Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in ... - ProDelphinus

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Shark Depredation and Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries Page 32 Acoustic deterrents may reduce shark-longline interactions, but have not been tested in longline fisheries for any shark species. 7.2. Hotspot Avoidance through Fleet Communication and Protected Areas Fleet communication programs and area and seasonal closures are management tools that can enable a longline fleet to avoid bycatch hotspots that can complement employment of other strategies to reduce shark bycatch and depredation. The distribution of sharks and other species groups such as seabirds, sea turtles and cetaceans, is often unpredictable, and may be spatially contagious or aggregated. Consequently, fleet communication systems may be employed by fishing industry to report near real-time observations of hotspots to enable a fishery to operate as a coordinated “One Fleet” to substantially reduce fleet-wide depredation and bycatch of sharks (Gilman et al. 2006c). In addition, fleet coordination of daily fishing positions and times, a current practice in many fleets, may minimize per vessel shark interaction levels relative to vessels that fish in isolation (Gilman et al., 2006c). Area and seasonal closures can also contribute to reducing shark-longline interactions. Establishing protected areas within a nation's Exclusive Economic Zone is potentially an expedient method to reduce shark-longline interactions. However, establishing and managing high seas marine protected areas to protect sharks, which would require extensive and dynamic boundaries and extensive buffers, may not be a viable short-term solution. This is due in part to the extensive time anticipated to (i) resolve legal complications with international treaties, including creating legally binding mechanisms for multilateral designation and management of high seas protected areas; (ii) achieve international consensus and political will; (iii) provide requisite extensive resources for surveillance and enforcement, in part, to control illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities; and (iv) improve the scientific basis for designing high seas marine protected areas, which can be effective at reducing shark interactions only where the location and times of occurrence of shark hotspots are known and predictable (Gilman, 2001). However, establishing and managing a representative system of protected area networks on the high seas to contribute to the management of interactions between marine capture fisheries and highly migratory sensitive species groups, including sharks, may eventually be realized. Recent developments within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and associated conventions and by several Regional Fishery Management Organizations may make it possible in the near future to establish marine protected areas on the high seas that restrict fishing activities that are shown to threaten rare or fragile ecosystems or the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life. It is already possible to establish high seas marine protected areas for discrete areas by agreement by individual countries. However, there remains a need for an international framework with specific language to identify the criteria to establish a representative system of high seas marine protected area networks, and management and enforcement measures for the individual marine protected areas. Several regional fishery management organizations are updating their scope and legal mandate to include ecosystem-based management and biodiversity conservation under the auspices of the Fish Stocks Agreement. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources has made some preliminary progress towards establishing a system of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. Consequences of establishing a protected area need to be carefully considered, as resource use restrictions of a marine protected area may displace effort to adjacent and potentially more sensitive and valuable areas, where weaker management frameworks may be in place (Murray et al., 2000; Baum et al., 2003; Kotas et al., 2004). Also, measures adopted by regional fishery management organizations and other international bodies are only binding to parties to the Convention that established the organization, and will not control activities by non-party States. Thus, another consideration for employing high seas marine protected areas to manage problematic fisheries bycatch is that closing areas to fisheries only of party States could result in increased effort in this area by fleets from non-party States with fewer or no controls to manage bycatch, exacerbating the problem for which the MPA was established to address.
Page 33 Shark Depredation and Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries International bodies have created marine protected areas on the high seas: The International Whaling Commission declared the Indian and Southern Oceans as no-take sanctuaries for whales, covering 30 percent of the world's oceans mostly on the high seas. Conventions governing international shipping have designated large areas of the ocean that include high seas as Special Areas where stringent restrictions apply regarding discharges from ships. Furthermore, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority could protect areas from minerals extraction beyond national jurisdiction where there is a risk of harm to the marine environment (Kelleher, 1999). Recent developments within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and associated conventions may make it possible in the future to restrict fisheries activities on the high seas that are shown to undermine marine conservation (Kelleher, 1999). 7.3. Incentive Instruments Several incentive instruments can be instituted by industry, management authorities, and conservation groups to contribute to industry employment of methods to reduce shark bycatch and injury (Gilman et al., 2002). 7.3.1. National and local constraints National-level legal, regulatory, and policy-derived formal constraints, combined with an effective surveillance and enforcement program, can promote fishing industry compliance with laws, rules, and policies to minimize shark bycatch. For instance, restrictions on shark finning, wire trace and per trip shark retention are examples of regulatory constraints on pelagic longline fishery interactions with sharks. Time/are closures and mandatory use of avoidance techniques (e.g., proscribing a minimum depth for the setting of baited hooks through certain gear design specifications, using fish instead of squid for bait, prohibiting use of light sticks) are other examples of potential regulatory tools to manage shark bycatch and depredation (Hall et al., 2000; Gilman et al., 2005). Fishery management authorities could create a fee and exemption structure for shark bycatch, applicable to individual vessels or to an entire fleet, similar to a “polluter pays” system. Alternatively, the fee structure could provide a positive reward-based incentive, where a higher subsidy, lower permit or license fee, earlier start to the fishing season, or lower taxes apply, and a positive image is portrayed when a vessel or fleet meets standards for shark bycatch. The threat of a fishery closure if performance standards related to shark interactions are not met provides a strong incentive for industry compliance to minimize shark interactions. 