Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC)

Transcription

1 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2017/ACOM:24 Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) June 2017 Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA

2 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) Telefax (+45) info@ices.dk Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), June 2017, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA. ICES CM 2017/ACOM: pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

3 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 i Contents Executive summary Opening of the meeting Adoption of the agenda Review and summarize annual national reports submitted to the European Commission under Regulation 812/2004 and other published documents and collated bycatch rates and estimates in EU waters (ToR A) Reporting data on bycatch of protected species Monitoring under Reg. 812-Overview Monitoring under Reg. 812-by Member States (including noncetacean bycatch events when provided) Observed PETS specimens, bycatch rates and mortality estimates, total and observed effort obtained from Reg. 812 reports (includes non-cetacean species) Monitoring and bycatch from non-eu Countries Auxiliary data (stranding, entanglement and interviews) indicative of bycatch impacts Evaluate the range (min/max) impacts of bycatch on protected species where possible by assessment unit, furthering the bycatch risk approach to assess likely conservation level threats and prioritize areas where additional monitoring is needed (ToR B) Lessons learned from a mature seabird bycatch monitoring program US Seabird fishery interactions, a regional perspective Development of the HELCOM core indicator Collate and review information from National Reg. 812 reports and elsewhere relating to the implementation of bycatch mitigation measures and ongoing bycatch mitigation trials, compile recent results and coordinate further work on protected species bycatch mitigation (ToR C) Mitigation compliance carried out under Reg. 812-Mandatory and voluntary mitigation measures Denmark Estonia Germany Iceland Ireland Latvia Lithuania... 25

4 ii ICES WGBYC REPORT Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovenia Sweden UK US Northwest Atlantic Region-Gear Research Program US Northwest Atlantic Region-Pinger Data (Collection & Utilization in Northeast US Gillnet Fisheries Continue to develop, improve and coordinate with other ICES WG s on methods for bycatch monitoring, research and assessment within the context of European legislation (e.g. MSFD) and regional conventions (intersessional) (ToR D) Anticipated future changes in legislation addressing the problem of cetacean bycatch within European Waters Site Visit to Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)-Fisheries Sampling Branch WGCATCH JWGBIRD Continue to develop collaborative research proposal among WGBYC members to pursue research projects and funding opportunities in support of researching protected and target species behaviour in relation to fishing gear (ToR E) Continue cooperative work with ICES Data Centre, to develop, improve, populate, and maintain the database on bycatch monitoring and relevant fishing effort in European waters (intersessional) (ToR F) Collate, review and evaluate relevant information on bycatch monitoring, assessment and mitigation around the European and Northwest Atlantic waters. In particular, the current state of knowledge on pinger effectiveness for small cetaceans (intersessional) (ToR G) Continue, in cooperation with other advisory working groups and ACOM, to develop information on and impact assessments of bycatch as input to fisheries and ecosystem overviews (ToR H) Baltic Sea Ecoregion Bay of Biscay and Iberia Ecoregion References Annex 1: List of Participants Annex 2: WGBYC ToRs and Agenda Annex 3: WGBYC Terms of Reference for the 2018 meeting Annex 4: Recommendations Annex 5: Tables... 58

5 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 iii Annex 6: Figures Annex 7: Technical Minutes from the Bycatch Review Group... 79

6 4 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Executive summary The Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) met at NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) in Woods Hole Massachusetts USA, June The meeting was chaired by Marjorie Lyssikatos (USA) and was attended by 15 members from nine nations. WGBYC was also attended by one client observer from the European Commission (EC) Director General of Marine Affairs. WGBYC addressed eight terms of reference (ToR) given in Annex 2 and members carried the work of WGBYC independently, in small groups and also in plenary. The 2017 report is structured in the same order of the terms of reference. Highlights from the 2017 meeting include expanding membership, notably protected species (PS) bycatch data from Icelandic fisheries and seabird bycatch experts, review of ongoing bycatch mitigation research projects (ToR-C), site visit/tour of the NEFSC Fisheries Sampling Branch and its staff presentations on interdisciplinary bycatch monitoring programs in the US Northwest Atlantic northeast region, collaborations with other ICES working groups (i.e. WGCATCH and JWGBIRD; ToR-B and ToR-D), positive advancements on WGBYC database development working jointly with the ICES Data Centre (ToR-F), and progress on summarizing bycatch for the Baltic Sea and Bay of Biscay/Iberia fisheries overviews (ToR-H). Data collated from 2015 Regulation 812/2004 (Reg. 812) reports (ToR-A) continued to occupy a substantial amount of WGBYC attention. Similar to previous years, the content of 2015 member state (MS) reports continued to vary in both content and format. A total of four species of cetaceans were reported as bycatch from 2015 MS reports (common dolphins, white-beaked dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and harbour porpoise). Fourteen species of seabirds and five species of seals are also included in the report. WGBYC continues to be challenged by limited availability of accurate total fishing effort from relevant European waters for gear types covered by Reg Consequently there continues to be considerable uncertainty in the representativeness of total fishing effort reported in MS Reg. 812 reports submitted to the EC. Thus, WGBYC continues to highlight the inconsistent submission and content of annual reports provided by some MS and the shortcomings of Reg. 812 to accurately reflect the full magnitude of cetacean bycatch in European fisheries. WGBYC is preparing for the transition away from Reg. 812 MS reports as the primary source of data on bycatch of cetaceans over to data coming through the ICES regional database as a result of the implementation of new EUMAP Adopting a multiannual Union programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors for the period (2016/1251/EU; see ToR-D and ToR-F). Five recommendations were included in the 2017 report, some of which were repeated from last year. Key new recommendations pertain to continued maintenance of the WGBYC database and retro-fitting historical data to the revised template format to facilitate historical review of Reg. 812 data collection. The historical review is intended to serve as a baseline comparison on bycatch of cetaceans from dedicated Reg. 812 monitoring programs to the new EUMap data collection program that requires regional coordination groups to monitor and collect data on PS bycatch events. Additionally, ICES Data Centre intends to issue a formal data call for PS bycatch in 2018 to support WGBYC objectives. JWGBIRD and WGBYC acknowledged efficiencies that can be achieved by working together on further developing JWGBIRD bycatch risk assessments for seabird species where data allow. The continued development and maintenance of WGBYC database

7 ICES WGBYC REPORT collating data on seabird bycatch from both dedicated and opportunistic is integral to this effort. Finally, a joint workshop between WGCATCH and WGBYC is tentatively planned for 2018 with aim of addressing specific data monitoring requirements for effective monitoring of PS bycatch in light of the implementation of the revised DCF (i.e. EUMAP) see ToR-D.

8 6 ICES WGBYC REPORT Opening of the meeting The Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) met at NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole Massachusetts USA, June Delegates were welcomed by the Protected Species Branch Chief Sean Hayes. A complete list of participants is given in Annex 1. The Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the meeting are given in Annex 2.

9 ICES WGBYC REPORT Adoption of the agenda The Draft Agenda was agreed and is also given in Annex 2. Much of the work was accomplished in plenary and small groups.

10 8 ICES WGBYC REPORT Review and summarize annual national reports submitted to the European Commission under Regulation 812/2004 and other published documents and collated bycatch rates and estimates in EU waters (ToR A) 3.1 Reporting data on bycatch of protected species WGBYC continues to learn more about the implementation of new EU legislation and how that may affect data collection relating to the bycatch of protected species (PS) (see Section 6.1) in addition to developing opportunities to collaborate with other Working Groups (WGs) that have bycatch of some protected taxonomic groups or species of concern covered under their respective ToRs (Section 6). Accordingly, as WGBYC continues to learn more about the focus of other working groups that may also be considering the impact of bycatch, congruent with emerging data availability, WGBYC will continue to evaluate intermittently which taxa/species may be in need of further evaluation of bycatch risk to populations (Section 4). 3.2 Monitoring under Reg. 812-Overview The WG was provided with Member States (MS) annual reports that were submitted to the European Commission on observations carried out under Reg. 812 in Six of the 23 EU coastal MS were not affected by any part of Reg. 812 in 2015 (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Romania) because their vessels do not fish in areas covered by Reg. 812 and therefore don t require any further discussion (Table 1). Three MS that are affected by Regulation 812/2004 (Reg. 812) but did not submit reports to the EC were Finland, Italy and Spain (Table 1). Reports were received from the remaining 14 of the 17 MS affected by Articles 4-5 of Reg. 812 (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). Section 3.3 below summarizes text extracted directly from individual MS reports. In rare cases (e.g. Latvia) reported values for observations had to be corrected by WGBYC to maintain consistency between values reported in the text versus values reported in the respective MS effort and monitoring data tables. The quality and scope of the information provided by the reports for 2015 continues to be variable, with some MS simply repeating the information provided in previous years. Consistent with the annual content of WGBYC reports from previous years the Reg. 812 reports have been reviewed for: 1 ) Implementation of mandatory mitigation and monitoring of cetacean bycatch, and information on voluntary mitigation and observation schemes (see Section 5 for mitigation); 2 ) Information on cetacean bycatch (including records of individual bycatch events and bycatch estimates and magnitude of observer coverage provided by Member States); 3 ) Information on bycatch of non-cetacean taxa; 4 ) Other relevant issues emanating from the reports.

11 ICES WGBYC REPORT Monitoring under Reg. 812-by Member States (including non-cetacean bycatch events when provided) Belgium reported on a single vessel that used gillnets or trammelnets. The report makes no mention of the size of that vessel. No observer effort took place. The report notes that according to the criteria mentioned in Reg. 812, the Belgium fishery includes no fleet segments in which pingers are mandatory. The use of gillnets in the recreational fishery has been prohibited since April Denmark reported no specific monitoring programs for incidental catch of marine mammals during 2015 in the Danish pelagic trawl fishery. The reason for not continuing the monitoring programmes from was that the observer schemes, with a coverage up to 7%, had no incidental catch detections. No specific monitoring according to the Reg. 812 took place in the Danish gillnet fishery. Instead, observer data on incidental catches of marine mammals from gillnets were collected under the Data Collection Regulation scheme (DCR). In 27.3a, the observer coverage was 1.4% and in 27.4 it was 0.7% of the total effort. Video monitoring was conducted on vessels under 15 m in 27.3a (0.5% coverage; observed bycatch six harbour porpoises; Phocoena phocoena), in 27.SD22 (2.2% coverage; nine porpoises) and 27.SD23 (0.9% coverage; zero porpoise bycatch). Estonia reported no bycatch of cetaceans during 2015 in Estonian fisheries on the Baltic Sea. However, Estonia did provide comments on improvements to their at-sea observer scheme. Vessel operators are now required to report to supervising authorities 14 days before a planned fishing trip. Difficulties in achieving 5% coverage are reportedly due to low total fishing effort and unpredictable activity in areas 3d.25 and 26. Estonia s cetacean observer program also includes collecting biological samples from herring, sprat, smelt and cod and the proportion of herring and sprat in the total catch. Total effort and observed effort for towed gears was reported. Observer coverage reported in days at sea for towed gears ranged from 0 7%. There was no fishing effort in 2015 for vessels fishing static gears that were larger than 15 meters. Static gears are used by vessels up to 10 meters in length and hence are not subject to monitoring under Reg Estonia reported that interviews with fisherman provided no information about bycatch of cetaceans. France s observer programme manages all the at-sea observations required by various fishery regulations and is implemented by the French Ministry of Environment, Energy and the Sea (Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l Aquaculture) and Ifremer. Onboard observer effort in 2015 included 763 trips and 831 fishing days. A total of 195 trips representing 231 days at sea were monitored for towed gears in ICES subareas 7 (including 7.k) and 8 and in the Mediterranean Sea. A total of 316 trips and 387 days at sea were monitored for static gears in ICES area 8. In addition, 252 trips and 213 days at sea were dedicated to setnets in areas regulated with pingers (zones 4 and 7). Two species of cetaceans were recorded during the year 2015 totalling 12 individuals: nine common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and three harbour porpoise. One harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and two grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) were also observed bycaught. Due to the observer sampling scheme and the small number of recorded bycatch events total bycatch estimates were not provided. In Germany monitoring was carried out under the DCF observer programme, following the requirements of Reg. 812 as much as possible. Only in one fleet segment, covering vessels under 15 m that use gillnets with mesh sizes >=80 mm in the Baltic Sea, the bycatch of one harbour porpoise was observed. During monitoring under the DCF observer program, bycatch of seabirds, nine Black cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and

12 10 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 six Common eider (Somateria mollissima), was observed. All bycatch occurred in one fleet segment, vessels under 15 m that use gillnets with mesh sizes >=80 mm in the Baltic Sea. The seabird bycatch events were not reported in the German Reg. 812 report, but were uploaded subsequently to the WGBYC database. In Ireland a total of 26 trips comprising 134 days at sea and 136 hauls were observed in pelagic trawl fisheries in All of this work was carried out as part of Data Collection Framework monitoring and surveys. Following a period of intensive monitoring of setnet fisheries from 2011 to 2013 no further monitoring of setnet fisheries occurred during Three common dolphins were reported as bycatch in a single haul of a Midwater otter trawl fishery targeting herring in the Celtic Sea in October. This was the first incidence of cetacean bycatch reported in Irish pelagic trawl fisheries since 2006 when a bycatch of four common dolphins was observed. A total of seven common dolphins have been observed from a total of 1319 days at sea observed since monitoring under EC 812/2004 commenced in Of these, a total of 219 days were carried out as part of dedicated independent observer programmes from 2010 to 2012 in a range of pelagic trawl fisheries with no cetacean bycatch observed. Results to date suggest that the risk of bycatch of cetaceans and other protected species in Irish pelagic trawl fisheries is low. The Latvian national monitoring programme of incidental catches of cetaceans in 2015 covered observations of 533 trips in pelagic trawl fisheries and eight trips in gillnet fisheries. The observations were carried out by six observers on 14 different vessels. No incidental catch of cetaceans was observed in 2015, a similar to previous reports from Reported observer coverage ranged from % and % for monitored pelagic trawl and set gillnet fisheries respectively. The lack of observed bycatch over the full decadal time period indicates that cetacean monitoring under Reg. 812 has no practical significance in Latvian fisheries and therefore is an unnecessary expenditure of financial and human resources. Latvia suggests stopping future observations. Lithuania reported monitoring difficulties due to two problems: observer schemes cannot be financed or co-financed under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by MS for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data (OJ L 295, , p ) and by another EU financial programs. Some of the Lithuanian fleet which operate with pelagic trawls and gillnets is relatively small. One gillnetter and 16 OTM trawlers are not suitable to take an observer on board on the basis of lack of space on the vessel and for safety reasons. Fulfilment of the Lithuanian obligations on observer schemes fully depends on cooperation with one fishing company, which has three vessels that are operating with pelagic pair trawls (PTM). In 2015 this company was not able to take any observers on board, therefore for evaluation we used interviews with fishermen. No incidental catches of cetaceans were reported by fishermen in Lithuania suggest reporting effort for pelagic trawls in Kw*fishing days. Furthermore, no fishing effort with pelagic pair trawls (PTM) occurred in ICES divisions. No fishing effort with pelagic trawl (OTM) occurred in ICES divisions. All effort took place in ICES divisions. Netherlands In the Netherlands monitoring is integrated with the collection of discards data under the EC Data Collection Regulation 199/2008 and Decision 93/2010. Due to the randomized design, observer coverage varies from year to year. In 2015,

