DEMERSAL LONGLINE BYCATCH MITIGATION. The Working Group considered SBWG-2 Doc 6, which had been developed intersessionally in order to help meet Item 4.8 of the Advisory Committee work programme. The objective of the paper was to produce an equivalent review for demersal longlining to that developed at SBWG-1 for pelagic longlining (AC3 Doc 14 Rev 4, Appendix 4, Table 2). The paper did not review all of the mitigation research that had occurred as this would largely have repeated that in the pelagic longlining review paper. A key difference was that demersal fishers usually wanted the hooks to reach the seabed as rapidly as possible and extra weight on the line was less of an issue than in pelagic fisheries. Key mitigation techniques relate to a) avoiding peak times/places of seabird feeding activity; b) getting the baited hooks as deep and as fast as possible; c) deterring seabirds from interacting with hooks, and d) reducing the visibility of hooks and the attractiveness of vessels. Argentina made an intervention to explain that it had withdrawn its co-authorship of Doc. 6 due to references to the Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur and the surrounding maritime areas which were not acceptable to Argentina and that the United Kingdom had not accepted to eliminate or modify. The final version of the document contains such references and does not adjust to Resolution 2.9 adopted in MOP2, in relation to which Argentina, in line with the declaration included in its instrument of ratification of ACAP, rejected the document. The UK clarified that it had been willing to amend Document 6 in line with Resolution 2.9 of MoP2, but were unwilling to remove or modify reference to valid scientific studies. In relation to this, Chile made an intervention expressing its support to the legitimate sovereignty rights of Argentina over the Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur and the surrounding maritime areas, reiterated the need that Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful solution to this sovereignty dispute taking into account the relevant resolutions of international organisations –in particular the United Nations- and expressed the need to foster a frank, constructive, and efficient dialogue between both countries to solve this situation. The Table from Document 6 was revised in line with comments received and is attached at Annex 3. A re-evaluation of the priorities for research was carried out (Annex 4). The...
DEMERSAL LONGLINE BYCATCH MITIGATION. 4 Pelagic Longline Bycatch Mitigation 5 Bycatch data provision by Parties, with respect to ACAP Reporting and ACAP Indicators 6 Coordination of activities relating to RFMOs 7 Capacity Building Issues 8 SBWG Work Programme 9 Project applications Annex 3. Summary of seabird bycatch mitigation measures for Demersal Longline Fishing and identification of knowledge gaps Mitigation measure Scientific evidence for effectiveness in demersal fisheries Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards
DEMERSAL LONGLINE BYCATCH MITIGATION. 3.1 Mitigation research update Agenda item 3 focused on recent advances in research relating to seabird bycatch mitigation in demersal longline fisheries. Results from two research projects were presented, brief summaries of which are included below. BirdLife International presented the results of research conducted on the effectiveness of bird-scaring lines in reducing seabird bycatch in the Namibian demersal longline fishery (SBWG-4 Doc 17). Observed seabird bycatch in the fishery was as high as 0.63 birds/1000 hooks. Most birds killed (77%) were White-chinned Petrels. The use of single or paired bird- scaring lines reduced the mortality rate to 0.08 and 0.01 birds/1000 hooks, respectively. Use of bird scaring lines has been included in the Namibian Xxxx Management Plan, and is being considered for the draft NPOA – Seabirds, which specifies a reduction target for this fishery of 0.03 birds/1000 hooks. Improved line weighting regimes are also being considered for both plans. New Zealand presented an update on a series of projects being undertaken to develop improved mitigation strategies for inshore demersal longline fisheries (SBWG-4 Doc 46). These fisheries were identified as posing risk to a number of seabird species, although mandatory mitigation requirements are already in place. Initial work focused on raising awareness among fishers and characterising the fishery, including on collecting sink-rate data with time-depth recorders (TDRs). Results illustrating the variability between vessels and gear setups were presented, showing clear differences in the availability of baited hooks to birds. Key variables influencing sink rates included the type of weighting regime and placement of line floats. More detailed results from extended work in 2010-11 will be reported shortly, including initial sea trials and development of a novel underwater line-setting device. Further work is also planned in 2011-12 and will be reported back to the group in due course.
DEMERSAL LONGLINE BYCATCH MITIGATION. The Working Group reviewed information on current mitigation measures for demersal long-line fisheries and updated the information in the table presented at AC4 (AC4 Doc 14 Rev 4, Annex 3). The results of this review are attached as Annex 7, and a best practice advice statement for demersal longline gear developed during the meeting of the WG is attached as Annex 8. It is recommended that the Advisory Committee endorse this advice and encourage Parties to use this information to guide the development of policy and practice within demersal longline fisheries under their jurisdiction.
DEMERSAL LONGLINE BYCATCH MITIGATION. 15.4.1 The SBWG discussion focused on recent advances in research relating to seabird bycatch mitigation in demersal longline fisheries. The SBWG noted that the results from two research projects presented at the meeting were consistent with ACAP's review and advice on best-practice mitigation for demersal longline operations. The current review is attached as ANNEX 17, and the advice as ANNEX 18.
