Fishing-4-data, Informing the scope of the Celtic Seas ... · Data and advice users, mainly marine monitoring authorities (MMA) and environmental NGOs, were also predominantly interested

World Class Science for the Marine and Freshwater Environment

Fishing-4-data, Informing the

scope of the Celtic Seas fishery

stakeholder data collection

strategy

Results of an online-survey designed to match data

collection opportunities with data needs.

Produced by Cefas under contract to:

Author (s): Sven Kupschus, Alexandra Lee

Issue date: 05/Feb/2017

Cefas Document Control

Submitted to:

Dr Gaynor Evans

British Oceanographic Data Centre

Date submitted: 03/02/2017

Project Manager:

Sven Kupschus

Fisheries

Report compiled by: Sven Kupschus, Alexandra Lee

Quality control by:

David Righton, Stephen Mangi (Jim Ellis and Christopher Lynam

consulted)

Approved by and

date:

David Righton

Version: Version 2.2c

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Sven Kupschus 20/01/2017 V1

Sven Kupschus 27/01/2017 Final Draft V2

Sven Kupschus 02/02/2017 Alex’s comments

included

V2.1

Sven Kupschus 03/02/2017 Final Edits and

formatting

V2.2

Sven Kupschus 15/02/2017 Customer

comments

addressed

V2.2b

Sven Kupschus 01/03/2017 Added CSP and

life logos at

customers request

V2.2c

Fishing-4-data Page 1 of 31

Table of contents

Contents

Table of contents .................................................................................................................................. 1

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Specific aims and objectives ............................................................................................................... 3

Materials and Methods ......................................................................................................................... 4

Results ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Respondent composition focus .......................................................................................................... 6

Responses for data opportunities and need ...................................................................................... 6

Biases in data ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Concerns of fishermen ....................................................................................................................... 10

Engagement ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 11

General environmental information .................................................................................................. 12

What could be done for environmental information? ..................................................................... 12

Information relating directly relating to fishing activity .................................................................. 13

Comments on MSC certification ........................................................................................................ 14

What could be done for fisheries data? ............................................................................................ 14

Concerns of data / advice users ........................................................................................................ 15

Concerns of fishermen ....................................................................................................................... 16

Engagement Scores ............................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix: The on-line survey ............................................................................................................ 18


Executive Summary

The Celtic Seas Partnership aimed to identify areas of ecosystem monitoring where the fishery could

help satisfy the demand for data by data and advice users throughout government and non-

governmental sectors.

The industry proposed to assist in collection of most if not all data types, but information directly

related to the fishery such as fish stocks, biodiversity from fishing activities, fisheries activity and

fisheries acoustics was readily obtainable by many of the fishermen. A smaller number of fishermen

considered they could also provide more general environmental information. The biggest concern

regarding such data collections was that the data may be ‘used against them’. This feeling of distrust

was also indicated by optional comments in the survey.

Data and advice users, mainly marine monitoring authorities (MMA) and environmental NGOs, were

also predominantly interested in the data that the industry could supply directly related to fishing

activities. Proportionally the interest in environmental data was greater in eNGOs than in MMAs.

Opportunities to maximise the impact of fishing-4-data in the areas of fisheries mean much more

detailed discussions between specific fisheries and stock assessors are necessary. Advice could focus

on areas of high assessment priority which could also have a beneficial outcome for the industry.

These includes data collections on data poor species managed on a highly precautionary basis,

especially those that may act as choke species as the landings obligation is further implemented.

Widely distributed species with changing distributions that complicate the attribution of landings to

stock and areas provide further opportunities.

In contrast to stock assessments, environmental assessments are less specific, such data collections

could be applied more generally across an ecoregion with fewer concern over the appropriateness of

the spatial range of collections and differences in fishing practices. Current standardised protocols

for collection on research vessels will likely need to be adapted to make them suitable for use on

fishing vessels.