13 ICES WGBYC REPORT during seven fishing trips, 29 days and 58 hauls were observed on board pelagic trawlers fishing in ICES subareas 6 8 from December to March (fleet segment NLD003); 88 days and 241 hauls were observed in the remaining areas/months (NLD004). With a total number of fleet days of 381 in fleet segment NLD003 and 625 in fleet segment NLD004, the coverage was 7.6% and 14.1% respectively. Thus the target of the Pilot Monitoring Scheme of 10% for NLD003 and 5% for NLD004 has not been fulfilled. Five of the twelve trips monitored by the Netherlands, were on board one German, two French and two UK flagged trawlers. The observer effort consisted of 51 days (185 hauls), accounting for approximately 69% of the total Dutch monitoring effort. Data collected during these trips was made available to WGBYC. The observed bycatch rate of 0.00 dolphins per day in the pelagic fishery is in line with previous findings from when the bycatch rate was dolphins per day. In addition to cetaceans, the Netherlands report includes information relating to bycatches of other species. Six bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) were caught in two separate incidents. According to the criteria mentioned in Reg. 812, the Dutch fishery includes no fleet segments in which pingers are mandatory. Poland s monitoring programme of the incidental catches of cetaceans continued in Due to the formal transfer of the multiannual programme for fisheries data collection and related formalities, the programme was delayed and the scope of monitoring was lower than normal. The project started in October 2015, and was finalised in December In total, observations were conducted on seven vessels over 15 m operating from six ports. Observers stayed at sea for 30 days, including 17 days on gillnet vessels, ten days on pelagic trawlers and three days on a bottom-trawl vessel. No marine mammal bycatch was observed. On 16 November 2015, the Fisheries Department was transferred to the newly created Ministry of the Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation with the implementation in Poland of the obligations derived from Reg Portugal reported that a total of 245 trips and 771 hauls were observed in setnets (GNS and GTR) that were part of the polyvalent (i.e. multigear fishery) of vessels over 12 m operating in the Portuguese waters of ICES Division 9.a. These observations amount to 0.4% coverage of the total fishing effort by Portuguese vessels operating in ICES Division 9.a. To increase observer effort other monitoring schemes have also been implemented that include voluntary logbooks and electronic monitoring schemes. On-board observers (EU-DCF or MarPro/dedicated on observing interactions with protected species only) recorded the bycatch of 15 cetaceans (six harbour porpoises; seven common dolphins; two bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus). During 2015 on-board observers (EU-DCF or MarPro/dedicated on observing interactions with protected species only) also recorded the bycatch of six northern gannet (Morus bassemus), 24 Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), five Gull (Larus sp.), ten Razorbill (Alca torda), three common murre (Uria aalge), one European shag (Phalacrocorax arlstotelis), six Black cormorant and eleven Common scoter (Melanitta nigra). Slovenia reported that since the implementation of permanent cessation of fishing activities from the European Fisheries Fund in , Slovenia have no vessels of over 15 m using pelagic trawls in its fishing fleet. For vessels fishing under Article 4 (two) incidental catches of cetaceans in 2015 were monitored by the Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia during the course of its regular monitoring activities under the

14 12 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 DCR (sampling of landings and discards). In addition, the Slovenian non-governmental organisation Morigenos has an independent long-term monitoring and conservation programme of observing bottlenose dolphins. In 2015, two deaths of bottlenose dolphins were reported due to accidental entanglement of the dolphins in bottom setnets. In Sweden there have been no on-board observer schemes with observers dedicated to observing bycatch of marine mammals. The monitoring effort conducted and provided by Sweden is part of the EU Data Collection Framework where on-board observer data are mainly from trawl fisheries but also pot fisheries for crayfish. The reason for this is due to Reg. 812 article 4 and 5 not effectively serving its purpose to estimate bycatch in waters around Sweden. Harbour porpoises are bycaught in gillnets and not in pelagic trawls and observing 5% of Swedish pelagic trawl effort in the Baltic will provide estimates of total cetacean bycatch with an unacceptable level of uncertainty. United Kingdom monitoring during 2015 included 82 dedicated bycatch monitoring days on pelagic trawlers and 270 dedicated days on gillnet vessels, as well as 12 dedicated days on longlining vessels and a further 66 non-dedicated monitoring days in a variety of static and driftnet fisheries under the English and Northern Irish discard sampling programmes. Target species in monitored pelagic trawl fisheries were blue whiting, sprats, herring and mackerel. Approximately 30% of sampling (by days at sea) on gillnetters was carried out in the North Sea (Subarea 4) and 70% in Western Waters (Irish Sea to Biscay, mainly Subarea 7). Observed cetacean bycatch was ten harbour porpoises, a single common dolphin and a single white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris; unconfirmed identification). All the harbour porpoises and the common dolphin were taken in static net fisheries in Subarea 7. The white-beaked dolphin was taken in a midwater trawl fishery in Subarea 6 targeting herring. Extrapolated total bycatches for 2015 indicate that between harbour porpoises might have been taken in UK gillnet fisheries, though it is recognised that these estimates are likely to be biased high due to some of the assumptions that had to be made for estimation across all gillnet métiers and areas. Assuming pingers are being used as required by Reg. 812, at least 200 fewer porpoises were bycaught in 2015 than would have been taken in the absence of pingers. Several important caveats apply to both of these estimates and these are described in detail in the UK Reg. 812 report for 2015 (Northridge et al., 2016a). Additionally around 240 common dolphins may also have been accidentally taken in UK gillnet fisheries. This figure is also subject to several important caveats that are described in the report. In addition to cetaceans the UK protected species bycatch monitoring programme also collects data and regularly reports on the bycatch of other protected species including seals, seabirds and rarer fish species. Details of bycatches of these taxa recorded in 2015 are provided below. Fifteen bycaught seals were recorded in 2015, 13 of which were identified or assumed (from location) to be grey seals in divisions 7.e (two) and 7.f (eleven), while two common seals were also recorded from a static net fishery in the northern North Sea (4.a). Total mortality estimates for seals in UK static net fisheries were produced for 2015 and the resulting point estimate of 581 (CV = 0.078; 95% confidence limits ) is similar to previous years. Seal bycatch in UK fisheries appears to mostly occur in large mesh static nets in Subarea 7.

15 ICES WGBYC REPORT Seabirds recorded as bycaught under the UK bycatch programme in 2015 consisted of 29 individuals from four species: cormorant, gannet, guillemot and fulmar. Fulmars and gannets were taken in longline and static net fisheries in subareas 4 and 7, whereas cormorants and guillemots were recorded only from static net fisheries in Subarea 7. The UK continues to direct some dedicated bycatch monitoring into fisheries with relatively high expected bycatch probability for seabirds but so far, because of relatively low monitoring levels and associated concerns over the representativeness of the data we have not yet produced total bycatch mortality estimates for any seabird species. A number (n=767) of large and/or protected elasmobranch species were recorded in 2015, mostly from gillnets and trammelnets in Subarea 7. A single basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) was recorded taken in a gillnet in Division 7.g. Several other large sharks (blue; Prionace glauca, porbeagle; Lamna nasus and six-gilled; Hexanchus griseus) were taken in a range of net types mostly in Subarea 7. Records for smaller sharks such as spurdog (Sqalus spp.) and tope (Galeorhinus galeus) were quite numerous (n=481) and mostly recorded from Subarea 7. As in previous years, observed bycatches of common skate (Dipturus batis) (n=220) were heavily concentrated in offshore trammelnet fisheries in the Celtic Sea and Southwestern Approaches (divisions 7.g and h). 3.4 Observed PETS specimens, bycatch rates and mortality estimates, total and observed effort obtained from Reg. 812 reports (includes non-cetacean species) Prior to convening the WGBYC meeting, an informal data call requesting 2015 bycatch data from dedicated (i.e. Reg. 812) and non-dedicated (i.e. DCF) monitoring programmes was distributed to members of WGBYC along with a guidance document for uploading data to the WGBYC database. The following summary are results from 2015 data extracted from the WGBYC database (see Section 8). The total number of cetacean and seabird bycatch specimens, total fishing and observed effort aggregated to gear type (métier level 3), RCM (Regional Coordination meetings) and ICES Division was extracted from MS 2015 reports are summarised in Annex 4 (Tables 2 4). A total of 89 cetacean specimens (from four species: 21 common dolphins; one white-beaked dolphin; two bottlenose dolphins; 65 harbour porpoise) were observed bycaught in 2015 providing a total of 18 associated bycatch rates. Bycatch rates were calculated by dividing the total number of observed specimens for a given species by the total number of observed days in each fishery stratum (Table 2). This method was again extended to seabird taxa given the increased reporting frequency for seabird bycatch and the new collaboration with Joint ICES/OSPAR/HEL- COM Working Group on Seabirds (JWGBIRD: see Section 6.4). A total of 293 bird specimens and 20 associated bycatch rates are reported for 14 bird species (Tables 3 4). There is insufficient data to provide bycatch rates according to pinger functionality and/or presence/absence. As a result, all observed bycaught specimens were combined to provide uncorrected (i.e. functioning or presence/absence of pingers) bycatch rates for each stratum. A complete compilation of all 2015 monitored strata with and without bycatch estimates are summarized in Table 5. Data were aggregated by RCM and ICES division to provide consistency and improve the accessibility or transferability of the data to other WGs. Extrapolated bycatch estimates in Table 5 were extracted from MS Reg. 812 reports. Please note: WGBYC does not compute bycatch estimates based on reported numbers of observed specimens, monitored days, and total effort given the inherent

16 14 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 uncertainty associated with incomplete spatial/temporal dedicated monitoring coverage and total fishing effort reported to WGBYC (ICES, 2014a). Bycatch risk assessments carried out by WGBYC are a special case where more data can be gathered by experts to support such assessments (ICES, 2016). Cetacean bycatch estimates provided by individual Member States for 2015 consisted of 768 harbour porpoises in gillnet fisheries in ICES Division 27.5.a (Table 5). reported pinniped bycatch estimates consisted of 1216 grey seals, 1417 harbour (common) seals, 284 harp seals, 46 hooded seals, and 143 ringed seals, all in ICES Division 27.5.a. notable bycatch estimates for non-marine mammal species consisted primarily of a range of bird species taken mostly in net fisheries (but some also in bottom trawls, all in ICES Division 27.5.a, include northern gannet (morus bassanus), black guillemot (cepphus grille), Atlantic puffin (fratercula arctica), northern fulmar (fulmarus glacialis), cormorants (phalacrocoracidae), common eider, common murre, and thick-billed murre (uria lomvia). additional non-marine mammal species observed and provided by MS in Reg.812 reports or elsewhere are included in Table 5). Given the absence of Reg. 812 data from Spain and Italy, both having reported historical cetacean, sea turtle and seabird bycatch events and/or estimates (ICES, 2011; ICES, 2016), observed bycatch events, estimates and total effort for the North Atlantic and Mediterranean RCM s are not inclusive of all MS effected by Reg. 812 and should be interpreted as minimum values. 3.5 Monitoring and bycatch from non-eu Countries WGBYC is working toward incorporating monitoring, effort and bycatch data from non-eu states/countries that have fishing fleets in ICES management areas. Iceland is now a formal member of WGBYC and has provided a summary of its PS monitoring and bycatch below. In 2018 WGBYC anticipates incorporating new revised estimates of harbour porpoise and seal bycatch estimates from Norway. An overview of marine mammal, seabird and sea turtle bycatch estimates and coverage rates from the US Northwest Atlantic are also included below. Monitoring in Icelandic waters during 2015 included 81 days on gillnet vessels, as well as 553 days on demersal trawl vessels fishing within the Icelandic EEZ. Target species in the gillnet fisheries were cod (60 days observed) and lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus; 21 days observed), while demersal fish (gadoids, redfish and flatfish species) were the target species in the demersal trawl fishery. Observed marine mammal bycatch in Icelandic fisheries was 20 harbour porpoises, 20 harbour seals, 17 grey seals, six harp seals, two ringed seals and one hooded seal. Observed seabird bycatch in the fisheries was 92 eider ducks, 43 common guillemots, 40 northern fulmars, 12 black guillemot, 13 cormorants, nine northern gannets, two Atlantic puffins, and two Brünnich s guillemots. The majority of the bycaught animals were taken in gillnets, although one harbour seal and one northern gannet were observed in demersal trawls. Total estimated bycatch of marine mammals for 2015 in observed Icelandic gillnet and demersal trawl fisheries was approximately 1400 harbour seals, 1200 grey seals, 800 harbour porpoises, 140 ringed seals and 50 hooded seals.. Total estimated bycatch of seabirds for 2015 was approximately 6600 eider ducks, 1900 guillemots, 1700 fulmars, 900 black guillemots, 400 northern gannets, 100 puffins and 80 Brünnich s guillemots (thick-billed murre). These estimates are likely to be biased high, as observed effort was low and the coefficient of variance around those estimates is very high (40 100%).

17 ICES WGBYC REPORT US Northwest Atlantic 2015 bycatch estimates (mortality and serious injuries for small cetaceans and pinnipeds reported below have undergone review by the US Atlantic Scientific Review Group and are expected to be released for public comment during summer Final published estimates will be reported at a later date in the 2017 US Atlantic and Gulf Of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report. Pelagic longline 2015 interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles were not readily available to include in this report. Reported seabird and sea turtle bycatch estimates were extracted from the referenced literature. For marine mammal bycatch estimates reported in earlier years in the Atlantic and other US regions of interest please go see US Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports here Country Region Gear/Fishery Year Coverage % Species Observed Estimate (CV) Harbour Porpoise (0.28) USA Atlantic Northeast Gillnet Shortbeaked Common Dolphin Harbour Seal 3 55 (0.54) (0.17) Gray Seal (0.25) Harp Seal (0.34) Common Loon 31 a 74 (0.51) Harbour Porpoise 2 33 (1.16) Harbour Seal 5 48 (0.52) Gray Seal 1 15 (1.04) Shortbeaked Common Dolphin 3 30 (0.55) USA Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Northern North Carolina Estuarine Bottlenose Dolphin Northern Coastal Migratory Bottlenose Dolphin (0.23) (0.22) Southern Coastal (0.32)

18 16 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Migratory Bottlenose Dolphin Loggerhead Sea Turtle 13 b 89 (unk b ) Common Loon Red Throated Loons 148 a 477 (0.13) 199 a 897 (0.19) USA Atlantic Northeast Mid-water Trawl Harbour Seal 2 Unk d USA Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Mid-water Trawl USA Atlantic Northeast Bottom Trawl USA Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Bottom Trawl USA Atlantic Pelagic Longline Canada Atlantic Bay of Fundy Sink Gillnet unk f Shortbeaked (0.45) Common Dolphin Whitesided (0.52) Dolphin Offshore Bottlenose (0.65) Dolphin Gray Seal (0.46) Shortbeaked Common Dolphin Risso s Dolphin Harbour Seal Loggerhead Sea Turtle Shortbeaked Common Dolphin Risso s Dolphin Harbour Porpoise (0.32) (0.63) (1.00) (0.13) c (1.00) (0.71) (Unk) Canada Atlantic Herring Weir Unk e Harbour Porpoise (Unk) a The mortality estimate is an average over the time period; the observed number of takes and coverage are totals over the time period (Warden, 2010).

19 ICES WGBYC REPORT b The estimate of loggerhead turtle interactions is an average over the time period; the observed number of takes and coverage are totals over the time period (Murray, 2013). c Total observed and estimated sea turtles reflect interactions with Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear (i.e. includes non-serious injuries, series injuries and mortalities (Murray, 2015). d Harbour seal bycatch estimates attributed to the Northeast & Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery during 2015 are not presently available. e Canada has not reported Coverage of the Herring Weir Fishery. There were 255 licences for herring weirs in the Canadian Bay of Fundy Region; Unk=unknown. f The Canadian gillnet has not been observed during since However, the fishery is still active; thus, the observed and total bycatch is estimated using past averages. 3.6 Auxiliary data (stranding, entanglement and interviews) indicative of bycatch impacts This section is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of all reported stranding events from programs among all MS. It is simply intended to document supplementary information on the bycatch of marine mammals provided by members of WGBYC. Strandings data have been considered as a front line indication of the presence of bycatch events where dedicated bycatch monitoring programs are either lacking, insufficient or inconsistent with data compiled by stranding networks situated around the EU, USA and other coastal regions around the globe. Belgium Reg. 812 report included stranding statistics that show the number of stranded harbour porpoises was 52 in 2015 which is much less than in 2014 when 130 porpoises were found stranded. In seven out of 25 (28%) dissected animals, the cause of death was likely bycatch. France Peltier et al., 2016 developed an analytical approach to estimate levels of common dolphin bycatch in the Northeast Atlantic from stranding records. This work was motivated in part by two biases present to some degree in Reg. 812 observer programmes: (i) the deployment effect, or non-random assignment of observers to vessels and ports due to the fact that accepting an observer on board is at the vessel master s discretion, and (ii) the observer effect, i.e. a change in fishing practices when an observer is present (Amandè et al., 2012; Benoît and Allard, 2009; Faunce and Barbeaux, 2011; Stratoudakis et al., 1998). Additionally, as this has been identified by WGBYC repeatedly, Reg. 812 applies to only select fisheries. Thereby excluding other fisheries and precluding the possibility of providing a synoptic view of cetacean bycatch in EU fisheries. The growing awareness of insufficient spatial, temporal and métiers coverage by Reg. 812 provided further motivation for the development of an alternative approach to estimating bycatch that don t rely on fishery dependent monitoring data sources. In the Northeast Atlantic, the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) is one of the most abundant species (Certain et al., 2011; Hammond et al., 2013; 2002; Kiszka et al., 2007; McLeod et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2013), yet also one of the most exposed to being bycaught in fisheries (De Boer et al., 2008; Fernández-Contreras et al., 2010; Kirkwood et al., 1997; Leeney et al., 2008; de Boer, 2012; Peltier et al., 2014; Silva and Sequeira, 2003). In the Bay of Biscay and the English Channel, common dolphin bycatch are mostly reported in pelagic fisheries targeting sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) or albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), as shown by compulsory observer programmes conducted under Reg. 812 (Morizur et al., 1999; Rogan and Mackey, 2007; Spitz et al., 2013). The aim of Peltier et al. (2016) was to compare parameters and bycatch estimates of common dolphins provided by observer programs in France and UK national reports

