applications to inshore fishery policy: This research contains information that gives an important example of the development of models for better management by integrating the process of data collection, stock


eftec March 2010 61

assessment with fisheries management. This research is potentially important for designing future research and management options.

5.6.4 Evaluating policy options

The Sustainable Access for Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) programme explores how Defra can develop policy to help achieve the vision set out in its Vision 2027 document (Defra, 2007). A suite of three projects looked to assess aspects associated with economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability.

• Economic aspects: “An Economic approach to long term reform of the English inshore fleet” (Vivid Economics and Poseidon)

• Social aspects: “Fishing Industry Typologies research” (Creative Research)

• Environmental aspects: “Inshore fishing’s interactions with the environment” (Cefas with Seafish)

“An economic approach to long term reform of access to fisheries for the inshore

fleet” had objectives to:

• Set out possible alternative criteria for definition of the inshore or small-scale fleet;

• Assess the economic and financial data available to present a current picture of the inshore fleet;

• Define key indicators of performance of the inshore fleet to enable effective policy evaluation; and

• Explore management options for the inshore fleet to meet economic, environmental and social objectives discussing the transition to reach an efficient outcome.

“Fishing Industry Typologies research” aimed to help Defra to construct a detailed understanding of the needs, motivations, attitudes and behaviours of fishermen, particularly in the inshore fleet, thereby aiding policy development and effective communication. Key objectives include:

• Develop a typology of fishermen in terms of their attitudes and behaviours;

• ‘Profile’ the typologies according to explanatory criteria such as demographic characteristics, region, type of fishing;

• Explore fishermen’s attitudes, motivations and perceptions regarding their work, their communities and the environment; and

• Identify actual and preferred communication methods and channels.

“Inshore fishing’s interactions with the environment” measures the economic and environmental impact of commercial fishing vessels targeting quota species in inshore waters. Skippers from 31 vessels participating in the pilot are free from the monthly catch limits applied to vessels fishing from the pool quota. Instead, for the duration of the pilot they submit logbooks for each trip detailing days at sea, fishing patterns, catch and discards.


eftec March 2010 62

Pascoe et al (2002) note that excess capacity is one of the main challenges facing UK and other European fisheries. With too many boats chasing too few fish, the allocation of resources to fishing is inefficient, with higher costs per unit of catch, and lower profits, than could be achieved with fewer boats. The reduced profit margins lead to pressure to avoid quota controls and land over-quota fish. This study reviews various ways of managing capacity that could be used in the UK, based on three generic frameworks:

• unitisation with decommissioning;

• individual transferable catch quotas; and

• individual transferable effort quotas

Unitisation with decommissioning involves specifying a number of capacity units for each vessel, and fixing the total level in the industry, with decommissioning payments to make an initial cut to the desired level. For more specific control of effort, the authors consider a method that sets separate limits for different fleet segments, restricting transfers of units between segments. But to maintain flexibility for the traditionally multi-gear/multi-purpose inshore fleet, they propose to define the main segments with reference to larger vessels, suggesting that a separate scheme could be introduced for the inshore fleet.

Individual transferable quotas (ITQs) are not directly a capacity management system, but tend to have the effect of reducing capacity where they have been applied. The authors suggest that moving to ITQs would only be relatively straightforward, requiring removal of the current unitisation system and relaxing restrictions on trading current quota allocations. A one-off decommissioning scheme could be used for initial adjustment.

Individual transferable effort quotas are similar to ITQs, but have the weakness that they do not respond automatically to changes in technology and efficiency, making periodic adjustments necessary. One-off decommissioning could be used for initial adjustment. Hatcher et al (2002) report a survey suggesting that 86% of respondents within the UK fishing industry considered ITQs to be inevitable, although 72% were against their introduction.

The authors note that any decommissioning scheme within an individual transferable catch or effort quota system should be industry funded through levies, since the industry will be the main beneficiary. An alternative approach would be to auction (some part of) the quotas. The analysis concluded that individual transferable catch quotas are the most economically efficient option, and it also has the advantage that assessing compliance with quotas does not have a large marginal cost, since the UK is required to monitor landings to satisfy the EC quota management requirements.

A separate report (Hatcher et al 2002) notes specific problems with the existing UK quota system, with some level of trading possible, but with the inshore fleet effectively excluded from this. The authors state “There is no economic reason


eftec March 2010 63

why vessels of 10m and under targeting quota stocks should be excluded from the management system applied to the over 10m fleet. Problems are presented by the size of the inshore sector and the fact that vessels do not presently have any individual quota entitlements. Nevertheless, we suggest that the 10m and under fleet should be brought fully into quota management, perhaps gradually by reducing the lower length threshold over a number of years.” In this context, the FAO (2008) notes that it is difficult to make clear definitions of separate fisheries when fleets target species in overlapping areas – such as when inshore fleets target species that extend to deeper waters where they are taken by offshore fleets using different gears – and this may motivate closer coordination between policies aimed at different fleets.

Costello et al (2008) bring an empirical perspective to the debate over transferable quota management. Noting that many of the world’s fisheries have collapsed, and that many more are heading towards that fate, the authors test how the introduction of individual transferable quotas influences a fishery’s trajectory, based on a global database of fisheries institutions and catch statistics in 11,135 fisheries from 1950 to 2003. They find that implementation of ITQs halts and in some cases even reverses, the global trend toward collapse. The authors define “collapse” as a situation in which landings have fallen to below 10% of the historical maximum. By 2003, the fraction of ITQ-managed fisheries that were collapsed was about half that of non-ITQ fisheries. This result probably underestimates ITQ benefits, because most ITQ fisheries are young, and because ITQs are most likely to be introduced where a fishery is already in trouble. The authors hypothesise that, had ITQs been adopted for all fisheries in 1970, the proportion collapsed by 2003 would have been 9%, compared to the actual figure of approximately 27%.

Key data covered and applications to inshore fishery policy: A number of the documents reviewed within this section have information that will be of relevance to the evaluation of different options for managing inshore fisheries, in particular the option of individual transferable quotas; however, these reports tend to be focused on socio-economic rather than biological indicators.

5.6.5 Uncertainty in fisheries management

Application of management ideas requires consideration of various data, including information on stock status, fishing effort, and so on. However such data may be missing or uncertain, and this creates a significant need for practical management tools that can be applied in the face of uncertainty.

Vivid Economics and Poseidon (2009) argue that achieving policy targets will require four short to medium term changes in the inshore fleet:

• reduction in catches, in some cases major;

• large reduction in fishing costs, particularly through reduced catching capacity;


eftec March 2010 64

• reduction in bycatches and discards; and

• substantial reduction in damage to habitats and biodiversity.

Various policies could be applied to achieve these changes. Vivid Economics and Poseidon consider that the following will likely be necessary:

• elimination of subsidies for catching activities (including payments for decommissioning);

• the extraction of fishing rents;

• the creation of a clear regulatory contract with fishers;

• support for fishers upon leaving the sector; and

• management at a geographical scale appropriate for stocks.

They note however that there are serious data problems for management of the inshore fleet, including a lack of related financial information, and the dominance of non-quota species in landings by the inshore sector. The data within most published reports on the inshore fleet are now out-dated, particularly with recent significant changes in costs such as fuel, and earnings.

Uncertainty is a key theme in fisheries management generally. The FAO (1996) precautionary approach to fisheries management requires formal consideration of uncertainty based on target reference points, limits and control rules. However, for most stocks, including the majority of ICES stocks, there are no reliable estimates of these reference points (Cadrin and Pastoors, 2008). The World Summit on Sustainable Development (COFI, 2003) commits signatories to maintain or restore fish stocks to levels that can produce the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015, however for most stocks we do not have the basic data necessary to assess what that level is, and in many cases, including 80% of stocks managed under the CFP, we do not even know the stock status.

CEFAS (2007b) aimed to develop methods to support the scientific advice framework for the sustainable management of marine fisheries via a ‘toolbox’ allowing the evaluation of alternative strategies designed to achieve a range of management objectives. The approach is development of a bio-economic framework allowing “Management Strategy Evaluation” – essentially this means using simulation models run under various management strategies (i.e. sets of decision rules specifying the management actions to be taken under different conditions), with the outcomes assessed against various possible objectives for fisheries management. Numerous simulations are undertaken for each strategy, in order to test the implications of uncertainty, with one important aim being to find management strategies that are “robust” in the sense of giving acceptable results under a wide range of situations. Management strategies are not limited to simple rules such as fishing mortality targets, but can be complex and involve multiple objectives, for example including included recovery plans that try to balance conflicting management actions over different time scales.


eftec March 2010 65

The project has collated a variety of biological datasets to allow a variety of analyses to be undertaken into factors affecting the sustainability of fish stocks, including work on species interactions, size-structure of stocks, temporal effects of fishing pressure and environmental change. This biological side of modelling is complemented by economic modelling covering fleet dynamics in terms of fishing areas and exit from the industry. This approach to building stochastic models and evaluating management strategies is important because there is substantial uncertainty about stock dynamics and about the response of fishing fleets to management measures.

The management strategy evaluation was applied to specific case studies. For North Sea plaice, for example, the results suggested that the best way to improve results is not to create increasingly complex spatial and temporal assessments, but rather to adopt management regimes that are robust to uncertainty in the spatial dynamics of the stock, and that management measures aiming for fishing mortality targets rather than biomass targets would be more robust to ecological regime shifts.

The project has provided a significant contribution to the development of the software FLR (Fisheries Library in “R”): a free, open source, multi-platform, software environment for statistical computing and graphics. The “R” environment provides a flexible and powerful platform for creating and enhancing stock assessment and for management strategy evaluation methodology. Thus FLR is a tool that can be used as (1) its separate components, for stock assessment and data analysis or (2) as a whole, for management strategy evaluation (MSE) (as noted above – for North Sea cod and flatfish). The ICES WG on Fishery Systems noted that “the development of FLR is a major step forward in developing a shared language

that can be used among scientists, initially, and then can make a significant

contribution to clarifying communications across the science boundary with and

among stakeholders. In doing so it is anticipating ….fisheries-based advice”.

“A Risk Analysis Framework for Fisheries Management” is an ongoing study (2008-2013) funded by Defra and carried out by Cefas. The project is developing the necessary knowledge and tools for developing and evaluating recovery and sustainable management plans for UK fisheries under an ecosystem based approach to fisheries. Simulation models are being developed using the FLR9 framework. The main objective is to develop better ways of incorporating risk in fisheries management decisions where knowledge and data are uncertain. The risk analysis framework includes:

• risk identification/description;

• risk assessment/measurement;

9 www.flr-project.org - a collection of programming tools for building bioeconomic simulation models.


eftec March 2010 66

• risk management tools;

• risk communication methods.

The project proposes a harvest strategy framework based on a “tier rule” under which each species or stock is assigned to one of four tiers depending on the kind of information available:

• Tier 1: robust quantitative assessment based upon catch-at-age;

• Tier 2: quantitative assessment based upon catch biomass and catch per unit effort CPUE

• Tier 3: CPUE only

• Tier 4: Life history and fishery knowledge.

The proposed level of precaution in setting catch or effort limits increases with the tiers (i.e. with uncertainty about stock status) in an attempt to keep the level of risk broadly similar across the tiers.

Key data covered and applications to inshore fishery policy: The research within this category is broader in terms of the information contained within the reports in that all key meta-data are represented. The research gives valuable information about how to respond to and incorporate various sources of uncertainty within fisheries management policy and evaluation.

5.6.6 Detailed studies of specific resources and issues

Pawson et al (2007) report a detailed investigation of sea bass (D. labrax) fisheries around the coasts of England and Wales. The commercial fishery for sea bass is relatively recent (late 1970s onwards) but by the mid-1980s involved 3000 fishers using more than 2000 boats to make landings worth £3–4 million. Values from sea-angling for bass are also high, with similar levels of landings. However there was strong evidence of growth-overfishing in many areas, leading to a package of technical measures in 1990, aimed at improving the exploitation pattern and yield per recruit.

Pawson et al provide the first quantified model of sea-bass dynamics in English and Welsh waters. The assessment model takes into account data availability, known characteristics of the fisheries, and the biology of sea bass. A separable model using gear-dependent effort data to scale fishing mortality is used, because there are large variations in effort among gears, and reliable effort data are available through the Cefas logbook scheme.

The model estimates for fishing mortality, spawning stock biomass trends and recruitment generally match understanding of sea bass stocks and fisheries from other sources. However the model assumes closed populations, whereas in fact there is also an offshore fishery, and bass migrate in and out of the inshore waters. This reduces the suitability of the model for short-term forecasts, setting TACs, or the evaluation of uncertainty; but the model remains suitable for precautionary


eftec March 2010 67

management advice in relation to stock status and sustainability. The results of these assessments and those reported by Pawson et al. (2005) suggest that bass stocks in UK coastal waters are being exploited sustainably, at a moderate level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near maximum yield per recruit, and that there has been an increase in exploitable biomass since the early 1990s. Continued development and application of these models will have an important role in monitoring and assessing bass stocks and fishery trends, and in evaluating the likelihood of success of implementing new management measures.

Angling is an important use of inshore fishing resources and an important contributor to coastal economies and communities. Drew Associates (2004) aimed to fill key data gaps in this area: identifying the important local centres for sea angling; quantifying its economic contribution nationally and locally; and estimating the additional value of angling to anglers. The total expenditure by anglers resident in England and Wales was estimated as £538m per year from 12.7m angler days of activity. In terms of first round impacts, the spending translates into 18,889 jobs and £71m in suppliers. Income multiplier effects were not measured.

The analysis suggests that there are 1.1m households in England and Wales with at least one member who had been sea angling in the past year. Mean consumer surplus on total annual sea angling activity varied from £381 per shore angler to £886 per own boat angler. When aggregated over sea fishing trips for the whole country, the annual aggregate net benefit based on the mean consumer surplus estimates was £594 million. The total value, including expenditures and consumer surplus, is between £600m and £1,300m per year, though this is not all a value to society since some part of expenditure is resource cost (e.g. fuel); some other part is profit to producers (e.g. charter boats, restaurants) and that is a value to society.

Choice experiments revealed benefits from improving angling, with all types of angler willing to pay more for larger fish (£0.22 per 1% increase in size) and for greater diversity in the catch (£11.38 to catch different species from those usually caught). However, only shore anglers were willing to pay for more fish (£0.81 per extra fish caught); the coefficient for boat anglers is not significant (but this may be an artefact of the levels used for the fish catch characteristic in the experiment, which were lower than actual mean catches). 71% of anglers perceived a decrease in numbers caught over the last 5 years, and 62% a decrease in fish size. To some extent anglers have adapted to changing conditions by switching locations, travelling further and using more powerful boats to extend their search.

Growth in the sector in England and Wales may be inhibited by lack of fish or poor fish quality. At a national level it is not clear to what extent activity is being constrained by available stocks.


eftec March 2010 68

Key data covered and applications to inshore fishery policy: As suggested by the topic title the reports reviewed within this section relate to specific resources, e.g., limited to detailed work on a single species, or alternatively focused on an aspect of the industry such as, recreational angling. The reports reviewed within this section are examples of sound, detailed research into quite specific aspects on inshore fisheries. Key meta-data coverage and policy use vary across these reports.

5.6.7 Data collection and analysis for social aspects

North Sea Women’s Network (2007) notes the commitment within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to take account of social, economic and environmental factors “in a balanced manner” when taking fisheries management decisions, but points out that the absence of a system for monitoring and analysing the social and economic circumstances of fisheries communities and sectors means this commitment has not been met. The authors present a proposed methodology for systematic and consistent assessment of social and economic factors in order to facilitate their incorporation in management decisions, via a dataframe with two main components:

• community and sectoral socio-economic profiles, based on a large-scale baseline study of fishing communities and sectors, to be updated periodically; and

• a set of seven socio-economic indicators related to industry, community and institutional arrangements, based on annual quantitative and qualitative data-gathering processes.

The indicators proposed are as follows:

• Industry indicators o Profitability: costs/earnings per sector; general local economic

performance o Fisheries-related activity: number of businesses; full-time/part-time

employment by gender, age, nationality per sector; % total local employment

o Economic value: economic value per local sector; % economic value relative to total sector; % local GDP from fisheries

• Community indicators o Population (fisheries/general): community size; community

diversity; community skills; employment/training opportunities o Social well-being (fisheries/general): job satisfaction; cost of living

(qualitative); perception of choice; community-identity fit

• Institutional indicators o Social Policy: accessibility of advice, support and funds; degree of

advice, support and funds o Fisheries Governance: understanding of fisheries management;

perception of fleet restrictions; legitimacy of fisheries management; participative opportunities in fisheries management


eftec March 2010 69

Some of the necessary socio-economic fisheries data are available from official sources within the UK, some data are available piecemeal and some are not readily available at all. Data are available at a range of scales, sometimes incompatible. Collating existing data, and making new measurements, within the proposed dataframe will be a major task and will require periodic review and updating. If this can be achieved, it will be possible for governments, managers, resource users, community organisations and stakeholder to propose and make policies that are more socio-economically sensitive to fisheries and fisheries communities and sectors.

Richardson et al (2005) start from the observation that although most models of fisheries management assume that fishers will exploit their fishing opportunities in an independent, profit-maximising fashion, in fact fishers’ motivations, attitudes and behaviours are often more heterogeneous. They report research exploring attitudinal differences between participants in the Welsh commercial inshore commercial fishery, covering five main sectors. Results suggested an attitudinal continuum: mobile gear fishers tended to believe that the industry was too tightly controlled and impacted by other fishers and other human influences, while crustacean potters tended to believe that stock conservation was very important and that minimum landing sizes were not too cautious. Intermediate positions were expressed by transient fishers, whelk potters and line/net fishers. These attitudes are related to the characteristics of the sector and its resource base: in particular, target species’ mobility and past sector experiences predicted attitudes towards stock conservation measures. Differences in attitudes among individual fishers may imply varying personal discount rates and could affect how respondents respond to and comply with management tools. Attitudinal differences among sectors may mean that an effective management tool in one sector may be inappropriate or counterproductive in another.

Vaze and Tingley (nd) examine the motivations, financial pressures and incentives facing fishers, with a view to addressing two key problems in fisheries management: ensuring compliance with management measures, and preventing the build-up of excess fishing capacity. The authors suggest that the current implicit assumption that non-compliance can be addressed through better enforcement may be too simplistic: poor compliance is also the result of a lack of trust in the system and poor profitability. Building trust and profitability, alongside better enforcement, may be more successful ways to improve compliance. The authors suggest developing a deeper understanding of the incentives driving fisher behaviour, and this will require better information both on fishermen’s attitudes and on the social and industry factors that feed into their decision-making. They point out that environmental fluctuations in stocks / recruitment can cause large swings in allowed catch and hence incomes, and suggest that a more systematic approach to handling such risks is needed, including clearer use-rights alongside adaptive management techniques to enable management to adjust rapidly to risks of over-fishing.


eftec March 2010 70

The authors conclude that achieving a transparent and high-compliance fishery management system will require not only reform but also careful consideration of how the reforms are decided and implemented. They suggest that management should aim to provide a clear strategic vision for fisheries policy, and work closely with the fishing industry jointly to implement a programme of reform.

Pollard (nd) notes that despite a long term decline in fishing employment, significant levels still exist. This is geographically concentrated overall, but not so much for the inshore sector which is quite dispersed, and also important, accounting for at least 45% of fishing employment in the UK. Many other benefits accrue to communities with an active fishing industry, including social and cultural values, and impacts on marketing tourism or local goods and services. These factors remain hard to quantify, however. A profitable industry is essential to the continued well-being of communities dependent on fishing. There is clear conflict here, however, since substantial reductions in capacity are needed if the industry is to be profitable and sustainable, and this makes significant losses in fish catching and related employment inevitable. The impacts of policy changes will be unevenly distributed, varying according to regional differences in the type of fishing activity. The worst-hit communities will be small, highly-dependent communities in remote areas as well as medium-dependency communities that are not well enough equipped to attract vessels in a more streamlined industry. There are about 300 fishing ports in the UK, some already in trouble. The offshore fleet is likely to become even more concentrated in large ports; details of how the inshore fleet will fare in individual ports are not known.

Various policies could be used to mitigate the impacts on fishing communities, although the author argues that any social objectives should be secondary to the pursuit of the primary objectives of a profitable industry and sustainable management of stocks. In addition, dependency itself is not a justification for action – intervention should focus on communities that are both dependent and vulnerable. Ring-fenced community quotas are proposed as one of the best ways of protecting vulnerable, fishing-dependent communities, where it can be done in a way compatible with EU law.

Specifically for the inshore sector, the author proposes a “modernised approach” with clearly-stated objectives, including social objectives, to be determined jointly with stakeholders. It is inevitable however that some fishing activities will reduce, and transitional policies and diversification will be required.

Social and policy aspects are combined in the analysis of Blyth et al (2002). The authors suggest that top-down management of fisheries via government institutions and agreed quota allocations “may have contributed to the continued decline of targeted fish stocks by forcing fishers to compete for limited resources without engendering a sense of resource stewardship”. They assess the Inshore Potting Agreement (IPA) as an example of an alternative management institution. A voluntary management system, designed and operated by inshore fishers of south Devon, the IPA aims to reduce conflict between static-gear (pot and net) and


eftec March 2010 71

towed-gear (trawl and dredge) fishers. It is widely viewed as a success because it has effectively allowed fishers from both sectors to operate profitably on traditional fishing grounds. It has also had the incidental effect of protecting benthic habitat complexity. Interviews showed that towed-gear fishers were generally less satisfied with the scheme than static-gear fishers; those who felt the IPA brought no personal benefit thought that static-gear fishers should be more restricted, and that towed-gear corridors or more seasonal-use areas should be established within the existing IPA area. However, fishers from both sectors agreed that the scheme has maintained traditional fishing practices, and has conserved target finfish and scallop species. The authors suggest that several factors are key to the success of the IPA, including the voluntary nature of the agreement, the small number of organizations representing almost all the fishers, and the simplicity of the voluntary rules. Compliance is enhanced through the ability of fishers’ organizations to respond rapidly to inter-sector conflict issues.

Key data covered and applications to inshore fishery policy: The information within these reports demonstrates how the important social aspects of inshore fisheries, often under-represented in models and analysis, might better be integrated into policy development and evaluation.

5.6.8 Overall summary of extended reviews

The detailed review conducted on the literature listed in section 5.6.1 shows that there is huge variation in both the type of key meta-data coverage by different pieces of research and the level of detail of the research conducted. That said the review shows that there is a lot of information and knowledge available, and some strong methods of analysis and policy evaluation, potentially taking into account a wide range of economic, ecological and social factors and uncertainties. Almost all research is split between those considering 'biological' and those considering 'socio economic' issues. The challenge remains to ensure that the different factors are all measured and evaluated in practice, and to implement management tools that reflect the complexity of the situation: the research reviewed demonstrates that this is a realistic objective for future research and management efforts.

5.7 Ongoing studies

A number of ongoing studies were identified in the database: these are not covered in the above gap analyses, although some have been drawn on in reporting the most important pieces of research. These are identified in Table 5.7.1. The listing cannot be considered comprehensive, as it has been to a large extent dependent on responses to questionnaires/interviews. An excellent response from Sussex provided a long list of research primarily in the Sussex / South Coast area, and there are likely to be similar projects ongoing or planned elsewhere.

Table 5.7.1: Ongoing research relevant to UK inshore fisheries

Study title Data objectives

A Strategic Evaluation of Test and critically evaluate the usefulness of different


eftec March 2010 72



Ecosystem Models in Support of Fisheries Management (CEFAS)

modelling approaches for exploring wide ecosystem considerations of fisheries in the marine environment. Will lead to better understanding of importance of trophic interactions in determining recovery of depleted stocks, and mid- to long-term predictions.

Development of Tools for Estimation of Stock Status Under Uncertainty (CEFAS)

Main aim to develop and evaluate methods for stock assessment and management, including for data poor stocks, that will provide robust stock status estimates and management advice for a wider variety of stocks, fisheries and management regimes

Ecosystem approach to fisheries (CEFAS)

Development, testing and reporting of indicators that allow managers and stakeholders to assess the status of the ecosystem and the impacts of fishing, and (ii) the development of decision tables that allow managers and stakeholders to see the effects of different management options and to choose among them. The project will focus on the development of a pilot application of the EAF in the southwest.

Improved understanding and management of recreational sea angling (CEFAS)

Research into biological/ecological and economic aspects of RSA, including interactions with commercial fishing, stock status, value of recreational fishing. Desk studies for several species, deeper focus on bass. Development of data sources and methodology to assess the status of important RSA stocks and fisheries and to quantitatively evaluate the potential effects of changes in management on resource, commercial yield and RSA activity.

Practical steps towards reducing discards and developing more environmentally responsible fisheries (CEFAS)

Important research on technological developments for reducing discards, but not directly relevant to data collection for inshore fisheries management

Impact of Climate Change in Fish Stocks and Implications for Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Fisheries (ICES)

Develop environmental and fisheries databases support ICES/GLOBEC programme at regional / national level.

A master Seabed Classification database containing all seabed description data recorded off Sussex by SFC and partners using a common scale (EUNIS)

GIS utilising a standard classification (EUNIS) to facilitate analyse of geological morphology datasets and develop an understanding of the relationship between biological characterisation of areas and fishing activity.

(Currently in application phase) Assessment of the distribution and intensity of

To better understand the distribution and intensity of fishing activities in the vicinity of aggregate extraction sites at the four REC areas around the UK coast.


eftec March 2010 73



fishing activities in the vicinity of aggregate extraction sites Ref: MEPF/P73

Collecting and analysing data on the spatial distribution of the fisheries off Sussex

Map the inshore fisheries off Sussex

South Coast Regional Environmental Characterisation MEPF Ref no: 08 / 02 2007

Analysis and interpretation of the data collected during the 2007 South Coast REC survey

Developing the understanding of fishing activities in REC areas by including inshore fishing activities MEPF Ref no: P116

To create datasets on the intensity and distribution of fishing activities for inshore waters; integrated with VMS data to produce the first relative fishing effort layers for the entire REC areas, as well as the entire E&W shelf area.

South Coast and Eastern English Channel Synthesis

To extend the mapped coverage of the EECMHM to include the coastal platform from Saltdean east to Dungeness and provide an integrated map dataset covering this extension area, the South Coast REC and the EECMHM.

(Currently at application phase) Local Access to Regional Character: marine science for coastal communities

Dredging focus, but relevant through innovative methods for communicating with coastal communities

(Currently at application phase) Finds Protocol for Fisheries: Project Proposal WA Ref; Version: T12796.01

a Finds Protocol to facilitate the reporting of discoveries by the fishing industry to archaeologists, and to enable archaeological feedback about identification and treatment

UK Inshore Fisheries Sustainability Project – Pilot Phase

To empower inshore managers to develop management plans that move the small-scale, and often data-deficient, fisheries under their control towards sustainability and for the fishers to access the benefits of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification programme.

Whelk Fisheries Science Partnership

To investigate the biology of whelk in the Eastern Channel in order to support potential management measures through a description of key biological/ecological characteristics

Lobster population studies To describe the lobster population off Sussex

Bycatch study To collect information on the bycatch composition associated with fisheries off the Sussex Coast

Sussex SeaSearch To engage with and empower local divers to collect information on the seabed off Sussex which can be used


eftec March 2010 74



to understand the environment better

Species status descriptions for main target fish species caught off Sussex coast

To describe the characteristics, status and management of the main fisheries captured off the Sussex coast and to disseminate this information

O’Brien & Large (VME’s) Study project on the bottom vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME’s) in the NAFO regulatory area.

CEFAS – non-native species and climate change

Predicting the risks and impacts of non-native fishes under conditions of climate change.

eftec February 2010 75

6 Conclusions

The need for better data for inshore fisheries is widely recognised – for example by Northern Ireland Inshore Fisheries Stakeholders Advisory Group (nd) for whom the first of six overarching objectives for the inshore sector is “Knowledge: Improved

data collection and information for fisheries management and planning, e.g. on

habitat, stocks and fishing effort.” Recent review work such as Vivid Economics and Poseidon (2009) has also called for better information. The gap analysis presented here shows a general picture of low specific focus on inshore fisheries, and the stakeholder consultation identified a number of key areas that members of the fisheries community believed were lacking in information.

Most studies reviewed examine fisheries generally and are not specific to the inshore fleet. Although there are few gaps identified among the general studies, when looking only at inshore-focused studies gaps start to appear; further narrowing the focus to specific ICES areas, gear types or functional groups leads to further reductions in the width of the evidence base, so that for many key data types the number of references is in low single figures.

Across the board, particular gaps appear to relate to key biological reference points such as stock carrying capacity, as well as to social/economic aspects of inshore fisheries. This was born out by the stakeholder consultation, with calls for better information on catch per unit effort of inshore fishers, for example. Stakeholders also wanted better information on the environmental impacts of fishing. Overall, there is not enough work on modelling the impacts in economic, ecological and social terms of specific management options for inshore fisheries.

The lack of GIS-referenced data on the geographical location of inshore fishing activity, due to the absence of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data for the inshore fleet was highlighted as a key gap by consultees. It was also noted that the low frequency of VMS reporting (currently once every 2 hours) would limit the value of extending VMS in its current form to the inshore fleet – more frequent readings would be needed for inshore vessels.

It must be noted that the gap analysis is necessarily at quite a broad level – looking at functional groups of fish, for example, and at ICES areas. At more micro-scales there will inevitably be many more gaps in knowledge. This scale effect is already apparent when we focus in on specific ICES areas. Taking the analysis further, for specific stocks or ports, would be likely to reveal complete lack of information in many cases. We have not gone to this level of detail – partly because of difficulties with the MS Excel format, and partly because the number of possible searches is essentially infinite. Fuller assessments, targeted to specific policy issues, will be more practical in the forthcoming MS Access database, which will facilitate more detailed and complex searches.

Stepping back from the framework and considering the entire set of information contained in this database, there is an impression of disconnect between England’s


eftec March 2010 76

inshore fisheries and the changing environmental, social and economic setting in which they operate. Inshore fisheries do not operate within a vacuum and there appears to be a need for research which connects the sector’s social, economic and environmental challenges to wider issues.

The following are identified areas for potential research:

• community and social cohesion;

• changing tourism patterns and implications for angling, local food and coastal communities;

• cross-impacts with the energy sector;

• the impact climate change will have on economic and social dynamics in inshore fisheries;

• further work on methods for including the local economy, environmental and social factors into bioeconomic modelling; and

• further work on how inshore fishers respond to changing fishing opportunities, costs and policy instruments.

Social cohesion is recognised as an important issue: inshore fisheries play an important role in many coastal communities, and there is potential for conflict and other social and environmental interactions between the “pool” of inshore fishers and the “sector” of larger vessels, and between different inshore gear types (for example potting and trawling). Consultees flagged the need for general information relating to socio-economic factors, and in particular for standard formats for data to allow them to be integrated and compared. Overall, most respondents felt that socio-economic data was the most important gap within the inshore fisheries sector. There appears to be a need for research on social cohesion within communities and the challenge of bringing together competing objectives between inshore and offshore sectors in the UK. The data gathering and structuring activities proposed in North Sea Women’s Network (2007) is one option for providing an accessible and clear set of summary indicators on social and community aspects of fishing.

The evolving energy sector and the procurement of renewable sources are likely to have an impact on inshore fisheries in the UK. There does not appear to be enough research on the effect that wind or tidal power expansion could have on inshore fisheries; this has been a key gap in efforts to appraise the possible impacts of the Severn tidal power options, for example. An important gap in this context is understanding how coastal habitats support fisheries, in particular as nursery areas and sources of food for certain species. This knowledge gap also arises in appraisal of coastal and flood defence options.

Another sector which is expected to undergo a major transformation is domestic tourism. Changing patterns of travel within the UK will influence demand for sea food in coastal areas. The role of sea angling in tourism has been researched to some extent (Drew Associates 2004) but further work here would be useful, notably in further refining estimates of the values of angling activities. Angling can


eftec March 2010 77

compete with inshore fishing for resources, but can also represent an additional source of income for boat owners and coastal communities. Research into the distribution of angling benefits, and associated policy options, would be valuable. At the same time, better data and modelling are needed to improve understanding of the stock dynamics of key stocks, such as sea bass, that are targeted by commercial and recreational fishers.

The impact that climate change is expected to have on the inshore fisheries was not addressed by this framework analysis. However, a search of the database produces ten articles that are specifically related to climate change. Of these ten articles, nine focus on biological factors, and only one relates to the social and economic consequences of climate change: “Climate Change and the Scottish Fisheries” (Turrell 2006) is written for fishermen and does not provide any technical data or information sources. There appears to be a need for modelling the economic and social consequences of climate change for inshore fisheries. In particular, the possible implications of shifting geographical ranges for important stocks should be considered.

There is also a need for better tools for appraising management options for inshore fisheries, taking fisher behaviour into account, building in methods for considering uncertainty, and integrating management with ecosystem models. However work on these and other key topics is already underway, notably in studies being carried out by CEFAS, as detailed in section 5.7.

