Current status
Very few, if any of the marine fish species exploited commercially by UK fishermen are in immediate danger of biological extinction as they are found across wide geographic areas. For example, the mackerel and hake are found from Morocco in the south to Norway in the north while the cod spans the North Atlantic from the North Sea to the Grand Banks of North America and the Arctic. Within these wide distributions, however, there are local stocks of fish subject to excessive exploitation and risk of collapse even though the species itself may not be in immediate danger. Such a collapse would represent a reduction in the natural range of the species and effective action to minimise this risk is required under the UK BAP. For these reasons, this action plan is aimed at particular stocks rather than the species as a whole.
The stocks of immediate relevance are those for which the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) scientists` assessment is that they are below Safe Biological Limits (SBL). SBL is an assessment based on a range of biological reference points varying according to the quantity and quality of the scientific data available. Furthermore, this grouped action plan reflects the fact that the majority of species are caught in mixed, i.e. multi-species, fisheries rather than directed single species fisheries. It also recognises that individual stocks can fluctuate around SBL in response to inter-annual variations in fishing activity and natural processes.
The fish with stocks close to or below SBL, in the most recent years for which information is available, are listed below. It is these stocks which are regarded as priority stocks for the purposes of this action plan.
North Sea
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| cod, hake, herring, mackerel, plaice, saithe | cod, hake, herring, mackerel, plaice, saithe | cod, hake, herring, mackerel, plaice, saithe, sole |
Each of these stocks was subject to an analytical assessment. The roundfish assessments indicate an apparent decline in fishing mortality in recent years for cod, haddock and whiting, possibly due to a diversion of effort to other stocks. The fishing mortality on both plaice and role has been varying at a high level over a long period. Most roundfish and flatfish stocks` spawning biomass are low, although they may have recovered somewhat from the lowest recorded levels of the early 1990s. Recruit surveys indicate that there is a strong 1996 year-class of cod, plaice, sole and whiting which may help rebuild stocks above SBL.
English Channel east
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| cod | cod | cod, plaice, sole |
Cod, whiting, sole and plaice stocks were subject to an analytical assessment. For the first time, the cod (and whiting) assessments were integrated with those for the North Sea stocks (see above). Following a period of strong recruitment 1989-91, the spawning stock biomass of sole has fallen for two years and at the current very high level of fishing mortality is likely to fall to an historic observed minimum in 1999.
English Channel west
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| plaice, sole | plaice, sole | plaice, sole |
Both the plaice and sole stocks were subject to an analytical assessment. High fishing mortality and a succession of poor recruitment have contributed to a progressive decline in plaice stock size which is close to its minimum recorded level. In contrast, recent recruitment to the sole stock has been above average and the fishing mortality on the sole stock has declined recently. However, it is still high and the stock remains close to SBL.
Bristol Channel
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| cod, plaice, sole | plaice, sole | plaice, sole |
Plaice and sole are taken in the same fishery. The plaice stock has declined steadily since a peak in the late 1980s in response to high fishing mortality and below (long-term) average recruitment. The same pattern affects the sole stock except that in this instance the decline can be traced back a further decade to the late 1970s. Both stocks require strong recruitment as well as reduced fishing mortality to show significant increase in stock size.
Irish Sea
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| cod, plaice, sole | cod, plaice, sole | sole |
Although neither the cod nor the plaice stocks are strong, both are currently considered to be above SBL. This improvement over the recent past is partly a response to reduced fishing mortality as demersal trawlers turn their attention to the Nephrops fishery. The sole stock, however, continues to show a decline largely in response to sustained high fishing mortality and an absence of a strong recruiting year-class. The spawning stock biomass reached the lowest recorded level in 1996 and is not expected to recover at all in the immediate future.
Celtic Sea
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| cod, hake, mackerel | cod, hake, horse mackerel | cod, whiting, hake |
Both the cod and the whiting spawning stock biomass fluctuate widely in response to the size of the recruiting year-class. There has been no strong recruitment for a number of years and fishing mortality continues to be high. The spawning stock biomass of the Western mackerel, which dominates mackerel stocks around the UK, appears to have stabilised above 2.3 million tons and is currently considered to be above SBL.