20 18 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 and those inferred from stranding data, through two approaches. Observer programmes on fishing vessels allowed us to identify the specificity of the interaction between common dolphins and fishing gear, and provided low estimates of annual bycaught animals (around 550 animals.year -1 ). Observer programmes have specific value in responding to questions that stranding data can barely address. They can even be conducted out of the Reg. 812 regulatory context, therefore improving the sampling scheme and the interpretation of bycatch numbers. Some of the most relevant information recorded by observer programmes has highlighted the specificity of interactions between cetaceans and fisheries (Brown et al., 2014; Fernández-Contreras et al., 2010; Marçalo et al., 2015; Rogan and Mackey, 2007). Stranding data were selected from the French and UK stranding databases for the period Only common dolphins found with lesions diagnostic of bycatch in fishing gear were considered (agonic spume in lungs, full stomach contains, amputates, bone fractures and net or trawl marks on skin, Kuiken and Hartmann, 1993) as well as those stranded during multiple stranding events, or unusual mortality events related to bycatches in fisheries. Multiple stranding events were defined as high numbers of strandings occurring in restricted area with a common cause of death. The threshold was defined at 30 cetaceans over ten consecutive days recorded along a maximal distance of 200 km in the Bay of Biscay, and 10 individuals.10 days km -1 along the coast of the western Channel (Peltier et al., 2014). Along the UK and French coasts, these events are related to bycatch in pair-trawl fisheries, with a high proportion of carcasses showing typical bycatch marks (Leeney et al., 2008; Morizur et al., 1999). Bycatch was estimated from stranding data, first by correcting effectives from drift conditions (using a drift prediction model) and then by estimating the probability of being buoyant. The analyses of strandings by considering drift conditions highlighted areas with high levels of interactions between common dolphins and fisheries. Since 1997, the highest densities of bycaught dolphins at sea were located in the southern part of the continental shelf and slope of the Bay of Biscay. Bycatch numbers inferred from strandings suggested very high levels, ranging from 3650 dolphins.year -1 [ ] to 4700 [ ] dolphins.year -1, depending on methodological choices. The main advantage of stranding data is its large spatial scale, cutting across administrative boundaries. Nevertheless strandings generally cannot inform on the type of fishing gear involved in a majority of bycatch events. Moreover the determination of cetacean cause of death is highly related to the decomposition status of stranded carcasses. Diverging estimates between observer programs and stranding interpretation can set very different management consequences. This research demonstrates the interest of including and associating other sources of bycatch indicators along-side observer programmes, in order to provide bycatch estimates at population scales rather than administrative boundaries. Bycatch indicators based on strandings issued from this research are being used in the MSFD determination of GES in Portugal s stranding network which covers 75% of the Portuguese coast reports that a total of 166 cetaceans were found stranded dead along the coast. Mortality attributed to bycatch was recorded for 66 individuals, corresponding to 40% of the analysed animals. The four species with higher percentage of mortality due to incidental capture are, the common dolphin, harbour porpoise, minke whale (Balaenoptera acuturostrata) and bottlenose dolphin. Most of the smaller sized stranded cetaceans showed evidence of bycatch with signs of interaction with fixed gears, either gill or trammelnets.

21 ICES WGBYC REPORT Evaluate the range (min/max) impacts of bycatch on protected species where possible by assessment unit, furthering the bycatch risk approach to assess likely conservation level threats and prioritize areas where additional monitoring is needed (ToR B) During WGBYCs 2016 meeting there was a desire to learn more about seabird bycatch issues in the surrounding ICES/EU oceanic waters. This was prompted in part by increasing number of seabird bycatch observations being reported in some Reg. 812 reports or other monitoring program data being collated by WGBYC, bycatch concerns raised by JWGBIRD (2015) and indicator work being carried out by JWGBIRD (ICES, 2016). Additionally, attention is now be drawn to the implementation of the EU s Plan of Action (POA) on seabird bycatch JWGBIRD responded in kind to WGBYCs 2016 recommendation to collaborate on working toward bycatch risk assessment and seabird bycatch mitigation research (Section 6.4). A member from WGBYC (Finn Larsen) attended JWGBIRD 2016 meeting. As a result of these positive developments, WGBYC convened a mini-theme session on seabird bycatch monitoring, estimation, mitigation and development of HELCOM indicators for both mammals and birds. WGBYCs meeting was attended by HELCOM co-chair to JWGBIRD (Volker Dierschke). Here we provide a summary of these topics informed by a series of presentations. 4.1 Lessons learned from a mature seabird bycatch monitoring program Gina Shield, a long-term employee and seabird biologist with the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program ( provided an overview of the NEFSC Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) and its approach to monitoring bycatch of seabirds. The FSB is a large multidisciplinary fisheries sampling program accomplishing > observer sea days per year. It does this through three types of monitoring programs: 1) a broad scale fisheries observer programme dedicate to collecting catch and discard for all species that come on board, 2) an at-sea monitoring programme primarily designed for collecting data on quota managed commercial fisheries, and 3) industry funded observer programmes (e.g. Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery). All three monitoring programs collect detailed hierarchical data at the vessel, trip, haul and gear level. A significant aspect of the FSB that sets it apart from most EU bycatch monitoring programmes is the mandatory requirement to collect bycatch data on all protected species interactions regardless of the type of monitored trip. In other words, if a protected or species of concern comes on board, the observers duties are re-directed from sampling fish to collecting data on the bycaught animal(s). This requirement is carried out under three environmental laws: 1) the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, 2) the Endangered Species Act and 3) the Magnusson Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act. This includes all marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and protected fish species. There are specific sampling priorities (see the FSB On Deck Reference Guide - when a protected or species of concern is observed in the fishing gear and/or comes on board the vessel. Observers are equipped with identification field guides (including seabirds). If a seabird is incidentally captured in fishing gear the observer is first required

22 20 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 to take a photograph, identify the bird to species level if possible and return the whole bird back to the dock where detailed measurement can be taken and the sample put in storage in the FSB biological sample freezer. The FSB has identification specialists within their staff who confirm the initial species identification that was made at sea. Over the last ten years nearly 5000 seabirds have been recorded as bycatch by the FSB. The most frequent seabird species observed as bycatch is the Greater Shearwater. Although the FSB is a mature monitoring program it is still confronted regularly with challenges. Some of the challenges associated with collecting bycatch data include: stimulating interest in seabirds, training in seabird identification, retaining the whole bird, observer retention, and conducting outreach activities. 4.2 US Seabird fishery interactions, a regional perspective Joshua Hatch (a contractor working for the NEFSC Protected Species Branch) presented his perspective on seabird bycatch based on his experience working with seabird bycatch data in both gillnet and bottom trawl fisheries ranging from Maine to North Carolina. The US has a National Seabird Program with main areas of focus on bycatch monitoring, mitigation and using seabirds as ecosystem indicators. It operates at regional, national and international levels to promote the conservation and protections of seabirds. The Program publishes an annual report documenting its initiatives and accomplishments In the US Atlantic seabird bycatch research is carried out through the Northeast, Mid- Atlantic and Southeast regions (Maine through the Gulf of Mexico. The presentation briefly touched upon each of the main research themes carried out in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. These are the management areas that fall under the responsibility of the NEFSC. Starting with bycatch estimation, seabird bycatch rates are estimated using the observer data described by Gina Shield. The estimated seabird bycatch rates are then expanded to fishing effort from within these regions. Similar to the EU, estimating total fishing effort also has its challenges in the US. Comprehensiveness (e.g. accounting for full census of effort) and representativeness (e.g. does the effort data represent the temporal/spatial heterogeneity of fishing activity). During , more than trips were observed where most of the observed seabird bycatch (>80%) occurred on gillnet fishing trips. Seabird bycatch also occurs in bottom trawl, paired mid-water trawl, sea scallop dredge, purse seine and beach seine gears. Both temporal, spatial and operational fishing factors (e.g. target species) are influential in predicting seabird bycatch events. Seabird bycatch estimation approaches applied by the NEFSC PSB include generalized linear models (Warden, 2010) and Bayesian hierarchical methods (Hatch, in press). Additionally, a seabird bycatch risk assessment was carried out by overlapping density of fishing effort locations with tagged seabird foraging locations. Hot spots were identified and corresponded well with density of observed bycatch events (Hatch et al., 2015). Assessing total population impact has been challenging and limited. Similar to the EU, the trans-migratory nature of seabirds presents issues especially when cumulative assessments are considered. Many seabird species are considered data poor and finally the bycatch threshold problem; how to attain a potential biological removal level for seabirds. The US is confronted will all of these issues when it comes to the management and conservation of seabirds.

23 ICES WGBYC REPORT Development of the HELCOM core indicator Sven Koschinski and Volker Dierschke reported on the development of the HELCOM core indicator Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear, of which two versions were published earlier (Korpinen and Braeger, 2013; HELCOM, 2015) and a third and updated version is going to be published after endorsement by HELCOM Contracting Parties in summer 2017 (HELCOM, 2017). The indicator evaluates bycatch levels of marine mammals and diving seabirds prone to entanglement in gillnets, fykenets and other static fishing gear against specific threshold values. It compares the numbers of bycaught individuals to population estimates and assesses possible effects on population growth, considering also anthropogenic mortality other than bycatch (e.g. hunting, dying from oil-polluted plumage). Thresholds were chosen on the principle that failure to meet them likely has population effects and compromises conservation targets. Thus, the level of pressure on a population is considered to be at an unacceptable level if the contribution of incidental bycatch brings human-caused mortality above a removal target. The thresholds were derived from earlier calculations of PBR (Potential Biological Removal) for seabirds and targets already agreed on in the frame of ASCOBANS for the harbour porpoise. In order to demonstrate the possible application of the indicator, an initial assessment was conducted using data from earlier case studies and estimates of bycatch numbers for two populations of harbour porpoise and three species of seabird (long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), greater scaup (Aythya marila), common guillemot). The threshold values have to be refined and further species added as further knowledge is gained. The indicator still needs to find best-fitting models and methods to be applied (such as Catch Limit Algorithms or Population Viability Analyses), but so far suffers from a huge lack of data, regarding both the numbers of bycaught individuals and the fishing effort measured in a meaningful metric (see below). Current monitoring programmes in the Baltic Sea are insufficient to meet data needs for the indicator, mainly because the large fleet of small vessels (not obliged to conduct monitoring using observers or even to document their fishing effort) remains unobserved. Also bycatch numbers in the nets of a large number of recreational gillnet fishers in some countries remains unknown. The initial evaluation shows that the bycatch over all species included so far fails to meet the threshold in all areas where an initial evaluation was possible. The thresholds are not met for the three bird species and the Baltic Proper population of the harbour porpoise. For the Western Baltic, Belt Sea and Kattegat population the assessment remains inconclusive due to large uncertainties in underlying bycatch data and population estimates and an assessment result very close to the threshold (ICES, 2016). To make the indicator truly operable, bycatch monitoring has to be applied to all relevant fisheries, namely gillnet fishing vessels of which the majority are under 10 m and thus are not widely included in monitoring programmes using observers (e.g. under Reg Fishing effort needs to be documented properly by units allowing extrapolation of bycatch numbers to the whole fleet using variable numbers of nets (e.g. km of nets * hours soak time, number of hooks * hours fishing time, etc.). Observers on vessels should record all taxa of mammals and seabirds (and should be trained in a way allowing to identify all relevant taxa at species level). The use of CCTV camera systems appears to fit the requirements of the indicator.

24 22 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 The strict application of the EU Data Collection Multiannual Plan (DC-MAP) which becomes effective in July 2017 would certainly be a way forward to provide the indicator with the needed data. As a first step to improve knowledge DC-MAP envisages pilot studies of dedicated monitoring with respect to the level of fishing and impact of fisheries on biological resources and marine ecosystem for which only half of the EU Member States located at the Baltic Sea made provisions for in their National Work Plans for 2017 to In this respect it is important that Regional Sea Conventions (namely HELCOM) become involved in Regional Coordination Groups (RCG s) aimed at meeting their data needs as end-users.

25 ICES WGBYC REPORT Collate and review information from National Reg. 812 reports and elsewhere relating to the implementation of bycatch mitigation measures and ongoing bycatch mitigation trials, compile recent results and coordinate further work on protected species bycatch mitigation (ToR C) 5.1 Mitigation compliance carried out under Reg. 812-Mandatory and voluntary mitigation measures Relevant text extracted from MS Reg. 812 reports pertaining to mitigation compliance is summarized below by MS. Also included are results from presentations provided to WGBYC from Germany, Sweden, Poland and the United States that described ongoing PS bycatch mitigation research trials Denmark A total of 23 Danish vessels were obliged to use pingers in The Danish fisheries inspection authorities conducted a total of six inspections on vessels with an overall length of 12 m or above, and 64 inspections on vessels under 12 m. One violation was reported for lack of pingers from these inspections. No projects on further monitoring of pinger use in Danish seas were conducted in Estonia Estonia reported zero static gear effort in areas where pingers are required under Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulation. As a result there were no data to report on pinger characteristics. In addition, no scientific studies on the effects of pingers were conducted during Estonia conducts its gear inspections both in port and at sea but reported that most inspections are done in ports. During inspections the type of fishing gear used is checked along with the catch and logbooks Germany Boris Culik and Christian von Dorrien from Germany provided presentations to WGBYC on the development and testing of porpoise alert (PAL) and additional field mitigation research being conducted in German waters. Fishery trials conducted by the Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries (Rostock) with commercial fishermen showed that the new acoustic alerting device PAL significantly reduces porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries by over 70%. PAL was developed by F3: Forschung. Fakten. Fantasie (Heikendorf) and synthesizes aggressive porpoise communication clicktrains at 133 KHz. These signals do not deter the animals but make them increase their echolocation (Culik et al., 2015, Annex 6, Figure 1). Between 2013 and 2016 paired experiments were conducted with one Danish and two German commercial gillnetters during normal fishing operations. Fishers set 50% of their nets without a PAL and 50 % with a PAL. Net characteristics (mesh size, length and height) were the same between net pairs. Setting & hauling of each net pair occurred during the same fishing trips. Data registration was via self-sampling, on-board observer and remote electronic monitoring (REM) on one German and the Danish vessel. Out of 967 net hauls analysed a total of 17 harbour porpoise were bycaught in normal nets, while only five harbour porpoise were bycaught in nets equipped with PAL.