This does not mean that there are no further research needs in these areas, but in general these future research needs will be much better defined via the conclusions of those projects than through the general overview here. However we can say that it is likely that some of these studies and tools may require further data collection work to enhance applicability to inshore fisheries. For example, “A Risk Analysis Framework For Fisheries Management” proposes a harvest strategy framework based on a “tier rule” under which each species or stock is assigned to one of four tiers depending on the kind of information available, as discussed above.

• Tier 1: robust quantitative assessment based upon catch-at-age;

• Tier 2: quantitative assessment based upon catch biomass and CPUE;

• Tier 3: CPUE only; and

• Tier 4: Life history and fishery knowledge.

A large proportion of inshore stocks are likely to be under Tier 4 at present. A study to review the precise state of knowledge for a wide range of inshore stocks, collating existing knowledge, and drawing up plans for improving the knowledge for stocks on low tiers, would be a priority for any attempt to apply the harvest strategy rules to inshore fisheries.


eftec March 2010 78

References

Adams, A. 2001, Development of vaccination methods for the control of bacterial

kidney disease in salmonids, Defra.

Allison, E.H. & Ellis, F. 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 25, (July) 377-388

Allison, E.H. & Horemans, B. 2006. Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach into fisheries development policy and practice. Marine Policy, 30, 757-766

Anadon, R., Danovaro, R., Dippner, J., Drinkwater, K., Hawkins, S., O'Sulliva, G., Oguz, T., & Reid, P. 2007, Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and

Coastal Environment, European Science Foundation.

Anderson, J. & Curtis, H. 2006, The economic impacts of the UK sea fishing and sea

processing sectors: An input-output analysis, SeaFish.

Anderson, J., Curtis, H., Stewart, A.-M., & McShane, H. 2008, 2006 Economic

Survey of the UK Fishing Fleet, SeaFish.

Animal Sciences Group Wageningenur, Cefas, IEEP, HCMR, & LEI Wageningenur 2006, INDENT - INDicators of Environmental inTegration, European Commission.

Araujo, J. N., Mackinson, S., Ellis, J. R., & Hart, P. J. B. 2005, An Ecopath model

of the Western English Channel ecosystem with an exploration of its dynamic

properties, Cefas.

Armour, J. 1999, Physical and biochemical roles of carotenoids and alpha

tocopherol in Atlantic salmon.

Armstrong, M., Cotter, J., Dann, J., Garrod, C., Mainprize, B., Bevan, D., Malone, D., & Whittaker, C. 2004, Programme 1: North East Cod, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Dann, J., Shaw, S., Bush, R., & Whittaker, C. 2005, Programme 1:

North East Cod, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Dann, J., Keable, J., & Ashworth, J. 2005, Programme 4: North Sea

lemon sole, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Dann, J., Kupschus, S., & Shaw, S. 2005, Programme 6: West

Channel Sole and Plaice, Cefas.


eftec March 2010 79

Armstrong, M., Cotter, J., Dann, J., Witthames, P., Bevan, D., & Malone, D. 2005, Programme 4: Irish Sea Roundfish, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Cotter, J., Dann, J., Bunn, N., Shaw, S., & Bevan, D. 2005, Programme 5: Western Cod, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Cotter, J., Dann, J., Revill, A., Sullivan, K., Burt, G., Foster, G., Schon, P.-J., Briggs, R., & Bevan, D. 2005, Programme 8: Gear selectivity in the

Irish Sea - Part 2: Western Irish Sea Nephrops fishery, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Cotter, J., Dann, J., Kupschus, S., & Warnes, S. 2005, Programme

10: Celtic Sea sole and plaice, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Dann, J., & Sullivan, K. 2007, Programme 1: North East Cod, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Dann, J., Garrod, C., & Pasco, G. 2007, Programme 3: Irish Sea

Roundfish, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Randall, P., & Mulligan, B. 2008, North-East Cod Survey - 2003-2007, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Tingley, G., Beeching, T., Peach, D., & Pasco, G. 2008, Irish Sea Roundfish Surveys, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Doran, S., Pasco, G., & Randall, P. 2009, Irish Sea Roundfish Surveys, Cefas.

Armstrong, M., Dann, J., Garrod, C., Shaw, S., & Velterop, R. 2009, Programme 3:

Irish Sea Roundfish - Cefas.

Austin, B. 2004, Development of vaccines and the strategy for their use to control

ulcer disease in coldwater ornamental fish.

Azti tecnalia, MRAG Ltd, & Lamans S. A. Management Services 2008, Field study to assess some mitigation measures to reduce bycatch of marine turtles in surface

longline fisheries, European Commission.

Baan, P. J. A. & van Buuren, J. T. 2003, Testing of indicators for the marine and

coastal environment in Europe Part 3: present state and development of indicators

for eutrophication, hazardous substances, oil and ecological quality, EEA.

Banks, R., des Clers, S., & Macfadyen, G. 2001, Fish Prices and Electronic Auctions, MAFF.

Bannister, C. 2006, Towards a National Development Strategy for Shellfish in

England: Executive Report, Seafish.


eftec March 2010 80

Bannister, R. C. A. 2009, On the Management of Brown Crab Fisheries, Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

Baynes, S. M., Verner-Jeffreys, D., & Howell, B. R. 2006, Research on finfish cultivation.

Bell, E., Bannister, C., Satchel, C., Garrod, C., & Boon, T. 2004, Report of investigation into the potential whitefish by-catch in the North Sea sandeel

fishery, Cefas.

Bell, F.W. 1997. The economic valuation of saltwater marsh supporting marine recreational fishing in the south-eastern United States. Ecological Economics, 21, (3) 243-254 available from: http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030618765&partnerID=40

Bennett, D., Nichols, J., & Huntington, T. Certification Report for NESFC Lobster Fishery. 1-83. 2-9-2006. MOODY MARINE LTD. commissioned by North East Sea Fisheries Committee. Ref Type: Generic

Berglund, I. 2008, Big Fish Back - A risk analysis, Baltic Sea 2020.

Bergstrom, J.C., Stoll, J.R., Titre, J.P., & Wright, V.L. 1990. Economic value of wetlands-based recreation. Ecological Economics, 2, (2) 129-147 available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-458WKD1-4/2/ef50d2c60de37b3a20637c4d8db28e8c

Bevan, D. 2004, Programme 3: Western Anglerfish, Cefas.

Blyth, R.E., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Hart, P.J.B. 2002. Voluntary management in an inshore fishery has conservation benefits. Environmental

Conservation, 29, 493-508

Blyth, R.E., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Hart, P.J.B. 2004. Implications of a zoned fishery management system for marine benthic communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 951-961

Bord Iascaigh Mhara 2009, Studies and Pilot projects in support of the Common

Fisheries Policy: Lot 3 - Evaluation of various marker buoy techniques for the

marking of passive fishing gears, European Commission.

Brown, A. 2009, 2008 Survey of the UK Seafood Processing Industry, SeaFish.

Brown, J. H., McLeod, D. A., & Scott, D. C. B. 2006, Development of Best Practice

in Relation to Movement of Bivalve Shellfish Stock.


eftec March 2010 81

Brown, J. & Coffey, C. 2004, Analysis of the Legal and Institutional Policies Relating to the South West, IEEP.

Browning, L. 2002, The marine biodiversity of South East England, CoastWeb.

Brunel, T. & Boucher, J. 2007. Long-term trends in fish recruitment in the north-east Atlantic related to climate change. Fisheries Oceanography, 16, (4) 336-349

Buchanan, J. 2003, Rearing Protocols for Atlantic Halibut Larvae During Transition from Endogenous to Exogenous Nutrition.

Institut f r Ostseefischerei Rostock 2007. Bundesforschungsanstalt for Fischerei -, UNderstanding the Mechanisms of Stock ReCOVERy.

Bushi, M. 2006, In vitro and In vivo screening of potentially registerable

compounds for the treatment of aquatic fungal diseases in salmonids, and

encouraging commercial development of a suitable product (s).

Cabinet Office 2004, Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, Cabinet Office.

Caddy, J.F. & Carocci, F. 1999. The spatial allocation of fishing intensity by port-based inshore fleets: a GIS application. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56, 388-403

Cannaby, H. & Hu, Y. S. The influence of low-frequency variability and long-term trends in North Atlantic sea surface temperature on Irish waters, pp. 1480-1489.

Cappell, R. 2001, Economic Aspects of Discarding, Nautilus Consultants.

Cardenas, J.C., Stranlund, J., & Willis, C. 2000. Local Environmental Control and Institutional Crowding-Out. World Development, 28, (10) 1719-1733

Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Liljenstolpe, C. 2003. Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47, (1) 95-103 available from: http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0345446702&partnerID=40

Catchpole, T. L., Enever, R., & Doran, S. 2009, Programme 21: Bristol Channel Ray

survival, Cefas.

Cefas. State of the art review of biosecurity risk management in the aquatic environment. 1-38. Cefas. Ref Type: Generic

Cefas 209, Predicting the risks and impacts of non-native fishes under conditions

of climate change.

Cefas 1998, Development of data storage tags (DST) (phase 3): tag miniaturisation

& development of fishery independent methods of data retrieval.


eftec March 2010 82

Cefas 1999, Physical and Biological Controls on Fish Stocks.

Cefas 1999, Impact of fishing and dredging on edible crab stocks.

Cefas 1999, Evaluation of management options for fisheries systems.

Cefas 2000, An assessment of the impact of different types of sewage treatment

on the contamination of shellfisheries.

Cefas 2000, Estimating Nephrops abundance.

Cefas 2000, Fish egg development and mortality studies in the Irish Sea.

Cefas 2000, Spatial and temporal persistence of aggregations of young cod.

Cefas 2000, The effect of larval diet on the performance of cultured flatfish.

Cefas 2001, Edible crab spawning grounds off eastern England.

Cefas 2001, Catalogue and begin analysis of old CEFAS RV data.

Cefas. Practical steps towards reducing discards and developing more environmentally responsible fisheries. 9-4-2001. Ref Type: Generic

Cefas 2001, PREDATE - Detecting predation of fish eggs and larvae.

Cefas 2002, Allowing fishermen access to survey data.

Cefas 2002, An investigation into the prevalence and interaction of BKD in wild and farmed fish in selected river systems in the UK.

Cefas 2002, A procedure to assess the effects of dredging on commercial fisheries.

Cefas 2002, Discard studies in support of the CFP.

Cefas 2002, Role of environment in recruitment variability and incorporation of

environmental data into stock assessment methodology.

Cefas 2002, Framework for evaluating the application of seasonal or rotational

scallop fishery closures.

Cefas 2002, Multispecies Fisheries Management: A framework for investigating the

effects of North Sea sandeel management plans.

Cefas 2002, The potential use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries

by fish-eating birds.


eftec March 2010 83

Cefas 2003, Development of biologically-based models to simulate movements of

North Sea demersal fish stocks.

Cefas 2003, Biologically-based multispecies modelling and advice.

Cefas 2003, Evaluation of fishery management procedures and development of

stock assessment methods.

Cefas 2003, Development of shellfish modelling, assessment and management

methods.

Cefas 2003, Using historical data sets to investigate impacts of fishing and climate

change on demersal fish assemblages.

Cefas 2004, Edible crab spawning grounds in the English Channel.

Cefas 2004, Habitat selection and distribution of migratory salmonids in river

systems.

Cefas 2004, Habitat utilisation in wild salmonids and the impacts of stocking.

Cefas 2004, Impacts of agricultural contaminants on wild salmonids.

Cefas 2004, Movements of rays in Sub-area IV in relation to special protected areas

and possible management options.

Cefas 2004, Reference levels for size-based indicators of fishing impacts.

Cefas 2004, Salmonid migration and climate change.

Cefas 2004, Spatial and temporal distribution of predators and predator prey

interactions.

Cefas 2004, Linking the behaviour, spatial dynamics and the environment of cod

and ray populations to evaluate fisheries scenarios.

Cefas 2004, Pilot study for fishery-independent monitoring of cod recovery in the

Irish Sea by means of egg production surveys.

Cefas 2005, Development of models of plaice population dynamics incorporating

biological processes for use in risk assessment of management options.

Cefas 2005, Fishing gears with mitigating ecological impacts.

Cefas 2005, The epidemiology of endemic and emerging diseases in freshwater fish

populations in England and Wales.


eftec March 2010 84

Cefas 2005, Investigating the behaviour and movements of cod in the English

Channel and southern North Sea.

Cefas 2005, The potential use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries

by cormorants.

Cefas 2005, The use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries by

cormorants.

Cefas 2007, Assessing the abundance, distribution and vulnerability of rare and declining species impacted by fisheries.

Cefas 2007, Development and testing of ecological indicators and models to

monitor and predict the ecosystem effects of fishing.

Cefas 2007, Development of integrated systems for shellfish data collection,

assessment and management.

Cefas 2007, Fisheries Interactions.

Cefas 2007, Genetic structure of cod (Gadus morhua) populations in the southern

North Sea and English Channel.

Cefas 2007, The impact of introduced fish species on aquatic ecosystems.

Cefas 2007, Impacts of environmental change on the recruitment of commercial

fish stocks - an examination of potential mechanistic linkages through

temperature and prey.

Cefas 2007, Multispecies Fisheries Management: A Comprehensive Impact

Assessment of the Sandeel Fishery Along the English East Coast.

Cefas 2007, Phenological changes in growth in cod as an indicator of climate

change.

Cefas 2007, Validation and testing of biologically-based movement models for

North Sea plaice and implementation in management and assessment.

Cefas 2007, Spatial and temporal patterns in scallop recruitment and their

implications for management, Cefas, 4.

Cefas. Recovery of Research Vessel Fixed Costs for Defra Sea Fisheries Conservation Division's (SFCD) R&D Programme - Out of Scope. 1-4-2007. Ref Type: Generic

Cefas 2007. Movements and distribution of cod (Gadus morhua) in the southern North Sea and English Channel: results from conventional and electronic tagging


eftec March 2010 85

experiments. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, (599) 613

Cefas 2008, Monitoring of the quality of the marine environment, 2005-2006, Cefas.

Cefas 2008, Gear technology, discard reduction, and environmentally friendly

fishing studies.

Cefas 2008, Improved Understanding and Management of Shellfish Fisheries, Cefas, 4.

Cefas 2008, A Risk Analysis Framework For Fisheries Management.

Cefas. A Strategic Evaluation of Ecosystem Models in Support of Fisheries Management (STEEM). 1-4-2008. Ref Type: Generic

Cefas 2008, Development of Tools for Estimation of Stock Status Under

Uncertainty.

Cefas 2008, West Greenland Salmon Fishery Sampling Programme.

Cefas 2009, Factors affecting the distribution and behaviour of salmonid

populations, Cefas, 5.

Cefas. Ecosystem approach to fisheries. 1-4-2009. Ref Type: Generic

Cefas 2009, Improved understanding and management of recreational sea angling.

Cefas 2009, A Strategic Evaluation of Ecosystem Models in Support of Fisheries

Management (STEEM).

CEFAS, 2000, Characterisation and pathogenesis of epizootics in wild freshwater fish (Phase II).

CEFAS, 2000, Nursery cultivation of King scallop seed.

CEFAS, 2000, Research on viruses of fish and shellfish.

CEFAS, 2001, Improving the efficacy of medicines in aquaculture.

CEFAS, 2001, Requirements for depuration of scallops (Pecten maximus).

CEFAS & CE 2001, The molecular basis for the pathogenicity of viral haemorrhagic

septicaemia (VHS) virus.


eftec March 2010 86

CEFAS, 2002, Environmental influences on the sex of cultured marine flatfish.

CEFAS, 2002, Sex Control in Halibut and Turbot.

CEFAS, 2003, Development and application of neural network software for

identification of gyrodactylid parasites.

CEFAS, 2003, Factors affecting the disease susceptibility of fish.

CEFAS, 2004, The Use of Prebiotics to Improve Fish Health.

CEFAS, 2005, Characterisation and pathogenesis of parasites and diseases in fish and shellfish stocks.

CEFAS, 2005, Endocrinological and behavioural measures of the welfare of farmed

fish in relation to stocking density.

CEFAS, 2005, Evaluation of the risks involved using gene therapy techniques for stock improvement in aquaculture.

CEFAS, 2005, Research on the identification, diagnosis and significance of

notifiable and emerging virus diseases of fish and shellfish.

CEFAS, 2005, Improving the health of farmed fish by promoting natural disease

resistance.

CEFAS, 2005, Life cycle and transmission requirements of the PKD organism and

other myxosporean pathogens of freshwater fish.

CEFAS, 2005, Optimisation and standardisation of PCR assay protocols for koi

herpesvirus.