Few data users think that data supplied by the fishery cannot be trusted or used at all. Around 30%

think that the data could be used directly in the current assessment or with minor modifications in

ca. 30% of cases there are spatial, temporal or methodological restrictions that mean the data has

limited representation and different way of incorporating this data into assessments need to be

sought. The remaining 30% of data issues relate to data quality and reliability that can be resolved by

the fishery. The proportion of each of the concerns is surprisingly similar across the different data

types.


Introduction

The Celtic Seas Partnership (CSP) is an international project that aims to generate collaborative and

innovative approaches to marine management of the Celtic Seas. The CSP is delivering its aim

through facilitating engagement between sectors (sea users, industry, governments, and the

scientific community) and across borders to ensure the long-term future of the environment.

The CSP support delivery of the main goal of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

including the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) under descriptor 3 of the MSFD- to achieve good

environmental status (GES) in Europe’s seas by 2020. To achieve GES, the MSFD requires that a

programme of measures (to achieve or maintain) be developed by each EU country in consultation

with stakeholders. The CSP has been facilitating the development of these measures through setting

up task groups.

The Biological Diversity Task Group was set up to consider how stakeholders could work together to

develop a measure to help the delivery of the MSFD Biodiversity descriptor (D1: Biological diversity

is maintained). The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species

are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic, and climatic conditions. The aim of the group

was to establish a network of sea-users with the capacity to collect data/information to build

ecological understanding of the state of the Celtic Seas.

In March 2016, the group convened and agreed that their common goal was to develop “a strategy

to make industry collected data scientifically credible and salient to inform policy and its

implementation”. To progress this strategy, the CSP has contracted Cefas to collect stakeholder

views on how/if data collected by commercial fishing vessels could be used to strengthen the

assessment processes. During the contract negotiation for this project it became clear that there

remained uncertainty around the development of this biodiversity indicators. Rather than focusing

on D1 it was determined to be advantageous to broaden the objective to environmental data

needed to support management of human activities.

Specific aims and objectives

Through contacting marine monitoring authorities (MMA), environmental non-governmental

organisations (eNGOs), fish processors and retailers, and fishermen we aimed to;

1. identify gaps in monitoring data for assessment needs;

2. canvass opinion on whether these data gaps could be filled by data gathered in association

with the fishing industry;


3. identify capacity or expertise within the fishing industry to collect data and;

4. describe difficulties of data users in incorporating the information in assessments and

characterize the potential pitfall faced by the industry in collecting such information

5. comment, where possible, on methods of data collection that could be used by commercial

fishing vessels to gather data identified in the project.

6. provide some information on the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) accreditation process in

relation to the data needed to evaluate sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources.

Materials and Methods

Cefas developed a technical assessment questionnaire (Appendix A) published through the Survey

Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com) online portal. Participants were only shown questions relating to

their specific activity in the monitoring and assessment process to ensure relevance and to minimise

the time needed to complete the survey. The branched survey design with questions being

dependent on previous answers is shown in Figure 1. A trial of the survey was sent out to Cefas

employees to test logic and functionality and to assess the time that it would take to complete.

Figure 1: Schematic of the branched on-line survey identifying the numbered questions the participant’s answer to which determined the path through the survey. Full details of questions can be found in appendix A.

The survey was circulated to a list of 42 ‘targeted’ stakeholders identified by the CSP via a URL link

copied into an e-mail invitation. Because of the limited number of invited participants and the

uncertainty regarding the likely number of targeted responses the same survey was also made

available to anyone interested in responding. Potential ‘general’ participants were made aware of

the public survey through;

a. requesting ‘targeted’ respondents to forward the survey link to others that they felt might

be interested.

b. through circulating the link to the Celtic Seas Partnership Group.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/


c. through publicising the survey link via a blog on the Cefas website, this blog explained the

purpose of the research and included a link to the general survey. The Cefas twitter account

periodically advertised the blog.

d. Composition of respondents was monitored throughout and e-mails were sent to encourage

specific categories of respondents to participate in an attempt to balance the coverage

across potential data providers and various data users.

