The North Sea Advisory Council
Draft Paper (2)
03/03/2015
Use of Pulse Trawls in the North Sea
This paper has been issued for further discussion by NSAC
members and is not NSAC advice.
1.0
Introduction
1.1
The NSAC Focus Group has noted that present knowledge on the use of pulse fishing
gears in the marine environment is informed byl scientific research on catch
composition in flatfish-beam trawling as well as multiannual experience in commercial
fisheries in the scope of pilot projects in the Netherlands.
To date, there is a notable absence of research undertaken on species that are not
actually caught in the gear yet may be impacted on and remain on or in association
with the sea floor.
1.2
There are less numerous surveys and fewer data on the use of pulse trawls in the
brown shrimp fisheries.
2.0
Observed benefits
2.1
Pulse trawling offers the opportunity to reduce fuel costs and improve the carbon
footprint of the catch by reducing the weight of the gears and increasing their efficiency
in flatfish fisheries.
2.2
The economic performance of pulse trawls in sole fisheries has the potential to be
significantly better than traditional beam trawls.
2.3
There is some evidence that the use of pulse trawls compared with traditional beam
trawling reduces both unwanted bycatch in flatfish fisheries and the direct physical
Advice on the Use of Pulse Trawls in the North Sea
For Discussion
impact on the sea floor,, though this is dependent on the technical specifications of the
gear involved. However, the it must be noted here that the impacts to the diverse range
sea floor species not caught in the trawl net as a result of repetitive exposure to electric
shock from pulse trawl gear, has not been well researched.
3.0
Observed risks
3.1
A number of risks remain including,
a)
Clear enforcement and control regulations are still absentElectricity can damage
fish (e.g. cod spinal damage, ulcers)Pulse gear allows expansion into other areas
previously inaccessible to beam trawling, which may increase the footprint of
trawling and the collective benthic impact compared with traditional beam
trawling;
b)
There remains an unknown potential for different non-lethal effects on fish and
benthic organisms; which is of particular concern in areas already designated as
SACs.
c)
In a shrimp fishery there is potential to overfish the stock due to increase of gear
efficiency.
d)
The Dutch “large scale experiment” or “pilot project” with 84 licenses offers a risk
of unfair competition on common fishing grounds and disrupts the idea of a level
playing field in Europe.
e)
Fishing with such gear has not been proven to not have a significant effect in
European Marine Sites.
4.0
Open questions
4.1
The members of the Pulse Focus Group have identified some questions that require
further investigation. These are;
a)
The procedures for introducing new gears are not clear in the EU in relation to
general criteria for licensing and allocation of licenses in European waters.
b)
There is no “best practice” in European waters for impact assessment of new
gears and techniques in general and in relation to Natura-2000 MPAs. On this
basis, impact assessment data in relation to pulse trawling is limited and currently
unsatisfactory..
c)
The technical details of the gear are not standardized and have potential for unwanted
damage to the marine environment.
d)
What are the impacts to the diverse range of sea floor species not caught in the trawl
net as a result of repetitive exposure to electric shock from pulse trawl gear? What is
the schedule and experimental design to research such impacts?
Advice on the Use of Pulse Trawls in the North Sea
For Discussion
e)
4.2
A number of further questions and concerns have been listed and will be
investigated over the coming weeks. These are listed in Appendix 1.
5.0
Conclusion
5.1
Taking into account the opportunities which are connected with pulse trawls in both the
sole and brown shrimp fishery the NSAC asks for immediate action on the following
points:
1. There should be no further allocation of licenses in the North Sea, until the full
evaluation of the research and monitoring program.
2. Licensing for sole and shrimp fisheries with pulse trawls has to be handled
separately.
3. No further pilot projects should be conducted by Member States without
consulting the relevant Advisory Councils, in line with Article 14 of the CFP
Basic Regulation.
4. Pulse fishing should not be allowed within Natura 2000 MPAs without an
appropriate assessment that concludes that it will not adversely affect the
integrity of the site.
5. The vast footprint and industrial scale of the fishery doesn’t suggest a controlled
experiment on a narrow area with good understanding of impacts on infauna,
water chemistry and ecosystem function after the passage of the gear.
6. A European expert group as a subgroup of the “Scheveningen group” should
be established and work as a steering group on all issues in relation to pulse
trawls in cooperation with the NSAC.
7. A new request for ICES-Advice on state of the knowledge, evaluation of
monitoring of present pulse trawling, technical details, impacts of pulse trawls
and further research has to be prepared (in line with the questions and
ce=oncerns set out in Appendix 1.
8. All research carried out to assess the impacts of pulse trawl should be done in
a clear and transparent setting with opportunity for stakeholders to input on the
research questions and discuss progress and outcomes.
Advice on the Use of Pulse Trawls in the North Sea
For Discussion