ICES Journal of Marine Science (2011), 68(8), 1606–1610. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsr065
Fully documented fishery: a tool to support a catch quota
management system
Lotte Kindt-Larsen*, Eskild Kirkegaard, and Jørgen Dalskov
National Institute of Aquatic Resources, DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark, Jaegersborg Allé 1, 2920 Charlottenlund, Denmark
*Corresponding Author: tel: +45 35883300; fax: +45 35883333; e-mail: [email protected].
Kindt-Larsen, L., Kirkegaard, E., and Dalskov, J. 2011. Fully documented fishery: a tool to support a catch quota management system. – ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1606 – 1610.
Received 14 October 2010; accepted 28 March 2011; advance access publication 13 May 2011.
The Danish Government has proposed a catch quota management system (CQMS) in which fishers are obliged to report their total
catches, including discards and landings, and both are counted against the formal total allowable catch (TAC). The success of a CQMS
requires appropriate documentation to verify the total catch, the validity of scientific advice, and the implementation of the TACs
through national catch quotas. A remote electronic monitoring (EM) system, providing full documentation of fishing operations
and catches, was tested on six Danish fishing vessels operating under a CQMS for cod (Gadus morhua). The results showed that
the EM system could provide the documentation required to support the CQMS and that it was an incentive for the participating
fishers to avoid discarding cod. Changing from landings to total catch quotas would not affect the scientific-advisory processes of the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), but it could have notable consequences for the allocation of TACs between
countries.
Keywords: catch quota management, CCTV cameras, discards, fully documented fishery, remote electronic monitoring.
Introduction
A central measure in the Common Fisheries Policy of the
European Union (EU) is the limitation of catches through the
setting of a total allowable catch (TAC; EU, 2002). The TAC is
defined as the quantity of fish that can be taken and landed
annually from each stock (EU, 2010a, b). Each year, the EU
decides the TACs for individual fish and shellfish stocks (EU,
2002), then these are divided between Member States (MS) in
fixed proportions determined based on historical performance.
This is the so-called principle of relative stability. It means that
each MS receives a share of each EU quota that remains constant
over time.
For many stocks, there has been a mismatch between the TAC
and the actual catch taken. The 2010 ICES assessment of cod
(Gadus morhua) in the North Sea, eastern English Channel, and
the Skagerrak found that landings had been 30 800 t in 2009,
but that discards had been an estimated 14 600 t. However,
based on research-vessel surveys, ICES estimated the total
removals from the stock to be 91 400 t (ICES, 2010). Almost all
the removals were attributed to fishing, mostly to discarding of
undersized cod, overquota catching, and highgrading. This
means that the reported catches (landings plus discards) only
accounted for about half the estimated removals. It is the landings
that were counted against the TAC, and they were just around
one-third of the removals. In the period 2005– 2009, the reported
landings fluctuated between 32 and 56% of the estimated total
removals (ICES, 2010).
The EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for
Fisheries (STECF, 2010) used North Sea cod to illustrate problems
with fishery management under the present TAC and quota rules.
The STECF identified two ways to eliminate or reduce the mismatch between the TAC and the actual catches: first, restricting
fishing effort to a level that would generate the fishing mortality
required to catch the TAC, and second, redefining the TAC to
cover the total catches and not just the landings. The STECF estimated that the reduction in fishing effort required to match the
current TAC would be 75% of the predicted effort level in
2010. A 2011 TAC reflecting total removals would need to be
71 400 t, i.e. more than twice that based on landings. The
STECF stresses that such a measure would need appropriate monitoring of the total cod catch which would count against the TAC.
Recognizing these problems, fishery authorities in Denmark,
the UK, and Germany signed a joint statement in October 2009
agreeing to explore the scope for a voluntary and incentive-driven
management scheme based on total catch quotas (FVM, 2009).
Such an approach, if implemented, would be a paradigm shift in
the EU fishery management regime.
A catch quota scheme requires that both landings and discards be monitored, reported, and documented. To establish
whether complete documentation using remote electronic monitoring (EM) systems can achieve this, the National Institute of
Aquatic Resources (DTU Aqua) in the Technical University of
Denmark conducted a 1-year pilot study to evaluate EM technology. This paper presents the results from that Danish pilot
trial carried out in 2008/2009. We discuss the implementation
of a catch quota system, focusing on the possibilities for deploying new catch monitoring technologies, taking account of the
requirements for scientific advice on fishing opportunities,
and the implications for allocating total catch quotas between
countries.
