the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the ...€¦ · 2-4 august 2016, new york city,...

The Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in the

Northwest Atlantic: NAFO Processes and Regulations

1

UN Workshop – Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 64/72 and 66/68: Addressing

impacts of bottom fishing on VMEs and Long-Term Sustainability of deep- sea fish stocks.

2-4 August 2016, New York City, USA

Dr. Ricardo Federizon

Senior Fisheries Commission Coordinator

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

2




International Instruments – RFMOs, VME, SAI

• 2007 UNGA 61/105 on Sustainable Fisheries

Paragraph 83 – urges RFMOs to… to protect VMEs from SAI… by

regulating bottom fishing …

• 2008 FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep Sea

Fisheries in the High Seas

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME)

Significant Adverse Impacts (SAI)

• 2009 UNGA 64/72 on Sustainable Fisheries

Paragraph 119a – conduct assessment in accordance to paragraph 83

of 61/105 … vessels not … to engage in bottom fishing until

such assessments have been carried out.

3




NAFO’s response

Chapter II of the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures –

Bottom Fisheries in the NAFO Regulatory Area

Processes and regulations:

• Fishing Foot print

• Exploratory Fishing Protocols

• VME species indicators and elements

• Seamount closures

• High Sponge and coral concentration

area closures

• Encounter protocols

• Species thresholds

• Impact assessments

• Fisheries Assessment

• Review process

4




NAFO Convention and Regulatory Area

NAFO is an RFMO responsible for

managing the fish stocks (except salmon,

whales, tuna and sedentary species) in the

NW Atlantic outside the EEZs of Coastal

States (FAO Statistical Area 21).

5




NAFO 12 Contracting Parties

Canada

Cuba

Denmark (in respect of

Faroe Islands & Greenland)

European Union (EU)

France (in respect of

Saint Pierre et Miquelon)

Iceland

Japan

Korea, Republic of

Norway

Russian Federation

Ukraine

United States of

America

6




Map of Footprint (Existing Bottom Fishing Areas)

� Adopted in 2011

� The “footprint” was determined based on the

historical fishing tracks 1987-2008.

� Plans to fish outside the footprint are subject

to prior Scientific Council evaluation and

Fisheries Commission approval.

� Fishing outside footprint subjected to strict

Exploratory Fisheries Protocol.

7




Exploratory Bottom Fishing Activities

I. Exploratory Fishing Protocol

• Harvesting Plan – target species, dates and areas

• Mitigation Plan – measures to prevent SAI

• Catch Monitoring Plan – 100% satellite tracking and 100%

observer coverage

• Data Collection Plan – identification of VMEs and species

II. Notice of Intent to Conduct Exploratory Fisheries – Elaboration of the four plans

III. Exploratory Fishing Trip Report – Fishery Data Collection Form

IV. Assessment of Bottom Fishing Activity – baseline information,

Data gaps, risk assessment of likely impacts, proposed mitigation

And management measures.

8




Species• Large-sized sponges

• Stony Corals

• Gorgonian corals

• Sea pens

• Tube-dwelling anemones

• Erect bryozoans

• Sea lilies

• Sea squirts

Elements• Seamounts

• Fogo

• Newfoundland

• Corner Rise

• New England

• Canyons

• S of Flemish Cap

• Tail of Grand Banks

• Knolls

• Orphan

• Beothuk

• Shoal

• Tail of Grand Bank

Spawning Grounds

• Steep flanks

• SE of Flemish Cap

Photo credits: Bedford of Institute of

Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,

Canada

VME Indicator Species and Elements

9




Areas closed to bottom fishing (380 000 km2) -

Ban on trawling using bottom contact gears

(2007, 2009)

(2010, 2014, 2015)

(2008)

10




New fishing

area?

Has fishery

changed ?

Apply exploratory

fishery/data collection

protocols

< 2 yrs -

continue

fishing?

Stop

fishing

Review of

Assessment

Required

Y

Y

N

N Assessment

required

Y

New VME

information?

N

Assessment

required

Y

No

assessment

required

N

Existing and suggested instances when a

fishery assessment would be required

Start here

Periodic review

of existing

fishery?

Assessment

required

Y

N

New step

See separate flowchart

Bottom Fishing in NAFO Regulatory Area

Fisheries Assessment in 2016 and

every 5 years thereafter

11




Exploratory Fisheries Process

FC-SC WG-EAFFM

FC-SC WG-EAFFM

12




Encounter Protocol and Species Thresholds

• When fishing vessel catch VME indicator species above thresholds,

vessel must move away 2 nautical miles.

• Thresholds: 7 kg of sea pens and/or 60 kg of other live coral and/or

300 kg of sponges.

