This study assesses the seabed pressure of towed fishing gears and models the physical impact (area and depth of seabed penetration) from trip-based information of vessel size, gear type, and catch. Traditionally fishing pressures are calculated top-down by making use of large-scale statistics such as logbook data. Here, we take a different approach starting from the gear itself (design and dimensions) to estimate the physical interactions with the seabed at the level of the individual fishing operation. We defined 14 distinct towed gear groups in European waters (eight otter trawl groups, three beam trawl groups, two demersal seine groups, and one dredge group), for which we established gear “footprints”. The footprint of a gear is defined as the relative contribution from individual larger gear components, such as trawl doors, sweeps, and groundgear, to the total area and severity of the gear's impact. An industry-based survey covering 13 countries provided the basis for estimating the relative impact-area contributions from individual gear components, whereas sediment penetration was estimated based on a literature review. For each gear group, a vessel size–gear size relationship was estimated to enable the prediction of gear footprint area and sediment penetration from vessel size. Application of these relationships with average vessel sizes and towing speeds provided hourly swept-area estimates by métier. Scottish seining has the largest overall gear footprint of ∼1.6 km 2 h −1 of which 0.08 km 2 has an impact at the subsurface level (sediment penetration ≥ 2 cm). Beam trawling for flatfish ranks low when comparing overall footprint size/hour but ranks substantially higher when comparing only impact at the subsurface level (0.19 km 2 h −1 ). These results have substantial implications for the definition, estimation, and monitoring of fishing pressure indicators, which are discussed in the context of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, electronic monitoring (EM) has emerged as a cost‐efficient supplement to existing catch monitoring programmes in fisheries. An EM system consists of various activity sensors and cameras positioned on vessels to remotely record fishing activity and catches. The first objective of this review was to describe the state of play of EM in fisheries worldwide and to present the insights gained on this technology based on 100 EM trials and 12 fully implemented programmes. Despite its advantages, and its global use for monitoring, progresses in implementation in some important fishing regions are slow. Within this context, the second objective was to discuss more specifically the European experiences gained through 16 trials. Findings show that the three major benefits of EM were as follows: (a) cost‐efficiency, (b) the potential to provide more representative coverage of the fleet than any observer programme and (c) the enhanced registration of fishing activity and location. Electronic monitoring can incentivize better compliance and discard reduction, but the fishing managers and industry are often reluctant to its uptake. Improved understanding of the fisher's concerns, for example intrusion of privacy, liability and costs, and better exploration of EM benefits, for example increased traceability, sustainability claims and market access, may enhance implementation on a larger scale. In conclusion, EM as a monitoring tool embodies various solid strengths that are not diminished by its weaknesses. Electronic monitoring has the opportunity to be a powerful tool in the future monitoring of fisheries, particularly when integrated within existing monitoring programmes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.