# 2011 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Oxford Journals. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
A fully documented fishery
1607
The Danish EM trial
trips and 1972 fishing events were recorded. Analysis of the
sensor data showed 608 trips and 2330 fishing events.
The collection of sensor data continued for the entire duration
of the experiment. This was 97.8% complete for all vessels. Missing
GPS signals or electric-power failure were the main reasons for the
missing 2.2%.
The cod discard estimates made by the skipper were compared
with those determined from the video records. The results showed
that in 72% of the analysed fishing operations, the fisher and video
estimates were within the same weight interval. In all, 19% of the
fisher estimates were higher and 9% lower than those derived from
the video recordings (Table 1).
For the three demersal trawlers which fished in the North Sea
and the Skagerrak, the distributions of size grades in the monthly
cod landings were compared between the trial vessels and others
in the Danish demersal trawler fleet. The latter included 186
vessels fishing in the Skagerrak and 105 in the North Sea. There
are five size grades by fish length: 1 is the largest and 5 the smallest.
Before the trial (June– August 2008), grades 4 and 5 made up
,20% of the total cod landings of the one trial vessel fishing in
the North Sea (Figure 1a). This increased to 35% during the
trial period, so the vessel retained more of the smaller but still
legal-sized cod, indicating less highgrading (i.e. discarding cod
above the minimum landing size) during the trial. No such
change was observed for other (non-participating) demersal trawlers fishing in the North Sea, which landed 18% of grades 4 and 5
(Figure 1b). An even clearer picture is seen in the results from the
Skagerrak. There, the landings of size grades 4 and 5 constituted
65% of all cod landed by the trial vessels in February
(Figure 1c), whereas those by the rest of the fleet were just 25%
of the relevant total (Figure 1d).
Different length distributions of the cod discards were apparent
between those reported by the skippers or crew of the trial vessels
and those obtained by scientific observers on other vessels fishing
in the same areas. Figure 2a compares these distributions for cod discards in the North Sea, where the minimum landing size is 35 cm;
Figure 2b shows the corresponding results for the Skagerrak
(minimum landing size 30 cm). These results reveal that highgrading was common among vessels not involved in the pilot study.
The average proportions of cod discarded by vessels participating in the trial ranged from 1.2 to 12.6% (mean 4.83%). These may
be compared with the fishery observer results during the years
2006–2008 obtained under the Danish Data Collection
Framework Programme (DCF; EU, 2008). The observer estimates
of cod discards by Danish fishers using towed gear (trawls and
Methods for monitoring and documenting catches
The EM system used in the trial was developed by Archipelago
Marine Research Ltd, Canada. It consisted of sensor, imagery,
and control units (McElderry et al., 2003; Ames et al., 2007).
The imagery unit had up to four waterproof armoured-dome
closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. During all catch
events, it recorded overhead views of the working deck and catchhandling areas, and closer views of the discard chutes. The sensor
units included a hydraulic pressure sensor, a photoelectric sensor
to detect winch-drum rotation, and an independent Global
Positioning System (GPS). The last recorded the geographic position along with the vessel name, date, and time of all activities.
The sensors and cameras were connected to a control box
located in the wheelhouse.
The control box consisted of a computer that logged the sensors
and controlled the video recordings. The sensor data were
recorded continuously while at sea. The video records began at
the first fishing operation (detected by the pressure sensor) and
continued until the return to port.
The EM systems were deployed on six Danish commercial
fishing vessels (one gillnetter, one Danish seiner, and four trawlers)
fishing for demersal species. During the trial, one trawler was sold
and was replaced for the experiment by another (so seven entries
are shown in Table 1). The skippers were requested to report
certain information additional to the official logbook requirements. For each haul, this included: date, times, and positions of
shooting and hauling the gear; weights of the total catch and the
retained portion of it, by species; total weight and length frequency
distribution of the discarded cod (if ,50 cod, all were measured,
or else a subsample of 50 was taken). Weight estimates of other discarded species were also recorded.