26 24 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 The difference is significant (Fisher s exact test, two-tailed, p= ) and the bycatch reduction achieved with PAL is 71% (Annex 6, Figure 2). During field trials conducted in Fyns Hoved, Denmark, porpoise reaction to three different acoustic mitigation devices was investigated. PAL was compared to two standard acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs), the Aquamark 100 and the banana pinger. Both ADDs generate wide band acoustic deterring signals between 20 and 140 khz. The area was visually monitored for porpoises via theodolite tracking. Source levels of the three devices were comparable at db. Results show that porpoise groups avoid the banana pinger by maintaining a larger median minimum distance (202 m, n= 33) as opposed to Aquamark (109 m, n= 382) and PAL (127 m; n=311; Kuskall-Wallis test, p< 0.05). During ADD operation, however, echolocation activity is reduced (chi²-test, p < 0.001): only 3% porpoise positive ten minute intervals were recorded during banana pinger and 5% during Aquamark as opposed to 19% during PAL operation. Furthermore, the number of porpoise echolocation clicks counted per interval during Aquamark (34; n= 38; ANOVA, p < 0.001) is only half as high as during PAL (69; n= 85) operation. This indicates that PAL is an acoustic alerting device, enticing porpoises to acoustically investigate the surroundings of the sound source. In contrast, the two tested pingers do work as ADDs: porpoises physically avoid the conventional banana pinger and reduce echolocation when exposed to either ADD (Annex 6, Figure 3). In a wider perspective PAL can be considered as proof of concept for the development of successful alerting devices following three major steps: 1) identification of target specific signal type through behavioural studies, 2) test of signal effect in situ, and 3) test in commercial fisheries. There are 1700 PALs currently being tested by the Ostsee- Information-Center, Eckernförde with commercial fishermen in the gillnet fishery in Northern Germany. Research funded by the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture (BMEL) Iceland Pingers or other mitigation techniques have not been implemented in the Icelandic gillnet fleet. However, in 2017 Iceland did conduct research trials using the banana pinger. Banana pingers (from Fishtek Marine) were tested in April 2017 to try to reduce porpoise bycatch in the cod gillnet fishery. Three commercial vessels were used for the experiment, one in Breidafjordur in west Iceland, one in Hunafloi in North Iceland and one off the southeast coast. These areas were selected as they were considered hotspots for porpoise bycatch. In each area, four paired sets of 12 nets were set, where half of the sets were set with banana pingers according to manufacturer s description (one pinger every 200 meters of net), and the other half without pingers. Two nautical miles were between the paired sets to avoid influence from the pingers on the control sets. A total of 1780 nets were hauled in the experiment, or around 1000 km of nets. Eleven cetaceans, nine harbour porpoises and two white beaked dolphins were caught in the experiment. Six of those animals, five harbour porpoises and one white beaked dolphin were caught in the sets equipped with banana pingers, while five animals, four harbour porpoises and one white beaked dolphin were caught in the control sets. No significant difference was observed between the pingered and control sets. Interestingly, two of the harbour porpoises were caught in a net right next to a pinger. Analysis of bird bycatch and cod catch is still underway. Early observations suggest higher bird bycatch, possibly due to birds diving towards the pinger during setting,

27 ICES WGBYC REPORT and lower cod catches in the nets equipped with pingers. Full results of Iceland s banana pinger experimental trials will be presented at the 2018 WGBYC meeting Ireland Extensive research on the practicalities and spacing of gillnet pingers has previously been carried out by BIM in Ireland and has been reported in previous reports under 812/2004 and at WGBYC. BIM have also been heavily involved in the development and testing of pelagic trawl pingers as also reported previously. Ireland s overall assessment of acoustic deterrent devices is that ADDs can reduce harbour porpoise bycatch in setnet fisheries. Numerous trials have shown that pingers of several types can reduce porpoise bycatch by around 90%. ADDs are, however, expensive, where many are required (e.g. for setnet fisheries), require periodic maintenance to check and replace batteries and can interfere with net setting and hauling. There is still ambivalence towards ADDs from NGOs due to perceived habitat exclusion and environmental noise effects. The seriousness of these effects is unproven. Habituation has also been cited as a reason that ADDs don t work although again there is no evidence that this is an issue. DDD devices have good potential to work in pelagic trawl fisheries where incidental bycatch of common dolphins may occur Latvia Reg. 812 report stated The Latvian fisherman use pingers when fishing by set gillnet in the fishing Subarea 27.3.d.24 only. In 2015 there were two ships fishing in this area for 28 days. Therefore the monitoring of the effect of pinger use and of control of their specifications was not performed. As a result, no further information was provided by Latvia on the use of pingers on Latvian set gillnet vessels. There were no scientific studies or pilot projects aimed at monitoring and assess the effects of pinger use Lithuania Reported there were no fishing operations by Lithuanian vessels in areas where the use of acoustic deterrent devices is mandatory as described in Annex 1 of Reg. 812/2004 in Netherlands Has finished its Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) project on bycatch of harbour porpoise in gillnet and trammelnet fisheries. This project began in 2012 and finished in March Results are expected at the end of Poland Reported that during vessels fishing in ICES area 24, could use pingers purchased by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in A total of 500 units of pingers (Aquatec Aquamark 100) was delivered in 2008, however, an inspection done in 2015 showed, that 253 of the pingers should be serviced or replaced. However, the Szczecin District Sea Fisheries Inspectorate (OIRM) controlling the Polish part of the ICES area 24 reported that not one vessel inspected on this area used pingers due to Polish vessels fishing only sporadically in this area. The Polish Authority reported information about compliance activities in 2015 by German fisheries inspection authorities on a Polish gillnetter in area 24. Results from that inspection showed pingers were installed accurately and working properly. No irregularities were reported.

28 26 ICES WGBYC REPORT Portugal Reported that field trials of pingers (Fumunda F10 & F70) were performed on polyvalent vessels operating with setnets under the framework of the Life+ project MARPRO during Fishermen voluntarily used pingers when participating in the trials. Legislative or administrative measures might be implemented after the analysis of the trials results. Portugal s pinger trials in the south of Portugal have provided mixed findings concerning effectiveness to decrease interactions with bottlenose dolphins. These findings are under evaluation and will be addressed by the monitoring team in the following years Slovenia Reported that under National Decree on protected wild animal species (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 46/2004, 109/2004, 84/2005, 115/2007, 96/2008, 36/2009, 102/2011 and 15/14) provides that all cetaceans are protected wild animal species which means that it is prohibited to consciously harm, poison, kill them, take them from nature, as well as hunt, catch or disturb them Sweden Reported that the implementation of pingers as laid down in Reg. 812, are most likely not being implemented in regulated fisheries in Sweden. In 2007 when Reg. 812 was implemented fishermen fishing in the areas where pingers were obligatory got given pingers for free. However, since no fishermen have bought new pingers since 2007, most likely the pingers are not functional. Some fishermen found the pingers to be a safety risk and/or found them hard to handle. Due to low priority in the inspection plan for 2015 regarding compliance with provision on pingers, no infringement was reported during However in 2015 a project started with the purpose of implementing pingers on a voluntary basis. After discussions with fishermen Banana pingers were the pingers chosen for the project. Nine fishermen used pingers voluntarily on the cod and gillnet fisheries in the Öresund Sound, ICES area 23. In the Swedish small-scale coastal fisheries, alternative fishing gear has been, and is still being, developed. Pontoon traps for fishing salmon, white fish, trout and vendace are now used in commercial fisheries in Northern Baltic. The main reason for the fishing gear development is the seal inflicted damages to fishing gear and catch which threatens an economically viable gillnet fishery. Traps and pots are types of fishing gear where it is possible to protect the catch from seals. Stavenow et al. (2016) undertook a study to evaluate the behaviour of grey seals around cod pots, factors influencing their presence and related behaviour around cod pots. In traps and pots, the catch can be gathered in closed compartments which in turn can be designed using a solid construction and a strong material which ensures a seal-safe fishing gear. Since 2014 there has been funding opportunities for fishermen to put forward their ideas for selective fishing gear. Projects were selected by the secretariat for selective fisheries, funded by the Swedish agency for water management and carried out by the Swedish University of Agriculture Science in cooperation with the involved fishermen. The purpose of the secretariat was to enable the fishing industry to develop selective fishing gear to help the transition to the new landing obligation. In 2015 there were six projects regarding size and species selectivity in benthic trawls fisheries for cod, shrimp and crayfish. There was one project developing multifunctional pots for fishing

29 ICES WGBYC REPORT for cod and lobster. One project developing pots for shrimp fisheries and one project regarding selective salmon trap net fisheries. Sweden and Denmark have been cooperating in developing cod pots as an alternative to the gillnet cod fisheries in the southern Baltic. Recent research in this area has focused on finding out what parameters affect the catch rates for baited fishing gear in different areas. This has been done partly by looking at the behaviour of cod in relation to cod pot models. The entry rate of cod entering pots give indication on the pots catch efficiency and by studying the entry rate in relation to factors such as cod pot model, number of fish inside the pot and current, you can get information on what factors affect the cod pots catchability. Results showed that the number of entrances on the pot and the number of cod already inside the pot affected the entry rate of the cod entering the pot. Another study showed that using a funnel on the entrance opening to the fish holding chamber also affects the entry behaviour of cod while entering the pots however it increases the pots catch efficiency (cpue) due to the decreasing number of cod exiting the pots. An alternative to trawling is bottom seine netting, such as Danish Bottom Seine. Bottom seines are generally considered less damaging than bottom trawls (ICES, 2006) and well-managed seine fisheries generally have minor ecosystem impacts (Morgan and Chuenpagdee, 2003). In 2015 the Swedish University of Agriculture Science in Sweden started to develop a seine net modified for small open boats and tried it out for pelagic and demersal species as a possible substitute for gillnets. The small-scale seine net has shown to give commercial catches for benthic species such as vendace, white-fish and flounder. However the fishing gear is still under development and modifications are needed to be made to get the fishing gear to work properly. The study also showed that to generate high catches, dedicated and trained fishermen with plenty of local knowledge on the fish and the bottom structure in the area is needed UK Has fully implemented Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 812/2004. All relevant vessel owners and masters have been advised of the provisions of the Regulation, and relevant training for enforcement officers has been provided. No additional legislative measures are needed. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has provided full guidance on the implementation of the Regulation and the use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers), which is available at: One deterrent device (DDD-03L) that does not meet the specifications outlined within Regulation 812 has been authorised for use by the UK Governments Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the derogation contained in Article 3(2) of Regulation 812. The authorisation covered the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2016, and extends the previous two year period of authorisation for that particular device. Based on observer data UK registered over 12 m vessels operating from the southwest of England appear to be using DDD-03 pingers routinely. Observer data and anecdotal accounts suggest that other pinger models (meeting the type 1 or type 2 specifications of Regulation 812) may also be in use by some of the larger UK registered vessels that typically land into Spain or overland their catch to the continent from the UK. Porpoise bycatch rates in net fleets equipped with DDD pingers continue to be lower than previously calculated rates from nets not equipped with pingers and provides evidence of the continuing efficacy of this device.

30 28 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 The UK repeated a previous exploratory analysis of the potential impact of the 812/2004 Regulation on harbour porpoise bycatch levels in UK fisheries by calculating bycatch estimates under different pinger use scenarios (Northridge et al., 2016). Results indicated that approximately 200 porpoise bycatches were avoided during 2015, assuming that all UK vessels covered by the 812/2004 Regulation used pingers in accordance with agreed operating guidelines. A detailed description of the analysis is provided in the UK 812/2004 report for In the UK, the Royal Navy and relevant national marine enforcement officers have been checking for compliance with Regulation 812/2004 whilst carrying out at-sea inspections; this is a task which is included as a regular inspection requirement in the relevant fishing areas. Inspections of over 12 metre gillnetting vessels are carried out according to a risk based enforcement approach. In English and Welsh waters, 31 inspections of over 12 metre gillnet vessels were carried out at sea and in port during Inspections took place in ICES subareas 4 and 7. No infringements were detected. There appears to be a general improvement in compliance with the pinger requirements of Regulation 812 following infringements reported in 2014 and the enforcement action that followed. The MMO in England has taken steps to employ the use of the ETEC detector ( however the small range of some deterrent devices limit the platforms from which the ETEC detector can be used. Options to fully utilise this device will continue to be explored, but at sea inspections (in line with the risk based enforcement model) are the primary monitoring tool in the short term. In Scottish waters, Marine Scotland s Marine Protection Vessels (MPVs) completed seven at sea inspections on six different gillnetters in ICES Division 4.a (northern North Sea) during No infringements were detected. Pingers were noted to be in use during some of the inspections but details of the devices used were not recorded. Marine Scotland received no intelligence regarding lack of pinger use during There were no reports of any cetaceans being caught during any of the inspections, which included periods aboard fishing vessels while nets were being hauled. The main concentration of gillnet effort in Scottish waters continues to be along the continental shelf edge west of Shetland Islands. Compliance operational priorities during 2015 did not focus on this sector and Marine Scotland continue to base the majority of their at sea inspection activities on a risk assessed basis US Northwest Atlantic Region-Gear Research Program The NEFSC PSB has a gear research program with a goal of developing solutions for reducing PETS bycatch through cooperative efforts with multiple stakeholders. Eric Matzen presented an overview of several mitigation research trials carried out by the program aimed at reducing bycatch of PETS with various fishing gears used mostly in the US Mid-Atlantic region. Types of gear research projects include fish and scallop bottom trawls, scallop dredges, low profile gillnets, poundnets, lobster traps, and the development of a tow time logger for monitoring and enforcement (Matzen et al., 2015). Contract reports for completed projects and other related information pertaining to the gear research program can be found here

31 ICES WGBYC REPORT US Northwest Atlantic Region-Pinger Data (Collection & Utilization in Northeast US Gillnet Fisheries Chris Orphanides has spent nearly a decade working on bycatch monitoring, estimation and mitigation of harbour porpoise in both New England and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries. Harbour porpoise bycatch mitigation in the northeastern US has a long history with the implementation and monitoring of pinger usage on gillnet gear due to mandatory regulatory requirements. The New England region implemented pinger regulated areas (PRAs) as a means of minimizing bycatch of harbour porpoise under the Harbour Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) implemented in 1999 ( In the Northeast region PRAs pingers must be attached at each end of a gillnet string and at the bridle of every net within a string of nets, or every 300 feet. Pingers used in the PRAs must meet the specifications as described in the HPRTP. Pinger specifications = 10 khz (± 2 khz) sound at 132 db (± 4 db) re 1 micropascal at 1 m, lasting 300 milliseconds (± 15 milliseconds), and repeating every four seconds (± 0.2 seconds). Pinger related data are collected by fisheries observers employed by the FSB (see Sections 4.1 and 6.2). Pingers are equipped only to gillnet gear and data are collected on both complete and limited fishing trips. A complete trip is where collecting data on total catch (kept and discards) are the primary focus whereas a limited trip is where the collection of total catch data is limited so the observer can focus on the gear hauling process for interactions with marine mammals and other PETS. More pinger related data are collected on limited trips. Data Sheets that collect pinger related data include the gear (A) and haul (B) logs as well as a pinger tester worksheet (C). The gear and haul logs collect presence/absence data whereas the pinger tester worksheet is designed to evaluate the functionality of observed pingers.

32 30 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 A. B.

33 ICES WGBYC REPORT C. Due to technical difficulties observers are no longer equipped with pinger testers. However, the pinger tester worksheet is still in place collecting data on audibility of the pingers to the naked ear. The type of variables collected and used to calculate bycatch rates, assess compliance and effectiveness include: presence/absence of pingers, number of pingers deployed, number of pingers hauled, number of pingers lost and individual pinger functionality. Weighted bycatch rates are estimated based on the presence/absence of pingers in the PRA s. Whereas the number of pingers on the gear is used to evaluate compliance and effectiveness. Pinger compliance only refers to pinger presence, not functionality. In general, the data show that total bycatch is reduced when compliance is high. During 2015 (n=4566) 71% of pingers tested by observers were working (i.e. audible) and 24% were inaudible (but not tested). The remaining 5% were defined as having no pingers on the gear, unknown, or something other than the defined categories. Pinger functionality by Brand can also be assessed.

34 32 ICES WGBYC REPORT Continue to develop, improve and coordinate with other ICES WG s on methods for bycatch monitoring, research and assessment within the context of European legislation (e.g. MSFD) and regional conventions (intersessional) (ToR D) 6.1 Anticipated future changes in legislation addressing the problem of cetacean bycatch within European Waters WGBYC had a client observer in attendance from the European Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE): Katarzyna Janiak. Katarzyna has over a decade of experience working with the EC on environmental projects. With a background in environmental engineering and law she has worked as EU fisheries inspector/auditor and on coordinating development of the CFP and more recently jointly coordinating on matters related to bycatch of cetaceans. Having Katarzyna present at WGBYC was both helpful and constructive given the pending implementation of the new EUMAP; adopting a multiannual Union programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors for the period (2016/1251/EU). Her aim in attending WGBYC was to 1) be educated on the challenges associated with past and proposed data collection on bycatch of PETS and 2) provide clarity on what is to be expected with the implementation of 2016/1251/EU, new Data Collection Framework (DCF) and new Technical Measures framework. The new DCF will enter into force during July 2017 (it was published in the Official Journal of the European Commission on 20 June 2017 and will enter into force on the 20th day following its publication). But there is still wide uncertainty in how regional coordination groups will develop their respective work plans to reflect the obligatory requirement to include monitoring and collection of data on bycatch of PS. It still remains unclear as to when Reg. 812 will officially be repealed once the new Technical Measures framework is adopted. Until such time and with further guidance from ICES regarding ToR-A, WGBYC is committed to maintaining its database of dedicated (Reg. 812) and opportunistically reported PS monitoring data as a baseline data source to measure against the performance of the new EUMAP in collecting data on the bycatch of PS. Shortly after the opening of the meeting, the European Parliament (EP) draft report on the European Commission s proposal for new technical measures (COM/2016/0134 final -2016/0074(COD) was brought to the attention of WGBYC. Most members were not aware of the draft report on the technical measures that had been released in May Nonetheless, the draft report on technical measures being proposed by the EP (heretofore referred to as the Mato Report ) raised concerns among some members of WGBYC. Their concerns included: a narrow definition of acoustic deterrent devices, lack of harmony with many EU environmental regulations (i.e. MSFD, Habitats and Birds Directives, ASCOBANS, and other Directives), vague interpretation of performance indicators and baseline objectives, lifting of the driftnet ban in the Baltic and illdefined definition of driftnets. 6.2 Site Visit to Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)-Fisheries Sampling Branch Perhaps the highlight of WGBYCs 2017 meeting was a site visit the NEFSC Fisheries Sampling Branch in Falmouth Massachusetts