CEFAS, 2006, Defra aquaculture disinfectant listing scheme.

CEFAS, 2006, Risk to the aquaculture industry and the environment associated

with current and emerging bacterial and fungal fish/shellfish diseases and their

treatment.

CEFAS, CEMARE, CLREA, CMER, IEEP, IFOK, modus, v., Nautilus, C., OLR, O. L. R., SMRU(Small Mammal Research Unit), & University of Vigo 2007, Investing in South West Fisheries: Setting a course for sustainable fisheries in south-west England, Invest in Fish South West.

CEH, 2006, Modelling the bioenergetics of salmon migration.

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Maintain the collection and analysis of data on PIT-tagged adult Atlantic salmon returns on the River Frome, after the closure of CEH Dorset, for the benefit of CEH/ Cefas collaborative Atlantic salmon studies. 1-


eftec March 2010 87

4-2009. Ref Type: Generic

Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources 2008, Economic

effects of the cod recovery plan on the mixed fisheries in the North Sea, European Commission.

Charles, A.T. 2001. Fishery Socioeconomics: A Survey. Land Economics, 64, (3) 276-295

Christensen, V., Aiken, K.A., & Villanueva, M.C. 2007. Threats to the ocean: on the role of ecosystem approaches to fisheries. Social Science Information, 46, (1) 67-86

Clark, R. W., Dapling, T. M., Foster-Smith, R. L., Hume, D. R., Irving, R., & Rhynas, K. 2006, The Seabed and Inshore Fishing Activity: Assessment and Relationship, Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee.

Clark, R. W., Dapling, T. M., Hume, D. R., Woolmer, A. P., & Vause, B. J. 2009, Habitat classification using video and acoustic techniques, Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee.

Coates, P. J. MOLLUSCAN WORKING GROUP - COCKLE MORTALITY BRIEFING. 0-4. 2007. Ref Type: Generic

Coffey, C. & Dwyer, J. 2000, Managing EC Inshore Fisheries: Time for Change, IEEP.

Coffey, C. 2005, Managing Europe's inshore fisheries: harnessing the new European

Fisheries Fund, IEEP.

Cornwall, C. C. 2008, Draft Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Sector Profile: Fishing Cornwall County Council & Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Economic Forum.

Cossins, A. R. 1999, Dietary lipids and cold tolerance in juvenile flatfish.

Costello, C., Gaines, S.D., & Lynham, J. 2008. Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse? Science, 321, (5896) 1678-1681 available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5896/1678

Cotter, J., Armstrong, M., Dann, J., Garrod, C., Goddard, M., & Bevan, D. 2004, Programme 7: North Sea plaice and lemon sole, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Armstrong, M., Woods, T., Dann, J., White, P., Keable, J., & Bevan, D. 2004, Programme 8: Gear selectivity in the Irish Sea - Part 1: Eastern Irish Sea

Plaice Fishery, Cefas.


eftec March 2010 88

Cotter, J., van Der Kooij, J., Satchel, C., Sullivan, K., & Boon, T. 2004, Report on catches of saithe, cod and haddock in the northern North Sea by FV Farnella in

autumn 2003, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Elson, J., Lovewell, S., Lawler, A., & Boon, T. 2004, Report on catches of Nephrops, cod and other species on the Farn Deeps ground by FV Luc and FV

Still Waters in spring 2004, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Dann, J., Boon, T., Righton, D., & Hefferman, O. 2004, Report on catches of cod and other species in the Eastern Celtic Sea and Bristol Channel by

FV Our Josie Grace in spring 2004, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Witthames, P., Goad, D., & Boon, T. 2004, Report on catches of cod and other species in the north eastern Irish Sea by FV Kiroan in spring 2004, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Keable, J., Briggs, R., Henning, A., & Boon, T. 2004, Report on catches of cod and haddock in the western Irish Sea by FV Benaiah IV in spring 2004, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Warnes, S., Bannister, C., Boon, T., & Mills, C. 2004, Catches of Monk,

Hake and other species in western waters by FV Billy Rowney, FV Twilight III, and

by RV Corystes, autumn 2003, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Bannister, C., Garrod, C., Boon, T., & Mills, C. 2004, Catches of Sole, Plaice, and other species in south western waters by FV Lady T Emiel, FV Nellie,

and by RV Corystes, autumn 2003, Cefas.

Cotter, J., Bannister, C., Mainprize, B., Boon, T., & Mills, C. 2004, Catches of Cod and other species along the English NE coast by FV Abbie Lee, FV Emulator, and by

the English Groundfish Survey, autumn 2003, Cefas.

Coull, K. A., Jermyn, A. S., Newton, A. W., Henderson, G. I., & Hall, W. B. 1989, Length/Weight Relationships for 88 Species of Fish encountered in the North East

Atlantic, Fisheries Research Services.

Cowx, I. 2008, Environmental impacts of non-native species in aquaculture.

Crean, K. & Wisher, S.J. 2000. Is there the will to manage fisheries at a local level in the European Union? A case study from Shetland. Marine Policy, 24, 471-481

Dann, J., Lawler, A., Lovewell, S., Cutchey, S., Palmer, D., Smith, M., McCubbin, D., Armstrong, M., & Bevan, D. 2005, Programme 6: NE Nephrops, 6a: Nephrops

Survey, Cefas.

Dann, J., Roel, B., Velterop, R., Enever, R., Wade, O., & Armstrong, M. 2006, Programme 6: Western Channel sole and plaice, Cefas.

Dann, J., Armstrong, M., & Ashworth, J. 2006, Programme 7: Western Cod, Cefas.


eftec March 2010 89

Davies, I. M. & McLeod, D. A. 2003, Scoping study for research into the aquaculture (shellfish) carrying capacity of GB coastal waters.

Davies, I. M. 2004, Background/Reference Concentrations (BRCS) for the UK, Fisheries Research Services.

Davies, M. & Lancaster, J. 2007, Survey of the English intertidal Solway Cockle grounds, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Davis, N. 2008. Evaluating collaborative fisheries management planning: A Canadian case study. Marine Policy, 32, 867-876

Day, O. J. 2000, Optimisation of formulated diets for marine fish larvae.

De Oliveira, J., Pasco, G., Armstrong, M., & Randall, P. 2009, North East Cod Survey: 2003-2008, Cefas.

Defra. Roame a for maff/defra funded r&d - from 1999 - 2003. fc11 fish and shellfish health - Out of Scope. 1-5. 2003. Ref Type: Generic

Defra 2008, Determining monetary values for use and non-use goods and services:

Marine Biodiversity - primary valuation.

Defra 2008. Impact Assessment for the Reduction in Fishing Capacity for the Inshore (under 10m) Fishing Fleet. Summary: Intervention and Options.

Degnbol, P. & Mccay, B.J. 2007. Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 793-797

Delaney, A. E. 2008, Profiling of small-scale fishing communities in the Baltic Sea, Innovative Fisheries Management.

Department of Biological Sciences, U. o. H. 2004, A review of the potential applications of population genetics in fisheries management.

Department of Biological Sciences, U. o. S. 1999, Outbreak tracing and

differentiation of spring viraemia of carp and pike fry rhabdovirus in fish.

des Clers, S., Lewin, S., Edwards, D., Searle, S., Lieberknecht, L., & Murphy, D. 2008, FisherMap - Mapping the grounds: recording fishermen's use of the seas, Finding Sanctuary.

DIFRES 2006, PROTECT - Marine Protected Areas as a Tool for Ecosystem

Conservation and Fisheries Management.

Dillon, B. 2009, A Bio Economic Review of Recreational Angling for Bass

(Dicentrarchus labrax).


eftec March 2010 90

Directory General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 2008, Synopsis of Fisheries and Aquaculture research projects in the 6th framework programme, European Commission.

Donnelley, R. R. 2009, Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland, Scottish Government.

Drew, A. 2004, Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea Angling, Defra.

Duffus, J. H. 2003, Assessment of toxicity identification evaluation (TIE)

techniques for the elucidation of bivalve shellfish hatchery and nursery production

problems.

Dunn, M.R. & Pawson, M.G. 2002. The stock structure and migrations of plaice populations on the west coast of England and Wales. Journal of Fish Biology, 61, 360-393

Dunstaffnage, M. L. 2000, The factors affecting distribution and abundance of juvenile gadoids in rocky subtidal habitats.

E.K.O.S. Consultancy & Nautilus, C. 2003, Socio-Economic Baseline Study of the

South West Fishing Industry, PESCA and the South West Regional Development Agency.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council 2002, East Riding Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan - Towards a Sustainable Coast, CoastWeb.

Eggert, H. & Ellegard, A. 2003. Fishery control and regulation compliance: a case for co-management in Swedish commercial fisheries. Marine Policy, 27, 525-533

Ellis, A. E. 2001, Use of polylactide-co-glycolide microparticles as an oral vaccine

delivery system for farmed fish.

Ellis, J. R., Burt, G., & Cox, L. 2008, Programme 19: Thames Ray Tagging and

Survival, Cefas.

Enever, R. & Skipper and crew of MFV "Farnella" 2009, Northern North Sea Saithe (and Cod) "A self sampling project", Cefas.

Engelhard, G. H., Mulligan, B., Wade, O., Bush, R., & Armstrong, M. 2007, Western

Channel Sole & Plaice, Cefas.

Engelhard, G. H., Martin, J., & Armstrong, M. 2008, Programme 6: Western

Channel Sole and Plaice, Cefas.

enveco environmental economics consultancy 2008, BalticSTERN: Baltic Systems

Tool for Ecological economic evaluation – a Refined Nestmodel, Baltic Sea 2020.


eftec March 2010 91

Environment Agency 2000, The applications and validation methods for

hydroacoustic salmonid counters: - Phase 3 Methodology for validation.

Environment Agency 2001, Spring salmon: impact of catch and release angling and

identification of spawning areas in the River Eden.

Environment Agency 2007, Development of a fish counting system for fish passes, Environment Agency, 5.

Environment Agency 2007, Economic evaluation of inland fisheries: The economic

impact of freshwater angling in England & Wales.

Environment Agency 2007, Economic evaluation of inland fisheries: Welfare

benefits of inland fisheries in England & Wales.

Environmental Defence, Redstone Strategy Group LLC, The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, & White, L. J. 2008, Sustaining America's Fisheries and Fishing

Communities: An evaluation of incentive-based management, Environmental Defence, 321.

Ernst & Young, Eurofish, And international, & Cogea 2008, Evaluation of the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products:

Executive Summary, European Commission.

Ernst & Young & And international 2009, Summary of Structural aspects of the

common fisheries policy in the outermost regions, European Commission.

European Commission 2002, Action plan to counter the social, economic and

regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing industry, European Commission.

European Commission 2006, REsolving CLimAtic IMpacts on fish stocks.

European Commission. Science and Policy Integration for Coastal Systems Assessment. 1-215. 2007. Ref Type: Generic

European Environment Agency 2006, The changing faces of Europe's Coastal Areas, European Environment Agency.

FEUFAR 2009, The Future of European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research

(FEUFAR).

Firn Crichton Roberts Ltd & Graduate School of Environmental Studies, U. o. S. 2000, An Assessment of the Socio-Economic Costs & Benefits of Integrated Coastal

Zone Management, European Commission.


eftec March 2010 92

Fisheries Research Services 2002, Report of Scottish Trials Assessing the Selectivity of Trawls and Seines 2001-2002, Fisheries Research Services.

Fisheries society of the British Isles 2004, Effects of fishing on biodiversity in the north sea, Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Fisheries society of the British Isles 2007, Climate change and the fishes of Britain

and Ireland: Briefing paper 4, Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Fiskeriverket 2009, Studies and Pilot projects for carrying out the common

fisheries policy - Lot 3: Evaluation of the Pilot Effort Regime in Kattegat, European Commission.

Fiskeriverket Swedish Board of Fisheries, Cefas, & Marine Institute 2009, Studies and Pilot projects for carrying out the fisheries policy - Lot 1: Analysis of

difficulties in setting up pilot projects to reduce or eliminate discards in

cooperation with the fishing industry in Member States, European Commission.

FitzGerald, A. 2008, Shellfish Industry Development Strategy Impact of Climate

Change on Frequency of Pollution Events, Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

FitzGerald, A. 2008, Shellfish Industry Development Strategy Financial Impacts of

Sporadic Pollution Events and Exceeded Discharge Agreements on Shellfish

Operations, Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations 2003, Fisheries

Management - 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries, FAO, Rome.


Management - 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries - 2.1 Best practices in

ecosystem modelling for informing an ecosystem approach to fisheries, FAO, Rome.


Management - 3. Managing fishing capacity, FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations 2008, Human dimensions

of the ecosystem approach to fisheries: an overview of context, concepts, tools

and methods, FAO.

Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations 2008, Inland Fisheries - 1. Rehabilitation of inland waters for fisheries, FAO, Rome.

Forster, R., Smith, M., Warnes, S., Mulligan, B., Whelpdale, P., & Dann, J. 2006, Programme 2: Western Anglerfish, Cefas.

Framian BV 2009, Economic analysis of raising de minimis aid for fisheries, European Commission.


eftec March 2010 93

Fraser, H. & Greenstreet, S. 2004, 1st Annual Report on Groundfish Assemblage

Species Composition and Diversity, Fisheries Research Services.

Frommentin, J.-M. & Powers, J.E. 2005. Atlantic Bluefin tuna: population dynamics, ecology, fisheries and management. Fish and Fisheries, 6, (4) 281-306

Gardiner, R. & Stewart, D. 1997, Spawning Habitat assessment and survey of

lamprey populations occurring in areas of conservation interest, Fisheries Research Services.

Gaterell, M.R., Morse, G.K., & Lester, J.N. 1999. Investment in the aquatic environment II: Comparison of two techniques for evaluating environmental benefits. Journal of Environmental Management, 56, (1) 11-24 available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WJ7-45KN9VR-F/2/a6c6f9a6ba70cde2affb5520d2574276

Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G., & Kaiser, M.J. 2005. Importance of Attitudinal Differences among Artisanal Fishers toward Co-Management and Conservation of Marine Resources. Conservation Biology, 19, (3) 865-875

Gettinby, G. 2002, Development of data based models for effective treatment and

the environmentally safe use of veterinary methods in the control of sea lice

infestation of farmed salmon.

Gezelius, S.S. 2002. Do Norms Count? State Regulation and Compliance in a Norwegian Fishing Community. Acta Sociologica, 45,

Gezelius, S.S. 2003. The Morality of Compliance in Coastal Fisheries - Cases from Norway and Newfoundland. Paper Presented at the IASCP Northern Polar Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska 1-18

Gezelius, S.S. 2004. Food, Money, and Morals: Compliance Among Natural Resource Harvesters. Human Ecology, 32, (5)

Gibb, I. M., Wright, P. J., & Campbell, R. 2008, Identifying Critical Spawning and Nursery Areas for North Sea Cod; Improving the Basis for Cod Management, Fisheries Research Services.

Goodman, S.L., Seabrooke, W., & Jaffry, S.A. 1998. Considering Conservation Value in Economic Appraisals of Coastal Resources. Journal of Environmental Planning

and Management, 41, 313-336 available from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjep/1998/00000041/00000003/art00004

Graham, N., Ferro, R.S.T., Karp, W.A., & Macmullen, P. 2007. Fishing practice, gear design, and the ecosystem approach—three case studies demonstrating the effect of management strategy on gear selectivity and discards. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 744-750


eftec March 2010 94

Gray, T.S. & Hatchard, J. 2007. Environmental stewardship as a new form of fisheries governance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 786-792

Green, J. 2007, Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Beds on

Fenham Flats (Holy Island), The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee.

Green, J. 2008, Stock assessment of the littoral mussel (mytilus edulis) beds on

fenham flats (holy island), The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee.

Greenstreet, S. & Hislop, J. R. G. 1991, Predators of Atlantic Salmon, Fisheries Research Services.

Greenstreet, S., Robinson, L., Piet, G., Craeymeersch, J., Callaway, R., Reiss, H., Ehrich, S., Kroncke, I., Fraser, H., Lancaster, J., Jorgensen, L., & Goffin, A. 2007, The Ecological Disturbance Caused by Fishing in the North Sea, Fisheries Research Services.

Greenstreet, S., Robinson, L., Callaway, R., Reiss, H., Ehrich, S., Piet, G., Kroncke, I., Craeymeersch, J., Lancaster, J., Jorgensen, L., Degrarer, S., & Goffin, A. 2007, Managing Fisheries to Conserve North Sea Groundfish and Benthic Invertebrate

Species Diversity.