The video data were subsequently analysed by trained staff,
using the Video Analyser software developed by Archipelago
Marine Research Ltd. This involved viewing the catch-handling
activities and estimating the cod discards in weight intervals of
0 –5, 5 –10, 10 –20, 20– 50, 50 –100, 100 –250, 250 –500, 500–
1000, and .1000 kg. Accurate weight determination was not possible by visual inspection, but rough estimates were based on the
observed sizes of the fish being discarded. The sensor data were
analysed by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd, who determined
the spatial and temporal parameters for each fishing trip and haul.
The vessels contracted by DTU Aqua participated on a voluntary basis. They were given a bonus—an additional quota allowance that corresponded to the discard estimate provided by
ICES for the relevant year (ICES, 2007, 2008). In 2008, the trial
started in early September, and the additional quota was scaled
to the remaining proportion of that year. The trial ended on 31
July 2009, so for that year, the additional quota was 7/12 of the
potential annual allowance. All EM systems were owned by DTU
Aqua and issued on loan to participants during the study
period. The fishers were trained in how to use the equipment, to
record the additional information in supplementary logbooks,
and to carry out length measurements on the fish.
Results
The pilot study was conducted in the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the
Kattegat, and the Baltic Sea. According to the official logbooks, the
participating vessels performed 599 fishing trips and conducted
1574 fishing events. In the supplementary logbooks, 586 fishing
Table 1. Fishing events as percentages of the total where the
viewer of EM imagery estimated less, the same, or more cod
discards (in weight) than fishers in the Danish fishery for cod
operating in the North Sea and Skagerrak between September 2008
and July 2009.
Vessel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Mean (%)
Fisher < viewer
4
8
12
0
0
5
35
9
Fisher 5 viewer
85
69
57
90
82
62
60
72
Fisher > viewer
11
23
31
10
18
33
5
19
1608
L. Kindt-Larsen et al.
Figure 1. Proportion of cod landings by fish size grade and month (June 2008 –July 2009). (a) Participating trawler operating in the North Sea;
(b) other (non-participating) trawlers (n ¼ 105) operating in the North Sea; (c) two participating trawlers operating in the Skagerrak; (d)
non-participating trawlers operating in the Skagerrak (n ¼ 186).
Figure 2. Length frequency distributions of cod discarded by the trial vessels and observer vessels fishing in (a) the North Sea, 2006 – 2008, and
(b) the Skagerrak, 2006– 2008.
Danish Seines), as percentages of the total catch, were 48% in the
North Sea, 53% in the Kattegat, 9% in the western Baltic, and 8%
in the eastern Baltic (EU, 2008).
The costs by vessel of installation and annual maintenance of
the system, as well as the costs of analysing the data collected,
were estimated from the expenses of the Danish trial to be
E10 200 and E4100, respectively (Table 2).
Discussion
The EM system was fully implemented on the Danish trial vessels.
Generally, it worked well, with only minor data loss in extreme
environments.
There were variable results in terms of the number of trips and
hauls reported by the fishers and in the official logbooks. These
were most likely due to differences in the way skippers were
1609
A fully documented fishery
Table 2. Estimated costs of installing an EM system and its annual
running costs (excluding tax) per vessel, based on 300 d at sea and
500 hauls per year, and price data for 2009.
Price (E)
Installation costs per vessel
EM equipment
Installation
Consumables, mounting equipment, etc.
Total
Estimated running costs
Maintenance of the system
Exchange of hard disk
Sensor data analysis
10% image analysis
Total
7 500
1 200
1 500
10 200
500
1 000
2 000
1 000
4 100
reporting. For example, the official logbooks were only filled in
daily, whereas the supplementary logbooks should have been
filled haul by haul, or one gillnet set might have been confused
with another, or simply forgetfulness on the part of the skipper.
The differences in the number of trips and hauls between
logbook recordings and sensor data were attributable to trips
where the vessels had left port but not fished because of, for
example, extreme environmental conditions.
The consistency in discard estimates of cod from fishers and
video records indicates that it is possible to estimate cod discards
reasonably precisely from visual information. Accurate weight
determination was not possible visually, but the video viewers
could provide useful estimates usually.