Two separate URL survey links were circulated, one to targeted stakeholders and another to the

general responders, the links lead to the same survey but the data generated were stored separately

allowing for the groups to be analysed separately.

The survey was first circulated to the targeted group on the 24th November 2016 and participants

were given until the 23rd December to respond. The link was also sent to the CSP partnership group

on this same date who were given the same deadline. The blog on the Cefas website went live on

the 5th December. An e-mail reminder was sent to the target group to encourage completion of the

survey. Respondents were contacted by phone or e-mail where details were provided if their

answers required clarification or further detail was needed to aid the interpretation (follow-up).

Results

Overall 49 individuals responded to the on-line survey made up of 16 (of 42 targeted by the CSP)

from the target group selected by the Celtic Seas Partnership and 33 from the general group (Table

1). A qualitative examination of the data suggested that overall the respondents understood the

survey aims and completed the survey appropriately. There were minor issues with errors such as

two fishermen who indicated their main area of focus was hydrographic information while they

indicated that they could not supply this data, an assessment scientist who sought entirely new data

intending to include it in existing assessments without significant alteration, multiple responses from

a single IP address. These inconsistencies were unlikely to be deliberate and more likely a result of

user error coupled with the implementation of complex survey within the constraints of the

framework offered by the Survey Monkey website. Data were not corrected for these potential

errors where it was not possible to contact respondents. The residual uncertainty over the accuracy

of the responses is not expected to influence the conclusions of this survey.

There were concerns over the number of likely responses from the targeted respondents and the

survey was extended to a wider audience. The CSP was concerned that there may be differences in

the answers between those that were involved in the process already and the wider group of

participants. A qualitative examination of the results did not suggest substantial differences between


Table 1 Composition of target and general group divided by employer and topic focus as inferenced by respondent’s employment details.

the responses of the target and general group within a category (fishermen, fish processors, MMAs

and eNGOs), but a statistical comparison was not possible with the relatively small number of

respondents. Differences between the groups were mostly associated with the difference in the

representation of the categories. Therefore, the remainder of the report uses the combined target

and general respondents except where specifically stated.

Respondent composition focus

A total of 23 fishermen or boat owners responded, six respondents were from eNGOs, 19 were from

marine monitoring authorities and only one fish processor or retailer completed the survey (Table

Employment

Ge

ne

ral

res

po

nse

s

% o

f

ge

ne

ral

Ta

rge

t

res

po

nse

s

% o

f

targ

et

To

tal

res

po

nse

s

Fish processor or retailer 0 0 % 1 6 % 1

Fisheries data or assessments 0 0 % 1 6 % 1

Fishermen or boat owner 17 53 % 6 35 % 23


Hydrographic and water quality data or assessments 1 3 % 1 5 % 2

Marine Monitoring Authority (e.g. Defra and the Defra family,

devolved administrations)

15 47 % 4 24 % 19


Hazardous substances 1 3 % 0 0 % 1


Impact of fishing on conservation features 1 3 % 0 0 % 1

Non-Governmental Organisation (e.g. WWF, Green Peace etc.,

MSC, Pew Charitable Trust)

1 3 % 5 29 % 6

Ecology and Biodiversity data or assessments 1 3 % 2 11 % 3



Grand Total 32 17 49


1). Fishermen were well represented in both the targeted and general group, making up 35% and

53% of respondents respectively. Monitoring authority respondents comprised 46% of the general

group and 25% of the targeted group. Five out of the six eNGO respondents were part of the

targeted group. Only one fish processor responded and they were part of the targeted group.

All participants completed the question on the focus area of their current employment, classifying

themselves as interested in fisheries data or assessments, ecology and biodiversity data or

assessments, hydrographic and water quality data or assessments or other environmental data or

assessments. Fishermen were asked what data types they could supply information on (question 6,

appendix A) and data users (MMA, eNGO and fish processor) were asked what data they would be

interested in obtaining with assistance from the fishing industry (question 4 and 5, appendix A).