Greenstreet, S., Robinson, L., Callaway, R., Reiss, H., Ehrich, S., Piet, G., Craeymeersch, J., Kroncke, I., Fraser, H., Lancaster, J., Jorgensen, L., & Goffin, A. 2007, Relationships between TACS, Fish landings and fishing effort in the north sea, Fisheries Research Services.

Greenstreet, S., Fraser, H., Piet, G., Robinson, L., Callaway, R., Reiss, H., Ehrich, S., Kroncke, I., Craeymeersch, J., Lancaster, J., Jorgensen, L., & Goffin, A. 2007, Species Composition, Diversity, Biomass and Production of the Demersal Fish

Community of the North Sea, Fisheries Research Services.

Grieve, C., Sporrong, N., Coffey, C., Moretti, S., & Martini, N. 2003, Review and Gap analysis of environmental indicators for fisheries and aquaculture, IEEP.

Gröhsler, T. & Stepputtis, D. 2009, Studies and Pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy - Lot 8: Joint data collection between the fishing sector

and the scientific community in the Baltic Sea, European Commission.

Haapasaari, P., Michielsens, C.G.J., Karjalainen, T.P., Reinikainen, K., & Kuikka, S. 2007. Management measures and fishers' commitment to sustainable exploitation: a case study of Atlantic salmon fisheries in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine

Science, 64, (4) 825-833

Hammond, P. S. & Grellier, K. 2005, Grey Seal diet Composition and Fish

Consumption in the North Sea, Defra.


eftec March 2010 95

Hanemann, W. M. 1981, Water Quality and the Demand for Recreation, CUDARE Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley.

Hatchard, J. 2007, Using Socio-economic information in European Marine site

management: UK Shellfisheries, JH Fishery Management Services.

Hatchard, J., Holmyard, N., van Hoof, L., Delaney, A. E., Davies, H., Belcher, S., de la Hoz del Hovo, D., Napier, I., & Hepburn, C. 2007, Developing a Socio-economic dataframe, JH Fishery Management Services; North Sea Women's Network.

Hatcher, A., Pascoe, S., Banks, R., & Arnason, R. 2002, Future Options for UK Fish quota management, Defra.

Hatcher, A., Jaffry, S., Thebaud, O., & Bennett, E. Normative and social influences affecting compliance with Fishery Regulations. Land Economics, 76, (3) 448-461

Hauck, M. 2008. Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Marine Policy, 32, 635-642

Healey, M.C. & Hennessey, T. 1998. The paradox of fairness: the impact of escalating complexity on fishery management. Marine Policy, 22, (2) 109-118

Hetherington, S., Quayle, V., & Sullivan, K. 2007, Programme 15: Eastern Channel

Cod, Cefas.

Higgason, K.D. & Brown, M. 2009. Local solutions to manage the effects of global climate change on a marine ecosystem: a process guide for marine resource managers. ICES Journal of Marine Science (66) 1640-1646

Holden, M. 2009, Alternative Policy instruments for fisheries management, Cabinet Office.

Hoydal, K. 2007. Viewpoint: the interface between scientific advice and fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 846-850

ICES 2001, ICES/GLOBEC Project Office.

ICES 2006, ICES/GLOBEC Office Funding.

ICES. Impact of Climate Change in Fish Stocks and Implications for Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Fisheries. 1-4-2006. Ref Type: Generic

IEEP & Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management 2005, Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear.


eftec March 2010 96

IFREMER, F., University of Patras, G., Estonian Marine Institute, U. o. T., INIAP/IPIMAR, P., Marine Institute, I., & CEDEM, F. 2007, Small Scale Coastal

Fisheries in Europe, European Commission.

Image 2009, Indicators for fisheries MAnaGement in Europe (IMAGE).

Incofish 2008, INCOFISH.

Institute of Aquaculture, U. o. S. 2001, PKD control- Studies on the immune

response in fish.

Instituto Espanol, d. O., National University of Ireland Galway, Cefas, & Ifremer 2005, Harmful Algal Bloom Species in Thin Layers, DG6.

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLAM) & North Sea Center (1996, Analysis of Fisheries Co-Management Arrangements: A Research

Framework.

International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management(ICLARM) & Institute of Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development (IFM) 1998, Analysis of Co-Management Arrangements in Fisheries and related Coastal Resources: A

Research Framework, Coastal Resources Co-Management Research Project.

International Whaling Commission 2000, Sower 2000: Funding of four marine

mammal observers on IWC/CCAMLR sightings survey in Antarctic.

Invest in Fish 2009, Imagining change: A survey of South West Fishermen, Invest in Fish.

James, M. 2001, Ostrea size age, physiological stress and resistance to Bonanis ostreae.

James, M. A. & Slaski, R. 2006, Appraisal of the opportunity for offshore aquaculture in UK waters.

Jentoft, S. 2000. The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Marine

Policy, 24, (1) 53-60 available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCD-3Y9MD37-6/2/c23924917df6fe59379ecb5f5c136ad3

Jentoft, S. 2000. Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Marine

Policy, 24, (August 1999) 141-148

Jentoft, S. 2005. Fisheries co-management as empowerment. Marine Policy, 29, 1-7


eftec March 2010 97

Jessica Milligan Tim O'Riordan, A. W. 2006, Living with a changing coastline: Exploring new forms of governance for sustainable coastal futures, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Johnsen, T., ygaard, K., & Olsgard, F. 2003, Biogeographical regions in Europe: The North-east Atlantic Ocean - Huge, deep and heavily exploited.

Jones, P.J.S. 2009. Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals. Marine Policy, 33, (5) 759-765 available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCD-4VXT123-1/2/083d65a8627c705f02a1076597cc05eb

Jones, P.J.S. & Carpenter, A. 2009. Crossing the divide: The challenges of designing an ecologically coherent and representative network of MPAs for the UK. Marine Policy, 33, (5) 737-743 available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCD-4VXJW32-1/2/b2c73f52edc9269f9dc9f5eabbe1e2cb

JRC 2008, Costs and Benefits of Control Strategies.

Justic, D., Rabalais, N.N., Turner, R.E., & Diaz, R.J. 2009. Global change and eutrophication of coastal waters ´. ICES Journal of Marine Science 1528-1537

Kaiser, M. J. & Jennings, S. 2002, Can demersal fishing cause long-term changes in

benthic community structure.

Kaiser, M. J. & Beadman, H. A. 2002, Scoping Study of the carrying capacity for bivalve cultivation in the coastal waters of Great Britain, Defra.

Kaiser, M. J. 2004, Essential fish habitat: important considerations for the

management of demersal fisheries, Defra.

Kaiser, M. J., Gascoigne, J., Saurel, & Galanidi 2006, Seed mussel ecology, Defra.

Kaoru, Y., Smith, K., & Liu, J.L. 1995. Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 77, (1) 141-151

Kaplan, I.M. & McCay, B.J. 2004. Cooperative research, co-management and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Marine Policy, 28, 257-258

Karlsen, G.R. 2001. Can formalisation help? The introduction of fisheries co-management in the inshore fisheries of Dingle, Co. Kerry, Ireland. Marine Policy, 25, 83-89

Kearney, J., Berkes, F., Charles, A., Pinkerton, E., & Wiber, M. 2007. The Role of Participatory Governance and Community-Based Management in Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada. Coastal Management, 35, 79-104


eftec March 2010 98

King's College University, L. 2006, The development and implementation of

biological reference points for the management of the European eel.

Kupschus, S., Locker, A., Ashworth, J., Peach, D., & Harley, B. 2008, Project 24: North Sea GOV gear trials, Cefas.

Kupschus, S., Locker, A., Peach, D., Armstrong, S., & Harley, B. 2008, Project 24x: North Sea GOV gear trials continuation, Cefas.

Laing, I. 2000, Preserved microalgae as an alternative diet in aquaculture.

Laing, I. 2002, Environmental requirements for successful scallop cultivation.

Laing, I., Lees, D. N., Page, D. J., & Henshilwood, H. 2004, Research on shellfish cultivation.

Laing, I., Walker, P., & Areal, F. 2005, A feasibility study of native oyster (Ostrea edulis) stock regeneration in the United Kingdom.

Lancaster, J. & Nicholson, A. 2003, Survey of the English Solway Cockle grounds, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2003, Annual Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel (Mytilus edulis)

Stocks in the Solway Firth, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2003, Annual survey of eleven sites chosen as being representative of the beaches and foreshores along the coastline within the CSFC's district, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2004, Mussel Stock Assessment 2004, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2005, Survey of the English Solway Cockle grounds, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. & Davies, M. 2005, Annual Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel

(Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2005, Annual survey of the cumbrian coast 2004, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. & Davies, M. 2006, Survey of the English Solway Cockle grounds, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.


(Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.


eftec March 2010 99


(Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth 2007, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2007, Shore Survey 2006. Part I, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2007, Shore survey 2006. Part 2 -The South Cumbrian coast, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2006, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee Shore survey 2005, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Large, P., Dann, J., Kupschus, S., Armstrong, M., Cotter, J., & Bevan, D. 2004, Programme 2: Western Channel Sole and Plaice, Cefas.

Large, P., Mainprize, B., Cotter, J., van Der Kooij, J., Warne, S., & Mills, C. 2004, Catches of blue ling and other deep-water species to the west of Britain by the

MFV Farnella, February - March 2004, Cefas.

Large, P., Revill, A., Randall, P., Armstrong, M., Houghton, C., & Hareide, N.-R. 2005, Programme 5: Western Edge Ghost Nets (gill net retrieval), Cefas.

Large, P., Dann, J., Ashworth, J., Velterop, R., & Armstrong, M. 2005, Programme

10: East Greenland cod, Cefas.

Large, P., Randall, P., Doran, S., & Houghton, C. 2006, Programme 12: Western

Edge Ghost Nets (gillnet retrieval), Cefas.

Large, P., Brown, M., South, A., & Hale, N. 2009, Fourth Interim Report,

Programme 18: North Sea Codwatch, Cefas.

Large, P., Brown, M., South, A., & Hale, N. 2009, Programme 18: North Sea

Codwatch, Cefas.

Laurenson, C. & Macdonald, P. 2008, Collection of fisheries and biological data on megrim in ICES Sub-area IVa, Fisheries Research Services.

Laurenson, C. & Macdonald, P. 2008, Project: technical measures to enhance

selectivity in pelagic fisheries. Final report, Fisheries Research Services.

Lawler, A., Firmin, C., & Bell, E. 2006, Programme 14: Yorkshire Coast Crustacea, Cefas.

Lawler, A., Whelpdale, P., & Lyman, N. 2007, NE Coast - Crab Biology, Cefas.

Lawrence, K.S. 2005. Assessing the value of recreational sea angling in South West England. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 12, (6) 369-375 available from: http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33745201580&partnerID=40


eftec March 2010 100

Lawton, L. 2003, Off flavour problems in farmed trout: identification of causative

organisms and development of management strategies.

Lees, K. & Mackinson, S. 2007, An Ecopath model of the Irish Sea: ecosystems

properties and sensitivity analysis, Cefas.

LINK 2001, TRT10.

Longshaw, M. 2004, Studies on Aquaculture and Fish Diseases (Sandwich Students).

Ltd, V. E. & Ltd, P. A. 2009, An economic approach to long term reform of access

to fisheries for the inshore fleet, Defra.

Lusseau, S. M., Gallego, A., Rasmuseen, J., Hatfield, E. M. C., & Heath, M. R. 2009, Over-winter survival of larval herring in the northern North Sea can be related to

food intake, Fisheries Research Services.

Macdonald, M. 2008, Pilot Shellfish Fisheries Strategic Environmental Assessment, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee, 44.

MacEllistor Elliott and Partners Ltd 2002, The role of women in the fisheries

sector, European Commission.

Mackinson, S. & Daskalov, G. M. 2008, An ecosystem model of the North Sea to

support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and

parameterisation, Cefas.

Marchal, P., Poos, J.-J., & Quirijns, F. 2007. Linkage between fishers' foraging, market and fish stocks density: Examples from some North Sea fisheries. Fisheries Research, 83, (1) 33-43

Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2001, Archiving and analysis of the MBA bottom trawl and benthic survey data: Unravelling fishing efforts from

climate change.

Marine Environment Monitoring Group 2004, UK National Marine Monitoring

Programme - Second Report (1999-2001), Fisheries Research Services.

Marine Environment Review Group 2009, Defra's Marine Environment Research

Programme Review: Stage III Report, Defra.

Marine Litter Task Team 2002, The Impacts of Marine Litter, Fisheries Research Services.

Martinet, V., Thebaud, O., & Doyen, L. 2007. Defining viable recovery paths toward sustainable fisheries. Ecological Economics, 64, (2) 411-422



Mathiesen, C. 2009, Analytical framework for studying fishers' behaviour and

adaptation strategies, Institute of Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development (IFM).

MegaPesca Lda.Portugal & Centre for Agricultural study, U. 2009, Regional Socio-Economic studies on employment and the level of dependency on fishing, European Commission.

MegaPesca, L. & Centre for Agricultural Strategy, U. 2009, Regional Socio-economic

Studies on Employment and the Level of Dependency on Fishing, COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.

Meredith, D. 1999, The strategic importance of the fishing sector to rural

communities and Ireland: a case study of the Rossaveal Region, Co. Galway.

Metcalfe, J. D. 2003, Development of humane and efficient methods for attaching

electronic tags to fish.

Mikalsen, K.H. & Jentoft, S. 2008. Participatory practices in fisheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible. Marine Policy, 32, 169-177

modelkey 2009, Models for assessing and forecasting the impact of environmental

key pollutants on marine and freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity (ModelKey).

Montgomery, C. 1999, Development of PCR-based detection systems for

Renibacterium salmoninarum for use in diagnostic and epizootiological studies of

BKD.

Morgan, R. I. G. & Polson, W. 1992, Fresh water development of Atlantic salmon

progeny derived from adults of different sea ages, Fisheries Research Services.

Morris, D. J., Adams, A., Richards, R. H., & Institute of Aquaculture, U. o. S. 1999, PKD Life Cycle Studies with Particular Reference to the Identification of the

Infective Stage and the Development of Effective Control Strategies.

MRAG & IEEP 2007, Lot 1: Impact assessment of discard policy for specific

fisheries, European Commission.

MRAG, IFM, Cefas, Azti tecnalia, & poIEM 2009, An analysis of existing Rights-Based Management (RBM) instruments in Member States and on setting up best practices

in the EU Part II, European Commission.

MRAG Ltd, IFM, Cefas, Azti tecnalia, & PoIEM sp.z o.o 2009, An analysis of existing Rights Based Management (RBM) instruments in Member States and on setting up

best practices in the EU Part 1, European Commission.



Nautilus Consultants, AGC, CEVPM, IFM, Indemar, Lamans SA, LEI, PDM Group, & Tecninvest 2003, Summary Report: Study on the impact of FIFG measures on the

fish processing industry.

Nautilus, C. & Consultants, E. K. O. S. 2000, Study into Inland and Sea Fisheries in Wales, National Assembly for Wales.

Nautilus, C. 2005, The Motivation, Demographics and Views of South West

Recreational Sea Anglers and their Socio-economic Impact on the Region, Invest in Fish, WWF.

Newcombe, J., Coffey, C., Baldock, D., & Grieve, C. 2000, Financing

Environmentally Sensitive Fisheries in the EU - The use of incentive payments, IEEP.

Newton, A., Coull, K., Peach, K., Coggan, R., Robb, A., Blasdale, T., Breen, M., Burns, F., Davis, S., & Bullough, L. 2009, Report on Biological Information

Gathered from Scottish Fishing Vessels 2001-2002 Volume II.

NFFO 1111, Summary report on better regulation.

Nichols, J., Huntington, T., Bennett, D., & Hough, A. 2006, Certification Report for NESFC Sea Bass Fishery, Moody Marine Ltd.

Nielsen, J.R. & Mathiesen, C. 2003. Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries lessons from Denmark. Marine Policy, 27, 409-416

Noble, T. 2003. Co-operating in fisheries management: trials and tribulations in Scotland. Marine Policy, 27, 433-439

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2003, Shellfish permit landing statistics.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2003, Shellfish Permit Landing Statistics.

Summary report 2000-2002, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2005, Fishing Effort within North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee District, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006, Recreational Sea Angling

Diversification Study, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006, Recreational Sea Angling

Diversification Study: Summary Report, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee in association with Yorkshire Forward.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006, Shellfish Permit Landing Statistics.

Summary report 2003-2005, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.



North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2008, Summary of fishing effort 2008:

North eastern sea fisheries.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006, Shellfish permit landing statistics.

Northern Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006, Fishing Effort within North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee District.

Northern Ireland Inshore Fisheries Stakeholders Advisory Group 2009, Review of Inshore Fisheries Management in Northern Ireland.

Northridge, S. & Thomas, L. 2003, Monitoring levels required in European Fisheries

to assess cetacean bycatch, with particular reference to UK fisheries.

O'Brien, C. M. 1111, Population dynamics models of European cod stocks.

O'Brien, C. M. & Large, P. H. Study project on the bottom vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the NAFO Regulatory Area. 2. 2009. Ref Type: Generic

Observatory, C. O. B. 2006, COBO Science - Supporting European Ecosystem Based

Coastal Management.

Oguz, T. 2007. Nonlinear response of Black Sea pelagic fish stocks to over-exploitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 345, 211-228

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. 2003. Draft: Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental management 1-48

Owen, D. 2007, Achieving an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the

Baltic Sea: relevance of Member States' delegated powers under the CFP and their

nature conservation duties, Baltic 2020.

Pascoe, S., Tingley, D., & Mardle, S. 2002, Appraisal of Alternative Policy Instruments to Regulate Fishing Capacity.

Pascoe, S., Tingley, D., & Mardle, S. 2002, Appraisal of Alternative Policy Instruments to Regulate Fishing Capacity, CEFAS.

Patterson, K. R., Cook, R. M., Darby, C. D., Gavaris, S., Kell, L., Lewy, P., Mesnil, B., Punt, A. E., Restrepo, V. R., Skagen, D. W., & Stefansson, G. 1999, A review of some methods for estimating uncertainty in fisheries, Fisheries Research Services.

Pawson, M.G., Pickett, G.D., Leballeur, J., Brown, M., & Fritsch, M. 2007. Migrations, fishery interactions, and management units of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Northwest Europe. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (2) 332-345



Pawson, M.G., Kupschus, S., & Pickett, G.D. 2007. The status of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stocks around England and Wales, derived using a separable catch-at-age model, and implications for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (2) 346-356

Peirson, G., Tingley, D., Spurgeon, J., & Radford, A. 2001. Economic evaluation of inland fisheries in England and Wales. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8, 415-424

Piling, G. J., van Der Kooij, J., Daskalov, G. M., Cotter, J., & Metcalfe, J. D. 2007, Overview of current best world practice in fish stock assessment and management,

with specific reference to Caspian Sea fisheries, Cefas.

Pinkerton, E. & Leonard, J. 2008. Creating local management legitimacy. Marine

Policy, 32, 680-691

Pinnegar, J. K., Viner, D., Hadley, D., Dye, S., Harris, M., Berkout, F., & Simpson, M. 2006, Alternative future scenarios for marine ecosystems.

Pollard, V. 2004, Fishing Communities and Regional Development.

Pomeroy, R.S. & Berkes, F. 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 21, (5) 465-480

Port Erin Laboratory, U. o. L. 2000, Assessment of the effects of scallop dredging

on benthic communities: an examination of longer term effects.

Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management, Oceanic Development, & MegaPesca Lda.Portugal 2005, The European tuna sector: Economic situation, prospects and

analysis of the impact of the liberalisation of trade, European Commission.

Potter, T. & O Maoileidigh, N. 2006, Review of mixed stock fisheries for Atlantic

salmon in European community waters, excluding the Baltic sea, European Commission.

Prellezo, R., Little, A., Nielsen, R., Solgaard Andersen, B., Levring Andersen, J., Rockmann, C., Accadia, P., Buisman, E., & Powell, J. 2009, Survey of existing bioeconomic models: Final report, European Commission.

Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2004). Net Benefits: a Sustainable and Profitable Future for UK Fishing, Cabinet Office, London.

Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) 2001, Evaluation of the MAFF

Aquaculture Research Programme .

Quality of life and management of living resources 2004, Synopsis of selected R&D projects in the field of fisheries and aquaculture, European Commission.



Raakj, J. & Mathiesen, C. 1998, Incentives for compliance behaviour - lessons from

Danish fisheries -, Institute for Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development (IFM).

Radford, A., Riddington, G., & Tingley, D. 2001, Economic Evaluation of Inland

Fisheries - Module A: Economic Evaluation of Fishing rights, The Environment Agency.

Raynard, R. S., Dixon, P. F., Gardiner, R., Gardiner, W. R., Grant, R., Murray, A. G., Longshaw, C., Gregory, A., Quickfall, S., Macdonald, A. I. M., Sheppard, A., Cunningham, C. O., Stone, D. M., Bain, N., Taylor, G., Hill, B. J., & Stagg, R. M. 2009, Survey of wild salmonid fish in great Britain in year 2000 for infectious

salmon anaemia (ISA), Fisheries Research Services.

Revill, A. 2000, An analysis of the selectivity processes within the beam trawl

fisheries for Crangon crangon and identification of methods that could be used to

improve their selectivity.

Revill, A., Bell, E., & Boon, T. 2004, Report of an Investigation into the potential whitefish by-catch in the North Sea Norway Pout fishery, Cefas.

Revill, A., Armstrong, M., Dunlin, G., Smith, J., Goad, D., Keable, J., & Bevan, D. 2005, Programme 6: North East Nephrops. 6b: An investigation into the potential

for improving the selectivity for whitefish in the North Sea Nephrops fishery using

a cut-away headline trawl, Cefas.

Revill, A., Armstrong, M., & Bevan, D. 2005, Programme 9: Pout by-catch

mitigation : An investigation into the potential for reducing whitefish by-catch in

the North Sea Norway pout fishery by using sieve nets (veil nets) , Cefas.

Revill, A., Cotter, J., Ashworth, J., Forster, R., Caslake, G., & Armstrong, M. 2006, Programme 8: Hake Selectivity, Cefas.

Revill, A., Wade, O., & Marris, K. 2007, Programme 22: Reducing Discards: Square-

mesh codends in combination with square-mesh release panels (SW beam trawl

fisheries), Cefas.

Revill, A., Wade, O., Holst, R., Ashworth, J., & Stead, N. 2009, Programme 8: Bass

gillnet selectivity, cefas.

Rice, J.C. & Rochet, M.-J. 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, (3) 516-517

Rice, J. C. 2005, Ecosystem Effects of Fishing: Impacts, Metrics, and Management

Strategies, IEEP.

Richardson, C. A. 1999, Transport of seed scallops.



Richardson, E.A., Kaiser, M.J., & Edwards-Jones, G. 2005. Variation in fishers' attitudes within an inshore fishery: implications for management. Environmental

Conservation, 32, (3) 213-225

Rijnsdorp, A.D., Peck, M.A., Engelhard, G.H., Mollman, C., & Pinnegar, J.K. 2009. Resolving the effect of climate change on fish populations. ICES Journal of Marine

Science 1570-1583

Roel, B., Peach, D., & Mulligan, B. 2008, Programme 16: Squid NE of England, Cefas.

Roel, B., Ashworth, J., & Mulligan, B. 2008, Programme 17: Squid Fishery English

Channel, Cefas.

Royal Holloway University of London School of Biological Sciences 2005, Spatial and temporal genetic structuring of Edible crab populations.

Salas, S., Sumaila, U.R., & Pitcher, T. 2004. Short-term decisions of small-scale fishers selecting alternative target species: a choice model. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 61, 374-383

Salz, P., Buisman, E., Smit, J., & de Vos, B. 2006, Employment in the Fisheries

Sector: Current Situation, European Commission.

School of Biological Sciences Royal Holloway University of London 2003, Population genetics of shellfish in British waters.

School of Biological Sciences University of Surrey 1999, Studies on fish diseases and shellfish hygiene (sandwich students).

School of Biological Sciences University of Surrey 2004, Provision of sandwich students: Shellfish quality problems caused by organic waste pollution of

harvesting areas.

School of Biological Sciences University of East Anglia 1999, Sex pheromones and

Reproduction in flatfish broodstocks.

Schwach, V., Bailly, D., Christensen, A.s., Delaney, A.E., Degnbol, P., Reeves, S.A., & Wilson, D.C. 2007. Policy and knowledge in fisheries management: a policy brief. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 798-803

Scottish Association for Marine Science Ardtoe 2004, Substitution of fish meal with

vegetable protein in cod diets.

Scottish Salmon Growers Association 2000, In vitro culture of the attached stages of the sea louse lepeophtheirus salmonis.



Sea Anglers' Conservation Network 2006, Economics of Recreational Sea Angling, CoastWeb.

Sea Fish Industry Authority 2000, Sampling and analysis of benthos from discard

samples taken from Western Waters.

Sea Fish Industry Authority. Development strategy for the UK shellfish cultivation industry. 1-1-2001. Ref Type: Computer Program

Sea Fish Industry Authority 2002, Monitoring of discarding and retention by trawl

fisheries in Western Waters by the use of Fisher Self Sampling.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2002, Reduction of cetacean bycatch in pelagic trawls.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2003, Further development of a dolphin

exclusion device.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2000, Interactions between grey seals and fisheries: towards a predictive model for evaluating management options.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2000, Modelling fishery impacts on North

Sea harbour porpoise populations.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2000, Small Cetacean Bycatches in UK

Fisheries.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2001, Conservation and management of

whales and whaling.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2002, Interactions between grey seals and fisheries: a forecasting model for evaluating options.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2002, Conservation of cetaceans and the management of whaling.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2003, Analysis and mitigation of cetacean

bycatch in UK fisheries.

Sea Mammal Research Unit, U. o. S. A. 2008, Monitoring, Impact and Assessment of

Marine Mammal Bycatch.

Sheehy, M. R. J. & Prior, A. E. 2005, Analysis of stock age structure and population parameters in edible crab, Cancer pagurus, using lipofuscin age-pigment: data for

resource management.



Shinn, A., Kay, J., & Sommerville, C. 2003, The development of a semi-automated

system of recognition for Gyrodactylus salaris based on statistical classifiers.

Singleton, S. 1997. Cooperation or Capture? The Paradox of Co management and Community Participation in Natural Resource Management and Environmental Policymaking. Draft article 1-12

Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 2002, The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey - Fisheries Investigations.

Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 2007, The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey: Fisheries Investigations.

Smith, A.D.M., Fulton, E.J., Hobday, A.J., Smith, D.C., & Shoulder, P. 2007. Scientific tools to support the practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 633-639

Smith, M., Warnes, S., Dann, J., Goldsmith, D., & Armstrong, M. 2005, Programme

2: Western Anglerfish, Cefas.

Söderqvist, T., Eggert, H., Olsson, B., & Soutukorva, Å. 2005. Economic valuation for sustainable development in the Swedish coastal zone. Ambio, 34, (2) 169-175

Spencer, N., Begona Santos Vazquez, M., & Pierce, G. J. 2009, EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING BY-CATCHES OF CETACEANS.

SRSF. Who'll Be Left Fishing?: The dilemma of recruitment in small boat fishing. 2001. SRSF. Ref Type: Pamphlet

Stafford, r., Whittaker, C., Velterop, R., Wade, O., & Pinnegar, J. 2007, Programme 13: North Sea Whiting Stomach Contents, Cefas.

Stead, S. 2005. Changes in Scottish coastal fishing communities-Understanding socio-economic dynamics to aid management, planning and policy. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 670-692

Steelman, T. & Wallace, R. 2001. Property rights and property wrongs: Why context matters in fisheries management. Policy Sciences, 34, (3) 357-379 available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012660302764

Stockdale, L. 2005, Utilisation of Geographical Information System Software to

Record Fishing & Enforcement Activity within the District of North Eastern Sea

Fisheries Committee, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

Sutinen, J.G. & Kuperan, K. 1999. A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics, 26, 174-193



Suuronen, P. & Sarda, F. 2007. The role of technical measures in European fisheries management and how to make them work better `. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 751-756

Symes, D. & Ridgway, S. 2003, Inshore Fisheries Regulation and management in

Scotland: Meeting the challenge of environmental integration, Scottish Natural Heritage.

Symes, D. 2007. Fisheries management and institutional reform: a European perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, (4) 779-785

Symes, D. & Phillipson, J. 2009. Whatever became of social objectives in fisheries policy? Fisheries Research , 95, 1-5

The Marine Biological Association of the UK 2005, Marine Biodiversity and Climate

Change: Assessing and Predicting the Influence of Climate Change on the Marine

Environment.

The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2004, Fisheries And Environmental

Monitoring, The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

THE NORTHUMBERLAND SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE 2008, Lobster V-Notching Report 2008, The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee.

THE NORTHUMBERLAND SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE 2008, An Insight into the Fisheries throughout the Committee's District.

The Scottish Government 2009, Safeguarding our Fishing Rights: The Future of Quota Management and Licensing in Scotland - Interim Outcome of Consultation

Report.

Tidd, A. N. & Warnes, S. 2009, Species distributions from English Celtic Sea

groundfish surveys, 1992-2002, Cefas.

Treasurer, J. & Cutts, C. 2005, Laboratory assessment of samples involved in

substitution of fish meal with vegetable proteins in cod diets.

Triveritas 2004, Preliminary International Screen for Potential Registration

Compounds for the Treatment of Aquatic Fungal Diseases in Salmonids.

Turrell, W. R. 2006, Climate change and Scottish fisheries, Fisheries Research Services.

UNEP 2006, Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis

report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP.

University of Aberdeen 2004, Immune Gene Expression During PKD Infection.



University of Aston 2004, Studies of chemtherapeutants to treat fish diseases,

parasites of coldwater ornamental fish, oyster herpesvirus and virulence of newly

isolated viruses.

University of East Anglia 2001, Genetic identification of fish eggs using species-specific DNA markers.

University of East Anglia 2004, Field trial of genetic probes for the identification of gadoid eggs.

University of East Anglia 2006, Genetic identification of eggs from 2004 North Sea

survey.

University of Glasgow 2000, Changes in the behaviour and locomotory performance

of Norway lobsters following infection by Hematodinium.

University of Leicester 1995, Use of lipofuscin age pigments for age determination

of lobsters.

University of Portsmouth (CEMARE) 2004, Strategy Development and Scenario

Testing for Fisheries Recovery Plans: Part A.

University of Southampton 2004, Modelling sediment levels in salmonid spawning

gravels.

University of Southampton 2004, Evaluation of Factors Affecting Native Oyster Stock Regeneration.

University of Stirling 2001, Identification and assessment of chemical control

methods for PKD.

University of Stirling 2001, Standardised methods for the detection of ISAV in fish.

University of Stirling 2004, Immunology of PKD in fish- identification of protective

antigens and host immunity.

University of Stirling 2005, Development of a management system for the control

of the ciliate protozoan Ichthyophthirius multifiliis.

University of Stirling 2005, Prevention and management of Ichthyophthirius

multifiliis.

University of Wales Bangor 2002, Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of

Mussel Cultivation.

van Marlen, B. 2009, "Energy Saving in Fisheries" (ESIF) FISH/2006/17 LOT3 - Final Report, European Commission, C002/08.



Vaze, P. & Tingley, D. 2004, Fishermen's Incentives and Policy, Cabinet Office.

Veem, K. 2009, "Best practices" for fisheries management, Baltic Sea 2020.

Velterop, R., Parker-Humphreys, M., & Bush, R. 2006, Programme 11: North Sea

lemon sole and plaice, Cefas.

Vivid Economics, 2009, A review of the effectiveness of the Economic Link, Defra.

Wade, O., Revill, S., Grant, A., & Sharp, M. 2009. Reducing the discards of finfish and benthic invertebrates of UK beam trawlers. Fisheries Research, 97, 140-147

Walmsley, A. & Pawson, G. 2007, The coastal fisheries of England and Wales, Part

V: A review of their status 2005-06, Cefas, 140.

Walmsley, S. A. & Pawson, M. G. 2007, The coastal fisheries of England and Wales,

Part V: a review of their status 2005-6, Cefas.

Walmsley, S. F., Peatman, T., Pearce, J., Portela, J., Tato, V., Ferreira, J., & Agnew, D. 2008, Analysis of the economic and social importance of Community

fishing fleet using bottom gears in the high seas, European Commission.

Walmsley, S., Warnes, S., & Forster, R. 2007, Programme 2: Western Anglerfish, Cefas.

Walmsley, S., Ashworth, J., & Forster, R. 2008, Western Anglerfish 2003-2008, Cefas.

Wildlife & Countryside Link 2005, The Future Management of the Inshore Fisheries

in England.

Woodhatch, L. & Crean, K. 1999. The gentleman’s agreements - a fisheries management case study from SW England. Marine Policy, 23, (1) 25-35

Woolmer, A. 2009, National Shellfish Resource Base: Cost-effective & efficient methodology to map inshore <10 m shellfish fleet, Salacia-Marine report to Shellfish Industry Development Strategy.

Wootten, R. 1111, Assessment of chemical and potential immunological control

methods for Icthyopthrius Multifiliis (FC1119).