The vessels participating in the trial discarded very few legalsized cod, the size compositions of their landings differing
notably from those of non-participating vessels, as shown in
Figure 1. The small proportion of small cod in the landings of nonparticipating vessels compared with those within the experiment
indicated that highgrading of cod is a common practice in the
fishery; there is no reason to believe that the trial vessels were targeting smaller cod than the others. However, when the results were
presented to participating fishers, the latter explained that they
were more aware of catch compositions than before the experiment, and more often than normal, had changed fishing
grounds to avoid small cod. It has not been possible so far to
test whether such changes in fishing behaviour were actually made.
The costs of the EM approach can be compared with those of
seagoing fishery observers. The annual cost of a Danish observer
who on board a fishing vessel for 300 d is approximately
E200 000, including salary, at-sea allowances, and travel. The
EM system delivers much the same data, except for the accuracy
of discard weights, for one-tenth of the observer costs.
Moreover, the EM system has the advantage of continuous monitoring of all trips and hauls.
The quality of skipper records could be improved through linkages between e-log and electronic-weighing equipment, and
better catch-handling facilities, such as conveyer belts. Better
information from skippers would mean fewer requirements in
terms of hails and other controls and would simplify their verification against video records. The costs of video examination depend
on the skill of the viewer, because well-trained personnel can do
this work more quickly. Camera placement and the number of
discard chutes will also influence the time spent on image analysis.
Other studies have tested the ability of EM systems to provide
accurate estimates of total catch, e.g. directed and incidental
catches of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) in the
Canadian longline fishery (Stanley et al., 2009), incidental
seabird capture in the Alaskan longline fishery (Ames et al.,
2005), and bycatch in the Alaskan Pacific longline fishery for
halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis; Ames et al., 2007). All these
studies found the EM technique to be reliable and capable of documenting catches in the respective fisheries accurately. They concluded that EM can be an effective way to monitor and document
both the retained and the discarded parts of the catch. However, all
the studies were on longline fisheries, whose results may not be
representative of trawl fisheries. In longlining, the captured fish
are hauled one by one, making it very easy to count the catch.
This is a very different procedure from sampling a trawl catch.
In the Danish trial, however, the EM system delivered reliable
information on cod discards, given certain minimum requirements in terms of the deck layout and the catch-handling procedures on the vessels.
Scientific advice on catch quotas
The scientific advice on fishing opportunities provided by ICES
and STECF aims to provide catch options for the coming year
that are consistent with the restrictions on fishing mortality
required by policy frameworks such as maximum sustainable
yield, the precautionary approach, and agreed management
plans (ICES, 2010; STECF, 2010). The advice is based on the estimates of total removals from a stock. For EU MS, catch data are
delivered in accordance with the EU DCF (EU, 2008). These
should include information on both discards and landings. The
catch forecast in the advice does, in principle, cover total catches
and not just the landings, but discards may not be properly considered in such assessments because the uncertainty around
discard volume estimates is often substantial. The introduction
of total catch quotas will not involve any change in the present
advice for stocks whose landing and discard data are both available. However, different advice would be needed for fisheries
with substantial but unknown levels of discarding.
Allocation of TACs
The historical fishery records used for allocation keys usually only
reflect landings, with no consideration of discards. Often, there
have been major changes in the dynamics and spatial distribution
of stocks, and more generally in fishing activities, since the allocation keys were established. The resulting quotas available to
EU MS often may not match the present circumstances of their
fisheries.
The introduction of total catch quotas may further add to the
potential mismatch between the current allocation keys and the
reported catches, and this can be illustrated by very different
ratios between discards and currently reported landings, by
number of cod, in various North Sea fisheries. In 2008, the quantity of discards as a percentage of landings was 32% in the Scottish
fishery, 54% in the Danish fishery, and 96% in the German fishery
(STECF, 2010).
Under the present landings quota rules, MS can to a large
extent compensate for mismatches between quota allocations
and actual catches of their fleets by quota-swapping between
countries or groups of vessels. However, changing from landings
to total catch quotas would for many stocks add to the mismatch
between the allocation key and the catch distribution; a complicated quota-swapping system would be required if the present relative balance between national quotas were to be maintained. More
1610
year-to-year flexibility could ensure that a shift to total catch
quotas would not introduce unnecessary limitations in mixed
fisheries.
The implementation of total catch quotas needs to be adequately explained to the stakeholders who will be unsure of the
consequences. Of course, total catch quotas will have to be
higher than landing quotas to account for the discards that are currently not registered in the landings.