7.3.2. Regional and international accords, regulations, and policies Multilateral treaties and accords that address shark interactions can obligate national governments to adopt enabling legislation to manage these interactions. Regional Fishery Management Organizations can adopt regulations and policies to manage interactions between fisheries and sensitive species for compliance by member nations. Multilateral bodies can adopt advisory policies to encourage fishing nations to sustainably manage shark-longline interactions. Recent international initiatives addressing shark finning are summarized in the Introduction. 7.3.3. Eco-labeling Consumer demand can alter industry behavior. In 2005 the Committee on Fisheries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations adopted Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. The new guidelines provide guidance to governments and organizations that already maintain, or are considering establishing, labeling schemes for certifying and promoting labels for fish and fishery products from well-managed marine capture fisheries. A longline fishing industry can pursue certification or accreditation from an eco-labeling certification program, in part, to demonstrate the employment of best practices to reduce shark bycatch and discards. The incentives to industry are market-based, to increase demand for and value of their products, and social, to receive recognition from the public for complying with accepted norms (Wessells et al., 1999). Eco-labeling can serve as an effective marketing tool for a fishing industry, when properly managed. For instance, certification under an eco-labeling scheme can be used as a marketing tool to develop and market an image and product differentiation, through advertising, sales promotion, public relations, direct
Page 1 and 2: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
Page 3 and 4: Page 2 Shark Depredation and Unwant
Page 5 and 6: Page i Shark Depredation and Bycatc
Page 7 and 8: Page iii Shark Depredation and Byca
Page 9 and 10: Page v Shark Depredation and Bycatc
Page 11 and 12: Page vii Shark Depredation and Byca
Page 13 and 14: Page ix Shark Depredation and Bycat
Page 15 and 16: Page 1 Shark Depredation and Bycatc
Page 25 and 26: Page 11 Shark Depredation and Bycat
Page 45: Page 31 Shark Depredation and Bycat
Page 55 and 56: Appendix 1, Australia Page 41 Of th
Page 57 and 58: Appendix 1, Australia Page 43 A1.4.
Page 59 and 60: Appendix 1, Australia Page 45 Tuna
Page 61 and 62: Appendix 1, Australia Page 47 fins,
Page 63 and 64: Appendix 1, Australia Page 49 to ma
Page 65 and 66: Appendix 1, Australia Page 51 alter
Page 67 and 68: Appendix 1, Australia Page 53 influ
Page 69 and 70: Appendix 1, Australia Page 55 Of th
Page 71 and 72: Appendix 1, Australia Page 57 Hook
Page 73 and 74: Appendix 1, Australia Page 59 6. In
Page 75 and 76: Appendix 1, Australia Page 61 30. D
Page 77 and 78: Appendix 1, Australia Page 63 been
Page 79 and 80: Appendix 1, Australia Page 65 The f
Page 81 and 82: Appendix 1, Australia Page 67 Shott
Page 83 and 84: Appendix 2, Chile Page 69 Captures
Page 85 and 86: Appendix 2, Chile Page 71 Landings
Page 87 and 88: Appendix 2, Chile Page 73 Table A2.
Page 89 and 90: Appendix 2, Chile Page 75 Fig. A2.5
Page 91 and 92: Appendix 2, Chile Page 77 A summary
Page 93 and 94: Appendix 2, Chile Page 79 Prices ar
Page 95 and 96: Appendix 2, Chile Page 81 Two of th
Page 97 and 98:
Appendix 2, Chile Page 83 A2.14.6.
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix 2, Chile Page 85 Fig. A2.1
Page 101 and 102:
Appendix 2, Chile Page 87 A2.17. Re
Page 103 and 104:
Appendix 3, Fiji Page 89 • Robert
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix 3, Fiji Page 91 The data i
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix 3, Fiji Page 93 Table A3.4
Page 109 and 110:
Appendix 3, Fiji Page 95 A3.7.2. Pr
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix 3, Fiji Page 97 Table A3.1
Page 113 and 114:
Appendix 3, Fiji Page 99 of whale d
Page 115 and 116:
Appendix 4, Italy Page 101 A4.2. Fl
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix 4, Italy Page 103 Branch l
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix 4, Italy Page 105 catch sp
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix 4, Italy Page 107 Table A4
Page 123 and 124:
Appendix 4, Italy Page 109 (many fi
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 111 Appendix
Page 127 and 128:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 113 A5.2. Hi
Page 129 and 130:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 115 SEA SURF
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 117 A5.3.1.
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 119 period (
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 121 Catch ('
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 123 areas du
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 125 When cut
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 127 o Anothe
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 129 the near
Page 145 and 146:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 131 pieces w
Page 147 and 148:
Appendix 5, Japan Page 133 Japanese
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 135 Appendix
Page 151 and 152:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 137 While the
Page 153 and 154:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 139 Pro Delph
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 141 Table A6.
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 143 Revenue f
Page 159 and 160:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 145 of the ma
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 147 Over a th
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix 6, Peru Page 149 Fig. A6.1
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix 7, South Africa Page 151 A
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix 7, South Africa Page 153 N
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix 7, South Africa Page 155 A
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix 7, South Africa Page 157 T
Page 173 and 174:
Appendix 7, South Africa Page 159 t
Page 175 and 176:
Appendix 7, South Africa Page 161 T
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 163 Table A
Page 179 and 180:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 165 Average
Page 181 and 182:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 167 regulat
Page 183 and 184:
Table A8.7. Shark capture statistic
Page 185 and 186:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 171 A8.4. M
Page 187 and 188:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 173 The pot
Page 189 and 190:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 175 A8.7. O
Page 191 and 192:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 177 A8.11.3
Page 193 and 194:
Appendix 8, Hawaii Page 179 Pacific
Page 195 and 196:
Appendix 9, U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217:
Shark Depredation and Bycatch in Pe
show all

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in ... - ProDelphinus

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?