Zenetos, A., Streftaris, N., & Larsen, L.-H. 2002, An indicator-based approach to assessing the environmental performance of European marine fisheries and

aquaculture, EEA.



Annex A – Initially Identified Projects and Research of

Interest

Table A.1: List of projects and research supplied by Defra at project start

Code Project Title

AE0253 Developing a procedure to assess the effects of dredging on commercial fisheries

ER02052 Economic Evaluation of the Defra Aquaculture Research Programme

FC0446 Assessment of chemical and potential immunological control methods for Icthyopthrius Multifiliis (FC1119)

FC0745 Development and assessment of reliable specific assay procedures for detection of marine biotoxins in shellfish

FC0901 Environmental influences on the sex of cultured marine flatfish

FC0902 Quality of hatchery reared flat-fish (was FC0109)

FC0903 Sex control in halibut (was FC0112)

FC0904 Spawning of flat-fish in captivity - sex pheromones and reproduction in flat-fish brood stocks (was FC0113)

FC0906 Dietary lipids and cold tolerance in juvenile flat-fish (was FC0116)

FC0907 Coordination of the LINK Aquaculture Programme (was FC0118)

FC0908 Physiological and Biochemical Roles of Carotenoids in Atlantic Salmon (LINKSAL04) (was FC0119)

FC0909 Preserved microalgae as an alternative diet in aquaculture (LINKALG02) (was FC0121)

FC0911 Optimisation of Formulated Diets for marine fish larvae

FC0912 A new recirculation system for rearing juvenile halibut using novel technology from the tropical marine industry

FC0913 Rearing protocols for Atlantic halibut larvae during transition from endogenous to exogenous nutrition. (FIN22)

FC0915 Co-ordination of the LINK aquaculture programme

FC0916 Endocrinological & behavioural measures of the welfare of farmed fish in relation to stocking densities.

FC0917 Off- flavour problems in farmed trout (TRT13)

FC0923 Environmental Sustainability of Bivalve Cultivation

FC0924 Scoping Study for Research Into Aquaculture (fish and shellfish) Carrying Capacity of GB Coastal Waters

FC0925 Evaluation of the Risks Involved using Gene Therapy Techniques for Stock Improvement in aquaculture (replaces FC0922)

FC0926 Evaluation of factors affecting native oyster stock regeneration

FC0927 Programme Coordinator for the Committee for Aquaculture Research and Development

FC0928 Preliminary International Screen for Potential Registration Compounds for the Treatment of Aquatic Fungal Diseases in Salmonids

FC0929 Genetics of PKD resistance in rainbow trout

FC0930 Substitution of fish meal with vegetable proteins in cod diets

FC0931 Laboratory assessment of samples involved in Substitution of fish meal with vegetable proteins in cod diets

FC0932 Summary of MAFF/Defra funded R&D relevant to finfish cultivation from 1990-2004.




Code Project Title

FC0934 Appraisal of the opportunity for offshore aquaculture in UK waters

FC0935 Economic evaluation of inland fisheries

FC1001 Transport of seed scallops - Pectin maximus (was FC0213)

FC1002 Nursery cultivation of King scallops (was FC0214)

FC1004 Environmental requirements for successful scallop cultivation (LINKSHL22)

FC1005 An assessment of the impact of different types of sewage treatment on the contamination of shell fisheries

FC1008 Depuration of razor clams

FC1009 Feasibility study for methods to distinguish between human and animal faecal contamination in shellfisheries

FC1011 Development strategy for the UK shellfish cultivation industry.

FC1012 Assessment of Toxicity Identification techniques for the elucidation of bivalve shellfish hatchery & nursery production

FC1013 Requirements for depuration of scallops (Pecten maximus)

FC1014 Summary of Fish & Shellfish Cultivation Research Funded by Defra, 1990-2002

FC1015 Ecology of Subtidal Mussel Seed Beds

FC1016 Native Oyster Stock Regeneration – A Review Of Biological, Technical And Economic Feasibility

FC1017 Development of best practice in relation to movement of bivalve shellfish stock

FC1103 Development of PCR-based detection systems for Renibacterium salmoninarium (was FC0426)

FC1104 Outbreak tracing and differentiation of spring viraemia of carp and pike fry rhabdovirus in fish (was FC0429)

FC1105 Research on viruses of fish and shellfish (was FC0431)

FC1106 Characterisation and pathogenesis of epizootics in wild freshwater fish (Phase II) (was FC0432)

FC1108 Identification and assessment of chemical control methods for PKD (LINKTRT04) (was FC0435)

FC1109 `Studies on molecular biological approaches to detection of VHS, IHN in fish and cell culture assays for PSP toxins`

FC1110 Studies of chemotherapeutants to treat fish diseases (was FC0437)

FC1111 Immunology of PKD in fish-identification of protective antigens and host immunity

FC1112 Immune gene expression during PKD infection

FC1114 PKD life cycle studies (was FC0441)

FC1115 In vitro culture of the attached stages of the sea louse Lepeophtheirus (LINKSAL02) (was FC0444)

FC1116 Development of vaccination methods for the control of bacterial kidney disease (BKD) in salmonids (LINKSAL10)

FC1117 An investigation into the natural disease status of wild scallops from UK coastal waters (was FC0483)

FC1118 The molecular basis for the pathgenicity of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV)

FC1120 Use of poly-lactide-co-glycolide micro particles as an oral vaccine delivery system for farmed fish (LINKSAL17)

FC1121 Ostrea/size/age, physiological stress and resistance to Bonamia ostreae




Code Project Title

(LINKSHL09) (was FC0507).

FC1124 Improving the efficacy of medicines in aquaculture (FC0608)

FC1125 Factors affecting the disease susceptibility of farmed fish

FC1127 Investigations into non-specific & acquired immune responses to RTFS (LINK TRT10)

FC1133 Development of database models for effective treatment & the environmentally safe use of veterinary methods in the

FC1134 Provision of sandwich students: Shellfish quality problems caused by organic waste pollution of harvesting areas.

FC1135 Provision of sandwich students: Fish Disease studies (extension to FC1109)

FC1136 Identification & impact of emerging and notifiable virus diseases in farmed and wild fish

FC1137 Characterisation & pathogenesis of parasites and diseases in fish & shellfish stocks.

FC1138 Life cycle and transmission requirements of the PKD organism and other myxosporean pathogens of freshwater fish.

FC1139 Improving the health of fish by promoting natural disease resistance - a molecular biological approach.

FC1143 Development of vaccines & strategy for their use to control ulcer disease in coldwater ornamental fish.

FC1144 The use of prebiotics to improve fish health

FC1145 Semi-automated recognition of fish pathogens using statistical classification

FC1146 An investigation into the prevalence and interaction of BKD in wild and farmed fish in selected river systems in the UK.

FC1147 PKD Control - studies on the immune response in fish and vaccine development.

FC1148 ISA - Validation of Diagnostic methods and epidemiology of ISA.

FC1150 Improving understanding of the epidemiology of serious fish diseases.

FC1151 Risks to public health and the aquaculture industry associated with bacterial fish diseases and their treatment

FC1152 Studies on the pathogenicity, tissue tropism and transmission of VHS (extension to FC1118)

FC1153 Mathematical Modelling of Fish Diseases

FC1155 Development and Application of Neural Network Software for Identification of Gyrodactylid Parasites (supports FC1145)

FC1156 Investigations into the potential of phage therapy for the control and prevention of fish diseases of bacterial origin

FC1158 Development of a Management System for the Control of the Ciliate Protozoan Ichthyophthirius multifillis

FC1160 A Vaccine for Proliferative Kidney Disease

FC1161 Developing Control Strategies for Rainbow Trout Fry Syndrome

FC1162

In vitro and in vivo screening of potentially registerable compounds for the treatment of aquatic fungal diseases in salmonids, and encouraging commercial development of a suitable product(s).

FC1163 Optimisation and standardisation of PCR assay protocols for koi herpesvirus

FC1164 Prevention and management of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis

FC1165 Assessing the risk of introduction, spread and impact of important exotic fish and shellfish disease




Code Project Title

FC1166 Characterisation and Pathogenesis of Fish and Shellfish Emerging Diseases

FC1167 Research into Koi Herpesvirus and other important viral pathogens of cyprinid fish species

FC1168 Population Level Effects of Disease

FC1168 Population Level Effects of Disease

FC1169 Defra Aquaculture Disinfectant Listing Scheme

FC1170 Development of Surveillance Tools for Fish and Shellfish Diseases

FC1171 The Application of Bioinformatics to Aquatic Health Research

FC1172 Studies on fish diseases and shellfish hygiene (students)

FC1173 A Study of the aetiology and control of Rainbow Trout Gastro Enteritis (RTGE)

FC1173a A study of the aetiology and control of Rainbow Trout Gastro Enteritis (RTGE) financial store file

FC1174 Development of a customised GIS tool for retrieving node information from river networks to assist the modelling of spread of exotic aquatic pathogens

FC1175 Estimating transmission parameters of Gyrodactylus: a key requirement for contingency planning.

FC1176 Prevalence, impact and life cycle of an emerging endemic disease: the rosette-like agent

FC1177 Development of a risk evaluation system for the establishment of Gyrodactylus salaris in English and Welsh river systems.

FC1178 Characterisation and Pathogenesis of Fish and Shellfish Emerging Diseases Caused by Bacteria and Fungi

FC1179 The development of an in-vitro method to assess the effects of environmental impacts on the anti-viral response in fish

FC1180 Investigating the distribution of Koi Herpesvirus (KHV) in England and Wales

FC1182 Development of a scheme for monitoring sentinel farms in the UK trout industry

FC1183 PhD Studentship - Evaluation of the susceptibility of English and Welsh salmonids to Gyrodactylus salaris

FC1184 Contingency planning

HS0103 Strategy Development & Scenario Testing for Fisheries Recovery Plans: Part A

LK0663 Humane electric stunning of farmed sea fish

ME1421 Provision of Research Programme Management Services

ME2208 Harmful Algae, Nuisance Blooms and Anthropogenic Nutrient Enrichment

ME3206

Development of population genetics markers in dab (Limanda Limanda) and European Flounder (Platichthys flesus) to assess population structure in impacted and unimpacted areas.

ME4131 Marine Recorders

MF0130 `Migrations and movements of plaice and cod in relation to stock identity, quota management and technical conservation`

MF0130 `Migrations and movements of plaice and cod in relation to stock identity, quota management and technical conservation`

MF0133 Ecology and interactions of fisheries in rocky subtidal habitats

MF0135 Operations research and statistical modelling support to UK Fisheries Department

MF0145 Data storage tags- Phase III

MF0146 Genetic identification of fish eggs by species specific DNA markers for use in




Code Project Title

stock biomass assessment

MF0147 Development of biologically based spatial assessment models for plaice and cod

MF0148 Movement of rays in sub-area IV in relation to special protected areas

MF0149 Development of humane and efficient methods for attaching electronic tags to fish.

MF0150 Discard studies in support of the CFP

MF0151 Field Trial of genetic probes for the identification of gadoid eggs

MF0152 Validation and testing of biologically-based movement models for North Sea plaice and implementation in management and assessment

MF0153 A review of the potential application of population genetics in fisheries management

MF0154 Linking the behaviour, spatial dynamics and environment of cod and ray populations to evaluate fisheries scenarios

MF0155 Electronic telemetry tags: development of behaviour sensors for fish

MF0156 Genetic Identification of Eggs from 2004 North Sea Survey

MF0158 Investigating the behaviour and movements of cod in the English Channel and southern North Sea

MF0159 Genetic structure of cod (Gadus morhua) populations in the southern North Sea and English Channel

MF0160 Pilot study for fishery-independent monitoring of cod recovery in the Irish Sea by means of egg production surveys.

MF0213 Estimating abundance of Nephrops

MF0215 Use of lipofuscin age pigments for age determination of lobster

MF0220 Assessing the impact of dredging and fishing on edible crab stocks

MF0221 Changes in the behaviour and locomotory performance of Norway lobsters following infection by Hematodinium

MF0222 Development of shellfish modelling, assessment and management methods

MF0224 Assessing crab larval distribution in the North Sea

MF0225 Use of lipofuscin for determination of population age structure in crab

MF0226 Population genetics of shellfish in British waters

MF0227 Edible Crab spawning grounds in the English Channel

MF0228 Framework for evaluating the application of seasonal or rotational scallop fishery closures

MF0229 Development of Integrated Systems for shellfish data collection, assessment and management

MF0230 Spatial and temporal genetic structuring of Edible crab populations

MF0310 Evaluation of management options for fisheries systems

MF0311 Interactions between grey seals and fisheries: towards a predictive model for evaluating management options - PhaseII

MF0315 Development of biologically-based multi-species models

MF0316 Development of improved assessment models and evaluation of management procedures for multi-species systems

MF0317 Spatial and temporal distribution of predators and predator prey interactions

MF0318 Multispecies fisheries management: a management procedure for North Sea sandeels

MF0319 Grey seal diet and fish consumption in the North Sea




Code Project Title

MF0320 Interactions between grey seals and fisheries- a forecasting model for evaluating management options

MF0322 Fisheries Interactions

MF0323 Multispecies Fisheries Management: A comprehensive impact assessment of the sandeel fishery along the English east coast

MF0420 Factors determining recruitment to fisheries

MF0422 Continuous Plankton Recorder

MF0423 Development of models of plaice population dynamics incorporating biological processes for use in risk assessment.

MF0424 Funding for the ICES and GLOBEC Office

MF0425 Effects of environment on recruitment and incorporation into fisheries management

MF0426 Fish egg mortality and ageing

MF0427 Population dynamics models of European cod stocks

MF0428 Large-scale evaluation of fish egg identification using genetic probes

MF0429 ICES/GLOBEC Project Office

MF0430 The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey: Fisheries Investigations

MF0431 Impacts of environmental change on the recruitment of commercial fish stocks

MF0432 PREDATE - Detecting predation of fish eggs and larvae

MF0433 Phenological changes in growth in cod as an indicator of climate change (Cod Phenology)

MF0434 Impact of Climate Change on Fish Stocks and Implications for Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Fisheries

MF0519 Conservation and Management of Whales and Whaling Advice to IWC (Report included within that for SF0157)

MF0615 An analysis of the selectivity processes within the beam trawl fisheries for Crangon crangon and improving selectivity

MF0706 Fishing gears with mitigating ecological impacts

MF0712 Set net/ dolphin interactions

MF0713 The assessment of the effects of scallop dredging on benthic communities : an examination of long term effects

MF0716 Fishing impact on benthic communities

MF0722 Modelling fishery impacts on harbour porpoise populations

MF0723 Composition of benthic trawls

MF0724 Evaluation of ghost fishing preventers for shellfish traps

MF0726 Analysis and mitigation of cetacean bycatch

MF0727 Archiving and analysis of the MBA bottom trawl and benthic survey data: unravelling fishing effects from climate change

MF0728 Catalogue and begin analysis of old CEFAS RV data

MF0729 Assessing the abundance, distribution and vulnerability of rare and declining species impacted by fisheries

MF0730 Using historical datasets to investigate impacts of fishing and climate change on demersal fish assemblages.

MF0731 Development and testing of ecological indicators and models to monitor and predict the ecosystem effects of fishing

MF0732 Marine Biodiversity and Climate Change (MarClim). Assessing and predicting the




Code Project Title

influence of climate on the marine env.

MF0733 Byctach reduction in pelagic trawl fisheries

MF0735 Further development of a Dolphin Exclusion Device

MF0736 Monitoring, impact and mitigation of marine mammal bycatch

MF0737 Reference Levels for Size-based Indicators of Fishing Impacts

MF0738 Gear technology, discard reduction, and environmentally friendly fishing studies

MF0801 Elasmobranch data inventory

MF0802 Offshore fishery for bass

MF0803 Allowing fishermen access to fisheries science and information

MF0804 Spatial and temporal persistence of aggregations of juvenile cod

MF0805 Are essential fish habitats important considerations for fisheries management?

