Presentation of ICES advice - EU request on emergency measures to prevent bycatch of Baltic Proper harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/eu.2020.04.pdf https://10.17895/ices.advice.6023
2. Background
In July 2019, a group of NGOs submitted a document to the
European Commission “Fisheries Emergency Measures for the
Baltic Sea harbour porpoise”
The submission triggered a special request for advice from
DGMare to ICES on emergency measures to prevent bycatch of
NE Atlantic common dolphin and Baltic harbour porpoise.
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/HAPISG/2020/WKEMBYC%
202020%20Draft%20Report.pdf see annex 12.
3. Status of Baltic Proper harbour porpoise
EU Member State assessments & EU biogeographical
assessment of conservation status of harbour porpoise in
the Baltic Marine Region classified the status as
“unfavourable-bad“ for the three consecutive assessments
under Article 17.
Listed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN and HELCOM.
4. EU request: on emergency measures to prevent bycatch
of common dolphin & Baltic Proper harbour porpoise
Concerning common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay and harbour porpoise in the
Baltic Sea, ICES is requested to:
• review current conservation status & threats to the populations,
including threat due to commercial fisheries by-catches, taking account
of any further relevant information, including document from NGOs.
• evaluate whether the measures described in the submitted document
are necessary and appropriate, in the context of EU law.
• if evaluated measures are deemed inappropriate, to advise on
any alternative measure to ensure a satisfactory conservation
status of these stocks, in the context of EU law.
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/eu.2020.04.pdf
5. Specific EU regulations
Common fisheries policy 2013
Articles 2 and 12 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013
Technical measures 2019
Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 1241/2019
Habitats directive 1992
Article 1(i) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
Representatives from DGMARE & DGENV assisted throughout
6. Key advice
The proposed measures by NGOs for both the common
dolphin in the Bay of Biscay and the Baltic Proper harbour
porpoise are appropriate to reduce the bycatch.
However, several spatio-temporal & technical
amendments are recommended.
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/eu.2020.04.pdf
7. Key advice - Baltic Proper harbour porpoise
A use of a combination of spatial-temporal closures &
application of pingers in static net fisheries (i.e. trammelnet,
gillnet, & semi-driftnet).
If the Baltic Proper harbour porpoise management unit is to
meet the management objective of achieving bycatches below
the potential biological removal (PBR) limit (< 0.7 individuals per
year), all fisheries of concern should be closed.
Bycatch, anthropogenic pollution, & underwater noise are the
major threats to the Baltic Proper harbour porpoise.
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/eu.2020.04.pdf
8. Key advice – poor information base
Ongoing issues with data availability & quality, contributing to high
levels of uncertainty in the estimation of population abundance,
distribution, bycatch, & other major threats for small cetaceans.
Notably, observer coverage is well below 1% of the total effort in
most fisheries.
ICES recommends enhanced monitoring to assess
effectiveness of management measures & to
augment precision in population abundance &
bycatch mortality estimates.
9. Key advice – lack of reference levels
Conservation objectives set out under relevant EU legislation (HD &
MSFD) need to be defined more quantitatively.
Many EU Member States have not yet established baselines or
reference levels for population abundance or pressures, such as
bycatch, against which the status of the species can be assessed.
ICES therefore reiterates its previous advice that it is willing to assist
competent authorities to establish limits for anthropogenic
mortality, against which human impacts can be assessed.
10. Elaboration of the advice
It remains uncertain whether this group constitutes a population or
a subpopulation; there are significant genetic differences between
the Belt Sea and the Baltic Proper harbour porpoises.
Thus, the Baltic Proper harbour porpoise should be managed as a
separate management unit.
12. Elaboration of the advice
ICES proposes a set of five bycatch
mitigation measures that, if implemented
as a whole, are expected to reduce bycatch
of Baltic Proper harbour porpoise.
A combination of gear focused spatio-
temporal closures of fisheries and use of
pingers.
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/eu.2020.04.pdf see table 4
13. Monitoring measures recommended
1. Accurate spatio-temporal recording of fishing effort (in
appropriate metrics on métiers used by all vessels)
2. Increased dedicated monitoring of bycatch of PETS
3. Monitoring of harbour porpoise occurrence
4. Compliance control of mitigation measures (pinger use)
14. Suggestions
1. Long-term acoustic monitoring in key areas for Baltic Proper harbour
porpoise population.
2. Repeated large-scale acoustic surveys of harbour porpoise.
3. Sample & necropsy for stranded & bycaught harbour porpoises.
Development & implementation of fishing gears that have a low bycatch
risk for harbour porpoises deserves a high priority.