West of Scotland
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 |
| cod, hake, herring (Clyde), saithe, whiting | cod, hake, saithe | cod, hake, saithe |
The spawning stock biomass of the saithe stock is at an all-time recorded low and there is a high probability that the same will be true for the cod stock within the medium-term. The recent high levels of fishing mortality are the principal cause for concern, masking such small benefits as might have been gained from slightly above average 1991 and 1993 year-classes of recruiting cod. The Northern hake stock is thought to be close to SBL. Long-term recruitment appears to have been relatively stable and the spawning stock biomass increased slightly during 1995 and 1996.
The European Union has complete authority for the conservation and management of marine fish and their fisheries; fisheries measures are implemented through Regulations of the Common Fisheries Policy. For this reason, the opportunities for the UK government to initiate unilateral marine fisheries management measures are limited. However, derogations which currently form a part of the CFP allow individual states limited powers.
Current factors causing loss or decline
The principal factor causing the decline in spawning stock biomass is summarised simply, but effectively, as `too many boats chasing too few fish`, i.e. the collective fishing power of the EU nations` fishing fleets is much greater than the productivity of the stocks can support. Hitherto, the methods available under the CFP have proved ineffective in controlling the deployment of this fishing power. One contributory factor to this ineffectiveness has been that decommissioning has removed the smaller and least efficient vessels from the fishing fleet. In addition, there are socio-economic pressures to maintain employment in the fishing industries of the EU nations. These pressures also contribute to the widespread practice of illegal, unreported landings which are excess to quotas (so-called `blackfish`).
These factors together result in overfishing of many stocks with the consequence that most stocks of the species listed above are close to or below SBL.
Current action
The principal current management action aimed at protecting these species is implementation of the Regulations underpinning the CFP. These require:
annual agreement on the level of Total Allowable Catches (TAC) from each stock (from which national quotas are allocated by fixed proportion);
application and enforcement by all EU fishing states of technical measures such as net mesh sizes and minimum landing size;
observation by all EU states` fishing fleets of closed areas and seasons (to protect spawning or immature fish).
There is also a requirement through the EU multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP) to reduce the amount of fishing effort deployed. At the close of MAGP III (1992-96) the UK had met its global target for reduced engine power and was within 3% of the global tonnage target. Under MAGP IV (1997-2001) member states have to reduce their fishing of high risk stocks by 30% and on less threatened stocks by 20%. This can be done either by reducing capacity (decommissioning) or by restricting time at sea (effort control). The effect of decommissioning might be partly offset through technical improvement by the remaining vessels.
Around the coast of England and Wales, fishing activity is highly restricted (either by fishing method or vessel size) within the six nautical mile jurisdiction of the local Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs). Fishing is similarly restricted in the 34 designated bass nursery areas. Neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland has SFCs, in both cases coastal fisheries are managed directly by the territorial fisheries departments (SOAEFD and DANI). However, a process of partial decentralisation of inshore fisheries is currently underway in Scotland with the formation of area management groups similar in constitution to SFCs. Other UK areas in which fishing is either prohibited or restricted, are found in the approaches to major ports and harbours, in proximity to historic wrecks, offshore gas and oil installations, military ranges and explosives dump sites.
Pelagic fisheries and trawling are restricted at certain seasons and in some areas by EU Regulation. For example, in an extensive area around Cornwall (The `Mackerel Box`) restrictions protect juvenile mackerel and in a similar extensive area around Shetland (the `Shetland Box`) the number of larger vessels allowed to fish at any one time is limited to prevent excessive mortality in the area. Access to fish in the 6 nautical mile belt of UK Territorial Seas is limited to UK vessels and access by non-UK fishing vessels to the 6-12 nautical mile belt of the UK Territorial Sea is limited to nations with `historic rights`. Since the ratification of the CFP (1983 and 1996), only coastal states (including Norway) have fished in the North Sea. Some North Sea coastal states also fish in the Irish Sea but Spain and Portugal fish only in waters to the south and west of the British Isles.
The three Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) designated in UK waters since 1986 are unlikely to have had a measurable effect on finfish stocks as no management measures were introduced with these stocks in mind. The same will probably be true for the greater number of Natura 2000 sites as they become operative. (It is possible, however, that they may contribute to shellfish conservation and management).
Fisheries departments are consulted as part of the Crown Estates` - DETR `Government View` procedure for assessing the potential environmental effects of marine aggregate extraction. Historically, the balance of decisions has favoured safeguarding known and probable herring spawning and important shellfish grounds. More recently the aggregate industry has requested (and funded) detailed studies to assess the facts of each case. Similar consultations take place with respect to gas and oil exploration (DTI) and pipeline waste discharges to tidal waters (territorial environment protection agencies).