35 ICES WGBYC REPORT The Fisheries Sampling Branch collects, processes, manages and provides fishery-dependent data and biological samples from fishing vessels. Collection of these data is mandated or otherwise needed for management under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, The Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act and the Endangered Species Act. Branch staff and observers under contract perform at-sea operations on board commercial vessels to collect information on fishing operations, fishing effort, and catch, including bycatch and discard information, economic data and vessel efficiency, and biological samples of landed catch and discard. Data are processed and quality-controlled. New observers and atsea monitors are trained and certified. The program monitors and samples takes of protected species, implements Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology, overseas industry-funded observer programs, and evaluates electronic monitoring systems. On Wednesday morning 14 June WGBYC was greeted by the Acting Branch Chief of the FSB, Kathryn McArdle. An overview of the FSB monitoring objectives and programs was presented with lively Q & A throughout the presentation. A second presentation was provided by Nichole Rossi on the development and status of the FSB electronic monitoring program The presentations were then followed by a brief tour of the FSB Technical Park Facility. The facility houses approximately 59 employees, training and conference rooms, observer data archives and equipment storage rooms, and state of the art freezer facilities for both observer trainings and storage of PETS biological samples collected at-sea. 6.3 WGCATCH WGBYC continues to coordinate with WGCATCH in order to improve fishery-dependent on-board sampling of PETS (Protected, Endangered and Threatened Species) in sea going surveys. Bram Couperus is the liaison for WGBYC in coordinating with WGCATCH. Below is his most recent account of important topics and shared work between the two groups. The new EU MAP requires MS to sample protected species. ICES intends to include tables on risk posed to PETS due to incidental bycatch in its advice and these tables are expected to be prepared by WGBYC (see Section 10). Currently, WGBYC receives data from a limited number of small-scale local studies and from data collected under the Reg This resolution covers only cetaceans in a few specific métiers which are not always the ones where bycatch most is expected. In addition, dedicated surveys are too expensive for most Member States (ICES, 2014; 2015). Therefore long-term monitoring on a larger scale is required. This can be realized under EU MAP which now includes monitoring of protected species (EU, 2016/1251). During its annual 2015 meeting, WGCATCH members recognized the importance of recording bycatch of PETS during DCF-related sampling made on-board commercial fishing vessels. WGCATCH agreed to start routine documentation of sampling practices for protected species. A questionnaire on sampling practices and logging of PETS information into the databases was developed by WGBYC during the WGCATCH meeting to be completed by the MS separately before the 2016 meeting (ICES, 2017a). The questionnaire was completed by 17 institutes. It appears that approximately half of the institutes have implemented monitoring of PETS (in common practise: rare species in the catches) in their at-sea monitoring protocols, but fewer have designed their respective institute database to hold these data (Annex 5, Table 6).

36 34 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Several members of WGCATCH expressed their concern on the way EU-MAP data on incidental bycatches will be treated by WGBYC. For example, WGCATCH raised concern over WGBYC estimated Northeast Atlantic bycatch rate (all species combined) for towed gears under dedicated monitoring being three times greater than the estimated bycatch rate under the DCF (ICES, 2016). Similarly, for the North Sea/Eastern Arctic and Northeast Atlantic combined bycatch rate WGBYC estimated for static net gears under dedicated monitoring is also approximately three times greater than that estimated under the DCF. According to WGCATCH this is a conclusion that cannot be drawn, as the exact coverage of the effort through the métiers is not clear. It is true that the exact coverage of various métiers is not presently known. However, the intent of the comparison on observed bycatch rates between sampling programmes dedicated to observing rare events versus non-dedicated sampling programmes (e.g. quota monitoring under the DCF) reported by WGBYC (ICES, 2016) was not to be a rigorous quantitative assessment. The aim was simply to demonstrate differences in reported bycatch events given the raw uncorrected frequency of occurrence and effort data collated from Reg. 812 and DCF data made available to WGBYC by Member States. There are other lines of evidence supporting differences in the frequency of reported bycatch events of rare species that are a function of sampling design and data collection protocols implemented at sea (Bravington and Bisack, 1996; NOAA Fisheries, 2016; Northridge et al., 2015). WGCATCH and WGBYC both agree that the finer details associated with proper sampling design of métiers and at-sea observing protocols relevant to monitoring bycatch of PETS are important topics in need of further guidance and implementation if EUMAP is to be carried out as intended. WGCATCH expressed the need for guidance from WGBYC on the design of pilot studies for monitoring incidental bycatch which are now required under the EUMAP. Additionally, WGCATCH expressed its desire to carry out analysis of the results from pilot studies to be carried out under EUMAP and possibly from other studies as well; in close cooperation with experts from WGBYC. It was therefore proposed to WGBYC to organize two joint workshops of WGCATCH and WGBYC: one in 2018 on the design of dedicated sampling schemes for monitoring of PETS and a second workshop in 2019 on the estimation of incidental bycatch rates and raising to fleet level. WGBYC endorsed the proposal to organize a joint workshop on sampling design and at-sea protocols in 2018 and commented on draft ToRs that were provided by the chairs of WGCATCH. The draft ToRs provide for the development of an inventory of observer programmes across Member States, criteria and best practices for the design and implementation of PETS monitoring under EUMAP and data storage/access requirements. WGBYC will continue to finalize the proposed ToRs intersessionally together with the chairs of WGCATCH. WGBYCs preference is to wait until the commencement of the 2018 workshop before any additional commitments can be made regarding subsequent joint workshops in 2019 and JWGBIRD On behalf of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds (JWG- BIRD), Volker Dierschke attended WGBYC as the HELCOM chair of JWGBIRD. He briefly introduced the thematic fields covered in the meetings of the group in the last ten years, with special emphasis on work related to the bycatch of seabirds in fishing gears. The JWGBIRD first dealt with the bycatch problem in 2008, when on request of the European Commission seabird bycatch in longline (and other) fisheries was addressed

37 ICES WGBYC REPORT by reviewing information on bycatch numbers and existing mitigation measures. The results were used as input into preparation of an Action Plan (ICES, 2008). In 2009 and 2010, this information was updated (ICES, 2009; 2010), but it needed another two years until the EU released its Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears in 2012 (European Commission, 2012). Four years later, the JWGBIRD experts reviewed the state of implementation and success of this Action Plan by summarizing country by country, which of the 30 actions under five headings (identifying and addressing weaknesses and incoherencies in current measures, data collection, mitigation measures, education and training, research) has seen activity. The results of that session, which lead to 13 recommendations (ICES, 2017b), were published just before the start of WGBYC This presented good timing for the JWGBIRD to learn more about the scope of WGBYCs work and facilitate a joint working relationship. In particular, there is synergy with present and future collection of seabird bycatch data collated by WGBYC and how these data could inform future seabird bycatch risk assessments expected to be carried out by JWGBIRD and its partners. Despite some encouraging actions undertaken since the release of the Action Plan, the bycatch of seabirds in various métiers of fishery is an ongoing and largely unsolved problem all over the world. Therefore, JWGBIRD expressed its intention to continue and deepen collaboration with WGBYC, not least because HELCOM experts of JWG- BIRD are involved in the development of the HELCOM core indicator Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear (HELCOM, 2017), and OSPAR experts will need to consider a respective indicator for the OSPAR area due to the demands of the MSFD at regional level. Exchange of knowledge and expertise between the two expert groups may well take place informally and intersessionally, but shared terms of reference during the meetings of one or the other group could manifest the collaboration and help harmonize the collation of data and information. Opportunities for common work may include: formulating recommendations regarding optimal monitoring of seabird and marine mammal bycatch (with respect to coverage of fishing métiers, vessel sizes, fishing effort, methods applied and species recorded; for example, current monitoring programmes are insufficient to deliver suitable data for the HELCOM core indicator and the assessment of Good Environmental Status in the frame of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive). This type of recommendations are likely to be communicated through WGBYCs joint work with WGCATCH (see Section 6.3); developing appropriate methods and metrics to assess the impact of bycatch losses on the population size (needed for the existing HELCOM core indicator and certainly also for a related indicator in the marine areas of OSPAR); contributing to bycatch risk assessments for the entire Baltic (based on results of seabird surveys in February 2016 and spatial fisheries data) to identify regional hot spots with respect to bycatch; reviewing effects of alternative fishing gear on seabirds (e.g. risk to seabirds if gillnets are replaced with other gear such as longlines); exploring mitigation measures that apply to more than one ecosystem component (e.g. supporting both seabirds and marine mammals, whereas for instance pingers are useful only for harbour porpoises and not for birds).

38 36 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 As a result of these welcome synergies between both WGs it was agreed to keep WGBYCs recommendation to invite JWGBIRD to its annual meetings. It was acknowledged that JWGBIRD does not have seabird bycatch as a regular annual term of reference. This is okay given WGBYCs commitment to include seabird bycatch data in the WGBYC database and its annual summary of reported bycatch events that are submitted to WGBYC under both dedicated and opportunistically reported seabird bycatch observations (ICES, 2016).

39 ICES WGBYC REPORT Continue to develop collaborative research proposal among WGBYC members to pursue research projects and funding opportunities in support of researching protected and target species behaviour in relation to fishing gear (ToR E) Members of WGBYC continue to actively seek funding to start new or continue supporting ongoing collaborative PETS bycatch related research projects. Below is a brief description of recent initiatives. In Germany, the project STELLA started its activities in the beginning of Its aim is to develop alternative management approaches and fishing gear and techniques towards minimizing conflicts in gillnet fisheries and conservation objectives and subjects of protection in the EEZ of the Baltic Sea. The overall objective of this project is to make significant progress towards resolving existing or potential conflicts between the activities of passive fisheries (mainly gill-net fishing) and the conservation of marine birds and marine mammals in the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea. Previous approaches to mitigate the potential conflict between passive fisheries and conservation goals were limited to the development and testing of possible measures. These measures include the discussed exclusion of fisheries from certain areas or a reduction of effort. Since currently the actual effort is not known, the success of such measures can hardly be estimated reliably. Year-round closing of larger areas would have considerable socioeconomic consequences, not only for the fishing industry but also for directly (processing, maintenance, port industries) or indirectly (tourism) dependent industries and trades. Studies concerning the increase of acceptance of conservation measures by the fisheries have so far rarely been conducted but are vital for the successful introduction. Such studies could, for example, refer to the improvement of the data situation or the drive systems for the use of modified or alternative fishing gears. Work is being conducted on an alternative Pinger concept where the porpoises are being warned by species-specific signals (PAL, current study under leadership of the Thünen Institute of Baltic Fisheries). Regarding the native and migratory marine birds for which the Baltic represents an important moulting-, roosting- and breeding-area, there are up to now no differentiated concepts to decrease bycatch which have proven to be practical in commercial passive fisheries, except for a blanket exclusion of fisheries. The project is financed by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and runs from November 2016 until October Boris Culik of F3: Forschung. Fakten. Fantasie, Heikendorf, has applied for funding at the German Ministry of agriculture to pursue cooperative research and development of his new acoustic alerting device PAL. The aim is to identify and test specific alerting signals for a variety of populations and species and to validate the positive results obtained with PAL in other fisheries. F3 is intending to cooperate with colleagues in Iceland, Sweden, France, the US, the Netherlands and Poland. In Portugal funding has been obtained by a member of WGBYC from the Portuguese Wildlife Society (A. Marcalo, now of the Centre for Marine Studies (CCMAR), University of Algarve) under the EC Mar2020 program for a project to reduce the incidental capture of marine protected species in coastal fisheries off the Algarve coast (Portuguese southern coast) by promoting innovation in operational procedures and mitigation measures. UK members of WGBYC (A. Kingston and S. Northridge) are providing input into the project.

40 38 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 The Swedish University of Agriculture and the Technical University of Denmark have been collaborating on the development of cod pots in The collaboration will continue in 2017 however the focus will be on the development of a small-scale seine net used for coastal fisheries targeting cod and flatfish and the pontoon traps targeting cod. The work that has been carried out with regards to developing alternative fishing gear (pontoon traps, cod pots and seine nets) has also been presented through collaborative workshops in Sweden to Polish and German researchers. Future potential collaboration projects are under the discussion. The Swedish University of Agriculture Science is also cooperating with WWF Mexico with regards to developing alternative fishing gear to reduce the bycatch of Vaquita in the Gulf of Bahia. Earlier studies have shown that small trawls used on pangas can be a potential alternative fishing gear to gillnets (Aguilar Ramirez and Rodriguez-Valencia, 2012). A more sustainable method to trawling is bottom seine netting, especially Danish Bottom Seine. The objective of the cooperative study is to test if the small-scale seine net is an alternative fishing gear to gillnet fisheries in the Sea of Cortez. Another cooperative project would be testing pots and fykenets in the Gulf of Bahia as an alternative fishing gear to gillnets. UK members of WGBYC from the University of St Andrews developed a joint funding bid with partners from Spain (Anfaco Cecopesca, Marexi and Puerto de Celeiro) and the USA (New England Aquarium) for a project focusing on mitigating shark depredation and bycatch in European Atlantic longline fisheries. The proposal was submitted under EU LIFE program. The bid was unsuccessful but further funding opportunities are being sought. Additionally, two UK members of WGBYC co-authored a recent publication documenting factors most likely to contribute to the bycatch of protected species in gillnet fisheries (Northridge et al., 2016b). This work was carried out as a meta-review of over 600 published and unpublished studies where causal and correlative factors to bycatch events were considered. A total of 28 environmental, operational, technical, and behavioural factors were found to be associated with high or low bycatch rates of the taxa considered. These findings are particularly relevant to the work of WGBYC because as stated by Northridge et al. (2016b) These findings provide a basis to guide further experimental work to test hypotheses about which factors most influence bycatch rates and to explore ways of managing fishing activities and improving gear design to minimize the incidental capture of species of conservation concern while ensuring the viability of the fisheries concerned.

41 ICES WGBYC REPORT Continue cooperative work with ICES Data Centre, to develop, improve, populate, and maintain the database on bycatch monitoring and relevant fishing effort in European waters (intersessional) (ToR F) WGBYC and the ICES Data Centre are in their third year coordinating on database development. For this three year cycle of WGBYC, the Data Centre established a database "task force" to look at the process of organizing the data flows related to bycatch data. Previously, data upload to the WGBYC Database was performed manually, and quality control checks were manually applied by using the expertise of WGBYC members. Working with the WGBYC database subgroup (DbSg) the Data Centre task force defined a bycatch (of protected species) data format, see Controlled lists were agreed, using where possible existing widely adopted vocabularies, that aid in enforcing consistency in the reporting of data, and thus improving the overall quality and usability of the data. To facilitate the submission of the data, the DbSg and Data Centre task force made improvements to the Excel template developed in 2016 (Figure 1) with functionality that converts the data into an XML file that can be submitted on-line ( Figure 1. Excel Template that facilitates the conversion of the data to XML.

42 40 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 The data are uploaded online (Figure 2) and are passed through an automated data screening to check the format and vocabulary values (Figure 3). Figure 2. Upload web page for Bycatch Data. Figure 3. Summary table for Bycatch uploaded data and errors found.

43 ICES WGBYC REPORT These new improvements to the WGBYC Excel data upload template has enabled WGBYC to: 1) improve the quality of the data; 2) improve consistency across the data; 3) have easier and faster data queries and analysis; 4) create standard data outputs; 5) have on-line (shared) views of data submissions; and 6) better data security. The joint work is also helping to fulfil ICES obligation in providing transparent advice to its clients. This work is considered as a key data input into the Transparent Assessment Framework, where ICES is investing heavily in assuring all incoming data are well structured, quality controlled and timely. Additionally, at the recommendation of the Data Centre the DbSG developed a WGBYC Excel Template Guidance Document (GD) to instruct users on how to enter data and upload to the online Bycatch webpage (Figure 2). The Guidance Document was distributed to WGBYC members for the upload of 2015 data. In plenary WGBYC was able to discuss feedback on the utility of the GD and additional improvement needed for both the template and GD in For example, more detailed guidance was requested on total fishing effort data submissions and update the monitoring protocol field to allow for multiple categories. The issue of what PS to include as bycatch was also discussed (e.g. should tuna or commercially harvested rare fish species be included if they are not considered PS). It was agreed that all reported incidents of bycatch events from both dedicated and non-dedicated monitoring programmes be included in the database and then leave it to the discretion of WGBYC to determine which species will be filtered out for the annual report data tables. This way no species will be excluded a priori from the WGBYC database. Other topics that pertain to 1) retrofitting historical WGBYC data records (pre-2015) to the revised template, 2) querying monitoring data from the ICES Regional Database as a result of EU-MAP reporting requirements, 3) WGBYC database security and 4) posting restricted data to SharePoint was also discussed and will be taken up by the DbSg intersessionally (see Annex 4, Recommendations).