• Duties are spelled out in Article 22 of the NCEM

• Fishing Master – move away, reporting

• Observer – identification of VME indicator species

• Contracting Party – alert fleet and consider temporary closure of a 2 -

mile-radius area if encounter location is outside footprint

• Secretariat – archives information, forward to SC

• Scientific Council and Joint FC-SC WGs– analysis, provide advice

• Fisheries Commission – adopt conservation and management measures

Note: Scientific Council concluded that establishing closed areas to bottom

fishing is preferred management response over the move on rule.

13




Assessment of Bottom Fisheries Activities – in 2016 and every 5 years(Article 23 of NCEM)

2016 Assessment completed by the Scientific Council in June 2016

Tasks – Par. 47 of

DSF Guidelines (Annex I.E,

NCEM)

Results (WG-ESA Report Nov 2015, SC Report June 2016)

Description of fisheries, bycatch,

effort

11 operational fisheries ID’ed. e.g. Halibut in Flemish Cap, Nose and Tail; Cod in Flemish

Cap (long line and bottom trawl), skates, shrimp, redfish fisheries, etc.

Habitats and communities,

ecosystems

Oceanographic conditions, Flemish Cap, benthic habitats, fish communities

Mapping of VMEs – known or

likely to occur in fishing area

[see next slides, for example]

Evaluation of likely impacts ---

Significant Adverse Impact

[see next slides, for example]

VME elements in fishing area 8 categories of VMEs, seamounts, canyons, slopes, flanks, etc.

Data and methods to assess SAI NEREIDA scientific surveys, Kernel Density Analysis

Risk assessment of impacts due

to fishing

See next slides

Mitigation and management

measures, monitoring

FC-SC WG-Ecosystem Approach Framework to Fisheries Management meets on 10-12

August. Fisheries Commission meets in September 2016

Next step

14




Areas of sponge (A), sea pen (B), and gorgonian coral (C) VME at high risk of impact (yellow), impacted (red) and low

risk (green) according to calculated fishing intensity cut-off value. (Source: Report of the 8th Meeting of the NAFO SC-

Working Group on Ecosystem Science and Assessment, 17-26 November 2015. SCS Doc. 15/19.)

A - Sponge B – Sea pen C – Gorgonian coral

Risk of Impacts:

Low – at current closures (both in/outside footprint) High – inside footprint, not closed to bottom fishing, not fished since 2008

Impacted – VME areas inside footprint, not closed to bottom fishing, high fishing effort for many years.

15




SAI criteria Definition

Area/Biomass at low risk Proportion of the area or biomass of VME which is currently at

low risk either because it falls within a fishery closure area

and/or is in an area outside of the fishing footprint

Area/Biomass impacted Proportion of the area or biomass of VME which has been

exposed to a level of fishing effort above the defined cut-off point

within any one year

Area/Biomass at high

risk

Proportion of the area or biomass of VME which falls below the

defined cut-off point of fishing effort within any one year.

Number of overlapping

VMEs

Proportion of area overlapping with other VMEs

Fishing effort/biomass

cut-off value (Index of

VME sensitivity)

The impact cut-off values for each of the VMEs are used as a proxy

of sensitivity (a high cut-off value indicates a low sensitivity) as it

indicates the point at which trawl duration/length exceeds VME

indicator patch size within the habitat

Index of fishing stability Number of cells consistently fished above the impact cut-off value

over time as a proportion of the total cells impacted

Index of Risk of VME

fragmentation

Proportion of discrete VME without protection

Definition of criteria used to assess SAI

16




Quantitative Evaluation of criteria in SAI assessment for

VME in the NAFO Regulatory Area

Sponge Sea pen Large Gorgonian

SAI Criteria Area Biomass Area Biomass Area Biomass

VME Low risk 65% 73% 16% 19% 56% 63%

VME High risk 14% 10% 46% 39% 12% 14%

VME Impacted 21% 17% 38% 42% 31% 23%

VMEs overlapping 11% 2% 74%

Index of Sensitivity 0.3 0.5 0.1

Fragmentation 1% 26% 2%

Fishing area of stability 32% 14% 21%

Working Group on Ecosystem Approach Framework to Fisheries

Management (WG-EAFFM) and Fisheries Commission task: translate the

results into mitigation measures to be used to prevent SAI on VMEs, and

the measures to be used to monitor effects of fishing operation.

17




From FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea

Fisheries in the High Seas (par. 18)

Significant adverse impacts

Six factors to consider:

1. Intensity or severity of the impact

2. The spatial extent of the impact

3. Sensitivity/vulnerability of the ecosystem

4. Ability of the ecosystem to recover

5. Extent to which ecosystem functions may be altered by the impact

6. Timing and duration of the impact relative to life-history stages.

First 3 factors – being addressed

Last 3 factors – at a latter time

18




Thank you!

the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the ...€¦ · 2-4 august 2016, new york city,...

Documents