Most respondents answered these questions, but 3 fishermen, one MMA and one eNGO respondent

chose not to respond to their question.

Figure 2 Survey respondents by employer and employment focus, illustrating the importance of fisheries data and assessment amongst the fishermen and marine monitoring authorities respondents. Non-governmental organisations were the only group whose responses were dominated by other subject areas.

Results of the data questions indicate that the majority of respondents (77%) focus on fisheries

related data or assessments (Figure 2). This is expected for fishermen and fish processors. Most

monitoring authority responders, 74% (14 out of 19), specialised in fisheries data, but other

specialities were represented with 16% (3 out of 19) focused on hydrographic and water quality

data. Two monitoring authority respondents did not focus on any of the suggestion options and


selected the ‘other’ option described by them as ‘hazardous substances’ and ‘impact of fishing on

conservation features’.

The focus of the eNGO respondents was broader with 33% (2 out of 6) focused on fisheries data or

assessments, 50% (3 out of 6) focused on ecology and biodiversity data or assessments and the final

one eNGO respondent focused on hydrographic and water quality data or assessments (Figure 2).

Responses for data opportunities and need

Offers and request for information related to fisheries dominated. Of the 23 fishermen 17 indicated

they could provide data on fish stocks, 16 for fisheries data, 11 biodiversity from fishing activity and

16 for acoustic information making up 85% of the data offers. The fish processor respondent

requested only information related to fisheries data, whereas MMA’s and eNGOs showed an

increasing interest in general environmental information, but still less than 50% (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Percentage of responses by data type (colour) and opportunity / need (colour intensity) with data needs divided by employment group (single fish processor not included in figure). Numbers in boxes represent the percentage of respondents with a positive reply within the employer group. For example, 84% of MMA respondents requested data on fish stocks, but these made up a smaller proportion (20%) of the responses than the 78% of fishermen willing to supply data (25% of responses) due to the smaller positive number of responses on environmental information from fishermen.

Biases in data

Monitoring agency, eNGO and fish processors / retailers were asked about potential concerns with

fishing industry supplied data (questions 13 and 14, appendix A). Eighteen out of a potential 26

respondents chose to answer this question. The comments came from 5 eNGO and 13 MMA

participants. The rest skipped this section of the questionnaire. It is important to remember that the


judgement of bias is not solely a judgement of on the data, but is conditional on assumptions of the

assessment. The analysis of biases was therefore restricted to data and advice users as these were

best able to judge the requirements of the assessment. Sixteen of the 21 respondents in this

reduced group provided a total of 186 answers summarised in Figure 4. Data screening indicated

that some responses were registered for data sources that were not marked as relevant to the

individuals work. This was not intended by the survey, but it is not clear if it was intended by the

respondents. Given the general approach to analysis and the minor impact on the general conclusion

from responses no effort was made to exclude responses regarding data sources for which no

interest was registered by a respondent.

Figure 4 Data users considerations of 17 respondents that answered this section by data type. Red indicates a general mistrust of data, yellow shades are concerns of data quality and reliability, blue shades imply biases inherent in the use of fishing vessels relating to what the samples are representative of, green shades indicate no concerns, or minor concerns that could be addressed with some adjustment of the assessment methodology.

One should guard against over interpretation beyond some general statement, because responses

are individual opinion and not the official assessment. Surprisingly, the results are similar across the

data sources while one might have expected that for fisheries observations for example the

restrictive operation of the fishery might not pose any problems. Fishermen might have more

incentives to incorrectly record bycatch from the fishery, while it seems questionable that

hydrographic information might have systematic biases. The results used in the discussion only to

present the sorts of issues that would need to be resolved.


Concerns of fishermen

Twenty of the fishermen had at least one concern with the provision of data with five fishermen

having the maximum of three concerns. The remaining three fishermen had either no concerns or

skipped this question. The greatest concerns were that data would be used against fishermen (13

responses) followed by concerns over diversion of activity from fishing to monitoring (location, 8

responses ; crew, 7 responses). There were no concerns voiced regarding the use of the data by

authorities (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Showing number of responses registered by fishermen regarding data collections shown for the target and general group. The use of data against fishermen was the greatest concern over all, with 73% of fishermen registering the concern in the general group, while only 30% did so in the target group. No fishermen indicated concerns that the authorities might gain information on their activities.

Engagement

Thirty four of the 49 respondents replied to the question regarding their willingness to help develop

means to overcome issues that hinder the use of fishing vessels as platforms for data collection, all

but two of them positively. It is not clear if the other 15 respondents were not interested in

participating or did not want to answer the question. Four fishermen, 4 MMA and 3 eNGO

employees were unconditionally willing to participate.


Table 2 Engagement scores by employer and target group.

Employment general

group target

Total

Fishermen or boat owner

Yes, and I am willing to engage in the process 3 1 4

Yes, but I would need resources to engage in the

process. 6 2 8

Yes under specific conditions 3 2 5

Marine Monitoring Authority (e.g. Defra and the

Defra family, devolved administrations)

Yes, and I am willing to engage in the process 4 2 6

Yes, but I would need resources to engage in the

process. 6 6

Yes under specific conditions 1 1

No, I am not qualified to do so. 1 1

Non-Governmental Organisation (e.g. WWF, Green

Peace etc., MSC, Pew Charitable Trust) Yes, and I am willing to engage in the process 1 2 3

No, I am not qualified to do so. 1 1

Grand Total 23 11 34

Discussion

The objective of this study was to identify opportunities where fishermen could cooperate in the

collection of data towards a comprehensive monitoring program designed to assess the

environmental condition of the seas. The on-line survey identified a broad range of information that

already exists or could reasonably be collected by the fishing industry in association with their

normal activities. For each of the suggested data types there was at least one fishermen able to

provide such information and at least one data user interested in obtaining said information.

Identifying the likelihood of a successful match between provider and user requires more than a

strict numerical analysis of the responses in the two groups. There are many additional

considerations in terms of effort and equipment necessary to collect the data, using the data

coherently in terms of the representativeness of samples in relation to the sampling design and

evaluating the urgency of need. Because respondents could not be deemed to be a representative

sample of the composition of environmental monitoring programs the following section describes

our interpretation of the results in the context of our understanding as experts with extensive

knowledge of fisheries in the Celtic Sea, experience with environmental assessment procedures as


part of a marine management authority and detailed understanding of monitoring and experimental

design.

General environmental information

Clean seas are important to recreational marine users and society in general. Consequently, marine

management organisations and eNGOs place a significant importance on marine environmental

data. This importance has increased significantly in recent times as emphasised by its inclusion in the

marine strategy framework directive (MSFD). Despite this only 30% of MMA responses indicated an

interest in biodiversity information from additional activities (58% of MMA respondents),

hydrographical information (37%), marine litter (37%).

Despite the obvious pressure for more environmental assessments, their data needs are currently

not clearly defined so it remains to be seen how the fishing industry can assist in meeting this need

now. Numerically biodiversity information from activities other than fishing elicits the largest

interest. From the agency affiliation and or names where provided, this appears to relate to mostly

to marine mammal and bird observations (58 and 67% of MMA and eNGO respondents).

What could be done for environmental information?

Biodiversity observations:

Marine mammal and bird observations require species identification skills to maintain data quality.

Training in most cases is not difficult especially since fishermen already possess many of the skills

necessary to estimate covariables such as sea state visibility etc. necessary for inclusion in

assessments. More difficult to overcome are the observation standards or current monitoring

methods. Many species are attracted to fishing activity and standards specify that observations

during and in proximity to fishing are not useful in the assessment of the species. Developing

assessment methods that can deal with the effects of fishing on observations would greatly increase

the potential data sources and likely in assessment precision. Working together on these issues

would potentially reverse the historic distrust and lack of positive communication between industry

and those involved in these observations. The regional assessment procedure and low technical

complexity of data collection (observations only) means that this is topic that could be applied across

a wide range of fisheries if the data biases can be resolved.

Marine Litter:

Assessments for marine litter (D8) have developed further than biodiversity indicators under OSPAR

and monitoring programs are still in their infancy. Considering that many more MMA employees


work on biodiversity issues than on litter suggests industry collected data is being seriously

considered for marine litter. Current methods for collecting data are comparatively labour intensive

and results variable, so it has only partly been possible to incorporate litter monitoring into other

legislative monitoring programs. The opportunity for data provision appears low with only 4 positive

responses out of 23 possible respondents indicating they would be willing to contribute. From the

survey, it is not clear if it is a lack of interest in the topic or whether there are real technical issues

with regards to providing the data.

The complexity of the information required by current litter assessments would likely make the

activity burdensome for fishermen. A more general indicator of marine litter may represent a more

realistic opportunity to collaborate with the wider industry. Detailed discussions between fishermen

and assessors are needed to develop a methodology that could be consistently applied across a wide

range of vessels to cover large areas of the seas.

Water quality:

Hydrological information could be provided by some fishermen, and was identified as a need by

management authorities and eNGOs. There is however a significant financial cost in providing such

information related either to sample analysis or to calibration of expensive equipment. The precision

levels needed for this type of information are generally prohibitive, especially for fisheries that

operate in limited areas where repeated measurements are strongly autocorrelated and thus

provide little information beyond the first sample. That is not to say that there are no opportunities

in this topic area, but they will likely be more specific and locally constrained compared to other

environmental information.

Information relating directly relating to fishing activity

Broadly speaking the results suggest that the greatest opportunity to involve fisheries in data

collection is in relation to information directly related to fishing activity. Information on fish stocks

and fisheries activity are represented in the opportunities (fishermen) and need (management

authority and NGOs) in substantial numbers. This information is practical to collect as it is most

aligned with fishing activities so is likely to have minimal impact. There are wide ranging

environmental uses for these data from stock assessments of interest to the fishery itself to

biodiversity and habitat information under D1.

Acoustic information can also be made available by many fishermen, but there were fewer

respondents expecting to use this information. Our survey treated these data as a distinct entity

belying the fact that it has the potential to be highly informative on stock abundance but ‘advice


users’ may not fully understand the relevance at the assessment level. Nevertheless, acoustic

information and diversity information from fishing activity present good opportunities for

cooperation. Because such information is currently poorly represented in assessments it may well

have a greater effect in improving assessments than information on fish stocks and fisheries activity.

Comments on MSC certification

The Celtic Seas Partnership asked for feedback regarding information that fishermen could provide

to help secure accreditation for their fishery. MSC accreditation investigates whether exploitation of

the target species is sustainable. The decision on sustainability is usually based, where available, on

the stock assessment developed for management purposes. The contribution that fishermen could

make to such assessments has been discussed previously in this report. In addition, MSC consider

impacts of the fishery beyond the target species especially bycatch / discard issues for commercial

species and protected species as well as more general interactions between gears and demersal

habitat not necessarily observable in catches. Communication with MSC accreditors suggested that

as in the case of stock assessments in general the data collections that would be of use in making

such assessments are highly fishery specific and it is difficult to make general recommendations as to

what should be collected. In most cases the consultants employed in submitting the accreditation

requests are best placed to advise on the requirements for specific fisheries. Where MSC accreditors

require data not provided as part of the process initial data collection process or where there is an

on-going data need to ensure that environmental impacts are minimised such data collections can

be stipulated as part of the accreditation. It is therefore difficult to make general recommendations

regarding the data needs of MSC accreditors.

What could be done for fisheries data?

MMA’s indicate that available resources are a limiting factor to improved assessments. To maximise

the impact of the fishing-4-data initiative we suggest to prioritise effort in areas where the

assessment focus of government scientists and the data opportunities provided by fishermen

overlap.

Data limited species are attracting a lot of attention because advice is needed but difficult to

develop. For example, many elasmobranch stocks are data-limited and legislative collections are

kerbed due to the relatively small proportion of these species in landings. However, they are

considered ecologically important and several species have restrictive fishing opportunities, and so

could easily become choke species as the landing obligation is phased in. Better data are likely to

lead to improved confidence in status assessments, meaning there would be less of a need to


implement highly precautionary management. Where stock status is estimated to be as good or

better than in current assessments, it should then be possible that fisheries advice would be that

catches could be increased. There is however no guarantee that more detailed assessment would

result in stock status improvements, and expectation must be managed.

There is also a focus on wide ranging species especially where they distribution has changed from

historic conditions. There are many such stocks, but localisation of fisheries, and total size of stocks

mean that there may be limited opportunities for additional, short-term data collection to influence

legislative conclusions for many demersal species. The real opportunity for additional information

making a difference to fishermen is probably in the pelagic sector, where a better understanding of

the stock distribution and its change over time has the potential to lead to more informed decision

making for managers and policy.

In contrast, for many age-based demersal stock assessments more of the same data would likely

lead only to more precise assessments. There will potentially be some gains in fishing opportunities,

because as in data-limited stocks, more precision means less precautionary management is needed.

It is unlikely to fix concerns over bias, persistent under- or overestimation of stock dynamic

parameters. To address such issues new or different data is needed to correct for biases in the

assessment such as changes in productivity or natural mortality. Such changes in stock size due to

causes other than exploitation are poorly understood, but recent data on environmental conditions

are difficult to relate to these historic changes, so that improvements in environmental data

collection are unlikely to improve assessments in the short term.

Industry focus understandably is likely to turn to these traditional stocks. If it is decided to make

these the focus of data collection efforts because a broader range of fishermen would likely benefit

then it is important to manage the expectation. More substantial and longer-term commitments are

necessary to make progress for traditional demersal species.

Fisheries data collection methods are already standardised and developed to be suitable for use on

fishing vessels. Technological developments have largely focused around automating the electronic

data capture / evaluation process. Such technologies may be deployed, but are more prone to

failures without frequent maintenance. Specific methodologies can only be considered once it is

clear specifically what data is needed for a particular stock.

Concerns of data / advice users

Concerns over using data collected with the help of fishermen are surprisingly similar across the

different data sources and uses. Encouragingly and in contrast to optional survey comments made


by fishermen, government and eNGOs are generally positive about the data (figure 2). Only roughly

10% of responses indicated that data was inherently untrustworthy and therefore not suitable for

assessment purposes. Roughly 30% responses suggest that the data could be used with few or minor

changes to the assessment methodology, implying that there should be some quick wins. Responses

suggest, for most assessments, circa 40% of the concerns could be overcome with some investment

from the fishing industry, such as quality of data, reliability of long-term availability and

methodological protocol. The remaining 20 to 30% of responses indicated that the information from

fishermen is likely to have spatial, temporal or technical biases. These problems are specific to the

intended use of the data and would require additional work by assessors in conjunction with the

industry to ensure that the biases in the new data sources can be accounted for in the assessment

appropriately.

Overall, the results are very positive with the large majority of problems resolvable, though in most

cases at additional cost. It is important to be clear that the work and cooperation is a long-term

commitment and more thought needs to be put into how such activities can be funded. As

commented in the survey, collecting data that is not used presents no benefit. At the same time, it

must be clear that in stock assessments in particular, short time series tend to have little effect in

changing assessment outcomes and in many cases they cannot be used until a long enough time

series exists.

Concerns of fishermen

No participating fisherman registered a concern that authorities may gain information regarding

their activities (Figure 3). In part, this is because inspections already extensively supervise the

industry, at sea observer programs and vessel monitoring systems provide data on fishermen’s

activity and behaviours. The use of this data for scientific purposes is currently not extensive and

more could be done with currently available data. There are many reasons why this data is not

utilised more effectively, some of which mirror the problems faced by industry assisted data

collection. It is important to discuss the issues and solve the problems ahead of data collection.

Few fishermen thought they had the time or opportunity to collect information in areas other than

fishing grounds. The proportion of the time at sea spent on fishing grounds is relatively large and few

vessels can afford to be at sea conducting activities other than fishing. The whole point of involving

fishermen in data collection is to make efficient use of time spent at sea for different purposes so it

does not seem sensible to divert vessels from their primary activity, but opportunities may still exist

on transits between port and fishing grounds.


The biggest concern for fishermen was that the information would be used against them and the

industry. If this is a real difference between the groups it is not clear whether this is due to the

targeted group having been involved in the process of the CSP (having gained some trust) or

whether they simply were more likely to participate in the process because of less concern.

The survey did not specify what constituted ‘against the fishery’. With hindsight, this is an important

distinction worthy of future exploration. If fishermen are concerned that their data may lead to

reduced catches in order to maintain sustainability then this will inevitably lead to conflict.

Improvements in precision and accuracy are largely independent of the likely change in status

outcome which must be accepted prior to participation in data collections. Interpretation of the data

out of scientific context, with the intent to support a particular view or ambition (pseudo-science)

must be avoided. Clarifying and discussing these risks is necessary to avoid the erosion of trust and

to ensure the longevity of what is a worthwhile and efficient means to improve our understanding of

fish, fisheries and the environment.

Engagement Scores

The survey demonstrates that there are both fishermen and data users interested in making industry

data collection work. Just under half the fishermen and over half the data user participants (Table 2)

were interested in further efforts to resolve the issues highlighted in this survey. Over half the

participants thought there would be some constraints to their engagement, financial, skill or other

condition. Those responding positively to the question in the MMA group were almost exclusively

those with a fisheries focus. When willing to work on other data sources participants did so only in

conjunction with fisheries information indicating that for industry data collections the most likely

starting point will be working together on fisheries issues. The narrow focus of fisheries issues

described earlier would mean that in this case a broader industry wide initiative is likely to be

difficult to implement and this should be considered in the decision.


Appendix A: The on-line survey














© Crown copyright 2015 Printed on paper made from a minimum 75% de-inked post-consumer waste

About us

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is the UK’s leading and most diverse centre for applied marine and freshwater science. We advise UK government and private sector customers on the environmental impact of their policies, programmes and activities through our scientific evidence and impartial expert advice. Our environmental monitoring and assessment programmes are fundamental to the sustainable development of marine and freshwater industries. Through the application of our science and technology, we play a major role in growing the marine and freshwater economy, creating jobs, and safeguarding public health and the health of our seas and aquatic resources Head office

Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Lakefield Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0HT Tel: +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 Weymouth office

Barrack Road The Nothe Weymouth DT4 8UB Tel: +44 (0) 1305 206600 Fax: +44 (0) 1305 206601

Customer focus

We offer a range of multidisciplinary bespoke scientific programmes covering a range of sectors, both public and private. Our broad capability covers shelf sea dynamics, climate effects on the aquatic environment, ecosystems and food security. We are growing our business in overseas markets, with a particular emphasis on Kuwait and the Middle East. Our customer base and partnerships are broad, spanning Government, public and private sectors, academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), at home and internationally. We work with:

a wide range of UK Government departments and agencies, including Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Department for Energy and Climate and Change (DECC), Natural Resources Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and governments overseas.

industries across a range of sectors including offshore renewable energy, oil and gas emergency response, marine surveying, fishing and aquaculture.

other scientists from research councils, universities and EU research programmes.

NGOs interested in marine and freshwater.

local communities and voluntary groups, active in

protecting the coastal, marine and freshwater

environments.

www.cefas.co.uk

Documents

Fishing-4-data, Informing the scope of the Celtic Seas ... · Data and advice users, mainly marine monitoring authorities (MMA) and environmental NGOs, were also predominantly interested