44 42 ICES WGBYC REPORT Collate, review and evaluate relevant information on bycatch monitoring, assessment and mitigation around the European and Northwest Atlantic waters. In particular, the current state of knowledge on pinger effectiveness for small cetaceans (intersessional) (ToR G) While drafting the 2017 terms of reference at the WGBYC 2016 meeting, WG members determined that this ToR was mostly redundant with ToR-C. Consequently, in 2016 the WG chose to remove this ToR but its elimination was not effectively communicated to the ACOM. As a result, please refer to ToR-C (Section 5) for any relevant discussion of information on mitigation research including current state of knowledge on pinger effectiveness.

45 ICES WGBYC REPORT Continue, in cooperation with other advisory working groups and ACOM, to develop information on and impact assessments of bycatch as input to fisheries and ecosystem overviews (ToR H) Some members of WGBYC broke out into self-selected groups to work toward developing tables and text summarizing bycatch of PS by ecoregion. At the request of ACOM this work is meant to support further development of ICES fisheries overviews. Progress was made developing approaches to provide information on bycatch of PS in Baltic Sea and Bay of Biscay and Iberia Ecoregions. The information presented for the Baltic Sea and Bay of Biscay and Iberia ecoregions are to be treated as a first-cut at developing bycatch tables and supporting information for their respective fisheries overviews and will continue to be further improved as more data become available and further guidance is received from respective WGs developing the fisheries overviews. WGBYC will work toward developing additional bycatch summaries during its 2018 meeting (i.e. Celtic Sea, Greater North Sea, Norwegian and Barents Sea, and Icelandic ecoregions) Baltic Sea Ecoregion Table 7 in Annex 5 was developed by expert opinion and case studies identified below. The information coming from monitoring programs (812/2004, DCF, Habitats directive) is limited. Reasons for this include focus on wrong fishery segments, insufficient coverage by fisheries observers, lack of monitoring of small boat fisheries, and lack of bird bycatch monitoring. Case studies reviewed include: Harbour porpoise in herring trawl Skora and Kuklik, 2003, Harbour porpoise in trawl Lunneryd et al., 2004 Harbour porpoise in all kinds of gears mentioned: HELCOM/ASCOBANS harbour porpoise database Grey seal in gillnets and fykenets: Vanhatalo et al., 2014 Grey seal in midwater trawl, ringed seal in fyke and gillnet Lunneryd et al., 2004 Grey and harbour seals in longlines (pers. comm.) Harbour seal in trawl (not shrimp trawl), eel fyke, gillnet Lunneryd et al., 2004 Grey seal in gillnet, midwater trawl, fykenets (National Conservation Plan for Grey Seals, draft 2012) Water birds in gillnets, trammelnets and fykenets: Several studies summarized by Erdmann et al., Diving ducks and gulls in longlines: Detloff and Koschinski, 2017 and divers: Cooper et al., 2000 Water birds in traps and pots: Lunneryd et al., 2004 Another factor taken into consideration when developing the Table 7 for the Baltic Sea Ecoregion includes the current DCF sampling protocols. DCF has been revised in 2016 and is now called DC-MAP (Data Collection Multiannual Plan). The DCF did not ade-

46 44 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 quately capture protected species or other rare bycatch event species, given the sampling program as well as the observer s role on board commercial vessels is dedicated to monitoring of commercially important and/or quota driven fish species and because the main fisheries sampled under the DCF are not always those with significant protected species bycatch issues. Additionally there is often a lack of detail regarding fishing effort for static gears because the fishing time of vessels (days at sea) and the fishing time of static gears (soak time) are not necessarily the same. Also, the length and drop of the net is often not recorded. Some countries do not differentiate between trammel nets and single panel nets or do not report any information for trammel nets at all, as they are not explicitly mentioned in Reg For seabirds, assessing the population effects of current bird bycatch levels, is in most cases impossible. The main reason is that bycatch numbers are lacking for most areas. Population trends were not well established in the past for the majority of the affected seabird species (Zydelis et al., 2009). However, current population estimates have much improved with the development of two HELCOM CORE indicators of water bird abundance (breeding and overwintering birds) in the Baltic Sea area in the frame of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In the Baltic Proper where the bycatch of harbour porpoises are very rare events with respect to absolute numbers but are significant with respect to subpopulation size, very high levels of fisheries observer monitoring would be required to deliver reliable bycatch estimates. Hence, the likelihood of observing a porpoise bycatch in this fishery is extremely small. Harbour porpoises are extremely rare in the Central Baltic and bycatch most often occurs in gillnets and not in pelagic trawls. In addition, in certain countries there are many vessels (more than a thousand), that are smaller than 8 m length and therefore they are not required to fill out logbooks, but just need to provide monthly landing declarations. This high number of vessels makes it nearly impossible to representatively capture fishing effort of this fleet segment by currently used at-sea fisheries observers.. Since ASCOBANS (2009; 2016) agreed on a target of zero bycatch with respect to this sub-population, it is evident that effective mitigation is required in areas where occurrence and fisheries overlap Bay of Biscay and Iberia Ecoregion The low observation effort by observer programmes (<1.7%) in 2015 suggests that the spatial and temporal scale of bycatch processes as well as the specificity of interactions between cetaceans and fishing gears may not adequately be describing the full extent of PETS bycatch in Bay of Biscay and Iberian waters (Annex 5, Table 8). Data were mostly provided by France, Portugal, and at lesser extent from Netherlands and Ireland (both for midwater otter trawls). No data were transmitted by Spain, or other countries fishing in this area. Recent studies highlighted high interactions between small cetaceans and Iberian and Bay of Biscay fisheries (purse seine fisheries, pelagic pair trawlers; Marçalo et al., 2015; Goetz et al., 2015). Additionally, Peltier et al., 2016 suggested very high numbers of common dolphin bycatch in fishing gears in the Bay of Biscay (ca per year). Peltier et al., Estimations were provided by interpreting dolphin stranding data using a drift prediction model to identify likely mortality areas at sea. Previous observer programmes independent from Reg. 812 were carried out in the Bay of Biscay in the 2000s on pelagic pair trawlers. During that period these programmes

47 ICES WGBYC REPORT showed very high bycatch levels of common dolphins (Northridge et al., 2006; Fossecave et al., 2007; Marçalo et al., 2015). Subsequent to these earlier monitoring programmes, collaborating projects with fishermen in South of France highlighted harbour porpoise bycatch in gillnets. The collection and analysis of marine mammal strandings showed few cases of entanglement in pots and traps. The use of various sources of information suggest a broader impact of fishing activities on cetaceans (Annex 5, Table 9). For seabirds, all bycatch events reported in 2015 were recorded in various unspecified fishing gears (excluding pelagic trawls and nets). The observation effort (days with observer/total fishing effort in days) is <1% and do not allow any robust conclusion (Annex 5, Table 10).

48 46 ICES WGBYC REPORT References Aguilar-Ramirez, D. y Rodriguez-Valencia, A Eficiencia y Selectividad de Dos Diseños de Redes de Arrastre para Pescar Camarón Azul (Litopenaeus Stylirostris) en la Pesquería Artesanal del Alto Golfo de California. 13 p. INAPESCA, México. Disponible en: Amandè, M.J., Chassot, E., Chavance, P., Murua, H., Molina, A.D., de Bez, N., Precision in bycatch estimates: the case of tuna purse-seine fisheries in the Indian Ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Cons. 69, doi: /icesjms/fss106. ASCOBANS ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises. ASCOBANS ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises Revision. Benoît, H.P., Allard, J Can the data from at-sea observer surveys be used to make general inferences about catch composition and discards? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, doi: Bravington MV, and KD Bisack Estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of Maine Sink Gillnet Fishery, Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 46, pp Brown, S., Reid, D., Rogan, E., Characteristics of fishing operations, environment and life history contributing to small cetacean bycatch in the Northeast Atlantic. PLoS One 9, e doi: pone Certain, G., Massé, J., Van Canneyt, O., Petitgas, P., Dorémus, G., Santos, M.B., Ridoux, V Investigation the coupling between small pelagic fish and top predators using data collected from ecosystem-based surveys. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 422, Culik, B., von Dorrien, C., Müller and Conrad Synthetic communication signals influence wild harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) behaviour. Bioacoustics 24 (3): Culik B, Conrad M, Chladek J Acoustic protection for marine mammals: new warning device PAL. DAGA Proceedings, Kiel 2017, p De Boer, M.N., Leaper, R., Keith, S., Simmonds, M.P Winter abundance estimates for the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the western approaches of the English Channel and the effect of responsive movement. J. Mar. Anim. Environ. 1, Detloff, K., Koschinski, S Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen für ein ökosystemgerechtes Fischereimanagement in der deutschen AWZ - Erprobung und Weiterentwicklung alternativer, ökosystemgerechter Fanggeräte zur Vermeidung von Beifängen von Seevögeln und Schweinswalen in der Ostsee. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Insel Vilm 61 pp. Erdmann F., Bellebaum J., Kube J., Schulz A Verluste von See- und Wasservögeln durch die Fischerei unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der international bedeutsamen Rast-, Mauser- und Überwinterungsgebiete in den Küstengewässern Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. In: Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Güstrow, Germany, pp European Commission Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. COM(2012)665final. Faunce, C.H., Barbeaux, S.J The frequency and quantity of Alaskan groundfish catchervessel landings made with and without an observer. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Fernández-Contreras, M.M., Cardona, L., Lockyer, C.H., Aguilar, A Incidental bycatch of short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) by pairtrawlers off northwestern Spain. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Cons. 67, doi: org/ /icesjms/fsq077. Einarsson, H.A Environmental impact of Danish seine. In: Presentation at the International Workshop on Seine Net Fishing, Keflavík, Iceland, May Fossecave P., Soulier, L., Van Canneyt., O., Ridoux, V PROCET final report. 28 pp.

49 ICES WGBYC REPORT Goetz, S., Read, F.L., Ferreira, M., Portela, J.M., Santos, M.B., Vingada, J., Siebert, U., Marçalo, A., Santos, J., Araújo, H., Monteiro, S., Caldas, M., Riera, M., Pierce, G.J Cetacean occurrence, habitat preferences and potential for cetacean fishery interactions in Iberian Atlantic waters: results from cooperative research involving local stakeholders. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25, doi: /aqc Hammond, P.S., Berggren, P., Benke, H., Borchers, D.L., Collet, A., Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., Heimlich, S., Hiby, A.R., Leopold, M.F., Oeien, N Abundance of harbour porpoises and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, Hammond, P.S., Macleod, K., Berggren, P., Borchers, D.L., Burt, L., Cañadas, A., Desportes, G., Donovan, G.P., Gilles, A., Gillespie, D., Gordon, J., Hiby, L., Kuklik, I., Leaper, R., Lehnert, K., Leopold, M., Lovell, P., Øien, N., Paxton, C.G.M., Ridoux, V., Rogan, E., Samarra, F., Scheidat, M., Sequeira, M., Siebert, U., Skov, H., Swift, R., Tasker, M.L., Teilmann, J., Van Canneyt, O., Vázquez, J.A Cetacean abundance and distribution in European Atlantic shelf waters to inform conservation and management. Biol. Conserv. 164, doi: org/ /j.biocon Hatch J.M., Wiley D., Murray K.T., and L. Welch Integrating satellite-tagged seabird and fishery dependent data: A case study of Great Shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) and the U.S. New England sink gillnet fishery. Conservation Letters, 9: Doi: /conl Hedgärde, M., Willestofte Berg, C., Kindt-Larsen, L., Lunneryd, S-G., Königson, S Explaining the catch efficiency of different cod pots using underwater video to observe cod entry and exit behaviour. Journal of Ocean Techknowodgy Vol. 11 No 4. HELCOM HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No HELCOM Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. ber%20of%20drowned%20mammals%20and%20waterbirds%20in%20fishing%20gear- HELCOM%20core%20indicator%20report%202015_web%20version.pdf. HELCOM Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM Core Indicator Report (to be published online in summer 2017). ICES Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), ICES, Copenhagen. ACE: 05, 174 pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), March 2008, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2008/ LRC:05, 99 pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), March 2009, Bruges, Belgium. ICES CM 2009/LRC:10, 91 pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), March 2010, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF:10, 83 pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC 2011), 1 4 February 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM: pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 4 7 February 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM: pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 2 6 February 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM: pp. ICES Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 1 5 February 2016, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016\ACOM: pp. ICES. 2017a. Report of the Working Group on Commercial Catches (WGCATCH), 7 11 November 2016, Oostende, Belgium. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEOM: pp. ICES. 2017b. Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWGBIRD), October 2016, Thetford, UK. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:29, 126 pp.

50 48 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Kirkwood, J.K., Bennet, P.M., Jepson, P.D., Kuiken, T., Simpson, V.R., Baker, J.R Entanglement in fishing gear and other causes of death in cetaceans stranded on the coasts of England and Wales. Vet. Rec. 141, Kiszka, J., MacLeod, K., Van Canneyt, O., Walker, D., Ridoux, V Distribution encounter rates, and habitat characteristics of toothed cetaceans in the Bay of Biscay and adjacent waters from platform-of-opportunity data. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, Königson, S., Lövgren, J., Hjelm, J., Ovegård, M., Ljunghager, F., and Lunneryd, S.-G Seal exclusion devices in cod pots prevent seal bycatch and affect their catchability of cod. Fisheries Research, 167, Korpinen S. and Braeger S Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. COM-CoreIndicator-Number_of_drowned_mammals_and_waterbirds_in_fishing_gear.pdf. Kuiken, T., Hartmann, M.G Cetacean pathology: dissection techniques and tissue sampling. In: Kuiken, T., Hartmann, M.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Cetacean Society Workshop. Presented at the European Cetacean Society, Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 39. Leeney, R.H., Amies, R., Broderick, A.C., Witt, M.J., Loveridge, J., Doyle, J., Godley, B.J Spatio-temporal analysis of cetacean strandings and bycatch in a UK fisheries hotspot. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, Ljungberg, P., Lunneryd, S-G., Lövgren, J. and Königson, S Including cod (Gadus morhua) behavioral analysis to evaluate entrance behavioural analysis to evaluate entrance type dependent pot catches in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Ocean Techknowodgy Vol. 11 No 4. Lunneryd, S.G., Königson, S., Sjögerg, N.B Bifångst av säl, tumlare och fåglar i det svenska Yrkesfisket (Bycatch of seals, harbour porpoises and birds in Swedish commercial fisheries). Fiskeriverket Göteborg. 20 pp. Lunneryd, S-G Report in Swedish on seine net fishing outside Gotland. County Administrative Board Gotland. McLeod, K., Simmonds, M.P., Murray, E Summer distribution and relative abundance of cetacean populations of north-west Scotland. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 83, Morizur, Y., Berrow, S.D., Tregenza, N.J.C., Couperus, A.S., Pouvreau, S Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the northeast Atlantic. Fish. Res. 41, Murphy, S., Pinn, E.H., Jepson, P.D The short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the Northeast Atlantic distribution, ecology, management and conservation status. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 51, Murray KT Estimated Loggerhead and Unidentified Hard-shelled Interactions in Mid- Atlantic Gillnet Gear, NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NE-225. Murray KT The importance of location and operational fishing factors in estimating and reducing loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in U.S. bottom trawl fishing gear. Fish. Res. 172, pp NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Sampling Branch Observer Operations Manual U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Sampling Branch 166 Water Street Woods Hole, MA Northridge, S., Kingston, A. and Thomas, L Annual report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 during Northridge, S., Kingston, A. and Thomas, L. 2016a. Annual report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 during 2015.

