The North Sea Advisory Council
Agenda No. 7.0
Paper No. 7.2
Demersal Working Group
14th April 2015
Paper for Discussion
Advice in Development
Use of Pulse Trawls in the North Sea
1.0
Introduction
1.1
The NSAC Pulse Focus Group has reminded that the use of pulse fishing gear in the
marine environment is a forbidden fishery technic according to the article 31 of the
Council Regulation (EC) No. 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through
technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. In 2006
derogation allowed fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current in a part of
the ICES divisions IVc and IVb, with no more than 5 % of the beam trawler fleet per
Member State use the electric pulse trawl. In 2011, 20 more licences were attributed
to the Dutch fleet. In 2014, 42 more licences were attributed to the Dutch fleet in the
framework of a pilot experimental project.
1.2
The NSAC Pulse Focus Group has noted that present knowledge on the use of pulse
fishing gears in the marine environment is informed by 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
lack of knowledge 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.
1.3
At present there are fewer vessels involved and as a consequence less 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.
NSAC draft advice is for consideration by NSAC members only. It does not represent the
opinions of the NSAC and must NOT be copied or circulated to others without prior approval
of the NSAC Executive Committee.
2.2
So far the economic performance of pulse trawls in sole fisheries is significantly better
than traditional Dutch beam trawls.
2.3
There is some evidence that the use of pulse trawls reduces both unwanted bycatch
in flatfish and shrimp fisheries and direct physical impact on the sea floor compared
with traditional beam trawl, yet there has been limited research on the impact to sea
floor species (infauna and epifaunal) and processes from single or repetitive exposure
to electric shock.
3.0
Observed risks
3.1
A number of risks remain including,
a)
Clear enforcement and control regulations are not yet fully developed and must
be improved.
b)
Pulse trawling can damage fish (e.g. cod spinal damage).
c)
Pulse gear allows expansion into other areas previously inaccessible to beam
trawling, which may increase the footprint of trawling and the collective impact
compared with traditional beam trawling;
d)
There remains an unknown potential for different lethal and non-lethal effects on
fish in all stages of development and benthic organisms and detrimental longterm effects to the ecological role of the seafloor, including the biogeochemical
functioning including the microbial loop.
e)
In a shrimp fishery the increase of gear efficiency may contribute to overfishing
of the stock in absence of TACs
f)
The 84 derogations assigned to Dutch vessels offers a risk of unfair competition
on common fishing grounds and disrupts the idea of a level playing field in
Europe.
g)
Fishing with such gear has not been proven to not have a significant effect in
European Marine Sites, as such it should be restricted from European Marine
Sites until such time as a significant effect can be discounted, along with other
forms of towed fishing gears.
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 licences in European waters.
b)
There is no “best practice” in relation to public consultation and information
gathering on the introduction in European waters of new gears and techniques
in generalIin relation to Natura 2000the legislation does not allow new plans or
projects that could have a significant effect on listed features until such time as
an appropriate assessment has proved no significant effect.
NSAC draft advice is for consideration by NSAC members only. It does not represent the
opinions of the NSAC and must NOT be copied or circulated to others without prior approval
of the NSAC Executive Committee.
c)
The technical details of the gear are not standardised or restricted (eg. voltage
limiters) and have potential for unwanted damage to the marine environment and
increasing fishing effort.
d)
What are the impacts on the diverse range of sea floor species not caught in
the trawl net, as a result of single or repetitive exposure to electric shock from
pulse trawl gear? What is the schedule and controlled experimental design1 to
research such impacts?
In this regard it must be noted that 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 gear, have not been well researched.
.
e)
What are the long-term effects of pulse trawling on the ecological role of the
seafloor with special regard to the sediment water column interactions via e.g.
bioturbation and bioirrigation, the microbial loop and the biogeochemical
cycling.
f)
What are the requirements of the monitoring programme all license holders of
pulse gear are obliged to take part in.
g)
Following the most recent Focus Group 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 and research for sole and shrimp fisheries with pulse trawls has to
be handled separately.
3. A joint standard for a data logger (black box) which securely prevents and
changes to the hardware and to the software of the black box and functioning
of the electrodes needs to be found.
The area of the experiment being “the entire North Sea” is not a controlled experiment. This is
particularly the case when there is unknown effort of fishing using beam and otter trawls in the same
area that could be a cumulative impact to the initial pass of a pulse trawl.
NSAC draft advice is for consideration by NSAC members only. It does not represent the
opinions of the NSAC and must NOT be copied or circulated to others without prior approval
of the NSAC Executive Committee.
1
4. GPS coordinates should be constantly logged on the black box during fishing
activities of the vessels for close observation of potential displacement effects
of pulse fisheries as a result of a widened fishing range into previously unfished
areas and for an improved database for long-term research of the effects of
pulse fishing on the environment.
5. If Member States wish to engage in a pilot programme under Article 14 of the
CFP Basic Regulation the relevant Advisory Councils must be consulted in
advance
6. Pulse fishing as with any other gear can only be allowed, if at all, within Natura
2000 sites and other (e.g. national) MPAs subject to assessment according to
the appropriate regulation including compliance with Article 6 of the EU
Habitats Directive.
7. The vast footprint and industrial scale of the pulse trawl fishery doesn’t suggest
a controlled experiment on a narrow area with good understanding of impacts
on fauna, water and seafloor chemistry and ecosystem function after the
passage of the gear.
8. 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.
9. 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
concerns set out in Appendix 1).
10. 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 and sharing with the
ICES Electra working group. The Dutch government will offer a benchmark
workshop on monitoring and research of pulse fishing.
11. An MSC assessment gives the opportunity for a fishery to be evaluated in a
transparent and science-based way. A successful certification shows the progress
towards sustainability made by the fishery. Therefore NSAC supports the initiative
of the Dutch pulse fishery to enter the MSC process with their fishery
NSAC draft advice is for consideration by NSAC members only. It does not represent the
opinions of the NSAC and must NOT be copied or circulated to others without prior approval
of the NSAC Executive Committee.