Conclusions
One argument against a total catch quota scheme is that it may be
impossible to control and enforce it in practice, because the total
catches cannot be determined accurately without 100% observer
coverage. However, we believe that these control and enforcement
issues can be resolved in most fisheries by the use of EM. The EM
technique functions efficiently. The sensor and video data document fishing events in considerable detail, and the retained and
discarded parts of catches can be verified. The costs of implementing and operating EM systems are small compared with the traditional observer schemes.
The main challenge in introducing a total catch quota scheme
relates to the allocation of TACs between countries and consequent
changes in the relative stability. Experience has shown, at least in
Europe, that this is the most difficult element of fishery management. In particular, the different distributions of total catches
and landings between fisheries in relation to TAC allocation strategies need to be addressed.
An important feature of a total catch quota scheme is that it
inherently presents the fishers with an incentive to optimize the
catch selectivity of their fishing operations. Any catches of undersized or unmarketable fish will reduce their incomes. The experiences gained from the Danish trial indicate that the fishers were
able to and did change their behaviour to avoid fishing grounds
where large proportions of small cod were being caught.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the cooperation and feedback from all participating vessels. We thank Archipelago Marine Research Ltd for
technical support with the EM system and data analysis, in particular Howard McElderry, Maria Jose Pria, and Morgan Dyas.
Additionally, we thank our colleagues at DTU Aqua for their
effort and dedication, especially Reinhardt Jensen. We are also
grateful for the input of two anonymous referees whose comments
greatly improved the quality of the final product. Finally, we thank
the Danish Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and the
European Fisheries Fund for funding the project.
References
Ames, R. T., Leaman, B. M., and Ames, K. L. 2007. Evaluation of video
technology for monitoring of multispecies longline catches. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management, 27: 955– 964.
L. Kindt-Larsen et al.
Ames, R. T., Williams, G. H., and Flitzgerald, S. M. 2005. Using digital
video monitoring systems in fisheries: application for monitoring
compliance of Sea bird avoidance devices and sea bird mortality
in Pacific halibut longline fisheries. US Department of
Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-AFSC-152.
93 pp.
EU. 2002. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December
2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries
resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of
the European Communities, L 358.
EU. 2008. Data Collection Framework (DCF): Council Regulation
(EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a community frame-work for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support
for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy.
EU, Brussels. 12 pp.
EU. 2010a. Council Regulation (EU) No. 23/2010 of 14 January 2010
fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and
groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in
waters where catch limitations are required and amending
Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No
1226/2009, and (EC) No 1287/2009. Official Journal of the
European Union, L 21.
EU. 2010b. Council Regulation (EU) No. 219/2010 of 15 March 2010
amending Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 as regards the fishing
opportunities for certain fish stocks and following the conclusion
of the bilateral fisheries arrangements for 2010 with Norway and
the Faroe Islands. Official Journal of the European Union, L 71.
FVM. 2009. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark.
Paving the way for a New Common Fisheries Policy (revised 15
October 2009). http://www.fvm.dk/Yieldoffish.
ICES. 2007. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery
Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment
and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems. Cod in Subarea IV
(North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel), and IIIa
(Skagerrak). ICES Advice, 6, North Sea. 249 pp.
ICES. 2008. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Cod in Subarea
IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel), and IIIa
(Skagerrak). ICES Advice, 6, North Sea. 326 pp.
ICES. 2010. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Cod in Subarea
IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel), and IIIa
(Skagerrak). ACIS Advice, 6, North Sea. 305 pp.
McElderry, H., Schrader, J., and Illingworth, J. 2003. The efficacy of
video-based monitoring for the halibut fishery. Canadian Science
Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2003/042. 79 pp.
Stanley, R. D., Olsen, N., and Fedoruk, A. 2009. Independent validation of the accuracy of yelloweye rockfish catch estimates from
the Canadian Groundfish Integration Pilot Project Marine and
Coastal Fisheries. Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem
Science, 1: 354– 362.
STECF. 2010. 34th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical
and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-10-02), 12 – 16 July
2010, Copenhagen. 174 pp. http://www.nsrac.org/wp-content/
uploads/2010/07/STECF-PLEN-10-02-21-FINAL-REPORTPENDING-ISBN-NUMBER.pdf.