51 ICES WGBYC REPORT Northridge, S., Coram A., Kingston A., Crawford R. 2016b. Disentangling the causes of protected species bycatch in gillnet fisheries. Cons. Biol. Vol. 31, No. 3, pp Northridge S., Morizur Y., Souami Y. and Van Canneyt O PETRACET: Project EC/FISH/2003/09 Final report to the European Commission 1735R07D, June 2006, 29 pages. Marçalo, A., Katara, I., Feijó, D., Araújo, H., Oliveira, I., Santos, J., Ferreira, M., Monteiro, S., Pierce, G.J., Silva, A., Vingada, J Quantification of interactions between the Portuguese sardine purse-seine fishery and cetaceans. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Cons. 72, doi: Matzen E, Milliken HO, Lowell N Development and testing of a tow time data logger to monitor and enforce tow time restrictions in trawl fisheries. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE- 234; 15 p. Morgan, L., Chuenpagdee, R Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters. Pew Science Series on Conservation and the Environment, ISBN , 42 pp. Morizur, Y., Berrow, S.D., Tregenza, N.J.C., Couperus, A.S., Pouvreau, S Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the northeast Atlantic. Fish. Res. 41, Peltier, H., Authier M., Deaville R., Dabin W., Jepson PD., van Canneyt O., Daniel P., Ridoux V Small cetacean bycatch as estimated from stranding schemes: The common dolphin case in the Northeast Atlantic. Env. Sci. Pol. 63, pp Peltier, H., Jepson, P.D., Dabin, W., Deaville, R., Daniel, P., Van Canneyt, O., Ridoux, V The contribution of stranding data to monitoring and conservation strategies for cetaceans: developing spatially explicit mortality indicators for common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the eastern North-Atlantic. Ecol. Indic. 39, doi: Rogan, E., Mackey, M Megafauna bycatch in drift nets for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) in the NE Atlantic. Fish. Res 86, Silva, M., Sequeira, M Patterns in the mortality of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) on the Portuguese coast using stranding records, Aquat. Mamm. 29, Skora, K., Kuklik, I Bycatch as a potential threat to harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Polish Baltic waters. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 5: Spitz, J., Chouvelon, T., Cardinaud, M., Kostecki, C., Lorance, P Prey preferences of adult sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax in the Northeastern Atlantic: implications for bycatch of common dolphin Delphinus delphis. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Cons. 70, doi: Stratoudakis, Y., Fryer, R.J., Cook, R.M Discarding practices for commercial gadoids in the North Sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, doi: doi.org/ /f Vanhatalo, J., Vetemaa, M., Herrero, A., Aho, T., Tiilikainen, R Bycatch of Grey Seals (Halichoerus grypus) in Baltic Fisheries A Bayesian Analysis of Interview Survey. PloS ONE 9(11): e doi: /journal.pone Vazquez, J.A., Canadas, A., Martinez-Cedeira, J., Lopez, A., Tejedor, M., Gauffier, P., Gazo, M., Brotons, J.M Docuemento tecnico sobre la incidencia de la captura accidental de species de cetaceo amenazadas en artes de pesca. Informe realizado para el Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacion y medio Ambiante, 95pp. Warden ML Bycatch of wintering common and red-throated loons in gillnets of the USA Atlantic coast, Aquatic Biology Vol. 10: , 2010 doi: /ab Žydelis, R., J. Bellebaum, H. Österblom, M. Vetemaa, B. Schirmeister, A. Stipniece, M. Dagys, M. van Eerden and S. Garthe "Bycatch in gillnet fisheries An overlooked threat to waterbird populations." Biological Conservation 142(7):

52 50 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Annex 1: List of Participants Name Address Phone/Fax Adam Woźniczk a Allen Kingston Boris Culik Bram Couperus Carlos Pinto Christian von Dorrien Finn Larsen Gudjon Sigurdsso n National Marine Fisheries Research Institute-MIR ul. Kollataja Gdynia Poland University of St. Andrews Sea Mammal Research Unit Gatty Marine Laboratory St Andrews Fife KY16 8LB UK F3. Forschung.Fakten.Fantasi en Am Reff Heikendorf Germany Wageningen University & Research PO Box AB Ijmuiden Netherlands ICES Data Centre H.C. Andersens Blvd Copenhagen V Denmark Baltic Sea Fisheries Alter Hafen Süd Rostock Germany Technical University of Denmark Institute of Aquatic Resources Section for Ecosystem Based Marine Management Kemitorvet, Building Kgs.Lyngby Denmark Marine Research Institute PO Box 1390 Skúlagata 4 Reykjavik 121 Iceland fax fax Fax Fax Fax awozniczka@mir.gdynia.pl ark10@st-andrews.ac.uk bculik@fh3.de bram.couperus@wur.nl carlos@ices.dk christian.dorrien@thuenen.de fl@aqua.dtu.dk gudjon@hafro.is gudjon.mar.sigurdsson@hafogvat n.is Hélène University of La Rochelle hpeltier@univ-lr.fr

53 ICES WGBYC REPORT Name Address Phone/Fax Peltier Iwona Pawliczka vel Pawlik Marjorie Lyssikato s Chair Sara Königson Sven Koschins ki Volker Dierschke JWGBird Chair 23 avenue Albert Einstein La Rochelle Cedex 9 France University of Gdansk Hel Marine Station PO Box Hel Poland Northeast Fisheries Science Centre 166 Water Street Woods Hole, MA USA Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences PO Box 4 Kustlaboratoriet Lysekil Sweden Consultant Meereszoologie Kühlandweg Nehmten Germany Gavia EcoResearch Tönnhäuser Dorfstr Winsen (Luhe) Germany fax Fax / Iwona.pvp@ug.edu.pl marjorie.lyssikatos@noaa.gov Sara.konigson@slu.se sk@meereszoologie.de Fax volker.dierschke@web.de Katarzyn a Jankiak Observer European Commission Director General of Marine Affairs 200 rue de la Loi 1049 Brussels Belgium Katarzyna.janiak@ec.europa.eu External presenters at WGBYC 2017 Name Affiliation Gina Shield NEFSC, Fisheries Sampling Branch Gina.Sheild@noaa.gov Joshua Hatch NEFSC Protected Species Branch Joshua.hatch@noaa.gov Eric Matzen NEFSC, Protected Species Branch Erik.Matzen@noaa.gov Chris Orphanides NEFSC, Protected Species Branch Chris.Orphanides@noaa.gov Kathryn McArdle NEFSC, Fisheries Sampling Branch Kathryn.Mcardle@noaa.gov Nichole Rossi NEFSC, Fisheries Sampling Branch Nichole.Rossi@noaa.gov

54 52 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Annex 2: WGBYC ToRs and Agenda 2016/2/ACOM25 The Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), chaired by Marjorie Lyssikatos, USA, met at Woods Hole, Massachusetts USA, June 2017 to: Agenda a ) Review and summarize annual national reports submitted to the European Commission under Regulation 812/2004 and other published documents and collate bycatch rates and estimates in EU waters; b ) Evaluate the range of (min/max) impacts of bycatch on protected species where possible by assessment unit, furthering the bycatch risk approach to assess likely conservation level threats and prioritize areas where additional monitoring is needed; c ) Collate and review information from National 812 reports and elsewhere relating to the implementation of bycatch mitigation measures and ongoing bycatch mitigation trials, compile recent results and coordinate further work on protected species bycatch mitigation; d ) Continue to develop, improve and coordinate with other ICES WGs on methods for bycatch monitoring, research and assessment within the context of European legislation (e.g. MSFD) and regional conventions (intersessional); e ) Continue to develop collaborative research proposals among WGBYC members to pursue research projects and funding opportunities in support of researching protected and target species behaviour in relation to fishing gear; f ) Continue, in cooperation with the ICES Data Centre, to develop, improve, populate, and maintain the database on bycatch monitoring and relevant fishing effort in European waters. (Intersessional); g ) Collate, review and evaluate relevant information on bycatch monitoring, assessment and mitigation around the European and Northwest Atlantic waters. In particular, the current state of knowledge on pinger effectiveness for small cetaceans. (Intersessional); h ) Continue, in cooperation with other advisory working groups and ACOM, to develop information on and impact assessments of bycatch as input to fisheries and ecosystem overviews. Monday June 12: 8:00am 5:00pm (Plenary 9:00 3:00) 1 ) 8:00 Reception guest passes, Internet, audio/visual equipment, etc. 2 ) 9:00 Welcome 2.1 ) Opening Remarks (PSB Chief Sean Hayes) 2.2 ) Introductions (new and veteran members) 3 ) 9:30 Review ToRs, Agenda, Annual Report, SharePoint 4 ) 10:00 ToR A 4.1 ) Status update, Guidance document, Reg. 812 Reports, data uploads, draft text and summary tables 5 ) Lunch 12:00 6 ) 1:30 ToR F

55 ICES WGBYC REPORT ) Status of Database; WGBYC DbSg ) Data access policy ) Guidance Document Changes ) Retrofitting historical data ) Discuss future of WGBYC Database in light of EUMAP Q&A with Kasia from DGMARE 7 ) 3:00 Finalize Report sections for ToR A & F 8 ) 5:00 Adjourn 9 ) 6:30 Group Dinner Tuesday June 13: 8:30 5:30 1 ) 8:30 to 9:00 Plenary 1.1 ) Recap/Daily Agenda (15 minutes) 2 ) 9:00 Finish up sections ToR A & F 2.1 ) Common Dolphin stranding analysis (Helene: 9:00) 3 ) 10:00 12:00 (Plenary) ToR B 3.1 ) Theme session on Bycatch Risk Assessment for seabirds ) NEFOP seabird bycatch monitoring/data collection (Gina Shield; 10:00) ) Estimating Seabird bycatch in fixed gears (Josh Hatch; 10:20) ) Developing HELCOM seabird bycatch indicators (Volker Dierschke; 10:40) 3.2 ) Discuss main topics of concern for seabird bycatch in European waters 4 ) Lunch 12:00 5 ) 1:00 Write text for ToR B (other sections too if needed) 6 ) 1:45 4:30 (Plenary) ToR C 6.1 ) Mitigation research presentations ) Mitigating bycatch from small vessel fleet (Christian; 1:45) ) Pinger data collection/analysis NEUS gillnet fisheries (Chris Orphanides; 2:00) ) Porpoise Alarm (PAL) (Boris Culik; 2:20) ) PAL part II (Christian; 2:40) ) 3:00 Break 10 minutes ) Seabird bycatch mitigation Poland (Adam Wozniczka; 3:10) ) Trap/Pot Gear modifications in Sweden (Sara Königson; 3:30) ) NEFSC-PSB bycatch reduction engineering program (Eric Matzen; 3:50) 7 ) 4:15 ToR E: Plenary 7.1 ) Collaborative mitigation research projects (ongoing projects, new projects, funding opportunities?) 8 ) 4:30 Finalize Report sections for ToR C & E 9 ) 5:30 Adjourn

56 54 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Wednesday June 14: 8:30 5:30 1 ) 8:30 Depart from Inn on the Square 2 ) 9:00 Tour/visit of Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Facility Falmouth Tech Park 3 ) 11:00 Return to WH NEFSC 4 ) Lunch 11:30 12:30 5 ) 12:30 2:00 Plenary 6 ) 12:30 ToR G (ACOM ToR H & ACOM ToR G was rolled into ToR C by WGBYC during its 2016 meeting so there is no ToR-G) 6.1 ) PETS data/text for Fisheries Overviews-see M. Tasker ) Develop tables and supporting text within WGBYC annual report that can be extracted and placed into FOs 7 ) 2:00 5:30 Draft Report Section for ToR H; continue work on other sections Thursday June 15: 8:30 5:30 1 ) 8:30 Recap/Daily Agenda 2 ) 9:00 ToR D Plenary Joint work with other WGs 2.1 ) WGCATCH: Update and Review ToRs for proposed joint workshop in 2018 (Bram) 2.2 ) JWGBIRD: more opportunities for collaborative (Volker) 3 ) Nominate New Chair (recommend co-chair) 4 ) Draft 2018 ToRs & Recommendations 5 ) 12:00 Lunch 6 ) 1:00 5:00 Continue drafting report sections 7 ) 5:00 Adjourn

57 ICES WGBYC REPORT Annex 3: WGBYC Terms of Reference for the 2018 meeting The Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), chaired tbd. will meet in Reykjavik Iceland or ICES HQ, during dates in 2018 yet tbd. to: a ) Review and summarize annual national reports submitted to the European Commission under Regulation 812/2004 and other published documents and collate bycatch rates and estimates in EU waters; b ) Evaluate the range of (min/max) impacts of bycatch on protected species where possible by assessment unit, furthering the bycatch risk approach to assess likely conservation level threats and prioritize areas where additional monitoring is needed; c ) Collate and review information from National 812 reports and elsewhere relating to the implementation of bycatch mitigation measures and ongoing bycatch mitigation trials, compile recent results and coordinate further work on protected species bycatch mitigation; d ) Continue to develop, improve and coordinate with other ICES WGs on methods for bycatch monitoring, research and assessment within the context of European legislation (e.g. MSFD) and regional conventions (intersessional); e ) Continue to develop collaborative research proposals among WGBYC members to pursue research projects and funding opportunities in support of researching protected and target species behaviour in relation to fishing gear; f ) Continue, in cooperation with the ICES Data Centre, to develop, improve, populate, and maintain the database on bycatch monitoring and relevant fishing effort in European waters. (Intersessional); g ) Tentative joint workshop with WGCATCH in The aim of the workshop is to implement the collection of data on incidental bycatch of protected and other species at risk (i.e. rare bycatch events) in the sampling protocols of national catch, bycatch and discards sampling schemes pursuant to EU 2016/1251 Chapter III, Sec. WGBYC will report by xx June 2018 to the attention of the Advisory Committee.

58 56 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Supporting Information Priority Scientific justification The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem affects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority. a b) This is essential to use in answering part of the European Commission MoU request to provide any new information regarding the impact of fisheries on marine mammals, seabirds... ; c) ICES Member Countries are required to reduce levels of bycatch under several pieces of legislation; the response to this ToR will help meet that aim; d) Bycatch monitoring and assessment is fundamental to the work of the group; in light of significant changes in legislation that will impact monitoring programs for PETS any improvements in coordination and methods will help the group and other workers in this field; e) Improving scientific understanding how target and non-target catches interact with commercial fishing gear is fundamental to developing effective mitigation measures to reduce bycatch on vulnerable species; f) An operating database allows for more efficient response to future advice requests and an audit trail for information used in the Group s reports; remaining intersessional ToR s all aim to increase effeciency of WGBYC s tasks in providing advice to various groups; g) The European Commission has decided not to amend Res. 812/2004 and to integrate monitoring of protected and endangered species into the new DCF (DCMAP). It is essential to cooperate with the scientists who design observer schemes and protocols for the monitoring of catch and discards; Resource None beyond usual Secretariat facilities requirements Participants Secretariat facilities Financial Linkages to advisory committees Linkages to other committees or groups Secretariat support with meeting organization and final editing of report No financial implications. ACOM JWGBIRD, WGFTFB, WGMME, WGSE, WGEF, WGCATCH, WGMIXFISH, WGSFD, WGNSSK, SCICOM Linkages to other organizations NAMMCO, ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS, GFCM, EC, IWC

59 ICES WGBYC REPORT Annex 4: Recommendations Recommendation 1. Recommendation for ICES Data Center and WGSFD: WGBYC is requesting for all passive gears total commercial effort data in units of days at sea from vessel logbooks during years , and stratified by year, métier level 4, RCG and ICES division. Maps of this data request and meta-data to support proper interpretation (e.g. data gaps in reporting, field definitions and collection procedures) are also requested. WGBYC intends to summarize logbook effort over broad temporal and spatial scales (i.e. calendar year and assessment units) to support protected species bycatch risk assessments and 2018 ICES advice. 2. Recommendation for WGBYC Database Subgroup (DbSg) Formulate formal WGBYC data call for 2016 PETS monitoring and effort according to Regulation 812 requirements Develop strategy for accessing PETS bycatch and effort data from the ICES RDB and comparing to WGBYC database; Develop WGBYC database access policy Continue with WGBYC database development per ToR-F. In particular, retro-fitting historical data to the revised template structure. 3. Recommendation for WGCATCH: WGBYC recommends that WGCATCH implement the collection of data on incidental bycatch of protected and other species at risk (i.e. rare bycatch events) in the sampling protocols of national catch and discards sampling schemes and design pursuant to EU implementing decision 2016/1251 Chapter III, Section 3.; including incorporation of appropriate fields in National databases, data processing, data validation and synchronization with the regional database. 4. Recommendation for JWGBIRD: WGBYC recommends that JWGBIRD coordinate with WGBYC on matters related to bycatch risk assessment (as it relates to OSPAR indicator B.1) and mitigation of seabird bycatch. 5. Recommendation for WGBYC: Assemble a WGBYC subgroup to collate, review and evaluate relevant information on bycatch monitoring, assessment, and mitigation around the European and Northwest Atlantic waters. In particular, the current state of knowledge on pinger effectiveness for small cetaceans (intersessional). Adressed to ICES Data Centre and WGSFD ICES Data Centre and WGBYC DbSg WGCATCH JWGBIRD WGBYC

60 58 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Annex 5: Tables Table 1. Summary table of coastal EU Member States (MS) by regional coordination meetings (RCM) regarding the status of Reg. 812 report submissions to the European Commission (Green = Yes for report with data on observer effort (either days at sea or other measurement, e.g. effort per haul or set); Gray = Yes for report with no data on observer effort (either days at sea or other measurement); Yellow = no report submitted; Cross-hatch = no report (no monitoring required); Empty = not in the EU; * Two trawlers that were monitored in 2012 have since been scrapped. As a result, in 2013 no vessels are affected by the regulation; ** An independent scientific non-profit nongovernmental organization monitoring set nets indicated the bycatch of one to two bottlenose dolphin.