Action plan objectives and targets
Bring all stocks identified in the plan within precautionary reference points as defined by ICES within 5 years.
Proposed actions with lead agencies
Policy and legislation
During the forthcoming review of the CFP (2002), UK Fisheries Ministers should seek to:
(a) Ensure that the EU publishes and pursues clearly defined management plans aimed at the recovery of all commercially important stocks, identifying appropriate biological reference points, sustainable fishing mortality rates and a timescale within which to attain these targets. Similar management plans should be pursued for new fisheries to avoid stocks being put at risk. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
(b) Build clearly defined environmental objectives into the CFP; objectives which include retention of the full geographical distribution and genetic variability of each commercially exploited finfish species and the assessment of the environmental impact of new and existing fisheries. (ACTION: MAFF)
(c) Match the level of deployed fishing effort to the productivity which the stocks can sustain by 2008. (ACTION: MAFF)
(d) Ensure that all EU fishing nations contribute effectively to the pursuit of, and monitoring the achievement of, the management objectives. (ACTION: MAFF)
(e) Ensure full implementation of Council Regulation 850/98 to minimise the current high level of discarding in many fisheries. (ACTION: MAFF)
(f) Engender a greater commitment among all fishing nations to reducing the deployed fishing effort of the EU fishing fleet, not least through the full implementation of MAGP IV. (ACTION: MAFF)
(e) Review the Sea Fisheries Regulations Act 1966 to improve the effectiveness of SFCs to fulfil their fisheries and environmental roles. (ACTION: MAFF)
Site safeguard and management
Where a stock is known to be less than SBL, the principal nursery areas supporting that stock should be designated ‘non-trawling/shrimping nursery areas’. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE, SFCs)
Species management and protection
Changes in the way commercial fisheries are managed will require changes in legislation (ie the CFP) or changes in UK Government policy towards fisheries in the 6 nautical mile coastal belt. Recommendations for such changes are included in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 respectively. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Advisory
The success of this action plan in achieving its objectives will be determined largely by the success in influencing others to take the necessary action. The advice and recommendations given above are targeted at UK government departments and gaining their commitment will be important. However, it is also important to influence corresponding departments in other EU countries. (ACTION: DANI, FCO, MAFF, NAW, SE)
UK statutory and voluntary environmental groups, and international NGOs, (eg WWF, FoE, BirdLife International, Greenpeace) should endeavour to persuade environmental organisations in other EU countries to put pressure on their own ministers to modify the CFP. (ACTION: JNCC)
Future Research and Monitoring
Review the status of all commercially exploited stocks in UK and adjacent waters using the principles and time scales set out at the North Sea Intermediate Ministerial Meeting. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Prepare descriptions of the population biology and demography of commercial species, by stocks, to assist the identification of potential closed areas, together with the formulation of technical management measures and the establishment of a methodology for assessing their effectiveness (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Increase research into the biological interactions affecting fish species and seek to improve modelling of multi-species interactions. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, NERC, SE)
Increase research into the biological and environmental factors determining variations in fish recruitment and sustainability. (ACTION: DANI, NERC, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Revive and maintain long-term fisheries and environmental monitoring time series data. (ACTION: DANI, EA, Fisheries Departments, NERC, SEPA)
Determine the risk that modern fishing techniques could result in shoaling (ie pelagic) species being fished to extinction by removal of the last shoal. (ACTION: Fisheries Departments, JNCC, NERC, SFIA)
Establish 'designated ports' for all landings by larger (>20 m) fishing vessels to help eliminate 'blackfish' landings and improve the quality of fish landing statistics. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Maintain or increase monitoring of fishing activity and landings at the level necessary to establish whether or not management targets recommended in 4 (above) are being met. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Undertake research to improve the measurement of fishing effort and the understanding of its relationship to fishing mortality. (ACTION: DANI, MAFF, NAW, SE)
Communications and Publicity
Promote the message and explain to the public and the fishing industry the need to reduce fishing effort to get more stable and greater long-term yields for less effort. (ACTION: CCW, DANI, NE, MAFF, SE, SNH)
Links with other action plans
None given.
Publication details
Originally published in: UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans - Volume V: Maritime species and habitats (October 1999, Tranche 2, Vol V, p51)