MF0806 Monitoring of discarding and retention by trawl fisheries in Western waters by the use of fisher self sampling

MF080808 INCOFISH

MF0809 COBO

MF0810 HABIT

MF0811 CEFAS RV days for Defra Sea Fisheries Conservation R&D

MF0812 Marine Bioresources Joint Programme

MF0813 IMPASSE

MF0814 FEUFAR: THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE RESEARCH

MF0815 IMAGE: INDICATORS FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE

MF0816 RECLAIM: RESOLVING CLIMATIC IMPACTS ON FISH STOCKS

MF0817 COBECOS

MF0818 MODELKEY - Models for assessing and forecasting the impact of environmental key pollutants on marine and freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity

MF0819 PROTECT - Marine protected areas as a tool for ecosystem conservation and fisheries management

MF0820 UNCOVER - Understanding the mechanisms of stock recovery

MF0821 MEECE: Marine Ecosystem Evolution in a Changing Environment

MF09001 Management of marine fin-fish fisheries

MF09002 Shellfish Management

MF09003 Advice from DEFRA's Chief Fisheries Science Adviser

MF09003 Advice from DEFRA's Chief Fisheries Science Adviser

MF09004 Monitoring under the EU Data Collection Regulation (Part of MF09001 from 2006/07)

MF09005 Fisheries Science Partnership

MF10001 Fish Health Inspectorate & Laboratory Services

MF10002 Provision of Scientific Advice & Representation on Fish/Shellfish Policy

MF10003 Advice on Aquaculture & Shellfisheries

MF1001 Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

MF1002 Practical steps towards reducing discards and developing more environmentally responsible fisheries

MF1003 Mitigating Cetacean Bycatch

MF1004 Bottom vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the NAFO Regulatory Area




Code Project Title

MF1101

Evaluating shelf-wide spatial and temporal changes in fish larval distribution over the last half century in relation to environmental factors and adult distributions

MF1102 Macro-ecology of marine fish in UK waters (MEMFISH)

MF1103 Spatial Dynamics of Edible Crabs in the English Channel in Relation to Management

MF1104 Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Scallop Recruitment and their Implications for Management

MF1105 The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey: Fisheries Investigations (CPR VI)

MF1201 A risk analysis framework for fisheries management

MF1202 A strategic evaluation of ecosystem models in support of Fisheries Management (STEEM)

MF1203 Improved understanding and management of recreational sea angling

MF1203 Improved understanding and management of recreational sea angling

MF1204 Improved understanding and management of shellfish fisheries

MF1205 Development of tools for estimation of stock status under uncertainty

MF1207 Analysis of the effectiveness of the UK economic link in UK fisheries management

NE0105 An Economic Approach to Long Term Reform of Access to Fisheries for the Inshore Fleet

NE0106 2008 Survey of the UK Fish Processing Industry

OC9613 Potential Impact of Renibacterium salmoninarum (R.s.) on Wild Fish Populations (OCS) FC0438

OC9614 Investigations into the life cycles of myxosporean parasites, including the agent of PKD - OCS FC0439.

OC9615 Susceptibility of fish stocks to VHS, IHN and SVC viruses .FC1113

SD0304 Alternative Future Scenarios for Marine Ecosystems (AFMEC)

SD0309 State of the art review of biosecurity risk management in the aquatic environment

SD0411 MARIFISH - Coordination of European fisheries research

SD0422 Assessment of the potential threat of new and emerging systemic iridoviral diseases for fish and amphibians

SD0444 Co-Financing for the European Community Reference Laboratory (CRL) for the Monitoring of Viral and Bacteriological Contamination of Bivalve Molluscs

SD12013 Joint NFFO/Defra project on simplification

SF0106 SOWER 2000

SF0109 Scientific representation at IWC

SF0110 Conservation of cetaceans and the management of whaling

SF0111 Conservation of whales and the management of whaling

SF0157 Conservation and management of whales and whaling - advice to IWC

SF0215 Studies on sea trout and brown trout in a stream in mid Wales.

SF0218 Ecotoxicological Factors Affecting Salmonids

SF0219 Movements and distribution of emigrating salmonid smolts and adult salmon at sea

SF0220 Restoration of Degraded Salmonid Habitat




Code Project Title

SF0221 Diet of Sea Trout in the Sea

SF0225 Equilibrium sediment loads in salmonid spawning gravels

SF0226 The development of applications and validation of hydroacoustic salmonid counters- Phase 3

SF0227 Sediment dynamics in river catchments- a review

SF0228 Impacts of agricultural and aquaculture contaminants on wild salmonids

SF0229 Habitat utilisation and population dynamics in wild salmonids

SF0230 Salmonid migration and climate change

SF0231 Habitat selection and the distribution of migratory salmonids in river systems

SF0232 Spring Salmon: Impact of catch and release and identification of spawning areas in the River Eden.

SF0236 The development and implementation of biological reference points for the management of the European Eel (Anguilla)

SF0237 Bioenergetics of salmon migration

SF0238 Impact of introduced fish species on aquatic ecosystems

SF0239 Sex determination in juvenile salmonids

SF0240 Pesticides in salmonid spawning gravels

SF0241 Impacts of intensive in-river aquaculture on wild salmonids

SF0242 Summary of MAFF funded R&D on salmonid and freshwater fisheries - 1990-2000

SF0243 West Greenland Salmon Fishery Sampling Programme

SF0244 Diffuse pollution and freshwater fish populations

SF0245 The influence of the freshwater environment on salmonid populations

SF0246 Factors affecting distribution and behaviour of salmonid populations

SF0246 Factors affecting distribution and behaviour of salmonid populations

SF0247 Development of a fish counting system for fish passes.

SF0247 Development of a fish counting system for fish passes.

SF0248 Predicting the risks and impacts of non-native fishes under conditions of climate change

SF0248 Predicting the risks and impacts of non-native fishes under conditions of climate change

SF0249 Investigating the influences of habitat on European eel (Anguila anguilla) production in England and Wales

SF0250 Salmon in the sea: novel evidence derived from salmon scale microchemistry

SF0251 Data collection and analysis of Atlantic salmon on the River Frome

SF0251 Data collection and analysis of Atlantic salmon on the River Frome



SF0307 Sustainable management of eel stocks in England and Wales.

SF04001 Migratory Salmonid, Eel & Freshwater Fish Stocks & Fisheries

SF04002 Whaling

VC0111 Management of mute swans to reduce damage to crops and fisheries

VC0114 The potential use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries by fish-eating birds

VC0120 The potential use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries by cormorants




Code Project Title

WC04002 Sample Monitoring of UK Cetacean By-catch

WM0102 The use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries by cormorants.

WM0105 The use of fish refuges to reduce damage to inland fisheries by cormorants.



ANNEX B – RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

Provision of sustainable access to inshore fisheries research gap analysis

Background The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are endeavouring to provide sustainable access to fisheries in England for present and future generations, as part of the Government’s vision to maintain clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The recent passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill through the House of Lords in June is just one of the steps the Government is taking to achieve this. Other steps need to be taken to ensure sustainable access to fisheries in the long-term, and Defra are currently collecting relevant information so that they are able to design and review various policy options to maintain long-term access to inshore fisheries. The objective of these questions is to gain an insight to what datasets and research are available with regards to inshore fisheries. Name: Organisation: Current position: Role: Email:

1. Can you detail any current or previous research taking place on inshore

fisheries with respect to?

a) Environment? b) Economics? c) Social aspects of inshore fishing? OR d) Any other research that you believe may be of help e) Further contacts on inshore fisheries research 2. What research do you use and how do you use it within your current role?



a) What sources of information and data do use (e.g. for economic values, scientific

ata, data on social impacts of fisheries, etc.)

b). Do you use any specific support tools in your current work e.g. spreadsheet

models, standard datasets etc.

c) How do you use the information and toolsets that you currently access

3. What works and what doesn’t?

a) How reliable are the data that you currently use? b) Are there any experts that you approach to get further information with regard to inshore fisheries? If there are, please provide their name and organisation for us to be able to contact them for further information. c) What data do you think are currently missing and if existed would have been useful for your current role?

4. Do you have any other contacts that can help us locate inshore fisheries

research?

a) Experts, organisations, etc. consulted b) Any specific sources of information and data (e.g. for economic values, scientific data, quantifying impacts, etc.) c) Any other comments 5. Would you like to/ be able to contribute further to this research (please

circle all options you would like to consider)?

a) take part in a telephone interview b) take part in a workshop c) Obtain a copy of the report



Annex C - Additional References Identified by the

Consultation Process

Allison, E.H., Ellis, F. 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 25, 377-388.

Allison, E.H., Horemans, B. 2006. Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach into fisheries development policy and practice. Marine Policy 30, 757-766.

Bannister, R.C.A. 2009. On the Management of Brown Crab Fisheries, Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

Bennett, D., Nichols, J., & Huntington, T. Certification Report for NESFC Lobster Fishery. 1-83. 2-9-2006. MOODY MARINE LTD. commissioned by North East Sea Fisheries Committee.

Cardenas, J.C., Stranlund, J., & Willis, C. 2000. Local Environmental Control and Institutional Crowding-Out. World Development 28, 1719-1733.

CEFAS, CEMARE, CLREA, CMER, IEEP, IFOK, modus vivendi, Nautilus Consultants, OLR (Opinion Leader Research), SMRU(Small Mammal Research Unit), & University of Vigo, 2007. Investing in South West Fisheries: Setting a course for sustainable fisheries in south-west England, Invest in Fish South West.

Charles, A.T. 2001. Fishery Socioeconomics: A Survey. Land Economics 64, 276-295.

Cornwall County Council 2008. Draft Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Sector Profile: Fishing Cornwall County Council & Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Economic Forum.

Crean, K., Wisher, S.J. 2000. Is there the will to manage "fisheries at a local level in the European Union? A case study from Shetland. Marine Policy 24, 471-481.

Davis, N. 2008. Evaluating collaborative fisheries management planning: A Canadian case study. Marine Policy 32, 867-876.

Davies, M. & Lancaster, J. 2007. Survey of the English intertidal Solway Cockle grounds, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Donnelley, R.R. 2009, Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland, Scottish Government.

E.K.O.S. consultancy & Nautilus Consultants 2003. Socio-Economic Baseline Study of the South West Fishing Industry, PESCA and the South West Regional Development Agency.



Eggert, H. & Ellegard, A. 2003. Fishery control and regulation compliance: a case for co-management in Swedish commercial fisheries. Marine Policy 27, 525-533.

FitzGerald, A. 2008a. Shellfish Industry Development Strategy Financial Impacts of Sporadic Pollution Events and Exceeded Discharge Agreements on Shellfish Operations, Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

FitzGerald, A. 2008b. Shellfish Industry Development Strategy Impact of Climate Change on Frequency of Pollution Events, Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G., & Kaiser, M.J. 2005. Importance of Attitudinal Differences among Artisanal Fishers toward Co-Management and Conservation of Marine Resources. Conservation Biology 19, 865-875.

Gezelius, S.S. 2002. Do Norms Count? State Regulation and Compliance in a Norwegian Fishing Community. Acta Sociologica 45.

Gezelius, S.S. 2003. The Morality of Compliance in Coastal Fisheries - Cases from Norway and Newfoundland. Paper Presented at the IASCP Northern Polar Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska 1-18.

Gezelius, S.S. 2004. Food, Money, and Morals: Compliance among Natural Resource Harvesters. Human Ecology 32.

Hatchard, J., Holmyard, N., Delaney, A., Davies, H., Belcher, S., Napier, I., & Hepburn, C. Developing a socio-economic dataframe. Fisheries (Bethesda). 2007.

Hatchard, J. Using Socio-economic information in European marine site management: UK Shellfisheries. Management 7. 2007.

Hatcher, A., Jaffry, S., Thebaud, O., & Bennett, E. Normative and social influences affecting compliance with Fishery Regulations. Land Economics 76, 448-461.

Hauck, M. 2008. Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Marine Policy 32, 635-642.

Healey, M.C., Hennessey, T. 1998. The paradox of fairness: the impact of escalating complexity on fishery management. Marine Policy 22, 109-118.

Kaplan, I.M., McCay, B.J. 2004. Cooperative research, co-management and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Marine Policy 28, 257-258.

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLAM), North Sea Center (NSC) 1996. Analysis of Fisheries Co-Management Arrangements: A Research Framework.

International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Institute of Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development (IFM) 1998. Analysis



of Co-Management Arrangements in Fisheries and related Coastal Resources: A Research Framework, Coastal Resources Co-Management Research Project.

Jentoft, S. 2000a. The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy 24, 53-59.

Jentoft, S. 2000b. Legitimacy and disappointment in "fisheries management. Marine Policy 24, 141-148.

Jentoft, S. 2005. Fisheries co-management as empowerment. Marine Policy 29, 1-7.

Karlsen, G.R. 2001. Can formalisation help? The introduction of "fisheries co-management in the inshore "fisheries of Dingle, Co. Kerry, Ireland. Marine Policy 25, 83-89.

Kearney, J., Berkes, F., Charles, A., Pinkerton, E., & Wiber, M. 2007. The Role of Participatory Governance and Community-Based Management in Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada. Coastal Management 35, 79-104.

Lancaster, J. 2003a. Annual survey of eleven sites chosen as being representative of the beaches and foreshores along the coastline within the CSFC's district, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2003b. Annual Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. & Nicholson, A. 2003. Survey of the English Solway Cockle grounds , Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2004. Mussel Stock Assessment 2004, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2005. Survey of the English Solway Cockle grounds, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. & Davies, M. 2005. Annual Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2006. Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee Shore survey 2005, Cumbria Sea

Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J.& Davies, M. 2006a. Annual Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth , Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. & Davies, M. 2006b. Survey of the English Solway Cockle grounds , Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. 2007a. Shore Survey 2006. Part I, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.



Lancaster, J. 2007b. Shore survey 2006. Part 2 –The South Cumbrian coast, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Lancaster, J. & Davies, M. 2007. Annual Stock Assessment of the Littoral Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Stocks in the Solway Firth, Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee.

Mathiesen, C. 2009, Analytical framework for studying fishers’ behaviour and adaptation strategies, Institute of Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development (IFM).

MegaPesca Lda.Portugal, Centre for Agricultural Strategy, Unspecified date. Regional Socio-economic Studies on Employment and the Level of Dependency on Fishing, Commission of the European Communities.

Meredith, D. 1999, The strategic importance of the fishing sector to rural communities and Ireland: a case study of the Rossaveal Region, Co. Galway.

Mikalsen, K.H. & Jentoft, S. 2008. Participatory practices in fisheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible. Marine Policy 32, 169-177.

Nichols, J., Huntington, T., Bennett, D., & Hough, A. 2006, Certification Report for NESFC Sea Bass Fishery , MOODY MARINE LTD.

Nielsen, J.R. & Mathiesen, C. 2003. Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries lessons from Denmark. Marine Policy 27, 409-416.

Noble, T. 2003. Co-operating in fisheries management: trials and tribulations in Scotland. Marine Policy 27, 433-439.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2003. Shellfish Permit Landing Statistics. Summary report 2000-2002, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2005. Fishing Effort within North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee District, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006a. Recreational Sea Angling Diversification Study: Summary Report, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee in association with Yorkshire Forward.

Northern Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006b. Fishing Effort within North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee District.

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee 2006c. Shellfish Permit Landing Statistics. Summary report 2003-2005, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee .

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. 2003. Draft: Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental management 1-48.



Pinkerton, E. & Leonard, J. 2008. Creating local management legitimacy. Marine Policy 32, 680-691.

Pollard, B.V. 2009, Fishing Communities and Regional Development, Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.

Pomeroy, R.S. & Berkes, F. 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21, 465-480.

Raakj, J., Mathiesen, C. 1998, Incentives for compliance behaviour - lessons from Danish fisheries -, Institute for Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development (IFM).

Richardson, E.A., Kaiser, M.J., & Edwards-Jones, G. 2005. Variation in fishers’ attitudes within an inshore fishery: implications for management. Environmental Conservation 32, 213-225.

Salas, S., Sumaila, U.R., & Pitcher, T. 2004. Short-term decisions of small-scale fishers selecting alternative target species: a choice model. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Science 61, 374-383.

Singleton, S. 1997. Cooperation or Capture? The Paradox of Co management and Community Participation in Natural Resource Management and Environmental Policymaking. Draft article 1-12.

SRSF Pamphlet. Who’ll Be Left Fishing?: The dilemma of recruitment in small boat fishing. [October]. 2001. SRSF.

Stead, S. 2005. Changes in Scottish coastal fishing communities—Understanding socio-economic dynamics to aid management, planning and policy. Ocean & Coastal Management 48, 670-692.

Stockdale, L. 2005, Utilisation of Geographical Information System Software to Record Fishing & Enforcement Activity within the District of North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee.

Sutinen, J.G. & Kuperan, K. 1999. A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics 26, 174-193.

Symes, D. & Phillipson, J. 2009. Whatever became of social objectives in fisheries policy? Fisheries Research 95, 1-5.

Woodhatch, L. & Crean, K. 1999. The gentleman’s agreements - a fisheries management case study from SW England. Marine Policy 23, 25-35.

Woolmer, A. 2009. National Shellfish Resource Base: Cost-effective & efficient methodology to map inshore <10 m shellfish fleet, Salacia-Marine report to Shellfish Industry Development Strategy.