61 ICES WGBYC REPORT *** Germany provides reports on observations made under DCF to the Commission which include information on cetacean bycatch. Some of this information was made available at the meeting; **** Data made available at the meeting; *****Data made available to the meeting in 2016.

62 60 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table 2. Total number of cetacean bycatch specimens and bycatch rates (number of specimens/days at sea) in 2015 reported by Member States in their Reg. 812 reports including other sources of opportunistically or dedicated data collected on bycatch of cetaceans (e.g. DCF or other monitoring programmes). Bycatch numbers and rates are grouped by gear type, RCM region, and ICES fishing area (Dd Delphinus delphis; La, Lagenorynchus albirosris, Tt, Tursiops truncates; Pp, Phocoena phocoena). GEAR TYPE (MÉTIER LEVEL 3) RCM ICES AREA CODE Observed Says at Sea Dd (No. specimens) Dd (bycatch rate per day at sea) La (No. specimens) La (bycatch rate per day at sea) Tt (No. specimens) Tt (bycatch rate per day at sea) Pp (No. speciments) Pp (bycatch rate per day at sea) Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.a Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Nets Nets Nets Nets Nets Nets Nets Nets Other gear Pelagic trawls North Atlantic North Atlantic North Atlantic North Atlantic North Atlantic North Atlantic North Atlantic North Sea & Eastern Arctic North Atlantic North Atlantic 27.5.a e f g h a b b a

63 ICES WGBYC REPORT GEAR TYPE (MÉTIER LEVEL 3) RCM ICES AREA CODE Observed Says at Sea Dd (No. specimens) Dd (bycatch rate per day at sea) La (No. specimens) La (bycatch rate per day at sea) Tt (No. specimens) Tt (bycatch rate per day at sea) Pp (No. speciments) Pp (bycatch rate per day at sea) Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.j Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.8.b Total

64 62 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table commercial fishing effort and observer effort in days at sea aggregated by gear type, RCM and ICES fishing area reported by EU Member States in their Reg. 812 reports submitted to the European Commission and additional commercial effort data uploaded to the WGBYC database by individual members of WGBYC. Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total Fishing Effort (Days at sea) Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.b Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Nets North Atlantic 27.8.a Nets North Atlantic 27.8.b Nets North Atlantic 27.8.d Nets North Atlantic 27.7.a 19 2 Nets North Atlantic 27.7.f Nets North Atlantic 27.7.g Nets North Atlantic 27.7.h Nets North Atlantic 27.7.j Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.a Nets North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.a Nets North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.b Nets North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.c Nets North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.7.d Nets North Atlantic 27.7.e

65 ICES WGBYC REPORT Gear Type (Métier RCM ICES Total Fishing Effort (Days at sea) Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) level 3) Area Code Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Other gear North Atlantic Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d

66 64 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table 3 continued commercial fishing effort and observer effort in days at sea aggregated by gear type, RCM and ICES fishing area reported by EU Member States in their Reg. 812 reports submitted to the European Commission and additional commercial effort data uploaded to the WGBYC database by individual members of WGBYC. Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total Fishing Effort (Days at sea) Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) Pelagic trawls Baltic Sea 27.3.d Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.8.a Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.8.b Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.8.d Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.6.a Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.6.b 6 0 Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.a Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.b Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.c Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.f 1 0 Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.g 8 4 Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.h Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.j Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.k Pelagic trawls Baltic 27.3.a 1 0 Pelagic trawls North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.a Pelagic trawls North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.b Pelagic trawls North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.c 41 6 Pelagic trawls North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.7.d Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.e Pelagic trawls Mediterranean Sea

67 ICES WGBYC REPORT Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total Fishing Effort (Days at sea) Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) Pelagic trawls North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.2.a Pelagic trawls North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.2.b 1 0 Bottom trawls North Atlantic 27.5.a 553 Bottom trawls Mediterranean Sea Total

68 66 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table 4. Total number of seabird bycatch specimens (a) and rates (b. number of specimens/day at sea) in 2015 reported by Member State in their Reg. 812 reports including other sources of opportunistically or dedicated data collected on bycatch of seabirds (e.g. DCF or other monitoring programs): At, Alca torda; Cg, Cepphus grylle; Fa, Fratercula arctica; Fg, Fulmaris glacialis; L, Larus sp.; Mn, Melanitta nigra; Mb, Morus bassanus; P, Phalacrocoracidae; Pa, Phalacrocorax aristolelis; Pc, Phalacrocorax carbo; Pm, Puffinus mauretanicus; Sm, Somateria mollissima; Ua, Uria aalge; Ul, Uria lomvia. a. Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) At Cg Fa Fg L Mn Mb P Pa Pc Pm Sm Ua Ul Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Other gear North Atlantic Bottom trawls North Atlantic 27.5.a Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Total b. Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) At Cg Fa Fg L Mn Mb P Pa Pc Pm Sm Ua Ul Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Other gear North Atlantic Bottom trawls North Atlantic 27.5.a Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Total 1006

69 ICES WGBYC REPORT Table 5. All 2015 bycatch species (cetaceans, pinnipeds, seabirds, elasmobranchs), observed effort number of specimens, and bycatch estimates reported by EU Member States under Reg Data are aggregated by species, gear type, RCM region, and ICES fishing area. NOTE: reporting non-cetacean protected species bycatch is not a mandatory requirement of the Reg. 812 reporting format so the numbers shown here are not a full record of bycatch observations for those taxa. Species Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total No. Specimens Reported ByCatch Estimate Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) Alca torda Other gear North Atlantic Cepphus grylle Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Cystophora cristata Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Delphinus delphis Nets North Atlantic 27.7.e Delphinus delphis Nets North Atlantic 27.7.g 1 25 Delphinus delphis Nets North Atlantic 27.7.h 1 47 Delphinus delphis Nets North Atlantic 27.8.a Delphinus delphis Nets North Atlantic 27.8.b Delphinus delphis Other gear North Atlantic Delphinus delphis Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.7.j 3 82 Delphinus delphis Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.8.b 2 13 Fratercula arctica Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Fulmarus glacialis Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Halichoerus grypus Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Halichoerus grypus Nets North Atlantic 27.7.e Lagenorhynchus albirostris Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.6.a 1 84 Larus Other gear North Atlantic Melanitta nigra Other gear North Atlantic Morus bassanus Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Morus bassanus Other gear North Atlantic Morus bassanus Bottom trawls North Atlantic 27.5.a

70 68 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Species Gear Type RCM ICES Total No. Specimens Reported ByCatch Estimate Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) (Métier level 3) Area Code Pagophilus groenlandicus Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Phalacrocoracidae Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Phalacrocorax aristotelis Other gear North Atlantic Phalacrocorax carbo Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Phalacrocorax carbo Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.d Phalacrocorax carbo Other gear North Atlantic

71 ICES WGBYC REPORT Table 5 continued. All 2015 bycatch species (cetaceans, pinnipeds, seabirds, elasmobranchs), observed effort number of specimens, and bycatch estimates reported by EU Member States under Reg Data are aggregated by species, gear type, RCM region, and ICES fishing area. NOTE: reporting non-cetacean protected species bycatch is not a mandatory requirement of the Reg. 812 reporting format so the numbers shown here are not a full record of bycatch observations for those taxa. Species Gear Type (Métier level 3) RCM ICES Area Code Total No. Specimens Reported ByCatch Estimate Total Observed Effort (Days at sea) Phoca vitulina Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Phoca vitulina Bottom trawls North Atlantic 27.5.a Phocoena phocoena Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.a Phocoena phocoena Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Phocoena phocoena Nets North Sea & Eastern Arctic 27.4.b Phocoena phocoena Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Phocoena phocoena Nets North Atlantic 27.7.f 3 40 Phocoena phocoena Nets North Atlantic 27.7.g 7 25 Phocoena phocoena Nets North Atlantic 27.8.a Phocoena phocoena Other gear North Atlantic Puffinus mauretanicus Other gear North Atlantic Pusa hispida Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Somateria mollissima Nets Baltic Sea 27.3.c Somateria mollissima Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Thunnus thynnus Pelagic trawls North Atlantic 27.6.a Tursiops truncatus Other gear North Atlantic Uria aalge Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Uria aalge Other gear North Atlantic Uria lomvia Nets North Atlantic 27.5.a Total

72 70 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table 6. Results from the questionnaire distributed to members of WGCATCH regarding data collection at-sea on incidental bycatch of protected species. Questions were also directed at determining whether national databases are designed to enter this information. Nations that responded include: Belgium (BEL), Germany (DEU), Denmark (DNK), Spain (ESP_AZTI), Estonia (EST), France (FRA), GBR_ENG, Greece (GRC), ESP_I, Ireland (IRL), Lithuania (LTU), Latvia (LVA), Netherlands (NLD), Poland (POL), Portugal (PRT), Portugal- Azores (PRT_AZ), Sweden (SWE). Questionnaires were not returned from: (BGR), Cyprus (CYP), HRV, HUN, Great Britain/Scotland (GBR_SCO), Finland (FIN), Italy (ITA), Malta (MLT). NA and - =not applicable. BEL DEU DNK ESP_AZTI EST FRA GBR_ENG GRC ESP_IEIRL LTU LVA NLD POL PRT PRT_AZ SWE #YES #NO #NA no entry Does the protocol contain instruction to record catch of other vertebrate species than fish (i.e. turtles, birds, dolphins, seals)? In gill nets - and hook-and-line fisheries: does the protocol instruct to indicate how much of the hauling process has been observed for (large) incidental bycatches which never came on board (because they fall out of the net)? Does the protocol contain a check for rare specimens in the catch at opening of the codend or immediate removal during hauling in gill nets or hook-and-line? If Yes: is the observer instructed to indicate if the codend was not checked in a haul or at how much of the hauling process has been checked for immediate removal? Does the protocol instruct to check for rare specimens during sorting of the catch (i.e. at conveyor belt)? If Yes: is the observer instructed to indicate how much of the sorting process has been checked on haul level (i.e. percentage)? Does the protocol instruct to report specific handling or devices on board which may hide incidental bycatch?* If Yes: is the observer instructed to report what effect this has on the sampling at haul level? Does the protocol instruct to report of mitigation (i.e. Acoustic Deterrent Devices or pingers )? If yes for ADD s: is there a check for proper working (i.e. Battery check)? In case of an incidental catch: is the observer instructed to indicate its state (dead and discarded, released alive, discarded in unknown state, collected for further research? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y NA Y N NA N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y NA N? N N Y N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N NA? - Y Y - NA - NA - N - Y Y N Y NA N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N (b) Y N NA Y - N N Y NA - N Y N Y Y Y - Y NA N N N NA N N Y N Y N N NA Y Y N NA N NA NA - NA - N N - Y Y - NA NA N Y N NA Y Y Y N N N N NA Y N N NA NA NA N - NA N N N - NA - N - N N N NA NA N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N

73 ICES WGBYC REPORT Table 6 continued from previous page. Results from the questionnaire distributed to members of WGCATCH regarding data collection at-sea on incidental bycatch of protected species. Questions were also directed at determining whether national databases are designed to enter this information. Nations that responded include: Belgium (BEL), Germany (DEU), Denmark (DNK), Spain (ESP_AZTI), Estonia (EST), France (FRA), GBR_ENG, Greece (GRC), ESP_I, Ireland (IRL), Lithuania (LTU), Latvia (LVA), Netherlands (NLD), Poland (POL), Portugal (PRT), Portugal-Azores (PRT_AZ), Sweden (SWE). Questionnaires were not returned from: (BGR), Cyprus (CYP), HRV, HUN, Great Britain/Scotland (GBR_SCO), Finland (FIN), Italy (ITA), Malta (MLT). NA and - =not applicable. BEL DEU DNK ESP_AZTI EST FRA GBR_ENG GRC ESP_IEO IRL LTU LVA NLD POL PRT PRT_AZ SWE #YES #NO #NA no entry Does the protocol contain instruction to record catch of other vertebrate species than fish (i.e. turtles, birds, dolphins, seals)? In gill nets - and hook-and-line fisheries: does the protocol instruct to indicate how much of the hauling process has been observed for (large) incidental bycatches which never came on board (because they fall out of the net)? Does the protocol contain a check for rare specimens in the catch at opening of the codend or immediate removal during hauling in gill nets or hook-and-line? If Yes: is the observer instructed to indicate if the codend was not checked in a haul or at how much of the hauling process has been checked for immediate removal? Does the protocol instruct to check for rare specimens during sorting of the catch (i.e. at conveyor belt)? If Yes: is the observer instructed to indicate how much of the sorting process has been checked on haul level (i.e. percentage)? Y N Yes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N (a) Y N NA N - NA N Y N N NA Y N N Y NA N (a) Y NA N N - N Y N N N NA N N N N Y N (a) Y N NA NA - Y Y - NA - NA - N - N Y - Y - N N - N Y Y NA N Y Y N Y Y Y N (a) Y Y NA N - N N Y NA - NA Y N Y N Y - Y Does the protocol instruct to report specific handling or devices on board which may hide incidental bycatch?* N N - NA N N Y N Y (text field) N N NA N Y - NA Y If Yes: is the observer instructed to report what effect this has on the sampling at haul level? Does the protocol instruct to report of mitigation (i.e. Acoustic Deterrent Devices or pingers )? If yes for ADD s: is there a check for proper working (i.e. Battery check)? In case of an incidental catch: is the observer instructed to indicate its state (dead and discarded, released alive, discarded in unknown state, collected for further research? NA NA - NA - N N - N Y - NA - N N - NA Y Y Y N NA N N NA N N - NA - NA N - NA N N N - NA - N - N N - NA - N N - Y Y Y Y N Y (text field) Y N N N NA N (a) Y N

74 72 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table 7. Evaluation of the magnitude of marine mammal and seabird bycatch interacting with fishing métiers in the Baltic Sea Ecoregion (see Section 10.1 for description of data sources and further interpretation of the table). Colour: red = bycatch known to be high and the population is more likely than not to be in decline; yellow = bycatch known to occur but the population is not likely to be in decline; orange = bycatch occurs, but level unknown; grey = lack of data; green = bycatch occurs, animals mostly released alive; blue = no bycatch. * Fykenets with opening diameter larger than 1 meter. ** This cell is halved, showing on the left the evaluation for the population occurring in the Western Baltic Sea (Belt Sea) and on the right the evaluation for the subpopulation occurring in the Central Baltic Sea.

75 ICES WGBYC REPORT Table 8. Percent observer coverage (effort reported as days at sea) and small cetacean bycatch rates based on observer programmes in Bay of Biscay and Iberia in Observer coverage (days at sea with observer/total days at sea) Common dolphins bycatch rate (no. bycatch/days at sea with observer) Harbour porpoises by-catch rate (no. bycatch/days at sea with observer) Bottlenose dolphins bycatch rate (no. bycatch/days at sea with observer) Pelagic trawls 1.7% Nets 0.87% Others 0.41%

76 74 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Table 9. Table 9. Evaluation of the magnitude of marine mammal bycatch interacting with fishing métiers in the in Bay of Biscay and Iberia ecoregion based on independent observer programmes, strandings and expert knowledge (see Section 10.2 for more detailed description of data sources and interpretation). (Dd: Delphinus delphis; Sc: Stenella coeruleoalba, Tt: Tursiops truncatus; Gg: Grampus griseus; Gm: Globicephala melas; Pp: Phocoena phocoena, Ba: Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Colour: red = bycatch known to be high and the population is more likely than not to be in decline; yellow = bycatch known to occur but the population is not likely to be in decline; orange = bycatch occurs, but level unknown; grey = lack of data; green = bycatch occurs, animals mostly released alive; blue = no bycatch. ** This cell was originally given the colour red. However, given the wide range in estimated bycatch levels from various sources, and an increase in common dolphin population size estimate from the recent SCANS III survey, it is uncertain whether the Bay of Biscay and Iberia common dolphin population is more likely than not to be in decline. It is for these reasons that the colour was changed from red to orange.

77 ICES WGBYC REPORT Table 10. Number of observed bycatch events (no. bycatch) and seabird bycatch rates based on observer programs in Bay of Biscay and Iberia in No. bycatch No. bycatch/days with observer Alca torda Larus sp Melanitta nigra Morus bassanus Phalacrocorax aristotelis Phalacrocorax carbo Puffinus mauretanicus Uria aalge

78 76 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Annex 6: Figures Figure 1. Porpoise Alert (PAL) specifications.

79 ICES WGBYC REPORT Figure 2. Results from PAL paired experimental trials conducted in 2013 and 2016.

80 78 ICES WGBYC REPORT 2017 Figure 3. Analysis comparing behaviour effects on harbour porpoise when exposed to PALs (alerting devices) versus pingers (deterrent devices).