Study

Using fishery-dependent data to inform the development and operation of a co-management initiative to reduce cod mortality and cut discards

  • Published source details Holmes S.J., Bailey N., Campbell N., Catarino R., Barratt K., Gibb A. & Fernandes P.G. (2011) Using fishery-dependent data to inform the development and operation of a co-management initiative to reduce cod mortality and cut discards. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68, 1679-1688.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Establish move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation

Establish temporary fishery closures

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Establish move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2009 of four large, fished areas of seabed in the North Sea and North Atlantic off Scotland, UK (Holmes et al. 2011) found that establishing move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached, resulted in reduced fishing effort and overall discards and landings of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Data were not tested statistically. Of 144 temporary real-time closures implemented in 2009 there was a reduction in fishing activity (measured as change in number of fishing data points or pings recorded by the Vessel Monitoring System 14 d pre-closure to 14 d closure period) for 130, by 10–20 pings for the majority (105), estimated as a reduction of 10–40 h trawling. Fishing activity similarly increased when areas reopened. The reductions gave an estimated overall annual decrease in cod catch (landings and discards) of 707 t. Real-time area closures (equivalent to 7.5 square nautical miles; 21 days duration; maximum of 12 at any one time) were implemented in 2008/09 for Scottish vessels fishing in the seas around Scotland, divided into four zones, to control fishing effort and reduce cod mortality and discarding. Closures were triggered when cod catches exceeded 40 cod/hr and from monitoring analyses of landings and vessel monitoring data in each zone. Data were collected in 2008–2009 from landings, observer trips and Vessel Monitoring Systems that record activity of vessels fishing in and around the closure areas. Activity by non-Scottish vessels not required to adhere to closures was also recorded.

    (Summarised by: Natasha Taylor)

  2. Establish temporary fishery closures

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2009 of a large bottom fished area in the North Sea, off northeast Scotland, UK (Holmes et al. 2011) found that fixed temporary seasonal area closures had little effect on reducing fishing effort for Atlantic cod Gadus morhua during implementation, but real-time area closures reduced overall cod landings and discards. A reduction in the number of vessels operating within the fixed closure areas (45–69 days) was found in only one of three areas, compared to the 14 days before closure (during: 3 vessels, before: 8 vessels) and was lowest in the 14 days after closure (1 vessel), while for the other two closure areas, vessel activity was similar (during: 2–4 vessels, before: 3–4 vessels, after: 1 vessels). A fourth area closed initially for four months (1 December 2008 to 31 March 2009) was kept closed for at least a year because test catch rates of cod exceeded the threshold set for re-opening. In addition, separate real-time closures implemented in 2009 resulted in estimated overall annual reductions in cod catch (landings and discards) of 707 t. Seasonal (total of four) and real-time (maximum of 12 at any one time, closed for 21 days when cod catch rate threshold exceeded) closures were implemented for Scottish vessels in 2008 and 2009 to control fishing effort and reduce mortality and discarding of cod (activity by non-Scottish vessels not required to adhere to closures was recorded). Data were collected in 2008–2009 from landings and monitoring systems of vessels fishing in and around the closure areas.

    (Summarised by: Chris Barrett)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust