a) Informed by progress being made within the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee and during the 5th North Sea Conference in Norway in early spring 2002, continue the work started at the WGECO meeting in 2001 to develop the scientific components needed for provision of scientific advice required by an EcoQO framework.
Rationale:
Broader political support for an ecosystem approach in the management of marine systems is to be expected in the near future. The development of an EcoQO framework for the North Sea by OSPAR may result in important implications for fisheries management and for the way fisheries advice is given. Because the ecosystem approach refers to the integration of all human activities, broad expertise is required to develop such a framework. WGECO felt that addressing the issue in 2001 is challenging, valuable and fruitful, and that it is capable of dealing with this issue.
b) To the extent possible, quantify the relative role of fishing activity on dynamics of the marine ecosystem and nutrient turnover, in comparison with other comparable human activities such as marine disposal, and mineral extraction.
Rationale:
WGECO has addressed this problem in past meetings, most recently in 1994. In the ensuing years a great deal of new information and analyses have accumulated, but have not been consolidated by thorough review and integrative analyses. The QSR 2000 has highlighted the role of fisheries as the human activity with the single greatest impact on the North Sea ecosystem. It seems particularly timely for ICES to update its evaluation of the actual impacts of fishing, relative to other activities, rather than rely on an evaluation rapidly becoming outdated.
c) Continue the workplan to test hypotheses about which components of the marine ecosystem are most sensitive to bottom fishing impacts.
Rationale:
At its 2001 meeting, WGECO made substantial progress in developing a suite of testable hypotheses (Section 4.2).
Having compiled this list, the logical next step is to test as many of these hypotheses as possible with data from different areas. Most of the available data are for fish communities, but these hypotheses should also be tested for benthic communities to the extent that benthic data are available. At the 2001 meeting, progress on this ToR was limited by the time demands of the other ToRs and by delays in obtaining the necessary data. WG members are strongly
d) In most fisheries, large amounts of fish and benthos are discarded. The amount of by-catch discarded relative to the catch varies greatly between types of fishing gears and what species the fisheries is targeting. Three meetings ago WGECO dealt with a Term of Reference regarding evaluating the impacts of discards and by-catch from fisheries in the North Sea. At that time few data on by-catch and discards were available, and few informative analyses could be undertaken. The problem of assessing the scale of by-catch remains important, however.
Rationale:
The Study Group on By-catch and Discard Information (SGDBI) was formed to estimate how much of the catch is discarded in various fisheries (e.g., ICES, 2000b). WGECO remains very interested in the magnitude of discarding as a fishing effect on the ecosystem, and on the consequences of discards and by-catch from fisheries on marine communities. When by-catch and discard information has been collated and quality-checked by SGDBI, WGECO would like to have the data made available to it for analysis and interpretation in an ecosystem context. At that time WGECO would like to have a Term of Reference to explore those data, and to suggest ways that they could be informative for ecosystem management.
Reference
ICES. 1998. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities. ICES CM 1998/ACFM/ACME:01.
ICES. 2000a. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities. ICES CM 2000/ACME:02.
ICES. 2000b. Report of the Study Group on Discard and By-catch Information. ICES CM 2000/ACFM:11.
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR WGECO 23 April – 2 May 2001
Name Institute/Address Telephone No. Fax No. E-mail Jeremy Collie Graduate School of
Oceanography
+31 255 564 693 +31 255 564 694 niels@rivo.wag-ur.nl
Andrey Dolgov Polar Research
Lars Føyn Institute of Marine Research
Alain Fréchet Fisheries and Oceans Canada
+1 418 775 0628 +1 418 775 0679 frecheta@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Chris Frid University of
+44 191 252 4850 +44 191 252 1054 c.l.j.frid@ncl.ac.uk
Simon P.R.
+44 1 224 295 417 +44 1 224 295 511 greenstreet@marlab.ac.uk
Sture Hansson Stockholms University Dept. of Systems Ecology
+46 8 16 42 48 +46 815 8417 Sture.hansson@system.ecology.su.se
Name Institute/Address Telephone No. Fax No. E-mail Louize Hill DRM, IPIMAR
Avenida de Brasilia PT-1449–006 Lisbon Portugal
+351 21 302 7062 +351 21 301 5948 lhill@ipimer.pt
Ronald L.P. Lanters Nat. Inst. for Coastal and Marine
Management/RIKZ P.O. Box 20907 2500 EX Den Haag Netherlands
+31 703 114 324 +31 703 114 300 r.lanters@rikz.rws.minvenw.nl
Bob K. Mohn Dept. of Fisheries and
+1 902 426 4592 mohnr@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Gerjan Piet RIVO-DLO P.O. Box 68
NL-1970 AB IJmuiden Netherlands
+31 255 564 660 g-j.piet@rivo.wag-ur.nl
Stefan A.
+354 552 0240 +354 562 3790 steara@hafro.is
Jake C. Rice
+1 613 990 0288 +1 613 954 0807 ricej@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Stuart I. Rogers CEFAS
+44 1 224 655 701 +44 1 224 621 488 mark.tasker@jncc.gov.uk
ANNEX 2: CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MAINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC, ANNEX V ON THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE ECOSYSTEMS
AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF THE MARITIME AREA ARTICLE 1
For the purposes of this Annex and of Appendix 3 the definitions of “biological diversity”, “ecosystem” and “habitat”
are those contained in the Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992.
ARTICLE 2
In fulfilling their obligation under the Convention to take, individually and jointly, the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected, as well as their obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992 to develop strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, Contracting Parties shall:
a) take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected; and
b) cooperate in adopting programmes and measures for those purposes for the control of the human activities identified by the application of the criteria in Appendix 3.
ARTICLE 3
1. For the purposes of this Annex, it shall inter alia be the duty of the Commission:
• to draw up programmes and measures for the control of the human activities identified by the application of the criteria in Appendix 3;
• in doing so:
i) to collect and review information on such activities and their effects on ecosystems and biological diversity;
ii) to develop means, consistent with international law, for instituting protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures related to specific areas or sites or related to particular species or habitats;
iii) subject to Article 4 of this Annex, to consider aspects of national strategies and guidelines on the sustainable use of components of biological diversity of the maritime area as they affect the various regions and sub-regions of that area;
iv) subject to Article 4 of this Annex, to aim for the application of an integrated ecosystem approach.
• also in doing so, to take account of programmes and measures adopted by Contracting Parties for the protection and conservation of ecosystems within waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.
2. In the adoption of such programmes and measures, due consideration shall be given to the question whether any particular programme or measure should apply to all, or a specified part, of the maritime area.
ARTICLE 4
1. In accordance with the penultimate recital of the Convention, no programme or measure concerning a question relating to the management of fisheries shall be adopted under this Annex. However where the Commission considers that action is desirable in relation to such a question, it shall draw that question to the attention of the authority or international body competent for that question. Where action within the competence of the Commission is desirable to complement or support action by those authorities or bodies, the Commission shall endeavour to cooperate with them.
2. Where the Commission considers that action under this Annex is desirable in relation to a question concerning